/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/130802.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, August 2, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 151 Headlines A-1 FIRST CLASS: Court Junks Sher-Del Counterclaims in Wage Suit AMERICAN INT'L: Bernanke's Deposition in Greenberg Suit on Aug. 16 APPLE INC: Court Refused to Dismiss Suit By iPhone 4S Buyers APPLE INC: Former Retail Employees File Wage Class Action BERCHICCI IMPORTING: Recalls Igor Brand Gorgonzola Cheese BP PLC: CEO Says Class Actions Only Benefit Attorneys CAL-MAINE FOODS: Settles Egg Products Antitrust Claims for $28MM CANADA: Seeks Dismissal of Injured Soldiers' Class Action CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE: Gov't Ordered to Come Clean on Drug Risks CHINA-BIOTICS: Defends Consolidated Shareholder Suit in New York CITIBANK CREDIT: Merchants Appeal Approval of Antitrust Suit Deal COMPASS ANIMAL: Recalls "Larry The Cable Guy" Brand Chips COSMETIC WHOLESALE: Recalls 250 Tourmaline Ionic Hair Dryer CRESTWOOD GAS: "Ginardi" Pollution Lawsuit Now Settled, Dismissed CRESTWOOD GAS: "Bartlett" Pollution Lawsuit Settled, Dismissed CRESTWOOD GAS: Plaintiffs Want Merger-Related Suits Combined EI DU PONT: Hearing to Approve Imprelis Suit Accord on Sept. 27 FEDEX CORP: Defends Suits Over Owner-Operator Issues vs. Unit FEDEX CORP: Still Defends Wage and Hour Law Violations Suits FLEETMATICS GROUP: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Junk Labor Lawsuit FREEMANTLE NA: Ex-Contestants Accuse American Idol of Racial Bias GOLD STAR: Recalls Rybacka Wies Brand Herring Fillets in Oil GROUPE DANONE: August 27 Deadline Set for Yogurt Product Claims HI-TECH PHARMACAL: Discovery Has Commenced in Sinus Buster Suits HI-TECH PHARMACAL: Has Reached Deal to Settle "Hoover" Suit INA INTERNATIONAL: Recalls 465 Firefly Inline Skates INTERCONTINENTALEXCHANGE INC: Defends NYSE Euronext Merger Suits INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Nov. 22 Hearing to Appoint Lead Plaintiff KANEBO COSMETICS: Confirms Defects on Recalled Product KMART CORP: To Settle Seating Class Action for $280,000 LIPARI FOODS: Recalls Wholey Peeled Cooked Tail 31/40 Count Shrimp MIDWEST-CBK: Recalls Bistro Chairs Due to Fall Hazard MILLER ENERGY: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Class Suit NASH-FINCH CO: Being Sold to Spartan for Too Little, Suit Says PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: Aug. 19 Hearing in Securities Suit Set R2J2 STUDIOS: Faces Class Action Over Yaz-Related Robocalls ROBERT HALF: Arbitration Ordered in "Uberti" Suit SEMILEDS CORP: Faces IPO-Related Securities Suit in New York SOUTH COAST BREWING: Accused of Not Paying Overtime SRO ENTERTAINMENT: Lawyer Won't Proceed With Salmon Festival Suit ST. VINCENT: Dismissal of "Harris" and "Holbert" Suits Upheld TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Calif. Court Stays Chrome 6 Emission Lawsuits TOYOTA MOTOR: Trial in Uno Sudden-Acceleration Suit Begins TRACFONE WIRELESS: Faces Class Action Over False Advertising UNITED HEALTHCARE: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Larson" Suit VANTAGE FOODS: Recalls Western Family Brand Marinated Steak ZIP INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Herring Fillet in Oil Due to Listeria * Iowa Railroads Face Class Action Over Cedar Rapids Flooding * Prepackaged Salad Mix Likely Source of Cyclospora Outbreak Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Yarway Wants Action Removal Date Moved to Nov. 18 ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Circ. Nixes Garlock's Appeal in WR Grace Plan ASBESTOS UPDATE: Porter Hayden Strikes $21MM Deal Over Coverage ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Has $100,000 Net of Insurance Recoveries ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair Had $227.9-Mil Liability as of June 29 ASBESTOS UPDATE: The Travelers Had $2.28B Reserve at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Records $847.5-Mil Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Continues to Defend Exposure Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mine Safety Had 2,716 PI Lawsuits at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Had 22,633 Claims as of June 28 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lorillard Has 57 Pending "Filter" Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Corp. Had 25,000 Pending PI Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Continues to Defend PI Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Had 1,045 Exposure Suits at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Has 16,000 Pending Liability Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Estimates Liability at $13MM ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Unit Has 52,000 PI Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyco Int'l. Had 5,400 Pending Claims at June 28 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Has 12 Pending Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSX Corp. Had $298-Mil. Casualty Reserves ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific Corp. Had $134-Mil Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Charges $50MM to Resolve Bendix Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reduction of Award for Victim's Family Affirmed ASBESTOS UPDATE: High Court Flips Decision in PGE Insurance Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pepsi-Cola's Suit v. Cooper Remains in Texas ASBESTOS UPDATE: John Crane's Liability in "Keeney" Suit Affirmed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judgment Favoring Crane in "Bone" Suit Reversed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mechanic's PI Suit v. Courter Dismissed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inmate's 8th Amendment Violation Claim Dismissed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order Granting Pipefitter's Claim Affirmed ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Jensen" PI Suit Remanded to State Court ASBESTOS UPDATE: Weitz's NY Suit v. Blackmer Pump Stayed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro at Old Thunder Bay Hotel Prompts Caution ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Could Delay Marion County Jail Razing ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victim's Payout Halved Due to "Reduced Lifespan" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trailer Homes Need $11,500 for Fibro Removal ASBESTOS UPDATE: OSHA Cites Hospital, Contractor Over Handling ASBESTOS UPDATE: Removal at Former Chicopee Library Begins ASBESTOS UPDATE: Clearing Work Begins in Estes Park School Bldg. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Experts Called to Garlock Estimation Trial ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Veterans at Risk of Fibro-Related Diseases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couple Awarded $1.5MM Verdict in Cancer Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Jury Awards $190MM to 5 Men Exposed to Fibro ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in 10,000 Sqm. of Queensland Bldgs. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canberra Union Calls for Commercial Fibro Audit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Citizens Call for Fibro Removal in Kimberley Bldg ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Seeks Transfer of Mass Tort Claim ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Plymouth Courthouse Shuts After Fibro Find ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Closes Portion of Garlock Estimation Trial ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Seek Inquest in Barnstable ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lawyers Release Info on Fibro & Mesothelioma ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jacksonville Lawsuit Claims Companies Knew Risk ASBESTOS UPDATE: Potentially Lethal Dust Found in Carlisle Homes ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found Near Birmingham Youth Center ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roof Adjacent to Mizzi House to be Removed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Neighbors Fear Fibro as A.C. Tears Down Eye Sore ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Posts Loss on Review of A&E Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liberty Mines Name JMX to Lead Removal Project ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sentencing in November in Fibro Dumping Case ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Contributed to Ex-Installation Engr's Death ASBESTOS UPDATE: Haverhill Company Fined $3,000 Over Handling ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thai Ministry Finds No Health Risks in Fibro ASBESTOS UPDATE: Legal Newsline Wants to Keep Garlock Trial Open ********* A-1 FIRST CLASS: Court Junks Sher-Del Counterclaims in Wage Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- BONILLA v. A-1 FIRST CLASS VIKING MOVING & STOR., INC. was commenced on February 5, 2013, to recover unpaid wages and benefits that Plaintiffs allege they were statutorily and contractually entitled to for the labor they furnished to Defendants, including defendant Sher-Del Transfer and Relocation Services, Inc., pursuant to contracts that Defendants entered into with government entities. A First Amended Complaint was filed on March 29, 2013. Defendant Sher-Del interposed an answer to the First Amended Complaint and Counterclaims on April 9, 2013. Plaintiffs moved to (1) dismiss Sher-Del's counterclaims pursuant to CPLR Section 3211(a)(7) and to (2) extend the date to file their motion for class certification until such time that a preliminary conference has been convened, and the Court has set dates to: (i) complete pre-class certification discovery; (ii) for Plaintiffs to move for class certification, and; (iii) such other actions that the Court may direct. Sher-Del cross moved for an Order pursuant to CPLR Section 3211(a)(1) and (7) dismissing the complaint filed in the action as against Sher-Del or in the alternative, converting the motion to one for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR Section 3211( c) and granting dismissal in favor of Sher-Del. Judge Eileen A. Rakower of the Supreme Court of New York County granted the Plaintiffs' request and dismissed Shre-Del's counterclaims. The deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their motion for class certification is extended for 60 days from July 17, 2013. Judge Rakower also denied the Defendant's cross motion. The Supreme Court ordered all parties to appear for their scheduled conference at 80 Centre Street, Room 327, on September 24, 2013, at 9:30 a.m. The case is SCOTT BONILLA and ROBERT AVELA, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by A-1 FIRST CLASS VIKING MOVING & STORAGE, INC., A-1 FIRST CLASS MOVING & STORAGE, INC., MICHAEL LABY and SHER-DEL TRANSFER AND RELOCATION SERVICES, INC., and/or other entities affiliated or controlled by A-1 FIRST CLASS VIKING MOVING & STORAGE, INC., A-1 FIRST CLASS MOVING & STORAGE, INC., and SHER-DEL TRANSFER AND RELOCATION SERVICES, INC., MICHAEL LABY, Plaintiff, v. A-1 FIRST CLASS VIKING MOVING & STORAGE, INC., A-1 FIRST CLASS MOVING & STORAGE, INC., MICHAEL LABY, and SHER-DEL TRANSFER AND RELOCATION SERVICES, INC. Defendants, 2013 NY Slip Op 31645(U). A copy of the Supreme Court's July 17, 2013 Decision and Order is available at http://is.gd/KXhoE1 from Leagle.com. AMERICAN INT'L: Bernanke's Deposition in Greenberg Suit on Aug. 16 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jan Wolfe, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that Maurice "Hank" Greenberg may very well still lose his constitutional challenge to the 2008 government bailout of American International Group Inc., as many initially predicted. But the former AIG chairman will be able to say he put one of the bailout's architects, Ben Bernanke, on the hot seat. Judge Thomas Wheeler of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruled on July 29 that Mr. Greenberg's lawyers at Boies, Schiller & Flexner can depose the Federal Reserve chairman. The judge ruled that Mr. Bernanke's testimony is "highly relevant" to the central issue in the case -- namely, whether the terms attached to AIG's $182 billion rescue package were so onerous that they trampled on the due process rights of AIG shareholders like Greenberg. "Because of Mr. Bernanke's personal involvement in the decision- making process to bail out A.I.G., it is improbable that plaintiff would be able to obtain the same testimony or evidence from other persons or sources," Judge Wheeler wrote in his 4-page order. "Indeed, the court cannot fathom having to decide this multibillion-dollar claim without the testimony of such a key government decision-maker." The U.S. Department of Justice had opposed the deposition, unsuccessfully arguing that Mr. Greenberg's legal team failed to show the requisite "extraordinary circumstance" for compelling testimony of a high-ranking government official. The 88-year old Greenberg, who retained a large stake in AIG after his ouster eight years ago, brought the case in late 2011 through his company Starr International Co. Inc. He's represented by a Boies Schiller team led by David Boies -- dboies@bsfllp.com -- as well as by John Gardiner -- john.gardiner@skadden.com -- of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. They've pegged damages in the tens of billions of dollars. The lawsuit gained steam in March, when Judge Wheeler certified two classes of AIG shareholders. And on June 26 Judge Wheeler denied the government's final motion to dismiss the shareholder claims, though he did preclude Mr. Greenberg from pleading a shareholder derivative theory. Depositions are slated to begin on August 6. Mr. Bernanke's deposition is tentatively scheduled for August 16 at the Washington, D.C., office of Boies Schiller. Judge Wheeler has indicated that he will attend. Discovery closes on December 20. If the case survives summary judgment, trial is expected to be set for September 2014. "We are pleased that the Court has permitted us to take Mr. Bernanke's deposition," Boies Schiller partner Alanna Rutherford -- arutherford@bsfllp.com -- said in a statement. "The Court concluded, as we have believed all along, that 'Mr. Bernanke is a key witness in this case, and that his testimony will be highly relevant to the issues presented." APPLE INC: Court Refused to Dismiss Suit By iPhone 4S Buyers ------------------------------------------------------------ Rebekah Kearn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that Apple customers dissatisfied with the iPhone 4S's "Siri" function must specify how the voice-activated feature allegedly fails to work as advertised, a federal judge ruled. U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken dismissed a federal class action against Apple over its Siri feature, but said the plaintiffs could amend their complaint "to remedy the deficiencies." The iPhone 4S, launched by Apple in October 2011, was the first Apple device to include "Siri," a voice-activated "intelligent assistant that helps you get things done just by asking," according to Apple's press release. The company's advertisements and press releases detailed how Siri could respond to spoken commands and questions, such as providing current traffic conditions and reminding the user to call a specific contact. At an Apple press conference unveiling Siri, a presenter asked Siri several questions, including the time in Paris and whether there were any Greek restaurants in Palo Alto, Calif., and received "prompt and appropriate responses," according to the ruling. Apple's "extensive multimillion-dollar nationwide marketing campaign" for the iPhone 4S paid off, according to the ruling, and about 90 percent of the iPhones sold in the first fiscal quarter of 2012 were 4Ss. But not all buyers were enthralled with the new voice-activated assistant. Lead plaintiff Frank M. Fazio filed a class action against Apple last March, claiming Siri did not work as advertised. He said he bought the phone based on Apple's ads representing the Siri feature as easy to use and capable of understanding spoken commands, but claimed it gave him wrong answers and did not understand his questions. Fazio said Apple deceived consumers into buying what was essentially a more expensive version of the iPhone 4. He also accused Apple of exploiting people's trust in its brand to convince them that the Siri function was "worth paying the extra money to have," when Apple knew Siri was defective. Apple sought dismissal, saying the plaintiffs failed to specifically identify enough statements in its commercials as false and misleading to proceed in court. It added that many of the statements the plaintiffs did identify were not actionable. U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken in San Francisco sided with Apple Tuesday and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. "Apple is correct that plaintiffs have not alleged sufficiently how [its] statements were misrepresentative or fraudulent, and how Siri failed to perform as advertised," Wilken wrote. "For example, plaintiffs do not make clear in the [complaint] whether their theory is that the advertisements were misleading, because Siri never responds to questions or is always inaccurate, does so more slowly than shown in the ads, uses more data than advertised or is less consistent than shown in the ads. "They have not explained what exactly Apple led consumers to believe in the commercials about Siri's performance, through what particular statements, nor have they stated what about these representations was in fact false. They have not specified precisely how Siri failed to meet the representations that they claim Apple made, what the truth about Siri's performance actually was and how Apple knew or should have known that these representations were false. These deficiencies deprive Apple of the opportunity to respond to the allegations of misconduct that plaintiffs make." Wilken dismissed claims of fraud and unfair competition for the same reason, saying the plaintiffs failed to identify "which commercials or other misleading advertisements they each relied upon in purchasing their devices." Breach-of-warranty claims also failed, Wilken said, because the plaintiffs did not notify Apple about the alleged breach within a reasonable time before filing suit, and they failed to show that the iPhone 4S was inherently unfit for its intended purpose. "Plaintiffs admitted that the iPhone 4S is at bottom a phone," she wrote. "Plaintiffs' argument here, that the ordinary purpose of the iPhone 4S is to use the Siri feature to send messages and complete other tasks is not consistent with that argument." She added that the unjust enrichment claim could no longer be supported, "because all of the claims that could form a theory of recovery have been dismissed." However, Wilken said the plaintiffs could amend their complaint to fix the pleading "deficiencies." If they do so, she gave Apple 14 days to respond. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq. Charles A. Germershausen, Esq. James S. Notis, Esq. GARDY & NOTIS, LLP 560 Sylvan Ave. Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632 Telephone: (201) 567-7377 Facsimile: (201) 567-7337 E-mail: jsarnelli@gardylaw.com cgermershausen@gardylaw.com jnotis@gardylaw.com - and - Mark Dearman, Esq. Stuart Andrew Davidson, Esq. Kathleen L. Barber, Esq. Paul J. Geller, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN AND DOWD LLP 120 E. Palmetto Park Rd., Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Facsimile: (561) 750-3364 E-mail: mdearman@rgrdlaw.com sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com kbarber@rgrdlaw.com pgeller@rgrdlaw.com - and - Rachel Lynn Jensen, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: rachelj@rgrdlaw.com - and - Shawn A. Williams, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 288-4545 Facsimile: (415) 288-4534 E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com - and - Ben Barnow, Esq. Erich Paul Schork, Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. One North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 621-2000 Facsimile: (312) 641-5504 E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com e.schork@barnowlaw.com - and - Robert M. Rothman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: rrothman@rgrdlaw.com - and - Martin Stuart Bakst, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS E. MOSELEY 15760 Ventura Blvd., Sixteenth Floor Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 981-1400 E-mail: msb@mbakst.com - and - David Eldridge Bower, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DAVID E. BOWER 10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (424) 256-2884 Facsimile: (424) 256-2885 E-mail: dbower@faruqilaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Matthew S. Kahn, Esq. GIBSON DUNN AND CRUTCHER 555 Mission Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 393-8212 Facsimile: (415) 393-8306 E-mail: mkahn@gibsondunn.com - and - Gail E. Lees, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1881 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 849-5300 Facsimile: (650) 849-5333 E-mail: glees@gibsondunn.com The case is Fazio v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 4:12-cv-01127-CW, in the U.S. District Court for the California Northern District (Oakland). APPLE INC: Former Retail Employees File Wage Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Bostic, writing for Apple Insider, reports that former retail employees from Apple Stores in New York and Los Angeles have formed a class action suit against the iPhone maker, claiming that the company's anti-theft policies amounted to unpaid work to the tune of $1,500 per employee per year. The filing for the suit alleges that "Apple has engaged and continues to engage in illegal and improper wage practices that have deprived Apple Hourly Employees throughout the United States of millions of dollars in wages and overtime compensation." At the center of the plaintiffs' case is the anti-theft procedure Apple requires its employees to go through. At the end of a shift, as well as when clocking out to leave for a meal break, Apple's hourly retail employees must submit to "personal package and bag searches," during which the employees are off-the-clock. The complaint notes that these checks are "significant, integral, indispensable . . . and done solely for Apple's benefit to prevent employee pilferage." As the employees were hourly and the checks only occurred when they were off the clock, they were not compensated for Apple's security procedures. The complaint claims the employees waited typically between 10 and 15 minutes and the end of every shift, as well as another five without compensation prior to going off for "uncompensated meal breaks." "During any given week," the complaint reads, "[one plaintiff] worked approximately 50 minutes to 1.5 hours of uncompensated overtime. By conservative calculations, this equated over the course of one year to an aggregate amount of approximately $1,400 in uncompensated hours." Included in the class action are "[a]ll Apple Hourly Employees who worked in an Apple, Inc. retail store in the United States, who are or were employed within the three years preceding the the filing of this action by the Defendant, and who were: (a) not compensated for off-the-clock time spent waiting in security screening lines and undergoing personal package and bag searches before being allowed to leave the premises; and/or (b) were not fully compensated for this time worked over forty hours per week at overtime rates." It further alleges that Apple's "unlawful conduct has been widespread, repeated and consistent" as well as "willful and in bad faith." Apple's security checkout policy for employees is not entirely unique among retailers, specifically among those dealing in electronic devices. Game retailer GameStop, for instance, has had a similar policy for some time, one in which employees search each other's bags and person following the completion of closing duties. The pocket and bag checks at that retailer, though, are done while employees are still on the clock. The new lawsuit seeks certification as a class action suit, recompense for the plaintiffs and other members of the class in the amount of unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime, and unpaid waiting time. It also seeks "a declaratory judgment that the practices complained of herein are unlawful . . . and injunctive relief requiring termination or modification of the unlawful practices." The case -- Amanda Frlekin and Dean Pelle v. Apple, Inc. -- was filed on July 25 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs are seeking a jury trial. Apple's retail operations have grown in popularity along with its products, and Apple Retail now represents a significant portion of the company's revenue intake. They are among the most heavily trafficked retail spaces in the world, with yearly visitor counts on the level of popular theme parks. All along, though, the state of employees working in Apple stores has been an issue of contention. Last year, The New York Times published an expose on Apple's retail outlets, revealing that employees were making "average pay" according to the standards of retail, but lower than do employees in some other less profitable corporations. An internal interview conducted by Apple found that pay was a major concern among employees. Staff in the retail outlets earn between $9 and $15 per hour, while Geniuses make roughly $30 per hour. BERCHICCI IMPORTING: Recalls Igor Brand Gorgonzola Cheese --------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: July 30, 2013 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Updated Health Hazard Alert Subcategory: Microbiological - Listeria Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Berchicci Importing Ltd. Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, May be National Extent of the product distribution: Retail Affected products: Brand name Common name Size UPC ---------- ----------- ---- --- Igor "Gorgonzola Dolce" 1.5 kg 2443880 014541 Igor "Gorgonzola Piccante" 1.5 kg N/A Igor "Gorgonzola Dolce DOP" 200 g 8 021398 256802 The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Berchicci Importing Ltd. are warning the public not to consume the Igor brand Gorgonzola Cheese described above because the products may be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/OHRG8x Also affected by this alert are the above products which may have been sold in smaller packages, cut and wrapped by some retailers. Consumers are advised to contact the retailer to determine if they have the affected products. These products have been distributed in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia. However, they may have been distributed in other provinces. There have been no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of these products. The importer, Berchicci Importing Ltd., Montreal, Quebec, is voluntarily recalling the affected products from the marketplace. The CFIA is monitoring the effectiveness of the recall. BP PLC: CEO Says Class Actions Only Benefit Attorneys ----------------------------------------------------- Class action lawsuits like the ones BP plc is facing in the U.S. are a "business model" that serve only to benefit attorneys, the chief executive of BP told CNBC. "The biggest beneficiaries that I can see broadly are plaintiffs' attorneys themselves, who are not just collecting fees on behalf of claims that have been submitted but also their own firms which are submitting large claims," Bob Dudley said on July 30. His comments came on the day BP said its $20 billion oil spill compensation fund has almost run out, after provision for costs leaped by $1.4 billion in the second quarter. The British oil company has just $300 million left in the fund, and the deadline to file an economic loss claim among Gulf coast businesses -- which make up the bulk of claims -- is not until April next year. BP has said claims beyond what the fund can pay will be taken straight out of future profits. The company has also increased its overall provision for the Gulf of Mexico oil spill to $42.4 billion from $42.2 billion. BP shares fell 4.5% in London on July 30, before recovering to close around 3.4% lower. Mr. Dudley said BP had no problems with paying for "legitimate" claims but that the agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice that allowed people to claim for compensation was being misinterpreted. "This is not right, it's not good for American business . . . that's why we're vigorously protesting it. It happens all the time in the U.S. with this class action plaintiff system which is an industry and a business model." The oil major is locked in a legal battle over compensation payouts with the administrator Patrick Juneau. It says Mr. Juneau is paying out "fictitious" claims due to a misinterpretation of the settlement. BP also faces a resumption of its trial on civil charges in September. Stripping out the one-time charges, the company reported second quarter profit from operations declined 24% from the year-ago period, missing expectations. Adjusted net profit came in at $2.712 billion compared with expectations of $3.410 billion and $3.6 billion a year ago. CAL-MAINE FOODS: Settles Egg Products Antitrust Claims for $28MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. on July 23, 2013, issued a press release announcing that it had reached an agreement in principle to settle all direct purchaser class claims against the Company In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, according to the company's June 23, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. Cal-Maine Foods reached an agreement in principle to settle all direct purchaser class claims against the Company. Pursuant to the agreement, reached in the In re Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation matter pending in Pennsylvania federal court, Cal-Maine will settle all direct purchaser class claims with a single $28 million payment. "[The company] remain[s] confident that the company's conduct has at all times been lawful, appropriate and fair to the company's customers. The largest retailers and egg buyers in the country, including many of the company's customers, in fact, were fully aware of, and explicitly supported, the industry-wide animal welfare guidelines challenged in this litigation. And, the USDA was fully aware of, and explicitly supported, these animal welfare guidelines as well as all the other conduct the plaintiffs challenged," said Dolph Baker, chairman, president and chief executive officer of Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. "[The company was] able to negotiate a settlement which would eliminate most of [the company's] exposure in the antitrust litigation against the Company for an amount that [the company] believe[s] is in the best interest of the shareholders, employees, customers and consumers. It significantly reduces the distraction, expense, exposure and inconvenience of protracted litigation and potentially multiple appeals, and allows [the company] to focus on executing the long-term strategy of [the company's] business." The terms of the settlement must be formally documented and are subject to approval by the court following notice to all class members. The Company will record a pre-tax charge in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2013 of approximately $28 million with respect to the settlement, which amounts to $17 million, $0.71 per basic share, after tax. Cal-Maine does not expect other provisions associated with the settlement to have a material impact on its results of operations. While the Company expects the settlement will receive the needed approval, there can be no assurance that the court will approve the agreement as proposed by the parties. The plaintiffs in the non-class cases that direct purchasers have filed against the Company may elect to participate in the settlement or to opt out and pursue their individual claims. The settlement does not affect the class actions filed on behalf of indirect purchasers. These non-class cases and the indirect purchaser class actions also allege that the Company and certain other large domestic egg producers conspired to reduce the domestic supply of eggs in an effort to raise egg prices. Cal- Maine intends to continue to vigorously defend the remaining cases and believes it has strong defenses. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. is primarily engaged in the production, grading, packing and sale of fresh shell eggs, including conventional, cage-free, organic and nutritionally-enhanced eggs. The Company, which is headquartered in Jackson, Mississippi, is the largest producer and distributor of fresh shell eggs in the United States and sells the majority of its shell eggs in approximately 29 states across the southwestern, southeastern, mid-western and mid-Atlantic regions of the United States. CANADA: Seeks Dismissal of Injured Soldiers' Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Dene Moore, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that lawyers for the federal government are asking a British Columbia judge to dismiss a class-action lawsuit filed by current and former soldiers injured in Canada's combat mission in Afghanistan, saying Ottawa owes them nothing more than what they have already received under its controversial New Veterans Charter. The lawsuit filed last fall by six veterans claims that the new charter, and the changes it brought to the compensation regime for Canadian Forces members, violates the constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That claim is "unnecessary, frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of process," argue lawyers for the federal Attorney General, who were in B.C. Supreme Court last week asking a judge to dismiss the case. "In support of their claim, the representative plaintiffs assert the existence of a 'social covenant,' a public law duty, and a fiduciary duty on the part of the federal government," Jasvinder S. Basran, the regional director general for the federal Justice Department, said in an application filed with the court. The lawsuit invokes the "honour of the Crown," a concept that has been argued in aboriginal rights claims. "The defendant submits that none of the claims asserted by the representative plaintiffs constitutes a reasonable claim, that the claims are frivolous or vexatious, and accordingly that they should be struck out in their entirety." Each of the six current and former soldiers named in the lawsuit has received a pension and other compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs, including lump sum payments ranging from C$41,000 to nearly c$261,000, the document said. But the soldiers say the disability payments for injured soldiers pale in comparison to awards handed out for worker's compensation claims and by civil courts for far lesser injuries in motor vehicle accidents or personal injury. Among the soldiers named in the suit is Maj. Mark Douglas Campbell, a 32-year veteran of the Canadian Forces who served in Cyprus, Bosnia and Afghanistan. In June 2008, Mr. Campbell, of the Edmonton-based Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, was struck by an improved explosive device and Taliban ambush. He lost both legs above the knee, one testicle, suffered numerous lacerations and a ruptured eardrum. He has since been diagnosed with depressive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder. Mr. Campbell received a lump sum payment for pain and suffering of C$260,000. He will receive his military pension, with an earnings loss benefit and a permanent impairment allowance but he is entirely unable to work and will suffer a net earnings loss due to his injuries, the lawsuit claims. The new charter eliminated the lifetime disability pension for disabled soldiers and replaced it with lump sum payments. Another plaintiff soldier suffered severe injuries to his leg and foot in the blast that killed Canadian journalist Michelle Lang and four soldiers. He was awarded C$200,000 in total payments for pain and suffering and post-traumatic stress. The allegations in the lawsuit have not been proven in court. The federal government application says policy decisions of the government and legislation passed by Parliament are not subject to review by the courts. "The basic argument that they're making is that Parliament can do what it wants," said Don Sorochan, the soldiers' lawyer. He said he receives calls almost daily from soldiers affected by the changes, and thousands ultimately could be involved. Mr. Sorochan, who is handling the case for free, said he doesn't believe the objective of the legislation was to save money at the expense of injured soldiers, but that's what's happened. "When the legislation was brought in it was believed by the politicians involved -- and I've talked to several of them, in all parties -- that they were doing a good thing," Mr. Sorochan said. "But anybody that can objectively look at what is happening to these men and women who have served us, can't keep believing that." CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE: Gov't Ordered to Come Clean on Drug Risks --------------------------------------------------------------- Writing for Courthouse News Service, Nick McCann reports that the government must come clean about the hazards of drug experiments to which it subjected Vietnam veterans, a federal judge ruled. Vietnam Veterans of America filed a class action against the Army and CIA in 2009, claiming that at least 7,800 soldiers had been used as guinea pigs in Project Paperclip. The soldiers say they were administered at least 250, and perhaps as many as 400, types of drugs, including Sarin, one of the most deadly drugs known, as well as amphetamines, barbiturates, mustard gas, phosgene gas and LSD. Using tactics it often attributed to the Soviet enemy, the U.S. government sought drugs that could control human behavior, cause confusion, promote weakness or temporary loss of hearing and vision, induce hypnosis and enhance a person's ability to withstand torture, according to the complaint. The veterans claimed that some soldiers died, and others suffered seizures and paranoia. They said the CIA knew it had to conceal the tests from "enemy forces" and the "American public in general" because revealing it "would have serious repercussions in political and diplomatic circles and would be detrimental to the accomplishment of its mission." After two failed attempts to dismiss the action, the defendants succeeded last year in getting claims against Attorney General Eric Holder and the CIA dismissed. U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken granted the plaintiffs class action status last September, which could make thousands of veterans eligible for relief. The crux of the veterans' argument has been that Administrative Procedure Act obligates the defendants to provide notice to test subjects and to provide them with medical care. In the years since the experiments, the government defendants say they have made efforts to contact test subjects and provide them with notice. For instance, the Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs put some information about the tests on its public Web site, including a hotline for additional information. Both the veterans groups and the government defendants moved for summary judgment. Judge Wilken partly granted the veterans' motion Wednesday. "The court concludes that defendants' duty to warn test subjects of possible health effects is not limited to the time that these individuals provide consent to participate in the experiments," she wrote. "Instead, defendants have an ongoing duty to warn about newly acquired information that may affect the well-being of test subjects after they completed their participation in research." Wilken was not convinced, however, that the government owes the veterans additional medical care not already available to them from the Veterans' Administration. "Defendants are entitled to summary adjudication that sovereign immunity has not been waived with regard to this claim because plaintiffs and the class members can seek medical care through the DVA and challenge any denial of care through the statutory scheme prescribed by Congress," the 72-page opinion states. The government defendants also moved for judgment on the plaintiffs' constitutional claims for notice and health care. The veterans did not move for judgment on those claims. "Plaintiffs rely on cases in which courts have held that agencies are bound to follow their own regulations and that failure to do so may violate the due process clause," Wilken wrote. "However, defendants are correct that such a failure does not always amount to a constitutional violation." The judge vacated a final pretrial conference and upcoming trial, and ordered the parties to submit a joint proposed injunction and judgment to comply with the court's order. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin French Patterson, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER 425 Market St. San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 268-6818 E-mail: bpatterson@mofo.com - and - Eugene G. Illovsky, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 E-mail: eillovsky@mofo.com - and - James P. Bennett, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market St. San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7169 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 E-mail: jbennett@mofo.com - and - Stacey Michelle Sprenkel, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 268-6040 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 E-mail: ssprenkel@mofo.com The Defendants are represented by: Joshua Edward Gardner, Esq. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 305-7583 Facsimile: (202) 616-8202 E-mail: joshua.e.gardner@usdoj.gov - and - Brigham John Bowen, Esq. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE P.O. Box 883 Washington, DC 20044 Telephone: (202) 514-6289 E-mail: Brigham.Bowen@usdoj.gov - and - Kimberly L. Herb, Esq. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 305-8356 E-mail: Kimberly.L.Herb@usdoj.gov - and - Lily Sara Farel, Esq. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave. NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 353-7633 Facsimile: (202) 616-8460 E-mail: lily.farel@usdoj.gov - and - Ryan B. Parker, Esq. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 514-4336 E-mail: ryan.parker@usdoj.gov The case is Vietnam Veterans of America, et al. v. Central Intelligence Agency, et al., Case No. 4:09-cv-00037-CW, in the U.S. District Court for the California Northern District (Oakland). CHINA-BIOTICS: Defends Consolidated Shareholder Suit in New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- China-Biotics, Inc., is defending itself against a consolidated shareholder lawsuit pending in New York, according to the Company's July 12, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2013. The Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors have been named as defendants in three putative shareholder class action lawsuits, one in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Mohapatra v. China-Biotics, Inc., et al., No. 10-cv-6954 (C.D. Cal.), the "Mohapatra case"), and two in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Hill v. China-Biotics, Inc., et al., No. 10-cv-7838 (S.D.N.Y.), the "Hill case", and Casper v. Jinan, et al., No. 12-cv-4202 (S.D.N.Y.), the "Casper case"). After certain shareholders filed motions for appointment as lead plaintiff, the plaintiff in the Mohapatra case voluntarily dismissed its case and the plaintiff in the Hill case, together with another shareholder, were appointed as lead plaintiffs. The lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in which they allege that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making material misstatements or failing to disclose certain material information regarding, among other things, the Company's financial condition, operations, and future business prospects, and the quality, nature, and quantity of the Company's retail outlets. The lead plaintiffs seek to represent a class of shareholders who bought the Company's securities between July 10, 2008, and August 27, 2010. On August 18, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the lead plaintiffs' amended complaint. The court dismissed the lead plaintiffs' Section 11 claim, but gave them leave to replead. The court did not rule on the motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) claim. On January 9, 2012, the lead plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint that included a new named plaintiff and new allegations for the Section 11 claim. On February 27, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended Section 11 claim. Both that motion and the original motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) claims are currently pending before the court. The Company intends to defend this action vigorously. In the Casper case, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making material misstatements and seeks to represent a class of stockholders who bought the Company's securities between February 9, 2011, and July 1, 2011. On October 18, 2012, the Hill case and the Casper case were consolidated, but no consolidated amended complaint has yet been filed. The Company intends to defend this action vigorously. China-Biotics, Inc. -- http://www.chn-biotics.com/-- is engaged in the research, development, production, marketing and distribution of probiotics products, which are products that contain live microbial food supplements that beneficially affect the host by improving its intestinal microbial balance. The Company is headquartered in Shanghai, China. CITIBANK CREDIT: Merchants Appeal Approval of Antitrust Suit Deal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Several large merchants and associations have appealed from the court's preliminary approval of the proposed class settlements in the antitrust litigation over interchange fees, according to Citibank Credit Card Issuance Trust's July 15, 2013, Form 10-D filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In regards to the putative class actions captioned IN RE PAYMENT CARD INTERCHANGE FEE AND MERCHANT DISCOUNT ANTITRUST LITIGATION, numerous merchants, including several large national merchants, have opted out of and/or objected to the class settlement. To date, five opt out lawsuits involving over one hundred merchants have been filed, one of which names Citigroup and certain of its subsidiaries, including Citibank, N.A., as a defendant (7-Eleven, Inc., et al. v. Visa Inc., et al., 12 CV 4442 (S.D.N.Y.). In addition, several large merchants and associations have appealed from the court's preliminary approval of the proposed class settlements. Headquartered in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Citibank Credit Card Issuance Trust has issued Class A notes, Class B notes and Class C notes of the Citiseries pursuant to an Indenture between the issuance trust and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as trustee. The issuance trust's primary asset -- and its primary source of funds for the payment of principal of and interest on the notes -- is a collateral certificate issued by Citibank Credit Card Master Trust I to the issuance trust. Citibank, N.A., is the Depositor and Managing Beneficiary of the issuance trust and as the depositor and servicer of the master trust. COMPASS ANIMAL: Recalls "Larry The Cable Guy" Brand Chips --------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: July 26, 2013 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Allergy Alert Subcategory: Allergen - Mustard Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Compass Animal Health Inc. Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Saskatchewan, May be National Extent of the product distribution: Retail Affected products: Larry The Cable Guy brand Buffalo Wing Flavored Tater Chips The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Compass Animal Health Inc. are warning people with allergies to mustard not to consume the Larry the Cable Guy brand products. The affected products contain mustard which is not declared on the label. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/ERkoeB These products have been distributed in Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Saskatchewan. However, they may have been distributed in other provinces. There have been no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of these products. Consumption of these products may cause a serious or life- threatening reaction in persons with allergies to mustard. The importer, Compass Animal Health Inc., Edmonton, AB, is voluntarily recalling the affected products from the marketplace. The CFIA is monitoring the effectiveness of the recall. COSMETIC WHOLESALE: Recalls 250 Tourmaline Ionic Hair Dryer ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: July 26, 2013 Posting date: July 26, 2013 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Electronics Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-34767 Affected products: Tourmaline Ionic Hair Dryer The recall involves the "trinite professional" tourmaline ionic hair dryer identified by model TRI 801. The hair dryer is black and white in colour with "trinite professional" written on the haft of the product. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/NbqkF6 It has been determined that the identified products are not authorized to bear the cETL (Intertek) certification mark on the unit or the cUL (Underwriters Laboratories) certification mark on the cord. Cosmetic Wholesale and Health Canada have received one report of the hair dryer smoking/sparking when the power was turned on. No injuries were reported. Approximately 250 units of the recalled hair dryers were sold at Winners and Marshalls (TJX Canada) stores in Canada. The recalled hair dryers were manufactured in China and sold from October 1st to 18th, 2012. Companies: Manufacturer Viso Trading Inc. China Importer Cosmetic Wholesale Toronto Ontario Canada Consumers should stop using the recalled hair dryers immediately and return them to the retailer for a full refund. CRESTWOOD GAS: "Ginardi" Pollution Lawsuit Now Settled, Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------------- The pollution lawsuit Ginardi v. Frontier Gas Services, LLC, et al. that names as defendant Crestwood Arkansas Pipeline LLC was already settled, according to Crestwood Gas Services GP LLC's Consolidated Financial Statements as of December 31, 2012 and 2011 and for the three years ended December 31, 2012 filed as Exhibit 99.1 of Inergy L.P.'s July 23, 2013 Form 8-K/A (Amendment No. 1) filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In May 2011, a putative class action lawsuit, Ginardi v. Frontier Gas Services, LLC, et al., was filed in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Arkansas against Frontier Gas Services, LLC, Chesapeake, BHP, Kinder Morgan Treating LP and Crestwood Arkansas Pipeline LLC. The lawsuit alleged that the defendants' operations polluted the atmosphere, groundwater, and soil with allegedly harmful gases, chemicals, and compounds and the facilities created excessive noise levels constituting trespass, nuisance and annoyance. On June 27, 2012, this case was settled and dismissed. The settlement did not have a material impact on the company's results of operations or financial condition. CRESTWOOD GAS: "Bartlett" Pollution Lawsuit Settled, Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- The pollution lawsuit George Bartlett, et al., v. Frontier Gas Services, LLC, et al. Crestwood Arkansas Pipeline LLC was already settled, according to Crestwood Gas Services GP LLC's Consolidated Financial Statements as of December 31, 2012 and 2011 and for the three years ended December 31, 2012 filed as Exhibit 99.1 of Inergy L.P.'s July 23, 2013 Form 8-K/A (Amendment No. 1) filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In December 2011, a putative class action lawsuit, George Bartlett, et al, v. Frontier Gas Services, LLC, et al., was filed in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Arkansas against Frontier Gas Services, LLC, Chesapeake, Kinder Morgan Treating LP and Crestwood Arkansas Pipeline, LLC. The lawsuit alleged that the defendants' operations polluted the atmosphere, groundwater, and soil with allegedly harmful gases, chemicals, and compounds and the facilities created excessive noise levels constituting trespass, nuisance and annoyance. On September 17, 2012, this case was settled and dismissed. The settlement did not have a material impact on the company's results of operations or financial condition. CRESTWOOD GAS: Plaintiffs Want Merger-Related Suits Combined ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs in a securities suit challenging the merger of Crestwood Midstream Partners LP and Inergy L.P. filed a motion to consolidate four cases, according to Exhibit 99.1 of Inergy L.P.'s July 23, 2013 Form 8-K/A (Amendment No. 1) filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The exhibit contains Crestwood Gas Services GP LLC's Consolidated Financial Statements as of December 31, 2012 and 2011 and for the three years ended December 31, 2012. Five putative class action lawsuits challenging the Crestwood- Inergy merger have been filed, four in federal court in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas: (i) Abraham Knoll v. Robert G. Phillips, et al. (Case No. 4:13-cv-01528); (ii) Greg Podell v. Crestwood Midstream Partners, LP, et al. (Case No. 4:13-cv-01599); (iii) Johnny Cooper v. Crestwood Midstream Partners LP, et al. (Case No. 4:13-cv-01660); and (iv) Steven Elliot LLC v. Robert G. Phillips, et al. (Case No. 4:13-cv-01763), and one in Delaware Chancery Court, Hawley v. Crestwood Midstream Partners LP, et al. (Case No. 8689-VCL). All of the cases name Crestwood, Crestwood Gas Services GP LLC, Crestwood Holdings LLC, the current and former directors of Crestwood Gas Services GP LLC, Inergy, L.P., Inergy Midstream, L.P., NRGM GP, LLC, and Intrepid Merger Sub, LLC as defendants. All of the suits are brought by a purported holder of common units of Crestwood, both individually and on behalf of a putative class consisting of holders of common units of Crestwood. The lawsuits generally allege, among other things, that the directors of Crestwood Gas Services GP LLC breached their fiduciary duties to holders of common units of Crestwood by agreeing to a transaction with inadequate consideration and unfair terms and pursuant to an inadequate process. The lawsuits further allege that Inergy, L.P., Inergy Midstream, L.P., NRGM GP, LLC, and Intrepid Merger Sub, LLC aided and abetted the Crestwood directors in the alleged breach of their fiduciary duties. The lawsuits seek, in general, (i) injunctive relief enjoining the merger, (ii) in the event the merger is consummated, rescission or an award of rescissory damages, (iii) an award of plaintiffs' costs, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees, (iv) the accounting by the defendants to plaintiffs for all damages caused by the defendants, and (v) such further equitable relief as the court deems just and proper. Certain of the actions also assert claims of inadequate disclosure under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the Elliot case also names Citigroup Global Markets Inc. as an alleged aider and abettor. The plaintiff in the Hawley action in Delaware filed a motion for expedited proceedings but subsequently withdrew that motion. The plaintiffs in the Knoll, Podell, Cooper, and Steven Elliot LLC actions filed a motion to consolidate these four cases. These lawsuits are at a preliminary stage. Crestwood, Inergy Midstream and the other defendants believe that these lawsuits are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously. EI DU PONT: Hearing to Approve Imprelis Suit Accord on Sept. 27 --------------------------------------------------------------- A September 27, 2013 final approval hearing is set in the settlement of a suit filed against E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company over its Imprelis herbicide, according to the company's July 23, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. The company has received claims and been served with multiple lawsuits alleging that the use of Imprelis herbicide caused damage to certain trees. Sales of Imprelis were suspended in August 2011 and the product was last applied during the 2011 spring application season. The lawsuits seeking class action status have been consolidated in multidistrict litigation in federal court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In February 2013, the court granted preliminary approval of a class action settlement. The settlement incorporates the company's existing claims process and provides certain additional relief. The proposed settlement class includes affected property owners and lawn care companies who do not "opt out" of the settlement. As part of the settlement, DuPont will pay about $7 in plaintiffs' attorney fees and expenses. In addition, DuPont is providing a warranty against new damage, if any, caused by the use of Imprelis on class members' properties through May 2015. The settlement notification process began on March 25, 2013 and ended on June 28, 2013 which was also the last day to "opt out" of the settlement or file a new claim. DuPont will not exercise its right to cancel the settlement based on the number of opt-outs. The court has scheduled the final approval hearing on September 27, 2013. FEDEX CORP: Defends Suits Over Owner-Operator Issues vs. Unit ------------------------------------------------------------- FedEx Corporation continues to defend a subsidiary against lawsuits and proceedings alleging that its owner-operators should be treated as employees, according to the Company's July 15, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended May 31, 2013. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. is involved in numerous class- action lawsuits (including 31 that have been certified as class actions), individual lawsuits and state tax and other administrative proceedings that claim that the company's owner- operators should be treated as employees, rather than independent contractors. Most of the class-action lawsuits were consolidated for administration of the pre-trial proceedings by a single federal court, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. The multidistrict litigation court granted class certification in 28 cases and denied it in 14 cases. On December 13, 2010, the court entered an opinion and order addressing all outstanding motions for summary judgment on the status of the owner-operators (i.e., independent contractor vs. employee). In sum, the court has now ruled on the Company's summary judgment motions and entered judgment in favor of FedEx Ground on all claims in 20 of the 28 multidistrict litigation cases that had been certified as class actions, finding that the owner-operators in those cases were contractors as a matter of the law of 20 states. The plaintiffs filed notices of appeal in all of these 20 cases. The Seventh Circuit heard the appeal in the Kansas case in January 2012 and, in July 2012, issued an opinion that did not make a determination with respect to the correctness of the district court's decision and, instead, certified two questions to the Kansas Supreme Court related to the classification of the plaintiffs as independent contractors under the Kansas Wage Payment Act. The other 19 cases that are before the Seventh Circuit remain stayed pending a decision of the Kansas Supreme Court. The multidistrict litigation court remanded the other eight certified class actions back to the district courts where they were originally filed because its summary judgment ruling did not completely dispose of all of the claims in those lawsuits. Three of those cases are now on appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The other five remain pending in their respective district courts. While the granting of summary judgment in favor of FedEx Ground by the multidistrict litigation court in 20 of the 28 cases that had been certified as class actions remains subject to appeal, the Company believes that it significantly improves the likelihood that its independent contractor model will be upheld. Adverse determinations in matters related to FedEx Ground's independent contractors, however, could, among other things, entitle certain of the Company's owner-operators and their drivers to the reimbursement of certain expenses and to the benefit of wage-and- hour laws and result in employment and withholding tax and benefit liability for FedEx Ground, and could result in changes to the independent contractor status of FedEx Ground's owner-operators in certain jurisdictions. The Company believes that FedEx Ground's owner-operators are properly classified as independent contractors and that FedEx Ground is not an employer of the drivers of the company's independent contractors. While it is reasonably possible that potential loss in some of these lawsuits or such changes to the independent contractor status of FedEx Ground's owner-operators could be material, the Company cannot yet determine the amount or reasonable range of potential loss. A number of factors contribute to this. The number of plaintiffs in these lawsuits continues to change, with some being dismissed and others being added and, as to new plaintiffs, discovery is still ongoing. In addition, the parties have conducted only very limited discovery into damages, which could vary considerably from plaintiff to plaintiff. Further, the range of potential loss could be impacted considerably by future rulings on the merits of certain claims and FedEx Ground's various defenses, and on evidentiary issues. In any event, the Company does not believe that a material loss is probable in these matters. In addition, the Company is defending contractor-model cases that are not or are no longer part of the multidistrict litigation, three of which have been certified as class actions. These cases are in varying stages of litigation, and the Company does not expect to incur a material loss in any of these matters. FedEx Corporation -- http://www.fedex.com/-- operates a package specialty air freight service in the U.S. offering door-to-door overnight delivery by operating its own integrated air-ground transportation system. FedEx was incorporated in Delaware and is headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee. FEDEX CORP: Still Defends Wage and Hour Law Violations Suits ------------------------------------------------------------ FedEx Corporation is a defendant in a number of lawsuits containing various class-action allegations of wage-and-hour violations. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege, among other things, that they were forced to work "off the clock," were not paid overtime or were not provided work breaks or other benefits. The complaints generally seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief, or both. The Company does not believe that a material loss is reasonably possible with respect to any of these matters. No further updates were reported in the Company's July 15, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended May 31, 2013. FedEx Corporation -- http://www.fedex.com/-- operates a package specialty air freight service in the U.S. offering door-to-door overnight delivery by operating its own integrated air-ground transportation system. FedEx was incorporated in Delaware and is headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee. FLEETMATICS GROUP: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Junk Labor Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The motion of Fleetmatics Group PLC to dismiss a labor lawsuit is pending before the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, according to the company's July 23, 2013, Amendment No. 1 to Form F-1 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. On August 14, 2012, a putative class action complaint was filed in the Sixth Judicial Circuit in Pinellas County, Florida, entitled U.S. Prisoner Transport, et al. v. Fleetmatics USA, LLC, et al., Case No. 1200-9933 CI-20. The company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on September 13, 2012, U.S. Prisoner Transport, et al. v. Fleetmatics USA, LLC, et al., Case No. 8:12-CV-2079. The company moved to dismiss the complaint on September 20, 2012. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on October 4, 2012 and changed the case caption to Brevard Extraditions, Inc., d/b/a U.S. Prisoner Transport, et al. v. Fleetmatics USA, LLC, et al. The amended complaint alleges that the company intercepted, recorded, disclosed, and used thousands of telephone calls in violation of Florida Statutes Section 934.03. The amended complaint seeks certification of a putative class of all individuals and businesses residing in Florida who spoke with any representatives of the company's offices in Florida on the telephone and had their telephone conversations recorded without their consent or advance notice, from the date of the earliest recording by the company through the present. The amended complaint seeks statutory damages, injunctive relief, attorney fees, costs and interest. Florida Statutes Section 934.10 permits an aggrieved person to recover "liquidated damages computed at the rate of $100 a day for each day of violation or $1,000, whichever is higher." The company moved to dismiss the amended complaint on October 18, 2012; plaintiffs filed an opposition on November 1, 2012; and the company filed a reply on June 4, 2013, after the court granted leave to do so. The company's motion to dismiss is pending before the court. Given the early procedural stages of this matter and the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss, if any, at this time, but there can be no assurance that this matter will not have a material adverse effect on the company's business, financial condition, operating results, and cash flows. FREEMANTLE NA: Ex-Contestants Accuse American Idol of Racial Bias ----------------------------------------------------------------- Marimer Matos at Courthouse News Service reports that "American Idol" singles out black contestants for humiliation by disqualifying them publicly in promotions, 10 former contestants claim in a federal class action. Lead plaintiff Jaered N. Andrews sued American Idol Productions and its producers, sponsors and network associates, alleging employment discrimination and interference with prize contracts. Among the many defendants are Freemantle N.A., Fox Broadcasting, Ford Motors, Coca-Cola, AT&T, and Nigel Lythgoe. In the 434-page lawsuit, Andrews claims that high-ranking black contestants have been booted off the show for being witness to a murder, for admitting having taken taking topless photos that can no longer be found, and for having an arrest record. But white contestants in similar circumstances were allowed to continue competing, and received support. "Over the course of the show's eleven year history, the adverse action of being 'officially disqualified' from American Idol was reserved exclusively for black contestants, and more specifically, black male contestants," the lawsuit states, in its 1,747th paragraph. "As a statistical matter, the severe disparity between 15 publicized disqualifications of black American Idol contestants vs. 0 publicized disqualifications of white (or non-black) American Idol contestants would be highly significant even if the contestant pool were divided down the middle at 50/50. But black contestants only comprised about 28 percent of the contestant pool. There can only be one explanation for this glaring disparity in the actual numbers of black vs. white disqualifications: race." The class claims the defendants "engaged in a conscious effort to perpetuate false stereotypes about African-Americans." For example, "From April 2002 through at least Jan. 25, 2013, Enterprise Defendants engaged in an unlawful policy or practice of utilizing the criminal arrest information (and other confidential information) obtained form contestant background checks as a form of commercial advertising or promotional technique to draw audiences for the American Idol television program. "From April 2002 through March 2012, it was the standard operating procedure for Enterprise Defendants to only publish condemn top- ranking black American Idol contestants. "Enterprise Defendants engaged in an unlawful policy of humiliating black American Idol contestants through the dissemination of their confidential data to media outlets," the complaint states. The complaint classifies the defendants into four divisions, Production-, Network-, Overseer-, and Sponsor-Defendants. Enterprise Defendants include Production, Network and Overseer defendants. The plaintiffs are Jaered Andrews, Cory Clark, Donnie Williams, Terrell Brittenum, Derrell Brittenum, Thomas Daniels, Akron Watson, Chris Golightly, Jacob John Smalley and Ju'Not Joyner. The defendants are FremantleMedia NA Inc., American Idol Productions Inc., 19 Entertainment Ltd., Core Media Group Inc., 21st Century Fox Inc., Fox Broadcasting Company Inc., Ford Motor Co. Inc.; Coca-Cola Company Inc., AT&T; Nigel Lythgoe and Ken Warwick. The class seeks $250 million. The Plaintiffs are represented by: James H. Freeman, Esq. JH FREEMAN LAW 1515 Broadway, 11th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 931-8535 Facsimile: (212) 496-5870 E-mail: james@jhfreemanlaw.com The case is Andrews, et al. v. Fremantlemedia N.A., Inc. et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-05174-NRB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. GOLD STAR: Recalls Rybacka Wies Brand Herring Fillets in Oil ------------------------------------------------------------ Gold Star Smoked Fish Corp., located at 570 Smith Street, Brooklyn, NY 11231, is recalling Rybacka Wies Brand Herring Fillets In Oil "Matjes Sledz w oleju" due to contamination with Listeria monocytogenes. Listeria monocytogenes can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy persons may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. The recalled product is packaged in 17.64oz/500 grams plastic containers and has an expiration date of 10/31/13 stamped on the back of the container. The UPC Number is 021 143241228. The product was sold nationwide. It is a product of the USA. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/uJEBZT The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel revealed the presence of Listeria monocytogenes. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem. Consumers who purchased Rybacka Wies Brand Herring Fillets in Oil/"Matjes Sledz w oleju" should not consume it and should return it to the place of purchase. Consumers with any questions may contact the company directly at 718-522-5480. GROUPE DANONE: August 27 Deadline Set for Yogurt Product Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Grocery Alerts reports that a judgment has passed against Danone that entitles all persons residing in Canada who have purchased in Canada between April 1, 2009 and November 6, 2012 Activia(R) yogurt products or DanActive(R) probiotic drink products will qualify for at least $30 in compensation, according to the terms of the agreement. Basically, if you ate this yogurt and sign and solemnly declare that you have purchased either Activia(R) or DanActive(R) products in Canada between April 1, 2009 and November 6, 2012 you are entitled to $30. If you sign and solemnly declare that they have purchased either Activia(R) or DanActive(R) products in Canada between April 1, 2009 and November 6, 2012 and have proof of purchase will be entitled to receive between $30 and $100, depending on the amount of the purchases. If the proof or proofs of purchase is less than $30, the Class Member is entitled to $30. If the proof or proofs of purchase show purchase(s) between $30 and $100, then the Class Member is entitled to the amount of purchase. If the proof or proofs of purchase show purchase(s) above $100, then the Class Member is entitled to $100. It is a really simple e-form to fill out. The claim is per person. Here is the link to get more information on the claim: http://www.collectiva.ca/en/dossiers/DanoneInc.php Deadline to submit your claim is August 27, 2013. HI-TECH PHARMACAL: Discovery Has Commenced in Sinus Buster Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery has commenced in the consolidated lawsuit styled Sinus Buster Products Consumer Litigation, according to Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc.'s July 11, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended April 30, 2013. On June 8, 2012, plaintiff Mathew Harrison, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, brought a class action lawsuit, Civil Action No. 12-2897, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, against Wayne Perry, Dynova Laboratories, Inc., Sicap Industries, LLC, Walgreens Co. and the Company ("Harrison case"). On May 16, 2012, plaintiff David Delre, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, brought a class action lawsuit, Civil Action No. 12-2429, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, against Wayne Perry, Dynova Laboratories, Inc., Sicap Industries, LLC, and the Company. Each complaint alleges, among other things, that their Sinus Buster(R) products are improperly marketed, labeled and sold as homeopathic products, and that these allegations support claims of fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of express and implied warranties and alleged violations of various state and federal statutes. The Company answered the complaints on July 17, 2012, and June 26, 2012, respectively, and asserted cross-claims against the other defendants, except Walgreens which was dismissed from the Harrison case. The Court consolidated these two cases into one action entitled Sinus Buster Products Consumer Litigation. Discovery has commenced in the consolidated case. Dynova has filed for bankruptcy. The case is now proceeding without Dynova. A discovery schedule for depositions, expert discovery and class certification motion is in place. The Company says it intends to vigorously defend against the allegations in the complaint and the class certification. The Company cannot predict the outcome of the action. Amityville, New York-based Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc. -- http://www.hitechpharm.com/-- a Delaware corporation incorporated in April 1982, is a specialty pharmaceutical company developing, manufacturing and marketing generic and branded prescription and OTC products. The Company specializes in the manufacture of liquid and semi-solid dosage forms and produces a range of sterile ophthalmic, otic and inhalation products. The Company's Health Care Products division is a developer and marketer of branded prescription and OTC products for the diabetes marketplace. Hi- Tech's ECR Pharmaceuticals subsidiary markets branded prescription products. HI-TECH PHARMACAL: Has Reached Deal to Settle "Hoover" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc., disclosed in its July 11, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended April 30, 2013, that the parties in the class action lawsuit filed by Linda Hoover have reached a settlement in principle. On December 12, 2012, plaintiff Linda Hoover, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, brought a class action lawsuit against the Company in the Superior Court for the State of California, which the Company removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Civil Action No. 5:2013- 0097, alleging that the Company's marketing and sales of its Nasal Ease(R) product is a violation of various state statutes, including the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California's False Advertising Law and Unlawful, Fraudulent & Unfair Business Practices Act. The Company answered the complaint on January 14, 2013. The parties have reached a settlement in principle. As of April 30, 2013, the Company accrued a legal settlement in the amount of $700,000 in connection with this complaint. Amityville, New York-based Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc. -- http://www.hitechpharm.com/-- a Delaware corporation incorporated in April 1982, is a specialty pharmaceutical company developing, manufacturing and marketing generic and branded prescription and OTC products. The Company specializes in the manufacture of liquid and semi-solid dosage forms and produces a range of sterile ophthalmic, otic and inhalation products. The Company's Health Care Products division is a developer and marketer of branded prescription and OTC products for the diabetes marketplace. Hi- Tech's ECR Pharmaceuticals subsidiary markets branded prescription products. INA INTERNATIONAL: Recalls 465 Firefly Inline Skates ---------------------------------------------------- Starting date: July 26, 2013 Posting date: July 26, 2013 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Sports/Fitness Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-34761 Affected products: FIREFLY Inline Skates The recall involves the 2013 models of FIREFLY Inline Skates: -- Firefly F700 - Ladies' Skate - Black Boot with Purple Accent; -- Firefly F500 - Ladies' Skate - White Boot with Light Blue- Grey Accent; and -- Firefly X500 - Men's Skate - Black Boot with Silver, Red, White Accents Due to a manufacturing defect, the central screw connecting the upper portion of the inline skate with the frame may break while in use. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/YtLDe5 Sport Chek has received 1 reported incident of the central screw breaking. There have been no reported injuries related to the use of this product. Approximately 465 units were sold through Sport Chek stores. The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold from February 2013 to May 2013. Companies: Distributor Intersport International Corp. Bern Switzerland Distributor INA International Ltd. Calgary Alberta Canada Customers who purchased the inline skates are asked to discontinue use of the product and return it to their local Sport Chek store for a refund or exchange. INTERCONTINENTALEXCHANGE INC: Defends NYSE Euronext Merger Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- IntercontinentalExchange, Inc., is defending itself against merger-related class action lawsuits in Delaware and New York, according to the Company's July 15, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On December 20, 2012, the Company announced an agreement to acquire NYSE Euronext in a stock and cash transaction. Under the agreement, which was amended and restated on March 19, 2013, the Company will acquire NYSE Euronext under a newly formed holding company, IntercontinentalExchange Group, Inc., or ICE Group. Following successive merger transactions, the Company and NYSE Euronext will become wholly owned subsidiaries of ICE Group. In connection with the Company's announcement of its acquisition of NYSE Euronext in December 2012, twelve complaints were filed in the Chancery Court of the State of Delaware (the "Delaware Actions") and in the Supreme Court of the State of New York (the "New York Actions") on behalf of a putative class of NYSE Euronext stockholders challenging the proposed merger. Also, on February 4, 2013, a similar putative stockholder class action complaint was filed by a purported stockholder in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On January 29, 2013, the Chancery Court consolidated the Delaware Actions and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On January 31, 2013, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. On March 13, 2013, the Chancery Court certified the consolidated Delaware Actions as a class action. The parties completed discovery in connection with plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction in the consolidated Delaware Actions on April 12, 2013. On May 10, 2013, the Chancery Court heard oral argument on plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, which was denied by the Court. On June 10, 2013, the plaintiffs in the Delaware Actions filed a notice and proposed order of dismissal. By letter dated June 17, 2013, the plaintiffs requested that the Court take no action on the proposed order at this time. On January 28, 2013, the Supreme Court of the State of New York entered an Order consolidating the New York Actions, and on February 7, 2013, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in the New York Actions. On March 1, 2013, the New York court denied defendants' motion to dismiss or stay the New York Actions, which the defendants have appealed to the Appellate Division, First Department. The Defendants moved for a stay of the action pending appeal and, on March 15, 2013, the New York appeals court granted defendants motion to stay the New York Actions on an interim basis, and adjourned for 60 days the motion for a stay pending appeal. The appeal and stay motion remain pending. Based in Atlanta, Georgia, IntercontinentalExchange, Inc., is an operator of regulated global markets and clearing houses, including futures exchanges, over-the counter markets, derivatives clearing houses and post-trade services. The Company operates these global marketplaces for trading and clearing of a broad array of energy, environmental and agricultural commodities, credit default swaps, equity index and currency contracts. INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff's appeal against the dismissal of a securities suit against Intuitive Surgical, Inc. remains pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, according to the company's July 23, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. On August 6, 2010, a purported class action lawsuit entitled Perlmutter v. Intuitive Surgical et al., No. CV10-3451, was filed against seven of the Company's current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between February 1, 2008 and January 7, 2009. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making allegedly false and misleading statements and omitting certain material facts in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. On February 15, 2011, the Police Retirement System of St. Louis was appointed Lead plaintiff in the case pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. An amended complaint was filed on April 15, 2011, making allegations substantially similar to the allegations. On May 23, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On August 10, 2011, that motion was granted and the action was dismissed; the plaintiffs were given 30 days to file an amended complaint. On September 12, 2011, plaintiffs filed their amended complaint. The allegations contained therein are substantially similar to the allegations in the prior complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. A hearing occurred on February 16, 2012, and on May 22, 2012 the Company's motion was granted. The complaint was dismissed with prejudice, and a final judgment was entered in the Company's favor on June 1, 2012. On June 20, 2012, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The appeal is styled Police Retirement System of St. Louis v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. et al., No. 12-16430. Plaintiffs filed their opening brief on September 28, 2012. The Company filed an answering brief on November 13, 2012, and plaintiffs filed a reply brief on December 17, 2012. No oral argument date has been set, and the appeal remains pending. INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Nov. 22 Hearing to Appoint Lead Plaintiff ------------------------------------------------------------- A motion seeking appointment as lead plaintiff in the purported class action lawsuit entitled Abrams v. Intuitive Surgical et al. is scheduled to be heard November 22, 2013, according to the company's July 23, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. On April 26, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit entitled Abrams v. Intuitive Surgical et al., No. 5-13-cv-1920, was filed against nine of the Company's current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. A word-for-word identical complaint, entitled Adel v. Intuitive Surgical, et al., No. 3:13-cv-2365, was filed in the same court against the same defendants on May 24, 2013. The lawsuits seek unspecified damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between October 19, 2011 and April 18, 2013. The complaints allege that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making allegedly false and misleading statements and omitting certain material facts in the company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. By agreement, the two cases will be assigned to the same judge and will proceed together. Motions seeking appointment as lead plaintiff in the Abrams were filed by two parties on June 25, 2013. One of those motions was subsequently withdrawn. A hearing on the remaining motion is scheduled to be heard November 22, 2013. By agreement with the Plaintiff in the Abrams action, no response to the complaint is required until 30 days after a lead plaintiff is selected by the Court and that lead plaintiff files a consolidated complaint (or informs the Company that it has chosen to proceed with the complaint already on file). The Adel complaint has not been served and no response is currently required. KANEBO COSMETICS: Confirms Defects on Recalled Product ------------------------------------------------------ Mayumi Negishi, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that under the glare of the sun, 27-year-old Ria Ko holds a parasol, wears long gloves and applies a new layer of SPF 50 sunscreen every couple of hours. Her pale complexion is hard won -- acquired through a decade of effort to stay clear of the sun -- and each freckle that appears causes her a moment of distress. From Tokyo to Mumbai to Shanghai, the skin-whitening industry is booming and projected to grow into a $20 billion business globally by 2018, according to Global Industry Analysts. In Asia, a fair complexion is synonymous with beauty, higher social position and wealth. Companies are scrambling to develop the next hot product in a culture that for centuries has identified light skin as a status symbol -- because it proved that a woman was exempt from field work. But the industry has been shaken after Japan's second-biggest cosmetics company, Kanebo Cosmetics Inc. said last week that it has confirmed the appearance of white stains -- some bigger than 2 inches in diameter -- on the faces, necks, and hands of thousands of women who had used its skin-lightening products. The reports emerged after the company earlier this month recalled millions of products containing its Rhododenol brightening ingredient. Kanebo, a unit of Kao Corp., 4452.TO -2.24% said it has received reports of skin conditions from 6,800 women, of whom 2,250 reported either splotches on multiple parts of the body, clearly visible splotches on the face, or large splotches. More than a hundred reports of similar cases have come in from Taiwan, Kanebo said. Some of the unevenness faded after the women stopped using the Kanebo products, according to doctors and company spokesman Shinji Yamada. Doctors also said use of steroid-containing creams has helped some women. The blow to Kanebo's brand is likely to lower its sales in the fiscal second half by about 10%, some analysts said. Others, including Daiwa Securities analyst Katsuro Hirozumi, said that the impact could be bigger, if damage to the Kanebo brand is such that consumers stop using all Kanebo cosmetics. "This will leave an impact on consumers' perceptions of safety in skin-lightener products," said Euromonitor International analyst Mariko Takemura. The brand that triggered the recall, Kanebo Blanchir, is a popular skin whitener, and all cosmetics makers will need to address those concerns, she said. Possible causes raised by dermatologists include allergic reactions following prolonged use of the products and sun exposure, but Kanebo's Mr. Yamada said that it could be months before the company understands why Rhododenol -- which it developed over eight years followed by a three-year trial on 1,000 women -- could cause skin disorders. The company, which has promised to cover all related medical bills in women who show symptoms and is preparing to pay compensation, has enlisted Japan's dermatologist association for help. In Japan, Asia's biggest market for skin whiteners, the fascination with pale skin dates back to at least the sixth century. Bihaku -- or "beautiful white" in Japanese -- came back into vogue in the 1990s amid a flurry of development of anti-aging and whitening substances by cosmetics firms. Some 20 substances deemed effective in skin brightening have been approved by the Japanese government since 1988. In some cases, it is hard to avoid substances added to skin-care products to lighten skin tones. More than 41% of facial moisturizers sold in Japan last year contained skin lighteners, on a retail value basis, according to Euromonitor. Skin lighteners made up roughly 20% of all skin-care products sold, says market- research firm Fuji Keizai. On July 4, Kanebo recalled 4.36 million items containing its patented Rhododenol, or 4HPB, a synthetic version of a compound found in the bark of white birch trees. The recall covered all 54 of the company's products containing the substance and extended to Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Myanmar, Vietnam, the Philippines and the U.K. The Japanese government, which had approved the substance in 2008, is warning consumers to stay away from products with Rhododenol. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued an advisory on the Kanebo brands that contain the substance. While Japan spends the most money on whiter skin, making it the world's biggest market for skin lighteners on a revenue basis, China and India are catching up fast, and will drive the global market to grow by 13% a year, according to Global Industry Analysts. Already, China and India have outstripped Japan in the use of skin-lightener materials in terms of volume. China used 422.7 tons of skin-lightener materials in skin-care products in 2012, almost five times as much as it used five years ago, while India's consumption grew more than four times in the same period to 233.6 tons, according to Euromonitor. That compares with 199.9 tons of skin lighteners used in Japan, the market-research firm said. Kanebo, which was betting on Rhododenol to drive growth in a saturated Japanese market, has kept a tight hold on the substance, and it said it hasn't licensed its use outside the Kanebo group. Shotaro Nagai, a spokesman at Shiseido Co., Japan's biggest cosmetics firm, said Shiseido's sales of skin lighteners have risen slightly since Kanebo announced its recall. He didn't know if the two events were related, he said. The Indian market for skin-whitening products is likely to grow by more than 8% in two years to about $428 million in 2013, or about half of an estimated $855 million market for facial-care products, according to Mintel, a market-research firm. "Fairness" is synonymous with beauty in much of India. In the matrimonial sections of the Sunday papers, prospective spouses regularly advertise their "fairness." The large number of consumer complaints about skin stains in the past few weeks suggests that the skin problems have been festering for some time before they came to light. The scandal also casts doubt on the thoroughness of product-safety tests for mass-market skin-care products -- especially of those that promise dramatic results, such as lighter skin color. But the obsession with white skin continues, and some industry watchers are skeptical that consumers will stop buying whitening products. "Whiter skin just looks better on Japanese women, as it brings out the fineness in skin texture," said Tokyo resident Yasumi Kawami, 33, who uses lightening products from Guerlain, a brand owned by LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton SA. "People are not going to stop using bihaku products." KMART CORP: To Settle Seating Class Action for $280,000 ------------------------------------------------------- Cameron Scott, writing for The Recorder, reports that after two rounds of class certification motions and a bench trial, Kmart Corp. is prepared to pay $280,000 to settle a suit alleging the company violated state law by failing to provide seating for retail cashiers in several California stores. But first the company's lawyers must satisfy U.S. District Judge William Alsup, who has expressed doubt the deal would provide much benefit to 233 class members after lawyers recoup their costs. Plaintiffs lawyers agreed not to seek fees for their work on Garvey v. Kmart, 11-2575. However, they are claiming roughly $185,000 to cover expenses, while the total amount allotted for class members is just $17,475, or $75 per claimant. A state labor enforcement agency would also collect a portion of the settlement and two class representatives would be paid $5,000 apiece. That breakdown led Judge Alsup to balk at the proposal, which was submitted to the court last week by Kmart's lawyers at Paul Hastings and a coalition of plaintiffs attorneys who have been involved in many similar seating cases. "The parties' proposed settlement appears to be little more than a reimbursement of class counsel's expenses in exchange for a class- wide release," Judge Alsup wrote in an order. "Under the proposal, the class members would receive only token sums (except for the class representatives, who would hit bonanzas)." Judge Alsup, who was set to review the proposed deal at a hearing on July 30, said it was unlikely the settlement agreement would receive his blessing. That led lead plaintiffs lawyer Matthew Righetti of Righetti Glugoski to fire off a response on July 29 disputing any suggestion his team is "being made 'whole'" as a result of the settlement. Plaintiffs true costs of litigation total roughly $300,000, Mr. Righetti said. "The proposed settlement requires class counsel to forgo all the time they have worked on this case over the last several years," he wrote. "Moreover, class counsel are walking away from much of their hard out of pocket costs in order to make this settlement work." Filed in 2011 amid a wave of similar seating claims against major retailers, the suit accused Kmart of violating a provision of California labor law that requires employers to provide workers with "suitable seats when the nature of the work reasonably permits the use of seats." Kmart, which maintained the work of its cashiers required standing, won a limited victory from Judge Alsup after a 2012 bench trial. The settlement applies to certified classes at two California Kmart locations -- Tulare in the Central Valley, where name plaintiff Lisa Garvey worked, and Redlands in Southern California. Plaintiffs attorneys had tried twice, without success, to certify a larger class. With a small class of plaintiffs and a modest payout, the case's implications for other seating suits are difficult to parse. But the settlement deal seems to leave the door open for future litigation that would push California retailers to devise workable seating arrangements for retail workers who are now generally required to stand all day. "The plaintiffs didn't get a lot this time, but they might next time," said UCLA law professor Katherine Stone, an expert in labor and employment issues. "Alsup is leaving the door open to where suitable seating will be required," Ms. Stone said. "It seems to me that there's definite movement here from the point of view of being more open to suitable seating claims." In his initial written questions about the proposed settlement, for instance, Judge Alsup asked the attorneys whether the agreement would bar plaintiffs from suing Kmart in the future if the company does not make seating available to cashiers. It would not, the attorneys said. In an interview, Mr. Righetti said he was reluctant to see Judge Alsup's questions as an invitation for future cases. "You read tea leaves from this judge at your own peril. I've learned that," he said. Kevin McInerney, a solo based in Reno, Nev., and James Clapp -- jclapp@sdlaw.com -- and Zachariah Dostart -- zdostart@sdlaw.com -- of Dostart Clapp & Coveney San Diego, also represented plaintiffs. Kmart was represented by partners Jeffrey Wohl -- jeffwohl@paulhastings.com -- and Zachary Hutton -- zachhutton@paulhastings.com -- and associates Elizabeth Macgregor -- elizabethmacgregor@paulhastings.com -- and Brittany Sachs -- brittanysachs@paulhastings.com -- of Paul Hastings in San Francisco. The firm did not respond to a request for comment. "The settlement represents a reasonable compromise in light of the facts and claims asserted," Mr. Wohl wrote in a brief supporting the settlement. Following a bench trial in 2012, Judge Alsup said he would not force Kmart to pay damages or add seating for cashiers in Tulare, but he also threw a bone to the plaintiffs. In his ruling, Judge Alsup suggested that Kmart could likely provide some form of seating, such as a stool, that would allow cashiers to take weight off their feet. He further suggested that the retailer could be required to provide such seating even if it meant redesigning its checkout lines. A second trial on behalf of the Redlands cashiers had been scheduled for September. Ms. Garvey was the first "suitable seating" class action to go to trial after the provision, buried in California's industry- specific labor laws, began to spur litigation in 2010. Similar class actions related to seating are pending against Wal- Mart, Target Corp., Bank of America, CVS Pharmacy and Rite Aid. The suits are filed under California's Private Attorney General Act of 2004, or PAGA, which allows private citizens to sue for labor code violations. The same team of attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the Kmart case has brought many of the other cases as well. So far, the courts have sent mixed signals. A group of 22,000 Wal- Mart employees was certified as a class. But a court declined to certify 1,000 Bank of America tellers, finding that they had to demonstrate they had individually asked for seating and been denied. That ruling was later overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. "Lower courts are all using different standards," said Mr. Righetti. "They're going every which way." At least three seating cases are now pending before the Ninth Circuit, and an additional case is pending before the Fourth District Court of Appeal. Corporate attorneys have characterized the suits as base opportunism on the part of employment lawyers. But there are real employment issues at stake, according to UCLA's Stone. "Seating has been an issue, even if it's only recently risen to the level of litigation in California, so I don't think this is a totally made up claim from the point of view of the lawyers," she said. Mr. Righetti put it this way in his latest filing: "The wage order is not a polite suggestion to employers who sit on cushioned chairs all day -- it is the law." LIPARI FOODS: Recalls Wholey Peeled Cooked Tail 31/40 Count Shrimp ------------------------------------------------------------------ Lipari Foods of Warren, MI is recalling Wholey peeled, cooked, tail-on 31/40 count shrimp, because it has the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis. The recalled cooked shrimp was distributed to manufacturers and retailers in the following states: Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Indiana over the course of two days: July 25, 2013 and July 26, 2013. Of the 1336 recalled cases that Lipari Foods received, only 32 cases are left in commerce that have yet to be recovered. Pictures of the Products are available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm362989.htm No illnesses have been reported to date. The recalled product was received by Lipari Foods from a supplier in Indonesia and cleared for distribution by FDA inspectors on July, 24 2013. On July 26, 2013, Lipari Foods was informed that the FDA mistakenly released the product, which had sampled positive for Salmonella contamination. Lipari Foods immediately ceased the distribution of this product, initiated recall procedures, and contacted all customers who have received the contaminated product. Consumers with questions may contact the company at (586) 447-3500 Monday to Friday from 8AM to 5PM. Product Information: Item Number: 399103 Item Description: Cooked Shrimp Peeled Tail-On 31/40 Finished Count Brand: Wholey Package Size: 1 Pound bag UPC Number: 094776074556 Lot Numbers: 30081, 10081, 70081, 30084, and 00884 MIDWEST-CBK: Recalls Bistro Chairs Due to Fall Hazard ----------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Midwest-CBK LLC, of Cannon Falls, Minn., announced a voluntary recall of about 550 Bistro chairs. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The chair's metal frame can bend or break, posing a fall hazard to consumers. The firm has received two reports of the chairs breaking. No injuries have been reported. The recall involves distressed gray wash bistro chairs with metal frames, metal scrolling with wooden slats on the seatbacks, and round wooden slat seats. The chairs measure about 36 inches tall by 21 inches wide by 17 inches deep. Item number 304136 and UPC number 7384490413 are printed on a hangtag attached to the chair. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/H0GbWS The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Gift stores nationwide from August 2011 through June 2013 for about $110. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bistro chairs and contact Midwest-CBK for instructions on returning the chairs for a full refund. MILLER ENERGY: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In August 2011, several purported class action lawsuits were filed against Miller Energy Resources, Inc., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The lawsuits made similar claims and have been consolidated into one case, styled In re Miller Energy Resources, Inc. Securities Litigation. The lawsuit names the Company, along with several of its current and former executive officers, Scott Boruff, Paul Boyd, Ford Graham, David Hall, and Deloy Miller, as defendants. The Plaintiffs allege two causes of action against the defendants: (1) violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, (2) violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The case seeks money damages against the Company and the other defendants, and payment of the Plaintiffs' attorney's fees. The Company has filed a Motion to Dismiss the case, which is pending before the court. Given the current stage of the proceedings in this case, the Company currently cannot assess the probability of losses, or reasonably estimate the range of losses, related to this matter. No further updates were reported in the Company's July 15, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended April 30, 2013. Based in Knoxville, Tennessee, Miller Energy Resources, Inc. -- http://www.millerenergyresources.com/-- is an independent exploration and production company that utilizes seismic data and other technologies for the geophysical exploration, development and production of oil and natural gas wells in the Cook Inlet Basin of southcentral Alaska and the Appalachian region of eastern Tennessee. NASH-FINCH CO: Being Sold to Spartan for Too Little, Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Nash-Finch Co. (Family Fresh, Econofoods) is selling itself too cheaply to Spartan Stores in a 1-for-1.2-shares stock swap valued at $1.3 billion, shareholders claim in Hennepin County Court. Spartan Stores, Inc., a leading regional grocery distributor and retailer, and Nash-Finch Company, one of the leading food distribution companies in the United States, announced on July 22, 2013, that they have entered into a definitive merger agreement under which Spartan Stores and Nash Finch will combine in an all- stock merger valued at approximately $1.3 billion, including existing net debt at each company. Several law firms have subsequently announced of their investigation with respect to the proposed merger. Among other things, investigations focus on whether the board of directors at Nash-Finch is undertaking a fair process to obtain maximum value and adequately compensate its shareholders in the merger. The Firms include: Willie Briscoe, Esq. THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC 8150 North Central Expressway, Suite 1575 Dallas, TX 75206 Telephone: (214) 239-4568 E-mail: WBriscoe@TheBriscoeLawFirm.com - and - Jason L. Brodsky, Esq. Evan J. Smith, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (877) LEGAL-90 E-mail: jbrodsky@brodsky-smith.com esmith@brodsky-smith.com investorrelations@brodsky-smith.com - and - Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 369 Lexington Avenue 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Email: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com - and - Alfred G. Yates Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES JR. PC 519 Allegheny Building 429 Forbes Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1604 Telephone: (412) 391-5164 Toll Free: (800) 391-5164 Facsimile: (412) 471-1033 E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com - and - Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq. LIFSHITZ LAW FIRM 18 East 41st Street New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 213-6222 E-mail: jml@jlclasslaw.com info@jlclasslaw.com - and - Robert Willoughby, Esq. POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com - and - Zach Groover, Esq. POWERS TAYLOR, LLP Campbell Centre II 8150 North Central Expy., Suite 1575 Dallas, TX 75206 Telephone: (877) 728-9607 E-mail: zach@powerstaylor.com - and - Darnell R. Donahue, Esq. ROBBINS ARROYO LLP 600 B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 525-3990 (800) 350-6003 Facsimile: (619) 525-3991 E-mail: ddonahue@robbinsarroyo.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP 995 Old Eagle School Rd., Suite 311 Wayne, PA 19087 Telephone: (877) 316-3218 E-mail: rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com - and - Henry Young Esq. THE YOUNG LAW FIRM 347 Bridge Street, Suite 201 Phoenixville, PA 19460 Toll Free: (888) 452-7252 E-mail: contact@theyounglf.com PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: Aug. 19 Hearing in Securities Suit Set ----------------------------------------------------------------- A hearing on Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated securities lawsuit is scheduled for August 19, 2013, according to the Company's July 11, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended April 30, 2013. On September 28, 2012, three complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Company and certain of its executive officers and one consultant (collectively, the "Individual Defendants") on behalf of certain purchasers of the Company's common stock. The complaints have been brought as purported stockholder class actions, and, in general, include allegations that the Company and the Individual Defendants violated (i) Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and (ii) Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by making materially false and misleading statements regarding the interim median overall survival results of the Company's bavituximab Phase II second-line NSCLC trial, thereby artificially inflating the price of its common stock. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On November 27, 2012, four prospective lead plaintiffs filed motions to consolidate, appoint a lead plaintiff and appoint lead counsel. On February 5, 2013, the court appointed James T. Fahey as lead plaintiff in the action. The lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint on April 15, 2013. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint on June 14, 2013. The lead plaintiff had until July 15, 2013, to file an answer to the Company's motion to dismiss. A hearing before the court on the Company's motion to dismiss is scheduled for August 19, 2013. The Company believes that the class action lawsuit is without merit, and intends to vigorously defend the action and is seeking dismissal of the complaint. Due to the early stage of the proceeding, the Company believes that the probability of an unfavorable outcome or loss related to the proceeding and an estimate of the amount or range of loss related to the claims, if any, from an unfavorable outcome is not determinable at this time. Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc., -- http://www.peregrineinc.com/ -- is a biopharmaceutical company developing first-in-class monoclonal antibodies focused on the treatment and diagnosis of cancer. The Company is a Delaware corporation based in Tustin, California. R2J2 STUDIOS: Faces Class Action Over Yaz-Related Robocalls ----------------------------------------------------------- Bethany Krajelis, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record, reports that a woman has filed a class action lawsuit over robocalls she contends were made in an effort to solicit women harmed by an oral contraceptive at the center of pending multidistrict litigation. Michele Kaffko filed her suit on July 26 in Chicago's federal court against R2J2 Studios LLC, a Pennsylvania internet marketing company she claims violated federal law by making unauthorized calls to her and other similarly situated individuals throughout the nation. She brought her complaint under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which she asserts "protects the privacy right of consumers to be free from receiving unsolicited telephone calls using a prerecorded or artificial voice." The TCPA provides for $500 in damages for each violation of the law, as well as treble the amount of statutory damages if the violation was willfully and knowingly made. Ms. Kaffko's suit seeks an order certifying a class, an award of actual and statutory damages, an injunction requiring the defendant to stop making these types of calls and attorneys' fees and costs. She asserts that she received a call on her cell phone on April 15 from a phone number that was registered to R2J2 and when she answered, heard the following message announced by an artificial or prerecorded voice: "We are calling on behalf of a women's patient advocacy group and are trying to reach women who were harmed by Yaz, Yasmine [sic] and other birth control/hormone therapies. If you or someone you know or love has taken Yaz, Yasmine or any other type of birth control or hormone therapies, press 1 right now to talk to a representative . . . or press 9 to no longer receive these calls." Although the suit makes no mention of it, multidistrict litigation (MDL) was created over the Yasmin line of birth control pills in 2009. It remains pending before Chief Judge David Herndon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs involved in the MDL claim that Bayer Corp.'s birth control pills caused heart attacks, strokes, embolisms and clots. According to a July 10 report on pending MDL's on the U.S. Panel on MultiDistrict Litigation (JPML) website, more than 11,170 suits have been included in this MDL since it was first created and less than 10,000 remain pending. Ms. Kaffko asserts in her suit that "in recent years, marketers who often have felt stymied by federal laws limiting solicitation by facsimile machine and e-mail have increasingly looked to alternative technologies through which to send bulk solicitations cheaply." "One of the newest types of such bulk marketing," the suit states, "is to advertise through robocalls that feature an artificial or prerecorded voice advertisement," like the one Ms. Kaffko contends she received from a number registered to R2J2. She claims that over the course of an extended period starting this year, R2J2 and its agents directed the transmission of robocalls to the phones of those "they hoped were users of oral contraceptive medications and hormone therapies, including the oral contraceptive drug Yaz, and potential victims of certain supposed unintended side effects." In her suit, Ms. Kaffko contends that robocalls invade privacy more than conventional forms of advertisement because they are made to cell phones and can actually cost the recipients money when they pick up the calls, regardless of whether they are authorized or not. By making these robocalls, Ms. Kaffko's suit claims that R2J2 "has caused such call recipients actual harm, not only because the called parties were subjected to the aggravation that necessarily accompanies unsolicited calls -- particularly calls using a prerecorded or non-human artificial voice -- but also because the called parties, like Plaintiff, frequently have to pay their phone providers for the receipt of such calls, notwithstanding that they are made in violation of specific legislation on the subject." The suit seeks certification of a class that would include all persons in the U.S. who received one or more calls from R2J2 that used a prerecorded or artificial voice and did not consent to receive such calls. Ms. Kaffko asserts in her suit that she "will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the other members of the class" and "has retained counsel with substantial experience in prosecuting complex litigation and class actions." Her suit states that she and her attorney, Evan M. Meyers of McGuire Law P.C. in Chicago, "are committed to vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of the other members of the Class, and have the financial resources to do so." ROBERT HALF: Arbitration Ordered in "Uberti" Suit ------------------------------------------------- Robert Half International Inc.'s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2013, provided updates on a lawsuit filed by Vincent Uberti, on his own behalf and on behalf of a putative class of allegedly similarly situated individuals. The Company's July 23, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission disclosed that on July 18, 2013, the United States District Court ordered that: (i) Uberti's claims against the Company must be arbitrated; (ii) the class action waiver in the Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate Claims between the Company and Uberti was enforceable and not unconscionable; and (iii) that the case would be stayed as to Uberti's claims against the Company. The Company has determined that the litigation is not currently a material pending legal proceeding. Accordingly, the Company does not presently intend to make disclosures regarding this case in its Securities and Exchange Commission filings subsequent to its quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2013. SEMILEDS CORP: Faces IPO-Related Securities Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------------ SemiLEDs Corporation is facing a securities class action lawsuit in New York relating to its initial public offering, according to the Company's July 12, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 31, 2013. On July 10, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors, styled as Huard v. SemiLEDs Corporation, et al, alleging violations of the U.S. federal securities laws in connection with the Company's initial public offering. SemiLEDs Corporation develops, manufactures and sells LED chips and LED components that are among the industry-leading LED products on a lumens per watt basis. The Company's products are used primarily for general lighting applications, including street lights and commercial, industrial and residential lighting. The Company's LED chips may also be used in specialty industrial applications, such as ultraviolet, curing of polymers, LED light therapy in medical/cosmetic applications, counterfeit detection, and LED lighting for horticulture applications. The Company is based in Miao-Li County, Taiwan. SOUTH COAST BREWING: Accused of Not Paying Overtime --------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that South Coast Brewing Co. dba Steelhead Brewing Co. aka Steelhead Brewery and Cafe stiffs workers for overtime and violates other labor laws, a class action claims in Orange County Court. The case is Daniel Reuland vs. South Coast Brewing Co., Case No. 30-2013-00664320-CU-OE-CXC, in the Superior Court of California for Orange County. SRO ENTERTAINMENT: Lawyer Won't Proceed With Salmon Festival Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- CBC News reports that St. John's lawyer Ches Crosbie says he will not proceed with legal action against the organizers of the Salmon Festival in Grand Falls-Windsor. "We investigated circumstances around the festival and decided not to pursue a lawsuit," Mr. Crosbie said in a news release. "We've contacted people who expressed interest in an action to us and explained what their options are." Almost 280 people had been interested in pushing the case. Concertgoers had complained that the event was overcrowded and there was a shortage of water during the scorching weather. "I'm happy to learn that the Mayor of Grand Falls-Windsor has publicly apologized for this year's festival, and the next appropriate step would be for the promoter to make an apology for the festival's poor conditions and disorganization," Mr. Crosbie said. Grand Falls-Windsor Mayor Al Hawkins wrote a letter to the St. John's Telegram over the weekend. "We apologize for the disruptions to your enjoyment of the concert, and we look forward to seeing you (as well as some new faces) next year," Mr. Hawkins wrote. ST. VINCENT: Dismissal of "Harris" and "Holbert" Suits Upheld ------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Patricia O. Cotter of the Supreme Court of Montana issued an opinion affirming District Court decisions in the consolidated appeal filed by Dorothy J. Harris and Tedeen Holbert from orders in two separate cases from Montana's Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, dismissing Harris and Holbert's breach of contract and constructive fraud claims against Billings Clinic, and Harris' similar claims against St. Vincent Healthcare. The cases are DOROTHY J. HARRIS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ST. VINCENT HEALTHCARE, Defendant and Appellee, No. DA 12-0602 and DOROTHY J. HARRIS and TEDEEN HOLBERT, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. BILLINGS CLINIC, Defendant and Appellee, No. DA 12-0661. A copy of the Supreme Court's July 25, 2013 Opinion is available at http://is.gd/WKXSWffrom Leagle.com. Alexander (Zander) Blewett, III -- zblewett@hoytandblewett.com -- Andrew (Drew) Blewett -- dblewett@hoytandblewett.com -- at Hoyt & Blewett, Great Falls, Montana; Jim Edmiston, Shane Colton, Joe Cook, at Edmiston & Colton, Billings, Montana, for Appellant. Brendon J. Rohan -- bjr@montana.com -- at Poore, Roth & Robinson, P.C., Butte, Montana, for Appellee St. Vincent Healthcare. Ian McIntosh -- imcintosh@crowleyfleck.com -- Kenneth K. Lay -- klay@crowleyfleck.com -- at Crowley Fleck, PLLP, Bozeman, Montana, for Appellee Billings Clinic. TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Calif. Court Stays Chrome 6 Emission Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- The Riverside County Superior Court of the State of California stayed four subset lawsuits of "Virginia Shellman, et al. v. Riverside Cement Holdings Company, et al." until the Shellman lawsuit over chrome 6 emissions is finally determined, according to the Texas Industries, Inc.'s July 23, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2013. In late April 2008, a lawsuit was filed in Riverside County Superior Court of the State of California styled Virginia Shellman, et al. v. Riverside Cement Holdings Company, et al. The lawsuit against three of the company's subsidiaries purports to be a class action complaint for medical monitoring for a putative class defined as individuals who were allegedly exposed to chrome 6 emissions from the company's Crestmore cement plant. The complaint alleges an increased risk of future illness due to the exposure to chrome 6 and other toxic chemicals. The suit requests, among other things, establishment and funding of a medical testing and monitoring program for the class until their exposure to chrome 6 is no longer a threat to their health, as well as punitive and exemplary damages. Since the Shellman lawsuit was filed, five additional putative class action lawsuits have been filed in the same court. The putative class in each of these cases is the same as or a subset of the putative class in the Shellman case, and the allegations and requests for relief are similar to those in the Shellman case. As a consequence, the court has stayed four of these lawsuits until the Shellman lawsuit is finally determined. TOYOTA MOTOR: Trial in Uno Sudden-Acceleration Suit Begins ---------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that Noriko Uno was driving to the bank when she hit another car at an intersection. The impact, according to a lawsuit against Toyota Motor Corp., caused her 2006 Camry to spin nearly 180 degrees, causing her foot to become wedged between the brake and accelerator pedals. For the next 35 seconds, Mrs. Uno, 66, found herself traveling the wrong way down a one-way street, her accelerator pedal stuck in the depressed position. She hit the brakes, but her car accelerated out of control. To avoid oncoming traffic, she swerved off the road toward a wooded median, smashing into two telephone poles and then a large tree. She died instantly. The trial, in which opening statements were set to begin on July 31, represents the first bellwether among hundreds of lawsuits against Toyota over sudden acceleration problems in its vehicles. Most of the massive litigation against Toyota involved alleged defects with the electronic throttle control system, which led to the recall of nearly 10 million vehicles; plaintiffs' attorneys originally asserting that such electronic defects, not the recalls over floor mats and accelerator pedals, were the real problem causing sudden acceleration. By contrast, Mrs. Uno's survivors claim that Toyota failed to install a brake override system that would have automatically shut off the engine and saved her life. Toyota maintains that such a system would not have stopped Mrs. Uno's car. "The heart of the mass tort was always the electronic throttle control. The fact that the first trial is going and not bringing that theory is interesting," said Byron Stier, a professor at Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles who specializes in mass tort litigation. "Look how far that is from the original panic of this." Todd Walburg -- twalburg@lchb.com -- who serves on the plaintiffs' steering committee in the California state court coordinated proceeding against Toyota, brushed off the distinction. "The Uno case is focused on Toyota's lack of a brake override system, which we contend is a safety defect," Mr. Walburg of San Francisco's Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein wrote in an email to The National Law Journal. "Some of the other upcoming cases will also include discussion of alleged software defects in Toyota's electronic throttle control system." Sending a message The Uno case actually is not the first against Toyota to go to trial over sudden acceleration. In 2011, a federal jury in New York found Toyota not liable for an accident attributed to sudden acceleration. And last year, three days before trial, a state court judge in Ohio issued a directed verdict for Toyota in a warranty case. But plaintiffs' attorneys leading the coordinated actions -- of which neither of those two cases was a part -- consider both to be outliers. The Uno case, in contrast, is a bellwether, defined as a case selected, usually by mutual agreement of both parties, to go to trial ahead of similar cases because the facts best represent the mass tort litigation as a whole. That means a verdict in the case could serve as a barometer for hundreds of personal injury or wrongful death cases across the nation. "The Uno trial will be the first opportunity to observe a jury's reaction to some of Toyota's internal documents and witness testimony," Mr. Walburg wrote. "These observations will be instructive and helpful for future bellwether cases." The Uno trial -- to be argued by Garo Mardirossian of Mardirossian & Associates in Los Angeles, who is not a member of the committee -- will take place over two months near downtown Los Angeles, where Judge Lee Smalley Edmon, past presiding judge of the Los Angeles County, Calif., Superior Court, is overseeing the consolidated litigation. The California state court cases are separate from a raft of federal claims that have been coordinated in multidistrict litigation before U.S. District Judge James Selna in Santa Ana, Calif. In that litigation, which involves personal injury and wrongful death actions across the country, the first trial is scheduled for November 5. Other trials are scheduled this year in state courts in Oklahoma and Michigan. In the Uno case, Judge Edmon ordered a mandatory settlement conference on July 11. According to lawyers in the case, both sides were far apart, with Mr. Mardirossian -- seeking damages for negligence and strict liability, plus punitive damages -- asking for $30 million. Mr. Mardirossian did not return a call for comment. Mr. Stier, who represented the tobacco industry and other companies against mass torts claims while in private practice, said the settlement amount in a single case is not the issue for Toyota. "It's not really about the one case. It's about everybody else," he said. "They want to send a message to all the personal injury cases banging around in the system, and others that could be filed: Do not take us lightly, we're not just going to roll over and settle for huge amounts." Toyota could feel the need to dispel the public perception that there's anything wrong with its vehicles, he said. And after paying $1.6 billion to settle related consumer claims, in a deal that Judge Selna approved on July 19, Toyota is in a position to resolve what remains of the sudden-acceleration lawsuits. 'Simple, easy, and inexpensive' In alleging a failure to install a brake-override system in her Camry, Uno's husband, Yasuharu "Peter" Uno, and son, Jeffrey Uno, note that Toyota had done so in eight other models of its cars since 2001. The installation of such a system would have been "simple, easy, and inexpensive," Mr. Mardirossian wrote in court records. An override system, he contended, is designed to cut engine power in the event that the accelerator and brake pedals are depressed at the same time. In Mrs. Uno's case, that's exactly what happened, he wrote, after her car hit a 2003 Lexus driven by Olga Bello at about 4:00 p.m. on August 28, 2009, in Upland, Calif. The suit alleges that Ms. Bello, 86, drove through a stop sign, hitting the driver's side of Ms. Uno's car. "Defendant Olga Bellow started this tragedy by failing to follow the law, failing to stop at the stop sign . . . and failing to yield the right of way to Noriko Uno," Mr. Mardirossian wrote. "Defendant Toyota compounded it by choosing not to install brake override in Mrs. Uno's 2006 Toyota Camry." Toyota spokeswoman Celeste Migliore issued a formal statement about the Uno case: "Our sympathies go out to the family and friends of Noriko Uno. Toyota is committed to providing its customers with safe and reliable vehicles, including the 2006 Camry driven by Mrs. Uno, which was equipped with a state-of-the- art braking system and has earned top safety and quality honors. We are confident the evidence will show that a brake override system would not have prevented this accident and that there was no defect in Mrs. Uno's vehicle." Toyota attorney Vincent Galvin, managing partner of the San Jose, Calif., office of Bowman and Brooke wrote in court records that a brake override wouldn't have prevented the accident. Mrs. Uno, he argued, also bears some blame. For one thing, there is scant evidence that she hit the brakes. Her car stopped after colliding with Ms. Bello; then she drove off, eventually against traffic for half a mile. Moreover, Toyota's experts plan to testify that Mrs. Uno's foot could not have become stuck as her family describes and that low blood sugar levels brought on by her diabetes "caused her cognitive impairment and confusion" in the moments following the crash with Ms. Bello, Mr. Galvin wrote. Moreover, Uno's vehicle was never subject to the recalls. Also in the case is Ms. Bello, who was sued for negligence. In court records, she claims she was returning home after getting ice cream with her daughter, 44, who has Down's syndrome, when she slowed at a stop sign. She insists that the collision was minor, and that she was only going 10 miles per hour at the time. She also claims that Mrs. Uno's car, after spinning around, stopped, and then started again, eventually heading in the wrong direction. "Our client did not even see her after the collision occurred because Uno left the scene, and of course half a mile away was the accident that resulted in her death," John Duffy, Ms. Bello's attorney, told The National Law Journal. "Our accident was just essentially a fender-bender type thing." Like Toyota, Duffy, of Gray Duffy in Encino, Calif., said that Uno's diabetes impaired her driving that day -- and that there is no way her foot could become stuck on the accelerator pedal as the lawsuit alleges. "It couldn't have happened that way," he said. "They did tests on it, we did tests on it. The foot couldn't get entrapped that way." In the days leading to trial, more than two dozen motions were filed, mostly to withhold information from jurors. Jury selection began on July 21. So far, Toyota has settled bellwether cases. One case, which settled for an undisclosed sum about a month before trial in February, stemmed from an accident involving four passengers in a 2008 Camry in Utah, two of whom died, including the driver. That case was slated to be the first bellwether trial in the federal MDL. In 2010, Toyota also paid $10 million to the family of Mark Saylor, a former California Highway Patrol officer who died, along with three other passengers, after his rented 2009 Lexus sped down a San Diego highway. That accident, which involved a terrifying 911 call, occurred on the same day that Mrs. Uno died. TRACFONE WIRELESS: Faces Class Action Over False Advertising ------------------------------------------------------------ Alan Farnham, writing for ABC News, reports that a class action suit filed in U.S. District Court for Northern California claims that consumers who buy Straight Talk cell phone plans aren't getting straight talk: The plans, advertised as providing "unlimited" data use, in fact have limitations, the suit claims. The complaint against Walmart Stores and TracFone Wireless, which jointly created Straight Talk in 2009, says that the advertising claim is false, and that customers are routinely subject to having their flows of data "throttled" (slowed) or to having their access to data terminated without notice. Throttling takes place, according to the complaint, when subscribers near or exceed "internally established, but undisclosed" data usage limits, or when the strain imposed on wireless networks by peak data usage requires easing. The complaint says customers who objected to being "throttled" were blamed by TracFone service reps for having misused the data service, without being told how they had allegedly misused it. As an example, the suit cites Northern California wireless customer Edward Tooley, who switched to Straight Talk's unlimited plan from a competitor's plan that expressly limited him to 2.5GB of high speed data, above which ceiling his data would be throttled. He used his Straight Talk plan to access email, browse websites, navigate via Google Maps, "occasionally stream music" and "occasionally watch videos," says the complaint. Within only a few days of his having activated his service, says the complaint, he found his data being throttled to extremely low speeds without warning. His service later was terminated without notice. The suit claims there are enough Tooleys among TracFone's more than 23 million subscribers to constitute a class. TracFone, it says, is the fifth largest wireless carrier in the U.S. Walmart it describes as the exclusive retailer of TracFone plans. A TracFone spokesman, contacted by ABC News, said the company does not comment on current litigation. A request for comment from Walmart got no response. Matt Wood, policy director for Free Press, a group advocating affordable Internet access, tells ABC that unlimited data plans used to be common. But providers, Mr. Wood says, "have now monetized data more aggressively" by offering tiered plans in which the customer pays up to a certain cap, or level of data use. If he exceeds that, he pays a penalty. Asked if throttling is wrong, Mr. Wood says, "No. We actually think it's preferable to capping. A cap is a much more blunt tool for trying to manage traffic load. Throttling, if properly disclosed, is the better way." The class action suit contends throttling was not properly disclosed either in Straight Talk advertising or in Straight Talk's terms and conditions of service. Dr. Mark Cooper, director of research for the Consumer Federation of America, says that while heavy data users may object to throttling, there's nothing illegal about it, provided it's properly disclosed in the customer agreement and isn't at odds with what's promised in the plan's advertising. Cell phone service providers, he says, routinely use throttling to manage data flow during times of peak use. "If you're running a skinny little application, you're not going to notice it; but if you're streaming an HD movie at rush hour, you will see deterioration," he says. Borrowing a restaurant analogy, he questions whether an "unlimited" customer should have the right to use a literally unlimited amount data any time he wants: "Suppose you walk into an all-you-can-eat restaurant, carrying a big cooler, and you fill it up, because the restaurant didn't say when you had to eat the food." Cooper calls the ethics of such a situation "murky." UNITED HEALTHCARE: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Larson" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the case entitled CYNTHIA LARSON, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED HEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants-Appellees, No. 12-1256. This proposed class action alleges that six major health-insurance companies are violating Wisconsin law by requiring co-payments for chiropractic care. Because the plaintiffs are insured through employer-based health plans, the complaint seeks relief under two provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act: Section 502(a)(1)(B), for recovery of benefits due, see 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(1)(B); and Section 502(a)(3), for breach of fiduciary duty, see id. Sections 1132(a)(3), 1104. The District Court had dismissed the complaint, holding that insurance companies are not proper defendants on an ERISA claim for benefits and the practice of requiring chiropractic co-pays is not a fiduciary act. The Seventh Circuit affirms saying the complaint fails to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty. Setting policy terms, including copayment requirements, determines the content of the policy, and "decisions about the content of a plan are not themselves fiduciary acts," the ruling added. Although the benefits claim was properly lodged against the insurers, it fails on the merits, says the Seventh Circuit. The plaintiffs argue in the alternative that the insurers impose unequal copayments in violation of the statute. This claim is new on appeal and is therefore waived, the Seventh Circuit says. A copy of the Circuit Court's July 26, 2013 Decision is available at http://is.gd/VnMSqCfrom Leagle.com. VANTAGE FOODS: Recalls Western Family Brand Marinated Steak ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: July 26, 2013 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Allergy Alert Subcategory: Allergen - Sulphites, Allergen - Wheat Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Vantage Foods (BC) Inc. Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia Extent of the product distribution: Retail Affected products: Western Family brand Marinated Steak The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Vantage Foods (BC) Inc. are warning people with allergies to wheat or sensitivities to sulphites not to consume the Western Family brand product. The affected product may contain wheat and sulphites which are not declared on the label. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/N4VGLO The product has been distributed in Alberta and British Columbia. There have been no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of this product. Consumption of this product may cause a serious or life- threatening reaction in persons with allergies to wheat or sensitivities to sulphites. The manufacturer, Vantage Foods (BC) Inc., Chilliwack, BC, is voluntarily recalling the affected product from the marketplace. The CFIA is monitoring the effectiveness of the recall. ZIP INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Herring Fillet in Oil Due to Listeria ---------------------------------------------------------------- Zip International Group LLC, 160 Raritan Center Parkway #6, Edison, NJ 08837, is recalling herring fillet in oil (FOSFOREL, ATLANTIKA) 400 gram in plastic packaging due to Listeria contamination. Listeria monocytogenes is an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women The recalled herring fillet in oil (FOSFOREL, ATLANTIKA) 400 gram in plastic packaging includes best by dates 05/15/2013 and 7/17/2013 (UPC: 4607095500208). The best by date is located on the round side of the packaging and was sold to retail grocery stores in New York State beginning on 03/15/2013 and ending on 5/24/2013. It is a product of Russia. Pictures of the Products are available at: http://is.gd/3pYWt8 The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York State Department of Agriculture & Markets Food Inspectors and subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel found the product to be positive for Listeria monocytogenes. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem. Consumers who have purchased herring fillet in oil (FOSFOREL, ATLANTIKA) should not consume it, but should return it to the place of purchase. Consumers with questions may contact the company @ 732-225-3600, 9:00AM-5:00 PM EST from Monday to Friday. * Iowa Railroads Face Class Action Over Cedar Rapids Flooding ------------------------------------------------------------- CBS 2/FOX 28 reports that a local law firm has filed a class action lawsuit against some Iowa railroads. According to its website, the Sam Sheronick Law Firm in Cedar Rapids says plaintiffs believe the railroads made the 2008 flooding in Cedar Rapids worse. The plaintiffs claim that when defendants filled their railcars with heavy rock and place them on their bridges they engaged in activity which could pose grave harm to others if the bridges collapsed and the railcars prevented water from going down river. The suit seeks to prove, among other things, that actions taken by railroads and others to protect their property came at the expense of other Cedar Rapids Property owners. * Prepackaged Salad Mix Likely Source of Cyclospora Outbreak ------------------------------------------------------------ Grant Schultemary and Clare Jalonick, writing for The Associated Press, report that health officials in Iowa and Nebraska on July 30 identified prepackaged salad mix as the source of a severe stomach bug that sickened hundreds of people in both states, but federal authorities said it's not clear whether cyclospora outbreaks elsewhere in the U.S. are also linked to that produce. Cyclospora is a rare parasite that causes a lengthy gastrointestinal illness, and outbreaks of the illness have been reported in 15 states. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said on July 30 that it's not clear whether all of the illnesses are linked to a single source. The outbreak has sickened at least 145 residents in Iowa and 78 in Nebraska. Nebraska officials said the salad mix in question included iceberg and romaine lettuce, along with red cabbage and carrots, which came through national distribution chains. They did not identify specific brands. A Nebraska health department spokeswoman said the agency was working with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to get a "clear picture" of which were involved and whether they're tied to one common source, such as the same farm or producer. "Our goal is to protect Nebraskans, pinpoint the source of the illness and make sure the risk is eliminated," said Dr. Joseph Acierno, the department's chief medical officer and director of public health. In Iowa, officials said they were confident that most if not all of the product was no longer on the shelves. The affected products were traced to grocery stores and restaurants, said Steven Mandernach, the state's top food-safety inspector. Mr. Mandernach said cases were reported throughout the state, but the largest number was in the eastern Iowa city of Cedar Rapids. Mr. Mandernach said officials have traced 80 percent of the Iowa cases to a common source, which he did not identify because officials believe there's no longer any immediate safety threat. Mr. Mandernach said it's possible that the parasite spread through contaminated floodwater and onto farm fields after arriving in the state. Before the outbreak, he said, Iowa had seen about 20 cases of cyclospora in the last decade. Local health departments are working with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to identify exactly where the contamination originated in the food production chain and where the product was distributed. The CDC says 372 cases of the cyclospora infection, which causes diarrhea and other flu-like symptoms, have been reported in 15 states: Iowa, Texas, Nebraska, Florida, Wisconsin, Illinois, New York, Georgia, Missouri, Arkansas, Connecticut, Kansas, Minnesota, New Jersey and Ohio. The CDC said at least 21 people have been hospitalized and most of the reported illnesses occurred from mid-June to early July. The CDC and the Food and Drug Administration are investigating the cyclospora infections but have not yet pointed to a source. "CDC is still actively pursuing all leads and hasn't implicated any single food item as the cause of the outbreak in all states," said CDC spokeswoman Sharon Hoskins. "We're still not sure if the cases in all of the states are linked to the same outbreak." Ms. Hoskins said that in some previous outbreaks of cyclospora, the cause was never discovered. The illness is rare in the United States but is sometimes contracted abroad or from imported food, according to the CDC. The FDA said investigators are trying to trace the paths of food eaten by those who fell ill. That process is "labor intensive and painstaking work, requiring the collection, review and analysis of hundreds and at times thousands of invoices and shipping documents," the FDA said. The agency said it has a seven person team in its Maryland headquarters and specialists in 10 field offices across the country working to identify the source of the outbreak. Cyclospora illnesses are spread when people ingest food or water contaminated with feces. The illnesses are most often found in tropical or subtropical countries and have been linked to imported fresh fruits and vegetables in the past. In Texas, public health officials have received 122 reports of the illness but have not yet found a link. The state issued an advisory that urged health care providers to test patients if they show symptoms of the infection, said Christine Mann, a spokeswoman for the Texas Department of State Health Services. Connecticut has two reported cases, state Department of Public Health spokesman William Gerrish said on July 30. Mr. Gerrish said the agency interviewed the two people to determine if there is any relation to the national outbreak. One patient likely acquired the infection while traveling internationally and the case is not related to the multistate outbreak, he said In Kansas, state health department spokeswoman Miranda Steele said two cyclospora cases were tied to the outbreak. Ms. Steele said officials there believe both illnesses were caused by food eaten in Nebraska. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Yarway Wants Action Removal Date Moved to Nov. 18 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Yarway Corporation asks the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware to extend until Nov. 18, 2013, its time to file notices of removal of claims and causes of action. The Debtor's deadline to file notices to remove claims or causes of action was scheduled to expire on July 22. The Debtor is a defendant in more than 5,000 asbestos-related lawsuits commenced prior to the Petition Date by plaintiffs seeking damages for personal injuries purportedly caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products allegedly manufactured, distributed and/or sold by the Debtor. An Aug. 20, 2013, hearing at 1 p.m., has been set. Objections, if any, are due Aug. 5, at 4 p.m. About Yarway Corporation Yarway Corporation sought Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 13-11025) on April 22, 2013, to deal with claims arising from asbestos containing products it allegedly sold as early as the 1920s. Yarway was founded in 1908 by Robert Yarnall and Bernard Waring as the Simplex Engineering Company and originally manufactured pipe clamps, steam traps, valves and controls. Based in Pennsylvania, Yarway was a privately-owned company until 1986 when KeyStone International, Inc. bought equity in the company. Yarway became a unit of Tyco International Ltd. when Tyco purchased KeyStone in 1997. Yarway's asbestos-related liabilities derive from Yarway's (i) purported use of asbestos-containing gaskets and packing, manufactured by others, in its production of steam valves and traps from the 1920s to 1970s, and (ii) alleged manufacture of expansion joint packing that was allegedly made up of a compound of Teflon and asbestos from the 1940s to the 1970s. Over the past five years, about 10,021 new asbestos claims have been asserted against Yarway, including 1,014 in Yarway's 2013 fiscal year ending March 31, 2013. The Debtor estimated assets and debts in excess of $100 million as of the Chapter 11 filing. Attorneys at Cole, Schotz, Meisel, Forman & Leonard, P.A. and Sidley Austin LLP serve as the Debtor's counsel in the Chapter 11 case. Logan and Co. is the claims and notice agent. On May 6, 2013, the U.S. Trustee for Region 3, appointed an official committee of asbestos personal injury claimants. The Committee tapped Elihu Inselbuch, Esq. at Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, as lead bankruptcy counsel. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Circ. Nixes Garlock's Appeal in WR Grace Plan ------------------------------------------------------------------ A three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC's appeal from the Chapter 11 reorganization plan of W.R. Grace & Co. The Third Circuit affirmed a Delaware federal court decision upholding an earlier ruling by the bankruptcy court that Garlock lacked standing to block the reorganization plan, rejecting Garlock's contention that it would be injured by the plan. The Third Circuit explained that, under the Bankruptcy Code, any "party in interest, including the debtor, the trustee, a creditors' committee, an equity security holders' committee, a creditor, an equity security holder, or an indenture trustee," has standing to "raise and ... be heard on any issue" in a bankruptcy case. That list of parties in interest is not exclusive and it "has been construed to create a broad right of participation in Chapter 11 cases" that includes "anyone who has a legally protected interest that could be affected by a bankruptcy proceeding." Nonetheless, "Article III standing and standing under the Bankruptcy Code are effectively coextensive." A party objecting to the confirmation of a plan for reorganization under Chapter 11 must therefore "meet the requirements for standing that litigants in all federal cases face under Article III of the Constitution." Thos requirements include that the party has suffered an injury in fact, the Third Circuit further explained. Although any "specific, identifiable triffle of injury will do," Article III requires that there be some "invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical." Garlock argues that it has suffered an injury in fact because it has rights to contribution and setoff that will be harmed by the Joint Plan. In other words, Garlock claims that the Plan threatens to diminish contribution payments and setoff amounts it may receive from Grace in future cases. Garlock concedes, however, that there is no evidence that it has ever sought contribution or setoff in the past due to Grace's liability, and it does not assert that it has any current claims against Grace. Rather, it explains that it resolved prior cases "against the backdrop of" those rights, making it unnecessary to actually assert contribution or setoff claims. The Third Circuit found that that explanation does not address the absence of any contribution and setoff claims arising from cases brought against Garlock after Grace entered bankruptcy. Once Grace filed for Chapter 11 protection, all actions against the company were subject to an automatic stay under Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code. Therefore, between 2001 and 2010, plaintiffs with joint claims against Grace and Garlock were able to recover only from Garlock. Yet Garlock concedes that there is no evidence that it ever "suffered a judgment for which Grace owes it contribution during Grace's bankruptcy." Garlock's alleged future injury can thus only be called speculative, and it fails to satisfy Article III's requirements for standing, the Third Circuit ruled. In order for the Joint Plan to threaten Garlock's contribution and setoff rights, Garlock must have a basis for asserting those rights, the Third Circuit said. That there may be future plaintiffs with claims against both Grace and Garlock -- which is by no means a certainty -- does not by itself provide that foundation, as those claims must also produce verdicts or settlements that entitle Garlock to contribution or setoff, the Third Circuit added. The case is W.R. GRACE & CO., et al, Debtors, Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC, Appellant, NO. 12-2807 (3rd Circ.). A full- text copy of the Decision dated July 24, 2013, is available at http://is.gd/QpYhiDfrom Leagle.com. Garland S. Cassada, Esq. -- gcassada@rbh.com -- Susan M. Huber, Esq. -- shuber@rbh.com -- Richard C. Worf, Jr., Esq. -- rworf@rbh.com -- at Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, in Charlotte, North Carolina; and Brett D. Fallon, Esq. -- bfallon@morrisjames.com -- and Eric J. Monzo, Esq. -- emonzo@morrisjames.com -- at Morris James, in Wilmington, Delaware, for Appellant. Ann C. Cordo, Esq. -- acordo@mnat.com -- at Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, in Wilmington, Delaware; John Donley, Esq., Lisa G. Esayian, Esq. -- lisa.esayian@kirkland.com -- and Adam C. Paul, Esq. -- adam.paul@kirkland.com -- at Kirkland & Ellis, in Chicago, Illinois; Christopher Landau, Esq. -- christopher.landau@kirkland.com -- at Kirkland & Ellis, in Washington, D.C.; Roger J. Higgins, Esq. -- rhiggin@rogerhigginslaw.com -- at The Law Offices of Roger Higgins LLC, in Chicago, Illinois; and Laura D. Jones, Esq. -- ljones@pszjlaw.com -- and James E. O'Neill, III, Esq. -- joneill@pszjlaw.com -- at Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones, in Wilmington, Delaware, for Appellee W.R. Grace & Co. Mark T. Hurford, Esq. -- mhurford@camlev.com -- at Campbell & Levine, in Wilmington, Delaware; Peter V. Lockwood, Esq. -- plockwood@capdale.com -- at Caplin & Drysdale, in Washington, D.C., for Appellee Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury. About W.R. Grace Headquartered in Columbia, Maryland, W.R. Grace & Co. (NYSE:GRA) -- http://www.grace.com/-- supplies catalysts and silica products, especially construction chemicals and building materials, and container products globally. The company and its debtor-affiliates filed for chapter 11 protection on April 2, 2001 (Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 01-01139). David M. Bernick, P.C., Esq., at Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, and Laura Davis Jones, Esq., at Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones, LLP, represent the Debtors in their restructuring efforts. The Debtors hired Blackstone Group, L.P., for financial advice. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP is the Debtors' accountant. Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, LLP, and Duane Morris, LLP, represent the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors. The Creditors Committee tapped Capstone Corporate Recovery LLC for financial advice. Roger Frankel serves as legal representative for victims of asbestos exposure who may file claims against W.R. Grace. Mr. Frankel, a partner at Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, replaces David Austern, who was appointed to that role in 2004. Mr. Frankel has served as legal counsel for Mr. Austern who passed away in May 2013. Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP and Phillips Goldman & Spence, PA. Elihu Inselbuch, Esq., at Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, and Marla R. Eskin, Esq., at Campbell & Levine, LLC, represent the Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants. The Asbestos Committee of Property Damage Claimants tapped Scott Baena, Esq., and Jay M. Sakalo, Esq., at Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod, LLP, to represent it. Thomas Moers Mayer, Esq., at Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, LLP, represents the Official Committee of Equity Security Holders. W.R. Grace obtained confirmation of a plan co-proposed with the Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants, the Official Committee of Equity Security Holders, and the Asbestos Future Claimants Representative. The Chapter 11 plan is built around an April 2008 settlement for all present and future asbestos personal injury claims, and a subsequent settlement for asbestos property damage claims. Implementation of the Plan has been held up by appeals in District Court from various parties, including a group of prepetition bank lenders and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors. District Judge Ronald Buckwalter on Jan. 31, 2012, entered an order affirming the bankruptcy court's confirmation of the Plan. Bankruptcy Judge Judith Fitzgerald had approved the Plan on Jan. 31, 2011. The plan can't be implemented because pre-bankruptcy secured bank lenders filed an appeal currently pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., publishes W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News. The newsletter tracks the Chapter 11 proceeding undertaken by W.R. Grace, W.R. Grace Co. - Conn. and their affiliates. (http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000). About Garlock Sealing Headquartered in Palmyra, New York, Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC is a unit of EnPro Industries, Inc. (NYSE: NPO). For more than a century, Garlock has been helping customers efficiently seal the toughest process fluids in the most demanding applications. On June 5, 2010, Garlock filed a voluntary Chapter 11 petition (Bankr. W.D.N.C. Case No. 10-31607) in Charlotte, North Carolina, to establish a trust to resolve all current and future asbestos claims against Garlock under Section 524(g) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The Debtor estimated $500 million to $1 billion in assets and up to $500 million in debts as of the Petition Date. Affiliates The Anchor Packing Company and Garrison Litigation Management Group, Ltd., also filed for bankruptcy. Albert F. Durham, Esq., at Rayburn Cooper & Durham, P.A., represents the Debtor in their Chapter 11 effort. Garland S. Cassada, Esq., at Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, serves as counsel for asbestos matters. The Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants in the Chapter 11 cases is represented by Travis W. Moon, Esq., at Hamilton Moon Stephens Steele & Martin, PLLC, in Charlotte, NC, Elihu Inselbuch, Esq., at Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, in New York, and Trevor W. Swett III, Esq., Leslie M. Kelleher, Esq., and Jeanna Rickards Koski, Esq., in Washington, D.C. 20005. Joseph W. Grier, III, the Court-appointed legal representative for future asbestos claimants, has retained A. Cotten Wright, Esq., at Grier Furr & Crisp, PA, and Richard H. Wyron, Esq., and Jonathan P. Guy, Esq., at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, as his co- counsel. About 124,000 asbestos claims are pending against Garlock in state and federal courts across the country. The Company says majority of pending asbestos actions against it is stale and dormant -- almost 110,000 or 88% were filed more than four years ago and more than 44,000 or 35% were filed more than 10 years ago. Garlock said in the Disclosure Statement that all asbestos claims must be paid in full. Full payment enables the plan to allow continued ownership by parent EnPro Industries Inc. The Plan will create a trust to fund payment to present and future asbestos claimants. For currently existing claims, the trust will have insurance proceeds plus cash from Garlock together with a promise from EnPro to provide up to $30 million over time. For future claims, the trust will receive $60 million from Garlock plus a secured promise by Garlock to supply an additional $140 million. The promise will be secured by 51% of Garlock's stock. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Porter Hayden Strikes $21MM Deal Over Coverage --------------------------------------------------------------- Bibeka Shrestha, writing for BankruptcyLaw360, reported that Porter Hayden Co. asked a Maryland federal court to greenlight its $21.5 million settlement with two Ace Group insurers over coverage of asbestos claims, a deal it said would quickly provide substantial funds to its creditors. According to the report, under the deal, Westchester Fire Insurance Co. would pay $20 million, while Century Indemnity Co. would fork over $1.5 million to settle with Porter Hayden, which sold and installed asbestos-containing insulation products. Porter Hayden said the settlement was negotiated in good faith and was fair and reasonable. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Has $100,000 Net of Insurance Recoveries ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lennox International Inc., recorded $100,000 net of insurance recoveries related to asbestos matters, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2013. The Company states: "We are involved in a number of claims and lawsuits incident to the operation of our businesses. Insurance coverages are maintained and estimated costs are recorded for such claims and lawsuits, including costs to settle claims and lawsuits based on experience involving similar matters and specific facts known. Costs related to such matters were not material to the periods presented. Some of these claims and lawsuits allege health problems resulting from exposure to asbestos. For the three months ended June 30, 2013, we recorded income, net of insurance recoveries, of $0.1 million and for the six months ended June 30, 2013, we recorded charges, net of insurance recoveries, of $0.5 million related to asbestos matters. These charges were recorded in Selling, general and administrative expenses in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operation. We also expect that additional claims will be brought against us in the future. However, the Company believes our liability exposure from those additional future claims cannot currently be estimated because of numerous uncertainties, including the number of such claims and lawsuits and the costs of defending and settling them, possible adverse judgments in amounts greater than previously experienced, and possible changes in the laws and process governing the compensation of asbestos claimants." Lennox International Inc. (LII) is a provider of climate control solutions. The Company designs, manufactures and markets a range of products for the heating, ventilation, air conditioning and refrigeration (HVACR) markets. Its products and services are sold through multiple distribution channels under brand names, including Lennox, Armstrong Air, Ducane, Bohn, Larkin, Advanced Distributor Products, Service Experts and others. The Company operates in four segments: Residential Heating & Cooling, Commercial Heating & Cooling, Service Experts, and Refrigeration. On January 14, 2011, the Company acquired Kysor/Warren business from The Manitowoc Company. Kysor/Warren is a manufacturer of refrigerated systems and display cases for supermarkets throughout North America and is included in its Refrigeration Segment. In April 2012, it sold its Lennox Hearth Products business to Comvest Investment Partners IV. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair Had $227.9-Mil Liability as of June 29 --------------------------------------------------------------- Pentair Ltd., recorded $227.9 million estimated liability for asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 29, 2013. The Company states: "Our subsidiaries and numerous other companies are named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials. These cases typically involve product liability claims based primarily on allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial products that either contained asbestos or were attached to or used with asbestos-containing components manufactured by third- parties. Each case typically names between dozens to hundreds of corporate defendants. While we have observed an increase in the number of these lawsuits over the past several years, including lawsuits by plaintiffs with mesothelioma-related claims, a large percentage of these suits have not presented viable legal claims and, as a result, have been dismissed by the courts. Our historical strategy has been to mount a vigorous defense aimed at having unsubstantiated suits dismissed, and, where appropriate, settling suits before trial. Although a large percentage of litigated suits have been dismissed, we cannot predict the extent to which we will be successful in resolving lawsuits in the future. As of June 29, 2013, there were approximately 2,000 lawsuits pending against our subsidiaries. A lawsuit might include several claims, and we have approximately 2,300 claims outstanding as of June 29, 2013. This amount is not adjusted for claims that are not actively being prosecuted, identified incorrect defendants, or duplicated other actions, which would ultimately reflect our current estimate of the number of viable claims made against us, our affiliates, or entities for which we assumed responsibility in connection with acquisitions or divestitures. In addition, the amount does not include certain claims pending against third parties for which we have provided an indemnification. Periodically, we perform an analysis with the assistance of outside counsel and other experts to update our estimated asbestos-related assets and liabilities. Our estimate of the liability and corresponding insurance recovery for pending and future claims and defense costs is based on our historical claim experience and estimates of the number and resolution cost of potential future claims that may be filed. Our legal strategy for resolving claims also impacts these estimates. Our estimate of asbestos-related insurance recoveries represents estimated amounts due to us for previously paid and settled claims and the probable reimbursements relating to our estimated liability for pending and future claims. In determining the amount of insurance recoverable, we consider a number of factors, including available insurance, allocation methodologies and the solvency and creditworthiness of insurers. Our estimated liability for asbestos-related claims was $227.9 million and $235.5 million as of June 29, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively, and was recorded in Other non-current liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for pending and future claims and related defense costs. Our estimated receivable for insurance recoveries was $156.5 million and $157.4 million as of June 29, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively, and was recorded in Other non-current assets in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. The amounts recorded by us for asbestos-related liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on our strategies for resolving our asbestos claims and currently available information as well as estimates and assumptions. Key variables and assumptions include the number and type of new claims filed each year, the average cost of resolution of claims, the resolution of coverage issues with insurance carriers, the amounts of insurance and the related solvency risk with respect to our insurance carriers, and the indemnifications we have provided to third parties. Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables are subject to greater uncertainty in the latter portion of the projection period. Other factors that may affect our liability and cash payments for asbestos-related matters include uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms of state or federal tort legislation and the applicability of insurance policies among subsidiaries. As a result, actual liabilities or insurance recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than those recorded if assumptions used in our calculations vary significantly from actual results." Pentair Ltd., formerly Tyco Flow Control International Ltd., is global water, fluid, thermal management, and equipment protection partner. The Company operates in three segments: Water & Fluid Solutions, Valves & Controls, and Equipment Protection & Thermal. Water & Fluid Solutions is a provider of water management and fluid processing products and solutions. Valves & Controls is the manufacturers of valves, actuators and controls. Valves & Controls segment's products, services and solutions address applications in the general process, oil and gas, power generation and mining industries. Equipment Protection & Thermal is a provider of products focused on electronics and electronic equipment, and is a provider of electric heat management solutions. On September 28, 2012, Pentair, Inc. (Pentair) completed its merger (the Merger) with Panthro Merger Sub, Inc. (Merger Sub). On September 28, 2012, the Company merged with Tyco's Flow Control business. ASBESTOS UPDATE: The Travelers Had $2.28B Reserve at June 30 ------------------------------------------------------------ The Travelers Companies, Inc.'s net asbestos reserves were $2.28 billion, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2013. The Company believes that the property and casualty insurance industry has suffered from court decisions and other trends that have expanded insurance coverage for asbestos claims far beyond the original intent of insurers and policyholders. The Company has received and continues to receive a significant number of asbestos claims from the Company's policyholders (which includes others seeking coverage under a policy). Factors underlying these claim filings include intensive advertising by lawyers seeking asbestos claimants and the continued focus by plaintiffs on previously peripheral defendants. The focus on these defendants is primarily the result of the number of traditional asbestos defendants who have sought bankruptcy protection in previous years. In addition to contributing to the overall number of claims, bankruptcy proceedings may increase the volatility of asbestos-related losses by initially delaying the reporting of claims and later by significantly accelerating and increasing loss payments by insurers, including the Company. The bankruptcy of many traditional defendants has also caused increased settlement demands against those policyholders who are not in bankruptcy but remain in the tort system. Currently, in many jurisdictions, those who allege very serious injury and who can present credible medical evidence of their injuries are receiving priority trial settings in the courts, while those who have not shown any credible disease manifestation are having their hearing dates delayed or placed on an inactive docket. Prioritizing claims involving credible evidence of injuries, along with the focus on previously peripheral defendants, contributes to the claims and claim adjustment expense payment patterns experienced by the Company. The Company's asbestos-related claims and claim adjustment expense experience also has been impacted by the unavailability of other insurance sources potentially available to policyholders, whether through exhaustion of policy limits or through the insolvency of other participating insurers. The Company continues to be involved in coverage litigation concerning a number of policyholders, some of whom have filed for bankruptcy, who in some instances have asserted that all or a portion of their asbestos-related claims are not subject to aggregate limits on coverage. In these instances, policyholders also may assert that each individual bodily injury claim should be treated as a separate occurrence under the policy. It is difficult to predict whether these policyholders will be successful on both issues. To the extent both issues are resolved in a policyholder's favor and other Company defenses are not successful, the Company's coverage obligations under the policies at issue would be materially increased and bounded only by the applicable per- occurrence limits and the number of asbestos bodily injury claims against the policyholders. Although the Company has seen a moderation in the overall risk associated with these lawsuits, it remains difficult to predict the ultimate cost of these claims. Many coverage disputes with policyholders are only resolved through settlement agreements. Because many policyholders make exaggerated demands, it is difficult to predict the outcome of settlement negotiations. Settlements involving bankrupt policyholders may include extensive releases which are favorable to the Company but which could result in settlements for larger amounts than originally anticipated. There also may be instances where a court may not approve a proposed settlement, which may result in additional litigation and potentially less beneficial outcomes for the Company. As in the past, the Company will continue to pursue settlement opportunities. In addition to claims against policyholders, proceedings have been launched directly against insurers, including the Company, by individuals challenging insurers' conduct with respect to the handling of past asbestos claims and by individuals seeking damages arising from alleged asbestos-related bodily injuries. It is possible that the filing of other direct actions against insurers, including the Company, could be made in the future. It is difficult to predict the outcome of these proceedings, including whether the plaintiffs will be able to sustain these actions against insurers based on novel legal theories of liability. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to these claims and has received favorable rulings in certain jurisdictions. TPC had entered into settlement agreements, which are subject to a number of contingencies, in connection with a number of these direct action claims. The Company's quarterly asbestos reserve reviews include an analysis of exposure and claim payment patterns by policyholder category, as well as recent settlements, policyholder bankruptcies, judicial rulings and legislative actions. The Company also analyzes developing payment patterns among policyholders in the Home Office, Field Office and Assumed Reinsurance and Other categories as well as projected reinsurance billings and recoveries. In addition, the Company reviews its historical gross and net loss and expense paid experience, year- by-year, to assess any emerging trends, fluctuations, or characteristics suggested by the aggregate paid activity. Conventional actuarial methods are not utilized to establish asbestos reserves nor have the Company's evaluations resulted in any way of determining a meaningful average asbestos defense or indemnity payment. Because each policyholder presents different liability and coverage issues, the Company generally reviews the exposure presented by each policyholder at least annually. Among the factors which the Company may consider in the course of this review are: available insurance coverage, including the role of any umbrella or excess insurance the Company has issued to the policyholder; limits and deductibles; an analysis of the policyholder's potential liability; the jurisdictions involved; past and anticipated future claim activity and loss development on pending claims; past settlement values of similar claims; allocated claim adjustment expense; potential role of other insurance; the role, if any, of non-asbestos claims or potential non-asbestos claims in any resolution process; and applicable coverage defenses or determinations, if any, including the determination as to whether or not an asbestos claim is a products/completed operation claim subject to an aggregate limit and the available coverage, if any, for that claim. Net asbestos paid losses in the first six months of 2013 were $100 million, compared with $114 million in the same period of 2012. Net asbestos reserves were $2.28 billion at June 30, 2013, compared with $2.33 billion at June 30, 2012. The Travelers Companies, Inc. (TRV) is a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, is engaged in providing a range of commercial and personal property and casualty insurance products and services to businesses, Government units, associations and individuals. The Company is organized into three business segments: Business Insurance; Financial, Professional and International Insurance, and Personal Insurance. The Business Insurance segment offers an array of property and casualty insurance and insurance-related services to its clients primarily in the United States. The Financial, Professional and International Insurance segment includes surety and financial liability coverage's, which primarily use credit-based underwriting processes, as well as property and casualty products. The Company's Personal Insurance segment writes a range of property and casualty insurance covering individuals' personal risks. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Records $847.5-Mil Liabilities -------------------------------------------------------------- Ingersoll-Rand plc's total asbestos-related liabilities is $847.5 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2013. Certain wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company are named as defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits in state and federal courts. In virtually all of the suits, a large number of other companies have also been named as defendants. The vast majority of those claims have been filed against either Ingersoll-Rand Company (IR-New Jersey) or Trane U.S. Inc. (Trane) and generally allege injury caused by exposure to asbestos contained in certain historical products sold by IR-New Jersey or Trane, primarily pumps, boilers and railroad brake shoes. Neither IR-New Jersey nor Trane was a producer or manufacturer of asbestos, however, some formerly manufactured products utilized asbestos-containing components such as gaskets and packings purchased from third-party suppliers. The Company engages an outside expert to assist in calculating an estimate of the Company's total liability for pending and unasserted future asbestos-related claims and annually performs a detailed analysis with the assistance of an outside expert to update its estimated asbestos-related assets and liabilities. The methodology used to project the Company's total liability for pending and unasserted potential future asbestos-related claims relied upon and included the following factors, among others: * he outside expert's interpretation of a widely accepted forecast of the population likely to have been occupationally exposed to asbestos; * epidemiological studies estimating the number of people likely to develop asbestos-related diseases such as mesothelioma and lung cancer; * the Company's historical experience with the filing of non- malignancy claims against it and the historical ratio between the numbers of non-malignancy and lung cancer claims filed against the Company; * the outside expert's analysis of the number of people likely to file an asbestos-related personal injury claim against the Company based on such epidemiological and historical data and the Company's most recent three-year claims history; * an analysis of the Company's pending cases, by type of disease claimed; * an analysis of the Company's most recent three-year history to determine the average settlement and resolution value of claims, by type of disease claimed; * an adjustment for inflation in the future average settlement value of claims, at a 2.5% annual inflation rate, adjusted downward to 1.5% to take account of the declining value of claims resulting from the aging of the claimant population; and * an analysis of the period over which the Company has and is likely to resolve asbestos-related claims against it in the future. At June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, over 80 percent of the open claims against the Company are non-malignancy claims, many of which have been placed on inactive or deferral dockets and the vast majority of which have little or no settlement value against the Company, particularly in light of recent changes in the legal and judicial treatment of such claims. As of June 30, 2013, the Company's total asbestos-related liabilities is $847.5 million; and total asset for probable asbestos-related insurance recoveries is $312.2 million. The Company's asbestos insurance receivable related to IR-New Jersey and Trane was $126.0 million and $186.2 million at June 30, 2013, and $125.5 million and $194.8 million at December 31, 2012, respectively. The (costs) income associated with the settlement and defense of asbestos-related claims after insurance recoveries for the three and six months ended June 30 were as follows: Total $(5.3)million and $(9.9). IR-New Jersey records income and expenses associated with its asbestos liabilities and corresponding insurance recoveries within discontinued operations, as they relate to previously divested businesses, primarily Ingersoll-Dresser Pump, which was sold in 2000. Income and expenses associated with Trane's asbestos liabilities and corresponding insurance recoveries are recorded within continuing operations. Trane has now settled claims regarding asbestos coverage with most of its insurers. The settlements collectively account for approximately 95% of its recorded asbestos-related insurance receivable as of June 30, 2013. Most of Trane's settlement agreements constitute "coverage-in-place" arrangements, in which the insurer signatories agree to reimburse Trane for specified portions of its costs for asbestos bodily injury claims and Trane agrees to certain claims-handling protocols and grants to the insurer signatories certain releases and indemnifications. Trane remains in litigation in an action that Trane filed in November 2010 in the Circuit Court for La Crosse County, Wisconsin, relating to claims for insurance coverage for a subset of Trane's historical asbestos-related liabilities. In January 2012, IR-New Jersey filed an action in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, seeking a declaratory judgment and other relief regarding the Company's rights to defense and indemnity for asbestos claims. The defendants are several dozen solvent insurance companies, including companies that had been paying a portion of IR-New Jersey's asbestos claim defense and indemnity costs. The action involves IR-New Jersey's unexhausted insurance policies applicable to the asbestos claims that are not subject to any settlement agreement. The responding defendants generally challenged the Company's right to recovery, and raised various coverage defenses. The Company continually monitors the status of pending litigation that could impact the allocation of asbestos claims against the Company's various insurance policies. The Company has concluded that its IR-New Jersey insurance receivable is probable of recovery because of the following factors: * a review of other companies in circumstances comparable to IR- New Jersey, including Trane, and the success of other companies in recovering under their insurance policies, including Trane's favorable settlement; * the Company's confidence in its right to recovery under the terms of its policies and pursuant to applicable law; and * the Company's history of receiving payments under the IR-New Jersey insurance program, including under policies that had been the subject of prior litigation. The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on currently available information. The Company's actual liabilities or insurance recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than those recorded if assumptions used in the calculations vary significantly from actual results. Key variables in these assumptions include the number and type of new claims to be filed each year, the average cost of resolution of each such new claim, the resolution of coverage issues with insurance carriers, and the solvency risk with respect to the Company's insurance carriers. Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables are subject to greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens. Other factors that may affect the Company's liability include uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms that may be made by state and federal courts, and the passage of state or federal tort reform legislation. The aggregate amount of the stated limits in insurance policies available to the Company for asbestos-related claims acquired over many years and from many different carriers, is substantial. However, limitations in that coverage, primarily due to the considerations, are expected to result in the projected total liability to claimants substantially exceeding the probable insurance recovery. Ingersoll-Rand plc (IR-Ireland) is a diversified, global company that provides products, services and solutions to enhance the comfort of air in homes and buildings, transport and protect food and perishables, secure homes and commercial properties. IR- Ireland operates in four business segments: Climate Solutions, Residential Solutions, Industrial Technologies and Security Technologies. It generates revenue and cash primarily through the design, manufacture, sale and service of a diverse portfolio of industrial and commercial products that include Club Car, Ingersoll-Rand, Schlage, Thermo King and Trane. On September 30, 2011, IR-Ireland completed the transaction to sell 60% in the Hussmann business. On December 30, 2011, it completed the divestiture of its security installation and service business, which was sold under the Integrated Systems and Services brand in the United States and Canada, to Kratos Public Safety & Security Solutions, Inc. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Continues to Defend Exposure Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- Flowserve Corporation continues to defend itself against a substantial number of lawsuits allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2013. The Company states: "We are a defendant in a substantial number of lawsuits that seek to recover damages for personal injury allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured and/or distributed by our heritage companies in the past. While the overall number of asbestos-related claims has generally declined in recent years, there can be no assurance that this trend will continue, or that the average cost per claim will not further increase. Asbestos-containing materials incorporated into any such products were primarily encapsulated and used as internal components of process equipment, and we do not believe that any significant emission of asbestos fibers occurred during the use of this equipment. Our practice is to vigorously contest and resolve these claims, and we have been successful in resolving a majority of claims with little or no payment. Historically, a high percentage of resolved claims have been covered by applicable insurance or indemnities from other companies, and we believe that a substantial majority of existing claims should continue to be covered by insurance or indemnities. Accordingly, we have recorded a liability for our estimate of the most likely settlement of asserted claims and a related receivable from insurers or other companies for our estimated recovery, to the extent we believe that the amounts of recovery are probable and not otherwise in dispute. While unfavorable rulings, judgments or settlement terms regarding these claims could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows, we currently believe the likelihood is remote. Additionally, we have claims pending against certain insurers that, if resolved more favorably than reflected in the recorded receivables, would result in discrete gains in the applicable quarter. We are currently unable to estimate the impact, if any, of unasserted asbestos- related claims, although future claims would also be subject to then existing indemnities and insurance coverage." Flowserve Corporation is a manufacturer and aftermarket service provider of flow control systems. The Company develops and manufacture precision-engineered flows control equipment integral to the movement, control and protection of the flow of materials in its customers' critical processes. The Company operates in three segments: Engineered Product Division (EPD), which includes long leads time, custom and other engineered pumps and pump systems, mechanical seals, auxiliary systems and replacement parts and related services, Industrial Product Division (IPD), which includes pre-configured engineered pumps and pump systems and related products and services, and Flow Control Division (FCD), which includes engineered and industrial valves, control valves, actuators and controls and related services. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mine Safety Had 2,716 PI Lawsuits at June 30 ------------------------------------------------------------- Mine Safety Appliances Company is named defendant in 2,716 lawsuits in which plaintiffs allege to have contracted, among other diseases, asbestos-related cumulative trauma diseases, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2013. The Company states: "We categorize the product liability losses that we experience into two main categories, single incident and cumulative trauma. Single incident product liability claims are discrete incidents that are typically known to us when they occur and involve observable injuries and, therefore, more quantifiable damages. Therefore, we maintain a reserve for single incident product liability claims based on expected settlement costs for pending claims and an estimate of costs for unreported claims derived from experience, sales volumes and other relevant information. Our reserve for single incident product liability claims was $5.0 million at June 30, 2013 and $4.4 million at December 31, 2012. Single incident product liability expense during the six months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012 was $0.6 million and $0.6 million, respectively. We evaluate our single incident product liability exposures on an ongoing basis and make adjustments to the reserve as new information becomes available. Cumulative trauma product liability claims involve exposures to harmful substances (e.g., silica, asbestos and coal dust) that occurred many years ago and may have developed over long periods of time into diseases such as silicosis, asbestosis or coal worker's pneumoconiosis. We are presently named as a defendant in 2,716 lawsuits in which plaintiffs allege to have contracted certain cumulative trauma diseases related to exposure to silica, asbestos, and/or coal dust. These lawsuits mainly involve respiratory protection products allegedly manufactured and sold by us. We are unable to estimate total damages sought in these lawsuits as they generally do not specify the injuries alleged or the amount of damages sought, and potentially involve multiple defendants. Cumulative trauma product liability litigation is difficult to predict. In our experience, until late in a lawsuit, we cannot reasonably determine whether it is probable that any given cumulative trauma lawsuit will ultimately result in a liability. This uncertainty is caused by many factors, including the following: cumulative trauma complaints generally do not provide information sufficient to determine if a loss is probable; cumulative trauma litigation is inherently unpredictable and information is often insufficient to determine if a lawsuit will develop into an actively litigated case; and even when a case is actively litigated, it is often difficult to determine if the lawsuit will be dismissed or otherwise resolved until late in the lawsuit. Moreover, even once it is probable that such a lawsuit will result in a loss, it is difficult to reasonably estimate the amount of actual loss that will be incurred. These amounts are highly variable and turn on a case-by-case analysis of the relevant facts, which are often not learned until late in the lawsuit. Because of these factors, we cannot reliably determine our potential liability for such claims until late in the lawsuit. We, therefore, do not record cumulative trauma product liability losses when a lawsuit is filed, but rather, when we learn sufficient information to determine that it is probable that we will incur a loss and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. We record expenses for defense costs associated with open cumulative trauma product liability lawsuits as incurred. We cannot estimate any amount or range of possible losses related to resolving pending and future cumulative trauma product liability claims that we may face. As new information about cumulative trauma product liability cases and future developments becomes available, we reassess our potential exposures. For the six-months ended June 30,2013, there were 2,716 open cumulative trauma product liability claims. With some common contract exclusions, we maintain insurance for cumulative trauma product liability claims. We have purchased insurance policies from over 20 different insurance carriers that provide coverage for cumulative trauma product liability losses and related defense costs. In the normal course of business, we make payments to settle product liability claims and for related defense costs. We record receivables for the amounts that are covered by insurance. The available limits of these policies are many times our recorded insurance receivable balance. Various factors could affect the timing and amount of recovery of our insurance receivables, including the outcome of negotiations with insurers, legal proceedings with respect to product liability insurance coverage and the extent to which insurers may become insolvent in the future. Our insurance receivables at June 30, 2013 totaled $152.9 million, of which $2.0 million is reported in other current assets and $150.9 million in other non-current assets. Our insurance receivables at December 31, 2012 totaled $130.0 million. Additions to insurance receivables represent insured cumulative trauma product liability losses and related defense costs. Uninsured cumulative trauma product liability losses were $0.9 million during the six months ended June 30, 2013. Uninsured cumulative trauma product liability losses were $5.9 million during the six months ended June 30, 2012. Our aggregate cumulative trauma product liability losses and administrative and defense costs for the three years ended December 31, 2012, totaled approximately $99.7 million, substantially all of which was insured. We believe that the increase in the insurance receivable balance that we have experienced since 2005 is primarily due to disagreements among our insurance carriers, and consequently with us, as to when their individual obligations to pay us are triggered and the amount of each insurer's obligation, as compared to other insurers. We believe that our insurers do not contest that they have issued policies to us or that these policies cover cumulative trauma product liability claims. We believe that our ability to successfully resolve our insurance litigation with various insurance carriers in recent years demonstrates that we have strong legal positions concerning our rights to coverage. We regularly evaluate the collectability of the insurance receivables and record the amounts that we conclude are probable of collection. Our conclusions are based on our analysis of the terms of the underlying insurance policies, our experience in successfully recovering cumulative trauma product liability claims from our insurers under other policies, the financial ability of our insurance carriers to pay the claims, our understanding and interpretation of the relevant facts and applicable law and the advice of legal counsel, who believe that our insurers are required to provide coverage based on the terms of the policies. Although the outcome of cumulative trauma product liability matters cannot be predicted with certainty and unfavorable resolutions could materially affect our results of operations on a quarter-to-quarter basis, based on information currently available and the amounts of insurance coverage available to us, we believe that the disposition of cumulative trauma product liability lawsuits that are pending against us will not have a materially adverse effect on our future results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity. We are currently involved in insurance coverage litigations with various of our insurance carriers. In 2009, we sued The North River Insurance Company (North River) in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, alleging that North River breached one of its insurance policies by failing to pay amounts owed to us and that it engaged in bad-faith claims handling. We believe that North River's refusal to indemnify us under the policy for product liability losses and legal fees paid by us is wholly contrary to Pennsylvania law and we are vigorously pursuing the legal actions necessary to collect all due amounts. Discovery has concluded and motions for summary judgment on certain issues have been submitted to the court. A trial date has not yet been scheduled. In 2010, North River sued us in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania seeking a declaratory judgment concerning their responsibilities under three additional policies shared with Allstate Insurance Company (as successor in interest to policies issued by the Northbrook Excess and Surplus Insurance Company). We asserted claims against North River and Allstate for breaches of contract for failures to pay amounts owed to us. We also alleged that North River engaged in bad-faith claims handling. We believe that North River's and Allstate's refusals to indemnify us under these policies for product liability losses and legal fees paid by us is wholly contrary to Pennsylvania law and we are vigorously pursuing the legal actions necessary to collect all due amounts. Discovery has concluded and motions for summary judgment on certain issues have been submitted to the court. A trial date has not yet been scheduled. In July 2010, we filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware seeking declaratory and other relief from the majority of our excess insurance carriers concerning the future rights and obligations of MSA and our excess insurance carriers under various insurance policies. The reason for this insurance coverage action is to secure a comprehensive resolution of our rights under the insurance policies issued by our insurers. The case is currently in discovery. We have resolved our claims against certain of our insurance carriers on some of their policies through negotiated settlements. When a settlement is reached, we dismiss the settling carrier from this action in Delaware." Established in 1914, MSA is a global leader in the development, manufacture and supply of safety products that protect people's health and safety. Many MSA products typically integrate a combination of electronics, mechanical systems and advanced materials to protect users against hazardous or life-threatening situations. The company's comprehensive line of products is used by workers around the world in a broad range of industries, including the oil, gas and petrochemical industry, the fire service, construction, mining and utilities, and the military. Principal products include self-contained breathing apparatus, handheld gas detection instruments, fixed gas and flame detection systems, head protection products, and fall protection devices . The company also provides a broad range of consumer and contractor safety products through a joint venture with MCR Safety. These products are marketed and sold under the Safety Works(R) brand. MSA has annual sales of approximately $1.2 billion, manufacturing operations in the United States, Europe, Asia and Latin America, and 42 international locations. Additional information is available on the company's Web site at www.MSAsafety.com. Information on Safety Works products can be found at www.SafetyWorks.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Had 22,633 Claims as of June 28 ------------------------------------------------------------- Colfax Corporation had 22,633 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 June 28, 2013. Management's analyses are based on currently known facts and a number of assumptions. However, projecting future events, such as new claims to be filed each year, the average cost of resolving each claim, coverage issues among layers of insurers, the method in which losses will be allocated to the various insurance policies, interpretation of the effect on coverage of various policy terms and limits and their interrelationships, the continuing solvency of various insurance companies, the amount of remaining insurance available, as well as the numerous uncertainties inherent in asbestos litigation could cause the actual liabilities and insurance recoveries to be higher or lower than those projected or recorded which could materially affect the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flow. Colfax Corporation is a diversified global manufacturing and engineering company that provides gas- and fluid-handling and fabrication technology products and services to commercial and governmental customers around the world under the Howden, Colfax Fluid Handling and ESAB brands. Colfax believes that its brands are among the most highly recognized in each of the markets that it serves. Colfax is traded on the NYSE under the ticker "CFX." Additional information about Colfax is available at www.colfaxcorp.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lorillard Has 57 Pending "Filter" Cases -------------------------------------------------------- Lorillard, Inc., had 57 "Filter" cases pending, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2013. Filter Cases are brought by individuals, including former employees of a predecessor of Lorillard Tobacco, who seek damages resulting from their alleged exposure to asbestos fibers that were incorporated into filter material used in one brand of cigarettes manufactured by Lorillard for a limited period of time ending more than 50 years ago. Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in 56 of the 57 Filter Cases. Lorillard, Inc. is a co-defendant in one of the 56 Filter Cases that are pending against Lorillard Tobacco. Lorillard, Inc. is also a defendant in one additional Filter Case in which Lorillard Tobacco is not a defendant. Lorillard, Inc. (Lorillard) is the manufacturer of cigarettes in the United States. Its Newport is a menthol flavored premium cigarette brand. During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Newport brand accounted for approximately 88.4% of its sales revenue. In addition to the Newport brand, its product line has four additional brand families marketed under the Kent, True, Maverick and Old Gold brand names. These five brands include 43 different product offerings. During 2011, it shipped 40.7 billion cigarettes, all of which were sold in the United States and certain the United States possessions and territories. Lorillard produces cigarettes for both the premium and discount segments of the domestic cigarette market. It sells its products primarily to wholesale distributors, who in turn service retail outlets, chain store organizations, and government agencies, including the United States Armed Forces. In April 2012, it acquired all of the assets of blu ecigs. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Corp. Had 25,000 Pending PI Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dana Holding Corporation had approximately 25,000 active pending asbestos personal injury liability claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2013. The Company states: "We had approximately 25,000 active pending asbestos personal injury liability claims at both June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012. In addition, approximately 1,000 mostly inactive claims have been settled and are awaiting final documentation and dismissal, with or without payment. We have accrued $79 million for indemnity and defense costs for settled, pending and future claims at June 30, 2013, compared to $83 million at December 31, 2012. We use a fifteen-year time horizon for our estimate of this liability. At June 30, 2013, we had recorded $47 million as an asset for probable recovery from our insurers for the pending and projected asbestos personal injury liability claims, compared to $50 million recorded at December 31, 2012. The recorded asset represents our assessment of the capacity of our current insurance agreements to provide for the payment of anticipated defense and indemnity costs for pending claims and projected future demands. The recognition of these recoveries is based on our assessment of our right to recover under the respective contracts and on the financial strength of the insurers. We have coverage agreements in place with our insurers confirming substantially all of the related coverage and payments are being received on a timely basis. The financial strength of these insurers is reviewed at least annually with the assistance of a third party. The recorded asset does not represent the limits of our insurance coverage, but rather the amount we would expect to recover if we paid the accrued indemnity and defense costs. As part of our reorganization, assets and liabilities associated with asbestos claims were retained in Dana Corporation which was then merged into Dana Companies, LLC, a consolidated wholly-owned subsidiary of Dana. The assets of Dana Companies, LLC include insurance rights relating to coverage against these liabilities, a callable note received in connection with a divestiture in 2004 and other assets which we believe are sufficient to satisfy its liabilities. Dana Companies, LLC continues to process asbestos personal injury claims in the normal course of business, is separately managed and has an independent board member. The independent board member is required to approve certain transactions including dividends or other transfers of $1 or more of value to Dana. Dana Holding Corporation is global provider of technology driveline, sealing and thermal-management products for vehicle manufacturer in the on-highway and off-highway markets. The Company operates in four business units: Light Vehicle Driveline Technologies (Light Vehicle Driveline (LVD)), Commercial Vehicle Driveline Technologies (Commercial Vehicle), Off-Highway Driveline Technologies (Off-Highway) and Power Technologies. The Company's LVD segment includes front and rear axles, driveshafts, differentials, torque couplings and modular assemblies. The Company's commercial vehicle segment includes axles, driveshafts, steering shafts, suspensions and tire management systems. The Company's off-highway segment includes axles, driveshafts and end- fittings, transmissions, torque converters and electronic controls. Power Technologies includes gaskets, cover modules, heat shields, engine sealing systems, cooling and heat transfer products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Continues to Defend PI Suits ------------------------------------------------------------ Owens-Illinois, Inc., continues to defend itself against lawsuit and claims alleging bodily injury and death 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 June 30, 2013. The Company is a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging bodily injury and death as a result of exposure to asbestos dust. From 1948 to 1958, one of the Company's former business units commercially produced and sold approximately $40 million of a high-temperature, calcium-silicate based pipe and block insulation material containing asbestos. The Company exited the pipe and block insulation business in April 1958. The typical asbestos personal injury lawsuit alleges various theories of liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability and seek compensatory and in some cases, punitive damages in various amounts (herein referred to as "asbestos claims"). As of June 30, 2013, the Company has determined that it is a named defendant in asbestos lawsuits and claims involving approximately 2,600 plaintiffs and claimants. Based on an analysis of the lawsuits pending as of December 31, 2012, approximately 66% of plaintiffs either do not specify the monetary damages sought, or in the case of court filings, claim an amount sufficient to invoke the jurisdictional minimum of the trial court. Approximately 30% of plaintiffs specifically plead damages of $15 million or less, and 4% of plaintiffs specifically plead damages greater than $15 million but less than $100 million. Fewer than 1% of plaintiffs specifically plead damages equal to or greater than $100 million. As indicated by the foregoing summary, current pleading practice permits considerable variation in the assertion of monetary damages. The Company's experience resolving hundreds of thousands of asbestos claims and lawsuits over an extended period demonstrates that the monetary relief that may be alleged in a complaint bears little relevance to a claim's merits or disposition value. Rather, the amount potentially recoverable is determined by such factors as the severity of the plaintiff's asbestos disease, the product identification evidence against the Company and other defendants, the defenses available to the Company and other defendants, the specific jurisdiction in which the claim is made, and the plaintiff's medical history and exposure to other disease-causing agents. In addition to the pending claims, the Company has claims-handling agreements in place with many plaintiffs' counsel throughout the country. These agreements require evaluation and negotiation regarding whether particular claimants qualify under the criteria established by such agreements. The criteria for such claims include verification of a compensable illness and a reasonable probability of exposure to a product manufactured by the Company's former business unit during its manufacturing period ending in 1958. The Company has also been a defendant in other asbestos-related lawsuits or claims involving maritime workers, medical monitoring claimants, co-defendants and property damage claimants. Based upon its past experience, the Company believes that these categories of lawsuits and claims will not involve any material liability and they are not included in the description of pending matters or in the description of disposed matters. Since receiving its first asbestos claim, the Company as of June 30, 2013, has disposed of the asbestos claims of approximately 392,000 plaintiffs and claimants at an average indemnity payment per claim of approximately $8,400. Certain of these dispositions have included deferred amounts payable over time. Deferred amounts payable totaled approximately $11 million at June 30, 2013 ($24 million at December 31, 2012) and are included in the foregoing average indemnity payment per claim. The Company's asbestos indemnity payments have varied on a per claim basis, and are expected to continue to vary considerably over time. A part of the Company's objective is to achieve, where possible, resolution of asbestos claims pursuant to claims-handling agreements. Failure of claimants to meet certain medical and product exposure criteria in the Company's administrative claims handling agreements has generally reduced the number of marginal or suspect claims that would otherwise have been received. In addition, certain courts and legislatures have reduced or eliminated the number of marginal or suspect claims that the Company otherwise would have received. These developments generally have had the effect of increasing the Company's per-claim average indemnity payment. The Company believes that its ultimate asbestos-related liability (i.e., its indemnity payments or other claim disposition costs plus related legal fees) cannot reasonably be estimated. Beginning with the initial liability of $975 million established in 1993, the Company has accrued a total of approximately $4.3 billion through 2012, before insurance recoveries, for its asbestos- related liability. The Company's ability to reasonably estimate its liability has been significantly affected by, among other factors, the volatility of asbestos-related litigation in the United States, the significant number of co-defendants that have filed for bankruptcy, the magnitude and timing of co-defendant bankruptcy trust payments, the inherent uncertainty of future disease incidence and claiming patterns, the expanding list of non-traditional defendants that have been sued in this litigation, and the use of mass litigation screenings to generate large numbers of claims by parties who allege exposure to asbestos dust but have no present physical asbestos impairment. The Company has continued to monitor trends that may affect its ultimate liability and has continued to analyze the developments and variables affecting or likely to affect the resolution of pending and future asbestos claims against the Company. The material components of the Company's accrued liability are based on amounts determined by the Company in connection with its annual comprehensive review and consist of the following estimates, to the extent it is probable that such liabilities have been incurred and can be reasonably estimated: (i) the liability for asbestos claims already asserted against the Company; (ii) the liability for preexisting but unasserted asbestos claims for prior periods arising under its administrative claims-handling agreements with various plaintiffs' counsel; (iii) the liability for asbestos claims not yet asserted against the Company, but which the Company believes will be asserted in the next several years; and (iv) the legal defense costs likely to be incurred in connection with the foregoing types of claims. The significant assumptions underlying the material components of the Company's accrual are: a) the extent to which settlements are limited to claimants who were exposed to the Company's asbestos-containing insulation prior to its exit from that business in 1958; b) the extent to which claims are resolved under the Company's administrative claims agreements or on terms comparable to those set forth in those agreements; c) the extent of decrease or increase in the incidence of serious disease cases and claiming patterns for such cases; d) the extent to which the Company is able to defend itself successfully at trial; e) the extent to which courts and legislatures eliminate, reduce or permit the diversion of financial resources for unimpaired claimants; f) the number and timing of additional co-defendant bankruptcies; g) the extent to which bankruptcy trusts direct resources to resolve claims that are also presented to the Company and the timing of the payments made by the bankruptcy trusts; and h) the extent to which co-defendants with substantial resources and assets continue to participate significantly in the resolution of future asbestos lawsuits and claims. The Company conducts a comprehensive review of its asbestos- related liabilities and costs annually in connection with finalizing and reporting its annual results of operations, unless significant changes in trends or new developments warrant an earlier review. If the results of an annual comprehensive review indicate that the existing amount of the accrued liability is insufficient to cover its estimated future asbestos-related costs, then the Company will record an appropriate charge to increase the accrued liability. The Company believes that a reasonable estimation of the probable amount of the liability for claims not yet asserted against the Company is not possible beyond a period of several years. Therefore, while the results of future annual comprehensive reviews cannot be determined, the Company expects the addition of one year to the estimation period will result in an annual charge. The Company's reported results of operations for 2012 were materially affected by the $155 million fourth quarter charge for asbestos-related costs and asbestos-related payments continue to be substantial. Any future additional charge would likewise materially affect the Company's results of operations for the period in which it is recorded. Also, the continued use of significant amounts of cash for asbestos-related costs has affected and may continue to affect the Company's cost of borrowing and its ability to pursue global or domestic acquisitions. However, the Company believes that its operating cash flows and other sources of liquidity will be sufficient to pay its obligations for asbestos-related costs and to fund its working capital and capital expenditure requirements on a short- term and long-term basis. Owens-Illinois, Inc. is a manufacturer of glass containers with 81 glass manufacturing plants in 21 countries. It produces glass containers for beer, ready-to-drink low alcohol refreshers, spirits, wine, food, tea, juice and pharmaceuticals. The Company also produces glass containers for soft drinks and other non- alcoholic beverages outside the United States. It manufactures these products in a range of sizes, shapes and colors. It has four geographical segments: Europe, North America, South America, and Asia Pacific. On September 1, 2010, it completed the acquisition of Brazilian glassmaker Companhia Industrial de Vidros (CIV). On December 23, 2010, the Company acquired Hebei Rixin Glass Group Co., Ltd. On December 7, 2010, the Company acquired the majority interest in Zhaoqing Jiaxin Glasswork Co., LTD. On March 11, 2010, the Company acquired the majority interest in Cristalerias Rosario. ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Had 1,045 Exposure Suits at June 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- TriMas Corporation is party to 1,045 cases alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos-containing materials, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2013. As of June 30, 2013, the Company was a party to 1,045 pending cases involving an aggregate of 7,897 claimants alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos containing materials formerly used in gaskets (both encapsulated and otherwise) manufactured or distributed by certain of the Company's subsidiaries for use primarily in the petrochemical refining and exploration industries. During the six-months ended June 30, 2013, the Company's total defense costs was $1,365,000. There were 25 claims settled during the period, and the average settlement amount per claim was $1,888. In addition, the Company acquired various companies to distribute its products that had distributed gaskets of other manufacturers prior to acquisition. The Company believes that many of its pending cases relate to locations at which none of its gaskets were distributed or used. The Company may be subjected to significant additional asbestos- related claims in the future, the cost of settling cases in which product identification can be made may increase, and the Company may be subjected to further claims in respect of the former activities of its acquired gasket distributors. The Company is unable to make a meaningful statement concerning the monetary claims made in the asbestos cases given that, among other things, claims may be initially made in some jurisdictions without specifying the amount sought or by simply stating the requisite or maximum permissible monetary relief, and may be amended to alter the amount sought. The large majority of claims do not specify the amount sought. Of the 7,897 claims pending at June 30, 2013, 107 set forth specific amounts of damages (other than those stating the statutory minimum or maximum). The Company reported specific amounts that seek compensatory and punitive damages -- 89 claims seeking $0.0 million to $5.0 million; 14 claims seeking $5.0 million to $10.0 million; and 4 claims seeking more than $10.0 million. In addition, relatively few of the claims have reached the discovery stage and even fewer claims have gone past the discovery stage. Total settlement costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all asbestos-related cases, some of which were filed over 20 years ago, have been approximately $6.4 million. All relief sought in the asbestos cases is monetary in nature. To date, approximately 40% of the Company's costs related to settlement and defense of asbestos litigation have been covered by its primary insurance. Effective February 14, 2006, the Company entered into a coverage- in-place agreement with its first level excess carriers regarding the coverage to be provided to the Company for asbestos-related claims when the primary insurance is exhausted. The coverage-in- place agreement makes asbestos defense costs and indemnity coverage available to the Company that might otherwise be disputed by the carriers and provides a methodology for the administration of such expenses. Nonetheless, the Company believes it is likely there will be a period within the next one or two years, prior to the commencement of coverage under this agreement and following exhaustion of the Company's primary insurance coverage, during which the Company will be solely responsible for defense costs and indemnity payments, the duration of which would be subject to the scope of damage awards and settlements paid. Based on the settlements made to date and the number of claims dismissed or withdrawn for lack of product identification, the Company believes that the relief sought (when specified) does not bear a reasonable relationship to its potential liability. Based upon the Company's experience to date, including the trend in annual defense and settlement costs incurred to date, and other available information (including the availability of excess insurance), the Company does not believe these cases will have a material adverse effect on its financial position and results of operations or cash flows. TriMas Corporation (Trimas) is a manufacturer and distributor of products for commercial, industrial and consumer markets. The Company operates in six segments: Packaging, Energy, Aerospace & Defense, Engineered Components, Cequent Asia Pacific and Cequent North America. On September 13, 2011, the Company purchased all of the assets of a standard ring type joint gasket manufacturer located in Faridabad. On August 1, 2011, it acquired the stock of Innovative Molding (Innovative). On December 22, 2011, the Company sold its Hi-Vol Products and Precision Tool Company subsidiaries to ARCH Global Precision LLC, a newly formed entity created by Strength Capital Partners. On February 24, 2012, the Company acquired 70% interest in Arminak & Associates, LLC. On January 14, 2013, the Company's business, Lamons acquired Gasket Vedacoes Tecnicas Ltd. On January 28, 2013, it acquired Martinic Engineering, Inc. ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Has 16,000 Pending Liability Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- BorgWarner Inc., had approximately 16,000 pending asbestos-related product liability claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2013. Like many other industrial companies who have historically operated in the U.S., the Company (or parties the Company is obligated to indemnify) continues to be named as one of many defendants in asbestos-related personal injury actions. We believe that the Company's involvement is limited because, in general, these claims relate to a few types of automotive friction products that were manufactured many years ago and contained encapsulated asbestos. The nature of the fibers, the encapsulation and the manner of use lead the Company to believe that these products are highly unlikely to cause harm. As of both June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the Company had approximately 16,000 pending asbestos-related product liability claims, respectively. Of the approximately 16,000 outstanding claims at June 30, 2013, approximately half were pending in jurisdictions that have undergone significant tort and judicial reform activities subsequent to the filing of these claims. The Company's policy is to vigorously defend against these lawsuits and the Company has been successful in obtaining dismissal of many claims without any payment. The Company expects that the vast majority of the pending asbestos-related product liability claims where it is a defendant (or has an obligation to indemnify a defendant) will result in no payment being made by the Company or its insurers. In 2013, of the approximately 900 claims resolved, 153 (17%) resulted in payment being made to a claimant by or on behalf of the Company. In the full year of 2012, of the approximately 2,400 claims resolved, 308 (13%) resulted in any payment being made to a claimant by or on behalf of the Company. Prior to June 2004, the settlement and defense costs associated with all claims were paid by the Company's primary layer insurance carriers under a series of funding arrangements. In addition to the primary insurance available for asbestos-related claims, the Company has substantial excess insurance coverage available for potential future asbestos-related product claims. In June 2004, primary layer insurance carriers notified the Company of the alleged exhaustion of their policy limits. A declaratory judgment action was filed in January 2004 in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois by Continental Casualty Company and related companies against the Company and certain of its historical general liability insurers. The court has issued a number of interim rulings and discovery is continuing. The Company has entered into settlement agreements with some of its insurance carriers, resolving their coverage disputes by agreeing to pay specified amounts to the Company. The Company is vigorously pursuing the litigation against the remaining insurers. Although it is impossible to predict the outcome of pending or future claims or the impact of tort reform legislation that may be enacted at the state or federal levels, due to the encapsulated nature of the products, the Company's experience in vigorously defending and resolving claims in the past, and the Company's significant insurance coverage with solvent carriers as of the date of this filing, management does not believe that asbestos- related product liability claims are likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, financial position or cash flows. The Company has paid and accrued $254.3 million in defense and indemnity in advance of insurers' reimbursement and has received $124.8 million in cash and notes from insurers. The net balance of $129.5 million, is expected to be fully recovered, of which approximately $20.0 million is expected to be recovered within one year. Timing of recovery is dependent on final resolution of the declaratory judgment action or additional negotiated settlements. At December 31, 2012, insurers owed $111.0 million in association with these claims. In addition to the $129.5 million net balance relating to past settlements and defense costs, the Company has estimated a liability of $103.6 million for claims asserted, but not yet resolved and their related defense costs at June 30, 2013. The Company also has a related asset of $103.6 million to recognize proceeds from the insurance carriers, which is expected to be fully recovered. Receipt of these proceeds is not expected prior to the resolution of the declaratory judgment action, which, more- likely-than-not, will occur subsequent to June 30, 2014. At December 31, 2012, the comparable value of the accrued liability and associated insurance asset was $85.6 million. The 2013 increase in the accrued liability and associated insurance asset is primarily due to an expected higher rate of claim settlement based on recent litigation claim activity. The Company cannot reasonably estimate possible losses, if any, in excess of those for which it has accrued, because it cannot predict how many additional claims may be brought against the Company (or parties the Company has an obligation to indemnify) in the future, the allegations in such claims, the possible outcomes, or the impact of tort reform legislation that may be enacted at the state or federal levels. BorgWarner Inc. is a global supplier of engineered automotive systems and components primarily for powertrain applications. The Company's products are manufactured and sold worldwide, primarily to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of light vehicles (passenger cars, sport-utility vehicles (SUVs), vans and light- trucks). The Company's products are also sold to other OEMs of commercial vehicles (medium-duty trucks, heavy-duty trucks and buses) and off-highway vehicles (agricultural and construction machinery and marine applications). It also manufactures and sells its products to certain Tier One vehicle systems suppliers and into the aftermarket for light, commercial and off-highway vehicles. On January 31, 2011, the Company acquired 100% of the stock of Haldex Traction Holding AB (Haldex Traction Systems) of Haldex Group. In July 2012, the Company sold its spark plug business to Federal-Mogul Corporation. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Estimates Liability at $13MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Columbus McKinnon Corporation estimates that its asbestos-related aggregate liability to range between $8,000,000 and $13,000,000, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2013. Like many industrial manufacturers, the Company is involved in asbestos-related litigation. In continually evaluating costs relating to its estimated asbestos-related liability, the Company reviews, among other things, the incidence of past and recent claims, the historical case dismissal rate, the mix of the claimed illnesses and occupations of the plaintiffs, its recent and historical resolution of the cases, the number of cases pending against it, the status and results of broad-based settlement discussions, and the number of years such activity might continue. Based on this review, the Company has estimated its share of liability to defend and resolve probable asbestos-related personal injury claims. This estimate is highly uncertain due to the limitations of the available data and the difficulty of forecasting with any certainty the numerous variables that can affect the range of the liability. The Company will continue to study the variables in light of additional information in order to identify trends that may become evident and to assess their impact on the range of liability that is probable and estimable. Based on actuarial information, the Company has estimated its asbestos-related aggregate liability including related legal costs to range between $8,000,000 and $13,000,000 using actuarial parameters of continued claims for a period of 18 to 30 years from June 30, 2013. The Company's estimation of its asbestos-related aggregate liability that is probable and estimable, in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles approximates $11,000,000, which has been reflected as a liability in the consolidated financial statements as of June 30, 2013. The recorded liability does not consider the impact of any potential favorable federal legislation. This liability will fluctuate based on the uncertainty in the number of future claims that will be filed and the cost to resolve those claims, which may be influenced by a number of factors, including the outcome of the ongoing broad-based settlement negotiations, defensive strategies, and the cost to resolve claims outside the broad-based settlement program. Of this amount, management expects to incur asbestos liability payments of approximately $2,350,000 over the next 12 months. Because payment of the liability is likely to extend over many years, management believes that the potential additional costs for claims will not have a material effect on the financial condition of the Company or its liquidity, although the effect of any future liabilities recorded could be material to earnings in a future period. Columbus McKinnon Corporation is a global designer, manufacturer and marketer of hoists, rigging tools, cranes, actuators, and other material handling products serving a range of commercial and industrial end user markets. The products include a range of electric, lever, hand and air-powered hoists, hoist trolleys, winches, industrial crane systems such as bridge, gantry and jib cranes; alloy and carbon steel chain; closed-die forged attachments, such as hooks, shackles, textile slings, clamps, logging tools and load binders; industrial components, such as mechanical and electromechanical actuators and rotary unions; below-the-hook special purpose lifters; tire shredders; and light- rail systems. The Company is a manufacturer and marketer of hoists, alloy and high strength carbon steel chain and attachments, and actuators in North America. In August 2012, it sold its Gaffey division of Crane Equipment and Service Inc. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Unit Has 52,000 PI Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Crown Holdings, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary had 52,000 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 June 30, 2013. Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, is one of many defendants in a substantial number of lawsuits filed throughout the United States by persons alleging bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. In 1963, Crown Cork acquired a subsidiary that had two operating businesses, one of which is alleged to have manufactured asbestos-containing insulation products. Crown Cork believes that the business ceased manufacturing such products in 1963. The Company recorded pre-tax charges of $35 million, $28 million and $46 million to increase its accrual for asbestos-related liabilities in 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively. As of June 30, 2013, Crown Cork's accrual for pending and future asbestos-related claims and related legal costs was $243 million, including $182 million for unasserted claims. Crown Cork's accrual includes estimated probable costs for claims through the year 2022. Crown Cork's accrual excludes potential costs for claims beyond 2022 because the Company believes that the key assumptions underlying its accrual are subject to greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens. Assumptions underlying the accrual include that claims for exposure to asbestos that occurred after the sale of the subsidiary's insulation business in 1964 would not be entitled to settlement payouts and state statutes, including Texas and Pennsylvania statutes, are expected to have a highly favorable impact on Crown Cork's ability to settle or defend against asbestos-related claims in those states and other states where Pennsylvania law may apply. Crown Cork had approximately 51,000 asbestos-related claims outstanding at December 31, 2012. Of these claims, approximately 15,000 claims relate to claimants alleging first exposure to asbestos after 1964 and approximately 36,000 relate to claimants alleging first exposure to asbestos before or during 1964, of which approximately 13,000 were filed in Texas, 2,000 were filed in Pennsylvania, 6,000 were filed in other states that have enacted asbestos legislation and 15,000 were filed in other states. The outstanding claims at December 31, 2012 exclude 3,100 pending claims involving plaintiffs who allege that they are, or were, maritime workers subject to exposure to asbestos, but whose claims the Company believes will not have a material effect on the Company's consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flow. The outstanding claims at December 31, 2012 also exclude approximately 19,000 inactive claims. Due to the passage of time, the Company considers it unlikely that the plaintiffs in these cases will pursue further action. The exclusion of these inactive claims had no effect on the calculation of the Company's accrual as the claims were filed in states where the Company's liability is limited by statute. The Company devotes significant time and expense to defend against these various claims, complaints and proceedings, and there can be no assurance that the expenses or distractions from operating the Company's businesses arising from these defenses will not increase materially. During the six months ended June 30, 2013, Crown Cork received approximately 2,000 new claims, settled or dismissed approximately 1,000 claims, and had approximately 52,000 claims outstanding at the end of the period. On October 22, 2010, the Texas Supreme Court, in a 6-2 decision, reversed a lower court decision, Barbara Robinson v. Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., No. 14-04-00658-CV, Fourteenth Court of Appeals, Texas, which had upheld the dismissal of an asbestos- related case against Crown Cork. The Texas Supreme Court held that the Texas legislation was unconstitutional under the Texas Constitution when applied to asbestos-related claims pending against Crown Cork when the legislation was enacted in June of 2003. The Company believes that the decision of the Texas Supreme Court is limited to retroactive application of the Texas legislation to asbestos-related cases that were pending against Crown Cork in Texas on June 11, 2003 and therefore continues to assign no value to claims filed after June 11, 2003. Crown Cork made cash payments of $28 million, $28 million, $27 million and $13 million in 2012, 2011, 2010 and for the six months ended June 30, 2013, respectively, for asbestos-related claims including settlement payments and legal fees. These payments have reduced and any such future payments will reduce the cash flow available to Crown Cork for its business operations and debt payments. Asbestos-related payments including defense costs may be significantly higher than those estimated by Crown Cork because the outcome of this type of litigation (and, therefore, Crown Cork's reserve) is subject to a number of assumptions and uncertainties, such as the number or size of asbestos-related claims or settlements, the number of financially viable responsible parties, the extent to which state statutes relating to asbestos liability are upheld and/or applied by the courts, Crown Cork's ability to obtain resolution without payment of asbestos-related claims by persons alleging first exposure to asbestos after 1964, and the potential impact of any pending or future asbestos-related legislation. Accordingly, Crown Cork may be required to make payments for claims substantially in excess of its accrual, which could reduce the Company's cash flow and impair its ability to satisfy its obligations. As a result of the uncertainties regarding its asbestos-related liabilities and its reduced cash flow, the ability of the Company to raise new money in the capital markets is more difficult and more costly, and the Company may not be able to access the capital markets in the future." Crown Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, is a leading supplier of packaging products to consumer marketing companies around the world. World headquarters are located in Philadelphia, PA. For more information, visit www.crowncork.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyco Int'l. Had 5,400 Pending Claims at June 28 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tyco International Ltd., has determined it has approximately 5,400 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 June 28, 2013. The Company and certain of its subsidiaries along with numerous other companies are named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos containing materials. These cases typically involve product liability claims based primarily on allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial products that either contained asbestos or were attached to or used with asbestos containing components manufactured by third parties. Each case typically names between dozens to hundreds of corporate defendants. While the Company has observed an increase in the number of these lawsuits over the past several years, including lawsuits by plaintiffs with mesothelioma related claims, a large percentage of these suits have not presented viable legal claims and, as a result, have been dismissed by the courts. The Company's historical strategy has been to mount a vigorous defense aimed at having unsubstantiated suits dismissed, and, where appropriate, settling suits before trial. Although a large percentage of litigated suits have been dismissed, the Company cannot predict the extent to which it will be successful in resolving lawsuits in the future. In addition, the Company continues to assess its strategy for resolving asbestos claims. Due to the number of claims and limited amount of assets held by Yarway Corporation ("Yarway"), one of the Company's indirect subsidiaries, on April 22, 2013 Yarway filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. As a result of this filing, all asbestos claims against Yarway have been stayed pending confirmation of a plan of reorganization by the Bankruptcy Court. Yarway's goal is to negotiate, obtain approval of, and consummate a plan of reorganization that establishes an appropriately funded trust to provide for the fair and equitable payment of legitimate current and future Yarway asbestos claims, accompanied by appropriate injunctive relief permanently protecting Yarway and certain other protected parties from any further asbestos claims arising from products manufactured, sold, and/or distributed by Yarway. Upon confirmation of such plan of reorganization, the Company expects to deconsolidate Yarway. As a result of filing the voluntary petition during the quarter, the Company recorded an expected loss upon deconsolidation of $10 million related to the Yarway bankruptcy petition. Although the terms of Yarway's plan of reorganization are unknown at this time, the Company does not expect them to have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, financial condition or liquidity. As of June 28, 2013, the Company has determined that there were approximately 5,400 claims pending against it, its subsidiaries or entities for which the Company has assumed responsibility in connection with acquisitions and divestitures. This amount reflects the Company's current estimate of the number of viable claims made against such entities and includes adjustments for claims that are not actively being prosecuted, identify incorrect defendants, are duplicative of other actions or for which the Company is indemnified. The Company's estimate of its liability and corresponding insurance recovery for pending and future claims and defense costs is based on the Company's historical claim experience, and estimates of the number and resolution cost of potential future claims that may be filed. The Company's legal strategy for resolving claims also impacts these estimates. The Company considers various trends and developments in evaluating the period of time (the look-back period) over which historical claim and settlement experience is used to estimate and value claims reasonably projected to be made in the future during a defined period of time (the look-forward period). On a quarterly basis, Tyco assesses the sufficiency of its estimated liability for pending and future claims and defense costs by evaluating actual experience regarding claims filed, settled and dismissed, and amounts paid in settlements. In addition to claims and settlement experience, Tyco considers additional quantitative and qualitative factors such as changes in legislation, the legal environment, and the Company's defense strategy. Tyco also evaluates the recoverability of its insurance receivable on a quarterly basis. The Company evaluates all of these factors and determines whether a change in the estimate of its liability for pending and future claims and defense costs or insurance receivable is warranted. During the third quarter of fiscal 2012, the Company determined that a look-back period of three years was more appropriate than a five year period because the Company had experienced a higher and more consistent level of claims activity and settlement costs in the past three years. As a result, the Company believes a three year look-back period is more representative of future claim and settlement activity than the five year period it previously used. The Company also revised its look-forward period from seven years to fifteen years. The Company's decision to revise its look- forward period was primarily based on improvements in the consistency of observable data and the Company's more extensive experience with asbestos claims since the look-forward period was originally established in 2005. The revisions to the Company's look-forward and look-back periods do not apply to claims made against Yarway. Excluding these claims, the Company believes it can make a more reliable estimate of pending and future claims beyond seven years. The Company believes valuation of pending claims and future claims to be filed over the next fifteen years produces a reasonable estimate of its asbestos liability, which it records in the unaudited consolidated financial statements on an undiscounted basis. The effect of the change in our look-back and look-forward periods reduced income from continuing operations before income taxes and net income by approximately $90 million and $55 million, respectively. In addition, the effect of the change increased the Company's basic and diluted loss from continuing operations by $0.12 per share and decreased the Company's basic and diluted net income by $0.12 per share. The Company's estimate of asbestos related insurance recoveries represents estimated amounts due to the Company for previously paid and settled claims and the probable reimbursements relating to its estimated liability for pending and future claims. In determining the amount of insurance recoverable, the Company considers a number of factors, including available insurance, allocation methodologies, and the solvency and creditworthiness of insurers. During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2012, the Company reached an agreement with one of its primary insurance carriers for asbestos related claims. Under the terms of the settlement, the Company agreed with the insurance carrier to accept a lump sum cash payment of $97 million in respect of certain policies, and has reached a coverage-in-place agreement with the insurance carrier with respect to certain claims. Upon receipt of the payments from the insurance carrier in the first quarter of fiscal 2013, the Company terminated a cost-sharing agreement that it had entered into with an entity that it had acquired a business from several decades ago and as a result, has access to all of the insurance policies and is responsible for all liabilities arising from asbestos claims made against the subsidiary that was acquired. As of June 28, 2013, the Company's estimated net liability of $176 million was recorded within the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet as a liability for pending and future claims and related defense costs of $328 million, and separately as an asset for insurance recoveries of $152 million. The Company believes that its asbestos related liabilities and insurance related assets as of June 28, 2013 are appropriate. Similarly, as of September 28, 2012, the Company's estimated net liability of $155 million was recorded within the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet as a liability for pending and future claims and related defense costs of $401 million, and separately as an asset for insurance recoveries of $246 million. The net liabilities reflected in the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet represent the Company's best estimates of probable losses for the look-forward periods. It is reasonably possible that losses will be incurred for claims made subsequent to such look-forward periods. However, due to the inherent uncertainty and lack of reliable trend data in predicting losses beyond 2027, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the amount of losses beyond such date. With respect to claims made against Yarway, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate losses beyond what it has accrued because it is uncertain what the impact of Yarway's reorganization plan under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code will be on the Company. However, the Company does not expect the impact to be materially adverse to its financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on the Company's strategies for resolving its asbestos claims, currently available information, and a number of estimates and assumptions. Key variables and assumptions include the number and type of new claims that are filed each year, the average cost of resolution of claims, the resolution of coverage issues with insurance carriers, amount of insurance and the solvency risk with respect to the Company's insurance carriers. Many of these factors are closely linked, such that a change in one variable or assumption will impact one or more of the others, and no single variable or assumption predominately influences the determination of the Company's asbestos-related liabilities and insurance-related assets. Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables are subject to greater uncertainty in the later portion of the projection period. Other factors that may affect the Company's liability and cash payments for asbestos-related matters include uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms of state or federal tort legislation and the applicability of insurance policies among subsidiaries. As a result, actual liabilities or insurance recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than those recorded if assumptions used in the Company's calculations vary significantly from actual results. Tyco International Ltd is a Switzerland-based holding company of Tyco Group. The Tyco Group (the Group) is a diversifies, global provider of diversified products ranging from electronic security and alarm monitoring to fire-fighting equipment and breathing apparatus, water purification and flow control solutions. The Company diversifies its activities into three segments: Tyco Security Solutions; Tyco Fire Protection and Tyco Flow Control. The Tyco Security Solutions segment designs, sells, installs, services and monitors electronic security systems, as well as designs, manufactures and sells security products. The Tyco Fire Protection segment designs, manufactures, sells, installs and services fire detection and fire suppression systems, among others. The Tyco Flow Control segment designs, manufactures, sells and services valves, pipes, fittings, automation and controls, valve automation and heat tracing products for various industries. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Has 12 Pending Cases ----------------------------------------------------------- Minerals Technologies Inc., had 12 pending asbestos cases, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2013. Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are among numerous defendants in a number of cases seeking damages for exposure to silica or to asbestos containing materials. The Company currently has 72 pending silica cases and 12 pending asbestos cases. To date, 1,394 silica cases and 33 asbestos cases have been dismissed. Two new asbestos cases were filed in the second quarter of 2013. Most of these claims do not provide adequate information to assess their merits, the likelihood that the Company will be found liable, or the magnitude of such liability, if any. Additional claims of this nature may be made against the Company or its subsidiaries. At this time management anticipates that the amount of the Company's liability, if any, and the cost of defending such claims, will not have a material effect on its financial position or results of operations. The Company has not settled any silica or asbestos lawsuits to date. The Company states, "We are unable to state an amount or range of amounts claimed in any of the lawsuits because state court pleading practices do not require identifying the amount of the claimed damage. The aggregate cost to the Company for the legal defense of these cases since inception continues to be insignificant. The majority of the costs of defense are reimbursed by Pfizer Inc pursuant to the terms of certain agreements entered into in connection with the Company's initial public offering in 1992. Of the 12 pending asbestos cases, all allege liability based on products sold largely or entirely prior to the initial public offering, and for which the Company is therefore entitled to indemnification pursuant to such agreements. Our experience has been that the Company is not liable to plaintiffs in any of these lawsuits and the Company does not expect to pay any settlements or jury verdicts in these lawsuits." Minerals Technologies Inc., is a resource-and technology-based company that develops, produces and markets worldwide a broad range of specialty mineral, mineral-based and synthetic mineral products and supporting systems and services. The Company has two reportable segments: Specialty Minerals and Refractories. The Specialty Minerals segment produces and sells the synthetic mineral product precipitated calcium carbonate (PCC) and processed mineral product quicklime (lime), and mines mineral ores then processes and sells natural mineral products, primarily limestone and talc. The Refractories segment produces and markets monolithic and shaped refractory materials and specialty products, services and application and measurement equipment, and calcium metal and metallurgical wire products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSX Corp. Had $298-Mil. Casualty Reserves ---------------------------------------------------------- CSX Corporation had casualty reserves of $298 million representing accruals for personal injury, occupational injury, and asbestos claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2013. Casualty reserves of $298 million for the second quarter 2013 represent accruals for personal injury, occupational injury and asbestos claims. The Company's self-insured retention amount for these claims is $50 million per occurrence. Currently, no individual claim is expected to exceed the self-insured retention amount. To the extent the value of an individual claim exceeds the self-insured retention amount, the Company would present the liability on a gross basis with a corresponding receivable for insurance recoveries. These reserves fluctuate based upon the timing of payments as well as changes in independent third-party estimates, which are reviewed by management. Actual results may vary from estimates due to the number, type and severity of the injury, costs of medical treatments and uncertainties in litigation. Most of the claims relate to CSXT unless otherwise noted. Defense and processing costs, which historically have been insignificant and are anticipated to be insignificant in the future, are not included in the recorded liabilities. Personal injury reserves represent liabilities for employee work- related and third-party injuries. Work-related injuries for CSXT employees are primarily subject to the Federal Employers' Liability Act ("FELA"). In addition to FELA liabilities, employees of other CSX subsidiaries are covered by various state workers' compensation laws, the Federal Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Program or the Maritime Jones Act. CSXT retains an independent actuarial firm to assist management in assessing the value of personal injury claims. An analysis is performed by the independent actuarial firm quarterly and is reviewed by management. The methodology used by the actuary includes a development factor to reflect growth or reduction in the value of these personal injury claims. It is based largely on CSXT's historical claims and settlement experience. Occupational claims arise from allegations of exposures to certain materials in the workplace, such as solvents, soaps, chemicals (collectively referred to as "irritants") and diesel fuels (like exhaust fumes) or allegations of chronic physical injuries resulting from work conditions, such as repetitive stress injuries, carpal tunnel syndrome and hearing loss. The Company is also party to a number of asbestos claims by current or former employees alleging exposure to asbestos in the workplace. An analysis of occupational claims is performed quarterly by an independent third-party actuarial firm and reviewed by management. Management performs a quarterly review of asserted asbestos claims, and an analysis is performed annually by an independent third-party specialist and reviewed by management. The objective of the occupational and asbestos claims analyses performed by the third-party actuarial firm and specialist (the "third-party specialists") is to determine the number of incurred but not reported ("IBNR") claims. The third-party specialists analyze CSXT's historical claim filings, settlement amounts, and dismissal rates to determine future anticipated claim filing rates and average settlement values for occupational and asbestos claims reserves. The potentially exposed population is estimated by using CSX's employment records and industry data. From this analysis, the third-party specialists provide an estimate of the IBNR claims liability. CSX Corporation (CSX), together with its subsidiaries, is a transportation supplier. The Company provides rail-based transportation services, including traditional rail service and the transport of intermodal containers and trailers. CSX's operating subsidiary, CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT), provides link to the transportation supply chain through its approximately 21,000 route mile rail network, which serves centers in 23 states east of the Mississippi River, the District of Columbia and the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec. It has access to over 70 ocean, river and lake port terminals along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, the Mississippi River, the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway. The Company's intermodal business links customers to railroads through trucks and terminals. CSXT also serves production and distribution facilities through track connections to approximately 240 short-line and regional railroads. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific Corp. Had $134-Mil Liability ----------------------------------------------------------- Union Pacific Corporation recorded $134 million for its 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 June 30, 2013. The Company states: "We are a defendant in a number of lawsuits in which current and former employees and other parties allege exposure to asbestos. We assess our potential liability using a statistical analysis of resolution costs for asbestos-related claims. This liability is updated annually and excludes future defense and processing costs. The liability for resolving both asserted and unasserted claims was based on the following assumptions: * The ratio of future claims by alleged disease would be consistent with historical averages adjusted for inflation. * The number of claims filed against us will decline each year. * The average settlement values for asserted and unasserted claims will be equivalent to historical averages. * The percentage of claims dismissed in the future will be equivalent to historical averages. Our liability for asbestos-related claims is not discounted to present value due to the uncertainty surrounding the timing of future payments. Approximately 23% of the recorded liability related to asserted claims and approximately 77% related to unasserted claims at June 30, 2013. For the six-months ended June 30, 2013, the ending balance of our asbestos-related liability is $134 million. We have insurance coverage for a portion of the costs incurred to resolve asbestos-related claims, and we have recognized an asset for estimated insurance recoveries at June 30, 2013, and December 31, 2012. We believe that our estimates of liability for asbestos-related claims and insurance recoveries are reasonable and probable. The amounts recorded for asbestos-related liabilities and related insurance recoveries were based on currently known facts. However, future events, such as the number of new claims filed each year, average settlement costs, and insurance coverage issues, could cause the actual costs and insurance recoveries to be higher or lower than the projected amounts. Estimates also may vary in the future if strategies, activities, and outcomes of asbestos litigation materially change; federal and state laws governing asbestos litigation increase or decrease the probability or amount of compensation of claimants; and there are material changes with respect to payments made to claimants by other defendants." Union Pacific Corporation (UPC) owns transportation companies. Its principal operating company, Union Pacific Railroad Company, links 23 states in the western 66% of the country. Union Pacific Railroad Company's business mix includes agricultural products, automotive, chemicals, energy, industrial products and intermodal. Union Pacific Railroad Company connects with Canada's rail systems and is the railroad serving six gateways to Mexico. Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR) is a Class I railroad operating in the United States. In June 2012, the Company's wholly owned subsidiary, PS Technology (PST), acquired the Yard Control Systems division of Ansaldo STS USA. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Charges $50MM to Resolve Bendix Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International Inc., charged $50 million to its estimated liability to resolve Bendix related asbestos claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2013. The Company states: "In the quarter ended June 30, 2013, we recognized a charge of $50 million primarily representing an update to our estimated liability for the resolution of Bendix related asbestos claims as of June 30, 2013, net of probable insurance recoveries. In the six months ended June 30, 2013, we recognized a charge of $91 million primarily representing an update to our estimated liability for the resolution of Bendix related asbestos claims as of June 30, 2013, net of probable insurance recoveries." Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) is a diversified technology and manufacturing company, serving customers worldwide with aerospace products and services, control, sensing and security technologies for buildings, homes and industry, turbochargers, automotive products, specialty chemicals, electronic and advanced materials, process technology for refining and petrochemicals, and energy efficient products and solutions for homes, business and transportation. Honeywell operates four business segments: Aerospace, Automation and Control Solutions, Performance Materials and Technologies, and Transportation Systems. In December 2011, the Company acquired King's Safetywear Limited (KSW), a provider of branded safety footwear. In August 2011, it completed the acquisition of EMS Technologies, Inc. (EMS). In October 2012, the Company's UOP business had completed its acquisition of a 70% interest in Thomas Russell Co. In June 2013, the Company acquired RAE Systems, Inc. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reduction of Award for Victim's Family Affirmed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joan Dixon contracted mesothelioma. While still alive, she and her husband filed a lawsuit against Ford Motor Company and Georgia-Pacific Corp. in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, claiming negligence on the companies' part for failing to warn Mrs. Dixon of the danger lurking in their products. Mrs. Dixon died and was succeeded in the lawsuit by her husband and children. After a 12-day trial, a jury concluded that the only substantial contributing factor in causing Ms. Dixon's mesothelioma was the dust from the Ford brake products. On that finding, it returned substantial verdicts in favor of Mr. Dixon and his daughters against Ford and denied a cross-claim by Ford against Georgia- Pacific. The trial court subsequently modified those verdicts in two respects by (1) reducing the amount of the verdicts and (2) expressing its disagreement with the jury's conclusion that the Georgia-Pacific compound was not also a substantial contributing factor and entered judgment for Ford on its cross-claim against Georgia-Pacific. Both the Plaintiffs and Ford filed appeals to the Court of Special Appeals, which addressed only one of several issues raised -- the opinion evidence by the Plaintiffs' principal expert, Dr. Laura Welch, that every exposure to asbestos, including the short-fiber chrysotile asbestos contained in the Ford brake products, increased the likelihood of contracting mesothelioma and thus constituted a substantial contributing cause of that disease. The Special Appeals Court held that Dr. Welch's opinion was not helpful to the jury and that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing it into evidence. The Special Appeals Court reversed the judgments entered in favor of the Plaintiffs and remanded the case for a new trial and, as a result, did not consider the cross- claim against Georgia-Pacific or any of the other issues raised by the parties. In an opinion dated July 25, 2013, the Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed the judgment of the Special Appeals Court and remanded the case with instructions to affirm the trial court's judgments entered in favor of the Plaintiffs against Ford Motor and reserve the judgment entered in favor of Ford Motor on its cross-claim against Georgia-Pacific. On the reduction of the amounts of the verdicts, the Court of Appeals held that under the statute in effect when the cause of action arose, the trial court's reductions are numerically correct. According to the Court of Appeals, the cap imposed by the trial court does not intrude on the jury's right to determine the relative degree of harm suffered by the individual claimants; nor does it create irrational classifications among the claimants. The Court of Appeals found no violation of equal protection, due process, the right to jury trial, and thus sustained the reductions made by the trial court. On the reversal of the jury's verdict on Ford's cross-claim against Georgia-Pacific, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court abused its discretion in setting aside the jury's verdict on the cross-claim against Georgia-Pacific. According to the Court of Appeals, there was no direct evidence that Ms. Dixon was ever exposed to asbestos emanating from a Georgia-Pacific product. At best, an inference could fairly have been drawn that she was, which made the issue one for the jury to resolve. The Court of Appeals pointed out that the trial court carefully and properly instructed the jury on the standards it was to apply in weighing the evidence, explaining that the jury was the sole judge of whether testimony should be believed and of the weight of the evidence and that the party asserting a cross-claim had the burden of proving it. There is no indication that, with respect to Ford's cross-claim, the jury did anything other than what it was instructed to do and what was properly within its province to do, the Court of Appeals noted. There was no triumph of technicality over justice, the Court of Appeals said. The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence but simply reflected the jury's belief that evidence of Ms. Dixon's exposure to asbestos from a Georgia-Pacific product was insufficient to show by a preponderance that such exposure was a substantial contributing factor in causing her mesothelioma, the Court of Appeals added. The case is BERNARD DIXON, etc., et al. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, NO. 82, SEPTEMBER TERM 2012 (Md.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/64Ww2wfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: High Court Flips Decision in PGE Insurance Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Portland General Electric Company seeks review of a Court of Appeals decision that reversed and remanded a trial court order denying defendant Lexington Insurance Company's motion to set aside a default judgment entered against it in PGE's favor, on the ground that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the default judgment. On review, the issues are (1) whether a default judgment awarding monetary relief violates Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure (ORCP) if the underlying complaint, in this case an asbestos-related personal injury action, did not state the specific amount of money or damages being sought; and (2) if so, whether a defect renders the judgment merely voidable and therefore not subject to collateral attack or, instead, renders the judgment void and therefore subject to challenge at any time. In a decision dated July 25, 2013, the Supreme Court of Oregon concluded that the default judgment did violate ORCP in the asserted respect. However, the Supreme Court also concluded that, in the circumstances of the case, the rule violation did not render the judgment void. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded to that court for further proceedings. The case is PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, an Oregon corporation, Plaintiff- Respondent, Petitioner on Review, v. EBASCO SERVICES, INC., fka Esicorp, Inc.; et al., Defendants, and LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, Respondent on Review. EECI, INC., a Nevada corporation, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, a New York Corporation; et al., Third-Party Defendants, NO. S060584 (Or.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/gD09ZDfrom Leagle.com. Brian R. Talcott, Esq. -- btalcott@dunncarney.com -- at Dunn Carney Allen Higgins and Tongue, LLP, in Portland, argued the cause for petitioner on review. With him on the brief were Thomas H. Tongue, Esq. -- ttongue@dunncarney.com -- and Bridget D. Lynn, Esq. -- blynn@dunncarney.com -- at Dunn Carney Allen Higgins and Tongue, LLP. David M. Axelrad, Esq. -- at daxelrad@horvitzlevy.com -- Horitz & Levy LLP, Encino, California, argued the cause for respondent on review. On the brief were Stephen F. Deatherage, Esq. -- stephen.deatherage@bullivant.com -- at Bullivant Houser Bailey, PC, in Portland. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pepsi-Cola's Suit v. Cooper Remains in Texas ------------------------------------------------------------- Cooper Industries, LLC and Cooper US, Inc., filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, Houston, asking the Court to compel the Honorable Larry Weiman, presiding judge of the 80th District Court of Harris County, to set aside his May 23, 2013, order denying their plea to the jurisdiction and to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Pepsi-Cola Metropolitan Bottling Co., Inc., in Texas to challenge a settlement agreement, which resulted in a trust approved by a New York court providing "hundreds of millions of dollars" for the defense and payment of asbestos claims. At issue in the Texas case are the funds for claims against Pneumo Abex LLC, which has indemnity obligations to Pepsi. Cooper's indemnity obligations to Pneumo Abex were released in the settlement agreement. The Relators' plea raised the principle of comity, asserting that a New York state court should maintain jurisdiction over Pepsi- Cola's case. The Supreme Court held that under the facts presented, comity does not require abatement of the Texas suit. Relators have not established that the trial court abused its discretion in denying their request for dismissal of the Texas suit based on principles of comity, the Supreme Court said. Accordingly, the Supreme Court denied the petition. The Relators also filed a motion for a temporary stay of discovery pending the proceeding, which the Supreme Court denied holding that consideration of certain factors weights against staying the Texas suit. The Supreme Court pointed out that the Texas and New York suits involve different causes of action, different issues, and seek different relief. Moreover, the New York litigation has concluded. At the hearing approving the settlement, the New York trial judge stated that his court would "continue to have jurisdiction over this action and settling parties with respect to any further matters that might arise out of the settlement agreement. . . .," the Supreme Court noted. Because Pepsi was not a party to the New York action, Pepsi's suit is not required to be litigated in the New York court, the Supreme Court held. The case is IN RE COOPER INDUSTRIES, LLC AND COOPER US, INC., Relators, NO. 14-13-00500-CV (Tex. App.). A full-text copy of the memorandum and decision dated July 25, 2013, is available at http://is.gd/VYLIfUfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: John Crane's Liability in "Keeney" Suit Affirmed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Keeney developed mesothelioma, a disease caused by exposure to asbestos. He and Howard J. Garcia filed suit against numerous defendants, seeking compensatory and punitive damages for Keeney's exposure to asbestos during his 20 years of service in the United States Navy and his 16-year employment by C & H Sugar Company. A jury trial was held against John Crane Inc., the only remaining defendant after the others either settled or were dismissed. The jury allocated the majority of the liability to the Navy but found that John Crane was 12 percent liable for Keeney's damages. John Crane filed an appeal, and appellants filed a cross-appeal. However, John Crane paid the judgment and subsequently abandoned its appeal. The Appellants contend in their cross-appeal that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the jury's allocation of liability and that John Crane should be held liable for 100 percent of the damages. In a decision dated July 24, 2013, the Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Four, disagreed and found that there is substantial evidence to support the jury's findings. The Appellants also contend that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing a former Navy commander to testify because it violated a Navy regulation. The Court of Appeals also disagreed, and affirmed the judgment. The case is RICHARD KEENEY et al., Plaintiffs and Cross- Appellants, v. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY et al., Defendants and Cross-Respondents, NO. B240313 (Calif. App.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/BU31FFfrom Leagle.com. Simona A. Farrise, Esq., and Sharon J. Arkin, Esq., at The Arkin Law Firm, for Plaintiffs and Cross- Appellants. Robert E. Thackston, Esq. -- rthackston@hptylaw.com -- and Julia A. Gowin, Esq. -- jgowin@hptylaw.com -- at Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young, for Defendant and Cross- Respondent John Crane Inc. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judgment Favoring Crane in "Bone" Suit Reversed ---------------------------------------------------------------- A three-judge panel of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated and remanded a trial court's entry of summary judgment against Plaintiffs Robert and Annemarie Bone and in favor of Defendant Crane Company. The trial court granted Crane's summary judgment motion, holding that the Plaintiffs failed to file their action within the two-year statute of limitations. According to the Superior Court, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment against Bone and in favor of Crane. The Superior Court noted that the record does not support the trial court's conclusion that Mr. Bone's progress notes from the Durham Medical Center, which indicated a history of diagnosed asbestosis and inhalers for treatment triggered a duty to know of a diagnosis of symptomatic asbestosis, or a duty of further inquiry, prior to 2009. The case is ROBERT AND ANNEMARIE BONE, Appellants, v. AMERICAN STANDARD, A.O. SMITH CORPORATION, ASBESTOS INSULATION COMPANY, INC., A.W. CHESTERTON, INC., BAYER CORPSCIENCE, INC., BRAND INSULATIONS, INC., CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, COPESVULCAN, CRANE CO., DEMMING DIVISION, CRANE PACKING, CROWN CORK & SEAL COMPANY, INC., DANA COMPANIES, LLC, DEZURIK WATER CONTROLS, FEDERAL-MOGUL ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY TRUST, FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION, GARLOCK, INC., GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION, GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, GOODYEAR CANADA, INC., GOULDS PUMPS, INC., GREEN, TWEED & COMPANY, INC., HAJOCA PLUMBING SUPPLY COMPANY, IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., INGERSOLL RAND CO., ITT CORPORATION, J.A. SEXAUER MANUFACTURING CO., J.H. FRANCE REFRACTORIES CO., McMASTER CARR SUPPLY HOUSE, MELRATH GASKET, INC., METROPOLITAN INSURANCE CO., OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC., PARS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, PECORA CORPORATION, RILEY STOKER CORPORATION, UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, VELLUMOID, INC., WEIL McLAIN CO., YARWAY CORPORATION, CBS CORPORATION, Appellees, NO. 2468 EDA 2012 (Pa. Super.). A full-text copy of the Decision, dated July 29, 2013, is available for free at http://is.gd/hNKVmafrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mechanic's PI Suit v. Courter Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------- Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, granted Defendant Courter & Company, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing an asbestos-related personal injury action against it and all cross-claims arising from the action. According to Judge Heitler, Alberto Fernandez, who worked for Consolidated Edison as a general utility man as a mechanic, could not say who employed the workers at the Ravenswood facility that maintained the main boiler at that location, what work they were doing, where the dust came from, or whether that dust contained asbestos. Judge Heitler said that even if the Court were to assume, arguendo, that that work was performed by Courter employees, there is no evidence to show that it contributed to Mr. Fernandez' asbestos exposure. The case is ALEIDA FERNANDEZ, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of ALBERTO FERNANDEZ, Plaintiffs, v. A.C. and S., Inc., et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190399/11, MOTION SEQ. NO. 010, (N.Y. Sup.). A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision dated July 22, 2013, is available at http://is.gd/AAjCBufrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inmate's 8th Amendment Violation Claim Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Haden, a pro se inmate currently housed at Buena Vista Correctional Facility (BVCF), filed four claims, including one claim alleging that his Eight Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment was violated because of poor living conditions at BVCF including asbestos, poor air circulation, fluctuating temperatures, and the presence of mice, insects, and molds. The claims were referred to Magistrate Judge Tafoya who recommended that all of the claims be dismissed. Following de novo review, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado adopted Magistrate Judge Tafoya's recommendation. With regards to his Eight Amendment violation claim, the Court held that Mr. Haden could not show that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his health or safety. Mr. Haden now wants the Court to alter or amend its orders. In a order dated July 29, 2013, the Court refused to alter or amend its prior judgment, finding that Mr. Haden does not cite to any specific mistakes that were made, offer new evidence, or cite to any extraordinary circumstances. In the alternative, the Court granted Mr. Haden leave to appeal in forma pauperis. The case is STEVEN HADEN, Plaintiff, v. STEVE GREEN, Warden, Buena Vista Correctional Facility, WILLIAM BRUNNELL, GEORGE DUNBAR, TERRI BARTRUFF, R. DANSDILL, J. LENGERICH, D. CONNORS, G. SMETHERS, L. BLAND, V. DENT, T. COLEMAN, A. ORTEGA, DR. SHEPARD, G. SMITH, C. McCORMACK, CROCKETT, and C. LAGUE, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-CV-0515-RBJ-KMT (D. Colo.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/ogTQ65from Leagle.com. Steven T. Haden, Plaintiff, Pro Se. David M. Shepard, Defendant, represented by Nicole S. Gellar, Colorado Attorney General's Office. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order Granting Pipefitter's Claim Affirmed ----------------------------------------------------------- P.H. Glatfelter (Employer) petitions for review of an adjudication of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board granting James Henry's claim for an occupational disease. The Claimant filed a claim alleging that he had pulmonary fibrosis caused by long-time exposure to hazardous materials, including asbestos, at the Employer's workplace. In granting the Claim, the Board affirmed the decision of the Workers' Compensation Judge that Claimant proved that exposure to hazardous materials at Employer's plant caused him to develop a disabling lung disease. The Employer does not dispute that the Claimant's lung disease was caused by his employment and is disabling. The Employer contends only that the Claimant failed to present evidence adequate to prove that his disability occurred within 300 weeks of his last exposure to hazardous materials as required by Section 301(c)(2) of the Workers' Compensation Act. In a memorandum opinion dated July 30, 2013, a three-judge panel of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the judgment after finding that the Claimant did meet his burden of proof. The case is P.H. Glatfelter, Petitioner, v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Henry), Respondent, NO. 48 C.D. 2013 (Pa. Cmmw.). A full-text copy of the Decision penned by Judge Mary Hannah Leavitt is available at http://is.gd/HmWjTEfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Jensen" PI Suit Remanded to State Court --------------------------------------------------------- Judge Ronald B. Leighton of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Tacoma, granted Plaintiff Peter E. Jensen's motion to remand his asbestos-related personal injury action to Pierce County Superior Court in Washington, after finding that Saberhagen Holding's presence as a properly joined Washington corporation defeats diversity. The case is PETER E. JENSEN, Plaintiff, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 3:13-CV-5449 (W.D. Wash.). A full-text copy of Judge Leighton's Decision dated July 29, 2013, is available at http://is.gd/S6uGJ3from Leagle.com. Peter E. Jensen, Plaintiff, is represented by Glenn S Draper, Esq. -- glenn@bergmanlegal.com -- and Brian F Ladenburg, Esq. -- brian@bergmanlegal.com -- at BERGMAN DRAPER LADENBURG. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, is represented by Richard G Gawlowski, Esq. -- gawlowski@wscd.com -- at WILSON SMITH COCHRAN & DICKERSON. FMC Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Katherine M. Steele, Esq. -- ksteele@williamskastner.com -- at WILLIAMS KASTNER & GIBBS. Terex Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Kevin J Craig, Esq. -- kcraig@gordonrees.com -- and Mark B Tuvim, Esq. -- mtuvim@gordonrees.com -- at GORDON & REES. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Weitz's NY Suit v. Blackmer Pump Stayed -------------------------------------------------------- The case IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION - WEITZ & LUXEMBURG, P.C., v. BLACKMER PUMP COMPANY, MOTION NO. M-3435 (N.Y. App. Div.) is stayed in the interim pending hearing and determination of an appeal. A full-text copy of the Decision dated July 30, 2013, by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, is available at http://is.gd/AUQJdCfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro at Old Thunder Bay Hotel Prompts Caution --------------------------------------------------------------- CBC News reported that the company removing the debris from the former Empire Hotel in Thunder Bay's south-side downtown says asbestos in the collapsed building poses no risk to the public. According to the report, a sign at the site on Simpson Street warns passers-by of the presence of asbestos, but a supervisor with DRD construction says workers are taking care to wet the debris so dangerous particles are not released into the air. "We usually use amended water, it's called," Rob Trystruha told the news agency. "You can use a [fabric softener] product or different things mixed with water, which will encapsulate the asbestos." Trystruha said workers also keep the rubble covered during the drive to the landfill, where the asbestos is buried rather than left sitting in the open air, the report related. "We're taking all precautions that this contamination doesn't get anywhere." The building is being demolished after it had partially caved in, the report said. Trystruha said there was asbestos in one of the walls of the building -- but only a fraction of a per cent. Because the percentage is so low, he said there is no risk to the public. He noted "asbestos can only be inhaled. You can't absorb it through your skin or eat it." Workers are wearing masks and the sidewalk alongside the demolition site is closed. Pedestrians are being asked to walk on the other side of the street. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Could Delay Marion County Jail Razing ------------------------------------------------------------------ Peabody Gazette-Bulletin reported that Marion County's plans to raze its former jail by year's end may have hit a snag. According to the report, environmental health director Tonya Richards confirmed that all six tests she performed on insulation from ducts in the old jail were positive for asbestos. Under state law, the county must hire a licensed removal firm to get rid of the asbestos before it can demolish the building, the report related. Seven other tests Richards performed on walls and surfaces were negative, the report said. "It's actually good news," Commissioner Dan Holub said. "I was afraid it was the whole building." Commissioners voted to seek bids from licensed removal firms and to ask a formerly licensed remover, Stuart Isaac of Supreme Floor in Hillsboro, whether he might be interested in renewing his license and bidding. The commission also is seeking bids on 420 feet of fencing to be installed around the new jail. Portions of the fence will, according to the commissioners, meet contractual obligations to provide a privacy fence shielding the jail from nearby property owners. However, the commission is looking to possibly extend the fence around the entire jail. "It just finishes it off," Holub said, "but if it's too much, we'll just do the contractual requirements." The six-foot concrete fence that the commissioners envision is designed to shield the jail from view. However, nearby property owner Darvin Markley has contended that local terrain dictates that an eight-foot fence is needed to fully shield it from view. Bids will be due Aug. 12. Construction is to be completed by Sept. 30. Despite the commissioners' disagreement with Markley, his business, Markley Service, won the low bid for two chemicals ordered for the noxious weed department. Cooperative Grain and Supply of Hillsboro was low bidder for two other chemicals. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victim's Payout Halved Due to "Reduced Lifespan" ----------------------------------------------------------------- GetSurrey reported that a widow struck by lung cancer caused by washing her husband's asbestos-soiled overalls has had her GBP500,000 compensation nearly halved because her illness has reduced her life expectancy. According to the report, Monica Haxton, 66, watched her husband Ronald succumb to mesothelioma -- an incurable cancer of the lining of the lungs associated with asbestos, caused by his years spent working as an electrician for Philips Electronics UK Ltd in Guildford. He was struck by the terminal illness in 2008 and she nursed him throughout his last year of life, witnessing his 'terrific suffering," the report related. Just two years after his death, she began experiencing the same symptoms of acute breathlessness and was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in January 2012. Mrs Haxton quickly made the connection between the hours she had spent washing her husband's dusty boiler suit in the mid 1960s and her own terminal disease. Judge David Pittaway QC said Mr Haxton was exposed to large quantities of asbestos while dismantling boilers and other equipment at the Guildford-based company's factory in Balham, South London, almost 50 years ago, the report further related. He added: "At that time they did not have a washing machine and she would shake his clothes out to remove the dust before washing the clothes by hand in the sink." Harry Steinberg, representing Mrs Haxton, said she nursed her husband through his illness as his suffering became more intense every day, and her life expectance had been 'drastically curtailed'. A doctor who examined Mrs Haxton in February estimated she had another six or 12 months to live. Judge Pittaway added: "It is her intention to use part of the damages recovered to go on holiday with her daughters." Mrs Haxton, who worked as a ward clerk at St Anthony's Hospital, Cheam, was awarded GBP310,000 in damages. The payout would have been GBP200,000 higher had she had a normal life expectancy. Philips admitted liability, but had argued the compensation should be reduced to take account of her much shorter life expectancy and therefore her reduced 'loss of dependency' on her husband. This argument was upheld by the court. Judge Pittaway said: "There is no future dependency on her husband to which she is entitled beyond her predicted life expectancy." Mrs Haxton's claim is believed to be the largest made in a mesothelioma case. Asbestos was used in the workplace until its health implications were revealed. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trailer Homes Need $11,500 for Fibro Removal ------------------------------------------------------------- Rae Yost, writing for Britt News Tribune, reported that the cost to remove asbestos from nine trailer homes in the former mobile home park in Britt owned by the West Hancock School District is lower than originally believed. According to the report, the school board approved at the July 17 meeting a quote of about $11,500 to remove the asbestos. Superintendent Wayne Kronemann said the original estimate was about $20,000. Kronemann said when the asbestos has been removed from the trailer homes, the trailers will be offered to the public, the report related. "We're not going to charge anything," Kronemann said, the report further related. The hope is that people will take the free trailers which will reduce the district's cost to demolish any of the 10 remaining trailer homes on the property. Some people use the trailers for hunting houses or use the actual trailer under the home to create a flatbed trailer, Kronemann said. The school district bought the former mobile home park near the school for $121,000. The property is a potential site for a bus barn and educational use, school board chairman Jay Burgardt said. West Hancock is land-locked in Britt and it had few options near the school, Burgardt said. "We just don't have much room," Burgardt said. The school district has been looking at land and site options for "years and years," he said. "Nothing was working well," Burgardt said. The district has discussed a new bus barn but also a facility to be used for education purposes, Burgardt said. ". . . there is no guarantee that will happen," Burgardt said of education classes such as continuing education or classes offered through North Iowa Area Community College classes being in a facility at the former mobile home park. ASBESTOS UPDATE: OSHA Cites Hospital, Contractor Over Handling -------------------------------------------------------------- Patti Singer, writing for Democrat and Chronicle, reported that renovation to an inpatient unit at Strong Memorial Hospital could resume, once asbestos abatement is completed. According to the report, during demolition, asbestos was found in some samples of joint compound that had been used on the drywall, said University of Rochester Medical Center spokeswoman Teri D'Agostino. The drywall itself was not affected. Asbestos testing had been done on other surfaces, but not walls. According to a statement from URMC, precautions had been taken to protect patients and visitors. Based on a review of the incident, risk to workers is very low, D'Agostino said, the report related. Air quality tests conducted after the demolition showed no asbestos and the duration of the exposure was very short. The hospital faces $40,000 in fines from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration for failure to determine "the presence, location and quantity of asbestos-containing materials," and not labeling the materials and posting warning signs, according to a news release from the federal agency. OSHA said the hospital and contractor DGA Builders of East Rochester failed to provide proper monitoring for asbestos exposure and take other steps to protect workers. DGA Builders faces $13,200 in fines, according to the news release. A call to DGA Builders was not immediately returned. Strong and DGA each have 15 business days after receiving the citations and proposed penalties to comply, meet with OSHA representatives or contest the findings. D'Agostino said the hospital is still in that period. The unit was being gutted in January when workers raised concerns about whether asbestos was present, D'Agostino said. Surfaces and some of the wall material that already had been removed were tested and work was stopped in late March. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Removal at Former Chicopee Library Begins ---------------------------------------------------------- Jeanette DeForge, writing for The Republican, reported that after a long debate, work has begun to remove asbestos from the long- closed public library. According to the report, the removal of the hazardous waste was something that had to be done before the future of the structure could be discussed. Even if city officials decide to tear down the building, the asbestos would have to be removed, Mayor Michael D. Bissonnette said. "We hope to obtain a structural analysis soon after the asbestos is removed. Then we can make some reasonable assessment about relocating the school administration to the city hall complex," Bissonnette said, the report related. After months of back-and-forth debates, in April the City Council agreed to appropriate $230,000 from the sale of a real estate account to remove the asbestos, the report recalled. Bids for the project ranged from the highest at $297,000 to the lowest, at $191,800, which was lower than the estimated cost, the report said. The city hired Abide, Inc., from East Longmeadow, which submitted the lowest bid, to do the work, said Lee Pouliot, planner and administrator who handled the project. The work is expected to be completed in September, Pouliot said. The asbestos is so widespread in the library no work could be done without it being removed. Not only was it around the pipes, it is in the floor tiles and the plaster, Pouliot said. Bissonnette pushed for the removal so a structural analysis can be done of the building so city officials can then plan how to reuse the library which has been closed since a new library was built 10 years ago. One proposal is to renovate the building, attach it to the adjacent city hall to make both structures more accessible to the disabled, and move school offices from the aging Helen O'Connell building to the former library. Some School Committee members support the idea but others said they are concerned about having enough parking for employees near the old library. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Clearing Work Begins in Estes Park School Bldg. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Juley Harvey, writing for Estes Park Trail-Gazette, reported that Cornerstone is beginning the process of "dealing with the building" that is the old elementary school, Estes Park R-3 school superintendent Patrick Hickey said. Demolition is planned for next year. They are starting with the asbestos abatement process now. According to the report, the asbestos in the building will be handled and recyclable material (not affected by asbestos) will be sold. Hickey said the proceeds will offset about 80 percent of the costs. "The goal is to continue to move forward on the process, utilizing the space that is in use today," he said, the report cited. Because the space is used for children, the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA), enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency, provides a higher level of expectation of the management of the materials, the report related. Hickey emphasized asbestos only becomes a problem when the material becomes "friable," the report said. Asbestos fibers, released, can fly, becoming airborne for people to breathe. If people are exposed to the friable asbestos, they may develop cysts in their lungs, but that can take up to 30 to 40 years, Hickey said. Asbestos does not become a problem until it's airborne and potentially ingested, through breathing. Hickey pointed out that one of the biggest exposures to asbestos can be found on street corners -- from the application of vehicle brakes. However, AHERA says to pay attention to asbestos. Cornerstone will be removing and encapsulating the asbestos found in the building. "We know where it is," Hickey said. "There's an asbestos management plan in place always." AHERA is particular about the way asbestos is managed, he said. As for the mold in the old elementary school building, it "will disappear when the building disappears." When will that be? The plan now is to begin demolishing the building after Memorial Day in 2014. Graduation weekend, the old building will be closed down and Cornerstone will start demolishing it. "It will be gone before the kids come back to school (in the fall of 2014). The goal is to operate the construction site when school is not in session," Hickey said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Experts Called to Garlock Estimation Trial ----------------------------------------------------------- T.K. Kim, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that the estimation trial to determine the extent of liability a company that manufactures gaskets owes claimants exposed to asbestos from its products has resumed with expert witnesses called to the stand. According to the report, attorneys for Garlock Sealing Technologies called several industrial hygienists to give testimony on their expertise in conducting exposure assessment evaluations before U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina. As Garlock's witnesses laid out their credentials on direct examination, opposing attorneys sought to undermine their credibility by questioning their impartiality as paid experts. "You sell your time?" Scott Frost, an attorney for the claimants, asked Fred Boelter, an industrial hygienist retained by Garlock who testified he first started researching asbestos issues while inspecting facilities in the 1970s, the report related. "Yes," Boelter replied. Boelter said he has served as an expert for several asbestos defendants but has not been retained as an expert by any asbestos plaintiffs since 1989, the report said. Frost continued questioning Boelter on an asbestos study he authored on Garlock gaskets that had been funded by Garlock's parent company. Boelter denied knowing at the time that the funds came from a company related to Garlock, according to the report. Boelter testified that he was approached to conduct the study because he had developed an expertise in examining asbestos exposure stemming from gaskets. Boelter contended that it is his competency that draws asbestos defendants to retain his services, not because of any partiality. Headquartered in Palmyra, New York, Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC is a unit of EnPro Industries, Inc. (NYSE: NPO). For more than a century, Garlock has been helping customers efficiently seal the toughest process fluids in the most demanding applications. On June 5, 2010, Garlock filed a voluntary Chapter 11 petition (Bankr. W.D.N.C. Case No. 10-31607) in Charlotte, North Carolina, to establish a trust to resolve all current and future asbestos claims against Garlock under Section 524(g) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The Debtor estimated $500 million to $1 billion in assets and up to $500 million in debts as of the Petition Date. Affiliates The Anchor Packing Company and Garrison Litigation Management Group, Ltd., also filed for bankruptcy. Albert F. Durham, Esq., at Rayburn Cooper & Durham, P.A., represents the Debtor in their Chapter 11 effort. Garland S. Cassada, Esq., at Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, serves as counsel for asbestos matters. The Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants in the Chapter 11 cases is represented by Travis W. Moon, Esq., at Hamilton Moon Stephens Steele & Martin, PLLC, in Charlotte, NC, Elihu Inselbuch, Esq., at Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, in New York, and Trevor W. Swett III, Esq., Leslie M. Kelleher, Esq., and Jeanna Rickards Koski, Esq., in Washington, D.C. 20005. Joseph W. Grier, III, the Court-appointed legal representative for future asbestos claimants, has retained A. Cotten Wright, Esq., at Grier Furr & Crisp, PA, and Richard H. Wyron, Esq., and Jonathan P. Guy, Esq., at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, as his co- counsel. About 124,000 asbestos claims are pending against Garlock in state and federal courts across the country. The Company says majority of pending asbestos actions against it is stale and dormant -- almost 110,000 or 88% were filed more than four years ago and more than 44,000 or 35% were filed more than 10 years ago. Garlock said in the Disclosure Statement that all asbestos claims must be paid in full. Full payment enables the plan to allow continued ownership by parent EnPro Industries Inc. The Plan will create a trust to fund payment to present and future asbestos claimants. For currently existing claims, the trust will have insurance proceeds plus cash from Garlock together with a promise from EnPro to provide up to $30 million over time. For future claims, the trust will receive $60 million from Garlock plus a secured promise by Garlock to supply an additional $140 million. The promise will be secured by 51% of Garlock's stock. ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Veterans at Risk of Fibro-Related Diseases -------------------------------------------------------------- LawyersandSettlements.com reported that US Navy Veterans are at high risk for asbestos-related disease, due to their asbestos exposure while working on navy ships undergoing refits, for example. But because asbestos-related disease can take up to 30 years or more to manifest, it is often detected long after men have left the Navy. According to the report, the states with the most US Navy Veterans include California, Florida, New York, Texas, Ohio, Michigan, Arizona, Massachusetts, Washington, Maine, Oregon, Arizona, Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Montana, Kansas, North Dakota, Hawaii, Nebraska, and Mississippi. US Navy Veterans are not the only group of workers at high risk for asbestos exposure, the report said. Men and women who worked in power plants, manufacturing factories, chemical plants, oil refineries, mines, smelters, aerospace manufacturing facilities, demolition construction work sites, railroads, automotive manufacturing facilities, or auto brake shops may also have been exposed to high levels of asbestos. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couple Awarded $1.5MM Verdict in Cancer Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- LawyersandSettlements.com reported that an 81-year-old Los Angeles man and his wife have been awarded a $1.525 million verdict in his asbestos-cancer lawsuit this July. According to the report, in May of 2012, Marty Marteney, a successful architect whose father was an immigrant to the United States from Mexico, was diagnosed with asbestos mesothelioma. After a three week trial, a Los Angeles jury returned a verdict on July 1 in favor of Marteney, giving him a judgment against Union Carbide Corporation and Elementis Chemicals, Inc. According to the attorneys representing the Marteneys, Mr. Marteney's disease stemmed from his exposure to workers who used asbestos-containing construction products and automotive parts. Union Carbide was a supplier of asbestos fiber and Elementis was the distributor of Union Carbide's asbestos on the West Coast. Marteney's asbestos exposure goes back to his childhood, when his father took him out of school and made him work in his father's auto shop, where he handled these toxic materials without any knowledge of their danger, the report said. Without an education and with no knowledge of his asbestos exposure, Marteney enlisted in the armed forces, started a family, and later became an apprentice architect, the report related. Eventually Mr. Marteney returned to school and built a career as a well-respected architect, designing homes for the rich and famous in Beverly Hills. Unknowingly, this hard work exposed him to asbestos-containing construction products that would later cause the cancer that would ruin his well-deserved retirement. Mr. Marteney is currently undergoing treatment for his mesothelioma. Marteney lives in San Marino, California, with his wife. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Jury Awards $190MM to 5 Men Exposed to Fibro ---------------------------------------------------------------- LawyersandSettlements.com reported that an asbestos verdict of $190 million has been awarded in a lawsuit brought by five men who were exposed to asbestos-tainted products and equipment during their jobs as steamfitters, plumbers, and construction workers. According to the report, a panel of New York Supreme Court jurors found the two defendant companies had acted negligently and recklessly, then rendering a verdict worth a total of $190 million, the largest consolidated asbestos verdict in New York history. It is believed that the $60 million individual amounts two of the men received are the largest individual sums awarded in a New York asbestos case. Daniel Blouin, an attorney with Weitz & Luxenberg, the firm representing the plaintiffs, said he and his team tackled the case by telling the jury a story of five men who worked honest jobs for decades only to be repaid with immense suffering, the report said. "We wanted to show the jury the sorrow our clients were and are going through," Blouin said. "And not just physically but psychologically. Once you are exposed to asbestos and develop mesothelioma, you know your fate. It's an unbearably heavy burden." Lawyers for the plaintiffs told the jury there wasn't an amount they could give the men that would be unreasonable, the report related. The defendants in this case subjected thousands of men and women to a terribly toxic substance. It is likely the companies took a calculated risk in doing so. That isn't a debt that can be repaid, the attorneys said. The jury, returning a verdict on July 23, found both defendants -- boiler companies Cleaver Brooks and Burnham -- negligent in having failed to warn about the dangers of the asbestos used in connection with their equipment. The verdict said both companies had acted with reckless disregard for human life. All five of the plaintiffs were tradesmen from the tri-state area. One man, from Toms River, NJ, worked in the 50s and 60s as a pipefitter in the Brooklyn Navy Yard. He was exposed to asbestos daily while fitting pipes into the salt-water distilling units aboard aircraft carriers like the USS Constellation and USS Independence. Another, from Oyster Bay, NY, worked for nearly 30 years as a plumber, handling dozens of different types of products contaminated with asbestos. A third, of Middle Village, NY, was also exposed to asbestos working as a plumber in Brooklyn, Queens, and Rockland Co. Another man, from Howard Beach, NY, was exposed to asbestos on the job as a painter and construction worker. He was involved with the removal and demolition of boilers containing asbestos-laden parts. The final client, from Kent, CT, also worked with boilers and boiler parts in the course of his job as a steamfitter. All five men developed mesothelioma as a result of asbestos exposure. Three have died of complications related to the disease. The trial (Index Nos. 190008/12, 190026/12, 190200/12, 190183/12, 190184/12) was held in New York Supreme Court before Judge Joan Madden. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in 10,000 Sqm. of Queensland Bldgs. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Australian Associated Press reported that there are 10,000 square metres of asbestos in Queensland public buildings which is too costly to remove, the state government says. According to the report, the state spent $989,000 removing asbestos last financial year on 31 projects in 26 schools, a budget estimates hearing was told. But Department of Housing and Public Works director-general Neil Castles says there are still 10,000 square metres left in government buildings, the bulk of which is going to remain there for now. "It is impractical and impossible to actually, I suppose, to have the money to spend on that removal," Mr Castles said, the report said. "It would be just horrendous." Mr Castles added asbestos was safe in buildings as long as surfaces were painted, the report related. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canberra Union Calls for Commercial Fibro Audit ---------------------------------------------------------------- ABC News reported that the construction union is calling for commercial buildings in Canberra built before the late 1980s to be checked for asbestos. According to the report, an asbestos insulation removal program was carried out on houses in the capital during the 1990s. But Dean Hall from the CMFEU says commercial properties should also be examined. "Asbestos was banned in the early '80s but there was an overrun of the product because people still had it and they used it in buildings ," he said, the report related. "So probably up to the middle to late '80s you have to be concerned about asbestos in houses and buildings." Mr Hall says thorough audits need to look beyond the usual loose- fill insulation and bonded sheets, the report further related. "We need people to go in who are competent at what they're doing and to do a bit of exploratory work," he said. "People to open up and go into areas where the air-conditioning is, to pop a couple of tiles off in areas and take samples." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Citizens Call for Fibro Removal in Kimberley Bldg ------------------------------------------------------------------ ABC News reported that residents, community leaders and politicians are demanding urgent action to remove asbestos-ridden buildings in the Kimberley. According to the report, it has been confirmed abandoned buildings close to schools in the Beagle Bay and Bayulu communities contain the toxic material. Photographs show exposed walls and crumbling building material where local children play, the report said. Both structures are the responsibility of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs which, after months of appeals for action, has fenced off the buildings and starting removing the asbestos this week, the report related. Labor MP Stephen Dawson, who toured the sites, says the response is not good enough, the report further related. "What I'm saying is that the Government needs to get cracking and demolish these buildings as soon as possible," he said. "And I've got to say, this is a remote community in the Kimberley. "If this was in the metro area, people would have acted a hell of a lot sooner." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Seeks Transfer of Mass Tort Claim ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Campisi, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reported that attorneys for Union Carbide Corp. have petitioned the federal court in Philadelphia for a transfer of an asbestos mass tort claim that was brought last month by a Florida woman at the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. According to the report, Susan E. Murphy is suing Union Carbide over the mesothelioma related death of Donald Murphy, who was diagnosed with the disease in July 2011 by a doctor at Broward General Medical Center in the Sunshine State. Donald Murphy's disease, the plaintiff claims, was directly attributed to the man's exposure to asbestos, which occurred during his career with the United States Army and during private work as a housing renovator, the report said. Donald Murphy, the lawsuit shows, was also a cigarette and pipe smoker for a number of years. The plaintiff claims the defendant manufactured and distributed the asbestos-containing products that Donald Murphy came into contact with during his career, the report related. While the exact nature of the relationship between the plaintiff and Donald Murphy could not be ascertained by the lawsuit, which was filed as a short-form complaint in the master Asbestos Litigation in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court, their respective birth dates show the two could have been father and daughter; Donald Murphy was born in 1929 while Susan Murphy was born in 1953, the report added. The plaintiff is being represented by attorney Tia Dinh, of the Cherry Hill, N.J. firm Weitz & Luxenberg. On July 24, Philadelphia lawyers Robert N. Spinelli, Esq. -- rspinelli@kjmsh.com -- and Catherine N. Jasons, Esq., -- cjasons@kjmsh.com -- of the firm Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli Hanna & Reber LLP, filed a notice of removal at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Philadelphia on behalf of their client, Union Carbide. The notice seeks to remove the complaint, originally filed June 28 in Common Pleas Court, to the federal venue because diversity of citizenship exists between the parties. While the plaintiff is a Florida resident, Union Carbide is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in Houston, TX, the defense filing states. The defense lawyers stated that the matter also meets the $75,000 threshold for federal court jurisdiction. The state case ID number is 130600387 and the federal case number is 2:13-cv-04288-ER. ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Plymouth Courthouse Shuts After Fibro Find --------------------------------------------------------------- Lyn Humphreys, writing for Taranaki Daily News Online, reported that workers upgrading the New Plymouth Courthouse had discovered asbestos, the Ministry of Justice confirmed. However, court hearings and a jury drug trial have continued without disruption this week and staff remain at work. According to the report, one of the three courtrooms is closed to the public and a large white cover has been placed over the western side of the building. Large hazard notices have been erected. Inhalation of asbestos fibres is known to cause life-threatening illnesses such as the lung cancer mesothelioma, and asbestosis, the report related. The ministry's commercial and property general manager, Fraser Gibbs, said from Wellington that it was not unusual to find asbestos in buildings of that era. "During the refurbishment workers discovered asbestos in the window cavity," Mr Gibbs said. "The ministry has engaged an accredited contractor who specialises in the safe containment and removal of asbestos." Those who have worked with asbestos can sign up to a register. In the meantime, Mr Gibbs said the $800,000 refurbishment of the courthouse was progressing well and it was hoped it would be completed in October. "We have replaced the roof, and work on replacing the windows and air-conditioning is ongoing." The project is being led by South Coast Construction Ltd. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Closes Portion of Garlock Estimation Trial ----------------------------------------------------------------- T.K. Kim, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that a federal judge closed his courtroom to the public during portions of testimony by a law professor who leveled charges of fraud against some claimants who sued Garlock Sealing Technologies after being exposed to asbestos. According to the report, the bankruptcy trial, which is expected to last three weeks, will determine the estimated liability of the company for current and future asbestos claims. Lester Brickman, a professor at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University in New York, said during unsealed portions of his testimony that certain confidentiality provisions enacted for trusts established to pay claimants who came into contact with asbestos caused significant transparency issues preventing Garlock from cost-effectively ferretting out bogus claims, the report related. Brickman authored a report on fraudulent asbestos claims and has testified before Congress on the issue. To date, Garlock has paid out more than $1.3 billion in asbestos claims, Brickman said, the report said. Of that amount, about $1 billion had been paid out to claimants who did not develop any malignant cancers, which he labeled as fraudulent claims. "These settlements as well as others were affected significantly by plaintiffs suppressing evidence," Brickman said. "My opinion is that Garlock's settlement history is not an accurate reflection of Garlock's liability," he said. Brickman said some plaintiff law firms routinely planted false memories into their clients. He cited a memo by the law firm Baron & Budd distributed to claimants that detailed the kinds of information defense attorneys would or would not be privy to. The memo stated Garlock by name and made mention that the company manufactured gaskets. Judge George Hodges, who denied Garlock's motion to remove confidentiality designations from evidence relating to the trust claims as well as Garlock's request to keep Brickman's entire testimony open to the public, closed the courtroom after a brief recess. A Legal Newsline reporter present at the trial objected to the closure requesting that the judge delay Brickman's testimony until after the company's lawyers had a chance to argue for full media and public access to all of Brickman's testimony. Hodges overruled the request closing the courtroom for the rest of Brickman's testimony, which continued on for approximately three more hours. Following Brickman's testimony, the judge reopened the courtroom to the public and media. One tort reform advocate called the judge's move "highly unusual." "The closure violates the Bankruptcy Code's provisions for public access, and appears designed to hide public disclosure of evidence of asbestos trust fraud," said Ted Frank, the president and founder of the Center for Class Action Fairness and a regular contributor to Overlawyered.com. When the courtroom was reopened, Garlock attorneys called Richard Magee, a senior vice president for EnPro, Garlock's parent company to testify. Magee was the former general counsel for EnPro and oversaw much of the Garlock asbestos litigation. Magee said when he first began working on the asbestos litigation for the company, he was "amazed and shocked at how many claims there were how much it cost." "My initial reaction was we should've been trying more cases," Magee said. Garlock was a victim of circumstance, he said. Garlock made asbestos products that just happened to "be in the same place with some very dangerous (asbestos) products," he said. But Magee said he quickly understood why the company decided to settle a majority of its asbestos cases instead of taking them to trial because the litigation expenses would have been astronomical. On average, the company was paying between $1,000 to $2,500 to non-malignant claimants. "We couldn't even pay a lawyer to go to a deposition for $1,000 a claim," Magee said. "It was all about cash flow," he said. "It wasn't about liability." Headquartered in Palmyra, New York, Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC is a unit of EnPro Industries, Inc. (NYSE: NPO). For more than a century, Garlock has been helping customers efficiently seal the toughest process fluids in the most demanding applications. On June 5, 2010, Garlock filed a voluntary Chapter 11 petition (Bankr. W.D.N.C. Case No. 10-31607) in Charlotte, North Carolina, to establish a trust to resolve all current and future asbestos claims against Garlock under Section 524(g) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The Debtor estimated $500 million to $1 billion in assets and up to $500 million in debts as of the Petition Date. Affiliates The Anchor Packing Company and Garrison Litigation Management Group, Ltd., also filed for bankruptcy. Albert F. Durham, Esq., at Rayburn Cooper & Durham, P.A., represents the Debtor in their Chapter 11 effort. Garland S. Cassada, Esq., at Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, serves as counsel for asbestos matters. The Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants in the Chapter 11 cases is represented by Travis W. Moon, Esq., at Hamilton Moon Stephens Steele & Martin, PLLC, in Charlotte, NC, Elihu Inselbuch, Esq., at Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, in New York, and Trevor W. Swett III, Esq., Leslie M. Kelleher, Esq., and Jeanna Rickards Koski, Esq., in Washington, D.C. 20005. Joseph W. Grier, III, the Court-appointed legal representative for future asbestos claimants, has retained A. Cotten Wright, Esq., at Grier Furr & Crisp, PA, and Richard H. Wyron, Esq., and Jonathan P. Guy, Esq., at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, as his co- counsel. About 124,000 asbestos claims are pending against Garlock in state and federal courts across the country. The Company says majority of pending asbestos actions against it is stale and dormant -- almost 110,000 or 88% were filed more than four years ago and more than 44,000 or 35% were filed more than 10 years ago. Garlock said in the Disclosure Statement that all asbestos claims must be paid in full. Full payment enables the plan to allow continued ownership by parent EnPro Industries Inc. The Plan will create a trust to fund payment to present and future asbestos claimants. For currently existing claims, the trust will have insurance proceeds plus cash from Garlock together with a promise from EnPro to provide up to $30 million over time. For future claims, the trust will receive $60 million from Garlock plus a secured promise by Garlock to supply an additional $140 million. The promise will be secured by 51% of Garlock's stock. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Seek Inquest in Barnstable --------------------------------------------------- Patrick Cassidy, writing for Cape Cod Times, reported that workers concerned they were exposed to asbestos while renovating a town building have asked state Attorney General Martha Coakley to investigate whether Barnstable officials allowed the work to continue despite knowing the carcinogenic material may have been present. "Whether the actions of the town management were intentional or not remains to be seen," officials with the union representing the workers wrote in a letter sent to Coakley earlier this month, according to the report. "However, at the very least, it appears that the actions of the town may well have constituted gross negligence." The renovations on the fourth floor of 230 South St., which houses school administration and other town offices, began Oct. 1, according to documents provided to the Times by officials with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO. Shortly after the renovations began, workers with the town's Structures and Grounds Division found what they believed to be material containing asbestos and asked their supervisors -- including general foreman Bryan Lauzon -- to have it tested, said Mark Tubbs, president of the union's Local 3003 and one of the five or six employees who worked on the site. Lauzon told the workers that he had checked and there was no asbestos where they were working, Tubbs said. Although they pushed for the test results, which were provided to the town within 24 hours of being completed on Oct. 22 by a Virginia laboratory, the workers weren't given them until Nov. 9 and only after filing a labor grievance with Assistant Town Manager Mark Ells, Tubbs said. The results showed the materials contained asbestos, including one sample that was 33 percent chrysotile, one of the most common forms of asbestos. "That's the bad stuff," Tubbs said. Asbestos, once commonly used as a construction material because of its fire-resistant properties, has been known to cause cancer and the lung disease asbestosis when disturbed and inhaled. Often material with asbestos in it is sealed off and left in place when found to avoid further disturbance. Tubbs said workers used a Shop-Vac vacuum cleaner that may have blown the asbestos into the air and wore no masks or other protection, wiping their hands on their faces and eating after working in some cases. Lauzon and Structures and Grounds Supervisor Stephen Sundelin referred all questions to Barnstable Department of Public Works Director Daniel Santos. Santos, who was named to the position in February, said he had interviewed the workers and did not believe they were exposed to asbestos. "The material that had asbestos was in part of the floor that had not been removed," he said. According to his investigation, he added, management became aware of the possibility that asbestos was in the materials on Oct. 19 and stopped the project. Santos said he believed the workers' concerns were addressed through two labor grievances.. "In this case they chose not to go to arbitration," he said. "Presumably they were satisfied." Many of the old buildings in town have asbestos in them, and the town takes related health concerns seriously, Santos said. "We have an outside contractor come in and test those materials before any work begins," he said. There is training and other requirements for employees who may be working in areas where asbestos may be found, Santos said, adding that he believes training existed at the time work on the fourth floor of 230 South St. started. Not true, said Tubbs. And at the 230 South St. building, workers were not only tearing down walls and cutting into floors that appeared to cover asbestos, which was found in red tiles and a white paper used as a liner in the building, but material from the demolition was then moved in four or five open truckloads through town to the transfer station in Marstons Mills, said James Durkin, assistant director of legislation, political action and communications for the union's headquarters in Boston. The only landfill in Massachusetts permitted to accept asbestos waste is in Chicopee, but that facility is not currently accepting the material, according to the state Department of Environmental Protection. Work on the project wasn't stopped until an official with the state's Department of Labor Standards contacted town officials after the test results were returned, Tubbs said. The union wants the town to acknowledge that workers were exposed to asbestos on the job either through gross negligence or intentional actions and the town to pay for annual checkups at a specialist for the workers who may have been exposed, Durkin and Tubbs said. The union also wants to send a message to every municipality in the state that if workers are intentionally or negligently put in harm's way, there will be consequences, Durkin said. Although town officials have said they will pay for checkups as long as the workers are employed by the town, that doesn't address longer-term health concerns, Tubbs said. "This doesn't happen now," he said about asbestos-related illness. "It happens 20 years from now." Although no one has reported becoming sick, workers will have that fear for the rest of their lives, Tubbs added. Dust from the work also filtered into other parts of the building and anyone who came in contact with the material as it was trucked through town may have been exposed, Tubbs said. But town officials are not convinced that anyone was exposed to the asbestos. "When the facts come out, I think it will show that we did what was appropriate," Town Manager Thomas Lynch said. "We don't want to put anyone at risk." If an employee becomes ill later and it can be traced back to work done for the town, the town's workers' compensation insurance will cover it, said William Kole, the town's human resources director. Ells said town officials haven't been notified by the attorney general's office about any investigation, and Ells and Santos questioned whether the chronology of events outlined by the union lines up with what actually occurred. In an email to the Times, Lauren Jones, a spokeswoman with the state Department of Labor Standards, wrote that after reviewing allegations about the renovations in October, the department issued a series of recommendations to the town, including a request to stop all work. "Flooring materials were subsequently tested positive for asbestos, then a licensed asbestos contractor was hired and the suspected area was properly abated and cleaned," Jones wrote. "Following the cleanup, DLS confirmed that the town of Barnstable would implement proper safety measures relative to asbestos cleanup going forward." There was no fine against the town, according to Jones. Over the past four years, there have been $360,350 in fines for asbestos-related violations levied against consultants and schools in Massachusetts, including a $3,300 fine against Cape Cod Regional Technical High School in Harwich in 2012 after nine students were exposed to asbestos while renovating a building on school property. Anyone doing renovations in a commercial or industrial building, or in a residential building with more than 20 units, should do an asbestos survey before any work and provide the state Department of Environmental Protection with a plan for how any asbestos found will be handled, DEP spokesman Edmund Coletta said. "Regulations require that you immediately stop the job and report it to (the DEP) that you found it and do a survey of the remainder of the site to see if there was any other asbestos around," Coletta said. "We have been made aware of the situation there," he said about the 230 South St. property. "We are investigating it. Because it's an ongoing investigation, I can't talk about specifics at this time." Emalie Gainey, spokeswoman with the attorney general's office, declined to comment, citing the ongoing investigation. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lawyers Release Info on Fibro & Mesothelioma ------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of d'Oliveira & Associates has issued a new infographic on mesothelioma. The firm works with some of the more experienced attorneys in the country who are filing asbestos lawsuits. Mesothelioma is a rare form of cancer that most often occurs in the lungs. The most common cause of this disease is the inhalation of asbestos. This material was once widely used in the construction and manufacturing industries. It has been used to fireproof, insulate, and strengthen products. Repeated and sustained exposures to this material can increase the risk that a person will develop mesothelioma. In many cases this type of cancer does not occur until years or even decades after exposure to asbestos. Signs of this disease include fatigue, shortness of breath, wheezing, coughing up blood, abdominal pain, and chest pain (i). According to the National Cancer Institute, people who work in brake lining, construction, gaskets, insulation, milling, mining, and ship building may face an increased risk of asbestos exposure (i). Mesothelioma is a serious health concern for people around the world and in the United States. According to the World Health Organization, about 125 million people are exposed to asbestos in the workplace each year worldwide. Additionally, more than 100,000 people die each year from diseases caused by this type of exposure (ii). The Center for Disease Control and Prevention has also found that every year 3,000 new cases of mesothelioma are diagnosed in the United States. And, in 2005 alone, 2,704 people died from this type of cancer (iii). People who have suffered injuries due to asbestos exposure should talk to a personal injury lawyer because they may have a valid lawsuit, workers' compensation claim, or another legal claim. A report from the Rand Institute for Civil Justice states, "Asbestos litigation is the longest-running mass tort litigation in the United States." After reviewing studies on the topic, the Institute found that 730,000 people who have been exposed to this dangerous material have filed legal claims against 8,400 businesses. Additionally, up to $70 billion have been spent by defendants and insurance companies on this type of litigation (iv). Attorney Paul d'Oliveira stated, "The use of asbestos has dropped in recent years due to increased education about its dangers. Unfortunately, this product is still used in some industries. Another thing people suffering mesothelioma should realize is that their exposure to the carcinogen was probably years or even decades ago but that should not prevent them from talking to a lawyer. In many cases, the statute of limitations for an asbestos lawsuit is based upon when the cancer is discovered and not when the exposure occurs." The Mesothelioma infographic provides general information about the disease as well as statistics. d'Oliveira & Associates has been providing legal advice to RI and MA residents for over 24 years. The lawyers at the firm exclusively handle injury and disability cases. They also work with experienced attorneys across the nation who can file a mesothelioma lawsuit and there are no legal fees until a settlement or award is obtained. Contact the firm toll-free at 1-800-992-6878 or fill out an online contact form for a free legal consultation. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jacksonville Lawsuit Claims Companies Knew Risk ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cody Bozarth, writing for My Journal Courier, reported that a former professional insulator in Jacksonville is seeking $1.75 million from 23 separate companies he contends over the years exposed him to dozens of products that contained asbestos without being warned of its hazardous nature. According to the report, Rex Hill said he was employed as an insulator from 1968 to 2010. He was diagnosed this year with the disease asbestosis. The chronic inflammatory condition affects the tissue in the lungs and puts sufferers at a higher risk of mesothelioma and other lung diseases, according to the National Cancer Institute. The disease can take decades to manifest itself. Hill claims in a lawsuit filed in Morgan Circuit Court that the disease was a result of years of exposure to various products. Among the allegations is that Pneumo Abex, Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Owens-Illinois and Honeywell International conspired to keep employees unaware of the dangers in working around asbestos. The lawsuit contends pamphlets detailing the safe handling of asbestos did not contain information that the material can cause serious disease and that products produced and bought from the named companies also did not include any such warnings. Two of the five counts outlined in the civil action are against companies Sprinkmann Sons, Union Carbide, Georgia-Pacific, John Crane Inc., Owens-Illinois, Brand Insulations, Mechanical Insulation Co., Trane U.S., Weil McLain, General Electric and CBS Corp. Each was in the business or owned holdings in the business of manufacturing or selling products containing asbestos, according to the claim. Hill contends his illness was a result of each company's negligence or willful action. He claims that the companies were aware of the serious dangers of working with asbestos but did not inform employees. The lawsuit -- which presents only one side of a claim -- also names Ameren Illinois, Archer-Daniels-Midland, Bridgestone Americas, Caterpillar, Commonwealth Edison, Dynegy Power, Exelon, NiSource and Tate & Lyle Ingredients. Hill is seeking damage from these companies on claims that he worked at job sites owned by them where he was required to work with and around materials containing asbestos without any proper safety equipment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Potentially Lethal Dust Found in Carlisle Homes ---------------------------------------------------------------- Emily Parsons, writing for Times & Star, reported that potentially lethal asbestos could lie hidden in thousands of housing association homes in north Cumbria. According to the report, social landlord Riverside has admitted it has no idea how many of its properties have asbestos -- although it could be half of its 6,000 homes -- after a couple told of their health fears after inhaling potentially toxic dust. John and Ann Stewart spent hours sweeping up broken tiles, after lifting up the carpet and underlay in their Hethersgill home, the report related. The couple were preparing to complete a housing exchange and swap their home in Church Lane for a property in St Martin's Close, Brampton. In the process of cleaning the property, Mr Stewart, 51, says they received a letter asking them to lift the carpet and underlay, the report said. "We revealed broken and crumbling tiles underneath," the self- employed burger van owner said. "Me and the wife were sweeping all the tiles up ready for the exchange." But they were horrified when the company's building inspector returned from his holiday and told the Stewarts they should not have touched the carpet. Mr Stewart added: "He said that he'd been going to get special contractors in as it was low hazardous material -- asbestos. "Contractors came round to check the property and they had masks and gloves on. We were sweeping it up on our knees." He claims the housing association has since apologised and made a GBP2,000 out-of-court settlement offer. The couple rejected it though, claiming they have no idea of the effect on their health. "They put our lives in danger," Mr Stewart insisted. "Fifteen to 20 years down the line who knows, we may have asbestosis. This is our future." This is not the only case of its kind. City councillor Willie Whalen has been campaigning for the removal of asbestos from former council homes and schools for years. "I've got a case with them [Riverside] at the moment, where a woman discovered that underneath the carpet and underlay there was broken tiles and asbestos," Mr Whalen said. "It is very similar [to the Stewart's case]. "Health and Safety says if you don't touch or disturb asbestos it is perfectly safe. "But if you're going to be walking on tiles or working on walls, can you say that is safe and undisturbed? Why are 20 people a week diagnosed with asbestos-related cancer if it is safe? Why are there people dying of it?" A spokeswoman for Riverside said the Stewarts' case is with their solicitors, who are "liaising directly" with the couple. She added: "Asbestos was used extensively as a building material in Great Britain from the 1930s through to the mid-1980s, therefore most homes built or repaired in this period may have some asbestos. "This could mean approximately 50 per cent of our stock has some asbestos." The majority of Riverside's homes are those it inherited through stock transfer from the city council. But the spokeswoman was quick to reassure residents, adding: "This does not mean that these materials present a risk. "If asbestos material is undisturbed and undamaged it is safe and should be left alone. "Guidance from the Health and Safety Executive states that 'If materials containing asbestos are in good condition and in a position where they are not going to be disturbed then it is safer to leave them where they are'." Riverside has an asbestos register, which records areas where the company has discovered asbestos in properties while it has been undertaking works. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found Near Birmingham Youth Center --------------------------------------------------------- John-Paul Holden, writing for Edinburgh News, reported that furious parents have slammed health and safety chiefs after a potentially lethal pile of dumped asbestos was left next to a youth centre for almost a month. According to the report, anxious families phoned the council as soon as a pile of abandoned cement roofing panels containing the harmful substance was discovered yards from Bingham Community Centre around four weeks ago. Worry quickly turned to anger as time passed without any uplift of the panels, which were eventually removed nearly four weeks later by council staff wearing protective suits and masks. City leaders said the delay was due to the need to hire a specialist removal team for the GBP1000 operation. But mum Janine Baird, 27, whose eight-year-old daughter, Ellie Greig, has been kept away from the club, said: "Is GBP1000 worth more than the health of children? "I don't care if it was going to cost GBP10,000, it should have been taken away on the day it was removed from wherever it came from. "The kids round here like to roam and kick about -- any one of them could have smashed it up and that would have been it everywhere." Ms Baird said the centre -- which offers sport and other activities to dozens of children aged between five and 16 -- was very popular and predicted parents would demand answers. "The people they sent to remove it had white suits and these massive gas masks on," she said. "They said there was no risk but when I asked them why they were wearing those suits, they didn't answer." City chiefs said asbestos only became dangerous if disturbed or broken and insisted the health risk from the pile was negligible. A council spokeswoman said: "The council fully understands the concerns of local residents and can confirm that asbestos cement roofing panels (as commonly found on garages etc) were found dumped in a park. "After being notified, the area was cordoned off, the material tested and a specialist contractor engaged to remove the material for proper disposal." Health risks ASBESTOS is a naturally occurring mineral used in a range of building materials to make them more rigid and fire resistant. The substance was used extensively in British construction from the 1950s to the mid-1980s, and any building erected before 2000 can contain it. Health risks are generated by the thin, fibrous crystals of which asbestos is made. Prolonged inhalation of dangerous asbestos fibres can result in serious illness, including malignant lung cancer, mesothelioma, and dust-related lung diseases. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roof Adjacent to Mizzi House to be Removed ----------------------------------------------------------- Miriam Dalli, writing for Malta Today, reported that the asbestos roof adjacent to Mizzi House, which houses the Malta Competition and Consumer Affairs Authority, will be removed, minister Helena Dalli said. According to the report, addressing a press conference, Dalli said the landlords have agreed to remove the roof at their own expense after an experts' report confirmed the roof could be hazardous for the workers' health. Works will be carried put in August, when most of the 100 workers will be out on leave, the report related. The minister said arrangements for teleworking will also be made. "The workers' health is always a priority and we couldn't leave the situation as it is, knowing that the asbestos roof was not safe," the minister said, the report cited. She said that the latest report compiled by air quality specialists was yet another confirmation of the risk the roof posed to the workers. "I had raised the issue several times while in Opposition, but the previous government had always denied the asbestos containing material was detrimental to the workers' health. But the situation is so serious that some windows in these offices are sealed," Dalli said. MCCAA chairman Marcel Pizzuto said it had been the workers themselves, some of whom scientists, who sealed the windows for protection. He said the commissioned report had confirmed the corrosion state of the roof could be hazardous for the workers. The works have also been approved by the Occupational Health and Safety Authority. The minister said an operations review was also being conducted to study how the operations of MCCAA could be improved. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Neighbors Fear Fibro as A.C. Tears Down Eye Sore ----------------------------------------------------------------- Joel Landau, writing for Press of Atlantic City, reported that residents of an Atlantic City condominium complex are concerned about potential safety hazards as a neighboring building undergoes demolition. But the city's fire chief said the work is being done by professionals and the condo residents will not be affected. According to the report, demolition began on a former apartment complex next to the Roosevelt Beach Condominiums complex on the 3800 block of Boardwalk. Joel Kaplan, president of the Roosevelt condo association, said residents of the Roosevelt are not certain enough has been done to ensure their safety. "As an association, we have done whatever we could to protect our residents," he said, the report related. "Our pool has been closed for approximately two weeks (since plans for demolition began), and we have urged residents to leave." The association's Washington Township, Gloucester County-based attorney, Tal Karmer, said he reached out to the city July 19 but did not receive an answer, the report further related. He said the residents are most concerned about asbestos in the building. Kramer said they were told by crews doing the work that the building is structurally unsafe and any asbestos cannot be removed before the demolition. Instead, the workers said they will constantly spray the materials with water during the project to control the asbestos. "We are not experts, but we would like a little more response from the city to ensure the plan to protect the condo association covered all bases," he said. The city is conducting the demolition of the property, which has been vacant for several years. The association is concerned about asbestos being carried to their building by wind, and that scaffolding erected may not properly protect the building. Kaplan said the demolition company offered to put any concerned resident in a hotel for a few days, and that one resident opted for the precaution. Kaplan said the scaffolding does not protect an open area where debris could fall. A message left with LVI Demolition Services in East Hanover, Morris County, which is handling the demolition, was not returned. Fire Chief Dennis Brooks said the work is expected to be complete by the end of the week. There have been several meetings through multiple city agencies, including Emergency Management, Code Enforcement and police and fire departments, on the project, he said. "These are professionals that come in and do this for a living," he said. "Every safety precaution that can be taken has been taken." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Posts Loss on Review of A&E Liabilities ----------------------------------------------------------------- Zachary Tracer, writing for Bloomberg News, reported that Hartford Financial Services Group Inc., the insurer exiting life operations to focus on property-casualty coverage, posted a third straight loss on asbestos liabilities and costs tied to variable annuities. According to the report, the second-quarter net loss widened to $190 million, or 42 cents a share, from $101 million, or 26 cents, a year earlier when the company incurred costs retiring investments made by Allianz SE, Hartford said on July 30 in a statement. Operating earnings, which exclude some investment results, were 66 cents a share, missing the 71-cent average estimate of 17 analysts polled by Bloomberg. Chief Executive Officer Liam McGee, 58, divested life-insurance and retirement-plan units, leaving operations that insure cars, homes and businesses, the report related. He struck a deal in June to sell a U.K. annuity business to Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc., part of a strategy to limit risks from retirement products. Hartford, based in the Connecticut city of the same name, reviews asbestos-linked liabilities every year in the second quarter. "There has to be more focus on the P&C operations," Vincent DeAugustino, an analyst at Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, said in a Bloomberg interview before results were announced. "It comes down to how hard are they being on rate and what does that imply for retention and new business growth." Book value, a measure of assets minus liabilities, fell to $38.59 per share as of June 30, from $42.43 three months earlier, as rising interest rates pressured the value of Hartford's bond portfolio. Variable Annuities Hartford recorded a $126 million after-tax loss on the sale of the U.K. unit. Buffett's company agreed to pay $285 million for the business, adding about $1.75 billion in assets under management. Hartford recorded $421 million of realized capital losses, mostly tied to hedges on risks from variable annuities sold outside the U.S. Losses related to the review of asbestos and environmental reserves were $91 million, compared with $33 million a year ago. The insurer spent $1.05 on claims an expenses for every premium dollar at the property-casualty unit. That's an improvement from $1.08 a year earlier. Policy sales increased 1.2 percent to $2.5 billion. Hartford has rallied 37 percent this year through the close of regular trading on July 30, beating the 35 percent advance of the 24-company KBW Insurance Index. The shares gained 7 cents to $30.85 in extended trading at 4:49 p.m., on July 30. McGee increased the share-repurchase authorization last month by $750 million to $1.25 billion and lifted the dividend 50 percent. Results were released after the close of regular trading. McGee agreed last year to divest a life insurer, a broker-dealer, a retirement-plans unit and an annuities business. The sales, which Hartford has said freed up more than $2 billion in capital, came after billionaire hedge-fund manager John Paulson pressed McGee to split the company in two, an approach the CEO resisted. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liberty Mines Name JMX to Lead Removal Project --------------------------------------------------------------- Liberty Mines Inc. has appointed JMX Environmental to lead the process of remedying asbestos contamination at the Redstone and McWatters sites in Timmins. JMX Environmental is a leading asbestos abatement firm that has extensive experience in the safe removal and disposal of asbestos across various industries. It is a member of the Environmental Abatement Council of Ontario. Pat Gleeson, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Liberty Mines, commented, "Following a thorough request for proposal process, Liberty Mines selected JMX Environmental to lead the clean-up of our site. The appointment of JMX Environmental is key to a timely remediation of the Redstone mill per the order of the Ministry of Labour." Liberty Mines has borrowed funds from Jien International Investment Ltd. to cover the cost of engaging JMX Environmental. Terms of such loan are subject to execution of definitive loan agreements. Jien International is a related party of Liberty Mines based on its approximate 60% shareholding in Liberty Mines. Director Appointment Liberty Mines welcomes Haodong Li as a member of its board of directors. Mr. Li joined Jilin Jien Nickel Industry Co., Ltd in 2005 and subsequently joined Horoc Group, which is Jilin Jien's controlling shareholder. At Horoc Group he serves currently as deputy director of Planning and Strategy Department. Haodong Li replaces Mr. Tao Li, who has resigned as a director of Liberty Mines. Tao Li has resigned to pursue other non-business initiatives. Liberty Mines expresses its sincere gratitude to Tao Li for his hard work and contributions to the company. About Liberty Mines Inc. Liberty Mines Inc. owns the only nickel concentrator in the Shaw Dome area, a prospective nickel belt region near Timmins, Ontario. Liberty also owns two former producing nickel mines and a prospective land package near Timmins, Ontario. Liberty Mines Inc. Pat Gleeson President & CEO (416) 861-5800 pgleeson@forbesmanhattan.com ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sentencing in November in Fibro Dumping Case ------------------------------------------------------------- The Toledo Blade reported that a Toledo man who admitted to illegally removing then dumping cancer-causing asbestos around the city from a warehouse in Toledo is to be sentenced Nov. 25 by U.S. District Court Judge James Carr. According to the report, John J. Mayer, 52, pleaded guilty in federal court to a four-count indictment that alleged he violated the Clean Air Act and regulations involving the removal and disposal of asbestos-containing material. Some 82 trash bags containing insulation were discovered at three sites in East and North Toledo in 2010. Mayer admitted he failed to notify city, state, and federal authorities before removing the material, failed to adequately wet the materials in preparation for disposal, failed to have trained personnel at the job site, and illegally disposed of the asbestos- containing waste, the report related. Co-defendant Timothy Bayes, 32, of Toledo pleaded guilty this month to illegal disposal of asbestos, the report further related. Bayes, who was hired by Mayer to get rid of trash bags containing the material, is to be sentenced Nov. 18 by Judge Carr. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Contributed to Ex-Installation Engr's Death ------------------------------------------------------------------ Southern Daily Echo reported that exposure to asbestos contributed to the death of a retired installation engineer, an inquest heard. According to the report, Eric Woodford was found dead in the back garden of his Lymington home by his daughter in April 2012. Southampton Coroners' Court heard that it appeared the 85-year- old, of Southbourne Road, had been trying to get off his scooter when his heart failed. The pensioner, who had a history of heart problems and strokes, had worked for many years as an installation engineer where he was exposed to "significant quantities" of asbestos dust, the report related. The post-mortem examination revealed that, while heart disease was the immediate cause of death, asbestosis was a contributing factor due to the damage of the lungs, the report said. Coroner Keith Wiseman recorded a verdict of death from natural causes, contributed by asbestos exposure, the report added. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Haverhill Company Fined $3,000 Over Handling ------------------------------------------------------------- Sentinel & Enterprise reported that a Haverhill company has been fined $3,000 by the state Department of Environmental Protection for failing to follow proper asbestos removal procedures at a job site in Fitchburg last summer. According to a press release, during an August 2012 inspection of the former Fitchburg Gas and Electric power plant site, located at 115 Sawyer Passway, Fitchburg, DEP inspectors observed workers from Absolute Environmental Contractors, Inc., improperly handling and disposing of asbestos-insulated pipes. According to the DEP, the pipes were placed in an open-top roll- off container without being adequately wetted or sealed in leak- tight, labeled containers, as required by law. State regulations require removal contractors to wet asbestos- containing materials thoroughly during all phases of removal, handling and packaging for disposal, in order to minimize the potential for asbestos fibers to become airborne and reduce the chance of exposure for workers and members of the public, the report related. Absolute Environmental Contractors is licensed by the state Department of Labor Standards to be an asbestos contractor, the report said. "Licensed asbestos contractors are most certainly aware of the required asbestos removal procedures and must strictly follow all work practices prescribed by the MassDEP asbestos regulations," said Lee Dillard Adams, director of the DEP Central Regional Office in Worcester. "The cost of noncompliance includes payment of penalties and escalated cleanup, decontamination and monitoring costs." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thai Ministry Finds No Health Risks in Fibro ------------------------------------------------------------- The Bangkok Post reported that a Public Health Ministry committee said it could find no solid evidence that chrysotile a common form of asbestos was harmful to human health. According to the report, the finding contradicts an international body of scientific evidence linking exposure to the mineral with various forms of cancer and pleural abnormalities. The cabinet ordered the ministry to investigate the health impacts of chrysotile in 2011 after the National Economic and Social Development Board proposed the substance be banned in Thailand, the report said. Deputy permanent secretary Charnwit Tharathep, who led the study said his committee had found insufficient evidence to suggest exposure to chrysotile posed health risks, the report added. Chrysotile is commonly used in brake linings, clutch systems and heat-resistant household appliances such as toasters, irons and ovens, the report said. "We can't amend the law [to ban chrysotile] without pointing to clear evidence [of negative health impacts] in Thailand," he said. "We will certainly ban chrysotile if we can find solid evidence of the substance's impacts on people's health." The committee will report its findings to the cabinet this month. The World Health Organisation's website states that "all types" of asbestos can cause lung cancer mesothelioma cancer of the larynx and ovaries, and asbestosis, the report noted. About 50 countries have banned all types of asbestos. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Legal Newsline Wants to Keep Garlock Trial Open ---------------------------------------------------------------- T.K. Kim, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that attorneys for Legal Newsline filed a motion to keep the bankruptcy trial of Garlock Sealing Technologies open to the public following a judge's decision to close off portions of a law professor's testimony. According to the report, Judge George Hodges excluded members of the media and public from testimony given by Lester Brickman, a professor of law at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University in New York. Brickman, an expert witness retained by Garlock, was testifying about trust provisions meant to protect confidentiality that he says allowed for rampant claimant abuse and fraud in asbestos settlement cases. The bankruptcy trial, which is expected to last three weeks, will determine the estimated liability of the company for current and future asbestos claims, the report said. Legal Newsline's attorneys are challenging Hodges' decision under a First Amendment claim. In the motion, the attorneys are requesting that the rest of the remaining trial stay open to the public and that transcripts of the closed portion be made available as well. Brickman had been testifying during the open portion of his testimony about certain confidentiality provisions enacted for trusts established to pay claimants who came into contact with asbestos. The provisions caused significant transparency issues preventing Garlock from cost-effectively ferretting out bogus claims. Brickman authored a report on fraudulent asbestos claims and has testified before Congress on the issue. Hodges previously denied a Garlock motion to remove confidentiality designations from evidence relating to the trust claims as well as Garlock's request to keep Brickman's entire testimony open to the public. Hodges closed the courtroom after a brief recess. A Legal Newsline reporter present at the trial objected to the closure requesting that the judge delay Brickman's testimony until after the company's lawyers had a chance to argue for full media and public access to all of Brickman's testimony. Hodges overruled the request closing the courtroom for the rest of Brickman's testimony, which continued on for about three more hours. Following Brickman's testimony, the judge reopened the courtroom to the public and media. Meanwhile the trial continued with attorneys representing the claimants calling more expert witnesses to testify. Arnold Brody, a doctor in cellular biology specializing in lung diseases and asbestos, testified about studies he says show chrysotile asbestos fibers to be toxic to humans and animals. During the first week of trial, experts for Garlock testified that chrysotile asbestos, the kind that had been mostly used to make gaskets, did not significantly elevate the risk of developing mesothelioma. One of the central questions that will help establish how much Garlock will owe the claimants revolves around whether Garlock products, many removed decades ago, and no other sources of asbestos, led to cases of mesothelioma. On cross examination, Brody agreed with Garlock attorneys who pointed out that millions of chrysotile asbestos fibers can be present in a person's lung at any given time without ever causing cancer. Headquartered in Palmyra, New York, Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC is a unit of EnPro Industries, Inc. (NYSE: NPO). For more than a century, Garlock has been helping customers efficiently seal the toughest process fluids in the most demanding applications. On June 5, 2010, Garlock filed a voluntary Chapter 11 petition (Bankr. W.D.N.C. Case No. 10-31607) in Charlotte, North Carolina, to establish a trust to resolve all current and future asbestos claims against Garlock under Section 524(g) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The Debtor estimated $500 million to $1 billion in assets and up to $500 million in debts as of the Petition Date. Affiliates The Anchor Packing Company and Garrison Litigation Management Group, Ltd., also filed for bankruptcy. Albert F. Durham, Esq., at Rayburn Cooper & Durham, P.A., represents the Debtor in their Chapter 11 effort. Garland S. Cassada, Esq., at Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, serves as counsel for asbestos matters. The Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants in the Chapter 11 cases is represented by Travis W. Moon, Esq., at Hamilton Moon Stephens Steele & Martin, PLLC, in Charlotte, NC, Elihu Inselbuch, Esq., at Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, in New York, and Trevor W. Swett III, Esq., Leslie M. Kelleher, Esq., and Jeanna Rickards Koski, Esq., in Washington, D.C. 20005. Joseph W. Grier, III, the Court-appointed legal representative for future asbestos claimants, has retained A. Cotten Wright, Esq., at Grier Furr & Crisp, PA, and Richard H. Wyron, Esq., and Jonathan P. Guy, Esq., at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, as his co- counsel. About 124,000 asbestos claims are pending against Garlock in state and federal courts across the country. The Company says majority of pending asbestos actions against it is stale and dormant -- almost 110,000 or 88% were filed more than four years ago and more than 44,000 or 35% were filed more than 10 years ago. Garlock said in the Disclosure Statement that all asbestos claims must be paid in full. Full payment enables the plan to allow continued ownership by parent EnPro Industries Inc. The Plan will create a trust to fund payment to present and future asbestos claimants. For currently existing claims, the trust will have insurance proceeds plus cash from Garlock together with a promise from EnPro to provide up to $30 million over time. For future claims, the trust will receive $60 million from Garlock plus a secured promise by Garlock to supply an additional $140 million. The promise will be secured by 51% of Garlock's stock. ********* 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 * * *