/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150501.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, May 1, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 87 Headlines 24 HOUR FITNESS: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Telemarketing ALCOBRA LTD: Court Appointed Investor Group as Lead Plaintiff ALPHATEC HOLDINGS: Appeal in Securities Class Suit Fully Briefed AMERICAN VANGUARD: No Ruling Yet in Abad-Castillo et al Appeals AMERICAN VANGUARD: No Ruling Yet in Patrickson Case Appeals AMERICAN VANGUARD: Plaintiffs Cannot Proceed Further in "Adams" AMERICAN VANGUARD: Plaintiffs Fail to Enforce Nicaraguan Judgment AMERICAN VANGUARD: Named as Defendant in "Sanchez" Case AMERICAN VANGUARD: Named as Defendant in "Galvan v. AMVAC" Case APOLLO GLOBAL: Joint Status Report Regarding Discovery Filed APOLLO GLOBAL: Updates on Pending Actions Related to Caesars APOLLO GLOBAL: Parties in CEC Litigation Engaged in Discovery APOLLO GLOBAL: Parties to Cambridge Action Seek Settlement Okay AVANT BUSINESS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages AZTEC FURNISHINGS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages BANK OF NEW YORK: Pending Cases Coordinated for Pre-Trial BLACKSTONE GROUP: Settlement Approval Hearing Held in "Dahl" Case CAREER TRAINING: "Whitfield" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: Settlement Subject to Court Approval CINEMARK HOLDINGS: "Amey, et al." Case in Pretrial Discovery DIAZ SUPERMARKET: "Luis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages DISCRETE WIRELESS: Faces "Stramiello" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT EMPIRE STATE: Class Action Plaintiffs Have Yet to Perfect Appeal ESPAR INC: Faces National Suit Over Parking Heater-Price Fixing EVERCORE PARTNERS: Defending Against "Coburn" Class Action FLEETMATICS GROUP: All Claims in Class Action Now Paid GOGO INC: Action by Berkson in Early Stage of Litigation GOOGLE INC: Sued Over Alleged Age Discrimination Practices HI-CRUSH PARTNERS: Court Dismissed Securities Class Actions INTELLIPAYMENT LLC: Sued Over Electronic Money Transfer Policies KBR INC: Oral Argument Held on Bid to Dismiss Restatement Suits KKR & CO: Final Court Approval of Settlement Subject to Appeal KKR & CO: Supreme Court Appeal in KFN Litigation Pending LIFEWATCH INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Bank" Suit Claims LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Schaber" Suit Over Toxic Flooring MEDTRONIC PUBLIC: Pretrial Proceedings Underway in Sprint Case MEDTRONIC PUBLIC: Plaintiffs Filed 800 INFUSE Cases as of Feb. 23 MEDTRONIC PUBLIC: Has Not Record Pipe Trades Suit-Related Expense MEDTRONIC PUBLIC: 7,500 Covidien Product-Related Cases Pending MEDTRONIC PUBLIC: Injunction Bid in "Merenstein" Suit Denied MEDTRONIC PUBLIC: Plaintiffs Dismissed Houston and Clark Cases MEDTRONIC PUBLIC: Accord Reached in Taxman, Lipovich & Rosenfeld MERCK & CO: Defendant in 25 Active Vioxx Product Liability Suits MERCK & CO: District Judge Remanded Alaska Lawsuit to State Court MERCK & CO: Dispositive Motions Fully Briefed in Vioxx Suits MERCK & CO: 5,575 Fosamax Cases Pending As of Dec. 31, 2014 MERCK & CO: Updates on Cases Alleging ONJ Injuries MERCK & CO: 1,035 Cases Pending in Femur Fracture MDL at Dec. 31 MERCK & CO: 3,005 Femur Fractures Cases Filed in NJ at Dec. 31 MERCK & CO: 515 Femur Fractures Cases Filed in Calif. at Dec. 31 MERCK & CO: 785 Januvia/Janumet User Claims Pending as of Dec. 31 MERCK & CO: 80 Cases Outside of NuvaRing Program Still Pending MERCK & CO: 1,235 Propecia/Proscar Lawsuits Pending at Dec. 31 MERCK & CO: Class Claims in Sales Force Litigation to Continue NAVIENT CORPORATION: Plaintiff-Intervenors Seek to Amend Suit NAVIENT CORPORATION: Blyden Drops SLM Corp. as Defendant NAVY FEDERAL: Fiorani Can Proceed With Case in Forma Pauperis NORA FOOD: "Diop" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages NORTHWEST BANCSHARES: "Toth" Accord Subject to Final Court Okay OIL STATES ENERGY: Faces "Mozingo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT PINNACLE CAR: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, "De Jesus" Suit Says PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Prothero" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach RIZZOLI INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay Workers OT, Suit Claims SABER HEALTHCARE: Faces "Dembek" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT SALON PEOPLE: Faces "Johnson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Motions to Dismiss Securities Actions Pending SANDRIDGE ENERGY: "Hart" Class Action Lawsuit in Early Stages SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Faces "Surbaugh" Class Action Lawsuit SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Faces "Dakil" Class Action Lawsuit SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Lead Plaintiffs May Amend Complaint SORIANO BROTHERS: Faces "Acosta" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT TECO ENERGY: Appeals from Dismissal of Class Actions Pending TILE SHOP: Motions to Dismiss Class Action Pending TITLE SOURCE: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Wesolowski" Suit VOYA FINANCIAL: 2015 Q2 Hearing on Bid for Punitive Damages WEATHERBY INC: "Fiant" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime WESBANCO INC: Memorandum of Settlement Reached in Class Action WORLD OMNI: Plaintiffs' Bid to Dismiss Complaint Granted Asbestos Litigation 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: 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: Crane Co. Pays Three Judgments in Fibro Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal in "Nelson" Suit vs. Crane Co. is Pending ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oral Argument in NY Suit vs. Crane Co. Set ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Resolves 107,000 Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had $614MM Fibro Liability at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: GATX Corp. Had 104 Fibro Cases at Jan. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSA Safety Has 2,326 Product Liability Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cliffs Natural Resources Has 50 Fibro Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: XL Group Had 1,399 Claim Files at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: AFG Had $366-Mil. A&E Reserves at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Entergy Corp. Has 400 Fibro Exposure Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4 Fibro Suits vs. Transocean Ltd. Remain in La. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Ltd. Unit Has 902 Exposure Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Watts Water Has 240 Fibro Suits at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Had 7,975 Fibro Exposure Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Markel Corp. Had $290.1-Mil. Fibro Reserves ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Inc. Had 68,460 PI Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Noble Corp. Has 42 Fibro Suits at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.W. Grainger Continues to Defend Fibro Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: FMC Corp. Had 11,000 Fibro Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Had 3,821 Fibro Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Had 2,125 Fibro Cases at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tort Reforms Groups Back Fibro Litigation Bill ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Fails in Bid to Dismiss "Watts" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies Silver's Bid to Junk Indictment ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of "Sterling" Suit vs. P&H Affirmed ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Stellar" Suit Remanded to Pa. State Court ASBESTOS UPDATE: Warren Pumps Fails in Bid to Junk "Spells" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of Ex-Pipefitter's Petitions Affirmed ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Div. Tolls Time to Perfect Appeals ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Vacates Ruling in "Hockler" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Directed to File Record in NY Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Trial Ruling in Texas Suit Ordered Vacated ********* 24 HOUR FITNESS: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Telemarketing --------------------------------------------------------------- Michele O'Hanlon, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-01821 (N.D. Cal., April 22, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of using an automatic telephone dialing system to place non-emergency calls to consumers' cellular telephone numbers, without prior express consent. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. is one of the world's largest privately owned and operated fitness center chain. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Lee, Esq. KROHN & MOSS, Ltd 10474 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 405 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (323) 988-2400 x 241 Facsimile: (866) 861-1390 E-mail: rlee@consumerlawcenter.com - and - Aaron D. Radbil, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 106 East Sixth Street, Suite 913 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 322-3912 Facsimile: (561) 961-5684 E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com ALCOBRA LTD: Court Appointed Investor Group as Lead Plaintiff ------------------------------------------------------------- Alcobra Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the court has appointed a group of investors to act as lead plaintiff for the second class action action. On November 19, 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case was filed on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased or acquired the Company's publicly traded securities between March 28, 2014 and November 14, 2014. The complaint asserted violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the Company's officers and directors made false or misleading statements relating to the results of Phase III study for its MDX drug candidate. The complaint sought an unspecified amount of damages, as well as other forms of relief. On December 16, 2014, another class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. This complaint is largely identical to the earlier complaint and purports to bring the same claims on behalf of the same putative class. On December 23, 2014, the first plaintiff in the first action moved to voluntarily dismiss his case which motion was granted on December 30, 2014. On February 9, 2015, the court appointed a group of investors to act as lead plaintiff for the second action. The Company has not been served and at this preliminary stage cannot assess the exposure under such complaint. ALPHATEC HOLDINGS: Appeal in Securities Class Suit Fully Briefed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alphatec Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the appeal in a securities class action complaint has been fully briefed. "On August 10, 2010, a purported securities class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of all persons who purchased our common stock between December 19, 2009 and August 5, 2010 against us and certain of our directors and officers alleging violations of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder," the Company said. "On February 17, 2011, an amended complaint was filed against us and certain of our directors and officers adding alleged violations of the Securities Act. HealthpointCapital, Jefferies & Company, Inc., Canaccord Adams, Inc., Cowen and Company, Inc., and Lazard Capital Markets LLC are also defendants in this action. The complaint alleges that the defendants made false or misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts about our business, financial condition, operations and prospects, particularly relating to the Scient'x transaction and our financial guidance following the closing of the acquisition. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, attorneys' fees, and other unspecified relief." "We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on April 18, 2011. The district court granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend on March 22, 2012. On April 19, 2012, the lead plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and violations of Section 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act against the same named defendants. On May 3, 2012, we filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The district court granted that motion without leave to amend and entered final judgment in our favor on March 28, 2013. On April 17, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The appeal has been fully briefed. "We believe that the claims are without merit and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves against this complaint. However, the outcome of the litigation cannot be predicted at this time and any outcome that is adverse to us, regardless of who the defendant is, could have a significant adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations." AMERICAN VANGUARD: No Ruling Yet in Abad-Castillo et al Appeals --------------------------------------------------------------- American Vanguard Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that an appeals court has heard oral argument but has not yet issued its ruling related to the appeals in the Abad-Castillo and Marquinez cases. On May 31, 2012, two cases (captioned, Abad-Castillo and Marquinez) were filed with the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (USCD DE No. 1:12-CV-00696-RGA) involving claims for physical injury arising from alleged exposure to 1, 2- dibromo-3-chloropropane ("DBCP(R)") over the course of the late 1960's through the mid-1980's on behalf of 2,700 banana plantation workers from Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala and Panama. Defendant Dole brought a motion to dismiss 22 plaintiffs from the Abad- Castillo case on the ground that they were parties in cases that had been previously filed by the Hendler law firm in Louisiana. On September 19, 2013, the appeals court granted, in part, and denied, in part, the motion to dismiss, holding that 14 of the 22 plaintiffs should be dismissed (as they were named as plaintiffs in prior actions). As for the remaining eight plaintiffs, the court found that there was a question as to whether they were parties to earlier cases in Louisiana. On May 27, 2014, the district court granted defendant Dole's motion to dismiss the matter without prejudice on the grounds that the applicable statutes of limitation had expired. Then, on August 5, 2014, the parties stipulated to summary judgment in favor of all defendants (on the same grounds as the earlier motion) and the court entered final judgment in the matter. Plaintiffs have appealed this ruling, and, while the appeals court heard oral argument in December 2014, it has not yet issued its ruling. The Company believes that a loss is neither probable nor reasonably estimable and, accordingly, has not recorded a loss contingency on these matters. AMERICAN VANGUARD: No Ruling Yet in Patrickson Case Appeals ----------------------------------------------------------- American Vanguard Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that an appellate court has heard oral argument on the appeal in the Patrickson, et. al. v. Dole Food Company, et al. case but has not yet issued a ruling. In October 1997, AMVAC was served with two complaints in which it was named as a defendant, filed in the Circuit Court, First Circuit, State of Hawaii and in the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit, State of Hawaii (two identical suits) entitled Patrickson, et. al. v. Dole Food Company, et. al ("Patrickson Case") alleging damages sustained from injuries (including sterility) to banana workers caused by plaintiffs' exposure to DBCP while applying the product in their native countries. Other named defendants include: Dole Food Company, Shell Oil Company and Dow Chemical Company. The ten named plaintiffs are variously citizens of four countries -- Guatemala, Costa Rica, Panama, and Ecuador. Punitive damages are sought against each defendant. The case was also filed as a class action on behalf of other workers allegedly so exposed in these four countries. After several years of law and motion activity, Dow filed a motion for summary adjudication as to the remaining plaintiffs based on the statute of limitations, as they had filed suit in Florida in 1995. All defendants joined in this motion. The court granted this motion on June 9, 2009. Plaintiffs' counsel unsuccessfully argued that their claims were tolled by prior class action cases. On November 30, 2009, the court denied a motion for reconsideration. Judgment in favor of the defendants was entered on July 28, 2010. On August 24, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. In March 2011, Dow filed a brief in opposition to the appeal, arguing that plaintiffs are barred from this action by the applicable statute of limitations. The appellate court heard oral argument on the appeal in September 2014 but has not yet issued a ruling. The Company does not believe that a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable and, accordingly, has not recorded a loss contingency for this matter. AMERICAN VANGUARD: Plaintiffs Cannot Proceed Further in "Adams" --------------------------------------------------------------- American Vanguard Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that until new counsel is properly substituted, Plaintiffs in the case Adams v. Dole Food Company et al, cannot proceed further with the matter. On approximately November 23, 2007, AMVAC was served with a suit filed by two former Hawaiian pineapple workers and their spouses, alleging that they had testicular cancer due to DBCP exposure: Adams v. Dole Food Company et al in the First Circuit for the State of Hawaii. The complaint was filed on June 29, 2007 and names Dole Food Company, Standard Fruit and Steamship Company, Dole Fresh Food, Pineapple Growers Association, AMVAC, Shell Oil Company, Dow Chemical Company and Occidental Chemical Corporation. Plaintiff Mark Adams alleges he was exposed to DBCP in 1974 and 1975 while working on Dole's plantation on Oahu. Plaintiff Nelson Ng alleges he was exposed between 1971 and 1973 while working in Lanai City, Lanai. AMVAC answered the complaint on or about December 14, 2007. While little discovery has taken place, AMVAC denies that any of its product could have been used at the times and locations alleged by these plaintiffs. Dole Food Company was dismissed on the basis of the exclusive remedy of worker's compensation benefits, as it was the employer of plaintiffs. In October 2014, the appellate court upheld the dismissal but granted plaintiffs the right to amend its complaint. However, in light of the fact that Plaintiffs' request (made in November 2012) to substitute new counsel was denied, until new counsel is properly substituted, Plaintiffs cannot proceed further with the matter. The Company does not believe that a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable and has not recorded a loss contingency for this matter. AMERICAN VANGUARD: Plaintiffs Fail to Enforce Nicaraguan Judgment ----------------------------------------------------------------- American Vanguard Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that to date, plaintiffs have not had success in enforcing Nicaraguan judgments against domestic companies before U.S. courts. A review of court filings in Chinandega, Nicaragua, has found 85 suits alleging personal injury allegedly due to exposure to DBCP and involving approximately 3,592 plaintiffs have been filed against AMVAC and other parties. Of these cases, only two -- Flavio Apolinar Castillo et al. v. AMVAC Chemical Corporation et al., No. 535/04 and Luis Cristobal Martinez Suazo et al. v. AMVAC Chemical Corporation et al., No. 679/04Castillo and Suazo, (which were filed in 2004 and involve 15 banana workers) have been served on AMVAC. All but one of the suits in Nicaragua have been filed pursuant to Special Law 364, an October 2000 Nicaraguan statute that contains substantive and procedural provisions that Nicaragua's Attorney General previously expressed as unconstitutional. Each of the Nicaraguan plaintiffs' claims $1,000 in compensatory damages and $5,000 in punitive damages. In all of these cases, AMVAC is a joint defendant with Dow Chemical Company and Dole Food Company, Inc. AMVAC contends that the Nicaragua courts do not have jurisdiction over it and that Public Law 364 violates international due process of law. AMVAC has objected to personal jurisdiction and demanded under Law 364 that the claims be litigated in the United States. In 2007, the court denied these objections, and AMVAC appealed the denial. It is not presently known as to how many of these plaintiffs actually claim exposure to DBCP at the time AMVAC's product was allegedly used nor is there any verification of the claimed injuries. Further, to date, plaintiffs have not had success in enforcing Nicaraguan judgments against domestic companies before U.S. courts. Nor have Nicaraguan claimants had success in bringing actions domestically, as one U.S. court has dismissed such an action on its own motion after finding pervasive fraud on behalf of claimants and their counsel. With respect to the pending Nicaraguan matters, AMVAC intends to defend any claim vigorously. Furthermore, the Company does not believe that a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable and has not recorded a loss contingency for these matters. AMERICAN VANGUARD: Named as Defendant in "Sanchez" Case ------------------------------------------------------- American Vanguard Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that it intends to defend against the case Sanchez v. Agro Logistics. AMVAC has been named as one of 27 defendants in an action entitled Sanchez v. Agro Logistic Systems, Inc. et al which was filed on April 14, 2014 with the Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Los Angeles as case number BC542612. In this matter, two individuals seek unspecified damages from defendants for negligence, strict liability and other causes of action allegedly leading to physical injury (myelogenous leukemia) arising from exposure to dozens of registered products over the course of their employment as laborers from 1989 through 2012. "We believe that the claims have no merit, intend to defend the matter vigorously, and have entered into a joint defense arrangement with certain other defendants," the Company said. A fair amount of discovery, including plaintiff's deposition, has been completed. Plaintiffs are unable to confirm whether they used or were exposed to any of the Company's products. The Company will continue to defend this matter and does not believe that a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable. Accordingly, the Company has not recorded a reserve for this matter. AMERICAN VANGUARD: Named as Defendant in "Galvan v. AMVAC" Case --------------------------------------------------------------- American Vanguard Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that an action entitled Graciela Galvan v. AMVAC Chemical Corp. was filed on April 7, 2014, with the Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Orange as case number 00716103CXC. This is a putative class action brought under California Labor Code Section 2698 under which claimant, an inactive employee currently on leave, seeks civil penalties on behalf of herself and other allegedly "similarly aggrieved employees" under various Labor Code sections relating to overtime compensation, minimum wages, meal periods, and rest periods among other things. The Company believes that the claims have no merit and intends to defend the matter vigorously. Limited discovery has taken place since the filing of the action; however, the deposition of plaintiff has yet to be taken. At this stage in the proceedings, it is too early to determine whether a loss is probable or reasonably estimable; accordingly, the Company has not recorded a reserve for the matter. APOLLO GLOBAL: Joint Status Report Regarding Discovery Filed ------------------------------------------------------------ Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that plaintiffs and the remaining defendants filed a Joint Status Report Regarding Discovery stating that no discovery has taken place since plaintiffs filed their interlocutory-review motion in the class actions alleging online fraud. In March 2012, plaintiffs filed two putative class actions, captioned Kelm v. Chase Bank (No. 12-cv-332) and Miller v. 1-800- Flowers.com, Inc. (No. 12-cv-396), in the District of Connecticut on behalf of a class of consumers alleging online fraud. The defendants included, among others, Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. ("Trilegiant"), its parent company, Affinion Group, LLC ("Affinion"), and Apollo Global Management, LLC ("AGM"), which is affiliated with funds that are the beneficial owners of 68% of Affinion's common stock. In both cases, plaintiffs allege that Trilegiant, aided by its business partners, who include e-merchants and credit card companies, developed a set of business practices intended to create consumer confusion and ultimately defraud consumers into unknowingly paying fees to clubs for unwanted services. Plaintiffs allege that AGM is a proper defendant because of its indirect stock ownership and ability to appoint the majority of Affinion's board. The complaints assert claims under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act; the Electronic Communications Privacy Act; the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act; and the California Business and Professional Code, and seek, among other things, restitution or disgorgement, injunctive relief, compensatory, treble and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. The allegations in Kelm and Miller are substantially similar to those in Schnabel v. Trilegiant Corp. (No. 3:10-cv-957), a putative class action filed in the District of Connecticut in 2010 that names only Trilegiant and Affinion as defendants. The court has consolidated the Kelm, Miller, and Schnabel cases under the caption In re: Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. and ordered that they proceed on the same schedule. On June 18, 2012, the court appointed lead plaintiffs' counsel, and on September 7, 2012, plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint ("CAC"), which alleges the same causes of action against AGM as did the complaints in the Kelm and Miller cases. Defendants filed motions to dismiss on December 7, 2012, plaintiffs filed opposition papers on February 7, 2013, and defendants filed replies on April 5, 2013. On December 5, 2012, plaintiffs filed another putative class action, captioned Frank v. Trilegiant Corp. (No. 12- cv-1721), in the District of Connecticut, naming the same defendants and containing allegations substantially similar to those in the CAC. On January 23, 2013, plaintiffs moved to transfer and consolidate Frank into In re: Trilegiant. On July 24, 2013 the Frank court transferred the case to Judge Bryant, who is presiding over In re: Trilegiant, and on March 28, 2014, Judge Bryant granted the motion to consolidate. On September 25, 2013, the court held oral argument on defendants' motions to dismiss. On March 28, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part motions to dismiss filed by Affinion and Trilegiant on behalf of all defendants, and also granted separate motions to dismiss filed by certain defendants, including AGM. On that same day, the court directed the clerk to terminate AGM as a defendant in the consolidated action. On April 28, 2014, plaintiffs moved for interlocutory review of certain of the court's motion-to-dismiss rulings, not including its order granting AGM's separate dismissal motion. Defendants filed a response on May 23, 2014, and plaintiffs replied on June 5, 2014. On November 13, 2014, plaintiffs and the remaining defendants filed a Joint Status Report Regarding Discovery stating that no discovery has taken place since plaintiffs filed their interlocutory-review motion. APOLLO GLOBAL: Updates on Pending Actions Related to Caesars ------------------------------------------------------------ Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that there are several pending actions concerning transactions related to Caesars Entertainment Operating Company, Inc.'s ("CEOC") restructuring efforts. Apollo is not a defendant in these matters. * Meehancombs Global Credit Opportunities Master Fund, L.P., et al. v. Caesars Entertainment Corp., et al., No. 14-cv-7091 (S.D.N.Y.) (the "Meehancombs Action"). On September 3, 2014, institutional investors allegedly holding approximately $137 million in CEOC unsecured senior notes sued CEOC and Caesars Entertainment for breach of contract and the implied covenant of good faith, Trust Indenture Act violations and a declaratory judgment challenging the August 2014 private financing transaction in which a portion of outstanding senior unsecured notes were purchased by Caesars Entertainment, and a majority of the noteholders agreed to amend the indenture to terminate Caesars Entertainment's guarantee of the notes and modify certain restrictions on CEOC's ability to sell assets. On October 2, 2014, a related putative class action complaint was filed on behalf of the holders of these notes captioned Danner v. Caesars Entertainment Corp., et al., No. 14-cv-7973 (S.D.N.Y.) (the "Danner Action"), against Caesars Entertainment alleging similar claims to the Meehancombs Action. Caesars Entertainment and CEOC filed a motion to dismiss on November 12, 2014. On January 15, 2015, the court granted the motion with respect to a Trust Indenture Act claim by Meehancombs but otherwise denied the motion. On January 30, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking relief against Caesars Entertainment only, which Caesars Entertainment answered on February 12, 2015. * Koskie v. Caesars Acquisition Company, et al., No. A-14-711712-C (Clark Cnty Nev. Dist. Ct.) (the "Koskie Action"). On December 30, 2014, Nicholas Koskie brought a shareholder class action on behalf of shareholders of Caesars Acquisition Company ("CAC") against CAC, Caesars Entertainment, and members of CAC's Board of Directors, including Marc Rowan and David Sambur (each an Apollo partner). The lawsuit challenges CAC and Caesars Entertainment's plan to merge, alleging that the proposed transaction will not give CAC shareholders fair value. Koskie asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty relating to the director defendants' interrelationships with the entities involved the proposed transaction. APOLLO GLOBAL: Parties in CEC Litigation Engaged in Discovery ------------------------------------------------------------- Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the parties in the In re CEC Entertainment, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, have engaged in limited discovery. Following the January 16, 2014 announcement that CEC Entertainment, Inc. ("CEC") had entered into a merger agreement with certain entities affiliated with Apollo (the "Merger Agreement"), four putative shareholder class actions were filed in the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas on behalf of purported stockholders of CEC against, among others, CEC, its directors and Apollo and certain of its affiliates, which include Queso Holdings Inc., Q Merger Sub Inc., Apollo Management VIII, L.P., and AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. The first purported class action, which is captioned Hilary Coyne v. Richard M. Frank et al., Case No. 14C57, was filed on January 21, 2014 (the "Coyne Action"). The second purported class action, which was captioned John Solak v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 14C55, was filed on January 22, 2014 (the "Solak Action"). The Solak Action was dismissed for lack of prosecution on October 14, 2014. The third purported class action, which is captioned Irene Dixon v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. et al., Case No. 14C81, was filed on January 24, 2014 and additionally names as defendants Apollo Management VIII, L.P. and AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. (the "Dixon Action"). The fourth purported class action, which is captioned Louisiana Municipal Public Employees' Retirement System v. Frank, et al., Case No. 14C97, was filed on January 31, 2014 (the "LMPERS Action") (together with the Coyne and Dixon Actions, the "Shareholder Actions"). A fifth purported class action, which was captioned McCullough v. Frank, et al., Case No. CC-14-00622-B, was filed in the County Court of Dallas County, Texas on February 7, 2014. This action was dismissed for want of prosecution on May 21, 2014. Each of the Shareholder Actions alleges, among other things, that CEC's directors breached their fiduciary duties to CEC's stockholders in connection with their consideration and approval of the Merger Agreement, including by agreeing to an inadequate price, agreeing to impermissible deal protection devices, and filing materially deficient disclosures regarding the transaction. Each of the Shareholder Actions further alleges that Apollo and certain of its affiliates aided and abetted those alleged breaches. As filed, the Shareholder Actions seek, among other things, rescission of the various transactions associated with the merger, damages and attorneys' and experts' fees and costs. On February 7, 2014 and February 11, 2014, the plaintiffs in the Shareholder Actions pursued a consolidated action for damages after the transaction closed. Thereafter, the Shareholder Actions were consolidated under the caption In re CEC Entertainment, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Case No. 14C57, and the parties have engaged in limited discovery. No defendant has any obligation to answer or otherwise respond to any of the complaints in the consolidated action until the plaintiffs file or designate an operative complaint. Although Apollo cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the above action, it believes that such action is without merit. APOLLO GLOBAL: Parties to Cambridge Action Seek Settlement Okay --------------------------------------------------------------- Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the parties to the class action The City of Cambridge Retirement System v. Reeves, et al., submitted the settlement agreement and accompanying papers to the court for its approval. On September 29, 2014, Athlon Energy Inc. ("Athlon") and Encana Corporation ("Encana") jointly announced that they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of September 27, 2014 (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which a wholly-owned subsidiary of Encana ("Merger Sub") would commence a tender offer (the "Offer") to acquire all of the issued and outstanding shares of Athlon common stock. Following completion of the Offer, Merger Sub would be merged with and into Athlon (the "Proposed Transaction"). On October 23, 2014, The City of Cambridge Retirement System filed a putative class action complaint captioned The City of Cambridge Retirement System v. Reeves, et al., C.A. No. 10277-VCG (the "Cambridge Action") in the Delaware Court of Chancery naming Merger Sub, AGM and members of Athlon's board of directors as defendants. The Cambridge Action alleges, among other things, that members of Athlon's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their consideration and approval of the proposed transaction, and that Encana, Merger Sub and AGM aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty. On November 3, 2014, the parties to the Cambridge Action and several other similar actions filed in Delaware and Texas state court before the Cambridge Action (none of which named AGM as a defendant (collectively, the "Actions")), entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to settle the Actions. On December 19, 2014, the parties to the Actions entered into a formal settlement agreement, and on December 22, 2014, the parties submitted the settlement agreement and accompanying papers to the court for its approval. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, AGM will not be required to contribute any cash and will be granted full and customary releases. AVANT BUSINESS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages --------------------------------------------------------------- William Williams, Dennis Reeves, Kenneth R. Jackson, Andre Lynch, Ashanta J.Young, and Theodore Williams, Jr., individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Avant Business Service Corporation, Charles Chiusano, and Richard Rivera, Case No. 1:15-cv-03182-UA (S.D.N.Y., April 22, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Avant Business Service Corporation is a New York corporation, with its principal place of business located at 60 East 42nd Street, New York, New York 10165. Avant owns and operates a service and logistics company. The Plaintiff is represented by: William Coudert Rand, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND 488 Madison Avenue, Suite 1100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 286-1425 Facsimile: (646) 688-3078 E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com AZTEC FURNISHINGS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Tomas Lopez-Sanchez, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. Aztec Furnishings, Inc., Pascual G. Gonzalez, Case No. 1:15-cv-03548 (N.D. Ill., April 22, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked more than 40 in a week. The Defendants own and operate a furniture store in Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Valentin Tito Narvaez I, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 878-1302 Facsimile: (888) 270-8983 E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com BANK OF NEW YORK: Pending Cases Coordinated for Pre-Trial --------------------------------------------------------- The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation has been named as a defendant in several putative class action federal lawsuits filed on various dates in 2011, 2012 and 2014. The complaints, which assert claims including breach of contract and ERISA and securities laws violations, all allege that the prices BNY Mellon charged for standing instruction foreign exchange transactions executed in connection with custody services provided by BNY Mellon were improper. In addition, BNY Mellon has been named as a nominal defendant in several derivative lawsuits filed in 2011 and 2012 in state and federal court in New York. On July 2, 2013, the court in the consolidated federal derivative action dismissed all of plaintiffs' claims. On Oct. 1, 2013, the court in the consolidated state derivative action dismissed all of plaintiffs' claims. One of the plaintiffs appealed and the dismissal was affirmed on Dec. 11, 2014. To the extent the lawsuits are pending in federal court, they are being coordinated for pre-trial purposes in federal court in New York, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. On Feb. 17, 2015, BNY Mellon announced an additional after-tax litigation expense in anticipation of, among other things, the anticipated resolution of substantially all foreign exchange- related matters. BLACKSTONE GROUP: Settlement Approval Hearing Held in "Dahl" Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Blackstone Group L.P. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the court held a final settlement approval hearing on February 11, 2015, in the case Kirk Dahl, et al. v. Bain Capital Partners, LLC, et al. In December 2007, a purported class of shareholders in public companies acquired by one or more private equity firms filed a lawsuit against a number of private equity firms and investment banks, including The Blackstone Group L.P., in the United States District Court in Massachusetts (Kirk Dahl, et al. v. Bain Capital Partners, LLC, et al.). The suit alleges that, from mid-2003 through 2007, eleven defendants violated the antitrust laws by allegedly conspiring to rig bids, restrict the supply of private equity financing, fix the prices for target companies at artificially low levels, and divide up an alleged market for private equity services for leveraged buyouts. On July 28, 2014, Blackstone entered into a settlement agreement to resolve all of plaintiffs' claims without any admission of wrongdoing. The settlement agreement provides for a settlement payment to the class that was substantially covered by insurance and did not have a material effect on the Company's consolidated financial statements. On August 7, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement, and the agreement was preliminarily approved by the court on September 29, 2014. The settlement agreement is also subject to final approval by the court and the court held a final settlement approval hearing on February 11, 2015. CAREER TRAINING: "Whitfield" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Xavier Whitfield and Tracey Brimage on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Career Training Institute, Orlando, Inc. d/b/a Fortis College, d/b/a Fortis Institute, Case No. 3:15- cv-00518-HES-MCR (M.D. Fla., April 22, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Career Training Institute, Orlando, Inc. owns and operates several Beauty and Cosmetology school throughout Florifda. The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick O'Haire Whitford, Esq. THE WHITFORD LAW FIRM Ste. 2902, 1431 Riverplace Blvd. Jacksonville, FL 32207 Telephone: (904) 699-9573 Facsimile: (646) 499-6556 E-mail: pwhitford@thewhitfordlawfirm.com CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: Settlement Subject to Court Approval -------------------------------------------------------- Chemical Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Monarch Community Bancorp, Inc. and the Corporation have entered into a memorandum of understanding with the class action plaintiffs regarding the settlement of these lawsuits, which is subject to court approval. On October 31, 2014, the Corporation entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Monarch Community Bancorp, Inc. (Monarch). Under the terms of the merger agreement, the Corporation will exchange 0.0982 shares of its common stock for each share of Monarch common stock outstanding, subject to adjustment in limited circumstances. Based on the closing price of the Corporation's common stock on December 31, 2014, the merger has a transaction value of approximately $27.0 million. Following the completion of the merger, the Corporation intends to consolidate Monarch Community Bank, Monarch's wholly-owned subsidiary bank, with and into Chemical Bank. At December 31, 2014, Monarch had total assets of $174 million, total loans of $130 million and total deposits of $142 million. Headquartered in Coldwater, Michigan, Monarch operates five full service banking offices in Coldwater, Marshall, Hillsdale and Union City, five loan production offices throughout central and southern Michigan and one loan production office in Angola, Indiana. Upon completion of the transaction, the Corporation expects to close one full service banking office and three loan production offices of Monarch. Customer accounts of these closed locations will be transferred to a nearby existing Chemical Bank office. The merger has received regulatory approval. Completion of the merger is subject to the approval of Monarch's shareholders and satisfaction of other customary closing conditions. In connection with the pending merger, two purported Monarch stockholders have filed putative class action lawsuits against Monarch, its board of directors, Monarch Community Bank, the Corporation and Chemical Bank. Among other remedies, the plaintiffs seek to enjoin the merger. Monarch and the Corporation have entered into a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs regarding the settlement of these lawsuits, which is subject to court approval. If this litigation is not resolved, these lawsuits could prevent or delay completion of the merger and result in substantial costs to Monarch and the Corporation, including any costs associated with indemnification. Additional lawsuits may be filed against Monarch, the Corporation or the directors and officers of either company in connection with the merger. The defense or settlement of any lawsuit or claim that remains unresolved at the effective time of the merger may adversely affect Monarch's and the Corporation's business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and market price. CINEMARK HOLDINGS: "Amey, et al." Case in Pretrial Discovery ------------------------------------------------------------ Cinemark Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the case Joseph Amey, et al. v. Cinemark USA, Inc., Case No. 3:13cv05669, In the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, is in pretrial discovery. The case presents putative class action claims for damages and attorney's fees arising from employee wage and hour claims under California law for alleged meal period, rest break, reporting time pay, unpaid wages, pay upon termination, and wage statements violations. The claims are also asserted as a representative action under the California Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA"). "We deny the claims, deny that class certification is appropriate and deny that a PAGA representative action is appropriate, and are vigorously defending against the claims," the Company said. "The case is in pretrial discovery, no class action has been certified, and no representative action has been quantified or recognized. We deny any violation of law and plan to vigorously defend against all claims. We are unable to predict the outcome of the litigation or the range of potential loss, if any; however, we believe that our potential liability with respect to such proceeding is not material in the aggregate to our financial position, results of operations and cash flows. Accordingly, we have not established a reserve for loss in connection with this proceeding." DIAZ SUPERMARKET: "Luis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Fernando Luis, individually, and on behalf of all other employees of Defendants similarly situated v. Diaz Supermarket Op Locka, Inc. and Jimmy Diaz, Case No. 1:15-cv-21503-JAL (S.D. Fla., April 22, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate grocery stores. Diaz Supermarket is headquartered at 151 Opa Locka Blvd., Opa Locka, Florida 33054. The Plaintiff is represented by: Santiago Jose Padilla, Esq. FOWLER RODRIGUEZ, LLP 355 Alhambra Circle, Sutie 801 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (768) 364-8400 Facsimile: (786) 364-8401 E-mail: spadilla@frfirm.com DISCRETE WIRELESS: Faces "Stramiello" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jaclyn Stramiello, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Discrete Wireless, Inc., Fleetcor Technologies Operating Company, LLC, and Fleetcor Technologies, Inc. all d/b/a Nextraq(R), Case No. 8:15-cv-00955-JDW-TGW (M.D. Fla., April 22, 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 an Atlanta, Georgia-based company that provides fleet operators with an internet based system that enhances workforce productivity through real time vehicle tracking, route optimization, job dispatch, and fuel usage monitoring. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq. FELDMAN LAW GROUP P.A. Westshore Center 1715 N Westshore Blvd Ste 400 Tampa, FL 33607 Telephone: (813) 639-9366 Facsimile: (813) 639-9376 E-mail: mfeldman@ffmlawgroup.com EMPIRE STATE: Class Action Plaintiffs Have Yet to Perfect Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Empire State Realty Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that class action plaintiffs have yet to perfect an appeal by filing their brief and the appellate record with the court. Commencing December 24, 2013, four putative class actions, or the "Second Class Actions," were filed in New York State Supreme Court, New York County, against Malkin Holdings LLC, Peter L. Malkin, Anthony E. Malkin and Thomas N. Keltner, Jr. on behalf of former investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. Generally, the Second Class Actions alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and were unjustly enriched. "One of the Second Class Actions named us and our operating partnership as defendants, alleging that they aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty. The Second Class Actions were consolidated on consent and co-lead class counsel was appointed by order dated February 11, 2014," the Company said. "A Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed February 7, 2014, which did not name us or our operating partnership as defendants. It seeks monetary damages." On March 7, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Class Actions, which the plaintiffs opposed and was fully submitted to the court on April 28, 2014. The court heard oral arguments on the motion on July 7, 2014, and the motion was granted in a ruling entered July 21, 2014. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on August 8, 2014. On January 12, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to supplement the record on appeal to include additional materials from the Original Class Action, which the defendants opposed. The plaintiffs have yet to perfect this appeal by filing their brief and the appellate record with the court. ESPAR INC: Faces National Suit Over Parking Heater-Price Fixing --------------------------------------------------------------- National Trucking Financial Reclamation Services, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Espar Inc., Espar North America, Inc., and Espar Products Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02310 (E.D.N.Y., April 22, 2015), alleges that Defendants have engaged in a conspiracy to fix the prices of Parking Heaters in the United States in violation of the Sherman Act. Espar Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its corporate headquarters located in Chicago, Illinois. It is a supplier of fuel-operated heaters and climate control solutions. Espar North America, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Eberspaecher Group with its principal place of business located in Novi, Michigan. Espar Products Inc. is an affiliate of Espar Inc. and Espar North America Inc. and is a Canadian corporation located at 6099A Vipond Drive, Mississauga, Ontario L5T 2B2, Canada. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 507 C Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 589-1813 E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com - and - Taylor Asen, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 16 Court Street, Suite 1012 Brooklyn, NY 11241 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 589-1813 E-mail: tasen@cuneolaw.com - and - Michael L. Roberts, Esq. Debra G. Josephson, Esq. Stephanie E. Smith, Esq. ROBERTS LAW FIRM, P.A. 20 Rahling Circle, PO Box 241790 Little Rock, AR 72223-1790 Telephone: (501) 821-5575 Facsimile: (501) 821-4474 E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us debrajosephson@robertslawfirm.us stephaniesmith@robertslawfirm.us - and - Don Barrett, Esq. DON BARRETT, P.A. P.O. Box 927 404 Court Square North Lexington, MS 39095 Telephone: (662) 834-2488 Facsimile: (662) 834-2628 E-mail: donbarrettpa@gmail.com - and - Joseph C. Kohn, Esq. William E. Hoese, Esq. Douglas A. Abrahams, Esq. KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. One South Broad Street, Suite 2100 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 238-1700 Facsimile: (215) 238-1968 E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com whoese@kohnswift.com dabrahams@kohnswift.com EVERCORE PARTNERS: Defending Against "Coburn" Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Evercore Partners Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in January 2015, Donna Marie Coburn filed a proposed class action complaint against ETC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, in which she purports to represent a class of participants in the J.C. Penney Corporation Inc. Savings, Profit-Sharing and Stock Ownership Plan whose participant accounts held J.C. Penney stock at any time between May 15, 2012 and the present. The complaint alleges that ETC breached its fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by causing the plan to invest in J.C. Penney stock during that period and claims the plan suffered losses of approximately $300 million due to declines in J.C. Penney stock. The plaintiff seeks the recovery of alleged plan losses, attorneys' fees, other costs, and other injunctive and equitable relief. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses against these claims and intends to vigorously defend against them. ETC is indemnified by J.C. Penney for reasonable attorneys' fees and other legal expenses, which would be refunded to J.C. Penney should ETC not prevail. FLEETMATICS GROUP: All Claims in Class Action Now Paid ------------------------------------------------------ Fleetmatics Group PLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that all claims in a putative class action complaint have now been paid pursuant to a settlement, and the case is now closed. On August 14, 2012, a putative class action complaint was filed in the Sixth Judicial Circuit in Pinellas County, Florida, entitled U.S. Prisoner Transport, et al. v. Fleetmatics USA, LLC, et al., Case No. 1200-9933 CI-20. The Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on September 13, 2012, U.S. Prisoner Transport, et al. v. Fleetmatics USA, LLC, et al., Case No. 8:12-CV-2079. The Company moved to dismiss the complaint on September 20, 2012. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on October 4, 2012 and changed the case caption to Brevard Extraditions, Inc., d/b/a U.S. Prisoner Transport, et al. v. Fleetmatics USA, LLC, et al. The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint on October 18, 2012. The Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss in part and granted it in part on September 27, 2013, and granted plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on October 11, 2013. The second amended complaint alleges essentially the same claims as previously alleged. On January 21, 2014, the parties executed an agreement to a settlement with class members for an aggregate of $525, which was subject to Court approval. On June 27, 2014, the court granted final approval of the settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice. All claims have now been paid pursuant to this settlement, and the case is now closed. GOGO INC: Action by Berkson in Early Stage of Litigation -------------------------------------------------------- Gogo Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the action filed by Adam Berkson is in the early stage of litigation. "On February 25, 2014, Adam Berkson filed suit against us in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, on behalf of putative classes of national purchasers and a subclass of New York purchasers of our connectivity service, alleging claims that we violated New York and other consumer protection laws, as well as an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, by misleading consumers about recurring charges for our service. The suit seeks unspecified damages," the Company said. "We have not accrued any liability related to this matter because, due to the early stage of the litigation, the strength of our defenses and a range of possible loss, if any, cannot be determined. Based on currently available information, we believe we have strong defenses and intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously, but the outcome of this matter is inherently uncertain and may have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and cash flows. GOOGLE INC: Sued Over Alleged Age Discrimination Practices ---------------------------------------------------------- Robert Heath, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Google, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-01824 (N.D. Cal., April 22, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's policies and practices of systemically recruiting and hiring workers under the age of 40 in lieu of older qualified workers. Google, Inc. is headquartered in Mountain View, California, and is a multinational corporation with internet-related products and services involving online search, software, computing, and advertising technologies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel L. Low, Esq. Daniel A. Kotchen, Esq. Michael von Klemperer, Esq. KOTCHEN & LOW LLP 1745 Kalorama Road NW, Suite 101 Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 471-1995 Facsimile: (202) 280-1128 E-mail: dlow@kotchen.com dkotchen@kotchen.com mvonklemperer@kotchen.com - and - Michael F. Brown, Esq. DVG LAW PARTNER LLC P.O. Box 645 Neenah, WI 54957 Telephone: (920) 238-6781 Facsimile: (920) 273-6177 E-mail: mbrown@dvglawpartner.com - and - Vonda K. Vandaveer, Esq. V.K. VANDAVEER, P.L.L.C. P.O. Box 27317 Washington, DC 20038-7317 Telephone: (202) 340-1215 Facsimile: (202) 521-0599 E-mail: atty@vkvlaw.com HI-CRUSH PARTNERS: Court Dismissed Securities Class Actions ----------------------------------------------------------- Hi-Crush Partners LP said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the court issued a final Approval Order approving the proposed settlement and dismissing securities class action lawsuits. "Following the Partnership's November 2012 announcement that Hi- Crush Operating LLC had formally terminated its supply agreement with Baker Hughes in response to the repudiation of the agreement by Baker Hughes, the Partnership, our general partner, certain of its officers and directors and its underwriters were named as defendants in purported securities class action lawsuits brought by the Partnership's unitholders in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York," the Company said. On February 11, 2013, the lawsuits were consolidated into one lawsuit, styled In re: Hi-Crush Partners L.P. Securities Litigation, No. 12-Civ-8557 (CM). A consolidated amended complaint was filed on February 15, 2013. That complaint asserted claims under sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, and sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with the Partnership's Registration Statement and a subsequent presentation. Among other things, the consolidated amended complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose to the market certain alleged information relating to Baker Hughes' repudiation of the supply agreement. On March 22, 2013, the Partnership filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On December 2, 2013, the court issued an order dismissing the claims relating to the Partnership's Registration Statement, but did not dismiss the claims relating to alleged misrepresentations concerning the Partnership's relationship with Baker Hughes after the IPO. On September 12, 2014, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement (the "Settlement") providing for the settlement of the consolidated action and release of all claims for $3.8 million, subject to the court's approval. On January 5, 2015, the court issued a final Approval Order approving the proposed Settlement and dismissing with prejudice the complaints contained in the consolidated action. INTELLIPAYMENT LLC: Sued Over Electronic Money Transfer Policies ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hugo Cuello, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Intellipayment, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-03171 (S.D.N.Y., April 22, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's practice of creating an authorization agreement to provide the bank with written notice in order to stop payment on a preauthorized electronic fund transfer that waived the Plaintiffs' right to stop payment by notifying his financial institution orally in violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act. Intellipayment, LLC is a New York corporation that owns and operates a financial service company with a principal office located at 3 50 5th Ave., 59th Floor, New York, NY 10118. The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Auslaender, Esq THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC 5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618 Mesa, AZ 85206 Telephone: (917) 793-9022 Facsimile: (917) 793-9037 E-mail: jauslaender@consumerlawinfo.com KBR INC: Oral Argument Held on Bid to Dismiss Restatement Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- KBR Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that oral argument on the motion to dismiss litigation related to the Company's restatement of its 2013 annual financial statements was scheduled for early March 2015. "After the Company announced it would be restating its 2013 annual financial statements, three complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas against the Company, our former chief executive officer, our current and former chief financial officers. Two of those complaints were voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs, and four parties moved to be appointed lead plaintiff," the Company said. "In September 2014, the court appointed Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System and Local 58/NECA Funds as lead plaintiffs and ordered any new cases arising from the same matters to be consolidated together as In re KBR, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 14-cv-01287. Lead plaintiffs filed an amended and consolidated complaint on October 20, 2014, adding our former chief accounting officer as a defendant. The amended complaint seeks class action status on behalf of our shareholders, alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising out of the restatement of our 2013 annual financial statements and seeks undisclosed damages." "The defendants intend to vigorously defend against these claims and filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint for failure to plead particularized facts supporting a strong inference of scienter on the part of the individual defendants. The lead plaintiffs filed their opposition on January 23, 2015 and defendants filed their reply on February 6, 2015. Oral argument on the motion to dismiss is currently scheduled for early March 2015. At this early stage, we are not yet able to determine the likelihood of loss, if any, arising from this matter." KKR & CO: Final Court Approval of Settlement Subject to Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------- KKR & Co. L.P. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the settlement of a class action by shareholders in certain public companies acquired by private equity firms since 2003, received the court's final approval on February 11, 2015, subject to the entry of a final order. The final approval is subject to appeal. In December 2007, KKR, along with 15 other private equity firms and investment banks, were named as defendants in a purported class action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by shareholders in certain public companies acquired by private equity firms since 2003. In August 2008, KKR, along with 16 other private equity firms and investment banks, were named as defendants in a purported consolidated amended class action complaint. The suit alleges that from mid-2003 defendants have violated antitrust laws by allegedly conspiring to rig bids, restrict the supply of private equity financing, fix the prices for target companies at artificially low levels, and divide up an alleged market for private equity services for leveraged buyouts. The amended complaint seeks injunctive relief on behalf of all persons who sold securities to any of the defendants in leveraged buyout transactions and specifically challenges nine transactions. The first stage of discovery concluded on or about April 15, 2010. On August 18, 2010, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to proceed to a second stage of discovery in part and denied it in part. Specifically, the court granted a second stage of discovery as to eight additional transactions but denied a second stage of discovery as to any transactions beyond the additional eight specified transactions. On October 7, 2010, the plaintiffs filed under seal a fourth amended complaint that includes new factual allegations concerning the additional eight transactions and the original nine transactions. The fourth amended complaint also includes eight purported sub classes of plaintiffs seeking unspecified monetary damages and/or restitution with respect to eight of the original nine challenged transactions and new separate claims against two of the original nine challenged transactions. On January 13, 2011, the court granted a motion filed by KKR and certain other defendants to dismiss all claims alleged by a putative damages sub class in connection with the acquisition of PanAmSat Corp. and separate claims for relief related to the PanAmSat transaction. The second phase of discovery permitted by the court is completed. On July 11, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to file a proposed fifth amended complaint that seeks to challenge ten additional transactions in addition to the transactions identified in the previous complaints. Defendants opposed plaintiffs' motion. On September 7, 2011, the court granted plaintiffs' motion in part and denied it in part. Specifically, the court granted a third stage of limited discovery as to the ten additional transactions identified in plaintiffs' proposed fifth amended complaint but denied plaintiffs' motion seeking leave to file a proposed fifth amended complaint. On June 14, 2012, following the completion of the third phase of discovery, plaintiffs filed a fifth amended complaint which, like their proposed fifth amended complaint, seeks to challenge ten additional transactions in addition to the transactions identified in the previous complaints. On June 22, 2012, defendants filed a motion to dismiss certain claims asserted in the fifth amended complaint. On July 18, 2012, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing certain previously released claims against certain defendants. On March 13, 2013, the United States District Court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment on the count involving KKR. However, the court narrowed plaintiffs' claim to an alleged overarching agreement to refrain from jumping other defendants' announced proprietary transactions, thereby limiting the case to a smaller number of transactions subject to plaintiffs' claim. KKR filed a renewed motion for summary judgment on April 16, 2013, which the court denied on July 18, 2013. Plaintiffs moved for class certification on October 21, 2013. Defendants filed their opposition to the motion on January 24, 2014. On July 28, 2014, KKR entered into a definitive agreement to settle all claims without the admission of wrongdoing, which was preliminarily approved by the court on September 29, 2014, and received the court's final approval on February 11, 2015, subject to the entry of a final order. The final approval is subject to appeal. KKR & CO: Supreme Court Appeal in KFN Litigation Pending -------------------------------------------------------- KKR & Co. L.P. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the appeal by plaintiffs in the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware is pending. From December 19, 2013 to January 31, 2014, multiple putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, the United States District Court of the District of Northern California, and the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by KKR Financial Holdings LLC, or KFN, shareholders against KFN, individual members of KFN's board of directors, KKR, and certain of KKR's affiliates in connection with KFN's entry into a merger agreement pursuant to which it would become a subsidiary of KKR. The merger transaction was completed on April 30, 2014. The actions filed in California state court were consolidated, and prior to the filing or designation of an operative complaint for the consolidated action, the consolidated action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on December 1, 2014. The complaint filed in the California federal court action, which was never served on the defendants, was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on May 6, 2014. Two of the Delaware actions were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, and the remaining Delaware actions were consolidated. On February 21, 2014, a consolidated complaint was filed in the consolidated Delaware action which all defendants moved to dismiss on March 7, 2014. On October 14, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted defendants' motions to dismiss with prejudice. On November 13, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware and the appeal is currently pending. LIFEWATCH INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Bank" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Todd C. Bank, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lifewatch Inc. and Lifewatch Security Inc., each d/b/a Lifewatch-USA, and Safe Home Security, Case No. 1:15-cv-02278-JG- VMS (E.D.N.Y., April 22, 2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendant's practice of making calls using automatic equipment to disseminate a prerecorded message to the telephone number called without the use of an operator. Lifewatch Inc. and Lifewatch Security Inc. are New York companies with a principal place of business at 266 Merrick Road, Suite 104, Lynbrook, New York 11563, that sells medical alarm systems. Safe Home Security is a Connecticut corporation that has a principal place of business at 55 Sebethe Drive, Suite 201, Cromwell, Connecticut 06416. It is in the business of installing home alarm systems. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd C. Bank, Esq. PRO SE 119-40 Union Turnpike, Fourth Floor Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 520-7125 E-mail: tbank@toddbanklaw.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Schaber" Suit Over Toxic Flooring ------------------------------------------------------------ Susan Schaber, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv- 01822-EDL (N.D. Cal., April 22, 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. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 3000 John Deere Road, Toano, Virginia 23168. It is a retailer of hardwood flooring. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc M. Seltzer, Esq. Steven G. Sklaver, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 Facsimile: (310) 789-3150 E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com - and - Matthew R. Berry, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3000 Telephone: (206) 516-3880 Facsimile: (206) 516-3883 E-mail: mberry@susmangodfrey.com MEDTRONIC PUBLIC: Pretrial Proceedings Underway in Sprint Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Medtronic Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the quarterly period ended January 23, 2015, that pretrial proceedings are underway in the Sprint Fidelis Product Liability Matters in Canada. In 2007, a putative class action was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Canada seeking damages for personal injuries allegedly related to Medtronic's Sprint Fidelis family of defibrillation leads. On October 20, 2009, the court certified a class proceeding but denied class certification on plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages. Pretrial proceedings are underway. The Company has not recorded an expense related to damages in connection with this matter because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP. Additionally, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter. MEDTRONIC PUBLIC: Plaintiffs Filed 800 INFUSE Cases as of Feb. 23 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Medtronic Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the quarterly period ended January 23, 2015, that as of February 23, 2015, plaintiffs had filed approximately 800 lawsuits against Medtronic in the U.S. state and federal courts, reflecting approximately 1,300 individual personal injury claims from the INFUSE bone graft product. Certain law firms have advised Medtronic that they may bring a large number of similar claims against Medtronic in the future. The Company estimates those law firms represent approximately 3,500 additional unfiled claimants. Medtronic recorded an expense of $140 million in fiscal year 2014, related to probable and reasonably estimated damages in connection with these matters. MEDTRONIC PUBLIC: Has Not Record Pipe Trades Suit-Related Expense ----------------------------------------------------------------- Medtronic Public Limited Company has not recorded an expense related to damages in connection with the class action filed by West Virginia Pipe Trades and Phil Pace, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the quarterly period ended January 23, 2015. West Virginia Pipe Trades and Phil Pace, on June 27 and July 3, 2013, respectively, filed putative class action complaints against Medtronic and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging that the defendants made false and misleading public statements regarding the INFUSE Bone Graft product during the period of December 8, 2010 through August 3, 2011. The Company has not recorded an expense related to damages in connection with these matters because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP. Additionally, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters. MEDTRONIC PUBLIC: 7,500 Covidien Product-Related Cases Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Medtronic Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the quarterly period ended January 23, 2015, that as of December 26, 2014, there were approximately 7,500 cases pending believed to involve products manufactured by Covidien's subsidiaries. Covidien currently is involved in litigation in various state and federal courts against manufacturers of pelvic mesh products alleging personal injuries resulting from the implantation of those products. Two subsidiaries of Covidien have supplied pelvic mesh products to one of the manufacturers named in the litigation and Covidien is indemnifying that manufacturer on certain claims. In addition, Covidien believes that this manufacturer has an obligation to indemnify Covidien with respect to the promotion of the pelvic mesh products. The litigation includes a federal multi- district litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia and cases in various state courts and jurisdictions outside the United States. Generally, complaints allege design and manufacturing claims, failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state consumer protection laws and loss of consortium claims. Covidien believes that it has meritorious defenses to these claims and is vigorously defending against them. As of December 26, 2014, there were approximately 7,500 cases pending believed to involve products manufactured by Covidien's subsidiaries. Based on information as of the filing of Covidien's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 26, 2014, Covidien believes that it has adequate amounts recorded relating to these matters and we are currently evaluating such amounts in connection with the consummation of the Transactions. It is not possible at this time to determine with certainty the ultimate outcome of these matters or the effect of potential future claims. MEDTRONIC PUBLIC: Injunction Bid in "Merenstein" Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------ Medtronic Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the quarterly period ended January 23, 2015, that the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction in the class action filed by Lewis Merenstein. On July 2, 2014, Lewis Merenstein filed a putative shareholder class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court seeking to enjoin the then-potential acquisition of Covidien. The lawsuit named Medtronic, Covidien, and each member of the Medtronic board at the time as defendants, and alleged that the directors breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders with regard to the then- potential acquisition. On August 21, 2014, Kenneth Steiner filed a putative shareholder class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court, also seeking an injunction to prevent the potential Covidien acquisition. In September of 2014 the Merenstein and Steiner matters were consolidated and in December of 2014 the plaintiffs filed a preliminary injunction motion seeking to enjoin the Covidien transaction. On December 30, 2014, a hearing was held on plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and on defendants' motion to dismiss. On January 2, 2015, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and on January 5, 2015 issued its opinion. MEDTRONIC PUBLIC: Plaintiffs Dismissed Houston and Clark Cases -------------------------------------------------------------- Medtronic Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the quarterly period ended January 23, 2015, that the Company has consented to plaintiffs' request to voluntarily dismiss the class action lawsuits filed by William A. Houston and Marilyn Clark. In connection with the then-potential acquisition of Covidien, on September 19, 2014 William A. Houston filed a putative shareholder class action in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota and on October 3, 2014 Marilyn Clark filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota that is nearly identical to the Houston complaint. These actions named as defendants certain members of Medtronic's board of directors at the time and certain of Medtronic's officers, and also named Medtronic as a nominal defendant. The Houston and Clark complaints asserted various causes of action under Minnesota law, including that the individual defendants allegedly breached fiduciary duties in providing for excise tax reimbursements to certain individuals who were and/or are directors and executive officers of Medtronic in connection with the then-potential acquisition of Covidien. In October of 2014 the Houston and Clark matters were consolidated and the plaintiffs filed a preliminary injunction motion seeking to enjoin the Company from the payment of the excise tax reimbursements. On December 16, 2014, the Court heard the preliminary injunction motion and on December 22, 2014, the Court denied the preliminary injunction motion. On January 6, 2015, the Company consented to plaintiffs' request to voluntarily dismiss the matter without prejudice. MEDTRONIC PUBLIC: Accord Reached in Taxman, Lipovich & Rosenfeld ---------------------------------------------------------------- Medtronic Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the quarterly period ended January 23, 2015, that an agreement in principle was reached in the consolidated Taxman, Lipovich and Rosenfeld actions. Putative shareholder class action complaints have been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by purported shareholders of Covidien under the captions Taxman v. Covidien plc, et al., 14-cv-12949, Lipovich v. Covidien plc, et al., 14-cv-13308 and Rosenfeld Family Foundation v. Covidien plc, et al., 14-cv-13490. On October 20, 2014, the plaintiff in the Rosenfeld action and another purported shareholder of Covidien filed a motion seeking to consolidate the Taxman, Lipovich and Rosenfeld actions, and on November 14, 2014, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted that motion consolidating the actions (the "Consolidated Action"). On December 23, 2014, the defendants reached an agreement in principle with plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action, and that agreement is reflected in a memorandum of understanding. In connection with the settlement contemplated by the memorandum of understanding, Covidien agreed to make certain additional disclosures related to the Transactions, which are contained in Covidien's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on December 23, 2014. The memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including court approval. In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release all claims in all actions that were or could have been brought by Covidien shareholders challenging any aspect of the Transactions, the negotiation or consideration of the Transactions, the Transaction Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith, including in the Definitive Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus, except that the released claims will not include the claims currently asserted in In re Medtronic, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, 27-CV-14-11452, in the District Court, Fourth Judicial District of Hennepin Count, Minnesota or the claims currently asserted in In re Medtronic, Inc. Derivative Litigation, 14-cv-3540, in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties contemplate that the parties shall negotiate in good faith regarding the amount of attorneys' fees and expenses that shall be paid to plaintiffs' counsel in connection with the actions. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated. MERCK & CO: Defendant in 25 Active Vioxx Product Liability Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Merck is a defendant in approximately 25 active federal and state lawsuits (the "Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits") alleging personal injury as a result of the use of Vioxx. Most of these cases are coordinated in a multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (the "Vioxx MDL") before Judge Eldon E. Fallon. Merck is also a defendant in approximately 30 putative class action lawsuits alleging economic injury as a result of the purchase of Vioxx. All but one of those cases are in the Vioxx MDL. Merck has reached a resolution, approved by Judge Eldon Fallon, of these class actions in the Vioxx MDL. Under the settlement, Merck will pay up to $23 million to pay all properly documented claims submitted by class members, approved attorneys' fees and expenses, and approved settlement notice costs and certain other administrative expenses. The court entered an order approving the settlement in January 2014. MERCK & CO: District Judge Remanded Alaska Lawsuit to State Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Merck is a defendant in lawsuits brought by state Attorneys General of three states -- Alaska, Montana and Utah. These actions were pending in the Vioxx MDL proceeding, but on October 10, 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") issued an order remanding the actions back to their original federal courts. These actions allege that Merck misrepresented the safety of Vioxx and seek recovery for expenditures on Vioxx by government-funded health care programs, such as Medicaid, and/or penalties for alleged Consumer Fraud Act violations. On February 6, 2015, the federal district judge in Anchorage remanded the Alaska lawsuit to state court. The Montana Attorney General has filed a renewed motion to remand its case from the federal district court to Montana state court, but the motion has not yet been decided. MERCK & CO: Dispositive Motions Fully Briefed in Vioxx Suits ------------------------------------------------------------ Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that dispositive motions have been fully briefed in the Vioxx securities lawsuits. Various putative class actions and individual lawsuits under federal securities laws and state laws have been filed against Merck and various current and former officers and directors (the "Vioxx Securities Lawsuits"). The Vioxx Securities Lawsuits are coordinated in a multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey before Judge Stanley R. Chesler, and have been consolidated for all purposes. In August 2011, Judge Chesler granted in part and denied in part Merck's motion to dismiss the Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint in the consolidated securities action. Among other things, the claims based on statements made on or after the voluntary withdrawal of Vioxx on September 30, 2004, have been dismissed. In October 2011, defendants answered the Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint. In April 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and, in January 2013, Judge Chesler granted that motion. In March 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint to add certain allegations to expand the class period. In May 2013, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint to expand the class period, but granted plaintiffs' leave to amend their complaint to add certain allegations within the existing class period. In June 2013, plaintiffs filed their Sixth Amended Class Action Complaint. In July 2013, defendants answered the Sixth Amended Class Action Complaint. Discovery has been completed and is now closed. Dispositive motions have been fully briefed. Several individual securities lawsuits filed by foreign institutional investors also are consolidated with the Vioxx Securities Lawsuits. In October 2011, plaintiffs filed amended complaints in each of the pending individual securities lawsuits. Also in October 2011, an individual securities lawsuit (the "KBC Lawsuit," together with the prior individual actions, the "Direct Actions") was filed in the District of New Jersey by several foreign institutional investors; that case is also consolidated with the Vioxx Securities Lawsuits. In January 2012, defendants filed motions to dismiss in one of the individual lawsuits (the "ABP Lawsuit"). Briefing on the motions to dismiss was completed in March 2012. In August 2012, Judge Chesler granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss the ABP Lawsuit. Among other things, certain alleged misstatements and omissions were dismissed as inactionable and all state law claims were dismissed in full. In September 2012, defendants answered the complaints in all of the Direct Actions other than the KBC Lawsuit; on the same day, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in the KBC Lawsuit on statute of limitations grounds. In December 2012, Judge Chesler denied the motion to dismiss the KBC Lawsuit and, in January 2013, defendants answered the complaint in the KBC Lawsuit. Discovery has been completed in the Direct Actions and is now closed. Dispositive motions have been fully briefed in the Direct Actions. Between March 2014 and February 2015, six additional individual securities complaints were filed by institutional investors that opted out of the class action. The new complaints are substantially similar to the complaints in the Direct Actions and are consolidated with the Vioxx Securities Lawsuits. MERCK & CO: 5,575 Fosamax Cases Pending As of Dec. 31, 2014 ----------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the United States involving Fosamax (the "Fosamax Litigation"). As of December 31, 2014, approximately 5,575 cases, which include approximately 5,805 plaintiff groups, had been filed and were pending against Merck in either federal or state court, including one case which seeks class action certification, as well as damages and/or medical monitoring. In approximately 1,015 of these actions, plaintiffs allege, among other things, that they have suffered osteonecrosis of the jaw ("ONJ"), generally subsequent to invasive dental procedures, such as tooth extraction or dental implants and/or delayed healing, in association with the use of Fosamax; however, substantially all of those actions are subject to the settlement discussed below. In addition, plaintiffs in approximately 4,560 of these actions generally allege that they sustained femur fractures and/or other bone injuries ("Femur Fractures") in association with the use of Fosamax. MERCK & CO: Updates on Cases Alleging ONJ Injuries -------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., Inc., in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, provided updates on cases alleging ONJ and/or other jaw related injuries. In August 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") ordered that certain Fosamax product liability cases pending in federal courts nationwide should be transferred and consolidated into one multidistrict litigation (the "Fosamax ONJ MDL") for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. In December 2013, Merck reached an agreement in principle with the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee ("PSC") in the Fosamax ONJ MDL to resolve pending ONJ cases not on appeal in the Fosamax ONJ MDL and in the state courts for an aggregate amount of $27.7 million. Merck and the PSC subsequently formalized the terms of this agreement in a Master Settlement Agreement ("ONJ Master Settlement Agreement") that was executed in April 2014. As a condition to the settlement, 100% of the state and federal ONJ plaintiffs had to agree to participate in the settlement plan or Merck could either terminate the ONJ Master Settlement Agreement, or waive the 100% participation requirement and agree to a lesser funding amount for the settlement fund. On July 14, 2014, Merck elected to proceed with the ONJ Master Settlement Agreement at a reduced funding level since the current participation level is approximately 95%. In addition, the judge overseeing the Fosamax ONJ MDL granted a motion filed by Merck and has entered an order that requires the approximately 30 non- participants whose cases remain in the Fosamax ONJ MDL to submit expert reports in order for their cases to proceed any further. The ONJ Master Settlement Agreement has no effect on the cases alleging Femur Fractures. MERCK & CO: 1,035 Cases Pending in Femur Fracture MDL at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., Inc., said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that approximately 1,035 cases were pending in the Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL as of December 31, 2014. In March 2011, Merck submitted a Motion to Transfer to the JPML seeking to have all federal cases alleging Femur Fractures consolidated into one multidistrict litigation for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. The Motion to Transfer was granted in May 2011, and all federal cases involving allegations of Femur Fracture have been or will be transferred to a multidistrict litigation in the District of New Jersey (the "Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL"). As a result of the JPML order, approximately 1,035 cases were pending in the Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL as of December 31, 2014. A Case Management Order was entered requiring the parties to review 33 cases. Judge Joel Pisano selected four cases from that group to be tried as the initial bellwether cases in the Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL. The first bellwether case, Glynn v. Merck, began on April 8, 2013, and the jury returned a verdict in Merck's favor on April 29, 2013; in addition, on June 27, 2013, Judge Pisano granted Merck's motion for judgment as a matter of law in the Glynn case and held that the plaintiff's failure to warn claim was preempted by federal law. In addition, Judge Pisano entered an order in August 2013 requiring plaintiffs in the Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL to show cause why those cases asserting claims for a femur fracture injury that took place prior to September 14, 2010, should not be dismissed based on the court's preemption decision in the Glynn case. A hearing on the show cause order was held in January 2014 and, on March 26, 2014, Judge Pisano issued an opinion finding that all claims of the approximately 650 plaintiffs who allegedly suffered injuries prior to September 14, 2010, were preempted and ordered that those cases be dismissed. The majority of those plaintiffs are appealing that ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Furthermore, on June 17, 2014, Judge Pisano granted Merck summary judgment in the Gaynor v. Merck case and found that Merck's updates in January 2011 to the Fosamax label regarding atypical femur fractures were adequate as a matter of law and that Merck adequately communicated those changes. The plaintiffs in Gaynor have appealed Judge Pisano's decision to the Third Circuit. In August 2014, Merck filed a motion requesting that Judge Pisano enter a further order requiring all remaining plaintiffs in the Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL who claim that the 2011 Fosamax label is inadequate and the proximate cause of their alleged injuries to show cause why their cases should not be dismissed based on the court's preemption decision and its ruling in the Gaynor case. Plaintiffs opposed that motion and asked the court to stay the remaining cases in the Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL until the Third Circuit rules on their appeal of Judge Pisano's preemption decision, but Judge Pisano granted Merck's motion and entered the requested show cause order in November 2014. In September 2014, Judge Pisano also ordered the parties to participate in a mediation process. MERCK & CO: 3,005 Femur Fractures Cases Filed in NJ at Dec. 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., Inc., said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of December 31, 2014, approximately 3,005 cases alleging Femur Fractures have been filed in New Jersey state court and are pending before Judge Jessica Mayer in Middlesex County. The parties selected an initial group of 30 cases to be reviewed through fact discovery. Two additional groups of 50 cases each to be reviewed through fact discovery were selected in November 2013 and March 2014, respectively. MERCK & CO: 515 Femur Fractures Cases Filed in Calif. at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., Inc., said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of December 31, 2014, approximately 515 cases alleging Femur Fractures have been filed in California state court. A petition was filed seeking to coordinate all Femur Fracture cases filed in California state court before a single judge in Orange County, California. The petition was granted and Judge Thierry Colaw is currently presiding over the coordinated proceedings. In March 2014, the court directed that a group of 10 discovery pool cases be reviewed through fact discovery and subsequently scheduled the Galper v. Merck case as the first trial for February 2015. Two additional trials are scheduled for May and July 2015. Additionally, there are four Femur Fracture cases pending in other state courts. Discovery is ongoing in the Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL and in state courts where Femur Fracture cases are pending and the Company intends to defend against these lawsuits. MERCK & CO: 785 Januvia/Janumet User Claims Pending as of Dec. 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., Inc., said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the United States involving Januvia and/or Janumet. As of December 31, 2014, approximately 785 product user claims were served on, and are pending against, Merck alleging generally that use of Januvia and/or Janumet caused the development of pancreatic cancer. These complaints were filed in several different state and federal courts. Most of the claims are pending in a consolidated multidistrict litigation proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California called "In re Incretin-Based Therapies Products Liability Litigation." That proceeding includes federal lawsuits alleging pancreatic cancer due to use of the following medicines: Januvia, Janumet, Byetta and Victoza, the latter two of which are products manufactured by other pharmaceutical companies. In addition to the cases noted, the Company has agreed, as of December 31, 2014, to toll the statute of limitations for 19 additional claims. The Company intends to defend against these lawsuits. MERCK & CO: 80 Cases Outside of NuvaRing Program Still Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., Inc., said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of December 31, 2014, approximately 80 cases outside of the settlement program in the NuvaRing Litigation remained. Beginning in May 2007, a number of complaints were filed in various jurisdictions asserting claims against the Company's subsidiaries Organon USA, Inc., Organon Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Organon International (collectively, "Organon"), and the Company arising from Organon's marketing and sale of NuvaRing (the "NuvaRing Litigation"), a combined hormonal contraceptive vaginal ring. The plaintiffs contend that Organon and Schering-Plough, among other things, failed to adequately design and manufacture NuvaRing and failed to adequately warn of the alleged increased risk of venous thromboembolism ("VTE") posed by NuvaRing, and/or downplayed the risk of VTE. The plaintiffs seek damages for injuries allegedly sustained from their product use, including some alleged deaths, heart attacks and strokes. The majority of the cases are currently pending in a federal multidistrict litigation (the "NuvaRing MDL") venued in Missouri and in a coordinated proceeding in New Jersey state court. Pursuant to a settlement agreement between Merck and negotiating plaintiffs' counsel, which became effective as of June 4, 2014, Merck paid a lump total settlement of $100 million to resolve more than 95% of the cases filed and under retainer by counsel as of February 7, 2014. Plaintiffs in 1,868 cases have joined the settlement program. Those cases will be dismissed with prejudice once the settlement administration process is completed. The Company expects the first dismissals to begin in the second quarter and continue on a rolling basis throughout 2015. The Company has certain insurance coverage available to it, which is currently being used to partially fund the Company's legal fees. This insurance coverage has also been used to fund the settlement. As of December 31, 2014, approximately 80 cases outside of the settlement program remained. Any plaintiff not participating in the settlement who chooses to proceed with their case, as well as any future plaintiffs, in the NuvaRing MDL or New Jersey state court are and will be obligated to meet various discovery and evidentiary requirements under the case management orders of the NuvaRing MDL and New Jersey state court. Plaintiffs who fail to fully and timely satisfy these requirements under set deadlines will be subject to an Order to Show Cause why their case should not be dismissed with prejudice. MERCK & CO: 1,235 Propecia/Proscar Lawsuits Pending at Dec. 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., Inc., said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of December 31, 2014, approximately 1,235 lawsuits are pending related to Propecia/Proscar product. Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the United States involving Propecia and/or Proscar. As of December 31, 2014, approximately 1,235 lawsuits involving a total of approximately 1,500 plaintiffs (in a few instances spouses are joined as plaintiffs in the suits) who allege that they have experienced persistent sexual side effects following cessation of treatment with Propecia and/or Proscar have been filed against Merck. Approximately 50 of the plaintiffs also allege that Propecia or Proscar has caused or can cause prostate cancer or male breast cancer. The lawsuits have been filed in various federal courts and in state court in New Jersey. The federal lawsuits have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in a federal multidistrict litigation before Judge John Gleeson of the Eastern District of New York. The matters pending in state court in New Jersey have been consolidated before Judge Jessica Mayer in Middlesex County. The Company intends to defend against these lawsuits. MERCK & CO: Class Claims in Sales Force Litigation to Continue -------------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., Inc., said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the court has denied the Company's motion to dismiss or strike the class claims as premature in the Sales Force Litigation. In May 2013, Ms. Kelli Smith filed a complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey of behalf of herself and a putative class of female sales representatives and a putative sub-class of female sales representatives with children, claiming (a) discriminatory policies and practices in selection, promotion and advancement, (b) disparate pay, (c) differential treatment, (d) hostile work environment and (e) retaliation under federal and state discrimination laws. In November 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the class claims. Plaintiffs sought and were granted leave to file an amended complaint. In January 2014, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding four additional named plaintiffs. On October 8, 2014, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss or strike the class claims as premature. NAVIENT CORPORATION: Plaintiff-Intervenors Seek to Amend Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Navient Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Plaintiff-Intervenors filed a Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint in Intervention in the case, Tina M. Ubaldi v. SLM Corporation et al. On March 18, 2011, a student loan borrower filed a putative class action complaint against Old SLM in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint was captioned Tina M. Ubaldi v. SLM Corporation et. al., Case No. C-11-01320EDL. The plaintiff brought the complaint on behalf of a class consisting of other similarly situated California borrowers. The complaint alleged, among other things, that Old SLM's practice of charging late fees proportional to the amount of missed payments constituted liquidated damages in violation of California law; and Old SLM engaged in unfair business practices by charging daily interest on private educational loans. Following motion practice and additional amendments to the complaint, which added usury claims under California state law and two additional defendants (Sallie Mae, Inc., now known as Navient Solutions, Inc. ("NSI"), and SLM PC Student Loan Trust 2004-A), a Modified Third Amended Complaint was filed on December 2, 2013. Plaintiffs sought restitution of late charges and interest paid by members of the class, injunctive relief, cancellation of all future interest payments, treble damages as permitted by law, as well as costs and attorneys' fees, among other relief. Prior to the formation of Sallie Mae Bank in 2005, Old SLM followed prevalent capital market practices of acquiring and securitizing private education loans purchased in secondary transactions from banks who originated these loans. Plaintiffs alleged that the services provided by Old SLM and Sallie Mae, Inc. to the originating banks resulted in Old SLM and Sallie Mae, Inc. constituting lenders on these loans. Since 2006, Sallie Mae Bank originated the vast majority of all private education loans acquired by Old SLM. The claims at issue in this case expressly exclude loans originated by Sallie Mae Bank since its inception. Named defendants are subsidiaries of Navient and as such the Ubaldi litigation will remain the sole responsibility of Navient Corporation. Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification on October 22, 2013. On March 24, 2014, the Court denied plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification without prejudice, but granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended Motion for Class Certification. On June 20, 2014, a Complaint in Intervention was filed on behalf of two additional customers representing a proposed usury sub-class. On June 23, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Renewed Motion for Class Certification. A hearing on the Renewed Motion for Class Certification was held on October 14, 2014. On December 19, 2014, the court granted plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification regarding the claims concerning late fees, but denied the motion as to the usury claims. On January 30, 2015, Plaintiff-Intervenors filed a Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint in Intervention. It is not possible at this time to estimate a range of potential exposure, if any, for amounts that may be payable in connection therewith. NAVIENT CORPORATION: Blyden Drops SLM Corp. as Defendant -------------------------------------------------------- Navient Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Marlene Blyden filed her Second Amended Complaint, which drops SLM Corporation as a defendant, adds various trusts as defendants, and adds claims for conversion and for money had and received. On November 26, 2014, Marlene Blyden filed a putative class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Navient Corporation, Navient, LLC, Navient Solutions, Inc., Navient Credit Finance Corporation, Navient Investment Corporation, SLM Corporation, Bank of New York, and the Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. The complaint was captioned Marlene Blyden v. Navient Corporation et. al., Case No. 5:14-CV-2456. On December 2, 2014, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. The plaintiff purports to bring the First Amended Complaint on behalf of a class consisting of other similarly situated California borrowers. The First Amended Complaint alleged that plaintiff and members of the asserted class were charged and/or paid interest at a rate above that permitted under California law. On January 21, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation to File Second Amended Complaint; the Joint Stipulation was approved by Court Order on January 23, 2015. On February 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed her Second Amended Complaint, which drops SLM Corporation as a defendant, adds various trusts as defendants, and adds claims for conversion and for money had and received. It is not possible at this time to estimate a range of potential exposure, if any, for amounts that may be payable in connection therewith. NAVY FEDERAL: Fiorani Can Proceed With Case in Forma Pauperis ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge T Ellis, III, entered an order adopting the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge in the forma pauperis lawsuits commenced by Ross A. Fiorani against Navy Federal Credit Union, et al. In 2000, Ross A. Fiorani -- a frequent filer of frivolous lawsuits in Virginia -- was "enjoined from filing future actions in federal district court without prior leave of court." In October 2014, in an apparent attempt to avoid such pre-filing review, plaintiff initiated the action captioned FIORANI v. NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14CV1498 by filing a complaint against defendants in the District of Maryland, together with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Shortly thereafter, the matter was transferred to the Eastern District of Virginia, with a ruling on plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis deferred pending review by the Virginia Court. In November 2014, the matter was referred to the assigned magistrate judge for preparation of a prompt report and recommendation. On December 29, 2014, the assigned magistrate judge filed his Proposed Findings of Fact and Recommendations, recommending that that plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied, and that the matter be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(e)(2). The pro se plaintiff has filed multiple documents in response to the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, mostly in opposition. On review, Judge Ellis ORDERED that with the exception of the in forma pauperis recommendation, the findings and conclusions set forth in the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation are ADOPTED as the Court's findings and conclusions in the matter. Specifically, plaintiffs objections with respect to the magistrate judge's in forma pauperis recommendation are sustained and plaintiffs' application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted for purposes of this proceeding. The magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in all other respects and plaintiffs complaint is accordingly DISMISSED as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(e)(2). A copy of the March 31, 2015 Order is available at http://is.gd/CBaymafrom Leagle.com. NORA FOOD: "Diop" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Yacine Diop and Ilham Datesse, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Nora Food Corp. d/b/a Amsterdam Deli, and Mohammad Al Saleh, Case No. 1:15-cv-03195-JGK (S.D.N.Y., April 23, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate Amsterdam Deli, a convenience store/deli that offers a wide variety of sandwich and food products, located at 481 Amsterdam A Venue, New York, NY 10024. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Scott Schaffer, Esq. Jeffrey Hill Dorfman, Esq. Joseph A. Fitapelli, 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 jdorfman@fslawfirm.com jfitapelli@fslawfirm.com NORTHWEST BANCSHARES: "Toth" Accord Subject to Final Court Okay --------------------------------------------------------------- Northwest Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the settlement in the case Toth v. Northwest Bank remains subject to final court approval. On May 7, 2012, Ashley Toth ("Plaintiff") filed a putative class action complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania against Northwest Bank ("Northwest"). Plaintiff's complaint alleged state law claims related to Northwest's order of posting ATM and debit card transactions and the assessment of overdraft fees on deposit customer accounts. Northwest filed preliminary objections to the putative class action complaint on June 29, 2012. On September 6, 2012, Plaintiff filed an amended putative class action complaint containing substantially the same allegations as the initial putative class action complaint. On November 5, 2012, Northwest filed preliminary objections to the amended putative class action complaint. Plaintiff filed her opposition to Northwest's preliminary objections on December 6, 2012, and Northwest filed its reply in support of the preliminary objections on January 3, 2013. On June 25, 2013, the court entered an order, granting in part and overruling in part, Northwest's preliminary objections. On November 18, 2013, the parties participated in a mediation and reached an agreement in principle, subject to the preparation and execution of a mutually acceptable settlement agreement and release, to fully, finally and completely settle, resolve, discharge and release all claims that have been or could have been asserted in the action on a class-wide basis. The proposed settlement contemplates that, in return for a full and complete release of claims by Plaintiff and the settlement class members, Northwest will create a settlement fund for distribution to the settlement class members after certain court-approved reductions, including for attorney's fees and expenses. The proposed settlement has been preliminarily approved and remains subject to final court approval. OIL STATES ENERGY: Faces "Mozingo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Sammy Mozingo and Jamie Holloway, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated employees v. Oil States Energy Services, L.L.C. f/k/a Specialty Tank Supply, Oil States Energy Services Holding, Inc., Oil States International, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv- 00529-CB (W.D. Pa., April 22, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Oil States Energy Services, L.L.C. is a Delaware corporation that provides integrated rental solutions and services in connection with oilfield operations in North America, South America, Canada and Mexico. Oil States Energy Services Holding, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that provides integrated rental solutions and services in connection with oilfield operations in North America, South America, Canada and Mexico. Oil States International, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that provides a range of products and services to companies in the oil and gas industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Chivers, Esq. Jeffrey W. Chivers, Esq. THE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS GROUP 100 First Avenue, Suite 1010 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 227-0763 E-mail: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com jwc@employmentrightsgroup.com PINNACLE CAR: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, "De Jesus" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ivan De Jesus v. Pinnacle Car & Limousine Inc., Shimon Peretz, and John Does #1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-03180-LTS (S.D.N.Y., April 22, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay their employees minimum wages, straight time wages and tips as required by the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a high end limousine services company with its principal place of business at 21 Barstow Rd., Great Neck, NY 11021. The Plaintiff is represented by: William Coudert Rand, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND 488 Madison Avenue, Suite 1100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 286-1425 Facsimile: (646) 688-3078 E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Prothero" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ Marjorie Prothero, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Premera Blue Cross, Case No. 2:15-cv-00637 (W.D. Wash., April 22, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to properly secure and protect its users' sensitive, personally-identifiable information and personal health information. Premera Blue Cross is a health plan provider headquartered in Montlake Terrace, Washington. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Ide, Esq. IDE LAW OFFICE 7900 SE 28th Street, Suite 500 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Telephone: (206) 625-1326 E-mail: mjide@yahoo.com - and - Christopher P. Ridout, Esq. Caleb Marker, Esq. RIDOUT LYON + OTTOSON, LLP 555 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 500 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 216-7380 E-mail: c.ridout@rlollp.com c.marker@rlollp.com RIZZOLI INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay Workers OT, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Leah Whisler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rizzoli International Publications, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-03186-ALC (S.D.N.Y., April 22, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked more than 40 in a week. Rizzoli International Publications, Inc. is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in the State of New York and is engaged in books and calendars publications. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Allen Meister, Esq. PEDOWITZ & MEISTER, LLP 570 Lexington Avenue, 18th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 403-7330 Facsimile: (212) 354-6614 E-mail: robert.meister@pedowitzmeister.com SABER HEALTHCARE: Faces "Dembek" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Claudia Dembek, on behalf of her and all others similarly situated v. Saber Healthcare Group, L.L.C. d/b/a Diplomat Healthcare, Case No. 1:15-cv-00788 (N.D. Ohio, April 22, 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 nursing home and rehabilitation center located at 9001 West 130th Street, North Royalton, Ohio 44133. The Plaintiff is represented by: Frederick M. Bean, Esq. SPITZ LAW FIRM Ste. 290, 4620 Richmond Road Warrensville Heights, OH 44128 Telephone: (216) 291-4744 Facsimile: (216) 291-5744 E-mail: fred.bean@spitzlawfirm.com SALON PEOPLE: Faces "Johnson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Kara Renee Johnson, Amanda E. Richter, on behalf of themseles and all others similarly situated v. The Salon People, Inc. et al, Case No. 8:15-cv-00964-MSS-TBM (M.D. Fla., April 22, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Salon People, Inc. is a Florida corporation that owns and operates a beauty and cosmetology schools throughout Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick O'Haire Whitford, Esq. THE WHITFORD LAW FIRM Ste. 2902, 1431 Riverplace Blvd. Jacksonville, FL 32207 Telephone: (904) 699-9573 Facsimile: (646) 499-6556 E-mail: pwhitford@thewhitfordlawfirm.com SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Motions to Dismiss Securities Actions Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- SandRidge Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that defendants in the securities class action have filed respective motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, which are pending before the court. On December 5, 2012, James Glitz and Rodger A. Thornberry, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated stockholders, filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against SandRidge Energy, Inc. and certain current and former executive officers of the Company. On January 4, 2013, Louis Carbone, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders, filed a substantially similar putative class action complaint in the same court and against the same defendants. On March 6, 2013, the court consolidated these two actions under the caption "In re SandRidge Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation" (the "Securities Litigation") and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On July 23, 2013, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, which asserts a variety of federal securities claims against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors, among other defendants, on behalf of a putative class of (a) purchasers of SandRidge common stock during the period from February 24, 2011 to November 8, 2012, (b) purchasers of common units of the Mississippian Trust I in or traceable to its initial public offering on or about April 12, 2011, and (c) purchasers of common units of the Mississippian Trust II (together with the Mississippian Trust I, the "Mississippian Trusts") in or traceable to its initial public offering on or about April 23, 2012. The claims are based on allegations that the Company, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and the Mississippian Trusts, among other defendants, are responsible for making false and misleading statements, and omitting material information, concerning a variety of subjects, including oil and natural gas reserves, the Company's capital expenditures, and certain transactions entered into by companies allegedly affiliated with the Company's former CEO Tom Ward. The defendants have filed respective motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, which are pending before the court. Because the Securities Litigation is in the early stages, an estimate of reasonably possible losses associated with it, if any, cannot be made until the facts, circumstances and legal theories relating to the plaintiffs' claims and the defendants' defenses are fully disclosed and analyzed. The Company has not established any reserves relating to the Securities Litigation. Each of the Mississippian Trusts has requested that the Company indemnify it for any losses it may incur in connection with the Securities Litigation. SANDRIDGE ENERGY: "Hart" Class Action Lawsuit in Early Stages ------------------------------------------------------------- SandRidge Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the class actio lawsuit filed by James Hart and 15 other named plaintiffs is in the early stages. On July 15, 2013, James Hart and 15 other named plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas in an action undertaken individually and on behalf of others similarly situated against SandRidge Energy, Inc., SandRidge Operating Company, SandRidge E&P, SandRidge Midstream, Inc., and Lariat Services, Inc. In their Amended Complaint, plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to properly calculate overtime pay for the plaintiffs and for other similarly situated current and former employees. The plaintiffs further allege that the defendants required the plaintiffs and other similarly situated current and former employees to engage in work-related activities without pay. The plaintiffs assert claims against the defendants for (i) violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, (ii) violations of the Kansas Wage Payment Act, (iii) breach of contract, and (iv) fraud, and seek to recover unpaid wages and overtime pay, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, economic damages, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and both pre- and post-judgment interest. On October 3, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Conditional Collective Action Certification and for Judicial Notice to the Class and a Motion to Toll the Statute of Limitations. On October 11, 2013, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion to Transfer Venue to the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. All of these motions are pending before the court. On April 2, 2014, the court granted the defendants' Motion to Dismiss and granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint by April 16, 2014, which they did on such date. On July 1, 2014, the court granted plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Collective Action Certification and for Judicial Notice to the Class, and denied plaintiffs' Motion to Toll the Statute of Limitations. The Company and the other defendants intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously. This lawsuit is in the early stages and, accordingly, an estimate of reasonably possible losses associated with this action, if any, cannot be made until the facts, circumstances and legal theories relating to the plaintiffs' claims and the defendants' defenses are fully disclosed and analyzed. The Company has not established any reserves relating to this action. SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Faces "Surbaugh" Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------- SandRidge Energy, Inc. is defending against a class action filed by Steve Surbaugh, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. On November 10, 2014, a class action complaint was filed in the U. S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against certain current and former directors and officers of the Company in the case styled Steve Surbaugh vs. SandRidge Energy, Inc., Tom L. Ward, James D. Bennett, Eddie M. LeBlanc, and Randall D. Cooley. The complaint asserts a federal securities class action on behalf of a putative class consisting of all persons other than defendants who purchased SandRidge securities between March 1, 2013, through November 4, 2014, seeking to recover damages allegedly caused by the defendants' violations of federal securities laws under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that, throughout the class period, the defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding SandRidge's business, operations and future prospects because such statements failed to properly account for the penalties SandRidge accrued under its treating agreement with Occidental Petroleum Corporation and, as a result, SandRidge's financial statements were materially false and misleading during the class period. An estimate of reasonably possible losses associated with this action cannot be made at this time. The Company has not established any reserves relating to this action. SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Faces "Dakil" Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------- SandRidge Energy, Inc. is defending against a class action filed by Steven T. Dakil, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. On November 11, 2014, a class action complaint was filed in the U. S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against certain current and former directors and officers of the Company in the case styled Steven T. Dakil vs. SandRidge Energy, Inc., Tom L. Ward, James D. Bennett, and Eddie M. LeBlanc. The complaint asserts a federal securities class action on behalf of a putative class consisting of all persons other than defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired SandRidge securities between February 28, 2013, and November 3, 2014, seeking to recover damages allegedly caused by the defendants' violations of federal securities laws under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that, throughout the class period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding SandRidge's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) SandRidge was improperly accounting for penalties owed to Occidental Petroleum Corp. under a treating agreement on an annual basis when it was required to do so on a quarterly basis; (ii) SandRidge's quarterly and annual financial and operating results for the periods ending December 31, 2012 through June 30, 2014, were overstated and required restatement; (iii) defendant Ward engaged in improper related party transactions; (iv) SandRidge lacked proper internal controls over financial reporting; and (v) as a result of the foregoing, SandRidge's financial statements were materially false and misleading during the class period. An estimate of reasonably possible losses associated with this action cannot be made at this time. The Company has not established any reserves relating to this action. SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Lead Plaintiffs May Amend Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------- SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court entered an Order Granting Joint Motion for Scheduling Order setting Lead Plaintiffs' time to file any amended complaint on or before February 27, 2015. "On September 9, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit consisting of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the periods between April 18, 2013 to August 13, 2014, captioned Baker v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-CV-02129-MMA (KSC), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (the "Court") against the Company, the Chairman of our Board of Directors, certain of our executive officers and Blackstone," the Company said. "The complaint alleges that the prospectus and registration statements filed contained materially false and misleading information in violation of the federal securities laws and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. On December 10, 2014, the Court entered an Order Granting Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Selection of Counsel, appointing Pensionskassen For Borne- Og Ungdomspaedagoger and Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System as Lead Plaintiffs. On December 29, 2014, the Court entered an Order Granting Joint Motion for Scheduling Order setting Lead Plaintiffs' time to file any amended complaint on or before February 27, 2015. The Company believes that the class action lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously; however, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit." SORIANO BROTHERS: Faces "Acosta" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Damirsy Rodriguez Acosta and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Soriano Brothers, Soriano Brothers Restaurant Group LLC, R & M Fruits, Corp., Yismel Soriano, Ismael Soriano, Sr., Ismael Soriano, Jr., Juan C. Ruiz, Janette Ruiz, Carlito Ruiz, Case No. 1:15-cv-21514-UU (S.D. Fla., April 22, 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 restaurant in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM TECO ENERGY: Appeals from Dismissal of Class Actions Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Teco Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the appeals from the dismissal of class actions related to New Mexico Gas Company's gas shortages are pending. In February 2011, NMGC experienced gas shortages due to weather- related interruptions of electric service, weather-related problems on the systems of various interstate pipelines and in gas fields that are the sources of gas supplied to NMGC, and high weather-driven usage. This gas supply disruption and high usage resulted in the declaration of system emergencies by NMGC causing involuntary curtailments of gas utility service to approximately 28,700 customers (residential and business). In March 2011, a customer purporting to represent a class consisting of all "32,000 [sic] customers" who had their gas utility service curtailed during the early-February system emergencies filed a putative class action lawsuit against NMGC. In March 2011, the Town of Bernalillo, New Mexico, purporting to represent a class consisting of all "New Mexico municipalities and governmental entities who have suffered damages as a result of the natural gas utility shut off" also filed a putative class action lawsuit against NMGC, four of its officers, and John and Jane Does at NMGC. In July 2011, the plaintiff in the Bernalillo class action filed an amended complaint to add an additional plaintiff purporting to represent a class of all "similarly situated New Mexico private businesses and enterprises." The two purported class action suits (three purported classes) were consolidated. The court dismissed the class actions in their entirety with prejudice in October 2014 and appeals from the dismissal were taken by the plaintiffs in November 2014 and are pending. Two lawsuits representing 18 insurance carriers have filed subrogation lawsuits for monies paid to their insureds as a result of the curtailment of natural gas service in February 2011. These subrogation matters are pending and discovery is proceeding. NMGC has filed motions to dismiss similar to those previously filed and ruled on favorably in the class actions. The company believes the claims in the pending actions are without merit and intends to defend each matter vigorously. The company is unable at this time to estimate the possible loss or range of loss with respect to these matters. TILE SHOP: Motions to Dismiss Class Action Pending -------------------------------------------------- Tile Shop Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that defendants' motions to dismiss a class action complaint are pending before the Court. The Company, two of its former executive officers, its directors, and certain companies affiliated with the directors, are defendants in a consolidated class action brought under the federal securities laws and now pending in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota under the caption Beaver County Employees' Retirement Fund, et al. v. Tile Shop Holdings, Inc., et al. Several actions were filed in 2013, and then consolidated. The plaintiffs are four investors who seek to represent a class or classes consisting of (1) persons who purchased Tile Shop common stock in the market between August 22, 2012 and January 28, 2014 (the "alleged class period"), (2) persons who purchased Tile Shop common stock in the Company's December 2012 secondary public offering; and (3) persons who purchased Tile Shop common stock in the Company's June 2013 secondary public offering. Eight investment banking firms who were underwriters in the secondary public offerings are also named as defendants. In their consolidated amended complaint (the "complaint") filed on May 23, 2014, the plaintiffs allege that defendants made false or misleading statements of material fact in press releases and SEC filings about the Company's relationships with its vendors, financial performance, and prospects, and that defendants failed to disclose certain related party transactions. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In addition to attorney's fees and costs, the plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock in the secondary public offerings or in the market during the alleged class period. The defendants are defending the matter and have moved to dismiss the complaint. Those motions are pending before the Court. Given the uncertainty of litigation and the preliminary stage of the case, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action. The Company maintains directors and officers liability insurance policies that may reduce the Company's exposure, if any. In the event the Company incurs a loss, the Company will pursue recoveries to the maximum extent available under these policies. TITLE SOURCE: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Wesolowski" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the appeal case ROBERT A. WESOLOWSKI, et al., Plaintiffs- Appellants, v. TITLE SOURCE, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 14-12781, the main issue is whether an individual or an entity "actually performs services" within the meaning of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. Sec. 2607(b), if the provision of such services is illegal under state law. Between 2011 and 2013, Robert and Connie Wesolowski refinanced their property three times through Quicken Loans. For all three closings, Quicken Loans contracted with Title Source, a vendor management company, to perform settlement services, including conducting the title search, reviewing the title examination, preparing the settlement statement, and recording the deeds. Title Source hired Cook & James to schedule the closing and to retain attorneys to witness the execution of the closing documents. The Wesolowskis paid $500 in settlement fees for each closing. Subsequently, the Wesolowskis filed a putative class action against Title Source, Michelle Ruff (in-house counsel for Title Source), and Cook & James, alleging that they split fees for unearned services in violation of Sec. 2607(b) of RESPA. The Wesolowskis specifically alleged that (1) because Georgia law requires that settlement services be provided only by Georgia- licensed attorneys, the services performed by Title Source were illegal, and could not constitute "services actually performed" under RESPA, as a matter of law; (2) Cook & James violated RESPA by providing only nominal services, i.e., retaining attorney- witnesses; and (3) Ms. Ruff performed no services at all The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim under RESPA. The district court granted the motion to dismiss. In an April 7, 2015 Per Curiam available at http://is.gd/ynDrfh from Leagle.com, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the claims against Title Source and Cook & James, reversed the dismissal of the claims against Ms. Ruff, and remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. VOYA FINANCIAL: 2015 Q2 Hearing on Bid for Punitive Damages ----------------------------------------------------------- Voya Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court will hold a hearing in the second quarter of 2015 regarding whether to award punitive damages to Fireman's Fund. Litigation includes Beeson, et al. v. SMMS, Lion Connecticut Holdings, Inc. and ING NAIC (Marin County CA Superior Court, CIV- 092545). Thirty-four Plaintiff households (husband/wife/trust) assert that SMMS, which was purchased in 2000 and sold in 2003, breached a duty to monitor the performance of investments that Plaintiffs made with independent financial advisors they met in conjunction with retirement planning seminars presented at Fireman's Fund Insurance Company. SMMS recommended the advisors to Fireman's Fund as seminar presenters. Some of the seminars were arranged by SMMS. As a result of the performance of their investments, Plaintiffs claim they incurred damages. Fireman's Fund has asserted breach of contract and concealment claims against SMMS alleging that SMMS failed to fulfill its ongoing obligation to monitor the financial advisors and the investments they recommended to Plaintiffs and by failing to disclose that a primary purpose of the seminars was to develop business for the financial advisors. The Company denies all claims and vigorously defended this case at trial. During trial, the Court ruled that SMMS had duties to Plaintiffs and Fireman's Fund that it breached. On December 12, 2014, the Court issued a Statement of Decision in which it awarded damages in the aggregate of $36.8 to Plaintiffs and $7.5 to Fireman's Fund. The Company objects to the Court's decisions and the Statement of Decision on the grounds that they are inconsistent with California law and the evidence presented at trial. On January 7, 2015, the Court made final the award in favor of the Plaintiffs. The Company filed an appellate bond that stays execution of that judgment while a motion for new trial and appeal are pursued. The Court will hold a hearing in the second quarter of 2015 regarding whether to award punitive damages to Fireman's Fund. WEATHERBY INC: "Fiant" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Stephen W. Fiant as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Weatherby, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-02991 (C.D. Cal., April 22, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and penalties pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Weatherby, Inc. owns and operates a manufacturing facility that manufactures firearms in San Luis Obispo County, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Erica Flores Baltodano, Esq. Roxana E. Khan, Esq. Hernaldo Jose Baltodano, Esq. BALTODANO AND BALTODANO LLP 1411 Marsh Street Suite 102 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Telephone: (805) 322-3412 Facsimile: (805) 322-3413 E-mail: efb@bbemploymentlaw.com rek@bbemploymentlaw.com hjb@bbemploymentlaw.com - and - Fletcher W.H. Schmidt, Esq. Paul Keith Haines, Esq. BOREN OSHER AND LUFTMAN LLP 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 2222 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 322-2220 Facsimile: (310) 322-2228 E-mail: fschmidt@bollaw.com phaines@bollaw.com WESBANCO INC: Memorandum of Settlement Reached in Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- WesBanco Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the parties to a class action reached a memorandum of settlement. On October 29, 2014, ESB, and WesBanco entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), providing for the merger of ESB with and into WesBanco, with WesBanco as the surviving corporation (the "Merger"). Each of ESB and WesBanco filed a definitive joint proxy statement/prospectus, dated as of December 11, 2014 (the "Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus"), with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Merger. The Merger was consummated on February 10, 2015. As previously reported by each of ESB and WesBanco on Current Reports on Form 8-K, each dated December 15, 2014 and filed on December 19, 2014, two putative class action complaints were filed by purported shareholders of ESB with respect to the Merger. One complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (the "Federal District Court"), and is captioned and numbered James Elliott vs. ESB Financial, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-01689-MRH (the "Federal Lawsuit"). The other complaint was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County, Pennsylvania, and is captioned and numbered Randall Kress v. ESB Bank, Case No. 11185/14 CA (the "Lawrence County Lawsuit"). Both complaints alleged generally, among other things, that each member of ESB's board of directors (the "Director Defendants") breached their fiduciary duties in approving the Merger Agreement, that ESB and WesBanco aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duty and that the disclosure regarding the Merger contained in the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus was materially deficient. On January 15, 2015, solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, ESB, ESB Bank, WesBanco and the Director Defendants (ESB, ESB Bank, WesBanco and the Director Defendants, collectively the "Defendants") entered into a Memorandum of Settlement (the "MOS") with the respective plaintiffs (collectively, the "Plaintiffs") regarding the settlement of both the Federal Lawsuit and the Lawrence County Lawsuit. Pursuant to the MOS, ESB and WesBanco agreed to file with the SEC and make publicly available to shareholders of ESB and WesBanco supplemental disclosures provided on Form 8-K and the Plaintiffs agreed to release ESB, ESB Bank, WesBanco and the Director Defendants from all claims related to the Merger Agreement and the Merger, subject to approval of the Federal District Court. If the court approves the settlement contemplated in the MOS, both the Federal Lawsuit and the Lawrence County Lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice, and all claims that were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the Merger, the Merger Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith will be released and barred. Under the terms of the MOS, counsel for the Plaintiffs reserved the right to seek an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. The Defendants have reserved the right to contest the fee and expense petition. The amount of any fees and expense awarded will ultimately be determined and approved by the court, and will not affect the amount of merger consideration paid by WesBanco. ESB or its successor or insurer will pay any fees and expenses awarded by the court. In the MOS, the parties have agreed to negotiate in good faith to prepare a stipulation of settlement to be filed with the court and other documentation as may be required to effectuate the settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties ultimately will enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. The proposed settlement contemplated by the MOS will become void in the event that the parties do not enter into such stipulation or the court does not approve the settlement. The settlement did not affect the timing of the special meeting of shareholders of ESB held January 22, 2015 in Ellwood City, Pennsylvania to vote upon a proposal to adopt the Merger Agreement. Similarly, the settlement did not affect the timing of the special meeting of shareholders of WesBanco held January 22, 2015 in Wheeling, West Virginia to vote on a proposal to approve the issuance of shares of WesBanco common stock in connection with the Merger. The shareholders of both corporations approved the Merger. ESB and the other Defendants deny all of the allegations in the lawsuits and believe the disclosures previously included in the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus were appropriate under the law. Nevertheless, ESB and the other Defendants have agreed to settle the putative class action lawsuits in order to avoid the costs, disruptions and distraction of further litigation. ESB and the other Defendants have vigorously denied, and continue to vigorously deny, that they have committed or aided and abetted in the commission of any violation of law or engaged in any of the wrongful acts that were alleged in the lawsuits, and expressly maintain that, to the extent applicable, they diligently and scrupulously complied with their fiduciary and other legal burdens and entered into the MOS solely to eliminate the burden and expense of further litigation and to put the claims that were or could have been asserted to rest. Nothing in the MOS or any stipulation of settlement shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of the disclosures set forth therein. WORLD OMNI: Plaintiffs' Bid to Dismiss Complaint Granted -------------------------------------------------------- World Omni Auto Receivables Trust 2014-B said in its Form 10-D Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the monthly distribution period from January 1, 2015 to January 31, 2015, that in June 2014 a civil complaint was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by a group of institutional investors against U.S. Bank, in its capacity as trustee or successor trustee (as the case may be) under certain residential mortgage backed securities ("RMBS") trusts. The plaintiffs are investment funds formed by nine investment advisors (AEGON, BlackRock, Brookfield, DZ Bank, Kore, PIMCO, Prudential, Sealink and TIAA) that purport to be bringing suit derivatively on behalf of 841 RMBS trusts that issued $771 billion in original principal amount of securities between 2004 and 2008. According to the plaintiffs, cumulative losses for these RMBS trusts equal $92.4 billion as of the date of the complaint. The complaint is one of six similar complaints filed against RMBS trustees (Deutsche Bank, Citibank, HSBC, Bank of New York Mellon and Wells Fargo) by certain of these plaintiffs. The complaint against U.S. Bank alleges the trustee caused losses to investors as a result of alleged failures by the sponsors, mortgage loan sellers and servicers for these RMBS trusts and asserts causes of action based upon the trustee's purported failure to enforce repurchase obligations of mortgage loan sellers for alleged breaches of representations and warranties concerning loan quality. The complaint also asserts that the trustee failed to notify securityholders of purported events of default allegedly caused by breaches by mortgage loan servicers and that the trustee purportedly failed to abide by appropriate standards of care following events of default. Relief sought includes money damages in an unspecified amount and equitable relief. In November 2014, the plaintiffs sought leave to voluntarily dismiss their original state court complaint and filed a substantially similar complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The federal civil complaint added a class action allegation and a change in the total number of named trusts to 843 RMBS trusts. In December 2014, the plaintiffs' motion to voluntarily dismiss their original state court complaint was granted. Other cases alleging similar causes of action have previously been filed against U.S. Bank and other trustees by RMBS investors in other transactions. There can be no assurances as to the outcome of the litigation, or the possible impact of the litigation on the trustee or the RMBS trusts. However, U.S. Bank denies liability and believes that it has performed its obligations under the RMBS trusts in good faith, that its actions were not the cause of losses to investors and that it has meritorious defenses, and it intends to contest the plaintiffs' claims vigorously. Asbestos Litigation 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 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 -------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Crane Co. Pays Three Judgments in Fibro Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co. paid three judgments arising from adverse jury verdicts in asbestos matters, 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. As of December 31, 2014, the Company has paid three judgments arising from adverse jury verdicts in asbestos matters. The first payment, in the amount of $2.54 million, was made on July 14, 2008, approximately two years after the adverse verdict in the Joseph Norris matter in California, after the Company had exhausted all post-trial and appellate remedies. The second payment, in the amount of $0.02 million, was made in June 2009 after an adverse verdict in the Earl Haupt case in Los Angeles, California on April 21, 2009. The third payment, in the amount of $0.9 million, was made in June 2014, approximately two years after the adverse verdict in the William Paulus matter in California, after the Company had exhausted all post-trial and appellate remedies. On March 9, 2012, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, state court jury found the Company responsible for a 1/8th share of a $123,000 verdict in the Frank Paasch claim. The Company and plaintiffs filed post-trial motions. On May 31, 2012, on plaintiffs' motion, the Court entered an order dismissing the claim against the Company, with prejudice, and without any payment. On August 29, 2012, the Company received an adverse verdict in the William Paulus claim in Los Angeles, California. The jury found that the Company was responsible for ten percent (10%) of plaintiffs' non-economic damages of $6.5 million, plus a portion of plaintiffs' economic damages of $0.4 million. Based on California court rules regarding allocation of damages, judgment was entered in the amount of $0.8 million against the Company. The Company filed post-trial motions requesting judgment in the Company's favor notwithstanding the jury's verdict, which were denied. The Company appealed, and the judgment was affirmed by order dated February 21, 2014. The Company sought review of certain aspects of the ruling before the California Supreme Court, and review was denied. Having exhausted all post-trial and appellate remedies, the Company in June 2014 paid to plaintiffs the amount of $0.9 million, the judgment including interest, and this amount is included in second quarter indemnity totals. The Company has tried several cases resulting in defense verdicts by the jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the court. The Company further has pursued appeals of certain adverse jury verdicts that have resulted in reversals in favor of the defense. Crane Co. (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics, non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV), transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical, pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling equipment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal in "Nelson" Suit vs. Crane Co. is Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal arising from a verdict in a lawsuit filed by James Nelson against Crane Co. remains pending, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. On March 23, 2010, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, state court jury found the Company responsible for a 1/11th share of a $14.5 million verdict in the James Nelson claim, and for a 1/20th share of a $3.5 million verdict in the Larry Bell claim. On February 23, 2011, the court entered judgment on the verdicts in the amount of $0.2 million against the Company, only, in Bell, and in the amount of $4.0 million, jointly, against the Company and two other defendants in Nelson, with additional interest in the amount of $0.01 million being assessed against the Company, only, in Nelson. All defendants, including the Company, and the plaintiffs took timely appeals of certain aspects of those judgments. The Company resolved the Bell appeal by settlement, which is reflected in the settled claims for 2012. On September 5, 2013, a panel of the Pennsylvania Superior Court, in a 2-1 decision, vacated the Nelson verdict against all defendants, reversing and remanding for a new trial. Plaintiffs requested a rehearing in the Superior Court and by order dated November 18, 2013, the Superior Court vacated the panel opinion, and granted en banc reargument. On December 23, 2014, the Superior Court issued a second opinion reversing the jury verdict. Plaintiffs sought leave to appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which defendants have opposed. Crane Co. (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics, non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV), transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical, pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling equipment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oral Argument in NY Suit vs. Crane Co. Set ----------------------------------------------------------- Oral argument in the lawsuit filed in a New York state court against Crane Co. is scheduled to be heard this year, 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. On August 17, 2011, a New York City state court jury found the Company responsible for a 99% share of a $32 million verdict on the Ronald Dummitt claim. The Company filed post-trial motions seeking to overturn the verdict, to grant a new trial, or to reduce the damages, which the Company argued were excessive under New York appellate case law governing awards for non-economic losses. The Court held oral argument on these motions on October 18, 2011 and issued a written decision on August 21, 2012 confirming the jury's liability findings but reducing the award of damages to $8 million. At plaintiffs' request, the Court entered a judgment in the amount of $4.9 million against the Company, taking into account settlement offsets and accrued interest under New York law. The Company appealed, and the judgment was affirmed in a 3-2 decision and order dated July 3, 2014. The Company has appealed to the New York Court of Appeals. The parties' briefing has concluded and oral argument will be heard in 2015. Crane Co. (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics, non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV), transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical, pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling equipment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Resolves 107,000 Claims at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co., has resolved 107,000 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. Cumulatively through December 31, 2014, the Company has resolved (by settlement or dismissal) approximately 107,000 claims, not including the MARDOC claims. The related settlement cost incurred by the Company and its insurance carriers is approximately $425 million, for an average settlement cost per resolved claim of approximately $4,000. The average settlement cost per claim resolved during the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012 was $3,800, $3,300 and $6,300, respectively. Because claims are sometimes dismissed in large groups, the average cost per resolved claim, as well as the number of open claims, can fluctuate significantly from period to period. In addition to large group dismissals, the nature of the disease and corresponding settlement amounts for each claim resolved will also drive changes from period to period in the average settlement cost per claim. Accordingly, the average cost per resolved claim is not considered in the Company's periodic review of its estimated asbestos liability. Crane Co. (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics, non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV), transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical, pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling equipment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had $614MM Fibro Liability at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co., recorded $614 million 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. The Company has retained the firm of Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Associates, Inc. ("HR&A"), a nationally recognized expert in the field, to assist management in estimating the Company's asbestos liability in the tort system. HR&A reviews information provided by the Company concerning claims filed, settled and dismissed, amounts paid in settlements and relevant claim information such as the nature of the asbestos-related disease asserted by the claimant, the jurisdiction where filed and the time lag from filing to disposition of the claim. The methodology used by HR&A to project future asbestos costs is based largely on the Company's experience during a base reference period of eleven quarterly periods (consisting of the two full preceding calendar years and three additional quarterly periods to the estimate date) for claims filed, settled and dismissed. The Company's experience is then compared to the results of widely used previously conducted epidemiological studies estimating the number of individuals likely to develop asbestos-related diseases. Those studies were undertaken in connection with national analyses of the population of workers believed to have been exposed to asbestos. Using that information, HR&A estimates the number of future claims that would be filed against the Company and estimates the aggregate settlement or indemnity costs that would be incurred to resolve both pending and future claims based upon the average settlement costs by disease during the reference period. This methodology has been accepted by numerous courts. After discussions with the Company, HR&A augments its liability estimate for the costs of defending asbestos claims in the tort system using a forecast from the Company which is based upon discussions with its defense counsel. Based on this information, HR&A compiles an estimate of the Company's asbestos liability for pending and future claims, based on claim experience during the reference period and covering claims expected to be filed through the indicated forecast period. The most significant factors affecting the liability estimate are (1) the number of new mesothelioma claims filed against the Company, (2) the average settlement costs for mesothelioma claims, (3) the percentage of mesothelioma claims dismissed against the Company and (4) the aggregate defense costs incurred by the Company. These factors are interdependent, and no one factor predominates in determining the liability estimate. Although the methodology used by HR&A can be applied to show claims and costs for periods subsequent to the indicated period (up to and including the endpoint of the asbestos studies), management believes that the level of uncertainty regarding the various factors used in estimating future asbestos costs is too great to provide for reasonable estimation of the number of future claims, the nature of such claims or the cost to resolve them for years beyond the indicated estimate. In the Company's view, the forecast period used to provide the best estimate for asbestos claims and related liabilities and costs is a judgment based upon a number of trend factors, including the number and type of claims being filed each year; the jurisdictions where such claims are filed, and the effect of any legislation or judicial orders in such jurisdictions restricting the types of claims that can proceed to trial on the merits; and the likelihood of any comprehensive asbestos legislation at the federal level. In addition, the dynamics of asbestos litigation in the tort system have been significantly affected over the past five to ten years by the substantial number of companies that have filed for bankruptcy protection, thereby staying any asbestos claims against them until the conclusion of such proceedings, and the establishment of a number of post-bankruptcy trusts for asbestos claimants, which are estimated to provide $36 billion for payments to current and future claimants. 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 the Company's asbestos liability, and these effects do not move in a linear fashion but rather change over multi-year periods. Accordingly, the Company's management continues to monitor these trend factors over time and periodically assesses whether an alternative forecast period is appropriate. Each quarter, HR&A compiles an update based upon the Company's experience in claims filed, settled and dismissed during the updated reference period (consisting of the preceding eleven quarterly periods) as well as average settlement costs by disease category (mesothelioma, lung cancer, other cancer, and non- malignant conditions including asbestosis) during that period. In addition to this claims experience, the Company also considers additional quantitative and qualitative factors such as the nature of the aging of pending claims, significant appellate rulings and legislative developments, and their respective effects on expected future settlement values. As part of this process, the Company also takes into account trends in the tort system. Management considers all these factors in conjunction with the liability estimate of HR&A and determines whether a change in the estimate is warranted. With the assistance of HR&A, effective as of December 31, 2011, the Company updated and extended its estimate of the asbestos liability, including the costs of settlement or indemnity payments and defense costs relating to currently pending claims and future claims projected to be filed against the Company through 2021. The Company's previous estimate was for asbestos claims filed or projected to be filed through 2017. As a result of this updated estimate, the Company recorded an additional liability of $285 million as of December 31, 2011. The Company's decision to take this action at such date was based on several factors which contribute to the Company's ability to reasonably estimate this liability for the additional period noted. First, the number of mesothelioma claims (which although constituting approximately 8% of the Company's total pending asbestos claims, have accounted for approximately 90% of the Company's aggregate settlement and defense costs) being filed against the Company and associated settlement costs have recently stabilized. In the Company's opinion, the outlook for mesothelioma claims expected to be filed and resolved in the forecast period is reasonably stable. Second, there have been favorable developments in the trend of case law which has been a contributing factor in stabilizing the asbestos claims activity and related settlement costs. Third, there have been significant actions taken by certain state legislatures and courts over the past several years that have reduced the number and types of claims that can proceed to trial, which has been a significant factor in stabilizing the asbestos claims activity. Fourth, the Company has now entered into coverage-in-place agreements with almost all of its excess insurers, which enables the Company to project a more stable relationship between settlement and defense costs paid by the Company and reimbursements from its insurers. Taking all of these factors into account, the Company believes that it can reasonably estimate the asbestos liability for pending claims and future claims to be filed through 2021. While it is probable that the Company will incur additional charges for asbestos liabilities and defense costs in excess of the amounts currently provided, the Company does not believe that any such amount can be reasonably estimated beyond 2021. Accordingly, no accrual has been recorded for any costs which may be incurred for claims which may be made subsequent to 2021. Management has made its best estimate of the costs through 2021 based on the analysis by HR&A completed in January 2012. Through December 31, 2014, the Company's actual experience during the updated reference period for mesothelioma claims filed and dismissed generally approximated the assumptions in the Company's liability estimate. In addition to this claims experience, the Company considered additional quantitative and qualitative factors such as the nature of the aging of pending claims, significant appellate rulings and legislative developments, and their respective effects on expected future settlement values. Based on this evaluation, the Company determined that no change in the estimate was warranted for the period ended December 31, 2014. Nevertheless, if certain factors show a pattern of sustained increase or decrease, the liability could change materially; however, all the assumptions used in estimating the asbestos liability are interdependent and no single factor predominates in determining the liability estimate. Because of the uncertainty with regard to and the interdependency of such factors used in the calculation of its asbestos liability, and since no one factor predominates, the Company believes that a range of potential liability estimates beyond the indicated forecast period cannot be reasonably estimated. A liability of $894 million was recorded as of December 31, 2011, to cover the estimated cost of asbestos claims now pending or subsequently asserted through 2021, of which approximately 80% is attributable to settlement and defense costs for future claims projected to be filed through 2021. The liability is reduced when cash payments are made in respect of settled claims and defense costs. The liability was $614 million as of December 31, 2014. It is not possible to forecast when cash payments related to the asbestos liability will be fully expended; however, it is expected such cash payments will continue for a number of years past 2021, due to the significant proportion of future claims included in the estimated asbestos liability and the lag time between the date a claim is filed and when it is resolved. None of these estimated costs have been discounted to present value due to the inability to reliably forecast the timing of payments. The current portion of the total estimated liability at December 31, 2014 was $79 million and represents the Company's best estimate of total asbestos costs expected to be paid during the twelve-month period. Such amount is based upon the HR&A model together with the Company's prior year payment experience for both settlement and defense costs. Insurance Coverage and Receivables. Prior to 2005, a significant portion of the Company's settlement and defense costs were paid by its primary insurers. With the exhaustion of that primary coverage, the Company began negotiations with its excess insurers to reimburse the Company for a portion of its settlement and/or defense costs as incurred. To date, the Company has entered into agreements providing for such reimbursements, known as "coverage- in-place", with eleven of its excess insurer groups. Under such coverage-in-place agreements, an insurer's policies remain in force and the insurer undertakes to provide coverage for the Company's present and future asbestos claims on specified terms and conditions that address, among other things, the share of asbestos claims costs to be paid by the insurer, payment terms, claims handling procedures and the expiration of the insurer's obligations. Similarly, under a variant of coverage-in-place, the Company has entered into an agreement with a group of insurers confirming the aggregate amount of available coverage under the subject policies and setting forth a schedule for future reimbursement payments to the Company based on aggregate indemnity and defense payments made. In addition, with ten of its excess insurer groups, the Company entered into policy buyout agreements, settling all asbestos and other coverage obligations for an agreed sum, totaling $82.5 million in aggregate. Reimbursements from insurers for past and ongoing settlement and defense costs allocable to their policies have been made in accordance with these coverage-in-place and other agreements. All of these agreements include provisions for mutual releases, indemnification of the insurer and, for coverage-in-place, claims handling procedures. With the agreements, the Company has concluded settlements with all but one of its solvent excess insurers whose policies are expected to respond to the aggregate costs included in the updated liability estimate. That insurer, which issued a single applicable policy, has been paying the shares of defense and indemnity costs the Company has allocated to it, subject to a reservation of rights. There are no pending legal proceedings between the Company and any insurer contesting the Company's asbestos claims under its insurance policies. In conjunction with developing the aggregate liability estimate, the Company also developed an estimate of probable insurance recoveries for its asbestos liabilities. In developing this estimate, the Company considered its coverage-in-place and other settlement agreements, as well as a number of additional factors. These additional factors include the financial viability of the insurance companies, the method by which losses will be allocated to the various insurance policies and the years covered by those policies, how settlement and defense costs will be covered by the insurance policies and interpretation of the effect on coverage of various policy terms and limits and their interrelationships. In addition, the timing and amount of reimbursements will vary because the Company's insurance coverage for asbestos claims involves multiple insurers, with different policy terms and certain gaps in coverage. In addition to consulting with legal counsel on these insurance matters, the Company retained insurance consultants to assist management in the estimation of probable insurance recoveries based upon the aggregate liability estimate and assuming the continued viability of all solvent insurance carriers. Based upon the analysis of policy terms and other factors noted by the Company's legal counsel, and incorporating risk mitigation judgments by the Company where policy terms or other factors were not certain, the Company's insurance consultants compiled a model indicating how the Company's historical insurance policies would respond to varying levels of asbestos settlement and defense costs and the allocation of such costs between such insurers and the Company. Using the estimated liability as of December 31, 2011 (for claims filed or expected to be filed through 2021), the insurance consultant's model forecasted that approximately 25% of the liability would be reimbursed by the Company's insurers. While there are overall limits on the aggregate amount of insurance available to the Company with respect to asbestos claims, those overall limits were not reached by the total estimated liability currently recorded by the Company, and such overall limits did not influence the Company in its determination of the asset amount to record. The proportion of the asbestos liability that is allocated to certain insurance coverage years, however, exceeds the limits of available insurance in those years. The Company allocates to itself the amount of the asbestos liability (for claims filed or expected to be filed through 2021) that is in excess of available insurance coverage allocated to such years. An asset of $225 million was recorded as of December 31, 2011 representing the probable insurance reimbursement for such claims expected through 2021. The asset is reduced as reimbursements and other payments from insurers are received. The asset was $147 million as of December 31, 2014. The Company reviews the aforementioned estimated reimbursement rate with its insurance consultants on a periodic basis in order to confirm its overall consistency with the Company's established reserves. The reviews encompass consideration of the performance of the insurers under coverage-in-place agreements and the effect of any additional lump-sum payments under policy buyout agreements. Since December 2011, there have been no developments that have caused the Company to change the estimated 25% rate, although actual insurance reimbursements vary from period to period, and will decline over time, for the reasons cited. Uncertainties. Estimation of the Company's ultimate exposure for asbestos-related claims is subject to significant uncertainties, as there are multiple variables that can affect the timing, severity and quantity of claims and the manner of their resolution. The Company cautions that its estimated liability is based on assumptions with respect to future claims, settlement and defense costs based on past experience that may not prove reliable as predictors. A significant upward or downward trend in the number of claims filed, depending on the nature of the alleged injury, the jurisdiction where filed and the quality of the product identification, or a significant upward or downward trend in the costs of defending claims, could change the estimated liability, as would substantial adverse verdicts at trial that withstand appeal. A legislative solution, structured settlement transaction, or significant change in relevant case law could also change the estimated liability. The same factors that affect developing estimates of probable settlement and defense costs for asbestos-related liabilities also affect estimates of the probable insurance reimbursements, as do a number of additional factors. These additional factors include the financial viability of the insurance companies, the method by which losses will be allocated to the various insurance policies and the years covered by those policies, how settlement and defense costs will be covered by the insurance policies and interpretation of the effect on coverage of various policy terms and limits and their interrelationships. In addition, due to the uncertainties inherent in litigation matters, no assurances can be given regarding the outcome of any litigation, if necessary, to enforce the Company's rights under its insurance policies or settlement agreements. Many uncertainties exist surrounding asbestos litigation, and the Company will continue to evaluate its estimated asbestos-related liability and corresponding estimated insurance reimbursement as well as the underlying assumptions and process used to derive these amounts. These uncertainties may result in the Company incurring future charges or increases to income to adjust the carrying value of recorded liabilities and assets, particularly if the number of claims and settlement and defense costs change significantly, or if there are significant developments in the trend of case law or court procedures, or if legislation or another alternative solution is implemented; however, the Company is currently unable to estimate such future changes and, accordingly, while it is probable that the Company will incur additional charges for asbestos liabilities and defense costs in excess of the amounts currently provided, the Company does not believe that any such amount can be reasonably determined beyond 2021. Although the resolution of these claims may take many years, the effect on the results of operations, financial position and cash flow in any given period from a revision to these estimates could be material. Crane Co. (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics, non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV), transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical, pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling equipment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: GATX Corp. Had 104 Fibro Cases at Jan. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------- There were 104 asbestos-related cases pending against GATX Corporation and its subsidiaries as of January 31, 2015, 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: "Several of our subsidiaries have also been named as defendants or co-defendants in cases alleging injury caused by exposure to asbestos. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages based on common law, statutory, or premises liability or, in the case of ASC, the Jones Act, which provides limited remedies to certain maritime employees. As of January 31, 2015, there were 104 asbestos-related cases pending against GATX and its subsidiaries. Of the total number of pending cases, 87 are Jones Act claims, most of which were filed against ASC before the year 2000. During 2014, 7 new cases were filed, and 34 cases were dismissed without payment or otherwise settled for an immaterial amount. In addition, demand has been made against GATX for asbestos-related claims under limited indemnities given in connection with the sale of certain of our former subsidiaries. It is possible that the number of these cases or claims for indemnity could begin to grow and that the cost of these cases, including costs to defend, could correspondingly increase in the future." GATX Corporation (GATX) leases, operates, manages and remarkets assets, primarily in the rail and marine markets. The Company operates through four primary business segments: Rail North America, Rail International, American Steamship Company (ASC) and Portfolio Management. Rail North America segment consists of its wholly owned operations in the United States, Canada, and Mexico, as well as two affiliate investments. Rail International segment consists of its wholly owned European operations (Rail Europe) and an established railcar leasing business in India (Rail India), as well as one development stage affiliate in China. ASC segment operates a fleet of Unied States flagged vessels on the Great Lakes, providing waterborne transportation of dry bulk commodities such as iron ore, coal, limestone aggregates, and metallurgical limestone. Portfolio Management segment provides leasing, shipping, asset remarketing and asset management services. ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSA Safety Has 2,326 Product Liability Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- MSA Safety Inc. had 2,326 asbestos-related cumulative trauma product liability lawsuits, 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: "MSA LLC, a subsidiary of MSA Safety Incorporated (formerly Mine Safety Appliances Company), categorizes the product liability losses that its various subsidiaries experience into two main categories: single incident and cumulative trauma. Single incident product liability claims are discrete incidents that are typically known to us when they occur and involve observable injuries which provide an objective basis for quantifying damages. MSA LLC estimates its liability for single incident product liability claims based on expected settlement costs for pending claims and an estimate of costs for unreported claims. The estimate for unreported claims is based on experience, sales volumes and other relevant information. The reserve for single incident product liability claims at December 31, 2014 and 2013 was $3.5 million and $4.0 million, respectively. Single incident product liability expense during the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013 was not significant. Single incident product liability exposures are evaluated on an ongoing basis and adjustments are made to the reserve as appropriate. "Cumulative trauma product liability claims involve exposures to harmful substances (e.g., silica, asbestos and coal dust) that occurred many years ago and may have developed over long periods of time into diseases such as silicosis, asbestosis, or coal worker's pneumoconiosis. MSA LLC is presently named as a defendant in 2,326 lawsuits, some of which involve multiple plaintiffs. In these lawsuits, plaintiffs allege to have contracted certain cumulative trauma diseases related to exposure to silica, asbestos, and/or coal dust. These lawsuits mainly involve respiratory protection products allegedly manufactured and sold by MSA LLC or its predecessors. "As of December 31, 2014, the Company had 2,326 cumulative trauma product liability lawsuits. "More than half of the open lawsuits at December 31, 2014 have had a de minimis level of activity over the last 5 years. It is possible that these cases could become active again at any point due to changes in circumstances. "Cumulative trauma product liability litigation has been difficult to predict. In our experience, until late in a lawsuit, we cannot reasonably determine whether it is probable that any of MSA LLC's cumulative trauma lawsuits will ultimately result in a liability. This uncertainty is caused by many factors, including the following: cumulative trauma complaints generally do not provide information sufficient to determine if a loss is probable; cumulative trauma litigation is inherently unpredictable; and information is often insufficient to determine if a lawsuit will develop into an actively litigated case. Even when a case is actively litigated, it is often difficult to determine if the lawsuit will be dismissed or otherwise resolved until late in the lawsuit. Moreover, even once it is probable that such a lawsuit will result in a loss, it is often difficult to reasonably estimate the amount of actual loss that will be incurred. These amounts are highly variable and turn on a case-by-case analysis of the relevant facts, which are often not learned until late in the lawsuit. Consequently, MSA LLC has historically been unable to estimate its cumulative trauma product liability exposure. "As part of the company's ongoing assessment of the ability to estimate MSA LLC's cumulative trauma product liability exposure for both pending and unasserted claims, in the 2014 third quarter, MSA LLC engaged an outside valuation consultant to assist with this effort. This assessment was based on MSA LLC's cumulative claims experience, including recent claims trends, and the development of enhanced claims data analytics. The analysis focused on claims made or resolved over the last several years as these claims are likely to best represent future claim characteristics. "After extensive review by the valuation consultant, MSA LLC and its outside counsel, it was determined that MSA LLC cannot estimate its liability for cumulative trauma product liability claims. This is a result of numerous factors, including annual claims levels and indemnity payments that are highly variable and a lack of consistency in the source of the claims. MSA LLC will continue to regularly evaluate its ability to estimate its cumulative trauma product liability exposure. "During the 2014 fourth quarter and into January 2015, MSA LLC settled a number of cumulative trauma cases for $71.8 million, the vast majority of which were insured. The impact of these settlements has been reflected in MSA Safety Incorporated's 2014 financial statements and in the roll-forward of lawsuits. As a result of these settlements, at December 31, 2014, the cumulative trauma product liability reserve totaled $74.9 million, most of which will be paid equally over four quarters, beginning in the 2015 third quarter and ending in the 2016 second quarter. Of this amount, $35.1 million was recorded in other non-current liabilities and the remainder was recorded in the insurance and product liability line in the current liabilities section of the consolidated balance sheet. The cumulative trauma product liability reserve totaled $5.6 million at December 31, 2013. All of this amount was recorded in the insurance and product liability line in the other current liabilities section of the consolidated balance sheet. Because litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties, and unfavorable rulings or developments could occur, there can be no certainty that MSA LLC may not ultimately incur charges in excess of presently recorded liabilities. Our aggregate cumulative trauma product liability losses and administrative and defense costs for the three years ended December 31, 2014, totaled approximately $169.6 million, substantially all of which was insured." MSA Safety Inc., formerly Mine Safety Appliances Company, is engaged in the development, manufacture and supply of products that protect people's health and safety. The Company's line of safety products is used by workers worldwide in the fire service, homeland security, oil and gas, construction and other industries, as well as the military. Its product offering includes self- contained breathing apparatus (SCBAs), gas masks, gas detection instruments, head protection, respirators, thermal imaging cameras, fall protection and ballistic helmets. The Company also offers consumer and contractor safety products through retail channels. Its safety products integrate any combination of electronics, mechanical systems and advanced materials to protect users against hazardous or life threatening situations. Its Safety Works, LLC joint venture provides a range of safety products and gloves to the North American do-it-yourself and independent contractor market through various channels. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cliffs Natural Resources Has 50 Fibro Cases ------------------------------------------------------------ Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. is a named defendant in 50 asbestos- related cases, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. The Company states: "The Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Company and/or The Cleveland-Cliffs Steamship Company have been named defendants in 489 actions brought from 1986 to date by former seamen claiming damages for various illnesses allegedly suffered as the result of exposure to airborne asbestos fibers while serving as crew members aboard the vessels previously owned or managed by our entities until the mid-1980s. All of these actions have been consolidated into multidistrict proceedings in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, along with approximately 30,000 other cases from various jurisdictions that were filed against other defendants. Through a series of court orders, the docket has been reduced to approximately 3,500 active cases. We are a named defendant in approximately 50 cases. These cases are in the discovery phase. The court has dismissed the remainder of the cases without prejudice. Those dismissed cases could be reinstated upon application by plaintiffs' counsel. The claims against our entities are insured in amounts that vary by policy year; however, the manner in which coverage will be applied remains uncertain. Our entities continue to vigorously contest these claims and have made no settlements on them." Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. is an international mining and natural resources company. The Company is an iron ore producer and a producer of metallurgical coal. The Company's operations are organized according to product category and geographic location: U.S. Iron Ore, Eastern Canadian Iron Ore, North American Coal, Asia Pacific Iron Ore, Asia Pacific Coal, Latin American Iron Ore, Ferroalloys, and its Global Exploration Group. The Company operates in four segments: U.S. Iron Ore, Eastern Canadian Iron Ore, North American Coal and Asia Pacific Iron Ore. In the United States, it operates five iron ore mines in Michigan and Minnesota, five metallurgical coal mines located in West Virginia and Alabama and one thermal coal mine located in West Virginia. It also operates two iron ore mines in Eastern Canada that primarily provide iron ore to the seaborne market for Asian steel producers. ASBESTOS UPDATE: XL Group Had 1,399 Claim Files at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------- XL Group plc had 1,399 open claim files for potential discontinued asbestos claims exposures, 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's reserving process includes a continuing evaluation of the potential impact on unpaid liabilities from exposure to discontinued asbestos and run-off environmental claims, including related loss adjustment expenses. Liabilities are established to cover both known and incurred but not reported claims. The Company's reserving and exposures to environmental liability business currently written within the NAPC and IPC business groups are not included in this note, which only relates to specific discontinued and/or run-off coverages that were not originally written specifically to cover environmental hazards. The Company's exposure to discontinued asbestos and run-off environmental claims arises from the following three sources: (1) Reinsurance contracts written, both on a proportional and excess basis, after 1972. The Company discontinued writing contracts with these exposures in 1985. Business written was across many different policies, each with a relatively small contract limit. The Company's reported asbestos claims relate to both traditional products and premises and operations coverage. (2) Winterthur -- business of Winterthur purchased by the Company from AXA Insurance (formerly Winterthur Swiss Insurance Company) in 2001. Pursuant to the Sale and Purchase Agreement and related agreements, AXA Insurance reimburses the Company for all asbestos losses. (3) During 2006, the Company acquired $40.2 million in losses through a loss portfolio transfer contract of which $18.3 million in losses related to asbestos and environmental claims. Given the terms of the policy, the combined aggregate limit on the total acquired reserves is limited to $60.0 million, not including coverage for claims handling costs over a defined period. The Company's gross unpaid losses and loss expenses at end of year 2014 was $181,953 thousand. Reserves for incurred but not reported losses, net of reinsurance, were $49.3 million, $48.6 million and $52.2 million at December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively. Unpaid losses recoverable are net of potential uncollectible amounts. At December 31, 2014, the Company had 1,399 open claim files for potential discontinued asbestos claims exposures and 459 open claim files for potential run-off environmental claims exposures. Approximately 46%, 37% and 42% of the open claim files are due to precautionary claim notices in 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively. Precautionary claim notices are submitted by the ceding companies in order to preserve their right to receive coverage under the reinsurance contract. The increase in open claim files during 2014 was largely due to internal changes in how claims reported in previous years were classified, which resulted in a higher number of precautionary claims opened during the year. Such notices do not contain an incurred loss amount to the Company. The development of the number of open claim files for potential discontinued asbestos were 1,399. The Company's reserving process includes a continuing evaluation of the potential impact on unpaid liabilities from exposure to discontinued asbestos and run-off environmental claims, including related loss adjustment expenses. Liabilities are established to cover both known and incurred but not reported claims. The estimation of loss and loss expense liabilities for discontinued asbestos and run-off environmental exposures is subject to much greater uncertainty than is normally associated with the establishment of liabilities for certain other exposures due to several factors, including: (i) uncertain legal interpretation and application of insurance and reinsurance coverage and liability; (ii) the lack of reliability of available historical claims data as an indicator of future claims development; (iii) an uncertain political climate which may impact, among other areas, the nature and amount of costs for remediating waste sites; and (iv) the potential of insurers and reinsurers to reach agreements in order to avoid further significant legal costs. Due to the potential significance of these uncertainties, the Company believes that no meaningful range of loss and loss expense liabilities beyond recorded reserves can be established. As the Company's net unpaid loss and loss expense reserves related to discontinued asbestos and run-off environmental exposures are less than 1% of the total net reserves at December 31, 2014 and 2013, further adverse development is not expected to be material to the Company's overall net loss reserves. The Company believes it has made reasonable provision for its discontinued asbestos and run-off environmental exposures and is unaware of any specific issues that would significantly affect its estimate for loss and loss expenses. XL Group plc, through its subsidiaries, is a global insurance and reinsurance company providing property, casualty and specialty products to industrial, commercial and professional firms, insurance companies and other enterprises on a worldwide basis. ASBESTOS UPDATE: AFG Had $366-Mil. A&E Reserves at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------- American Financial Group, Inc.'s property and casualty group's gross asbestos and environmental-related ("A&E") reserves was $366 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. Asbestos reserves include claims asserting alleged injuries and damages from exposure to asbestos. Environmental reserves include claims relating to polluted waste sites. Asbestos claims against manufacturers, distributors or installers of asbestos products were presented under the products liability section of their policies which typically had aggregate limits that capped an insurer's liability. In recent years, a number of asbestos claims are being presented as "non-products" claims, such as those by installers of asbestos products and by property owners or operators who allegedly had asbestos on their property, under the premises or operations section of their policies. Unlike products exposures, these non-products exposures typically had no aggregate limits, creating potentially greater exposure for insurers. Further, in an effort to seek additional insurance coverage, some insureds with installation activities who have substantially eroded their products coverage are presenting new asbestos claims as non-products operations claims or attempting to reclassify previously settled products claims as non-products claims to restore a portion of previously exhausted products aggregate limits. AFG, along with other insurers, is and will be subject to such non-products claims. It is difficult to predict whether insureds will be successful in asserting claims under non- products coverage or whether AFG and other insurers will be successful in asserting additional defenses. Therefore, the future impact of such efforts is uncertain. Approximately 39% of AFG's net asbestos reserves relate to policies written directly by AFG subsidiaries. Claims from these policies generally are product oriented claims with only a limited amount of non-products exposures, and are dominated by small to mid-sized commercial entities that are mostly regional policyholders with few national target defendants. The remainder is assumed reinsurance business that includes exposures for the periods 1954 to 1983. The asbestos and environmental assumed claims are ceded by various insurance companies under reinsurance treaties. A majority of the individual assumed claims have exposures of less than $100,000 to AFG. Asbestos losses assumed include some of the industry known manufacturers, distributors and installers. Pollution losses include industry known insured names and sites. Establishing reserves for A&E claims relating to policies and participations in reinsurance treaties and former operations is subject to uncertainties that are significantly greater than those presented by other types of claims. For this group of claims, traditional actuarial techniques that rely on historical loss development trends cannot be used and a range of reasonably possible losses cannot be estimated. Case reserves and expense reserves are established by the claims department as specific policies are identified. In addition to the case reserves established for known claims, management establishes additional reserves for claims not yet known or reported and for possible development on known claims. These additional reserves are management's best estimate based on periodic comprehensive studies and internal reviews adjusted for payments and identifiable changes, supplemented by management's review of industry information about such claims, with due consideration to individual claim situations. Management believes that estimating the ultimate liability for asbestos claims presents a unique and difficult challenge to the insurance industry due to, among other things, inconsistent court decisions, an increase in bankruptcy filings as a result of asbestos-related liabilities, novel theories of coverage, and judicial interpretations that often expand theories of recovery and broaden the scope of coverage. The casualty insurance industry is engaged in extensive litigation over these coverage and liability issues as the volume and severity of claims against asbestos defendants continue to increase. Environmental claims likewise present challenges in prediction, due to uncertainty regarding the interpretation of insurance policies, complexities regarding multi-party involvements at sites, evolving cleanup standards and protracted time periods required to assess the level of cleanup required at contaminated sites. The following factors could impact AFG's reserves and payments: * There is a growing interest at the state level to attempt to legislatively address asbestos liabilities and the manner in which asbestos claims are resolved. These developments are fluid and could result in piecemeal state-by-state solutions. * The manner by which bankruptcy courts are addressing asbestos liabilities is in flux. * AFG's insureds may make claims alleging significant non- products exposures. While management believes that AFG's reserves for A&E claims are a reasonable estimate of ultimate liability for such claims, actual results may vary materially from the amounts currently recorded due to the difficulty in predicting the number of future claims, the impact of recent bankruptcy filings, and unresolved issues such as whether coverage exists, whether policies are subject to aggregate limits on coverage, how claims are to be allocated among triggered policies and implicated years, and whether claimants who exhibit no signs of illness will be successful in pursuing their claims. A 1% variation in loss cost trends, caused by any of the factors, would change net income by approximately $13 million. AFG tracks its A&E claims by policyholder. Policyholder counts represent policies written by AFG subsidiaries and do not include assumed reinsurance. The Company had 310 total A&E policyholders were 310 for the year ended December 31, 2014. The Company paid a total of $36 million for asbestos and environmental claims, including loss adjustment expenses. The survival ratio is a measure often used by industry analysts to compare A&E reserves strength among companies. This ratio is typically calculated by dividing reserves for A&E exposures by the three year average of paid losses, and therefore measures the number of years that it would take to pay off current reserves based on recent average payments. Because this ratio can be significantly impacted by a number of factors such as loss payout variability, caution should be exercised in attempting to determine reserve adequacy based simply on the survival ratio. At December 31, 2014, the property and casualty insurance segment's three year survival ratios, excluding amounts associated with the settlements of A.P. Green Industries and another large claim, were 14.2 times paid losses for the asbestos reserves, 5.8 times paid losses for environmental reserves and 9.6 times paid losses for total A&E reserves. Overall, these ratios compare favorably with data published by A.M. Best in December 2014, which indicate that industry survival ratios were 10.1 for asbestos, 6.3 for environmental, and 9.1 for total A&E reserves at December 31, 2013. AFG has periodically conducted comprehensive external studies of its asbestos and environmental exposures relating to the run-off operations of its property and casualty insurance segment and exposures related to its former railroad and manufacturing operations with the aid of specialty actuarial, engineering and consulting firms and outside counsel, generally every two years, with an in-depth internal review during the intervening years. An in-depth internal review of AFG's A&E reserves was completed in the third quarter of 2014 by AFG's internal A&E claims specialists and actuaries in consultation with specialty outside counsel and an outside consultant. As a result of the review, AFG's property and casualty insurance segment recorded a $24 million pretax special charge to increase its asbestos reserves by $4 million (net of reinsurance) and its environmental reserves by $20 million (net of reinsurance). As the overall industry exposure to asbestos has matured, the focus of litigation has shifted to smaller companies and companies with ancillary exposures. AFG's insureds with these exposures have been the driver of the property and casualty segment's asbestos reserve increases in recent years. The increase in property and casualty environmental reserves was attributed primarily to AFG's increased defense costs and a number of claims where the estimated costs of remediation have increased. There were no newly identified or emerging broad industry trends that management believes would significantly impact the overall adequacy of AFG's A&E reserves. As a result of the comprehensive external study completed in the third quarter of 2013, AFG's property and casualty insurance segment recorded a $54 million pretax special charge to increase its asbestos reserves by $16 million (net of reinsurance) and its environmental reserves by $38 million (net of reinsurance). The increase in the property and casualty segment's asbestos reserves was driven primarily by slightly higher than expected loss experience, higher defense costs and some increased claim severity. The increase in property and casualty environmental reserves was attributed primarily to a small number of claims where the estimated costs of remediation have increased. As a result of the in-depth internal review completed in 2012, AFG recorded a $31 million pretax special charge to increase the property and casualty segment's asbestos reserves by $19 million (net of reinsurance) and its environmental reserves by $12 million (net of reinsurance). The charge relates primarily to an increase in environmental investigative costs and related loss adjustment expenses. American Financial Group, Inc. (AFG) is a holding company, which through subsidiaries, is engaged primarily in property and casualty insurance, focusing on specialized commercial products for businesses and in the sale of traditional fixed and fixed- indexed annuities in the individual, bank and education markets. The Company's segment includes: property and casualty insurance, annuity, run-off long-term care and life and other. In April 2014, the Company announced that it has completed the purchase of Summit Holding Southeast Inc and its related companies from Liberty Mutual Insurance. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Entergy Corp. Has 400 Fibro Exposure Suits ----------------------------------------------------------- Entergy Corporation has 400 asbestos-related lawsuits, 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. Numerous lawsuits have been filed in federal and state courts primarily in Texas and Louisiana, primarily by contractor employees who worked in the 1940-1980s timeframe, against Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Texas, and to a lesser extent the other Utility operating companies, as premises owners of power plants, for damages caused by alleged exposure to asbestos. Many other defendants are named in these lawsuits as well. Currently, there are approximately 400 lawsuits involving approximately 4,000 claimants. Management believes that adequate provisions have been established to cover any exposure. Additionally, negotiations continue with insurers to recover reimbursements. Management believes that loss exposure has been and will continue to be handled so that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not be material, in the aggregate, to the financial position, results of operation, or cash flows of the Utility operating companies. Entergy Corporation is an integrated energy company engaged primarily in electric power production and retail electric distribution operations. Entergy owns and operates power plants with approximately 30,000 MW of aggregate electric generating capacity, including nearly 10,000 MW of nuclear-fueled capacity. Entergy's Utility business delivers electricity to 2.8 million utility customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4 Fibro Suits vs. Transocean Ltd. Remain in La. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Four asbestos-related lawsuits remain pending against Transocean Ltd. and its subsidiaries, 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: "In 2004, several of our subsidiaries were named, along with numerous other unaffiliated defendants, in 21 complaints filed on behalf of 769 plaintiffs in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi and which claimed injuries arising out of exposure to asbestos allegedly contained in drilling mud during these plaintiffs' employment in drilling activities between 1965 and 1986. The complaints generally allege that the defendants used or manufactured asbestos containing drilling mud additives for use in connection with drilling operations and have included allegations of negligence, products liability, strict liability and claims allowed under the Jones Act and general maritime law. In each of these cases, the complaints have named other unaffiliated defendant companies, including companies that allegedly manufactured the drilling-related products that contained asbestos. The plaintiffs generally seek awards of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, but the court- appointed special master has ruled that a Jones Act employer defendant, such as us, cannot be sued for punitive damages. After ten years of litigation, this group of cases has been winnowed to the point where now only 15 plaintiffs' individual claims remaining pending in Mississippi in which we have or may have an interest. "During the year ended December 31, 2014, a group of lawsuits premised on the same allegations as those in Mississippi were filed in Louisiana. As of December 31, 2014, 20 plaintiffs have claims pending against one or more of our subsidiaries in four different lawsuits in Louisiana. "We intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously, although we can provide no assurance as to the outcome. We historically have maintained broad liability insurance, although we are not certain whether insurance will cover the liabilities, if any, arising out of these claims. Based on our evaluation of the exposure to date, we do not expect the liability, if any, resulting from these claims to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows." Transocean Ltd. is an international provider of offshore contract drilling services for oil and gas wells. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Ltd. Unit Has 902 Exposure Suits ------------------------------------------------------------ One of Transocean Ltd.'s subsidiaries was a defendant in 902 asbestos-related lawsuits, 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: "One of our subsidiaries was involved in lawsuits arising out of the subsidiary's involvement in the design, construction and refurbishment of major industrial complexes. The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold and its operations discontinued in 1989, and the subsidiary has no remaining assets other than the insurance policies involved in its litigation, with its insurers and, either directly or indirectly through a qualified settlement fund. The subsidiary has been named as a defendant, along with numerous other companies, in lawsuits alleging bodily injury or personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. As of December 31, 2014, the subsidiary was a defendant in approximately 902 lawsuits, some of which include multiple plaintiffs, and we estimate that there are approximately 1,702 plaintiffs in these lawsuits. For many of these lawsuits, we have not been provided with sufficient information from the plaintiffs to determine whether all or some of the plaintiffs have claims against the subsidiary, the basis of any such claims, or the nature of their alleged injuries. The first of the asbestos- related lawsuits was filed against the subsidiary in 1990. Through December 31, 2014, the costs incurred to resolve claims, including both defense fees and expenses and settlement costs, have not been material, all known deductibles have been satisfied or are inapplicable, and the subsidiary's defense fees and expenses and settlement costs have been met by insurance made available to the subsidiary. The subsidiary continues to be named as a defendant in additional lawsuits, and we cannot predict the number of additional cases in which it may be named a defendant nor can we predict the potential costs to resolve such additional cases or to resolve the pending cases. However, the subsidiary has in excess of $1.0 billion in insurance limits potentially available to the subsidiary. Although not all of the policies may be fully available due to the insolvency of certain insurers, we believe that the subsidiary will have sufficient funding directly or indirectly from settlements and claims payments from insurers, assigned rights from insurers and coverage-in-place settlement agreements with insurers to respond to these claims. While we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the outcome of these matters, we do not believe that the ultimate liability, if any, arising from these claims will have a material impact on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows." Transocean Ltd. is an international provider of offshore contract drilling services for oil and gas wells. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Watts Water Has 240 Fibro Suits at Dec. 31 ----------------------------------------------------------- Watts Water Technologies, Inc., is defending 240 asbestos-related lawsuits, 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 defending approximately 240 lawsuits in different jurisdictions, alleging injury or death as a result of exposure to asbestos. The complaints in these cases typically name a large number of defendants and do not identify any of our particular products as a source of asbestos exposure. As of December 31, 2014, discovery has failed to yield evidence of substantial exposure to any of our products and no judgments have been entered against us." Watts Water Technologies, Inc. (Watts) is a provider of water quality, water conservation, water safety and water flow control products for the residential and commercial markets in the Americas and EMEA (Europe, Middle East and Africa). The Company operates in Americas, EMEA and Asia Pacific. The Company's manufacturing facilities, such as Mexico, China, Bulgaria and Tunisia. The Company sells its products to plumbing, heating and mechanical wholesale distributors, do-it-yourself (DIY) and original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). The Company's products include Residential and commercial flow control, heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) and gas, Drains and water re-use, and Water quality products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Had 7,975 Fibro Exposure Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- TriMas Corporation had 7,975 pending 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. As of December 31, 2014, the Company was a party to 1,109 pending cases involving an aggregate of 7,992 claimants primarily alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos containing materials formerly used in gaskets (both encapsulated and otherwise) manufactured or distributed by certain of its subsidiaries for use primarily in the petrochemical refining and exploration industries. For the year ended December 31, 2014, the Company had 7,975 pending claims. In addition, the Company acquired various companies to distribute its products that had distributed gaskets of other manufacturers prior to acquisition. The Company believes that many of the pending cases relate to locations at which none of its gaskets were distributed or used. The Company may be subjected to significant additional asbestos- related claims in the future, the cost of settling cases in which product identification can be made may increase, and the Company may be subjected to further claims in respect of the former activities of its acquired gasket distributors. The Company is unable to make a meaningful statement concerning the monetary claims made in the asbestos cases given that, among other things, claims may be initially made in some jurisdictions without specifying the amount sought or by simply stating the requisite or maximum permissible monetary relief, and may be amended to alter the amount sought. The large majority of claims do not specify the amount sought. Of the 7,992 claims pending at December 31, 2014, 117 set forth specific amounts of damages (other than those stating the statutory minimum or maximum). In addition, relatively few of the claims have reached the discovery stage and even fewer claims have gone past the discovery stage. Total settlement costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all such cases, some of which were filed over 20 years ago, have been approximately $7.4 million. All relief sought in the asbestos cases is monetary in nature. To date, approximately 40% of the Company's costs related to settlement and defense of asbestos litigation have been covered by its primary insurance. Effective February 14, 2006, the Company entered into a coverage-in-place agreement with its first level excess carriers regarding the coverage to be provided to the Company for asbestos-related claims when the primary insurance is exhausted. The coverage-in-place agreement makes asbestos defense costs and indemnity insurance coverage available to the Company that might otherwise be disputed by the carriers and provides a methodology for the administration of such expenses. Nonetheless, the Company believes it is likely that there will be a period within the next one or two years, prior to the commencement of coverage under this agreement and following exhaustion of the Company's primary insurance coverage, during which the Company likely will be solely responsible for defense costs and indemnity payments, the duration of which would be subject to the scope of damage awards and settlements paid. Based on the settlements made to date and the number of claims dismissed or withdrawn for lack of product identification, the Company believes that the relief sought (when specified) does not bear a reasonable relationship to its potential liability. Based upon the Company's experience to date, including the trend in annual defense and settlement costs incurred to date, and other available information (including the availability of excess insurance), the Company does not believe that these cases will have a material adverse effect on its financial position and results of operations or cash flows. TriMas Corporation is a global designer, manufacturer and distributor of applied products for commercial, industrial and consumer markets. The Company provides the foundation for determining its priorities, executing its growth and productivity initiatives, and allocating capital. It operates six segments: Packaging, designs, manufactures and distributes specialty, highly-engineered closure and dispensing systems for end markets; Energy, manufactures and distributes metallic and non-metallic gaskets, bolts, industrial fasteners and specialty products for industrial markets; Aerospace and Defense, design and manufacture products for use in focused markets; Engineered Components, design, manufacture and distribute high-pressure and low-pressure cylinders for the transportation, storage and dispensing of compressed gases; Cequent APEA and Cequent Americas, design, manufacture and distribute custom-engineered towing, trailer and cargo management products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Markel Corp. Had $290.1-Mil. Fibro Reserves ------------------------------------------------------------ Markel Corporation recorded $290.1 million for asbestos-related reserves, 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, 2014, asbestos-related reserves were $290.1 million and $218.9 million on a gross and net basis, respectively. Net reserves for reported claims and net incurred but not reported reserves for A&E exposures were $173.8 million and $113.9 million, respectively, at December 31, 2014. Inception-to-date net paid losses and loss adjustment expenses for A&E related exposures totaled $415.7 million at December 31, 2014, which includes $85.7 million of litigation-related expense. The Company's reserves for losses and loss adjustment expenses related to A&E exposures represent management's best estimate of ultimate settlement values. A&E reserves are monitored by management, and the Company's statistical analysis of these reserves is reviewed by the Company's independent actuaries. A&E exposures are subject to significant uncertainty due to potential loss severity and frequency resulting from the uncertain and unfavorable legal climate. A&E reserves could be subject to increases in the future; however, management believes the Company's gross and net A&E reserves at December 31, 2014 are adequate. Markel Corporation is financial holding company serving a markets. The Company markets and underwrites specialty insurance products. It also own interests in various industrial and service businesses that operate outside of the specialty insurance marketplace. The Company operates in four segments: Excess and Surplus Lines, Specialty Admitted, London markets and Alterra segment. Excess and Surplus Lines business is written through two distribution channels, professional surplus lines general agents who have limited quoting and binding authority and wholesale brokers. Specialty Admitted business is written by retail insurance agents who have limited underwriting authority. London Insurance Market segment participates in the London market through Markel International. Alterra segment provides specialty insurance and reinsurance products to corporations, public entities and other property and casualty insurers. ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Inc. Had 68,460 PI Claims at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------- MetLife, Inc., had 68,460 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. MLIC is and has been a defendant in a large number of asbestos- related suits filed primarily in state courts. These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages. MLIC has never engaged in the business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products nor has MLIC issued liability or workers' compensation insurance to companies in the business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products. The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with respect to certain research, publication and other activities of one or more of MLIC's employees during the period from the 1920's through approximately the 1950's and allege that MLIC learned or should have learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among other things, improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health risks. MLIC believes that it should not have legal liability in these cases. The outcome of most asbestos litigation matters, however, is uncertain and can be impacted by numerous variables, including differences in legal rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims asserted against MLIC. MLIC employs a number of resolution strategies to manage its asbestos loss exposure, including seeking resolution of pending litigation by judicial rulings and settling individual or groups of claims or lawsuits under appropriate circumstances. Claims asserted against MLIC have included negligence, intentional tort and conspiracy concerning the health risks associated with asbestos. MLIC's defenses (beyond denial of certain factual allegations) include that: (i) MLIC owed no duty to the plaintiffs -- it had no special relationship with the plaintiffs and did not manufacture, produce, distribute or sell the asbestos products that allegedly injured plaintiffs; (ii) plaintiffs did not rely on any actions of MLIC; (iii) MLIC's conduct was not the cause of the plaintiffs' injuries; (iv) plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the dangers of asbestos were known; and (v) the applicable time with respect to filing suit has expired. During the course of the litigation, certain trial courts have granted motions dismissing claims against MLIC, while other trial courts have denied MLIC's motions. There can be no assurance that MLIC will receive favorable decisions on motions in the future. While most cases brought to date have settled, MLIC intends to continue to defend aggressively against claims based on asbestos exposure, including defending claims at trials. For the year ended December 31, 2014, the Company had 68,460 asbestos-related personal injury claims. The number of asbestos cases that may be brought, the aggregate amount of any liability that MLIC may incur, and the total amount paid in settlements in any given year are uncertain and may vary significantly from year to year. The ability of MLIC to estimate its ultimate asbestos exposure is subject to considerable uncertainty, and the conditions impacting its liability can be dynamic and subject to change. The availability of reliable data is limited and it is difficult to predict the numerous variables that can affect liability estimates, including the number of future claims, the cost to resolve claims, the disease mix and severity of disease in pending and future claims, the impact of the number of new claims filed in a particular jurisdiction and variations in the law in the jurisdictions in which claims are filed, the possible impact of tort reform efforts, the willingness of courts to allow plaintiffs to pursue claims against MLIC when exposure to asbestos took place after the dangers of asbestos exposure were well known, and the impact of any possible future adverse verdicts and their amounts. The ability to make estimates regarding ultimate asbestos exposure declines significantly as the estimates relate to years further in the future. In the Company's judgment, there is a future point after which losses cease to be probable and reasonably estimable. It is reasonably possible that the Company's total exposure to asbestos claims may be materially greater than the asbestos liability currently accrued and that future charges to income may be necessary. While the potential future charges could be material in the particular quarterly or annual periods in which they are recorded, based on information currently known by management, management does not believe any such charges are likely to have a material effect on the Company's financial position. The Company believes adequate provision has been made in its consolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonably estimable losses for asbestos-related claims. MLIC's recorded asbestos liability is based on its estimation of the following elements, as informed by the facts presently known to it, its understanding of current law and its past experiences: (i) the probable and reasonably estimable liability for asbestos claims already asserted against MLIC, including claims settled but not yet paid; (ii) the probable and reasonably estimable liability for asbestos claims not yet asserted against MLIC, but which MLIC believes are reasonably probable of assertion; and (iii) the legal defense costs associated with the foregoing claims. Significant assumptions underlying MLIC's analysis of the adequacy of its recorded liability with respect to asbestos litigation include: (i) the number of future claims; (ii) the cost to resolve claims; and (iii) the cost to defend claims. MLIC reevaluates on a quarterly and annual basis its exposure from asbestos litigation, including studying its claims experience, reviewing external literature regarding asbestos claims experience in the United States, assessing relevant trends impacting asbestos liability and considering numerous variables that can affect its asbestos liability exposure on an overall or per claim basis. These variables include bankruptcies of other companies involved in asbestos litigation, legislative and judicial developments, the number of pending claims involving serious disease, the number of new claims filed against it and other defendants and the jurisdictions in which claims are pending. Based upon its reevaluation of its exposure from asbestos litigation, MLIC has updated its liability analysis for asbestos-related claims through December 31, 2014. The frequency and severity of claims relating to asbestos have increased, and MLIC has reflected this in its provisions. Accordingly, MLIC increased its recorded liability for asbestos-related claims to $690 million at December 31, 2014. MetLife, Inc., is a provider of insurance, annuities and employee benefit programs, serving 90 million customers in over 50 countries. Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife operates in the United States, Japan, Latin America, Asia Pacific, Europe and the Middle East. It is organized into six segments: Insurance Products, Retirement Products, Corporate Benefit Funding and Auto & Home (collectively, the United States Business), and Japan and Other International Regions (collectively, International). In addition, the Company reports certain of its results of operations in Corporate & Other, which includes MetLife Bank, National Association (MetLife Bank) and other business activities. The United States Business provides insurance and financial services products, including life, dental, disability, auto and homeowner insurance, guaranteed interest and stable value products, and annuities through independent retail distribution channels, as well as at the workplace. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Noble Corp. Has 42 Fibro Suits at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------- Noble Corporation plc is a defendant in 42 asbestos-related lawsuits, 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 from time to time a party to various lawsuits that are incidental to our operations in which the claimants seek an unspecified amount of monetary damages for personal injury, including injuries purportedly resulting from exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities. At December 31, 2014, there were 42 asbestos related lawsuits in which we are one of many defendants. These lawsuits have been filed in the United States in the states of Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. We intend to vigorously defend against the litigation. We do not believe the ultimate resolution of these matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows." Noble Corporation plc is an offshore drilling contractor for the oil and gas industry. The Company performs contract drilling services through its subsidiaries. In August 2014, the Company announced that it has completed the spin-off of Paragon Offshore plc. ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.W. Grainger Continues to Defend Fibro Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- W.W. Grainger, Inc., continues to defend itself against numerous asbestos-related lawsuits, 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 been named, along with numerous other nonaffiliated companies, as a defendant in litigation in various states involving asbestos and/or silica. These lawsuits typically assert claims of personal injury arising from alleged exposure to asbestos and/or silica as a consequence of products purportedly distributed by the Company. In 2014, the Company was named in new lawsuits relating to asbestos involving approximately 68 new plaintiffs, while lawsuits relating to asbestos and/or silica involving approximately 1,293 plaintiffs were dismissed with respect to the Company, typically based on the lack of product identification. As of January 16, 2015, the Company is named in cases filed on behalf of approximately 1,376 plaintiffs in which there is an allegation of exposure to asbestos and/or silica. The Company has denied, or intends to deny, the allegations in all of the lawsuits. If a specific product distributed by the Company is identified in any of these lawsuits, the Company would attempt to exercise indemnification remedies against the product manufacturer. In addition, the Company believes that a substantial number of these claims are covered by insurance. The Company has entered into agreements with its major insurance carriers relating to the scope, coverage and costs of defense of lawsuits involving claims of exposure to asbestos. While the Company is unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits, it believes that the ultimate resolution will not have, either individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position or results of operations. From time to time the Company is involved in various other legal and administrative proceedings that are incidental to its business, including claims related to product liability, general negligence, contract disputes, environmental issues, wage and hour laws, intellectual property, employment practices, regulatory compliance or other matters and actions brought by employees, consumers, competitors, suppliers or governmental entities. As a government contractor selling to federal, state and local governmental entities, the Company is also subject to governmental or regulatory inquiries or audits or other proceedings, including those related to pricing compliance. It is not expected that the ultimate resolution of any of these matters will have, either individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position or results of operations. W.W. Grainger, Inc., is a broad-line distributor of maintenance, repair and operating (MRO) supplies and other related products and services used by businesses and institutions in the United States and Canada, with a presence in Europe, Asia and Latin America. The Company's two reportable segments are the United States and Canada. Other businesses include operations in Europe, Asia, Latin America and other U.S. operations. The Company serves more than 2 million customers worldwide through a network of integrated branches, distribution centers, websites and export services. The Company has centralized business support functions that provide coordination and guidance in the areas of accounting and finance, business development, communications and investor relations, compensation and benefits, information systems, health and safety, global supply chain functions, human resources, risk management, internal audit, legal, real estate, security, tax and treasury. ASBESTOS UPDATE: FMC Corp. Had 11,000 Fibro Claims at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------- FMC Corporation had 11,000 pending premises and product 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 states: "Like hundreds of other industrial companies, we have been named as one of many defendants in asbestos-related personal injury litigation. Most of these cases allege personal injury or death resulting from exposure to asbestos in premises of FMC or to asbestos-containing components installed in machinery or equipment manufactured or sold by discontinued operations. The machinery and equipment businesses we owned or operated did not fabricate the asbestos-containing component parts at issue in the litigation, and to this day, neither the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration nor the Environmental Protection Agency has banned the use of these components. Further, the asbestos- containing parts for this machinery and equipment were accessible only at the time of infrequent repair and maintenance. A few jurisdictions have permitted claims to proceed against equipment manufacturers relating to insulation installed by other companies on such machinery and equipment. We believe that, overall, the claims against FMC are without merit. "As of December 31, 2014, there were approximately 11,000 premises and product asbestos claims pending against FMC in several jurisdictions. Since the 1980s, approximately 106,000 asbestos claims against FMC have been discharged, the overwhelming majority of which have been dismissed without any payment to the claimant. Since the 1980s, settlements by us with claimants have totaled approximately $63.6 million. "We intend to continue managing these asbestos-related cases in accordance with our historical experience. We have established a reserve for this litigation within our discontinued operations and believe that any exposure of a loss in excess of the established reserve cannot be reasonably estimated. Our experience has been that the overall trends in terms of the rate of filing of asbestos-related claims with respect to all potential defendants has changed over time, and that filing rates as to us in particular have varied significantly over the last several years. We are a peripheral defendant - that is, we have never manufactured asbestos or asbestos-containing components. As a result, claim filing rates against us have yet to form a predictable pattern, and we are unable to project a reasonably accurate future filing rate and thus, we are presently unable to reasonably estimate our asbestos liability with respect to claims that may be filed in the future." FMC Corporation is a diversified chemical company serving agricultural, consumer and industrial markets globally with innovative solutions, applications and market-leading products. The Company operates in three distinct business segments: FMC Agricultural Solutions, FMC Health and Nutrition and FMC Minerals. The Company's FMC Agricultural Solutions segment develops, markets and sells all three major classes of crop protection chemicals: insecticides, herbicides and fungicides. The FMC Health and Nutrition segment focuses on food, pharmaceutical ingredients, nutraceuticals, personal care and similar markets. The Company's food ingredients are used to enhance texture, color, structure and physical stability. The pharmaceutical additives are used for binding, encapsulation and disintegrant applications. The Company's FMC Minerals segment manufactures a wide range of inorganic materials, including soda ash and lithium. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Had 3,821 Fibro Claims at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Albany International Corp., was defending 3,821 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. The Company states: "Albany International Corp. is a defendant in suits brought in various courts in the United States by plaintiffs who allege that they have suffered personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products that we previously manufactured. We produced asbestos-containing paper machine clothing synthetic dryer fabrics marketed during the period from 1967 to 1976 and used in certain paper mills. Such fabrics generally had a useful life of three to twelve months. "We were defending 3,821 claims as of December 31, 2014. "We anticipate that additional claims will be filed against the Company and related companies in the future, but are unable to predict the number and timing of such future claims. "Exposure and disease information sufficient to meaningfully estimate a range of possible loss of a particular claim is typically not available until late in the discovery process, and often not until a trial date is imminent and a settlement demand has been received. For these reasons, we do not believe a meaningful estimate can be made regarding the range of possible loss with respect to pending or future claims. "While we believe we have meritorious defenses to these claims, we have settled certain claims for amounts we consider reasonable given the facts and circumstances of each case. Our insurer, Liberty Mutual, has defended each case and funded settlements under a standard reservation of rights. As of December 31, 2014, we had resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 37,225 claims. The total cost of resolving all claims was $9.2 million. Of this amount, almost 100% was paid by our insurance carrier. The Company's insurer has confirmed that although coverage limits under two (of approximately 23) primary insurance policies have been exhausted, there still remains approximately $3 million in coverage under other applicable primary policies, and $140 million in coverage under excess umbrella coverage policies that should be available for current and future asbestos claims." Albany International Corp., is an advanced textiles and materials processing company. The Company operates through two business segments: The Machine Clothing (MC) segment and The Albany Engineered Composites segment (AEC). The Machine Clothing (MC) segment includes paper machine clothing, engineered fabrics and belts used in the manufacture of paper and paperboard as well as engineered fabrics and belts used in many other industrial applications. The Company is engaged in design, manufacture, and market paper machine clothing for each section of the paper machine. The Albany Engineered Composites segment (AEC), including Albany Safran Composites, LLC (ASC), in which its customer SAFRAN Group owns a 10% noncontrolling interest, provides custom-designed advanced composite structures based on proprietary technology to customers in the aerospace and defense industries. AEC's largest development program relates to the LEAP engine being developed by CFM International. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Had 2,125 Fibro Cases at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Standard Motor Products, Inc., had 2,125 outstanding asbestos- related cases, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. The Company states: "In 1986, we acquired a brake business, which we subsequently sold in March 1998 and which is accounted for as a discontinued operation. When we originally acquired this brake business, we assumed future liabilities relating to any alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured by the seller of the acquired brake business. In accordance with the related purchase agreement, we agreed to assume the liabilities for all new claims filed on or after September 2001. Our ultimate exposure will depend upon the number of claims filed against us on or after September 2001 and the amounts paid for indemnity and defense thereof. At December 31, 2014, approximately 2,125 cases were outstanding for which we may be responsible for any related liabilities. Since inception in September 2001 through December 31, 2014, the amounts paid for settled claims are approximately $17.6 million. "In evaluating our potential asbestos-related liability, we have considered various factors including, among other things, an actuarial study of the asbestos related liabilities performed by an independent actuarial firm, our settlement amounts and whether there are any co-defendants, the jurisdiction in which lawsuits are filed, and the status and results of settlement discussions. As is our accounting policy, we consider the advice of actuarial consultants with experience in assessing asbestos-related liabilities to estimate our potential claim liability. The methodology used to project asbestos-related liabilities and costs in our actuarial study considered: (1) historical data available from publicly available studies; (2) an analysis of our recent claims history to estimate likely filing rates into the future; (3) an analysis of our currently pending claims; and (4) an analysis of our settlements to date in order to develop average settlement values. "The most recent actuarial study was performed as of August 31, 2014. The updated study has estimated an undiscounted liability for settlement payments, excluding legal costs and any potential recovery from insurance carriers, ranging from $36.1 million to $55.4 million for the period through 2058. The change from the prior year study was an $11.7 million increase for the low end of the range and an $18 million increase for the high end of the range. The increase in the estimated undiscounted liability from the prior year study at both the low end and high end of the range reflects historical data and certain assumptions with respect to events that may occur in the future. Based on the information contained in the actuarial study and all other available information considered by us, we have concluded that no amount within the range of settlement payments was more likely than any other and, therefore, in assessing our asbestos liability we compare the low end of the range to our recorded liability to determine if an adjustment is required. Based upon the results of the August 31, 2014 actuarial study, in September 2014 we increased our asbestos liability to $36.1 million, the low end of the range, and recorded an incremental pre-tax provision of $12.8 million in earnings (loss) from discontinued operations in the accompanying statement of operations. Legal costs, which are expensed as incurred and reported in earnings (loss) from discontinued operations in the accompanying statement of operations, are estimated, according to the updated study, to range from $43 million to $76.4 million for the period through 2058. "We plan to perform an annual actuarial evaluation during the third quarter of each year for the foreseeable future. Given the uncertainties associated with projecting such matters into the future and other factors outside our control, we can give no assurance that additional provisions will not be required. We will continue to monitor the circumstances surrounding these potential liabilities in determining whether additional provisions may be necessary. At the present time, however, we do not believe that any additional provisions would be reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on our liquidity or consolidated financial position." Standard Motor Products, Inc., manufactures and distributes replacement parts for motor vehicles in the automotive aftermarket industry. The Company is organized into two major operating segments, each of which focuses on specific lines of replacement parts. The Company's Engine Management Segment manufactures ignition and emission parts, ignition wires, battery cables, fuel system parts and sensors for vehicle systems. The Company's Temperature Control Segment manufactures and remanufactures air conditioning compressors, air conditioning and heating parts, engine cooling system parts, power window accessories, and windshield washer system parts. The Company sells its products to warehouse distributors, large retail chains, original equipment manufacturers and original equipment service part operations in the United States, Canada and Latin America. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tort Reforms Groups Back Fibro Litigation Bill --------------------------------------------------------------- Texas Lawyer reports that tort reform groups are backing a bill to reform asbestos litigation procedures, while Bryan Blevins, president of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association, is criticizing it for creating a mismatch between plaintiffs and defendants. House Bill 1492 author Rep. Doug Miller, R-New Braunfels, told members of the House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence Committee there is a loophole in current law: Some asbestos plaintiffs first file a lawsuit, and, after that suit is resolved, they file a compensation claim with bankruptcy trusts. The practice creates an opportunity for fraud and "double dipping," said Mr. Miller, adding that his bill would address the issue by requiring a plaintiff to file a bankruptcy claim first. The Senate State Affairs Committee scheduled a public hearing on April 13 for a similar bill, Senate Bill 491, by Sen. Charles Schwertner, R-Georgetown. Nathan Horne of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform represents defendants in asbestos litigation. He said that if a defendant knew the amount a plaintiff stood to collect from bankruptcy trusts, the defendant would use the information in settlement talks. The defendant would also learn the plaintiff's exposure history, helping to show the defendant wasn't totally responsible for an injury. But Mr. Blevins, who represents asbestos plaintiffs, said some asbestos victims die within six to 18 months of diagnosis. If a client is dying, his lawyer's focus is to get his day in court, he said. The bill would allow a defendant to stop the trial, force a plaintiff to produce evidence in the bankruptcy trust claims and allow the defendant to use that evidence against the plaintiff, said Blevins. According to the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health, asbestos comes from naturally occurring minerals and is found in construction products like insulation and ceiling tiles. Asbestos exposure can cause cancer and lung disorders, among other ailments. Companies responsible for creating asbestos or silica products that have gone bankrupt create trusts to compensate people who became ill due to exposure. Bill's Provisions Under Committee Substitute House Bill 1492, a claimant would have to give notice of trust claims and documentation to each party in a lawsuit. If a plaintiff had already won a judgment but didn't give the notice, then the defendant could ask a court for a sanction, "including vacating the judgment and ordering a new trial." The bill would authorize a defendant to file a motion to stay proceedings in a court if he thought the claimant could make a trust claim instead. If a plaintiff were to argue it would cost more to make that claim than he stood to recover, the bill would allow the court to order the plaintiff to "provide the court with a verified statement of the exposed person's exposure history." The bill provides that a defendant can use a trust claim and documentation to argue that something else caused the injury and that others were responsible. In cases where a claimant had already won a judgment in court, a defendant could file a motion for the court to modify the judgment to subtract any later trust payments, according to the bill. Testimony Committee members called for testimony from Multidistrict Litigation Judge Mark Davidson, who sat in the audience waiting for another bill's hearing. He said he would answer questions but he did not take any position on CSHB 1492. Committee member Rep. Travis Clardy, R-Nacogdoches, who represents defendants in asbestos litigation, said he's practiced before Davidson. In his experience, Mr. Clardy said, if Davidson wanted a party to produce certain evidence, it happened. Mr. Clardy asked Davidson whether there was a problem that the bill would solve. Judge Davidson said state law mandates a trial within six months for asbestos cases. To comply, he created a 40-page case management order requiring a plaintiff to disclose his work and health records to start the clock for the six-month trial. The plaintiff must also disclose trust claims, he added. Judge Davidson said that allowing a defendant to stay a proceeding might conflict with the six-month trial requirement. Part of the bill that allows claims information to prove what caused an injury seems to overrule a Texas Supreme Court ruling, BorgWarner v. Flores, which requires plaintiffs to prove their dose of asbestos exposure. Judge Davidson said if lawmakers were trying to overrule BorgWarner, he would appreciate more details and commentary. "I will follow your policy but I would simply ask you to give me some clarification," said Judge Davidson. Mr. Blevins took issue with the same provision in the bill. He explained that BorgWarner makes a plaintiff prove a very high standard: the number of asbestos fibers that he breathed in from the defendants' product. Defendants currently must meet the same standard to bring in a responsible third party, he said. But the bill would change the standard for defendants by allowing them to use trust claims to prove causation, while plaintiffs would still have to meet the higher standard, said Mr. Blevins. It would create a great mismatch in the asbestos litigation system, he said. Texans for Lawsuit Reform and the Texas Civil Justice League also supported the bill in the hearing. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Fails in Bid to Dismiss "Watts" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Staci M. Yandle of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, in a memorandum and order dated April 16, 2015, denied Crane Co.'s motion to dismiss the asbestos- related lawsuit styled STEVEN WATTS, Plaintiff, v. 84 LUMBER COMPANY, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV-0327-SMY-SCW (S.D. Ill.), after determining that, in this case, the Plaintiff has provided specific locations, specific states, and specific time periods allowing the Defendants ample notice of the Plaintiff's claims and the grounds for those claims. A full-text copy of Judge Yandle's Decision is available at http://is.gd/1I1Hc2from Leagle.com. Steven Watts, Plaintiff, represented by Eric D. Jackstadt, Napoli Bern, et al., Christopher Fonville, Napoli Bern et al. & Ryan P. Horace, Napoli Bern, et al.. 84 Lumber Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP, James D. Maschhoff, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al.. Asbestos Corporation LTD., Defendant, represented by Anthony M. Goldner, Wilson Elser et al.. Borgwarner Morse Tec, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Donald W. Ward, Herzog Crebs LLP, Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP, James D. Maschhoff, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al.. Burnham LLC, Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Graber, Hinshaw & Culbertson, James M. Brodzik, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Mark D. Bauman, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Trevor A. Sondag, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP. Cameron International Corp., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC. Carrier Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC & Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski Shultz LLC. Carver Pump Company, Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Leslie G. Offergeld, Walker & Williams. Certainteed Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. & Michael D. Schag, Heyl, Royster et al.. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Company, LLC, Defendant, represented by Amy Rae Hansen, Johnson & Bell LTD. & Robert Spitkovsky, Jr., Johnson & Bell. Cicor Instrumentation Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Graber, Hinshaw & Culbertson, James M. Brodzik, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Mark D. Bauman, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Trevor A. Sondag, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP. Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Erin Renee Griebel, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C. & Meredith S Hudgens, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C.. Crane Co., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC. Excelsior Packing & Gaskets, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. & Michael D. Schag, Heyl, Royster et al.. Flowserve Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.. FMC Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kaitlyn N. Chenevert, Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP, IL. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Gardner Denver, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by William R. Irwin, Segal, McCambridge et al. & Stephanie Tomal, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Georgia Pacific, LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC, Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC. Goulds Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Graber, Hinshaw & Culbertson, James M. Brodzik, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Mark D. Bauman, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Trevor A. Sondag, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP. Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Allison K. Sonneveld, Polsinelli Shughart PC, Kathleen Ann Hardee, Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones, Polsinelli PC. Imo Industries, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. & Michael D. Schag, Heyl, Royster et al.. Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC, Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC. John Crane, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Sean P. Fergus, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C.. Johnson Controls, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP, James D. Maschhoff, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al.. Johnston Boiler Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Michael W. Newport, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. Metallo Gasket Company, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Matthew J. Morris, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Justin S. Zimmerman, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Charles L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. & Georgiann Oliver, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al.. Oakfabco, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by John M. Ward, Hawkins, Parnell et al. & Tracy J. Cowan, Hawkins, Parnell et al.. Parker-Hannifin Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. & Michael D. Schag, Heyl, Royster et al.. Patterson Pump Company, Defendant, represented by Paul P. Waller, III, Walker & Williams. Pneumo Abex LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Ross S. Titzer, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC. Riley Power, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. & Michael D. Schag, Heyl, Royster et al.. RSCC Wire & Cable LLC, Defendant, represented by Marcie J. Vantine, Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP. Trane US, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC, Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC. Velan Valve Corp., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC, Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC. Viking Pumps, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. & Michael D. Schag, Heyl, Royster et al. Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. & Michael D. Schag, Heyl, Royster et al. Weil-McLain, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al. William Powell Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael W. Newport, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. York International Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP, James D. Maschhoff, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al.. Zurn Industries, LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Stephanie Tomal, Segal, McCambridge et al.. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies Silver's Bid to Junk Indictment ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Valerie Caproni of United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled in an April 10, 2015 memorandum opinion and order that "[a]lthough the Court does not condone the U.S. Government's brinksmanship relative to Defendant Sheldon Silver's fair trial rights or the media blitz orchestrated by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the days following Mr. Silver's arrest, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment based on allegedly improper and prejudicial extrajudicial statements by the U.S. Attorney is denied." To recall, on Jan. 21, 2015, the Government filed a 35-page, single-spaced, sealed Complaint before Chief Magistrate Judge Maas, charging Defendant Silver, the then-Speaker of the New York Assembly, with honest services fraud, conspiracy and extortion. Finding probable cause, Magistrate Judge Maas issued an arrest warrant. In the weeks prior to the issuance of the arrest warrant, there had been numerous newspaper articles reporting on the U.S. Attorney's investigation, including lengthy investigative journalism pieces on Silver's relationship with Weitz & Luxenberg and with Goldberg & Iryami. Shortly after midnight on January 22, although the Government's Complaint had not yet been unsealed, the press began reporting that that Silver would be arrested imminently along with the substance of the charges against him. The case is UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. SHELDON SILVER, Defendant, NO. 15-CR-93 (VEC)(S.D.N.Y.). A full-text copy of Judge Caproni's Decision is available at http://is.gd/7vZzkufrom Leagle.com. Sheldon Silver, Defendant, represented by Joel Cohen, Esq. -- jcohen@stroock.com -- Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Joel Barry Rudin, Law Offices of Joel B. Rudin, Justin Vaun Shur, Esq. -- jshur@mololamken.com -- Mololamken, LLP, Steven Francis Molo, Esq. -- smolo@mololamken.com -- MoloLamken, LLP & Robert Kelsey Kry, Esq. -- rkry@mololamken.com -- Molo Lamken LLP. USA, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Daniel Goldstein, United States Attorney's Office, SDNY, Carrie Heather Cohen, U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY, Howard Seth Master, U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY & James M. McDonald, Us Doj. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of "Sterling" Suit vs. P&H Affirmed -------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of Pennsylvania, in an opinion dated April 17, 2015, affirmed the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas's summary judgment in favor of P&H Mining Equipment, Inc., in the asbestos-related lawsuit filed by Norman J. Sterling and Laura M. Sterling. The case is NORMAN J. STERLING AND LAURA M. STERLING, H/W, Appellants, v. P&H MINING EQUIPMENT, INC. A/K/A JOY GLOBAL SURFACE MINING, INC., Appellee, NO. 1006 EDA 2014 (Pa. Super.). A full- text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/4EisTYfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Stellar" Suit Remanded to Pa. State Court ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in a memorandum dated April 15, 2015, remanded the asbestos-related lawsuit captioned RITA G. STELLAR, Personal Representative for the Estate of Frank J. Schaffer, and MARY SCHAFFER, as Surviving Spouse, Plaintiffs, v. ALLIED SIGNAL, INC., et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-CV- 05083-ER (E.D. Pa.), to the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas, after finding that the Plaintiffs' claims involve state law rights that exist independent of any collective bargaining agreement. A full-text copy of Judge Robreno's Decision is available at http://is.gd/4wjhwmfrom Leagle.com. RITA G. STELLAR, Plaintiff, represented by GEORGE A. WEBER, III, LAW OFFICES OF PETER G. ANGELOS, PC, MICHAEL ALBANESE, LAW OFFICES OF PETER G. ANGELOS, PC & LAMONT G. MCCLURE, JR., LAW OFFICES OF PETER G. ANGELOS, PC. MARY SCHAFFER, Plaintiff, represented by GEORGE A. WEBER, III, LAW OFFICES OF PETER G. ANGELOS, PC, MICHAEL ALBANESE, LAW OFFICES OF PETER G. ANGELOS, PC & LAMONT G. MCCLURE, JR., LAW OFFICES OF PETER G. ANGELOS, PC. ALLIED SIGNAL, INC., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by PETER J. NEESON, RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by JOHN S. HOWARTH, WILBRAHAM, LAWLER & BUBA. CARLISLE COMPANY INCORPORATION, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by ROBERT N. SPINELLI, KELLEY JASONS MCGOWAN SPINELLI & HANNA, LLP. CBS CORPORATION, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by JOHN P. MCSHEA, MCSHEA LAW FIRM PC. CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by MICHAEL J. BLOCK, WILBRAHAM, LAWLER & BUBA. COLUMBUS MCKINNON CORPORATION, Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by ADAM A. DESIPIO, DLA PIPER LLP, JENNIFER ANNE MCGARRITY, DLA Piper LLP & WILLIAM F. KINIRY, JR., DLA PIPER, LLP. COOPER CROUSE-HINDS, Defendant, represented by TIFFANY GIANGIULIO, GERMAN GALLAGHER & MURTAGH. CRANE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by G. DANIEL BRUCH, JR., SWARTZ CAMPBELL, LLC. FERRO ENGINEERING DIVISION OF ON MARINE SERVICES COMPANY NATIONAL REGISTERED AGENTS, INC., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by THERESA M. MULLANEY, Esq. -- tmullaney@kentmcbride.com -- KENT & MCBRIDE PC. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, represented by LAWRENCE E. CURRIER, Esq. -- LECurrier@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS LLP & SHARON L. CAFFREY, Esq. -- SLCaffrey@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS LLP. FOSECO, INC., Defendant, represented by PENELOPE B. O'CONNELL, Esq. -- PBO@maronmarvel.com -- MARON MARVEL BRADLEY & ANDERSON LLC. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by JOHN P. MCSHEA, MCSHEA LAW FIRM PC. GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by KEVIN J. O'BRIEN, MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY P.C.. GOODRICH CORPORATION, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by DAWN DEZII, MARGOLIS & EDELSTEIN. THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Defendant, represented by MARK DOUGLAS EISLER, WILBRAHAM, LAWLER & BUBA, P.C.. GREENE, TWEED & COMPANY, INC., Defendant, represented by DAVID C. WEINBERG, WILBRAHAM, LAWLER & BUBA. KEELER/DORR-OLIVER BOILER COMPANY, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by LINA M. CARRERAS, Esq. -- lmc@maronmarvel.com -- MARON MARVEL BRADLEY ANDERSON PA & WALTER S. JENKINS, Esq. -- wsj@maronmarvel.com -- MARON MARVEL BRADLEY & ANDERSON LLC. THE KERITE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by TIFFANY GIANGIULIO, Esq. -- giangiuliot@ggmfirm.com -- GERMAN GALLAGHER & MURTAGH. MACK TRUCKS, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by JOHN C. MCMEEKIN, RAWLE & HENDERSON. MERITOR, INC., Defendant, represented by BARBARA J. BUBA, WILBRAHAM LAWLER & BUBA. MORGAN ENGINEERING SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by JOHN C. MCMEEKIN, RAWLE & HENDERSON. THE OKONITE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by G. DANIEL BRUCH, JR., SWARTZ CAMPBELL, LLC. P&H MINING EQUIPMENT, INC., Defendant, represented by JOAN P. DEPFER, MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN. PNEUMO ABEX CORPORATION, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by ROBERT N. SPINELLI, KELLEY JASONS MCGOWAN SPINELLI & HANNA, LLP. READING CRANE & ENGINEERING, Defendant, represented by ALAN R. GRIES, GIBBONS P.C. & JENNIFER SEME, GIBBONS PC. RSCC WIRE & CABLE, INC., Defendant, represented by TIFFANY GIANGIULIO, GERMAN GALLAGHER & MURTAGH. SAINT-GOBAIN ABRASIVES, INC., Defendant, represented by BARBARA J. BUBA, WILBRAHAM LAWLER & BUBA. SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by CHRISTINA M. RIDEOUT, KELLEY JASONS MCGOWEN SPINELLI & HANNA. UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by CATHERINE N. JASONS, KELLEY JASONS MCGUIRE SPINELLI HANNA LLP & ROBERT N. SPINELLI, KELLEY JASONS MCGOWAN SPINELLI & HANNA, LLP. UNIVERSAL REFRACTORIES A DIVISION OF THIEM CORPORATION, Defendant, Cross Claimant, Cross Defendant, represented by JOHN J. DUGAN, SALMON RICCHEZZA SINGER & TURCHI LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Warren Pumps Fails in Bid to Junk "Spells" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Staci M. Yandle of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois denied Warren Pumps, LLC's motion for summary judgment filed in the asbestos-related lawsuit captioned RICHARD SPELLS, JR., Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Richard Spells, Plaintiff, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al., Defendant, CASE NO. 13-CV-129-SMY-DGW (S.D. Ill.). A full-text copy of the memorandum and order dated April 16, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/EmkbRIfrom Leagle.com. Richard Spells Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Colleen Miller, Napoli Bern et al., Daniela Rapisardi, Napoli Bern et al., Eric D. Jackstadt, Napoli Bern, et al. & Ryan P. Horace, Napoli Bern, et al.. Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, Cross Claimant, Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al., Kent L. Plotner, Heyl, Royster et al., Lisa A. LaConte, Heyl, Royster et al., Michael D. Schag, Heyl, Royster et al. & Patrick D. Cloud, Heyl, Royster et al.. Nash Engineering Co., Defendant, Cross Claimant, Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory L. Cochran, McKenna Storer & Robert P. Pisani, McKenna Storer. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of Ex-Pipefitter's Petitions Affirmed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Donna Palladino, Executrix of the Estates of Joseph Reed and Alice Reed, deceased, petitions for review of the May 2, 2014 order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board that affirmed the decision and order of the Workers' Compensation Judge. The WCJ dismissed Claimant's Review, Modification and Reinstatement Petitions under the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act because the Claimant failed to disclose to Allied Signal, Inc., and its successor in interest Honeywell, Inc., and Travelers Insurance Company the monetary amount received in a third-party settlement. On or about July 31, 1985, Joseph Reed filed a Claim Petition alleging he sustained a work-related occupational disease in the nature of lung disease, shortness of breath, including, but not limited to, asbestosis, while in the course and scope of his employment as a pipe fitter for Allied Signal. In a Decision and Order circulated February 18, 2004, the WCJ granted the Claim Petition after finding that the Employer failed to file a timely answer. However, the WCJ suspended benefits as of November 29, 1990, after finding that Joseph Reed failed to follow through on work that was available to him within his restrictions as of that date. In a decision dated April 21, 2015, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, affirmed the order of the Board, after finding that the WCJ did not capriciously disregard evidence and the Claimant's arguments to the contrary amount to little more than an argument that the WCJ should have viewed the evidence as the Claimant did. The WCJ, according to the Commonwealth Court issued a reasoned decision that contained findings of fact and conclusions of law based upon the record as a whole and that lucidly explained the rationale for each credibility determination, finding, and conclusion. The case is Joseph Reed, deceased, Donna Palladino, Executor of the Estates of Joseph Reed and Alice Reed deceased, Petitioners, v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Allied Signal, Inc. and it's successor in interest Honeywell, Inc. and Travelers Insurance Co.), Respondents, NO. 879 C.D. 2014 (Pa. Cmmw.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/I7n9oPfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Div. Tolls Time to Perfect Appeals ----------------------------------------------------------- The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, on April 16, 2015, issued separate decisions enlarging to the October 2015 Term the time to perfect appeals in the following lawsuits: * NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to D'ANDRADE, v. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY -- CRANE CO., MOTION NO. M-1090 (N.Y. App. Div.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/Iv2cknfrom Leagle.com. * NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to PORTA, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS -- CRANE CO., MOTION NO. M-1091 (N.Y. App. Div.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/V1QZ0Afrom Leagle.com. * NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to McLAUGHLIN, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION -- CRANE CO., MOTION NO. M-1092 (N.Y. App. Div.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/qM4UVcfrom Leagle.com. * NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to CICHY, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS -- CRANE CO., MOTION NO. M-1093 (N.Y. App. Div.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/drb7Tgfrom Leagle.com. * NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to BATTIPAGLIA, v. A.C. & S., INC. -- CRANE CO., MOTION NO. M-1094 (N.Y. App. Div.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/FCnaTCfrom Leagle.com. * NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to HISCHE, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION -- CRANE CO., MOTION NO. M-1099 (N.Y. App. Div.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/50pIfKfrom Leagle.com. * NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to GILL, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS -- CRANE CO., MOTION NO. M-1100 (N.Y. App. Div.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/yBRVS6from Leagle.com. * NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to VIOHL, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS -- CRANE CO., MOTION NO. M-1101 (N.Y. App. Div.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/AsVGO1from Leagle.com. * NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to ENGLE, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION -- CRANE CO., MOTION NO. M-1103 (N.Y. App. Div.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/olehydfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Vacates Ruling in "Hockler" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, in a decision dated April 21, 2015, vacated an interim relief granted by order of a Justice of the Court dated March 13, 2013, in the lawsuit styled IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to HOCKLER, v. 3M COMPANY, MOTION NO. M-1075 (N.Y. App. Div.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/XfnOqofrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Directed to File Record in NY Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, in a decision dated April 21, 2015, granted leave to take judicial notice of certain documents attached as exhibits to the moving papers; directed defendant-appellant to file nine copies of supplemental record containing the exhibits; consolidated the appeals; and directed defendant-appellant Crane Co. to file separate supplemental record containing relevant notices of appeal. The case is IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to ALL NYCAL CASES, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO. -- CRANE CO., MOTION NOS. M-975, M-976 (N.Y. App. Div.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/m1Xw4Tfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Trial Ruling in Texas Suit Ordered Vacated --------------------------------------------------------------- At issue before the Court of Appeals of Texas, Ninth District, Beaumont, is whether the judge of the 172nd Judicial District Court of Jefferson County abused his discretion in disregarding the jury verdict in favor of E.I. Du Pont Nemours and Company and in granting a new trial in favor of Willis Whisnant's estate and beneficiaries. In September 2014, almost six years after the jury returned its verdict, finding "no" in response to the broad form negligence question, and after a previous mandamus proceeding and eventually a remand from the Texas Supreme Court, the trial court once again granted Whisnant's motion for new trial and ordered a new trial stating that "[t]he jury's answer to Question 2 as to [DuPont] is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence." From 1947 through 1986, Mr. Whisnant worked as a pipefitter at various plants where he alleged he was exposed to airborne asbestos fibers. From 1966 through 1975, Mr. Whisnant worked "off and on" on DuPont's Sabine River Works premises in the course of his employment with a contractor, B.F. Shaw. The Court of Appeals has conducted a merits-based mandamus review of the trial court's articulated reasons for granting the new trial and concluded in an opinion dated April 23, 2015, that the record does not support the trial court's rationale for ordering a new trial. Therefore, the Court of Appeals held the judge of the 172nd Judicial District Court of Jefferson County abused his discretion when he granted the motion for new trial, and conditionally granted mandamus relief. The Court of Appeals held: "When the trial court's reasons for granting the motion for new trial are invalid, a remedy by appeal is inadequate and the relator is entitled to mandamus relief. We conditionally grant DuPont's petition for writ of mandamus. We are confident that the trial court will vacate its order granting Whisnant's motion for new trial and enter judgment on the jury's verdict. The writ will issue only if the trial court fails to comply." The appeals case is IN RE E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, NO. 09-14-00465-CV (Tex. App.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/rFYWIjfrom Leagle.com. ********* 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 * * *