/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/081121.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, November 21, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 232 Headlines ANADIGICS INC: Bull & Lifshitz, LLP Announces Investigation BAYER HEALTHCARE: Faces N.J. Lawsuit Over Aspirin-Based Drugs BRUSH ENGINEERED: Appeal to Junked Bid in Beryllium Suit Pending BRUSH ENGINEERED: Judgment Bid in Anthony Case Under Submission CARNIVAL CORP: Settles Lawsuit Over Ill-Fated Millennium Cruise COMMUNITY HEALTH: Defending "Rix" Case for Breach of Contract COMMUNITY HEALTH: Discovery in "Chronister" Matter Still Ongoing CRUM & FORSTER: Ruling in Suit Dismissal Appeal Expected in 2009 FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR: Ruling on Motorola's Appeal Pending GILEAD SCIENCES: Ninth Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Calif. Suit JARDEN CORP: Court Certifies Class in N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Parties Seek Rehearing of Rulings in OOIDA Suit OCA INC: Feb. 10. 2008 Hearing Set for $6.5M Lawsuit Settlement ORKIN INC: Still Faces Wage and Hour Litigation in California ORKIN EXTERMINATING: "Butland" Lawsuit in Florida Still Pending ORKIN EXTERMINATING: Still Faces Termite-Related Services Suits PRESSTEK INC: Reaches Settlement for N.H. Securities Fraud Suit PUBLIC SERVICE: Dismissal of N.J. Transition Bond Suit Appealed ROLLINS INC: Resolves Calif. Lawsuit Alleging FDCPA Violations SHAW GROUP: La. Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Lawsuit STEVE & BARRY'S: Faces N.Y. Suit Alleging WARN Act Violations TOWN SPORTS: To Contest Actions Over Unpaid Wages in N.Y. County New Securities Fraud Cases BRITANNIA BULK: Barroway Topaz Announces Securities Suit Filing HARDINGE INC: Brodsky & Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing INTERNAP NETWORK: Federman & Sherwood Announces Lawsuit Filing MCDERMOTT INT'L: Berman DeValerio Announces Stock Suit Filing SADIA S.A.: Brian M. Felgoise Announces Securities Suit Filing SADIA S.A.: Brodsky & Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Cites $330.68M Liability at Sept. 26 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Park-Ohio Still Has 365 Actions at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Cites $5.15Mil for Coverage Expenses ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 36,607 Claims Pending v. Colfax at Sept. 26 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Receives $20.6M Proceeds at Sept. 26 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Corp. Cites $359.3Mil for Liability ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Lawsuits Ongoing v. Boss Holdings ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Odyssey Has $346.3M Losses, LAE at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Provides $1.725M at Sept. 26 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Records $334.1Mil Liability ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Faces 130,370 Claims in U.S. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Records $23.3M for N.Y. Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler's U.K. Units Have 347 Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Corp. Facing 188 Claims at Sept. 28 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Katy Ind. Still Facing 10 Cases in Alabama ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Katy Ind. Cites 2,500 Sterling Fluid Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: LaBour Pump Still Facing 100 Cases in N.J. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 34,731 Cases Ongoing v. General Cable Corp. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Briggs & Stratton Facing Liability Actions ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CenterPoint Still Facing Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SCC Affiliates Involved in ASARCO LLC Cases ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Cases Still Ongoing v. Westinghouse ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Todd Shipyards Facing 516 Exposure Actions ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sunoco Inc. Still Subject to Exposure Cases ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 26,236 Claims Ongoing v. Harsco at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gardner Denver Still Facing Injury Lawsuits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Miss. Lawsuits Still Pending v. Transocean ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 1,031 Suits Ongoing v. Transocean Inc. Unit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allstate Cites $1.24B Reserves at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tronox Reserves $3.8Mil for Cleveland Plant ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Roper Industries Still Has Exposure Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Belden Cites 3 Cases Set for Trial in 2008 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Cites 25,125 Abex Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Cites $816.8M Liability at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Cites $192.3M Receivable at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allegheny Has 845 W.Va. Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IPALCO Unit Facing 113 Lawsuits at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Settles w/ Md. Schools on AHERA Breach ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Freedom to Pay GBP6T for Mishandling Charge ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kramer Pays $5T Penalty for Botched Cleanup ASBESTOS LITIGATION: McCarty Says Many Workers Have False Papers ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wash. Court Orders Ross to Undergo Autopsy ASBESTOS LITIGATION: HSE Cites 131 Asbestos Claims in Calderdale ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Inquest Links Barker's Death to Hazard ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Armstrong's Death to Asbestos ASBESTOS LITIGATION: York Sufferers to Get Faster Compensation ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Doberstein's Suit Filed in Ill. on Oct. 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Court Denies Appeal in Clemenceau Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Harrington Widow Loses Compensation Battle ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. County Needs $21Mil for Office Cleanup ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos-Related Deaths Rise in Lancashire ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court to Deny Petition Review in McGreevy ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany Int'l. Has 18,385 Claims at Oct. 27 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Brandon Drying Has 8,664 Claims at Oct. 27 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany Int'l. Still Has Mt. Vernon Lawsuits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Damage, Injury Suits Ongoing v. W. R. Grace ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace Has 445 Damage Claims at Oct. 20 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Personal Injury Suits Ongoing v. W.R. Grace ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Maintains $916MM Coverage at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W. R. Grace Records $50.4M Libby Liability ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Spends $16.6M in 3Q08 for Libby Suit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal on Dismissal of Grace Action Pending ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Majestic Star Spends $300T on Pa. Abatement ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Corporation Plan Filed on Nov. 14 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tyco Int'l. Facing 4,600 Cases at Sept. 26 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Royal Mail Reaches GBP155T Deal w/ Russell ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 2 Workers Win Injury Action v. William Gray ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Conn's Lawsuit v. DuPont Filed on Nov. 12 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 2 South Koreans' Kin File Action v. 3 Firms ********* ANADIGICS INC: Bull & Lifshitz, LLP Announces Investigation ----------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, Nov. 19, 2008 -- The law firm of Bull & Lifshitz, LLP is investigating possible illegal conduct as alleged in a proposed class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Anadigics, Inc. ("Anadigics" or "Company") and certain of Anadigics's officers and directors for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all purchasers of common stock from July 25, 2007 through February 12, 2008 (the "Class Period"). Anadigics is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices located in Warren, NJ. Anadigics provides semiconductor solutions to the broadband wireless and wireline communications markets. According to the class action complaint, the representations contained in Anadigics' press releases, SEC filings, conference calls and presentations during the Class Period were materially false and misleading when made because they failed to disclose that: -- the Company was experiencing manufacturing inefficiencies associated with increased production levels and would not be able to meet its stated guidance; -- the Company was at risk of losing customers due to its inability to meet demand; and -- as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its prospects. According to the class action complaint, on October 23, 2007, Anadigics held a conference call to discuss its third quarter earnings announcement and the Company's operations. In response to the disappointing earnings announcement, the price of Anadigics common stock declined from $19.34 per share to $15.60 per share on heavy trading volume. However, defendants continued to conceal that the Company's manufacturing inefficiencies were continuing to erode the Company's profitability. Then, on February 12, 2008, Anadigics announced its financial results for the fourth quarter and year-end 2007. Following this announcement, the price of Anadigics common stock dropped from $10.36 per share to $8.86 per share, on extremely heavy trading volume. For more details, contact: Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq. Bull & Lifshitz, LLP 18 East 41st Street, 11th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 213-6222 Fax: (212) 213-9405 e-mail: counsel@nyclasslaw.com BAYER HEALTHCARE: Faces N.J. Lawsuit Over Aspirin-Based Drugs ------------------------------------------------------------- SEATTLE, Nov. 19, 2008 -- A group of consumers filed a proposed nationwide class-action lawsuit earlier this week against Bayer Healthcare LLC, a subsidiary of Bayer AG (FRA: BAY), alleging the pharmaceutical giant skirted FDA requirements in marketing two aspirin-based drugs. The suit states that Bayer markets two of its over-the- counter products -- Bayer Aspirin with Heart Advantage and Bayer Women's Low Dose Aspirin + Calcium -- as products that reduce the risks of heart disease and osteoporosis in women. According to the plaintiffs, these medical claims require an approved new- drug application to be considered legal for marketing purposes. