/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/131018.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, October 18, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 207 Headlines ALABAMA MUTUAL: City of Vernon Suit Remanded to Trial Court ALLEN STANFORD: Supreme Court Set to Decide on Class Actions AMERICAN DEBT: Judgment Entered on Some Claims in "Newton" Suit AMERICAN INT'L: Underreports WC Insurance Premium, Suit Claims BLACK DIAMOND: Recalls Pieps VECTOR Avalanche Beacons CASH CONVERTERS: Westpac Emerges as Key Provider of Loan Funding CG SECURITY: Does Not Pay Required Overtime Premium, Suit Says CHICAGO, IL: Faces Class Action Over CTA's New Ventra Cards COSTCO: El Camino Real Store Recalls Rotisserie Chicken Products DOLE FRESH: Bid for Class Certification Due Dec. 30 ENGLISH MONTREAL SCHOOL: Canadian Court Approves Settlement FURNITURE BRANDS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action GENERAL MILLS: Court Tosses Motion to Stay Mislabeling Class Suit GLADSTONE PORTS: 20+ Fishermen Launch Class Action GRAND JUNCTION: Refused to Pay Overtime Premiums, Suit Claims HALLIBURTON CO: Manufacturers Seek Review of Class Action HIDALGO COUNTY, NM: Sued by Detention Officers and Dispatchers JIM THRELKEL: Faces Class Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Premium JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Class Action in Israel Over PROLIFT MESH JOHNSON CONTROLS: Fails to Pay Correct OT Wages, Suit Claims KGI LANDSCAPING: Faces Suit in Illinois Over Unpaid Overtime KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Accused of Asking for Personal ID Information NEBRASKA PRIME: Magistrate Judge Awards $880,000 to Investor NISSAN MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in "Falco" Class Action OVASCIENCE INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Mass. REVEL ENTERTAINMENT: Sued Over "Refund All Slot Losses" Campaign SINO-FOREST: Nov. 18 Hearing on US Recognition of E&Y Settlement SKECHERS USA: Continues to Defend "Chavez" Suit in California SKECHERS USA: To Produce Docs Amid Subpoena From Ohio Jury SKECHERS USA: Expects Grabowski Accord to Solve "Stalker" Suit SKECHERS USA: Expects Grabowski Deal to Solve "Hochberg" Suit SKECHERS USA: Expects Grabowski Deal to Solve "Tomlinson" Suit SKECHERS USA: Expects Grabowski/Morga Deal to Solve "Loss" Suit SKECHERS USA: Grabowski Deal Expected to Solve "Boatright" Suit SKECHERS USA: Grabowski Deal Expected to Solve "Scovil" Suit STEC INC: Has Agreement in Principle Over Merger-Related Suits TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls 369 Tacoma and Tundra Model Trucks & Vans TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls 625 Avalon, Camry, Camry HV & Corolla Models UNITED AIRLINES: Sued Over Deceptive Business Practices URBAN OUTFITTERS: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Pennsylvania VERINT SYSTEMS: Mediation Ongoing in Class Certification Bid WATERLOGIC COMMERCIAL: Recalls Chiller-Based Water Dispensers WELLS FARGO: Tie-in Claim in "Lane Suit" Dismissed YODER'S COUNTRY: Recalls Gift Boxes Containing Roasted Peanuts * TCPA Regulatory Changes Likely Spur More Class Actions Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liability Estimation Appeals Remain Pending ASBESTOS UPDATE: Borough of Emerson Filing Cabinets Contain Fibro ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Dismiss "Brown" Suit Denied in Part ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flintkote Insurance Disputes Sent to Arbitration ASBESTOS UPDATE: Powell's Bid to Dismiss "Griffin" Suit Denied ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Dismiss Misrepresentation Suit Granted ASBESTOS UPDATE: Motion in Limine Denied in "Anderson" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants Goodyear's Bid to Junk "Nolan" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Time to Perfect Appeal in NY Litigation Enlarged ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenn. App. Affirms Ruling in "Denning" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Affirms Ruling in "Bowles" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Discovered in Uxbridge, Mass. School ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro, Mold Being Removed at Old Hospital Site ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-Like Particles Found at Gogebic Taconite ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bland Block City Expecting Fibro Assessment ASBESTOS UPDATE: Marion County BOE OKs Fibro Removal at School ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Shipyard Worker Sues Multiple Companies ASBESTOS UPDATE: Center Educates Trade Workers on Mesothelioma ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Justices Won't Review "Any Breath" Case ASBESTOS UPDATE: Removal of Kerang Hotel Walls Completed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Attorneys Appeal $1.3MM Fraud Ruling ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Delays Demolition of Yakima Troubled Spot ASBESTOS UPDATE: Expert Fined for Failure to Protect Staff ASBESTOS UPDATE: Expert Explains Next Steps for Monticello Project ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wausau Sues R&Q Reinsurance for $520,000 ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Close Beach" Call as More Fibro Wash Up ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland County May Consider Banning Explosives ASBESTOS UPDATE: Clean Up to Begin at Riverview Property ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Under Way at Wood County Center ASBESTOS UPDATE: Glass, Fibro Sheets Flew Due to Cyclone Phailin ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Exposure Leads to Lawsuit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Truck Loses Fibro on NSW Highway ASBESTOS UPDATE: Councillors Call for Answers Over Fibro Find ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thousands Stage Paris "Die-in" to Protest Risk ASBESTOS UPDATE: Retired Shipyard Worker Sues Multiple Companies ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Lurks in Spots Around Fla. University ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mine Firm Questions Protester's Role as Geologist ASBESTOS UPDATE: Village Can't Act on Collapsing Building ASBESTOS UPDATE: Berkshire Insurance Payments Criticized ********* ALABAMA MUTUAL: City of Vernon Suit Remanded to Trial Court ----------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of Alabama remanded the case captioned Alabama Mutual Insurance Corporation, v. City of Vernon et al., No. 1110738, to the trial court for further proceedings. Alabama Mutual Insurance Corporation, the defendant in an action pending in the Lamar Circuit Court filed by the City of Vernon on behalf of itself and other similarly situated entities, appealed from the trial court's order certifying a class in the underlying action. Vernon responded, arguing that it has the right to withdraw from the pending litigation, but, it argues, the trial court has certified the class and the litigation remains viable. Vernon requests a reasonable time in which to allow the class to name a new representative. According to the Alabama Supreme Court, the trial court should have the opportunity to determine whether a new named plaintiff should be certified. The trial court is the proper entity to decide whether to allow the class members to amend their complaint to substitute a new named plaintiff and to determine whether that plaintiff meets the adequacy requirements in Rule 23(a), Ala. R. Civ. P., so as to represent the class, the Supreme Court added. "If a new class representative is in place, we can proceed to review the merits of the order certifying the class," ruled the Alabama Supreme Court. A copy of the Supreme Court's October 11, 2013 Opinion is available at http://is.gd/rMIMVzfrom Leagle.com. ALLEN STANFORD: Supreme Court Set to Decide on Class Actions ------------------------------------------------------------ The Wall Street Journal reports that for years federal law enforcers ignored warnings about R. Allen Stanford's $7 billion fraud, but don't expect government officials to suffer any penalty. Instead, plaintiffs lawyers are seeking to use Stanford's crimes as a pretext to launch class-action lawsuits against other people and businesses. Now the Supreme Court will decide whether to let them. The question at oral argument this week in Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice was whether state class-action lawsuits filed against various vendors to Stanford's operation should be allowed to proceed. Last year Stanford was convicted and sentenced to 110 years in prison for defrauding thousands of investors around the world. Because the enforcement division of the Securities and Exchange Commission spent more than a decade ignoring recommendations to investigate from both inside and outside the SEC, victims will likely recover very little of the billions they sent to Stanford. So plaintiffs lawyers want to take it out on others who did business with Stanford, even if they didn't have anything to do with his bogus offering of certificates of deposit from his bank in Antigua. Stanford told investors that the money backing their CDs was invested in safe, liquid securities that trade in U.S. public markets, when in fact investors were funding a Ponzi scheme. The trial lawyers want to sue under state law because previous Supreme Court decisions -- especially Central Bank of Denver v. First Interstate Bank of Denver and Stoneridge v. Scientific Atlanta -- make it difficult under federal law to sue companies that merely did business with fraudsters, unless these vendors directly participated in misleading investors. Moreover, a 1998 reform prevents securities class-action cases from being brought under state law. The Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act says that such cases must be filed under federal law if "the defendant used or employed any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in connection with the purchase or sale of a covered security." Covered securities include stocks and bonds issued by firms that trade on U.S. exchanges. At the Oct. 7 oral argument, Justice Antonin Scalia noted that Stanford didn't fulfill his promise to put investors' money in these securities, and therefore such a case "can't be in connection with a purchase or sale that has never occurred." As usual, Justice Scalia is doing a public service by focusing on the text of the law the court is asked to interpret. But a fraudulent claim of buying securities sure sounds to us like a "deceptive device" that's "in connection with" a purchase of securities. Otherwise, could Bernie Madoff argue that he didn't commit securities fraud because he pocketed the cash from victims instead of investing it? The Justices also wrestled with the significance of Stanford's various deceptions. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit had overturned a district court and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in part because Stanford made other significant misrepresentations unrelated to securities. But on Oct. 7 Paul Clement, attorney for the defendants, rightly noted that without the promise of these liquid assets, "nobody's going to give their money to a bank in Antigua. The reason you give your money to a bank in Antigua is because you think it's backed by something more than a piece of paper, and the something more was purchases of covered securities on the market." Even if the Supreme Court rules against them, Stanford's victims can still pursue justice via federal class-action suits, or via individual suits in both state and federal court. But overriding federal law to allow suits against defendants who may have done nothing wrong is anything but just. AMERICAN DEBT: Judgment Entered on Some Claims in "Newton" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Edward M. Chen granted, in part, and denied, in part, the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and grants in part and denies in part plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the case captioned HEATHER NEWTON, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN DEBT SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants, NO. C-11-3228 EMC, (N.D. Calif.). Heather Newton brings an individual and class action against Defendants American Debt Services (ADS), Quality Support Services (QSS), Rocky Mountain Bank & Trust (RMBT), and Global Client Solutions (GCS) for alleged violations of state and federal law regulating debt settlement. Currently before the Court are (a) RMBT's motion for summary judgment; (b) GCS's motion for summary judgment; and (c) Newton's motion to amend the first amended complaint, filed concurrently with her opposition. The Court ruled that: 1. Defendant GCS's and RMBT's motion for summary judgment as to Newton's CROA claim is granted. 2. Defendant GCS's and RMBT's motion for summary judgment as to Newton's CLRA claim is granted. 3. Defendant GCS's and RMBT's motion for summary judgment as to Newton's UCL claim is granted in part (as to RMBT's liability for conspiracy to violate the Proraters Law), and denied in part; a claim of conspiracy by GCS and aiding and abetting by GCS and RMBT to violate the Proraters Law may proceed to trial. 4. Plaintiff Newton's motion for leave to amend the First Amended Complaint is denied as to any claim of conspiracy by RMBT to violate the Proraters Law, and granted as to the remaining claims. A copy of the District Court's October 10, 2013 Order is available at http://is.gd/jK5hF9from Leagle.com. AMERICAN INT'L: Underreports WC Insurance Premium, Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Franjo, Inc., and DMS Facility Services, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American International Group, Inc.; AIU Insurance Company; American Fuji Fire and Marine Insurance Company; American Home Assurance Company; Chartis Property Casualty Company f/k/a AIG Casualty Company f/k/a Birmingham Fire Insurance Company of Pennsylvania; Commerce and Industry Insurance Company, Inc.; Granite State Insurance Company; Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania; National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA; New Hampshire Insurance Company; AIG Risk Management Inc., Maurice R. Greenberg; and Does 1 through 10 inclusive, Case No. 3:13-cv-04685-JCS (N.D. Cal., October 8, 2013) is a class action lawsuit brought by California employers. The Plaintiffs seek restitution, disgorgement, compensatory, punitive, and treble damages, a constructive trust, and injunctive relief arising from the Defendants' alleged long-term, unlawful, and fraudulent underreporting of workers' compensation ("WC") insurance premium, evasion of related financial obligations, and abuse of their statutory, regulatory, common law, and fiduciary responsibilities with regard to WC policies issued to businesses that employ workers in the state of California. By engaging in a systematic underreporting of WC premiums written, the Defendants not only wrongly enriched themselves in various ways, but their systematic practice of underreporting WC premium caused the Plaintiffs and other WC policyholders in California to pay improperly inflated state insurance surcharges and to suffer other damage, the Plaintiffs contend. Franjo, Inc. is a California corporation headquartered in Fresno. Franjo operates occupational medical clinics in the Fresno area. From approximately 1994 through the present, Franjo has employed between 12 and 27 California workers and was required under California law to have in effect a policy of WC insurance that would cover the potential work-related injury claims of its California workers. During this timeframe, Franjo purchased WC insurance from different insurers. DMS Facility Services, Inc. is a California corporation headquartered in Monrovia. From approximately 1967 through the present, DMS has operated in the business of building services, providing janitorial services, maintenance, landscaping, facilities engineering and other services to multi-tenant office buildings, large corporate campuses, government buildings, schools, and financial institutions. DMS presently employs approximately 1,900 California workers and has employed as many as 3,000 California workers. DMS is and has been required under California law to have in effect a policy of WC insurance that would cover the potential work-related injury claims of its California workers. During this timeframe, DMS purchased WC insurance from different insurers. American International Group, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York. AIG is a publicly traded holding company which, through its subsidiaries and affiliates, engages in a broad range of financial and insurance-related activities in the United States and throughout the world. AIG, through its subsidiaries and affiliates, is the largest underwriter of commercial and industrial insurance in the U.S. American Home Assurance Company, formerly known as American Home Fire Assurance Company, is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in New York. AHAC is a subsidiary and affiliate of AIG. AIU Insurance Company, formerly known as American International Insurance Company, is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in New York. AIU is a subsidiary or affiliate of AIG. American Fuji Fire and Marine Insurance Company was incorporated in Illinois and is a subsidiary or affiliate of AIG. Chartis Property Casualty Company, formerly known as AIG Casualty Company and Birmingham Fire Insurance Company of Pennsylvania, is a Pennsylvania corporation based in New York, and is a subsidiary or affiliate of AIG. Commerce and Industry Insurance Company is a New York corporation and a subsidiary or affiliate of AIG. Granite State Insurance Company, formerly known as Granite State Fire Insurance Company, is a Pennsylvania corporation based in New York and is a subsidiary or affiliate of AIG. Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania is a Pennsylvania corporation based in New York, and is an affiliate of AIG. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, is a Pennsylvania corporation headquartered in New York, and is a subsidiary or affiliate of AIG. New Hampshire Insurance Company, formerly known as New Hampshire Fire Insurance Company, is a Pennsylvania corporation headquartered in New York, and is a subsidiary or affiliate of AIG. AIG Risk Management, Inc. is a New York corporation and is a subsidiary or affiliate of AIG and CPC. The AIG Companies have been major participants in the California WC market for decades. Maurice R. Greenberg is a resident of Key Largo, Florida. Mr. Greenberg joined AIG in approximately 1967 and served as the Chairman and Chief Executive of AIG until his forced resignation in March 2005. In his capacity as head of AIG, Greenberg was responsible for conducting the business operations of AIG and the AIG Companies. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Deborah R. Rosenthal, Esq. SIMMONS BROWDER GIANARIS ANGELIDES & BARNERD LLC 455 Market Street, Suite 1150 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 536-3986 Facsimile: (415) 537-4120 E-mail: drosenthal@simmonsfirm.com - and - Derek Y. Brandt, Esq. SIMMONS BROWDER GIANARIS ANGELIDES & BARNERD LLC One Court Street Alton, IL 62002 Telephone: (618) 259-2222 Facsimile: (618) 259-2251 E-mail: dbrandt@simmonsfirm.com - and - Drew E. Pomerance, Esq. Nicholas P. Roxborough, Esq. ROXBOROUGH POMERANCE NYE & ADREANI 5820 Canoga Ave., Suite 250 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 992-9999 Facsimile: (818) 992-9991 E-mail: dep@rpnalaw.com npr@rpnalaw.com BLACK DIAMOND: Recalls Pieps VECTOR Avalanche Beacons ----------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 15, 2013 Posting date: October 15, 2013 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Sports/Fitness Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Suspected quality concern Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-36175 Affected products: Pieps VECTOR Avalanche Beacon The recall includes Pieps VECTOR 457/GSP avalanche beacons. The unit is gray and yellow with a LCD screen and is sold in a yellow cardboard box labeled "Pieps VECTOR - Premium Alpine Performance". The product is identified by model number 109880 and UPC number 9120029061347. Functioning of various operational features may deteriorate over time and may result in the product not performing as originally intended by the manufacturer. This could interfere with the use of the products potentially life-saving communications. Neither Black Diamond Equipment nor Health Canada have received any reports of incidents or injuries related to the use of this avalanche beacon. Approximately 60 units of the recalled beacons were sold in Canada. The recalled beacons were manufactured in Austria and sold from January 2012 to October 2013. Companies: Manufacturer Pieps Lebring Austria Distributor Black Diamond Equipment Ltd. Salt Lake City Utah United States Consumers should stop using the avalanche beacon immediately and contact Black Diamond Equipment at 1-801-278-5552 for product returns and refund. CASH CONVERTERS: Westpac Emerges as Key Provider of Loan Funding ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gareth Hutchens, writing for BusinessDay, reports that Westpac has emerged as the provider of most of the funding that allows Cash Converters to lend small amounts of money at extremely high interest rates. Westpac recently brokered a two-year facility to provide the pay- day lender with AU$60 million in funding via a "securitization warehouse facility" secured against Cash Converters' Australian- based loans book. The deal is structured so that Westpac funds up to 70% of the loans sitting in Cash Converters' lending book and as the size of that loans book increases the capacity for Cash Converters to draw from it also increases. Details of the funding agreement follow Cash Converters being hit last week with a AU$40 million class action in NSW amid claims it had been charging excessive interest rates on personal loans. Advertisement Banks are generally wary of the pay-day lending market given the reputational risks involved in writing short-term loans at high rates to low-income earners. Law firm Maurice Blackburn initiated the class action against Cash Converters in the Federal Court, alleging some customers had been paying interest rates of up to 633%, despite laws in NSW capping such rates at 48%. Cash Converters said it would vigorously defend the class action, saying the loans in question were not unlawful. The recently negotiated Westpac deal will run for a minimum of two years, with an option to extend it. At the end of June, Cash Converters had drawn down the facility by AU$52.1 million, documents show. A Westpac spokesman declined to comment on the class action but said the bank knew that Cash Converters' business involved payday lending. "[But] with any customer that we lend to, we have processes to ensure that they remain compliant with all laws and regulations . . . we conduct rigorous due diligence and work closely with our customers as a matter of practice." The Consumer Action Law Centre welcomed Maurice Blackburn's class action against Cash Converters, which is Australia's biggest pay- day lender, saying it would shine a light on an industry where people often fall into cycles of debt that are difficult to escape from. "The desperately sad thing is that pay-day loans are generally given to people on very low incomes, the very people who can least afford to be paying a premium for credit," Consumer Action chief executive Gerard Brody said. Most borrowers got a Centrelink payment. "So clearly this is an industry that makes its money from highly vulnerable people," Mr. Brody said. Maurice Blackburn's Ben Slade said Cash Converters was the only company named in the class action. "[But] like the Commonwealth Bank in relation to Bankwest, ANZ in relation to Gunns and now Westpac in relation to Cash Converters, there are in many people's view social responsibility obligations on the big financial institutions to at least know what's happening with their facilities," Mr. Slade said. CG SECURITY: Does Not Pay Required Overtime Premium, Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Ramon Silva, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. C.G. Security Services, Inc., and Charles Guynn, Case No. 1:13-cv-01611-SEB-MJD (S.D. Ind., October 8, 2013) alleges that the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff the required wage for every hour he worked and failure to pay the overtime premium for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a work week. During his employ at the Defendants, Mr. Silva alleges that he was regularly not paid for all the hours he worked and was regularly not paid the required overtime premium. By this lawsuit, he seeks all available relief for himself and similarly situated employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Mr. Silva is a resident of Indianapolis, Indiana. He worked as a security guard for the Defendants at the Hyatt Regency Indianapolis from April 2011 through February 2013. C.G. Security Services is an Indiana corporation doing business from its offices in Indianapolis. During relevant times, C.G. Security Services is an enterprise engaged in commerce. Charles Guynn is the "employer" of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey A. Macey, Esq. MACEY SWANSON AND ALLMAN 445 North Pennsylvania Street, Suite 401 Indianapolis, IN 46204-1800 Telephone: (317) 637-2345 Facsimile: (317) 637-2369 E-mail: jmacey@maceylaw.com CHICAGO, IL: Faces Class Action Over CTA's New Ventra Cards ----------------------------------------------------------- WLS reports that problems with the new CTA fare system Ventra have triggered legal action. A class action lawsuit has been filed -- citing numerous issues with the new Ventra cards. Dave Kenger is a CTA bus rider, who used to have a Chicago Card Plus. Now, he has a new Ventra card. When checking his account covering the last couple weeks, he discovered that he'd been charged twice for a single ride. But more interestingly, he found that on September 26, within a span of 70 seconds, he was billed six times for calling the CTA customer call center -- a total of $8.50. Not a lot of money, but Mr. Kenger's phone log shows no record of those calls, and even if he did make them, you are not to be charged for making calls to the customer service center. I thought there had to be some mistake. I tried to get someone on the phone, and it was my second mistake," Mr. Kenger said. "We're not talking about a lot of money in terms of one person, but if you multiply it by 100,000 to 200,000 people who might be using this Ventra card, we're talking about an awful lot of money," said Kenger attorney Dan Edelman. So, aggravated that he's not been able to get answers to numerous calls and email follow-ups, Mr. Kenger and his attorney Dan Edelman have now filed a federal lawsuit against Cubic Corporation -- overseeing Ventra -- and the CTA, alleging breach of contract and consumer fraud. It's the first legal action over Ventra frustration. "This is a service thing. It isn't going to be stopped unless somebody steps forward and takes action and files a lawsuit," Mr. Kenger said. "I question how, what was done to test it before putting it into service. It looked like the beta testing is being done on the public," said Mr. Kenger. The suit comes as many commuters face a series of problems related to switching to the new payment system. On Oct. 9, the CTA reversed its decision on Oct. 7 to cut off some fare payment options. If you have a Chicago Card or Chicago Card Plus, you can once again load money on it at a station. The CTA apologized, saying that it is unacceptable that riders are being left on hold. How the Ventra rollout is going depends on who you ask. The private contractor that runs Ventra, Cubic, continues to be flooded with calls. Around noon on Oct. 9, wait times for a Ventra operator were so long, ABC7 was kicked off immediately. "Ventra should have been prepared for that and was not prepared for that, and for that we absolutely apologize to our customers," said CTA spokesperson Brian Steele. "They should not have experienced the call times, the wait times they had on some of those calls." In light of those problems, CTA says Ventra will triple the number of call center operators. More than 100,000 Chicago Card and Chicago Card Plus customers who represent the bulk of the callers are being re-emailed a username and temporary password to register the card online. Sales of magnetic strip fare cards resumed after they were cut off two days earlier. And Chicago Card and Chicago Card Plus customers will once again be able to load money onto their cards at stations. "Given some of the issues we've seen, we want to provide that as another option for customers while this really intense transition period is ongoing," said Mr. Steele. CTA suggests if you don't yet have a Ventra card, buy one at a station, vendor or on the Ventra website. That way, you can bypass the call center and register online. You will, however, need to talk to a real person to transfer any balance from a Chicago Card to Ventra. Ironically, CTA said it made the move to Ventra in part to give riders a better customer service experience. The agency said they are confident that with the changes on Oct. 9 the transition to Ventra will be smoother. COSTCO: El Camino Real Store Recalls Rotisserie Chicken Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- Costco's El Camino Real store in South San Francisco, Calif., is recalling 9,043 units (approximately 39,755 lbs.) of rotisserie chicken products that may be contaminated with a strain of Salmonella Heidelberg, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The products subject to recall are: -- 8,730 "Kirkland Signature Foster Farms" rotisserie chickens 313 total units of "Kirkland Farm" rotisserie chicken soup, rotisserie chicken leg quarters, and rotisserie chicken salad. The products were sold directly to consumers in a Costco located at 1600 El Camino Real, South San Francisco, Calif., between Sept. 11 and Sep. 23, 2013. The recall was initiated due to concerns about a group of Salmonella Heidelberg illnesses that may be associated with the consumption of rotisserie chicken products prepared in and purchased at the Costco El Camino Real store. The PFGE pattern (0258) associated with this outbreak is reported rarely in the United States. FSIS, working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the California Department of Public Health and the County of San Mateo Public Health Department, determined through epidemiologic and traceback investigations that there is a link between the Costco El Camino Real rotisserie chicken products and this illness outbreak. FSIS is continuing to work with CDC, public health partners in California and Costco on the investigation. FSIS will continue to provide information as it becomes available. This group of illnesses is part of a larger cluster of Salmonella Heidelberg illnesses that are known to be multi-drug resistant. For more information about the larger cluster, visit: http://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/heidelberg-10-13/index.html FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. Costco has already taken steps to contact every customer who purchased rotisserie chicken products. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/recalls-and- public-health-alerts/current-recalls-and-alerts Consumers and media with questions regarding the recall should contact Costco at (800) 774-2678. FSIS reminds consumers to properly handle raw poultry in a manner to prevent contamination from spreading to other foods and food contact surfaces. FSIS further reminds consumers of the critical importance of following package cooking instructions for frozen or fresh chicken products and general food safety guidelines when handling and preparing any raw meat or poultry. In particular, while cooking instructions may give a specific number of minutes of cooking for each side of the product in order to attain 165F internal temperature, consumers should be aware that actual time may vary depending on the cooking method (broiling, frying, or grilling) and the temperature of the product (chilled versus frozen) so it is important that the final temperature of 165F must be reached for safety. Please do not rely on the cooking time for each side of the product, but use a food thermometer. All poultry products should be cooked to a safe minimum internal temperature of 165F as determined by a food thermometer. Using a food thermometer is the only way to know that food has reached a high enough temperature to destroy foodborne bacteria. Consumption of food contaminated with Salmonella can cause salmonellosis, one of the most common bacterial foodborne illnesses. Salmonella infections can be life-threatening, especially to those with weak immune systems, such as infants, the elderly, and persons with HIV or undergoing chemotherapy. The most common symptoms of salmonellosis are diarrhea, abdominal cramps and fever within eight to 72 hours. Additional symptoms may be chills, headache, nausea and vomiting that can last up to seven days. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1- 888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. DOLE FRESH: Bid for Class Certification Due Dec. 30 --------------------------------------------------- District Judge Otis D. Wright, II denied a stipulation extending the time for the plaintiff to move for class certification in the case, TRACI WALLERSTEIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DOLE FRESH VEGETABLES, INC. Defendant, NO. 2:13-CV-07271-ODW(VBKX), (C.D. Calif.). Ms. Wallerstein's Motion for Class Certification must be filed by December 30, 2013 -- the Monday before the end of the 90-day deadline provided by Local Rule 23-3 -- says Judge Wright. A copy of the District Court's October 9, 2013 Order is available at http://is.gd/rj7Rfpfrom Leagle.com. ENGLISH MONTREAL SCHOOL: Canadian Court Approves Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- Montreal Gazette reports that the Superior Court has approved a settlement in the class-action lawsuit against the English Montreal School Board and former teacher Renwick Spence. Under the terms of the settlement, the school board will pay out C$5 million to victims who were sexually abused by Mr. Spence, who taught biology at Montreal West High School. Mr. Spence, now 84, was sentenced to 30 months in prison after admitting that he molested eight male students at Montreal West between 1967 and 1981. He received a full parole in 2009. Launched by 17 former students, the class action lawsuit was authorized in 2007. The lead claimant, who uses the pseudonym Sebastian, said Mr. Spence took advantage of his authority by inviting students to his cottage, where he sexually abused them. Sebastian and the other claimants say the EMSB (then the Protestant School Board of Greater Montreal) was aware of the abuse and didn't act. "The EMSB, as successor to the PSBGM, sincerely and profoundly apologizes to those students and their families whose lives have been affected by the abuse they endured and hopes that the settlement will in some way help with each victim's healing process," the school board wrote in a statement released on Oct. 11. The EMSB was not immediately available for comment but in its proposed settlement released in August, the school board denied any wrongdoing or liability. Careen Hanouche, one of the lawyers representing the victims, said she believes more people will come forward with abuse claims now that a settlement agreement is in place. Any living person who was sexually abused by Mr. Spence and a student at Montreal West High School from the 1960s to the 1980s is eligible for compensation under the terms of the settlement. Victims have 60 days to submit a claim for compensation. Sebastian, who was 15 when he was sexually assaulted by Mr. Spence, told The Gazette in August that he hopes the settlement will allow him and other victims to get on with their lives. The 49-year-old told his family about the abuse, but it took him years to report it to police. He said he suffered from bouts of depression in the aftermath of his abuse but that he's proud he was able to speak out on behalf of the other victims. The Oct. 11 settlement brings to a close a legal battle that began 10 years ago. FURNITURE BRANDS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Oct. 8 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Furniture Brands International, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, and docketed under 13-cv-01703, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of FBN between February 13, 2013 and August 5, 2013 both dates inclusive. This class action seeks to recover damages against the Company and certain of its officers and directors as a result of alleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. If you are a shareholder who purchased FBN securities during the Class Period, you have until October 15, 2013 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. FBN manufactures and distributes residential furniture. The Company's products include stationary upholstery products, occasional furniture, recliners and sleep sofas. The Company's trade names include, among others, Thomasville, Broyhill, Lane, and Drexel Heritage. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and operations. Specifically, Defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) the Company was experiencing weaknesses in its wholesale business; (b) the Company's trade names were being carried at inflated values that would require material impairments; (c) the Company was experiencing severe liquidity issues; (d) and based upon the above, the Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company during the Class Period. On August 6, 2013, prior to the open of the financial markets, the Company issued a press release, reporting the Company's second quarter financial results for the quarter ending June 29, 2013. The Company disclosed a material impairment and that it would need to address liquidity challenges and improve business performance by implementing strategic initiatives to achieve cost reductions, pursuing asset sales and working with its lenders to potentially modify its credit facilities. On this news, shares of FBN declined $0.84 per share, more than 38%, to close at $1.37 per share on August 6, 2013. With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. GENERAL MILLS: Court Tosses Motion to Stay Mislabeling Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sean Bohac brought a putative class action against General Mills, Inc., asserting that the use of the terms "100% NATURAL," "all natural," or "natural" on General Mills's "Nature Valley" products is deceptive and misleading because of the alleged presence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), as well as high fructose corn syrup (HFCS"), high maltose corn syrup (HMCS), maltodextrin, and other similar ingredients. General Mills moved to stay this case because it argued that the United States Food and Drug Administration has primary jurisdiction over the term "natural" and two judges, including one in the Calif. district, have stayed their cases pending a response to a referral to the FDA the question of whether products with bioengineered ingredients may be labeled "natural." General Mills also argued that the Court should exercise its inherent authority to stay the case. In an Oct. 10, 2013 Order available at http://is.gd/trtNz1from Leagle.com, District Judge William H. Orrick denied General Mills' request saying factors do not weigh in favor of a stay. The case is SEAN BOHAC, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL MILLS, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 12-CV-05280-WHO, (N.D. Cal.). GLADSTONE PORTS: 20+ Fishermen Launch Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Daniel Burdon, writing for The Satellite, reports that more than 20 fishermen have launched a class action against the Gladstone Ports Corporation, to secure more compensation for the loss of their fishing grounds. The legal action is the second case led by fisherman Trevor Falzon against the State Government-owned Gladstone Ports Corporation. It follows a previous case which was rejected on a technicality last year. It centers on the Coordinator-General's approval conditions for the Western Basin dredging project, which demand the port provide compensation for the loss of local fishing grounds affected by the project. The port has had a compensation process open for several months, but Mr. Falzon and around 20 other fishermen are challenging whether the program has offered enough. Mr. Falzon described the compensation offered as "peanuts"; with payments offered to fishermen, crabbers and trawler operators ranging from $200 to $50,000. He said the Western Basin dredging project had forced him out of the fishing business and for two years he had been forced to seek other work to maintain his mortgage payments. "You're dealing with a $60 billion industry that has literally stuffed our industry up," he said. Mr. Falzon said the port also had confined the area for which compensation should have been offered, excluding vital fishing grounds from adequate compensation for their losses. He said GPC had only offered compensation for four smaller areas of the harbor, rather than the entire area that was affected by the massive dredging project. "The ports corporation only want to pay us out for four of those (grid areas), but the Coordinator-General said any commercial fisherman that have been interrupted will be compensated for," he said. "We should be compensated for the whole area." The ports corporation did not respond to requests for comment. GRAND JUNCTION: Refused to Pay Overtime Premiums, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Albert and John Hein, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Grand Junction Metal Movers, LLC and Chuck Myers, Case No. 1:13-cv-02740-REB-MJW (D. Colo., October 8, 2013) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act when they refused to pay the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated overtime premiums for all hours worked beyond 40 each workweek. The Defendants also violated the FLSA when they refused to pay Mr. Hein any wages at all for one full week of work, the Plaintiffs allege. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants' conduct violated the FLSA because that Act requires employers to pay their employees for all hours worked and one-and-one-half times each employee's regular rate of pay for each hour worked beyond forty each workweek. Albert is a resident of the state of Colorado and was employed by the Defendants from April 2012 through August 7, 2013. John Hein is a resident of the state of Colorado and was employed by the Defendants from February 2012 through May 2012, and again from February 2013 through May 2013. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as laborers at a scrap metal yard. Grand Junction is a limited liability company registered to do business in the state of Colorado. Chuck Myers is the owner/operator of Grand Junction. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brandt Milstein, Esq. MILSTEIN LAW OFFICE 595 Canyon Boulevard Boulder, CO 80302 Telephone: (303) 440-8780 Facsimile: (303) 957-5754 E-mail: Brandt@Milsteinlawoffice.com - and - Michael D. Lore, Esq. MICHAEL D. LORE, P.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, Texas 77046 Telephone: (713) 782-5291 Facsimile: (713) 758-0345 E-mail: mlore@lorefirm.com HALLIBURTON CO: Manufacturers Seek Review of Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- In a brief filed on Oct. 11, the Manufacturers' Center for Legal Action joined other business groups in calling for the U.S. Supreme Court to grant review in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., challenging a key precedent in securities class action cases. "We hope that the U.S. Supreme Court will take up this important case that would help to address the scourge of securities class action lawsuits that siphon productive capital out of the manufacturing economy while enriching a narrow group of trial lawyers," said National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) Senior Vice President and General Counsel Linda Kelly. "Private securities class action litigation imposes a significant cost burden on manufacturers, impairing their ability to grow and create jobs by diverting financial resources toward legal fees and settlements, often with no net benefit to shareholders." The case involves the "fraud on the market" theory of liability in securities class actions. This theory has greatly facilitated securities class actions and has contributed to their exponential growth since the late 1980s. The Manufacturers' Center for Legal Action serves as the leading voice of manufacturers in the courts, representing the 12 million men and women who make things in the United States. The Center strategically engages in litigation as a direct party, intervenes in litigation important to our manufacturers and weighs in as amicus curiae on important cases. HIDALGO COUNTY, NM: Sued by Detention Officers and Dispatchers -------------------------------------------------------------- Madonna Bustillos, Francisco Contreras, Concepcion T. Hernandez, Martha S. Jimenez, And Amanda Vogelsang-Wolf, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Board of County Commissioners of Hidalgo County, Case No. 2:13-cv-00971 (D. N.M., October 8, 2013) is brought on behalf of a proposed class of all current and former Detention Officers and Emergency Dispatch Operators, who are or were employed by the Defendant at the Hidalgo County Detention Center. The lawsuit is brought to recover back pay, compensatory, exemplary and punitive damages as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay employees for all hours worked, the Plaintiffs contend. They add that the Defendant fails to pay them overtime wages, in violation of state wage and hour laws and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs work (or worked) for the Defendant as Correctional Officers, Sergeants and Lieutenants at the Hidalgo County Detention Center. Board of County Commissioners of Hidalgo County is a municipal corporation located in the state of New Mexico. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shane C. Youtz, Esq. Stephen Curtic, Esq. James A. Montalbano, Esq. YOUTZ & VALDEZ, P.C. 900 Gold Avenue S.W. Albuquerque, NM 87102 Telephone: (505) 244-1200 Facsimile: (505) 244-9700 E-mail: shane@youtzvaldez.com stephen@youtzvaldez.com james@youtzvaldez.com JIM THRELKEL: Faces Class Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Premium ----------------------------------------------------------- Richard Kamarer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Jim Threlkel Florist and Foliage, Inc., a Florida Corporation, and Jeffrey Allen Sophir, Individually, Case No. 0:13-cv-62180-RSR (S.D. Fla., October 8, 2013) is brought to recover from the Defendants unpaid overtime compensation, commission, liquidated damages, and costs and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff alleges that he was not paid overtime premium of his regular rate of pay and his overtime premium for all hours worked in excess of 40 during a work week. When his employment with the Defendants terminated in May 2013, he asserts that he has demanded proper compensation for those weeks, which he is entitled to recover overtime compensation but the Defendants have refused and failed to compensate him. Richard Kamarer is a citizen and resident of Broward County, Florida. Jim Threlkel Florist and Foliage, Inc., is a Florida corporation, licensed as a business and doing business in the state of Florida. Jeffrey Allen Sophir is a citizen and resident of Palm Beach County, Florida. He is a principal senior management staff, or owner of the Company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles H. Bechert, III, Esq. BECHERT & ASSOCIATES, P.A 901 East Atlantic Blvd. Pompano Beach, FL 33060 Telephone: (954) 941-8363 E-mail: Emailservice@southfloridaattorney.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Class Action in Israel Over PROLIFT MESH ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jewish Business News reports that Zubeidat Narges submitted a claim in the District Court in Lod, Israel against the American multinational company, which is one of the world's leading manufacturers of medical products, drugs and medical equipment. The plaintiff submitted the claim on behalf of herself, and also with a request for the Court to certify the claim as a class action suit for NIS6 billion (about US$1.7 billion) against the Defendant on behalf of an estimated 60,000 women in Israel who, it is alleged, experienced the same difficulties as her because of complex gynaecological procedures performed using the Defendant's allegedly faulty products. The plaintiff asserts that in August 2006 a surgical procedure to relieve vaginal pain was performed on her at the medical centre "Bnei Zion", whereby soft synthetic vaginal supports were implanted in her body namely a "PROLIFT MESH" produced and marketed by the Defendant. According to the statement of claim, PROLIFT MESH is a form of synthetic netting used in light gynaecological surgical procedures to provide support for the female pelvic organs of the body. The purpose is to prevent prolapse, or collapse, of the pelvic organs, a condition known as POP which is described as a condition where the uterus may fall into the vagina as a result of the weakening of the tissues of the pelvic area. It is a relatively common phenomenon occurring in up to 25% of women and can in extreme cases be very painful. The statement of claim alleges that since 1996 there were many reports, worldwide, of women who had PROLIFT MESH implanted and then suffered profuse vaginal discharge and associated damage to their body, including bleeding, bed sores, recurring infection, perforation of the urinary tract during installation, incontinence and severe pain. According to the plaintiff the Defendant had marketed the product PROLIFT MESH since March 2005, including in Israel, without the approval of the US Food and Drug Administration. The statement of claim further states that in March 2012 the FDA itself issued a statement stating that the Defendant had marketed the PROLIFT MESH product without their approval. The statement of claim also states that about six years after beginning to market the PROLIFT MESH product the Defendant began to recall the product from its distribution channels and then discontinued it. Finally the statement of claim points out that many lawsuits have been asserted elsewhere against the Defendant and substantial settlement arrangements already achieved. In this case the plaintiff asserts that the material implanted into her body caused her, and many other women in Israel, severe harm. In her own case, the plaintiff asserts that most of the known risks associated with the material did in fact occur, and she suffered form increased pain in the lower abdomen, recurring infection, increased bleeding, bed sores, and damage to the urinary tract. The plaintiff is also seeking to represent all the estimated 60,000 women in Israel who were also affected because of the PROLIFT MESH product supplied by the Defendant. Damages are sought in the average amount of NIS 100,000 (about $28,000) per patient and the aggregate claim, if class action status should be approved, is therefore NIS 6 billion, or about US$1.7 billion. JOHNSON CONTROLS: Fails to Pay Correct OT Wages, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Victor Maximovskikh, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated who consent to their inclusion v. Johnson Controls, Inc., Case No. 0:13-cv-62179-WJZ (S.D. Fla., October 8, 2013) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act for failure to pay overtime compensation at a rate of 1.5 times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 hours a week. Mr. Maximovskikh says he and members of the class routinely worked over 40 hours per work week. However, he contends, for certain hours over 40 in a work week, he and members of the class were only paid straight time rather than premium overtime pay. Mr. Maximovskikh is a resident of Florida. He has been employed by the Defendant starting in 2008 as a non-exempt, hourly employee. Johnson Controls is a foreign, for-profit corporation organized and existing under the laws of Wisconsin. The Plaintiff is represented by: Dale J. Morgado, Esq. R. Edward Rosenberg, Esq. FELDMAN MORGADO, P.A. 100 North Biscayne Boulevard 29th Floor, Suite 2902 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 222-7850 Facsimile: (305) 384-4676 E-mail: dmorgado@ffmlawgroup.com erosenberg@ffmlawgroup.com KGI LANDSCAPING: Faces Suit in Illinois Over Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Juan Duran, on behalf of himself, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v. KGI Landscaping Co., and Gabriel A. Hostalet, Case No. 1:13-cv-07209 (N.D. Ill., October 8, 2013) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Prevailing Wage Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. He and all similarly situated members of the Plaintiff Class work or have worked in excess of 40 hours per week at times throughout their employment with the Defendants, Mr. Duran states. He contends that he and the Class members were denied time and one half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek, pursuant to the requirements of the federal and state statutes. Mr. Duran is a past employee, who performed work for the Defendants as a laborer. He also performed work as a driver for the Defendants during a portion of his employment. KGI provides landscaping and snow plowing services in the Chicagoland area. Gabriel A. Hostalet is the owner of KGI. The Plaintiff is represented by: John William Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 120 S. State Street, Suite 400 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 853-1450 E-mail: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com - and - Ana Dominguez, Esq. FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT 100 W. Monroe, Suite 1800 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 784-3541 E-mail: adominguez@fwadvocacy.org KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Accused of Asking for Personal ID Information ---------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy Alberts and Michael Pietrantonio, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., 1:13-cv-12523-WGY (D. Mass., October 8, 2013) arises from Kohls' violation of the Massachusetts General Laws through its practice of requiring, as a condition of using a credit card to make a purchase, customers' personal identification information (PII), specifically their ZIP codes. As a condition of using their credit cards, they were required by Kohl's to enter PII associated with the credit card, including their full and complete zip codes, the Plaintiffs allege. They note that Kohl's would not allow them to complete their purchases without supplying the information. Timothy Alberts and Michael Pietrantonio are citizens of the state of Massachusetts. Kohl's is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin. Kohl's conducts business throughout the United States and Massachusetts. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph J. Siprut, Esq. SIPRUT PC 17 North State Street, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 236-0000 Facsimile: (312) 948-9196 E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com - and - Alexander Shapoval, Esq. SIPRUT PC 1 Winnisimmet Street Chelsea, MA 02150 Telephone: (617) 889-5800 Facsimile: (617) 884-3005 E-mail: ashapoval@siprut.com NEBRASKA PRIME: Magistrate Judge Awards $880,000 to Investor ------------------------------------------------------------ Richard Piersol, writing for Lincoln Journal Star, reports that one of the original investors in what became Nebraska Prime Group -- now a kosher slaughterhouse in Hastings and owner of an idle plant in Lincoln -- was awarded almost $900,000 by a federal magistrate to settle a split with those now controlling the business. Lincoln Provision Inc., a Chicago meat company owned by Jim Stevens, was awarded the money as the value of its share of Hastings Acquisition, owned by New York investor Aron Puretz, which took over the business that was supposed to have been a collaboration. Together, they bought Premium Protein of Lincoln and Hastings out of bankruptcy almost four years ago, but they never came to an operating agreement. Mr. Puretz took over, and Lincoln Provision sued for its share of the value of the business. The case went to trial in May. The $880,000 award is the return for Lincoln Provision on a deposit of $100,000 in earnest money. Mr. Puretz put up the rest of the down payment, then $3.9 million for a company appraised at as much as $20 million in a series of wildly divergent valuations reported in court documents. Lincoln Provision was supposed to have put up 30 percent of the payment and was expecting to be the operation's biggest customer, with plans to kill 40,000 cattle a year, according to court documents, but that didn't happen. The Hastings plant resumed operation as a kosher slaughter and packing operation in August 2010 as Nebraska Prime Group, under Mr. Puretz's leadership, but the Lincoln plant never reopened. Attorney David Domina, representing Lincoln Provision, said his client was pleased matters were concluded. "The company is disappointed that actions of the persons in control precluded it from operating the plant in a way that would have been a credit to Hastings and a complement to its economy," Mr. Domina said in an email. "The Hastings plant is an opportunity requiring much careful management ,and Lincoln Provision became involved on the condition it would provide that management." Lincoln Provision contended in court that Mr. Puretz shut it out of the deal almost immediately. The Chicago meat company asked for compensation not based on the money paid at bankruptcy, but a "distributional interest at fair value" defined under Illinois law, because the acquisition company was created there. Lincoln Provision had asked the court to award it, among other things, at least $12.5 million for the reasonable value of the real estate assets. Mr. Puretz and his company countered that Lincoln Provision, on whom Mr. Puretz relied for guidance, misrepresented the operating capacity of the Hastings plant in an effort to induce Mr. Puretz to invest. Lincoln Provision misstated the plant's projected revenue by more than $16 million dollars over five years, according to court documents filed by Mr. Puretz. Mr. Puretz said Lincoln Provision deserved, at most, $100,000. Federal Magistrate F.A. Gossett ruled the company was worth $3.9 million and that Lincoln Provision deserved half, less $1.07 million it hadn't paid to put up 30 percent of the purchase price. Part of a New York-New Jersey real estate investing family, Mr. Puretz acknowledged having no experience in the meat industry, but he continues to operate the Hastings plant. He and his attorney could not be reached to comment on the ruling. Coincidentally, in a separate federal court action, the former owner of Premium Protein Products agreed in late September to pay $1.2 million to settle a class-action lawsuit by former employees. Private equity firm Matlin Patterson, which was majority owner of the meatpacking company when it declared bankruptcy in November 2009, agreed to the settlement without admitting any wrongdoing. The employees had alleged the company violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act by furloughing them for months without pay and then filing bankruptcy. The WARN Act requires companies of a certain size to give employees 60 days' notice of a plant closing. Instead, Premium Protein furloughed as many as 400 employees in June 2009, then filed for bankruptcy in November. There is still no apparent plan for use of the vacant Lincoln plant at 4611 W. Adams St. NISSAN MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in "Falco" Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Dean D. Pregerson denied, in part, and granted, in part, a motion to dismiss the case captioned KOBE FALCO, individually, and on behalf of a class similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC., NISSAN MOTOR CO. LTD, a Japanese Company, Defendants, CASE NO. CV 13-00686 DDP (MANX), (C.D. Cal.). The Plaintiffs in the case asserted six causes of action against Nissan North: (1) violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1750 et seq; 2) breach of implied warranty pursuant to California's Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1792 and 1791.1 et seq.; 3) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections of Washington's Consumer Protection Act (WCPA), RCW 19.86 et seq; (5) Fraud, and (6) Unjust Enrichment. The court denied Nissan North's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as to Plaintiffs' (1) CLRA,(2) Implied Warranty, (3) UCL,(4) WCPA, and (5) Fraud claims. The court granted Nissan North's motion to dismiss as to Plaintiffs' Unjust Enrichment claim. A copy of the District Court's October 10, 2013 Order is available at http://is.gd/zSmxhhfrom Leagle.com. OVASCIENCE INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Mass. -------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Oct. 11 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against OvaScience, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, and docketed under 13-cv-12286, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of OvaScience between February 25, 2013 and September 10, 2013 both dates inclusive. This class action seeks to recover damages against the Company and certain of its officers and directors as a result of alleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. If you are a shareholder who purchased OvaScience securities during the Class Period, you have until November 15, 2013 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. OvaScience is a life sciences company focused on the discovery, development and commercialization of new treatments for infertility. The Company's patented technology is based on the discovery of egg precursor cells (EggPCSM), which are found in the ovaries. By applying proprietary technology to identify and purify EggPCs, AUGMENTSM aims to improve egg quality and increase the success of in vitro fertilization. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and operations. Specifically, OvaScience represented to the FDA and investors that it believed that AUGMENT qualified for designation as a 361 HCT/P, which allows human cellular and tissue based products to be tested and marketed without FDA licensure. Yet despite this representation, OvaScience never qualified for this designation. On September 10, 2013, the Company disclosed that it was suspending enrollment of AUGMENT in the U.S. after receiving an "untitled" letter from the FDA "questioning the status of AUGMENT as a 361 HCT/P and advising the Company to file an Investigational New Drug (IND) application." On this news, OvaScience shares declined $3.33 per share or more than 23%, to close at $10.95 per share on September 11, 2013. With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. REVEL ENTERTAINMENT: Sued Over "Refund All Slot Losses" Campaign ---------------------------------------------------------------- Franziska Montag, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Revel Entertainment Group, LLC, and Chatham Asset Management, LLC, Case No. 1:13-cv-07133-UA (S.D. N.Y., October 8, 2013) arises from Revel's post-bankruptcy promotion called "Refund All Slot Losses," which promises to refund all slot machine losses exceeding $100 during the month of July. When it came time to pay up, Revel refused to provide refunds, instead providing credits for continued slot machine play, Ms. Montag alleges. The credits have no cash value and can only be claimed in 5% increments by showing up at the casino each week for 20 consecutive weeks. Ms. Montag argues that Revel made affirmative misrepresentations and failed to disclose material facts regarding the terms of the "Refund All Slot Losses" campaign. Ms. Montag is a resident of Brooklyn, New York. She states that she and the Class members responded to the "Refund All Slot Losses" campaign by traveling to Revel casino and playing the slot machines in July 2013. Revel is a New Jersey limited liability company headquartered in Atlantic City. Chatham is a Delaware limited liability company headquartered in Chatham, New Jersey. Chatham has a significant ownership stake in Revel and oversees the casino's management and operations. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Anthony Kehoe, Esq. GIRARD GIBBS LLP 711 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 867-1721 Facsimile: (212) 867-1767 E-mail: jak@girardgibbs.com - and - Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. Scott Grzenczyk, Esq. Dylan Hughes, Esq. GIRARD GIBBS LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 E-mail: ehg@girardgibbs.com dsh@girardgibbs.com smg@girardgibbs.com SINO-FOREST: Nov. 18 Hearing on US Recognition of E&Y Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York will hold a hearing Nov. 18, 2013, on the motion to recognize and enforce an order by the Ontario Superior Court approving a settlement of a class action lawsuit solely against Ernst & Young LLP and Ernst & Young Global Limited for C$117 million and other consideration. The class consists of persons and entities who, from March 19, 2007, through August 26, 2011, purchased the common stock of Sino- Forest Corporation on the United States Over-the-Counter market and who were damaged thereby; or debt securities issued by Sino- Forest other than in Canada and who were damaged thereby; and who have, had, could have had or may have a claim against E&Y or any of its member firms and any person or entitiy affiliated or connected thereto in connection with the purchase or sale of Sino- Forest securities. These defendants are excluded from the US E&Y Settlement Class: the officiers and directors of Sino-Forest, members of the immediate families of those persons, and the legal representatives. The Settlement Class excludes investors who purchased Sino-Forest securities on the Toronto Stock Exchange or in Canada. The hearing will be held 11:00 a.m. on Nov. 18 before Judge Martin Glenn. Objections or responses to the Motion must be filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court by due Nov. 7. Objections also may be sent to: US Counsel for Ernst & Young: Ken Coleman, Esq. Jonathan Cho, Esq. ALLEN & OVERY LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Bankruptcy Counsel for the Class Action Plaintiffs: Michael S. Etkin, Esq. Tatiana Ingman, Esq. LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New Yor, NY 10020 E-mail: tingman@lowenstein.com Additional information on the Motion and E&Y Settlement may be obtained upon request at: Richard A Speirs, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 88 Pine Street New York, NY 10005 Tel: 212-838-7797 E-mail: rspeirs@cohenmilstein.com Sino-Forest Corporation -- http://www.sinoforest.com/-- is a commercial forest plantation operator in China. Its principal businesses include the ownership and management of tree plantations, the sale of standing timber and wood logs, and the complementary manufacturing of downstream engineered-wood products. Sino-Forest also holds a majority interest in Greenheart Group Limited, a Hong-Kong listed investment holding company with assets in Suriname (South America) and New Zealand and involved in sustainable harvesting, processing and sales of its logs and lumber to China and other markets around the world. Sino-Forest's common shares have been listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange under the symbol TRE since 1995. Sino-Forest Corporation on March 30, 2012, obtained an initial order from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for creditor protection pursuant to the provisions of the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act. FTI Consulting Canada Inc. served as the Court- appointed Monitor under the CCAA process and assisted the Company in implementing its restructuring plan. FTI Consulting commenced a Chapter 15 case for Sino-Forest in New York to give force and effect of Sino-Forest's plan of compromise and reorganization that has been sanctioned by creditors and an Ontario court. SKECHERS USA: Continues to Defend "Chavez" Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------- SKECHERS USA, Inc., continues to defend itself against a class action lawsuit initiated by Esteban Chavez, according to the Company's August 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. On September 18, 2012, Esteban Chavez filed a class action lawsuit against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Esteban Chavez v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Case No. BC492357, alleging violations of the California Labor Code, including unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, non-compliant wage statements, and wages not timely paid upon termination. The complaint seeks actual, consequential and incidental losses and damages; general and special damages; civil, statutory and waiting time penalties; restitution of unpaid wages; injunctive relief; attorneys' fees and costs; pre-judgment interest on unpaid compensation; and appointment of a receiver. On September 25, 2012, the Court issued an order staying the action until an initial status conference that was held on December 19, 2012. While it is too early to predict the outcome of the litigation or a reasonable range of potential losses and whether an adverse result would have a material adverse impact on its results of operations or financial position, the Company believes it has meritorious defenses, vehemently deny the allegations, and intends to defend the case vigorously. SKECHERS USA, Inc. -- http://www.skechers.com/-- based in Manhattan Beach, California, designs, develops and markets a diverse range of footwear for men, women and children under the SKECHERS name. SKECHERS footwear is available in the United States via department and specialty stores, Company-owned SKECHERS retail stores and its e-commerce Web site, and over 100 countries and territories through the Company's global network of distributors and subsidiaries in Canada, Brazil, Chile, Japan and across Europe, as well as through joint ventures in Asia. SKECHERS USA: To Produce Docs Amid Subpoena From Ohio Jury ---------------------------------------------------------- SKECHERS USA, Inc., said in its August 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013, that it is fully cooperating and is in the process of producing documents and other information with respect to a subpoena issued by a Grand Jury of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio relating to its toning shoe products, including Shape-ups. The Company's claims and advertising for its toning products including for its Shape-ups are subject to the requirements of, and routinely come under review by regulators including the U.S. Federal Trade Commission ("FTC"), states' Attorneys General and government and quasi-government regulators in foreign countries. The Company is currently responding to requests for information regarding its claims and advertising from regulatory and quasi- regulatory agencies in several countries and is fully cooperating with those requests. While the Company believes that its claims and advertising with respect to its core toning shoe products are supported by scientific tests, expert opinions and other relevant data, and while the Company has been successful in defending its claims and advertising in several different countries, it has discontinued using certain test results and periodically reviews and updates its claims and advertising. The regulatory inquiries may conclude in a variety of outcomes, including the closing of the inquiry with no further regulatory action, settlement of any issues through changes in its claims and advertising, settlement of any issues through payment to the regulatory entity, or litigation. In accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, the Company records a liability in its consolidated financial statements for loss contingencies when a loss is known or considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. When determining the estimated loss or range of loss, significant judgment is required to estimate the amount and timing of a loss to be recorded. Estimates of probable losses resulting from litigation and governmental proceedings are inherently difficult to predict, particularly when the matters are in the procedural stages or with unspecified or indeterminate claims for damages, potential penalties, or fines. During the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2011, the Company reserved $45 million for costs and potential exposure relating to existing litigation and regulatory matters. Additionally, the Company recorded a pre-tax expense of $5 million in legal and professional fees related to the matters, which was included in general and administrative expense in its consolidated statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2011. On May 16, 2012, the Company announced that it had settled all domestic legal proceedings relating to advertising claims made in connection with marketing its toning shoe products, including Shape-ups. Under the terms of the global settlement -- without admitting any fault or liability, with no findings being made that the Company had violated any law, and with no fines or penalties being imposed -- it made payments in the aggregate amount of $50 million to settle and finally resolve the domestic advertising class action lawsuits and related claims brought by the FTC and states' Attorneys General for 44 states and the District of Columbia ("SAG"). The FTC Stipulated Final Judgment was approved by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on July 12, 2012, and consent judgments have been approved and entered in the 45 SAG actions. On May 13, 2013, the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky entered an order finally approving the nationwide consumer class action settlement. On November 8, 2012, the Company was served with a Grand Jury Subpoena ("Subpoena") for documents and information relating to its past advertising claims for its toning footwear, including Shape-ups and Resistance Runners. The Subpoena was issued by a Grand Jury of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, in Cleveland, Ohio. The Subpoena seeks documents and information related to outside studies conducted on the Company's toning footwear. This Subpoena appears to grow out of the FTC's inquiry into the Company's claims and advertising for Shape-ups and its other toning shoe products, which the Company settled with the FTC, State Attorneys' General and consumer class as part of the global settlement. The Company is fully cooperating and is in the process of producing documents and other information requested in the Subpoena. The Assistant United States Attorney has informed the Company that neither the Company nor its employees are targets at the present time. Although the Company does not believe this matter will have a material adverse impact on the Company's results of operations or financial position, it is too early to predict the timing and outcome of this matter or reasonably estimate a range of potential losses, if any. The toning footwear category, including the Company's Shape-ups products, has also been the subject of some media attention arising from a number of consumer complaints and lawsuits alleging injury while wearing Shape-ups. The Company believes its products are safe and is defending itself from these media stories and injury lawsuits. It is too early to predict the outcome of any case or inquiry, whether there will be future personal injury cases filed, whether adverse results in any single case or in the aggregate would have a material adverse impact on the Company's results of operations or financial position, and whether insurance coverage will be adequate to cover any losses. SKECHERS USA, Inc. -- http://www.skechers.com/-- based in Manhattan Beach, California, designs, develops and markets a diverse range of footwear for men, women and children under the SKECHERS name. SKECHERS footwear is available in the United States via department and specialty stores, Company-owned SKECHERS retail stores and its e-commerce Web site, and over 100 countries and territories through the Company's global network of distributors and subsidiaries in Canada, Brazil, Chile, Japan and across Europe, as well as through joint ventures in Asia. SKECHERS USA: Expects Grabowski Accord to Solve "Stalker" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- SKECHERS USA, Inc. expects that the settlement in the Grabowski/Morga class action lawsuit will entirely resolve the class claims brought by Sonia Stalker, according to the Company's August 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. On July 2, 2010, Sonia Stalker filed an action against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, on her behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, alleging that the Company's advertising for Shape-ups violates California's Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class, actual and punitive damages, restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, corrective advertising, and attorneys' fees and costs. On July 23, 2010, the Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, and it is now pending as Sonia Stalker v. Skechers USA, Inc., CV 10-5460 JAK (JEM). On January 21, 2011, the District Court stayed this case pending resolution of the Grabowski action. On May 16, 2012, this action was ordered transferred to the multidistrict litigation proceeding pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, entitled In re Skechers Toning Shoe Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2308. On August 13, 2012, the Court granted preliminary approval of the consumer class action settlement agreement in the Grabowski/Morga actions, and issued a preliminary injunction further enjoining prosecution of this action. On May 13, 2013, the Court entered an order finally approving the nationwide consumer class action settlement. The settlement in the Grabowski/Morga class actions is expected entirely to resolve the class claims brought by the plaintiff in Stalker. SKECHERS USA, Inc. -- http://www.skechers.com/-- based in Manhattan Beach, California, designs, develops and markets a diverse range of footwear for men, women and children under the SKECHERS name. SKECHERS footwear is available in the United States via department and specialty stores, Company-owned SKECHERS retail stores and its e-commerce Web site, and over 100 countries and territories through the Company's global network of distributors and subsidiaries in Canada, Brazil, Chile, Japan and across Europe, as well as through joint ventures in Asia. SKECHERS USA: Expects Grabowski Deal to Solve "Hochberg" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- SKECHERS USA, Inc. expects that the settlement in the Grabowski/Morga class action lawsuits will entirely resolve the class claims brought by Wendie Hochberg and Brenda Baum, according to the Company's August 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. On November 23, 2011, Wendie Hochberg and Brenda Baum filed a lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Wendie Hochberg and Brenda Baum v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Case No. CV11-5751. The complaint alleges, on their behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, that the Company's advertising for Shape-ups violates the New York Consumer Protection Act, and is resulting in unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks certification of a statewide class, damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. On May 16, 2012, this action was ordered transferred to the multidistrict litigation proceeding pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, entitled In re Skechers Toning Shoe Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2308. On August 13, 2012, the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky granted preliminary approval of the consumer class action settlement agreement in the Grabowski/Morga actions, and issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the continued prosecution of this action. On May 13, 2013, the Court entered an order finally approving the nationwide consumer class action settlement. The settlement in the Grabowski/Morga class actions is expected entirely to resolve the class claims brought by the plaintiff in Hochberg. SKECHERS USA, Inc. -- http://www.skechers.com/-- based in Manhattan Beach, California, designs, develops and markets a diverse range of footwear for men, women and children under the SKECHERS name. SKECHERS footwear is available in the United States via department and specialty stores, Company-owned SKECHERS retail stores and its e-commerce Web site, and over 100 countries and territories through the Company's global network of distributors and subsidiaries in Canada, Brazil, Chile, Japan and across Europe, as well as through joint ventures in Asia. SKECHERS USA: Expects Grabowski Deal to Solve "Tomlinson" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- SKECHERS USA, Inc. said in its August 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013, that the settlement in the Grabowski/Morga class action lawsuits is expected entirely to resolve the class claims brought by Patty Tomlinson. On January 13, 2011, Patty Tomlinson filed a lawsuit against the Company in the Circuit Court in Washington County, Arkansas, Patty Tomlinson v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Case No. CV11-121-7. The complaint alleges, on her behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, that the Company's advertising for Shape-ups violates Arkansas' Deceptive Trade Practices Act, constitutes a breach of certain express and implied warranties, and is resulting in unjust enrichment (the "Tomlinson action"). The complaint seeks certification of a statewide class, compensatory damages, prejudgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. On February 18, 2011, the Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, where it was pending as Patty Tomlinson v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., CV 11- 05042 JLH. On March 21, 2011, Ms. Tomlinson moved to remand the action back to Arkansas state court, which motion the Company opposed. On May 25, 2011, the Court ordered the case remanded to Arkansas state court and denied the Company's motion to dismiss or transfer as moot, but stayed the remand pending completion of appellate review. On September 11, 2012, the District Court lifted its stay and remanded this case to the Circuit Court of Washington County, Arkansas. On October 11, 2012, by stipulation of the parties, the state Circuit Court issued an order staying the case. On August 13, 2012, the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky granted preliminary approval of the consumer class action settlement agreement in the Grabowski/Morga actions, and issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the continued prosecution of this action. On May 13, 2013, the Court entered an order finally approving the nationwide consumer class action settlement. The settlement in the Grabowski/Morga class actions is expected entirely to resolve the class claims brought by the plaintiff in Tomlinson. SKECHERS USA, Inc. -- http://www.skechers.com/-- based in Manhattan Beach, California, designs, develops and markets a diverse range of footwear for men, women and children under the SKECHERS name. SKECHERS footwear is available in the United States via department and specialty stores, Company-owned SKECHERS retail stores and its e-commerce Web site, and over 100 countries and territories through the Company's global network of distributors and subsidiaries in Canada, Brazil, Chile, Japan and across Europe, as well as through joint ventures in Asia. SKECHERS USA: Expects Grabowski/Morga Deal to Solve "Loss" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- SKECHERS USA, Inc. said in its August 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013, that the settlement in the Grabowski/Morga class action lawsuits is expected entirely to resolve the class claims asserted by Loss, et al. On February 12, 2012, Shannon Loss, Kayla Hedges and Donald Horner filed a lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Shannon Loss, Kayla Hedges and Donald Horner v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II and Skechers Fitness Group, Case No. 3:12-cv-78-H. The complaint alleges, on behalf of the named plaintiffs and all others similarly situated, that the Company's advertising for Shape-ups is false and misleading, thereby constituting a breach of contract, breach of implied and express warranties, and resulting in unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class, compensatory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. On March 9, 2012, the named plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate this action with In re Skechers Toning Shoe Products Liability Litigation, case no. 11-md-02308-TBR. On August 13, 2012, the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky granted preliminary approval of the consumer class action settlement agreement in the Grabowski/Morga actions, and issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the continued prosecution of this action. On May 13, 2013, the Court entered an order finally approving the nationwide consumer class action settlement. The settlement in the Grabowski/Morga class actions is expected entirely to resolve the class claims brought by the plaintiff in Loss. SKECHERS USA, Inc. -- http://www.skechers.com/-- based in Manhattan Beach, California, designs, develops and markets a diverse range of footwear for men, women and children under the SKECHERS name. SKECHERS footwear is available in the United States via department and specialty stores, Company-owned SKECHERS retail stores and its e-commerce Web site, and over 100 countries and territories through the Company's global network of distributors and subsidiaries in Canada, Brazil, Chile, Japan and across Europe, as well as through joint ventures in Asia. SKECHERS USA: Grabowski Deal Expected to Solve "Boatright" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- SKECHERS USA, Inc. said in its August 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013, that the settlement in the Grabowski/Morga class action lawsuits is expected entirely to resolve the class claims brought by Elma Boatright and Sharon White. On February 15, 2012, Elma Boatright and Sharon White filed a lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Elma Boatright and Sharon White v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II and Skechers Fitness Group, Case No. 3:12-cv-87-S. The complaint alleges, on behalf of the named plaintiffs and all others similarly situated, that the Company's advertising for Shape-ups is false and misleading, thereby, constituting a breach of contract, breach of implied and express warranties, fraud, and resulting in unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class, compensatory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. On March 6, 2012, the named plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate this action with In re Skechers Toning Shoe Products Liability Litigation, case no. 11-md-02308-TBR. On August 13, 2012, the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky granted preliminary approval of the consumer class action settlement agreement in the Grabowski/Morga actions, and issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the continued prosecution of this action. On May 13, 2013, the Court entered an order finally approving the nationwide consumer class action settlement. The settlement in the Grabowski/Morga class actions is expected entirely to resolve the class claims brought by the plaintiff in Boatright. SKECHERS USA, Inc. -- http://www.skechers.com/-- based in Manhattan Beach, California, designs, develops and markets a diverse range of footwear for men, women and children under the SKECHERS name. SKECHERS footwear is available in the United States via department and specialty stores, Company-owned SKECHERS retail stores and its e-commerce Web site, and over 100 countries and territories through the Company's global network of distributors and subsidiaries in Canada, Brazil, Chile, Japan and across Europe, as well as through joint ventures in Asia. SKECHERS USA: Grabowski Deal Expected to Solve "Scovil" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The settlement in the Grabowski/Morga class actions is expected to entirely resolve the class claims brought by Michele Scovil, according to SKECHERS USA, Inc.'s August 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. On April 25, 2012, Michele Scovil filed a lawsuit against the Company in the District Court for Clark County, Nevada, Michele Scovil v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Case No. A-12660756-C. The Plaintiff alleges that she suffered physical injuries that she attributes to the allegedly defective design of Shape-ups, and plaintiff asserts, in her individual capacity, claims for negligence, products liability, strict liability, and breach of warranty. In addition, plaintiff also purports to bring a class action on behalf of all persons in Nevada who purchased Shape-ups shoes at retail, and seeks class certification on her claims for alleged violations of the Nevada Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The Plaintiff's complaint seeks damages, restitution, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. On July 12, 2012, this action was transferred to the multidistrict litigation proceeding pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, entitled In re Skechers Toning Shoe Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2308. On August 13, 2012, the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky granted preliminary approval of the consumer class action settlement agreement in the Grabowski/Morga actions, and issued a preliminary injunction that enjoins the continued prosecution of this action. On May 13, 2013, the Court entered an order finally approving the nationwide consumer class action settlement. The settlement in the Grabowski/Morga class actions is expected entirely to resolve the class claims brought by the plaintiff in Scovil. SKECHERS USA, Inc. -- http://www.skechers.com/-- based in Manhattan Beach, California, designs, develops and markets a diverse range of footwear for men, women and children under the SKECHERS name. SKECHERS footwear is available in the United States via department and specialty stores, Company-owned SKECHERS retail stores and its e-commerce Web site, and over 100 countries and territories through the Company's global network of distributors and subsidiaries in Canada, Brazil, Chile, Japan and across Europe, as well as through joint ventures in Asia. STEC INC: Has Agreement in Principle Over Merger-Related Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- sTec, Inc., has reached an agreement in principle with plaintiffs in certain class action lawsuits challenging the proposed merger with Western Digital Corporation. On June 23, 2013, sTec, Inc., a California corporation (the "Company"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Western Digital Corporation, a Delaware corporation ("WDC"), and Lodi Ventures, Inc., a California corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of WDC ("Merger Sub") pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company, with the Company surviving the merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of WDC (the "Merger"). On August 8, 2013, the Company filed a definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A (the "Definitive Proxy Statement") with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"). On September 12, 2013 (the "Effective Time"), Merger Sub was merged into the Company, with the Company surviving the merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of WDC (the "Merger"). As a result of the Merger, each share of common stock of the Company, $0.001 par value per share ("Common Stock") issued and outstanding immediately prior to the Effective Time (other than shares of Common Stock (i) owned, directly or indirectly, by WDC or Merger Sub, (ii) held in the treasury of the Company, or (iii) held by any holder who did not vote in favor of the Merger and who properly demanded that the Company purchase such shares in accordance with Chapter 13 of the California General Corporation Law ("Dissenting Shares")) was canceled and converted into the right to receive $6.85 in cash, without interest (the "Merger Consideration"). Seven shareholders filed purported class action lawsuits, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated shareholders of the Company, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, against the Company, members of its board of directors, WDC and Merger Sub challenging the