/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150410.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, April 10, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 72 Headlines ACCESS THERAPIES: Motion for Sanctions in Panwar Case Junked ACCENTCARE INC: Mag. Judge Orders Further Briefing in Echevarria ADLER MURPHY: Faces "Heeringa" Suit Alleging Violations of ADA AMERICAN EAGLE: "Grimm" Class Settlement Gets Final Court Nod AMERICAN TITLE: Court Dismisses "Bushman" Suit ASSET PLUS: Faces "Janneh" Class Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA ATRIA SENIOR: "Edmead" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages BANK OF NEW YORK: 9th Cir. Won't Hear Appeal in "Eminence" Case BIO HEALTH: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, "Faualey" Suit Says BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: "Jekowsky" Class Deal Gets Prelim. Court OK BTC EVENTS: "Camacho" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime CARDO WINDOWS: "Adami" Plaintiffs Must Submit Estimate of Damages CERTAINTEED CORPORATION: Falsely Marketed Shingles, Suit Claims CONTINENTAL GROUP: Court OKs 3 Reports in "McLendon" Suit COOK COUNTY, IL: Court Dismisses "Saiger" Class Action COOPER VISION: Faces "Cristiano" Suit Over Lens-Price Fixing COOPER VISION: Faces "Ewald" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing COOPER VISION: Court Okays Accord Deferring Reply to Magnum Case DELUXE CORPORATION: Sued in Mo. Over Excessive Delivery Charge DINOSAUR RESTAURANTS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of FDCPA DOLLAR TREE: Court Permits Amendment of "Stafford" Complaint E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Sued Over Mismanagement of Investment Trade EASTERN ACCOUNT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ENCORE RECEIVABLE: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces Class Suit Alleging Violations of FDCPA EXTRA SPACE STORAGE: Court Rules on Bid to Dismiss "Gomes" Case EZCORP INC: Faces "Ward" Suit in Fla. Over Improper Loan Fees FINANCIAL RECOVERY: 11th Cir. Revives "Walker" Suit FMS INC: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y. FOGLE ENTERPRISES: "Anthony" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT FREESE AND GROSS: Class Certification of "Bridges" Suit Denied GENESIS INTERMODAL: Removes "Cabrera" Suit to C.D. California GLOBALTRANZ ENTERPRISES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime GLOW NETWORKS: Faces "Woodson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime HANOVER INSURANCE: April 13 Telephonic Conference Set in "Durand" HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES: Court Dismisses "Carter" Suit HMSHOST CORP: Fails to Pay Class for all Hours Worked, Suit Says HMSHOST CORP: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA IC SYSTEM: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, "Gorun" Suit Claims IMPLUS FOOTCARE: Sued Over Design Defects of Leverage Bars JP MORGAN: Court Issues Scope of Discovery in Lloyd Class Action JZANUS LTD: Suit Seeks Relief Under Fair Debt Collection Act K2 XPRESS: "Shabbir" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages LINCOLN LIFE: Sued in D.N.J. Over Alleged Shadow Insurance LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Berg" Suit in Cal. Over Toxic Flooring LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Guest" Suit Over Toxic Flooring LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Kelly" Suit Over Toxic Flooring LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Morris" Suit Over Toxic Flooring LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Said" Suit in N.Y. Over Toxic Flooring MARINA DISTRICT: Removes "Motwani" Suit to District of New Jersey MCKESSON CORP: Plaintiff's Bid for Sanctions Granted in Part MERRILL LYNCH: Faces "Orozco" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime MICHIGAN: Court Dismisses Inmate's Claims vs. Wilcoxson-Bey NARCONON REDWOOD: Falsely Marketed Programs, Suit Claims NATIONAL UNION: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Health Policies NCO FINANCIAL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims PEGASO CORP: Accused of Discriminating Against Pregnant Employee PHARMACIA CORP: Class Cert. Bid in Lexington Case Tossed PHARMACIA CORP: Court Wants Further Briefing on New Monsanto PHILIP MORRIS: Fla. Supreme Court Revives Jury Verdict in "Hess" PHILLIPS & COHEN: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act PORSCHE CARS: Faces "Chan" Suit Over Defective Dashboards PRIVATE EYES: Court Dismisses Mykytyak-Penning's FLSA Case REALPAGE INC: Sued in E.D. Pa. Over Inaccurate Consumer Reports REDISCOVER: "Jones" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages SAME DAY: Faces "Amaro" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Court Dismisses "Corban" Class Suit SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Sued Over Alleged Mistreatment of Orcas SHERMETA ADAMS: Obtains Initial Approval of "Roberts" Suit Deal SONY COMPUTER: Deadline to Respond to Ladore Case on April 23 SNC-LAVALIN ENGINEERS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages STEPHEN PHILPITT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims STEVEN COHEN: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y. STRATASYS LTD: Sued in Minn. Over Misleading Financial Reports THINKDIRECT MARKETING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages THOMSON SA: Court Orders Filing of Revised Notice of Settlement VETSPECS INC: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Action Claims WESTCONSIN CREDIT: McDonough, Eggen and Arnzen Consolidated WHIRLY WEST: Faces "Belfiore" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime YOUKU TUDOU: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Div. Denies Insurer Summary Judgment ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dutch Parent Co. Dismissed from Ky. Enviro. Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Atty Group Can File Amicus Brief in NY PI Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Inks Settlement in "Mann" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: $1.6-Mil. Verdict in "Kaenzig" Suit Affirmed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Venue of Aviva's Suit vs. Flintkote Transferred ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Workers' Suit vs. Philips Partially Dismissed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grainger's Bid to Junk "Brigantino" Suit Denied ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wis. Court Issues Records Protocol in 6 PI Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Grants BNSF's Writ of Mandate Petition ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Reports $681MM Non-PCC Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Chemical Had $513-Mil. Fibro Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Chemical Unit Had $79MM Fibro Receivables ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 41,100 Fibro Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Int'l Has $485MM Fibro Recoveries ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has 9,267 Unresolved Bendix Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l. Records $900,000 Fibro Expense ASBESTOS UPDATE: NewMarket Corp. Had $12-Mil. Fibro Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Units Continues to Defend PI Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Has 21,681 Unresolved Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Has $346-Mil. Fibro Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Continues to Defend PI Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Has 73,800 Fibro Claimants ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Disposed 109,500 PI Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navigators Group Has $10.2MM Fibro Reserves ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Has 13 Pending Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Reports $681MM Non-PCC Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Chemical Had $513-Mil. Fibro Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Chemical Unit Had $79MM Fibro Receivables ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 41,100 Fibro Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Int'l Has $485MM Fibro Recoveries ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has 9,267 Unresolved Bendix Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l. Records $900,000 Fibro Expense ASBESTOS UPDATE: NewMarket Corp. Had $12-Mil. Fibro Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Prison Terms Loom in Michigan Fibro Case ASBESTOS UPDATE: Children of Mesothelioma Victim File Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mo. Appeals Court Revives Courthouse Fibro Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lismore Man Fined for Dumping Toxic Dust ASBESTOS UPDATE: Indiana Court Refuses to Dismiss Fibro Action ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Dumped on Adelaide Beach ASBESTOS UPDATE: W. Va. Trust Transparency Bill Signed Into Law ASBESTOS UPDATE: Simmons Hanly Snags Ex-Weitz & Luxenberg Attys ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Super. Court Flips $14.5MM Fibro Verdict ASBESTOS UPDATE: South Oxhey Man to Pay GBP2,500 for Dumping ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Affirms Limit on Wrongful Death Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boeing Wins Fibro Case Due to Missed Deadline ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Suit vs. Carnival Corp. Considered a First ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trader Given Suspended Jail Sentence Over Fibro ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belluck & Fox Wins $4MM Verdict for Plant Worker ASBESTOS UPDATE: Athlone Fibro Victim Gets Money for Lung Cancer ASBESTOS UPDATE: Durham Council Agrees Pay-Out for Fibro Death ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Unit Denied Quick Win in Reinsurance Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boston Worker Dies from Fibro-Related Cancer ASBESTOS UPDATE: East Lansing Fined $21,500 for Safety Violations ASBESTOS UPDATE: States Bypass Congress on Bankruptcy Overhaul ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Case Exposes Fibro Blame Game ASBESTOS UPDATE: Law Firms Call for Stay on Fibro Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Steelworkers Filing Fibro Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Atty Helps Craft Genetic Mutation Defense ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firms Say Favoritism Plagues NYC Fibro Courts ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mont. Ct. Adopts Summary Judgment Recommendation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Watchdog Gave Wrong Info on Fibro in Homes ASBESTOS UPDATE: W. Va. Hospitals Close Lab After Fibro Find ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Teacher Gets GBP210,00 After Mesothelioma ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trust Claims Fibro Bill Good for W. Va. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metex Trust Now Accepting Fibro PI Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Took Life of Mum and Art Teacher ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Addresses Timeliness in Fibro Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Exposed to Fibro at Service Center ********* ACCESS THERAPIES: Motion for Sanctions in Panwar Case Junked ------------------------------------------------------------ RITURAJ SINGH PANWAR, MICHAEL RICHARD BAUTISTA AGUSTIN, Plaintiffs, v. ACCESS THERAPIES, INC., RN STAFF INC doing business as REHABILITY CARE, RAMON VILLEGAS, HARVINDER DHANI, MANUEL GARCIA, RAMON VILLEGAS, Defendants, CASE NO. 1:12-CV-00619-TWP- TAB, (S.D. Ind.) is before the Court on a motion for sanctions filed by plaintiffs, Messrs. Panwar and Agustin. Plaintiffs seek additional sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 against Defendants, Access Therapies, Inc., RN Staff (d/b/a/Rehability Care), Ramon Villegas, Harvinder Dhani, Manuel Garcia, and Ramon Villegas, for failure to produce e-mails from current and former employees and for allegations of witness tampering. In a ruling entered March 25, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/HqIE3Wfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions saying that even if the Court considers the allegations that Defendants engaged in witness tampering separate from their failure to produce responsive documents in discovery, the Court still finds that sanctions are not warranted. First, she said, Plaintiffs have not sufficiently proven that Defendants actually engaged in witness tampering. Second, and more importantly, the failure to receive the requested documents did not prejudice Plaintiffs, as the relevance of these documents has ultimately been rendered moot by the Court's prior rulings. RITURAJ SINGH PANWAR, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew P. Wirick - - awirick@humesmith.com -- HUME SMITH GEDDES GREEN & SIMMONS, Daniel Aaron Kotchen -- dkotchen@kotchen.com -- KOTCHEN & LOW LLP & Michael F. Brown, DVG LAW PARTNER LLC. MICHAEL RICHARD BAUTISTA AGUSTIN, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew P. Wirick, HUME SMITH GEDDES GREEN & SIMMONS, Daniel Aaron Kotchen, KOTCHEN & LOW LLP & Michael F. Brown, DVG LAW PARTNER LLC. ACCESS THERAPIES, INC, Defendant, represented by G. John Cento -- cento@centolaw.com -- CENTO LAW LLC. RN STAFF INC, doing business as REHABILITY CARE, Defendant, represented by G. John Cento, CENTO LAW LLC. RAMON VILLEGAS, Defendant, represented by G. John Cento, CENTO LAW LLC. HARVINDER DHANI, Defendant, represented by G. John Cento, CENTO LAW LLC. MANUEL GARCIA, Defendant, represented by G. John Cento, CENTO LAW LLC. RAMON VILLEGAS, Defendant, represented by G. John Cento, CENTO LAW LLC. ACCENTCARE INC: Mag. Judge Orders Further Briefing in Echevarria ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs filed the case captioned DEANNE ECHEVARRIA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ACCENTCARE, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 15- CV-00676-EDL, (N.D. Cal.) in superior court on January 7, 2015. Defendants removed the case on February 12, 2015, and on February 19, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration. On March 5, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, and the Court's docket clerk closed the case based on the Rule 41(a) notice. Plaintiffs also filed a Demand for Arbitration with the American Arbitration Association. On March 18, 2015, Defendants filed an administrative motion to clarify the status of the case. Defendants believe that this case should remain open and active because it could not have been closed without compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). A threshold question is whether Rule 23(e) applies to this pre-certification case. According to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte's March 26, 2015 Order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/atyoo7 from Leagle.com, "These cases arose in the context of settlements and stipulated dismissals, which may well pose a greater danger of harm to absent members of the putative class than under the circumstances here, where Plaintiffs dismissed the case with no agreement from Defendants, and continued to pursue the claims on behalf of the class through a demand for class arbitration. Therefore, it is even more unlikely that the Court's approval is required to protect absent putative class members here. Nonetheless, in light of the uncertainty, it is prudent for the Court to consider whether Plaintiffs' involuntary dismissal was appropriate under Rule 23(e)." Magistrate Judge Laporte added that the Court lacks sufficient information. Therefore, Defendants must file a brief, not to exceed five pages, and Plaintiff may file a response, not to exceed five pages, no later than today, April 10, 2015. The Court will take this matter under submission and will inform the parties whether a hearing is necessary. Deanne Echevarria, Plaintiff, represented by Ori Edelstein -- ori@ottingerlaw.com -- The Ottinger Firm, P.C. & Robert Walter Ottinger -- robert@ottingerlaw.com -- The Ottinger Firm, P.C. Robin Gail Hayes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and other aggrieved employees under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Plaintiff, represented by Ori Edelstein, The Ottinger Firm, P.C. & Robert Walter Ottinger, The Ottinger Firm, P.C. AccentCare, Inc., Defendant, represented by Max Fischer -- mfischer@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, Robert Joseph Kane -- rkane@stuartkane.com -- Stuart Kane LLP, Angela C. Zambrano -- angela.zambrano@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, Erica Corenne Parks -- eparks@sidley.com -- Sidley Aiston LLP & Joseph Christopher Cooper -- joseph.cooper@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP. AccentCare of California, Inc., Defendant, represented by Max Fischer, Sidley Austin LLP, Robert Joseph Kane, Stuart Kane LLP, Angela C. Zambrano, Sidley Austin LLP, Erica Corenne Parks, Sidley Aiston LLP & Joseph Christopher Cooper, Sidley Austin LLP. ADLER MURPHY: Faces "Heeringa" Suit Alleging Violations of ADA -------------------------------------------------------------- Aaron Paul Heeringa v. Adler Murphy & McQuillen LLP, Case No. 1:15-cv-02476 (N.D. Ill., March 23, 2015) is an action for damages to redress the alleged deprivation of rights secured to the Plaintiff by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Chicago, Illinois-based Adler Murphy & McQuillen LLP is a limited liability partnership engaged in the business of providing legal services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. Gonzalez, Esq. Jaz Park, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHICAGO-KENT COLLEGE OF LAW 565 West Adams Street, Suite 600 Chicago, IL 60661 Telephone: (312) 906-5079 Facsimile: (312) 906-5299 E-mail: rgonzale@kentlaw.iit.edu jaz.park@kentlaw.edu AMERICAN EAGLE: "Grimm" Class Settlement Gets Final Court Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge John A. Kronstadt entered a final judgment approving the class settlement negotiated in the lawsuit BRADFORD GRIMM, MARGARET MOONEY, AND DINESH PATEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN EAGLE AIRLINES, INC., and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. LA CV11-00406 JAK (MANX), (C.D. Calif.). The California District Court certifies the Class, defined as all current and former employees of American Eagle Airlines, Inc, employed in the State of California who worked in one or more Covered Positions (all Airport Agents, including "Reservation Agents," "Ticket Agents," "Gate Agents," "Customer Service Agents," "Baggage Service Agents," "Passenger Service Agents," "Operations Planning Agents," "Cargo Agents," and similar positions) from September 21, 2006 through September 29, 2014. On the Effective Date, Plaintiffs Bradford Grimm and Margaret Mooney shall be deemed to hold an Allowed Eagle General Unsecured Claim (as defined in Defendant's Fourth Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan filed in Defendant's and related debtors' voluntary cases under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York Case No. 11-15463 (SHL)) on behalf of themselves and the Class in the total amount of the Settlement Amount in Defendant's chapter 11 cases to resolve the Settled Lawsuit on a class-wide basis. The distribution mechanics shall be governed by the Plan. Because distributions on an Allowed Eagle General Unsecured Claim (as defined in the Plan) are made in common stock of American Airlines Group, Inc. (AAL), the ultimate dollar value of the Settlement will depend on the trading price of AAL, although the Service Payments, Class Counsel's costs, and Settlement Administration Costs shall at no time exceed the dollar amount approved by the Court in this Judgment. The Court finds that Harris & Ruble and the Law Offices of John P. Dorigan are qualified to represent the Class and confirms their appointment as Class Counsel. The Court grants Class Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees in the amount of 25% of the Settlement Amount, approximately some $100,000 depending on the value of AAL stock at the time of liquidation, and attorneys' costs in the amount of 2.99% of the Settlement Amount, approximately some $11,978 depending on the value of AAL stock at the time of liquidation (but which shall not at any time exceed $11,978). Class Representatives Mooney, Patel, and Grimm are to be paid in the amounts of 1.25%., 0.3125%, and 0.125%, respectively, of the Settlement Amount, which is approximately some $5,000, $1,250, and $500, respectively, depending on the value of AAL stock at the time of liquidation (but which shall not at any time exceed $5,000, $1,250, and $500, respectively), as Service Payments in recognition of their efforts in coming forward as Class Representatives and participating in the Settled Lawsuit. Settlement Administration Costs in the amount of 4.5% of the Settlement Amount, approximately some $18,000 depending on the value of AAL stock at the time of liquidation (but which shall not at any time exceed $18,000), will be paid to Rust Consulting, Inc. A copy of the California District Court's Final Judgment dated March 23, 2015 is located at http://is.gd/lLQklGfrom Leagle.com. Bradford Grimm, Plaintiff, represented by Priya Mohan -- pmohan@harrisandruble.com -- Harris and Ruble, D Alan Harris -- HarrisA@harrisandruble.com -- Harris and Ruble & John Patrick Dorigan, John P Dorigan Law Offices. Margaret Mooney, Plaintiff, represented by Priya Mohan, Harris and Ruble, D Alan Harris, Harris and Ruble & John Patrick Dorigan, John P Dorigan Law Offices. Dinesh Patel, Plaintiff, represented by Priya Mohan, Harris and Ruble, D Alan Harris, Harris and Ruble & John Patrick Dorigan, John P Dorigan Law Offices. American Eagle Airlines Inc, Defendant, represented by Donna Mo - dmo@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP & Robert J Hendricks -- rhendricks@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP. AMERICAN TITLE: Court Dismisses "Bushman" Suit ---------------------------------------------- District Judge George Caram Steeh granted defendants' joint motion to dismiss in the case captioned BRAD J. BUSHMAN, and TAMARA R. STAFFORD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY OF WASHTENAW, et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-10011 (E.D. Mich.). A proposed class action was brought by residential home sellers alleging defendants defrauded them and violated the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) when they listed real estate transfer taxes on HUD-1 settlement statement that allegedly were not due. Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In an order dated April 2, 2015, which is available at http://is.gd/rQLpunfrom Leagle.com, Judge Steeh dismissed plaintiffs' fraud claim as facially deficient, and plaintiffs' MCPA claim under that statute's exemption for certain claims against insurance companies. Brad J. Bushman, Tamara R. Stafford, Ryan Walsh, Sarah Walsh, Michael P. Jennings, Toby Jacoboni, and Jennifer F. Jennings, Plaintiffs, represented by Randal L. Schmidt -- randal@schmidtlawyers.com , Sempliner and Thomas & Scott M. Hare, Scott Michael Hare, Attorney at Law. Matthew Reynolds, Lisa Williams-Warren, Janet Graf, Heather Kupets Harris, Daniel Blugerman, Margaret Chamberlain, Jason Frank, and Dwight Pearson, Plaintiffs, represented by Randal L. Schmidt, Sempliner and Thomas. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, and First American Title Insurance Company, Defendants, represented by Derek Diaz -- ddiaz@hahnlaw.com , Hahn Loeser & Parks,LLP, Joseph E. Richotte -- richotte@butzel.com , BUTZEL LONG, P.C. & George B. Donnini -- donnini@butzel.com , Butzel Long. Stewart Title Guaranty Company, Defendant, represented by Gerard D. Kelly -- gkelly@sidley.com , Sidley Austin LLP, Kevin M. Fee -- kfee@sidley.com , Sidley Austin LLP, LeRoy L. Asher, Jr. -- asher@millercanfield.com , Miller, Canfield & Michael P. Coakley -- coakley@millercanfield.com , Miller, Canfield. Title Source, Inc., WFG National Title Insurance Company, Attorneys Title Agency, LLC, and Greco Title Agency, Defendant, represented by Michelle R.E. Donovan -- mdonovan@plunkettcooney.com , Plunkett & Cooney. American Title Company of Washtenaw, Defendant, represented by Michelle K. J. Taylor , American Title Company of Washtenaw. Capital Title Insurance Agency, Defendant, represented by Evan A. Burkholder -- evan.burkholder@leclairryan.com , LeClairRyan. Michigan Title Insurance Agency, Defendant, represented by Joseph P. Buttiglieri -- j.buttiglieri@kkue.com , Kemp, Klein & Kevin J. McGiness -- kevin.mcginess@kkue.com , Macuga Liddle & Dubin, P.C.. ASSET PLUS: Faces "Janneh" Class Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Salamatu Janneh, Lytia Johnson and Ashley Lauder, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Asset Plus Companies, LP, Asset Plus Corporation, Asset Campus Housing, Inc., Accord Human Resources, Inc., and Trinet Group, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00120-AWA-TEM (E.D. Va., March 23, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua Michael David, Esq. Nicholas Anthony Nunes, Esq. DAVID KAMP & FRANK LLC 739 Thimble Shoals Blvd., Suite 105 Newport News, VA 23606 Telephone: (757) 595-4500 Facsimile: (757) 595-6723 E-mail: jdavid@davidkampfrank.com nanunes@davidkampfrank.com ATRIA SENIOR: "Edmead" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Shevon Edmead, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Atria Senior Living, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv- 01552 (E.D.N.Y., March 25, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest under the Fair Labor Standard Act. Atria Senior Living, Inc. owns and operates more than 100 living assisted facilities throughout the United Sates. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd Dickerson, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES 1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 248-5550 Facsimile: (516) 248-6027 E-mail: td@employmentlawyernewyork.com BANK OF NEW YORK: 9th Cir. Won't Hear Appeal in "Eminence" Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Senior Circuit Judge J. Clifford Wallace of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant-appellant in the case captioned EMINENCE INVESTORS, L.L.L.P., an Arkansas Limited Liability Limited Partnership, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, a New York Banking Corporation, Defendant-Appellant, No. 15-15237 (9th Cir.). Plaintiff-Appellant Eminence Investors, L.L.L.P. (Eminence) originally brought suit in California state court against The Bank of New York Mellon (Bank). The Bank removed the action to federal court, but Eminence moved to remand the case to state court. The district court agreed with Eminence regarding the untimeliness of the removal and remanded the case to state court. On appeal, the Court of Appeals concluded that the securities exception under the Class Action Fairness Act applies to this case. In an opinion dated April 2, 2015 which is available at http://is.gd/i6vCGlfrom Leagle.com, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. David J. Bird (argued) -- dbird@reedsmith.com , James C. Martin -- jcmartin@reedsmith.com , Eric A. Schaffer -- eschaffer@reedsmith.com , and Benjamin J. Sitter -- bsitter@reedsmith.com , Reed Smith LLP, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Donald H. Glasrud -- dhg@dgmalaw.com , Dietrich, Glasrud, Mallek & Aune, Fresno, California, for Defendant-Appellant. Robert Branch (argued) -- rbranch@rbtlawfirm.com , Thornton Law Group, P.C., Fresno, California; Douglas V. Thornton -- dthornton@rbtlaw.com , Rummonds Thornton, LLP, Fresno, California, for Plaintiff-Appellee. BIO HEALTH: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, "Faualey" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shaun Fauley, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Bio Health Solutions, LLC and John Does 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-02544 (N.D. Ill., March 25, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of sending unsolicited facsimiles. Bio Health Solutions, LLC is a Nevada limited liability company with its principal place of business in Reno, Nevada and a distributor of a range of next-gen infection control & healthcare products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Wanca, Esq. Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Facsimile: 847-368-1501 E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com rkelly@andersonwanca.com BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: "Jekowsky" Class Deal Gets Prelim. Court OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order granting preliminary approval of the class settlement in the lawsuit BARRY JEKOWSKY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, and BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AG Defendants, CASE NO. 3:13-CV-02158-VC, (N.D. Calif.). For purposes of the Settlement, the Court conditionally certifies a Settlement Class defined as: All residents of the United States (including Puerto Rico), who currently own or lease, or previously owned or leased, a Class Vehicle. "Class Vehicle" is defined as: 2009 through 2012 model year BMW Z4 vehicles that were sold or leased in the United States or Puerto Rico to residents of the United States and Puerto Rico that were equipped with Class Wheels either as original equipment, or that a Class Member equipped with Class Wheels post-purchase. Barry Jekowsky is appointed as class representative and Kemnitzer, Barron & Krieg and Chavez & Gertler are appointed as class counsel. Gilardi & Co. is approved as the Claims Administrator to perform the duties set forth in the proposed Settlement Agreement. A final approval hearing will be held on October 29, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Vince Chhabria in California. A copy of the District Court's March 20, 2015 Order is available at http://is.gd/VrOsTGfrom Leagle.com. CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP, MARK A. CHAVEZ -- mark@chavezgertler.com -- Mill Valley, CA. KEMNITZER, BARRON, & KRIEG, LLP, BRYAN KEMNITZER, NANCY BARRON, ELLIOT CONN, San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff Barry Jekowsky and the proposed class. BTC EVENTS: "Camacho" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- Jose Camacho, Pedro Contreras, Joseph Russo, Jr., Danny Victoria on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. BTC Events, Inc., Leisure Time Tours of New York Corp., Mary Marsico, Daniel J. Frucher, Robert Fruchar, and John and Jane Does 1-100, Case No. 1:15-cv-02253 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees, and all other appropriate relief pursuant to Fair Labor Standard Act. BTC Events, Inc. is a New York corporation that provides event management services. Leisure Time Tours of New York Corp. is a New York Corporation that organizes luxury vacations during the Jewish holiday of Passover, as well as other Jewish holidays, for religious Jewish vacationers who follow Jewish religious practices, including kosher dietary laws. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Parkhurst, Esq. GILES LAW FIRM LLC 825 Third Avenue, 4th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (201) 577-2644 E-mail: jparkhurst@gileslawfirmllc.com CARDO WINDOWS: "Adami" Plaintiffs Must Submit Estimate of Damages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Jerome B. Simandle issued a conditional denial on Defendant's motion for summary judgment to the extent it is based on Plaintiffs' failure to provide a reasonable estimate of damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"), in the case captioned FRED ADAMI and JACK VARNER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CARDO WINDOWS, INC. d/b/a "Castle, 'The Window People'" et al., Defendants, Civil Case No. 12-2804 (D.N.J.). Plaintiffs brought this suit over Defendants' alleged misclassification of its window installers as independent contractors. Plaintiffs maintained claims for unpaid overtime and all other relief they are due under the FLSA, NJWHL, and the New Jersey Construction Industry Independent Contractor Act ("CIICA"), as well as a claim for unjust enrichment. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiffs' FLSA and NJWHL claims must fail for failure to present insufficient evidence to calculate damages. In his Opinion dated March 30, 2015 available at http://is.gd/BPzBMLfrom Leagle.com, Judge Simandle denied Defendants' motion for summary judgment to the extent it is based on Plaintiffs' failure to provide a reasonable estimate of damages under the FLSA and NJWHL, upon condition that each Plaintiff shall certify and serve his required Compilation of Estimated Overtime Hours and Damages within 30 days, or else, summary judgment will be granted. Richard S. Hannye, Esq., HANNYE LLC Haddonfield, NJ, Attorney for Plaintiffs. Kenneth S. Goodkind, Esq. -- ken.goodkind@flastergreenberg.com , Michael D. Homans, Esq. -- michael.homans@flastergreenberg.com , Rachel E. Licausi, Esq. -- rachel.licausi@flastergreenberg.com , Peter J. Tomasco, Esq., FLASTER GREENBERG P.C., Cherry Hill, NJ, Attorneys for Defendants. CERTAINTEED CORPORATION: Falsely Marketed Shingles, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Frank Amato, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Certainteed Corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-00408 (W.D. Pa., March 25, 2015), arises out of false and misleading packaging of the Shingles that are labeled Algae Resistant, when in fact, they were not Algae Resistant to yellow-green algae. They also prematurely changes color and stains under normal exterior conditions and natural, outdoor exposure. Certainteed Corporation is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. It design and manufacture exterior building products. The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Aaron Rihn, Esq. ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 707 Grant Street, Suite 2500 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 281-7229 Facsimile: (412) 281-4229 E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. Jason S. Rathod, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP 1625 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Suite 605 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 Facsimile: (202) 429-2294 E-mail: nmigliaccio@wbmllp.com CONTINENTAL GROUP: Court OKs 3 Reports in "McLendon" Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Senior District Judge Dickinson R. DeBevoise reviewed and approved three Reports and Recommendations filed by Special Master George L. Priest in the action CECIL McLENDON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE CONTINENTAL GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants. ALBERT J. JAKUB, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE CONTINENTAL GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants. ROBERT GAVALIK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE CONTINENTAL GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants, (N.J.). The action was settled through a Settlement Agreement dated December 19, 1990, pursuant to which settlement amounts were distributed in accordance with a Plan of Distribution. Special Master George L. Priest supervised the extraordinarily complex distribution process, complicated by the length of time required to effect distributions, the necessity to apply for FICA tax refunds, dispersal and deaths of class members. The Reports and Recommendations filed by the Special Master are: (1) the Second Supplemental Report and Recommendation of the Special Master with Respect to the Waiver of Certain Settlement Payments, (2) the Second Supplemental Report of the Special Master with Respect to Certain Class Members Overpaid during the Distribution of the Settlement, and (3) the Report and Recommendation of the Special Master with Regard to the Termination of the Settlement. In sum, a total of $418,047,492 was disbursed to class members and Special Settlement participants or successors; another $7,110,888 in tax refunds. A copy of the District Court's Order and Opinion dated March 26, 2015 is available at http://is.gd/gR0gCLfrom Leagle.com. Rose A. Wehner, Esq., Law Office of Rose A. Wehner PC, Chicago, IL, Attorney for Plaintiffs, Cecil McLendon, et al. John G. Jacobs, Esq. Jacobs Kolton, Chartered, Chicago, IL, Attorney for Plaintiffs, Cecil McLendon, et al. Roslyn Litman, Esq., The Litman Law Firm, Pittsburgh, PA, Attorney for Plaintiffs, Albert J. Jakub, et al. and Robert Gavalik, et al. Martha Helmreich, Esq., Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP, Pittsburgh, PA, Attorney for Plaintiffs, Albert J. Jakub, et al. and Robert Gavalik, et al. Fred H. Bartlit, Jr., Esq., Don Scott, Esq. Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP, Chicago, IL, Attorney for Defendants. Timothy J. Thalken, Esq., Fraser Stryker PC LLO, Omaha, NE, Attorney for Defendants. George L. Priest, New Haven, CT, Special Master. COOK COUNTY, IL: Court Dismisses "Saiger" Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Jorge L. Alonso issued a memorandum opinion and order on March 26, 2015, granting two motions to dismiss the amended complaint in the case captioned JOHN SAIGER, Plaintiff, v. THOMAS DART, Sheriff of Cook County, RONALD TOWNSEND, JORELLE ALEXANDER, and COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, Defendants, NO. 13 C 5495, (N.D. Ill.) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). John Saiger sued Thomas Dart, the Sheriff of Cook County; Cook County; Ronald Townsend, the chief dentist at the Cook County Jail; and Jorelle Alexander, the assistant director of oral health for Cook County Health and Hospital Systems, under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for their alleged violations of his Fourteenth Amendment rights. Defendants Dart, Townsend, and Alexander moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The amended complaint is dismissed without prejudice, wrote Judge Saiger in his order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/csol1Bfrom Leagle.com. Plaintiff is given leave to file by April 17, 2015 a second amended complaint that cures the deficiencies identified by the Court. This case is set for a status hearing on April 22, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. John Saiger, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick William Morrissey, Thomas G. Morrissey, Ltd. Thomas Dart, Sheriff of Cook County, Defendant, represented by Michael D. Warner, Cook County States Attorney's Office Daley Ctr. & Michael L. Gallagher, Cook County States Attorney's Office Daley Ctr. Ronald Townsend, Defendant, represented by Maureen O'Donoghue Hannon, Cook County State's Attorney's Office. Jorelle Alexander, Defendant, represented by Maureen O'Donoghue Hannon, Cook County State's Attorney's Office. Cook County, Illinois, Defendant, represented by Maureen O'Donoghue Hannon, Cook County State's Attorney's Office, Michael L. Gallagher, Cook County States Attorney's Office Daley Ctr. & Michael D. Warner, Cook County States Attorney's Office Daley Ctr. COOPER VISION: Faces "Cristiano" Suit Over Lens-Price Fixing ------------------------------------------------------------ Jennifer Cristiano, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Cooper Vision, Inc., Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Bausch + Lomb, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., and ABB Optical Group, Case No. 3:15-cv-02135 (D.N.J., March 25, 2015), alleges that the Defendants entered into a conspiracy to impose minimum resale prices on certain contact lens lines by subjecting them to so called Unilateral Pricing Policies (UPPs) and eliminate price competition on those products by big box stores, buying clubs, and internet-based retailers that prevent them from discounting those products. The Defendants are United States companies that are engaged in the business of making eye care products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC Two Gateway Center, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 Facsimile: (973) 623-0858 E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com - and - Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC 1521 Locust Street, 7th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: 267-519-8306 Facsimile: 215-569-0958 E-mail: sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com - and - Joseph LoPiccolo, Esq. John N. Poulos, Esq. POULOS LOPICCOLO PC 1305 Roller Road Ocean Township, NJ 07712 Telephone: 732-757-0165 Facsimile: 732-358-0180 E-mail: lopiccolo@pllawfirm.com poulos@pllawfirm.com COOPER VISION: Faces "Ewald" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Ewald, Jeffrey Robb, Erin Depperschmidt and Luis Padilla on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Cooper Vision, Inc., Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Bausch & Lomb Incorporated, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., and ABB/Con- Cise Optical Group LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-21181 (S.D. Fla., March 25, 2015), alleges that the Defendants entered into a conspiracy to impose minimum resale prices on certain contact lens lines by subjecting them to so called Unilateral Pricing Policies (UPPs) and eliminate price competition on those products by big box stores, buying clubs, and internet-based retailers that prevent them from discounting those products. The Defendants are United States companies that are engaged in the business of making eye care products. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Gravante III, Esq. Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 358-2800 Facsimile: (305) 358-2382 E-mail: jgravante@podhurst.com rjosefsberg@podhurst.com - and - Guri Ademi, Esq. Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: gadern¡@ademilaw.com sademi@adernilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com COOPER VISION: Court Okays Accord Deferring Reply to Magnum Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., signed on March 26, 2015, joint stipulation and order deferring defendants' time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint in STEPHEN MANGUM, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. COOPERVISION, INC.; ALCON LABORATORIES, INC.; BAUSCH + LOMB; JOHNSON & JOHNSON VISION CARE, INC.; and ABB/CON-CISE OPTICAL GROUP LLC, Defendants, CASE NO. 3:15-CV-01064-HSG, (N.D. Cal.). Pursuant to the court-approved stipulation, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/4CFHYAfrom Leagle.com, the Parties agreed that: 1. The counsel accept service of the Complaint for their respective clients named in the Complaint without waiver of any defenses; 2. Defendants are not required to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' complaint in the action until 60 days after a consolidated amended complaint is filed in In re: Disposable Contact Lens Litigation (MDL No. 2626) in a transferee court (the Response Date). 3. If Defendants are required to answer or otherwise respond to any other class action complaint in a related action on a date prior to the Response Date, Defendants will answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint in this action on the same date as in the related class action. 4. If Defendants respond to any formal or informal discovery requests or make any initial disclosures in a related class action, Defendants will provide the same response and/or initial disclosures to Plaintiffs in this action on the same date as in the related class action (without prejudice to the position of any party about when discovery should begin). Daniel J. Mogin -- dmogin@moginlaw.com -- Jodie M. Williams -- jwilliams@moginlaw.com -- THE MOGIN LAW FIRM, P.C., San Diego, CA, Counsel for Plaintiffs. William F. Cavanaugh, Jr. -- wfcavanaugh@pbwt.com -- PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP, New York, New York, Attorneys for Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. Elizabeth L. Deeley -- elizabeth.deeley@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, San Francisco, California, Attorneys for ABB/Con-Cise Optical Group LLC. Evan R. Chesler -- echesler@cravath.com -- David R. Marriott -- dmarriott@cravath.com -- CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE LLP, Worldwide Plaza, New York, NY, Thomas B. Mayhew -- tmayhew@fbm.com -- FARELLA BRAUN & MARTEL LLP, San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Alcon Laboratories, Inc. James P. Schaefer -- james.schaefer@skadden.com -- SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP, Palo Alto, California, Attorneys for Bausch + Lomb Incorporated. Daniel M. Wall -- dan.wall@lw.com -- LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for CooperVision, Inc. DELUXE CORPORATION: Sued in Mo. Over Excessive Delivery Charge -------------------------------------------------------------- Kay Catlin v. Deluxe Corporation, Case No. 4:15-cv-00522 (E.D. Mo., March 24, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's practice of charging excessive, deceptive, unfair and unethical fees for delivery of new and replacement checks. Deluxe Corporation sells checks to account holders at various banks in Illinois and with its principal place of business at 3680 Victoria St. N., Shoreview, MN 55126. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard S. Cornfeld, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD S. CORNFELD 1010 Market Street, Suite 1720 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-5799 Facsimile: (314) 241-5788 E-mail: rcornfeld@cornfeldlegal.com - and - Anthony S. Bruning, Esq. Anthony S. Bruning Jr., Esq. LERITZ, PLUNKERT & BRUNING, P.C. 555 Washington Avenue, Suite 600 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 231-9600 Facsimile: (314) 231-9480 E-mail: ajbruning@leritzlaw.com DINOSAUR RESTAURANTS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ashley Hankins, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Dinosaur Restaurants, LLC, JLN- Store, Inc. f/k/a Dino-Store Inc., Soros Strategic Partners LP, and John Stage, Case No. 1:15-cv-02272 (S.D.N.Y., March 26, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate Dinosaur BBQ Restaurants in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Scott Schaffer, Esq. Frank Joseph Mazzaferro, Esq. Nicholas Paul Melito, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 Facsimile: (212) 481-1333 E-mail: bschaffer@fslawfirm.com fmazzaferro@fslawfirm.com nmelito@fslawfirm.com DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of FDCPA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Efraim Schwartz, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Diversified Consultants, Inc. d/b/a Diversified Consultants International, Case No. 1:15-cv-01521 (E.D.N.Y., March 23, 2015) is brought pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com DOLLAR TREE: Court Permits Amendment of "Stafford" Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller granted in part plaintiff's motion for leave to file a third amendment complaint in the case captioned RICHARD STAFFORD, Plaintiff, v. DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant, No. 2:13-CV-01187- KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal.). A complaint was filed by Jay Narvaez and Lisa Hornsby alleging a number of wage and hour class claims and a Private Attorney General Act claim against Dollar Tree. A first amended complaint was filed on January 7, 2013 adding Richard Stafford as a plaintiff. On February 12, 2013, Stafford filed a second amendment complaint removing the class claims and alleging several claims stemming from his work as an assistant manager at a Dollar Tree Store. On December 31, 2014, Stafford filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint to which Defendant filed an opposition. In an order dated March 31, 2015 available at http://is.gd/fgmFYE from Leagle.com, Judge Mueller granted plaintiff leave to amend to allow plaintiff to plead additional facts to support the claims as pled in the second amended complaint. However, to the extent plaintiff seeks to add a claim for violation of Labor Code Sec. 2802, the court found that claim is barred for failure to exhaust, and barred plaintiff's motion as to that claim. Richard Stafford, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Erasto Jaramillo, GrahamHollis APC, Brian R. Short -- bshort@grahamhollis.com , Graham Hollis, A.p.c. & Graham S.P. Hollis -- ghollis@grahamhollis.com , GrahamHollis, APC. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lindbergh Porter, Jr. -- lporter@littler.com , Littler Mendelson, Alison Jacquelyn Cubre -- acubre@littler.com , Littler Mendelson, P.C., Barbara Allyn Blackburn -- bblackburn@littler.com , Littler Mendelson, Constance E. Norton -- cnorton@littler.com , Littler Mendelson, P.c. & Tarun Mehta -- tmehta@littler.com , Littler Mendelson P.C. E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Sued Over Mismanagement of Investment Trade -------------------------------------------------------------- TY Rayner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. E*Trade Financial Corporation and E*Trade Securities LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-01384 (N.D. Cal., March 25, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for breach of their duty of best execution when routing a specific type of investment trade for execution on behalf of its customers, specifically by failing to put the interests of its customers ahead of its own and to use reasonable diligence so that the resultant price to the customer is as favorable as possible. The Defendants own and operate a financial services company that provides brokerage and related products and services primarily to individual retail investors. The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy G. Blood, Esq. Thomas J. O'reardon II, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP 701 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338-1100 Facsimile: (619) 338-1101 E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com toreardon@bholaw.com - and - Brian J. Robbins, Esq Kevin A. Seely, Esq. Ashley P. Palmer, Esq. Leonid Kandinov, Esq. ROBBINS ARROYO LLP 600 B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 525-3990 Facsimile: (619) 525-3991 E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com kseely@robbinsarroyo.com apalmer@robbinsarroyo.com lkandinov@robbinsarroyo.com - and - John K. Landay, Esq. Malcolm B. Roberts, Esq. LANDAY ROBERTS LLP 450 J. Street, Unit 5291 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (805) 305-3384 E-mail: jlanday@landayroberts.com mroberts@landayroberts.com EASTERN ACCOUNT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Edward Specht, an individual; on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Eastern Account System of Connecticut, Inc., a Connecticut Corporation; Joseph P. Courtney, Jr., individually and in his official capacity; and John and Jane Does Numbers 1 Through 20, Case No. 7:15-cv-02159-KMK (S.D.N.Y., March 23, 2015) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Abraham Kleinman, Esq. KLEINMAN LLC 626 RexCorp Plaza Uniondale, NY 11556-0626 Telephone: (516) 522-2621 Facsimile: (888) 522-1692 E-mail: akleinman@kleinmanllc.com ENCORE RECEIVABLE: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Phanibhushan Tadepalli, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Encore Receivable Management, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01517 (E.D.N.Y., March 23, 2015) seeks relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces Class Suit Alleging Violations of FDCPA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Blimie Schwartz, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-01518 (E.D.N.Y., March 23, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com EXTRA SPACE STORAGE: Court Rules on Bid to Dismiss "Gomes" Case --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Katharine S. Hayden granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss several of the Plaintiff's claims in his amended complaint in the case captioned STEVEN R. GOMES, JR. on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EXTRA SPACE STORAGE, INC. And EXTRA SPACE STORAGE MANAGEMENT, INC., and JOHN DOE COMPANIES 1-50, Defendants, Civil No. 13-0929 (KSH)(CLW)(D.N.J.). Steven R. Gomes, Jr. filed a class action complaint alleging that the terms of the rental agreement that he entered into with defendants, and a Notice of Lien and Foreclosure, which he received from them, violated various statutes. Gomes further alleged that defendants neglected to follow the prescribed procedure before selling his property for his non-payment of rent. In an Opinion dated March 31, 2015 available at http://is.gd/6sTSgOfrom Leagle.com, Judge Hayden granted in part and dismissed in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. CASSANDRA DICRISTI, GARY LANIGAN, KENNETH NELSON, DONNA SWEENEY, CRYSTAL RAUPP, Defendants, represented by GREGORY R. BUENO, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. EZCORP INC: Faces "Ward" Suit in Fla. Over Improper Loan Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Peter Ward, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EZCorp, Inc., and Value Financial Services, Inc. Case No. 6:15-cv-00474 (M.D. Fla., March 24, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's unlawful conduct of charging improper fees upon repayment of loan. EZCorp, Inc. owns and operates chains of retail pawnshops throughout the United States. Value Financial Services, Inc. owns and operates a chain of pawnshop in the states of Florida and Georgia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Hans Crumley, Esq. CRUMLEY & WOLFE, PA 2254 Riverside Ave Jacksonville, FL 32204 Telephone: (904) 374-0111 Facsimile: (904) 374-0113 E-mail: ben@cwbfl.com - and - W. Craft Hughes, Esq. Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP 2700 Post Oak Blvd., Ste. 1120 Galleria Tower I Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 554-2377 Facsimile: (888) 995-3335 E-mail: craft@hughesellzey.com jarrett@hughesellzey.com FINANCIAL RECOVERY: 11th Cir. Revives "Walker" Suit --------------------------------------------------- In TAMIKO P. WALKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FINANCIAL RECOVERY SERVICES, INC., BRIAN CHARLES BOWERS, JOHN DOE, Defendants- Appellees, NO. 14-13769, NON-ARGUMENT CALENDAR, Tamiko P. Walker appeals the district court's order granting Financial Recovery Services, Inc.'s (FRS) motion to dismiss for lack of subject- matter jurisdiction. Walker argues that the district court improperly found her case to be moot after she received and rejected an offer of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68. The district court based its finding on an offer that would have provided her complete relief on her individual claims while giving no relief to the putative class. "Because the district court contravened our recent decision in Stein v. Buccaneers Limited Partnership, 772 F.3d 698 (11th Cir. 2014), we reverse . . . the order of dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion," ruled the United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit on March 27, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/8CCVIffrom Leagle.com. FMS INC: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- Sara Kacenberg, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. FMS Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01519 (E.D.N.Y., March 23, 2015) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com FOGLE ENTERPRISES: "Anthony" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Mikkayla Anthony, Tammy Deware, Sonia Kellett, Tony Kellett, Kristen Patterson, Donnie Talley, Tim Wesolek, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated v. Fogle Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-03130 (W.D. Mo., March 26, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Fogle Enterprises, Inc. owns and operates several restaurants in Branson, Missouri. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric S. Johnson, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY One Court Street Alton, IL 62002 Telephone: (618) 259-6275 Facsimile: (618) 259-2251 E-mail: ejohnson@simmonsfirm.com FREESE AND GROSS: Class Certification of "Bridges" Suit Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Tomm S. Lee denied class certification of the action MARY BRIDGES, BOBBY GORDON, AND JOHNNIE GRIFFIN, ALL INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF 345 OTHER NAMED PLAINTIFFS, Plaintiffs, v. RICHARD A. FREESE; TIM K. GOSS; SHEILA M. BOSSIER; DENNIS C. SWEET, III; FREESE AND GOSS PLLC; SWEET AND FREESE PLLC; BOSSIER AND ASSOCIATES PLLC; AND DENNIS C. SWEET, D/B/A SWEET AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC, Defendants, v. DON A. MITCHELL, Third-Party Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13CV457TSL-JCG, (S.D. Miss.) Plaintiffs Mary Bridges, Bobby Gordon and Johnnie Griffin, along with 345 others, were previously represented by defendants Freese, Goss, Sweet and Bossier (and their respective law firms) and by third-party defendant Don Mitchell in three separate lawsuits brought against, inter alia, BorgWarner Corporation, in which the plaintiffs sought to recover damages for injuries they claimed to have suffered as the result of the alleged release and improper disposal and elimination of those certain toxic chemicals (polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs) at a Crystal Springs manufacturing facility. Plaintiffs' counsel ultimately reached a global settlement of nearly $28,000,000 with BorgWarner on behalf of the 348 plaintiffs (Filed Claimants), and on behalf of an additional 2,471 clients (Unfiled Claimants) who were not plaintiffs in the PCB litigation but who also claimed they were injured from exposure to PCBs. The terms of the settlement were finalized in mid-2010 and in early 2011, defendants began the process of disbursing settlement funds to the PCB claimants, filed and unfiled. On July 23, 2013, plaintiffs Bridges, Gordon and Griffin filed the present lawsuit for themselves and on behalf of a putative class comprised of the other 345 former clients represented by defendants, asserting myriad claims relating to defendants' representation of plaintiffs in the PCB litigation, with particular reference to their handling of litigation expenses and disbursement of settlement proceeds. The complaint purports to set forth claims for breach of fiduciary duty, tortious breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, conversion, tortious interference with contract, unjust enrichment and bad faith based on allegations that defendants failed to properly allocate litigation expenses among the Filed and Unfiled Claimants; charged plaintiffs expenses that were exorbitant and unreasonable; converted funds from the PCB settlement for their own personal and unjust benefit; had an undisclosed conflict of interest related to their ongoing representation of the State of Mississippi for recovery of Medicaid and Medicare liens in other mass tort litigation, while at the same time negotiating the PCB plaintiffs' Medicaid and Medicare liens; improperly paid expenses and fees to themselves before disbursing settlement funds to plaintiffs; and unreasonably delayed payment to plaintiffs so as to use the settlement funds to further defendants' own monetary interests. Among other things, the Court concludes that the named plaintiffs are not adequate class representatives. A copy of the District Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 26, 2015 is available at http://is.gd/NbZxClfrom Leagle.com. Mary Bridges, Plaintiff, represented by Charles R. McRae, CHUCK MCRAE LAW OFFICE & Shane F. Langston, LANGSTON & LANGSTON, PLLC. Bobby Gordon, Plaintiff, represented by Charles R. McRae, CHUCK MCRAE LAW OFFICE & Shane F. Langston, LANGSTON & LANGSTON, PLLC. Johnnie Griffin, Plaintiff, represented by Charles R. McRae, CHUCK MCRAE LAW OFFICE & Shane F. Langston, LANGSTON & LANGSTON, PLLC. Richard A. Freese, Defendant, represented by Jesse Allan Okiror, BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, Mikel J. Bowers, BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, Christopher J. Schwegmann, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER & COX, LLP, Jeffrey M. Tillotson, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER & COX, LLP, Martin Patrick McDowell, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC, R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Robert Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC. Tim K. Goss, Defendant, represented by Jesse Allan Okiror, BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, Mikel J. Bowers, BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC, Christopher J. Schwegmann, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER & COX, LLP, Jeffrey M. Tillotson, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER & COX, LLP, Martin Patrick McDowell, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Robert Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC. Sheila M. Bossier, Defendant, represented by Jesse Allan Okiror, BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, Mikel J. Bowers, BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC, Christopher J. Schwegmann, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER & COX, LLP, Jeffrey M. Tillotson, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER & COX, LLP, Martin Patrick McDowell, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Robert Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC. Dennis C. Sweet, III, Defendant, represented by Jesse Allan Okiror, BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, Mikel J. Bowers, BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC, Christopher J. Schwegmann, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER & COX, LLP, Jeffrey M. Tillotson, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER & COX, LLP, Martin Patrick McDowell, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Robert Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC. Freese and Goss PLLC, Defendant, represented by Jesse Allan Okiror, BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, Mikel J. Bowers, BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC, Christopher J. Schwegmann, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER & COX, LLP, Jeffrey M. Tillotson, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER & COX, LLP, Martin Patrick McDowell, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Robert Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC. Sweet and Freese PLLC, Defendant, represented by Jesse Allan Okiror, BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, Mikel J. Bowers, BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC, Christopher J. Schwegmann, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER & COX, LLP, Jeffrey M. Tillotson, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER & COX, LLP, Martin Patrick McDowell, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Robert Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC. Bossier and Associates PLLC, Defendant, represented by Jesse Allan Okiror, BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, Mikel J. Bowers, BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC, Christopher J. Schwegmann, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER & COX, LLP, Jeffrey M. Tillotson, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER & COX, LLP, Martin Patrick McDowell, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Robert Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC. Dennis C. Sweet, Defendant, represented by Jesse Allan Okiror, BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, Mikel J. Bowers, BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC, Christopher J. Schwegmann, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER & COX, LLP, Jeffrey M. Tillotson, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER & COX, LLP, Martin Patrick McDowell, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Robert Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC. Don A. Mitchell, Defendant, represented by J. Wyatt Hazard, DANIEL, COKER, HORTON & BELL, Jesse Allan Okiror, BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, Mikel J. Bowers, BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP & Christy Vinson Malatesta, DANIEL, COKER, HORTON & BELL. James W. Shelson, Material Witness, represented by Fred L. Banks, Jr., PHELPS DUNBAR, LLP. Freese and Goss PLLC, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Robert Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC. Richard A. Freese, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Robert Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC. Sheila M. Bossier, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Robert Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC. Sweet and Freese PLLC, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Robert Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC. Dennis C. Sweet, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Robert Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC. Tim K. Goss, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Robert Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC. Bossier and Associates PLLC, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Robert Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC. Dennis C. Sweet, III, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Robert Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC. Don A. Mitchell, Third Party Defendant, represented by J. Wyatt Hazard, DANIEL, COKER, HORTON & BELL & Christy Vinson Malatesta, DANIEL, COKER, HORTON & BELL. GENESIS INTERMODAL: Removes "Cabrera" Suit to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Jorge Cabrera v. Genesis Intermodal Delivery Inc., et al., Case No. RIC1408897, was removed from the Riverside Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Eastern Division - Riverside). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-00551-CAS-MRW to the proceeding. The lawsuit arose from labor-related dispute. The Plaintiff is represented by: Vincent Charles Granberry, Esq. Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI AND EBRAHIMIAN LLP 8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 E-mail: vgranberry@lelawfirm.com jlavi@lelawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Christopher Chad McNatt, Jr., Esq. SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON AND FEARY LLP 2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 460 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (626) 795-4700 Facsimile: (626) 795-4790 E-mail: cmcnatt@scopelitis.com GLOBALTRANZ ENTERPRISES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher R. Bush, Rafael E. Andrade, Dallas A. Germundson, Garret P. Decker, Anton R. J. Beltran, Caryn R. Gangi, Samuel D. Untalasco, and Thomas B. Brown, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Globaltranz Enterprises, Inc., Andrew J. Leto, and Michael Leto, Case No. 2:15-cv-00536 (D. Ariz., March 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest under the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a logistics company specializing in freight management services that maintain agents for the transaction of its customary business in Maricopa County, Arizona. The Plaintiff is represented by: Clifford Phillip Bendau II, Eq. BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC 6350 E Thomas Rd., Ste. 330 Scottsdale, AZ 85251 Telephone: (480) 296-7887 Facsimile: (480) 429-3679 E-mail: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com GLOW NETWORKS: Faces "Woodson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- James Woodson, on behalf of himself and others similarly-situated v. Glow Networks, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00942 (N.D. Tex., March 25, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Glow Networks, Inc. is a Texas corporation that is engaged in the business of installation and maintenance services of D/C and A/C power and telecommunication services. The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Derek Braziel, Esq. LEE & BRAZIEL LLP 1801 Lamar Blvd, Suite 325 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 749-1400 Facsimile: (214) 749-1010 E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com HANOVER INSURANCE: April 13 Telephonic Conference Set in "Durand" ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge H. Brent Brennenstuhl stayed Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the case captioned JENNIFER A. DURAND, et al. Plaintiffs, v. THE HANOVER INSURANCE GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:07CV-00130-HBB (W.D. Ky.). A class suit was filed against The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc. challenging the Defendants' methodology for calculating lump sum distributions between March 1, 1997 and August 17, 2006 which allegedly resulted in an underpayment of accrued benefits. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. Plaintiffs strongly opposed the appropriateness of Defendants filing this motion and, instead of responding, filed a motion to confirm the case management plan and defer briefing on Defendants' summary judgment motion. In a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated April 1, 2015 available at http://is.gd/W1hKDxfrom Leagle.com, the Court found that much of the disagreement between the parties arose because there is no scheduling order outlining discovery and motion practice on the remaining claims. The Court thereby ordered that it will conduct a telephonic conference with the parties on April 13, 2015, at 10:00 AM (CDT) to put a new scheduling order into place. It further ordered that Defendants' motion for summary judgment is stayed pending completion of limited discovery on the statute of limitations issue, the deadline for which will be established during the telephonic scheduling conference. Jennifer A. Durand, On behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Albert Huang, Gottesdiener Law Firm, PLLC, E. Douglas Richards, E. Douglas Richards, PSC, Eli Gottesdiener, Gottesdiener Law Firm, PLLC, Matthew C. Norgard, Gottesdiener Law Firm, PLLC & Steven D. Cohen, Gottesdiener Law Firm, PLLC. Walter J. Wharton, and Michael A. Tedesco, Plaintiffs, represented by Albert Huang, Gottesdiener Law Firm, PLLC, Eli Gottesdiener, Gottesdiener Law Firm, PLLC, Matthew C. Norgard, Gottesdiener Law Firm, PLLC & Steven D. Cohen, Gottesdiener Law Firm, PLLC. The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., and The Allmerica Financial Cash Balance Pension Plan, Defendants, represented by Alan S. Gilbert -- alan.gilbert@dentons.com , Dentons US LLP, Angela Logan Edwards -- angela.edwards@dinsmore.com , Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, Stephen J. O'Brien, Dentons US LLP, Jeffery S. Davis, Dentons US LLP, Lisa D. Hughes, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP & Richard H.C. Clay -- richard.clay@dinsmore.com , Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES: Court Dismisses "Carter" Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Chief District Judge Frank P. Geraci, Jr. dismissed the Complaint with prejudice in the case captioned MARISSA CARTER, EVELYN GRYS, BRUCE CURRIER, SHARON KONING, SUE BEEHLER, MARSHA MANCUSO, and JACLYN CUTHBERTSON, as individuals and as representatives of the classes, Plaintiffs, v. HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, THE ROCHESTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, THE UNITY HOSPITAL OF ROCHESTER, and F.F. THOMPSON HOSPITAL, INC., Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-6275-FPG (W.D.N.Y.). A putative class action lawsuit was filed alleging that the Defendants overcharged individuals in New York State who requested copies of their medical records. Plaintiffs brought claims for money damages under New York Public Health Law, under New York General Business Law, and for unjust enrichment. In a decision and order dated March 31, 2015 which is available at http://is.gd/L5vLPXfrom Leagle.com, the Court found that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish their standing to sue in this case and granted the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. Marissa Carter, Evelyn Grys, Bruce Currier, Sharon Koning, Sue Beehler, and Marsha Mancuso, Plaintiffs, represented by David J. Carrier -- dcarrier@nka.com , Nichols Kaster, PLLP, Kai H. Richter -- krichter@nka.com , Nichols Kaster, PLLP, Kathryn Lee Bruns -- kbruns@faraci.com , Faraci Lange LLP & Stephen G. Schwarz -- sschwarz@faraci.com , Faraci Lange LLP. Jaclyn Cuthbertson, Plaintiff, represented by Kai H. Richter, Nichols Kaster, PLLP, Kathryn Lee Bruns, Faraci Lange LLP & Stephen G. Schwarz, Faraci Lange LLP. HealthPort Technologies, LLC, Defendant, represented by Aaron M. Saykin -- asaykin@hodgsonruss.com , Hodgson Russ LLP, Jodyann Galvin, Hodgson Russ LLP & Rebecca A. Brazzano, Thompson Hine LLP. The Rochester General Hospital, and The Unity Hospital of Rochester, Defendants, represented by Aaron M. Saykin, Hodgson Russ LLP &Jodyann Galvin -- jgalvin@hodgsonruss.com , Hodgson Russ LLP. F.F. Thompson Hospital, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eric J. Ward -- eward@wardgreenberg.com , Ward Greenberg Heller & Reidy LLP. HMSHOST CORP: Fails to Pay Class for all Hours Worked, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Walls, Dawn Stiger, David Hill, and Melinda Sexton v. HMSHost Corporation, Host International, Inc., and Host Services of New York, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00564 (N.D. Ohio, March 23, 2015) alleges that the Defendants misclassified the Plaintiffs as exempt under federal and state overtime laws and failed to pay them for all hours worked. HMSHost Corporation is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland. HMSHost Corporation is wholly owned by Autogrill Group, Inc., a subsidiary of Autogrill S.p.A., an Italian corporation. Host International, Inc., is a Delaware corporation also headquartered in Bethesda. The Defendants are one of the world's largest providers of travel venue merchandise and food and beverage concessions. They have operations in a number of the largest airports in North America and its 20,000+ employees serve over 1 billion travelers every year. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jack Landskroner, Esq. Drew Legando, Esq. LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN LLC 1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 522-9000 Facsimile: (216) 522-9007 E-mail: jack@lgmlegal.com drew@lgmlegal.com - and - Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Jeffrey A. Klafter, Esq. Fran L. Rudich, Esq. Michael H. Reed, Esq. KLAFTER, OLSEN & LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 Facsimile: (914) 934-9220 E-mail: slesser@klafterolsen.com Jklafter@klafterolsen.com frudich@klafterolsen.com michael.reed@klafterolsen.com - and - Bradley I. Berger, Esq. BERGER & ASSOCIATES 321 Broadway New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 571-1900 E-mail: bradberger29@gmail.com HMSHOST CORP: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- Bridgette Martin and Gregory Herndon v. HMSHost Corporation, and Host International, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00835-MHC (N.D. Ga., March 23, 2015) alleges that the Plaintiffs are entitled to unpaid wages from the Defendants for all hours worked by them as well as for overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay, as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. HMSHost Corporation is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland. HMSHost Corporation is wholly owned by Autogrill Group, Inc., a subsidiary of Autogrill S.p.A., an Italian corporation. HMSHost Corporation manages and oversees the operations of food and beverage concessions at numerous United States airports and other travel facilities, and acts with its subsidiaries, including Host International, Inc., in concert and together in a common enterprise and through related activities. Host International, Inc., is a Delaware corporation also headquartered in Bethesda. The Plaintiffs are represented by: C. Andrew Head, Esq. Jerilyn E. Gardner, Esq. FRIED & BONDER, LLC White Provision, Suite 305 1170 Howell Mill Rd., NW Atlanta, GA 30318 Telephone: (404) 995-8808 Facsimile: (404) 995-8899 E-mail: ahead@friedbonder.com jgardner@friedbonder.com - and - Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Jeffrey A. Klafter, Esq. Fran L. Rudich, Esq. Michael H. Reed, Esq. KLAFTER, OLSEN & LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 E-mail: seth@klafterolsen.com fran@klafterolsen.com michael.reed@klafterolsen.com jak@klafterolsen.com - and - Bradley I. Berger, Esq. BERGER & ASSOCIATES 321 Broadway New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 571-1900 E-mail: bradberger29@gmail.com IC SYSTEM: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, "Gorun" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel M. Gorun, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. I.C. System, Inc. and John Does 1 to 10, Case No. 2:15-cv- 02050-SRC-CLW (D.N.J., March 23, 2015) seeks relief over alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Ave, 2 Fl. Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 273-7117 Facsimile: (201) 273-7117 E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com IMPLUS FOOTCARE: Sued Over Design Defects of Leverage Bars ---------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Weininger, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Implus Footcare, LLC, Case No. 4:15- cv-01375 (N.D. Cal., March 25, 2015), arises out of the top leverage doorway bars manufactured and sold by Defendants that contain a design defect which under its intended purpose can come unattached to the door frame causing the user to fall injuring themselves or even result in a fatality. Implus Footcare, LLC is a Delaware corporation that manufactures and distributes sportswear and equipment with its principal place of business in Durham, North Carolina. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq. Richard D. Lambert, Esq. STONEBARGER LAW A Professional Corporation 75 Iron Point Circle, Suite 145 Folsom, CA 95630 Telephone (916) 235-7140 Facsimile (916) 235-7141 E-mail: gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com rlambert@stonebargerlaw.com - and - Thomas A. Kearney, Esq. Prescott W. Littlefield, Esq. KEARNEY LITTLEFIELD LLP 3436 N. Verdugo Road, Suite 230 Glendale, CA 91208 Telephone (213) 473-1900 Facsimile (213) 473-1919 E-mail: tak@kearneylittlefield.com pwl@kearneylittlefield.com JP MORGAN: Court Issues Scope of Discovery in Lloyd Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- In JEFFREY LLOYD, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO., et al., Defendants. KENNETH CIULLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JP MORGAN CHASE & CO., et al., Defendants, NOS. 11 CIV. 9305 (LTS)(HBP), 12 CIV. 2197 (LTS)(HBP), (S.D. N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Henry Pitman issued an order on March 20, 2015, to resolve the parties' dispute concerning the scope of discovery that defendants may seek from the opt-in plaintiffs who are not subject to any arbitration agreement. Defendants have contended that individualized discovery is particularly appropriate where, as here, defendants plan to seek decertification of the collective. Plaintiffs argued that the discovery defendants' seek is burdensome and excessive and that discovery should be limited to a representative sample of plaintiffs, consisting of written discovery from 25% of the opt- ins who did not sign an arbitration agreement and depositions of 10% of the opt-ins who did not sign an arbitration agreement. Plaintiffs also requested that (1) "[b]oth parties . . . have a role in selecting opt-ins who submit to discovery or [that] a portion . . . be selected at random," (2) defendants be limited to 10 written discovery requests, (3) defendants be precluded from seeking information that they already have and (4) depositions be limited to three hours. According to Magistrate Judge Pitman's ruling, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/00wO7mfrom Leagle.com, "defendants may seek written discovery from all 100 opt-ins who have not signed arbitration agreements and may depose 20 of those opt-ins. Defendants shall elect one of the following two options to select the 20 opt-in deponents: (1) defendants may select all 20 deponents, but will be precluded from any further depositions on class-wide issues, regardless of the affidavits plaintiffs may submit in the future, or (2) defendants may select 10 opt-in deponents and plaintiffs may select 10 opt-in deponents, but prospectively plaintiffs will be limited to submitting affidavits on class-wide issues from the plaintiffs who have been deposed. Plaintiffs' application to limit the duration of the depositions is denied without prejudice to renewal should the questioning at a deposition become irrelevant or repetitive. As explained above, the parties' remaining disputes require further submissions before they can be resolved." JZANUS LTD: Suit Seeks Relief Under Fair Debt Collection Act ------------------------------------------------------------ Emma Poroger, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Jzanus Ltd. and Todd W. Mittel, Esq., Case No. 1:15-cv-01520 (E.D.N.Y., March 23, 2015) seeks relief over alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com K2 XPRESS: "Shabbir" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Faisal Shabbir, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, known and unknown v. K2 Xpress Delivery, LLC and Andreas Rinaldo Makapedua, Case No. 1:15-cv-02535 (N.D. Ill., March 25, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, pre and post-judgment interest, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason T. Brown, Esq. JTB LAW GROUP, LLC 155 2nd Street, Suite 4 Jersey City, NJ 07302 Telephone: (201) 630-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5297 E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com LINCOLN LIFE: Sued in D.N.J. Over Alleged Shadow Insurance ---------------------------------------------------------- Gary F. Prestipino, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Lincoln Life and Annuity Company of New York, Case No. 3:15-cv-02131 (D.N.J., March 25, 2015), alleges that the Defendant engaged in shadow insurance practices by using collateral that is designed to appear to its regulator and the public as permissible collateral but, in fact, is insufficient to qualify for the reserve credits that it claims. Lincoln Life and Annuity Company of New York is a life insurance company with its principal place of business in Syracuse, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick F. Madden, Esq. Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Glen Abramson, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUR PC 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (800) 424-6690 E-mail: pmadden@bm.net scarson@bm.net gabramson@bm.net - and - John S. Skilton, Esq. David J. Harth, Esq. Timothy W. Burns, Esq. Jeff J. Bowen, Esq. Freya K. Bowen, Esq. Rhett P. Martin, Esq. Jesse J. Bair, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP One East Main Street, Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 663-7460 Facsimile: (608) 663-7499 E-mail: JSkilton@perkinscoie.com DHarth@perkinscoie.com TBurns@perkinscoie.com JBowen@perkinscoie.com FBowen@perkinscoie.com RMartin@perkinscoie.com JBair@perkinscoie.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Berg" Suit in Cal. Over Toxic Flooring ----------------------------------------------------------------- Joshua Berg, Elizabeth Davis-Berg, Judy Happe Humes, Sherry Kisielius, Theresa Labree, Brandon McDonald, Shari Orland, Carrie Schafer, Cindy Terrazas, and Michael Zebley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01359 (N.D. Cal., March 24, 2015), alleges that the Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that fails to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., a retailer of hardwood flooring, is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 3000 John Deere Road, Toano, Virginia 23168. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey L. Fazio, Esq. Dina E. Micheletti, Esq. FAZIO | MICHELETTI LLP 2410 Camino Ramon, Suite 315 San Ramon, CA 94583 Telephone: (925) 543-2555 Facsimile: (925) 369-0344 E-mail: jlf@fazmiclaw.com dem@fazmiclaw.com - and - Adam J. Levitt, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1200 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-0000 Facsimile: (312) 214-0001 E-mail: alevitt@gelaw.com - and - Lesley E. Weaver, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 492 Ninth Street, Suite 260 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (415) 968-8999 Facsimile: (617) 507-6020 E-mail: Lesley@blockesq.com - and - Jason M. Leviton, Esq. Mark A. Delaney, Esq. Joel A. Fleming, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 155 Federal Street, Suite 400 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398-5600 Facsimile: (617) 507-6020 E-mail: Jason@blockesq.com Mark@blockesq.com Joel@blockesq.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Guest" Suit Over Toxic Flooring ---------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Guest, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv- 01363 (N.D. Cal., March 24, 2015), alleges that the Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that fails to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., a retailer of hardwood flooring, is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 3000 John Deere Road, Toano, Virginia 23168. The Plaintiff is represented by: Solomon B. Cera, Esq. C. Andrew Dirksen, Esq. CERA LLP 595 Market Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 777-2230 Facsimile: (415) 777-5189 E-mail: scera@cerallp.com cdirksen@cerallp.com - and - Anthony J. Bolognese, Esq. BOLOGNESE & ASSOCIATES, LLC Two Penn Center 1500 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 320 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 814-6750 Facsimile: (215) 814-6764 E-mail: ABolognese@bolognese-law.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Kelly" Suit Over Toxic Flooring ---------------------------------------------------------- Jamie Kelly and Charmaine Hurst, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01516 (E.D. Pa., March 25, 2015), alleges that the Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that fails to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., a retailer of hardwood flooring, is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 3000 John Deere Road, Toano, Virginia 23168. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert S. Kitchenoff, Esq. WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC 1845 Walnut St., Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 545-7200 Facsimile: (215) 545-6535 E-mail: kitchenoff@wka-law.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Morris" Suit Over Toxic Flooring ----------------------------------------------------------- Omar Morris and Christina Morris, wife and husband on their own behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-00675 (M.D. Fla., March 24, 2015), alleges that the Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that fails to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., a retailer of hardwood flooring, is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 3000 John Deere Road, Toano, Virginia 23168. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory O'Dell Wiggins, Esq. Joshua R. Gale, Esq. WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN & PANTAZIS, LLC The Kress Building 301 - 19th St N Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 314-0542 E-mail: gwiggins@wcqp.com jgale@wcqp.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Said" Suit in N.Y. Over Toxic Flooring ----------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Said, Frank Graham, Pamela Marable, Paul Murtagh, Geresa Orlik, and Constance Shannon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02262 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2015), alleges that the Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that fails to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., a retailer of hardwood flooring, is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 3000 John Deere Road, Toano, Virginia 23168. The Plaintiff is represented by: Curt D. Marshall, Esq. Robin L. Greenwald, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C. 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 558-5500 Facsimile: (212) 344-5461 E-mail: cmarshall@weitzlux.com rgreenwald@weitzlux.com MARINA DISTRICT: Removes "Motwani" Suit to District of New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Motwani, et al. v. Marina District Development Company, LLC, Case No. BER-L-007276-15, was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02069-JLL-JAD to the proceeding. The Defendant is represented by: Bruce W. Clark, Esq. CLARK LAW OFFICES P.A. 103 Carnegie Center, Suite 300 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (609) 955-3212 E-mail: bruce.clark@lawclark.com - and - Russell L. Lichtenstein, Esq. COOPER, LEVENSON, PA 1125 Atlantic Avenue, Third Floor Atlantic City, NJ 08401-4891 Telephone: (609) 344-3161 E-mail: rlichtenstein@cooperlevenson.com MCKESSON CORP: Plaintiff's Bid for Sanctions Granted in Part ------------------------------------------------------------ Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu granted in part Plaintiff's motion for sanctions for Defendants' alleged failure to produce discovery previously ordered in the case captioned TRUE HEALTH CHIROPRACTIC INC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MCKESSON CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-CV-02219-HSG (DMR)(N.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs brought a putative class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, challenging Defendants' alleged practice of sending unsolicited facsimile advertisements, or so-called "junk faxes." On December 5, 2014, the court issued an order directing Defendants to produce certain discovery. Plaintiffs filed a motion for sanctions for Defendants' alleged failure to produce discovery as orderd. In an order dated April 1, 2015, available at http://is.gd/EvUTO6 from Leagle.com, Judge Ryu granted in part Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions. Specifically, the Court said the Plaintiffs may seek reimbursement of attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiffs were directed to file by April 9, 2015, a fee motion. The Court will decide whether and when to set a hearing on the fee motion. True Health Chiropractic Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Robert C. Schubert -- rschubert@schubertlawfirm.com , Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP, Willem F. Jonckheer -- wjonckheer@schubertlawfirm.com , Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP, Brian John Wanca BWanca@andersonwanca.com , Anderson + Wanca,Dustin Lamm Schubert -- dschubert@schubertlawfirm.com , Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP, George Demetrios Jonson, Montgomery Rennie Jonson, Glenn L. Hara -- GHara@andersonwanca.com , Anderson + Wanca, Matthew Elton Stubbs, Montgomery Rennie Jonson, Ross Michael Good -- RGood@andersonwanca.com , Anderson + Wanca & Ryan Michael Kelly RKelly@andersonwanca.com , Anderson + Wanca. McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Brian John Wanca, Anderson + Wanca,Dustin Lamm Schubert, Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP, George Demetrios Jonson, Montgomery Rennie Jonson, Glenn L. Hara, Anderson + Wanca, Ross Michael Good, Anderson + Wanca & Willem F. Jonckheer, Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP. McKesson Corporation, Defendant, represented by Benjamin French Patterson, Morrison & Foerster &Tiffany Cheung, Morrison & Foerster LLP. McKesson Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Benjamin French Patterson, Morrison & Foerster & Tiffany Cheung -- tcheung@mofo.com , Morrison & Foerster LLP. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Intervenor, represented by Warren Metlitzky, United States Attorney. MERRILL LYNCH: Faces "Orozco" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Celeste Orozco and Derrick Chambers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., and Bank of America Corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-02213 (C.D. Cal., March 25, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The Defendants are engaged in the business of providing financial and investment services to customers across the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq. Katrina L. Eiland, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 638-8800 Facsimile: (347) 390-2187 E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com keiland@outtengolden.com - and - Justin M. Swartz, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 Facsimile: (646) 509-2060 E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com MICHIGAN: Court Dismisses Inmate's Claims vs. Wilcoxson-Bey ----------------------------------------------------------- In LEONARD BRADFORD, # 131806, a/k/a LENARD BRADFORD-BEY, Plaintiff, v. DANIEL HEYNS, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 1:14-CV- 679, (W.D. Mich.), Leonard Bradford-Bey is a prisoner under the control of the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC). He named Director of MDOC Daniel Heyns, MDOC's Special Activities Coordinator Michael Martin, and "chaplaincy board" member Robert Wilcoxson-Bey as defendants. In addition, he named four MDOC employees at ICF as defendants: Warden John Prelesnik, Chaplain Gary Wyma, Mail Room Supervisor Mark Pattison, and Acting Deputy Warden Cathleen Stoddard. He alleges violations of his religious freedoms. Defendants Heyns, Martin, Pattison, Prelesnik, Stoddard, and Wyma filed a motion for summary judgment. On February 24, 2015, Magistrate Judge Phillip J. Green issued a report, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/LkITJqfrom Leagle.com, recommending that (1) the claims against Defendant Wilcoxson-Bey be dismissed for failure to state a claim, (2) the claims against Defendants Prelesnik, Wyma, Pattison, and Stoddard be dismissed as moot, and (3) the motion for summary judgment be granted for the claims against Defendants Heyns, Martin, Prelesnik, Wyma, Pattison, and Stoddard. In a memorandum opinion entered March 19, 2015, Chief District Judge Paul L. Maloney adopted the report and recommendation over objections as the opinion of the District Court. "Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Wilcoxson-Bey are dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted; Plaintiff's claims against the defendants at ICF -- Prelesnik, Wyma, Pattison, and Stoddard, are dismissed as moot; and Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted," Judge Maloney wrote in his opinion, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/l2bUCvfrom Leagle.com. Leonard Bradford, plaintiff, Pro Se. Daniel Heyns, defendant, represented by Cori Eve Barkman, MI Dept Attorney General. Michael Martin, defendant, represented by Cori Eve Barkman, MI Dept Attorney General. Unknown Wilcoxson-Bey, defendant, Pro Se. John Prelesnik, defendant, represented by Cori Eve Barkman, MI Dept Attorney General. G. Wyma, defendant, represented by Cori Eve Barkman, MI Dept Attorney General. Unknown Pattison, defendant, represented by Cori Eve Barkman, MI Dept Attorney General. C. Stoddard, defendant, represented by Cori Eve Barkman, MI Dept Attorney General. NARCONON REDWOOD: Falsely Marketed Programs, Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------- Nathan Burgoon and Caleb Landers, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Narconon of Northern California d/b/a Narconon Redwood Cliffs, et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-01381 (N.D. Cal., March 25, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' false representation of their drug treatment program offered that it is a standardized program marketed as treatment for individuals dealing with some form of addiction. When in fact, it is not a comprehensive drug and alcohol treatment program but rather Scientology propaganda that consists entirely of Church of Scientology practices and requires that Patients study Scientology doctrines. Narconon of Northern California owns and operates various drug rehabilitation centers with a principal place of business in California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael F. Ram, Esq. Susan S. Brown, Esq. RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 433-4949 Facsimile: (415) 433-7311 E-mail: mram@rocklawcal.com sbrown@rocklawcal.com - and - David E. Miller, Esq. Syed Ali Saeed, Esq. SAEED & LITTLE LLP 1433 North Meridian Street, Suite 202 Indianapolis, IN 46202 Telephone: (317) 721-9214 Facsimile: (888) 422-3151 E-mail: david@sllawfirm.com ali@sllawfirm.com - and - Beth E. Terrell, Esq. Mary B. Reiten, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103-8869 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 350-3528 E-mail: bterrell@tmdwlaw.com mreiten@tmdwlaw.com NATIONAL UNION: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Health Policies ---------------------------------------------------------------- George Gonzales, Manette Dubuisson, and Alice Lacks, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Union Fire Insurance Of Pittsburgh, P.A., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-02259 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2015), alleges that the Defendants issue group and blanket accident and health insurance policies in New York to eligible groups and entities and then to market coverage under those policies with low cost introductory premiums to individuals in New York that is illegal, against public policy and under the New York law. National Union Fire Insurance of Pittsburgh, P.A. is a division of American International Group, Inc. that operates an insurance company at 175 Water Street, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10038. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kieran M. Corcoran, Esq. LACKEY HERSHMAN, L.L.P. 1325 Avenue of the Americas, 27th Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 763-8491 Facsimile: (212) 763-8304 E-mail: kmc@lhlaw.net - and - Roger L. Mandel, Esq. Bruce E. Bagelman, Esq. LACKEY HERSHMAN, L.L.P. 