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey by Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, alleges Bayer used improper marketing tactics aimed at heart patients fearing high cholesterol and heart disease with Bayer Aspirin with Heart Advantage, and women fighting osteoporosis with Bayer Women's Low Dose Aspirin + Calcium. "Bayer knew that these drugs were illegally targeted at consumers susceptible to the claims -- consumers who feared heart disease and women concerned with fighting osteoporosis," said Steve Berman managing partner of Hagens Berman and lead attorney for the plaintiffs. "This suit is a direct response to Bayer's scheme to convince millions of consumers to buy the drugs sidestepping FDA oversight." While both drugs are labeled as a pain reliever with additional benefits, neither drug is approved by the FDA for use, the lawsuit claims. If approved by the court, the class action case would represent purchasers of the over- the-counter drugs across the country. Reports also indicate the two drugs require a health care professional's diagnosis and supervision. This means that these drug products cannot be labeled for use by consumers or sold over-the-counter. The FDA normally allows over-the-counter pain reliever sales as long as they include standard directions and labeling for the consumer. However, both Bayer drugs were labeled as a combination of a drug and dietary supplement in a single tablet. In these cases, the FDA requires drug approval before marketing and bans such drugs from over-the-counter sales altogether, the suit claims. Bayer has marketed the Heart Advantage product as an aspirin that can reduce heart attack risk by up to 30 percent, yet there is a warning on the Web site that this drug is not to be used as a replacement for cholesterol lowering medications, court documents state. The lawsuit claims Bayer used illegal marketing to sell the combination drugs, a violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, which prohibits consumer fraud in connection with sales and using misleading claims to sell the drugs for a higher price than other over-the-counter aspirins. "Not only did Bayer fail to include proper labeling and directions for use," said Berman, "They also illegally marketed the combination drugs with added supplements as a way to artificially inflate the price point of regular over-the-counter aspirin without proper FDA approval." Named plaintiff, Kris Gerhard purchased and paid for Bayer Calcium during the period beginning in 2002 and was damaged by the actions of Bayer due to deceptive and unfair marketing, the suit claims. Gerhard seeks to represent the class of consumers that suffered economic damages from purchasing these unapproved products and gain a full refund for their purchases. For more details, contact: Steve Berman, Esq. (Steve@hbsslaw.com) Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 Seattle, WA, 98101 Phone: (206) 623-7292 Fax: (206) 623-0594 BRUSH ENGINEERED: Appeal to Junked Bid in Beryllium Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs' appeal from their denied motion for class certification in the beryllium action against Brush Engineered Materials, Inc.'s subsidiary, Brush Wellman Inc., is pending. The class-action suit, "Manuel Marin, et al. v. Brush Wellman Inc., Case No. BC299055," filed in Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County was filed on July 15, 2003. The named plaintiffs are Manuel Marin, Lisa Marin, Garfield Perry and Susan Perry. The defendants are Brush Wellman, Appanaitis Enterprises, Inc., and Doe Defendants 1 through 100. A First Amended Complaint was filed on Sept. 15, 2004, naming five additional plaintiffs. The five additional named plaintiffs are Robert Thomas, Darnell White, Leonard Joffrion, James Jones and John Kesselring. The plaintiffs allege that they have been sensitized to beryllium while employed at the Boeing Company. The plaintiffs' wives claim loss of consortium. The plaintiffs purport to represent two classes of approximately 250 members each, one consisting of workers who worked at Boeing or its predecessors and are beryllium sensitized and the other consisting of their spouses. They have brought claims for negligence, strict liability � design defect, strict liability � failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, breach of implied warranties, and unfair business practices. The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, medical monitoring, medical and health care provider reimbursement, attorneys' fees and costs, revocation of business license, and compensatory and punitive damages. Messrs. Marin, Perry, Thomas, White, Joffrion, Jones and Kesselring represent current and past employees of Boeing in California; and Ms. Marin and Ms. Perry are spouses. Defendant Appanaitis Enterprises Inc. was dismissed on May 5, 2005. The plaintiffs' motion for class certification, which the Company opposed, was heard by the court on Feb. 8, 2008, and the motion was denied by the court on May 7, 2008. According to the company's Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 26, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on May 20, 2008. Brush Engineered Materials, Inc. -- http://www.beminc.com/-- through its wholly owned subsidiaries, is a manufacturer of engineered materials serving the global telecommunications, computer, data storage, aerospace and defense, automotive electronics, industrial components, and appliance markets. BRUSH ENGINEERED: Judgment Bid in Anthony Case Under Submission --------------------------------------------------------------- Brush Engineered Materials, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in Gary Anthony's purported class-action lawsuit has been taken under submission by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, according to the company's Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 26, 2007. The purported class-action is captioned, "Gary Anthony v. Small Tube Manufacturing Corporation d/b/a Small Tube Products Corporation, Inc., et al., Case No. 000525," which was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, on Sept. 7, 2006. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, under case number 06-CV-4419, on Oct. 4, 2006. The only named plaintiff is Gary Anthony. The defendants are Small Tube Manufacturing Corporation, d/b/a Small Tube Products Corporation, Inc.; Admiral Metals Inc.; Tube Methods, Inc.; and Cabot Corporation. The plaintiff purports to sue on behalf of a class of current and former employees of the U.S. Gauge facility in Sellersville, Pennsylvania who have ever been exposed to beryllium for a period of at least one month while employed at U.S. Gauge. The plaintiff has brought claims for negligence. Plaintiff seeks the establishment of a medical monitoring trust fund, cost of publication of approved guidelines and procedures for medical screening and monitoring of the class, attorneys' fees and expenses. Defendant Tube Methods, Inc. filed a third-party complaint against Brush Wellman Inc. in that action on Nov. 15, 2006. Tube Methods alleges that Brush supplied beryllium-containing products to U.S. Gauge, and that Tube Methods worked on those products, but that Brush is liable to Tube Methods for indemnification and contribution. Brush moved to dismiss the Tube Methods complaint on Dec. 22, 2006. On Jan. 12, 2007, Tube Methods filed an amended third-party complaint, which Brush moved to dismiss on Jan. 26, 2007; however, the Court denied the motion on Sept. 28, 2007. Brush filed its answer to the amended third-party complaint on Oct. 19, 2007. On Nov. 14, 2007, two of the defendants filed a joint motion for an order permitting discovery to make the threshold determination of whether plaintiff is sensitized to beryllium. On Feb. 13, 2008, the court approved the parties' stipulation that the plaintiff is not sensitized to beryllium. On Feb. 29, 2008, Brush filed a motion for summary judgment based on plaintiff's lack of any substantially increased risk of chronic beryllium disease (CBD). Oral argument on this motion took place on June 13, 2008, and the court took the motion under submission. Brush Engineered Materials, Inc. -- http://www.beminc.com/-- through its wholly owned subsidiaries, is a manufacturer of engineered materials serving the global telecommunications, computer, data storage, aerospace and defense, automotive electronics, industrial components, and appliance markets. CARNIVAL CORP: Settles Lawsuit Over Ill-Fated Millennium Cruise --------------------------------------------------------------- Carnival Corp. settled a purported class-action lawsuit that was filed in Florida by passengers of its "Carnival Cruise Lines" cruise brand whose voyage to celebrate the millennium was interrupted by equipment failure, Billy Shields of The Daily Business Review reports. The suit was originally filed by passenger Milagros Acosta in May 2000 alleging the cruise line was aware of engine trouble before leaving. It claimed a violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and asked for class certification. The ill-fated cruise left Miami on what was scheduled to be a Caribbean itinerary including Puerto Rico, Tortola and St. Thomas on Dec. 26, 1999, to commemorate the change to a new century. An engine failed eight hours into the voyage, and the crew changed the destinations to the Bahamas and Cozumel, Mexico, according to court documents obtained by The Daily Business Review. When the ship arrived at Freeport, 90 passengers left the ship under the company's vacation guarantee, which stipulates that dissatisfied customers are entitled to a refund plus return air fare if they got off the ship at its first port of call outside the U.S. Court documents obtained by The Daily Business Review revealed that 2,460 remaining passengers completed the voyage, returning to Miami on Jan. 2, 2000. The Daily Business Review reported that the company settled the lawsuit with a unique result -- more than $5 million worth of free trips. According to plaintiffs' attorney David Mishael, Esq., "They're actually getting more than a 100 percent recovery because we now obtained for them a full seven-day cruise. This is a win-win for class members." Under the settlement, according to the Daily Business Review report, about 2,460 passengers from the last Carnival Paradise cruise of 1999 will receive a free one-week cruise embarking from any U.S. port outside Alaska. The total value of the cruises is $5.7 million. Mr. Mishael of Miami, and D. Michael Campbell, Esq., a Winter Haven, Fla., attorney who filed the original suit, were awarded attorney fees of $1.75 million, bringing the total settlement value to almost $7.5 million. Vouchers for the free trips are scheduled to be mailed in December and must be used within two years. Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Jose M. Rodriguez certified the class in August 2008 with Ms. Acosta as the class representative and signed the settlement agreement on Oct. 31, 2008, reports The Daily Business Review. COMMUNITY HEALTH: Defending "Rix" Case for Breach of Contract ------------------------------------------------------------- Community Health Systems, Inc., continues to defend itself in the lawsuit captioned "Sheri Rix v. Heartland Regional Medical Center and Health Care Systems, Inc." The lawsuit names Community Health Systems and certain of its subsidiaries as defendants. It was served against the company on March 3, 2005, and was brought by the plaintiff on behalf of herself and as the representative of similarly situated uninsured individuals who were treated at the company's Heartland Regional Medical Center. The plaintiff alleges that uninsured patients who do not qualify for Medicaid, Medicare or charity care are charged unreasonably high rates for services and materials and that the company uses unconscionable methods to collect bills. The suit seeks recovery for breach of contract and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, restitution of overpayment, and for unjust enrichment. The complaint also seeks compensatory and other damages and equitable relief. The court recently granted the company's motion to dismiss this case, but allowed the plaintiff to re-plead her case. The plaintiff elected to appeal the court's decision in lieu of amending her case. Oral argument was heard on this case on Jan. 9, 2008. On June 16, 2008, the appellate court upheld the dismissal of the consumer fraud claim, but reversed dismissal of the contract claim. The company filed a Petition for Leave of Appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court, which was denied on June 16, 2008, according to its Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. Community Health Systems, Inc. -- http://www.chs.net/-- through its subsidiaries, owns, leases and operates acute care hospitals that are the principal providers of primary healthcare services in non-urban communities. COMMUNITY HEALTH: Discovery in "Chronister" Matter Still Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in the purported class-action lawsuit, "Chronister, et al. v. Granite City Illinois Hospital Company, LLC d/b/aGateway Regional Medical Center," which was filed before the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois, and names Community Health Systems, Inc., as a defendant. The complaint, which was served against the company on April 8, 2005, seeks class-action status on behalf of the uninsured patients treated at Gateway Regional Medical Center and alleges statutory, common law, and consumer fraud in the manner in which the hospital bills and collects for the services rendered to uninsured patients. The plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. The company's motion to dismiss the case has been granted in part and denied in part and discovery has commenced. According to the company's Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008, Gateway Regional Medical Center v. Holman is a companion case to the Chronister action, seeking counterclaim recovery on a collections case. Holman has been stayed pending the outcome of the Chronister action. Community Health Systems, Inc. -- http://www.chs.net/-- through its subsidiaries, owns, leases and operates acute care hospitals that are the principal providers of primary healthcare services in non-urban communities. CRUM & FORSTER: Ruling in Suit Dismissal Appeal Expected in 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit is expected to issue a decision by 2009 in connection with the plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of a purported class action suit over allegations that Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. violated both the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and antitrust statutes. The company and U.S. Fire, among other insurance companies and insurance brokers, have been named as defendants in the class action complaint filed by policyholders alleging, among other things, that the defendants used contingent commission structure to deprive policyholders of free competition in the market for insurance. The plaintiffs seek certification of a nationwide class consisting of all persons who, between Aug. 26, 1994, and the date of the class certification, engaged the services of any one of the broker-defendants and who entered into or renewed a contract of insurance with one of the insurer defendants. In October 2006, the court partially granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint, subject to the plaintiffs' filing of an amended statement of their case. The plaintiffs then filed their "supplemental statement of particularity," and amended case statement. In response, the defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss the suit. On Aug. 31, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed the antitrust claims with prejudice. On Sept. 28, 2007, the court dismissed the RICO case with prejudice and declined to accept supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' state law claims. On Oct. 24, 2007, the plaintiffs filed an appeal of the trial court's dismissals before the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit. The plaintiffs' opening brief was filed and served on Feb. 19, 2008. Opposition briefs were filed on April 7, 2008. The plaintiffs filed their reply brief on April 24, 2008. A final ruling is not expected from the Court of Appeals before early 2009. The company and U.S. Fire continue to be named as defendants. No further developments in the matter were reported by the company in its Oct. 30, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. -- http://www.cfins.com/-- through its eight subsidiaries, offers an array of property/casualty insurance products to businesses, including management liability, automobile, and workers' compensation coverage. FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR: Ruling on Motorola's Appeal Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., in its Form 10-Q dated Oct. 31, 2008, disclosed that the parties in the purported class-action suit, "Howell v. Motorola, Inc., et al.," are awaiting the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit's decision on Motorola's interlocutory appeal. A purported class-action lawsuit, "Howell v. Motorola, Inc., et al.," was filed against Motorola and various of its directors, officers and employees in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 21, 2003, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and violations of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The complaint alleged that the defendants had improperly permitted participants in the Motorola 401(k) Plan to purchase or hold shares of common stock of Motorola because the price of Motorola's stock was artificially inflated by a failure to disclose vendor financing to Telsim in connection with the sale of telecommunications equipment by Motorola. The plaintiff sought to represent a class of participants in the Plan for whose individual accounts the Plan purchased or held shares of common stock of Motorola from "May 16, 2000 to the present," and sought an unspecified amount of damages. On Sept. 30, 2005, the Illinois District Court dismissed the second amended complaint filed on Oct. 15, 2004. Plaintiff filed an appeal to the dismissal on Oct. 27, 2005. On March 19, 2007, the appeals court dismissed the appeal. Three new purported lead plaintiffs intervened in the case, and filed a motion for class certification seeking to represent Plan participants for whose individual accounts the Plan purchased and/or held shares of Motorola common stock from May 16, 2000 through Dec. 31, 2002. On Sept. 28, 2007, the Illinois District Court granted the motion for class certification but narrowed the requested scope of the class. Motorola has sought leave to appeal in the appellate court and reconsideration in the Illinois District Court of certain aspects of the class certification order. On Oct. 25, 2007, the Illinois District Court modified the scope of the class, granted summary judgment dismissing two of the individually-named defendants in light of the narrowed class, and ruled that the judgment as to the original named plaintiff, Howell, would be immediately appealable. The class as certified includes all Plan participants for whose individual accounts the Plan purchased and/or held shares of Motorola common stock from May 16, 2000 through May 14, 2001 with certain exclusions. On Feb. 15, 2008, Motorola and its co-defendants filed motions for summary judgment on all claims asserted by the class. Those motions are currently pending before the District Court. On Feb. 22, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed to hear Motorola's interlocutory appeal of the District Court's order certifying the class. This hearing occurred on Oct. 23, 2008. As a result of the terms of its separation from Motorola, it is possible that Freescale could be held responsible to Motorola for a portion of any judgment or settlement in this matter, according to the company's Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 26, 2008. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. -- http://www.freescale.com/-- designs, develops, manufactures and markets a range of semiconductor products that are based on its core capabilities in embedded processing. The Company's product portfolio are Microcontroller Solutions; Networking and Multimedia; Cellular Products, and Radio Frequency, Analog and Sensors. GILEAD SCIENCES: Ninth Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Calif. Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California of the fourth amended complaint in a consolidated securities fraud class action lawsuit against Gilead Sciences, Inc. On May 12, 2006, the federal court executed orders dismissing in its entirety and with prejudice the fourth consolidated amended complaint associated with a purported class action against: -- the company, -- the chief executive officer, -- chief financial officer, -- former executive vice president of operations, -- executive vice president of research and development, -- senior vice president of manufacturing, and -- senior vice president of research. The complaint is generally alleging that the defendants violated federal securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission, by making certain alleged false and misleading statements. The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal. On Aug. 11, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision and will remand the case to the district court, according to the company's Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. The suit is "In re Gilead Sciences Securities litigation, Case No. 03-CV-4999," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Martin J. Jenkins presiding. Representing thee plaintiffs are: Eric J. Belfi, Esq. (ebelfi@labaton.com) Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP 100 Park Avenue New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-907-0878 Fax: 212-818-0477 - and - Robert S. Green, Esq. (RSG@CLASSCOUNSEL.COM) Green Welling LLP 595 Market Street, Suite 2750 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415-477-6700 Fax: 415-477-6710 Representing the defendants are: John C. Dwyer, Esq. (dwyerjc@cooley.com) Grant P. Fondo, Esq. (gfondo@cooley.com) Cooley Godward, LLP Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155 Phone: 650-843-5000 Fax: 650-857-0663 JARDEN CORP: Court Certifies Class in N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York certified a class in a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit filed against the Jarden Corp. in relation to the company's plan to acquire The Holmes Group, Inc. In January and February 2006, purported class action suits were filed before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company and certain of its officers, alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The actions were filed on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock during the period from June 29, 2005, through Jan. 12, 2006. The suits were subsequently consolidated. The company announced the signing of the agreement to acquire The Holmes Group, Inc., on June 29, 2005. On June 9, 2006, the Court appointed joint lead plaintiffs, who filed an amended consolidated complaint against the company, Jarden Consumer Solutions, and certain officers of the company. The suit alleges, among other things, that the plaintiffs were injured by reason of certain allegedly false and misleading statements made by the company relating to the expected benefits of the THG Acquisition. The company, Jarden Consumer Solutions, and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on Oct. 20, 2006. On May 31, 2007, the Court issued an opinion denying the defendants' dismissal motion. The defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's denial of their request. On Sept. 5, 2007, the court granted the defendants' motion for reconsideration, but reaffirmed its earlier denial of their dismissal request. On Sept. 10, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class certification. On March 6, 2008, the Court issued an opinion certifying a class comprised of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period from June 29, 2005 through January 11, 2006. The company reported no development in the matter in its Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. The suit is "Ernesto Darquea, et al. v. Jarden Corp., et al., Case No. 06-CV-00722," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Charles L. Brieant, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Christopher J. Gray, Esq. (gray@cjgraylaw.com) Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C 460 Park Avenue 21st Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-838-3221 Fax: 212-508-3695 Laurence Paskowitz, Esq. (classattorney@aol.com) Paskowitz & Associates 60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor New York, NY 10165 Phone: 212-685-0969 Fax: 212-685-2306 - and - Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq. (srudman@csgrr.com) Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: 631-367-7100 Fax: 631-367-1173 Representing the defendants is: Stephen William Greiner, Esq. Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Phone: 212-728-8000 Fax: 212-728-8111 e-mail: maosdny@willkie.com LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Parties Seek Rehearing of Rulings in OOIDA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Each of the parties to the class-action lawsuit, "Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association Inc. et al. v. Landstar System Inc., et al., Case No. 3:02-cv-01005-HLA-MCR," has filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit seeking rehearing of the Appellate Court's earlier ruling in the matter. The putative class-action complaint was filed on Nov. 1, 2002, by the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc., and certain BCO Independent Contractors on behalf of independent contractors who provide truck capacity to the company and its subsidiaries under exclusive lease arrangements before the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida against the company and certain of its subsidiaries. The complaint was amended on April 7, 2005. The Amended Complaint alleged that certain aspects of the company's motor carrier leases and related practices with its BCO Independent Contractors violate certain federal leasing regulations and sought injunctive relief, an unspecified amount of damages and attorney's fees. On Aug. 30, 2005, the District Court granted a motion by the plaintiffs to certify the case as a class action. On Jan. 16, 2007, the District Court ordered the decertification of the class of BCO Independent Contractors for purposes of determining remedies. Immediately thereafter, trial commenced for purposes of determining what remedies, if any, would be awarded to the remaining named BCO Independent Contractor Plaintiffs against these Landstar subsidiaries: -- Landstar Inway, Inc., -- Landstar Ligon, Inc., and -- Landstar Ranger, Inc. On March 29, 2007, the District Court denied the plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief, entered a judgment in favor of the defendants and issued written orders setting forth its rulings related to the decertification of the class and the denial of the plaintiffs' requests for damages and injunctive relief. On March 29, 2007, the District Court denied the request by Plaintiffs for injunctive relief, entered a judgment in favor of the Defendants and issued written orders setting forth its rulings related to the decertification of the plaintiff class and other important elements of the Litigation relating to liability, injunctive relief and monetary relief. The Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit of certain of the District Court's rulings in favor of the Defendants. The Defendants asked the Appellate Court to affirm such rulings and filed a cross-appeal with the Appellate Court with respect to certain other rulings of the District Court. On Sept. 3, 2008, the Appellate Court issued its ruling, which, among other things, affirmed the District Court's rulings that: -- the Defendants are not prohibited by the applicable federal leasing regulations from charging administrative or other fees to BCO Independent Contractors in connection with voluntary programs offered by the Defendants through which a BCO Independent Contractor may purchase discounted products and services for a charge that is deducted against the compensation payable to the BCO Independent Contractor (a "Charge-back Deduction"), -- the Plaintiffs are not entitled to restitution or disgorgement with respect to violations by Defendants of the applicable federal leasing regulations but instead may recover only actual damages, if any, which they sustained as a result of any such violations, and -- the claims of BCO Independent Contractors may not be handled on a class action basis for purposes of determining the amount of actual damages, if any, they sustained as a result of any violations. Further, the analysis of the Appellate Court confirmed the absence of any violations alleged by the Plaintiffs of the federal leasing regulations with respect to the written terms of all leases currently in use between the Defendants and BCO Independent Contractors. However, the ruling of the Appellate Court reversed the District Court's rulings: -- that an old version of the lease formerly used by Defendants but not in use with any current BCO Independent Contractor complied with applicable disclosure requirements under the federal leasing regulations with respect to adjustments to compensation payable to BCO Independent Contractors on certain loads sourced from the U. S. Dept. of Defense, and -- that the Defendants had provided sufficient documentation to BCO Independent Contractors under the applicable federal leasing regulations relating to how the component elements of Charge-back Deductions were computed. The Appellate Court then remanded the case to the District Court to permit the Plaintiffs to seek injunctive relief with respect to these violations of the federal leasing regulations and to hold an evidentiary hearing to give the Named Plaintiffs an opportunity to produce evidence of any damages they actually sustained as a result of such violations. Each of the parties to the Litigation has filed a petition with the Appellate Court seeking rehearing of the Appellate Court's ruling, according to the company's Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 27, 2008. The suit is "Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association Inc. et al. v. Landstar System Inc., et al., Case No. 3:02-cv-01005- HLA-MCR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr., presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Daniel E. Cohen, Esq. Daniel R. Unumb, Esq. Paul D. Cullen, Esq. Mary Craine Lombardo, Esq. Joseph A. Black, Esq. Susan Van Bell, Esq. The Cullen Law Firm, PLLC 1101 30th St., N.W., Suite 300 Washington, DC 20007-3770 Phone: 202-944-8600 202-965-6100 Michael R. Freed, Esq. (mrfreed@bmdpl.com) Brennan, Manna & Diamond, PL Humana Centre Building, 76 S. Laura Street, Ste. 2110 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Phone: 904-366-1500 Fax: 904-366-1501 - and - Paul D. Cullen Sr., Esq. The Cullen Law Firm, PLLC 1101 30th Street N.W., Suite 300, P.O. Box 25806 Washington, DC 20007-3708 Phone: 202-944-8600 Fax: 202-944-8611 Representing the defendants are: Daniel R. Barney, Esq. (dbarney@scopelitis.com) Scopelitis, Garvin, Light & Hanson, P.C. 1850 M St., NW, Suite 280 Washington, DC 20036-5804 Phone: 202-783-5485 Timothy W. Wiseman, Esq. Robert L. Browning, Esq. Gregory M. Feary, Esq. Scopelitis, Garven, Light & Hanson, P.C. 10 W. Market St., Suite 1500 Indianapolis, IN 46204-2968 Phone: 317-637-1777 Fax: 317-687-2414 - and - Andrew Tysen Duva, Esq. (aduva@hklaw.com) Lawrence Joseph Hamilton, II, Esq. (lhamilton@hklaw.com) Holland & Knight 50 North Laura St., Suite 3900 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Phone: 904-353-2000 904-353-2000 Ext. 25454 Fax: 904-358-1872 OCA INC: Feb. 10. 2008 Hearing Set for $6.5M Lawsuit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana will be hold a fairness hearing on Feb. 10, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. for the proposed $6,500,000 settlement in the matter, "In Re OCA Inc. Securities and Derivative Litigation, Master File No. 05- 2165." The hearing will be held before the Honorable Sarah Vance, United States District Judge of the Eastern District of Louisiana, 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, LA 70130. The settlement covers all persons who purchased the publicly traded common stock or sold put options of OCA, Inc. during the period from May 18, 2004 through June 6, 2005, inclusive. This lawsuit alleges that press releases and SEC filings of OCA announcing financial results during the first three quarters of 2004 were false when issued because defendants knowingly or recklessly misstated, among other things, revenues and receivables, and accordingly, issued financial results not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. For more details, contact: OCA Securities Litigation Settlement c/o Analytics, Inc., Claims Administrator P.O. Box 2002 Chanhassen MN 55317-2002 Phone: 1-866-233-0122 Web site: http://www.ocasecuritieslitigation.com Joel B. Strauss (jstrauss@kaplanfox.com) Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP 850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor New York, New York 10022 Phone: 800-290-1952 or 212-687-1980 Fax: 212-687-7714 - and - Paul R. Bessette, Esq. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP 300 West 6th Street, Suite 2100 Austin, TX 78701-3911 300 West 6th Street, Suite 2100 Austin, TX 78701-3911 Phone: (512) 499-6250 Fax: (512) 499-6290 ORKIN INC: Still Faces Wage and Hour Litigation in California ------------------------------------------------------------- Orkin, Inc. -- a subsidiary of Rollins, Inc. -- is facing a purported wage and hour class action lawsuit that was filed before the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California. The suit is captioned, "John Maciel v. Orkin, Inc., et al." It has not been scheduled for a class certification hearing. Rollins reported no development in the matter in its Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. Orkin, Inc. -- Net: http://www.orkin.com/-- a subsidiary of Rollins provides insect, rodent, and termite control services to more than 1.7 million commercial and residential customers in the U.S., Canada, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Panama. The company, which was founded in 1901, has more than 400 branch offices throughout the U.S. Orkin offers its services under the Acurid, Orkin, PCO Services, and Western Pest Services brand names. ORKIN EXTERMINATING: "Butland" Lawsuit in Florida Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc., a subsidiary of Rollins, Inc., continues to face a purported class action lawsuit entitled, "Mark and Christine Butland, et al. v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc., et al." The suit was filed before the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County in Tampa, Florida, in March 1999. It seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. The court, in early April 2002, certified the class action against Orkin. Orkin appealed this certification ruling to the Florida 2nd District Court of Appeals, which remanded the case back to the trial court for further findings. In December 2004, the court issued a new ruling certifying the class action. Orkin again appealed this new ruling to the Florida 2nd District Court of Appeals. In June 2006, the Florida Second District Court of Appeals issued a ruling denying certification of the class. Following the plaintiffs' motion for rehearing, the appeals court upheld its prior decision that class certification was improper, but also ruled that the plaintiffs can return to the trial court and attempt to certify a narrower class. Rollins reported no development in the matter in its Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. Orkin, Inc. -- Net: http://www.orkin.com/-- a subsidiary of Rollins