/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/151204.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, December 4, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 242 Headlines 2067 BAKE CORP: Violates Fair Labor Standards Act, Suit Claims ACUITY: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss "Prieur" Case ADVANCED MEDICAL: Faces Suit Over FLSA Violations AMERICAN HONDA: "Flanigan" Suit Included in CR-V Vibration MDL AMERICAN HONDA: "Ward" Suit Consolidated in CR-V Vibration MDL APPLE INC: Faces Another Class Suit Over Wi-Fi Assist ARCH COAL: Class Suits Consolidated, Interim Class Counsel Named ARLINGTON, NY: Class Suit Against Arlington Fire Dept. Dismissed ATLANTA, GA: Summary Judgment Affirmed in Breach of Contract Suit BMO HARRIS BANK: Discovery Bid in "Dillon" Granted in Part BNC NATIONAL: "Hedrick" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims CAREMARK PHC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss or Stay "Woods" Case CHAVAM ENTERPRISES: "Campos" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT CHEF PAM: "Martinez-Guzman" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations CHEF'S WAREHOUSE: Faces Suit Over Labor Code Violations CHEROKEE COUNTY, GA: Judge Dismisses Suit Against Sheriff CINCINNATI: Indian Hill SD Settles Property Tax Suit for $5.5MM CITY OF NAPLES: "Gomory" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages COORDINATED HEALTH: Seeks Dismissal of Facility Fees Suit COVENANT TRANSPORT: "Long" Suit Moved From Calif. to Tennessee CREDIT COLLECTION: Faces Suit in Cal. Alleging TCPA Violation CSX TRANSPORTATION: Plans Finalized to Join Derailment Suits DIAGEO AMERICAS: CA Affirms District Court's Order DRAFTKINGS INC: "McCallie" Suit Alleges Business Code Violation DUKE ENERGY: Court Grants Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses FAST WATER: Objections to Discovery Bid Sustained in Part FLINT, MI: Governor Named Defendant in Water Contamination Suit FORD MOTORS: Judge Partially Shots Down Bid to Deny Certification FPMC SERVICES: "Abraham" Suit Alleges WARN Act Violation FTS INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suit Over FLSA Violation GENERAL MILLS: Consumer Watchdog Suing Cheerios for False Ad GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: "Hunter" Suit Consolidated in Zofran MDL GURLEY MOTOR: "Yazzie" Suit May Proceed as Class Action HORIZON MUD: "Melkoski" Suit Removed From S.D. to W.D. Texas HUTCHINGS COURT: "Wentzell" Suit Alleges Misrepresentation INTRALINK HOLDINGS: Court OKs $14MM Settlement of Securities Suit JCY FRUIT: "Acosta" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation JEFFERSON PARISH, LA: Judge OKs $1.7MM Deal in Camera Suit JOE ARPAIO: Informant Says Judge Wiretapped Sheriff LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Clouden" Suit Included in China Flooring MDL MANPOWER INC: Padilla and Guido May File 2nd Amended Suit MARYLAND: Faces Constitutional Challenges to Tax Code MISSOURI BASIN: "Crouch" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages MUNICIPAL TECHNOLOGIES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime NELSON WESTERBERG: May File Revised Summary Judgment Bid NEOPETS INC: Faces Suit Over California Business Code Violation NEW YORK: Traffic Court Judge Sues City State to Regain Benefits OREGON: DHS Settles Class Suit Over Violation of ADA PELLA CORPORATION: Court Trims Claims in "Dineen" Suit PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act PREMIER FOODS: Antitrust Attys Call for Clarity on Leniency Rule QUALITEST PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Birth Control Pills REEBOK INT'L: Faces "Del-Orden" Suit Alleging Violations of ADA REGUS MANAGEMENT: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Circle Click Suit REMEX INC: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.J. SAFEWAY: Aptos Man Sues Over Underfilled Canned Tuna SCM I INVESTMENTS: Court Trims Claims in "Rodrigues" Case SIENTRA INC: Wagner Firm Files Securities Class Suit ST. CLAIR COUNTY, IL: Case Management Conference Order Issued TELEXFREE LLC: Case Spawns Counterclaims "Like High-stake Poker" TICC CAPITAL: "Barnes" Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties TULSA, OK: Firm Settles Class Action for $1.3 Million TWEEN BRANDS: "Loor" Case Stayed Pending Approval of Settlement UNITED COLLECTION: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act UNITED RECOVERY: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act VENGROFF WILLIAMS: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says VOLKSWAGEN: Offers $1,000 Gift Package to Car Owners Amid Scandal VOLKSWAGEN: Owners Still in Dark Over Australian Car Recall VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Romero" Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois WAL-MART: Urges Justices to Review Renewed Gender Bias Suit WEST VIRGINIA: Plaintiff Seeks Injunction in Medicaid Case WORLEYPARSONS: Names New CFO Amid Securities Class Suits Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Generation Continues to Defend PI Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Generation Had $95MM PI Claims Reserve ASBESTOS UPDATE: Baltimore Gas Continues to Defend PI Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Corp. Units Continue to Defend PI Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: ComEd Awaits PI Law Ruling Appeal Outcome ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Haven Probes Wallace St. for Fibro Content ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Waste in Australia Piling Up ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Industrial Sawmill Site ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firm Fined for Workers' Fibro Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found at Aorangi School Site ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plano Council Mulls Suit vs. Fibro Removal Co. ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK Company Fined GBP11K for Fibro Violation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Syracuse Lab Fined for Fibro Removal Crime ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Continues at County Care Facility ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ogdensburg Seeks EPA Grant for Fibro Removal ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pigeons Pecking Fibro on Roof Cause Death ASBESTOS UPDATE: NES Seeks Dismissal of Fibro Exposure Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sanctions Sought Against Fibro Lawyers ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Substance Found at Carnlough Play Park ASBESTOS UPDATE: RFS Training Facility Closed Due to Fibro Scare ASBESTOS UPDATE: Footscray Pupils Banned from Fibro-riddled Oval ASBESTOS UPDATE: Factory Worker Dies of Fibro-related Death ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leeds Man Dies from Fibro-related Cancer ASBESTOS UPDATE: Store Manager Dies From Fibro-related Cancer ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Awards $1.7MM in Landmark Fibro Case ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ship Worker Seeks Justice for Fibro Cancer ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Cases Rising, Aussie Study Shows ASBESTOS UPDATE: Center Urges Veteran to Seek Top Fibro Atty ASBESTOS UPDATE: Refugees Removing Nauru Fibro w/o Protection ASBESTOS UPDATE: NRG Energy Has Adequate Reserve for Fibro Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Inc. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Inc. Continues to Defend PI Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: CERC Corp. Continues to Defend PI Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace Accrues for Unresolved PD Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Accrues $8-Mil. Fibro Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison's CECONY Accrues $7MM Fibro Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Accrues $50MM Rupture Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Unit Has $551-Mil. Fibro Reserves ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Unit Has $599MM Fibro Receivables ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Unit Had 2,971 New Fibro Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Continues to Defend PI Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Unit Has $551-Mil. Fibro Reserves ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Unit Has $599MM Fibro Receivables ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire Continues to Defend PI Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: VWR Int'l. Continues to Face Fibro Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Has 1,346 Fibro Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Ingalls Continues to Defend PI Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: DuPont Had 2,360 PI Claims Pending at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Unit Has $551-Mil. Fibro Reserves ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Unit Has $599MM Fibro Receivables ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tampa Electric Settles Asbestos Exposure Case ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Has 57,040 American Optical PI Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Precision Castparts Continues to Face PI Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Continues to Defend Stearns Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp.'s Zurn Unit Has 6,000 PI Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Continues to Defend Falk Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Inc. Had 177 McKesson Fibro Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sydow's Bid to Amend Fibro Suit Okayed ASBESTOS UPDATE: John Crane Wins Summary Judgment Bid in "Bell" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cos. Win Summary Judgment Bid in "Schneider" ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Kelleher" Remanded to Illinois State Court ASBESTOS UPDATE: Westinghouse Wins Summary Judgment in "Wilson" ********* 2067 BAKE CORP: Violates Fair Labor Standards Act, Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Benitez individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. 2067 Bake Corp. dba Gigi Cafe, Henry Jessup and John Doe, Case No. 1:15-cv-08107 (S.D.N.Y., October 14, 2015) is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. 2067 Bake Corporation, doing business as Gigi Cafe, is a small bakery in New York City. ACUITY: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss "Prieur" Case ---------------------------------------------------- District Judge Linda V. Parker of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted Defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) in the case captioned, JOSHUA PRIEUR, Plaintiff, v. ACUITY, Defendant, Case No. 15-12547 (E.D. Mich.). Plaintiff filed on July 17, 2015, a putative class action alleging that Defendant twice committed the tort of false imprisonment by requiring him to attend an IME or risk losing his workers' compensation benefits. According to Plaintiff's Complaint, he suffered traumatic brain injury in a work-related accident and his employer was insured for Michigan workers' compensation benefits by Defendant. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant sent letters to Plaintiff on October 8, 2013 and November 13, 2013, requesting that he submit to an examination by psychologist Dr. Rhonda Levy- Larson on November 13 and 26, 2013. Michigan's Workers' Disability Compensation Act provides that if a claimant refuses to submit to or obstructs an employer's or carrier's requested examination of the claimant by a physician or surgeon, the claimant's right to compensation will be suspended and, during the period of suspension, may be forfeited. Plaintiff claims that his fear of losing his workers' compensation benefits caused him to attend the IMEs and this coercion amounted to an impermissible imprisonment. On August 13, 2015 Defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In her Opinion and Order dated November 3, 2015 available at http://is.gd/ZDD4P8from Leagle.com, Judge Parker found the facts and legal arguments sufficiently presented in the parties' pleadings and therefore is dispensing with oral argument pursuant to Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(f). The Court concluded that Plaintiff's allegations of false imprisonment fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Joshua Prieur is represented by: Marshall D. Lasser, Esq. MARSHALL D. LASSER, PC Po Box 2579 Southfield, MI 48037 Acuity is represented by Kathleen H. Klaus, Esq. -- kklaus@maddinhauser.com -- MADDIN, HAUSER ADVANCED MEDICAL: Faces Suit Over FLSA Violations ------------------------------------------------- AIA Management, LLC, Roberto Rivera, and all others similarly situated v. Advanced Medical Imaging & Teleradiology of NY P.C.; Advanced Medical Imaging and Teleradiology Services; Advanced Medical Imaging and Teleradiology, LLC; New York Radiology, P.C.; Advanced Medical Imaging Associates, P.C.; American Teleradiology Nighthawks, P.C.; American Medical Initiatives Teleradiology Services; American Medical Initiatives, LLC; Naiyer Imam, Ron Mark, Scott B. Berger, Sarwar Khobaib, Sultan Maalik, Marcus R. Mclemore, Shaun D. Ahmad, Surendra Kumar, and John Doe 1-25., Case No. 0:15-cv-62270 (S.D. Fla., October 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants provide teleradiology and medical imaging services. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Myrna L. Maysonet, Esq. GREENSPOON MARDER, P.A. Capital Plaza I, Suite 500 201 East Pine Street Orlando, FL 32801 Tel: (407) 425-6559 Fax: (407) 563-9665 E-mail: myrna.maysonet@gmlaw.com AMERICAN HONDA: "Flanigan" Suit Included in CR-V Vibration MDL -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Flanigan v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-05390, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Columbus). The Ohio District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02907-MHW- EPD to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned In re: American Honda Motor Co., Inc., CR-V Vibration Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2:15-md-02661- MHW-EPD. The actions in the litigation -- most of which are either putative nationwide or statewide class actions -- share factual questions arising from allegations that the 2015 Honda CR-V has a defect or defects that cause the vehicle to vibrate excessively. American Honda Motor Company, Inc. is a California corporation with its national headquarters in Torrance, California. American Honda is a subsidiary of Honda Motor Co., Ltd., a Japanese corporation, and is one of the largest distributors of automobiles in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Cliff Cantor, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CLIFFORD A. CANTOR, P.C. 627 208th Ave. SE Sammamish, WA 98074 Telephone: (425) 868-7813 Facsimile: (425) 732-3752 E-mail: cliff.cantor@outlook.com The Defendant is represented by: Daniel A. Spira, Esq. J. Simone Jones, Esq. Livia M. Kiser, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP One South Dearborn Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 853-7274 Facsimile: (312) 853-7036 E-mail: dspira@sidley.com simone.jones@sidley.com lkiser@sidley.com - and - Michael L. Mallow, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 West 5th Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: (213) 896-6000 Facsimile: (213) 896-6600 E-mail: mmallow@sidley.com - and - Robin Wechkin, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4200 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 262-7680 E-mail: rwechkin@sidley.com AMERICAN HONDA: "Ward" Suit Consolidated in CR-V Vibration MDL -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Ward, et al. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00767, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Columbus). The Ohio District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02906-MHW- EPD to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned In re: American Honda Motor Co., Inc., CR-V Vibration Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2:15-md-02661- MHW-EPD. The actions in the litigation -- most of which are either putative nationwide or statewide class actions -- share factual questions arising from allegations that the 2015 Honda CR-V has a defect or defects that cause the vehicle to vibrate excessively. American Honda Motor Company, Inc. is a California corporation with its national headquarters in Torrance, California. American Honda is a subsidiary of Honda Motor Co., Ltd., a Japanese corporation, and is one of the largest distributors of automobiles in the United States. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert A. Cox, Esq. Edwin E. Wallis, III, Esq. GLASSMAN, WYATT, TUTTLE & COX, P.C. 26 N Second Street Building Memphis, TN 38103 Telephone: (901) 527-4673 Facsimile: (901) 527-5320 E-mail: rcox@gwtclaw.com ewallis@gwtclaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Daniel A. Spira, Esq. J. Simone Jones, Esq. Livia M. Kiser, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP One South Dearborn Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 853-7274 Facsimile: (312) 853-7036 E-mail: dspira@sidley.com simone.jones@sidley.com lkiser@sidley.com - and - Michael L. Mallow, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 West 5th Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: (213) 896-6000 Facsimile: (213) 896-6600 E-mail: mmallow@sidley.com - and - A. Scott Ross, Esq. James Franklin Sanders, Esq. NEAL & HARWELL 150 Fourth Avenue, N 2000 First Union Tower Nashville, TN 37219-2498 Telephone: (615) 244-1713 E-mail: sross@nealharwell.com jsanders@nealharwell.com APPLE INC: Faces Another Class Suit Over Wi-Fi Assist ----------------------------------------------------- Phone Arena reported that a class action suit was filed against Apple Inc. for failing to tell users that Wi-Fi Assist was eating through their monthly data allowance. The feature seamlessly switches an iPhone connected to a Wi-Fi network, over to the user's cellular carrier if the Wi-Fi signal becomes weak. Sounds great in theory, but the feature was enabled by default when Apple disseminated iOS 9. Apple failed to tell users about this until a month after iOS 9 was pushed out. As a result, some iPhone users were totally surprised when they received the monthly bill from their carrier, and saw how much mobile data they used for the month. As a result, there are now two Class Action suits filed against Apple, both seeking more than $5 million. The second suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by one William B. Cottrell. The suit charges Apple with violating California's unfair competition law, and false advertisement law. It also claims that Apple mislead customers on purpose by omitting or hiding facts about the feature, including the fact that it was turned on by default. Apple has stated that most users will see just a "small increase" in data usage with Wi-Fi Assist. Aftr all, the feature won't activate when the iPhone user is streaming music or video. The plaintiffs who filed the original Class Action suit, claim that Apple is downplaying the increase in data usage that Wi-Fi Assist is responsible for. ARCH COAL: Class Suits Consolidated, Interim Class Counsel Named ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Carol E. Jackson of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted Plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the actions and appointed interim class counsel in the case captioned, DOUGLAS R. ROE, on behalf of himself and Arch Coal, Inc. Employee Thrift Plan, and/or alternatively on behalf of a class consisting of similarly situated participants of the Plan, Plaintiff, v. ARCH COAL, INC., et al., Defendants. ELMER BUSH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ARCH COAL, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:15-CV-910 (CEJ), 4:15-CV-1026(SNLJ) (E.D. Mo.). Plaintiffs filed separate complaints against employees of Arch Coal, Inc., alleging breach of fiduciary duties in violation of the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974. Plaintiffs filed the complaints as representative actions on behalf of themselves, the Arch Coal, Inc. Employee Thrift Plan, and similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of the Plan. The plaintiffs seek relief pursuant to sections 409 and 502(a)(2) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Sections 1109 and 1132(a)(2) and request the appointment of proposed interim class counsel in accordance with Rule 23(g)(3). The Complaints allege that defendant fiduciaries of the Plan breached their ERISA-mandated fiduciary duties owed to the participants of the Plan by, inter alia, retaining Arch Coal, Inc. common stock as an investment option in the Plan when a reasonable fiduciary under the prudent investor standard would have done otherwise. In the motion, Plaintiffs move to consolidate the actions on the basis of identical questions of law and fact pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs also seek an order appointing the law firms of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP and Stull, Stull & Brody as interim co-lead class counsel, and appointing the law firm of Blitz, Bardgett & Deutsch, LC as interim liaison class counsel. Arch Coal contends that the appointment of class counsel is not warranted and premature prior to the close of pleadings. Furthermore, Arch Coal argues that a formal consolidation order is unnecessary for the meantime. In her Memorandum and Order dated November 2, 2015 available at http://is.gd/qTaDfYfrom Leagle.com, Judge Jackson found that the underlying factual allegations and claims for relief are nearly identical so that consolidation of the two actions under Rule 42(a) appropriate to avoid the unnecessary waste of judicial resources and additional cost and delay to the parties. The Court appointed the firms of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP and Stull, Stull & Brody are appointed as interim co-lead counsel and the firm of Blitz, Bardgett & Deutsch, LC as interim liaison counsel. The Court ordered that defendants shall produce documents or information sufficient to enable plaintiffs to accurately identify the specific persons who serve as the Arch Coal Employee Thrift Plan fiduciaries, including but not limited to: Plan documents and materials that describe the operation, administration, and management of the Plan; and documents that identify the Plan fiduciaries and describe the scope of their fiduciary duties. Elmer Bush is represented by Don R. Lolli, Esq. -- dlolli@dysarttaylor.com -- DYSART AND TAYLOR, Edward W. Ciolko, Esq. -- eciolko@ktmc.com -- Julie E. Siebert-Johnson, Esq. -- jsjohnson@ktmc.com -- Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. -- mgyandoh@ktmc.com - - KESSLER AND TOPAZ ARLINGTON, NY: Class Suit Against Arlington Fire Dept. Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Fries, writing for Poughkeepsie Journal, reported that a lawsuit filed by a half-dozen former firefighters against the Arlington Fire District Board of Fire Commissioners has been dismissed. The six firefighters had brought the suit against the fire district board due to a resolution passed by the board in October 2014 to end the reimbursement of Medicare Part B premium costs from their retirement plans. The lawsuit potentially had broader implications for other firefighters. "The fact that it was dismissed to me was good news for the fire district," Arlington Fire District board Chairman James Beretta said. "It's good news for the taxpayers." Beretta said this saves the district roughly $16,000 this year that they otherwise would have had to pay for the premium. The possibility of having to pay this premium again could come up if it's negotiated back in to another contract, he said. The current contract expires October 2016. The plaintiffs failed to file a notice of claim detailing the allegations against the board in a timely fashion in order for the lawsuit to proceed further, a Dutchess County Supreme Court judgement states. The document was obtained by the Poughkeepsie Journal after a Freedom of Information Law request was submitted to the Arlington Fire District. Medicare Part B premiums in 2015 are $104.90 per month for most recipients, according to the Medicare website. Part B coverage includes medically necessary and preventative services, the website said. In order to be eligible for Medicare most recipients have to be 65 or older. While the plaintiffs contended the board was in "breach of contract," commissioners argued the former firefighters were never entitled to these benefits under the contract. Nathaniel Charny of Rhinebeck-based Charny & Associates, who represented the plaintiffs, declined to comment. The six plaintiffs, who were employed in the district between 1962 and 2014, include Barry Ireland, Edward Ireland Jr., Earle Bunn, Patrick McDonald, Arthur Rose and Victor Zamiloff. The complaint was filed in Dutchess County Supreme Court in February. They were seeking damages for the "breach" as well as compensation for expenses incurred because of the resolution, attorney fees and for the resolution to be "revoked," the initial court filing said. In addition to the six firefighters, the complaint expanded to others who retired during the same time frame. A subhead of the court document called Class Action Allegations said there were more than 25 putative class members. The class included those that retired from the district between the years of 1974 and 2014. Beretta said that labor attorneys did extensive research and came to the determination that the district wasn't required to make the payments. "We are highly confident that the merits of the case would have held up in our favor," he said in regard to if the case had moved forward. ATLANTA, GA: Summary Judgment Affirmed in Breach of Contract Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Presiding Justice P. Harris Hines of the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Plaintiffs' claims of breach of contract and unconstitutional impairment of contract and their consequent requests for declaratory and injunctive relief in the case captioned, BORDERS et al., v. CITY OF ATLANTA et al, Case No. S15A0816 (Ga.). The complaint, which was filed on November 14, 2013, alleged that Defendants breached Plaintiffs' employment contracts and violated the impairment clause of the State Constitution when Defendants passed the portions of the Ordinance which increased the amounts that the Plaintiffs were required to contribute to the Plans, even though Plaintiffs would receive the same amount of retirement benefits to which they were already entitled prior to passage of the Ordinance. Plaintiffs sought a declaration that the subject portions of the Ordinance violated the Impairment Clause and that Plaintiffs were not required to continue to make the increased contributions to the Plans, and an order enjoining and restraining Defendants from collecting or attempting to collect the increased contributions. Plaintiffs moved for class certification on November 14, 2013. On March 20, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of Defendants' liability. Following a hearing on the motions on May 15, 2014, the superior court entered on November 10, 2014, the "final order" now at issue, denying Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and granting summary judgment to Defendants. The superior court did so after concluding that government employees and their beneficiaries have no vested rights in an unchanged benefit plan where the pension or retirement plan at issue unambiguously provides for subsequent modification or amendment, and that there was no ambiguity in the City's Enrollment Provisions that they clearly authorized the City to amend the Plans without breaching Plaintiffs' employment contracts or violating the Impairment Clause. On appeal, Plaintiffs challenge the validity of a city ordinance and the consequent amendment requiring members to contribute 7% of their annual salary to their pension plan if they did not have a designated eligible beneficiary, and 8% of their annual salary to their pension plan if they had a designated eligible beneficiary. In the Decision dated November 2, 2015 available at http://is.gd/xfTQC2from Leagle.com, Justice Hines concluded that the superior court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Plaintiffs' claims of breach of contract and unconstitutional impairment of contract and that Plaintiffs have not provided any other meritorious legal basis upon which to find the Ordinance unreasonable. BMO HARRIS BANK: Discovery Bid in "Dillon" Granted in Part ---------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge L. Patrick Auld of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina granted in part Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Bay Cities Bank to Produce Documents in Response to Plaintiff's Requests for Arbitration-Related Discovery and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Generations Federal Credit Union to Produce Documents in Response to Plaintiff's Requests for Arbitration-Related Discovery in the case captioned, JAMES DILLON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BMO HARRIS BANK, N.A., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:13CV897. On October 8, 2013, Plaintiff James Dillon filed a class action complaint against Generations Federal Credit Union, Bay Cities Bank and two other banks for their alleged participation in a scheme to collect unlawful debts through the Automated Clearing House network, in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and various North Carolina laws. The Complaint alleges that Generations and Bay Cities enabled certain out-of-state lenders to make and collect payments on payday loans that are illegal under North Carolina law. Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Bay Cities Bank to Produce Documents in Response to Plaintiff's Requests for Arbitration-Related Discovery and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Generations Federal Credit Union to Produce Documents in Response to Plaintiff's Requests for Arbitration-Related Discovery. In the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated October 30, 2015 available at http://is.gd/Yc7yc8from Leagle.com, Judge Auld concluded Defendants have made a prima facie showing in support of their common interest privilege contentions, but must produce a privilege log for all materials withheld on the basis of privilege. Because they seek merits discovery, however, Requests relating to class action lawsuits, FTC litigation, and Dillon, Kohles, and CashCall generally are improper. On or before November 6, 2015, with the sole exception of materials withheld on the basis of privilege as identified on the privilege logs detailed below (i) Bay Cities must produce all materials responsive to BCRFP 10; (ii) Generations must produce all materials responsive to GRFPs 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18; (iii) Generations must produce all materials on which it relies for its "third-party beneficiary" and "servicer" arguments, as specified in GRFPs 3 and 4; and (iv) Generations must produce all materials related to arbitration responsive to GRFP 11 and Bay Cities and Generations must each serve on Dillon a privilege log specifying any documents withheld on the basis of privilege, including the common interest privilege. James Dillon is represented by F. Hill Allen, IV, Esq. -- hallen@tharringtonsmith.com -- THARRINGTON SMITH, Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. -- hzavareei@tzlegal.com -- TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP, Jeffrey M. Ostrow, Esq. -- ostrow@kolawyers.com -- KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. Defendants are represented by Mark Vasco, Esq. -- mark.vasco@bryancave.com -- Ann W. Ferebee, Esq. -- ann.ferebee@bryancave.com -- Eric Rieder, Esq. -- eric.rieder@bryancave.com -- Michael P. Carey, Esq. -- michael.carey@bryancave.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP BNC NATIONAL: "Hedrick" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------- Jerry W. Hedrick, Jr., and all others similarly situated v. BNC National Bank, Case No. 2:15-cv-09358 (D. Kans., October 27, 2015), seeks damages and other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant is engaged in interstate commerce by, among other things, selling mortgage loans and other financial products at its office location in Overland Park, Kansas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brendan J. Donelon, Esq. DONELON, P.C. 420 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Tel: (816) 221-7100 Fax: (816) 709-1044 E-mail: brendan@donelonpc.com CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Abdelhak Salsali, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-05907 (E.D.N.Y., October 14, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Founded in 2002, Cavalry provides services relating to the acquisition and management of non-performing consumer loan portfolios. Cavalry is headquartered in Valhalla, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 483 Chestnut Street Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Telephone: (516) 791-4400 Facsimile: (516) 791-4411 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com CAREMARK PHC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss or Stay "Woods" Case -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Stephen R. Bough of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri denied Defendant's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to stay case in the case captioned, TIMOTHY WOODS, Individually and as a representative of the class, Plaintiff, v. CAREMARK PHC, L.L.C. d/b/a CVS CAREMARK CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 4:15-CV-00535-SRB (W.D. Mo.). On June 4, 2015, Plaintiff Timothy Woods filed the action in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri. On July 15, 2015, Defendant Caremark removed the case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. On September 3, 2015, Plaintiff Woods filed his amended complaint. By his amended complaint, Plaintiff brings a putative class action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") alleging Defendant willfully violated the FCRA's stand-alone disclosure requirement, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681b(b)(2). In the motion, Defendant argues, "Caremark's interpretation that providing Plaintiff] with the Authorization for Consumer Reports document satisfied its disclosure obligation is not objectively unreasonable as a matter of law. Plaintiff asserts the amended complaint satisfies the pleading standard because it alleges Defendant knowingly violated the law. In his Order dated November 2, 2015 available at http://is.gd/4NFhCcfrom Leagle.com, Judge Bough found that Plaintiff's complaint sufficient to state a claim that Defendant Caremark violated the FCRA's stand-alone disclosure requirement and that the Court exercises its discretion to deny Defendant's motion to stay the case. CHAVAM ENTERPRISES: "Campos" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Nerkein Campos, and all others similarly situated v. Chavam Enterprises Inc., and Chavoita Lesane, Case No. 2:15-cv-14370 (S.D. Fla., October 27, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid wages, liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant and a night club, in St. Lucie County. Chavam is also known as and is advertised as "Country Kitchen" and "Chavam's Lounge." The Plaintiff is represented by: Rebecca Radosevich, Esq. THE TICKTIN LAW GROUP, P.A. 600 West Hillsboro Boulevard Suite 220 Deerfield Beach, FL 33441-1610 Tel: (954) 570-6757 Fax: (954) 570-6760 E-mail: Rradosevich@LegalBrains.com CHEF PAM: "Martinez-Guzman" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations -------------------------------------------------------- Alfredo Martinez-Guzman, and all others similarly situated v. Chef Pam Corp., Pam Real Thai Food, Inc., Pam Panyasiri and Ronnasit Panyasiri, Case No. 1:15-cv-08445 (S.D.N.Y., October 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for unpaid or underpaid overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants own and operate full-service restaurants doing business as Pam and Chef Pam located in New York and New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: John M. Gurrieri, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007-2036 Tel: (212) 229-2249 Fax: (212) 229-2246 E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com CHEF'S WAREHOUSE: Faces Suit Over Labor Code Violations ------------------------------------------------------- Shaon Robinson, and all others similarly-situated v. The Chef's Warehouse, Inc. and Does 1 through 100, Case No. RG15791018 (Cal. Super., October 26, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages, interest, related penalties, injunctive relief, other equitable relief, attorneys' fees and costs under the California Labor Code. Chef's Warehouse is a specialty food distributor that sources products for high-end chefs across the U.S. and Canada. It serves restaurants, hotels, caterers and gourmet stores in North America. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Hoffman, Esq. HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS 580 California Street, Suite 1600 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: (415) 362-1111 Fax: (415) 362-1112 E-mail: mhoffman@employment-lawyers.com CHEROKEE COUNTY, GA: Judge Dismisses Suit Against Sheriff --------------------------------------------------------- Cherokee Tribune reported that a federal judge has dismissed a class action lawsuit initiated by a local woman who claimed the county, as well as Cherokee Sheriff Roger Garrison, violated the rights of thousands of individuals by denying them bond. "We are not surprised by that ruling," Garrison said. "We have been in compliance with the law and all of the commanders in the jail are familiar with the law. Those who don't qualify for bond are not allowed bond." The Barnett Law Firm in Woodstock filed the class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on April 24. The class, which was represented by the plaintiff, Patricia Annette Davis, consisted of some 2,600 people who claimed they were arrested on a Cherokee County State Court bench warrant and then denied bail, court documents show. The class was seeking $10 million in damages. Angela Davis, of Jarrard & Davis, who represented Cherokee County and Garrison in the class action lawsuit, filed a motion to dismiss in June and it was granted after the plaintiff abandoned her claims. According to court documents, the class representative was arrested in September 2013 for reckless conduct after she pointed a pistol at another woman, both misdemeanor offenses. Court records show that Patricia Davis bonded out of jail on Sept. 30, 2013, after posting a $1,500 bond. Among other special conditions of the bond, Patricia Davis was ordered by the court to "appear in court when required" and waive her rights under state and federal law against search and seizure. In March 2014, Patricia Davis, who was still on bail, failed to appear for a calendar call in State Court Chief Judge Alan Jordan's courtroom, records show. The judge issued a bench warrant, but it was lifted in May 2014 after Patricia Davis paid a $150 fee, according to court documents. Jordan also cancelled a bond forfeiture that he had issued in March 2014, but, according to court documents, the judge issued another bench warrant this past January after Patricia Davis again failed to appear for jury trial. Attorney Carver DeBord, who was representing Davis in the 2013 criminal case, filed a motion in State Court this past February to recall the bench warrant. In the motion, DeBord stated that his client "possessed spirit and determined to test her mettle by living in a tent on Yellow Creek, suffered losses from a calamitous flood that washed away her wash tub and most of her clothing." It also states that the flood washed away her vehicle. Court documents show that Patricia Davis was arrested on the warrant on Feb. 13 when she appeared in court for a hearing on the motion to recall the bench warrant. The class action lawsuit contends Patricia Davis was refused bond by the county's sheriff despite "being possessed with the wherewithal to post bond." Court records show that Patricia Davis entered a plea of no contest on Feb. 23 and was ordered to serve 12 months in jail. Her jail sentence, records show, was suspended upon service of 11 days in jail. CINCINNATI: Indian Hill SD Settles Property Tax Suit for $5.5MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Forrest Sellers, writing for Cincinnati.com, reported that residents in the Indian Hill Exempted Village School District could potentially see a refund from the school district sometime in the spring. The school board approved a $5.5 million payment to taxpayers and attorneys as part of a recent settlement of a property tax lawsuit, which has its origins in a decision made by the board in 2009. The school board passed a resolution to refund a total of $5.5 million, which will be about 4 percent of the total property taxes paid by individual taxpayers from 2011 to 2014. According to David Nurre, assistant director of finance for the Hamilton County Auditor's Office, an estimated 5,629 parcels of property will be part of the settlement. The auditor's office was unable to provide a specific refund amount. Nurre said the auditor's office has not yet seen the calculations and would need to create some sort of database before determining the amount of the refund payments. The district has said even though a settlement agreement was reached, it will still need to be approved by the court. Class action notice letters will be sent to residents in the next two to three months, and pending approval, refund checks would then be issued within four to six months. Residents will have an option of donating their refund to the Indian Hill Public Schools Foundation as a charitable gift. The lawsuit stems from an inside millage decision made by the board in 2009 which permitted the board to move 1.25 mills of inside millage to fund permanent improvements. The state allows for an inside millage move without a public vote. However, the Committee for Responsible School Spending contended the move was unnecessary since the district had an estimated $24 million in cash reserves at the time. The committee fought to have the tax increase overturned by filing appeals with both the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals and the Ohio Supreme Court, which eventually ruled that the additional revenue from the outside mills was not required. Earlier this year, the school board requested the 1.25 mills not be levied in 2015 and said that homeowners would be reimbursed for additional money. Shortly after, a lawsuit was filed by Committee for Responsible School Spending, seeking more than $5 million. At times the fallout from the lawsuit had been overtly contentious with residents chiding board members during the public meetings and asking for some type of resolution. Board Member Kim Lewis announced the settlement during the Nov. 10 meeting saying that it was "an effort to put this behind us," adding that as litigation progressed it would likely have a detrimental impact on the district. "This has been a long, difficult process," she said. Board President Tim Sharp agreed. "Putting the money in taxpayer's hands is the thing to do," he said. As part of the resolution, the board has also agreed not to oppose plaintiffs' request that $860,000 of the refund amount be paid to the plaintiff's lawyers as attorney fees and costs. An additional $40,000 of the refund will also be paid to the individual plaintiffs. Mary Siegel, a member of the Committee for Responsible School Spending and also one of the plaintiffs, said she was pleased with the board's decision. "I'm happy for this agreement," she said. "I'm glad we can all move forward, and the new board members can start anew." Timeline for lawsuit December 2009: Indian Hill Board of Education approves moving 1.25 mills of inside millage to fund permanent improvements. 