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 777 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 560-2201 Facsimile: (214) 560-2203 E-mail: rlm@lhlaw.net beb@lhlaw.net NCO FINANCIAL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Krady, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. NCO Financial Systems, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:15-cv-02087-MAS-LHG (D.N.J., March 23, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq. MARCUS LAW LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 660-8169 E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com PEGASO CORP: Accused of Discriminating Against Pregnant Employee ---------------------------------------------------------------- Carla B. Ianni v. Pegaso Corp., Case No. 1:15-cv-21149-MGC (S.D. Fla., March 23, 2015) alleges that the Plaintiff was subjected to an unlawful act of discrimination, and was further subjected to different terms and conditions of employment just because she was pregnant. Pegaso Corp., is a for-profit corporation authorized to conduct business in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Company provides hotel reservation services to different hotels in the Miami area. The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com PHARMACIA CORP: Class Cert. Bid in Lexington Case Tossed -------------------------------------------------------- The Town of Lexington filed a putative class action against Pharmacia Corporation, Solutia, Inc., and Monsanto Company alleging that the Defendants breached the implied warranty of merchantability, based on design defect and failure to warn, in their manufacture and sale of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Lexington also alleges violation of the Massachusetts consumer protection act, Mass. Gen. L. c. 93A, Sections 2 and 9. Lexington previously moved for class certification. Before the Court ruled on that motion, Lexington moved for leave to file an amended motion for class certification in which it amends its class definition. District Judge Denise J. Casper, in a memorandum and order entered March 24, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/xhntiBfrom Leagle.com, held that since "the proposed class is defined overly expansively, it fails the threshold ascertainability inquiry required prior to certification, and the Court is unable to analyze its viability under the requirements set forth in Rule 23. Futility of amendment, along with the delay and prejudice, warrants the Court's conclusion that Lexington should not be permitted to amend its class definition." For these reasons, the Court denies Lexington's motion for certification of the class, as originally defined. The Court also denies Lexington's motion for leave to amend the class definition. In light of this ruling, Westport's motion to intervene is denied as moot. The case is TOWN OF LEXINGTON, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PHARMACIA CORPORATION, SOLUTIA, INC., and MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-CV- 11645, (D. Mass.). Town of Westport, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Carla Burke -- cburke@baronbudd.com -- Baron & Budd, P.C., Robin Greenwald -- rgreenwald@weitzlux.com -- Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., Todd D. Ommen, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., William A. Walsh, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. & Richard M. Sandman, Rodman Rodman & Sandman. Westport Community Schools, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Carla Burke, Baron & Budd, P.C., Robin Greenwald, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., Todd D. Ommen, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., William A. Walsh, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. & Richard M. Sandman, Rodman Rodman & Sandman. Town of Lexington, Plaintiff, represented by Bryan S. Gowdy -- bgowdy@appellate-firm.com -- Creed & Gowdy, P.A., David S. Mackey -- dmackey@andersonkreiger.com -- Anderson & Kreiger LLP, Esther L. Klisura -- eklisura@sherleff.com -- Sher & Leff, LLP, Jon- Jamison Hill -- jhill@tocounsel.com -- Eisner Jaffe Gorry Chapman & Ross, Kevin J. Madonna -- kmadonna@kennedymadonna.com -- Kennedy & Madonna, LLP, Robert S. Chapman, Eisner Kahan Gorry Chapman Ross & Jaffe, Robert F. Kennedy -- mpostman@law.pace.edu - - Kennedy & Madonna, LLP, Melissa C. Allison -- mallison@andersonkreiger.com -- Anderson & Kreiger LLP & Scott P. Lewis -- slewis@andersonkreiger.com -- Anderson & Kreiger LLP. Pharmacia Corporation, Defendant, represented by Carol A. Rutter - - carol.rutter@huschblackwell.com -- Husch Blackwell LLP, Richard P. Campbell -- rpcampbell@campbell-trial-lawyers.com -- Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC, Robyn D Buck -- robyn.buck@huschblackwell.com -- Husch Blackwell LLP, Brandon L. Arber -- barber@campbell-trial-lawyers.com -- Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC, Diana A. Chang -- dchang@campbell-trial- lawyers.com -- Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC, Richard L. Campbell, Campbell Campbell Edwards & Conroy PC & Sean M. Hickey, Campbell -- shickey@campbell-trial-lawyers.com -- Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC. Solutia, Inc., Defendant, represented by Carol A. Rutter, Husch Blackwell LLP, Richard P. Campbell, Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC, Robyn D Buck, Husch Blackwell LLP, Brandon L. Arber, Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC, Diana A. Chang, Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC, Richard L. Campbell, Campbell Campbell Edwards & Conroy PC & Sean M. Hickey, Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC. Monsanto Company, Defendant, represented by Carol A. Rutter, Husch Blackwell LLP, Richard P. Campbell, Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC, Robyn D Buck, Husch Blackwell LLP, Brandon L. Arber, Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC, Diana A. Chang, Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC, Richard L. Campbell, Campbell Campbell Edwards & Conroy PC & Sean M. Hickey, Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC. PHARMACIA CORP: Court Wants Further Briefing on New Monsanto ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Denise J. Casper issued a memorandum and order in the case captioned TOWN OF LEXINGTON, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PHARMACIA CORPORATION, SOLUTIA, INC. and MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendants, CIV. ACTION NO. 12-CV-11645, (D. Mass.). The Town of Lexington brought this putative class action against Pharmacia Corporation, Solutia Inc., and Monsanto Company alleging breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, due to design defect and failure to warn, and violation of Massachusetts's consumer protection statute, Chapter 93A, Sections 2, 9. Defendants Solutia and New Monsanto moved for summary judgment. The Court's March 24, 2015 order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/bPqQNzfrom Leagle.com, denied the motion as to Solutia and requested further briefing regarding New Monsanto. According to Judge Casper, "The briefing provided by the parties and Westport does not provide sufficient guidance regarding how to reconcile the injunction carve-out and limited release in the Plan on the one hand with the Settlement Agreement's indemnification provision and the Separation Agreement's liability provision on the other. The Court, therefore, allows leave to the parties and Westport to file briefs on this issue of no more than ten pages each on this singular issue. New Monsanto and Westport must file their memoranda no later than April 7, 2015, with Lexington's reply due ten days later, on April 21, 2015." The Court reserved its decision regarding New Monsanto until it has reviewed the requested additional briefing. Lexington's request for judicial notice was allowed. Town of Westport, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Carla Burke, Baron & Budd, P.C., Robin Greenwald, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., Todd D. Ommen, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., William A. Walsh, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. & Richard M. Sandman, Rodman Rodman & Sandman. Westport Community Schools, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Carla Burke, Baron & Budd, P.C., Robin Greenwald, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., Todd D. Ommen, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., William A. Walsh, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. & Richard M. Sandman, Rodman Rodman & Sandman. Town of Lexington, Plaintiff, represented by Bryan S. Gowdy, Creed & Gowdy, P.A., David S. Mackey, Anderson & Kreiger LLP, Esther L. Klisura, Sher & Leff, LLP, Jon-Jamison Hill, Eisner Jaffe Gorry Chapman & Ross, Kevin J. Madonna, Kennedy & Madonna, LLP, Robert S. Chapman, Eisner Kahan Gorry Chapman Ross & Jaffe, Robert F. Kennedy, Kennedy & Madonna, LLP, Melissa C. Allison, Anderson & Kreiger LLP & Scott P. Lewis, Anderson & Kreiger LLP. Pharmacia Corporation, Defendant, represented by Carol A. Rutter, Husch Blackwell LLP, Richard P. Campbell, Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC, Robyn D Buck, Husch Blackwell LLP, Brandon L. Arber, Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC, Diana A. Chang, Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC, Richard L. Campbell, Campbell Campbell Edwards & Conroy PC & Sean M. Hickey, Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC. Solutia, Inc., Defendant, represented by Carol A. Rutter, Husch Blackwell LLP, Richard P. Campbell, Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC, Robyn D Buck, Husch Blackwell LLP, Brandon L. Arber, Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC, Diana A. Chang, Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC, Richard L. Campbell, Campbell Campbell Edwards & Conroy PC & Sean M. Hickey, Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC. Monsanto Company, Defendant, represented by Carol A. Rutter, Husch Blackwell LLP, Richard P. Campbell, Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC, Robyn D Buck, Husch Blackwell LLP, Brandon L. Arber, Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC, Diana A. Chang, Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC, Richard L. Campbell, Campbell Campbell Edwards & Conroy PC & Sean M. Hickey, Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC. PHILIP MORRIS: Fla. Supreme Court Revives Jury Verdict in "Hess" ---------------------------------------------------------------- Acting on the petition for review in the case captioned ELAINE HESS, etc., Petitioner, v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Respondent, No. SC12-2153 (Fla.), the Supreme Court of Florida: -- quashed the Fourth District Court of Appeal's decision in Philip Morris USA, Inc. V. Hess, -- approved Frazier v. Philip Morris USA Inc. to the extent of its conclusion regarding the statute of repose, and -- approved Kush v. Lloyd and Laschke v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. The Florida Supreme Court also reinstated a jury verdict. Elaine Hess filed a complaint against Philip Morris USA, Inc. ("PM USA"), in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Broward County, asserting claims of strict liability, fraudulent concealment, negligence and conspiracy to commit fraud. The jury awarded Mrs. Hess compensatory and punitive damages. PM USA moved for judgment as a matter of law on the fraudulent concealment claim, but was denied by the trial court. On appeal, the Fourth District reversed for entry of judgment in PM USA's favor on the fraudulent concealment claim and punitive damages award, and affirmed in all other respects. Hess sought a review of the Fourth District Court of Appeal's decision. The question brought before the state Supreme Court is whether plaintiff's fraudulent concealment claim is barred because the jury found no evidence of the smoker's reliance within the statute of repose period. In its decision dated April 2, 2015 available at http://is.gd/XzVbiDfrom Leagle.com, the Supreme Court answered in the negative because it is the defendant's last act or omision which triggers the fraud statute of repose. Accordingly, the Court quashed the Fourth District's decision in Hess, approved Frazier to the extent of its conclusion regarding the statute of repose, and approved Kush and Laschke. The Court reinstated the jury verdict. John Stewart Mills and Courtney Rebecca Brewer of The Mills Law Firm, P.A., Tallahassee, Florida; Gary Mark Paige -- gpaige@fortheinjured.com of Trop & Ameen, P.A., Davie, Florida and Adam Trop of Trop & Ameen, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Bruce S. Rogow and Tara A. Campion of Bruce S. Rogow, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Alex Alvarez -- Alex@integrityforjustice.com of The Alvarez Law Firm, Coral Gables, Florida; and Marvin Weinstein of Grover & Weinstein, P.A., Miami Beach, Florida, for Petitioner. Joseph Hagedorn Lang, Jr. -- jlang@cfjblaw.com of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., Tampa, Florida; and Andrew Scott Brenner -- abrenner@bsfllp.com ,Patricia Melville -- pmelville@bsfllp.com , and Luis Eduardo Suarez -- lsuarez@bsfllp.com of Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Miami, Florida; and Raoul G. Cantero, III -- rcantero@whitecase.com and John-Paul Rodriguez -- jrodriguez@whitecase.com of White & Case LLP, Miami, Florida, for Respondent. Steven L. Brannock -- sbrannock@bhappeals.com , Celene Harrell Humphries -- chumphries@bhappeals.com , and Tyler K. Pitchford of Brannock & Humphries, Tampa, Florida, for Amici Curiae Engle. PHILLIPS & COHEN: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ------------------------------------------------------------- Chaim Schlussel, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd., Case No. 1:15-cv-01512 (E.D.N.Y., March 23, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 483 Chestnut Street Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Telephone: (516) 791-4400 Facsimile: (516) 791-4411 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com PORSCHE CARS: Faces "Chan" Suit Over Defective Dashboards --------------------------------------------------------- Ed Chan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-02106 (D.N.J., March 24, 2015), is brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or leased Porsche vehicles equipped with a Luxor Beige colored dashboard that under normal driving conditions there is a very noticeable, distracting, and unsafe windshield glare present, which significantly impairs a driver's ability to see clearly through the windshield. Porsche Cars North America, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that is engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, constructing, assembling, marketing, distributing, and selling automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components in New Jersey and throughout the United States of America. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Santoli, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH R. SANTOLI 340 Devon Court Ridgewood, NJ 07450-1810 Telephone (201) 926-9200 Facsimile (201) 444-0981 E-mail: josephsantoli@aol.com PRIVATE EYES: Court Dismisses Mykytyak-Penning's FLSA Case ---------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Paul A. Crotty dismissed the case captioned NATALIYA MYKYTYAK-PENNING, Plaintiff, v. PRIVATE EYES GENTLEMEN'S CLUB a/k/a AAM HOLDING CORP., THREE B'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, a/k/a XYZ CORP., BARRY LIPSITZ and BARRY LIPSITZ, JR., Defendants, NO. 14 CIV. 5152 (PAC), (S.D.N.Y.). Ms. Mykytak-Penning brought this suit against her former employers for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201 et seq., and the New York Labor Law (NYLL), Sections 650 et seq. Defendants moved to dismiss the action and compel arbitration, pursuant to an arbitration agreement Penning signed ten months prior to her commencement of the action. Judge Crotty granted the motion and dismissed Ms. Mykytak- Penning's complaint saying "Penning has asserted no other explanation in support of the argument that the arbitration agreement is unenforceable; indeed, the entirety of her argument rests on her classification of the agreement as an improper class communication and vague suggestions that she signed the agreement under duress. This is insufficient to show that the arbitration agreement should not be enforced. Accordingly, the Court finds these claims subject to arbitration." A copy of the Court's March 16, 2015 opinion & order is available at http://is.gd/eC40B0from Leagle.com. Nataliya Mykytyak-Penning, Plaintiff, represented by Alan Jacques Sasson -- alan@sassonlaw.com -- Law Office of Alan J. Sasson, P.C. & Yitzchak Zelman -- yzelman@gmail.com -- Law Office of Alan J. Sasson. Private Eyes Gentlemen's Club, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey A. Kimmel -- jak@msf-law.com -- Meister Seelig & Fein LLP, Yitzchak Zelman, Law Office of Alan J. Sasson & Howard Scott Davis -- hd@msf-law.com -- Meister Seelig & Fein LLP. Barry Lipsitz, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey A. Kimmel, Meister Seelig & Fein LLP & Howard Scott Davis, Meister Seelig & Fein LLP. Barry Lipsitz, Jr., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey A. Kimmel, Meister Seelig & Fein LLP & Howard Scott Davis, Meister Seelig & Fein LLP. REALPAGE INC: Sued in E.D. Pa. Over Inaccurate Consumer Reports --------------------------------------------------------------- Helen Stokes, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Realpage, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01520 (E.D. Pa., March 25, 2015), arises out of the inaccurate background reports sold by the Defendant to prospective landlords that caused harms consumers seeking residential leases. Realpage, Inc. is a consumer reporting agency that regularly conducts business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Francis, Esq. FRANCIS & MAILMAN, PC Land Title Bldg 19th Fl.100 S. Broad St Philadelphia, PA 19110 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 Facsimile: (215) 940-8000 E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com REDISCOVER: "Jones" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Daryl Jones, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Rediscover, Case No. 4:15-cv-00219 (W.D. Mo., March 26, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and related penalties and damages under the Fair Labor Standard Act. Rediscover is a Missouri Public Benefit Corporation doing business in the State of Missouri and throughout the United States, with its principal place of business in Kansas City, Missouri that provides primary health care, outreach and behavioral health services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Paulus, Esq. HOLLINGSHEAD, PAULUS & ECCHER 8350 North St. Clair Avenue, Suite 225 Kansas City, MO 64151 Telephone: (816) 581-4040 Facsimile: (816) 741-8889 E-mail: r.paulus@hpelaw.com SAME DAY: Faces "Amaro" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Amaro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Same Day Delivery Inc. and Benedito Ewerton, Case No. 1:15-cv-01572 (E.D.N.Y., March 26, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a courier and delivery service company located at 6 Orangetown Ct., Orangeburg, NY 10962 The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick Sidney Almonrode, Esq. JTB LAW GOUP LLC 155 2nd Street, Suite 4 Jersey City, NJ 07302 Telephone: (201) 630-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5297 E-mail: patalmonrode@jtblawgroup.com SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Court Dismisses "Corban" Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Indira Talwani dismissed the Consolidated Class Action Complaint in the case captioned MARK A. CORBAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS, INC.; CHRIS GARABEDIAN; SANDY MAHATME; and ED KAYE, Defendants, Civil Action No. 14-CV-10201-IT (D. Mass.). This putative federal securities class action lawsuit was filed by the Plaintiffs who challenged statements and omissions by the Defendants concerning eteplirsen -- Sarepta's leading drug candidate for the treatment of Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint. In a Memorandum and Order dated March 31, 2015 available at http://is.gd/VqbuQGfrom Leagle.com, the Court: -- found that Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged any actionable misstatements or omissions; and -- granted Defendants' motion to dismiss. Daniel Baradarian, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Jason M. Leviton -- jason@blockesq.com , Block & Leviton LLP. Mark A Corban, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Amanda B. Murphy -- abm@federmanlaw.com , Federman and Sherwood, William B. Federman -- wbf@federmanlaw.com , Federman & Sherwood, Alan L. Kovacs -- akovacs@kovacslaw.com , Law Office of Alan L. Kovacs & Peter C. Harrar -- harrar@whafh.com , Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz. Bijesh Amin, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey C Block -- jeff@blockesq.com , Block & Leviton LLP. Steve Fleischmann, Plaintiff, represented by Amanda B. Murphy, Federman and Sherwood & William B. Federman, Federman & Sherwood. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., Chris Garabedian, Sandy Mahatme, Ed Kaye, Defendants, represented by Christopher G. Green -- Christopher.Green@ropesgray.com , Ropes & Gray, Alexia R. De Vincentis -- Alexia.DeVincentis@ropesgray.com , Ropes & Gray & Mark D. Vaughn -- Mark.Vaughn@ropesgray.com , Ropes & Gray. Corban Group, Movant, represented by Lydia Keaney Reynolds -- Reynolds@whafh.com , Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz & William B. Federman, Federman & Sherwood. SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Sued Over Alleged Mistreatment of Orcas --------------------------------------------------------------- Holly Hall, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Seaworld Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 3:15- cv-00660 (S.D. Cal., March 25, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to disclose the truth about the conditions and treatment of its captive orcas, specifically the impact on these animals of captivity in a tiny confined space, the forced separation of young whales from their mothers, the unnatural mixing of whales that do not have the same culture in small spaces, the forced breeding and inbreeding of young female whales, the routine use of pharmaceutical products to unnaturally drug the orcas, the psychological manipulation and at times food deprivation to which they are subjected, the deep rake marks on the bodies that result from incompatibility and cramped conditions, and many other life shortening and painful experiences from which they have no escape. Seaworld Entertainment, Inc. is a marine-life theme park headquartered in Orlando, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Shayne C. Stevenson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com shaynes@hbsslaw.com - and - Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 203 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (213) 330-7150 Facsimile: (213) 330-7152 E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com SHERMETA ADAMS: Obtains Initial Approval of "Roberts" Suit Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Roberts, and more than 8,000 others like him, received debt-collection letters from Defendants Shermeta, Adams & Von Allmen. Plaintiff contends the letters violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and so he filed a lawsuit. The parties agreed to a settlement, and petitioned the Court to preliminarily approve a class and the settlement agreement. The joint motion for preliminary approval was referred to a magistrate judge, who held a hearing and issued a report recommending the motion be approved. The time for filing objections has passed. No objections have been filed. Accordingly, Chief District Judge Paul L. Maloney, in his order dated March 26, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/qOa2rufrom Leagle.com, adopted the Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the District Court. The joint motion to certify class and approve class settlement agreement was also granted. The case is MICHAEL ROBERTS, Plaintiff, v. SHERMETA, ADAMS & VON ALLMEN, P.C., et al., Defendants, NO. 1:13-CV-1241, (W.D. Mich.). Michael Roberts, plaintiff, represented by Phillip C. Rogers. Shermeta, Adams & Von Allmen, P.C., defendant, represented by Jeffrey Steven Hengeveld -- jhengeveld@plunkettcooney.com -- Plunkett Cooney. Kyle J. Von Allmen, defendant, represented by Jeffrey Steven Hengeveld, Plunkett Cooney. Terri P. Gruca, defendant, represented by Jeffrey Steven Hengeveld, Plunkett Cooney. Tricia N. McKinnon, defendant, represented by Jeffrey Steven Hengeveld, Plunkett Cooney. Senex Services Corp., defendant, represented by Jeffrey Steven Hengeveld, Plunkett Cooney. George Zainea, movant, represented by Brian P. Parker -- brianparker@collectionstopper.com -- The Law Offices of Brian P. Parker. SONY COMPUTER: Deadline to Respond to Ladore Case on April 23 ------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in the case captioned DOUGLAS LADORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, NO. 3:14-CV-03530-EMC, (N.D. Cal.) informed the Court on March 2, 2015, of their agreement to settle Plaintiff's claims and requested that the Case Management Conference be continued while the Parties negotiate and memorialize their agreement. The Court granted the Parties' request and re-set the Case Management Conference for April 2, 2015. Since that time, the Parties have continued to negotiate and finalize their settlement and anticipate that they will be in a position to execute the agreement within, at most, 28 days. Because the settlement will result in dismissal of this lawsuit, a 28-day extension of Defendant's deadline to respond to the Complaint and continuance of the Case Management Conference would conserve judicial and party resources. Accordingly, District Judge Edward M. Chen signed on March 26, 2015, a stipulation and order wherein the parties agreed that Defendant will have until April 23, 2015 to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint. The Case Management Conference scheduled for April 2, 2015 is stricken and reset for May 28, 2015 at 10:30 a.m. No further continuances will be allowed. CMC statement is due 7 days before CMC. A copy of the court-approved stipulation is available at http://is.gd/iZuWxNfrom Leagle.com. Samuel Lasser -- slasser@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, San Francisco, California, Jay Edelson* -- jedelson@edelson.com -- Rafey S. Balabanian* -- rbalabanian@edelson.com -- Ari J. Scharg* -- ascharg@edelson.com -- Alicia E. Hwang* -- ahwang@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC Chicago, Illinois, *Admitted Pro Hac Vice ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF. LUANNE SACKS -- lsacks@srclaw.com -- MICHELE D. FLOYD -- mfloyd@srclaw.com -- SACKS, RICKETTS & CASE LLP, San Francisco, California ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA, LLC. SNC-LAVALIN ENGINEERS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Chandler, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons v. SNC-Lavalin Engineers and Constructors Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-00784 (S.D. Tex., March 25, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The Defendants own and operate a construction business in Harris County, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ian Scharfman, Esq. THE SCHARFMAN LAW FIRM, PLLC 3120 SW Frwy, Ste 450 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (713) 255-2267 Facsimile: (713) 255-2270 E-mail: ian@scharfmanlawfirm.com STEPHEN PHILPITT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Morisco, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. Stephen R. Philpitt, Case No. 3:15-cv-02075-AET-DEA (D.N.J., March 23, 2015) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Ave, 2 Fl. Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 273-7117 Facsimile: (201) 273-7117 E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com STEVEN COHEN: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Samuel Noe, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Law Offices of Steven Cohen LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv- 01516 (E.D.N.Y., March 23, 2015) seeks relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com STRATASYS LTD: Sued in Minn. Over Misleading Financial Reports -------------------------------------------------------------- West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Stratasys Ltd., David Reis, Erez Simha and Shane Glenn, Case No. 0:15-cv-01592 (D. Minn., March 25, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Stratasys Ltd. is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Israel with principal executive office located at 7665 Commerce Way, Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344. It is engaged in the business of additive manufacturing (AM), more commonly known as three-dimensional (3D) printing. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard A. Lockridge, Esq. Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: 612-596-4097 Facsimile: 612-339-0981 E-mail: ralockridge@locklaw.com khriebel@locklaw.com - and - Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. Joseph D. Cohen, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP The Chrysler Building 405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10174 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com jcohen@scott-scott.com - and - David R. Scott, Esq. Stephen J. Teti SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP 156 South Main Street, P.O. Box 192 Colchester, CT 06415 Telephone: (860) 537-5537 Facsimile: (860) 537-4432 E-mail: david.scott@scott-scott.com steti@scott-scott.com THINKDIRECT MARKETING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Kimberly Heckman, on her own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Thinkdirect Marketing Group, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-00680 (M.D. Fla., March 25, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest under the Fair Labor Standard Act. Thinkdirect Marketing Group, Inc. is a foreign corporation that owns and operates a call center in Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA Ste 1600, 20 N Orange Ave Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 420-5956 E-mail: kwoods@forthepeople.com THOMSON SA: Court Orders Filing of Revised Notice of Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- In IN RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL NO. 1917, CASE NO. C-07-5944-SC, (N.D. Cal.), the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' (DPPs)filed a motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement with Defendants Thomson SA (now known as Technicolor SA) and Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc. (now known as Technicolor USA, Inc.). The matter was initially set for hearing on March 20, 2015, which the Court rescheduled for April 3, 2015. The parties subsequently filed a stipulation seeking to move the rescheduled hearing, but because the Court finds no hearing is necessary at this time, the hearing is vacated and the stipulation is denied. Rather than decide the motion at this time, the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer and file supplemental submissions addressing the Court's concerns. Specifically, District Judge Samuel Conti, in his order dated March 26, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/9nzu9tfrom Leagle.com, said he has "three concerns about the current form of notice and notice plan. First, the Court believes the summary notice should be published in more than just the Wall Street Journal. The parties should meet and confer and agree on another national newspaper in which to publish notice and submit a revised proposed order to that effect. Second, in light of a previous issue with the parties' notice website, www.CRTDirectPurchaserAntitrustSettlement.com, the Court requests an additional submission (in declaration from the claims administrator or in some other convenient form) assuring the Court that the "Frequently Asked Questions" and "Dates to Remember" pages will be updated promptly to reflect the opt-out deadline and other important deadlines related to this settlement. Finally, for similar reasons, the Court finds that the first page of the notice should be edited to include the objection and opt-out deadlines and the date, time, and place of the fairness hearing." "The parties shall meet and confer and submit a revised form of notice, proposed order, supplemental declaration, and any other necessary documents within 14 days of the signature date of this order," Judge Conti added. The order relates to all direct purchaser actions. VETSPECS INC: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Action Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Shaun Fauley, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Vetspecs, Inc. and John Does 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-02529 (N.D. Ill., March 25, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of sending unsolicited facsimiles. Vetspecs, Inc. is a Georgia corporation with its principal place of business in Canton, Georgia, which distributes veterinary equipment and supplies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Wanca, Esq. Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Facsimile: (847) 368-1501 E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com rkelly@andersonwanca.com WESTCONSIN CREDIT: McDonough, Eggen and Arnzen Consolidated ----------------------------------------------------------- In an order entered March 20, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/zK3Cg2from Leagle.com, District Judge Barbara B. Crabb held that these three cases seem to be the same in almost every way: PATRICK McDONOUGH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WESTCONSIN CREDIT UNION, Defendant. BRIAN EGGEN and MARY EGGEN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, WESTCONSIN CREDIT UNION, Defendant. FRANK ARNZEN and RENA CLEVELAND, Plaintiffs, WESTCONSIN CREDIT UNION, Defendant, NOS. 14-CV-705-BBC, 14-CV-873- BBC, 15-CV-29-BBC, (W.D. Wis.). In each of the cases, she said, plaintiffs are alleging that defendant WESTconsin Credit Union disclosed their Social Security numbers and driver's license numbers in pleadings that defendant filed in small claims court in cases related to defaults on consumer loans. In each case, plaintiffs are asserting the same causes of action under federal and state law. The same lawyers represent the plaintiffs in all three cases. The plaintiffs in each case allege that they are residents of St. Croix County, Wisconsin. Despite all of these similarities, plaintiffs chose to file three separate cases instead of one. She added that even more confusing is that two of the three cases are proposed class actions that include the same proposed class: "All Wisconsin Residents about whom Defendant WESTconsin has disclosed personal driver's license or social security information in filings in public court for actions to recover unpaid loan balances." Although the plaintiffs in the third case are Wisconsin residents as well, that case was filed separately in state court before it was removed by defendant. Plaintiffs have not explained why they filed these cases separately instead of jointly as a single class action. "Regardless of the reasons the parties chose to proceed as they did up until now, I see no reason why these cases should proceed separately in any respect in light of the many similarities among the cases. Although defendant requests consolidation with respect to discovery alone, defendant identifies no reason why it would be improper to try these cases together, particularly if a class is certified. Accordingly, I am granting the motion to consolidate, but I am consolidating for all purposes rather than for discovery only," Judge Crabb ruled. "Case nos. 14-cv-705-bbc, 14-cv-873-bbc and 15-cv-29-bbc are consolidated for all purposes. The schedule set in case no. 14-cv- 873-bbc, shall apply in all three cases, including the September 19, 2016 trial date. If any party believes that a separate trial is necessary, that party may seek reconsideration of this decision at the appropriate time," Judge Crabb concluded. Bradley Eggen, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Leighton Crandall -- eric29@frontiernet.net -- Crandall Law Offices, SC, Thomas John Lyons, Jr. -- tlyons@lyonslawfirm.com -- Consumer Justice Center, P.A. & Thomas John Lyons, Sr., Lyons Law Firm PA. Mary Eggen, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Leighton Crandall, Crandall Law Offices, SC, Thomas John Lyons, Jr., Consumer Justice Center, P.A. & Thomas John Lyons, Sr., Lyons Law Firm PA. WESTconsin Credit Union, Defendant, represented by Michael Patrick Crooks -- mcrooks@pjmlaw.com -- Peterson, Johnson & Murray, S.C. & Quentin Fitch Shafer, McCollister, Shafer & Stewart. WHIRLY WEST: Faces "Belfiore" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Belfiore and Aaron Alicea, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Whirly West, Inc., d/b/a Whirlyball and Samuel Elias, Case No. 1:15-cv-02532 (N.D. Ill., March 25, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant within the State of Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jorge A. Gamboa, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560 Chicago, ID 60601 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 E-mail: jgamboa@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com YOUKU TUDOU: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports --------------------------------------------------------------- Qiang Wang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Youku Tudou Inc., Victor Wing Cheung Koo, and Michael Ge Xu, Case No. 1:15-cv-02258 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Youku Tudou Inc. purports to be China's leading Internet television company. Its platforms enable users to search, view and share high-quality video content quickly and easily across multiple devices. The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis Paul McConville, Esq. Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: fmcconville@pomlaw.com jalieberman@pomlaw.com pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN LLP 60 E. 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Div. Denies Insurer Summary Judgment ------------------------------------------------------------- New Hampshire Insurance Company has settled, along with several affiliated liability insurers under common corporate control hundreds of millions of dollars of claims -- most but not all of which are asbestos-related personal injury claims -- with nonparty Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation, a common insured of the settling carriers. American International Group's settlement agreement with Kaiser does not address the allocation of losses to particular claims, policies or carriers beyond providing that AIG may effect such an allocation "for its own purposes, in its own books and records," which AIG has done. That allocation ascribes 100% of the settlement amount to asbestos product liability claims within the coverage of Kaiser's New Hampshire excess policy (issued for the period from June 1973 to June 1976) and none of the amount to other settled claims -- for bad faith, defense costs in addition to policy limits, and premises liability -- that Kaiser had asserted against certain other AIG carriers, but not against New Hampshire. New Hampshire brought an action against defendant Clearwater Insurance Company, a reinsurer of the excess policy New Hampshire issued to Kaiser, seeking to require Clearwater to indemnify New Hampshire for the share prescribed by its reinsurance certificate of the portion of the Kaiser settlement payments (which are being made over a 10-year period) that AIG has allocated to the New Hampshire policy. In its defense, Clearwater challenges AIG's allocation of 100% of the settled losses to asbestos products liability claims, contending that this allocation unreasonably results in the reinsured New Hampshire policy bearing part of the cost of settling the premises, bad faith and defense cost claims that Kaiser had not asserted against New Hampshire or that were not covered by the New Hampshire policy. Clearwater also asserts, as additional affirmative defenses, that New Hampshire (known as the ceding company, or "cedent," in reinsurance nomenclature) has breached its contractual notice, reporting and risk retention obligations under the terms of the reinsurance certificate. While discovery was in its early stages, and before any witnesses had been deposed, New Hampshire moved for summary judgment in its favor. Concerning the allocation issue, New Hampshire argued that Clearwater, as a reinsurer, was bound, as a matter of law, by New Hampshire's allocation of settled claims to the reinsured policy under general principles of the law of reinsurance. The Supreme Court, New York County, entered an order on Nov. 1, 2013, which granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment to the extent of dismissing the defendant's second, third, and seventh affirmative defenses, and otherwise denied the motion. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, in a March 24, 2015, opinion, agreed with Supreme Court that New Hampshire's argument is unavailing. The Appellate Division held that even if the subject reinsurance certificate, in spite of its lack of a clause expressly so providing, generally obligates Clearwater to "follow the settlements" made by New Hampshire with its insured -- a question that the Appellate Division need not, and do not, decide on this appeal -- the cedent's allocation decisions are not "immune from scrutiny." In particular, even where the "follow the settlements" doctrine applies, the reasonableness of a cedent's decision not to attribute any portion of a settlement to settled claims that were not covered by the reinsured policy may, on a proper record, present an issue of fact, the Appellate Division said. Accordingly, given the undeveloped factual record of the case, the Appellate Division held that the Supreme Court properly denied New Hampshire summary judgment on the allocation issue. However, also in view of the undeveloped state of the record, the Appellate Division held that the court erred in granting New Hampshire summary judgment dismissing Clearwater's affirmative defenses alleging that New Hampshire breached its notice, reporting and risk retention obligations under the reinsurance certificate. The Appellate Division therefore modifies the order under review to deny New Hampshire's summary judgment motion in its entirety. The case is NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant- Respondent, v. CLEARWATER INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Respondent- Appellant, 653547/11, 12779 (N.Y. App. Div.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/VfodQWfrom Leagle.com. Sidley Austin LLP, New York (William M. Sneed, Esq. -- wsneed@sidley.com -- of the bar of the State of Illinois, admitted pro hac vice, and Alan J. Sorkowitz, Esq. -- asorkowitz@sidley.com -- of counsel), for appellant-respondent. Crowell & Moring LLP, New York (Harry P. Cohen, Esq. -- hcohen@crowell.com -- and Brian J. O'Sullivan, Esq. -- bosullivan@crowell.com -- of counsel), for respondent-appellant. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dutch Parent Co. Dismissed from Ky. Enviro. Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington, granted Koninklijke Philips, N.V.'s motion to dismiss the sister environmental mass tort lawsuits alleging that Corning Incorporated and Philips Electronics North America Corporation, as owners and operators of a glass manufacturing facility in Danville, Kentucky, intentionally or negligently emitted and disposed of hazardous chemicals, including asbestos, during the 60 years of the Facility's operation, polluting the groundwater, air, and soil within a five-mile radius. Judge Van Tatenhove found that it has no jurisdiction over KPNV, the Dutch parent company to Philips Electronics, and held that "[w]hen a defendant does not regularly do or solicit business in Kentucky, does not derive substantial revenue from goods used or consumed in Kentucky, and when any injury in Kentucky did not arise out of doing or soliciting business in Kentucky, Kentucky courts simply do not have jurisdiction over the defendant." In the same case, Judge Van Tatenhove also granted in part and denied in part Corning and Philips' motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), but denied Corning and Philips' motion to strike the plaintiffs' class allegations. The cases are MODERN HOLDINGS, LLC, GAY BOWEN, GREENLEAF PLANT FOOD WHOLESALE, INC., and BOBBIE LEMONS, Plaintiffs, v. CORNING INCORPORATED, KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS, N.V., and PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, Defendants. ELBERT COX, JR., CECIL WAYNE FRANKLIN, JOHN SPEARS, WANDA BEASLEY, DONALD KING, LINDSEY PENNINGTON, TERESA PRESTON, BEVERLY PRESLEY, Personal Representative of the Estate of Annabell Gordon, Plaintiffs, v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS, N.V., and PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, Defendants, CIVIL NOS. 13-405-GFVT, 13-406-GFVT (E.D. Ky.). A full-text copy of Judge Van Tatenhove's March 31, 2015, memorandum opinion and order relating to KPNV's motion to dismiss is available at http://is.gd/ewVk5qfrom Leagle.com. A full-text copy of Judge Van Tatenhove's March 31, 2015, memorandum opinion and order relating to Corning and Philip's motions to dismiss is available at http://is.gd/AHzHyAfrom Leagle.com. A full-text copy of Judge Van Tatenhove's March 31, 2015, memorandum opinion and order relating to the motion to strike is available at http://is.gd/0NbnuWfrom Leagle.com. Modern Holdings, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Evan McDonald Rice, The Getty Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters, Esq. - - jwinters@gettylawgroup.com -- & Richard A. Getty, Esq. -- rgetty@gettylawgroup.com -- The Getty Law Group, PLLC. Gay Bowen, Plaintiff, represented by Evan McDonald Rice, The Getty Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters & Richard A. Getty, The Getty Law Group, PLLC. Greenleaf Plant Food Wholesale, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Evan McDonald Rice, The Getty Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters & Richard A. Getty, The Getty Law Group, PLLC. Bobbie Lemons, Plaintiff, represented by Evan McDonald Rice, The Getty Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters & Richard A. Getty, The Getty Law Group, PLLC. Otis Ford, Plaintiff, represented by Evan McDonald Rice, The Getty Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters & Richard A. Getty, The Getty Law Group, PLLC. Charles Ford, Plaintiff, represented by Evan McDonald Rice, The Getty Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters & Richard A. Getty, The Getty Law Group, PLLC. Rosetta Ford, Plaintiff, represented by Evan McDonald Rice, The Getty Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters & Richard A. Getty, The Getty Law Group, PLLC. Gary Ford, Plaintiff, represented by Evan McDonald Rice, The Getty Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters & Richard A. Getty, The Getty Law Group, PLLC. Corning Incorporated, Defendant, represented by George L. Seay, Jr., Esq. -- gseay@wyattfirm.com -- Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs LLP. Corning Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Joseph F. Madonia, Esq. -- joseph.madonia@btlaw.com -- Barnes & Thornburg. Corning Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Mark L. Durbin, Esq. -- mdurbin@btlaw.com -- Barnes & Thornburg, Peter N. Moore, Esq. -- Peter.Moore@btlaw.com -- Barnes & Thornburg & George J. Miller, Esq. -- gmiller@wyattfirm.com -- Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs LLP. Koninklijke Philips N.V., Defendant, represented by Brian M. Johnson, Dickinson Wright PLLC, David Andrew Owen, Dickinson Wright PLLC & Matthew A. Stinnett, Dickinson Wright PLLC. Philips Electronics North America Corporation, Defendant, represented by Brian M. Johnson, Esq. -- BJohnson@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC, David Andrew Owen, Esq. -- DOwen@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC & Matthew A. Stinnett, Esq., Dickinson Wright PLLC. Elbert Cox, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Evan McDonald Rice, The Getty Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters, Mary Ann Getty, The Getty Law Group, PLLC & Richard A. Getty, The Getty Law Group, PLLC. Cecil Wayne Franklin, Plaintiff, represented by Evan McDonald Rice, The Getty Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters, Mary Ann Getty, The Getty Law Group, PLLC & Richard A. Getty, The Getty Law Group, PLLC. John Spears, Plaintiff, represented by Evan McDonald Rice, The Getty Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters, Mary Ann Getty, The Getty Law Group, PLLC & Richard A. Getty, The Getty Law Group, PLLC. Wanda Beasley, Plaintiff, represented by Evan McDonald Rice, The Getty Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters, Mary Ann Getty, The Getty Law Group, PLLC & Richard A. Getty, The Getty Law Group, PLLC. Donald King, Plaintiff, represented by Evan McDonald Rice, The Getty Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters, Mary Ann Getty, The Getty Law Group, PLLC & Richard A. Getty, The Getty Law Group, PLLC. Lindsey Pennington, Plaintiff, represented by Evan McDonald Rice, The Getty Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters, Mary Ann Getty, The Getty Law Group, PLLC & Richard A. Getty, The Getty Law Group, PLLC. Teresa Preston, Plaintiff, represented by Evan McDonald Rice, The Getty Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters, Mary Ann Getty, The Getty Law Group, PLLC & Richard A. Getty, The Getty Law Group, PLLC. Beverly Presley, Plaintiff, represented by Evan McDonald Rice, The Getty Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters, Mary Ann Getty, The Getty Law Group, PLLC & Richard A. Getty, The Getty Law Group, PLLC. Philips Electronics North America Corporation, Defendant, represented by Adam Clay Reeves, Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP, Brian M. Johnson, Dickinson Wright PLLC & Matthew A. Stinnett, Dickinson Wright PLLC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Atty Group Can File Amicus Brief in NY PI Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of New York granted the motion by New York State Trial Lawyers Association for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal in the lawsuit styled IN THE MATTER OF NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. DORIS KAY DUMMITT, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF RONALD DUMMITT, Deceased, Respondent, v. A.W. CHESTERTON, ET AL., Defendants, CRANE CO., Appellant, MOTION NO. 2015-334 (N.Y. App.). A full-text copy of the Decision dated March 26, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/Z4FafEfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Inks Settlement in "Mann" Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Judge J. Phil Gilbert of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, in a memorandum and order dated March 25, 2015, denies all motions pending in the asbestos-related lawsuit styled HELEN MANN, Special Administrator for the Estate of JW HEGGIE, Plaintiff, v. ANCHOR PACKING COMPANY, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 94-CV-04219-JPG, NO. 08-CV-89372 (S.D. Ill.), in light of the settlement between the plaintiffs and the sole remaining defendant, CBS Corporation. A full-text copy of Judge Gilbert's Decision is available at http://is.gd/QihAB2from Leagle.com. Helen Mann, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P. Cascino, Cascino, Vaughn Law Offices. Anchor Packing Company, Defendant, represented by Edward J. McCambridge, Esq. -- emccambridge@smsm.com -- Segal, McCambridge et al., Joshua B. Murphy, Esq., Segal, McCambridge et al. & William F. Mahoney, Esq. -- wmahoney@smsm.com -- Segal, McCambridge et al.. Asbestos Claims Management Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kent L. Plotner, Heyl, Royster et al.. Coltec Industries, Defendant, represented by Edward J. McCambridge, Segal, McCambridge et al. & William F. Mahoney, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Garlock Inc, Defendant, represented by Edward J. McCambridge, Segal, McCambridge et al., Joshua B. Murphy, Segal, McCambridge et al. & William F. Mahoney, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Uniroyal Inc, Defendant, represented by Brian S. Ebener, Hinshaw & Culbertson. Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Defendant, represented by Daniel G. Donahue, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Denis P. Rischard, no current cases, Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al., Murray E. Abowitz, P. Terence Crebs, Herzog, Crebs et al., R. Delacy Peters, Jr., Gonzalez, Saggio et al., Jacob D. Sawyer, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: $1.6-Mil. Verdict in "Kaenzig" Suit Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, in an opinion dated March 27, 2015, affirmed a jury verdict awarding plaintiffs Steven G. Kaenzig and Linda Kaenzig $1.6 million in compensatory damages in an asbestos-related lawsuit asserting claims of negligence and products liability against several defendants, including Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc. The case is STEVEN G. KAENZIG and LINDA KAENZIG, Plaintiffs- Respondents, v. CHARLES B. CHRYSTAL COMPANY, INC.; R.T. VANDERBILT COMPANY, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to Gouverneur Talc Company, Inc., and International Talc Company; SHULTON INC., individually and as successor to the Shulton Group and Shulton, Inc. (for discovery purposes only); WYETH HOLDINGS CORPORATION f/k/a/ American Cyanamid Company, individually and as successor-in-interest to Shulton Inc. (for discovery purposes only); AMERICAN TALC CO., individually and as successor in interest to Suzorite Mineral Products, Inc., f/k/a Pioneer Talc Co., a wholly owned subsidiary of Wold Companies; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., individually and as successor in interest to Rio Tinto, a wholly owned subsidiary of Luzenac Inc., RTZ Corp., Cyprus Mineral Co. a/k/a Cyprus Windsor Mineral Co., Windsor Minerals Inc., Metropolitan Talc, Co., Inc., Charles Mathieu, Inc., Defendants, and WHITTAKER, CLARK & DANIELS, INC., Defendant- Appellant, NO. A-2512-13T3 (N.J. Super.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/ZwFAhnfrom Leagle.com. Richard J. Mirra, Esq. -- rmirra@hoaglandlongo.com -- argued the cause for appellants (Hoagland, Longo, Moran, Dunst & Doukas, LLP, attorneys; Mr. Mirra, of counsel and on the briefs). Jeffrey P. Blumstein, Esq. -- jblumstein@szaferman.com -- argued the cause for respondents (Szaferman, Lakind, Blumstein & Blader, P.C. and Levy Konigsberg, LLP, attorneys; Robert E. Lytle, Esq. -- RLytle@szaferman.com -- and Moishe Maimon, on the brief). ASBESTOS UPDATE: Venue of Aviva's Suit vs. Flintkote Transferred ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Leonard P. Stark of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, in a March 25, 2015, memorandum opinion granted in part Aviva PLC's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, transfer venue of its lawsuit against The Flintkote Company to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The case is THE FLINTKOTE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. AVIVA P.L.C., formerly known as COMMERCIAL UNION ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., Defendant, C.A. NO. 13-103-LPS (D. Del.). A full-text copy of Judge Stark's Decision is available at http://is.gd/9xtNZIfrom Leagle.com. Flintkote Company, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P. Kelly, Esq. -- mkelly@mccarter.com -- McCarter & English, LLP, Michael Collins Smith, Esq. -- msmith@mccarter.com -- McCarter & English, LLP, Gita F. Rothschild, Esq. -- grothschild@mccarter.com -- & Louis A. Chiafullo, Esq. -- lchiafullo@mccarter.com -- McCarter & English, LLP. Aviva PLC, formerly known as Commercial Union Assurance Company Ltd., Defendant, represented by Arthur J. McColgan, II, Fred L. Alvarez & Thaddeus James Weaver, Esq. -- tweaver@dilworthlaw.com - - Dilworth Paxson LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Workers' Suit vs. Philips Partially Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In a putative class action lawsuit, former employees at a glass manufacturing facility in Danville, Kentucky, allege that their employer, Philips Electronics North America, knowingly exposed them to hazardous substances, including asbestos, mercury, arsenic, lead, PCB compounds, used in the production process and falsely assured them that their working conditions were safe. Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington, granted in part and denied in part Philips' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Specifically, Judge Van Tatenhove dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiffs' claims, except its claims for fraud and fraudulent concealment, and allowed the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. The case is ELBERT COX, JR., CECIL WAYNE FRANKLIN, JOHN SPEARS, WANDA BEASLEY, DONALD KING, LINDSEY PENNINGTON, TERESA PRESTON, and BEVERLY PRESLEY, Personal Representative of the Estate of Annabell Gordon, Plaintiffs, v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS, N.V., and PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, Defendants, CIVIL NO. 13-406-GFVT (E.D. Ky.). A full-text copy of Judge Van Tatenhove is available at http://is.gd/pwrNe7from Leagle.com. Elbert Cox, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Evan McDonald Rice, The Getty Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters, Mary Ann Getty, The Getty Law Group, PLLC & Richard A. Getty, The Getty Law Group, PLLC. Cecil Wayne Franklin, Plaintiff, represented by Evan McDonald Rice, The Getty Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters, Mary Ann Getty, The Getty Law Group, PLLC & Richard A. Getty, The Getty Law Group, PLLC. John Spears, Plaintiff, represented by Evan McDonald Rice, The Getty Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters, Mary Ann Getty, The Getty Law Group, PLLC & Richard A. Getty, The Getty Law Group, PLLC. Wanda Beasley, Plaintiff, represented by Evan McDonald Rice, The Getty Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters, Mary Ann Getty, The Getty Law Group, PLLC & Richard A. Getty, The Getty Law Group, PLLC. Donald King, Plaintiff, represented by Evan McDonald Rice, The Getty Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters, Mary Ann Getty, The Getty Law Group, PLLC & Richard A. Getty, The Getty Law Group, PLLC. Lindsey Pennington, Plaintiff, represented by Evan McDonald Rice, The Getty Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters, Mary Ann Getty, The Getty Law Group, PLLC & Richard A. Getty, The Getty Law Group, PLLC. Teresa Preston, Plaintiff, represented by Evan McDonald Rice, The Getty Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters, Mary Ann Getty, The Getty Law Group, PLLC & Richard A. Getty, The Getty Law Group, PLLC. Beverly Presley, Plaintiff, represented by Evan McDonald Rice, The Getty Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters, Mary Ann Getty, The Getty Law Group, PLLC & Richard A. Getty, The Getty Law Group, PLLC. Philips Electronics North America Corporation, Defendant, represented by Adam Clay Reeves, Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP, Brian M. Johnson, Dickinson Wright PLLC & Matthew A. Stinnett, Dickinson Wright PLLC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grainger's Bid to Junk "Brigantino" Suit Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In an asbestos personal injury action, industrial equipment supplier W.W. Grainger, Inc., moves for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs Thomas Brigantino and Phyllis Brigantino's complaint and all cross-claims asserted against it. In opposition, the plaintiffs allege that Grainger is liable because it sold plaintiff Thomas Brigantino several of the asbestos- containing products to which he was exposed. Judge Sherry Klein Heitler, in a decision and order dated March 11, 2015, denied Grainger's motion, holding that as the record currently stands, the court essentially has before it nothing more than conflicting assertions and, under well-settled New York law, the respective weight to be given to the competing assertions in this case must be decided by a jury at trial. The case is THOMAS BRIGANTINO and PHYLLIS BRIGANTINO, Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190390/12, MOTION SEQ. NO. 013 (N.Y. Sup.). A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is available at http://is.gd/xbFjDLfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wis. Court Issues Records Protocol in 6 PI Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker of the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Madison Division, issued an order establishing a records collection protocol and procedures relating to the authorization for release of medical, healthcare, pharmacy, bankruptcy trusts and other records in the asbestos-related personal injury cases captioned Boyer, v. Weyerhaeuser Company, et al.; Masephol, v. Weyerhaeuser Company, et al.; Pecher, v. Weyerhaeuser Company, et al.; Prust, v. Weyerhaeuser Company, et al.; Seehafer, v. Weyerhaeuser Company, et al.; and Sydow, v. Weyerhaeuser Company, et al., CASE NOS. 14- CV-286, 14-CV-186, 14-CV-147, 14-CV-143, 14-CV-161, 14-CV-219 (W.D. Wis.). A full-text copy of Magistrate Crocker's Order dated March 20, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/AG3Ppdfrom Leagle.com. Wesley F. Sydow, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P. Cascino, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., Alyssa R. Segawa, Galiher DeRobertis Waxman, James Nicholas Hoey, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd. & Robert G. McCoy, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd.. Weyerhaeuser Company, Defendant, represented by Joshua J. Metcalf, Forman Watkins Krutz & Tardy, LLP, Ruth F. Maron, Forman Watkins Krutz & Tardy, LLP & Tanya D. Ellis, Forman Watkins Krutz & Tardy, LLP. 3M Company, Defendant, represented by Edward J. McCambridge, Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd. & Emily Zapotocny, Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd.. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Smitha Chintamaneni, von Briesen & Roper & William P. Croke, von Briesen & Roper, s.c.. Owens-Illinois Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian O'Connor Watson, Schiff Hardin LLP, Edward M. Casmere, Schiff Hardin, LLP, Matthew John Fischer, Schiff Hardin LLP & Rachel Allison Remke, Schiff Hardin LLP. Marshfield DoorSystems, Inc., Interested Party, represented by Sherry Dawn Coley, Godfrey & Kahn, S.C. & Joshua Lee Johanningmeier, Godfrey & Kahn S.C.. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Grants BNSF's Writ of Mandate Petition ----------------------------------------------------------------- Real parties in interest Vicki L. Kralovetz, individually and in her capacity as personal representative of the Estate of Peter J. Kralovetz, Aaron Kralovetz, and Sarah Kralovetz, filed a wrongful death action against BNSF Railway Company's predecessor in interest and numerous other defendants in Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleging that decedent Peter J. Kralovetz developed and died from malignant pleural mesothelioma as a result of exposure to the defendants' "asbestos, asbestos-containing products and/or products designed to be used in association with asbestos products." The exposure attributed to BNSF allegedly occurred in Wichita, Kansas, where the decedent once worked at a dismantling facility and roundhouse owned by BNSF's predecessor. BNSF filed a petition seeking a writ of mandate directing a trial court to vacate its order denying its motion to quash service of process for lack of general personal jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Four, in an decision dated March 27, 2015, denied the request for judicial notice, concluding that general jurisdiction is lacking in this case, and granted the petition for writ of mandate. The case is BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent; VICKI L. KRALOVETZ, Individually and as Executor, etc., Real Parties in Interest, NO. B260798 (Cal. App.). The decision is available at http://is.gd/7qIGonfrom Leagle.com. Sims Law Firm, Selim Mounedji and Brock Christensen for Petitioner. The Lanier Law Firm, Mark Douglas Bratt, Alexandra Shef, and Stephanie M. Taylor; The Arkin Law Firm, Sharon J. Arkin, for Real Parties in Interest. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Reports $681MM Non-PCC Liability -------------------------------------------------------------- Corning Incorporated reported that the liability for the amended plan of its subsidiary, Pittsburgh Corning Corporation, and the non-PCC asbestos litigation was estimated to be $681 million, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. The liability for the Amended Plan of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation ("PCC") and the non-PCC asbestos claims was estimated to be $681 million at December 31, 2014, compared with an estimate of liability of $690 million at December 31, 2013. The $681 million liability is comprised of $241 million of the fair value of Pittsburgh Corning Europe N.V. ("PCE"), $290 million for the fixed series of payments, and $150 million for the non-PCC asbestos litigation. With respect to the PCE liability, at December 31, 2014 and 2013, the fair value of $241 million and $250 million of our interest in PCE significantly exceeded its carrying value of $162 million and $167 million, respectively. There have been no impairment indicators for our investment in PCE and we continue to recognize equity earnings of this affiliate. At the time Corning recorded this liability, it determined it lacked the ability to recover the carrying amount of its investment in PCC and its investment was other than temporarily impaired. As a result, we reduced our investment in PCC to zero. As the fair value in PCE is significantly higher than book value, management believes that the risk of an additional loss in an amount materially higher than the fair value of the liability is remote. With respect to the liability for other asbestos litigation, the liability for non-PCC claims was estimated based upon industry data for asbestos claims since Corning does not have recent claim history due to the injunction issued by the Bankruptcy Court. The estimated liability represents the undiscounted projection of claims and related legal fees over the next 20 years. The amount may need to be adjusted in future periods as more data becomes available; however, we cannot estimate any additional losses at this time. For the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013, Corning recorded asbestos litigation income of $9 million and expense of $19 million, respectively. The entire obligation is classified as a non-current liability, as installment payments for the cash portion of the obligation are not planned to commence until more than 12 months after the Amended PCC Plan becomes effective and the PCE portion of the obligation will be fulfilled through the direct contribution of Corning's investment in PCE (currently recorded as a non-current other equity method investment). Several of Corning's insurers have commenced litigation in state courts for a declaration of the rights and obligations of the parties under insurance policies, including rights that may be affected by the potential resolutions. Corning is vigorously contesting these cases, and management is unable to predict the outcome of the litigation. Corning Incorporated (Corning), is a global, technology-based corporation. The Company operates in five segments: Display Technologies, Telecommunications, Environmental Technologies, Specialty Materials and Life Sciences. During the year ended December 31, 2011, Corning launched Corning Lotus Glass, an environmentally friendly, display glass developed to enable technologies, including organic light-emitting diode (OLED) displays and next generation liquid crystal displays (LCD). Corning Lotus Glass helps support the demanding manufacturing processes of both OLED and liquid crystal displays for portable devices, such as smart phones, tablets, and notebook computers. During the year ended December 31, 2011, Corning introduced Corning Gorilla Glass 2, the next generation in its Corning Gorilla Glass suite of products. In May 2014, Mitsui Chemicals Inc announced the acquisition of Corning Inc's SunSensors operations. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Chemical Had $513-Mil. Fibro Liability ----------------------------------------------------------- The Dow Chemical Company's asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims was $513 million, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. Union Carbide Corporation ("Union Carbide"), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, is and has been involved in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during the past four decades. These suits principally allege personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products and frequently seek both actual and punitive damages. The alleged claims primarily relate to products that Union Carbide sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products located on Union Carbide's premises, and Union Carbide's responsibility for asbestos suits filed against a former Union Carbide subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc. ("Amchem"). In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable loss as a result of such exposure, or that injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure to Union Carbide's products. Union Carbide expects more asbestos-related suits to be filed against Union Carbide and Amchem in the future, and will aggressively defend or reasonably resolve, as appropriate, both pending and future claims. Based on a study completed by Analysis, Research & Planning Corporation ("ARPC") in January 2003, Union Carbide increased its December 31, 2002 asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims for the 15-year period ending in 2017 to $2.2 billion, excluding future defense and processing costs. Since then, Union Carbide has compared current asbestos claim and resolution activity to the results of the most recent ARPC study at each balance sheet date to determine whether the accrual continues to be appropriate. In addition, Union Carbide has requested ARPC to review Union Carbide's historical asbestos claim and resolution activity each year since 2004 to determine the appropriateness of updating the most recent ARPC study. In October 2012, Union Carbide requested ARPC to review its historical asbestos claim and resolution activity and determine the appropriateness of updating its then most recent study completed in December 2010. In response to that request, ARPC reviewed and analyzed data through September 30, 2012. In December 2012, based upon ARPC's December 2012 study and Union Carbide's own review of the asbestos claim and resolution activity for 2012, it was determined that no adjustment to the accrual was required at December 31, 2012. Union Carbide's asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims was $602 million at December 31, 2012. In October 2013, Union Carbide requested ARPC to review its historical asbestos claim and resolution activity and determine the appropriateness of updating its December 2012 study. In response to that request, ARPC reviewed and analyzed data through September 30, 2013. In December 2013, ARPC stated that an update of its study would not provide a more likely estimate of future events than the estimate reflected in its December 2012 study and, therefore, the estimate in that study remained applicable. Based on Union Carbide's own review of the asbestos claim and resolution activity and ARPC's response, Union Carbide determined that no change to the accrual was required. At December 31, 2013, the asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims was $501 million. In October 2014, Union Carbide requested ARPC to review its historical asbestos claim and resolution activity and determine the appropriateness of updating its December 2012 study. In response to that request, ARPC reviewed and analyzed data through September 30, 2014. The resulting study, completed by ARPC in December 2014, estimates that the undiscounted cost of disposing of pending and future claims against Union Carbide and Amchem, excluding future defense and processing costs, to be between $540 million and $640 million through 2029 based on the data as of September 30, 2014. As in earlier studies, ARPC provided longer periods of time in its December 2014 study, but also reaffirmed that forecasts for shorter periods of time are more accurate than those for longer periods of time. In December 2014, based on ARPC's December 2014 study and Union Carbides's own review of the asbestos claim and resolution activity, Union Carbide determined that an adjustment to the accrual was required due to the increase in mesothelioma claim activity compared with what had been forecasted in the December 2012 study. Accordingly, Union Carbide increased its asbestos- related liability for pending and future claims by $78 million. At December 31, 2014, the asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims was $513 million. At December 31, 2014, approximately 22 percent of the recorded liability related to pending claims and approximately 78 percent related to future claims. At December 31, 2013, approximately 19 percent of the recorded liability related to pending claims and approximately 81 percent related to future claims. The Dow Chemical Company is as an integrated science and technology company. It is a worldwide manufacturer and supplier of products used primarily as raw materials in the manufacture of customer products and services. The Company serves various industries, including appliance; automotive; agricultural; building and construction; chemical processing; electronics; furniture; housewares; oil and gas; packaging; paints, coatings and adhesives; personal care; pharmaceutical; processed foods; pulp and paper; textile and carpet; utilities, and water treatment. The Company delivers a range of technology-based products and solutions to customers in approximately 180 countries and in sectors such as electronics, water, energy, coatings and agriculture. The Company operates through six operating segments: Electronic and Functional Materials, Coatings and Infrastructure Solutions, Agricultural Sciences, Performance Materials, Performance Plastics and Feedstocks and Energy. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Chemical Unit Had $79MM Fibro Receivables -------------------------------------------------------------- The Dow Chemical Company disclosed that its subsidiary, Union Carbide, had $79 million receivables related to its asbestos- related liability, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. At December 31, 2002, Union Carbide increased the receivable for insurance recoveries related to its asbestos liability to $1.35 billion, substantially exhausting its asbestos product liability coverage. The insurance receivable related to the asbestos liability was determined by Union Carbide after a thorough review of applicable insurance policies and the 1985 Wellington Agreement, to which Union Carbide and many of its liability insurers are signatory parties, as well as other insurance settlements, with due consideration given to applicable deductibles, retentions and policy limits, and taking into account the solvency and historical payment experience of various insurance carriers. The Wellington Agreement and other agreements with insurers are designed to facilitate an orderly resolution and collection of Union Carbide's insurance policies and to resolve issues that the insurance carriers may raise. In September 2003, Union Carbide filed a comprehensive insurance coverage case, now proceeding in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, seeking to confirm its rights to insurance for various asbestos claims and to facilitate an orderly and timely collection of insurance proceeds (the "Insurance Litigation"). The Insurance Litigation was filed against insurers that are not signatories to the Wellington Agreement and/or do not otherwise have agreements in place with Union Carbide regarding their asbestos-related insurance coverage, in order to facilitate an orderly resolution and collection of such insurance policies and to resolve issues that the insurance carriers may raise. Since the filing of the case, Union Carbide has reached settlements with most of the carriers involved in the Insurance Litigation and continues to pursue a settlement with the remaining carrier. Union Carbide's receivable for insurance recoveries related to its asbestos liability was $10 million at December 31, 2014 and $25 million at December 31, 2013. At December 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013, all of the receivable for insurance recoveries was related to insurers that are not signatories to the Wellington Agreement and/or do not otherwise have agreements in place regarding their asbestos-related insurance coverage. In addition to the receivable for insurance recoveries related to its asbestos liability, Union Carbide had receivables for defense and resolution costs submitted to insurance carriers that have settlement agreements in place regarding their asbestos-related insurance coverage. Union Carbide's receivables related to its asbestos-related liability was $79 million. After a review of its insurance policies, with due consideration given to applicable deductibles, retentions and policy limits, after taking into account the solvency and historical payment experience of various insurance carriers; existing insurance settlements; and the advice of outside counsel with respect to the applicable insurance coverage law relating to the terms and conditions of its insurance policies, Union Carbide continues to believe that its recorded receivable for insurance recoveries from all insurance carriers is probable of collection. Union Carbide expenses defense costs as incurred. The pretax impact for defense and resolution costs, net of insurance, was $108 million in 2014, $107 million in 2013 and $100 million in 2012, and was reflected in "Cost of sales" in the consolidated statements of income. The amounts recorded by Union Carbide for the asbestos-related liability and related insurance receivable were based upon current, known facts. However, future events, such as the number of new claims to be filed and/or received each year, the average cost of disposing of each such claim, coverage issues among insurers, and the continuing solvency of various insurance companies, as well as the numerous uncertainties surrounding asbestos litigation in the United States, could cause the actual costs and insurance recoveries for Union Carbide to be higher or lower than those projected or those recorded. Because of the uncertainties, Union Carbide's management cannot estimate the full range of the cost of resolving pending and future asbestos-related claims facing Union Carbide and Amchem. Union Carbide's management believes that it is reasonably possible that the cost of disposing of Union Carbide's asbestos-related claims, including future defense costs, could have a material impact on Union Carbide's results of operations and cash flows for a particular period and on the consolidated financial position of Union Carbide. It is the opinion of Dow's management that it is reasonably possible that the cost of Union Carbide disposing of its asbestos- related claims, including future defense costs, could have a material impact on the Company's results of operations and cash flows for a particular period and on the consolidated financial position of the Company. The Dow Chemical Company is as an integrated science and technology company. It is a worldwide manufacturer and supplier of products used primarily as raw materials in the manufacture of customer products and services. The Company serves various industries, including appliance; automotive; agricultural; building and construction; chemical processing; electronics; furniture; housewares; oil and gas; packaging; paints, coatings and adhesives; personal care; pharmaceutical; processed foods; pulp and paper; textile and carpet; utilities, and water treatment. The Company delivers a range of technology-based products and solutions to customers in approximately 180 countries and in sectors such as electronics, water, energy, coatings and agriculture. The Company operates through six operating segments: Electronic and Functional Materials, Coatings and Infrastructure Solutions, Agricultural Sciences, Performance Materials, Performance Plastics and Feedstocks and Energy. ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 41,100 Fibro Claims at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------- CBS Corporation had 41,100 pending asbestos claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. The Company is a defendant in lawsuits claiming various personal injuries related to asbestos and other materials, which allegedly occurred principally as a result of exposure caused by various products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor, generally prior to the early 1970s. Westinghouse was neither a producer nor a manufacturer of asbestos. The Company is typically named as one of a large number of defendants in both state and federal cases. In the majority of asbestos lawsuits, the plaintiffs have not identified which of the Company's products is the basis of a claim. Claims against the Company in which a product has been identified principally relate to exposures allegedly caused by asbestos-containing insulating material in turbines sold for power-generation, industrial and marine use. Claims are frequently filed and/or settled in groups, which may make the amount and timing of settlements, and the number of pending claims, subject to significant fluctuation from period to period. The Company does not report as pending those claims on inactive, stayed, deferred or similar dockets which some jurisdictions have established for claimants who allege minimal or no impairment. As of December 31, 2014, the Company had pending approximately 41,100 asbestos claims, as compared with approximately 45,150 as of December 31, 2013 and 45,900 as of December 31, 2012. During 2014, the Company received approximately 3,880 new claims and closed or moved to an inactive docket approximately 7,930 claims. The Company reports claims as closed when it becomes aware that a dismissal order has been entered by a court or when the Company has reached agreement with the claimants on the material terms of a settlement. Settlement costs depend on the seriousness of the injuries that form the basis of the claim, the quality of evidence supporting the claims and other factors. The Company's total costs for the years 2014 and 2013 for settlement and defense of asbestos claims after insurance recoveries and net of tax benefits were approximately $11 million and $29 million, respectively. The Company's costs for settlement and defense of asbestos claims may vary year to year and insurance proceeds are not always recovered in the same period as the insured portion of the expenses. Filings include claims for individuals suffering from mesothelioma, a rare cancer, the risk of which is allegedly increased by exposure to asbestos; lung cancer, a cancer which may be caused by various factors, one of which is alleged to be asbestos exposure; other cancers, and conditions that are substantially less serious, including claims brought on behalf of individuals who are asymptomatic as to an allegedly asbestos- related disease. The predominant number of claims against the Company are non-cancer claims. In a substantial number of the pending claims, the plaintiff has not yet identified the claimed injury. The Company believes that its reserves and insurance are adequate to cover its asbestos liabilities. This belief is based upon many factors and assumptions, including the number of outstanding claims, estimated average cost per claim, the breakdown of claims by disease type, historic claim filings, costs per claim of resolution and the filing of new claims. While the number of asbestos claims filed against the Company has trended down in the past five to ten years and has remained flat in recent years, it is difficult to predict future asbestos liabilities, as events and circumstances may occur including, among others, the number and types of claims and average cost to resolve such claims, which could affect the Company's estimate of its asbestos liabilities. The Company from time to time receives claims from federal and state environmental regulatory agencies and other entities asserting that it is or may be liable for environmental cleanup costs and related damages principally relating to historical and predecessor operations of the Company. In addition, the Company from time to time receives personal injury claims including toxic tort and product liability claims (other than asbestos) arising from historical operations of the Company and its predecessors. CBS Corporation is a mass media company. The Company has operations in segments, which include Entertainment, Cable Networks, Publishing, Local Broadcasting and Outdoor. During the year ended December 31, 2011, contributions to the Company's consolidated revenues from its segments were Entertainment 52%, Cable Networks 11%, Publishing 6%, Local Broadcasting 19% and Outdoor 13%. During 2011, it generated approximately 15% of its total revenues from international regions. Effective March 26, 2013, the Company acquired 50% interest in The TV Guide Network from Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. In June 2013, the Company acquired TV Guide Digital, which includes the popular TVGuide.com and TV Guide Mobile properties. In October 2013, Platinum Equity and CBS Corporation announced that an affiliate of Platinum Equity acquired the assets of CBS Outdoor International (CBSO International). ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Int'l Has $485MM Fibro Recoveries ------------------------------------------------------------ Honeywell International Inc., reported $485 million total insurance recoveries for asbestos-related liabilities for NARCO and Bendix, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. Honeywell is a defendant in asbestos related personal injury actions related to two predecessor companies: * North American Refractories Company (NARCO), which was sold in 1986, produced refractory products (bricks and cement used in high temperature applications). Claimants consist largely of individuals who allege exposure to NARCO asbestos-containing refractory products in an occupational setting. * Bendix Friction Materials (Bendix) business, which was sold in 2014, manufactured automotive brake parts that contained chrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated form. Claimants consist largely of individuals who allege exposure to asbestos from brakes from either performing or being in the vicinity of individuals who performed brake replacements. For the year ended December 31, 2014, NARCO and Bendix's total asbestos-related balance was $1,552 million. For the year ended December 31, 2014, NARCO and Bendix's total insurance recoveries for asbestos-related liabilities was $485 million. In connection with NARCO's emergence from bankruptcy on April 30, 2013, a federally authorized 524(g) trust (NARCO Trust) was established for the evaluation and resolution of all existing and future NARCO asbestos claims. Both Honeywell and NARCO are protected by a permanent channeling injunction barring all present and future individual actions in state or federal courts and requiring all asbestos related claims based on exposure to NARCO products to be made against the NARCO Trust. The NARCO Trust reviews submitted claims and determines award amounts in accordance with established Trust Distribution Procedures approved by the Bankruptcy Court which set forth the criteria claimants must meet to qualify for compensation including, among other things, exposure and medical criteria that determine the award amount. In addition, Honeywell provided, and continues to provide, input to the design of control procedures for processing NARCO claims, and has on-going audit rights to review and monitor the claims processors' adherence to the established requirements of the Trust Distribution Procedures. Honeywell is obligated to fund NARCO asbestos claims submitted to the NARCO Trust which qualify for payment under the Trust Distribution Procedures (Annual Contribution Claims), subject to annual caps of $140 million in the years 2015 through 2018 and $145 million for each year thereafter. However, the initial $100 million of claims processed through the NARCO Trust (the Initial Claims Amount) will not count against the annual cap and any unused portion of the Initial Claims Amount will roll over to subsequent years until fully utilized. As of December 31, 2014, Honeywell has not made any payments to the NARCO Trust for Annual Contribution Claims. Honeywell is also responsible for payments due to claimants pursuant to settlement agreements reached during the pendency of the NARCO bankruptcy proceedings that provide for the right to submit claims to the NARCO Trust subject to qualification under the terms of the settlement agreements and Trust Distribution Procedures criteria (Pre-established Unliquidated Claims), which amounts are estimated at $150 million and are expected to be paid during the initial years of trust operations ($3 million of which was paid in 2014). Such payments are not subject to the annual cap. The Company states: "Our consolidated financial statements reflect an estimated liability for pre-established unliquidated claims ($147 million), unsettled claims pending as of the time NARCO filed for bankruptcy protection ($39 million) and for the estimated value of future NARCO asbestos claims expected to be asserted against the NARCO Trust through 2018 ($743 million). In the absence of actual trust experience on which to base the estimate, Honeywell projected the probable value of asbestos related future liabilities, including trust claim handling costs, based on a commonly accepted methodology used by numerous bankruptcy courts addressing 524(g) trusts. Some critical assumptions underlying this methodology include claims filing rates, disease criteria and payment values contained in the Trust Distribution Procedures, estimated approval rates of claims submitted to the NARCO Trust and epidemiological studies estimating disease instances. This projection resulted in a range of estimated liability of $743 million to $961 million. We believe that no amount within this range is a better estimate than any other amount and accordingly, we have recorded the minimum amount in the range. In light of the uncertainties inherent in making long-term projections and in connection with the recent implementation of the Trust Distribution Procedures by the NARCO Trust, as well as the stay of all NARCO asbestos claims which remained in place throughout NARCO's Chapter 11 case, we do not believe that we have a reasonable basis for estimating NARCO asbestos claims beyond 2018. "Our insurance receivable corresponding to the estimated liability for pending and future NARCO asbestos claims reflects coverage which reimburses Honeywell for portions of NARCO-related indemnity and defense costs and is provided by a large number of insurance policies written by dozens of insurance companies in both the domestic insurance market and the London excess market. We conduct analyses to estimate the probable amount of insurance that is recoverable for asbestos claims. While the substantial majority of our insurance carriers are solvent, some of our individual carriers are insolvent, which has been considered in our analysis of probable recoveries. We made judgments concerning insurance coverage that we believe are reasonable and consistent with our historical dealings and our knowledge of any pertinent solvency issues surrounding insurers. "Projecting future events is subject to many uncertainties that could cause the NARCO-related asbestos liabilities or assets to be higher or lower than those projected and recorded. Given the uncertainties, we review our estimates periodically, and update them based on our experience and other relevant factors. Similarly, we will reevaluate our projections concerning our probable insurance recoveries in light of any changes to the projected liability or other developments that may impact insurance recoveries." Honeywell International Inc. is a diversified technology and manufacturing company. The Company is serving customers globally with aerospace products and services, control, sensing and security technologies for buildings, homes and industry, turbochargers, automotive products, specialty chemicals, electronic and advanced materials, process technology for refining and petrochemicals, and energy efficient products and solutions for homes, business and transportation. It manages its business operations through four businesses that are reported as operating segments: Aerospace, Automation and Control Solutions, Performance Materials and Technologies, and Transportation Systems. The Company had approximately 131,000 employees at December 31, 2013, of which approximately 51,000 were located in the United States. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has 9,267 Unresolved Bendix Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International Inc., reported 9,267 unresolved Bendix- related asbestos claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. It is not possible to predict whether resolution values for Bendix-related asbestos claims will increase, decrease or stabilize in the future. The Company's consolidated financial statements reflect an estimated liability for resolution of pending (claims actually filed as of the financial statement date) and future Bendix- related asbestos claims. It has valued Bendix pending and future claims using average resolution values for the previous five years. The Company updates the resolution values used to estimate the cost of Bendix pending and future claims during the fourth quarter each year. The liability for future claims represents the estimated value of future asbestos related bodily injury claims expected to be asserted against Bendix over the next five years. Such estimated cost of future Bendix-related asbestos claims is based on historic claims filing experience and dismissal rates, disease classifications, and resolution values in the tort system for the previous five years. In light of the uncertainties inherent in making long-term projections, as well as certain factors unique to friction product asbestos claims, the Company does not believe that it has a reasonable basis for estimating asbestos claims beyond the next five years. The methodology used to estimate the liability for future claims is similar to that used to estimate the liability for future NARCO-related asbestos claims. The Company's insurance receivable corresponding to the liability for settlement of pending and future Bendix asbestos claims reflects coverage which is provided by a large number of insurance policies written by dozens of insurance companies in both the domestic insurance market and the London excess market. Based on its ongoing analysis of the probable insurance recovery, insurance receivables are recorded in the financial statements simultaneous with the recording of the estimated liability for the underlying asbestos claims. This determination is based on the Company's analysis of the underlying insurance policies, our historical experience with our insurers, our ongoing review of the solvency of our insurers, judicial determinations relevant to our insurance programs, and our consideration of the impacts of any settlements reached with our insurers. Honeywell believes it has sufficient insurance coverage and reserves to cover all pending Bendix-related asbestos claims and Bendix-related asbestos claims estimated to be filed within the next five years. Although it is impossible to predict the outcome of either pending or future Bendix-related asbestos claims, we do not believe that such claims would have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position in light of our insurance coverage and our prior experience in resolving such claims. If the rate and types of claims filed, the average resolution value of such claims and the period of time over which claim settlements are paid (collectively, the Variable Claims Factors) do not substantially change, Honeywell would not expect future Bendix- related asbestos claims to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or operating cash flows in any fiscal year. No assurances can be given, however, that the Variable Claims Factors will not change. Honeywell International Inc. is a diversified technology and manufacturing company. The Company is serving customers globally with aerospace products and services, control, sensing and security technologies for buildings, homes and industry, turbochargers, automotive products, specialty chemicals, electronic and advanced materials, process technology for refining and petrochemicals, and energy efficient products and solutions for homes, business and transportation. It manages its business operations through four businesses that are reported as operating segments: Aerospace, Automation and Control Solutions, Performance Materials and Technologies, and Transportation Systems. The Company had approximately 131,000 employees at December 31, 2013, of which approximately 51,000 were located in the United States. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l. Records $900,000 Fibro Expense ------------------------------------------------------------- Lennox International Inc. recorded an expense of $0.9 million for the years ended December 31, 2014, net of probable insurance recoveries, for known and future asbestos-related litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. The Company states: "We are involved in a number of claims and lawsuits incident to the operation of our businesses. Insurance coverages are maintained and estimated costs are recorded for such claims and lawsuits, including costs to settle claims and lawsuits, based on experience involving similar matters and specific facts known. "Some of these claims and lawsuits allege personal injury or health problems resulting from exposure to asbestos that was integrated into certain of our products. We have never manufactured asbestos and have not incorporated asbestos- containing components into our products for several decades. A substantial majority of asbestos-related claims have been covered by insurance or other forms of indemnity or have been dismissed without payment. The remainder of our closed cases have been resolved for amounts that are not material, individually or in the aggregate. Our defense costs for asbestos-related claims are generally covered by insurance; however, our insurance coverage for settlements and judgments for asbestos-related claims vary depending on several factors, and are subject to policy limits, so we may have greater financial exposure for future settlements and judgments. For the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013, we recorded expense of $0.9 million and $6.3 million, respectively, net of probable insurance recoveries, for known and future asbestos-related litigation. "It is management's opinion that none of these claims or lawsuits or any threatened litigation will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Claims and lawsuits, however, involve uncertainties and it is possible that their eventual outcome could adversely affect our results of operations in a future period." Lennox International Inc., is a provider of climate control solutions and design, manufacture and market a broad range of products for the heating, ventilation, air conditioning and refrigeration ("HVACR") markets. The Company was founded in 1895, in Marshalltown, Iowa, by Dave Lennox, the owner of a machine repair business for railroads. He designed and patented a riveted steel coal-fired furnace, which led to numerous advancements in heating, cooling and climate control solutions. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NewMarket Corp. Had $12-Mil. Fibro Liability ------------------------------------------------------------- NewMarket Corporation provided an undiscounted liability related to premises asbestos claims of $12 million, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. The Company states: "We are a defendant in personal injury lawsuits involving exposure to asbestos. These cases involve exposure to asbestos in premises owned or operated, or formerly owned or operated, by subsidiaries of NewMarket. We have never manufactured, sold, or distributed products that contain asbestos. Nearly all of these cases are pending in Texas, Louisiana, or Illinois and involve multiple defendants. We maintain an accrual for these proceedings, as well as a receivable for expected insurance recoveries. "The accrual for our premises asbestos liability related to currently asserted claims is based on the following assumptions and factors: * We are often one of many defendants. This factor influences both the number of claims settled against us and the indemnity cost associated with such resolutions. * The estimated percent of claimants in each case that will actually, after discovery, make a claim against us, out of the total number of claimants in a case, is based on a level consistent with past experience and current trends. * We utilize average comparable plaintiff cost history as the basis for estimating pending premises asbestos related claims. These claims are filed by both former contractors' employees and former employees who worked at past and present company locations. We also include an estimated inflation factor in the calculation. * No estimate is made for unasserted claims. * The estimated recoveries from insurance and Albemarle Corporation (a former operation of our company) for these cases are based on, and are consistent with, the 2005 settlement agreements with Travelers Indemnity Company. "Based on these assumptions, we have provided an undiscounted liability related to premises asbestos claims of $12 million at both December 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013. The liabilities related to asbestos claims are included in accrued expenses (current portion) and other noncurrent liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Certain of these costs are recoverable through our insurance coverage and an agreement with Albemarle Corporation. The receivable for these recoveries related to premises asbestos liabilities was $7 million at December 31, 2014 and $6 million at December 31, 2013. These receivables are included in trade and other accounts receivable, net on the Consolidated Balance Sheets for the current portion. The noncurrent portion is included in deferred charges and other assets." NewMarket Corporation (NewMarket) (NYSE: NEU) is a holding company and is the parent company of Afton Chemical Corporation (Afton), Ethyl Corporation (Ethyl), NewMarket Services Corporation (NewMarket Services), and NewMarket Development Corporation (NewMarket Development). ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Units Continues to Defend PI Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Colfax Corporation's subsidiaries continues to defend themselves against a large number of lawsuits that claim asbestos-related personal injury, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. Certain subsidiaries are each one of many defendants in a large number of lawsuits that claim personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos from products manufactured with components that are alleged to have contained asbestos. Such components were acquired from third-party suppliers, and were not manufactured by any of the Company's subsidiaries nor were the subsidiaries producers or direct suppliers of asbestos. The manufactured products that are alleged to have contained asbestos generally were provided to meet the specifications of the subsidiaries' customers, including the U.S. Navy. The Company states: "We have projected each subsidiary's future asbestos-related liability costs with regard to pending and future unasserted claims based upon the Nicholson methodology. The Nicholson methodology is a standard approach used by experts and has been accepted by numerous courts. This methodology is based upon risk equations, exposed population estimates, mortality rates, and other demographic statistics. In applying the Nicholson methodology for each subsidiary we performed: (1) an analysis of the estimated population likely to have been exposed or claim to have been exposed to products manufactured by the subsidiaries based upon national studies undertaken of the population of workers believed to have been exposed to asbestos; (2) a review of epidemiological and demographic studies to estimate the number of potentially exposed people that would be likely to develop asbestos-related diseases in each year; (3) an analysis of the subsidiaries' recent claims history to estimate likely filing rates for these diseases and (4) an analysis of the historical asbestos liability costs to develop average values, which vary by disease type, jurisdiction and the nature of claim, to determine an estimate of costs likely to be associated with currently pending and projected asbestos claims. Our projections, based upon the Nicholson methodology, estimate both claims and the estimated cash outflows related to the resolution of such claims for periods up to and including the endpoint of asbestos studies. It is our policy to record a liability for asbestos-related liability costs for the longest period of time that we can reasonably estimate. Accordingly, no accrual has been recorded for any costs which may be paid after the next 15 years. "Projecting future asbestos-related liability costs is subject to numerous variables that are difficult to predict, including, among others, the number of claims that might be received, the type and severity of the disease alleged by each claimant, the latency period associated with asbestos exposure, dismissal rates, costs of medical treatment, the financial resources of other companies that are co-defendants in the claims, funds available in post- bankruptcy trusts, uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, including fluctuations in the timing of court actions and rulings, and the impact of potential changes in legislative or judicial standards, including potential tort reform. Furthermore, any projections with respect to these variables are subject to even greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens. These trend factors have both positive and negative effects on the dynamics of asbestos litigation in the tort system and the related best estimate of our asbestos liability, and these effects do not move in linear fashion but rather change over multiple year periods. Accordingly, we monitor these trend factors over time and periodically assess whether an alternative forecast period is appropriate. Taking these factors into account and the inherent uncertainties, we believe that we can reasonably estimate the asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims that will be resolved in the next 15 years and have recorded that liability as our best estimate. While it is reasonably possible that the subsidiaries will incur costs after this period, we do not believe the reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible loss is estimable at the current time. Accordingly, no accrual has been recorded for any costs which may be paid after the next 15 years. Defense costs associated with asbestos-related liabilities as well as costs incurred related to litigation against the subsidiaries' insurers are expensed as incurred. "We assessed the subsidiaries' existing insurance arrangements and agreements, estimated the applicability of insurance coverage for existing and expected future claims, analyzed publicly available information bearing on the current creditworthiness and solvency of the various insurers, and employed such insurance allocation methodologies as we believed appropriate to ascertain the probable insurance recoveries for asbestos liabilities. The analysis took into account self-insurance retentions, policy exclusions, pending litigation, liability caps and gaps in coverage, existing and potential insolvencies of insurers as well as how legal and defense costs will be covered under the insurance policies. "Each subsidiary has separate insurance coverage acquired prior to our ownership of each independent entity. In our evaluation of the insurance asset, we use differing insurance allocation methodologies for each subsidiary based upon the applicable law pertaining to the affected subsidiary. "Management's analyses are based on currently known facts and a number of assumptions. However, projecting future events, such as new claims to be filed each year, the average cost of resolving each claim, coverage issues among layers of insurers, the method in which losses will be allocated to the various insurance policies, interpretation of the effect on coverage of various policy terms and limits and their interrelationships, the continuing solvency of various insurance companies, the amount of remaining insurance available, as well as the numerous uncertainties inherent in asbestos litigation could cause the actual liabilities and insurance recoveries to be higher or lower than those projected or recorded which could materially affect our financial condition, results of operations or cash flow." Colfax Corporation is an industrial manufacturing and engineering company that provides gas- and fluid-handling and fabrication technology products and services to commercial and governmental customers around the world under the Howden, ESAB and Colfax Fluid Handling brand names. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Has 21,681 Unresolved Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Colfax Corporation had 21,681 unresolved asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. Certain subsidiaries are each one of many defendants in a large number of lawsuits that claim personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos from products manufactured with components that are alleged to have contained asbestos. Such components were acquired from third-party suppliers, and were not manufactured by any of the Company's subsidiaries nor were the subsidiaries producers or direct suppliers of asbestos. The manufactured products that are alleged to have contained asbestos generally were provided to meet the specifications of the subsidiaries' customers, including the U.S. Navy. The subsidiaries settle asbestos claims for amounts the Company considers reasonable given the facts and circumstances of each claim. The annual average settlement payment per asbestos claimant has fluctuated during the past several years. The Company expects such fluctuations to continue in the future based upon, among other things, the number and type of claims settled in a particular period and the jurisdictions in which such claims arise. To date, the majority of settled claims have been dismissed for no payment. For the year-ended December 31, 2014, the Company's unresolved asbestos-related claims were 21,681. Colfax Corporation is an industrial manufacturing and engineering company that provides gas- and fluid-handling and fabrication technology products and services to commercial and governmental customers around the world under the Howden, ESAB and Colfax Fluid Handling brand names. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Has $346-Mil. Fibro Liability ----------------------------------------------------------- Colfax Corporation disclosed that its long-term asbestos liability was $346,099,000 as of December 31, 2014, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. The Company has projected each subsidiary's future asbestos- related liability costs with regard to pending and future unasserted claims based upon the Nicholson methodology. The Nicholson methodology is a standard approach used by experts and has been accepted by numerous courts. It is the Company's policy to record a liability for asbestos-related liability costs for the longest period of time that it can reasonably estimate. The Company believes that it can reasonably estimate the asbestos- related liability for pending and future claims that will be resolved in the next 15 years and has recorded that liability as its best estimate. While it is reasonably possible that the subsidiaries will incur costs after this period, the Company does not believe the reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible loss is estimable at the current time. Accordingly, no accrual has been recorded for any costs which may be paid after the next 15 years. Defense costs associated with asbestos-related liabilities as well as costs incurred related to litigation against the subsidiaries' insurers are expensed as incurred. Each subsidiary has separate insurance coverage acquired prior to Company ownership of each independent entity. In its evaluation of the insurance asset, the Company used differing insurance allocation methodologies for each subsidiary based upon the applicable law pertaining to the affected subsidiary. For one of the subsidiaries, the Delaware Court of Chancery ruled on October 14, 2009, that asbestos-related costs should be allocated among excess insurers using an "all sums" allocation (which allows an insured to collect all sums paid in connection with a claim from any insurer whose policy is triggered, up to the policy's applicable limits) and that the subsidiary has rights to excess insurance policies purchased by a former owner of the business. Based upon this ruling mandating an "all sums" allocation, as well as more recent rulings by the Delaware Superior Court concerning the subsidiary's coverage rights, the Company currently estimates that the subsidiary's future expected recovery percentage is approximately 93% of asbestos-related costs with the subsidiary expected to be responsible for approximately 7% of its future asbestos-related costs. Depending on the outcome of the appeal, the expected insurance recovery percentage could change. The subsidiary was notified in 2010 by the primary and umbrella carrier who had been fully defending and indemnifying the subsidiary for 20 years that the limits of liability of its primary and umbrella layer policies had been exhausted. Since then, the subsidiary has sought coverage from certain excess layer insurers whose terms and conditions follow form to the umbrella carrier. Certain first-layer excess insurers have defended and/or indemnified the subsidiary, subject to their reservations of rights and their applicable policy limits. A trial concerning the payment obligations of the Company's excess insurers concluded during the fourth quarter of 2012 and the Superior Court issued a final judgment during the third quarter of 2014. Appeals have been entered. The subsidiary has been largely unsuccessful in obtaining defense and indemnity payments from its excess insurers. While not impacting the results of operations, the Company has funded $60.3 million that it expects its excess insurers to ultimately reimburse through December 31, 2014, and until the final rulings ordering payment by the insurers are issued, cash funding could range up to $10 million per quarter until final resolution. Due to a statistically significant increase in mesothelioma and lung cancer claims and higher settlement values per claim that have occurred and are expected to continue to occur in certain jurisdictions, partially offset by lower claims and lower settlement values per claim in other jurisdictions, the Company recorded a $0.6 million pre-tax charge during year ended December 31, 2013, which was included in Selling, general and administrative expense in the Consolidated Statements of Operations. The pre-tax charge was comprised of an increase in asbestos-related liabilities of $10.8 million partially offset by an increase in expected insurance recoveries of $10.2 million. Due to a higher number of asbestos claims settlements and a decline in the insurance recovery rate that have occurred, the Company recorded a $6.9 million pre-tax charge during the year ended December 31, 2014, comprised of an increase in asbestos-related liabilities of $14.5 million partially offset by an increase in expected insurance recoveries of $7.6 million. In 2003, another subsidiary filed a lawsuit against a large number of its insurers and its former parent to resolve a variety of disputes concerning insurance for asbestos-related bodily injury claims asserted against it. Although none of these insurance companies contested coverage, they disputed the timing, reasonableness and allocation of payments. For this subsidiary, it was determined by court ruling in 2007 that the allocation methodology mandated by the New Jersey courts will apply. Further court rulings in December of 2009 clarified the allocation calculation related to amounts currently due from insurers as well as amounts the Company expects to be reimbursed for asbestos-related costs incurred in future periods. In connection with this litigation, the court engaged a special master to review the appropriate information and recommend an allocation formula in accordance with applicable law and the facts of the case. During 2010, the court-appointed special allocation master made its recommendation. In May 2011, the court accepted the recommendation with modifications. A final judgment at the trial court level in this litigation was rendered during the year ended December 31, 2011. The Appellate Division confirmed the trial court rulings during the year ended December 31, 2014, but appeals have been entered. The subsidiary expects to be responsible for approximately 19.5% of all future asbestos-related costs. As of December 31, 2014, the Company's long-term asbestos liability was $346,099,000. Management's analyses are based on currently known facts and a number of assumptions. However, projecting future events, such as new claims to be filed each year, the average cost of resolving each claim, coverage issues among layers of insurers, the method in which losses will be allocated to the various insurance policies, interpretation of the effect on coverage of various policy terms and limits and their interrelationships, the continuing solvency of various insurance companies, the amount of remaining insurance available, as well as the numerous uncertainties inherent in asbestos litigation could cause the actual liabilities and insurance recoveries to be higher or lower than those projected or recorded which could materially affect the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flow. Colfax Corporation is an industrial manufacturing and engineering company that provides gas- and fluid-handling and fabrication technology products and services to commercial and governmental customers around the world under the Howden, ESAB and Colfax Fluid Handling brand names. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Continues to Defend PI Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- Flowserve Corporation continues to defend itself against a number of lawsuits seeking to recover damages for asbestos-related personal injury, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. The Company states: "We are a defendant in a substantial number of lawsuits that seek to recover damages for personal injury allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured and/or distributed by our heritage companies in the past. While the overall number of asbestos-related claims has generally declined in recent years, there can be no assurance that this trend will continue, or that the average cost per claim will not further increase. Asbestos-containing materials incorporated into any such products were encapsulated and used as internal components of process equipment, and we do not believe that any significant emission of asbestos fibers occurred during the use of this equipment. "Our practice is to vigorously contest and resolve these claims, and we have been successful in resolving a majority of claims with little or no payment. Historically, a high percentage of resolved claims have been covered by applicable insurance or indemnities from other companies, and we believe that a substantial majority of existing claims should continue to be covered by insurance or indemnities. Accordingly, we have recorded a liability for our estimate of the most likely settlement of asserted claims and a related receivable from insurers or other companies for our estimated recovery, to the extent we believe that the amounts of recovery are probable and not otherwise in dispute. While unfavorable rulings, judgments or settlement terms regarding these claims could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows, we currently believe the likelihood is remote. "Additionally, we have claims pending against certain insurers that, if resolved more favorably than reflected in the recorded receivables, would result in discrete gains in the applicable quarter. We are currently unable to estimate the impact, if any, of unasserted asbestos-related claims, although future claims would also be subject to then existing indemnities and insurance coverage." Flowserve Corporation is a manufacturer and aftermarket service provider of comprehensive flow control systems. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Has 73,800 Fibro Claimants --------------------------------------------------------- The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company is currently one of numerous defendants in legal proceedings involving 73,800 claimants relating to their alleged exposure to materials containing asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. The Company states: "We are currently one of numerous defendants in legal proceedings in certain state and Federal courts involving approximately 73,800 claimants at December 31, 2014 relating to their alleged exposure to materials containing asbestos in products allegedly manufactured by us or asbestos materials present at our facilities. We manufactured, among other things, rubber coated asbestos sheet gasket materials from 1914 through 1973 and aircraft brake assemblies containing asbestos materials prior to 1987. Some of the claimants are independent contractors or their employees who allege exposure to asbestos while working at certain of our facilities. It is expected that in a substantial portion of these cases there will be no evidence of exposure to a Goodyear manufactured product containing asbestos or asbestos in our facilities. The amount expended by us and our insurers on defense and claim resolution was approximately $20 million during 2014. The plaintiffs in the pending cases allege that they were exposed to asbestos and, as a result of such exposure, suffer from various respiratory diseases, including in some cases mesothelioma and lung cancer. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified actual and punitive damages and other relief." The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes tires for most applications. The Company also manufactures and markets rubber-related chemicals for various applications. It is an operator of commercial truck service and tire retreading centers. In addition, the Company operates approximately 1,200 tire and auto service center outlets where its offers its products for retail sale and provides automotive repair and other services. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Disposed 109,500 PI Claims --------------------------------------------------------- The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company has disposed of approximately 109,500 asbestos-related personal injury claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. The Company states: "We are a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging various asbestos-related personal injuries purported to result from alleged exposure to asbestos in certain products manufactured by us or present in certain of our facilities. Typically, these lawsuits have been brought against multiple defendants in state and Federal courts. As of December 31, 2014, we have disposed of approximately 109,500 claims by defending and obtaining the dismissal thereof or by entering into a settlement. The sum of our accrued asbestos-related liability and gross payments to as of December 31, 2014, including legal costs, by us and our insurers totaled approximately $458 million through December 31, 2014 and $432 million through December 31, 2013. "We periodically, and at least annually, review our existing reserves for pending claims, including a reasonable estimate of the liability associated with unasserted asbestos claims, and estimate our receivables from probable insurance recoveries. We had recorded gross liabilities for both asserted and unasserted claims, inclusive of defense costs, totaling $151 million and $145 million at December 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively. The recorded liability represents our estimated liability over the next ten years, which represents the period over which the liability can be reasonably estimated. Due to the difficulties in making these estimates, analysis based on new data and/or a change in circumstances arising in the future could result in an increase in the recorded obligation in an amount that cannot be reasonably estimated, and that increase could be significant. The portion of the liability associated with unasserted asbestos claims and related defense costs was $84 million at December 31, 2014 and $78 million at December 31, 2013. At both December 31, 2014, and 2013, our liability with respect to asserted claims and related defense costs was $67 million. "We maintain primary insurance coverage under coverage-in-place agreements, and also have excess liability insurance with respect to asbestos liabilities. After consultation with our outside legal counsel and giving consideration to agreements with certain of our insurance carriers, the financial viability and legal obligations of our insurance carriers and other relevant factors, we determine an amount we expect is probable of recovery from such carriers. We record a receivable with respect to such policies when we determine that recovery is probable and we can reasonably estimate the amount of a particular recovery. "We recorded a receivable related to asbestos claims of $71 million at December 31, 2014 and $75 million at December 31, 2013. We expect that approximately 50% of asbestos claim related losses would be recoverable through insurance during the ten-year period covered by the estimated liability. Of these amounts, $13 million was included in Current Assets as part of Accounts Receivable at December 31, 2014 and $11 million at December 31, 2013. The recorded receivable consists of an amount we expect to collect under coverage-in-place agreements with certain primary carriers as well as an amount we believe is probable of recovery from certain of our excess coverage insurance carriers. "We believe that, at December 31, 2014, we had approximately $160 million in limits of excess level policies potentially applicable to indemnity and defense costs for asbestos products claims. We also had coverage under certain primary policies for indemnity and defense costs for asbestos products claims under remaining aggregate limits, as well as coverage for indemnity and defense costs for asbestos premises claims on a per occurrence basis, pursuant to coverage-in-place agreements at December 31, 2014. "We believe that our reserve for asbestos claims, and the receivable for recoveries from insurance carriers recorded in respect of these claims, reflects reasonable and probable estimates of these amounts, subject to the exclusion of claims for which it is not feasible to make reasonable estimates. The estimate of the assets and liabilities related to pending and expected future asbestos claims and insurance recoveries is subject to numerous uncertainties, including, but not limited to, changes in: * the litigation environment, * Federal and state law governing the compensation of asbestos claimants, * recoverability of receivables due to potential insolvency of carriers, * our approach to defending and resolving claims, and * the level of payments made to claimants from other sources, including other defendants and 524(g) trusts. "As a result, with respect to both asserted and unasserted claims, it is reasonably possible that we may incur a material amount of cost in excess of the current reserve; however, such amounts cannot be reasonably estimated. Coverage under insurance policies is subject to varying characteristics of asbestos claims including, but not limited to, the type of claim (premise vs. product exposure), alleged date of first exposure to our products or premises and disease alleged. Depending upon the nature of these characteristics, as well as the resolution of certain legal issues, some portion of the insurance may not be accessible by us." The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes tires for most applications. The Company also manufactures and markets rubber-related chemicals for various applications. It is an operator of commercial truck service and tire retreading centers. In addition, the Company operates approximately 1,200 tire and auto service center outlets where its offers its products for retail sale and provides automotive repair and other services. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navigators Group Has $10.2MM Fibro Reserves ------------------------------------------------------------ The Navigators Group, Inc., has $10,291,000 net reserves for asbestos exposure, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. The Company states: "Our exposure to Asbestos Liability principally stems from Marine Liability insurance written on an occurrence basis during the mid-1980s. In general, our participation on such risks is in the excess layers, which requires the underlying coverage to be exhausted prior to coverage being triggered in our layer. In many instances, we are one of many insurers who participate in the defense and ultimate settlement of these claims, and we are generally a minor participant in the overall insurance coverage and settlement. "The reserves for asbestos exposures as of December 31, 2014 are for: (i) one large settled claim for Excess insurance policy limits exposed to a class action suit against an insured involved in the manufacturing or distribution of asbestos products being paid over several years and (ii) attritional asbestos claims that could be expected to occur over time. Substantially all of our Asbestos Liability reserves are included in our Marine loss reserves. For the year ended December 31, 2014, the Company recognized a benefit of $2.1 million as a result of settlements with third party administrators on ceded paid losses previously written off in prior years due to bankruptcy or insolvency of the reinsurer. "There can be no assurances that material loss development may not arise in the future from existing asbestos claims or new claims given the evolving and complex legal environment that may directly affect the outcome of the asbestos exposures of our insureds. "For the year-ended December 31, 2-14, the Company's net reserves for asbestos exposure was $10,291,000." The Navigators Group, Inc., is an international insurance company focusing on specialty products within the overall property and casualty insurance market. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Has 13 Pending Cases ----------------------------------------------------------- Minerals Technologies Inc. has 13 pending asbestos cases, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. The Company states: "Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are among numerous defendants in a number of cases seeking damages for exposure to silica or to asbestos containing materials. The Company currently has 102 pending silica cases and 13 pending asbestos cases. These totals include 30 silica cases against AMCOL International Corporation and/or its subsidiary, American Colloid Company, that were pending on the date we acquired AMCOL. As of December 31, 2014, 1,394 silica cases and 39 asbestos cases have been dismissed, not including any lawsuits against AMCOL or American Colloid Company dismissed prior to our acquisition of AMCOL. No new asbestos or silica cases were filed in the third quarter of 2014. Two new asbestos cases were filed in the fourth quarter of 2014. "Most of these claims do not provide adequate information to assess their merits, the likelihood that the Company will be found liable, or the magnitude of such liability, if any. Additional claims of this nature may be made against the Company or its subsidiaries. At this time management anticipates that the amount of the Company's liability, if any, and the cost of defending such claims, will not have a material effect on its financial position or results of operations. "The Company has not settled any silica or asbestos lawsuits to date (not including any that may have been settled by AMCOL prior to completion of the acquisition). We are unable to state an amount or range of amounts claimed in any of the lawsuits because state court pleading practices do not require identifying the amount of the claimed damage. The aggregate cost to the Company for the legal defense of these cases since inception continues to be insignificant. The majority of the costs of defense for these cases, excluding cases against AMCOL or American Colloid, are reimbursed by Pfizer Inc. pursuant to the terms of certain agreements entered into in connection with the Company's initial public offering in 1992. Of the 13 pending asbestos cases excluding the case against AMCOL/American Colloid, all allege liability based on products sold largely or entirely prior to the initial public offering, and for which the Company is therefore entitled to indemnification pursuant to such agreements. Our experience has been that the Company is not liable to plaintiffs in any of these lawsuits and the Company does not expect to pay any settlements or jury verdicts in these lawsuits." Minerals Technologies Inc., is a resource- and technology-based company that develops, produces, and markets on a worldwide basis a broad range of specialty mineral, mineral-based and synthetic mineral products and supporting systems and services. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Reports $681MM Non-PCC Liability -------------------------------------------------------------- Corning Incorporated reported that the liability for the amended plan of its subsidiary, Pittsburgh Corning Corporation, and the non-PCC asbestos litigation was estimated to be $681 million, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. The liability for the Amended Plan of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation ("PCC") and the non-PCC asbestos claims was estimated to be $681 million at December 31, 2014, compared with an estimate of liability of $690 million at December 31, 2013. The $681 million liability is comprised of $241 million of the fair value of Pittsburgh Corning Europe N.V. ("PCE"), $290 million for the fixed series of payments, and $150 million for the non-PCC asbestos litigation. With respect to the PCE liability, at December 31, 2014 and 2013, the fair value of $241 million and $250 million of our interest in PCE significantly exceeded its carrying value of $162 million and $167 million, respectively. There have been no impairment indicators for our investment in PCE and we continue to recognize equity earnings of this affiliate. At the time Corning recorded this liability, it determined it lacked the ability to recover the carrying amount of its investment in PCC and its investment was other than temporarily impaired. As a result, we reduced our investment in PCC to zero. As the fair value in PCE is significantly higher than book value, management believes that the risk of an additional loss in an amount materially higher than the fair value of the liability is remote. With respect to the liability for other asbestos litigation, the liability for non-PCC claims was estimated based upon industry data for asbestos claims since Corning does not have recent claim history due to the injunction issued by the Bankruptcy Court. The estimated liability represents the undiscounted projection of claims and related legal fees over the next 20 years. The amount may need to be adjusted in future periods as more data becomes available; however, we cannot estimate any additional losses at this time. For the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013, Corning recorded asbestos litigation income of $9 million and expense of $19 million, respectively. The entire obligation is classified as a non-current liability, as installment payments for the cash portion of the obligation are not planned to commence until more than 12 months after the Amended PCC Plan becomes effective and the PCE portion of the obligation will be fulfilled through the direct contribution of Corning's investment in PCE (currently recorded as a non-current other equity method investment). Several of Corning's insurers have commenced litigation in state courts for a declaration of the rights and obligations of the parties under insurance policies, including rights that may be affected by the potential resolutions. Corning is vigorously contesting these cases, and management is unable to predict the outcome of the litigation. Corning Incorporated (Corning), is a global, technology-based corporation. The Company operates in five segments: Display Technologies, Telecommunications, Environmental Technologies, Specialty Materials and Life Sciences. During the year ended December 31, 2011, Corning launched Corning Lotus Glass, an environmentally friendly, display glass developed to enable technologies, including organic light-emitting diode (OLED) displays and next generation liquid crystal displays (LCD). Corning Lotus Glass helps support the demanding manufacturing processes of both OLED and liquid crystal displays for portable devices, such as smart phones, tablets, and notebook computers. During the year ended December 31, 2011, Corning introduced Corning Gorilla Glass 2, the next generation in its Corning Gorilla Glass suite of products. In May 2014, Mitsui Chemicals Inc announced the acquisition of Corning Inc's SunSensors operations. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Chemical Had $513-Mil. Fibro Liability ----------------------------------------------------------- The Dow Chemical Company's asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims was $513 million, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. Union Carbide Corporation ("Union Carbide"), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, is and has been involved in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during the past four decades. These suits principally allege personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products and frequently seek both actual and punitive damages. The alleged claims primarily relate to products that Union Carbide sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products located on Union Carbide's premises, and Union Carbide's responsibility for asbestos suits filed against a former Union Carbide subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc. ("Amchem"). In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable loss as a result of such exposure, or that injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure to Union Carbide's products. Union Carbide expects more asbestos-related suits to be filed against Union Carbide and Amchem in the future, and will aggressively defend or reasonably resolve, as appropriate, both pending and future claims. Based on a study completed by Analysis, Research & Planning Corporation ("ARPC") in January 2003, Union Carbide increased its December 31, 2002 asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims for the 15-year period ending in 2017 to $2.2 billion, excluding future defense and processing costs. Since then, Union Carbide has compared current asbestos claim and resolution activity to the results of the most recent ARPC study at each balance sheet date to determine whether the accrual continues to be appropriate. In addition, Union Carbide has requested ARPC to review Union Carbide's historical asbestos claim and resolution activity each year since 2004 to determine the appropriateness of updating the most recent ARPC study. In October 2012, Union Carbide requested ARPC to review its historical asbestos claim and resolution activity and determine the appropriateness of updating its then most recent study completed in December 2010. In response to that request, ARPC reviewed and analyzed data through September 30, 2012. In December 2012, based upon ARPC's December 2012 study and Union Carbide's own review of the asbestos claim and resolution activity for 2012, it was determined that no adjustment to the accrual was required at December 31, 2012. Union Carbide's asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims was $602 million at December 31, 2012. In October 2013, Union Carbide requested ARPC to review its historical asbestos claim and resolution activity and determine the appropriateness of updating its December 2012 study. In response to that request, ARPC reviewed and analyzed data through September 30, 2013. In December 2013, ARPC stated that an update of its study would not provide a more likely estimate of future events than the estimate reflected in its December 2012 study and, therefore, the estimate in that study remained applicable. Based on Union Carbide's own review of the asbestos claim and resolution activity and ARPC's response, Union Carbide determined that no change to the accrual was required. At December 31, 2013, the asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims was $501 million. In October 2014, Union Carbide requested ARPC to review its historical asbestos claim and resolution activity and determine the appropriateness of updating its December 2012 study. In response to that request, ARPC reviewed and analyzed data through September 30, 2014. The resulting study, completed by ARPC in December 2014, estimates that the undiscounted cost of disposing of pending and future claims against Union Carbide and Amchem, excluding future defense and processing costs, to be between $540 million and $640 million through 2029 based on the data as of September 30, 2014. As in earlier studies, ARPC provided longer periods of time in its December 2014 study, but also reaffirmed that forecasts for shorter periods of time are more accurate than those for longer periods of time. In December 2014, based on ARPC's December 2014 study and Union Carbides's own review of the asbestos claim and resolution activity, Union Carbide determined that an adjustment to the accrual was required due to the increase in mesothelioma claim activity compared with what had been forecasted in the December 2012 study. Accordingly, Union Carbide increased its asbestos- related liability for pending and future claims by $78 million. At December 31, 2014, the asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims was $513 million. At December 31, 2014, approximately 22 percent of the recorded liability related to pending claims and approximately 78 percent related to future claims. At December 31, 2013, approximately 19 percent of the recorded liability related to pending claims and approximately 81 percent related to future claims. The Dow Chemical Company is as an integrated science and technology company. It is a worldwide manufacturer and supplier of products used primarily as raw materials in the manufacture of customer products and services. The Company serves various industries, including appliance; automotive; agricultural; building and construction; chemical processing; electronics; furniture; housewares; oil and gas; packaging; paints, coatings and adhesives; personal care; pharmaceutical; processed foods; pulp and paper; textile and carpet; utilities, and water treatment. The Company delivers a range of technology-based products and solutions to customers in approximately 180 countries and in sectors such as electronics, water, energy, coatings and agriculture. The Company operates through six operating segments: Electronic and Functional Materials, Coatings and Infrastructure Solutions, Agricultural Sciences, Performance Materials, Performance Plastics and Feedstocks and Energy. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Chemical Unit Had $79MM Fibro Receivables -------------------------------------------------------------- The Dow Chemical Company disclosed that its subsidiary, Union Carbide, had $79 million receivables related to its asbestos- related liability, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. At December 31, 2002, Union Carbide increased the receivable for insurance recoveries related to its asbestos liability to $1.35 billion, substantially exhausting its asbestos product liability coverage. The insurance receivable related to the asbestos liability was determined by Union Carbide after a thorough review of applicable insurance policies and the 1985 Wellington Agreement, to which Union Carbide and many of its liability insurers are signatory parties, as well as other insurance settlements, with due consideration given to applicable deductibles, retentions and policy limits, and taking into account the solvency and historical payment experience of various insurance carriers. The Wellington Agreement and other agreements with insurers are designed to facilitate an orderly resolution and collection of Union Carbide's insurance policies and to resolve issues that the insurance carriers may raise. In September 2003, Union Carbide filed a comprehensive insurance coverage case, now proceeding in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, seeking to confirm its rights to insurance for various asbestos claims and to facilitate an orderly and timely collection of insurance proceeds (the "Insurance Litigation"). The Insurance Litigation was filed against insurers that are not signatories to the Wellington Agreement and/or do not otherwise have agreements in place with Union Carbide regarding their asbestos-related insurance coverage, in order to facilitate an orderly resolution and collection of such insurance policies and to resolve issues that the insurance carriers may raise. Since the filing of the case, Union Carbide has reached settlements with most of the carriers involved in the Insurance Litigation and continues to pursue a settlement with the remaining carrier. Union Carbide's receivable for insurance recoveries related to its asbestos liability was $10 million at December 31, 2014 and $25 million at December 31, 2013. At December 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013, all of the receivable for insurance recoveries was related to insurers that are not signatories to the Wellington Agreement and/or do not otherwise have agreements in place regarding their asbestos-related insurance coverage. In addition to the receivable for insurance recoveries related to its asbestos liability, Union Carbide had receivables for defense and resolution costs submitted to insurance carriers that have settlement agreements in place regarding their asbestos-related insurance coverage. Union Carbide's receivables related to its asbestos-related liability was $79 million. After a review of its insurance policies, with due consideration given to applicable deductibles, retentions and policy limits, after taking into account the solvency and historical payment experience of various insurance carriers; existing insurance settlements; and the advice of outside counsel with respect to the applicable insurance coverage law relating to the terms and conditions of its insurance policies, Union Carbide continues to believe that its recorded receivable for insurance recoveries from all insurance carriers is probable of collection. Union Carbide expenses defense costs as incurred. The pretax impact for defense and resolution costs, net of insurance, was $108 million in 2014, $107 million in 2013 and $100 million in 2012, and was reflected in "Cost of sales" in the consolidated statements of income. The amounts recorded by Union Carbide for the asbestos-related liability and related insurance receivable were based upon current, known facts. However, future events, such as the number of new claims to be filed and/or received each year, the average cost of disposing of each such claim, coverage issues among insurers, and the continuing solvency of various insurance companies, as well as the numerous uncertainties surrounding asbestos litigation in the United States, could cause the actual costs and insurance recoveries for Union Carbide to be higher or lower than those projected or those recorded. Because of the uncertainties, Union Carbide's management cannot estimate the full range of the cost of resolving pending and future asbestos-related claims facing Union Carbide and Amchem. Union Carbide's management believes that it is reasonably possible that the cost of disposing of Union Carbide's asbestos-related claims, including future defense costs, could have a material impact on Union Carbide's results of operations and cash flows for a particular period and on the consolidated financial position of Union Carbide. It is the opinion of Dow's management that it is reasonably possible that the cost of Union Carbide disposing of its asbestos- related claims, including future defense costs, could have a material impact on the Company's results of operations and cash flows for a particular period and on the consolidated financial position of the Company. The Dow Chemical Company is as an integrated science and technology company. It is a worldwide manufacturer and supplier of products used primarily as raw materials in the manufacture of customer products and services. The Company serves various industries, including appliance; automotive; agricultural; building and construction; chemical processing; electronics; furniture; housewares; oil and gas; packaging; paints, coatings and adhesives; personal care; pharmaceutical; processed foods; pulp and paper; textile and carpet; utilities, and water treatment. The Company delivers a range of technology-based products and solutions to customers in approximately 180 countries and in sectors such as electronics, water, energy, coatings and agriculture. The Company operates through six operating segments: Electronic and Functional Materials, Coatings and Infrastructure Solutions, Agricultural Sciences, Performance Materials, Performance Plastics and Feedstocks and Energy. ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 41,100 Fibro Claims at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------- CBS Corporation had 41,100 pending asbestos claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. The Company is a defendant in lawsuits claiming various personal injuries related to asbestos and other materials, which allegedly occurred principally as a result of exposure caused by various products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor, generally prior to the early 1970s. Westinghouse was neither a producer nor a manufacturer of asbestos. The Company is typically named as one of a large number of defendants in both state and federal cases. In the majority of asbestos lawsuits, the plaintiffs have not identified which of the Company's products is the basis of a claim. Claims against the Company in which a product has been identified principally relate to exposures allegedly caused by asbestos-containing insulating material in turbines sold for power-generation, industrial and marine use. Claims are frequently filed and/or settled in groups, which may make the amount and timing of settlements, and the number of pending claims, subject to significant fluctuation from period to period. The Company does not report as pending those claims on inactive, stayed, deferred or similar dockets which some jurisdictions have established for claimants who allege minimal or no impairment. As of December 31, 2014, the Company had pending approximately 41,100 asbestos claims, as compared with approximately 45,150 as of December 31, 2013 and 45,900 as of December 31, 2012. During 2014, the Company received approximately 3,880 new claims and closed or moved to an inactive docket approximately 7,930 claims. The Company reports claims as closed when it becomes aware that a dismissal order has been entered by a court or when the Company has reached agreement with the claimants on the material terms of a settlement. Settlement costs depend on the seriousness of the injuries that form the basis of the claim, the quality of evidence supporting the claims and other factors. The Company's total costs for the years 2014 and 2013 for settlement and defense of asbestos claims after insurance recoveries and net of tax benefits were approximately $11 million and $29 million, respectively. The Company's costs for settlement and defense of asbestos claims may vary year to year and insurance proceeds are not always recovered in the same period as the insured portion of the expenses. Filings include claims for individuals suffering from mesothelioma, a rare cancer, the risk of which is allegedly increased by exposure to asbestos; lung cancer, a cancer which may be caused by various factors, one of which is alleged to be asbestos exposure; other cancers, and conditions that are substantially less serious, including claims brought on behalf of individuals who are asymptomatic as to an allegedly asbestos- related disease. The predominant number of claims against the Company are non-cancer claims. In a substantial number of the pending claims, the plaintiff has not yet identified the claimed injury. The Company believes that its reserves and insurance are adequate to cover its asbestos liabilities. This belief is based upon many factors and assumptions, including the number of outstanding claims, estimated average cost per claim, the breakdown of claims by disease type, historic claim filings, costs per claim of resolution and the filing of new claims. While the number of asbestos claims filed against the Company has trended down in the past five to ten years and has remained flat in recent years, it is difficult to predict future asbestos liabilities, as events and circumstances may occur including, among others, the number and types of claims and average cost to resolve such claims, which could affect the Company's estimate of its asbestos liabilities. The Company from time to time receives claims from federal and state environmental regulatory agencies and other entities asserting that it is or may be liable for environmental cleanup costs and related damages principally relating to historical and predecessor operations of the Company. In addition, the Company from time to time receives personal injury claims including toxic tort and product liability claims (other than asbestos) arising from historical operations of the Company and its predecessors. CBS Corporation is a mass media company. The Company has operations in segments, which include Entertainment, Cable Networks, Publishing, Local Broadcasting and Outdoor. During the year ended December 31, 2011, contributions to the Company's consolidated revenues from its segments were Entertainment 52%, Cable Networks 11%, Publishing 6%, Local Broadcasting 19% and Outdoor 13%. During 2011, it generated approximately 15% of its total revenues from international regions. Effective March 26, 2013, the Company acquired 50% interest in The TV Guide Network from Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. In June 2013, the Company acquired TV Guide Digital, which includes the popular TVGuide.com and TV Guide Mobile properties. In October 2013, Platinum Equity and CBS Corporation announced that an affiliate of Platinum Equity acquired the assets of CBS Outdoor International (CBSO International). ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Int'l Has $485MM Fibro Recoveries ------------------------------------------------------------ Honeywell International Inc., reported $485 million total insurance recoveries for asbestos-related liabilities for NARCO and Bendix, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. Honeywell is a defendant in asbestos related personal injury actions related to two predecessor companies: * North American Refractories Company (NARCO), which was sold in 1986, produced refractory products (bricks and cement used in high temperature applications). Claimants consist largely of individuals who allege exposure to NARCO asbestos-containing refractory products in an occupational setting. * Bendix Friction Materials (Bendix) business, which was sold in 2014, manufactured automotive brake parts that contained chrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated form. Claimants consist largely of individuals who allege exposure to asbestos from brakes from either performing or being in the vicinity of individuals who performed brake replacements. For the year ended December 31, 2014, NARCO and Bendix's total asbestos-related balance was $1,552 million. For the year ended December 31, 2014, NARCO and Bendix's total insurance recoveries for asbestos-related liabilities was $485 million. In connection with NARCO's emergence from bankruptcy on April 30, 2013, a federally authorized 524(g) trust (NARCO Trust) was established for the evaluation and resolution of all existing and future NARCO asbestos claims. Both Honeywell and NARCO are protected by a permanent channeling injunction barring all present and future individual actions in state or federal courts and requiring all asbestos related claims based on exposure to NARCO products to be made against the NARCO Trust. The NARCO Trust reviews submitted claims and determines award amounts in accordance with established Trust Distribution Procedures approved by the Bankruptcy Court which set forth the criteria claimants must meet to qualify for compensation including, among other things, exposure and medical criteria that determine the award amount. In addition, Honeywell provided, and continues to provide, input to the design of control procedures for processing NARCO claims, and has on-going audit rights to review and monitor the claims processors' adherence to the established requirements of the Trust Distribution Procedures. Honeywell is obligated to fund NARCO asbestos claims submitted to the NARCO Trust which qualify for payment under the Trust Distribution Procedures (Annual Contribution Claims), subject to annual caps of $140 million in the years 2015 through 2018 and $145 million for each year thereafter. However, the initial $100 million of claims processed through the NARCO Trust (the Initial Claims Amount) will not count against the annual cap and any unused portion of the Initial Claims Amount will roll over to subsequent years until fully utilized. As of December 31, 2014, Honeywell has not made any payments to the NARCO Trust for Annual Contribution Claims. Honeywell is also responsible for payments due to claimants pursuant to settlement agreements reached during the pendency of the NARCO bankruptcy proceedings that provide for the right to submit claims to the NARCO Trust subject to qualification under the terms of the settlement agreements and Trust Distribution Procedures criteria (Pre-established Unliquidated Claims), which amounts are estimated at $150 million and are expected to be paid during the initial years of trust operations ($3 million of which was paid in 2014). Such payments are not subject to the annual cap. The Company states: "Our consolidated financial statements reflect an estimated liability for pre-established unliquidated claims ($147 million), unsettled claims pending as of the time NARCO filed for bankruptcy protection ($39 million) and for the estimated value of future NARCO asbestos claims expected to be asserted against the NARCO Trust through 2018 ($743 million). In the absence of actual trust experience on which to base the estimate, Honeywell projected the probable value of asbestos related future liabilities, including trust claim handling costs, based on a commonly accepted methodology used by numerous bankruptcy courts addressing 524(g) trusts. Some critical assumptions underlying this methodology include claims filing rates, disease criteria and payment values contained in the Trust Distribution Procedures, estimated approval rates of claims submitted to the NARCO Trust and epidemiological studies estimating disease instances. This projection resulted in a range of estimated liability of $743 million to $961 million. We believe that no amount within this range is a better estimate than any other amount and accordingly, we have recorded the minimum amount in the range. In light of the uncertainties inherent in making long-term projections and in connection with the recent implementation of the Trust Distribution Procedures by the NARCO Trust, as well as the stay of all NARCO asbestos claims which remained in place throughout NARCO's Chapter 11 case, we do not believe that we have a reasonable basis for estimating NARCO asbestos claims beyond 2018. "Our insurance receivable corresponding to the estimated liability for pending and future NARCO asbestos claims reflects coverage which reimburses Honeywell for portions of NARCO-related indemnity and defense costs and is provided by a large number of insurance policies written by dozens of insurance companies in both the domestic insurance market and the London excess market. We conduct analyses to estimate the probable amount of insurance that is recoverable for asbestos claims. While the substantial majority of our insurance carriers are solvent, some of our individual carriers are insolvent, which has been considered in our analysis of probable recoveries. We made judgments concerning insurance coverage that we believe are reasonable and consistent with our historical dealings and our knowledge of any pertinent solvency issues surrounding insurers. "Projecting future events is subject to many uncertainties that could cause the NARCO-related asbestos liabilities or assets to be higher or lower than those projected and recorded. Given the uncertainties, we review our estimates periodically, and update them based on our experience and other relevant factors. Similarly, we will reevaluate our projections concerning our probable insurance recoveries in light of any changes to the projected liability or other developments that may impact insurance recoveries." Honeywell International Inc. is a diversified technology and manufacturing company. The Company is serving customers globally with aerospace products and services, control, sensing and security technologies for buildings, homes and industry, turbochargers, automotive products, specialty chemicals, electronic and advanced materials, process technology for refining and petrochemicals, and energy efficient products and solutions for homes, business and transportation. It manages its business operations through four businesses that are reported as operating segments: Aerospace, Automation and Control Solutions, Performance Materials and Technologies, and Transportation Systems. The Company had approximately 131,000 employees at December 31, 2013, of which approximately 51,000 were located in the United States. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has 9,267 Unresolved Bendix Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International Inc., reported 9,267 unresolved Bendix- related asbestos claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. It is not possible to predict whether resolution values for Bendix-related asbestos claims will increase, decrease or stabilize in the future. The Company's consolidated financial statements reflect an estimated liability for resolution of pending (claims actually filed as of the financial statement date) and future Bendix- related asbestos claims. It has valued Bendix pending and future claims using average resolution values for the previous five years. The Company updates the resolution values used to estimate the cost of Bendix pending and future claims during the fourth quarter each year. The liability for future claims represents the estimated value of future asbestos related bodily injury claims expected to be asserted against Bendix over the next five years. Such estimated cost of future Bendix-related asbestos claims is based on historic claims filing experience and dismissal rates, disease classifications, and resolution values in the tort system for the previous five years. In light of the uncertainties inherent in making long-term projections, as well as certain factors unique to friction product asbestos claims, the Company does not believe that it has a reasonable basis for estimating asbestos claims beyond the next five years. The methodology used to estimate the liability for future claims is similar to that used to estimate the liability for future NARCO-related asbestos claims. The Company's insurance receivable corresponding to the liability for settlement of pending and future Bendix asbestos claims reflects coverage which is provided by a large number of insurance policies written by dozens of insurance companies in both the domestic insurance market and the London excess market. Based on its ongoing analysis of the probable insurance recovery, insurance receivables are recorded in the financial statements simultaneous with the recording of the estimated liability for the underlying asbestos claims. This determination is based on the Company's analysis of the underlying insurance policies, our historical experience with our insurers, our ongoing review of the solvency of our insurers, judicial determinations relevant to our insurance programs, and our consideration of the impacts of any settlements reached with our insurers. Honeywell believes it has sufficient insurance coverage and reserves to cover all pending Bendix-related asbestos claims and Bendix-related asbestos claims estimated to be filed within the next five years. Although it is impossible to predict the outcome of either pending or future Bendix-related asbestos claims, we do not believe that such claims would have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position in light of our insurance coverage and our prior experience in resolving such claims. If the rate and types of claims filed, the average resolution value of such claims and the period of time over which claim settlements are paid (collectively, the Variable Claims Factors) do not substantially change, Honeywell would not expect future Bendix- related asbestos claims to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or operating cash flows in any fiscal year. No assurances can be given, however, that the Variable Claims Factors will not change. Honeywell International Inc. is a diversified technology and manufacturing company. The Company is serving customers globally with aerospace products and services, control, sensing and security technologies for buildings, homes and industry, turbochargers, automotive products, specialty chemicals, electronic and advanced materials, process technology for refining and petrochemicals, and energy efficient products and solutions for homes, business and transportation. It manages its business operations through four businesses that are reported as operating segments: Aerospace, Automation and Control Solutions, Performance Materials and Technologies, and Transportation Systems. The Company had approximately 131,000 employees at December 31, 2013, of which approximately 51,000 were located in the United States. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l. Records $900,000 Fibro Expense ------------------------------------------------------------- Lennox International Inc. recorded an expense of $0.9 million for the years ended December 31, 2014, net of probable insurance recoveries, for known and future asbestos-related litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. The Company states: "We are involved in a number of claims and lawsuits incident to the operation of our businesses. Insurance coverages are maintained and estimated costs are recorded for such claims and lawsuits, including costs to settle claims and lawsuits, based on experience involving similar matters and specific facts known. "Some of these claims and lawsuits allege personal injury or health problems resulting from exposure to asbestos that was integrated into certain of our products. We have never manufactured asbestos and have not incorporated asbestos- containing components into our products for several decades. A substantial majority of asbestos-related claims have been covered by insurance or other forms of indemnity or have been dismissed without payment. The remainder of our closed cases have been resolved for amounts that are not material, individually or in the aggregate. Our defense costs for asbestos-related claims are generally covered by insurance; however, our insurance coverage for settlements and judgments for asbestos-related claims vary depending on several factors, and are subject to policy limits, so we may have greater financial exposure for future settlements and judgments. For the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013, we recorded expense of $0.9 million and $6.3 million, respectively, net of probable insurance recoveries, for known and future asbestos-related litigation. "It is management's opinion that none of these claims or lawsuits or any threatened litigation will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Claims and lawsuits, however, involve uncertainties and it is possible that their eventual outcome could adversely affect our results of operations in a future period." Lennox International Inc., is a provider of climate control solutions and design, manufacture and market a broad range of products for the heating, ventilation, air conditioning and refrigeration ("HVACR") markets. The Company was founded in 1895, in Marshalltown, Iowa, by Dave Lennox, the owner of a machine repair business for railroads. He designed and patented a riveted steel coal-fired furnace, which led to numerous advancements in heating, cooling and climate control solutions. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NewMarket Corp. Had $12-Mil. Fibro Liability ------------------------------------------------------------- NewMarket Corporation provided an undiscounted liability related to premises asbestos claims of $12 million, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. The Company states: "We are a defendant in personal injury lawsuits involving exposure to asbestos. These cases involve exposure to asbestos in premises owned or operated, or formerly owned or operated, by subsidiaries of NewMarket. We have never manufactured, sold, or distributed products that contain asbestos. Nearly all of these cases are pending in Texas, Louisiana, or Illinois and involve multiple defendants. We maintain an accrual for these proceedings, as well as a receivable for expected insurance recoveries. "The accrual for our premises asbestos liability related to currently asserted claims is based on the following assumptions and factors: * We are often one of many defendants. This factor influences both the number of claims settled against us and the indemnity cost associated with such resolutions. * The estimated percent of claimants in each case that will actually, after discovery, make a claim against us, out of the total number of claimants in a case, is based on a level consistent with past experience and current trends. * We utilize average comparable plaintiff cost history as the basis for estimating pending premises asbestos related claims. These claims are filed by both former contractors' employees and former employees who worked at past and present company locations. We also include an estimated inflation factor in the calculation. * No estimate is made for unasserted claims. * The estimated recoveries from insurance and Albemarle Corporation (a former operation of our company) for these cases are based on, and are consistent with, the 2005 settlement agreements with Travelers Indemnity Company. "Based on these assumptions, we have provided an undiscounted liability related to premises asbestos claims of $12 million at both December 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013. The liabilities related to asbestos claims are included in accrued expenses (current portion) and other noncurrent liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Certain of these costs are recoverable through our insurance coverage and an agreement with Albemarle Corporation. The receivable for these recoveries related to premises asbestos liabilities was $7 million at December 31, 2014 and $6 million at December 31, 2013. These receivables are included in trade and other accounts receivable, net on the Consolidated Balance Sheets for the current portion. The noncurrent portion is included in deferred charges and other assets." NewMarket Corporation (NewMarket) (NYSE: NEU) is a holding company and is the parent company of Afton Chemical Corporation (Afton), Ethyl Corporation (Ethyl), NewMarket Services Corporation (NewMarket Services), and NewMarket Development Corporation (NewMarket Development). ASBESTOS UPDATE: Prison Terms Loom in Michigan Fibro Case --------------------------------------------------------- Eric Freedman, writing for Great Lakes Echo, reported that three people face possible prison terms after pleading guilty to illegally removing asbestos from a former Southwest Michigan power plant. They also agreed to reimburse the federal government for the approximately $1 million that the Environmental Protection Agency spent to clean up the contaminated facility in Kalamazoo County's Comstock Township. Investigators believe the case "may be the largest asbestos release in Michigan since it was declared a hazardous air pollutant in 1971," the U.S. Attorney's office in Grand Rapids said. The trio's illegal activity spanning more than a year in 2011-12 imperiled the environment, as well as the health of the public and laborers on the project, according to the EPA. Scientists have linked asbestos to serious health dangers such as lung cancer, mesothelioma, asbestosis and nonmalignant lung disorders. When federal agents obtained a warrant to search the decommissioned facility, they discovered "substantial amounts of asbestos-containing material had been illegally removed and thrown onto the floor or placed in hundreds of unlabeled plastic garbage bags," a court document said. According to the plea agreements, LuAnne LaBrie of Kalamazoo, Cory Hammond of Hastings and Robert White of Kalamazoo agreed to salvage "valuable material" from the facility, sell it to recyclers and split the profits. Although the trio knew there was insulation containing asbestos on pipes and elsewhere in the building, they violated the Clean Air Act by failing to notify the EPA and state about the work and failed to properly handle the material to prevent release of asbestos particles, the U.S. Attorney's office said. LaBrie headed a company called B&B Enterprises and Environmental LLC that owned the facility, and she visited the site regularly while the work was underway. White and Hammond were the on-site supervisors of the salvage operation. Court documents didn't specify the number of laborers who worked on the operation and were exposed to asbestos, and the U.S. Attorney's office said it couldn't comment on that until after sentencing. The trio grossed about $1.7 million from sale of the recyclable material before EPA shut down the operation, court documents show. Under their arrangement, LaBrie was to receive 70 percent of the profits and White and Hammond were to divvy up the other 30 percent. In a separate but related case, LaBrie has pleaded guilty to two charges of failing to file her 2011 and 2012 federal tax returns on time to report the $1.7 million in gross income. She's scheduled for sentencing in April. White and Hammond face sentencing in July. The maximum penalty for the Clean Air Act violation is five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Investigators came from the IRS and Michigan Department of Natural Resources as well as the EPA. Consumers Energy began running the power plant in 1939 and sold it in 1983, the company said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Children of Mesothelioma Victim File Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Motherwell Times reported that the children of a Craigneuk, Scotland, engineer are taking legal action after their father died of a disease linked with being exposed to asbestos. Former Ravenscraig worker Neil McKenna died in December 2013 aged 90 after a short battle with mesothelioma. Now his children, John (57) and Leonora (60) have instructed lawyers at Irwin Mitchell Scotland to investigate how he was exposed to the deadly dust and fibres that caused his death. The family's legal team at Irwin Mitchell Scotland would like to hear from anyone who worked at Yarrows from 1939-47, and Ravenscraig in the 1960s, in particular retired engineers who worked alongside Neil at these companies. John and Leonora believe their father worked with asbestos paste, also known as monkey dung paste, which would be mixed on site and led to dust and fibres being released into the working atmosphere. Laura McCallum, an expert asbestos-related disease lawyer at Irwin Mitchell Scotland in Glasgow, said: "In our work we regularly see the devastating impact asbestos exposure can have on workers, often decades after they inhaled the substance, and the lack of safety measures and warning in place for those working with the material on a day-to-day basis. "We believe that Neil was exposed to asbestos via lagging on pipes and boilers, as the material was often broken up and disturbed when work and repairs were being carried out. "We also believe Neil worked with asbestos paste and we would like to hear from any former employees of Yarrows Shipbuilders and Ravenscraig Steel Works who can provide further information on Neil's exposure to asbestos. "We would also like to hear about the working conditions at both companies and the protective equipment provided to protect workers from exposure to the deadly substance, or if they were warned about the dangers of asbestos by their employers." John added: "Myself and Leonora were absolutely heartbroken to see Dad suffer in the way he did. We were even more angry to find out that the mesothelioma may have been caused by his exposure to asbestos during his working life. "We are all devastated by the loss of Dad and are still struggling to come to terms with it. We hope that his former colleagues will be able to provide the information we need to see justice done in his name. "Of course, no amount of money will replace the hole in our lives left when Dad died, but we feel those who failed to protect him from asbestos should be held accountable." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mo. Appeals Court Revives Courthouse Fibro Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sindhu Sundar, writing for Law360, reported that a Missouri court of appeals revived a proposed class action that claims Jackson County and mechanical contractor U.S. Engineering Co. mishandled renovation work on the Jackson County courthouse in the 1980s and exposed its occupants to asbestos. The appeals court reversed a decision by the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, which had denied class certification in the suit brought by plaintiff David Elsea. The proposed class of plaintiffs included both Missouri and Jackson County employees who worked in the courthouse for a certain amount of time between 1983 and the present, as well as other Missouri residents who had worked in the courthouse since then, according to the opinion. The appeals court ruled that the lower court abused its discretion in finding that the plaintiffs had not met the typicality or commonality requirements for certification, among other things. For example, the lower court had found that the plaintiffs in the proposed class had likely experienced different levels of asbestos exposure, which would mean the lead plaintiffs' claims were not typical of all proposed class members. But the court ruled that regardless of potentially different exposures, all the plaintiffs' claims stem from the same alleged conduct by the defendants, according to the opinion. "Plaintiffs' claims raise asbestos exposure issues harmonious with all putative class members as to the event or course of conduct that caused the asbestos exposure -- defendants' work at the courthouse in 1983-84," the panel said. Jackson County had contracted with U.S. Engineering around 1983 to renovate the courthouse's air-handling units, pipe-fittings and insulation, according to opinion. The plaintiffs, who filed their suit in 2010, claim that during the process, the contractor cut through pipes wrapped in insulation, which dispersed dust around the courthouse because the contractor had not shut off the air- handling units. "Dust containing asbestos fibers was blown and tracked throughout the courthouse resulting in layers of dust accumulated throughout the courthouse and described by one witness as an asbestos powder coating 'that you could run your hands through,' it covered 'everything in various offices,' and 'it would be on the floors and get walked out of the entrance to the air handlers and then tracked through the [common] areas . . . and . . . courtrooms,'" the panel observed in its opinion. Since asbestos does not decay, the plaintiffs argue, the contaminant will remain in the courthouse for "decades" unless it is properly cleaned up, according to court documents. The plaintiffs had argued that their exposure to this asbestos warrants a medical monitoring program for detection and diagnosis purposes, according to their suit. The plaintiffs are represented by Louis C. Accurso, Burton S. Haigh and Cory L. Atkins of The Accurso Law Firm, Edward D. Robertson, Jr., Mary D. Winter and Anthony L. DeWitt of Bartimus Frickleton Robertson Goza. The defendants are represented by Dennis J. Dobbels, Anthony J. Romano, Travis L. Salmon, and Jennifer J. Eng of Polsinelli LLP, and Mark G. Arnold and Matthew R. Grant of Husch Blackwell LLP. The case is David M. Elsea et al. v. U.S. Engineering Co. et al., case number WD77687, in the Missouri Court of Appeals Western District. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lismore Man Fined for Dumping Toxic Dust --------------------------------------------------------- The Northern Star reported that the City Council of Lismore, in New South Wales, has fined a 36-year-old man $4000 for dumping asbestos, and are sending a strong warning to anyone else thinking of illegal dumping. Council said the man dumped 220kg of asbestos-contaminated material on Boatharbour Road and was tracked down following the thorough investigative work of a Council Compliance Officer. Council's Manager Development & Compliance Peter Jeuken said the material had to be removed by a licensed asbestos contractor and would only have cost the man approximately $120 to dispose of legally as a result of EPA subsidies. "People are trying to avoid paying quite reasonable fees, only to be lumped with a large fine, and in the meantime they are putting people and the environment at risk," Mr Jeuken said. "The material samples taken at this particular dump site were sent for analysis and tested positive to two types of asbestos. "This stuff has the potential to kill people. It is unbelievable that some people think they can simply take hazardous waste into rural areas, dump it and there will be no consequence. "Illegal dumping is a crime that places the health and wellbeing of other people at risk and significantly impacts the health of our environment. That's why we are making a concerted effort to crack down on illegal dumping." The fine follows on from a $50,000 court penalty imposed on a Ballina-based construction company that Council found dumping large quantities of waste material including asbestos at Woodlawn. In the next six months, Council will be installing a minimum of seven surveillance cameras in known dumping hotspots throughout the Lismore Local Government Area to try and weed out offenders. Environmental Compliance Officers recently underwent training with the NSW EPA in the operation of the cameras as part of the Illegal Dumping Prevention Project being managed across the region by NE Waste. Cameras have been used successfully in other regional areas across NSW to gather evidence and catch illegal dumpers. "The chances of dumpers getting caught are steadily increasing as a result of ongoing staff training and improvements in our investigation techniques," Mr Jeuken said. "Lismore City Council spends in the excess of $100,000 per year cleaning up dumped waste from riverbanks, reserves, roadsides and parks. "This is money that could be better spent in other areas of Council operations to improve services and amenity." NSW dumping fines for non-hazardous waste offences are $2000 for individuals and $4000 for corporations. Hazardous waste including asbestos fines are $4000 for individuals and $8000 for corporations. Dumpers are also required to clean up dumped materials or pay for clean-up costs. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Indiana Court Refuses to Dismiss Fibro Action -------------------------------------------------------------- HarrisMartin Publishing reported that an Indiana federal court has denied an asbestos plaintiff's motion to voluntarily dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice, saying that the plaintiff's additional request for leave to reinstate the action should the settlement talks fall apart is not proper under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In the March 16 order, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana explained that when a suit is dismissed with prejudice, it is gone and the "district court cannot adjudicate disputes arising out of the settlement that led to the dismissal merely by stating that it is retaining jurisdiction." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Dumped on Adelaide Beach ---------------------------------------------------- The Australian Associated Press reported that a large amount of asbestos has been found dumped on a beach in Adelaide, Australia. CFMEU SA secretary Dave Kirner says he was tipped off about the waste at Pelican Point, northwest of Adelaide, by an environmental group. He says he found asbestos submerged in piles of corrugated roofing material and dumped in bags when he inspected the beach. "There's about a tonne of asbestos in three piles," he told ABC radio. "In our view it was probably a commercial contract job and they've gone and made a bigger profit on the job by going and dumping this asbestos." The beach is a popular spot for quad bikers who may have driven over the asbestos, Mr Kirner says. "When I was there, there was a family there with a five-year-old kid," he said. "There's community interaction all around the asbestos, so we want to get it stopped straight away." The Environment Protection Authority has sent an emergency response team to the site to take samples of the asbestos. Individuals caught dumping waste can be jailed for a maximum of two years or fined up to $120,000. Businesses can face fines of up to $250,000. "The EPA takes these matters very seriously and has acted swiftly to ensure that public health and safety of the environment are not compromised," spokesman Andrew Wood said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: W. Va. Trust Transparency Bill Signed Into Law --------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Dickerson, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that West Virginia Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin has signed Senate Bill 411, also known as the Asbestos Bankruptcy Trust Claims Transparency Act and the Asbestos and Silica Claims Priorities Act. Majority Leader Mitch Carmichael, R-Jackson; Senator Ryan Ferns, R-Ohio; Senator Ed Gaunch, R-Kanawha; and Senator Jeff Mullins,R- Raleigh, also were sponsors of the bill. The measure, which was sponsored by Kanawha County Republican Senator Tom Takubo, will establish legal standards and procedures for the handling of certain asbestos and silica claims. Additionally, it creates medical criteria procedures, statute of limitations standards, and requires disclosure of existing and potential asbestos bankruptcy trust claims. "We applaud Governor Tomblin for signing into law Senate Bill 411, the Asbestos Bankruptcy Trust Claims Transparency Act," said Roman Stauffer, executive director of West Virginia Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse. "This legislation passed the State Senate and House of Delegates with strong bi-partisan support because legislators realized the need to bring transparency into the asbestos claims process. "Abuse of the asbestos trust claims process is widespread, and this legislation will shed much-needed daylight on how trusts are being run and cut down on widespread fraud in trust claims and litigation. Greed and misrepresentation of facts are rampant in the system, and future legitimate victims of asbestos exposure are losing out to those factors in our present system. "This legislation was very much needed. We applaud Governor Tomblin, Senate President Bill Cole, and Speaker Tim Armstead for making it a priority. When the bill was being debated by the Legislature, a statewide group for trial lawyers called the bill unnecessary and said it only will hurt affected residents. West Virginia Association for Justice President Anthony Majestro said West Virginia's current case management order for asbestos cases is working well. "For more than a decade, West Virginia's asbestos cases have been handled very effectively by our case management order," said Majestro, a Charleston attorney. "It was developed by lawyers for both the injured workers and the manufacturers. They worked together to establish a system that would handle these cases fairly, efficiently and protected the interests of all parties involved. "More importantly, it ensures that very sick people are compensated for their exposure to a deadly product that was kept on the market for decades after its dangers were well known. West Virginia's case management order is working, and it should be a model for any state that has asbestos claims. "Dying West Virginians will not be compensated and billion-dollar manufacturers that kept a dangerous product on the market will not be held accountable and get to keep their profits." Majestro said defendants involved in the creation of the CMO have acknowledged that "the existing CMO was an exhaustive joint effort by the vast majority of plaintiffs and defendants to develop a comprehensive system to address the large number of asbestos claims in West Virginia." He also said that since its implementation, additional changes have been made to improve disclosure requirements regarding bankruptcy payments to clients and that the CMO never has been appealed. Majestro also noted that the newly signed law will eliminate possible claims for secondary exposures for spouses and children who were exposed to asbestos from a worker's body and clothing even in cases of mesothelioma which is caused by inhaling asbestos fibers. "Abuse of the asbestos trust claims process is widespread, and this legislation will shed much-needed daylight on how trusts are being run and cut down on widespread fraud in trust claims and litigation. Greed and misrepresentation of facts are rampant in the system, and future legitimate victims of asbestos exposure are losing out to those factors in our present system." Stauffer said West Virginia and national personal injury attorneys have abused the asbestos trust filing process for personal gain, citing bogus claims filed by late radiologist Ray Harron and two Pittsburgh asbestos attorneys. They were found guilty of fraud and racketeering. He also mentioned recent events in North Carolina regarding Garlock Sealing Technologies. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges ruled in January 2014 that Garlock would put $125 million into a trust that would pay asbestos claimants. The figure was roughly $1 billion less than plaintiffs attorneys had argued for. Hodges wrote in his ruling that Garlock's history of verdicts and settlements was an unreliable future indicator of the company's liability because that past had been tainted by plaintiffs attorneys who withheld their clients' evidence of exposure to other companies' products in order to maximize recovery against Garlock. Garlock has filed four racketeering lawsuits against the firms Shein Law Center of Philadelphia, Belluck & Fox of New York City, Waters & Kraus of Dallas and Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, also of Dallas. Garlock has since settled with a representative who represents future claimants for more than $360 million. "The Asbestos Bankruptcy Trust Claims Transparency Act would require personal injury lawyers to disclose, in litigation, when they have filed claims with asbestos trusts or plan to do so, which is currently not practiced," Stauffer said. "Additionally, the legislation establishes medical criteria for asbestos claims, which will help eliminate fraudulent trust claims and preserve asbestos trust resources for those with legitimate claims. "Some millionaire personal injury lawyers are not speaking the truth when they say this legislation will 'eliminate asbestos monetary recovery.' This reform legislation will ensure that our lawsuit system is used for justice, not greed. It will ensure that asbestos trusts remain accessible to those with legitimate asbestos claims and will be a giant step toward ending asbestos fraud with trusts and in the courtroom." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Simmons Hanly Snags Ex-Weitz & Luxenberg Attys --------------------------------------------------------------- Emily Field, writing for Law360, reported that mesothelioma powerhouse Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC has lured three experienced asbestos litigators from Weitz & Luxenberg PC, bolstering its mesothelioma practices in the Northeast and California, it said. Edward Braniff joined the firm's New York office as a shareholder and as the Northeast asbestos litigation manager, the firm said. Daniel P. Blouin also joined the New York office as a shareholder, according to the firm, and the third attorney, Brent Zadorozny, joined as an attorney in the El Segundo, California, office, according to Simmons Hanly Conroy. Braniff and Blouin will be the firm's first mesothelioma attorneys based in New York, Simmons Hanly Conroy said. "We welcome Ed and Daniel to our New York office, where they will spearhead the expansion of our mesothelioma litigation practice in the entire Northeast region," Michael J. Angelides, managing shareholder of the firm, said in a statement. "With decades of experience in asbestos and pharmaceutical products liability litigation, they will add significant depth to our firm." Simmons Hanly Conroy acquired its New York office in the June 2014 merger of Simmons Browder Gianaris Angelides & Barnerd LLC and Hanly Conroy Bierstein Sheridan Fisher & Hayes LLP, according to the announcement. At Weitz & Luxenberg's New York office, Braniff had recently focused his practice on Zoloft drug birth defects litigation and currently serves on the plaintiffs' steering committee for the Zoloft multidistrict litigation, according to Simmons Hanly Conroy. His extensive trial experience includes representing individuals and families affected by mesothelioma and asbestos exposure and he has also participated in pharmaceutical litigation involving Accutane, Fosamax and Hydroxycut, among others. Blouin focuses his practice on asbestos litigation on behalf of people with mesothelioma and lung cancer and their families, according to the firm. In 2013, he obtained a $190 million verdict, the largest consolidated asbestos verdict in New York history, as compensation for the cancer his clients developed decades after they came into contact with asbestos, according to the firm. Two of the plaintiffs received $60 million, among the largest individual sums ever awarded in a New York asbestos case, the firm said. Zadorozny also focuses his practice on asbestos and personal injury cases, according to the firm. He has won an $8.7 million asbestos trial verdict in Los Angeles Superior Court, as well as successful arbitration of various matters in non-U.S. jurisdictions, such as Sweden and the Bahamas, the firm said. "Brent will help us to bolster our services to clients throughout California," Angelides said in a statement. "Brent has more than 25 years of experience as a trial lawyer and an extensive background handling asbestos and mesothelioma matters, as well as non-asbestos injury litigation." Braniff earned his law degree from St. John's University School of Law and his bachelor's degree from Bucknell University, the firm said. Blouin holds a law degree from Brooklyn Law School and his bachelor's degree from Georgetown University, and Zadorozny earned his law degree from Seattle University School of Law and his undergraduate degree from Washington State University, according to the firm. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Super. Court Flips $14.5MM Fibro Verdict ------------------------------------------------------------- Kathleen Wilkinson of Wilson Elser, writing for JD Supra Business Advisor, reported that an en banc session of the Pennsylvania Superior Court vacated a $14.5 million asbestos verdict in a mesothelioma case and remanded the case to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia for a new trial, affirming the decision of a three-judge Superior Court panel in Nelson v. Airco Welders Supply, 2014 PA Super 286. The Superior Court determined that an expert was improperly allowed to testify on an "any-exposure" theory of causation and that Nelson's counsel improperly suggested amounts of damages to the jury. Nelson introduced the expert testimony of pulmonologist Dr. Daniel DuPont on causation during the liability portion of the trial. According to Dr. DuPont, malignant mesothelioma "occurs with significant asbestos exposure," which Dr. DuPont defined as the "inhalation of fibers above the negligible amount already in the environment." Dr. DuPont was not an expert presented on the defendants' products and could not opine whether any such products "actually released respirable asbestos fibers." In fact, no such evidence was introduced by Nelson to establish such release. Yet, the trial court allowed Dr. DuPont to testify based on an assumption that "any visible dust released by Appellants' products contained respirable asbestos fibers," and allowed Dr. DuPont to testify that he concluded that "Nelson's exposure to these products constituted a substantial, contributing factor in causing his disease." For the majority, Judge John Bender wrote that it was improper for the trial court to have allowed such expert testimony due to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's ruling in Betz v. Pneumo Abex, LLC, 44 A.3d 27 (PA. 2012), where the any-exposure theory of causation in asbestos cases had been rejected by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The Superior Court pointed to the following language of the Supreme Court in Betz that the "any-exposure theory was 'fundamentally inconsistent with both science and the governing standard for legal causation.'" The Superior Court also found that it was improper for the trial court to have allowed Dr. DuPont's testimony and to have denied defendants' request (1) to preclude Dr. DuPont's testimony and (2) for a Frye hearing. Dr. DuPont was permitted to testify that "each individual exposure" above an unquantified "non-negligible" level "contributed to the causation of the disease." The Superior Court observed that there was a paradox in Dr. DuPont's causation theory because different levels of ambient exposure are deemed non-causative, yet Dr. Dupont opined that each incremental exposure to an individual product is causative, no matter how small. Judge Bender properly noted that the Supreme Court dealt with this issue in Betz, stating "plaintiff's experts in this case, as well as in other asbestos cases, have never been able to explain the scientific and logical implausibility of agreeing to the premise that a lifetime of breathing asbestos in the ambient air will not harm a person, while on the other hand arguing that every breath of asbestos from a defendant's product, no matter how inconsequential, will." The Superior Court also held that a new trial was warranted because Nelson's counsel suggested that the jury should award a specific dollar amount "for non-economic damages" by improperly referring to a stipulation of the economic damages agreed to by the parties. Following the well-settled law in Pennsylvania that counsel may not suggest an amount for damages claimed or expected but not supported by the evidence, the Superior Court found it improper for Nelson's counsel to write "seven" under the Survival Act and another "five" under the Wrongful Death Act and then refer to the stipulated economic damages. Since no curative instruction had been offered by the trial court, a new trial was warranted. This decision is noteworthy as it confirmed the ruling of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that the any-exposure theory is not allowed in Pennsylvania and clarified the requirements for expert opinions to include a quantification of the precise exposure and/or actual products involved in the case. The Court also clearly defined the scope of an "improper closing argument" with regard to noneconomic damages. ASBESTOS UPDATE: South Oxhey Man to Pay GBP2,500 for Dumping ------------------------------------------------------------ Michael Knowles, writing for Watford Observer, reported that a resident of Three Rivers, in England, has been ordered to pay more than GBP2,500 after dumping asbestos in South Oxhey. Chris Bellotti, of Little Oxhey Lane, South Oxhey, was fined GBP364 after fly tipping asbestos cement sheeting, some of which were cracked and broken, in Markeston Green in August. He was also ordered to pay GBP1,916 in compensation to Three Rivers District Council after the authority was forced to hire specialist contractors to dispose of the asbestos waste, which had been dumped on council land. Mr Bellotti pleaded guilty to two offences under the Environmental Protection Act at St Albans Magistrates Court on March 11 and was told to pay the prosecution costs of GBP500. Councillor Phil Brading, lead member for public services, said: "South Oxhey is a clean and safe place to live. Dumping asbestos, especially cracked asbestos, is very serious and we will not hesitate to prosecute. "I would like to commend the team at Three Rivers District Council who acted swiftly as soon as the asbestos was reported and arranged for its safe removal. They then investigated the offence leading to a successful prosecution. "Residents can report the dumping of asbestos or any kind of fly- tipping to the council in complete confidence and we will take action- normally within 24 hours." Three Rivers District Council said the court gave Mr Bellotti full credit for pleading guilty. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Affirms Limit on Wrongful Death Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alex Wolf, writing for Law360, reported that the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that a two-year statute of limitations applies to asbestos-related wrongful death claims and is initiated upon knowledge of an asbestos-related injury, rejecting a plaintiff's contention that the law is ambiguous and she should be allowed to sue General Electric Co. on a decedent's behalf. The appellate court's decision affirms a lower court ruling that Elizabeth Wygant's wrongful death suit against GE, Hunter Sales Corp. and Reading Crane & Engineering Co. on behalf of Margaret H. Klan was time-barred by a statute that had been deleted but reenacted when the statute that replaced it was struck down in a 2013 Pennsylvania Supreme Court case. Wygant had argued that when the state's high court struck down Act 152 and its statute of limitations on asbestos claims in Commonwealth v. Neiman, the time restraint should have been reverted to two years after someone's death instead of two years after knowledge of an asbestos-related injury, as dictated by a clause in SB 121, which was the law that had been invalidated by Act 152. The panel disagreed and said that because the high court case struck down Act 152, it also deleted any consequences of that act, which makes SB 121 reenacted. And with its reenactment, Wygant's wrongful death claims, which were filed within two years of Klan's death but more than two years after she was diagnosed, are time- barred. "The statute of limitations on administratrix's wrongful death action started to run on June 17, 2011, the date when decedent was informed by a physician that she had mesothelioma," the panel wrote. "Administratrix was free to pursue both wrongful death and survival actions. However, any wrongful death action had to be commenced after decedent's July 9, 2012, death and prior to June 17, 2013, two years from the date decedent received her diagnosis." Wygant also claimed that even if the 2001 language was reenacted, the statute is ambiguous and it shouldn't apply to those filing wrongful death claims because such an interpretation may result in wrongful death actions being time-barred before they can be instituted. The panel rejected this claim, saying the legislature clearly intended the language in SB 121 to initiate a statute of limitations on all asbestos-related claims, including wrongful death, either when the afflicted person was formally diagnosed with asbestos-related disease, or, with reasonable diligence, should have been diagnosed. The appeals court, however, said that some of Wygant's contentions have merit, but it is not the responsibility of the court to make or change laws and statutes. "Some of the consequences of applying [the SB 121 statute of limitations] to wrongful death actions may seem harsh," the court said. "Admittedly, some asbestos-related wrongful death actions may be time-barred before they can be instituted. ... Nonetheless, it is the prerogative of the legislature to set the limitations on actions." A spokesman for GE declined to comment and an attorney for Wygant did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Wygant is represented by John R. Kane of Savinis D'Amico & Kane LLC. GE is represented by Bryan S. Neft of Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti LLP and Bruce P. Merenstein of Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP. Hunter Sales is represented by Andrew F. Adomitis Grogan Graffam PC. Reading Crane & Engineering is represented by Dara A. DeCourcy and Christian W. Wrabley of Zimmer Kunz PLLC. The case is Elizabeth Wygant v. General Electric Co. et al., case number 470 WDA 2014, in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boeing Wins Fibro Case Due to Missed Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Margaret Harding, writing for Law360, reported that a Pennsylvania federal judge has tossed the remaining claims against The Boeing Co. in a former employee's asbestos exposure case, saying he did so because the plaintiff filed a document four days late with no explanation. In a brief order, U.S. District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno granted Boeing's request for summary judgment in the case accusing the company of negligence by failing to warn a former employee about asbestos exposure. In a footnote, Judge Robreno wrote that plaintiff Marilyn Gillen filed her reply to Boeing's motion for summary judgment on March 16, four days after it was due. The judge said Gillen did not "even appear to acknowledge that her response was untimely." "In a multidistrict litigation setting, in which the court is managing a docket of thousands of cases, the failure to adhere strictly to court-ordered deadlines impacts upon the efficient administration of the litigation," the judge wrote. Judge Robreno in August dismissed Gillen's claim for take-home exposure to asbestos, ruling that she didn't prove Boeing knew or should have known that her husband, whom Boeing employed as a machinist for some 35 years, was likely bringing asbestos fibers home with him on his work clothes. Gillen sued Boeing in 2013 to hold the company liable after she was diagnosed with mesothelioma. While her husband worked as a Boeing machinist from 1966 to 1970 and then again from 1973 to 2005, she worked as a secretary at a Boeing facility in Ridley Park, Pennsylvania, from 1966 to 2005. Gillen alleged she was exposed to the cancer-causing fibers as Boeing conducted several asbestos remediation projects at the facility over the years, and that she was exposed to additional quantities of asbestos when she laundered her husband's work clothes at home. Boeing filed its motion for summary judgment on the remaining claims in February, arguing there was insufficient evidence to show Gillen was ever exposed to asbestos while she worked at the Ridley Park facility. "Even if this court were to find that plaintiff did come into contact with respirable asbestos for which Boeing is responsible -- and it should not -- plaintiff has not -- and cannot -- satisfy her burden of establishing that such exposure was a substantial factor in causing her mesothelioma," Boeing's motion for summary judgment said. In the tardy reply, Gillen said her remaining claims are not limited to her own workplace exposure and argued Boeing owed her, as an employee, a warning to avoid the clothes of manufacturing co-workers. The reply argues that any employee who would interact with other employees exposed to asbestos was owed a warning. "She traveled with her co-workers while they were covered in asbestos-laden dust. She washed those clothes," Gillen's reply to the summary judgment motion said. "A simple warning by Boeing regarding the risks inherent in breathing in the dust that was on the manufacturing employees' clothes would have served to protect Mrs. Gillen from exposure that began on-site at Boeing, and ended at home." An attorney for Gillen and representatives of Boeing did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Gillen is represented by Ryan Anderson of Locks Law Firm. Boeing is represented by Joseph Cagnoli Jr. and Nicola F. Serianni of Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney Ltd. The case is Gillen v. The Boeing Company et al., case number 2:13- cv-03118, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Suit vs. Carnival Corp. Considered a First ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reported that there have been numerous asbestosis compensation lawsuits from plaintiffs stricken with asbestosis disease following a lifetime of work in the shipyards, either building or maintaining ships. So it should come as no surprise that the hugely popular cruise ship industry is not immune to such claims. To that end, an asbestosis lawsuit recently concluded favorably for the Estate of a deceased crewmember in a case against Carnival Cruise Lines in Miami. Sadly, the plaintiff did not survive his asbestosis disease. However, his family and heirs were compensated with a reduced award of $3.6 million. The trial set a precedent, as it is believed to be the first asbestosis case against the pleasure cruise ship industry to go to trial. Carnival is one of the most popular cruise lines, constantly adding to its fleet as cruises continue to grow as a popular vacation choice. Unseen, however, by the throng of passengers enjoying the sun, fun and various activities associated with the Carnival line, are the scores of workers tasked with the job of running the ship. Some of those workers work deep in the bowels of the vessel. The plaintiff in the asbestosis claim was a shipboard electrician of Italian descent who toiled onboard several steamships in the Carnival fleet from 1985 through 2000. In 2001, the plaintiff was diagnosed with asbestosis disease, allegedly as a result of prolonged exposure to asbestos. According to court documents, the man toiled aboard four different Carnival Cruise liners over a 15-year period. The focus of the plaintiff's employment was the engine rooms and machine spaces. During trial, it was revealed by a former chief engineer with the Carnival line that asbestos was, indeed, present in the engine rooms and other operational areas where the plaintiff worked. It was also revealed that an occupational physician and a pathologist ruled that the plaintiff's asbestosis disease was caused by asbestos exposure. The asbestos lawsuit resulted in a nine-day trial. Following deliberation for about three-and-one-half hours, the jury found in favor of the plaintiff and initially awarded the plaintiff's Estate $10.3 million. However, the jury also deemed the plaintiff to be 65 percent responsible for his demise given that he smoked for a period of 20 years prior to his death. Thus, the award was reduced by 65 percent to $3.6 million. The case was Caraffa v. Carnival Corporation, Case No. 06-00964 CA 42 in the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trader Given Suspended Jail Sentence Over Fibro ---------------------------------------------------------------- Health and Safety Executive reported that a trader from Leeds, England, has been given a suspended jail sentence after exposing a household and workers to potentially dangerous levels of asbestos fibres at a home in Bramhope. Clive Raper, 49, trading as Bramley Asbestos Removals, took on a job to remove asbestos insulating board from the garage of a couple's home despite the fact that he did not hold the legal licence required to carry out the specialist work. He hired a couple of workers to help him but totally failed to take any of the vital safety measures needed, or implement the tight controls imposed by law, to protect workers, local people and the environment when working with the material. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecuted Mr Raper for safety breaches at Leeds Magistrates' Court (20 March) after investigating the incident in July 2011. The court was told Mr Raper accepted the job from the couple knowing full well he did not have the necessary licence to do the work. He then took on a couple of labourers to help him, neither of whom held licences. Asbestos is a known carcinogen, and asbestos-containing materials will release fibres into the air when damaged or disturbed. If inhaled, they can lead to serious and fatal disease, often years down the line. Mr Raper had not used any of the standard control measures that licensed operators employ, such as a protective enclosure, full- face respiratory equipment, negative pressure units and specialist vacuums. The poor standards employed by Mr Raper meant that asbestos debris and residue was left, compounding the risk to the homeowners of exposure. The homeowner was so concerned with how Mr Raper had left the garage he contacted Leeds City Council. They identified a suitable contractor who went to the home and carried out an environmental clean of the property, at added cost to the homeowner. The council also reported the matter to HSE Clive Raper, trading as Bramley Asbestos Removals, of Fawcett Gardens, Leeds (previously Summerfield Drive, Bramley), was sentenced to eight months in prison, suspended for 12 months, and ordered to pay a contribution of œ260 toward costs after admitting a breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and a separate breach of the Control of Asbestos Regulations. After the hearing, HSE inspector Paul Yeadon said: "It is appalling that a trader who is fully familiar with the restrictions governing asbestos wilfully ignores them and puts a household and the workers he has hired in danger. It would appear that he has put profit ahead of the health and wellbeing of others, and in this case quite bafflingly, he put his own health at risk as well. "We were unable to identify the two workers involved as Mr Raper could not provide their full names or contact details. We do think, however, that they were probably both exposed to asbestos fibres above the action level. "This kind of work must be carried out by competent people with the necessary licence to do so." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belluck & Fox Wins $4MM Verdict for Plant Worker ----------------------------------------------------------------- A plant worker who developed both mesothelioma and lung cancer after being exposed to asbestos products has won a $4 million verdict against the company who supplied those products, the nationally recognized New York law firm of Belluck & Fox, LLP, announced on March 23. After a trial before the Honorable Charles C. Merrell, the jury returned its verdict on March 18 in the Supreme Court of New York, County of Oneida, in the case of Nicholas Dominick and Lorraine J. Dominick v. A.O. Smith Water Products, et al. (No. CA2014-000232). The jury awarded the Dominick family $1 million for past pain and suffering and $3 million for future pain and suffering, assessing 30% of the fault to Pacemaker. "Mr. Dominick has suffered tremendous pain as a result of Pacemaker/Charles Millar's negligence. His sickness could have, and should have been prevented. I'm grateful that the jury was able to deliver justice for him and his wonderful family," said Brittany Russell, an associate attorney at Belluck & Fox who tried the case along with partner Bryan Belasky on behalf of the Dominick family. Partners Joe Belluck and Seth Dymond provided assistance to the trial team. "Our law firm, Belluck and Fox, is dedicated to representing mesothelioma victims across New York State. We are honored that the Dominick family allowed us to represent them and proud that we obtained the largest verdict ever in an asbestos case in Oneida County. Once again, this shows that the jury system in New York works," Belluck said. According to court documents, between 1968 and 1973, Mr. Dominick worked as an internal grinder at the Chicago Pneumatic tool manufacturing plant in Utica, New York. The jury determined that Mr. Dominick developed pleural mesothelioma and lung cancer as a result of his exposure to bags of asbestos and asbestos boards supplied by Pacemaker/Charles Millar to Chicago Pneumatic, which were used in the plant's annealing process. The jury found that Pacemaker/Charles Millar was negligent in failing to warn Mr. Dominick about the dangers of asbestos associated with the products it supplied. The case is significant in New York asbestos litigation, as it is the largest verdict ever levied against a distributor of asbestos products, and the largest asbestos verdict of any nature obtained in Oneida County. Asbestos is a mineral that has been linked to lung cancer and mesothelioma, an aggressive and deadly form of cancer which results from breathing in asbestos fibers that become lodged in the thin membrane that lines and encases the lungs. At trial, lawyers from Belluck & Fox presented evidence from a series of experts regarding the use of asbestos in heat treatment annealing processes, the causation of Mr. Dominick's mesothelioma and lung cancer, the state-of-the-art evidence relating to the dangers of asbestos, and testimony about the cancers' impact on Mr. Dominick. Testifying on behalf of the plaintiffs were experts Dr. Jacqueline Moline, Dr. David Rosner, and Dr. Uriel Oko. Defendant Pacemaker/Charles Millar was represented by Robert Cahalan of Smith, Sovik, Kendrick & Sugnet, P.C, and called expert Dr. Frederick Schmidt to testify on its behalf. About Belluck & Fox Belluck & Fox, LLP, is a nationally recognized law firm that represents individuals with asbestos and mesothelioma claims, as well as victims of crime, motorcycle crashes, lead paint and other serious injuries. The firm provides personalized and professional representation and has won over $650 million in compensation for clients and their families. The firm has been named one of the top law firms in America by U.S. News & World Report every year since 2011. Partner Joseph W. Belluck is AV-rated by Martindale-Hubbell and is listed in Best Lawyers in America, New York Magazine's "Best Lawyers in the New York Area" and in Super Lawyers. Mr. Belluck has won numerous cases involving injuries from asbestos, defective medical products, tobacco and lead paint, including a recent asbestos case that settled for more than $12 million. Partner Jordan Fox is an award-winning, nationally-recognized asbestos attorney. In 2013 he was named "Lawyer of the Year" for the New York Metro area by Best Lawyers in America after securing $32 million and $19.5 million verdicts in two separate asbestos cases. He is regularly listed in the annual Best Lawyers in America list and has also appeared in Super Lawyers. A number of his verdicts have been featured among the National Law Journal's Largest Verdicts of the Year. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Athlone Fibro Victim Gets Money for Lung Cancer ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pete Lewis, writing for AllAfrica.com, reported that Cassiem Mohammed, who worked for 40 years at the Athlone Power Station, in South Africa, has finally been paid compensation for the lung disease he developed from contact with deadly asbestos fibres at work. Mohammed's work involved scraping, cleaning and repairing deteriorating boiler and piping insulation (lagging) made from asbestos fibre. He started work at the power station in 1967 and retired in 2007 at the age of 65, five years after the station stopped generating electricity on a continuous basis. But maintenance of insulation at the moth-balled plant continued right up to his retirement and continues to this day, though on a much reduced basis, with a smaller team. Mohammed, who takes care of two grandchildren of 11 and 15 on his retirement pension of R5,000 per month, suffers from asbestosis due to his work at the station. His wife died in 2011. When he began work at the power station, he and his fellow lagging workers just used mutton cloth around their mouths, and eye goggles as protection against the asbestos dust. In the 1990's, when it became obvious that workers were getting sick from asbestos exposure, and the South African Municipal Workers' Union (SAMWU) took up the issue, the power station management and the City of Cape Town started a regular medical examination program for insulation workers and instituted better exposure control and personal protection for lagging maintenance work. Thanks to to this programme, Mohammed was diagnosed in the mid- 1990s with asbestosis, a progressive lung disease caused only by asbestos fibres, for which there is no cure, only palliative medicine. The main symptom is shortness of breath, which gets worse over time. It can also cause other health complications because of the strain imposed on the body from breathing with scarred lungs with reduced capacity. Eventually, a victim becomes incapable of the smallest exertion, and death follows, often as a result of the various complications. According to the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act 1993, a claim must be lodged by the City on behalf of the employee within one year of diagnosis of the disease, at the Compensation Commissioner's Office in Pretoria, a branch of the Department of Labour which administers the Act. The City authorities, as the employer, have their own insurance against liabilities for payments to sick workers under the Act, so they are exempted from paying insurance premiums on behalf of workers to the COIDA Compensation Fund, and do not rely on it for payouts to sick workers. But they do rely on the Compensation Authority's medical panels for verification of diagnosis and to establish how badly disabled the sick worker is and whether the disability is permanent. In January 2014, nearly 20 years after his diagnosis, Mr.Mohamed had still not been compensated. But when Groundup contacted Mohammed this week, there was good news. He was compensated in September 2014 by the City, his ex- employers, with a lump sum payment of R665, 000, and said he was "satisfied" with this payment, though as far as he knew, there was no payment for expensive medicines he has had to buy since his retirement. He has settled the payout largely on his 6 children, who are adults with children of their own. Mohammed also went on pilgrimage to the Middle East, but had to come back when he fell sick -- he is frail as a result of his asbestosis, he says -- and was hospitalised for a time. But he continues to take his grandchildren to school and care for them. He tends his wife's grave every week, and says "no-one knows when he will die, only God, but I will join her one of these days". ASBESTOS UPDATE: Durham Council Agrees Pay-Out for Fibro Death -------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Tallentire, writing for The Northern Echo, reported that the council in Durham, England, says it is managing and monitoring asbestos in its schools, after it agreed to pay compensation for the death of a cleaner following exposure to the deadly fibres. Durham County Council says it is meeting its legal responsibilities on the now-banned material, which was in common use until the 1970s, despite having admitted liability and agreed to pay out to Alan Hamilton over the death of his wife Laura from the asbestos-related cancer mesothelioma in June 2011. Mrs Hamilton worked as a cleaner at Belmont Comprehensive School, Durham, in the mid-1980s, when industrial illness lawyer Philip Thompson, who represents her husband, says not only was there asbestos present, but large amounts of brown asbestos was damaged and therefore likely to give off deadly loose fibres. The out-of-court settlement, of an undisclosed sum, was reached following a three-year legal battle. Mr Thompson, of Thomson and Co Solicitors, said: "We are delighted to have settled this claim. "Our client has been determined to prove the extent of asbestos exposure that took place at the school at the time and we had extensive evidence to prove that exposure had taken place. "Nothing will ever bring back Mrs Hamilton, but this decision will give Mr Hamilton some degree of closure." Sean Durran, the council's senior asbestos officer, said: "We have a comprehensive asbestos management policy and system in place for all council premises, including schools. "This ensures that asbestos containing materials are managed and monitored in accordance with legal responsibilities." Asbestos was commonly used in fireproofing and thermal insulation during the 1960s and 1970s and only banned in the UK in 1999. Recent reports suggest it is still present in nearly 86 per cent of UK schools. The Health and Safety Executive says it is "endemic"; and removing it all would cost billions and take decades. Undisturbed, it can be managed safely; but pressure is growing for the Government to do more. Mesothelioma claims 2,500 lives in the UK every year -- more than the country's roads -- with 300 of those deaths attributed to schools. Nearly 300 teachers have died of mesothelioma since 1980, including 158 in the last decade, and the rate is increasing -- from three in 1980 to 19 in 2012. The Government is producing new guidelines on managing asbestos in schools and continuing to fund its removal "where appropriate". Mr Thompson said: "We are reaching the stage where instances of people who have worked in schools, or who have attended schools as pupils, are contracting asbestos related illnesses with increasing frequency, and the Government is rightly under increasing pressure to address the matter." He added: "While cases of this kind will never be as widespread as those we saw from shipyards in the region, they are certainly growing more frequent -- and people will want reassurance that there is no ongoing danger from asbestos in schools." ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Unit Denied Quick Win in Reinsurance Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Sistrunk, writing for Law360, reported that a New York appellate court affirmed a lower court's refusal to rule that Clearwater Insurance Co. must pay an American International Group unit under a reinsurance agreement to help cover payments to Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Co. for asbestos exposure claims, saying triable factual issues still remain in the dispute. In a lengthy ruling, a four-judge panel of the Appellate Division's First Department upheld Judge Ellen M. Coin's decision denying New Hampshire Insurance Co.'s motion for summary judgment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boston Worker Dies from Fibro-Related Cancer ------------------------------------------------------------- Boston Target reported that the family of a former worker from Boston, England, who died from incurable asbestos-related cancer are looking for ex-colleagues of their loved one. It is believed that Paul Kingsnorth, who died aged 66, may have come into contact with asbestos while working at meat processing plant Frans Buitelaar on Marsh Lane in Boston where he cut and prepared meat between 1987 and 1990. The company is now owned by Holbeck Holdings and is based in Carlisle. The Marsh Lane site has since closed. Mr Kingsnorth passed away four weeks after his shocking diagnosis of mesothelioma, an extremely aggressive cancer which affects the lining of the lungs. At the inquest in to his death at the East Somerset Coroners Court, Senior Coroner Tony Williams concluded that Paul had died as a result of industrial disease. Helen Grady, an expert asbestos disease solicitor at Novum Law, specialising in mesothelioma cases, said: "This is a difficult case because Paul was not directly working with asbestos himself. All his working life, he was employed in factories and butcher shops where it is likely there was asbestos lagged pipes and asbestos in the roofs. It is also possible that some of these factories would have contained a boiler house where the boilers were often lagged with asbestos as well as the pipework. "Paul's case highlights the dangers of asbestos and how important it is that wherever it is located, it should be properly encapsulated and if possible, safely removed. There is growing awareness of the dangers of asbestos and charities such as the British Lung Foundation have made an enormous difference educating tradesmen and workers on how deadly asbestos dust can be, but sadly for Paul and his family, it is too late." The plea is made to anybody who worked around the factory, including: maintenance workers, fellow butchers, cleaners, office staff, inspectors and it is also hoped someone may even recall working with Paul Kingsnorth there. Paul's son, Russell Kingsnorth, said: "After leaving school aged 15, Dad trained as a butcher working in numerous butcher shops around the London area and for various meat preparation factories. "In 1987 Dad started work at Frans Buitelaar Ltd in Boston and we think it likely there was asbestos around the factory, particularly around pipework and in the boiler house." ASBESTOS UPDATE: East Lansing Fined $21,500 for Safety Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dawn Parker, writing for Lansing State Journal, reported that the state of Michigan has levied another $21,500 in fines against East Lansing for failing to correct safety problems related to asbestos, mercury and other hazardous materials at the city's wastewater treatment plant. The fines were handed down March 12 by the Michigan Occupational Health and Safety Administration, according to records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. The city has until March 30 to either pay the fines or contest them. The fines come less than a year after MIOSHA fined the city $11,000 for safety violations related to asbestos at the 1700 Trowbridge Road plant. Those fines were later reduced to $4,400, according to state officials. City officials said they believe not all the fines may be new, and contend most of the fines will be reduced or canceled. East Lansing City Manager George Lahanas said the workplace safety violations have been dealt with, and that the city is actively working with MIOSHA. "We have not completely resolved whether all the fines relate to newer violations or whether they reference past actions we've already corrected," Lahanas said. "We have a number of areas where we have questions and we have to clarify with MIOSHA. That is in progress." MIOSHA officials could not be reached to clarify whether errors were made in the fines. ASBESTOS UPDATE: States Bypass Congress on Bankruptcy Overhaul -------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Scurria, writing for Law360, reported that West Virginia has become the fourth state to enact legislation aimed at helping bankrupt asbestos manufacturers obtain mitigating evidence from personal injury claimants, signaling a growing eagerness in statehouses to embrace transparency reform measures snubbed by Congress. While a push to ramp up disclosure obligations on asbestos claimants nationwide has languished amid opposition from congressional Democrats, West Virginia took it upon itself to throw up new requirements for asbestos victims to assert exposure claims. Senate Bill 411, signed by Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin, forces injury claimants to divulge what claims they have asserted and against whom before they can receive payments from the massive trusts left behind to deal with legacy tort liabilities of insolvent asbestos manufacturers. For years, the asbestos compensation trusts established under Section 524(g) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code have come under fire by critics who say that opportunistic plaintiffs' lawyers can inflate recoveries by hiding the fact that they have filed multiple or overlapping claims against the trusts and in state court. "There's no check on that, so what the states have decided they can do is deal with the underlying litigation," said T. Michael Brown of Bradley Arant Boult & Cummings LLP. Overhaul proponents say that imposing mandatory disclosure requirements would preserve the resources of the nation's roughly 60 asbestos trusts, which hand out around $2.5 billion in payments annually, according to a study from A.M. Best Co. Under S.B. 411, plaintiffs must disclose all of their claims against asbestos trusts and any related documents, including those related to settlements, plus any potential claims they reasonably anticipate they will file in the future. Given the high cost of obtaining such information through discovery, defendants often choose to settle rather than hire lawyers to sniff out potentially mitigating circumstances, such as a previous claim that asserted exposure from different asbestos products. "The movement is toward requiring discovery of that information," Curt Cutting of Horvitz & Levy LLP said. "I don't see any reason why a state could not enact this kind of legislation, either through court procedures or within legislation, because it seems to be fully within the power of each state to manage its own tort litigation." Whether plaintiffs must make those disclosures is currently part of the negotiating process for crafting reorganization plans for companies driven into bankruptcy by injury lawsuits, according to Debbie Dandeneau of Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP. Existing law requires support from three-quarters of a debtor's asbestos claimants before the establishment of a 524(g) trust and a so- called channeling injunction to funnel claims to the trust for resolution. Disclosure laws in Wisconsin, Ohio, Oklahoma and now West Virginia take some of the cost of discovery out of the equation and tilt the settlement dynamic in favor of defendants. "In the bankruptcy context, we always went into those cases knowing that regardless of the strategy that you employed, if you wanted to get protection in the form of a 524(g) injunction against future claims, at the end of the day it was going to be a negotiated resolution," Dandeneau said. Allegations of fraudulent claims and "double dipping" -- where asbestos victims recover twice from the same injury, through both tort litigation and through the trust process -- are nothing new to the asbestos community, but the issue took on renewed importance last year when the judge presiding over Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC's bankruptcy found evidence that the gasket maker's past settlements were wildly inflated by claimant misconduct. As a result, the judge capped Garlock's estimated asbestos liability at $125 million, about a tenth of what its claimants were seeking. Heralded by the defense bar as aroad map for reducing asbestos liability pools, the tactics used by Garlock may pack less of a punch as more claimant information becomes subject to mandatory disclosure laws. "As we move toward more transparency, I'm not sure how effective that argument is going to be," Dandeneau said. Garlock later reached a $358 million agreement to resolve certain asbestos liabilities that, if approved, could pave the way for future bankrupt defendants to win dramatically lower asbestos trust valuations. Plaintiffs lawyers, meanwhile, are aghast at state transparency laws, which they cast as a cynical attempt to gum up the claims resolution process and strengthen the hand of defendants. Among the information subject to disclosure in West Virginia is the dollar amount of past settlements or trust claims, otherwise- confidential information that can be used against plaintiffs. "It's one thing to say that someone filed a claim with a bankrupt trust, but it's another thing to say that they filed, it got approved and paid this much," said Mike Angelides ofSimmons Hanly Conroy LLC, a leading asbestos firm. "If this was a true transparency piece of legislation, it would require both sides to disclose things. It would require the asbestos companies to disclose their own settlements, which, by the way, they won't." Still, Republican lawmakers have been receptive to changing the claims process. The Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives in 2013 passed the Furthering Asbestos Claims Transparency Act, which is designed to crack down on abusive behavior by forcing 524(g) trusts to divulge details on claimants. With the U.S. Senate in Democratic hands at the time, it was a largely symbolic vote. But leaders of the new GOP-controlled Senate could choose in 2015 to take up a companion bill floated by Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., in May. While states seem to be taking up the cause, legislating asbestos reform at the state level runs the risk of creating a patchwork of legal regimes and pushing lawsuits into more plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions. Moreover, imposing obligations on trusts adds an extra layer of costs, Dandeneau said, which can eat into money potentially available for claimants. "We're putting the trusts back in the tort system, almost, as participants in the discovery process," she said. "If trusts have to be responsible for individual discovery requests made in each and every lawsuit that's been filed, that's an extra administrative burden that doesn't really help anyone." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Case Exposes Fibro Blame Game ------------------------------------------------------ Daniel Fisher, writing for Forbes, reported that in a quiet bankruptcy court in Charlotte, N.C., closed to all but court personnel and people who'd signed strict confidentiality orders, attorney Garland Cassada laid out the inner workings of one of the longest-running and most lucrative schemes in the American litigation business. Arguing for a manufacturer of asbestos gaskets named Garlock Sealing Technologies, Cassada explained how lawyers had tailored the testimony of their clients to minimize their exposure to more dangerous products, thus making Garlock seem more liable than it really was. Cassada's evidence for this scheme came from the mouths of the asbestos lawyers themselves. In an unprecedented move Garlock had persuaded U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges to allow it to dig into case files and question the lawyers who'd helped drive the company into bankruptcy. That led to revealing disclosures like that of Benjamin Shein, a prominent Philadelphia asbestos attorney whose firm had settled the case of a former shipyard worker named Vincent Golini against then-solvent Garlock in 2009. Golini was dying of the excruciating, asbestos-linked cancer known as mesothelioma when he sued Garlock and testified that he couldn't recall working with other, more common and more hazardous products like Owens Corning's Kaylo pipe insulation or EaglePicher asbestos cement. As soon as he settled, however, Golini's lawyers filed claims against those precise companies based on affidavits they'd drawn up before Golini professed ignorance of their products. "Our goal is to maximize a client's recovery, okay, and in order to do that, what we focus on for the deposition is the viable, nonbankrupt companies," said Shein in his own deposition. "That's our job, okay?" And had the asbestos lawyers prevailed, Shein's efforts and Golini's multiple filings would have remained secret. But thanks to Garlock's persistence (and a successful lawsuit by Legal Newsline, a U.S. Chamber-funded publication seeking release of sealed court documents) the evidence has come spilling out. That evidence could be the biggest turning point in the decades-long multibillion-dollar battle over who will pay for asbestos cleanup across the U.S. Garlock is suing Shein and lawyers at five other firms for racketeering and fraud over their asbestos litigation. Shein's lawyer, Daniel Brier, says that "Ben Shein is a zealous advocate for his clients" and the lawsuit has no merit. "More justice was done in the Garlock bankruptcy than in all the previous bankruptcies put together," saysLester Brickman, a professor at Yeshiva University's Cardozo School of Law and a paid expert for Garlock, whose research revealed how asbestos lawyers were gaming the system. "There's rampant fraud in every one of those cases." It wasn't supposed to turn out this way. Garlock had been a bit player in the asbestos saga throughout the 1980s and 1990s, settling mesothelioma cases for a few thousand dollars apiece, but by the early 2000s bigger asbestos manufacturers like Johns Manville and Owens Corning had all gone through bankruptcy and were immune from further asbestos lawsuits, so the lawyers turned their attention to Garlock. Settlement demands escalated as lawyers won some big victories, including a $37 million jury verdict in California. Soon Garlock's total payout exceeded $1 billion, four times its annual revenue. Normally, a company in this situation strikes a deal with the plaintiff lawyers to set up a bankruptcy trust to settle the current litigation and pay claims into the future. But Garlock wasn't willing to go along. Stephen Macadam, the 54-year-old chief executive of Garlock's Charlotte, N.C. parent company, EnPro Industries, was skeptical about the company's liability in the first place. Macadam had started his career as a DuPont engineer working beside pipe fitters and millwrights. He knew it often took all day to break down a single valve and replace the gasket, supporting the testimony of Garlock's medical experts that it would be nearly impossible to get a lethal dose of asbestos from its gaskets. "We were attracting the claims of every person diagnosed with mesothelioma, and they all said they got it from a Garlock gasket," says Macadam, who joined EnPro in 2008. "It was just ridiculous." Garlock's problem was the people suing it couldn't seem to remember working with anybody else's products, especially the potentially deadly insulation pipe fitters had to cut through to get to a Garlock gasket. In depositions, dying cancer patients would answer no to repeated questions about whether they'd worked with common construction materials like pipe insulation or asbestos-containing joint compound. In one case a former Navy worker claimed others removed valves from ships, cleaned off all the insulation and brought them to him to disassemble onshore, conveniently eliminating the possibility of being exposed to anything but a Garlock gasket. Garlock's average mesothelioma settlement payment rose past $70,000 in the mid-2000s from less than $10,000 in 1999, while the cost of defending itself at trial sometimes exceeded $400,000. Macadam put Garlock in bankruptcy in June 2010. Once there he gave Cassada permission to pursue a highly unconventional strategy of proving that the claims against Garlock had been inflated by fraud. After a lengthy battle with the asbestos lawyers who tried to keep them secret, the company obtained millions of claims filed with more than 20 bankruptcy trusts. Finally, Judge Hodges allowed full discovery into 15 high-value claims Garlock had settled, including depositions of the lawyers involved. Hodges found plaintiffs had hidden their exposure to other products until they settled with Garlock, only to file additional bankruptcy trust claims that often contradicted their previous testimony, sometimes literally the day after settling. Citing settlements that had been "infected by the manipulation of exposure evidence by plaintiffs and their lawyers," Hodges last year slashed Garlock's bankruptcy liability from the $1.3 billion plaintiff lawyers were seeking to $125 million. The asbestos lawyers insist that prior to declaring bankruptcy, Garlock made a business decision to settle cases rather than challenge them in court, implying it didn't delve deeply into the evidence that might exonerate it. Garlock is still in bankruptcy, but Macadam's refusal to play by the asbestos bar's rules may yield huge dividends for other firms like Honeywell, Ford and Volkswagen that are still solvent and facing tens of thousands of asbestos-related lawsuits. They've filed briefs in Hodges' court seeking the millions of documents Garlock uncovered. Congress, meanwhile, is considering a law that would require the asbestos bankruptcy trusts to open their records. "If you're a solvent defendant still in the tort system, you're scared to death of these guys, and we were, too, until we entered reorganization," Macadam says. "All they have to do is make up their mind to go after you, and they can make you hurt. And make you pay." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Law Firms Call for Stay on Fibro Cases ------------------------------------------------------- Barbara Ross, writing for New York Daily News, reported that Sheldon Silver's indictment and the sweeping federal investigation that snared him has inspired a group of 45 law firms to ask that all asbestos litigation in Manhattan Supreme Court be frozen for 60 days. In a 14-page letter to Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Peter Moulton, the new administrative judge, lawyers said the court's rules for handling asbestos cases have become unfair and favor big plaintiff firms like Weitz & Luxenberg. Silver, the former state Assembly speaker, was indicted on corruption charges, which were based in part on legal fees that he earned while working on asbestos cases with Weitz & Luxenberg. Weitz & Luxenberg dominates a whole section of Manhattan Supreme Court that is devoted to asbestos cases. It has won 87% of the $313 million in mesothelioma verdicts in the last four years. In the letter to Moulton, former Justice Leo Milonas argues that one reason Weitz & Luxenberg has done so well is that the court has a set of case management rules which are not "fair" or "balanced." The lawyers said the judges have allowed plaintiff firms like Weitz and Luxenberg to "cherry pick" which cases will be heard first and this has resulted in a disproportionate number of strong cases being resolved faster with big verdicts. Then the plaintiff firms "fail to prosecute the remaining cases," the defense lawyers claim. The asbestos lawyers also object to the way court administrators have allowed cases that "have virtually nothing in common" to be consolidated for a trial. They said this forces their clients to pay out in settlements rather than face "a jackpot verdict." The lawyers fault a legal decision by Moulton's predecessor, Sherry Klein Heitler, who lifted a 20-year ban on punitive damages in asbestos cases. "The motivation for the request was transparent," they said. "Perry Weitz of the Weitz & Luxenberg firm explicitly stated that he intends to use the threat of punitive damages to force settlements out of 'recalcitrant defendants and insurers'" because they face "even more astronomical verdicts" if they go to trial. In addition to the letter to Moulton, the defense lawyers filed a formal motion asking for a 60-day freeze on all pending asbestos cases -- except in cases where the plaintiffs are critically ill and their cases or depositions need to move forward before they die. In a statement, Weitz said the defense lawyers' requests for a stay and an overhaul of the court rules "is a cynical ploy aimed at keeping victims of corporate abuses from having their day in court." "These defense firms can't win on the merits so they are trying to overturn decisions reached by extraordinarily talented judges over the last several decades," he said. Weitz & Luxenberg sent a letter to Moulton on behalf of a dozen plaintiff law firms opposed to the proposed stay and rule changes. They accuse the defense firms of trying to take advantage of a change in supervising judges to futher delay the resolution of asbestos cases. "The victims of the reckless marketing of ultrahazardous asbestos- containing products without any warnings whatsover are dying and in need of seeing their day in court," the letter says. David Bookstaver, a spokesman for the Office of Court Administration, said Moulton was already "assessing what if anything needs to be done" to change the way asbestos cases are handled and the defense lawyers' motion will focus his attention on the case management rules. A hearing on that issue will be scheduled for later this spring. Meanwhile, Bookstaver said Moulton will continue Heitler's tradition of having an open town hall forum. The next one was set for April 9 at 10 a.m. at 60 Centre St. Bookstaver again denied published reports that the federal investigation, which snared Silver, has spread to the courthouse where several judges close to him handle the kind of cases cited in Silver's indictment. "We know of no ongoing investigation involving anyone at 60 Centre St. We have not had any subpoenas," he said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Steelworkers Filing Fibro Claims ------------------------------------------------------ Robin Turner, writing for Wales Online, reported that large numbers of steelworkers are coming forward to make asbestos- related health claims connected with their work at a number of steelworks operated during the 1950s, '60s and '70s, lawyers have said. A number of workers and their relatives from the former -- now demolished -- British Steel-owned plant in Port Talbot and the Llanwern steelworks are now coming forward after being diagnosed with asbestos-related diseases. The claims are historic and are not in any way connected with the modern Port Talbot steel mill or the way the Llanwern mill in Newport (which opened in 1961) was run after the 1970s. 40% increase in claims One law firm said in the past year it has seen a 40% increase in claims from steelworks in the area and is currently working on cases connected to the old Port Talbot plant and Llanwern as it was run in the 1960s and 1970s and warned that many more could surface. A number of ex-workers from the 1960s and 1970s are believed to have died from the asbestos related cancer mesothelioma, which is linked with past exposure to asbestos dust. The silent killer: The asbestos threat from East Moors steelworks -- 36 years after it closed The Spencer steelworks in Llanwern under construction in 1961The Spencer steelworks in Llanwern under construction in 1961 Industrial disease lawyer Phillip Gower, of Cardiff-based Simpson Millar solicitors, claimed many people are at risk. He said: "This disease can strike at any time and in anyone who has been exposed in the past. "There are hundreds out there who may be at risk. "If people are concerned they should be checked out. 'A painful death' "As well as these plants I'm also dealing with lots of claims from steel plants which once operated all over South Wales. Many workers suffered a painful death after exposure to asbestos. "They are paying the ultimate price for a failure in basic health and safety precautions." As well as mesothelioma, other health conditions linked to asbestos exposure include pleural thickening and asbestosis -- with symptoms often surfacing decades after exposure. The widow of former Port Talbot steelworker James Ryan, Maureen Ryan, is now working with her solicitor to contact people who worked with him at the former Port Talbot steelworks in the late '50s. Mr Ryan used to cut sheets of asbestos at the factory and had worked there from 1957 to 1960. The original Port Talbot steelworks where Mr Ryan worked was demolished in 1961. He died aged 78 in June 2013, three months after being diagnosed. She said: "I still miss him terribly and will never get over it. "He was a proud and independent man but he went down very quickly and it was awful to watch him suffer." ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Atty Helps Craft Genetic Mutation Defense -------------------------------------------------------------- Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that a defense attorney at HeplerBroom has joined a handful of lawyers nationwide who are introducing a genetic mutation defense in asbestos litigation. "BAP1" is a genetic mutation believed to increase a person's risk for developing mesothelioma when exposed to asbestos. Rebecca Nickelson of HeplerBroom is the lead counsel for defendant Georgia Pacific in an asbestos case ongoing in St. Louis Circuit Court. Prior to the company's eventual dismissal from the suit on Jan. 6, Nickelson introduced the BAP1 defense when she filed a motion for an order compelling a blood examination from plaintiff David Bergstrom for genetic testing. In their complaint, Bergstrom and his wife Kaye Bergstrom claim he developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to Georgia Pacific's asbestos-containing products during his career as a drywall finisher. In Nickelson's motion to compel examination, she relied on Missouri Supreme Court Rule 60.01, which states that when the physical condition of a party is in controversy, the court may require the individual to submit to blood examination. Nickelson argued that Bergstrom's physical condition was put in controversy when he alleged that he suffers from mesothelioma caused by exposure to Georgia Pacific's products. In her request, Nickelson raised a controversial argument that a BAP1 gene mutation "is known to cause mesothelioma." Belief that a gene mutation alone can cause mesothelioma was the hypothesis of Dr. Joseph R. Testa, geneticist and professor at the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, and Dr. Michele Carbone of the University of Hawaii, when they began research into the BAP1 gene mutation. The two were the first to discover that those with BAP1 mutations had a predisposition to developing mesothelioma. Testa and Carbone believe the BAP1 gene mutation prevents the patient's proteins from acting as tumor suppressors when cancer is detected, meaning the patient is more susceptible to developing cancers, including mesothelioma. While, Carbone believes the BAP1 mutation alone can cause mesothelioma without asbestos exposure, medical experts have not been able to reach an agreement on this hypothesis. "If this genetic testing demonstrates that Mr. Bergstrom has a BAP1 gene mutation, the mutation's existence may show that asbestos fibers attributable to Georgia Pacific products did not cause Mr. Bergstrom's mesothelioma," Nickelson argued in her motion. "Consequently, Mr. Bergstrom's physical condition -- specifically, whether he has a BAP 1 gene mutation -- is directly involved in the question of what caused his alleged mesothelioma, which plaintiffs must prove as a material element of their negligence and strict liability claims against Georgia Pacific." The Bergstroms, who are represented by Benjamin Schmickle of SWMK Law in St. Louis, answered the motion to compel last July, rejecting the BAP1 defense. "If the BAP1 were not a gene but rather some product of Georgia Pacific's ingested or inhaled by plaintiff, and any plaintiff were to bring a lawsuit against Georgia Pacific alleging that the plaintiffs use of BAP1 caused the plaintiff's mesothelioma, with a current state of medical knowledge regarding BAP1, Georgia Pacific would file a motion to dismiss the case, and the court would be correct in doing so," the answer stated. The Bergstroms claim Nickelson's request is misleading. "In short, Georgia Pacific's assertion that a BAP1 gene mutation is 'known' to cause mesothelioma is simply scientifically unsupported," the plaintiffs argued. "Without medical support, the motion is simply lawyer talk." The Bergstroms agreed that it was possible for plaintiffs and defendant medical experts to agree that some genetic component makes certain individuals more susceptible to developing particular diseases, but the "medical literature is replete with examples of individuals who develop mesothelioma with much lower and infrequent lifetime asbestos exposures." Circuit Judge Robert Dierker was unconvinced and granted Nickelson's motion on Aug. 1, compelling Bergstrom to submit to blood examination for purposes of genetic testing. Dierker, however, laid out conditions in a following Aug. 5 order. He ordered the test to be conducted from Prevention Genetics, which is only authorized to test for a BAP1 gene mutation. Upon completion, the lab was ordered to share the results with Nickelson and the plaintiffs' counsel. Prevention Genetics also was ordered to destroy or turn over all of Bergstrom's blood samples and results to his treating physician. The confidential results of the genetic testing were not submitted as evidence on the record. Defendant Welco Manufacturing Company joined in Georgia Pacific's motion to compel a blood examination on July 29 before Welco was later dismissed from the suit on Aug. 26. The case is still being litigated. The most recent action was a settlement reached March 10 between the Bergstroms and KCG Inc., successor to building material makers Rew Materials and KC Wall Products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firms Say Favoritism Plagues NYC Fibro Courts -------------------------------------------------------------- Brandon Lowrey, writing for Law360, reported that attorneys for 45 law firms defending companies in asbestos litigation have urged a New York administrative judge to halt proceedings in all of New York City's asbestos cases for 60 days and overhaul their case management order, citing "systemic favoritism" toward plaintiffs and saying the 27-year-old order is outdated. In a letter and motion filed with newly appointed Manhattan Supreme Court Administrative Judge Peter H. Moulton, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP attorney and former New York Chief Administrative Judge E. Leo Milonas argued that the decades-old case management order was founded on consent obtained long before many current counsel had become involved. "Defendants' concerns surrounding the legitimacy and continued viability of the current CMO cannot be overstated," Milonas wrote, adding that the "recent interpretation of the CMO, implementation of its coordinating procedures, and systemic favoritism have together resulted in a far more significant departure from the rights and remedies afforded to defendants under the [Civil Practice Law and Rules] than even those defendants involved in the original negotiations had bargained for, or could have reasonably anticipated." Milonas took particular exception to New York City's "pervasive and prejudicial" asbestos case consolidations, saying its practices in its routine bundling of cases that have little in common fall "well outside modern norms." He also contended in his letter that New York City courts have shown preferential treatment to plaintiffs in setting a low bar for forum requirements, fast- tracking and cherry-picking cases, and virtually always siding with plaintiffs in discovery disputes. The en-masse request is the latest dramatic development in New York City's asbestos litigation scene. Former New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver is fighting a bribery indictment alleging he reaped millions in "referral fees" for referring a physician's asbestos patients to asbestos and mesothelioma plaintiff firm Weitz & Luxenberg PC. Silver, who pleaded not guilty, has argued that U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara improperly leaked the charges to the media a day before he issued a criminal complaint and used "inflammatory rhetoric" in a news conference the next day. Bharara made additional unfair statements assuming Silver's guilt during a Jan. 23 speech at New York Law School and a Feb. 10 interview with MSNBC, according to the defense. The defense attorneys' letter argued that New York jurists have rendered summary judgment motions "a virtual nullity" by refusing to rule on unopposed defense summary judgment motions and overwhelmingly denying opposed ones. The courts also award damages without proper scrutiny in lung cancer cases to smokers who allege they were exposed to asbestos, the letter says. Court rulings have also "upended" the burden of proof in the case, placing it on the defendants, the letter says, and lifted a nearly 20-year deferral of punitive damages, the letter says. "Based upon their innovative programs, such as the formation of a Commercial Division, and dedicated jurists, New York courts should enjoy a reputation for fair dealings and equal justice," the letter says. "The contrast, however, between how defendants are treated elsewhere in the New York court system and [New York City asbestos litigation] is striking." Milonas was not available for comment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mont. Ct. Adopts Summary Judgment Recommendation ----------------------------------------------------------------- HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a Montana federal court has adopted a report and recommendation awarding summary judgment to BNSF Railway Co., agreeing with a magistrate judge's assessment that the claims are time-barred. In the March 27 order, the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana rejected the plaintiffs' stance that by the time BNSF was made part of an automatic bankruptcy stay, the statute of limitations had already run. The plaintiffs contended that BNSF negligently transported asbestos in uncovered railroad cars from the W.R. Grace asbestos mining operation in Lincoln County, Mont. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Watchdog Gave Wrong Info on Fibro in Homes ----------------------------------------------------------- Ruth Lamperd and Monique Hore, writing for Herald Sun, reported that Victoria's environment watchdog gave residents near a deadly old asbestos factory false assurances that their ceiling cavities did not contain "breathable" asbestos fibres, according to experts. Two weeks after it was revealed scores of people had been exposed and died from the deadly factory dust in Sunshine North, the Environment Protection Authority told residents asbestos in their roofs wasn't breathable. But more sensitive testing equipment has revealed dust samples taken from their ceiling cavities did contain breathable asbestos. The EPA asked for the test results to be provided to the Expert Advisory Group so they could "be interpreted in conjunction with the other extensive environmental testing already carried out". Breathable asbestos can be inhaled deep into lung tissue, causing cause asbestos-related diseases such as mesothelioma and asbestosis. Environmental health consultant Michael Kottek believes the EPA may have deliberately misled residents. "If there is a risk it is low, but it needs to be investigated seriously. "People rely on rigorous testing using appropriate mechanisms," he said. It appeared that the EPA analysis did not use good science and its staff had not used a strong enough microscope to differentiate between breathable and non-breathable fibres, he said. An EPA spokesperson wrote in an email on October 31: "Asbestos confirmed in roof cavities was of a size that it could not be breathed in and did not pose any risk unless disturbed." On October 12, the Sunday Herald Sun revealed that scores of payouts for asbestos-related deaths linked to the old Wunderlich factory had been quietly settled by asbestos firm CSR and had not been reported to authorities. Independent tests of ceiling cavities' dust samples in the area showed asbestos fibres were present, some of which may have been transported there by winds in the decades the factory was operating. The EPA slammed the Sunday Herald Sun's independent scientific reports. Residents said EPA representatives had told them the newspaper was "scaremongering" and one claimed he was even told that it was safe for him to remove his roof for renovation work. A public statement still on the EPA's website says there is "no breathable asbestos detected in Sunshine North homes". However, new tests using a tenfold stronger microscope show asbestos -- fibres in the initial samples were of breathable size. The Sunday Herald Sun posed a series of questions to the EPA, including: Why did the EPA make a distinction between breathable and non- breathable asbestos fibres if it commissioned a test that didn't allow the distinction to be made? In a joint response from the Health Department and EPA that question was not answered. University of South Australia asbestos researcher Mike van Alphen has seen the latest high-magnification reports on the samples and said: "The amount of asbestos in some ceiling dust samples is not trivial or minor". "I have not seen a report on settled asbestos dust, deposited from a distant source, where it has been categorically claimed that there are no respirable asbestos fibres. This is peculiar," he said. "It is, however, common to find more fibres as you look at higher magnification." It is also understood the EPA has received results of air monitoring in the Sunshine North area returned from high- magnification analysis in the US which has detected asbestos in the air. These results have not been reported to the residents and Health Department spokesman Bram Alexander did not directly respond to requests for confirmation. This is despite earlier tests that came back negative being released by the EPA to a local newspaper. Sean Spencer, who organised the first community meeting after the Sunday Herald Sun's revelations in October, said residents felt there had been a cover-up. "Residents need to be reassured the EPA's first task is to protect the public, not to protect itself and the Government from being embarrassed. "People just want to know the truth so they can make important decisions about what they can and can't do in their houses," he said. "My experience is you have to push hard to get the EPA to look at anything carefully." In the joint EPA-Health Department response, Mr Alexander said the Expert Advisory Group looking into the Sunshine North asbestos claims would report to the Chief Health Officer when its own testing program was finalized. He reiterated the previous EPA claims that "very small amounts of non-respirable asbestos in the roof spaces of seven homes" were found. "A final round of sampling has just been completed, and the EPA and Department of Health and Human Services are awaiting these results. "To date, results of all of the indoor air tests for asbestos have been below the limit of detection." He said the testing regimen used complied with Australian and international standards and were conducted in laboratories accredited by the National Association of Testing Authorities. ASBESTOS UPDATE: W. Va. Hospitals Close Lab After Fibro Find ------------------------------------------------------------ The Associated Press reported that a lab in West Virginia University Hospitals' Health Sciences Building has temporarily closed following the discovery of asbestos in dust. WVU Hospitals risk management and safety director Roger Osbourn told The Dominion Post that the discovery is an isolated incident. He said it most likely resulted when a pipe was bumped during renovations on the floor above the lab. University environmental health and safety director John Principe said tests showed trace amounts of asbestos fibers. Air sample tests were negative. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Teacher Gets GBP210,00 After Mesothelioma ------------------------------------------------------------- Schools Week reported that a retired teacher who spent 11 years working in classrooms containing asbestos secured a personal injury claim for GBP210,000 after she was diagnosed with mesothelioma, the NASUWT union has revealed. The union, which is at conference in Cardiff, England, revealed details on April 3 of the successful claim that it helped secure last year for the 70-year-old from the East Midlands, who was diagnosed in 2013. A spokesperson for the union said: "Between 1973 and 1984, the member had worked in two secondary schools and taught in classrooms containing asbestos that was present in the pre- fabricated buildings, in ceiling tiles and on wall panels. "In one particular classroom, asbestos ceiling tiles would regularly fall down, which the member would have to pick up. "In another classroom, asbestos tiles were replaced during term time and during the school day, generating a large amount of dust. "In addition, as the member was a science teacher, she regularly had to handle asbestos mats." It comes as the National Union of Teachers (NUT), which will complete its annual conference in Harrogate, Yorkshire, on April 7, revealed the disturbing findings of its own survey into members' experience of asbestos on April 6. An NUT spokesperson said it showed that while "nearly 90 per cent of schools still contain asbestos", there was still " a long way to go in raising awareness" of the presence of the potentially deadly substance. A total of 201 teachers answered the survey questions, with a third of them reporting "an incident which may have led to exposure to asbestos" at their workplace. In addition, 99 per cent of respondents agreed that there should be a long-term government strategy for the removal of asbestos from all schools. An NUT spokesperson added that "80 per cent said that parents had not been given information about the presence of asbestos and its management. In the US this is mandatory". Christine Blower, NUT general secretary, said: "The dangers of asbestos in schools are obvious. "The failure to assess risk, the slow responses and a lack of knowledge and awareness are major factors, and as this survey shows, what is needed to truly address the problem is a concerted effort on a national scale." An NASUWT spokesperson said that it had helped secure compensation totalling GBP19,765,349 in total for members in 2014. They had been awarded over, for example, unfair dismissal, personal injuries, criminal assault, unlawful deduction of wages, breach of contract, constructive dismissal, victimisation and discrimination. Chris Keates, NASUWT general secretary, said: "The tragedy is that in most cases compensation would be unnecessary if employers followed good employment practices and appropriate health and safety procedures. "Instead, teachers have their careers, lives and health blighted and millions of pounds of public money has to be spent in compensation. "Employers flout the law, but it's the teachers and the taxpayers who pay the price." A Department for Education spokesperson said: "Nothing is more important than the health and safety of children and staff in our schools. "Schools have information to ensure those responsible for managing asbestos are equipped to do so effectively." She added: "Compensation payments are agreed on a case by case basis and the department has no role in the process." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trust Claims Fibro Bill Good for W. Va. -------------------------------------------------------- Chris Dickerson, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that the asbestos trust claims act recently signed into law is good for business in West Virginia, according to several attorneys who played key roles in crafting the legislation. A plaintiffs attorney, however, credited legislative leadership for making sure needed compromises were included. "The asbestos legislation and other legal reforms enacted this year by the Legislature and signed by the governor will help attract jobs into West Virginia and make West Virginia businesses more competitive," said Mark Behrens, a national asbestos trust expert and attorney with Shook Hardy & Bacon in Washington. "The asbestos trust transparency bill will help ensure that West Virginia businesses and other businesses that are sued in asbestos lawsuits in West Virginia are held liable for their fair share of the plaintiffs harm and will help those companies avoid having to pay for the fault of others." Senate Bill 411, also known as Asbestos Bankruptcy Trust Claims Transparency Act and the Asbestos and Silica Claims Priorities Act, was signed March 18 by Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin. It becomes law June 9. It will coordinate asbestos claims that are filed both in litigation and trusts established in asbestos-related bankruptcy proceedings, and it requires disclosure of existing and potential asbestos bankruptcy trust claims and also establishes medical criteria procedures and statute of limitations standards. "This brings fairness to the system," said Goes, who also helped craft the bill. "It brings efficiency. It is designed to give everyone a fair shot of compensation if you are ill and worked where asbestos was used. It is designed to make sure the process works smoothly and fairly."Kelley Goes, an attorney with Jackson Kelly in Charleston, called the asbestos trust claims system "a large and cumbersome process that, in some cases, is corrupt." According to the legislation, more than 100 businesses have went bankrupt because of asbestos-related liability. That has resulted in solvent companies -- more than 8,500 -- being named as asbestos defendants. The bankrupt businesses have formed trusts to pay damage claims, and it has created a multibillion-dollar compensation system outside of the court system. How the system typically works is that asbestos claimants often seek compensation for asbestos-related conditions from solvent defendants in civil lawsuits. But they also can seek money from these trusts formed from bankruptcies. There is "limited coordination and transparency between these two paths to recovery," the legislation states, resulting in "the suppression of evidence in asbestos actions and potential fraud." The goal of the bill is to provide transparency for claims made and prevent fraud and evidence suppression. Among other provisions, the legislation requires plaintiffs who file asbestos actions in the state to file sworn statements identifying all asbestos trust claims they have filed. "What happened is that some of these claims that were fraudulent or frivolous bankrupted the more culpable parties," Swann said. "Now, there isn't money for those who truly are sick to recover. This will help ensure that money is available for people who actually were exposed."Danielle Swann, another Jackson Kelly attorney involved in the crafting of the bill, said her father worked at Weirton Steel for more than 30 years. She talked to him about the bill and how it would affect people he had worked with there. Behrens said that at least 120 days before trial a plaintiff will have to identify all asbestos trust claims that have been made or that potentially could be filed by the plaintiff. If the plaintiff identifies a claim that could be filed, the court may stay the action until that claim is filed. Then, at least 90 days before trial, if the defense side believes there are additional trust claims the plaintiff can make, the defendant ask the court to compel the plaintiff to file those asbestos trust claims. At least 30 days before trial, the court will enter into the record a list of all asbestos trust claims the plaintiff has made. "The jury will be allowed to hear about all of the plaintiff's asbestos exposures and reach a more fully informed decision as to the cause of the person's injuries," Behrens said. "The legislation also will promote honesty in litigation by providing a mechanism to catch unscrupulous trial lawyers who may otherwise try to tell one story about the plaintiff's exposures to asbestos to a jury and a different story to asbestos trusts. "Now, there is a Case Management Order that requires plaintiff to identify any claims made or claims anticipated to be made. But we heard that not all West Virginia plaintiff lawyers were following that Case Management Order. The legislation provides a mechanism to fill that gap." He said that 30 days before trial, the court will enter a record identifying all claims made against the asbestos trusts. "Now, that plaintiffs know this information can be read to the jury," Behrens said. "The hope is that it will encourage plaintiffs to be honest in their claim process because this information will be made available to the jury. "And, the jury likely wouldn't look well upon someone who is saying something that contradicts what they've said on trust claims. The goal is to promote honest claiming. It saves everyone time and money." Anthony Majestro, president of the West Virginia Association for Justice, said Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch Carmichael made sure the bill had a clear focus. "The original version of SB 411 was authored by the U. S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Tort Reform Association, and it was pushed by Behrens, Goes and Swan, their lobbyists," Majestro said. "The original bill would have provided immunity for manufacturers and wrongdoers while delaying or eliminating the majority of serious asbestos and silica cases. "(Trump and Carmichael) recognized the significant problems with the bill and encouraged key stakeholders to meet and put together a compromise that allows seriously ill West Virginians to have their day in court. We thank them for that opportunity." The West Virginia Record is owned by the U.S. Chamber's Institute for Legal Reform. "While it's all well and good for Behrens, Goes and Swann to trumpet the fact that the bill that passed is similar to bills in other states and still allows asbestos victims to recover, the widespread opposition to the original bill was based on the fact that it assuredly would have barred a large number of claims in their entirety and caused unconscionable delays for all mesothelioma and asbestos cancer victims," Majestro said. "The compromise removed the immunities in the original bill as well as extensive new burdens for mesothelioma and asbestos cancer patients, including new requirements for medical experts. It also restored claims for spouses and children who were exposed from workers' clothing and acquired asbestosis." Majestro said many provisions in the original bill weren't needed because of the existing Case Management Order. "It was also the result of an extensive compromise with lawyers for both injured workers and manufacturers," he said. "The CMO has handled these cases effectively for more than a decade, ensuring that these cases are handled fairly and efficiently for all parties. "Its enforcement by Judge Ronald Wilson and Judge Arthur Recht made much of SB 411 superfluous and unnecessary -- and Senator Trump recognized that. The only major change the compromise bill made to the existing CMO was full disclosure when claims are filed with the bankruptcy trusts." Swann said the West Virginia legislation is similar to that in Ohio. "This has been in place in Ohio for some time, and the asbestos litigation industry still is alive and well there," she said. Goes said all of those involved spent "a lot of hours" fine-tuning the bill.Behrens said Ohio, Wisconsin and Oklahoma have similar laws in the books. And Arizona is headed in that direction. He said he spent a few weeks in Charleston during the session working on the bill, and he praised all of those who worked on it, including Majestro, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Trump (R-Morgan), Senate Majority Leader Mitch Carmichael (R-Jackson), Goes, Swann and others who came in from around the country, including attorneys from Motley Rice and Goldberg Persky. "We were very directly involved, especially in the Senate Judiciary. Chairman Trump took great care and put forth a great amount of time and effort to get all of the stakeholders together. Everyone went over the bill, literally line by line. There were compromises, the language was improved. It included people who are on the ground on both sides of this litigation. We wanted to make sure it worked and that the process was fair to the trusts, the companies doing business now and the people who have been affected.""The bill was drafted based on legislation that had passed in other states," Swann said. "Our (Swann and Goes) involvement in the negotiations were to tailor it to the West Virginia legal system. Behrens praised Trump's dedication to the bill. "He brought all of the stakeholders together and he personally sat through meetings," he said. "He wanted to ensure it was fair for everybody involved and good for the people of West Virginia. Carmichael also also sat in on some of those stakeholder meetings as well. It's great when legislative leaders are involved and engaged in the issue and knowledgeable about it. "Chairman Trump said these negotiations raised things to a new level of professionalism. He was pleased with how both sides worked together on how to do this." Goes said the importance of the bill can't be underestimated. "Now, there are insurers who have paid millions over the years because of these claims," she said. "This bill will help eliminate that. It also will lower the cost of doing business in West Virginia. "As for existing employers who have asbestos claims on going, this will help resolve those claims so they can move on with business. The bottom line is that you encourage people to do business when you manage the legal questions. With law, the ultimate goal is to provide clear rules of the road. "This process was a true compromise with both sides gave up things they'd like to have seen. But, it's very workable. It provides certainty and assurances against fraud while continuing to allow plaintiffs lawyers to practice like they have been." Goes said it also is important for West Virginians to know some allegations that started when the bill was introduced were false. If someone has been exposed to asbestos, she said they still can recover damages. "I think it's important to counteract some of the negative campaigning that happened early on in the process," she said. "It does not prevent anyone from recovering from asbestos, and that includes first or second exposures for family members as well as widow benefits. "It is a fair application of the benefits available, and no one is cut out. If you were eligible before, you're still eligible." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metex Trust Now Accepting Fibro PI Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Lucarelli, writing for Mesothelioma.com, reported that as of March 9, 2015, Metex Manufacturing Corp., formerly known as Kentile Floors Inc., is accepting asbestos-related personal injury and death claims through a trust established under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. Per the trust's website, the Initial Claim Filing Date is September 9, 2015. All claims filed with the Trust between March 9, 2015 and September 9, 2015 will be deemed filed with the Trust on the Initial Claim Filing Date and will be processed in the order stipulated by the Trust's Distribution Procedures. Over the course of the 20th century, Kentile Floors Inc. would become an industry leader in the United States in commercial and residential flooring specializing in floor tiles. Unfortunately, many of the composite tiles the company manufactured that were used in homes and businesses throughout the country included significant amounts of asbestos. Exposure to the asbestos contained in Kentile tiles would eventually lead to the development of debilitating and, in some cases, deadly diseases in tens of thousands of Americans. Kentile Floors Inc. would file for Chapter 11 on November 20, 1992 after being named in thousands of asbestos related lawsuits for personal injury and wrongful death. After unsuccessfully attempting to sell its operations, the company liquidated its assets in 1993. Kentile's reorganization plan was confirmed on December 15, 1998 and it emerged from bankruptcy under the new name Metex Manufacturing Corp. Metex would take on Kentile's asbestos liabilities and through settlement or dismissal, resolved over 10,000 asbestos-related lawsuits over the next decade. By 2012, the costs of defending and resolving additional claims became too substantial so Metex filed for Chapter 11 on November 9th of that year. As part of the new reorganization plan, the Metex Asbestos PI Trust Distribution Procedures outlines the Trust's payment procedures for the thousands of active and inactive asbestos- related claims as well as any future claims. The Trust Distribution Procedures, or TDP, recognizes 8 Scheduled Disease levels ranging from minor asbestos disease, asbestosis, and pleural disease to the most serious and life-threatening asbestos- related disease, mesothelioma. If significant past exposure to asbestos-containing Kentile products can be proven, based on the disease level of the claimant, the Trust will pay out a scheduled value with the most severe diseases receiving the largest payments. The scheduled value amounts have been calculated with the goal of paying all past and current claims equitably while assuring funds will exist to pay all expected future claims. If you or a loved one has been diagnosed with mesothelioma or any other asbestos-related disease due to exposure to a Kentile product, consult an attorney to learn more about filing a claim with the Metex Asbestos PI Trust. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Took Life of Mum and Art Teacher ------------------------------------------------------------ Ben Falconer, writing for Gloucester Citizen, reported that a legal battle is being fought by the family of a former art teacher who died from cancer linked to exposure to asbestos dust and fibres. Jennifer (Jen) Barnett from Painswick, England, died five months' ago aged 60 after being diagnosed with the extremely aggressive cancer mesothelioma which affects the lining of the lungs, leaving her husband Nigel and the rest of the family devastated. At the inquest to her death which took place in January at Gloucestershire coroner Katy Skerrett, recorded a verdict of death as a result of industrial disease. Jen taught at Archway School between 1980 and 1997, where she was known as Miss Shonk, and rose to become head of art before she left to have her fourth child at the age of 42. Her family believes she came into contact with asbestos during her time there when she pinned pupils' work up for display onto the ceilings and walls. She also was believed to have been exposed to asbestos when she cut up a shed as a teenager, the patholigist conducting the post mortem examination was told. Her widower Nigel told the inquest in January she came in to contact with asbestos then, and at Archway. "Jen was a fantastic wife and a wonderful mother to our four children," said her widower Nigel. "She was so precious to us and it is hard to believe she's gone. Prior to her illness, she was a very fit and healthy 60-year old who enjoyed playing tennis in her spare time and was a dedicated and extremely talented artist who continued to work right up until her death. Our youngest daughter was only 18 when her mum passed away and was just about to start university. The whole family misses her dreadfully and we are all shocked and devastated that her life was cut short so suddenly." Nigel has now instructed specialist asbestos disease lawyers at Novum Law to help investigate Jen's working conditions at the school. "I will never forget the consultant at the hospital asking Jen if she'd ever been exposed to asbestos and her saying a definite 'yes' because she knew that a lot of asbestos was previously used in school buildings," he said. "I am hoping that former teachers or ex-pupils will come forward who may have some knowledge about the asbestos ceiling tiles at Archway School or know of any other asbestos products or materials that were used there. I know that Jen was involved in clay modelling and that the damp cupboard for storing clay items was lined with asbestos board. "Jen fought the cancer bravely and remained positive throughout gruelling sessions of chemotherapy. The day before she died, she even managed to come to the little village church where we were married to celebrate our 30th wedding anniversary and we had a very special day together as a family. Photographs taken that day show her smiling and we will always treasure them." Helen Grady, an asbestos disease solicitor at Novum Law, specialising in mesothelioma cases, said: "It is alarming that we are seeing more and more cases involving teachers. Asbestos was widely used in the UK as a building material for fire proofing and insulation from the 1950s up until 1985, when most types were banned. It was banned completely from new buildings in 1999 but sadly, the damage had already been done for thousands of victims who have paid the ultimate price for going to work every day. "We hope that anybody who may have attended Archway School or worked there remembers Jen and can shed more light on how she got exposed to asbestos." Archway headteacher Colin Belford said: "We were all saddened to learn of Jenny Shonk's death last year. "Staff who worked with her at Archway spoke of her with great affection and admiration. "We were not aware of the issues raised by the coroner. "I can say that all of the building work which has taken place at Archway in recent years is fully compliant with modern building regulations. "I am not aware of any current risk to staff or students but will ask the local authority for its assurance on this matter." Phil Ashbee-Dobbins, Gloucestershire County Council asbestos administration officer, said: "Buildings built in the 1960s and 1970s, and even up until the late 90s often have asbestos in them. "It doesn't pose a risk unless it is disturbed, and we help schools under local authority control keep their own accurate records and to make sure it is treated properly and safely. "Archway School has been extensively renovated in recent years. In addition, regular asbestos audits are completed as part of standard health and safety procedures. "While we are unable to comment on this specific case, we would like to reassure parents, pupils and teachers that current guidance and practices in our county's schools appropriately manage the risks associated with asbestos." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Addresses Timeliness in Fibro Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The National Law Review reported that the Pennsylvania Superior Court recently addressed the timeliness of an asbestos-related wrongful death action. In Wygant v. GE, 2015 Pa. Super. LEXIS 118, 2015 PA Super 56 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015), the Superior Court concluded, among other things, that the two-year statute of limitations applicable to asbestos-related wrongful death actions begins to run at the time of diagnosis. The case specifically addressed an asbestos-related wrongful death claim wherein Plaintiff's case was filed more than two years after diagnosis but within two years of the date of Plaintiff's Decedent's death. In its decision, the Court cited statutory language and concluded that the statute called into question did, in fact, apply to asbestos-related wrongful death actions and that the instant wrongful death action was time barred, having been filed more than two years after Plaintiff's Decedent was diagnosed with mesothelioma. In light of the specific statutory language referenced by the Court and this Superior Court decision, it would be advantageous for an asbestos defendant to establish that the injured person was informed by a licensed physician that his/her injuries were the result of asbestos exposure. This type of information removes some of the guesswork related to when a person knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, that an alleged injury was caused by such exposure. The statute provides in pertinent part that the two-year period begins to run from the date on which the person is informed by a licensed physician that the person has been injured by exposure to asbestos, or upon the date on which the person knew or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known that the person had an injury which was caused by such exposure, whichever date occurs first. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Exposed to Fibro at Service Center ----------------------------------------------------------- Occupational Health & Safety reported that A.M. Castle & Co. was cited for two repeat five serious safety violations after a complaint led to an OSHA investigation of the company's Franklin Park, IL, site. The complaint alleged various safety and health hazards including occupational exposure to asbestos, insufficient training for employees on asbestos in the workplace, and lack of permit-required confined space procedures. "A.M. Castle has a responsibility to train its workers in the hazards of being exposed to asbestos and confined spaces," said Angeline Loftus, OSHA's area director in Des Plaines. "Asbestos exposure can cause long-term and irreversible damage to the lungs. A. M. Castle needs to re-evaluate this facility and correct these hazards immediately." Two repeated violations were given due to not providing awareness training to employees who perform housekeeping operations in areas that contain asbestos or presumed asbestos containing material, and not making a copy of the OSHA Asbestos Standard readily available and accessible to affected employees. The five serious violations were cited for: not evaluating the workplace to determine if any confined spaces were permit- required; not posting danger signs or notifying employees of a permit-required confined space; not developing and implementing a written permit-required confined space entry program; failing to inform employees, who perform maintenance in areas where asbestos is present, of the presence, quantity and location of asbestos containing material or presumed asbestos containing material which might have been contacted during such work activities; failing to ensure training on asbestos was in accordance with OSHA standards; and failing to provide annual asbestos training to employees involved in Class IV asbestos operations. ********* 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. Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2015. 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 202-362-8552. * * * End of Transmission * * *