provides insect, rodent, and termite control services to more than 1.7 million commercial and residential customers in the U.S., Canada, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Panama. The company, which was founded in 1901, has more than 400 branch offices throughout the U.S. Orkin offers its services under the Acurid, Orkin, PCO Services, and Western Pest Services brand names. ORKIN EXTERMINATING: Still Faces Termite-Related Services Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc., a subsidiary of Rollins, Inc., is facing two purported class action lawsuits in California and Arkansas over allegations that the plaintiffs have been damaged as a result of the rendering of services by the company. The suits are: 1. "Ronald and Ileana Krzyzanowsky et al. v. Orkin Exterminating Company, Inc. and Rollins, Inc.;" and 2. "Roy Sheppard et al. v. Orkin Exterminating Company, Inc. and Rollins, Inc." The Krzyzanowsky lawsuit, a termite service related matter, was filed before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and has not been scheduled for a class certification hearing. The Sheppard lawsuit, also a termite related matter, was recently filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas and a date has not been set for a hearing on class certification. Rollins reported no development in the matter in its Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. Orkin, Inc. -- Net: http://www.orkin.com/-- a subsidiary of Rollins provides insect, rodent, and termite control services to more than 1.7 million commercial and residential customers in the U.S., Canada, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Panama. The company, which was founded in 1901, has more than 400 branch offices throughout the U.S. Orkin offers its services under the Acurid, Orkin, PCO Services, and Western Pest Services brand names. PRESSTEK INC: Reaches Settlement for N.H. Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Presstek, Inc. settled a purported securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed before the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire. In October 2006, the company and two of its former executive officers were named as defendants in a purported securities class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire. The suit claims to be brought on behalf of purchasers of the ompany's common stock during the period from July 27, 2006, through Sept. 29, 2006. The suit alleges, among other things, that the company and the other defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder based on allegedly false forecasts of fiscal third quarter and annual 2006 revenues. As relief, the plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of monetary damages, but make no allegation as to losses incurred by any purported class member, court costs and attorneys' fees. The company in its Oct. 31, 2008 Form 8-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced that it has reached an agreement to settle the federal securities class-action lawsuit. This settlement, which is subject to confirmatory discovery and court approval, will have no material impact on the company's 2008 operating results. The suit is "Sloman v. Presstek, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv- 00377-JD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, Judge Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr., presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq. (ted@shulaw.com) Thomas G. Shapiro, Esq. (tshapiro@shulaw.com) Shapiro Haber & Urmy 53 State St., Boston, MA 02109 Phone: 617 439-3939 Fax: 617-439-0134 - and - Mark L. Mallory, Esq. (mark@malloryandfriedman.com) Mallory & Friedman PLLC 8 Green St., Concord, NH 03301 Phone: 603-228-2277 Representing defendants is: Robert E. McDaniel, Esq. (remcdanielesq@aol.com) McDaniel Law Offices 755 North Main St. Laconia, NH 03246 Phone: 603-527-0520 Fax: 603-279-0540 PUBLIC SERVICE: Dismissal of N.J. Transition Bond Suit Appealed --------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in a class-action complaint filed against Public Service Electric & Gas Co. in relation to a transition bond that the company charges its customers appealed the dismissal of their case to the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court. On April 23, 2007, PSE&G and PSE&G Transition Funding LLC were served with a copy of a purported class-action complaint challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions of New Jersey's Competition Act, seeking injunctive relief against continued collection from PSE&G's electric customers of the transition bond charge of PSE&G Transition Funding, as well as recovery of TBC amounts previously collected. Notice of the filing of the complaint was also provided to New Jersey's Attorney General. Under New Jersey law, the Competition Act, enacted in 1999, is presumed constitutional. On July 9, 2007, the same plaintiff filed an amended complaint to also seek injunctive relief from continued collection of related taxes as well as recovery of such taxes previously collected and also filed a petition with BPU, requesting review and adjustment to PSE&G's recovery of the same charges. PSE&G and Transition Funding filed a motion to dismiss the amended Complaint (or in the alternative for summary judgment) on July 30, 2007, and PSE&G filed on Sept. 30, 2007, a motion with the BPU to dismiss the petition. On Oct. 10, 2007, the defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint was granted by the court. On Nov. 21, 2007, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court. Briefing of the appeal has been completed. PSE&G reported no further development in the matter in the company's Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. Public Service Electric and Gas Co. -- http://www.pseg.com/-- is an operating public utility company engaged principally in the transmission and distribution of electric energy and gas in New Jersey. ROLLINS INC: Resolves Calif. Lawsuit Alleging FDCPA Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- Rollins, Inc., resolved a purported class-action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Central District of California over alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The suit, "Adam Stauber v. Rollins, Inc. et al., Case No. 07- 07517," was filed on Nov. 15, 2007. A hearing date for class certification has not been set. Rollins in its Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008 that the Stauber case has been resolved on an individual basis with the Plaintiff dismissing his case including his class action allegations. The suit is "Adam Stauber v. Rollins, Inc. et al., Case No. 07- 07517," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Central District of California, Judge Otis D. Wright, II, presiding. Representing the plaintiff is: Amir Goldstein, Esq. (ajgold@hauserlawoffices.com) Amir J. Goldstein 591 Broadway, Suite 3A New York, NY 10012 Phone: 212-966-5253 Fax: 212-941-8566 Representing the defendant is: Mark L. Eisenhut, Esq. (meisenhut@calljensen.com) Call Jensen & Ferrell 610 Newport Center Dr., Ste. 700 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: 949-717-3000 SHAW GROUP: La. Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana has dismissed the consolidated securities fraud lawsuit styled, "Thompson et al. v. Shaw Group, Inc." On July 23, 2004, an investor filed a complaint against The Shaw Group, Inc., claiming that the company and three top officers misled the investing public about its finances (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 19, 2007). The class-action suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana and seeks damages for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who bought Shaw Group common stock from Oct. 19, 2000, through and including June 10, 2004. The lawsuit claims that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, including U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The complaint names as defendants: -- Shaw Group; -- J.M. Bernhard Jr., chairman and chief executive officer; -- Tim Barfield, Jr., president, chief operating officer, and director since 2003; and -- Robert L. Belk, chief financial officer and executive vice president. The complaint alleges that, during the class period, Shaw Group issued materially false and misleading information about its financial performance to the investing public. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that Shaw Group established excessive or "general" contract reserves in conjunction with two acquisitions and then tapped those "cookie jar" reserves to artificially boost its earnings when needed. The defendants also prematurely recognized revenue in connection with its long-term construction contracts, violating its own reported revenue recognition policy. These actions violated Generally Accepted Accounting Practices and resulted in significantly overstated revenues and net income throughout the class period, which in turn inflated Shaw Group's stock price. The company took advantage of the artificially inflated stock price by offering $479 million in shares of Shaw Group common stock to the public, as well as millions of dollars of debt securities. Company insiders also took advantage of the inflated price by selling approximately 1.94 million shares of Shaw Group common stock during the class period, for proceeds of roughly $80 million. After the close of trading on June 10, 2004, the company shocked the investing public by announcing that Shaw Group was the subject of an informal investigation by the SEC into the company's method of accounting for acquisitions. In response to these revelations, the price of Shaw Group's common stock plummeted, falling 18% to $10.05 when trading resumed on June 14, 2004 (following a long weekend). On Aug. 16, 2004, competing motions for the consolidation of all related cases and for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel were filed with the court. On Aug. 31, 2004, all related cases were consolidated into one class-action lawsuit, "Thompson v. The Shaw Group Inc., No. 04- 1685." The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated action, which was denied. It then moved to certify the matter for immediate appeal, which the District Court granted, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted leave to appeal. On July 29, 2008, the Fifth Circuit reversed the District Court's denial of the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated action and remanded the consolidated action to the District Court with instructions to dismiss. The District Court entered its order dismissing the consolidated action on Aug. 29, 2008, according to the company's Oct. 30, 2008 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2008. The suit is "Thompson et al. v. Shaw Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 04-CV-1685," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Judge Helen G. Berrigan, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Philip Bohrer, Esq. (phil@bohrerlaw.com) Bohrer Law Firm 8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Phone: 225-925-5297 Bernard L. Charbonnet, Jr., Esq. (bcharbonnet@charbonnetassociates.com) Law Office of Bernard L. Charbonnet, Jr. 365 Canal Street, One Canal Place, Suite 1155 New Orleans, LA 70130 Phone: 504-561-0996 - and - David Lyman Browne, Esq. (dbrowne@brownelaw.com) Law Offices of David L. Browne, LLC 650 Poydras St., Suite 2150 New Orleans, LA 70130 Phone: 504-648-0171 Representing the defendants are: Steven W. Copley, Esq. (scopley@gordonarata.com) Gordon, Arata, McCollam, Duplantis & Eagan 201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 4000 New Orleans, LA 70170-4000 Phone: 504-582-1111 STEVE & BARRY'S: Faces N.Y. Suit Alleging WARN Act Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- Steve & Barry's LLC, which was acquired by New