proposed Merger (the "State Court Shareholder Lawsuits"). The State Court Shareholder Lawsuits generally assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the members of the Company's board of directors for approving the proposed Merger at an allegedly inadequate price and for engaging in a flawed sales process. The State Court Shareholder Lawsuits also generally assert claims against WDC and Merger Sub for aiding and abetting the breaches of fiduciary duty. On August 13, 2013, another shareholder filed a new purported class action lawsuit, Sokolowski v. Western Digital Corp. et al, Case No. 8-13cv1277, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, against the Company, members of its board of directors, WDC and Merger Sub challenging the proposed Merger. The complaint asserts a claim against the directors of the Company for breach of fiduciary duty and a claim against WDC and Merger Sub for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. The complaint seeks class certification, to enjoin the consummation of the proposed Merger, to have a special master or trustee appointed to oversee the board of directors in connection with the sale of the Company, damages, costs and attorneys' and expert fees, and any other relief the court may deem proper. Among other things, the complaint alleges that the directors breached their fiduciary duties because the proposed Merger does not maximize shareholder value, that the Definitive Proxy Statement fails to provide shareholders with material information and/or provides them with materially misleading information, that the proposed Merger undervalues the Company because it fails to account for the value of the pending purported shareholder derivative claims, and that the Merger is intended to extinguish those allegedly valuable claims. Plaintiff alleges that the Definitive Proxy Statement should have included a detailed assessment of the value of the derivative claims, and more clearly stated that, if the proposed Merger is consummated, the plaintiffs will lose standing to assert the purported derivative claims on behalf of the Company and their derivative actions will be terminated. The Company, its directors, WDC and Merger Sub deny the allegations in the lawsuit and believe they are without merit. From January 5, 2010 through August 2, 2010, the Company received letters from counsel for four purported shareholders, including counsel for Mr. Sokolowski, the plaintiff in this new putative class action, demanding that the Company take action to remedy breaches of fiduciary duties by several of its senior officers and directors. The allegations in these letters were similar to the allegations in the shareholder derivative complaints filed in state and federal court, and demanded that the Company take action to recover damages from its senior officers and directors and to correct alleged deficiencies in its internal controls. The demand letters stated that if, within a reasonable time, the Company's board of directors had not commenced the requested action, or if the board of directors refused to commence the requested action, the purported named shareholders would commence derivative actions. In evaluating the demand letters, the independent members of the Company's board of directors conducted a review of the issues and allegations raised by the purported shareholders. After considering a number of factors, including the legal and factual merits of the claims made in the demand letters, the independent members of the Company's board of directors unanimously determined that it would not be in the Company's best interests to pursue the claims alleged in the demand letters against any of the individuals mentioned therein. This determination was formally communicated to counsel for the four purported shareholders on December 17, 2010. Counsel for two of the purported shareholders responded by letter dated July 13, 2011, further demanding that the Company take action to remedy alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by several of its senior officers and directors. In evaluating the July 13, 2011 demand letter, the independent members of the Company's board of directors conducted a further review of the issues and allegations raised by the purported shareholders. After considering a number of factors, including the legal and factual merits of the claims made in the demand letter, the independent members of the Company's board of directors unanimously determined that it would not be necessary to retain separate independent counsel and again determined that it would not be in the Company's best interests to pursue the claims alleged in the demand letter against any of the individuals mentioned therein. This determination was formally communicated to counsel for the two purported shareholders on December 7, 2011. On October 25, 2012, Mr. Sokolowski filed an individual and purported derivative lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California asserting the claims that were the subject of these demands. In approving the Merger Agreement and the Merger, the Company's board of directors was aware of and considered interests that the Company's executive officers and directors have in the Merger that may be different from, or in addition to, the interests of the Company's shareholders generally, including the pending shareholder derivative actions purportedly filed on the Company's behalf against several of the Company's senior officers and directors and that upon consummation of the Merger, the plaintiffs asserting these derivative claims may lose standing because they will no longer be shareholders of sTec. Consistent with the prior evaluation by the independent members of the Company's board of directors of a number of factors, including the legal and factual merits of the claims, and their determination that it would not be in the Company's best interests to pursue these claims, the board of directors did not place any material value on these claims in evaluating the Merger. In addition, the plaintiffs in the shareholder derivative lawsuit pending in Superior Court of California for Orange County filed a motion seeking to amend their complaint to include claims related to the Merger, including a claim that the Merger is intended to extinguish the derivative claims. On August 16, 2013, the court denied the motion to amend the complaint in the California state derivative action. Proposed Litigation Settlement While the Company and the other defendants believe that each of the lawsuits challenging the Merger is without merit, that the disclosures set forth in the Definitive Proxy Statement fully comply with applicable law, and that the Company and the other defendants have valid defenses to all claims, in an effort to minimize the cost and expense of litigation, to provide additional information to the Company's shareholders, and to avoid the risk of any possible delay in the consummation of the Merger, on September 3, 2013, the Company and the other defendants reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs in the State Court Shareholder Lawsuits to settle the lawsuits subject to certain conditions. Subject to court approval and definitive documentation, after arm's-length negotiations, the parties have agreed in principle to resolve all claims against the Company, members of its board of directors, WDC and Merger Sub in connection with the Merger. The agreement contemplates a release and settlement by the Company's shareholders of all claims against the Company, the members of its board of directors, WDC and Merger Sub, and their respective affiliates and agents in connection with the Merger. In exchange for these releases and settlement, the Company has agreed to supplement the Definitive Proxy Statement. The parties anticipate that they will enter into a stipulation of settlement, which will be subject to customary conditions, including consummation of the Merger, certification of a class of the Company's shareholders for settlement purposes and court approval. In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled, following notice to the Company's shareholders, at which the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release all claims in all actions that were or could have been brought challenging or otherwise relating to any aspect of the proposed Merger, the Merger Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith (but excluding claims for dissenting shareholder rights under Chapter 13 of the California General Corporation Law). There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement, or that the court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. If the parties do not enter into a stipulation of settlement, the stipulation is not approved by the court, or the conditions to the proposed settlement are not satisfied, the proposed settlement may be terminated and the Company and the members of its board of directors intend to vigorously defend the lawsuits. The settlement will not affect the merger consideration to be received by the Company's shareholders pursuant to the Merger Agreement or the timing of the special meeting of the shareholders of the Company, scheduled for September 12, 2013. The Company, the members of its board of directors, WDC and Merger Sub have vigorously denied, and continue to vigorously deny, that they have breached any fiduciary duty, committed or aided and abetted in the commission of any violation of law or engaged in any of the wrongful acts that were or could have been alleged in the State Court Shareholder Lawsuits (or other litigation related to the Merger), and expressly maintain that they diligently and scrupulously complied with their fiduciary and other legal obligations and are entering into the proposed settlement of the State Court Shareholder Lawsuits solely to eliminate the burden and expense of further litigation, to put the claims that were or could have been asserted to rest, and to avoid any possible delay in the consummation of the Merger. TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls 369 Tacoma and Tundra Model Trucks & Vans --------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 10, 2013 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Light Truck & Van Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Accessories Units affected: 369 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2013353 TC ID number: 2013353 Manufacturer recall number: SSC222 On certain vehicles equipped with an optional tonneau cover where the front-most panel can be opened with the vehicle ignition key, the lock cylinder could bind. If the lock cylinder were to bind in the open position, the panel may not remain closed and the tonneau cover assembly could separate from the vehicle while it is being driven. This could potentially result in property damage and pose a hazard to other road users. Dealers will affect repairs when service parts become available. In the interim, the panel release mechanism will be disabled or the tonneau cover removed, at the owner's choice. Affected products: Maker Model Model year(s) affected ----- ----- ---------------------- TOYOTA TACOMA 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 TOYOTA TUNDRA 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls 625 Avalon, Camry, Camry HV & Corolla Models ------------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: October 10, 2013 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Electrical Units affected: 625 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2013352 TC ID number: 2013352 Manufacturer recall number: SSC219 On certain vehicles, the windshield wiper switch may have been manufactured incorrectly and could cause an electrical short when the wiper switch is moved from the OFF position to the MIST position. This would blow the fuse, causing the windshield wipers to become inoperative, potentially reducing driver visibility and increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Dealers will replace the switch. Affected products: Maker Model Model year(s) affected ----- ----- ---------------------- TOYOTA COROLLA 2014 TOYOTA CAMRY 2013, 2014 TOYOTA AVALON 2013 TOYOTA CAMRY HV 2013, 2014 UNITED AIRLINES: Sued Over Deceptive Business Practices ------------------------------------------------------- BigClassAction.com reports that United Airlines is facing a potential deceptive business practices class action lawsuit filed by two Jersey City residents who allege the airline uses an algorithm that modifies the number of miles needed for an award, depending on the number of frequent flyer miles the person has. The federal lawsuit was filed by Robert Gordon and Melissa Chan who claim United Airlines attempted to charge each of them different amounts of miles for the same hotel room last year when they were booking a trip together. Both are members of United's MileagePlus rewards program, the lawsuit states. According to the lawsuit, in August 2012, Mr. Gordon tried to use his miles to book a three-night stay at a hotel in Japan. Using United's website, he was informed it would cost him 40,750 mile, which exceed the amount of points he had in his account, but was fewer than 41,733 miles in Ms. Chan's MileagePlus account. According to the lawsuit, Ms. Chan subsequently decided to book the same room for same dates using her miles instead. However, when she tried to do so only several minutes later, United's website required her to use 44,500 miles, or 3,750 miles more than what it attempted to charge Mr. Gordon. To book the hotel room, Ms. Chan had to pay $26.10 to buy the additional miles that United charged her. The lawsuit states that Gordon then called United, but was told the airline uses an algorithm that modifies the number miles needed for an award, depending on the number of miles the person has. They claim United was deceptive in not disclosing this alleged practice. URBAN OUTFITTERS: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Packel and Roxanne Palmer, writing for Law360, report that Urban Outfitters Inc. was hit with a shareholder class action in Pennsylvania federal court on Oct. 11 alleging the retailer misled investors about its financial performance, failing to disclose its declining sales in recent months. The suit alleges that the Philadelphia-based company violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by not disclosing to stock purchasers that fiscal year 2014 sales were not rising at the anticipated rate and that it was relying on discounts, making it unlikely that it would meet expected financial targets. "When the true facts about the company were revealed to the market, the inflation of the price of the Urban Outfitters common stock was removed and the price of Urban Outfitters common stock declined dramatically, causing losses to plaintiff and the other members of the class," alleged lead plaintiff David Schwartz in the complaint. The complaint specifically says that, between March 12, 2013, and Sept. 9, 2013, the company did not reveal that comparable sales growth, especially in the company's key Urban Outfitters group, had significantly declined, and that it had to offer an additional 30 percent off all clearance items during Labor Day weekend 2013, which it did not do the previous year. Consequently, the company was not on track to achieve the financial results it had led the market to expect during that interval. The Urban Outfitters Group, with 215 retail stores, is the largest unit in the company, according to the complaint. According to the complaint, when the company disclosed its second quarter 2014 financial results on Sept. 9, revealing a 5.2 percent comparable sales growth rate for the Urban Outfitters Group -- far less than the anticipated 9 percent rate -- the company's stock price plunged 13 percent, from $44 per share to a close of $38.35 per share on September 10, 2013. The suit, in addition to naming the retailer, also includes five directors of the business, including co-founder and CEO Richard Hayne. A 2011 lawsuit accused Hayne of violating securities laws by keeping $5.28 million in so-called short swing stock profits that should have been returned to the company. The parties involved agreed to dismiss that case with prejudice in April 2012, but no details of a settlement were made available. Representatives for Urban Outfitters did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Oct. 11. The plaintiff is represented by Samuel H. Rudman and David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. Counsel information for Urban Outfitters was not available on Oct. 11. The case is Schwartz v. Urban Outfitters Inc. et al., in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The case number was not available on Oct. 11. VERINT SYSTEMS: Mediation Ongoing in Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ Mediation related to a class certification motion filed by a former employee of a subsidiary of Verint Systems Inc. remains ongoing, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2013. The Company states: "On March 26, 2009, legal actions were commenced by Ms. Orit Deutsch, a former employee of our subsidiary, Verint Systems Limited ("VSL"), against VSL in the Tel Aviv Regional Labor Court (Case Number 4186/09) (the "Deutsch Labor Action") and against Verint's former parent company, Comverse Technology, Inc. ("CTI") in the Tel Aviv Regional District Court (Case Number 1335/09) (the "Deutsch District Action"). In the Deutsch Labor Action, Ms. Deutsch filed a motion to approve a class action lawsuit on the grounds that she purports to represent a class of our employees and former employees who were granted Verint and CTI stock options and were allegedly damaged as a result of the suspension on option exercises during our previous extended filing delay period. In the Deutsch District Action, in addition to a small amount of individual damages, Ms. Deutsch is seeking to certify a class of plaintiffs who were allegedly damaged due to their inability to exercise Verint and CTI stock options as a result of alleged negligence by CTI in its financial reporting. The class certification motions do not specify an amount of damages. On February 8, 2010, the Deutsch Labor Action was dismissed for lack of material jurisdiction and was transferred to the Tel Aviv Regional District Court and consolidated with the Deutsch District Action. "On March 16, 2009, and March 26, 2009, respectively, legal actions were commenced by Ms. Roni Katriel, a former employee of CTI's former subsidiary, Comverse Limited, against Comverse Limited in the Tel Aviv Regional Labor Court (Case Number 3444/09) (the "Katriel Labor Action") and against CTI in the Tel Aviv Regional District Court (Case Number 1334/09) (the "Katriel District Action"). In the Katriel Labor Action, Ms. Katriel is seeking to certify a class of plaintiffs who were granted CTI stock options and were allegedly damaged as a result of the suspension on option exercises during CTI's previous extended filing delay period. In the Katriel District Action, in addition to a small amount of individual damages, Ms. Katriel is seeking to certify a class of plaintiffs who were allegedly damaged due to their inability to exercise CTI stock options as a result of alleged negligence by CTI in its financial reporting. The class certification motions do not specify an amount of damages. On March 2, 2010, the Labor Court ordered the transfer of the case to the District Court in Tel Aviv - Jaffa, based on an agreed motion filed by the parties requesting such transfer. "On April 4, 2012, Ms. Deutsch and Ms. Katriel filed an uncontested motion to consolidate and amend their claims and on June 7, 2012, the court allowed Ms. Deutsch and Ms. Katriel to file the consolidated class certification motion and an amended consolidated complaint against VSL, CTI, and Comverse Limited. Following CTI's announcement of its intention to effect the Comverse share distribution, on July 12, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that the District Court order CTI to set aside up to $150.0 million in assets to secure any future judgment. The District Court ruled that it would not decide this motion until the Deutsch and Katriel class certification motion was heard. On August 16, 2012, in light of the announcement of the signing of the CTI Merger Agreement, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to appeal this District Court ruling to the Israeli Supreme Court. We filed our response to this motion on September 6, 2012. "Prior to the consummation of the Comverse share distribution, CTI either sold or transferred substantially all of its business operations and assets (other than its equity ownership interests in us and Comverse) to Comverse or unaffiliated third parties. On October 31, 2012, CTI completed the Comverse share distribution, in which it distributed all of the outstanding shares of common stock of Comverse to CTI's shareholders. As a result of the Comverse share distribution, Comverse became an independent public company and ceased to be a wholly owned subsidiary of CTI, and CTI ceased to have any material assets other than its equity interest in us. "We and the other defendants filed our responses to the complaint on November 11, 2012 and plaintiffs filed their replies on December 20, 2012. A pre-trial hearing for the case was held on December 25, 2012, during which all parties agreed to attempt to settle the dispute through mediation. "On February 4, 2013, we completed the CTI Merger. As a result of the CTI Merger, we have assumed certain rights and liabilities of CTI, including any liability of CTI arising out of the Deutsch District Action and the Katriel District Action. However, under the terms of the Distribution Agreement between CTI and Comverse relating to the Comverse share distribution, we, as successor to CTI, are entitled to indemnification from Comverse for any losses we suffer in our capacity as successor-in-interest to CTI in connection with the Deutsch District Action and the Katriel District Action. "On February 28, 2013, the mediation process began and, as of September 4, 2013, remains ongoing." WATERLOGIC COMMERCIAL: Recalls Chiller-Based Water Dispensers ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 15, 2013 Posting date: October 15, 2013 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Household Items Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Fire Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-36137 Affected products: Chiller-based water dispensers The recalled product is an upright, bottle-less water cooler sold in white, silver or black and includes floor and tabletop models. The brand names involved in this recall include Innowave Chiller Sport, Innowave Chiller 3, Aquamark Refresh Centre and Culligan Chiller Water Purifying Dispenser hot /cold. The following model numbers are at issue: 12-CHCU3, 12-CHCMU3-ARA, 12-RC-1, 12-RC-2, 12-CHCUB-ARA, 12-CHCUW-ARA, 12-CHCMU3, 12-RCP-1, 12-WL2200-CUL, 12-WL2200M-CUL, 12-CHCUR-CUL, 12-CHC, 12-CHCU, 12- CHCUB, 12-CHCU-CUL, 12-CUCHUW2, 12-CHCUB2, 12-CHCMUW2 and 12- CHCMUB2. The affected serial numbers for Canadian models include the following: -- 2105A through 2105L, 2106A through 2106L, 2107A through 2107L, 2108A through 2108L; -- 2205A through 2205L, 2206A through 2206L, 2207A through 2207L, 2208A through 2208L; -- 2305A through 2305L, 2306A through 2306L, 2307A through 2307L, 2308A through 2308L; -- 2405A through 2405L, 2406A through 2406L, 2407A through 2407L, 2408A through 2408L; -- 2505A through 2505L, 2506A through 2506L, 2507A through 2507L, 2508A through 2508L; -- 2605A through 2605L, 2606A through 2606L, 2607A through 2607L, 2608A through 2608L; -- 2705A through 2705L, 2706A through 2706L, 2707A through 2707L, 2708A through 2708L; -- 3105A through 3105L, 3106A through 3106L, 3107A through 3107L, 3108A through 3108L; -- 3505A through 3505L, 3506A through 3506L, 3507A through 3507L, 3508A through 3508L; -- 3605A through 3605L, 3606A through 3606L, 3607A through 3607L, 3608A through 3608L; -- 7105A through 7105L, 7106A through 7106L, 7107A through 7107L, 7108A through 7108L; -- 7505A through 7505L, 7506A through 7506L, 7507A through 7507L, 7508A through 7508L; and -- 7605A through 7605L, 7606A through 7606L, 7607A through 7607L, 7608A through 7608L. The hot water tank can stop functioning and cause the machine to overheat, posing a fire hazard. Waterlogic has received 16 reports of fire and smoke within the water dispensers. No injuries or property damage have been reported. There have been no reports of incidents in Canada. Health Canada has not received any reports of incidents or injuries related to the use of these water dispensers. Approximately 1,049 units of the recalled water dispensers were sold through Waterlogic dealers and distributors in Canada. The affected water dispensers were manufactured in China and sold from January 2005 to December 2008. Companies: Manufacturer Waterlogic Manufacturing China Distributor Waterlogic Commercial Products, LLC Omaha Nebraska United States Consumers should stop using the water dispenser, unless otherwise instructed. Waterlogic is contacting its distributors and providing a list of affected units and all technical instructions and parts necessary to complete the approved repair on the next scheduled preventive maintenance visit. Consumers who have not been contacted by their dealer for a free repair should contact Waterlogic. WELLS FARGO: Tie-in Claim in "Lane Suit" Dismissed -------------------------------------------------- District Judge William Alsup granted a motion to dismiss a claim asserted under the anti-tying provision of the Bank Holding Company Act in the case captioned DANNY LANE, BEVERLY LANE, and MERCEDES GUERRERO, individually, and for other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant, NO. C 12-04026 WHA, (N.D. Calif.). This is a putative class action involving force-placed insurance on home mortgages. Wells Fargo moved to dismiss the Tie-In Claim. The plaintiff's motion for class certification of the Bank Holding Company Act anti-tying provision is denied as moot, added Judge Alsup. A copy of the District Court's October 10, 2013 Order is available at http://is.gd/HupWvcfrom Leagle.com. YODER'S COUNTRY: Recalls Gift Boxes Containing Roasted Peanuts -------------------------------------------------------------- Yoder's Country Market, is recalling custom gift boxes distributed in December 2012 because they may contain 11 oz. bags of honey roasted peanuts which contain undeclared milk and wheat. People who have allergies to milk or wheat run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume the honey roasted peanuts. No other components of the gift boxes are affected. These recalled custom gift packages containing the affected 11 oz. bags of Honey Roasted Peanuts were distributed nationwide through mail orders in December 2012. The recalled honey roasted peanuts were packaged in 11 oz. clear plastic bags labeled: "HONEY ROASTED PEANUTS, Net Wt. 11 oz. (311G), Dist. By: Dutch Valley Food Distributors, Inc. Myerstown, PA 10787, UPC Code 8 77245 00143 3" No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with consumptions of these peanuts. The recall was initiated after Yoder's Country Market, Inc. was notified by Dutch Valley Food Development, the supplier of the honey roasted peanuts, of their recall in Mid-September, 2013. Consumers with questions or who have peanuts remaining from these gift boxes are urged to contact the company for further instructions at 1-423-235-9400, Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM - 5:00PM EDT. * TCPA Regulatory Changes Likely Spur More Class Actions -------------------------------------------------------- Allison Grande, writing for Law360, reports that under long- anticipated changes to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act rule set to take effect on Oct. 9, telemarketers will have to receive express written consent from consumers before making calls or sending texts, a shift that will allow plaintiffs to pad an already saturated class action docket. The revisions to the TCPA rule published by the Federal Communications Commission in June 2012 tighten restrictions on sending telemarketing calls or texts by requiring companies to obtain "prior express written consent" from consumers rather than simply inferring that the consumer has consented by voluntarily providing a company with his or her contact information. Because there are no exceptions to the new consent requirement for prior business relationships, companies will not just need consent from future customers, but also from consumers on their existing telemarketing lists before the revamped rule takes effect Wednesday. "If telemarketing is a significant part of a business, as it is for a lot of companies, then the company either has to comply with the rules or stop sending these types of telemarketing calls or texts, because the risk of not complying is that you are going to be sued, as the plaintiffs' bar has been pretty aggressive about pursuing TCPA cases," Fenwick & West LLP partner Brian Buckley told Law360. Driven by plaintiffs eager to capitalize on uncapped statutory damages of between $500 and $1,500 per violation, courts have witnessed an explosion in the quantity of nationwide TCPA class actions that have been brought before them in recent years, and attorneys predict the heightened consent requirements that will soon take effect will only add to the already bulging dockets. "It is entirely possible that these regulatory changes will make litigation under the TCPA more likely because businesses might not be aware of what they need to do to comply with the regulations, or they might not do it quite correctly," Vinson & Elkins LLP partner Jason Levine said. "The changes open up a new area of possible legal exposure for them." At first glance, the updated rule seems fairly straightforward, attorneys say. It not only directs telemarketers to receive "prior express written consent for all autodialed or prerecorded telemarketing calls to wireless numbers and residential lines," but also defines the scope of the disclosure required to satisfy the new consent requirement. According to the FCC, the written consent must contain a "clear and conspicuous disclosure" about what will happen if the consumer consents, be met with an "unambiguous" agreement by the consumer to receive communications at a designated number, and make it clear that providing consent is not a condition for receiving a product or service. The rule also says companies don't need a formal ink signature on paper to comply with the heightened consent requirement, but instead can obtain a consumer's written consent electronically using methods approved by the federal E-Sign Act, which includes permission obtained via an email, website form or text message. But despite the relative clarity of companies' obligations, attorneys say there are still plenty of complexities and ambiguities in the TCPA rule to trip up companies trying to comply. "One of the complaints about the TCPA is that it is very hypertechnical, and companies feel like there is a moving goalpost rather than one standardized goalpost," Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP partner David Almeida said. A potential source of liability could arise from the rule's distinction between telemarketing calls, which require the new heightened consent, and autodialed or prerecorded calls made by debt collectors or for informational purposes, which do not require express written consent, according to attorneys. "These consent distinctions between telemarketing and informational calls that didn't exist before are likely to be a little bit confusing," Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP partner Becca Wahlquist -- bwahlquist@manatt.com -- said. "Companies really need to sit down and ensure that they know what types of communications they are making so that they obtain the right kind of consent." The plaintiffs bar could also target companies that fail to update the consent agreements they have with existing customers, attorneys noted. "It's unclear if the FCC actually intended for companies to go back and get consent from all consumers, but given the language of the rule, there is a significant concern that the class action plaintiffs bar will potentially see this as an opportunity to go after those companies that don't opt people back in and a growing consensus that the re-opt-in process is necessary to avoid that risk," Winston & Strawn LLP partner Brian Fergemann said. Reed Smith LLP partner Judith Harris -- jlharris@reedsmith.com -- added that companies are confused about what constitutes an automatic telephone dialing system under the TCPA, an issue that several groups have pushed the FCC to clarify, thus far to no avail. "Companies tend to say that they understand what's required of them going forward under the new consent rule, and acknowledge that if they are making a telemarketing call using an autodialer that they need prior express written consent," she said. "But what they want to know is whether they are actually using an autodialer." With companies likely to err on the side of caution at least at the outset, many companies will be forced to revamp their consent procedures and record-keeping requirements to avoid the high risk of litigation. But several attorneys noted that having to keep a more detailed paper trial of consumers' preferences may actually help companies better defend the class actions that are likely to arise, which would require the sender to bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that it obtained proper consent. "The rule revision is a good development to the extent that it standardizes what companies need to do and the evidence they need to have of prior written consent," Mr. Almeida said. "Previously, consumers could consent verbally, so it was the consumer's word versus the company's in court. But now at least companies will know that they have some paper trail, and will have the ability to go after plaintiffs to say that they consented, and to show them the disclosure that they made." Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liability Estimation Appeals Remain Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Appeals from a bankruptcy court estimation of Bondex International, Inc., and Specialty Products Holding Corp. remain pending, according to RPM International Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended August 31, 2013. Prior to May 31, 2010, Bondex and SPHC were defendants in various asbestos-related bodily injury lawsuits filed in various state courts. These cases generally sought unspecified damages for asbestos-related diseases based on alleged exposures to asbestos- containing products. On May 31, 2010, Bondex and its parent, SPHC, filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. SPHC is also the parent company for various operating companies that are not part of the reorganization filing, including Chemical Specialties Manufacturing Corp.; Day-Glo Color Corp.; Dryvit Holdings, Inc.; Guardian Protection Products Inc.; Kop-Coat Inc.; TCI, Inc. and RPM Wood Finishes Group, Inc. SPHC and Bondex (the "filing entities") took this action in an effort to permanently and comprehensively resolve all pending and future asbestos- related liability claims associated with Bondex and SPHC-related products. As a result of the filing, all Bondex and SPHC asbestos personal injury lawsuits have been stayed due to the imposition of an automatic stay applicable in bankruptcy cases, with the exception of certain cases with respect to which the stay was lifted. In addition, at the request of SPHC and Bondex, the bankruptcy court has entered orders staying all claims against RPM International Inc. and its affiliates that are derivative of the asbestos claims against SPHC and Bondex. The Company states: "Through the Chapter 11 proceedings, the filing entities are seeking to formulate a consensual plan of reorganization pursuant to Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code. That contemplated plan of reorganization would establish a trust to which all present and future asbestos claims against the debtors would be channeled, and which would provide compensation to the asbestos claimants based upon factors set forth in trust distribution procedures provided for by the plan of reorganization. We would hope to have any channeling order issued by the bankruptcy court in connection with such a plan of reorganization also protect ourselves as well as other non-filing affiliates of the debtors, so that all future SPHC-related and Bondex-related asbestos claims must proceed against the trust and cannot be asserted against us or other non-filing affiliates. The ultimate ability to achieve such a consensual plan of reorganization on such terms, however, depends on numerous factors, and no assurance can be provided that such a plan of reorganization with these terms will, in fact, be achieved. In January 2013, a hearing to estimate the aggregate current and future asbestos liabilities of the filing entities was conducted before Judge Judith K. Fitzgerald in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Bankruptcy Court"). In May 2013, the Bankruptcy Court issued an opinion estimating the current and future asbestos claims associated with Bondex and SPHC at approximately $1.17 billion. The estimation hearing represents one step in the legal process in helping to determine the appropriate amount of funding for a 524(g) asbestos trust. Bondex and SPHC firmly believe that the ruling substantially overstates the amount of their liability and is not supported by the facts or the law. The debtors have filed an appeal of the decision and are seeking certification of the appeal directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, thereby bypassing review by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. We have also separately filed an appeal. The asbestos claimants and the future claims representative have moved to dismiss the appeals, arguing that the estimation order is not a final, appealable order. Bondex, SPHC and we believe that the order is final and appealable, and that, even if it were not, the appeal should be treated as a motion to appeal, which should be granted. Assuming that the motion to dismiss the appeal is not granted, it is anticipated that the appeal process could take an additional two to three years. That time period could be shorter if the appeal is certified to and heard directly by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Prior to the bankruptcy filing, the filing entities had litigated and, on many occasions, settled asbestos-related products liability claims brought against them. The debtors paid $92.6 million during the year ended May 31, 2010, prior to the bankruptcy filing, in connection with the litigation and settlement of asbestos claims, $42.6 million of which consisted of defense costs. With the exception of the appeal bonds, no claims have been paid since the bankruptcy filing and it is not contemplated that any claims will be paid until a plan of reorganization is confirmed and an asbestos trust is established and operating. Prior to the Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing, we recorded asbestos- related contingent liabilities that included estimations of future costs. Such estimates by their nature are subject to many uncertainties that may change over time, including (i) the ultimate number of claims filed; (ii) the amounts required to resolve both currently known and future unknown claims; (iii) the amount of insurance, if any, available to cover such claims, including the outcome of coverage litigation against the filing entities' third-party insurers; (iv) future earnings and cash flow of the filing entities; (v) the impact of bankruptcies of other companies whose share of liability may be imposed on the filing entities under certain state liability laws; (vi) the unpredictable aspects of the litigation process including a changing trial docket and the jurisdictions in which trials are scheduled; (vii) the outcome of any such trials, including potential judgments or jury verdicts, as a result of the strategy of Bondex and SPHC to take selective cases to verdict; (viii) the lack of specific information in many cases concerning exposure to products for which Bondex, SPHC, or another of our subsidiaries is allegedly responsible, and the claimants' alleged diseases resulting from such exposure; (ix) potential changes in applicable federal and/or state tort liability law; and (x) the potential impact of various proposed structured settlement transactions. All these factors may have a material effect upon future asbestos- related liability estimates. As a result of their bankruptcy filing, SPHC and Bondex are precluded from paying dividends to shareholders and from making payments on any pre-bankruptcy filing accounts or notes payable that are due and owing to any other entity within the RPM group of companies (the "Pre-Petition Intercompany Payables") or other pre- petition creditors during the pendency of the bankruptcy case, without the Bankruptcy Court's approval. Moreover, no assurances can be given that any of the Pre-Petition Intercompany Payables will ever be paid or otherwise satisfied. When SPHC emerges from the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court, the subsequent accounting will be determined based upon the applicable circumstances and facts at such time, including the terms of any plan of reorganization. SPHC has assessed its liquidity position as a result of the bankruptcy filing and believes that it can continue to fund its and its subsidiaries' operating activities and meet its debt and capital requirements for the foreseeable future. In fiscal 2006, management retained Crawford & Winiarski ("C&W"), an independent, third-party consulting firm with expertise in the area of asbestos valuation work, to assist it in calculating an estimate of Bondex's liability for unasserted-potential-future- asbestos-related claims. C&W's methodology to project Bondex's liability for unasserted-potential-future-asbestos-related claims included an analysis of: (a) a widely accepted forecast of the population likely to have been exposed to asbestos; (b) epidemiological studies estimating the number of people likely to develop asbestos-related diseases; (c) the historical rate at which mesothelioma incidences resulted in the payment of claims by Bondex; (d) the historical settlement averages to value the projected number of future compensable mesothelioma claims; (e) the historical ratio of mesothelioma-related indemnity payments to non-mesothelioma indemnity payments; and (f) the historical defense costs and their relationship with total indemnity payments. Based upon the results of this analysis, Bondex recorded an accrued liability for asbestos claims through 2016 as of May 31, 2006 of $421.3 million. This amount was calculated on a pretax basis and was not discounted for the time value of money. During the fiscal year ended May 31, 2008, the ten-year asbestos liability established as of May 31, 2006 was reviewed and evaluated. As part of that process, the credibility of epidemiological studies of Bondex's mesothelioma claims, first introduced to management by C&W some two-and-one-half years earlier, was validated. At the core of the evaluation process, and the basis of C&W's actuarial work on behalf of Bondex, is the Nicholson Study. The Nicholson Study is the most widely recognized reference in bankruptcy trust valuations, global settlement negotiations and the Congressional Budget Office's work done on the proposed FAIR Act in 2006. Based on our ongoing comparison of the Nicholson Study projections and Bondex's specific actual experience, which at that time continued to bear an extremely close correlation to the study's projections, the asbestos liability projection was extended out to the year 2028. C&W assisted in calculating an estimate of our liability for unasserted-potential-future-asbestos-related claims out to 2028. C&W projected that the cost of extending the asbestos liability to 2028, coupled with an updated evaluation of Bondex's current known claims to reflect its most recent actual experience, would be $288.1 million. Therefore, management added $288.1 million to the existing asbestos liability, which brought Bondex's total asbestos-related balance sheet liabilities at May 31, 2008 to $559.7 million. On May 30, 2010, the day prior to the bankruptcy filing, Bondex had recorded an asbestos related product liability of $397.7 million. However, the Bankruptcy Court has now estimated the present and future asbestos-related liabilities of Bondex and SPHC at $1.17 billion, and that determination is the subject of pending appeals." RPM International Inc. (RPM), through its subsidiaries manufactures, markets and sells various specialty chemical product lines, including specialty paints, protective coatings, roofing systems, sealants and adhesives. The Company's family of products includes those marketed under brand names, such as Carboline, DAP, EUCO, Fibergrate, Flecto, Flowcrete, Hummervoll, Universal Sealants, illbruck, Rust-Oleum, Stonhard, Tremco, Watco and Zinsser. RPM's business is divided into two reportable segments: the industrial reportable segment (industrial segment) and the consumer reportable segment (consumer segment). The industrial segment (RPM Building Solutions Group, Performance Coatings Group and RPM2 Group), which comprises approximately 65% of its total net sales, includes maintenance and protection products for roofing and waterproofing systems, flooring, corrosion control and other specialty applications. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Borough of Emerson Filing Cabinets Contain Fibro ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Spear, writing for NorthJersey.com, reports that The Borough of Emerson had filing cabinets containing asbestos removed from borough hall in August, months after borough employees first expressed concern that they may have been emitting clouds of dust containing fibers of the cancer-causing material. Clerk Carol Dray reported rumors of asbestos contamination in April, according to borough records. Borough Administrator Joseph Scarpa contacted Joint Insurance Fund (JIF), the borough's insurance company, approximately three months later to ask for the name of an asbestos contractor to conduct tests. "The question begs to be asked: Why did he wait until July to take any action . . .?" Ms. Dray inquired in an email to members of the governing body. When asked, Mr. Scarpa gave no explanation for the lapse in time between when he received complaints about possible asbestos contamination and when he took action on the issue. In a press statement Mr. Scarpa said, "I continue to believe that any of this asbestos information should not have been released by the borough clerk in the first place, as this is still clearly an open matter that involves the elements of personnel, potential litigation and HIPAA [Health Insurance Portability And Accountability Act] protections. The governing body recently saw fit to take the drastic measure of censuring a council colleague for supposedly releasing basically the same type of information . . . I will not elaborate on this matter anymore . . . out of fear of personal reprisal from the mayor and council, and because I believe it is not in the best interest of the borough." Purchased in 2009, the refurbished fire-proof cabinets showed visible deterioration, explained Mayor Carlos Colina in an interview. Detail Associates, Inc., an environmental engineering firm certified by the New Jersey Department of Labor and Department of Health, confirmed the presence of asbestos in the suspect cabinets and on documents inside them. "It was the administrator's role to address that. Why did it take him that long to take action?" Mr. Colina asked. "The positive test results and finding of asbestos fibers . . . was important enough to take action on an immediate basis." Following initial testing in mid- July, Stephen Jaraczewski, president of Detail Associates, Inc., explained that "Proper removal is highly recommended." Nearly 20 days later, Best Removal Inc. Asbestos Removal Contractors & Consultants rid Borough Hall of the cabinets on Aug. 5. Mr. Scarpa said to his knowledge there is no asbestos remaining in Borough Hall. Although the cabinets reportedly discharged "poofs" of dust, air samples in Borough Hall tested in accordance with Environmental Protection Agency standards, according to an email from Mr. Jaraczewski to the borough. According to Mr. Colina, the cabinets, each weighing several hundred pounds, were located in the Finance Office, the Clerk's Office, the Department of Public Works, and in the Police Department storage area. Ms. Dray, who said she had handled contaminated documents over several years, declined to comment. Chief Financial Officer Catherine Henderson, whose office housed asbestos-tainted cabinets holding vital statistic documents, said she is not concerned. According to Mr. Jaraczewski, who declined to speak specifically about the asbestos remediation in Emerson, said there is no risk associated with physically touching the fibers, only with inhalation. Once the material makes its way into the lungs, it does become a health concern. "If it's not airborne, it's not a problem . . .," Mr. Jaraczewski explained. Asbestosis, scaring of the lungs from asbestoses fibers is the first sign of exposure, which in healthy individuals could take up to 25 years to manifest. Asbestosis then leads to scar tissue which can grow into a cancerous tumor called Mesothelioma. "There is no cure for asbestos exposure," Mr. Jaraczewski said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Dismiss "Brown" Suit Denied in Part ----------------------------------------------------------- National Grid Generation, LLC, sued as "Keyspan Generation LLC, f/k/a Long Island Power Authority," moves for an order dismissing plaintiffs' Labor Law Sections 200 and 241(6) claims against it on the ground that there is no evidence to show that LILCO supervised or controlled any of the work which gave rise to plaintiff Harry Brown's alleged asbestos exposure. In a decision and order, dated Oct. 4, 2013, a full-text copy of which is available at http://is.gd/YfntJxfrom Leagle.com, Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, granted the motion, in part, and denied, in part. Specifically, Judge Heitler ruled that the Plaintiff's Labor Law Section 241(6) claim is dismissed against LILCO. Labor Law Section 241(6) provides that "1. All areas in which construction, excavation or demolition work is being performed shall be so constructed, shored, equipped, guarded, arranged, operated and conducted as to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to the persons employed therein or lawfully frequenting such places. The commissioner may make rules to carry into effect the provisions of this subdivision, and the owners and contractors and their agents for such work, except owners of one and two- family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work, shall comply therewith." Judge Heitler denied LILCO's motion for summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiff's Labor Law Section 200 claims. Labor Law Sec. 200 provides in relevant part that "All places to which this chapter applies shall be so constructed, equipped, arranged, operated and conducted as to provide reasonable and adequate protection to the lives, health and safety of all persons employed therein or lawfully frequenting such places. All machinery, equipment, and devices in such places shall be so placed, operated, guarded, and lighted as to provide reasonable and adequate protection to all such persons. The board may make rules to carry into effect the provisions of this section." The case is HARRY E. BROWN and PHYLLIS BROWN, Plaintiffs, v. BELL & GOSSETT COMPANY, et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190415/12, MOTION SEQ. NO. 004 (N.Y. Sup.). ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flintkote Insurance Disputes Sent to Arbitration ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pending before the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware are Plaintiff The Flintkote Company's Motions to Compel Arbitration in two related cases. Also pending before the Court is Defendant Indemnity Assurance Company Ltd.'s Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendant Aviva PLC, formerly known as Commercial Union Assurance Company Ltd.'s Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Transfer. The pending motions involve several agreements, including a general liability insurance Policy No. 547/620242RM, the Agreement Concerning Asbestos-Related Claims, and a 1989 agreement between Flintkote and Aviva. Genstar Corporation, Flintkote's parent, entered into the Policy on March 15, 1981, for a four-year period. The Policy lists Aviva, Indemnity Marine's corporate parent, as holding a 2.0780% and 2.597% share of the Policy. Indemnity Marine was not licensed to provide insurance in Canada, and therefore entered into a separate agreement with Aviva to provide the 2.597% share of the Policy. Thus, Indemnity Marine was to reimburse Aviva for the 2.597% share. In a Sept. 30, 2013, memorandum opinion, a full-text copy of which is available at http://is.gd/cWxU56from Leagle.com, District Judge Leonard P. Stark denied as moot Indemnity Marine's Motion for Summary Judgment, denied as moot Aviva's Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Transfer, and granted Flintkote's Motions to Compel Arbitration. The cases are THE FLINTKOTE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. INDEMNITY MARINE ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., Defendant, C.A. NOS. 13-935-LPS (D.Del.) and THE FLINTKOTE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. AVIVA PLC, formerly known as COMMERCIAL UNION ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., Defendant, C.A. NOS. 13-103-LPS (D.Del.). Michael P. Kelly, Esq. -- mkelly@mccarter.com -- and Katharine L. Mayer, Esq. -- kmayer@mccarter.com -- at McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware; and Gita F. Rothschild, Esq. -- grothschild@mccarter.com -- and Louis A. Chiafullo, Esq. -- lchiafullo@mccarter.com -- at McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP, in Newark, New Jersey, serve as attorneys for The Flintkote Company. Thaddeus J. Weaver, Esq. -- tweaver@dilworthlaw.com -- at DILWORTH PAXSON LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware; Fred L. Alvarez, Esq. -- falvarez@wwmlawyers.com -- and Arthur J. McColgan, II, Esq. -- amccolgan@wwmlawyers.com -- at WALKER WILCOX MATOUSEK LLP, in Chicago, Illinois, serve as attorneys for Indemnity Marine Assurance Company Limited and Aviva PLC, formerly known as Commercial Union Assurance Company Limited. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Powell's Bid to Dismiss "Griffin" Suit Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- In an asbestos personal injury action, defendant The William Powell Company moves for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims asserted against it on the ground that plaintiff Robert Griffin has not provided any evidence of asbestos exposure from a Powell product. In a decision and order dated Sept. 24, 2013, Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, denied the motion, holding that the Plaintiff's documentary submissions raise a material issue of fact whether asbestos-containing Powell valves were present in the USS Eberle's boiler room during the relevant time period. Taken together, the testimonial and documentary evidence creates a sufficient nexus between the Plaintiff and the Defendant's products to preclude summary judgment, Judge Heitler concluded. The case is ROBERT GRIFFIN Plaintiffs, v. A.P. SERVICES, Inc., et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190361/12, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 (N.Y. Sup.). A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is available at http://is.gd/2zxBixfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Dismiss Misrepresentation Suit Granted -------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Uhlig filed a lawsuit asserting, among others, that Drayprop, LLC, negligently misrepresented the presence of asbestos and the need for abatement in the two apartments he purchased from Drayprop. The Defendants deny all Uhlig's allegations, arguing they fail as a matter of law. The Defendants also move for summary judgment as to any damages they may be liable for, and to exclude the testimony of Steve Adams, an expert Uhlig wishes to present. Because Judge B. Avant Edenfield of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Savannah Division, agrees with the Defendants that no genuine disputes of fact exists as to liability, the Court granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Defendants' remaining motions regarding damages and Uhlig's expert witnesses are dismissed as moot. The case is THOMAS UHLIG, Plaintiff, v. DRAYPROP, LLC; DRAYPARK, LLC; MICHAEL BROWN; REUBEN CROLL; and MARLEY MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendants, NO. 4:11-CV-145 (S.D.Ga.). A full-text copy of Judge Edenfield's Order dated Oct. 4, 2013, is available at http://is.gd/s4iEADfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Motion in Limine Denied in "Anderson" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge William C. Griesbach of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted Defendant Procter & Game Paper Products Co.'s motion in limine, holding that evidence relating to exposures during the time Plaintiff Beverly Anderson worked on improvements and new construction will be barred at trial absent further order of the court. Judge Griesbach has earlier denied the Defendant's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the Plaintiff had sustained damages prior to April 29, 1994, when he was exposed to asbestos during his work at the Charmin mill. The case is BEVERLY ANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. PROCTER & GAMBLE PAPER PRODUCTS CO., Defendant, CASE NO. 11-C-61 (E.D. Wis.). A full- text copy of Judge Griesbach's Order dated Oct. 4, 2013, is available at http://is.gd/z85b8efrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants Goodyear's Bid to Junk "Nolan" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In an asbestos personal injury action, defendants The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company and Goodyear Canada, Inc., move for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all other claims against them on the ground that the non-party co-worker's testimony identifying Goodyear's sheet gasket material as the product which actually exposed the Plaintiff Thomas Robert Nolan, Sr., to asbestos is insufficient and speculative. In a decision and order dated Oct. 3, 2013, a full-text copy of which is available at http://is.gd/SkeSkufrom Leagle.com, Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, granted the motion, finding that Mr. Nolan's co-worker who testified for him could not say when, or where, or how often he worked with Mr. Nolan nor could he identify which Goodyear gasket material they used at work. In light of the fact that Goodyear manufactured asbestos-free gaskets as well as asbestos-containing gaskets during the relevant time period, and manufactured asbestos-containing gaskets only until 1973 after which they only produced asbestos-free gaskets, Judge Heitler concluded that it is mere speculation to infer that the Goodyear gaskets Mr. Nolan allegedly worth with contained asbestos to which he was exposed. The case is JOAN M. NOLAN, Individually and as Administratrix for the Estate of THOMAS ROBERT NOLAN, Sr., Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 108180/06, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 (N.Y. Sup.). ASBESTOS UPDATE: Time to Perfect Appeal in NY Litigation Enlarged ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, issued four separate orders on Oct. 10, 2013, enlarging the time to perfect appeal to the April 2014 Term in the following asbestos-related cases: * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to ENGLE, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, AS SUCCESSOR-BY-MERGER TO BUFFALO PUMPS -- CRANE CO., MOTION NO. M-4748 (N.Y. App. Div.). A full-text copy of the Order is available at http://is.gd/Ld1129from Leagle.com. * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to BATTIPAGLIA, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS -- CRANE CO., MOTION NO. M-4754 (N.Y. App. Div.). A full-text copy of the Order is available at http://is.gd/0AOz4Kfrom Leagle.com. * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to GILL, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS -- CRANE CO., MOTION NO. M-4755 (N.Y. App. Div.). A full-text copy of the Order is available at http://is.gd/wo4rqKfrom Leagle.com. * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to VIOHL v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS -- CRANE CO., MOTION NO. M-4756, (N.Y. App. Div.). A full-text copy of the Order is available at http://is.gd/LmMA7sfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenn. App. Affirms Ruling in "Denning" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ William J. Denning was employed by CSX Transportation, Inc., from 1963 through 2001, initially as a brakeman and, from 1978, as an engineer. In September 2004, Mr. Denning commenced an action against CSXT in the Circuit Court for Sumner County alleging that CSXT's intentional conduct and negligent acts and omissions caused him to suffer injuries including cancer, asthma, neurological impairment, pulmonary diseases and other disorders resulting from exposure to asbestos, diesel exhaust and other carcinogens. An appeal arises from a jury verdict in favor of Plaintiff in an action filed pursuant to the Federal Employers' Liability Act. The Defendant appeals denial of its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and the trial court's determination that post-judgment interest is properly awarded in the amount provided by Tennessee Code Annotated Sec. 47-14-121 and not federal law. On cross-appeal, the Plaintiff appeals the trial court's decision to exclude certain evidence and its determination that post-judgment interest is properly calculated from the date the trial court entered judgment on the jury verdict rather than the date the jury rendered its verdict as provided by Tennessee Code Annotated Sec. 47-14-122. In an opinion dated Oct. 9, 2013, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee, at Nashville, affirmed denial of the Defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and the trial court's evidentiary decisions. The Court of Appeals also affirmed the trial court's determination that post-judgment interest is properly awarded at the rate provided by Tennessee Code Annotated Sec. 47-14-121. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's determination that post-judgment interest accrues from the date provided by federal law. The Court of Appeals held that state law controls the calculation of post-judgment interest to be awarded in FELA actions adjudicated in state court. The case is WILLIAM J. DENNING, v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., NO. M2012-01077-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. App.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/wNjwa0from Leagle.com. Christopher W. Cardwell, Esq. -- ccardwell@gsrm.com -- and Mary Taylor Gallagher, Esq. -- mtgallagher@gsrm.com -- at Gullett Sanford Robinson & Martin PLLC, in Nashville, Tennessee; Andrew E. Tauber, Esq. -- atauber@mayerbrown.com -- at Mayer Brown, in Washington, DC; and Kendra L. Smith, Esq. -- klsmith@smithbutzlaw.com -- at Smith Butz, in Canonsburg, PA, for the appellant, CSX Transportation, Inc. James Bryan Mosely, Esq., at Mosely & Mosely, in Murfreesboro, Tennessee; and Joshua Leizerman, Esq., at E.J. Leizerman & Associates LLC, in Toledo, Ohio, for the appellee, William J. Denning. Mr. Mosely may be reached at: James Bryan Mosely, Esq. MOSELY & MOSELY 237 Castlewood Drive, Suite D Murfreesboro, TN 37129 Tel: 615-254-0140 Fax: 615-244-2270 Email: mail@moseleylawfirm.com Mr. Leizerman may be reached at: Joshua Leizerman, Esq. E.J. LEIZERMAN & ASSOCIATES LLC 717 Madison Avenue Toledo, OH 43624-1609 Tel: (419) 243-1010 Fax: (419) 243-8200 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Affirms Ruling in "Bowles" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In October 2009, Virginia Bowles, individually and as independent executrix of the estate of Jerald Bowles, deceased, filed suit against Owens-Illinois, Inc., John Crane, Inc., and other defendants, seeking damages in connection with decedent's lung cancer allegedly caused by his exposure to asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products. In June 2012, the trial court granted motions for summary judgment filed by Owens-Illinois and John Crane. On appeal, the Plaintiff argues the trial court erred in granting the motions for summary judgment filed by Owens- Illinois and John Crane on her exposure counts. The Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District, in an opinion dated Oct. 11, 2013, affirmed. The Appellate Court found that even if the Owens-Illinois product was on the ship and utilized in repair work, it has not been shown where the product was placed, whether decedent worked or slept in areas the product was present, or whether the product's asbestos dust fell from the pipes when the guns were fired. The Appellate Court further found that in this case, the Plaintiff's claims that decedent was exposed to asbestos-containing products of John Crane is speculative and conjectural. The Plaintiff, according to the Appellate Court, failed to present evidence decedent worked with or around any John Crane asbestos-containing product with sufficient frequency, regularity, and proximity to create a genuine issue of material fact. The case is VIRGINIA BOWLES, Individually and as Independent Executrix of the Estate of Jerald Bowles, Deceased, Plaintiff- Appellant, v. OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC., and JOHN CRANE, INC., Defendants-Appellees, and PNEUMO ABEX CORPORATION; PNEUMO ABEX, LLC; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.; METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; GARLOCK SEALING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC; AURORA PUMP COMPANY; BUFFALO PUMPS, INC.; WARREN PUMPS, INC.; and TYCO FLOW CONTROL INC., f/k/a YARWAY CORPORATION, Defendants, NO. 4-12-1072 (Ill. App.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/BCrSqafrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Discovered in Uxbridge, Mass. School ---------------------------------------------------------------- NECN.com reported that the parking lot is quiet at McCloskey Middle School in Uxbridge, Mass. Pat Rocheleau's granddaughter was one of dozens with the day off. The building was closed because of the discovery of asbestos. "I would like to think that they go to school in a safe environment," Rocheleau says, the report related. According to the report, Uxbridge Schools Superintendent Kevin Carney says flooring was removed from the school over the summer. Test results came back positive for asbestos. Inhaling the substance can lead to disease. "I want them to be cautiously optimistic that we're gonna handle this the right way," Carney says. He says the building was tested and showed safe air quality levels. To be safe, Carney says crews cleaned impacted areas and further testing will be done. "Unfortunately, we're at the mercy of when those lab results come back, so we will have to close school again." The building is more than 75 years old. Carney says many old buildings have asbestos but it becomes a problem when it's disturbed. "In this case with an adhesive, once they ripped up the carpet, you now moved the tiles, thus making it airborne." Carney says they're working with state agencies and independent contractors to solve the problem. He's hopeful the doors will open. Parents have mixed feelings about sending students back. "I'm not too concerned about the issue that's come up with the asbestos and most of the parents I've talked to don't express too much concern," says parent Kim Demers. "I have a lot of concerns about the well-being of all of those children," Rocheleau says. Carney hopes the final round of testing comes back showing safe air quality levels. He says once that happens, the school will open. "Before I open school again, want to be sure that all of the proper testing will be conducted." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro, Mold Being Removed at Old Hospital Site --------------------------------------------------------------- Greg Larry, writing for Cumberland Times-News, reported that in addition to asbestos abatement, project managers must now add mold removal to its list of issues to be addressed at the old Sacred Heart Hospital as they prepare to demolish the former medical complex to clear the way for a new Allegany High School. An update on the new Allegany was given at the Allegany County Board of Education's regular monthly meeting. Referred to as the Braddock Campus by the board, the mold was discovered while ongoing asbestos removal continues at the former hospital campus. Asbestos abatement is currently focused on the ground and basement levels. The mold problems were found on the basement floor. "We expect to complete the abatement work by the end of this month or the first of next month," said Vince Montana, director of facilities for the board. Board officials do not expect the mold and asbestos issues to delay the project. A specific date for the demolition to take place has not been determined, but officials say it may be after the first of the year. Board officials say meetings will be held with neighbors surrounding the new high school prior to any demolition work beginning. The new Allegany, with a price tag of between $30 and $40 million, is expected to open its doors in the fall of 2017. Education officials recently visited two new schools in Towson and Aberdeen to see first-hand the design of modern schools. The new Allegany is being designed with a 50-year time frame in mind, according to officials. In other news from the meeting, Robert Farrell, coordinator of security, safety and risk management for the BOE, updated the board on work being done by three new rotating school security officers. "It has been working really well. To see them interacting with the kids is great," said Farrell. Farrell said the the drug awareness course known as DARE will be taught soon at the Mount Savage School and Westernport and Flintstone elementary schools. "Some schools have not had DARE classes in a long time," said Farrell. It was also announced during the meeting that the board was selected to receive a top honor from the city of Cumberland's Historical Preservation Society. Known as the Mary Susan Cerutti Historic Preservation Award, the annual recognition is given to a person or organization that completed a historically important restoration project. The board was chosen for the bronze plaque for the rehabilitation work it recently completed at its central office on Washington Street. "The work that was done to restore the slate roof instead of replacing it was terrific. Not many projects were as complete as yours," said Cheri Yost, of the HPS. The board's central office building was constructed in 1866. The BOE took it over in 1931. Ben Brauer, supervisor of student services for the BOE, gave an update on efforts to work with students who present serious behavioral challenges. When a child's school, known as the student's home school, has exhausted all efforts to manage a student with serious behavioral issues, Brauer explained the process for handling the student. Students with special behavioral needs are temporarily removed from their home school. He said the work done at the Virtual Academic Village on Pershing Street has been very positive and is yielding a lot of success. Brauer said a troubled student is placed with the same teacher for the entire day. The board has also renamed the Eckhart Alternative School, a facility for challenging students, to the Eckhart Alternative Program. Brauer said there is a statewide effort under way to remove the implication of permanence given by calling alternative facilities "schools." "Calling it a school sounds permanent. We work with the kids' home school to keep them on course. They are not lost or forgotten," said Brauer. Brauer said efforts are being made to see that a student who is removed from his home school can be returned to the home school as soon as possible. Also at the meeting, Claire Romaine, a student at Mountain Ridge, serving as the student member of the board, debuted a new public service announcement video prepared by her and other students called "See it, Say it." The video is an effort to make students aware of safety concerns at schools. Romaine says the video will be on the BOE website and hopes it can be shown during an English class in all area schools. The video focused on the dangers surrounding propping doors open. Future videos are also planned on a variety of safety topics. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-Like Particles Found at Gogebic Taconite --------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Verburg, writing for Wisconsin State Journal, reported that the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has found hazardous, asbestos-like minerals in a rock taken from the site of a controversial proposed iron mine. According to the report, if further testing shows that large quantities of the cancer-causing material are present, Gogebic Taconite could need to obtain a more involved air pollution permit describing how it would contain the fibrous particles released when the rock is blasted, moved and crushed, a DNR official said. "It's a worker-safety issue," said Ann Coakley, who directs regulation of mines. Other mines have found cost-effective ways to contain so-called "asbestiform" air pollution, but it's too early to say how the mine proposed for Iron and Ashland counties will be affected, said Gogebic Taconite spokesman Bob Seitz. Independent laboratories are testing deep core samples taken from the taconite iron mine site to determine how extensive the problem is, Seitz said. "We will identify the issue and identify the response and if the response adequately handles the issue, we will have a permit (to mine)," Seitz said. "If we don't or can't handle the issue, then there is no permit to mine." Earlier this year, company officials said they weren't aware of any asbestiform risk. "Based on our due diligence, the geologic conditions in the Gogebic Iron Range do not support the formation of asbestos," the company said in a July 28 letter after the DNR asked for an estimate of possible emissions to be included in an application for a bulk sampling permit. "We do not expect asbestos or asbestiform minerals to be present." Mine opponents said the confirmation that the material is present means there should be tougher scrutiny of company plans. Some pointed to a five-year study, released by the University of Minnesota this year, that said people who worked in the taconite iron mining industry had higher than average occurrences of mesothelioma -- a lung cancer caused by asbestiform particles. For decades, asbestos was mined and applied to construction materials to suppress heat and fire, but the federal government banned it from most uses in the 1970s because of health risks. How heavily the material is concentrated at the mine site will determine how hazardous it could be, said Kristin Hart, a section chief in the DNR air management program. Particles that become airborne during blasting and digging would tend not to travel as far as gaseous emissions from fires, Hart said. But the DNR air management program's experience with mining is limited to rock and sand quarries, so more investigation will be needed before the remedy for any asbestiform hazard can be designed, Hart said. In some mining operations it is sufficient to keep materials wet, but sometimes enclosures and other techniques are used, she said. Asbestiform particles were found in a potato-sized rock picked up off the ground by a DNR geologist in May when agency and company officials were examining sites where the core testing could occur, Coakley said. The rock caught the geologist's eye because it appeared to contain grunerite, a mineral that occurs in the iron deposit that stretches from Minnesota to Michigan, Coakley said. Grunerite exists in two or three forms that aren't problematic, she said. But scientists examined the rock microscopically and saw that it was in a fibrous form, meaning it could be released into the air and inhaled, creating a health hazard, Coakley said. The DNR notified the mining company on Sept. 27, she said. Gogebic Taconite wants to dig a 4 1/2-mile-long open pit mine. Boosters say it will create jobs, while opponents warn of environmental damage, especially to lakes, wetlands and streams around the scenic, forested Penokee Hills just south of Lake Superior. Laboratories are analyzing eight 1 3/8-inch in diameter core samples totaling 5,870 feet in length that were obtained last summer by drilling as deeply as 1,100 feet into the mine site, Seitz said. Five more will be drilled after the ground freezes providing access to wetland areas, he said. Meanwhile, Gogebic Taconite is seeking a bulk sampling permit to dig or blast on several sites and remove about 4,000 tons of rock for testing that will help it choose the machinery it will need to extract iron. Seitz said the company probably won't need to take steps to control air emissions during sampling. In July, the company submitted answers to DNR questions about its June 17 proposal for bulk sampling, which the agency said lacked sufficient information. Coakley said the company has indicated that it will file a final bulk sampling plan within weeks, meaning that operation wouldn't start until January at the earliest. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bland Block City Expecting Fibro Assessment ------------------------------------------------------------ Ellen W. Todd, writing for Sanford News, reported that city officials should have the results of a follow-up assessment for asbestos in the building at the corner of Cottage and River streets this week. Demolition of the Bland Block, located at 37 River Street, was scheduled to begin Sept. 30, but was halted because the company contracted to take down the building found quantities of asbestos, which had not been previously identified, during its preliminary work in the building. City Manager Steven Buck told city councilors at their Oct. 3 meeting that he was seeking quotes for a second assessment of the asbestos in the building. Samples of building materials taken from the River Street building in August 2012 tested negative for asbestos -- that is, they contained one percent or less of asbestos, according to a letter from Environmental Management, Inc., of Brunswick, which conducted the survey. Buck said the presence of asbestos would mean additional disposal costs of the debris for the demolition contractor. City councilors voted unanimously last month to award a bid for the demolition of the Bland Block to Green Environmental Inc., of Norwell, Mass. The company's bid of $53,500 was the lowest by far of the three bids submitted in response to Sanford's request for proposals for the demolition and site clean-up. The city purchased the building last October for $30,000 with the intention of demolishing it. It was appraised at $41,300, according to city records, with an additional value of $25,500 on the land. The city manager that he expects to receive the results of the new asbestos assessment this week and that the demolition project will proceed later this month. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Marion County BOE OKs Fibro Removal at School -------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey Pape, writing for WBoy.com, reported that several classrooms were damaged at Mannington Middle School in August after heavy rains caused a drain to clog and overflow. According to the report, water spilled into a third floor classroom and made its way to a first floor computer lab. The Marion County Board of Education recently approved the emergency removal of asbestos from the third floor classroom. Students are in another classroom, and Superintendent Gary Price said the situation is under control. "There was some limited amount of asbestos in the ceiling material that we are going to have all of that abated out of the room. Some of the floor tiles that got wet and came up from the floor were also asbestos tiles and we are also going to have those abated and removed," Price said. Price said it will cost nearly $9,000, and will be finished in a couple months. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Shipyard Worker Sues Multiple Companies ----------------------------------------------------------- Eliza Walker, writing for The Louisiana Record, reported that a former shipyard worker and pipe-filler claims he has been diagnosed with lung cancer resulting from his occupational exposure to asbestos. According to the report, Templeton Evans filed suit against Avondale Industries Inc., Northrop Grumman Ship Systems Inc., Huntington Ingalls Inc., Eagle Inc., Hopeman Brothers Inc., International Paper Company, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, McCarty Corporation, Maryland Casualty Company, Metropolitan Life Insurance, Reilly-Benton Company, Taylor-Seidenback Inc., Uniroyal Inc., Viacom Inc., Asbestos Corporation Ltd., Albert Bossier, Certain Underwriter's at Lloyd's, London, One Beacon Insurance Company, Entergy Gulf States, Louisiana LLC, Union Carbide Corporation, Murphy Oil USA, Chevron USA Inc., Occidental Chemical Corporation, Shell Oil Company and Monsanto. The plaintiff states that form 1967 to 1977 he worked at Avondale Shipyard's main dock, the Harvey Quick Repair Yard and the Westwego Yard, where he used and handled asbestos and asbestos- containing products. He claims he was further exposed to asbestos during his work as a pipefiller for Local 60, Murphy Oil, Union Carbide, Shell Oil, Monsanto, Hooker Chemical, Entergy Waterford III and Chevron, at different sites around Louisiana. The plaintiff claims he has contracted malignant lung cancer as a result of his many years of asbestos exposure. The defendants are accused of intentional misconduct, fraud and concealment or conspiracy to defraud or conceal the dangers of asbestos-containing products. An unspecified amount in damages is sought for medical costs, lost earnings, mental sufferings and reduced quality of life. The plaintiff is represented by Frank J. Swarr of Landry, Swarr & Cannella LLC of New Orleans. Case no. 13-7371. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Center Educates Trade Workers on Mesothelioma -------------------------------------------------------------- The Mesothelioma Victims Center says, "Within the past week, we've established a new focus on educating building trades workers about asbestos and its link to mesothelioma. The Center acknowledges the estimated figure from the ATSDR as staggering. 1.3 million workers is a large number of people and we want them to know that while the victims center might be the best branded mesothelioma advocate for US Navy Veterans, we are equally passionate advocates for the best possible compensation for all diagnosed victims of mesothelioma in the United States." The new focus highlights that all building trades workers with mesothelioma are encouraged to call 866-714-6466, so that the Mesothelioma Victims Center can: * Instantly put them in contact with the nation's most skilled mesothelioma attorneys who consistently get the best mesothelioma compensation claims results for the victim or their family members. * Discuss the scientific research associated with the rare form of cancer called mesothelioma. * Answer any questions they might have about how to begin a mesothelioma compensation claim. * Provide them with information on how to receive an official diagnosis of mesothelioma (which is needed to begin a compensation claim). About a week ago the Mesothelioma Victims Center had a riveting phone call from a diagnosed victim of mesothelioma, whom at 84 years old, was still working as a plumber. He called the Center to see if US Navy Veterans were the only types of victims the Victims Center helps when it comes to financial compensation for this rare form of cancer. The group replied emphatically that they help all diagnosed victims of mesothelioma. They had an amazing conversation with this man about his possible sixty years of exposure to asbestos. He told them that when he was a young man, he built and rehabbed US Army barracks after World War II. After that, he worked on several US Army bases for a labor union as an electrical worker and did both commercial and residential jobs through the mid 1960s in Massachusetts. In 1965 he began working as a plumber at a steam plant that created electricity for New York, and in the 1970s he took a job for a school district in Florida maintaining boilers all while doing side jobs as a residential plumber. Because of the possibility of extreme exposure to asbestos over the decades, the Mesothelioma Victims Center had one of the nation's premier mesothelioma attorneys in the victim's home in less than 24 hours. It turned out to be a two day conversation about all the different times and places the victim had held jobs that possibly exposed him to asbestos. The attorney feels that the mesothelioma compensation claim for this individual could be in the millions. The Mesothelioma Victims Center says feels so blessed to know that they get to help diagnosed victims of mesothelioma. they are 100% focused on making certain all diagnosed victims of mesothelioma really do get the best possible compensation. They go the extra mile to make certain these people are connected with the best possible mesothelioma attorneys that are as passionate about mesothelioma compensation as they are. they urge any diagnosed victim or their family members to call them anytime at 866-714- 6466, or visit http://MesotheliomaVictimsCenter.com Who can get Mesothelioma? Mesothelioma is directly linked to exposure to asbestos. Individuals who served in the US Navy, or as oil refinery workers, ship yard workers, employees of defense contractors, rail road workers, power plant workers, chemical industry workers, automotive repair specialists, construction workers, electricians, plumbers, demolition contractors, were all exposed to asbestos in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. The worst thing about a mesothelioma cancer diagnosis is that it typically comes out of the blue. Frequently, these workers were exposed decades before symptoms similar to pneumonia begin to surface. The states with the highest incidence of mesothelioma include: New Jersey, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maine, Washington, and Wyoming. However, based on the calls the Mesothelioma Victims Center receives, a diagnosed victim of mesothelioma could be in any large state such as New York, California, Florida, Texas, Ohio, Massachusetts, Georgia, Illinois, or Michigan, to the smallest by population such as Montana, North Dakota, Delaware, Rhode Island, or Idaho. http://MesotheliomaVictimsCenter.Com ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Justices Won't Review "Any Breath" Case ------------------------------------------------------------ Law360 reported that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Oct. 10 declined to review a nearly $1 million judgment against a welding products company in an asbestos case that turned on the hot-button issue of whether any asbestos exposure counts as a contributing factor to asbestos-related disease. According to the report, in a one-page order, the high court said that it would not hear an appeal by the Lincoln Electric Co. challenging the verdict in favor of a suburban Philadelphia man whose family said he died from exposure to asbestos contained in the company's product. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Removal of Kerang Hotel Walls Completed -------------------------------------------------------- Northern Times reported that the removal of the second-storey external walls of the fire-ravaged Kerang Hotel may be completed as early as Oct. 11. According to the report, specialist contractors believe they have removed the last of the asbestos found in the ruins and engineers have confirmed that the top level walls need to be removed as a matter of safety. KGB Constructions site manager and occupational health and safety officer, Cliff Bowers said that he was waiting for written confirmation that all asbestos had been removed. "Once that occurs, we can move on the walls," he said. A hygienist has been on site throughout the asbestos removal process, using instruments to monitor the air quality and to collect samples all around the site. Work on removing the street frontage walls above the verandas facing Wellington and Nolan Streets started on Oct. 9, possibly clearing the way for streets to be re-opened to through traffic. The highway entrance into the two streets has been closed since fire spread through the 85-year-old section of the hotel on September 7. About 50 fire-fighters fought for about 90 minutes to control the fire. Safety barricades surrounding the site have meant that the adjoining motel units and bottle shop have remained closed since the fire. The function room attached to the hotel was affected by smoke and water damage and has also remained closed. Selective demolition during the last couple of weeks has been delayed at times due to gale-force wind. Mr Bowers has said that it was difficult to predict with any accuracy when demolition work would conclude. He said that windy weather has been "horrific" during the site demolition, with workers struggling to keep fencing in place or operating the crane. A traffic management plan has been prepared by the contractors in conjunction with VicRoads and Gannawarra Shire Council. Business owners in Wellington Street have reported a significant downturn in trade since the road closures. Gannawarra Shire Council has erected signs directing traffic into the shopping centre via Muir Avenue and Shadforth Streets and signs in different locations advising that shops are open for business. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Attorneys Appeal $1.3MM Fraud Ruling ----------------------------------------------------- John O'Brien, writing for The West Virginia Record, reported that asbestos lawyers found to have committed fraud against CSX Transportation in West Virginia courts are appealing the recent $1.3 million decision against them. According to the report, Robert Peirce and Louis Raimond -- formerly of the Pittsburgh firm Peirce, Raimond & Coulter -- on Oct. 3 filed a notice of appeal of a September decision by U.S. District Judge Frederick Stamp, of the Northern District of West Virginia. The appeal will be before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va. According to the notice, the two attorneys are appealing Stamp's amended judgment, which included his tripling of the damages awarded by a jury and his denial of the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law or in the alternative for a new trial. Stamp issued a series of lawsuits on Sept. 25 in CSX's fraud lawsuit against the attorneys and radiologist Ray Harron, with whom they were found to have conspired to fabricate asbestos claims. Stamp tripled a nearly $430,000 jury award pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. "The defendants' arguments that this Court should deny this motion as it would be premature to amend the judgment prior to this Court ruling on the issues contained in their post-judgment motions are moot," Stamp wrote. "This Court has since denied the defendants' motions as to those issues and thus, it would not be premature to now amend the judgment. "Further, the defendants' argument concerning CSX's statements during trial that this case was not about the money have no bearing on the fact that based on the above-cited law, CSX is entitled to treble damages." The resulting amount is $1,287.721.41, plus post-judgment interest at a rate of 0.15 percent per year since the December jury verdict. Stamp did not make a ruling on the most expensive motion -- CSX's request that the defendants pay its more than $10 million legal bill. Stamp decided to postpone any decision on the motion until exhaustion of any appeal. On Dec. 20, an eight-person jury found Peirce, Raimond and Harron committed racketeering, conspiracy and fraud and ordered them jointly and severally liable for a penalty of $429,240.27. CSX's original complaint, filed in 2005, said Peirce's firm hid nine fraudulent claims among other lawsuits filed by the law firm in West Virginia. The nine lawsuits were filed and settled from 2000-2006. Stamp granted summary judgment to the Peirce firm in 2009, ruling a four-year statute of limitations began when the Peirce firm began targeting CSX. However, the the Fourth Circuit overturned that decision and gave new life to the lawsuit. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the defendants' appeal of the decision. CSX amended its complaint to include two additional claims it said were fraudulent. The Peirce firm filed counterclaims against the company that said it was engaging in fraud by bringing and conducting the lawsuit, though the jury ruled for CSX on them. In 2005, federal court judge Janis Graham Jack made national headlines when she uncovered duplicate and fraudulent silica diagnoses in her Texas courtroom. Many of those diagnoses were made by Harron and were made on plaintiffs who had already brought asbestos claims. In Jack's opinion dismissing the claims, she said "These diagnoses were driven by neither health nor justice -- they were manufactured for money." Following Harron's admission that he did not even make the diagnoses of the patients whose X-rays he read, Jack noted that most of "these diagnoses are more the creation of lawyers than doctors." The defendants had also requested that if the verdict was allowed to stand, then the amount should be reduced to $95,368.98 because CSX should not be able to recover any damages on RICO claims that post-dated July 5, 2007. Stamp also denied that request. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Delays Demolition of Yakima Troubled Spot ---------------------------------------------------------------- Christina Craig, writing for KimaTV.com, reported that efforts to clean up a troubled neighborhood in Yakima, Washington, are running into more problems. KIMA has shown you the code violations along South 20th Street. According to the report, code enforcement officers want to tear down five buildings. KIMA learned a health hazard now gets in the way. "It's a pretty bad eyesore," said neighbor Jeremy Rixie. "A lot of people are going inside of the buildings. We're having police activity here," City Codes Manager Joe Caruso told KIMA. This troubled spot along South 20th Street has made life difficult for Yanet Bustamante and her family. It's right behind her apartment. She feared for her children's safety one night she heard gunshots coming from the property. "Everybody down and we were like alright, it was scary," said Bustamante. Yakima's Code Enforcement Department has had the property on the radar for a while. The city wants to demolish the five vacant buildings. That's now a problem after the Clean Air Authority found asbestos in one of them. "That's kind of scary because you don't know if it's cancerous. I mean that's a big deal," said Bustamante. It's a big deal that keeps the city from tearing it down. "I'm worried about my safety, the safety of my family and I'm worried it could spread," Rixie told KIMA. "Could it potentially harm neighbors?" asked a KIMA reporter. "No, it's all secured. It's in roofing and it's in flooring built in the linoleum. So if it's kept in place, which it is, just laid out on the floor, it should be fine," responded Caruso. Yakima still plans to go forward, but it has to thoroughly test the property to see how much asbestos is there. The price tag for the testing and cleanup is about 20-thousand dollars. But, Yakima only has 30-grand set aside to take care of all dangerous buildings this year. That could keep other cleanup projects from getting done unless the city finds the money from someplace else in the budget. Yakima plans to start the asbestos testing on the property in a couple of weeks. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Expert Fined for Failure to Protect Staff ---------------------------------------------------------- Simon Donohue, writing for Place North West, reported that an asbestos expert has been fined after workers under his supervision were exposed to potentially-deadly fibres at a college in Greater Manchester, in England. According to the report, Steven Kelly was prosecuted by the Health & Safety Executive after three men were spotted without suitable protective clothing in an area of Trafford College, Stretford, where asbestos was being removed. Trafford Magistrates' Court in Sale heard that Manchester-based firm Winsulate had been hired to carry out asbestos removal work during a refurbishment project at the college, the report related. Kelly, 41, from Kirkby in Merseyside, was the supervisor on the project but he ignored the company's procedures on working with asbestos, and broke the law as a result. The court was told HSE inspectors carried out an unannounced visit to the college, on Talbot Road, during the evening on 12 December 2012. They witnessed three workers in the area of the college where asbestos was being removed but without suitable protective clothing or masks. The inspectors discovered Kelly had sent the men into the undercroft beneath the classrooms, which had been sealed off from the rest of the building, to fix the temporary lighting. They were wearing their own clothes instead of disposable clothing under their overalls, and half masks instead of full-face respiratory masks. The men were also wearing lace-up instead of wellington boots, which meant asbestos fibres could stick to their laces or get inside their boots. This led to them being put at risk of breathing in asbestos fibres, and other fibres could have remained on their clothes when they went home to their families in the evening. Kelly is a fully-trained and qualified supervisor in licensed asbestos removal but, despite this, several other issues were also discovered on the site. These included insufficient water for workers to properly sponge down boots and masks to stop fibres becoming airborne, used clothing discarded inside the enclosure, and a failure to carry out daily checks on masks. Kelly, of Burwell Close in Kirkby, was fined GBP790 and ordered to pay costs of GBP250 after pleading guilty to a breach of the Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974 by failing to take reasonable care of workers under his supervision. Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Laura Moran, said: "Asbestos is responsible for thousands of deaths in the UK every year but it only becomes dangerous when it is broken up and fibres are released into the air. "That's why asbestos can only be removed by specialist contractors but, as the site supervisor, Steven Kelly put workers at risk by not following the correct safety procedures. "He simply should never have allowed three men to go into a contaminated area while wearing their own clothes, and without the correct protective clothing and respiratory masks. "Workers, their families and anyone else who came into contact with them would have been put at risk as a result of Mr Kelly allowing the men to wear lace-up boots and the clothes they intended to go home in. "Thankfully, we were able to stop the work and make sure the clothes were disposed of as contaminated waste." Around 4,000 people die every year as a result of breathing in asbestos fibres, making it the biggest single cause of work- related deaths in the UK. Airborne fibres can become lodged in the lungs or digestive tract, and can lead to lung cancer or other diseases, but symptoms may not appear for several decades. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Expert Explains Next Steps for Monticello Project ------------------------------------------------------------------ Eva McKend, writing for YNN.com, reported that Seth Piker is an asbestos consultant. He owns Hudson Valley Environmental and was hired more than a year ago by the Village of Monticello, in New York, to test the materials inside the now demolished courthouse on Pleasant Street. "Because of the regulations being so strict and everything being so regulated, the village needs certified people to do the work and at every step there is a different license," said Piker, the report related. According to the report, when Piker was initially consulted, he determined the asbestos in the building was not hazardous but it was above the legal limit, more than one percent. So if the village wanted to demolish the building, they would have to hire a certified abatement contractor. As Piker explained, every contractor and worker involved would have to be certified as an asbestos handler by the state Department of Labor. So now Piker has returned again, this time to a write variance which he submitted to the state. You can think of a variance almost as a permission slip, one that would allow the village to hire a contractor. All of this has become necessary since six of the contractors originally working on the project were charged by the DEC for illegal dumping, halting the project. "I sent it to the state as an emergency. I'm waiting for the state to send it back to me approved or get back to me with comments or questions so they can approve it," said Piker. Obtaining the variance will cost the village more than $2,000. Piker says any contractor entering into a deal with the village should know about the level of asbestos in the building because if the state agencies get involved, ignorance is no excuse. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wausau Sues R&Q Reinsurance for $520,000 --------------------------------------------------------- HarrisMartin Publishing reported that in a newly filed suit, Employers Insurance Company of Wausau is demanding more than $520,000 in reinsurance proceeds from R&Q Reinsurance Co. for Wausau's settlement of asbestos claims with its insured, The Marley Co. According to the report, the Oct. 9 complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, seeks payment under two facultative certificates in effect in the early 1980s. According to the suit, R&Q issued two one-year facultative reinsurance certificates to Wausau, effective Oct. 1, 1981, to Oct. 1, 1982, and Oct. 1, 1983, to Oct. 1, 1984. ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Close Beach" Call as More Fibro Wash Up --------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Gray, writing for KentOnline, reported that more asbestos cement has been found washed up on a family beach, leading to a call for the beach to be closed. According to the report, the latest discovery at The Leas on Sheppey, in the United Kingdom, was made by Kingsborough Manor resident Barry Day, who said it was time to cordon off the popular seafront while the issue was resolved. He said: "Now all the tourists have gone it's an ideal time to launch a proper search and collect it all up." Mr Day, 66, who lives at Hustlings Drive, said he was walking along Minster beach when he spotted small pieces of asbestos. He claimed to have made further discoveries of the material at Shellness beach. Swale council was first alerted in August to fragments being washed-up between The Playa and Minster Cliffs. It said it had consulted with Public Health England which advised the substance was "a lower risk product" and unlikely to pose a significant risk to health. A spokesman confirmed temporary warning signs, which had been removed due to weather damage, would be reinstated along the promenade "as soon as possible". Mr Day said a concentrated effort was needed to remove all traces of the hazardous material from the Island's shoreline. He said: "From what I've seen at The Leas and Shellness, there must be quite a bit out there. "Asbestos is not something you can take chances with. "If it breaks up, it can be quite dangerous." Last month, the council confirmed 15 kilos of asbestos had been collected along the beach. A spokesman said: "Regular checks will continue in all areas where the material has been reported to have been found to date, and will be removed safely. "This will continue until we are satisfied there is no further need. "As a precautionary measure we ask that members of the public continue to avoid any suspicious material they may find on the beach." To report any findings, call the council on 01795 471850. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland County May Consider Banning Explosives --------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Simonson, writing for Wisconsin Public Radio News, reported that the Ashland County, Wisconsin Board may consider a ban on explosives that disturb asbestos in rock formations, including at the proposed iron ore mine site. According to the report, Ashland County Board Chairman Pete Russo says he's getting lots of calls from citizens who are worried about asbestos and mesothelioma, a fatal lung cancer caused by airborne asbestos fibers. Recent reports by Northland College geoscience professor Tom Fitz and the Department of Natural Resources have found that asbestos fibers are in at least part of the ore body that Gogebic Taconite hopes to mine. The DNR says it needs more information before they know if that ore body is dangerous, while Fitz calls the asbestos lethal. Russo has called a special meeting of the Mining Impact Committee, which will hear testimony from Fitz and the DNR. Then, he says, the committee will consider an ordinance which would ban using explosives on asbestos rock. "If you're going to blast, if you do, you'd better have a way of capturing that asbestos so it does not get in the air around here and the air quality gets ruined," says Russo. "I don't know how that's going to happen." GTAC spokesman Bob Seitz says a county ordinance isn't needed, saying there are protections in place when a company mines an area that has asbestos deposits. "What we would have to do is demonstrate the likelihood of running into it, and then demonstrate what we would do for safety precautions for the public and for workers," says Seitz. "If we can't be safe that way, we don't get a permit." The federal Mine Safety and Health Administration and OSHA have asbestos exposure guidelines, but are not available for comment because of the partial federal government shutdown. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Clean Up to Begin at Riverview Property -------------------------------------------------------- Jo Ann Bobby-Gilbert, writing for The Review, reported that with the recent transfer of the former Riverview Florist property in Ohio, to the city's Community Improvement Corporation, steps have begun on its clean up. According to the report, Mayor Jim Swoger reported to City Council that asbestos abatement is expected to begin this week on the greenhouses that have fallen into disrepair on the property. The report related that studies have shown asbestos is present only in the caulking around the greenhouse windows and some pipe coverings, and funding for its removal has been set aside. Once the asbestos is removed, Swoger said, tear down of the greenhouses can begin. No other environmental hazards were found on the property, and the CIC has put up $1,500 to pay for mowing and other immediate necessities. Council passed several pieces of legislation, including an ordinance adjusting appropriations to provide $13,000 for repairs to doors at Central Fire Station. The money will go toward materials only, with assistant Chief Jeff Kreefer and firefighters from his crew providing all the labor in- house. Also passed were two ordinances authorizing the purchase of a truck cab and chassis and a stainless steel truck bed for the water department. As previously reported, the body will cost $29,380 and the cab/chassis, $69,774. Council heard from Ohio Avenue resident Linda Ziegler, who said the city needs to make a better effort at keeping up its own property before insisting that residents do the same, citing the condition of the former Riverview Florist property and the city car barn as examples. Ziegler said she had driven by a Michigan Avenue property owned by an at-large councilman that has television sets, furniture, tires and other debris in the backyard, which she called "disgraceful," saying, "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." Although Ziegler did not name him, Councilman Ryan Stovall said after the meeting she was referring to his late mother's home. Stovall said he has been dealing with the bank over the deed since his mother died in 2000 and the house is to go up for auction next month. Admitting there was considerable debris on the property, Stovall said he had arranged for someone to clean it up. "Apparently, they didn't do it," he said, saying he hasn't gone often to see the property. Councilman Scott Barrett praised deputy Service-Safety Director Dan Galeoti for the paving done on Eutaw Avenue, saying, "It's the best you've ever prepped a street. It's not the best, but it's good. He did a good job." Barrett recently opposed a measure regarding the paving projects because of his concern that the city fails to prep streets properly prior to paving. He serves as road foreman for St. Clair Township. Swoger also commended Diorio Paving for its work on three streets, including Eutaw. Swoger also reported he has asked for a meeting with Columbia Gas regarding the condition of Michigan Avenue following an excavation by the company, saying, "It is absolutely unacceptable." Councilman Sherrie Curtis said the same is true of Avondale after the gas company finished a job there, saying, "It's a disgrace they were allowed to get away with it." Stovall said he has plans to revamp legislation, raising the bond required for excavating city streets, saying the current $500 bond is not sufficient, and Curtis said that bond was originally set to pertain to residents who needed to excavate in front of their homes, not for gas companies to "dig all over town." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Under Way at Wood County Center -------------------------------------------------------------- Pamela Brust, writing for Parkersburg News and Sentinel, reported that asbestos removal at the former Wood County Holding Center, in West Virginia, is underway. According to the report, county officials said they anticipate the removal process, then demolition of the Second Street structure will start. During an earlier inspection, asbestos was found in the floor tiles of the former jail and possibly in the mastic, county officials said. Commissioners plan to have a parking lot constructed on the land once the building has been razed. Low bidder Empire Builders of Parkersburg was chosen to do both the asbestos removal at a cost of $11,700 and the demo, for $25,400. Holding Center and Home Confinement Program personnel were relocated to new headquarters at the Wood County Justice Center in January 2012. The former holding center has been sitting vacant since the move. The center is a former jail. It's located next to the county maintenance building, which sits at the corner of Avery and Second streets and formerly served as the law enforcement building. The sheriff's department was also moved to the justice center. The commissioners reviewed a proposed land use plan from Parkersburg Mayor Bob Newell, which included a 17,000-square-foot Urban Dog Park in addition to an hourly parking lot and green space. Commissioner Steve Gainer said he previously brought up the plans for the holding center property at a Downtown Task Force Committee meeting. "The idea is being proposed by the mayor to attract more people into downtown," commission President Wayne Dunn said. Newell proposed creation of 72 hourly parking spaces, a walkway, green space and the dog park. The mayor proposed entering an agreement with the county for help in building and maintaining the lot and enforcement of parking. According to the mayor's proposal, the revenue arrangement could be geared so the city receives revenue for management and the county receives revenue to recover the costs of establishing the park. A solar powered parking kiosk, such as the one planned for Seventh and Juliana streets would be installed. No cost estimate for the dog park was included in the proposal. On days when jurors are called to report, Newell suggested the lot be reserved for jury parking only. Prosecutor Jason Wharton suggested the commissioners wait until the building is down to make a decision on the parking lot configuration. The commissioners agreed. The holding center was costing the county about $8,000 annually to maintain plus insurance. County officials had repeatedly contacted state and federal correctional officials about the possibility of using the facility, but there were no takers. Prior to being a holding center the building served as the county jail from the time it was constructed in the 1970s until 2001 when the regional jail authority was formed and all inmates serving sentences were transferred to the North Central Regional Jail at Greenwood, Doddridge County. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Glass, Fibro Sheets Flew Due to Cyclone Phailin ---------------------------------------------------------------- Press Trust of India reported that broken glass pieces, wood shreds and asbestos sheets flew like killer projectiles in these two adjoining cities, moments after the severe cyclone 'Phailin' slammed into Gopalpur beach. According to the report, the roads in these twin cities were empty as strong wind howled across hitting closed doors and windows of the houses deserted by the locals. People living in Berhampur, the largest town in Ganjam district, jostled in one corner of residential buildings as even concrete structures shook by the combined battering of winds and heavy rains. Many vehicles in Berhampore toppled by the effect of the strong winds about 45 minutes after the land fall of the cyclone. Both the cities were running on power backups and you could hear the screams of terrified women and children. "We just wish the cyclone effect passes out soon . . . it is very frightful," Ramesh Pattnaik, who runs a hotel in Berhampore told PTI. People staying in houses and hotels prayed and sought divine intervention to end the gusty winds which have tossed everything making them objects of critical injury. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Exposure Leads to Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------ Heidi Turner, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reported that an asbestos lawsuit has been filed against an electric company in Missouri, alleging employees were exposed to a risk of asbestosis, mesothelioma and other asbestos-related injuries during their employment. The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, was filed September 13. According to the report, the lawsuit alleges Empire District Electric Co. knew it was exposing employees at a power plant to asbestos and polychlorinated biphenyls but did not provide those employees with adequate training or safety gear to handle the hazardous materials. Furthermore, the lawsuit claims that employees were asked to remove dangerous materials, such as asbestos insulation, in such a way that they would not be found. According to the lawsuit, Empire knowingly exposed employees to hazardous materials, "without implementing precautionary measures to protect them from acquiring an occupational disease." Employees were allegedly exposed to asbestos as it peeled and flaked from pipes, ducts and wires around the plant. They were also assigned tasks to deal with scrap and hazardous materials as the plant was converted from coal to natural gas. The plaintiff, Les Rider, was allegedly tasked with unwinding insulated wire from large spools so they could be disposed of separately. "As Rider unwound the wire, the insulation began to crack and flake off," the lawsuit alleges. "An inspection revealed that the insulation was made of asbestos. Nonetheless, Rider and other Empire employees were instructed to continue with their efforts to make these materials 'disappear.'" Rider claims that the actions of his employer either have or are likely to cause injury to him and other members of the class. That injury includes a "significantly increased risk of contracting cancer and other diseases relative to what would be the case in the absence of exposure to known carcinogens." The lawsuit claims Empire knew or should have known about the asbestos in the plant and that there was a risk that the asbestos would be released into the air during the plant's conversion. The lawsuit (case number 1390-CC00284, in the circuit court of Jasper County, Missouri) seeks compensatory damages and medical monitoring for class members to determine whether exposure to the hazardous substances caused any illness. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Truck Loses Fibro on NSW Highway ------------------------------------------------- The Australian Associated Press reported that a truck has lost several tonnes of asbestos before crashing into a guardrail in Sydney's west, police say. According to the report, a Mitsubishi tipper truck was driving along the M7 at Eastern Creek before the crash unfolded. As it travelled along an off-ramp, the truck allegedly lost a load of asbestos waste, believed to be between three to five tonnes, and crashed into a cement guard rail. Emergency services closed the off-ramp while the asbestos sheeting was hosed down and contained. A police spokesman said whether the load of asbestos was secured or not would be part of an investigation. Police have warned motorists about the dangers of unsecured loads leading to accidents and serious injury. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Councillors Call for Answers Over Fibro Find ------------------------------------------------------------- Grimsby Telegraph reported that council bosses are facing awkward questions over their handling of the closure of Scartho Baths, in Grimsby. According to the report, the pool reopened on Oct. 11 after a three-week closure prompted by the discovery of asbestos dust in the main hall of the building. And although councillors voted overwhelmingly in favour of reopening the pool -- after air tests indicated it was safe to do so -- many demanded to know why the problem had not been identified before, the report related. They asked who had been responsible for inspecting the premises during the period between 2001 and April this year when SLM held the contract for running leisure centres in the borough. That responsibility has since been taken on by Lincs Inspire, a not-for-profit company set up by the council, and on whose board sits six elected members. Speaking at a full council meeting, Councillor Alex Wallace (Lab, Sidney Sussex) said: "It gives me no pleasure to say this but how did we get to this position in the first place? Like many in this room, I have worked with asbestos and I have seen the results of it. It's painful and it's disgraceful. "Were these premises never inspected prior to the SLM contract expiring? If not, why not? Who was responsible for the why not? Serious questions have to be answered here." Councillor Philip Jackson (Con, Waltham) said: "There is a question about who was responsible for the asbestos management plan and who was responsible for undertaking inspections. "Was it SLM under the contract they had with the council or did the responsibility still remain with NELC as the owners of the building? "I would like to see the evidence that those inspections were being undertaken. If they were being undertaken they were obviously being undertaken in an incompetent manner." Councillor Andrew De Freitas (Lib Dem, Park) said: "Someone has to bear the responsibility for this fiasco. "I share the grave concerns that if this material is still in that building we need to be very careful about how we go about letting the staff and members of the public back in." But Councillor Ian Lindley said his colleagues should be "ashamed of themselves" for "pointing the finger" calling for "heads to roll". He said: "Be thankful that we have highlighted a risk, isolated the risk, closed the pool and acted promptly." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thousands Stage Paris "Die-in" to Protest Risk --------------------------------------------------------------- Expatica.com reported that thousands of people staged a "die-in" in Paris over authorities' failure to clear workplaces of asbestos, which can cause fatal respiratory diseases after long exposure. According to the report, the protesters from all over France lay down in the street outside Sorbonne University in Paris's Latin Quarter to dramatise that asbestos exposure claims 3,000 lives per year, according to organisers. They had kicked off the march at the Tour Montparnasse, one of the city's few tall buildings, where inspectors have repeatedly found amounts of asbestos dust exceeding allowable levels, the report related. "Ten deaths each day, with no one held responsible or found guilty," one poster read; "For criminal proceedings on asbestos" read another in the march that ended at Paris's main courthouse. The National Association of Victims of Asbestos called the march, which was headed up by relatives of victims of asbestos exposure, mainly widows holding pictures of their husbands. The protest aims to "show the public and political officials that the victims of asbestos are still waiting for criminal proceedings," ANDEVA said in a statement. "It has been 17 years since we submitted the first complaints, and there has still not been a criminal trial," ANDEVA vice president Francois Desriaux told AFP. "The asbestos risk is not ancient history, it still exists today," he said. "The Tour Montparnasse should have been ridden of its asbestos years ago, but between owners going round the rules and lax police who have looked the other way and allowed the work to be postponed, they are continuing to play with people's lives," ANDEVA said. In August, Paris police threatened to evacuate the building, where some 5,000 people work. "Mobilisation is the only way to dent the authorities' passivity," said a woman who works for Amundi, a subsidiary of the bank Credit Agricole, which evacuated its employees from the building in June because of the danger of asbestos exposure. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Retired Shipyard Worker Sues Multiple Companies ---------------------------------------------------------------- Eliza Walker, writing for The Louisiana Record, reported that a retired shipyard worker who has been diagnosed with terminal cancer caused by asbestos exposure has filed suit against an array of asbestos miners, distributors and his former employers. According to the report, Robert Dixon filed suit against the 3M Company (The Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), Albert Bossier, the executive officer of Avondale Industries, Anco Insulations Inc., CBS Corporation, Dana Companies LLC, Eagle Inc., Ford Motor Company, Hennessy Industries Inc., Honeywell International Inc., Hopeman Brothers Inc., International Paper Company, The McCarty Corporation, Northrop Gruman Ship Systems Inc., Reilly-Benton Company Inc. and Taylor-Seidenbach Inc. in the Orleans Parish Civil District Court on Aug. 2. The plaintiff claims that he was exposed to asbestos several times during his career. From 1970 to 1973 he worked as a tacker and shipfitter at Northrop Grumman Ship System's Inc, formerly known as Avondale Shipyard's "Main Yard." From 1976 to 1982 he performed daily maintenance for George Engine Company in Harvey, for Leson Chevrolet from 1982 to 1987 in Harvey and from 1987 to date in Jefferson Parish. On Oct. 9, 2012, the plaintiff claims he was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, an incurable and terminal cancer caused by asbestos exposure. The defendants are accused of mining, manufacturing, selling, supplying, distributing and using products unreasonably dangerous and known to possess inherent dangerous properties with high potential for injury, failing to warn the plaintiff as to the hazards of their products in their foreseeable use, failing to provide safety instructions to eliminate or reduce risks associated with the products, failure to inspect truthfully or adequately report product testing and medical studies, failure to properly design, producing defective products, and failure to properly package their products. In addition, employers allegedly failed to provide Dixon with a safe place to work, adequate engineering or industrial hygiene measures to control the level of exposure to asbestos and failure to warn of associated hazards. An unspecified amount in damages is sought for medical costs, lost earnings, mental sufferings and reduced quality of life. The plaintiff is represented by Susannah Chester-Schindler of Waters and Kraus LLP of Dallas, Texas. The case has been assigned to Division D Judge Lloyd J. Medley. Case no. 2013-07234. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Lurks in Spots Around Fla. University ------------------------------------------------------------ Jeff Schweers, writing for The Gainesville Sun, reported that before renovation could begin at the Reitz Union this fall, workers in protective gear spent two hot summer months removing 9,050 square feet of asbestos-laden plaster coating from the Colonnade at a cost of $182,000. According to the report, the asbestos in the exterior coating was discovered during a mandatory inspection required before any renovation, remodeling or demolition work is allowed at the University of Florida. "Here at the University of Florida, we don't contain it -- we made a conscious effort to remove it," said Curtis Reynolds, vice president for business affairs at UF. The goal, he said, is to "minimize the risk of exposure for students, faculty and staff alike." As one would expect at a university with a large number of historic buildings, asbestos can be found all over the campus at dozens of locations. Even after spending more than $30 million over the past four decades removing asbestos deemed a health risk by state and federal standards, small amounts remain on campus -- mostly in out-of-reach, unoccupied locations such as steam tunnels and basements, and contained in materials such as lab tables and floor tiles. "I don't think there's a situation where we are exposing any workers, students, faculty and staff to asbestos," said Bill Properzio, director of Environmental Health and Safety at UF. Asbestos is a naturally occurring fibrous mineral that was commonly used in building materials during the 19th and 20th centuries for its low cost, strength, durability, soundproofing, and resistance to fire, heat and chemical and electrical damage. But when it became linked to asbestosis, cancer and mesothelioma, the federal Environmental Protection Agency developed regulations limiting the use of asbestos, especially in public buildings. During the 1980s, the Florida Legislature provided around $22 million to the state university system to remove or abate asbestos on campuses statewide, Properzio said. His office at UF has a $5 million annual budget and is responsible for administering all health and safety regulations, including asbestos control and abatement. "We removed a lot of asbestos, and we documented other asbestos that we could find that was not friable, meaning flaking off and causing problems," Properzio said. He said he didn't have a readily available number of how much asbestos was removed. By the time the Legislature stopped funding asbestos removal at the end of the 1980s, Properzio said, UF had removed all the most dangerous materials. What remains is an inventory of asbestos that is a problem only if it becomes broken or damaged, Properzio said. "Due to our initial abatements in the 1980s, and this periodic review we do, we don't have any unsafe asbestos conditions," Properzio said. "This is not something that's lurking out there. Only if you start tearing down walls and pulling up floors (can you) create a problem." UF's policy toward asbestos since then is akin to keeping a watchful eye on a sleeping dog: Inspectors monitor the condition of the remaining asbestos on campus, Properzio said. If it's in good shape, they leave it alone. If it's damaged, they hire a contractor to remove it. How much asbestos has been removed since the targeted funding disappeared would be difficult to calculate, Properzio said. "A lot of the cost for asbestos identification and removal, when required, was embedded in the overall project cost," he said. A lot of that work was performed by the Campus, Health Care, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences and Housing physical plants, and Environmental Health and Safety doesn't keep the files that have that financial information, he said. Tom Ladun, the industrial hygiene coordinator for UF, has kept track of those project costs since he was hired in 2005. Since 2005, UF has spent $7.76 million on abatement projects, not including jobs subcontracted under a general contractor or construction manager contract, he said. Once a year, around October and November, Ladun and a technician go around campus to check on the condition of the remaining asbestos. Their survey sheet has a list of 134 locations currently. They check floor tiles for wear and tear. They check for crumbling insulation in boiler rooms and steam tunnels. They sample plaster in library walls and fume hoods in chemistry labs. And they take notes about the condition of the material, whether the building has been renovated, and if repairs or removal is required. When they checked the floor tile at Van Fleet Hall, for example, inspectors noted the tiles were in good condition. But when they saw borderline insulation damage at Yon Hall, they went ahead and removed it, Ladun said, then labeled the new insulation as asbestos-free for future inspectors. That job cost just less than $3,000, he said. And when friable asbestos was found in the fireproofing in the Communicore basement two years ago, it was removed at a cost of $190,000. When a renovation, remodeling or demolition project is scheduled, UF hires an asbestos consultant to conduct a more thorough inspection -- pulling walls and lifting tiles to determine if any asbestos exists that could get broken up and airborne, potentially getting into people's lungs. The consulting costs vary by factors such as the size of the area surveyed, the scope of work and number of samples collected, Ladun said. A small, one-room project can cost between $1,000 and $2,000, he said, while larger projects can run more than $10,000. "Don't forget that the consultant is also sampling for lead paint and PCBs in caulking in buildings constructed prior to 1978, so that adds to the costs as well," he said. It was such an inspection that uncovered previously undetected asbestos in the Reitz Union Colonnade floor tile, caulking, pipe insulation and walls, Properzio said. "The big part was the textured coating on the exterior," he said. "That had never been sampled before, so it was a discovery. A lot of times we discover stuff we didn't know about." Once that happens, UF must hire a certified asbestos removal contractor, whose price can vary according to the size of the job and the material being removed. The $182,000 spent on the asbestos removal at the Reitz entailed the contractor putting up plywood containment walls to box off the Colonnade, setting up plastic tents and air monitors with negative air-filtration systems to keep asbestos from getting into the environment, and hauling the material off to a special landfill that handles asbestos. At one time, UF had in-house teams in almost every department, Ladun said. But because of budget cuts, the university lost its money for salaries and benefits and now hires outside contractors only as needed. "The cost of abatement came down so much that hiring a consultant is almost as cheap as having people on staff, and there is less risk," Ladun said. Upcoming projects include removing floor tile from the fourth floor of the Human Development Building in the Health Sciences Center this month, and the removal of three air handlers in the Dental Science Building in November, Ladun said. He said he hadn't received estimates for those projects yet. Also, IFAS has about a dozen small greenhouses around campus with shelves that contain asbestos, which will be removed whenever there is a break between research projects, he said. That will be handled using in-house staff. If inspectors come across more dangerous asbestos or if a major renovation is scheduled in a building with asbestos, that asbestos will be removed before it can cause any potential harm. "Asbestos is only an issue when it becomes airborne," said Ladun, who keeps a sealed vial of asbestos ore in his office. "Sitting on a table, it's not hurting anybody. Blow it up, and it has potential to get into the lungs and develop an asbestos-related disease." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mine Firm Questions Protester's Role as Geologist ------------------------------------------------------------------ Lee Bergquist of the Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel, reported that Gogebic Taconite is questioning what role a state employee played during a recent examination of a rock sample taken from the site of a proposed $1.5 billion iron ore mine in northern Wisconsin. According to the report, Jason Huberty, a geologist at the Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey and a frequent protester at the Capitol, testified against controversial mining legislation in 2012 that was written on behalf of Gogebic. Huberty was given the rock by a geologist at the Department of Natural Resources in July and, according to instructions by the top official of the geological survey, had no role in its analysis and carried it immediately to a co-worker for testing, the report related. The DNR said the rock was found to contain potentially harmful asbestos-like mineral fibers that, if widespread, could present the operator of a mine with questions about how to control airborne particles. Gogebic is proposing to construct an open-pit mine in Ashland and Iron counties that, over time, could extend for about 4 miles. "It raises questions about whether the survey is biased in this area," said Bob Seitz, a spokesman for Gogebic. The mining company is concerned that state officials hired Huberty knowing of his opposition to mining legislation, Seitz said. Huberty's areas of expertise, cited by the survey on its website, are in general geology, geochemistry, mineralogy, identification, and cores and samples. "That's pretty much us," Seitz said. The survey was founded in 1897 to "provide objective scientific information about the geology, mineral resources, water resources, soil and biology of Wisconsin," according to the agency's website. State Geologist James Robertson, director of the survey, said the examination of the rock sample was conducted properly, and he made sure that Huberty played no role. Huberty, who has a master's degree in geoscience from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, declined to comment. In February 2012, Huberty testified in opposition to mining legislation and expressed concern that waste rock would be regulated as if it didn't contain sulfides, which can wash off a mine site and harm local waterways through a process known as acid mine drainage. He told lawmakers he has a special interest in iron ore. "I probably know the most of these rocks than anyone in the room," he testified. At the time, Huberty had been on the job as a limited-term employee of the survey for about a week, Robertson said. He was hired full time about a year later, in February 2013, after a national search, because of his expertise in mineralogy and geochemistry. Robertson said he learned in June about Huberty's testimony on the mining legislation. "As soon as I found out, he was taken off the case, so to speak," Robertson said. "His usefulness on this one project has been negated because I'm not willing to even risk the perception that the survey is anything but objective." Cited for protesting On July 2, MediaTrackers reported that the geological survey had hired Huberty, citing his mining testimony and his numerous citations for protests at the Capitol, opposing the policies of Republican Gov. Scott Walker. The demonstrations have been taking place since early 2011. Huberty has received more than two dozen citations for protest- related activities at the Capitol, although some have been dismissed, according records provided by state Department of Administration. The rock sample was taken from Gogebic's proposed mining site on May 14 by geologist Philip Fauble of the DNR. Fauble and Huberty are acquainted and have similar interests in the field of geology, Robertson said. Two sets of tests -- a type of an X-ray and an analysis using a scanning electron microscope -- were performed on the rock by the survey and a UW-Madison laboratory. The tests showed that it contained grunerite and had a crystal structure that met the definition for asbestiform, according to Robertson. "It fits the definition of asbestos," said Ann Coakley, the top mining regulator for the DNR. If present, the problem could be possibly addressed in limits set in a state air permit, she said. The discovery has raised red flags by mining opponents, who say that the presence of asbestos-like material raises new questions about the environmental consequences of mining iron ore. Minnesota case On Minnesota's iron range, the link between asbestos and mining has long been debated. In the early 1970s, asbestos-like fibers were found in Duluth's water supply and were linked to taconite tailings from Reserve Mining Co. that were dumped into Lake Superior. In April, a long-awaited $4.9 million study by the University of Minnesota showed a link between an increased risk of contracting a fatal cancer known as mesothelioma and the length of time spent working in the iron ore industry. The main cause of the disease comes from exposure to asbestos. But the study failed to conclude that dust from taconite was the cause of mesothelioma. Researchers said future studies will examine the role of dust. More testing needed In Wisconsin, the next step is additional testing, Coakley said. That means core samples from from 13 drilling sites, some as deep as 5,800 feet. Eight have been drilled so far. Also, a process known as bulk sampling, which could start this winter to obtain iron samples, will provide additional samples. Seitz said he did not know when results will be available, but it's the type of information that will be part of a formal mining application. Based on the company's review of reports on the geology of the region, "we expect the minerals of the Gogebic iron range to be similar to those of Minnesota's Mesabi iron range," where some iron ore mined in the eastern portion of the range contains fibers, Seitz said in an email. But he said the shape of the fibers does not meet the regulatory definition of asbestos. Suzanne Baumann of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency agreed. "Fibers in the iron ore are found only the far eastern end of the Mesabi iron range," Baumann said in an email. "These fibers do not meet the regulatory definition of asbestos," because the fibers are much shorter. But she said that fiber emissions and water discharges from the mine there, Northshore Mining Co., are regulated. "The health risk of these fibers is not well understood, and there are no traditional health-based standards," she said. George Meyer is executive director of the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation and former secretary of the Department of Natural Resources. The wildlife group has not taken a stance on the mine but has opposed regulations backed by Gogebic that critics said rolled back environmental protections. Meyer said Gogebic's access to core samples from the 1950s by U.S. Steel should have shed light on the extent of asbestos-like grunerite in the area. "Why didn't they know anything about this? That's probably the nicest way of saying it," Meyer said. Gogebic, which has an option on the mineral rights of the land, has data from U.S. Steel core samples. But Seitz said none of it details the possible presence of asbestos and instead focuses on the iron content. William Cannon, an emeritus geologist from the U.S. Geological Survey, has hiked the region numerous times in his extensive study of the range. He said he didn't think the asbestiform grunerite is plentiful on Gogebic's site. "But it would be very hard to say that, categorically, it can't be there," Cannon said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Village Can't Act on Collapsing Building --------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Fries, writing for UticaOD.com, reported that a building near Sauquoit Creek, in New York, had a collapsed roof, one wall falling into the creek, and the other bowing out, ready to crumble as well. According to the report, these are the problems a passerby noticed recently that prompted him to contact Public Eye about 2230 Oneida St. in Clayville, concerned about public safety. "Driving home the other day, I saw a few children in close proximity of the building. It needs to be taken down!" the reader wrote. "I would much rather read your article and put pressure on who is responsible for this than read an article about someone being hurt." The issue The wooden structure, located across from Clayville Manor in the village, is owned by Utica resident Ryan Quinn and was purchased in November 2010. A call to the number listed for Quinn appeared to go to a fax machine. The 2013 tax rolls list Quinn as owing $4,195.89 in property taxes as of Jan. 31. Village Mayor Terry Dote said the roof collapsed in December 2012 from snow, "blasting the second floor walls, and a lot of it fell into the Sauquoit Creek." The village codes officer posted the building on Dec. 25, 2012, as unable to be entered or occupied. While some windows are boarded up, others on the first floor are broken and doors are not secure and hang wide open. Because of debris in the creek, the state Department of Environmental Conservation also has gotten involved. The future The village has reached out to Quinn "on many occasions to try and get him to close the building," Dote said, but they haven't heard from the owner. "The village doesn't have the funds to pursue litigation against the guy to get him to tear the building down," he added. "We're a tiny, little village; we have a very limited income." Dote said because of the age of the building and since no one can get in to do testing, the building is considered an asbestos hazard and must be demolished with consideration as such. State DEC officials said a letter was sent to the property owner Jan. 15 in regard to the debris in the creek, but nothing has come of things since. "We do feel we need to do another inspection of the site," said Stephen Litwhiler, DEC regional spokesman. Meanwhile, Dote said the village is doing what it can. But because of the lack of funds, especially with asbestos abatement costs, they're at a stalemate. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Berkshire Insurance Payments Criticized -------------------------------------------------------- Mark Greenblatt, writing for Scripps News, reported that for months, mysterious white flakes and construction dust fell on Nancy Lopez's desk in the Jackson County Courthouse in Kansas City, Mo. According to the report, no question the debris was worse after renovation crews worked. But really, the mess was getting out of hand. On that Monday in 1983, Lopez grabbed a rag and started dusting. The impeccably dressed young administrative assistant finished tidying her office and set to work. Unknowingly, she had brushed off her desk, into the air and into her lungs deadly asbestos fibers. Those tiny fibers stayed with Lopez for decades, and, in 2009, at age 54, she learned she was dying from mesothelioma, an asbestos- caused cancer. She sued the construction company and the county for negligence and punitive damages. Lopez didn't realize her suit would eventually pit her against the empire built by acclaimed investor and philanthropist Warren Buffett. Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc. of Omaha, Neb., has become one of the most powerful forces in asbestos and pollution litigation in the world. Berkshire's reach has grown so vast that if you or a loved one files an asbestos- or pollution-related lawsuit in America, like Lopez, you're likely to encounter a Berkshire subsidiary. Scripps interviewed more than 20 sources -- some confidential -- reviewed dozens of lawsuits and spoke with former insiders, who all allege the Berkshire-owned companies that handle its asbestos and pollution policies -- National Indemnity Co. and Resolute Management Inc. -- wrongfully delay or deny compensation to cancer victims and others to boost Berkshire's profits. In multiple cases, courts and arbitrators have ruled that the Berkshire subsidiaries' tactics have been in "bad faith" or intentional. Through 25 known deals, insurers like American Insurance Group, CNA Financial Corp. and Lloyd's of London have paid Berkshire to assume their risk for tens of billions of dollars in future asbestos and pollution claims. "I do believe we have the largest single exposure to asbestos and pollution claims of any insurer today," Berkshire Hathaway Reinsurance Division President Ajit Jain told Scripps via email. He and Warren Buffett declined repeated requests for interviews. Until Berkshire has to pay those claims, it can invest and potentially profit from the money. And it gets to decide when claims get paid. Lopez attorney Louis Accurso said the number of policies Berkshire's subsidiaries control could create a dangerous amount of influence over payouts to victims like his client. "Whenever there is a concentration of power like that you have enormous potential for abuse," Accurso said. Asbestos defendants often drag out court proceedings, Accurso said -- a strategy he called "delay, deny until they die." Juries, for their part, often award more money to sympathetic victims they can actually see on the stand. Nancy Lopez died before insurers controlled by Resolute "made a single offer," Accurso said. Like many mesothelioma victims, Lopez succumbed just 18 months after her diagnosis. "Of all the cases in my career, what happened and how that played out . . . gave me the most anger I can ever remember," said Accurso, who also delivered Lopez's eulogy. Dozens of large corporations are angry, too. Ford Motor Co., Estee Lauder Inc. and others allege wrongdoing by Berkshire-owned National Indemnity and Resolute. These companies bought commercial policies to protect against long-term claims for pollution and health-related problems linked to their products or services. They're suing for reimbursement of fines, legal fees and payments of injury claims. The idea of "float" is at the core of Berkshire's overall success. In short, float is the money an insurance company gets to hold between the time customers pay premiums and the time they make claims on their policies. And it is something that Warren Buffett celebrates in his well- known annual letters to shareholders. In his 2009 message he wrote: "Our float has grown from $16 million in 1967, when we entered the business, to $62 billion at the end of 2009." By 2012, that number had grown to $73 billion. Part of the growth has come from asbestos and pollution liability. Fifteen years ago, Berkshire started acquiring those policies because they offer so-called "long-tail float." Asbestos and pollution policies take a long time to pay out because the hazards they cover cause cancer and other illnesses that can take years or even decades to manifest. That allows Berkshire's money to stay invested longer and potentially generate bigger returns. In 2011, Buffett wrote to shareholders: "We will profit just as we would if some party deposited $70.6 billion with us, paid us a fee for holding its money and then let us invest its funds for our own benefit." It is this long-term float that is raising concerns. As a former claims executive, Robert Burns took his orders from Resolute. In August of this year, he testified in Estee Lauder's ongoing New York lawsuit that Resolute routinely based claims- payment decisions on the company's financial goals, not the merits of each case. Burns declined an interview. But Scripps exclusively obtained a copy of the recent video deposition in which Burns said under oath Resolute President Thomas Ryan set "targets" that were tracked by Berkshire executives. "The entire operation was driven by the target numbers," Burns testified. "They wanted to hit the projected numbers in the books of business so they could maximize their return on investment." Burns said company targets and projections ran 20 to 25 years into the future, designed for Berkshire to ensure its rate of return on its money. And he testified that Ryan told him those targets had to be hit for Ryan to get his bonus. Ajit Jain told Scripps, "Mr. Ryan, as well as others who work at the reinsurance division, are not paid based on a bonus structure; compensation is based on a fixed salary that is reviewed each year." Jain did not respond to questions about any additional forms of compensation or incentives Ryan received or may receive, and said Ryan declined an interview. Burns also testified that claims adjusters felt "extreme frustration" when bosses balked at paying what adjusters viewed as reasonable settlements. "We were told, 'You're not paying it. Find a way to avoid paying it.' " On one asbestos deal, Burns said, he was instructed "it was cheaper to litigate than pay." He gave similar testimony in a Massachusetts trial between Celanese International Corp. and Resolute over nonpayment of claims. In December 2009, the court ruled Resolute had committed a "willful or knowing" act that was "unfair or deceptive." The court awarded double damages against Resolute, a ruling Resolute did not appeal. In an email exchange with Scripps, Jain declined to say how many bad-faith allegations have been lodged or settled against Resolute, National Indemnity or the insurance companies they manage asbestos and pollution claims for. Berkshire's Jain said he was disappointed by the Celanese ruling, but insists "few insurance organizations have a higher reputational concern than we do. In administering these books, then, we need to be vigilant to pay valid claims, protect valid insurance policy defenses, and in the many instances where reasonable minds differ, seek to achieve reasonable compromises where possible." But in courtrooms across the country, there are allegations that Berkshire has little interest in compromise. In Kansas City, Charles Lute and two fellow building engineers sued the owner of the BMA Tower for injuries, after years of working around an asbestos-filled fire retardant they were told was "safe enough to eat for breakfast." Court documents say the building's owner, Liberty Life Insurance Co., wanted to settle and blamed Resolute when a mediated deal fell through. Resolute's offer was so low, court documents say, Liberty paid the three men at the higher level, without knowing if it would be reimbursed by its insurer. "Rarely in asbestos litigation are the injured victims and asbestos companies on the same side," New York asbestos attorney Joe Belluck told Scripps. In 2009, a New York court ordered a "prompt" payment to Estee Lauder. Three years later, Resolute cut a $5 million check. Estee Lauder attorney John Schryber in a June 2013 interview said the delay led N.Y. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Judge Carol Edmead to allow the cosmetics giant to add an allegation: one of "bad faith." "What's going on here is a very sophisticated, legally oriented regimen by insurance companies and a mastermind at business in Warren Buffett," said Schryber of Dickstein Shapiro LLP in Washington. In a 2010 California ruling in favor of Pepsi-Cola Metropolitan Bottling Co., U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson found a "pattern of delays" and no evidence justifying why claims weren't paid promptly. "I don't think there's anything wrong with making money as long as you do it fairly," said J. Robert Hunter, head of the Consumer Federation of America's insurance division and former Texas insurance commissioner. "Where the Buffett thing goes wrong -- the only way they're going to make money is to have them pay (claims) a little slower," Hunter said. He points to Buffett's 2006 letter to shareholders in which Berkshire's own chairman links the timing of claims payments to potential profits. "How will Berkshire fare?" Buffett wrote. "That depends on how much 'known' claims will end up costing us and how many yet-to-be presented claims will surface and what they will cost, how soon claim payments will be made and how much we earn on the cash we receive before it must be paid out. Ajit and I think the odds are in our favor." Hunter spotted another area of concern in Buffett's 2011 shareholder letter where he writes that Berkshire gets to invest the float "for our own benefit." Hunter says laws in most states require investment earnings from the float be used "to make policies cheaper for people buying insurance" and not go "to the benefit of the insurer, as Buffett seems to be bragging about." He cites a California rule that reads: " . . . the commissioner shall consider whether the rate mathematically reflects the insurance company's investment income." George Washington University law professor Lawrence Cunningham cautions that float is an "inherent feature" of insurance, and it's not unusual to see lawsuits in which policyholders or claimants say an insurer or claims administrator acted in bad faith by delaying payment. Cunningham, who is also a Berkshire shareholder and has edited several editions of "The Essays of Warren Buffett," said Berkshire corporate culture rests on "unwavering commitment to integrity." He said it would be "antithetical for the company to jeopardize that reputation by wrongfully delaying or denying claims or acting in any way inconsistent with faithful administration and payment of claims." According to Berkshire executive Jain, his division pays $1.4 billion annually for asbestos claims and expenses. And "as is the case with any insurance company, the vast majority of claims are settled without trials," he said. But Berkshire will be back in court in late October, this time against Ford Motor Co. over unpaid claims related to rollover deaths. Schryber represents Ford, but declined to answer questions about that case. Nancy Lopez spent most of her shortened life -- she died at age 56 -- working in the Circuit Court in Kansas City. At her funeral in October 2010, she was remembered as the "heart of the division." But she never got her own day in court. The money her attorney eventually won on Lopez's behalf went to her family more than a year after her death. ********* 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 * * *