2010: Opposition group called Committee for Responsible School spending forms. Group files appeals with Ohio Board of Tax Appeals and Ohio Supreme Court. December 2014: Ohio Supreme Court ruled property tax increase violated state law. January 2015: Indian Hill School board announced the district would refrain from collecting 1.25 mills for the permanent improvement fund and would also reimburse homeowners an amount to be determined. Spring 2015: Committee for Responsible School Spending files lawsuit seeking more than $5 million. November 2015: Indian Hill school board announces a settlement of $5.5 million. CITY OF NAPLES: "Gomory" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- James Gomory, and all others similarly situated v. City of Naples, Case No. 2:15-cv-00667 (M.D. Fla., October 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant is a public municipality with principal offices located at Naples, Florida. The City owns, operates and manages its own police department under the name Naples Police Department. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq. FELDMAN LAW GROUP P.A. 1715 N. Westshore Blvd., Suite 400 Tampa, FL 33609 Tel: (813) 639-9366 Fax: (813) 639-9376 E-mail: mfeldman@ffmlawgroup.com COORDINATED HEALTH: Seeks Dismissal of Facility Fees Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Paul Muschick, writing for The Morning Call, reported that John Lychak of Lower Saucon Township knew he would receive bills when he sought treatment last year for a foot ailment. What he didn't expect was to be billed nearly $1,000 for hospital "facility fees" for care he didn't consider to have occurred at a hospital but at a doctor's office. The debate over facility fees isn't new. It's something I've written about before, and I still get occasional complaints about the fees, including one in October. But Lychak and another area patient, Jamie McFadden of South Whitehall Township, did more than just complain. They hired a lawyer who in August filed a proposed class-action lawsuit, contending facility fees charged by entities associated with Coordinated Health weren't adequately disclosed and weren't in line with the services provided. That took the debate to another level. Their lawsuit against CH Hospital of Allentown, trading as Coordinated Health and CHS Professional Offices of South Whitehall, and CHS Professional Practice of Bethlehem, was filed on behalf of themselves and others who were "misled and charged" patient facility fees and procedure facility fees for non-hospital outpatient services. The lawsuit sought to recover the amounts patients were charged and sought a judicial declaration that the facility fees "are void and of no effect." CH Hospital and CHS Professional Practice filed court papers arguing the lawsuit should be dismissed because it made broad allegations not backed by facts showing how the charges were improper, excessive or unreasonable. The allegations "consist solely of expressions of opinion, mischaracterizations and conclusory statements," attorney Candy Barr Heimbach wrote in objecting to the lawsuit. Considering the clamor over facility fees, both locally and nationally, I was curious to see how a judge would rule. But there won't be a ruling. The plaintiffs' attorney, James Scanlon of Milford, Pike County, told me the case was "resolved" confidentially last week. He said the lawsuit never was certified by a judge as class-action. It appears a settlement could have been reached. Court records indicate a hearing had been scheduled for last week in Northampton County Court but was postponed because attorneys were "engaged in settlement negotiations." Coordinated Health doesn't publicly discuss litigation, President Jim Tsokanos told me. He said the case "is not moving forward" and referred me to the court documents filed by the facility's attorney. Tsokanos said Coordinated Health prominently discloses facility fees in notices that patients sign; on signs at registration and outside clinics; and on its website. He said facility fees are charges for services provided in a hospital-based outpatient department or location, and Coordinated Health charges them because its clinics are regarded by the government as departments of its central hospital. Those clinics are accredited and meet the same standards and regulations of a hospital and therefore incur costs for increased equipment, staffing, training and added construction. Under that model, known as a "provider-based" or "hospital-based" health care network, Coordinated Health is required to issue one bill for the facility and another for the physician or health care professional, Tsokanos said. "Sometimes patients will pay more for certain outpatient services and procedures at hospital-based outpatient locations," he said. "The amount will depend on their insurance." According to the lawsuit, Lychak was treated by a physician in Bethlehem in a facility affiliated with, employed by or part of Coordinated Health and CHS Professional Practice, but not located on a hospital campus. He had an examination and steroid injection, later went for an MRI and had a follow-up appointment. He was billed $1,342. That broke down to a physician charge of $255, a pharmacy charge of $61, a patient facility fee of $369 and a procedure facility fee of $607, "notwithstanding the fact that the visit was a non-hospital visit and the treatment was performed in a doctor's office and not at or near a hospital owned or operated by CH Hospital," the lawsuit said. Lychak's health plan requires him to pay 20 percent of medical bills. In the end, he was responsible for $39 of the physician's charge and $511 of the facility fees charges. He had the same outpatient treatment procedure performed previously by another podiatrist at a cost of less than $150 for the visit and injection, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit lays out a similar scenario for McFadden, whose out- of-pocket costs were less, due to his insurance terms. "There was no reasonable relationship between the patient facility fees and procedure facility fees that plaintiffs were required to pay for the services provided, procedure and the cost of any facilities actually used," the lawsuit alleged. In court documents arguing the lawsuit should be dismissed, Heimbach wrote that Lychak and McFadden hadn't alleged "sufficient facts that plausibly demonstrate that these charges were, in fact, unrelated to the costs of the services provided." She argued Lychak and McFadden couldn't claim they suffered financial losses from the facility fees as those amounts were billed to them because they hadn't met their annual insurance deductibles. I don't expect the debate over hospital facility fees to subside any time soon. All you can do is be aware of them when you seek medical treatment at a doctor's office or medical facility. It might not always be apparent from signs and paperwork whether the office is affiliated with a hospital, so ask. St. Luke's University Health Network does not charge facility fees, spokeswoman Mariella Miller said. Patients at Lehigh Valley Health Network could incur fees when they are treated at facilities considered to be "hospital-based," such as imaging, cardiac diagnostic and rehabilitation, spokesman Brian Downs said. Patients should ask if the fees would apply. COVENANT TRANSPORT: "Long" Suit Moved From Calif. to Tennessee -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Tami Long v. Covenant Transport, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-07317, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee (Chattanooga). The Tennessee District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-00278-HSM-SKL to the proceeding. The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues. Covenant Transport, Inc. is a truckload carrier headquartered in Chattanooga, Tennessee. The Company provides temperature controlled trucking, regional delivery, and longhaul delivery. The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig J. Ackermann, Esq. ACKERMANN AND TILAJEF PC 1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610 Los Angeles, CA 90035 Telephone: (310) 277-0614 Facsimile: (310) 277-0635 E-mail: cja@laborgators.com - and - Jonathan Melmed, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP PC 1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610 Los Angeles, CA 90035 Telephone: (310) 824-3828 Facsimile: (310) 862-6851 E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Perry K. Miska, Jr., Esq. Richard H. Rahm, Esq. Kai-Ching Cha, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON PC 650 California Street, 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108-2693 Telephone: (415) 433-1940 Facsimile: (415) 743-6542 E-mail: pmiska@littler.com rrahm@littler.com kcha@littler.com CREDIT COLLECTION: Faces Suit in Cal. Alleging TCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------- Ataolah A. Shaouli, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Credit Collection Services, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-08075-ODW-JPR (C.D. Cal., October 14, 2015) alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Based in Pensacola, Florida, Credit Collection Services, Inc. provides commercial and consumer debt collection. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee Paul Mankin, IV, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF L PAUL MANKIN IV 8730 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 310 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (800) 219-3577 Facsimile: (323) 207-3885 E-mail: pmankin@paulmankin.com CSX TRANSPORTATION: Plans Finalized to Join Derailment Suits ------------------------------------------------------------ Wes Wade, writing for The Daily Times, reported that CSX Transportation Inc. and several people suing the company over a July train derailment in Maryville have finalized a plan to merge several derailment suits. Three lawsuits filed in Knoxville's U.S. District Court are being consolidated for pretrial fact-finding purposes to avoid duplicated hearings, interviews and court filings. If the lawsuits proceed, the plaintiffs could still go on with separate trials. CSX is being sued by two groups of Maryville residents who each filed federal class-action lawsuits in connection with the July 2 derailment and chemical fire. Those residents live within the two- mile evacuation radius around Mt. Tabor and Old Mt. Tabor roads. About 5,000 residents in that area were evacuated after a derailed tank car caught fire and began leaking a toxic chemical called acrylonitrile. Several Alcoa Police officers and Blount County deputies who evacuated residents from the area filed a third suit that claims they sustained injuries from exposure to the chemical. Union Tank Car Co., which owned the tank car that derailed and caught fire, is also a defendant in all three suits. The parties in each suit have met several times in the last few weeks finalizing plans to merge the three cases, according to court documents and filings. They all filed a consolidated plan of action for how pretrial activities will proceed. Deadlines for interviews, evidence testing and scheduling orders are all covered in the plan. Pinning down the cause of the derailment is one of the first priorities named in the discovery plan. CSX has reported that the cause of the derailment was possibly due to a journal, or roller bearing, failing due to overheating, the plan states. Consolidated complaints from plaintiffs in each case now state the tank car actually derailed about nine miles before the train reached the evacuation area. The complaints state the car derailed around the Singleton Station Road crossing in Louisville, and the car was dragged some nine miles before reaching the area of Mt. Tabor and Old Mt. Tabor roads. At some point in those nine miles, a broken axle reportedly punctured the tank car and started the fire. CSX is facing a fourth lawsuit, another class-action suit, currently pending in Blount County Circuit Court. CSX filed a request to have that suit moved to federal court. Additional court filings show if the litigation is transferred to federal court, CSX will seek to merge it with the three others. DIAGEO AMERICAS: CA Affirms District Court's Order -------------------------------------------------- Circuit Judge John M. Rogers of the United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, affirmed the district court's order in the case captioned, BRUCE MERRICK, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DIAGEO AMERICAS SUPPLY, INC., Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 14- 6198 (6th Cir.). The plaintiffs are owners, lessors, and renters of nearby properties affected by whiskey fungus who complained to the air pollution control district about the proliferation of whiskey fungus on their properties. The district found that Diageo had violated District Regulation 1.09 because Diageo caused and allowed the emission of an air pollutant which crossed its property line causing an injury and nuisance to nearby neighborhoods and the public. Diageo's warehouse emissions present a current and continuing threat to the public, endangering the comfort and repose of its neighbors. Diageo's warehouse emissions cause damage to nearby property and have the natural tendency to continue causing damage. Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint in federal district court, seeking compensatory and punitive damages from Diageo for negligence, nuisance, and trespass, and an injunction requiring Diageo to abate its ethanol emissions by implementing certain control technologies at the facilities. Diageo moved to dismiss the complaint on two grounds. First, Diageo argued that it had no duty to curb ethanol emissions from its Louisville facilities. Second, in a notice of supplemental authority, Diageo argued that plaintiffs' claims were preempted by the Clean Air Act. The district court largely rejected Diageo's arguments but dismissed plaintiffs' negligence claim on the ground that plaintiffs had not pled facts sufficient to establish that Diageo owed them a duty of care, or that Diageo had breached that duty. The court, however, with respect to plaintiffs' remaining causes of action, concluding that plaintiffs had alleged facts sufficient to establish nuisance and trespass, and to entitle them to injunctive relief. On appeal, Diageo argues that the Supreme Court's reasons for concluding that the Clean Air Act displaces federal common law all militate with equal force in favor of holding that the Act preempts state common law. In the Opinion dated November 2, 2015 available at http://is.gd/nTOJJsfrom Leagle.com, Judge Rogers concluded that there is no basis in the Clean Air Act on which to hold that the source state common law claims of plaintiffs are preempted. In addition, to the requirements and remedies of state common law the Circuit Court acknowledged the concern that a comprehensive federal scheme imposes substantial costs on industries, and that some suggest it is unduly burdensome for such industries to remain subject. Plaintiffs are represented by William F. McMurry, Esq. -- bill@courtroomlaw.com -- WILLIAM F. McMURRY & ASSOCIATES Diageo Americas Supply is represented by Ryan A. Shores, Esq. -- rshores@hunton.com -- HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP DRAFTKINGS INC: "McCallie" Suit Alleges Business Code Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- John McCallie, and all others similarly-situated v. DraftKings, Inc. and FanDuel, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-08463 (S.D.N.Y., October 27, 2015), seek injunctive relief and monetary damages for Defendants' unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices under the California Business and Professions Code, and deceptive acts and practices in violation of the N.Y. General Business Law. The Defendants operate daily fantasy sports websites. DFS is a non-regulated industry where individuals compete against other individuals in fantasy sports games. Defendant FanDuel, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New York, New York. Defendant DraftKings, Inc., is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Boston, Massachusetts. The Plaintiff is represented by: Amanda M. Steiner, Esq. GIRARD GIBBS LLP 711 Third Ave., 20th Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 867-1721 Fax: (212) 867-1767 E-mail: as@girardgibbs.com DUKE ENERGY: Court Grants Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina granted the Lead Counsel's Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses in the case captioned, MAURINE NIEMAN, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 3:12-CV-00456-MOC-DSC (W.D.N.C.). On August 12, 2015, Lead Counsel moved for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses and Lead Plaintiff's expenses in the litigation. In his Order dated November 2, 2015 available at http://is.gd/JPqkN6from Leagle.com, Judge Cogburn, Jr. granted attorneys' fees of 18% of the settlement fund, plus expenses in the amount of $191,738.27, together with the interest earned on both amounts for the same time period and at the same rate as that earned on the settlement fund until paid. Lead Plaintiff Amalgamated Bank is awarded $20,612.50 for its representation of the Settlement Class during the litigation. Plaintiffs are represented by Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq. -- jsarnelli@gardylaw.com -- GARDY & NOTIS LLP - and - William Everett Moore, Jr., Esq. GRAY, LAYTON, KERSH, SOLOMON, SIGMON, FURR & SMITH, PA 516 S New Hope Rd Gastonia, NC 28054 Tel: (704)865-4400 Defendants are represented by Debbie Weston Harden, Esq. -- dharden@wcsr.com -- Claire J. Rauscher, Esq. -- crauscher@wcsr.com -- WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE FAST WATER: Objections to Discovery Bid Sustained in Part --------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned, MIHAIL SLAVKOV, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FAST WATER HEATER PARTNERS I, LP, et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-CV- 04324-JST (N.D. Cal.), District Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California: -- sustained Defendants' denials of Plaintiffs' class action allegations; -- sustained Defendants' objections to Plaintiffs' requests for production or authentication of documents provided at mediation; -- overruled Defendants' objections to Plaintiffs' "identity all documents" contention interrogatories related to Defendants' denials of Plaintiffs' class action allegations; and -- overruled Defendants' objections to Plaintiffs' requests for Defendants' compensation-related documents The parties filed a joint letter stating that "two general issues remain outstanding: 1) to what extent Defendants are required to state all facts and produce all documents relating to Defendants' denial of Plaintiffs' class action allegations, 2) the scope and authentication of the production of all data relating to putative class members' compensation, hours and bonus multipliers." Plaintiffs served Defendants with requests for admission, accompanied by (1) interrogatories asking the Defendants to identify all facts and all documents supporting any denials, and (2) requests for production asking that such documents be produced. Defendants object to these requests on the grounds that (1) identification of the facts and documents they intend to rely on is protected by the attorney work product privilege; (2) Plaintiffs are not entitled to every document in Defendants' possession; and (3) the document requests accompanying the interrogatories would require them to produce documents containing the confidential information of putative class members. In the motion, Plaintiffs seek to compel Defendants to state all facts and produce all documents in support of Defendants' denial of Plaintiffs' class action allegations and request that Defendants produce certain documents relating to putative class members' compensation. In his Order dated October 30, 2015 available at http://is.gd/pHtWyGfrom Leagle.com, Judge Tigar found it premature to provide contention interrogatories since discovery has not yet began. As to the production of documents related to putative class members' compensation, Defendants have not quantified either the number of documents or the number of hours required to retrieve them. With regard to Plaintiffs' request that Defendants authenticate summaries Defendants provided at mediation, the Court found that that documents which were prepared independently of a mediation do not become privileged simply by virtue of having been exchanged at that mediation. The parties are ordered to file either a stipulated request for entry of protective order or competing proposals for such an order. Plaintiffs are represented by Page R. Barnes, Esq. -- KOJO@barneslawoffice.net -- BARNES LAW OFFICES & Kevin Francis Woodall, Esq. -- kevin@kwoodalllaw.com -- WOODALL LAW OFFICES Defendants are represented by Sue Jacobs Stott, Esq. -- SStott@perkinscoie.com -- Aaron Joseph Ver, Esq. -- AVer@perkinscoie.com -- Jonathan S. Longino, Esq. -- JLongino@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE LLP FLINT, MI: Governor Named Defendant in Water Contamination Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Crain's Detroit reported that a group of residents has filed a class-action lawsuit against Gov. Rick Snyder, the State of Michigan and the City of Flint, as well as state and Flint municipal employees on claims related to lead contamination of drinking water in Flint. Royal Oak-based law firm Pitt McGehee Palmer & Rivers PC issued a press release saying the plaintiffs claim health and property damages resulting from exposure to lead-tainted city water. The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court in Detroit and asserts these residents have suffered skin lesions, autoimmune disorders, convulsions and chronic anxiety, among other listed conditions, as a result of exposure to lead in the drinking water. Problems with lead in the Flint drinking water surfaced in September when Virginia Tech researchers released a report saying Flint's water was creating a health threat in old homes that have lead pipes or pipes fused with lead solder. The ensuing firestorm has put pressure on the Snyder administration. Detractors say the state's emergency manager was too quick to switch from Detroit's water system to a local Flint River-based system last year when handling the city's financial crisis. The switch was estimated to save $4 million annually. FORD MOTORS: Judge Partially Shots Down Bid to Deny Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- A federal judge shot down several of Ford Motor's reasons to deny class certification in a lawsuit claiming defects in older-model SUVs cause tailgates to fall off. Attorneys for Ford and the class sparred in a marathon four-hour session before U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg, arguing the merits of motions to exclude evidence and testimony, grant summary judgment and certify a class of car buyers. Lead plaintiff Sally Nettleson first sued the automaker in June 2011, claiming Ford hid from customers the safety risks associated with faulty tailgate parts in 2002-2005 Ford Explorers and Mercury Mountaineers, along with 2003-2005 Lincoln Aviators. The plaintiffs claim a glass applique in the affected tailgates is susceptible to cracking. The cracked glass lets moisture seep in and corrode metal latches, potentially causing rear glass panels to shatter and tailgates to fall off cars completely, according to the complaint. Ford knew of the defect as early as June 2001 when dealers reported cracked appliqu‚s on brand new vehicles before they were sold to customers, the plaintiffs claim. The automaker received 1,723 reports of the applique detaching from affected vehicles with some incidents occurring while vehicles traveled at high speeds, according to evidence cited by the plaintiffs. "All plaintiffs have shown is that Ford knew the applique might crack, not that there was any certainty," Ford attorney Eric Tew told the Seeborg. "Manufacturers always know problems may happen, not that they're certain it will affect vehicles." The plaintiffs asked the judge to certify three classes of car buyers in New Jersey, Florida and California. Class attorney Adam Levitt said all three proposed classes meet the requirements necessary for certification. Levitt urged the judge to reject Ford's "mischaracterization" of the defect as a cosmetic issue rather than a safety hazard. "The dominant question in this case is whether there is a safety issue," Levitt said. Tew argued the motion for class certification should be dismissed on several grounds. He said many of the claims are time-barred; some vehicles were purchased for commercial rather than personal use; and different buyers surveyed different information before buying the cars. "The logical extension of your argument is that because some people will never pay attention [to reports of safety risks], you can never certify a class," Seeborg replied, adding the statute of limitations and other issues cited by Ford were not valid reasons for denying class certification. Ford also sought to exclude the testimony of three expert witnesses cited by the plaintiffs. The automaker's attorneys claimed auto glass expert Henry Chamberlain has no background in auto safety or rust corrosion, which are key elements of an analysis he conducted on the affected tailgates. Ford also argued that Chamberlain haphazardly gathered the 88 tailgates he tested from junkyards, and that the study had no statistical significance. "Chamberlain says if you have corroded brackets, it can cause the glass to shatter," replied plaintiff class attorney John Tangren. "This is not that controversial." Ford attorneys asked the judge to disregard the testimony of auto experts Carl Locke, Donald Phillips and Richard Hixenbaugh as well. The plaintiffs say the combined testimony of the experts show a link between the cracked appliques, corroding metal parts, shattered glass and safety risks. Ford also urged the judge to reject Hixenbaugh's appraisal that the alleged defect cost potential class members damages totaling 15 percent of the value they paid for the vehicles. "His experience regarding individual vehicles provides no basis to make this opinion, and this opinion is based on thin air," Tew said. Seeborg agreed that an assessment of damages requires more than an expert's opinion that is based solely on his experience appraising vehicles. However, the plaintiffs countered that no comparable market data exists for Hixenbaugh to analyze because other vehicles with defects that pose safety risks have been taken off the market or recalled. Regarding the motion for summary judgment, Tew argued no named plaintiffs have experienced any of the safety hazards alleged in the class action. "They say you should have disclosed this, and yet they've driven all these years with a cracked applique showing they're really not that concerned about the risk," Tew said. The Ford attorney said the plaintiffs don't seem to truly believe the cars pose a safety risk, despite a few plaintiffs' anecdotal stories about getting minor scratches from cracked glass. Levitt countered that the ascertainable loss among the plaintiffs does not require that they get hurt, just that they were all exposed to the same risk and loss in value. Citing asevidence that Ford knew of and hid the defect, the plaintiffs pointed to a 2003 email sent by Ford team program plant manager Joseph Watson, in which he projected a "100 percent failure rate" for the appliques. "This person was not an engineer," Tew responded. "We've produced 150,000 pages of documents, and they've seized on this one email." Levitt replied that despite Ford's attempt to downplay the manager's role and expertise, the evidence should be weighed by a jury. Seeborg ended the hearing after four hours of debate, suggesting with his questions that he will likely grant the motion for class certification but giving no clear indication on how he will rule on the other motions before him. FPMC SERVICES: "Abraham" Suit Alleges WARN Act Violation -------------------------------------------------------- Paul Abraham, and all others similarly-situated v. FPMC Services, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-00930 (W.D. Tex., October 27, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages and benefits for 60 calendar days pursuant to the United States Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. The Defendant is liable under the WARN Act for the failure to provide Plaintiff and other similarly situated former employees at least 60 days advance notice of their employment losses, as required by the WARN Act. The Defendant manages hospital sites committed to providing personalized patient care in locations throughout Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence Morales II, Esq. THE MORALES FIRM, P.C. State Bar No. 24051077 115 E. Travis, Suite 1530 San Antonio, TX 78205 Tel: (210) 225-0811 Fax: (210) 225.0821 E-mail: lawrence@themoralesfirm.com FTS INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suit Over FLSA Violation ------------------------------------------------- Greg Garcia, Filomeno Ramirez, Anthony Minjarez, Steven Gray, Darrell Livingston, Donald Pierce, Daekendrick Johnson, and all others similarly situated v. FTS, International, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-00250 (S.D. Tex., October 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. FTS, International is a private well completion company that operates throughout North America. FTSI provides customized hydraulic fracturing services to extract oil and natural gas from wells. The Plaintiffs are represented by: John T. Holleman, Esq. HOLLEMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1008 West Second Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Tel: (501) 975-5040 Fax: (501) 975-5043 E-mail: jholleman@johnholleman.net GENERAL MILLS: Consumer Watchdog Suing Cheerios for False Ad ------------------------------------------------------------ WWLP.com reported that a familiar food at the breakfast table is coming under fire. A consumer watchdog group is suing General Mills, taking aim at Cheerios new "Protein" cereal, accusing the company of false advertising. The Center for Science in the Public Interest accuses General Mills of false and deceptive packaging of the new Cheerios Protein cereal claiming, gram-for-gram, they added more sugar to the new Cheerios than protein. The class action lawsuit claims General Mills' comparison of the new Cheerios Protein to the original oat cereal is skewed in a way that is misleading. The watchdog group known for closely monitoring food additives and labeling, says the breakfast food titan can promote the new Cheerios as having more protein because the serving size is nearly double the plain Cheerios. General Mills spokesman Mike Siemienas said, in a statement, the new Cheerios Protein packaging follows strict federal regulations, and denies there was any attempt by the cereal maker to mislead consumers. Siemienas could not say if the Cheerios Protein variety is made at the General Mills production facility in Buffalo. Attorneys filed the class action on behalf of three consumers, two from California, and a third from Long Island. GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: "Hunter" Suit Consolidated in Zofran MDL ------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit styled Hunter, et al. v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00544, was transferred from the from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston). The Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-13569 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned In re: Zofran (Ondansetron) Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1:15-md-2657-FDS. The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from allegations that Zofran and its generic equivalent, a prescription medication for the treatment of nausea, causes birth defects in children when their mothers ingest the drug while pregnant. GlaxoSmithKline PLC is a limited liability corporation, organized under the laws of the state of Delaware. GSK's sole member is GlaxoSmithKline Holdings, Inc., which is a Delaware corporation, and which has identified its principal place of business in Wilmington, Delaware. GSK designed, manufactured and distributed Zofran, the drug that is the subject of the lawsuit. Zofran is a drug developed to treat severe nausea on cancer patients resulting from chemotherapy or radiation therapy. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Honora McKeown Gathings, Esq. GATHINGS LAW 2100 Third Avenue North, Suite 900 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 322-1201 Facsimile: (205) 322-1202 E-mail: hgathings@gathingslaw.com - and - Lloyd W. Gathings, II, Esq. William A Lattimore, II, Esq. GATHINGS LAW 2204 Lakeshore Drive, Suite 406 Birmingham, AL 35209 Telephone: (205) 322-1201 Facsimile: (205) 322-1202 E-mail: lgathings@gathingslaw.com wlattimore@gathingslaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Bryan A. Coleman, Esq. Maibeth J. Porter, Esq. MAYNARD COOPER & GALE PC 1901 Sixth Avenue North, Suite 2400 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 254-1000 Facsimile: (205) 714-6498 E-mail: bcoleman@maynardcooper.com mporter@maynardcooper.com - and - Jennifer S. Hill, Esq. Madeleine M. McDonough, Esq. SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP 2555 Grand Boulevard Kansas City, MO 64108-2613 Telephone: (816) 474-6550 Facsimile: (816) 421-5547 E-mail: jshill@shb.com mmcdonough@shb.com GURLEY MOTOR: "Yazzie" Suit May Proceed as Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- District Judge James A. Parker of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the case captioned, EUGENE YAZZIE and PHYLLIS YAZZIE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GURLEY MOTOR CO. and RED ROCK INVESTMENT CO., Defendants, Case No. 14-555 JAP/SCY (D. N.M.). On January 31, 2014, Mr. and Mrs. Yazzie purchased a 2006 Dodge Ram Truck from Gurley Motor for $18,495. Mr. and Mrs. Yazzie, they became unable to make the two $500 deferred down payments after Mr. Yazzie suffered heart problems. On March 2, 2014, agents of Red Rock, the assignee of Mr. and Mrs. Yazzie's Retail Installment Contract and Security Agreement, repossessed Mr. and Mrs. Yazzie's truck. The Yazzies identify six alleged deficiencies in this form notice: (1) it fails to state whether the disposition of the vehicle would be through public or private sale, (2) it fails to state that the Yazzies were entitled to an accounting of the unpaid indebtedness, (3) it fails to describe the Yazzies' liability for a deficiency, (4) it does not include a telephone number Mr. and Mrs. Yazzie could call to learn the amount needed to redeem their Truck, (5) it does not provide a telephone number or mailing address for acquiring additional information concerning the disposition and the obligation secured, and (6) it misstates the Yazzies' right to redeem until the actual time of sale. The Yazzies argue that these deficiencies violate the New Mexico Uniform Commercial Code. In the motion, Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify two classes: (1) A Loan Agreement Class or TILA Class consisting of all natural persons who, beginning on year prior to the filing of the Complaint, entered into a Motor Vehicle Installment Loan Contract with Gurley to purchase a vehicle primarily for personal, family or household use, where the loan agreement included a 'deferred down payment,' which was listed in the disclosed Payment Schedule but not included in the Total of Payment; and (2) A Notification Class or UCC Class consisting of all natural persons who purchased a vehicle from Gurley primarily for personal, family or household use, whose financing contract was assigned to Red Rock and to whom, beginning four years prior to the filing of the Complaint, Red Rock sent its legally insufficient Notification Before Disposition of Collateral, after repossessing the person's vehicle. In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated October 30, 2015 available at http://is.gd/8D56dmfrom Leagle.com, Judge Parker determined that certification is appropriate. Defendants' superiority challenge does not present a bar to class certification. The Court found that the benefits of class certification outweigh Defendants' nebulous damages concerns. The Court appointed Nicholas H. Mattison and Richard N. Feferman as class counsel. Plaintiffs are represented by: Nicholas H. Mattison, Esq. Richard N. Feferman, Esq. FEFERMAN & WARREN 300 Central Avenue SW, Suite 2000 West Albuquerque, NM 87102 Tel: (505) 243-7773 Defendants are represented by Mark D. Jarmie, Esq. -- mjarmie@jarmielaw.com -- JARMIE & ASSOCIATES HORIZON MUD: "Melkoski" Suit Removed From S.D. to W.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit entitled Melkoski v. Horizon Mud Co., Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00177, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Midland). The Western District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 7:15-cv-00175 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Horizon Mud Company is a full-service drilling fluid company headquartered in Midland, Texas, with other strategic locations across the U.S. The Company also manufactures and supplies drilling fluid lubricants, inhibitors, and sealers for troublesome shale for oil and gas drilling customers; provides Non-Damaging Reservoir Technology to reduce the finding cost of new reserves within severely difficult drilling regions; operates diesel and electric-operated pre-mix pits; and offers liquid and sack products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq. FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com ADunlap@fibichlaw.com litkin@fibichlaw.com - and - Richard J. Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com The Defendant is represented by: Henry Howard Robinson, Esq. KELLY, HART & HALLMAN, P.C. 201 Main Street, Suite 2500 Fort Worth, TX 76102-0001 Telephone: (817) 878-3558 Facsimile: (817) 878-9280 E-mail: henry.robinson@kellyhart.com HUTCHINGS COURT: "Wentzell" Suit Alleges Misrepresentation ---------------------------------------------------------- Joseph P. Wentzell, and all others similarly-situated v. Hutchings Court Reporters, LLC, Case No. 15-6112 (Mass. Cmmw., October 26, 2015), seeks damages against the Defendant for misrepresentation, fraud and deceit, and/or for money had and received. The Defendant provides court reporting services throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. McCullough, Esq. FORREST, LAMOTHE, MAZOW, MCCULLOUGH, YASI & YASI, P.C. 2 Salem Green, Suite 2 Salem, MA 01970 Tel: (617) 231-7829 Fax: (877) 599-8890 E-mail: kmccullough@forrestlamothe.com INTRALINK HOLDINGS: Court OKs $14MM Settlement of Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- A federal judge has granted final approval of the $14 million settlement in a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the federal securities laws against IntraLinks Holdings Inc., a virtual data room (VDR) -- or cloud computing -- company, and other defendants for allegedly misleading statements and omissions regarding the strength of the company's business, and failing to disclose to investors the loss of the company's largest client. The settlement in the lawsuit, Wallace v. IntraLinks Holdings, Inc., et al, reached by Lead Counsel Cohen Milstein Sellers Toll PLLC on behalf of Lead Plaintiff Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund, was approved on Nov. 12, by Judge Thomas Griesa, of the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York. "This settlement is a great result that will resolve a hotly contested case," said Lead Attorney Carol Gilden, a Partner at Cohen Milstein. "It will provide eligible class members with a long-awaited recovery." The settlement was the culmination of nearly four hard-fought years of litigation in which the Lead Plaintiff successfully obtained certification of a class of IntraLinks investors who purchased IntraLinks stock between Feb. 17 and Nov. 11, 2011, and a subclass of investors who purchased stock in the company's April 6, 2011, secondary offering. The decision was significant in that it was one of the first such decisions following the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Halliburton II, which held that defendants could defeat class certification by rebutting the "fraud-on-the- market" theory of reliance with evidence that the alleged misrepresentations had no impact on the price of the stock in question. Judge Griesa had previously granted preliminary approval of the settlement on July 31, 2015, and ordered that notice of the pending settlement and Cohen Milstein's fee and expense request be disseminated to the Class. Since then, more than 31,000 notices have been disseminated to potential class members and their nominees. To participate in the settlement, Class Members need to submit a proof of claim form with the requested supporting documentation. The deadline to submit claim forms is Nov. 30, 2015. Claim forms can be downloaded from the Settlement Website at www.IntraLinksSecuritiesSettlement.com. In addition to Lead Attorney Carol Gilden, others involved in the case and settlement were Steve Toll, Joshua Devore, Kenneth Rehns, and Elizabeth Aniskevich, all of Cohen Milstein. For more information about Wallace v. IntraLinks Holdings, Inc., et al, visit http://www.cohenmilstein.com/news.php?NewsID=814 Founded in 1969, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC is a national leader in plaintiff class action lawsuits and litigation. As one of the premier firms in the country handling major complex cases, including consumer protection and product liability issues, Cohen Milstein, with over 80 attorneys, has offices in Washington, D.C., New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Palm Beach Gardens, Fla., and Denver, Colo. For more information, visit http://www.cohenmilstein.comor call (202) 408-4600. JCY FRUIT: "Acosta" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation ----------------------------------------------- Damirsy Rodriguez Acosta, and all others similarly-situated v. JCY Fruit Stand, Inc., dba Soriano Brothers, Case No. 1:15-cv-24017 (S.D. Fla., October 27, 2015), seeks double damages and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant is a corporation that regularly transacts business within Miami-Dade County, and operates under a fictitious name otherwise known as Soriano Brothers. The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. Zidell, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Tel: (305) 865-6766 Fax: (305) 865-7167 E-mail: zabogado@aol.com JEFFERSON PARISH, LA: Judge OKs $1.7MM Deal in Camera Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- The Times-Picayune reported that a $7.1 million settlement of a class-action lawsuit involving the controversial red-light camera system used in Jefferson Parish from 2007 until 2010 has been approved. The Advocate reports checks will go out in January to 147,000 people who were issued tickets through the so-called Redflex system in Jefferson. Steven Mauterer, the attorney representing one of the two plaintiff classes, said anyone who paid their ticket without contesting it will receive a little more than $20 per ticket; those who contested theirs but ultimately paid will get just over $30 per ticket. The amount of the settlement is not enough to pay drivers the full amount of the penalty they were charged, typically $110. Mauterer says about a third of the settlement will go to attorneys' fees. JOE ARPAIO: Informant Says Judge Wiretapped Sheriff --------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News reported that a confidential informant gave a flowchart to a federal judge in Washington, D.C. that claimed the judge overseeing Sheriff Joe Arpaio's contempt-of-court hearing conspired with the Justice Department to wiretap Arpaio, an investigator testified. Mike Zullo, an investigator in Arpaio's Cold Case Posse, told the court during the last day of testimony that he made three visits to U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth in Washington to have Lamberth review information that Dennis Montgomery, a former CIA consultant, was providing to Arpaio's office. Montgomery claimed that the federal government had illegally accessed the bank and IRS records of about 150,000 Maricopa County residents. Judge Lamberth formerly served on the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. "Mr. Montgomery brought information with him," Zullo said. "I seem to recall the flowchart being handed to [Lamberth], I don't remember anything else." The flowchart alleges that U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow directed a wiretap on Arpaio's phone, and connects the judge with former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and the Covington & Burling law firm, which represents the plaintiffs in a 2007 racial profiling class action against Arpaio. Judge Snow is overseeing the civil contempt hearing in which Arpaio and four of his current and former aides are accused of violating a court order in that class action. "Do you see in the upper right-hand corner there's a reference to a DOJ wiretap?" asked plaintiffs' attorney Stanley Young, with Covington & Burling. "It says under there in yellow font, 'G. Murray Snow Orders.' Did you discuss that aspect of this flowchart with Lamberth?" Zullo denied talking about the wiretap with Lamberth. He said Montgomery handed the flowchart to the judge because he sought whistleblower protection status from the federal government. "I think we advised the judge none of this had been corroborated by us," Zullo said. Detective Brian Mankiewicz also attended the meetings with Lamberth. Zullo testified that he and Montgomery searched the bank records that Montgomery retrieved of Mary Rose Wilcox, a former member of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. Wilcox was granted a $975,000 settlement after she sued Arpaio and then-County Attorney Andrew Thomas in 2011, claiming they had her indicted twice for "participating in decisions of the Board of Supervisors when she had a conflict of interest." Those charges were dismissed. Thomas was disbarred in 2012. While Wilcox's bank information was not found, her husband Earl appeared in the list of Maricopa County residents and they were also able to find bank information on their restaurant, El Portal, Zullo said. "When you found Mary Rose Wilcox's restaurant's name, did you mention this to Sheriff Arpaio?" Young asked. "His reaction was the same as with this judge, it was 'He's a victim,'" Zullo said. "As far as Mary Rose not coming up, I explained to him that I was actually relieved she did not come up." Snow has scheduled the parties' oral arguments for Nov. 20. Arpaio and his aides face fines, sanctions and possible criminal charges if found to be in contempt. Snow indicated that if he does refer any of the five to Arizona U.S. Attorney John Leonardo for criminal prosecution, he may include names of additional parties. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Clouden" Suit Included in China Flooring MDL ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Clouden, et al. v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00734, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria). The Virginia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-02766-AJT-TRJ to the proceeding. The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned In re: Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Products Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1:15-md-02627-AJT-TRJR. The actions in the litigation involve common factual questions regarding whether Lumber Liquidators falsely represented that its Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring complied with California Air Resources Board standards and other legal requirements governing the emissions of formaldehyde. Based in Toano, Virginia, Lumber Liquidators is a retailer of hardwood flooring in North America. Lumber Liquidators operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hardwood flooring and hardwood flooring enhancements and accessories, and supervises and controls the manufacturing, packaging, distribution, marketing, and sales of laminate wood flooring products throughout the United States. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Theodoros Basdekis, Esq. SCARZAFAVA, BASDEKIS LAW FIRM 48 Dietz Street, Suite C Oneonta, NY 13820-5107 Telephone: (607) 432-9341 Facsimile: (607) 432-1986 E-mail: scarzafavalaw@yahoo.com MANPOWER INC: Padilla and Guido May File 2nd Amended Suit --------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Lucy H. Koh of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California grants in part Plaintiffs' motion to file a Second Amended Complaint in the case captioned, JUVENTINA MATA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MANPOWER INC./CALIFORNIA PENINSULA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:12-CV-04000-SC (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs Claudia Padilla and Lesli Guido bring the wage and hour class action against Defendants Manpower, Inc./California Peninsula, Manpower US Inc., Manpower Inc., ManpowerGroup Inc., and ManpowerGroup US Inc. The original complaint sought compensation and penalties for alleged violations during a "Class Period" defined as "the period of time beginning four years before the commencement of this action through the date on which each class or subclass herein is confirmed." On July 21, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC). Among other changes, the FAC changed the proposed Class Period to "the period of time beginning February 13, 2009 through the date of entry of Judgment herein." In the motion, Plaintiffs assert that Defendants did not pay Plaintiff wages for engaging in these activities, nor did Defendants reimburse them for expenses incurred related to these activities. Plaintiffs filed suit in California state court on May 29, 2014 asserting several claims under California law. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants: (1) failed to adequately pay Plaintiffs for reporting to work; (2) failed to pay wages for attending trainings and meetings; (3) failed to pay wages following Plaintiffs' demands; (4) failed to pay minimum wage; (5) failed to provide legally compliant wage statements; (6) failed to pay wages within a legally mandated timeframe; (7) failed to pay all wages upon termination; Plaintiffs also assert claims under (8) California's Private Attorneys General Act; and (9) California's Unfair Competition Law. The proposed Second Amended Complaint (SAC) would (1) name ManpowerGroup Inc. as Defendant, taking into account an alleged name change from Manpower Inc. and Manpower US Inc. to ManpowerGroup Inc.; (2) revise the FAC's proposed class definitions; and (3) allege an earlier date of March 17, 2007 for the beginning of the Class Period. In her Order dated October 29, 2015 available at http://is.gd/idKmzUfrom Leagle.com, Judge Koh granted Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint to name ManpowerGroup Inc. as a defendant and to revise the FAC's proposed class definitions. The Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the complaint to allege an earlier date for the beginning of the class period. Plaintiffs are represented by David E. Cameron, Esq. -- dcameron@wjhattorneys.com -- Patrick Darryn Toole, Esq. -- ptoole@wjhattorneys.com -- WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC - and - Charles Swanston, Esq. Bernard James Fitzpatrick, Esq. FITZPATRICK SPINI & SWANSTON 555 South Main St. Salinas, CA 93901 Defendants are represented by Spencer C. Skeen, Esq. -- spencer.skeen@ogletreedeakins.com -- Francis Lawrence Tobin, Esq. -- francis.tobin@ogletreedeakins.com -- James Patrick Allen, Esq. -- james.allen@ogletreedeakins.com -- Jesse Carter Ferrantella, Esq. -- jesse.ferrantella@ogletreedeakins.com -- Timothy Lloyd Johnson, Esq. -- timothy.johnson@ogletreedeakins.com -- OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK AND STEWART, P.C. MARYLAND: Faces Constitutional Challenges to Tax Code ----------------------------------------------------- Ian Duncan, writing for The Baltimore Sun, reported that Florida man filed a constitutional challenge to a Maryland law designed to soften the financial blow of a court ruling against part of Maryland's tax code -- a lawsuit that could end up costing the state $38 million on top of an already hefty refund bill from the original case. The high court ruled in May that Maryland could not refuse to give taxpayers credit for taxes they paid on out-of-state income. That ruling could cost local governments up to $42 million a year and leaves tax authorities on the hook for about $200 million in refunds, officials have estimated. In 2014, the General Assembly passed a law slashing the interest rate on potential tax refunds stemming from the case from 13 percent to about 3 percent, a move designed to save the state about $38 million. But in the new lawsuit, Michael J. Holzheid, who used to live in Maryland, alleges that it was unlawful for the state to retroactively change the rate. Holzheid's personal stake in the case is small -- just $131 -- but as many as 55,000 taxpayers are in line for payouts, and his attorneys are seeking class-action status for the lawsuit. Daniel Goldstein, one of Holzheid's lawyers, said that by changing the law, legislators had taken money from people without due process. "We hope that the state of Maryland will quickly acknowledge the error of its ways and do right by these taxpayers," he said in a statement. A spokesman for state Comptroller Peter Franchot, who is named as a defendant in the suit, declined to comment on the case. A spokesman for Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh said his office will review the allegations. Before the Supreme Court ruling, taxpayers in Maryland could receive a credit for income taxes paid to another state. But the credit did not apply to so-called piggyback taxes that Maryland passes on to local governments. Brian and Karen Wynne, a Howard County couple, alleged that the arrangement was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ultimately agreed, ruling 5-4 that the setup meant that some income was taxed twice and discouraged business that crossed state lines. In September, Gov. Larry Hogan encouraged people to come forward and claim any money due to them, saying he looked forward to having "the pleasure of sending refund checks." MISSOURI BASIN: "Crouch" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Crouch, and all others similarly situated v. Missouri Basin Well Service, Inc. dba MBI Energy Services and MBI Energy Logistics, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00150 (D.N.D., October 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants provide broad-based oilfield services including oil hauling, water hauling, water transfer, water disposal, service rigs, crane services, trucks, and equipment for oil and gas industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Leo F.J. Wilking, Esq. WILKING LAW FIRM, PLLC 3003 32nd Ave. S., Suite 240 P.O. Box 3085 Fargo, ND 58108-3085 Tel: (701) 356-6823 Fax: (701) 478-7621 E-mail: lwilking@wilkinglaw.com - and - Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES, LLP 711 W. Alabama Street Houston, TX 77006 Tel: (713) 523-0001 Fax: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com MUNICIPAL TECHNOLOGIES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Norris, and all others similarly-situated v. Municipal Technologies, LLC and Steven Murray, Case No. 15-018836 (Fla. Cir., October 23, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants provide management and development of IT infrastructure which includes administrative and financial support, as well as desktops and servers, telecom, and the city's website. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott M. Behren, Esq. BEHREN LAW FIRM 2893 Executive Park Drive, Suite 110 Weston, FL 33331 Tel: (954) 636-3802 Fax: (772) 252-3365 E-mail: scott@behrenlaw.com NELSON WESTERBERG: May File Revised Summary Judgment Bid -------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Gary Feinerman of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied Defendants' motion to reconsider but granted their request for leave to file a revised summary judgment motion in the case captioned, THOMAS MERVYN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NELSON WESTERBERG, INC., NEWESCO, INC., NELSON WESTERBERG INTERNATIONAL, and ATLAS VAN LINES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 11 C 6594 (N.D. Ill.). Defendants may file a revised summary judgment motion, strictly limited to the question whether they breached a lease agreement. In the putative class action against Nelson Westerberg, Inc., Newesco, Inc., Nelson Westerberg International and Atlas Van Lines, Inc., Thomas Mervyn alleges violations of 49 C.F.R. Sec. 376.12, a provision of the Truth-in-Leasing regulations promulgated by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to implement the Motor Carrier Act of 1980as well as common law unjust enrichment. The court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), except insofar as the complaint sought the remedies of disgorgement, restitution, or constructive trust for the Sec. 376.12 claims. The Defendants moved for summary judgment which was denied by the court on the ground that they had violated Local Rule 56.1 by filing briefs that cited directly to the record materials attached to the parties' Local Rule 56.1 statements and responses rather than to the statements and responses themselves. In the motion, Defendants have asked the court to reconsider its Local Rule 56.1 ruling, arguing that Local Rule 56.1 does not require parties to cite the Local Rule 56.1 statements and responses themselves or, put another way, does not prohibit parties from directly citing the record materials cited by and attached to those statements and responses. In the alternative to seeking reconsideration, Defendants seek leave to file a revised, compliant summary judgment motion. In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated November 1, 2015 available at http://is.gd/MW3rjIfrom Leagle.com, Judge Feinerman noted in denying summary judgment on the breach issue, where arguments presented in a summary judgment motion are fact- intensive, it is essential to the court's proper consideration of those arguments for the parties to brief their legal and factual positions with reference to the Local Rule 56.1 statements and responses and not to the record materials themselves. Local Rule 56.1 statements and responses establish the bridge between the record and the parties' arguments, and the value of those statements and responses is largely lost if the parties' briefs ignore them and instead cite the record. Plaintiffs are represented by Marvin Alan Miller, Esq. -- mmiller@millerlawllc.com -- Andrew Szot, Esq. -- aszot@millerlawllc.com -- Lori Ann Fanning, Esq. -- lfanning@millerlawllc.com -- Matthew E. Van Tine, Esq. -- mvantine@millerlawllc.com -- MILLER LAW LLC Defendants are represented by David H. Levitt, Esq. -- dlevitt@hinshawlaw.com -- Steven M. Puiszis, Esq. -- spuiszis@hinshawlaw.com -- HINSHAW & CULBERTSON NEOPETS INC: Faces Suit Over California Business Code Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- John Doe, and all others similarly situated v. Neopets, Inc. and Does 1-10, Case No. 2:15-cv-08395 (C.D. Calif., October 27, 2015), seeks damages, restitution, injunctive and other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under California Business and Professional Code and California Code of Civil Procedure. The Defendant operates a virtual pet website where subscribers may create accounts, own virtual pets, play games, and purchase virtual items using virtual currencies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP 4100 Newport Place, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Tel: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@trialnewport.com NEW YORK: Traffic Court Judge Sues City State to Regain Benefits ---------------------------------------------------------------- The New York Post reported that a former Long Island politician who was accused of being a "sexual predator" by her harbor-master ex-lover has a second act as a Queens traffic-court judge -- and is suing the city and state to regain the benefits she enjoyed as an elected representative. Susan Scarpati-Reilly, who once served on the Huntington Town Council, is now an administrative judge deciding traffic cases. Scarpati-Reilly and a colleague, Susan Weinman Resch, filed a class-action lawsuit in Manhattan Supreme Court claiming they have been improperly denied benefits like holiday pay, pensions and overtime. The traffic jurists say they don't get the perks because they lack collective bargaining rights. The 1972 state law that created the Traffic Violations Bureau said its judges would not be considered city employees as a cost-saving measure, according to the suit. Their lawyer, William Sipser, said they function more like per- diem workers, making $40 an hour. City and state reps did not comment. OREGON: DHS Settles Class Suit Over Violation of ADA ---------------------------------------------------- The Oregon Department of Human Services (DHS) announced a proposed settlement to a 2012 class action lawsuit that alleged that the state's reliance on sheltered workshops as employers for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The premise of the lawsuit was that sheltered workshops unnecessarily segregated people with disabilities from the general population. The settlement will expand options for supported employment for individuals with IDD and reduce the use of sheltered workshops. In the proposed settlement, Oregon pledged to expand its Employment First program over the next seven years to provide 1,115 working-age adults with IDD who are currently served in segregated sheltered workshops with opportunities for competitive jobs and supportive services. At least 4,900 youth ages 14 to 24 years old will receive supported employment services designed to assist them to choose, prepare for, get, and keep work in a typical work setting. Of the transition-age youth who apply to the state's Office of Vocational Rehabilitation Services and are found eligible for services, about half will get an Individual Plan for Employment. In all, the settlement will impact approximately 7,000 Oregonians with IDD who can and want to work in typical employment settings in the community. Sheltered workshops are segregated facilities that exclusively or primarily employ people with disabilities. As a result, the employees have little or no contact with non-disabled persons besides paid staff. Further, federal rules have provisions that allow sheltered workshops to pay people with IDD hourly wages well below the federal minimum wage. A sheltered workshop setting is not considered to be supported employment because it is not an integrated setting. In 2008, Oregon was one of the first states to adopt an Employment First policy; previously most people were referred to day services. From 2010 to 2012, DHS focused on outreach to promote the Employment First policy. The class action lawsuit, Lane v. Kitzhaber (since renamed Lane v. Brown), was filed in January 2012, by eight named individuals and United Cerebral Palsy of Oregon and Southwest Washington, on behalf of themselves and other individuals with IDD who are in Oregon sheltered workshops or have been referred to sheltered workshops. In March 2013, the Department of Justice (DOJ) intervened in the lawsuit; the DOJ also contended that Oregon violated the ADA by unnecessarily segregating adults with IDD in sheltered workshops and by placing Oregon youth with IDD at unnecessary risk of segregation in sheltered workshops. Approximately 1,900 Oregonians with disabilities currently receive services in sheltered workshops. Since the initiation of the lawsuit, approximately 3,900 Oregonians with disabilities received some level of services in sheltered workshops, and historically hundreds of students have transitioned each year from Oregon public schools to sheltered workshops. The proposed agreement recognizes that Oregon has made substantial progress in providing employment services to and improving employment outcomes for individuals with IDD since the filing of the plaintiffs' complaint and the department's complaint-in- intervention. In April 2013, former Governor Kitzhaber issued an Executive Order affirming Oregon's commitment to offering integrated employment services for people IDD. In May 2013, the Oregon Office of Developmental Disability Services, Vocational Rehabilitation, the Department of Education, and the Oregon Council on Developmental Disabilities, signed a Memorandum of Understanding on Transition of Students with Disabilities to the Workforce. This agreement was made to help support and increase the number of students with disabilities transitioning from secondary schools to integrated, community-based employment or post-secondary education. In February 2015, Governor Kitzhaber issued a follow-up Executive Order 15-01, which set specific targets for the number of people to be served each year. The private plaintiffs in Lane v. Brown were represented by the Center for Public Representation, Disability Rights Oregon and the law firms of Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP and Perkins Coie LLP. The parties' proposed settlement agreement was announced by the DOJ on September 8, 2015. The agreement has been submitted to the court, but court approval is still pending. PELLA CORPORATION: Court Trims Claims in "Dineen" Suit ------------------------------------------------------ District Judge David C. Norton of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina granted in part Pella Corporation's motion to dismiss the case captioned, MARTIN DINEEN and MARIANNE DINEEN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PELLA CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:14-MN-00001-DCN, 2:14-CV-03479-DCN. On August 13, 2014, the Dineens filed a class action complaint against Pella in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, alleging jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. The complaint brings the following ten causes of action: (1) violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA); (2) negligence; (3) negligent misrepresentation; (4) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; (5) breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose; (6) breach of express warranty; (7) fraud; (8) fraudulent concealment; (9) unjust enrichment; and (10) declaratory relief. On August 28, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the Dineens' case as part of the consolidated multidistrict litigation. Pella contends that the Dineens' claims should be dismissed in their entirety, arguing that they are barred by their respective statutes of limitations and that they are inadequately pleaded. In his Order dated October 30, 2015 available at http://is.gd/zXSxILfrom Leagle.com, Judge Norton dismissed without prejudice the Dineens' claims for FUDTPA violations; unjust enrichment; breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose; declaratory judgment; fraud-based claims to the extent they rely on affirmative representations; and negligent misrepresentation claim to the extent it relies on affirmative representations. Plaintiffs are represented by Scott A. George, Esq. -- sgeorge@seegerweiss.com -- SEEGER WEISS - and - April Goodwin, Esq. Jordan Lucas Chaikin, Esq. PARKER WAICHMAN 111 Great Neck Rd Great Neck, NY 11021 Tel: (212) 267-6700 Home Depot, Inc. is represented by John P. Mandler, Esq. -- john.mandler@FaegreBD.com -- Kevin L. Morrow, Esq. -- kevin.morrow@FaegreBD.com -- Mark J. Winebrenner, Esq. -- mark.winebrenner@FaegreBD.com -- Shane A. Anderson, Esq. -- shane.anderson@FaegreBD.com -- FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Ellen Toohey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, PRA Group, Inc., and Malen & Associates, P.C., Case No. 1:15-cv-08098- GBD (S.D.N.Y., October 14, 2015) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, and PRA Group, Inc., are American debt buyers based in Norfolk, Virginia. Malen & Associates, p.c. is a law firm based in Westbury, New York, with its practice limited to creditor's rights, collections, bankruptcy, foreclosure and real estate closings. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory Alan Frank, Esq. FRANK LLP 275 Madison Avenue, Suite 801 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 682-1818 Facsimile: (212) 682-1892 E-mail: gfrank@frankllp.com PREMIER FOODS: Antitrust Attys Call for Clarity on Leniency Rule ---------------------------------------------------------------- Roxanne Henderson, writing for Business Day Live, reported that experts have called on the South African Competition Commission to clarify its leniency policy after the Supreme Court of Appeal let a big company off the hook for its role in the bread cartel. The appeal court ruled that the Competition Tribunal's declaration that Premier Foods engaged in a prohibited practice under competition laws was a nullity. Without this declaration, trade federation Cosatu, the National Consumer Forum and others planning to sue bread cartelists in a class action cannot sue Premier Foods. During an investigation into the bread cartel in 2006, Premier Foods applied for immunity under the Competition Commission's corporate leniency policy in exchange for assisting the commission in its investigation. Premier gave evidence against Tiger Brands and Pioneer Foods and also blew the whistle on Foodcorp, with whom it had also colluded on a national scale. Despite this, the Competition Tribunal issued certification declaring that Premier had broken the law, opening it up to civil claims. Now the court has shut that door, agreeing with Premier's argument that the Competition Tribunal had overstepped the mark. Premier Foods marketing executive Siobhan O'Sullivan said: "The commission chose not to refer Premier (which had applied for leniency as a whistleblower) to the tribunal. As the court held, the commission's election meant the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to make orders against Premier." The Competition Commission investigates and prosecutes companies found to be colluding. Upon referral to the Competition Tribunal, which adjudicates cases, a guilty party may be fined up to 10% of its annual turnover. Pioneer was fined R195.7m for its involvement in the cartel, while Tiger Brands and Foodcorp negotiated fines of R98m and R45m, respectively. The appeal court said the leniency policy did not give applicants immunity in civil actions. Instead the problem lay in the commission's failure to refer Premier to the tribunal. Competition lawyer Jennifer Finnigan said the leniency policy required clarification. She said there was confusion about whether a leniency applicant could be referred to the Competition Tribunal for the purposes of a prohibited practice declaration but not an administrative fine. Lawyer Charles Abrahams, acting for Cosatu, the Children's Resource Centre Trust, the National Consumer Forum, the Black Sash Trust and others, said that their application for class-action certification pending before the High Court in Cape Town against Tiger Brands, Pioneer Foods and Premier Foods would continue after the appeal. If the appeal failed, the class action would go ahead without Premier, he said. QUALITEST PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Birth Control Pills -------------------------------------------------------- Paul Samakow, writing for Communities Digital News, reported that one hundred and thirteen women have filed a class action lawsuit in Philadelphia against Qualitest Pharmaceuticals claiming the "reverse" packaging of birth control pills manufactured by the company led to their pregnancies. Mothers in 28 states are seeking millions of dollars, including claims for the cost of raising their children into adulthood and the cost of education. Qualitest did recall eight types of oral contraceptives in 2011 after it was discovered that rows of pills were reversed, meaning women may have taken the sugar or placebo pills when they should have taken the actual contraceptives. What if you do not want children and your birth control method has failed? What the issue was more than just not wanting children? What if you simply could not afford to raise a child? What if your genetic family history has persuaded you not to have children? What if you sought information about your genetic background were given the wrong information? The legal issues surrounding the birth of unwanted children have different answers around the country. Should there be legal uniformity nation wide? Our nation's highest court has ruled on issues of abortion and same-sex marriage and has provided, at the very least, a backbone upon which all states may rest in viewing how to adjudicate these types of issues when presented in courtrooms. Perhaps the many issues attendant to unwanted children might also benefit from a uniform Federal law. But perhaps not, as it can be argued that the will of the people is best represented on a state-by-state basis. Moving past a policy discussion, the immediate question is, will these women in the cases above find success in this lawsuit? A bit of history may provide the answer. By the late 1970s, the practice of suing doctors for failed sterilization procedures had gained acceptance in most states. Lawsuits seeking damages for unplanned or unwanted pregnancies were allowed when medical negligence was proven. With technological advances in birth control methods such as pills, the "morning-after" pill, intra-uterine devices and safe access to abortions and more reliable genetic testing, courts had to look at new types of lawsuits when unintended pregnancies occurred. These new types of lawsuits have been termed wrongful pregnancy, wrongful birth and wrongful life. Wrongful pregnancy is a claim that a doctor's negligence caused an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy. Most states recognize this claim if the pregnancy resulted from a failed tubal ligation or vasectomy or from a failed contraceptive pill or device, or if there was a continuing pregnancy after a failed abortion. Courts generally allow damages to include the cost of the pregnancy as well as pain and suffering and emotional distress related to the unwanted pregnancy; costs associated with the delivery; and damages for any of the mother's injuries or death if such occur and were related to the pregnancy or delivery. Mothers in most of these cases have not been allowed to recover any costs associated with raising the child. In six states where such "raising the child" costs are allowed, they are offset by the monetary and non-monetary benefits conferred by the child. Wrongful birth cases allege that a doctor's action or omission prevented the would-be mother from making an informed choice about whether to terminate a pregnancy that resulted in the birth of a child with a congenital impairment or disability. About half of the states recognize this type of case. The gist of these claims is that the doctor failed to inform the mother of potential problems, genetic markers, etc., that could result in delivering a child that was not perfectly healthy and thus deprived the mother of the choice of whether to carry the pregnancy to term. These cases generally allow for compensation similar to those detailed above and similarly prohibit child-rearing expenses. Some states allow for "extra-ordinary" damages such as compensation for medical specialists, behavioral modification therapy, orthopedic aids and medications. Wrongful life cases are very close to wrongful birth cases. The difference is that in wrongful life cases, the child is the one filing the lawsuit claiming that because his or her mother was deprived of the informed choice to terminate the pregnancy, the child was forced to live a life of pain and suffering. Most states will not allow this claim, believing that life in and of itself cannot be an injury. Four states, California, New Jersey, Louisiana and Washington allow the claim and allow compensation for extraordinary damages. The list of possible defendants (those being sued) has grown over the years. In addition to suing a doctor, now, depending upon the claim, a woman may sue her pharmacist, her genetic counselor, her non-physician health care provider, drug companies and possibly others. A case in Michigan filed against a pharmacist who provided tranquilizers instead of contraceptives was seen. A condom manufacturer was sued in New Jersey. A Delaware case included not only suing doctors, but also the medical center employing the doctors for failing to perform testing procedures that would have revealed the child to be born had Down Syndrome. A California laboratory was sued following negligent blood testing procedures undertaken to determine if a child had Tay-Sachs disease. Will the women in this Philadelphia lawsuit win? Probably. Will they recover all of the compensation they are seeking? Probably not. In 2011, a jury awarded a couple $4.5 million in a wrongful birth case against a doctor and an ultrasound technician who failed to properly read the test on their child, who was born with no arms and only one leg. The couple said they would have terminated the pregnancy. The parents of a child born with Down Syndrome were awarded $3 million in a wrongful birth case, even though an early prenatal test found the child did not have the genetic marker associated with the disorder. Notwithstanding these results and many others, the overwhelming sentiment of courts is that life is valuable, and there is joy in parenting. Judges are not comfortable viewing life as a form of damage. The sentiment is that the costs of raising a child are offset by the blessings of parenting. Some inquiring minds might delve into possible "defenses" in these cases, that is, claims that might result in the cases being thrown out or which would limit the amount of compensation if the mom were to win the case. It would be easy to defend a case by claiming the mom should either have had an abortion or should have given the child up for adoption. Some states permit the woman's failure to have an abortion to be used against her, viewing the mother's "failure to mitigate" her damages a reasonable consideration in assessing those damages. In other states, defendants are prohibited from claiming the mother suing should have had an abortion. Regarding adoption, some states hold that it is unreasonable to require the mother to place a child up for adoption in order to mitigate damages. Other courts have held that the woman's decision to keep the child rather than putting it up for adoption amounts to a determination by the woman that the benefits of parenthood outweigh the costs. Thus, the jury should be allowed to offset any compensation award by the monetary and non-monetary benefits conferred by the child. The expansion and diversity of available contraceptive products and technologies are resulting in more people using them. Due to this ever-growing rate of increase, the individuals or companies providing these devices, products and procedures are facing greater and greater exposure to liability when the contraception fails. Courts and legislatures will continue to deal with and struggle with what are clearly complex issues. The law will develop in this area. Paul A. Samakow is an attorney licensed in Maryland and Virginia and has been practicing since 1980. He represents injury victims and routinely battles insurance companies and big businesses that will not accept full responsibility for the harms and losses they cause. He can be reached at any time by calling 1-866-SAMAKOW (1- 866-726-2569), via email, or through his website. REEBOK INT'L: Faces "Del-Orden" Suit Alleging Violations of ADA --------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Del-Orden, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Reebok International Ltd., Case No. 1:15-cv-08101-PKC (S.D.N.Y., October 14, 2015) alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Canton, Massachusetts-based Reebok International Ltd. designs, markets, and distributes sports, fitness, and casual footwear, apparel, and equipment. The Company's product line includes footwear and apparel products for football, baseball, soccer, track and field, and other sports, as well as women's category products. The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com REGUS MANAGEMENT: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Circle Click Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Samuel Conti of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied all pending motions by both parties in the case captioned, CIRCLE CLICK MEDIA LLC, a California limited liability company, and CTNY INSURANCE GROUP LLC, a Connecticut limited liability company, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. REGUS MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; REGUS BUSINESS CENTRE LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; REGUS plc, a Jersey, Channel Islands public limited company; HQ GLOBAL WORKPLACES LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. 