York-based private equity firm Bay Harbour Management for $168 million, is facing a purported class-action lawsuit over the laying off of employees -- including at least 250 at the company's Port Washington, N.Y. Headquarters, The Wall Street Journal reported. According to a class-action complaint filed by Outten & Golden LLP on Nov. 18, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the layoffs were made on Nov. 17, 2008 with no notice, and that violates the 60-day notice requirement called for under the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act. The workers that were laid off received a letter along with their pink slip saying the company could not have given them further notice because the economy crumbled so quickly, says Rene Roupinian, Esq. Of Outten & Golden. For more details, contact: Rene Roupinian, Esq. (rroupinian@outtengolden.com) Outten & Golden LLP 3 Park Avenue 29th Floor New York, New York 10016 Phone: (212) 245-1000 Fax: (212) 977-4005 Web site: http://www.outtengolden.com TOWN SPORTS: To Contest Actions Over Unpaid Wages in N.Y. County ---------------------------------------------------------------- Town Sports International Holdings, Inc. intends to contest two purported class-action lawsuits seeking unpaid wages filed in the Supreme Court, New York County, according to its Oct. 30, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. On March 1, 2005, in an action styled, "Sarah Cruz, et al v. Town Sports International, dba New York Sports Club," plaintiffs commenced a purported class action against the company in the Supreme Court, New York County, seeking unpaid wages and alleging that wholly-owned subsidiary, Town Sports International, LLC (TSI LLC) violated various overtime provisions of the New York State Labor Law with respect to the payment of wages to certain trainers and assistant fitness managers. On Nov. 2, 2005, the complaint and the lawsuit were stayed upon agreement of the parties pending mediation. On Nov. 28, 2006, the plaintiffs gave notice that they wished to lift the stay. On June 18, 2007, the same plaintiffs commenced a second purported class-action lawsuit against the company in the Supreme Court, New York County, seeking unpaid wages and alleging that TSI LLC violated various wage payment and overtime provisions of the New York State Labor Law with respect to the payment of wages to all New York purported hourly employees. New York-based Town Sports International Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.mysportsclubs.com-- is an operator of fitness clubs in the northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions of the U.S. As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company, through its subsidiaries, operated 161 fitness clubs under its four brand names: New York Sports Clubs, Boston Sports Clubs, Philadelphia Sports Clubs and Washington Sports Clubs. New Securities Fraud Cases BRITANNIA BULK: Barroway Topaz Announces Securities Suit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- RADNOR, Pa., Nov 19, 2008 -- The following statement was issued today by the law firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP: Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf purchasers of the common stock of Britannia Bulk Holdings Inc. ("Britannia Bulk" or the "Company"), who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's June 17, 2008 Initial Public Offering (the "IPO" or the "Offering"). The Complaint charges Britannia Bulk and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Britannia Bulk is an international provider of drybulk transportation services focusing on transporting drybulk commodities in the Baltic region. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: -- that the Company had not instituted or enforced protocols to prevent employees from buying forward freight agreements ("FFAs") that were not purchased to hedge identifiable cargo or ship positions; -- that Company was exposed to considerable risk due to FFAs being used outside of their stated guidelines; -- that the Company had failed to enter into proper fixed price contracts at a time when crude oil and bunker fuels were experiencing tremendous fluctuation; -- that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's Registration Statement was false and misleading at all relevant times. On or about June 17, 2008, the Company conducted its IPO. In connection with the IPO, the Company filed a Registration Statement and Prospectus (collectively referred to as the "Registration Statement") with the SEC. The IPO was a financial success for the Company and its underwriters, as they raised $125 million by selling over 8.33 million shares of the Company's common stock to investors at a price of $15.00 per share. However, on October 28, 2008 the Company announced that since July 2008, it had bought FFAs that appeared not to have been purchased to hedge identifiable ship or cargo positions. This was in stark contrast to their stated purpose in the Registration Statement that they were entered into "with an objective of economically hedging the risk of the fleet, specific vessels or freight commitments." This resulted in "the Company being more exposed to falling charter rates and reduced overall demand for dry bulk shipping services than it would have been if its historic practice of using FFAs as economic hedges had been followed." Then, on October 29, 2008, the Company announced that effectively immediately, its common shares would be suspended from trading on the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE"). Finally, on October 31, 2008, the Company announced that its indirect wholly owned subsidiary, Britannia Bulk Plc, had been placed into administration under United Kingdom insolvency laws. In response to this news, shares of the Company's stock declined $1.63 per share, or 85.79 percent, to close on October 28, 2008 at $0.27 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. This closing price on October 28, 2008 represented a cumulative loss of $14.73, or over 98 percent, of the value of the Company's shares at the time of its IPO just months prior. Thereafter, the value of the Company's shares continued to decline, trading as low as $0.01 per share. At the time this Complaint was filed, the Company's shares were trading for about $0.03 per share. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and is represented by the law firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check which prosecutes class actions in both state and federal courts throughout the country. For more details, contact: Darren J. Check, Esq. David M. Promisloff, Esq. Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706 e-mail: info@btkmc.com HARDINGE INC: Brodsky & Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- BALA CYNWYD, Pa., Nov. 19, 2008 -- Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Hardinge Inc. ("Hardinge" or the "Company") between February 22, 2007 and February 21, 2008 (the "Class Period"). The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market, thereby artificially inflating the price of Hardinge. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact: Evan J. Smith, Esq. Marc L. Ackerman, Esq. Brodsky & Smith, LLC Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 e-mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com INTERNAP NETWORK: Federman & Sherwood Announces Lawsuit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- OKLAHOMA CITY, OK, Nov. 19, 2008 -- Federman & Sherwood announces that on November 12, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Internap Network Services Corp. (NASDAQ: INAP). The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b)and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is from March 28, 2007 through March 18, 2008. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class. For more details, contact: William B. Federman (wfederman@aol.com) Federman & Sherwood 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Phone: 405.235.1560 Fax: 405.239.2112 Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com MCDERMOTT INT'L: Berman DeValerio Announces Stock Suit Filing ------------------------------------------------------------- HOUSTON, TX, Nov. 19, 2008 -- An investor has sued McDermott International, Inc. ("McDermott" or "Company") (NYSE: MDR) in federal court, accusing the company of violating securities laws by concealing construction delays on a pipeline project, Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo announced today. Berman DeValerio filed the class action complaint on November 17, 2008 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of NewYork on behalf of shareholders who purchased McDermott stock between February 27, 2008 and November 5, 2008. The complaint, filed as 08-cv-9943,seeks damages for violations of securities laws under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. Based in Houston, McDermott is an international engineering and construction services company. Its clients include the U.S. government and companies in the oil and power industries. The lawsuit claims that McDermott and two individual defendants, including former Chief Executive Officer Bruce W. Wilkinson, violated Sections 10(b)and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, McDermott concealed from investors that its three large, ongoing construction contracts for the installation of marine oil and gas pipelines off the coast of Qatar were substantially delayed and that the delays caused the Company to incur major losses on those contracts. As a result, plaintiffs said, the Company's oil and gas division posted a $19.7 million loss during the third quarter of 2008, resulting from $90 million in contract losses related to delays on the three pipeline contracts. Investors finally learned of the severity of the production setback and the resulting negative impact to the Company's earnings on November 5, 2008 when the Company filed its third quarter 2008 Form 10-Q with the SEC. McDermott's stock price plunged on the news, from $15.56 pershare at close on November 5, 2008 to $10.39 per share at close on November6, 2008 -- a loss of $5.17 per share, or 33%. If you wish to be a lead plaintiff in this action, a motion on your behalfmust be filed with the court no later than 60 days from today. You maycontact the attorneys at Berman DeValerio to discuss your rights andinterests in the case, or you may submit information online by clicking here. Please note: You may also retain counsel of your choice and need not takeany action at this time to be a class member. Contact:Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. Autumn Smith, Esq.Email Contact(617) 542-8300 Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. (jblock@bermanesq.com) Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo One Liberty Square Boston, MA 02109 Phone: (617) 542-8300 Fax: (617) 542-1194 SADIA S.A.: Brian M. Felgoise Announces Securities Suit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- PHILADELPHIA, Pa., Nov. 19, 2008 -- Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. announces that a securities class action has been commenced on behalf of shareholders who acquired Sadia, S.A. securities between May 1, 2008 through September 26, 2008, inclusive (the Class Period). The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, against the company and certain key officers and directors. The action charges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more information, contact: Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. (FelgoiseLaw@verizon.net) Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. 261 Old York Road, Suite 423 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Phone: 215-886-1900 SADIA S.A.: Brodsky & Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing ------------------------------------------------------------ BALA CYNWYD, Pa., Nov. 19, 2008 -- Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all persons who purchased American Depository Receipts in and/or common stock of Sadia S.A. ("Sadia" or the "Company") (NYSE: SDA) (BOVESPA: SDIA4) between May 1, 2008 and September 26, 2008 (the "Class Period"). The class-action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market, there by artificially inflating the price of Sadia. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact: Evan J. Smith, Esq. Marc L. Ackerman, Esq. Brodsky & Smith, LLC Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 e-mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Cites $330.68M Liability at Sept. 26 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Colfax Corporation's long-term asbestos liability was US$330,680,000 as of Sept. 26, 2008, compared with US$347,206,000 as of Dec. 31, 2007. The Company's long-term asbestos-related liability was US$338,064,000 as of June 27, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 15, 2008) The Company's current accrued asbestos liability was US$28,656,000 as of Sept. 26, 2008, compared with US$28,901,000 as of Dec. 31, 2007. The Company's current accrued asbestos liability was US$28,737,000 as of June 27, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 15, 2008) The Company's long-term asbestos insurance asset was US$277,457,000 as of Sept. 26, 2008, compared with US$286,169,000 as of Dec. 31, 2007. The Company's current asbestos insurance receivable was US$45,206,000 as of Sept. 26, 2008, compared with US$44,664,000 as of Dec. 31, 2007. The current asbestos insurance asset was US$18,857,000 as of Sept. 26, 2008, compared with US$19,059,000 as of Dec. 31, 2007. Richmond, Va.-based Colfax Corporation supplies fluid handling products, including pumps, fluid handling systems and specialty valves. Products include rotary positive displacement pumps, which include screw pumps, gear pumps and progressive cavity pumps. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Park-Ohio Still Has 365 Actions at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Park-Ohio Holdings Corp., at Sept. 30, 2008, is still a defendant in 365 cases asserting claims on behalf of about 8,400 plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. At June 30, 2008, the Company faced 365 cases asserting claims on behalf of about 8,400 plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 22, 2008) These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages. In every asbestos case in which the Company is named as a party, the complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from US$25,000 to US$75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages sought. There are four asbestos cases, involving 21 plaintiffs that plead specified damages. In each of the four cases, the plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages based on a various potentially alternative causes of action. In three cases, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the amount of US$3 million for four separate causes of action and US$1 million for another cause of action and punitive damages in the amount of US$10 million. In the other case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the amount of US$20 million for three separate causes of action and US$5 million for another cause of action and punitive damages in the amount of US$20 million. Historically, the Company has been dismissed from asbestos cases on the basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of the Company's subsidiaries or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-containing product manufactured or sold by the Company or its subsidiaries. Cleveland-based Park-Ohio Holdings Corp., through Park-Ohio Industries Ltd. and subsidiaries, provides logistics services and makes engineered products for the aerospace, auto, semiconductor, and other industries. The Company's supply technologies unit offers procurement and management services and provides fasteners, fittings, and other industrial products. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Cites $5.15Mil for Coverage Expenses ---------------------------------------------------------------- Colfax Corporation's asbestos coverage litigation expenses were US$5,148,000 during the three months ended Sept. 26, 2008, compared with US$2,387,000 during the three months ended Sept. 28, 2007. The Company recorded US$3,970,000 for asbestos coverage litigation expenses for the three months ended June 27, 2008, compared with US$3,687,000 for the three months ended June 29, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 15, 2008) Asbestos liability and defense income was US$6,312,000 during the three months ended Sept. 26, 2008, compared with US$30,285,000 during the three months ended Sept. 28, 2007. The Company's asbestos coverage litigation expenses were US$12,257,000 during the nine months ended Sept. 26, 2008, compared with US$8,318,000 during the nine months ended Sept. 28, 2007. Asbestos liability and defense income was US$6,749,000 during the nine months ended Sept. 26, 2008, compared with US$32,032,000 during the nine months ended Sept. 28, 2007. Richmond, Va.-based Colfax Corporation supplies fluid handling products, including pumps, fluid handling systems and specialty valves. Products include rotary positive displacement pumps, which include screw pumps, gear pumps and progressive cavity pumps. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 36,607 Claims Pending v. Colfax at Sept. 26 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Colfax Corporation faced 36,607 unresolved asbestos claims at Sept. 26, 2008, compared with 38,477 claims at Sept. 28, 2007, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 5, 2008. Unresolved asbestos claims against the Company numbered to 36,620 claims as of June 27, 2008, compared with 38,575 claims as of June 29, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 15, 2008) At Sept. 26, 2008, the Company noted 3,282 claims filed and 4,299 claims resolved. At Sept. 28, 2007, the Company noted 5,986 claims filed and 17,529 claims resolved. Two of the Company's subsidiaries face lawsuits that claim personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos from products manufactured with components that are alleged to have contained asbestos. The manufactured products that are alleged to have contained asbestos generally were provided to meet the specifications of the subsidiaries' customers, including the U.S. Navy. The Company had reserves of US$7.5 million as a reduction of its asbestos insurance asset at Sept. 26, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2007. Until recently, one of the subsidiaries has had all of its liability and defense costs covered in full by its primary and umbrella insurance carrier. This carrier has informed the subsidiary that the primary insurance policies are now exhausted. In May 2008, the carrier provided notice that one of 14 umbrella policies had exhausted and in October 2008, notified the subsidiary that two additional umbrella policies had been exhausted. As a result, the carrier in the future will pay 78.6 percent (or 11/14ths) of liability costs but will continue to pay 100 percent of defense costs. The carrier has also informed the subsidiary that it will withhold payment of an additional 1/14 share of the subsidiary's liability costs for each umbrella policy that exhausts in the future. The subsidiary recently reached an agreement in principle and expects to sign a settlement agreement with the primary and umbrella carrier governing all aspects of the carrier's past and future handling of the asbestos related bodily injury claims against the subsidiary. As a result of this agreement, during the third quarter of 2008, the Company increased its insurance asset by US$7 million as a result of value being ascribed to certain pre-1966 insurance policies and recorded a corresponding gain. The additional insurance will be allocated by the carrier to cover any gaps in coverage of up to US$7 million in umbrella policies as they exhaust. When the agreement is executed, the Company expects the primary and umbrella insurer will once again be paying 100 percent of all liability and defense costs. Richmond, Va.-based Colfax Corporation supplies fluid handling products, including pumps, fluid handling systems and specialty valves. Products include rotary positive displacement pumps, which include screw pumps, gear pumps and progressive cavity pumps. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Receives $20.6M Proceeds at Sept. 26 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Colfax Corporation's total insurance proceeds received, during the three months ended Sept. 26, 2008, were US$20,600,000, according to the Company's latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Total insurance proceeds received amounted to US$23,701,000 during the nine months ended Sept. 26, 2008, compared with US$7,500,000. Cash characterized as past cost reduces the Company's outstanding asbestos insurance receivables. Cash characterized as future costs within the 15-year liability range relates to insurance policies that are triggered within the Company's 15- year estimate of asbestos-related liability and were recorded as a reduction of the asbestos insurance asset. Cash characterized as future cost outside the 15-year liability range relates to insurance policies which are not triggered within the Company's 15-year estimate of asbestos-related liability and were recorded as income in asbestos liability and defense (income) costs. In addition, the Company received US$11.5 million in past cost on Oct. 15, 2008. Richmond, Va.-based Colfax Corporation supplies fluid handling products, including pumps, fluid handling systems and specialty valves. Products include rotary positive displacement pumps, which include screw pumps, gear pumps and progressive cavity pumps. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Corp. Cites $359.3Mil for Liability ---------------------------------------------------------------- Colfax Corporation established asbestos reserves of US$359.3 million as of Sept. 26, 2008 and US$376.2 million as of Dec. 31, 2007. The Company reserved US$366.8 million as of June 27, 2008 for the probable and reasonably estimable asbestos-related liability cost it believes its subsidiaries will pay through the next 15 years. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 15, 2008) The Company has also established recoverables of US$296.3 million as of Sept. 26, 2008 and US$305.2 million as of Dec. 31, 2007. Net of these recoverables, the Company's expected cash outlay on a non-discounted basis for asbestos-related bodily injury claims over the next 15 years was US$63 million as of Sept. 26, 2008 and US$71 million as of Dec. 31, 2007. In addition the Company has recorded a receivable for liability and defense costs it had previously paid in the amount of US$45.2 million as of Sept. 26, 2008 and US$44.7 million as of Dec. 31, 2007. Richmond, Va.-based Colfax Corporation supplies fluid handling products, including pumps, fluid handling systems and specialty valves. Products include rotary positive displacement pumps, which include screw pumps, gear pumps and progressive cavity pumps. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Lawsuits Ongoing v. Boss Holdings ---------------------------------------------------------------- Boss Holdings, Inc. continues to be a defendant in several lawsuits alleging past exposure to asbestos contained in gloves sold by one of the Company's predecessors-in-interest. These actions are being defended by one or more of the Company's products liability insurers. No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 12, 2008. Kewanee, Ill.