3:12-CV-04000-SC. In July 2012, Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendants in California state court. The action was subsequently removed, and several rounds of pleading followed. The gravamen of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (2AC), Plaintiffs' operative pleading, is that Regus and the other Defendants routinely assessed Plaintiffs for charges that were not disclosed in the OSA. For example, according to Plaintiffs' complaint, the monthly fee listed in Circle Click's OSA was $2,461, but Circle Click received monthly invoices ranging from $2,559.67 to $6,653.79. The Court's April 22, 2013 Order dismissed several of Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice. The following causes of action were left undisturbed: violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL); violation of California's False Advertising Law (FAL); and unjust enrichment. As part of the UCL claim, Plaintiffs allege violations of the unfair, fraudulent, and unlawful prongs of the UCL. As part of their FAL and UCL claims, Plaintiffs assert violations of California Business and Professions Code section 17509 and CPUC section 2890. In the motion, Regus moves the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs' case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds that Plaintiffs lack standing and Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify two proposed classes "consisting of a California class pursuing claims on all causes of action and a New York class pursuing the unjust enrichment cause of action" arguing that the proposed classes satisfy the prerequisites of Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(a) and fulfill the requirements for class certification under Rule 23(b)(3). In his Order dated October 29, 2015 available at http://is.gd/1LzYrhfrom Leagle.com, Judge Conti found that the dismissed claim was based on a New York law which applied only to "those who purchase goods and services for personal, family or household use, however, California's FAL does not have the same limitation. The Court also found that Plaintiffs do not satisfy the typicality requirement as to their class certification claim. Plaintiffs may, if they choose, file a new motion for class certification with revised class definitions. Plaintiffs are represented by: Ali Ari Aalaei, Esq. Alyce Winn Foshee, Esq. Craig P. Ramsdell, Esq. ARI LAW, P.C. 90 New Montgomery St Suite 905 San Francisco, CA 94105 - and - S. Chandler Visher, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF S. CHANDLER VISHER 44 Montgomery St # 3830 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: (415) 901-0500 Defendants are represented by Meryl Macklin, Esq. -- meryl.macklin@bryancave.com -- Tracy Marie Talbot, Esq. -- tracy.talbot@bryancave.com -- Christopher John Schmidt, Esq. -- christopher.schmidt@bryancave.com -- Daniel Thomas Rockey, Esq. -- daniel.rockey@bryancave.com -- Darci F. Madden, Esq. -- darci.madden@bryancave.com -- Kenneth Lee Marshall, Esq. -- kenneth.marshall@bryancave.com -- Sara Ahmed, Esq. -- sara.ahmed@bryancave.com -- Stephanie Ann Blazewicz, Esq. -- stephanie.blazewicz@bryancave.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP REMEX INC: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.J. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Deborah Cohen, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Remex, Inc., and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:15-cv- 07510-MAS-TJB (D.N.J., October 14, 2015) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Remex, Inc., has been recovering delinquent accounts receivable since 1983. The Company is authorized to collect in all 50 states, the Remex call center is located in Princeton, New Jersey. Remex provides services to financial institutions including retailers, banks, credit card issuers, finance companies and other consumer credit grantors. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (347) 526-4093 Facsimile: (732) 298-6256 E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com SAFEWAY: Aptos Man Sues Over Underfilled Canned Tuna ---------------------------------------------------- Samanthah Clark, writing for Santa Cruz Sentinel, reorted that Safeway, the nation's second largest supermarket chain, is accused of shortchanging customers by selling them underfilled store brand canned tuna in a class action lawsuit filed on Nov. 5 in California Northern District federal court in San Francisco. Plaintiff Ehder Soto of Aptos said in court documents that recent government testing uncovered that the cans of tuna he purchased regularly from a local Safeway didn't contain the full 5 ounces of tuna advertised on the label. Attempts to reach him and his attorneys at Bursor & Fisher in Walnut Creek and New York were unsuccessful. Soto says he bought five cans of tuna every two weeks from 2012 to 2014 and that the labels influenced his purchasing choices. "I would not have purchased Safeway Chunk Light Tuna in Water if I had known that the cans were underfilled and underweight," Soto states in court documents. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found 106 out of 108 Safeway tuna cans did not have as much tuna as promised. They contained an average of 2.29 ounces of tuna, which is 19.4 percent below the federally mandated minimum standard of fill for 2.84 ounces, according to the lawsuit. Soto also asserts that "Safeway Tuna did not have the characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits or quantities as promised," the lawsuit states. He filed claims against Safeway for breach of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation and fraud. He also accused the grocery store of violating the state's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition and False Advertising laws. The class action lawsuit seeks to represent anyone in the U.S. who purchased the tuna products. They can inquire about joining by contacting Bursor & Fisher at info@bursor.com Members of the proposed class are seeking more than $5 million and have requested a jury trial. Safeway denied to comment. Earlier this year, StarKist Co. paid $12 million to settle a similar lawsuit filed by Bursor & Fisher. Consumers also alleged the company didn't put enough tuna in its cans. Starkist claimed that it and other top tuna companies had petitioned previously the Federal Food and Drug Administration to change the standard of fill. People who've purchased certain Starkin tuna products between 2009 and 2014 may be eligible to $25 in cash or $50 of tuna. They have until Nov. 20 to sign up for the settlement at www.tunalawsuit.com SCM I INVESTMENTS: Court Trims Claims in "Rodrigues" Case --------------------------------------------------------- District Judge John E. Steele of the United States District Court for Middle District of Florida granted in part Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned, MICHAELENE RODRIGUES, an individual, SUZANNE FORTE, an individual, and CHRISTIANE LEVESQUE, an individual, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. SCM I INVESTMENTS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 2:15-CV-128-128-FTM-29CM (M.D. Fla.). Plaintiffs Michaelene Rodrigues, Suzanne Forte and Christiane Levesque are former employees of defendant SCM I Investments, LLC d/b/a The Wine Loft of Naples filed a complaint which contains three counts. Rodrigues alleges age discrimination claims in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act in Counts I and II. While not named-plaintiffs in these two counts, Forte and Levesque allege they are similarly situated and are therefore opt- in plaintiffs. Rodriques, Forte, and Levesque all allege age discrimination claims in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA) in Count III. All three counts assert that there are other similarly situated plaintiffs, and the case seeks to proceed as a collective action under the ADEA. In the motion, Defendant seeks dismissal of portions of the Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Defendant asserts that: (1) Rodrigues failed to exhaust administrative remedies regarding her ADEA claim, (2) Forte and Levesque cannot "piggyback" on Rodrigues' charge of discrimination to pursue their collective action ADEA claims, and (3) Plaintiffs' claims under the FCRA are untimely. Defendant seeks dismissal of the ADEA claims with prejudice, dismissal of Forte and Levesque's FCRA claims with prejudice, and dismissal or limitation of Rodrigues' claims under the FCRA to the extent they are based on conduct that occurred more than 365 days prior to the filing of her charge of discrimination. In his Opinion and Order dated November 2, 2015 available at http://is.gd/jYjTeSfrom Leagle.com, Judge Steele found that defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted as to Forte's claims as an opt-in plaintiff as to Counts I and II and Count III and denied as to Levesque. The Court directed the Defendant to file a responsive pleading. Plaintiffs are represented by: Lowell J. Kuvin, Esq. Sundeep K. Mullick, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN, LLC 17 E Flagler St #223 Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (305) 358-6800 SCM I Investments is represented by Christine E. Howard, Esq. -- choward@laborlawyers.com -- Marci E. Britt, Esq. -- mbritt@laborlawyers.com -- FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP SIENTRA INC: Wagner Firm Files Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------- The Wagner Firm announces that a class action has been filed on behalf of investors of Sientra, Inc. ("Sientra" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:SIEN) securities between Mar 18, 2015 to Sept 24, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors that have suffered a loss on their Sientra securities holdings are encouraged to contact Avi Wagner, Esq. to discuss their legal rights prior to the November 24, 2015 lead plaintiff deadline. On September 23, 2015, the Company announced the closing of a public offering of 3 million shares of common stock. Then on September 24, 2015, the Company disclosed that the U.K.'s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has suspended distribution of its Silimed products due to issues with a manufacturing facility in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. On this news the Company's shares fell $10.88 per share, or over 52%, to close on September 24, 2015 at $9.70 per share. The Company's shares have continued to decline on news in further disruptions to production at the Company's Rio de Janeiro manufacturing facility. The complaint alleges that Sientra, made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Sientra's exclusive reliance on Silimed's Brazilian manufacturing facilities carried significant quality control risks; (ii) the manufacturing processes at the Silimed Rio de Janeiro manufacturing plant were contaminated; and (iii) as a result, the Company's statements regarding quality control and other financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. If you purchased shares of Sientra, if you have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or if you wish to discuss these matters or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Avi Wagner, Esquire, of The Wagner Firm, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, at (310) 491-7949, by e-mail at info@thewagnerfirm.com, or visit our website at http://thewagnerfirm.com ST. CLAIR COUNTY, IL: Case Management Conference Order Issued ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Nancy J. Rosentengel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois issued an order for case management conference in the case captioned, TYRONE GRAHAM, Jr., # 432985, and BLOCK AA, Plaintiffs, v. RICHARD WATSON, PHILLIP McLAURIN, and UNKNOWN PARTY, Defendants, Case No. 15-CV- 01114-NJR (S.D. Ill.). Plaintiff Tyrone Graham, Jr., currently detained at St. Clair County Jail and proceeding pro se, filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 against numerous St. Clair County officials. In the complaint, Plaintiff Graham alleges that all "Block AA Offenders" have endured unconstitutional conditions of confinement at the Jail since August 11, 2015. On that date, thirty offenders were moved from Block AA to the gym when a light broke in their cell block. They have since been forced to share a single toilet and eat and sleep amidst pests on the gym floor. Plaintiff seeks an Order requiring the Jail to return the Block AA Offenders to their cell block "with better living conditions." The Court noted that the action appears to involve more than one plaintiff. Plaintiff Graham signed the complaint. He also signed and filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and a motion for recruitment of counsel. But the case caption also lists "Block AA" as a plaintiff. The narrative portion of the complaint is written in third person, and the request for relief pertains to all Block AA Offenders. Along with the complaint, Plaintiff Graham filed a "petition" dated August 19, 2015, that refers to Major McLaurin as a "Defendant" and is signed by nineteen individuals who are referred to as "Plaintiff AA Offenders." The action is before the Court for case management. In her Memorandum and Order dated November 2, 2015 available at http://is.gd/LlHvvMfrom Leagle.com, Judge Rosentengel offered all Block AA Offenders, other than Plaintiff Graham, whom it designates as the "lead" Plaintiff in the case, an opportunity to notify the Court of their intentions to proceed together with Plaintiff Graham in the action or not by bringing a separate action or no action at all. Plaintiffs are cautioned that future group motions or pleadings that do not comply with the court's requirement shall be stricken pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 11(a). TELEXFREE LLC: Case Spawns Counterclaims "Like High-stake Poker" ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Eckelbecker, writing for Telegram & Gazette, reported that in a fifth-floor federal courtroom jammed with lawyers focused on alleged pyramid and Ponzi scheme TelexFree LLC, U.S. District Judge Timothy S. Hillman peered out from the bench. "Mr. Roffman," he said, holding up a marred paper from a legal filing while calling Ian D. Roffman, lead counsel for Fidelity Bank of Fitchburg to a lectern, "this is my 8-month-old grandson's opinion of your argument, not mine." The line got a laugh, but not for long. Mr. Roffman was just one of many lawyers lined up to speak in the case, known as multidistrict litigation, or MDL. Time was ticking away, so he started speaking. Everything about TelexFree is big: the $360 million the former Marlboro company collected in just two years and the more than 1 million people around the world who got involved. In a case so big, it makes sense the legal fallout is big, too. The Securities and Exchange Commission has filed a civil action against TelexFree. Federal prosecutors have charged the defunct company's officers with criminal fraud. A bankruptcy trustee is figuring out how to distribute the company's assets, about $107 million, according to recent filings. And then there are the former TelexFree participants, some of whom claim they lost money and have signed on with class action lawyers to sue TelexFree and about 40 of its officers, lawyers, accountants, bankers and even some of those who apparently made money from the entity. Bundled together into one MDL, their case is moving through federal court at the same time criminal and bankruptcy cases are going on. TelexFree collapsed in 2014 amid investigations by state and federal authorities into whether the company, which claimed to sell Internet telephone service, was really a Ponzi and pyramid scheme. Company officers Carlos N. Wanzeler of Northboro and James M. Merrill of Ashland are facing charges of criminal fraud. Mr. Wanzeler fled to his native Brazil and is a fugitive. Mr. Merrill has pleaded not guilty and remains under house arrest awaiting trial. Robert FitzPatrick, who runs the website pyramidschemealert.org and author of "False Profits: Seeking Financial and Spiritual Deliverance in Multi-level Marketing and Pyramid Schemes," said pyramid schemes appeal to people as income opportunities and are so widespread that virtually every household in America has been touched by one in some way. "It's a magical proposition that on the face of it is impossible," Mr. FitzPatrick said. "It's a chain letter dressed up to look like a business." The TelexFree MDL case is one of about a dozen MDL cases under way in Massachusetts. Some are focused on contract or antitrust questions. The largest consolidates about 4,300 claims alleging injury and death linked to dialysis products from Fresenius Medical Care. For those involved in an MDL action, there are risks. Cases can go on for years. Lawyers for alleged victims work on contingency, only getting paid when a case resolves. "It's like high-stakes poker," said Jeffrey N. Catalano, president-elect of the Massachusetts Bar Association and a partner at Todd & Weld in Boston. He is involved in the Fresenius MDL case. "You're in for a lot of money. There's a high risk associated with it. But it's exciting. You are collaborating with lawyers across the country, all of whom in my experience are pretty dedicated and committed to the cause. You're up against powerful attorneys on the other side who also are extremely skilled and knowledgeable." In the TelexFree MDL case, class action lawyers also have come up against some of the officials targeting TelexFree. The U.S. Attorney's office has asked the court to halt the class action lawyers from going after evidence, saying it could hinder the criminal trial against Mr. Wanzeler and Mr. Merrill. Bankruptcy trustee Stephen B. Darr has opposed the class action lawyers' request to recover damages from those who profited from TelexFree, arguing that it interferes with his right to find and distribute fraudulently obtained assets. Against banks, the class action lawyers are arguing, in part, that each institution "was a substantial and integral cog in TelexFree's unlawful United States pyramid scheme, and, without that assistance, the scheme would not have been able to get off the ground, develop, maintain or thrive," according to a complaint. Robert W. Fuller, a lawyer for Wells Fargo Bank, told Judge Hillman during a recent day of marathon arguments that it was an allegation with "the heft of a feather in outer space." "They haven't pleaded anything to show we had knowledge of anything," Mr. Fuller said in his argument. "It's preposterous for the banks here to say they didn't have actual knowledge," Mr. Bonsignore said in his remarks. TICC CAPITAL: "Barnes" Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties -------------------------------------------------------------- Cooper Barnes and Charles Thibedau, and all others similarly situated v. TICC Capital Corp., Jonathan H. Cohen, Charles M. Royce, Steven P. Novak, G. Peter O'Brien, Tonia L. Pankopf, and Saul B. Rosenthal, Case No. 3:15-cv-01564 (D. Conn., October 27, 2015), seek to remedy the Defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws and breaches of the common law fiduciary duties. TICC is a public company with its principal place of business in Greenwich, Connecticut. It owns investible assets which are managed by an entity called TICC Management, LLC. TICC Management is owned and controlled by defendants Jonathan H. Cohen, the TICC CEO and a member of the TICC Board of Directors; Charles M. Royce, the Chairman of the TICC Board of Directors; and Saul B. Rosenthal, the TICC President. The individual Defendants are the current members of TICC's Board of Directors and, its President. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Henry Elstein, Esq. GOLDMAN, GRUDER & WOODS, LLC 105 Technology Drive Trumbull, CT 06611 Tel: (203) 880-5333 Fax: (203) 880-5332 - and - Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: (310) 201-9150 Fax: (310) 201-9160 - and - Avi Wagner, Esq. THE WAGNER FIRM 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: (310) 491-7949 Fax: (310) 694-3967 TULSA, OK: Firm Settles Class Action for $1.3 Million ----------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reported that a settlement has been reached in a class-action lawsuit on behalf of former residents of the old mining town of Picher against a Tulsa-based appraisal firm involved with the federal buyout of property in the area. The Joplin Globe reports that a judge signed off on the $1.3 million settlement. The 161 plaintiffs could receive their share of the settlement before Christmas. The former residents of Picher had alleged that their properties were intentionally undervalued by the appraisal company, Cinnabar Service Co. The company conducted appraisals for the Lead-Impacted Communities Relocation Assistance Trust, which oversaw the buyout of Picher with guidance from state environmental officials. The settlement provides $650,000 to the plaintiff's lawyers and $650,000 to the plaintiffs. Each of the Cinnabar-appraised households could receive about $4,000, which is about $1,700 less than originally anticipated. TWEEN BRANDS: "Loor" Case Stayed Pending Approval of Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted Defendant's Motion to Stay Pending Judicial Approval of Nationwide Settlement of Class Action in the case captioned, YANETSY LOOR, Plaintiff, v. TWEEN BRANDS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:15-CV-953-ORL-37DAB (M.D. Fla.). On June 11, 2015, Florida resident Yanesty Loor initiated this action against Tween Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business in Ohio. Plaintiff alleges that in 2014 and 2015, she spent $239.48 on purportedly discounted merchandise at a store located in this judicial district, which Defendant owns and operates. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant falsely represented to her on her receipts and through advertising on signs and elsewhere that Plaintiff received a substantial discount (at least 40%) off of the "regular price" of the Merchandise. Based on Defendant's allegedly fraudulent advertising and sales practices, Plaintiff asserts unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and breach of express warranty claims on behalf of herself and a class of plaintiffs throughout the U.S. (National Class). Plaintiff defines the putative National Class as "All individuals who, while they were residents of any state other than Ohio, purchased any product(s) from Defendant, in one of Defendant's stores other than Defendant's Ohio stores, during any day that Defendant advertised a discount of 40% off entire store, or other similar discount language, and where the product(s) was not sold at the non-discount price for at least 28 of the last 90 days prior to the purchase." Defendant requests that the Court stay the action pending a final ruling on a proposed class action settlement that will cover Plaintiff's claims. In his Order dated November 3, 2015 available at http://is.gd/nELERLfrom Leagle.com, Judge Dalton, Jr. agreed to stay the Loor case because it appears that the Plaintiff would violate the order in the Rougvie proceedings if she attempted to pursue her claims in the Court before resolution of the Rougvie proceedings. The Loor action is stayed until May 31, 2016. After the Rougvie Hearing, the parties shall confer in person concerning the steps necessary to resolve this action, and they shall then file a joint status report with the Court on or before May 27, 2016. Yanetsy Loor is represented by Gary C. Rosen, Esq. -- grosen@becker-poliakoff.com -- Evan Benjamin Berger, Esq. -- eberger@bplegal.com -- BECKER & POLIAKOFF, PA - and - Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq. DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., LPA 60 S Park Pl Painesville, OH 44077 Tel: (216) 861-4211 Tween Brands, Inc. is represented by Brian Michael Ercole, Esq. -- bercole@morganlewis.com -- Ezra D. Church, Esq. -- echurch@morganlewis.com -- Gregory T. Parks, Esq. -- gparks@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP UNITED COLLECTION: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Podrigal, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-05910 (E.D.N.Y., October 14, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. United Collection Bureau, Inc. is a national Revenue Cycle and Accounts Receivable Management company based in Toledo, Ohio. The Company provides an array of revenue cycle and account receivable services and products to the Financial Services, Healthcare, Telecommunications, Government, Utility, and Commercial markets. UNITED RECOVERY: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ------------------------------------------------------------ Moshe Perlstein and Raizy Perlstein, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated consumers v. United Recovery Systems LP, Case No. 1:15-cv-05927 (E.D.N.Y., October 14, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. United Recovery Systems, LP is a Texas-based Limited Partnership headquartered in Houston, Texas, with offices in Arizona, Kentucky, and Oklahoma. URS provides collection services to its clients. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com VENGROFF WILLIAMS: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Melissa Kivo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Vengroff Williams, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-05915-JMA- AKT (E.D.N.Y., October 14, 2015) is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Vengroff Williams, Inc. engages in third-party debt collection and subrogation of (assumption of authority to collect) insurance claims. The Company also compiles credit reports for clients. The Company was founded in 1963 and is headquartered in Sarasota, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Abraham Kleinman, Esq. KLEINMAN, LLC 626 RXR Plaza Uniondale, NY 11556-0626 Telephone: (516) 522-2621 Facsimile: (888) 522-1692 E-mail: akleinman@kleinmanllc.com VOLKSWAGEN: Offers $1,000 Gift Package to Car Owners Amid Scandal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Abigail Genn Briones, writing for VINE Report, reported that Volkswagen small diesel-powered car owners are entitled to $1,000 worth in gift cards and vouchers as the car company seeks to regain their customers' trust after confessing to rigging more than 11 million of their vehicles worldwide with software that makes it appear as if the cars are compliant with United States emissions standards, USA Today reports. The goodwill offering is divided into two $500 cards: a $500 Visa debit card to be spent at the holder's discretion; and the other, a $500 dealership credit to be used in availing services at VW dealerships, such as an oil change. The offer also includes three years of free roadside assistance to owners of the diesel cars. VW's efforts to placate their customers have no strings attached. This was confirmed in an email to USA Today by Volkswagen spokeswoman Jeannine Ginivan, saying, "There are no stipulations." Acceptance of the offer will in no way prohibit the car owners from taking part in any class-action or individual suit against the company, or exclude them from any future compensation. Fox News quotes a statement from VW's U.S. CEO, Michael Horn, "We are working tirelessly to develop an approved remedy for affected vehicles. In the meantime we are providing this goodwill package as a first step towards regaining our customers' trust." Not only is the offer designed to appease the affected owners, it is also a means to boost the car dealers who, as yet, are inhibited from selling vehicles which have the reported software or even those pre-owned ones until a solution is arrived at. According to US News, 482,000 owners of diesel Volkswagens and Audis in the U.S. have been "in limbo" since the middle of September when the scandal broke out. Apparently, the software installed in the cars concerned turns on pollution controls during emission tests but turn them off when the car is driven on the road, meaning that, during all these vehicles' sojourns on the road, emissions of nitrogen oxide exceed normal and safe limits. The Associated Press reports that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has found that cars with the 2-liter 4-cylinder diesel engines emit from 10 up to 40 times the allowable amount while being driven. There are 11 million VW cars worldwide fitted with the software. The company is in the process of recalling 2009 to 2015 model year vehicles across Europe which come up to about 8.5 million. According to the Transport Ministry in Germany, as Fox News reveals, there are 540,000 of 2.4 million recalled cars in Germany which need the hardware and software fixes. It says that Volkswagen will be informing the owners concerned. VOLKSWAGEN: Owners Still in Dark Over Australian Car Recall ----------------------------------------------------------- Mark Hawthorne, writing for The Age, reported that thousands of Volkswagen owners in Australia caught up in the Dieselgate scandal have received letters from the company notifying them of a recall, but the carmaker is still unable to tell customers just how or when their cars will be fixed. Letters from Volkswagen Group Australia have been sent to owners of impacted Golf and Polo models, as well as owners of new Tiguan, Jetta, Passat and Caddy cars that have the EA189-series engine at the heart of the scandal. Volkswagen Australia has confirmed at least 78,000 Volkswagen vehicles have been sold in Australia with a so-called "defeat device" fitted to engines, including an estimated 61,000 passenger cars. The device allow cars to pass strict emissions testing. The letter from Volkswagen Australia managing director Michael Bartsch was sent out in the first week of November, more than month after the local arm of the automaker announced the recall after the global emissions-rigging scandal. The letter identifies the model and VIN number of the affected vehicle, and tells the owner "the type EA 189 engine built into your [vehicle] is affected by software that causes discrepancies in the values of oxides for nitrogen (NOx) during laboratory testing. This means Volkswagen Australia has initiated a recall on your vehicle." Owners, however, are given no timeframe for that recall. "Our parent company, Volkswagen AG, is working to design a technical solution for each vehicle," states the letter. "Once the technical solution is ready, we will contact you. Rest assured Volkswagen will cover the cost of all necessary measures to rectify the issue."' There are three generations of the 2.0-litre turbo-diesel four- cylinder engine that will be recalled, and all will require different fixes. According to reports in the United States, these could range from simple software updates to potentially performance-crippling replacement of engine parts. The company has given owners no indication of what work needs doing, or when it will begin. The letter was dated November 4, just days after the first class action in Australia against Volkswagen was lodged with the Federal Court. Sydney-based Bannister Law filed two class actions on October 30. The first was against Volkswagen Australia and the second was against its sister company, Audi Australia. Class action firm Maurice Blackburn Lawyers has announced it will also lead a class action on behalf of consumers. Volkswagen sales in Australia have slumped since the Dieselgate scandal broke in early September. According to industry data from VFACTS, Volkswagen diesel sales in October were down 27 per cent on the year-to-date average. Sales of petrol variants also notched their third-lowest monthly total in the past year. While Audi also recorded a drop in diesel sales, down 21 per cent on the yearly average for the month of October, sales of its petrol cars have more made up for that. Registrations of petrol Audi variants were up 45 per cent in October, to give the car company its third best month in the past year. Impacted Volkswagen cars Volkswagen Passenger Cars -- 61,000 Golf (2009-2013) Polo (2009-2014) Tiguan (2008-2015) Jetta (2010-2015) Passat (2008-2015) Volkswagen CC (2011-2015) Eos (2008-2014) Volkswagen Commercial Vehicles -- 17,200 Amarok (2011-2012) Caddy (2010-2015) VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Romero" Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Romero v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2015-CH-14177, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv- 09109 to the proceeding. The Complaint seeks to certify a statewide class of all present and former owners or lessees in Illinois of Volkswagen and Audi vehicles with 2.0 liter "clean diesel" engines. Volkswagen Group is incorporated under the laws of the state of New Jersey and maintains its headquarters and principal place of business in the state of Virginia. The Defendant is represented by: James K. Toohey, Esq. Garrett L. Boehm, Jr., Esq. Brian C. Langs, Esq. JOHNSON & BELL, LTD. 33 W. Monroe St., Suite 2700 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 372-0770 Facsimile: (312) 372-2881 E-mail: tooheyj@jbltd.com boehmg@jbltd.com langsb@jbltd.com WAL-MART: Urges Justices to Review Renewed Gender Bias Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reported that Wal-Mart has urged the U.S. Supreme Court to review a Sixth Circuit decision reviving a regional gender bias suit brought by a group of female employees in the wake of the decertification of the nationwide Dukes class, saying the suit's continuation creates a severe schism in class action tolling precedent. The Sixth Circuit denied Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s petition for a full panel rehearing of its decision to reverse and remand the Tennessee area suit claiming the discount retailer discriminates against female employees with wages and promotions. WEST VIRGINIA: Plaintiff Seeks Injunction in Medicaid Case ---------------------------------------------------------- David Beard, writing for The D Post, reported that the plaintiffs in a federal suit filed against the state Department of Health and Human Resources regarding its decision to reduce services in a Medicaid waiver program for the intellectually and developmentally disabled are seeking a preliminary injunction to have their 2014 levels of funding restored pending the outcome of the case. The five plaintiffs are also asking the court to certify that 4,629 similarly situated people in the state are part of a class in order to confirm the case as a class-action suit. Mountain State Justice, a nonprofit law firm specializing in litigation on behalf of low-income residents, filed the suit in July in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. It names five individuals with disabilities, all but one represented by their guardians, as plaintiffs. DHHR and Secretary Karen Bowling in her official capacity are named as defendants. Mountain State discussed the proposed benefit restoration in a separate motion. The reason for the motion, Mountain State said, is so the plaintiffs "may continue to live in community-integrated settings as is their right and avoid being relegated to segregated institutions." WORLEYPARSONS: Names New CFO Amid Securities Class Suits -------------------------------------------------------- Jenny Wiggins, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reported that WorleyParsons is expected to overhaul its financial reporting systems after naming former Transurban executive Tom Honan as its new group managing director of finance, replacing Simon Holt. Mr Honan's unexpected appointment comes as WorleyParsons faces class action lawsuits alleging continuous disclosure breaches after a series of profit warnings and struggles to adapt its engineering business to more competitive global markets. WorleyParsons chief executive Andrew Wood said Mr Honan would play "a significant role in stewarding WorleyParsons through the current adverse market conditions". WorleyParsons' stock, which fell 19› to $5.55 on Nov. 16, is trading at its lowest levels for more than 10 years, having more than halved in value over the past 12 months. Analysts said Mr Honan would bring a breadth of experience to WorleyParsons, given his work across a range of industries, and was expected to improve its financial systems and processes. "He'll provide a fresh set of eyes, which is what the company needs," one analyst said, adding the engineering group had tended to be too "reactive" in tackling the resources slump, which has reduced demand for its services. Mr Wood has acknowledged the company has been to slow to respond to the economic slowdown. The engineering group has also had a poor track record on transparency and analysts have been worried by the lack of financial guidance for fiscal 2016. WorleyParsons reported a $39 million annual net loss for 2014-15 and did not give any financial forecasts for 2016. Some WorleyParsons shareholders joined in a $50 million class action claim filed by ACA Lawyers in October, alleging the engineering group breached its continuous disclosure obligations when it gave profit guidance in mid-2013 and then subsequently announced a profit downgrade, wiping $1 billion off its market value. WorleyParsons, which has been shedding 400 jobs each month to cut costs, has denied there is "a proper basis" for the class action. Mr Honan was Transurban's chief financial officer for several years, before leaving in early 2012 after missing out on the chief executive job at the tollroad group to outsider Scott Charlton. He subsequently joined shopping centre group Federation Centres but left the company in June after it merged with Novion Property Group. Before joining Transurban in 2008, Mr Honan was chief financial officer of share registry group Computershare, where he led a series of acquisitions, and previously held senior roles with Nike, based in the US state of Oregon, and ExxonMobil. Mr Honan will start at the engineering group on December 1. Mr Holt, who has worked for WorleyParsons since 2007 and has been its chief financial officer since October 2012, after working previously in finance jobs at retail group Westfield, will leave WorleyParsons in early 2016. Mr Honan will be a member of WorleyParson's group leadership team and will have overall responsibility for finance, information management, assurance, development, communications and investor relations. He has an MBA from Melbourne Business School and a degree in economics from Monash University. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Generation Continues to Defend PI Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Exelon Corporation and two of its subsidiaries, Baltimore Gas and Electric and Exelon Generation Company, continue to defend themselves against two asbestos-related premises liability cases, LLC, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. Since 1993, BGE and certain Constellation (now Exelon Generation Company, LLC) subsidiaries have been involved in several actions concerning asbestos. The actions are based upon the theory of "premises liability," alleging that BGE and Generation knew of and exposed individuals to an asbestos hazard. In addition to BGE and Generation, numerous other parties are defendants in these cases. Approximately 468 individuals who were never employees of BGE or certain Constellation subsidiaries have pending claims each seeking several million dollars in compensatory and punitive damages. Cross-claims and third-party claims brought by other defendants may also be filed against BGE and certain Constellation subsidiaries in these actions. To date, most asbestos claims which have been resolved have been dismissed or resolved without any payment by BGE or certain Constellation subsidiaries and a small minority of these cases has been resolved for amounts that were not material to BGE or Generation's financial results. Discovery begins in these cases after they are placed on the trial docket. At present, only two of the pending cases are set for trial. Given the limited discovery in these cases, BGE and Generation do not know the specific facts that are necessary to provide an estimate of the reasonably possible loss relating to these claims; as such, no accrual has been made and a range of loss is not estimable. The specific facts not known include: * the identity of the facilities at which the plaintiffs allegedly worked as contractors; * the names of the plaintiffs' employers; * the dates on which and the places where the exposure allegedly occurred; and * the facts and circumstances relating to the alleged exposure. Insurance and hold harmless agreements from contractors who employed the plaintiffs may cover a portion of any awards in the actions. Exelon Corporation is an energy provider and holding Company for several energy businesses. Exelon is engaged in the energy generation business through its Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Generation) subsidiary; wholesale and retail energy sales through its Constellation business unit and the energy delivery business through its Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGE), Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) and PECO Energy Company (PECO) subsidiaries. Generation's integrated business consists of its owned and contracted electric generating facilities and investments in generation ventures that are marketed through its customer-facing activities. ComEd's energy delivery business consists of the purchase and regulated retail sale of electricity and the provision of transmission and distribution services to retail customers in northern Illinois. PECO's energy delivery business in southeastern Pennsylvania and BGE's in central Maryland. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Generation Had $95MM PI Claims Reserve -------------------------------------------------------------- Exelon Corporation's subsidiary, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, had reserved approximately $95 million for asbestos-related bodily injury claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. Generation maintains a reserve for claims associated with asbestos-related personal injury actions in certain facilities that are currently owned by Generation or were previously owned by ComEd and PECO. The reserve is recorded on an undiscounted basis and excludes the estimated legal costs associated with handling these matters, which could be material. At September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, Generation had reserved approximately $95 million and $100 million, respectively, in total for asbestos-related bodily injury claims. As of September 30, 2015, approximately $20 million of this amount related to 217 open claims presented to Generation, while the remaining $75 million of the reserve is for estimated future asbestos-related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through 2050, based on actuarial assumptions and analyses, which are updated on an annual basis. On a quarterly basis, Generation monitors actual experience against the number of forecasted claims to be received and expected claim payments and evaluates whether an adjustment to the reserve is necessary. On November 22, 2013, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that the Pennsylvania Workers Compensation Act does not apply to an employee's disability or death resulting from occupational disease, such as diseases related to asbestos exposure, which manifests more than 300 weeks after the employee's last employment-based exposure, and that therefore the exclusivity provision of the Act does not preclude such employee from suing his or her employer in court. The Supreme Court's ruling reverses previous rulings by the Pennsylvania Superior Court precluding current and former employees from suing their employers in court, despite the fact that the same employee was not eligible for workers compensation benefits for diseases that manifest more than 300 weeks after the employee's last employment-based exposure to asbestos. Since the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's ruling in November 2013 , Exelon, Generation, and PECO have experienced an increase in asbestos-related personal injury claims brought by former PECO employees, all of which have been reserved against on a claim by claim basis. Those additional claims are taken into account in projecting estimated future asbestos-related bodily injury claims. On June 27, 2014, the Illinois Court of Appeals ruled that the Illinois Worker's Compensation law should not apply in cases where the diagnosis of an asbestos related disease occurred after the 25-year maximum time period for filing a Worker's Compensation claim. This decision is now on appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court. If confirmed on appeal, former employees could file suit against Exelon, Generation, and ComEd, similar to the way former employees are filing suit against Exelon in Pennsylvania. Currently, Exelon, Generation, and ComEd are unable to predict whether and to what extent they may experience additional claims in the future as a result of this ruling; as such, no increase to the asbestos-related bodily injury liability has been recorded as of September 30, 2015. Exelon Corporation is an energy provider and holding Company for several energy businesses. Exelon is engaged in the energy generation business through its Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Generation) subsidiary; wholesale and retail energy sales through its Constellation business unit and the energy delivery business through its Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGE), Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) and PECO Energy Company (PECO) subsidiaries. Generation's integrated business consists of its owned and contracted electric generating facilities and investments in generation ventures that are marketed through its customer-facing activities. ComEd's energy delivery business consists of the purchase and regulated retail sale of electricity and the provision of transmission and distribution services to retail customers in northern Illinois. PECO's energy delivery business in southeastern Pennsylvania and BGE's in central Maryland. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Baltimore Gas Continues to Defend PI Suits ----------------------------------------------------------- Exelon Corporation and two of its subsidiaries, Baltimore Gas and Electric and Exelon Generation Company, LLC, continue to defend themselves against two asbestos-related premises liability cases, LLC, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. Since 1993, BGE and certain Constellation (now Exelon Generation Company, LLC) subsidiaries have been involved in several actions concerning asbestos. The actions are based upon the theory of "premises liability," alleging that BGE and Generation knew of and exposed individuals to an asbestos hazard. In addition to BGE and Generation, numerous other parties are defendants in these cases. Approximately 468 individuals who were never employees of BGE or certain Constellation subsidiaries have pending claims each seeking several million dollars in compensatory and punitive damages. Cross-claims and third-party claims brought by other defendants may also be filed against BGE and certain Constellation subsidiaries in these actions. To date, most asbestos claims which have been resolved have been dismissed or resolved without any payment by BGE or certain Constellation subsidiaries and a small minority of these cases has been resolved for amounts that were not material to BGE or Generation's financial results. Discovery begins in these cases after they are placed on the trial docket. At present, only two of the pending cases are set for trial. Given the limited discovery in these cases, BGE and Generation do not know the specific facts that are necessary to provide an estimate of the reasonably possible loss relating to these claims; as such, no accrual has been made and a range of loss is not estimable. The specific facts not known include: * the identity of the facilities at which the plaintiffs allegedly worked as contractors; * the names of the plaintiffs' employers; * the dates on which and the places where the exposure allegedly occurred; and * the facts and circumstances relating to the alleged exposure. Insurance and hold harmless agreements from contractors who employed the plaintiffs may cover a portion of any awards in the actions. Exelon Corporation is an energy provider and holding Company for several energy businesses. Exelon is engaged in the energy generation business through its Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Generation) subsidiary; wholesale and retail energy sales through its Constellation business unit and the energy delivery business through its Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGE), Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) and PECO Energy Company (PECO) subsidiaries. Generation's integrated business consists of its owned and contracted electric generating facilities and investments in generation ventures that are marketed through its customer-facing activities. ComEd's energy delivery business consists of the purchase and regulated retail sale of electricity and the provision of transmission and distribution services to retail customers in northern Illinois. PECO's energy delivery business in southeastern Pennsylvania and BGE's in central Maryland. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Corp. Units Continue to Defend PI Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Exelon Corporation's subsidiaries continue to defend asbestos- related bodily injury claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. Exelon Corporation's subsidiary, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, had reserved approximately $95 million for asbestos-related bodily injury claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. Generation maintains a reserve for claims associated with asbestos-related personal injury actions in certain facilities that are currently owned by Generation or were previously owned by ComEd and PECO. The reserve is recorded on an undiscounted basis and excludes the estimated legal costs associated with handling these matters, which could be material. At September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, Generation had reserved approximately $95 million and $100 million, respectively, in total for asbestos-related bodily injury claims. As of September 30, 2015, approximately $20 million of this amount related to 217 open claims presented to Generation, while the remaining $75 million of the reserve is for estimated future asbestos-related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through 2050, based on actuarial assumptions and analyses, which are updated on an annual basis. On a quarterly basis, Generation monitors actual experience against the number of forecasted claims to be received and expected claim payments and evaluates whether an adjustment to the reserve is necessary. On November 22, 2013, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that the Pennsylvania Workers Compensation Act does not apply to an employee's disability or death resulting from occupational disease, such as diseases related to asbestos exposure, which manifests more than 300 weeks after the employee's last employment-based exposure, and that therefore the exclusivity provision of the Act does not preclude such employee from suing his or her employer in court. The Supreme Court's ruling reverses previous rulings by the Pennsylvania Superior Court precluding current and former employees from suing their employers in court, despite the fact that the same employee was not eligible for workers compensation benefits for diseases that manifest more than 300 weeks after the employee's last employment-based exposure to asbestos. Since the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's ruling in November 2013 , Exelon, Generation, and PECO have experienced an increase in asbestos-related personal injury claims brought by former PECO employees, all of which have been reserved against on a claim by claim basis. Those additional claims are taken into account in projecting estimated future asbestos-related bodily injury claims. On June 27, 2014, the Illinois Court of Appeals ruled that the Illinois Worker's Compensation law should not apply in cases where the diagnosis of an asbestos related disease occurred after the 25-year maximum time period for filing a Worker's Compensation claim. This decision is now on appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court. If confirmed on appeal, former employees could file suit against Exelon, Generation, and ComEd, similar to the way former employees are filing suit against Exelon in Pennsylvania. Currently, Exelon, Generation, and ComEd are unable to predict whether and to what extent they may experience additional claims in the future as a result of this ruling; as such, no increase to the asbestos-related bodily injury liability has been recorded as of September 30, 2015. Exelon Corporation is an energy provider and holding Company for several energy businesses. Exelon is engaged in the energy generation business through its Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Generation) subsidiary; wholesale and retail energy sales through its Constellation business unit and the energy delivery business through its Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGE), Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) and PECO Energy Company (PECO) subsidiaries. Generation's integrated business consists of its owned and contracted electric generating facilities and investments in generation ventures that are marketed through its customer-facing activities. ComEd's energy delivery business consists of the purchase and regulated retail sale of electricity and the provision of transmission and distribution services to retail customers in northern Illinois. PECO's energy delivery business in southeastern Pennsylvania and BGE's in central Maryland. ASBESTOS UPDATE: ComEd Awaits PI Law Ruling Appeal Outcome ---------------------------------------------------------- Exelon Corporation's subsidiary, Commonwealth Edison Company, is awaiting the outcome of an appeal involving asbestos Worker's Compensation claim, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, maintains a reserve for claims associated with asbestos-related personal injury actions in certain facilities that are currently owned by Generation or were previously owned by ComEd and PECO. The reserve is recorded on an undiscounted basis and excludes the estimated legal costs associated with handling these matters, which could be material. At September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, Generation had reserved approximately $95 million and $100 million, respectively, in total for asbestos-related bodily injury claims. As of September 30, 2015, approximately $20 million of this amount related to 217 open claims presented to Generation, while the remaining $75 million of the reserve is for estimated future asbestos-related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through 2050, based on actuarial assumptions and analyses, which are updated on an annual basis. On a quarterly basis, Generation monitors actual experience against the number of forecasted claims to be received and expected claim payments and evaluates whether an adjustment to the reserve is necessary. On November 22, 2013, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that the Pennsylvania Workers Compensation Act does not apply to an employee's disability or death resulting from occupational disease, such as diseases related to asbestos exposure, which manifests more than 300 weeks after the employee's last employment-based exposure, and that therefore the exclusivity provision of the Act does not preclude such employee from suing his or her employer in court. The Supreme Court's ruling reverses previous rulings by the Pennsylvania Superior Court precluding current and former employees from suing their employers in court, despite the fact that the same employee was not eligible for workers compensation benefits for diseases that manifest more than 300 weeks after the employee's last employment-based exposure to asbestos. Since the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's ruling in November 2013 , Exelon, Generation, and PECO have experienced an increase in asbestos-related personal injury claims brought by former PECO employees, all of which have been reserved against on a claim by claim basis. Those additional claims are taken into account in projecting estimated future asbestos-related bodily injury claims. On June 27, 2014, the Illinois Court of Appeals ruled that the Illinois Worker's Compensation law should not apply in cases where the diagnosis of an asbestos related disease occurred after the 25-year maximum time period for filing a Worker's Compensation claim. This decision is now on appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court. If confirmed on appeal, former employees could file suit against Exelon, Generation, and ComEd, similar to the way former employees are filing suit against Exelon in Pennsylvania. Currently, Exelon, Generation, and ComEd are unable to predict whether and to what extent they may experience additional claims in the future as a result of this ruling; as such, no increase to the asbestos-related bodily injury liability has been recorded as of September 30, 2015. Commonwealth Edison Company is engaged in the purchase and regulated retail sale of electricity and the provision of distribution and transmission services in northern Illinois, including the City of Chicago. CommEd is a subsidiary of Exelon Corporation. ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Haven Probes Wallace St. for Fibro Content --------------------------------------------------------------- Mary O'Leary, writing for New Haven Register, reported that federal, state and local officials descended on Wallace Street to determine whether a permit was needed to remove asbestos from a former automotive store. This was the second visit to 206-220 Wallace St. by health and environmental personnel since. The former Auto Electric: Sperry Automotive Warehouse was bought by 206 Wallace Street LLC for $285,000 from Sawco Associates, according to land records. A principal in 206 Wallace Street LLC is Aleks Rakaj, according to business filings at the secretary of the state's office. Rakaj also owns Federal Oil LLC in Seymour. He did not return a call seeking comment. Paul Kowalski, division director at the city's Health Department, said an investigator from his department, as well as the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection and Building Official Jim Turcio, went to the address after getting a call from the federal Occupational and Safety Health Administration. He said there were bags of material inside, but nothing in a Dumpster on the property. "We don't believe anything left the site," Kowalski said. The work was shut down and on, the state Department of Health's Asbestos Program sent an inspector to meet with Rakaj. The meeting was also attended by local building and health personnel, as well as by a representative of OSHA from its Bridgeport office. Kowalski said staff reported that when the officials attempted to talk to the workers on, they excused themselves to get something from their cars and then left. He said the state Department of Health has jurisdiction and the local department acted on its behalf until it sent its own investigator. The tiles at the closed Sperry Automotive and other material on the site will be tested for asbestos, Kowalski said. William Gerrish, spokesperson for the state Department of Public Health, said a preliminary review of the state files found "no notification for asbestos abatement had been filed with the agency related to ongoing work at the site." Gerrish said they advised the owner that he needed to hire an asbestos consultant to assess the situation and develop a plan for site clean-up and asbestos abatement, if needed. This plan would require review and approval by the state Department of Public Health, he said. "We have an ongoing investigation into the matter," Gerrish said. Kang Yi, assistant area director at OSHA in Bridgeport, said he was awaiting a report from his staff member who looked into the situation on. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Waste in Australia Piling Up --------------------------------------------------- Marc Moncrief, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reported that about 20 kilograms of asbestos-contaminated waste is generated for every person in Australia, and the problem is growing. A federal government report out says the volume of asbestos waste needing to be disposed of is likely to grow by about 2.8 per cent a year for the next 20 years, but there are "no good plans" to deal with the growing mountain of deadly waste. "Waste policy is driven by the requirements of most waste, but asbestos is a real exception," said the report's author, Joe Pickin of consultant group Blue Environment. "I don't think you would say that there is a good strategic plan in any state or even nationally." The increased volume of the highly toxic waste and a decline in the number places to safely dump it is a problem keenly felt in the asbestos disposal industry. Andrew Morrison, owner of Warrnambool-based Andrew's Asbestos Solutions spends his days disposing of the old sheds that dot the landscape throughout Victoria's south-west. He says that his prospective clients often get spooked by the cost of delivering deadly asbestos to the tip in Stawell or even Geelong. "They'll ring up wanting to do the right thing but they can't believe how much it costs," he says. He knows that, in many cases, the farmer will decide instead to bring down the shed himself and dump the asbestos somewhere in the bush. Mr Morrison says he's called out "two or three times a year" to collect asbestos that's been dumped or hidden in other waste and been dropped at the tip. "I used to get upset about it but I really can't blame them anymore," he says. It's a local problem with national resonance. During consultations for the report, the ACT was the only state or territory that was able to say its facilities would be adequate to store the volume of asbestos waste expected in "the foreseeable future". It found "inconsistent tracking" of asbestos waste between the different states and territories. South Australia, Tasmania, Western Australia and the Northern Territory did not track asbestos waste at all. ASEA chief executive Peter Tighe said part of the problem was the lack of consistency between jurisdictions, or even between different tips. He said all state and territory governments were consulted during the development of the report and had indicated they would work towards nationally consistent solutions. "Fees for the disposal of asbestos are set by private landfill operators, and when the costs are high, it leads to illegal dumping, asbestos being hidden in general waste or diversion to distant sites, increasing the risks," Mr Tighe said. The report also says there us a national preference for consolidating landfills into transfer stations, many of which will decide not to accept asbestos. "This creates a tension between Australia's long-term waste management direction of replacing landfills with transfer stations, and the need for readily available asbestos disposal options," the report says. Mr Morrison used to use the tip at Portland, but that facility is being converted to a transfer station. The extra travelling he's now faced with means a job that once took him two hours can now stretch to five or six. " I have to pass the costs on of course," he says. "To me it makes my business fairly expensive and it just encourages people to do the wrong thing." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Industrial Sawmill Site ------------------------------------------------------------ Alex Paul, writing for Albany Democrat-Herald, reported that not surprisingly, some roofing materials in the former Willamette Industries sawmill storage buildings that were destroyed by arson, contain asbestos, according to Ralph Wyatt, county administrator. Wyatt said the county contracted with W.L. Thomas Environmental to complete an assessment of the site that burned Oct. 31. "We just received the initial report," Wyatt said morning. "It suggests we separate the roofing materials that contain asbestos from those that don't and then ship the asbestos-containing materials in sealed dumpsters to an appropriate disposal site." Wyatt said the materials are intermingled as this time. "The good news is that it's the rainy season and we don't believe these materials will go anywhere; they won't fly around the neighborhood," Wyatt said. Wyatt said the initial estimate is that it will cost about $132,000 to complete the asbestos removal and transfer. Wyatt said the county will continue to monitor the site and do more assessment. "In the meantime, we will look for state or federal funding to help with this," Wyatt said. "We don't see this posing a risk to anyone. We've installed a fence, so people should not be on that site." About 5 p.m. on, Oct. 31, the Sweet Home Police Department and Sweet Home Fire and Ambulance District were notified of a possible fire near the mill at 2210 Tamarack. When they arrived on scene, they found the large lumber and plywood storage buildings were on fire. The three-sided buildings that were several hundred feet long and wide were destroyed in the blaze. The following day, a 14-year-old Sweet Home boy, Charles James Marvel, was taken into custody and charged with second-degree arson. Investigators learned that Marvel and several other young people had been riding skateboards at the site. When interviewed individually, each of the other young people said Marvel started the fire. Marvel was lodged at the Linn-Benton Juvenile Detention Center in Albany. All of the youth lived near the former mill site, which has been idle since the early 1990s. Eight fire units from Sweet Home, Lebanon and Brownsville responded to the fire. A pallet construction business leases space from Linn County, which owns the site, and it was not damaged. The county took over the property in lieu of $500,000 in back taxes in 2010. At the time, the property was owned by Western States Land Reliance Trust, which had planned to create a housing and commercial district on more than 400 acres bordering the SouthSantiamRiver. When it was operating, the mill produced both structural lumber and plywood. The state Department of Environmental Quality is in the process of completing an environmental assessment on the site under contract with Linn County. The county received a $350,000 federal grant to perform the assessment. The Environmental Protection Agency has already conducted an emergency asbestos removal project that cost more than $1.1 million, before the county took possession of the property. Much of that asbestos was in the form of pipe insulation. In August, the city of Sweet Home and Linn County held a meeting at the site, seeking comments about how local residents would like to see the property developed. The Sweet Home City Council will hold a work session at 6 p.m. to discuss the possibility of developing an Urban Renewal District. If such a district is formed, the mill site could be one of the community's key renewal projects. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firm Fined for Workers' Fibro Exposure ------------------------------------------------------- Gloria Gonzalez, writing for Business Insurance, reported that the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration has cited and proposed $112,000 in total fines against three Texas commercial real estate services companies for exposing workers to asbestos at a residential apartment construction worksite in San Antonio. FBZ Broadway L.P., One Eighty Construction Inc. and Roscoe Properties Inc., all owned by Jason Berkowitz and based in Austin, Texas, were cited by the agency, OSHA said in a statement. FBZ and Roscoe were cited for one willful violation for failing to determine the location and quantity of asbestos -- a violation FBZ was previously cited for in April, according to the statement. OSHA proposed a $14,000 penalty against FBZ and a $63,000 fine against Roscoe, according to the citations. One Eighty was cited for one willful violation for failing to ensure that workers followed asbestos removal practices and issued a $35,000 fine. "This commercial building renovator is responsible for protecting workers from asbestos hazards and failed to do so despite previous citations for asbestos exposure," Alejandro Porter, OSHA's area director in San Antonio, said in the statement. "There is simply no excuse for continuing to expose workers to this danger. Exposure to asbestos can lead to lung disease and cancer years after initial exposure." Representatives for the companies could not be reached immediately for comment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found at Aorangi School Site --------------------------------------------------------- Charlie Mitchell, writing for Stuff.co.nz, reported that asbestos has been found at the site of John Key's former primary school, concerning neighbours who have been breathing in dust from the area for months. They have yet to be spoken to about the contamination or any risks they may face but the regional council says the asbestos is contained. Aorangi School in Bryndwr opened in the 1950s and was shut down by the Government in 2010. The site is being developed into a subdivision. A surveying document dated November 17 identifies large parts of the site that have "ACM", or asbestos contaminated material. It says soil in those areas must not be disturbed until further notice. The contaminated piles are adjacent to Colwyn St and Brookside Tce, just metres from road-facing properties. One neighbouring couple, who did not wish to be named, said they had been bombarded by dust from the site for months. "The dust has been terrible at times. If you look at the house, it's just covered in it. We're not happy about it. "It gets in your hair, it gets in everything. Everything in the house has got a layer of dust on it." No-one had told them about the contamination at the site, which left them speculating about what had been discovered. They only knew there was a problem because they noticed workers wearing protective equipment. "It's all been covered with polythene, so it makes you wonder -- it makes you think it could have been something like [asbestos], but we don't know." Other neighbours confirmed they had not been told about asbestos at the site. Asbestos inhalation has been linked to various illnesses, due to fine particles that can settle in the lungs. A 2015 report commissioned by the Ministry of Health described inhalation of asbestos as a "serious public health risk", but said low-level exposure was unlikely to cause health issues. James Tricker, project manager of earthquake waste management at Environment Canterbury, said the regional council was working alongside WorkSafe to contain the contaminated area. The asbestos had been bound in the rubble and authorities would be working to remediate the site. "With the polymer spray, that's kind of keeping everything under control for now." He said the responsibility of informing neighbours about the contamination was up to the developer or its environmental consultant, which would likely take place once the process of removing the asbestos began. A WorkSafe spokesman said it was monitoring progress at the site to ensure clean-up work was managed appropriately. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plano Council Mulls Suit vs. Fibro Removal Co. --------------------------------------------------------------- Doug Michaels, writing for WSPYNews.com, reported that at a Plano City Council meeting, aldermen approved the third payout to Dynamic Construction in an amount just over $444,000 for the asbestos clean-up at the former Monarch Foundry site on the east side of town. According to Plano officials, the amount is well above the original bid because asbestos was found buried on the site. Plano Mayor Bob Hausler expressed his concern night about the Monarch asbestos clean-up. The City Council approved the hiring of Julie Cibulskis as legal council in a probable lawsuit against the former asbestos removal company, GNG Demolition and Salvage, which worked on the site back in 2010 and 2011. ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK Company Fined GBP11K for Fibro Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ The Health and Safety Executive reported that an engineering firm has been fined after asbestos was found at their factory and they failed to document or manage the risks to employees or visitors to the site. Darlington Magistrates' Court heard how Blue Diamond Engineering Limited of County Durham, was notified of the presence of asbestos materials during a survey carried out at the company's factory premises in 2006. Work undertaken at the premises had the potential to disturb the hazardous asbestos materials, and until HSE's intervention, the company had not documented or implemented an Asbestos Management Plan to adequately control the risk of exposure. Blue Diamond Engineering Limited, of Shildon Industrial Estate, Shildon, was fined a total of GBP11,000, with costs of GBP1,610 after pleading guilty to offences under Regulation 4(8)(b) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012. Speaking after the hearing Health and Safety Executive Inspector Michael Kingston said: "Asbestos kills around 5,000 workers each year, this is more than the number killed on UK roads. Asbestos can be present within any premises built or refurbished before the year 2000. This prosecution should serve as a warning to companies to properly manage the risks of asbestos exposure. Whenever asbestos containing materials are found to be present, companies have a legal duty to document and implement an Asbestos Management Plan which includes measures to adequately control the risk of exposure to asbestos fibres." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Syracuse Lab Fined for Fibro Removal Crime ----------------------------------------------------------- John O'Brien, writing for Syracuse.com, reported that a Syracuse environmental laboratory has been ordered to pay more than $400,000 and placed on probation for allowing asbestos to be released into the air. U.S. District Judge David Hurd ordered Certified Environmental Services, Inc. to pay $409,830 in restitution and placed the company on probation for five years. CES pleaded guilty in May to a misdemeanor count of negligently releasing asbestos into the air, thereby placing people in imminent danger of death or serious injury. Hurd credited CES for the $87,960 in restitution payments it has already made. He also credited the company with the five years of probation it has already served. CES "was the gatekeeper for the environment, but violated requirements and provided final clearances when asbestos contamination remained," U.S. Attorney Richard Hartunian said in a news release. The company cut corners on asbestos-removal jobs, resulting in the release of toxic asbestos fibers into the air, he said. In 2010, a jury convicted CES of environmental crimes and mail fraud. But a federal appeals court overturned that conviction after finding an assistant U.S. attorney committed prosecutorial misconduct during the trial. The company admitted that for eight years ending in 2007, when it was in the business of air-monitoring of asbestos-removal projects, it provided air-sampling and laboratory analysis for AAPEX Environmental Services Inc., and Paragon Environmental Services Inc. Those two companies had performed illegal "rip and run" removals in which asbestos was stripped and removed dry, scattered and left behind and allowed to migrate outside the facility and into the air, prosecutors said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Continues at County Care Facility ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jamee A. Pierson, writing for Newton Daily News, reported that following the completion of the asbestos survey at the Jasper County Care Facility, additional asbestos was found present at the facility, Shive-Hattery Engineer Christopher Bauer said. He told the Jasper County Board of Supervisors that more than $23,000 worth of asbestos needs to be removed. "There were a number of asbestos containing materials identified in the county home. We did contact the contractor and pushed them to take care of anything that could be remotely linked to the original asbestos survey. That includes a lot of the roofing materials, all of the flooring materials and they have agreed to do that," Bauer said. Additionally, new areas in the building were found in the survey to have asbestos containing materials that were not identified in the original survey and report. Those include sinks, interior window glazing and roof field asbestos. REW, which was also the original asbestos contractor, submitted the low bid for the new abatement at $5,500, which was under the $7,200 estimated cost. Following the completion of the abatement, Bauer said the asbestos issues should be resolved and work on demolition design plans can start. He said they are hoping to get the bid process started toward the end of December or beginning of January with a tentative February start date for demolition. The board also approved a resolution supporting Home Base Iowa, an initiative that is designed to help attract veterans who have recently completed their active duty and are transitioning into civilian life. With the approval, a sign will be placed at an entrance to the county stating that Jasper County is a Home Base Iowa community. "Right now we already have 22 businesses in the county that have signed on," said Jasper County Treasurer Doug Bishop. "The idea is veterans at various bases throughout the country say where do I want to land, I am getting downsized or my 20-year career is coming to an end. We're making it very enticing to get them here." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ogdensburg Seeks EPA Grant for Fibro Removal ------------------------------------------------------------- Larry Robinson, writing for Watertown Daily Times, reported that the city once again is seeking a federal Environmental Protection Agency grant to clean up asbestos and other potentially hazardous substances at the former St. Joseph's Home at 420 Lafayette St. The City Council voted unanimously to allow Planning and Development Director Andrea L. Smith to apply for so-called brownfield cleanup funds for the removal of asbestos from the 31,088-square-foot former nursing home that sits on two acres of land along Lafayette, Caroline and Franklin streets. A similar funding application submitted was unsuccessful, according to city officials. Ms. Smith said the most recent City Council authorization allows the Planning Department to reapply for a fresh round of cleanup money needed to address environmental concerns at the home. The city acquired the property in 2011 because of nonpayment of taxes. An asbestos survey of the building confirmed the presence of both friable and nonfriable asbestos-containing materials in floor and ceiling tiles, surfacing materials, Sheetrock, Sheetrock paper, pipe joints and elbows, roofing, wood and tar materials, chimney cap, insulation and pipe joints, according to the city. Cleanup and demolition at the site is expected to cost between $250,000 and $350,000, Ms. Smith said. She said the city's latest funding application to the EPA for 2016 is for up to $200,000, with a 20 percent match. To make up the difference, Ms. Smith said, the city plans to apply for additional funding through the National Grid Shovel Ready Brownfield Program and other local and regional funding sources. The city has tried unsuccessfully in recent years to market 420 Lafayette and the adjoining property. Cleaning up the property first is now seen as the only viable option for enticing a buyer for the sprawling facility, which once served as an 82-bed nursing home. The assessment on the property has steadily in declined recent years, from $228,000 in 2010-11 to the property's current assessed value of $25,000, according to city officials. The interior of the former St. Joseph's Home includes a chapel, a kitchen, dining rooms, common areas and a full basement. The property was built in 1960 and an addition was built in about 1985, according to officials. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pigeons Pecking Fibro on Roof Cause Death ---------------------------------------------------------- Richard Smith, writing for Mirror.co.uk, reported that a warehouseman died from lung cancer caused by birds pecking the asbestos roof of a store where he used to work, an inquest heard. For 12 years the deadly dust floated down on Anthony Jones, who got a job at the cash and carry when he was 15 but left three decades ago. He was killed, aged 57, by mesothelioma -- a type of lung cancer whose only known cause is asbestos fibres. Mr Jones had said after being told he had terminal cancer: "I can't recall ever working with or near asbestos. "My exposure was most likely at the firm's ex-premises in Gloucester, as I was told there was always a problem with birds pecking the asbestos-based roof." A post-mortem on the bachelor, of Frampton on Severn, found 19,355 asbestos fibres per gram of dry lung tissue, a level consistent with work exposure. Coroner Katy Skerrett recorded a verdict of death due to industrial disease and said: "It's not the type of employment where you'd expect to be exposed to asbestos." The victim's sister Margaret Ball, 72, said after the Gloucester inquest: "This dust was floating down on him all that time at work and seems that is why he got this terrible disease years later." ASBESTOS UPDATE: NES Seeks Dismissal of Fibro Exposure Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Glover, writing for Fox17.com, reported that Nashville Electric Service says it didn't mean to put workers in harm's way after employees filed a lawsuit claiming the utility the company exposed them to asbestos. Attorneys hired by NES are trying to dismiss the case. According to a legal answer, attorneys allege the public utility can be treated like a government entity and should be immune from this particular lawsuit under the Tennessee Worker's Compensation Act. According to NES' website, the American Public Power Association gave the Tennessee utility a safety award in 2014. It's the same year Tennessee Occupational Safety and Health Administration investigators issued the power entity 17 violations for allegedly exposing its workers to asbestos. "Our inspection documented that NES knew that there was potentially asbestos fibers present and they had relied on some sampling that was incomplete," Steve Hawkins said, TOSHA administrator. The workers were splicing underground cables. According to a TOSHA inspection report, the violations included "not providing HEPA vacuums to collect the dust and debris, not providing employees with half-mask air purifying respirators and not instituting an asbestos training program consistent with EPA requirements." Though TOSHA says NES corrected its violations months later, the incident sparked a lawsuit. Employees are hoping to be compensated and get medical costs covered. In response, attorneys hired by NES filed a legal answer saying the employees who were allegedly exposed "are attempting to obtain relief that is outside of the scope of the Worker's Compensation Act," and that Tennessee courts have held "exposing employees to hazardous conditions including asbestos, does not constitute a deliberate intent to injure." Attorneys also alleged the asbestos is a "latent condition." A hearing for this case is scheduled for December 11. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sanctions Sought Against Fibro Lawyers ------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reported that attorneys for defendants in a Cook County asbestos case have brought an action against the opposing counsel in the case, asking the court to punish the plaintiff's attorneys and the counsel for John Crane Inc., one of the other defendants named in the case, for their alleged use of Crane as a "shill" to prevent defendants from transferring the case and others like it out of Cook County Circuit Court. On Nov. 19, attorneys Steven B. Moore and Gregory T. Henry, of Kansas City, Mo., filed a motion on behalf of Genuine Parts Co., joining with Ford Motor Company and its attorneys from the firm of Sanchez Daniels & Hoffman, of Chicago, in demanding the court impose sanctions on attorneys from the firms of Connelly & Vogelzang, of Chicago, and O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns, of Chicago, for their alleged actions in this case and others. Moore and Henry are affiliated with the firm of Rasmussen, Willis, Dickey & Moore, of Kansas City. Ford and the Sanchez firm had made a similar demand over similar allegations earlier in November, at the same time the court was preparing to sign off on a settlement deal to end the litigation. According to the motion they filed, Moore and Henry alleged court inquiry would "demonstrate that there is a pattern by plaintiff's law firm and by the law firm representing John Crane Inc. as a defendant in prior asbestos matters filed by Connelly and Vogelzang in Illinois state courts to cooperate with one another to allow John Crane to remain as a defendant in such law suits without putting on a meaningful defense, all in an effort to thwart opportunities by defendants to remove cases to federal court based in diversity of jurisdiction." The matter arose as the parties moved to conclude an asbestos liability lawsuit brought in February 2014 by plaintiffs Bertha and Moses Winford against a number of companies, including Dana Companies, Ford Motor Company, Genuine Parts Company and other defendants, including many who routinely land on lists of defendants in asbestos exposure complaints. The lawsuit sought damages for mesothelioma the Winfords said they contracted because of exposure to asbestos in products made by the defendant companies. That list of defendants also included John Crane Inc., a manufacturer of packing and gasket products, based in Chicago. Following about 20 months of court proceedings, court documents indicate the parties reached a settlement agreement, and on Nov. 13, Cook County Judge Daniel Joseph Lynch ordered the case dismissed with prejudice "pursuant to settlement." However, Lynch said he was retaining jurisdiction over the case to consider the motions for sanctions brought by the defendants. A status hearing was held on the sanctions motions on Nov. 20, and continued until Dec. 21, according to court records. In the motion supplementing Ford's filing, the attorneys for Genuine Parts Co. argued "gamesmanship" on the part of Crane's attorneys and those for the plaintiffs, saying the plaintiffs' attorneys installed Crane as a "straw man Illinois defendant" to "act as a shill at trial." This, they said, deprived the defendants of their rights to remove the case to federal court and "unnecessarily lengthened the pretrial proceedings." They argued the court record demonstrated plaintiffs had "no good faith basis" for including Crane among the defendants on the case, as no Crane products were in use or present at the job sites on which the plaintiffs purportedly worked, and "no exposure could be identified" by any witness. They said the "gamesmanship" began during opening statements, when Crane's attorney purportedly "provided a potential roadmap to the jury for a compromised verdict; i.e., they could easily find no liability to John Crane and the other defendants look 'bad' by comparison." The defendants' attorneys argued such tactics are part of a long- running cooperation between the plaintiff's attorneys and those for Crane. Under the alleged "gamesmanship," plaintiffs' attorneys include Crane among the defendants to prevent the matter from being dismissed from Cook County court, and ultimately make Crane pay no damages at the conclusion of the litigation. "In cases where John Crane is the only Illinois defendant, the pattern appears to be to have the John Crane attorney try to elicit some John Crane product identification into the case -- just enough to preclude defendants from removing to federal court, but not enough to subject them to a jury award of any significance," the attorneys for Genuine Parts wrote in their Nov. 19 filing. "Then, as the trial date approaches, the plaintiffs make no settlement demands against John Crane and John Crane offers no money. "The Bertha Winford case illustrates this point." The defendants' attorneys said they believed discovery in the matter would reveal Connelly & Vogelzang have named Crane as a defendant in "a large majority . . . of their asbestos cases," and that number may approach "100 percent." Further, they said they believed court records would reveal "Crane has not filed and argued a motion for summary judgment more than a handful of times; perhaps never" in asbestos cases brought by Connelly & Vogelzang. And they said, they believed court records would further show "that in nearly 100 percent of the cases Connelly & Vogelzang does not dismiss John Crane until after all other defendants have been dismissed or have settled." They suggested the court inquire into "phone records, email chains and/or billing records between and among Connelly & Vogelzang, O'Connell/Tivin and John Crane," as it "may reveal discussions concerning the pattern as a whole and the manner in which it played out in the Winford case in particular." The attorneys pointed to other asbestos cases involving their clients in which Crane was named as a defendant. In those cases, Crane's counsel repeatedly opposed motions to transfer the case to other jurisdictions. And in at least one case, after the case was transferred, the lawsuit was refiled in Utah against all of the same defendants, with the exception of Crane, the motion noted. The motion specifies the defendants' attorneys are seeking the sanctions to apply only to the attorneys against whom the allegations have been leveled, and not against the Winfords or their family. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Substance Found at Carnlough Play Park -------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Gamble, writing for Larne Times, reported that Mid and East Antrim Borough Council could be faced with a costly clean-up bill, after asbestos was discovered at the site of an under- construction children's play park. Following enquiries by the Times, the local authority confirmed that the potentially-deadly contamination was found after work on the new GBP100,000 facility in Carnlough began earlier. The council said detail on the expense of the clean-up operation is still being "worked out", but we understand the projected cost of the play park scheme could soar to twice its original estimate as a result of the discovery. A council spokesperson added: "Some additional costs are anticipated due to the remedial works and ongoing contractor costs arising from the necessary suspension." Work on the project -- which is located on council-owned land -- is currently suspended, but councillors have resolved that construction should recommence at the site once the contamination has been removed. East Antrim MLA Oliver McMullan said: "Hopefully the decision will be ratified at full council meeting." ASBESTOS UPDATE: RFS Training Facility Closed Due to Fibro Scare ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mohamed Taha, writing for ABC News, reported that a major Rural Fire Services training facility for south-west Sydney has been closed because of asbestos contamination concerns from the neighbouring Western Depot in Kemps Creek. The ABC reported the Environmental Protection Authority was investigating up to 15 sites that could be affected by the contaminated landfill, which could have come from the council's soil storage facility at the depot. A Liverpool Council whistleblower spoke out about how managers told workers to turn a blind eye to asbestos contamination after an investigation by the EPA. A NSW RFS spokesperson said the site has now been closed because of contamination fears. "The NSW Rural Fire Service has become aware of concerns of the potential contamination of a training site at Kemps Creek," they said. "As a result, we have immediately suspended the use of the site. "The health and welfare of our members is the highest priority." The spokesperson said the RFS would be working with Liverpool Council, who own and manage the site, to address the problem. "We will be working with the council and other agencies to establish the extent of any contamination and any course of action." Liverpool Council says it's remediating the depot and training site Liverpool Council chief executive Carl Wulff said the council had received a clearance certificate from hygienists from Greencapp NAA, which "confirmed no visual asbestos has been located at the Western Depot or NSW RFS Training Ground". "In receipt of this letter, council has now made arrangements to have contaminated stockpiles removed from the Western Depot and taken to a licensed facility by May, 2016," he said. However Mr Wulff said in the process, small shards of asbestos had been found and were being managed in consultation with the EPA. "It is noted that during recent operations to screen the stockpile only a few small shards of bonded asbestos material were discovered," he said. "This is being appropriately managed in consultation with the NSW Environment Protection Authority, is currently covered and will remain so until complete removal by qualified contractors." Mr Wulff said council would notify the RFS of its "decision to remove the asbestos from site now that it is safe to do so". "In the meantime council will continue working with the NSW RFS, Council staff and the NSW Environment Protection Authority to ensure the health and safety of workers and the community is maintained," he said. Volunteer firefighter says he is worried about his health A volunteer firefighter, who did not want to be named, said several hundred firefighters had used the RFS Macarthur training site in the past few years. "Over the past five years, I would have made 10 visits to the site for training," he said. "It's the main training ground for 20 fire brigades, which covers the rural fire brigades in the Camden, Liverpool and Campbelltown local government areas. "It's quite important, other districts occasionally use the site as well." The firefighter said he found out about the asbestos contamination concerns through ABC media reports and linked it to a cancellation of a course assessment at the site. He said the site was on the same block of land as the depot and no fence separated the two sites. "The trucks sometimes drive through there and they have soil on their wheels," he said. "Any fill from the soil or any wind; it would end up in the same place where everyone is training." He said he was very concerned for his health. "In our training, if we suspect any asbestos at a fire incident, there are strict protocols to deal with asbestos including cordoning off the area and de-contaminating the personnel and equipment that may have been affected," he said. "So this is no laughing matter, it's a serious matter, there's a lot of concern because even one fibre can be an issue." He said he and other firefighters were disappointed they were not told about the contamination by RFS management or Liverpool Council. "There's been no official communication about this entire situation, no email, no letter of explanation," he said. "The general membership has not had this explained to them at all. "To have firefighters left out of the loop, not told anything about it is very disappointing. "This seems to be have been dealt with rather flippantly by Liverpool Council." He said he wanted the RFS and the council to provide testing for concerned firefighters. "If we require testing or treatment, we shouldn't have to battle for it because we can't undo that we may be exposed or not, we just want the appropriate consideration." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Footscray Pupils Banned from Fibro-riddled Oval ---------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin Millar, writing for Star Weekly, reported that parents are demanding a clean-up of Footscray Primary School's asbestos- riddled oval after it was closed down by the principal over safety fears. Footscray primary school principal Philip Fox said he has closed the oval to students due to ongoing deterioration of the surface, which has resulted in rocks protruding and an uneven and hard surface. "My first priority is the welfare and safety of students," he said. "This is a precautionary measure to ensure no child falls and injures themselves on the hazards identified, and parents have been notified by school newsletter." Mr Fox said future use of the oval will be determined following a meeting between the school and representatives from the Education Department. "The Department has also engaged an expert hygienist to undertake an extended monitoring program for the School's grounds which has been conducted over several months," he said. "The Department's expert hygienist conducted air quality monitoring and no asbestos fibres were detected, the fragments were removed and the area was issued with a clearance certificate. "The Department has advised me that the oval is safe to occupy from an asbestos perspective." 'Wasteful' patch ups However parents have criticised the Department for "dragging its heels" on fixing the oval following four separate discoveries of asbestos over the past 18 months. Phyllis Campbell-McCrae said the money spent on four separate, piecemeal patch-ups should have gone into a more permanent solution. "It seems like a real waste. I would think that after the second time a survey of the whol playing field would have occurred." School council president Mark Hollis told Fairfax Media an external audit ordered by the Education Department revealed that 140 out of 170 pieces of cement sheeting found at the school tested positive to asbestos. A large number of these pieces of cement sheeting were found on the oval, which is built above demolished houses. Ms Campbell-McCrae said parents have worked hard over the years to raise money to improve the playing field. She said about 500 children have now been left with no green space, whereas the Department could have remediated the site over a previous summer school holiday break. Government called on to act Western suburbs Greens MP Colleen Hartland raised the matter in Parliament on, calling on Education Minister James Merlino to act on as issue the government has been aware of since 2011. "Parents and the school have reported asbestos to the government a number of times over the years," she said. "Each time they came and dealt with that little bit, rather than assessing the whole oval to identify the wider problem. This failure of process by the Labor Government and the Liberal Government before them has put the kids at risk." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Factory Worker Dies of Fibro-related Death ----------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Robinson, writing for The Telegraph and Argus, reported that a factory worker died of asbestos-related cancer only four months after being diagnosed with mesothelioma. The widow of Gerald McNeil is now appealing to his former colleagues to provide information about working conditions at two engineering companies where he worked in the 1960s. Mr McNeil, of Woodside, Wrose, Shipley, began having breathing problems but it was not until July that doctors in Bradford confirmed he was suffering from mesothelioma, an asbestos-related cancer. He died at the age of 67, leaving his wife Sherry devastated. The couple had been together since 1974 and had six children. She said the whole family had been left shocked by her husband's diagnosis and sudden death. "Our family were shocked and devastated by Gerald's diagnosis and are struggling to come to terms with it. "In his last few months he tried to spend as much time with our children and grandchildren as possible. "However, he did struggle with his condition on a daily basis. "We never knew that the work he did so many years ago would affect his life now and take him from us so suddenly." Mr McNeil's family and their lawyer are now appealing for information about his working conditions at two firms. The Jamaican-born family man had worked at Hepworth & Grandage, an engineering company which made pistons and aeroplane parts, in 1964-65, and at Lancashire Steel Manufacturing Company Ltd in 1966-67. Industrial disease experts at law firm Irwin Mitchell are investigating how Mr McNeil was exposed to deadly asbestos dust. Nicola Handley, a specialist industrial disease lawyer at Irwin Mitchell, who is representing the family, said: "Mesothelioma is an aggressive and incurable cancer which causes so much distress for victims like Gerald who worked in industries where asbestos was regularly used. "Sadly, many employers did not do enough to manage the risks of asbestos exposure, despite knowing how dangerous it is. "We hope that Gerald's former co-workers will come forward to help us with our investigations. It's important that we now help his family get answers about his exposure to the deadly dust." Before his death, Mr McNeil recalled dusty and dirty conditions at both factories. He remembered that pipework had been lagged with asbestos. At his time at Hepworth and Grandage he recalled large furnaces in the factory which were connected by pipes which had asbestos lagging on them. Lancashire Steel was a large steel corporation which had two sites in Warrington and Irlam -- it employed more than 9,000 employees at the time and later became part of the British Steel Corporation. Mr McNeil worked at the site in Warrington for about six months. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leeds Man Dies from Fibro-related Cancer --------------------------------------------------------- Yorkshire Evening Post reported that the family of a retired joiner from Leeds who died from an asbestos-related cancer is appealing for his former colleagues to help with an investigation. Before his death aged 92 in April 2013, Edward 'Ted' Lawn, of Kippax, told his family he believed he was exposed to asbestos while working as a joiner at Leeds City Council, Wakefield Council and St James's Hospital in Leeds in the 1970s and 1980s. Ha also recalled working at Ferrybridge Power Station for Turriff Construction Limited in the 1960s. He believed he was exposed to asbestos on the cooling towers and in the turbine room. At an inquest into his death last July, a coroner ruled that Mr Lawn died from malignant mesothelioma caused by exposure to asbestos dust. Mr Lawn's family has instructed law firm Irwin Mitchell to investigate where he was exposed to asbestos and why he wasn't provided with adequate safety equipment to protect him. His family and Irwin Mitchell are appealing for Mr Lawn's former colleagues to help with the investigation as they may have crucial information on the working conditions he was exposed to. Mr Lawn's son Andrew, 50, said: "My father was elderly but he was fit and well prior to his diagnosis. He enjoyed tending to his allotments regularly but regrettably he was quickly unable to do this. My father took the diagnosis very badly and he rapidly went downhill. "It has also been difficult to come to terms with the fact that my father's illness was caused by his exposure to asbestos decades ago simply by going to work and it is very important that we now find the answers to how this happened." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Store Manager Dies From Fibro-related Cancer ------------------------------------------------------------- Staffordshire Newsletter reported that a retired electrical store manager died from a cancer associated with working with asbestos, an inquest heard. Robert William Milligan, 80, from Stuart Close North, Walton, Stone, died from mesothelioma at the Douglas Macmillan Hospice in Stoke on October 13, 2015. An inquest held in Cannock heard Mr Milligan was diagnosed with mesothelioma in February 2015. He was deemed not fit for surgery and received palliative radiotherapy in March. On October 8 he started to deteriorate and he began receiving end of life care. Cause of death was given as mesothelioma, a form of cancer associated with exposure to asbestos dust. Mr Milligan made a statement before he died providing useful information about his life. He said he had worked at electrical engineering firm CBM in Burslem in 1951, repairing irons. He had also been removing old asbestos padding and replacing it. He was not provided with any protective equipment. He also worked for F Fradley in Stoke as an electrician in 1952. He worked with electric cables in private and commercial buildings and was exposed again to asbestos dust. Assistant Coroner for South Staffordshire Margaret Jones said inquests were hearing more and more cases of people like Mr Milligan who were exposed many years ago, before the dangers of these materials were recognised. She recorded a conclusion of death from an industrial disease. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Awards $1.7MM in Landmark Fibro Case ---------------------------------------------------------- Eric Terry, writing for The Legal Examiner, reported that the estate of a deceased factory worker and his wife were recently awarded $1.7 million by a Philadelphia jury in the first asbestos case successfully tried against an employer. The award, $1 million to Doris A. Busbey and $700,000 to the estate of John F. Busbey, was made under the Wrongful Death Act and Survival Act. The employer, ESAB Group, was found 100 percent liable for their employee's mesothelioma and subsequent death. Verdict a First for Pennsylvania According to the plaintiff's attorney, the verdict is a first against an employer for asbestos-related claim in the state since Pennsylvania's Supreme Court began allowing employees to bring similar cases against their employers. Prior to that, employers were only held liable through the Workers' Compensation Act. In November 2013, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the Workers' Compensation Act does not cover occupational diseases like mesothelioma that can take more than 300 weeks after employment ends to manifest, freeing potential plaintiffs to seek compensation from former employers through civil actions. A Career of Asbestos Exposure John Busbey began working at a factory owned by Chemtron Corp., later Alloy Rods Inc. and finally ESAB Group, from 1962 until 2001. Busbey worked in several positions for the company and was frequently exposed to asbestos when he worked close to the welding rod and welding wire ovens. He was officially diagnosed with mesothelioma in January 2012 and died six months later. Studies from 2008 and 2009 showed plaque and thickening of his lungs, and 2011 and 2012 studies linked those findings to asbestos exposure, according to court documents Evidence of asbestos abatement that the plant underwent between the 1980s through the 2000s was likely effective in convincing the jury. Once called the "miracle mineral" for its resistance to heat, fire, and various chemicals, asbestos was used in numerous everyday products, including building materials and fireproof protective gear. It is now widely known that asbestos exposure can cause various health problems including mesothelioma, a fatal cancer that affects the lining of the lungs, as well as other cancers and lung-related illnesses. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ship Worker Seeks Justice for Fibro Cancer ----------------------------------------------------------- Megi Rychlikova, writing for York Pres, reported that a retired ship worker from North Yorkshire is hoping his former work colleagues will help him get justice for his asbestos-related cancer. Donald Watson, 81, of Easingwold, worked at the Swan Hunter & Wigham Richardson Ltd shipyard on the Tyne as a painter and decorator. Earlier, he was diagnosed with mesothelioma, an incurable form of cancer caused by exposure to asbestos, which he believes is the result of working conditions in the yard. He is appealing for anyone who also worked in the Swan Hunter yard to come forward to help his solicitors, Irwin Mitchell of Leeds, investigate whether the firm could have done more to protect him. "I was very shocked by the diagnosis and am coming to terms with it," he said. "I'm managing to cope on a daily basis and I just make sure that I don't overdo things." Mr Watson, originally from Gateshead, worked for several different companies in Tyneside as a painter and decorator. He said that during his time at the Swan Hunter & Wigham Richardson shipyard in 1961, he worked near pipework lagged with asbestos. He daily painted in areas including engine rooms, corridors and cabins, sanded down pipework and repainted it. He was also part of the team that built SSP Principe Perfeito, a Portuguese passenger ship. In 2014, he started feeling unwell and after medical tests, he was diagnosed with mesothelioma in February. "I never knew that the work that I did so many years ago would affect my life now," he said. "I really hope that former employees will now help the team at Irwin Mitchell to give any information about the conditions that I worked in so my family and I can get the justice that I deserve." Nicola Handley, a specialist industrial disease lawyer at Irwin Mitchell's Leeds office, said asbestos was regularly used in the shipbuilding industry. "Sadly, many employers did not do enough to manage the risks of asbestos exposure, despite knowing how dangerous it is," she said. "We hope that former employees who worked at Swan Hunter & Wigham Richardson Ltd will come forward to help us with our investigations. It's important that we now help Donald and his family get answers about his exposure to the deadly dust." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Cases Rising, Aussie Study Shows -------------------------------------------------------------- Daryl Passmore, writing for The Courier Mail, reported that tens of thousands of unsuspecting Australians face the horror of asbestos-related diseases as a hidden wave of home renovations victims emerges. New research shows a growing proportion of mesothelioma cases involve people exposed to the deadly building material in the home rather than the workplace. The so-called "third wave" trend will intensify over coming decades as more people who breathed in the fibres during home improvements are diagnosed. "We are going to see increased cases of mesothelioma, which means increased deaths," Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency chief executive Peter Tighe said. The first two waves were people involved in asbestos mining and manufacturing asbestos products or who regularly worked with products such as those in the construction industry. A study of the national mesothelioma register, commissioned by the agency, shows that a third of cases reported since 2010 were "non- occupational" and almost half involved women. "The strong trend is these cases where people's only exposure was during renovations decades ago," Mr Tighe said. The research forecasts that almost 20,000 new cases will be diagnosed before the end of this century, more than 40 per cent of them "third wave" such as renovations-related. Once asbestos-related lung cancers are included, that number will double. "We're only seeing the tip of the iceberg," Mr Tighe said. It takes on average 40 years for symptoms to start so many of those yet to be diagnosed were exposed to asbestos through renovations years ago. But Mr Tighe said he was concerned that people were still taking risks while renovating older houses despite the dangers from damaged asbestos now being well known. The same concern prompted Gold Coaster Diana Widdicombe to speak at an international conference on asbestos awareness and management in Brisbane. The 63-year-old was diagnosed with mesothelioma in August 2014. "I was mystified as to how I had got it," she told The Sunday Mail, until she recalled her exposure during renovation 25 years ago of their first home in Brisbane. "We never thought a thing about it because we had no idea of the risks," Ms Widdicombe said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Center Urges Veteran to Seek Top Fibro Atty ------------------------------------------------------------ The California Mesothelioma Victims Center is urging a recently diagnosed US Navy Veteran in California, or their family members to call them anytime at 866-714-6466 to ensure they really are talking to the top mesothelioma lawyers in the nation, as opposed to a mesothelioma marketing law firm, or a less than qualified local personal injury law firm. They are calling their initiative the Challenge, because as they would like to explain anytime, "When it comes to getting the best possible mesothelioma compensation, it is vital to have the nation's top lawyers that specialize in mesothelioma financial claims." http://California.MesotheliomaVictimsCenter.Com The Center says, "We hear about situation, after situation where a diagnosed US Navy Veteran, or industrial worker with mesothelioma thought a local car accident law firm, or a cable TV mesothelioma law firm could handle their compensation claim for this rare for of cancer, and they got shortchanged. There are probably a half dozen best of the best law firms in the nation that have the most experience, and skill when it comes to mesothelioma compensation claims, and we are urging a Veteran, or trades worker in California to call us, or their family member to call us at 866- 714-6466 to make certain you do get the best of the best lawyers. "The skill of the lawyers who will develop the mesothelioma compensation claim means everything, as we would like to explain anytime." For the best possible mesothelioma treatment options in California the California Mesothelioma Victims Center strongly recommends the following heath care facilities with the offer to help a diagnosed victim, or their family get to the right physicians at one of these four hospitals: * Cedars-Sinai Medical Center Los Angeles, California: http://www.cedars-sinai.edu/Patients/Programs-and-Services/Samuel- Osc . . . nstitute-/ * UCLA Medical Center Los Angeles, California: http://www.cancer.ucla.edu/ * Stanford Cancer Institute Stanford, California: http://cancer.stanford.edu/ * University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California:http://mountzion.ucsfmedicalcenter.org/ The California Mesothelioma Victims Center also wants to emphasize their's is a statewide unsurpassed service that is available to any diagnosed victim in California including communities such as Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, Riverside, Fresno, Sacramento, Oceanside, Palm Springs, Riverside, or Eureka.http://California.MesotheliomaVictimsCenter.Com High risk work groups for exposure to asbestos In California include US Navy Veterans, power plant workers, shipyard workers, oil refinery workers, manufacturing workers, plumbers, electricians, auto mechanics, machinists, or construction workers. Typically the exposure to asbestos occurred in the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's, or 1980's. According to the US Center for Disease Control the average age for a diagnosed victim of mesothelioma is 72 years old. Frequently victims of mesothelioma are initially misdiagnosed with pneumonia. between 2500, and 3000 US citizens will be diagnosed with mesothelioma. Mesothelioma is attributable to exposure to asbestos. According to the CDC the states indicated with the highest incidence of mesothelioma include Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia, Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota, Louisiana, Washington, and Oregon. The California Mesothelioma Victims Center says, "Before you hire a mesothelioma attorney to advance a mesothelioma compensation claim please call us at 866-714-6466, and compare the qualifications of who we consider to be the nation's most skilled mesothelioma attorneys to any other lawyer, or law firm. "When it comes to obtaining the best mesothelioma compensation settlement, the quality of the attorney matters, as we would like to explain anytime." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Refugees Removing Nauru Fibro w/o Protection ------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Walsh, writing for ABC News, reported that refugees and local workers on Nauru are being hired to remove asbestos from houses on the island without proper protection from the hazardous material. The ABC has also learned the material is not being disposed of safely and could pose a future health threat. The work is linked to a $5.5 million housing renovation scheme announced in September by the government of Nauru, which hopes to deal with the roofing and cladding of up to 41 per cent of the island's residences, plus key facilities, that contain the deadly material. "This program is safe and greatly beneficial to the people of Nauru," the government said in a statement, adding: "No refugees are involved in this project." But a Rohingya refugee who asked to remain anonymous because of concerns he could get into trouble for speaking to foreign media said he was hired to do construction work as part of the scheme. The refugee said his employer did not tell him he would be tasked with removing asbestos materials. "He didn't say anything, he told me the morning I got there 'Hey, you take up the roofing, get on', just like that, didn't tell me about danger or anything," he said. "One month I worked there. A lot of people looked at me and said 'Hey, you don't do it like that because you're not using tools, not using the gloves, not using the masks. It's a very big problem for you and your body'." While the government of Nauru said the renovation program was safe, the refugee said workers were not given the appropriate safety gear and sometimes went without any protection at all. "Sometimes they give me masks and they give me one glove. After maybe two days, three days, another one. After three days they didn't give me anything, no gloves, no mask," he said. Opposition MP and former president Sprent Dabwido has seen some of the renovation work himself and said he was concerned about safety on the sites. "Those refugees are willing to do the hard work but I don't think they know the safety risk they're taking by doing this job," he said. "They climb onto the house, they remove the asbestos with no safety equipment." The ABC has received photographs of a group of Nauruans and refugees attaching a new roof to a house, removing the existing deteriorated asbestos roofing. The photographs show workers wearing their own clothes, instead of coveralls, with only hats and pieces of cloth as head protection. Asbestos review cites existing contamination A report from June 2015, funded by the European Union and implemented by the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Program (SPREP), found that 212,000 square metres of asbestos- laden material is on buildings on Nauru. It found that "asbestos roofing and cladding on residential dwellings is often 60-70 years old and in bad condition". A risk assessment and baseline work discovered that "all asbestos is old and in various stages of deterioration". It added that "in many cases it is in an advanced stage of deterioration" which were in danger of releasing asbestos fibres. "Asbestos fibres in areas where people are able to breathe them in pose an ongoing and real health risk of asbestos-related diseases including debilitating conditions such as asbestosis and ... mesothelioma," it added. While the building material tends to be relatively safe if kept in good condition, decades of poor maintenance in a tropical environment have left most roofs in poor shape. Swab tests by EMS Laboratories of California found "significantly high" results of asbestos fibres in four locations including the maternity unit at Republic of Nauru Hospital, the port, the power plant, at two locations in the prison and in a government building. Mr Dabwido believes little direction had been given to workers removing the asbestos. "Even the hammering, I don't think there's any training because they throw the roofing off the top of the house and once it hits the ground it breaks and there's dust everywhere," he said. Stewart Williams from SPREP, the organisation that recently completed the report on the asbestos hazards, said renovation work involving the removal of asbestos could be risky. "Asbestos roofing, asbestos cladding, it's either nailed or screwed or otherwise attached to the rafters or framework. When that's removed it can break and fibres can be released," he said. "Best practice, which is endorsed at the international level, is that when workers are working on asbestos cement sheeting they have to have the appropriate personal protective equipment to stop them taking asbestos dust off the site, to stop them inhaling the asbestos dust, or even creating asbestos dust. "They have to have coveralls, they have to have respirators, they have to have gloves. They have to have them on prior to going on- site, and they have to take them off before they leave the site." The photographs obtained by the ABC also show pieces of removed asbestos next to the house and directly behind workers which should be placed in sealed bags. Other photos show broken roof sheets sitting uncovered in a local tip site. Mr Williams said there were prescribed ways of handling asbestos, with specific options for Nauru detailed in the 2015 report. "When they are removing the material itself it must be wetted down, usually with a soapy water mix. That material should be carefully removed to try not to break it, and that should be placed in plastic or 'haz-bags' and secured, wrapped up, so that it can't release asbestos fibres," he said. "It's contrary to best practice if people are doing any removal activities, transport activities or disposal not following those requirements." The June 2015 report also found that asbestos was currently dumped at the local tip, along with all other refuse. "Scavenging of all refuse is common, including asbestos," it said. There is little epidemiological evidence to indicate that asbestosis and mesothelioma have developed in Nauru's population after living in close proximity with the material for decades as "health records are not detailed and were partly lost in the 2013 fire at the hospital". In its statement to the ABC, the Nauru government did not give specific details about safety precautions on the worksites, nor how the removed asbestos was being disposed of. "We'd suggest you don't rely in social media for your facts," it said, adding: "Any claims that this program is unsafe are false and more typical nonsense from the ABC." The report estimates that it will cost about $24 million to remove asbestos from Nauru, a cost which does not include cleaning-up its contaminated sites. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NRG Energy Has Adequate Reserve for Fibro Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- NRG Energy, Inc., says it has established an adequate reserve to deal with potential asbestos liabilities, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. NRG Energy, Inc., through its subsidiary, Midwest Generation, may be subject to potential asbestos liabilities as a result of its acquisition of EME. The Company is currently analyzing the scope of potential liability as it may relate to Midwest Generation. The Company believes that it has established an adequate reserve to deal with these cases. NRG Energy, Inc. (NRG) is a power company that produces, sells and delivers energy, and energy products and services in power markets in the United States. NRG's business segments are NRG Business, NRG Home, NRG Renew, NRG Yield and corporate activities. NRG Business consists of NRG's wholesale operations, including plant operations, commercial operations, engineering, procurement and construction (EPC), energy services and other related functions. NRG Home includes the Company's NRG Home Retail and NRG Home Solar businesses. NRG Renew includes the Company's solar and wind assets. NRG Yield includes NRG's contracted generation assets. As of December 31, 2014, NRG owned and operated approximately 52,000 megawatts (MW) of generation; transacted in and traded fuel and transportation services, and directly sold energy, services, and sustainable products and services to retail customers under the name NRG and other retail brand names owned by NRG. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Inc. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- Tenneco Inc. continues to defend itself against lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. The Company states: "We are subject to lawsuits initiated by a significant number of claimants alleging health problems as a result of exposure to asbestos. In the early 2000's we were named in nearly 20,000 complaints, most of which were filed in Mississippi state court and the vast majority of which made no allegations of exposure to asbestos from our product categories. Most of these claims have been dismissed and our current docket of active and inactive cases is less than 500 cases nationwide. A small number of claims have been asserted against one of our subsidiaries by railroad workers alleging exposure to asbestos products in railroad cars. The substantial majority of the remaining claims are related to alleged exposure to asbestos in our automotive products although a significant number of those claims appear to involve workers in industries that are not automotive-related or otherwise do not include sufficient information to determine whether there is any basis for a claim against us. We believe, based on scientific and other evidence, it is unlikely that claimants were exposed to asbestos by our former products and that, in any event, they would not be at increased risk of asbestos-related disease based on their work with these products. Further, many of these cases involve numerous defendants, with the number in some cases exceeding 100 defendants from a variety of industries. Additionally, the plaintiffs either do not specify any, or specify the jurisdictional minimum, dollar amount for damages. As major asbestos manufacturers and/or users continue to go out of business or file for bankruptcy, we may experience an increased number of these claims. We vigorously defend ourselves against these claims as part of our ordinary course of business. In future periods, we could be subject to cash costs or charges to earnings if any of these matters are resolved unfavorably to us. To date, with respect to claims that have proceeded sufficiently through the judicial process, we have regularly achieved favorable resolutions. Accordingly, we presently believe that these asbestos-related claims will not have a material adverse impact on our future consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity." Tenneco Inc. is a producer of emission control and ride control products and systems for light, commercial and specialty vehicle applications. The Company serves both original equipment vehicle manufacturers (OEMs) and the repair and replacement markets, or aftermarket, worldwide. ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Inc. Continues to Defend PI Suits --------------------------------------------------------- AMETEK, Inc., continues to defend itself against asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. The Company (including its subsidiaries) has been named as a defendant, along with many other companies, in a number of asbestos-related lawsuits. Many of these lawsuits either relate to businesses which were acquired by the Company and do not involve products which were manufactured or sold by the Company or relate to previously owned businesses of the Company which are under new ownership. In connection with many of these lawsuits, the sellers or new owners of such businesses, as the case may be, have agreed to indemnify the Company against these claims (the "Indemnified Claims"). The Indemnified Claims have been tendered to, and are being defended by, such sellers and new owners. These sellers and new owners have met their obligations, in all respects, and the Company does not have any reason to believe such parties would fail to fulfill their obligations in the future; however, one of these companies filed for bankruptcy liquidation in 2007. To date, no judgments have been rendered against the Company as a result of any asbestos-related lawsuit. The Company believes it has strong defenses to the claims being asserted and intends to continue to vigorously defend itself in these matters. AMETEK, Inc., (AMETEK) is a manufacturer of electronic instruments and electromechanical devices with operations in North America, Europe, Asia and South America. AMETEK markets and sells its products through two groups: Electronic Instruments (EIG) and Electromechanical (EMG). The Company's EIG segment designs and manufactures advanced instruments for the process, aerospace, power and industrial markets. It offers process control instruments for the oil and gas, petrochemical, pharmaceutical, semiconductor and factory automation industries. The Company's EMG segment offers electrical connectors and electronics packaging used in aerospace and defense, medical and industrial applications, as well as its advanced technical motor and motion control products, which are used in a range of medical devices, office and business equipment, factory automation, robotics and other applications. ASBESTOS UPDATE: CERC Corp. Continues to Defend PI Suits -------------------------------------------------------- CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. continues to defend itself against asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. CERC Corp. is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of CenterPoint Energy, Inc., a public utility holding company. Some facilities owned by CERC's predecessors contain or have contained asbestos insulation and other asbestos-containing materials. CERC or its predecessor companies have been named, along with numerous others, as a defendant in lawsuits filed by a number of individuals who claim injury due to exposure to asbestos. Some of the claimants have worked at locations owned by CERC, but most existing claims relate to facilities previously owned by CERC's subsidiaries. CERC anticipates that additional claims like those received may be asserted in the future. Although their ultimate outcome cannot be predicted at this time, CERC intends to continue vigorously contesting claims that it does not consider to have merit and, based on its experience to date, does not expect these matters, either individually or in the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. CenterPoint Energy, Inc. is a public utility holding company whose indirect wholly owned subsidiaries include CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC (CenterPoint Houston), which engages in the electric transmission and distribution business in a 5,000-square mile area of the Texas Gulf Coast, which includes the city of Houston, and CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. (CERC Corp. and, together with its subsidiaries, CERC), which owns and operates natural gas distribution systems in six states. ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace Accrues for Unresolved PD Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ W.R. Grace & Co. has accrued for those unresolved other asbestos property damage claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. Grace emerged from an asbestos-related Chapter 11 bankruptcy on February 3, 2014 (the "Effective Date"). Under its plan of reorganization, all pending and future asbestos-related claims are channeled for resolution to either a personal injury trust (the "PI Trust") or a property damage trust (the "PD Trust"). The trusts are the sole recourse for holders of asbestos-related claims. The channeling injunctions issued by the bankruptcy court prohibit holders of asbestos-related claims from asserting such claims directly against Grace. Grace has satisfied all of its financial obligations to the PI Trust. Grace has fixed and contingent obligations remaining to the PD Trust. With respect to property damage claims related to Grace's former attic insulation product installed in the U.S. ("ZAI PD Claims"), the PD Trust was funded with $34.4 million on the Effective Date. Grace is obligated to make a payment of $30 million to the PD Trust in respect of ZAI PD Claims on February 3, 2017, and has recorded a liability of $28.9 million representing the present value of this amount in "debt payable after one year" in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets. Grace is also obligated to make up to 10 contingent deferred payments of $8 million per year to the PD Trust in respect of ZAI PD Claims during the 20-year period beginning on the fifth anniversary of the Effective Date, with each such payment due only if the assets of the PD Trust in respect of ZAI PD Claims fall below $10 million during the preceding year. Grace has not accrued for the 10 additional payments as Grace does not currently believe they are probable. Grace is not obligated to make additional payments to the PD Trust in respect of ZAI PD Claims beyond the payments. Grace has satisfied all of its financial obligations with respect to Canadian ZAI PD Claims. With respect to other asbestos property damage claims ("Other PD Claims"), claims unresolved as of the Effective Date are to be litigated in the bankruptcy court and any future claims are to be litigated in a federal district court, in each case pursuant to procedures to be approved by the bankruptcy court. To the extent any such Other PD Claims are determined to be allowed claims, they are to be paid in cash by the PD Trust. Grace is obligated to make a payment to the PD Trust every six months in the amount of any Other PD Claims allowed during the preceding six months plus interest (if applicable) and the amount of PD Trust expenses for the preceding six months (the "PD Obligation"). The aggregate amount to be paid under the PD Obligation is not capped and Grace may be obligated to make additional payments to the PD Trust in respect of the PD Obligation. Grace has accrued for those unresolved Other PD Claims that it believes are probable and estimable. Grace has not accrued for other unresolved or unasserted Other PD Claims as it does not believe that payment is probable. All payments to the PD Trust required after the Effective Date are secured by the Company's obligation to issue 77,372,257 shares of Company common stock to the PD Trust in the event of default, subject to customary anti-dilution provisions. W.R. Grace & Co. (Grace) is engaged in the production and sale of specialty chemicals and specialty materials on a global basis. The Company operates in three segments: Grace Catalysts Technologies, which includes catalysts and related products and refining, petrochemical and other chemical manufacturing technologies; Grace Materials Technologies, which includes packaging technologies and engineered materials, and Grace Construction Products, which includes specialty construction chemicals and specialty building materials. Its brands include Sylojet, Syloid, Shieldex, Sylosiv, Sylowhite, Durafill, Ludox, Sylodent, Syloblanc, Daraclar, Trisyl, Perkasil, Phonosorb, Sylobead, Cryosiv, Safetysorb, Poliedge, Sylobloc, Synthetech, Davisil, Vydac, Modcol, Spring, Multipacker, Reveleris, Revealx, Graceresolv, Visionht, Vydac, Alltech, Alltima, Sodasorb, Darex, Daraform, Daraseal, Darablend, Sincera, Celox, Apperta and Sistiaga. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Accrues $8-Mil. Fibro Liability ----------------------------------------------------------- Consolidated Edison, Inc., accrued $8 million liability for asbestos suits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. Suits have been brought in New York State and federal courts against the Utilities and many other defendants, wherein a large number of plaintiffs sought large amounts of compensatory and punitive damages for deaths and injuries allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos at various premises of the Utilities. The suits that have been resolved, which are many, have been resolved without any payment by the Utilities, or for amounts that were not, in the aggregate, material to them. The amounts specified in all the remaining thousands of suits total billions of dollars; however, the Utilities believe that these amounts are greatly exaggerated, based on the disposition of previous claims. At September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, Con Edison and CECONY had accrued their estimated aggregate undiscounted potential liabilities for these suits and additional suits that may be brought over the next 15 years of $8 million and $7 million, respectively. The estimates were based upon a combination of modeling, historical data analysis and risk factor assessment. Trial courts have begun, and unless otherwise determined by an appellate court may continue, to apply a different standard for determining liability in asbestos suits than the standard that applied historically. As a result, the Companies currently believe that there is a reasonable possibility of an exposure to loss in excess of the liability accrued for the suits. The Companies are unable to estimate the amount or range of such loss. In addition, certain current and former employees have claimed or are claiming workers' compensation benefits based on alleged disability from exposure to asbestos. Under its current rate plans, CECONY is permitted to defer as regulatory assets (for subsequent recovery through rates) costs incurred for its asbestos lawsuits and workers' compensation claims. Consolidated Edison, Inc. (Con Edison) is a holding company, which owns Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (CECONY), which delivers electricity, natural gas and steam to customers in New York City and Westchester County; Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. (O&R) (together with CECONY referred to as the Utilities), which delivers electricity and natural gas to customers primarily located in southeastern New York, and northern New Jersey and northeastern Pennsylvania, and competitive energy businesses, which provide retail and wholesale electricity supply and energy services. CECONY's business operations are its regulated electric, gas and steam delivery businesses. O&R's business operations are its regulated electric and gas delivery businesses. In July 2012, Consolidated Edison Development, a wholly owned subsidiary of ConEdison, and GCL Solar Energy Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of GCL-Poly Energy Holdings Limited, acquired two solar photovoltaic projects. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison's CECONY Accrues $7MM Fibro Liability ----------------------------------------------------------------- Consolidated Edison, Inc., reported that its subsidiary, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (CECONY), accrued $7 million liability for asbestos suits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. Suits have been brought in New York State and federal courts against the Utilities and many other defendants, wherein a large number of plaintiffs sought large amounts of compensatory and punitive damages for deaths and injuries allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos at various premises of the Utilities. The suits that have been resolved, which are many, have been resolved without any payment by the Utilities, or for amounts that were not, in the aggregate, material to them. The amounts specified in all the remaining thousands of suits total billions of dollars; however, the Utilities believe that these amounts are greatly exaggerated, based on the disposition of previous claims. At September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, Con Edison and CECONY had accrued their estimated aggregate undiscounted potential liabilities for these suits and additional suits that may be brought over the next 15 years of $8 million and $7 million, respectively. The estimates were based upon a combination of modeling, historical data analysis and risk factor assessment. Trial courts have begun, and unless otherwise determined by an appellate court may continue, to apply a different standard for determining liability in asbestos suits than the standard that applied historically. As a result, the Companies currently believe that there is a reasonable possibility of an exposure to loss in excess of the liability accrued for the suits. The Companies are unable to estimate the amount or range of such loss. In addition, certain current and former employees have claimed or are claiming workers' compensation benefits based on alleged disability from exposure to asbestos. Under its current rate plans, CECONY is permitted to defer as regulatory assets (for subsequent recovery through rates) costs incurred for its asbestos lawsuits and workers' compensation claims. Consolidated Edison, Inc. (Con Edison) is a holding company, which owns Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (CECONY), which delivers electricity, natural gas and steam to customers in New York City and Westchester County; Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. (O&R) (together with CECONY referred to as the Utilities), which delivers electricity and natural gas to customers primarily located in southeastern New York, and northern New Jersey and northeastern Pennsylvania, and competitive energy businesses, which provide retail and wholesale electricity supply and energy services. CECONY's business operations are its regulated electric, gas and steam delivery businesses. O&R's business operations are its regulated electric and gas delivery businesses. In July 2012, Consolidated Edison Development, a wholly owned subsidiary of Con Edison, and GCL Solar Energy Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of GCL-Poly Energy Holdings Limited, acquired two solar photovoltaic projects. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Accrues $50MM Rupture Liability ----------------------------------------------------------- Consolidated Edison, Inc., accrued its estimated liability of $50 million relating to suits due to the rupture of its subsidiary's steam main in midtown Manhattan for the suits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. In July 2007, a CECONY steam main located in midtown Manhattan ruptured. It has been reported that one person died and others were injured as a result of the incident. Several buildings in the area were damaged. Debris from the incident included dirt and mud containing asbestos. The response to the incident required the closing of several buildings and streets for various periods. Approximately 90 suits are pending against the company seeking generally unspecified compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages, for wrongful death, personal injury, property damage and business interruption. The company has notified its insurers of the incident and believes that the policies in force at the time of the incident will cover the company's costs to satisfy its liability to others in connection with the suits. In the company's estimation, there is not a reasonable possibility that an exposure to loss exists for the suits that is materially in excess of the estimated liability accrued. At September 30, 2015, the company has accrued its estimated liability for the suits of $50 million and an insurance receivable in the same amount. Consolidated Edison, Inc. (Con Edison) is a holding company, which owns Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (CECONY), which delivers electricity, natural gas and steam to customers in New York City and Westchester County; Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. (O&R) (together with CECONY referred to as the Utilities), which delivers electricity and natural gas to customers primarily located in southeastern New York, and northern New Jersey and northeastern Pennsylvania, and competitive energy businesses, which provide retail and wholesale electricity supply and energy services. CECONY's business operations are its regulated electric, gas and steam delivery businesses. O&R's business operations are its regulated electric and gas delivery businesses. In July 2012, Consolidated Edison Development, a wholly owned subsidiary of Con Edison, and GCL Solar Energy Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of GCL-Poly Energy Holdings Limited, acquired two solar photovoltaic projects. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Unit Has $551-Mil. Fibro Reserves -------------------------------------------------------------- Duke Energy Corporation's subsidiary, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, has recognized asbestos-related reserves of $551 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced numerous claims for indemnification and medical cost reimbursement related to asbestos exposure. These claims relate to damages for bodily injuries alleged to have arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos in connection with construction and maintenance activities conducted on its electric generation plants prior to 1985. As of September 30, 2015, there were 150 asserted claims for non-malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to $37 million, and 63 asserted claims for malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to $9 million. Based on Duke Energy Carolinas' experience, it is expected that the ultimate resolution of most of these claims likely will be less than the amount claimed. Duke Energy Carolinas has recognized asbestos-related reserves of $551 million at September 30, 2015 and $575 million at December 31, 2014. These reserves are classified in Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities and Other within Current Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. These reserves are based upon the minimum amount of the range of loss for current and future asbestos claims through 2033, are recorded on an undiscounted basis and incorporate anticipated inflation. In light of the uncertainties inherent in a longer-term forecast, management does not believe they can reasonably estimate the indemnity and medical costs that might be incurred after 2033 related to such potential claims. It is possible Duke Energy Carolinas may incur asbestos liabilities in excess of the recorded reserves. Duke Energy Corporation is an energy company. Duke Energy conducts its operations in three business segments: Regulated Utilities, International Energy and Commercial Power. The Company's Regulated Utilities segment conducts operations primarily through Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Florida, Duke Energy Indiana and Duke Energy Ohio. The Company's International Energy segment principally operates and manages power generation facilities and engages in sales and marketing of electric power, natural gas, and natural gas liquids outside the United States. The Company's Commercial Power builds, develops and operates wind and solar renewable generation and energy transmission projects throughout the continental United States. Duke Energy operates in the United States and Latin America primarily through its direct and indirect subsidiaries. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Unit Has $599MM Fibro Receivables -------------------------------------------------------------- Duke Energy Corporation's subsidiary, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, has $599 million receivables for insurance recoveries related to asbestos-related injuries and damages, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. Duke Energy Carolinas has third-party insurance to cover certain losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages above an aggregate self-insured retention. Duke Energy Carolinas' cumulative payments began to exceed the self-insurance retention in 2008. Future payments up to the policy limit will be reimbursed by the third-party insurance carrier. The insurance policy limit for potential future insurance recoveries indemnification and medical cost claim payments is $847 million in excess of the self- insured retention. Receivables for insurance recoveries were $599 million at September 30, 2015 and $616 million at December 31, 2014. Duke Energy Carolinas believes the insurance recovery asset is probable of recovery as the insurance carrier continues to have a strong financial strength rating. Duke Energy Corporation is an energy company. Duke Energy conducts its operations in three business segments: Regulated Utilities, International Energy and Commercial Power. The Company's Regulated Utilities segment conducts operations primarily through Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Florida, Duke Energy Indiana and Duke Energy Ohio. The Company's International Energy segment principally operates and manages power generation facilities and engages in sales and marketing of electric power, natural gas, and natural gas liquids outside the United States. The Company's Commercial Power builds, develops and operates wind and solar renewable generation and energy transmission projects throughout the continental United States. Duke Energy operates in the United States and Latin America primarily through its direct and indirect subsidiaries. ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Unit Had 2,971 New Fibro Claims -------------------------------------------------------- MetLife, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, received 2,971 new asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. 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. As reported in the 2014 Annual Report, MLIC received approximately 4,636 asbestos-related claims in 2014. During the nine months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014, MLIC received approximately 2,971 and 3,641 new asbestos-related claims, respectively. 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 September 30, 2015. MetLife, Inc., (MetLife) is a provider of life insurance, annuities, employee benefits and asset management. The Company's segments include Retail; Group, Voluntary & Worksite Benefits, and Corporate Benefit Funding. Its three geographic segments are Latin America (collectively, the Americas); Asia, and Europe, the Middle East and Africa (EMEA). In addition, MetLife's Corporate & Other includes MetLife Home Loans LLC (MLHL), the surviving, non- bank entity of the merger of MetLife Bank, National Association (MetLife Bank) with and into MLHL, and other business activities. Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, it operates in the United States, Japan, Latin America, Asia, Europe and the Middle East. The Company's businesses in the Americas offer a range of protection products and services. ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Continues to Defend PI Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- CenterPoint Energy, Inc., continues to defend itself against asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. Some facilities owned by CenterPoint Energy contain or have contained asbestos insulation and other asbestos-containing materials. CenterPoint Energy or its subsidiaries have been named, along with numerous others, as a defendant in lawsuits filed by a number of individuals who claim injury due to exposure to asbestos. Some of the claimants have worked at locations owned by subsidiaries of CenterPoint Energy, but most existing claims relate to facilities previously owned by CenterPoint Energy's subsidiaries. In 2004 and early 2005, CenterPoint Energy sold its generating business, to which most of these claims relate, to a company which is now an affiliate of NRG. Under the terms of the arrangements regarding separation of the generating business from CenterPoint Energy and its sale of that business, ultimate financial responsibility for uninsured losses from claims relating to the generating business has been assumed by the NRG affiliate, but CenterPoint Energy has agreed to continue to defend such claims to the extent they are covered by insurance maintained by CenterPoint Energy, subject to reimbursement of the costs of such defense by the NRG affiliate. CenterPoint Energy anticipates that additional claims like those received may be asserted in the future. Although their ultimate outcome cannot be predicted at this time, CenterPoint Energy intends to continue vigorously contesting claims that it does not consider to have merit and, based on its experience to date, does not expect these matters, either individually or in the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on CenterPoint Energy's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. CenterPoint Energy, Inc. is a public utility holding company whose indirect wholly owned subsidiaries include CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC (CenterPoint Houston), which engages in the electric transmission and distribution business in a 5,000-square mile area of the Texas Gulf Coast, which includes the city of Houston, and CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. (CERC Corp. and, together with its subsidiaries, CERC), which owns and operates natural gas distribution systems in six states. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Manitex International, Inc., continues to defend itself against asbestos-related product liability lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. The Company has been named as a defendant in several multi- defendant asbestos related product liability lawsuits. In certain instances, the Company is indemnified by a former owner of the product line in question. In the remaining cases the plaintiff has, to date, not been able to establish any exposure by the plaintiff to the Company's products. The Company is uninsured with respect to these claims but believes that it will not incur any material liability with respect to these claims. Manitex International, Inc. is engaged in providing engineered lifting solutions. The Company operates in two segments: Lifting Equipment segment and Equipment Distribution segment. The Company, in its Lifting Equipment segment, designs, manufactures and distributes a group of products that serve different functions and are used in a variety of industries. Through its subsidiary, Manitex, Inc., the Company markets a line of boom trucks and sign cranes. Manitex's boom trucks and crane products are primarily used for industrial projects, energy exploration and infrastructure development, including roads, bridges and commercial construction. The Company, in its Equipment Distribution segment, operates a crane dealership located in Bridgeview, Illinois that distributes Terex rough terrain and truck cranes, Fuchs material handlers, and Manitex boom trucks and sky cranes. In December 2013, the Company announced that it has completed the acquisition of Valla, SpA, of Piacenza, Italy. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Unit Has $551-Mil. Fibro Reserves -------------------------------------------------------------- Duke Energy Corporation's subsidiary, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, has recognized asbestos-related reserves of $551 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced numerous claims for indemnification and medical cost reimbursement related to asbestos exposure. These claims relate to damages for bodily injuries alleged to have arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos in connection with construction and maintenance activities conducted on its electric generation plants prior to 1985. As of September 30, 2015, there were 150 asserted claims for non-malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to $37 million, and 63 asserted claims for malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to $9 million. Based on Duke Energy Carolinas' experience, it is expected that the ultimate resolution of most of these claims likely will be less than the amount claimed. Duke Energy Carolinas has recognized asbestos-related reserves of $551 million at September 30, 2015 and $575 million at December 31, 2014. These reserves are classified in Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities and Other within Current Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. These reserves are based upon the minimum amount of the range of loss for current and future asbestos claims through 2033, are recorded on an undiscounted basis and incorporate anticipated inflation. In light of the uncertainties inherent in a longer-term forecast, management does not believe they can reasonably estimate the indemnity and medical costs that might be incurred after 2033 related to such potential claims. It is possible Duke Energy Carolinas may incur asbestos liabilities in excess of the recorded reserves. Duke Energy Corporation is an energy company. Duke Energy conducts its operations in three business segments: Regulated Utilities, International Energy and Commercial Power. The Company's Regulated Utilities segment conducts operations primarily through Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Florida, Duke Energy Indiana and Duke Energy Ohio. The Company's International Energy segment principally operates and manages power generation facilities and engages in sales and marketing of electric power, natural gas, and natural gas liquids outside the United States. The Company's Commercial Power builds, develops and operates wind and solar renewable generation and energy transmission projects throughout the continental United States. Duke Energy operates in the United States and Latin America primarily through its direct and indirect subsidiaries. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Unit Has $599MM Fibro Receivables -------------------------------------------------------------- Duke Energy Corporation's subsidiary, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, has $599 million receivables for insurance recoveries related to asbestos-related injuries and damages, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. Duke Energy Carolinas has third-party insurance to cover certain losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages above an aggregate self-insured retention. Duke Energy Carolinas' cumulative payments began to exceed the self-insurance retention in 2008. Future payments up to the policy limit will be reimbursed by the third-party insurance carrier. The insurance policy limit for potential future insurance recoveries indemnification and medical cost claim payments is $847 million in excess of the self- insured retention. Receivables for insurance recoveries were $599 million at September 30, 2015 and $616 million at December 31, 2014. Duke Energy Carolinas believes the insurance recovery asset is probable of recovery as the insurance carrier continues to have a strong financial strength rating. Duke Energy Corporation is an energy company. Duke Energy conducts its operations in three business segments: Regulated Utilities, International Energy and Commercial Power. The Company's Regulated Utilities segment conducts operations primarily through Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Florida, Duke Energy Indiana and Duke Energy Ohio. The Company's International Energy segment principally operates and manages power generation facilities and engages in sales and marketing of electric power, natural gas, and natural gas liquids outside the United States. The Company's Commercial Power builds, develops and operates wind and solar renewable generation and energy transmission projects throughout the continental United States. Duke Energy operates in the United States and Latin America primarily through its direct and indirect subsidiaries. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire Continues to Defend PI Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------- Houston Wire & Cable Company continues to defend itself against asbestos-related individual personal injury lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. As part of the acquisition of Southwest and Southern Wire made in 2010, the Company assumed the liability for the post-remediation monitoring of the water quality at one of the acquired facilities in Louisiana. The expected liability of $95 at September 30, 2015 relates to the cost of the monitoring, which the Company estimates will be incurred over approximately the next 2 years, and also the cost to plug the wells. Remediation work was completed prior to the acquisition in accordance with the requirements of the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. The Company, along with many other defendants, has been named in a number of lawsuits in the state courts of Illinois, Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota alleging that certain wire and cable which may have contained asbestos caused injury to the plaintiffs who were exposed to this wire and cable. These lawsuits are individual personal injury suits that seek unspecified amounts of money damages as the sole remedy. It is not clear whether the alleged injuries occurred as a result of the wire and cable in question or whether the Company, in fact, distributed the wire and cable alleged to have caused any injuries. The Company maintains general liability insurance that, to date, has covered the defense of and all costs associated with these claims. In addition, the Company did not manufacture any of the wire and cable at issue, and the Company would rely on any warranties from the manufacturers of such cable if it were determined that any of the wire or cable that the Company distributed contained asbestos which caused injury to any of these plaintiffs. In connection with ALLTEL's sale of the Company in 1997, ALLTEL provided indemnities with respect to costs and damages associated with these claims that the Company believes it could enforce if its insurance coverage proves inadequate. There are no legal proceedings pending against or involving the Company that, in management's opinion, based on the current known facts and circumstances, are expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position, cash flows, or results of operations. Houston Wire & Cable Company is a holding company. The Company is a provider of electrical and mechanical wire and cable, hardware and related services. Its cable management program includes purchasing and storing inventory for product availability. It offers products in categories of wire and cable, including continuous and interlocked armor cable; control and power cable; electronic wire and cable; flexible and portable cord; instrumentation and thermocouple cable; lead and high temperature cable; medium voltage cable; premise and category wire and cable; primary and secondary aluminum distribution cable; steel wire rope and wire rope slings, and synthetic fiber rope slings, chain, shackles, and other related hardware. It also offers private branded products, including its brand LifeGuard, a low-smoke, zero-halogen cable. Its products are used in repair and replacement work, also referred to as maintenance, repair and operations (MRO), and related projects. ASBESTOS UPDATE: VWR Int'l. Continues to Face Fibro Suits --------------------------------------------------------- VWR International Inc. continues to face asbestos-related exposure lawsuits stemming from the distribution of certain of its products, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. The Company states: "From time to time, we are named as a defendant in cases as a result of our distribution of laboratory supplies, including litigation resulting from the alleged prior distribution of products containing asbestos by certain of our predecessors or acquired companies. While the impact of these disputes or litigation has historically been immaterial, and we believe the range of reasonably possible loss from current matters continues to be immaterial, there can be no assurance that the impact of the pending and any future claims will not be material to our business, financial condition or results of operations in the future." Based in West Chester, Pa., VWR International Inc. distributes products like chemicals, glassware, instruments, protective clothing and other assorted laboratory products. The Company maintains operations in more than 20 countries and processes an average of 52,000 order lines daily from 20 strategically located distribution centers. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Has 1,346 Fibro Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Steel Partners Holdings L.P.'s subsidiary, BNS Sub, has been named defendant in 1,346 alleged asbestos-related toxic-tort claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. BNS Sub has been named as a defendant in 1,346 and 1,326 alleged asbestos-related toxic-tort claims as of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively. The claims were filed over a period beginning 1994 through September 30, 2015. In many cases these claims involved more than 100 defendants. Of the claims filed, 1,190 and 1,108 were dismissed, settled or granted summary judgment and closed as of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively. Of the claims settled, the average settlement was less than $3. There remained 156 and 218 pending asbestos claims as of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively. There can be no assurance that the number of future claims and the related costs of defense, settlements or judgments will be consistent with the experience to date of existing claims. BNS Sub has insurance policies covering asbestos-related claims for years beginning 1974 through 1988 with estimated aggregate coverage limits of $183,000, with $2,102 at September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014 in estimated remaining self-insurance retention (deductible). There is secondary evidence of coverage from 1970 to 1973 although there is no assurance that the insurers will recognize that the coverage was in place. Policies issued for BNS Sub beginning in 1989 contained exclusions related to asbestos. Under certain circumstances, some of the settled claims may be reopened. Also, there may be a significant delay in receipt of notification by BNS Sub of the entry of a dismissal or settlement of a claim or the filing of a new claim. BNS Sub believes it has significant defenses to any liability for toxic-tort claims on the merits. None of these toxic-tort claims has gone to trial and, therefore, there can be no assurance that these defenses will prevail. In addition, there can be no assurance that the number of future claims and the related costs of defense, settlements or judgments will be consistent with the experience to date of existing claims, and that BNS Sub will not need to increase significantly its estimated liability for the costs to settle these claims to an amount that could have a material effect on the consolidated financial statements. BNS Sub annually receives retroactive billings or credits from its insurance carriers for any increase or decrease in claims accruals as claims are filed, settled or dismissed, or as estimates of the ultimate settlement and defense costs for the then-existing claims are revised. As of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, BNS Sub has accrued $1,422 relating to the open and active claims against BNS Sub. This accrual represents the Company's best estimate of the likely costs to defend against or settle these claims by BNS Sub beyond the amounts accrued by the insurance carriers and previously funded, through the retroactive billings by BNS Sub. However, there can be no assurance that BNS Sub will not need to take additional charges in connection with the defense, settlement or judgment of these existing claims or that the costs of future claims and the related costs of defense, settlements or judgments will be consistent with the experience to date relating to existing claims. These claims are now being managed by the BNS Liquidating Trust. Steel Partners Holdings L.P. (SPH) is a global diversified holding Company. The Company is engaged in multiple businesses, including diversified industrial products, energy, defense, supply chain management and logistics, banking, food products and services, oilfield services, sports, training, education and the entertainment, and lifestyle industries. The Company operates business through four segments, which include diversified industrial, energy, financial services, and corporate and other. SPLP's energy segment consists of its consolidated subsidiaries Steel Excel, which provides drilling and production services to the oil and gas industry. The Company's financial services segment consists of its consolidated and wholly-owned subsidiary, WebFinancial Holding Corporation. The diversified industrial segment consists of Handy & Harman Ltd. The corporate and other segment consists of several consolidated subsidiaries, as well as various investments, and cash and cash equivalents. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Ingalls Continues to Defend PI Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc., continues to defend itself against a longstanding series of asbestos-related cases, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. HII and its predecessors-in-interest are defendants in a longstanding series of cases that have been and continue to be filed in various jurisdictions around the country, wherein former and current employees and various third parties allege exposure to asbestos containing materials while on or associated with HII premises or while working on vessels constructed or repaired by HII. The cases allege various injuries, including those associated with pleural plaque disease, asbestosis, cancer, mesothelioma and other alleged asbestos related conditions. In some cases, several of HII's former executive officers are also named as defendants. In some instances, partial or full insurance coverage is available to the Company for its liability and that of its former executive officers. Although the Company believes the ultimate resolution of these cases will not have a material effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows, it cannot predict what new or revised claims or litigation might be asserted or what information might come to light and can, therefore, give no assurances regarding the ultimate outcome of asbestos related litigation. Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. (HII) designs, builds, overhauls and repairs ships for the United States Navy and the United States Coast Guard. The Company is the designer, builder and refueler of nuclear powered aircraft carriers, the builder of amphibious assault and expeditionary warfare ships for the United States Navy and the sole builder of National Security Cutters for the United States Coast Guard. The Company designs and builds nuclear-powered submarines for the United States Navy and builds the Navy's fleet of DDG51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. The Company operates its shipbuilding business through Huntington Ingalls Incorporated subsidiary, which is organized into two segments: Ingalls Shipbuilding (Ingalls), which includes non- nuclear ship design, construction, repair and maintenance businesses, and Newport News Shipbuilding (Newport News), which includes the nuclear ship design, construction, overhaul, refueling, and repair and maintenance businesses. ASBESTOS UPDATE: DuPont Had 2,360 PI Claims Pending at Sept. 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- The Chemours Company disclosed that E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (DuPont) had 2,360 pending asbestos exposure-related personal injury suits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. At September 30, 2015, there were approximately 2,360 lawsuits pending against DuPont alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos. These cases are pending in state and federal court in numerous jurisdictions in the U.S. and are individually set for trial. Most of the actions were brought by contractors who worked at sites between 1950 and the 1990s. A small number of cases involve similar allegations by DuPont employees. A limited number of the cases were brought by household members of contractors or DuPont employees. Finally, certain lawsuits allege personal injury as a result of exposure to DuPont products. At September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, Chemours had an accrual of $38 related to this matter. Additionally, Chemours had an accrual for $2 for asbestos cases outside the U.S. at September 30, 2015. Management believes that the likelihood is remote that Chemours would incur losses in excess of the amounts accrued in connection with this matter. Effective prior to the opening of trading on the New York Stock Exchange on July 1, 2015, DuPont completed the previously announced separation of the businesses comprising DuPont's Performance Chemicals reporting segment, and certain other assets and liabilities, into Chemours, a separate and distinct public company. Based in Wilmington, Del., The Chemours Company delivers customized solutions with a wide range of industrial and specialty chemical products for markets including plastics and coatings, refrigeration and air conditioning, general industrial, mining and oil refining. Principal products include titanium dioxide (TiO2), refrigerants, industrial fluoropolymer resins, sodium cyanide, sulfuric acid and aniline. Chemours consists of three reportable segments: Titanium Technologies, Fluoroproducts and Chemical Solutions. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Unit Has $551-Mil. Fibro Reserves -------------------------------------------------------------- Duke Energy Corporation's subsidiary, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, has recognized asbestos-related reserves of $551 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced numerous claims for indemnification and medical cost reimbursement related to asbestos exposure. These claims relate to damages for bodily injuries alleged to have arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos in connection with construction and maintenance activities conducted on its electric generation plants prior to 1985. As of September 30, 2015, there were 150 asserted claims for non-malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to $37 million, and 63 asserted claims for malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to $9 million. Based on Duke Energy Carolinas' experience, it is expected that the ultimate resolution of most of these claims likely will be less than the amount claimed. Duke Energy Carolinas has recognized asbestos-related reserves of $551 million at September 30, 2015 and $575 million at December 31, 2014. These reserves are classified in Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities and Other within Current Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. These reserves are based upon the minimum amount of the range of loss for current and future asbestos claims through 2033, are recorded on an undiscounted basis and incorporate anticipated inflation. In light of the uncertainties inherent in a longer-term forecast, management does not believe they can reasonably estimate the indemnity and medical costs that might be incurred after 2033 related to such potential claims. It is possible Duke Energy Carolinas may incur asbestos liabilities in excess of the recorded reserves. Duke Energy Corporation is an energy company. Duke Energy conducts its operations in three business segments: Regulated Utilities, International Energy and Commercial Power. The Company's Regulated Utilities segment conducts operations primarily through Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Florida, Duke Energy Indiana and Duke Energy Ohio. The Company's International Energy segment principally operates and manages power generation facilities and engages in sales and marketing of electric power, natural gas, and natural gas liquids outside the United States. The Company's Commercial Power builds, develops and operates wind and solar renewable generation and energy transmission projects throughout the continental United States. Duke Energy operates in the United States and Latin America primarily through its direct and indirect subsidiaries. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Unit Has $599MM Fibro Receivables -------------------------------------------------------------- Duke Energy Corporation's subsidiary, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, has $599 million receivables for insurance recoveries related to asbestos-related injuries and damages, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. Duke Energy Carolinas has third-party insurance to cover certain losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages above an aggregate self-insured retention. Duke Energy Carolinas' cumulative payments began to exceed the self-insurance retention in 2008. Future payments up to the policy limit will be reimbursed by the third-party insurance carrier. The insurance policy limit for potential future insurance recoveries indemnification and medical cost claim payments is $847 million in excess of the self- insured retention. Receivables for insurance recoveries were $599 million at September 30, 2015 and $616 million at December 31, 2014. Duke Energy Carolinas believes the insurance recovery asset is probable of recovery as the insurance carrier continues to have a strong financial strength rating. Duke Energy Corporation is an energy company. Duke Energy conducts its operations in three business segments: Regulated Utilities, International Energy and Commercial Power. The Company's Regulated Utilities segment conducts operations primarily through Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Florida, Duke Energy Indiana and Duke Energy Ohio. The Company's International Energy segment principally operates and manages power generation facilities and engages in sales and marketing of electric power, natural gas, and natural gas liquids outside the United States. The Company's Commercial Power builds, develops and operates wind and solar renewable generation and energy transmission projects throughout the continental United States. Duke Energy operates in the United States and Latin America primarily through its direct and indirect subsidiaries. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tampa Electric Settles Asbestos Exposure Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Tampa Electric Company disclosed that on August 6, 2015, the Company agreed to a settlement which resolved the asbestos expsure-related case filed by the estate and family of a thirty- six year old man, who died from mesothelioma in March 2014, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. A thirty-six year old man died from mesothelioma in March 2014. His estate and his family sued Tampa Electric as a result. The man allegedly suffered exposure to asbestos dust brought home by his father and grandfather, both of whom had been employed as insulators and worked at various job sites throughout the Tampa area. Plaintiff's case against Tampa Electric and fourteen other defendants had alleged, among other things, negligence, strict liability, household exposure, loss of consortium, and wrongful death. On August 6, 2015, Tampa Electric agreed to a settlement which resolved the case in its entirety. Tampa Electric Company is a regulated utility company that serves nearly 700 million customers in Florida. The Company is the main subsidiary of TECO Energy, Inc. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Has 57,040 American Optical PI Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer Inc. disclosed that there were 57,040 asbestos-related personal injury claims naming American Optical as one of the defendants, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2015. Between 1967 and 1982, Warner-Lambert owned American Optical Corporation, which manufactured and sold respiratory protective devices and asbestos safety clothing. In connection with the sale of American Optical in 1982, Warner-Lambert agreed to indemnify the purchaser for certain liabilities, including certain asbestos- related and other claims. As of September 27, 2015, approximately 57,040 claims naming American Optical and numerous other defendants were pending in various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged personal injury from exposure to asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials. Warner-Lambert was acquired by Pfizer in 2000 and is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer. Warner-Lambert is actively engaged in the defense of, and will continue to explore various means of resolving, these claims. Numerous lawsuits are pending against Pfizer in various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged personal injury from exposure to products containing asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials sold by Gibsonburg Lime Products Company (Gibsonburg). Gibsonburg was acquired by Pfizer in the 1960s and sold products containing small amounts of asbestos until the early 1970s. There also are a small number of lawsuits pending in various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged exposure to asbestos in facilities owned or formerly owned by Pfizer or its subsidiaries. Pfizer Inc. is a global biopharmaceutical company. The Company is engaged in the discovery, development and manufacture of healthcare products. Its products include Lyrica, the Prevnar family of products, Enbrel, Celebrex, Lipitor, Viagra, Zyvox, Sutent, EpiPen, Toviaz, Tygacil, Rapamune, Xalkori, Inlyta, Norvasc, BeneFIX, Genotropin, ReFacto, Xyntha and Enbrel, among others. It operates in three segments: Global Innovative Pharmaceutical segment (GIP), Global Vaccines, Oncology and Consumer Healthcare segment (VOC) and Global Established Pharmaceutical segment (GEP). GIP is focused on developing, registering and commercializing medications in therapeutic areas, such as inflammation, cardiovascular/metabolic, neuroscience and pain, rare diseases and women's/men's health. VOC focuses on the development and commercialization of vaccines and products for oncology and consumer healthcare. GEP includes its sterile injectable products and bio similar development portfolio. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Precision Castparts Continues to Face PI Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Precision Castparts Corp. continues to face lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to chemicals and substances in the workplace, including asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2015. The Company states: "Like many other industrial companies in recent years, we are defendants in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to chemicals and substances in the workplace, including asbestos. To date, we have been dismissed from a number of these suits and have settled a number of others. The outcome of litigation such as this is difficult to predict, and a judicial decision unfavorable to us could be rendered, possibly having a material adverse effect on our business." Headquartered in Portland, Ore., Precision Castparts Corp. is a worldwide manufacturer of complex metal components and products, provides high-quality investment castings, forgings and fasteners/fastener systems for critical aerospace and industrial gas turbine applications. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Continues to Defend Stearns Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rexnord Corporation continues to defend itself against numerous lawsuits alleging personal injuries arising from asbestos allegedly present in products manufactured by the Stearns division, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. Multiple lawsuits (with approximately 400 claimants) are pending in state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in certain brakes and clutches previously manufactured by the Company's Stearns division and/or its predecessor owners. Invensys and FMC, prior owners of the Stearns business, have paid 100% of the costs to date related to the Stearns lawsuits. Similarly, the Company's Prager subsidiary is a defendant in two pending multi-defendant lawsuits relating to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in a product allegedly manufactured by Prager. Additionally, there are numerous individuals who have filed asbestos related claims against Prager; however, these claims are currently on the Texas Multi-district Litigation inactive docket. The ultimate outcome of these asbestos matters cannot presently be determined. To date, the Company's insurance providers have paid 100% of the costs related to the Prager asbestos matters. The Company believes that the combination of its insurance coverage and the Invensys indemnity obligations will cover any future costs of these matters. Rexnord Corporation (Rexnord) is a multi-platform industrial company. The Company operates through two business segments: the Process & Motion Control platform and Water Management platform. The Process & Motion Control platform designs, manufactures, markets and services specified and engineered mechanical components used within systems where reliability requirements and cost of failure or downtime is high. The platform's product portfolio includes gears, couplings, industrial bearings, aerospace bearings and seals, FlatTop chain, engineered chain and conveying equipment. The Water Management platform designs, procures, manufactures and markets products that provide and enhance water quality, safety, flow control and conservation. The Water Management product portfolio includes professional grade specification drainage products, flush valves and faucet products, engineered valves and gates for the water and wastewater treatment market, and PEX piping. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp.'s Zurn Unit Has 6,000 PI Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- Rexnord Corporation's subsidiary, Zurn, is a defendant in approximately 6,000 asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. Certain Water Management subsidiaries are also subject to asbestos litigation. As of September 30, 2015, Zurn and numerous other unrelated companies were defendants in approximately 6,000 asbestos related lawsuits representing approximately 19,000 claims. Plaintiffs' claims allege personal injuries caused by exposure to asbestos used primarily in industrial boilers formerly manufactured by a segment of Zurn. Zurn did not manufacture asbestos or asbestos components. Instead, Zurn purchased them from suppliers. These claims are being handled pursuant to a defense strategy funded by insurers. As of September 30, 2015, the Company estimates the potential liability for the asbestos-related claims, as well as the claims expected to be filed in the next ten years to be approximately $35.0 million, of which Zurn expects its insurance carriers to pay approximately $27.0 million in the next ten years on such claims, with the balance of the estimated liability being paid in subsequent years. The $35.0 million was developed based on an actuarial study and represents the projected indemnity payout for claims filed in the next ten years. However, there are inherent uncertainties involved in estimating the number of future asbestos claims, future settlement costs, and the effectiveness of defense strategies and settlement initiatives. As a result, actual liability could differ from the estimate described herein. Further, while this current asbestos liability is based on an estimate of claims through the next ten years, such liability may continue beyond that time frame, and such liability could be substantial. Management estimates that its available insurance to cover this potential asbestos liability as of September 30, 2015, is approximately $246.2 million, and believes that all current claims are covered by insurance. However, principally as a result of the past insolvency of certain of the Company's insurance carriers, certain coverage gaps will exist if and after the Company's other carriers have paid the first $170.2 million of aggregate liabilities. As of September 30, 2015, the Company had a recorded receivable from its insurance carriers of $35.0 million, which corresponds to the amount of this potential asbestos liability that is covered by available insurance and is currently determined to be probable of recovery. However, there is no assurance that $246.2 million of insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that this asbestos liability will not ultimately exceed $246.2 million. Factors that could cause a decrease in the amount of available coverage include: changes in law governing the policies, potential disputes with the carriers regarding the scope of coverage, and insolvencies of one or more of the Company's carriers. Rexnord Corporation (Rexnord) is a multi-platform industrial company. The Company operates through two business segments: the Process & Motion Control platform and Water Management platform. The Process & Motion Control platform designs, manufactures, markets and services specified and engineered mechanical components used within systems where reliability requirements and cost of failure or downtime is high. The platform's product portfolio includes gears, couplings, industrial bearings, aerospace bearings and seals, FlatTop chain, engineered chain and conveying equipment. The Water Management platform designs, procures, manufactures and markets products that provide and enhance water quality, safety, flow control and conservation. The Water Management product portfolio includes professional grade specification drainage products, flush valves and faucet products, engineered valves and gates for the water and wastewater treatment market, and PEX piping. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Continues to Defend Falk Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- Rexnord Corporation continues to defend itself against lawsuits alleging personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in certain clutches and drives previously manufactured by The Falk Corporation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. In connection with the acquisition of The Falk Corporation ("Falk"), Hamilton Sundstrand has provided the Company with indemnification against certain products-related asbestos exposure liabilities. The Company believes that, pursuant to such indemnity obligations, Hamilton Sundstrand is obligated to defend and indemnify the Company with respect to the asbestos claims, and that, with respect to these claims, such indemnity obligations are not subject to any time or dollar limitations. Falk, through its successor entity, is a defendant in multiple lawsuits pending in state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in certain clutches and drives previously manufactured by Falk. There are approximately 100 claimants in these suits. The ultimate outcome of these lawsuits cannot presently be determined. Hamilton Sundstrand is defending the Company in these lawsuits pursuant to its indemnity obligations and has paid 100% of the costs to date. Rexnord Corporation (Rexnord) is a multi-platform industrial company. The Company operates through two business segments: the Process & Motion Control platform and Water Management platform. The Process & Motion Control platform designs, manufactures, markets and services specified and engineered mechanical components used within systems where reliability requirements and cost of failure or downtime is high. The platform's product portfolio includes gears, couplings, industrial bearings, aerospace bearings and seals, FlatTop chain, engineered chain and conveying equipment. The Water Management platform designs, procures, manufactures and markets products that provide and enhance water quality, safety, flow control and conservation. The Water Management product portfolio includes professional grade specification drainage products, flush valves and faucet products, engineered valves and gates for the water and wastewater treatment market, and PEX piping. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Inc. Had 177 McKesson Fibro Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Univar Inc. disclosed that as of September 30, 2015, there were fewer than 177 asbestos-related claims for which the Company has liability for defense and indemnity pursuant to the indemnification obligation related to Univar USA Inc.'s 1986 purchase of McKesson Chemical Company from McKesson Corporation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. The Company is subject to liabilities from claims alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos. The claims result primarily from an indemnification obligation related to Univar USA Inc.'s 1986 purchase of McKesson Chemical Company from McKesson Corporation ("McKesson"). Univar USA's obligation to indemnify McKesson for settlements and judgments arising from asbestos claims is the amount which is in excess of applicable insurance coverage, if any, which may be available under McKesson's historical insurance coverage. Univar USA is also a defendant in a small number of asbestos claims. As of September 30, 2015, there were fewer than 177 asbestos-related claims for which the Company has liability for defense and indemnity pursuant to the indemnification obligation. Historically, the vast majority of the claims against both McKesson and Univar USA have been dismissed without payment. While the Company is unable to predict the outcome of these matters, it does not believe, based upon currently available facts, that the ultimate resolution of any of these matters will have a material effect on its overall financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, the Company cannot predict the outcome of any present or future claims or litigation and adverse developments could negatively impact earnings or cash flows in a particular future period. Headquartered in Downers Grove, Ill., Univar Inc. is a global distributor of commodity and specialty chemicals. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sydow's Bid to Amend Fibro Suit Okayed ------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Wesley Sydow and his wife Theresa Sydow allege a variety of claims arising out of Wesley Sydow's exposure to asbestos, which culminated in mesothelioma diagnosis. Wesley Sydow passed away on March 29, 2015, leaving his wife, Theresa Sydow, to pursue their claims. Among several motions pending in that case are (1) former- defendant Owens-Illinois' motion to dismiss for failure to substitute timely;(2) defendants 3M's and Weyerhaeuser's motions to join that motion to dismiss, and (3) plaintiffs' related motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. Judge William M. Conley of the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin ruled as moot defendant Owens- Illinois's motion to dismiss; denied defendants 3M and Weyerhaeuser Company's motions to join, and granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to file third amended complaint. The case is THERESA SYDOW, Individually and as Special Administrator on behalf of the Estate of Wesley Sydow, Plaintiff, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, 3M, and METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, NO. 14-CV-219-WMC (W.D. Wis.) A full-text copy of the Opinion and Order dated November 10, 2015 is available at http://is.gd/RRICgafrom Leagle.com. Wesley F. Sydow, Plaintiff, is represented by Michael P. Cascino, Esq. -- CASCINO VAUGHAN LAW OFFICES, LTD., Alyssa R. Segawa, Esq. -- info@galiherlaw.com -- GALIHER DEROBERTIS WAXMAN, Anthony Carr, Esq. -- info@galiherlaw.com -- GALIHER DEROBERTIS WAXMAN, Gary O. Galiher, Esq. -- info@galiherlaw.com -- GALIHER DEROBERTIS WAXMAN, Ilana Waxman, Esq. -- info@galiherlaw.com -- GALIHER DEROBERTIS WAXMAN, James Nicholas Hoey Esq. -- CASCINO VAUGHAN LAW OFFICES, LTD., John Eugene Herrick, Esq. -- jherrick@motleyrice.com -- MOTLEY RICE LLC, Robert G. McCoy Esq. -- CASCINO VAUGHAN LAW OFFICES, LTD., & W. Christopher Swett, Esq. -- cswett@motleyrice.com -- MOTLEY RICE LLC. Weyerhaeuser Company, Defendant, represented by Joshua J. Metcalf, Esq. -- Joshua.Metcalf@formanwatkins.com -- FORMAN WATKINS & KRUTZ, LLP, Mitch McGuffey, Esq. -- Mitch.McGuffey@formanwatkins.com -- FORMAN WATKINS & KRUTZ, LLP, Ruth F. Maron, Esq. Ruth.Maron@formanwatkins.com -- FORMAN WATKINS & KRUTZ, LLP, LLP, Tanya D. Ellis, Esq. -- Tanya.Ellis@formanwatkins.com -- FORMAN WATKINS & KRUTZ, LLP & Thomas Benton York, Esq. -- Benton.York@formanwatkins.com -- FORMAN WATKINS & KRUTZ, LLP. 3M Company, Defendant, represented by Edward J. McCambridge, Esq. -- emccambridge@smsm.com -- SEGAL MCCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY, LTD., Jason Patrick Eckerly, Esq. -- jeckerly@smsm.com -- SEGAL MCCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY, LTD., Bradley R. Bultman, Esq. -- bbultman@smsm.com -- SEGAL MCCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY, LTD. & Emily Zapotocny, Esq. -- ezapotocny@smsm.com -- SEGAL MCCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY, LTD. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Smitha Chintamaneni, Esq. -- schintam@vonbriesen.com -- VON BRIESEN & ROPER. ASBESTOS UPDATE: John Crane Wins Summary Judgment Bid in "Bell" --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Staci M. Yandle of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant John Crane Inc. in the asbestos- related lawsuit filed by Sharon Bell. John Crane asserts that the proffered evidence does not prove the Decedent Richard W. Bell was exposed to any of John Crane's asbestos-containing products or that these products were a substantial factor in the Decedent's lung cancer which the Court agrees. Judge Yandle found that there is insufficient evidence to connect Bell with any John Crane products or to connect a John Crane product with asbestos that caused Bell's lung cancer. The Plaintiff's sole witness Michael Loveless was unsure whether he worked with Bell and Loveless only worked with a Bell while serving in laundry sorting detail, Judge Yandle noted. Although Loveless testified that he may have used packing manufactured by John Crane, there is no evidence that Bell also worked with or around any packing materials, Judge Yandle pointed out. Loveless testified that he never witnessed Bell working with or around any packing material and the Plaintiff also did not know whether Bell worked with packing while in the military, Judge Yandle said. The case is SHARON BELL, Executor of the Estate of Mr. Richard W. Bell, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. THE ABB GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-1338-SMY-SCW. A full-text copy of the Memorandum and Order dated November 24, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/MLAvAmfrom Leagle.com. Sharon Bell, Plaintiff, is represented by Ben A. Vinson, Jr., Esq. -- VINSON LAW, John D Sloan, Jr, Esq. -- SLOAN, BAGLEY, HATCHER & PERRY, Zane T. Cagle, Esq. -- CAGLE LAW FIRM, LLC & Clay Zelbst, Esq. -- SLOAN, BAGLEY, HATCHER & PERRY. John Crane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Sean P. Fergus, Esq. -- sean@otmblaw.com -- O'CONNELL, TIVIN, MILLER & BURNS L.L.C., Caroline Linder Olson, Esq. -- s colson@otmblaw.com -- O'CONNELL, TIVIN, MILLER & BURNS L.L.C. & Simon B. Purnell, Esq. -- spurnell@otmblaw.com -- O'CONNELL, TIVIN, MILLER & BURNS L.L.C. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cos. Win Summary Judgment Bid in "Schneider" ------------------------------------------------------------- Karin Hill, the personal representative of the estate of Heinz Schneider brought a wrongful death claim, alleging that he had died from asbestos related diseases. It is undisputed that the statute of limitations for bringing a personal injury action based on Schneider's exposure to asbestos had expired before his death. Thus, Schneider lacked "a valid subsisting cause of action" and his estate's personal representative may not bring a wrongful death claim. On summary judgment, the defendants argued that the personal representative could not bring a wrongful death claim because Schneider had failed to bring a personal injury claim within three years of discovering his asbestos related diseases. In response, the personal representative argued that a wrongful death claim is independent of a personal injury claim. Thus, according to the personal representative, the statute of limitations for the wrongful death claim began to run when Schneider died. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One, affirms the trial court's grant of summary judgment to defendants. The case is KARIN HILL, as Personal Representative for the Estate of HEINZ GERHARD SCHNEIDER, Deceased, Appellant, v. BARTELLS ASBESTOS SETTLEMENT TRUST; BOUTEN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; COLONIAL SUGAR REFINING COMPANY; GRINNELL LLC (fka GRINNELL CORPORATION, aka GRINNELL FIRE); MAX J. KUNEY COMPANY; NEUPS, INC.; and FIRST DOE through ONE HUNDREDTH DOE; Respondents, NO. 73960-3-I (Wash. App.). A full-text of the Memorandum and Order dated November 23, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/QNFLanfrom Leagle.com. Meredith Boyden Good, Esq. -- BRAYTON PURCELL LLP, 806 Sw Broadway Ste 1100, Portland, OR, 97205-3333, Counsel for Appellants. J Scott Wood, Esq. -- swood@foleymansfield.com -- FOLEY & MANSFIELD PLLP, 999 3rd Ave Ste 3760, Seattle, WA, 98104- 4009; Daniel Ruttenberg, Esq. -- druttenberg@foleymansfield.com -- FOLEY & MANSFIELD PLLP, 999 3rd Ave Ste 3760, Seattle, WA, 98104-4009, Bonnie Lynn Black, Esq., Attorney at Law, 1020 N. K St Apt D, Tacoma, WA, 98403-1861; Jan Elizabeth Brucker, JAN BRUCKER, Attorney, 800 Fifth Ave Ste 3850, Seattle, WA, 98104- 3101; Stephen Garrett Leatham, Esq. -- sgl@hpl-law.com -- HEURLIN POTTER JAHN LEATHAM HOLTMANN &, 211 E. Mcloughlin Blvd Ste 100, Vancouver, WA, 98663-3368; Ronald Clayton Gardner, Esq. -- rgardner@gandtlawfirm.com -- GARDNER TRABOLSI & ASSOCIATES PLLC, 2200 6th Ave Ste 600, Seattle, WA, 98121-1849, Counsel for Respondents. ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Kelleher" Remanded to Illinois State Court ------------------------------------------------------------ Thomas Kelleher originally filed an action in the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois, alleging injuries due to exposure to asbestos. The Plaintiff alleges exposure from his employment from 1958 until 2006 as an aircraft mechanic, helicopter mechanic, and laborer at various locations throughout the United States. The Plaintiff testified that he worked as a civilian aircraft mechanic on commercial, non-military aircrafts for United Airlines from 1966 until 2000. For the two years prior to his employment with United, the Plaintiff served as a helicopter mechanic in the United States Army. Judge Staci M. Yandle of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and case is remanded to the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois. The case is THOMAS KELLEHER, Plaintiff, v. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 15-CV-893-SMY-SCW (S.D. Ill.). A full-text of the Memorandum and Order dated November 23, 2015 is available at http://is.gd/SCNNHifrom Leagle.com. Thomas Kelleher, Plaintiff, is represented by Melissa Crowe Schopfer, Esq. -- mschopfer@simmonsfirm.com -- SIMMONS HANLY CONROY & Jean-Michel LeCointre, Esq. -- jlecointre@simmonsfirm.com -- SIMMONS HANLY CONROY. Boeing Company, Defendant, is represented by Greg M McMahon, Esq. -- gmcmahon@smsm.com SEGAL, MCCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY, LTD & Mark Coad Sampson, Esq. -- msampson@smsm.com -- SEGAL, MCCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY, LTD. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Westinghouse Wins Summary Judgment in "Wilson" --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Robert J. Krask of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division, granted Westinghouse's motion for summary judgment and denied as moot its motion to exclude or limit the testimony of Dr. Castleman in the asbestos-related lawsuit captioned RORIE N. WILSON, Plaintiff, v. AC&S, INC. et al. Defendants, ACTION NO. 4:14CV91 (E.D. Va.). A full-text of the Opinion dated November 19, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/Pi5ziWfrom Leagle.com. Rorie N. Wilson, Plaintiff, represented by Paul A. Weykamp, LAW OFFICES OF PAUL A. WEYKAMP. CBS Corporation f/k/a Viacom, Inc., Defendant, represented by Henry N. Ware, Jr., Esq. -- hnware@spottsfain.com -- SPOTTS FAIN PC, Maurice Francis Mullins, Esq. -- mfmullins@spottsfain.com -- SPOTTS FAIN PC, Patricia Bugg Turner, Esq. -- pbturner@spottsfain.com -- SPOTTS FAIN PC, William Davis Harvard, Esq. -- wdharvard@ewhlaw.com -- EVERT WEATHERSBY HOUFF, William Randolph Robins, Jr., Esq. -- wrrobins@spottsfain.com -- SPOTTS FAIN PC & John Michael Erbach, Esq. -- jmerbach@spottsfain.com -- SPOTTS FAIN PC. ********* 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. Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, 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 * * *