-based Boss Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary Boss Manufacturing Company (BMC) imports and markets gloves and protective wear sold through mass merchandisers, hardware stores, and other retailers in the United States and Canada. The Boss Pet Products division markets pet supplies (collars, chains, pet shampoos, toys) to U.S. retailers. The Company's gloves and protective gear account for about 70 percent of sales. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Odyssey Has $346.3M Losses, LAE at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Odyssey Re Holding Corp.'s asbestos-related gross unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses were US$346,267,000 for the nine and three months ended Sept. 30, 2008, compared with US$269,959,000 for the nine and three months ended Sept. 30, 2007. The Company's asbestos-related net unpaid losses and LAE were US$216,125,000 for the nine and three months ended Sept. 30, 2008, compared with US$170,270,000 for the nine and three months ended Sept. 30, 2007. The Company has exposure to losses from asbestos, environmental pollution and other latent injury damage claims. Net unpaid asbestos and environmental losses and loss adjustment expenses as of Sept. 30, 2008 were US$245.1 million, representing 5.2 percent of total net unpaid losses and LAE, compared with US$256.9 million, or 5.7 percent of total net unpaid losses and LAE as of Dec. 31, 2007. Net losses and LAE incurred for asbestos claims increased US$21 million for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008 and US$15 million for the three months ended Sept. 30, 2008 due to loss emergence greater than expectations in the periods. The Company did not incur net losses and LAE expenses related to asbestos claims for the nine and three months ended Sept. 30, 2007. The Company's survival ratio for A&E-related liabilities as of Sept. 30, 2008 is eight years. The Company's underlying survival ratio for asbestos-related liabilities is eight years. The A&E-related liability survival ratio represents the A&E reserves, as of Sept. 30, 2008, divided by the average paid A&E claims for the last three years of US$31.8 million, which are net of reinsurance. Stamford, Conn.-based Odyssey Re Holdings Corp. is an underwriter of reinsurance, providing property and casualty products on a worldwide basis, and an underwriter of specialty insurance, primarily in the United States and through the Lloyd's of London marketplace. As of Sept. 30, 2008, Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited owned 70.6 percent of the Company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Provides $1.725M at Sept. 26 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Foster Wheeler Ltd.'s net asbestos-related provision was US$1,725,000 during the fiscal quarter ended Sept. 26, 2008, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 5, 2008. During the fiscal quarter ended Sept. 28, 2007, net asbestos- related gain was US$8,633,000. Net asbestos-related gain was US$30,738,000 during the fiscal nine months ended Sept. 26, 2008, compared with US$8,633,000 during the fiscal nine months ended Sept. 28, 2007. The Company's net asbestos-related gain was US$18,275,000 for the fiscal quarter ended June 27, 2008. For the fiscal six months ended June 27, 2008, the Company's net asbestos-related gain was US$32,463,000. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 15, 2008) Clinton, N.J-based Foster Wheeler Ltd. designs, builds, and upgrades oil and gas processing facilities and manufactures power equipment through its two business units: Global Engineering & Construction and Global Power. Global E&C group clients include companies in the oil and gas, chemical, pharmaceutical, and biotechnology markets. Global Power group serves energy, utility, and industrial clients. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Records $334.1Mil Liability ---------------------------------------------------------------- Foster Wheeler Ltd.'s long-term asbestos-related liability was US$334,142,000 as of Sept. 26, 2008, compared with US$376,803,000 as of Dec. 28, 2007. The Company's long-term asbestos-related liability was US$350,672,000 as of June 27, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 15, 2008) The Company's long-term asbestos-related insurance recovery receivable was US$287,695,000 as of Sept. 26, 2008, compared with US$324,588,000 as of Dec. 28, 2007. The Company's long-term asbestos-related insurance recovery receivable was US$304,977,000 as of June 27, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 15, 2008) Some of the Company's subsidiaries in the United States and United Kingdom face asbestos-related lawsuits and out-of-court informal claims pending in the U.S. and U.K. Plaintiffs claim damages for personal injury alleged to have arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos in connection with work allegedly performed by the Company's subsidiaries during the 1970s and earlier. Clinton, N.J-based Foster Wheeler Ltd. designs, builds, and upgrades oil and gas processing facilities and manufactures power equipment through its two business units: Global Engineering & Construction and Global Power. Global E&C group clients include companies in the oil and gas, chemical, pharmaceutical, and biotechnology markets. Global Power group serves energy, utility, and industrial clients. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Faces 130,370 Claims in U.S. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Foster Wheeler Ltd.'s subsidiaries in the United States faced 130,370 open asbestos-related claims during the fiscal quarter and nine months ended Sept. 26, 2008, compared with 132,810 claims during the fiscal quarter and nine months ended Sept. 28, 2007. The Company's subsidiaries in the U.S. faced 130,740 asbestos claims for the fiscal quarter ended June 27, 2008, compared with 133,580 claims for the fiscal quarter ended June 29, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 15, 2008) During the fiscal quarter ended Sept. 26, 2008, the Company noted 860 new claims filed and 1,230 claims resolved. During the fiscal quarter ended Sept. 28, 2007, the Company noted 1,080 new claims filed and 1,850 claims resolved. During the fiscal nine months ended Sept. 26, 2008, the Company noted 3,710 new claims filed and 4,680 claims resolved. During the fiscal nine months ended Sept. 28, 2007, the Company noted 4,160 new claims filed and 7,240 claims resolved. Total asbestos-related assets for U.S. claims were US$285.7 million as of Sept. 26, 2008, compared with US$326.2 million as of Dec. 28, 2007. Total asbestos-related liabilities were US$353.9 million as of Sept. 26, 2008, compared with US$403.3 million as of Dec. 28, 2007. The amount paid for asbestos litigation, defense and case resolution was US$18.6 million for the fiscal quarter ended Sept. 26, 2008 and US$55.8 million for the nine months ended Sept. 26, 2008. The amount paid for asbestos litigation, defense and case resolution was US$21.8 million for the quarter ended Sept. 28, 2008 and US$66.7 million for the nine months ended Sept. 28, 2007. In fiscal year 2008, proceeds from settlements with the Company's insurers exceeded payments made by US$10.6 million in the fiscal quarter ended Sept. 26, 2008 and US$21.8 million in the nine months ended Sept. 26, 2008. Through Sept. 26, 2008, total cumulative indemnity costs paid were about US$652.2 million and total cumulative defense costs paid were about US$277.3 million. As of Sept. 26, 2008, total asbestos-related liabilities were comprised of an estimated liability of US$130 million relating to open (outstanding) claims being valued and an estimated liability of US$223.9 million relating to future unasserted claims through the fiscal third quarter of 2023. The overall historic average combined indemnity and defense cost per resolved claim through Sept. 26, 2008 has been about US$2,700. Clinton, N.J-based Foster Wheeler Ltd. designs, builds, and upgrades oil and gas processing facilities and manufactures power equipment through its two business units: Global Engineering & Construction and Global Power. Global E&C group clients include companies in the oil and gas, chemical, pharmaceutical, and biotechnology markets. Global Power group serves energy, utility, and industrial clients. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Records $23.3M for N.Y. Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Foster Wheeler Ltd., as of Sept. 26, 2008, estimated the value of its unsettled asbestos insurance asset related to ongoing litigation in New York state court with its units' insurers at US$23.3 million. As of June 27, 2008, the Company estimated the value of its unsettled asbestos insurance asset related to ongoing litigation in New York state court with its subsidiaries' insurers at US$23.2 million. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 15, 2008) The litigation relates to the amounts of insurance coverage available for asbestos-related claims and the proper allocation of the coverage among the Company's subsidiaries' various insurers and its subsidiaries as self-insurers. Over the last several years, certain of the Company's subsidiaries have entered into settlement agreements calling for insurers to make lump-sum payments and payments over time, for use by the subsidiaries to fund asbestos-related indemnity and defense costs and for reimbursement for portions of out-of- pocket costs previously incurred. In the fiscal nine months ended Sept. 28, 2007, the subsidiaries reached agreements to settle their disputed asbestos-related insurance coverage with two additional insurers. In the fiscal nine months ended Sept. 26, 2008, the subsidiaries reached agreements to settle their disputed asbestos-related insurance coverage with two additional insurers. The Company recorded a gain of US$35.9 million for these settlements in the fiscal nine months ended Sept. 26, 2008, of which both settlements occurred prior to the third fiscal quarter. The Company received cash of US$40.5 million from these 2008 settlements during the fiscal nine months ended Sept. 26, 2008. In fiscal year 2006, the Company was successful in its appeal of a New York state trial court decision that previously had held that New York, rather than New Jersey, law applies in the coverage litigation with its subsidiaries' insurers, and as a result, the Company increased its insurance asset and recorded a gain of US$19.5 million. On Feb. 13, 2007, the subsidiaries' insurers were granted permission by the appellate court to appeal the decision to the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court. On Oct. 11, 2007, the New York Court of Appeals upheld the appellate court decision in the Company's favor. Based on the fiscal year-end 2007 liability estimate, an increase of 25 percent in the average per claim indemnity settlement amount would increase the liability by US$70.4 million and the impact on expense would be dependent upon available insurance recoveries. The Company had net cash inflows of US$21.8 million as a result of insurance settlement proceeds in excess of the asbestos liability indemnity payments and defense costs during the fiscal nine months ended Sept. 26, 2008. The Company expects to have net cash inflows of US$17.4 million as a result of insurance settlement proceeds in excess of the asbestos liability indemnity and defense costs for the full 12 months of fiscal year 2008. Clinton, N.J-based Foster Wheeler Ltd. designs, builds, and upgrades oil and gas processing facilities and manufactures power equipment through its two business units: Global Engineering & Construction and Global Power. Global E&C group clients include companies in the oil and gas, chemical, pharmaceutical, and biotechnology markets. Global Power group serves energy, utility, and industrial clients. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler's U.K. Units Have 347 Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Certain of Foster Wheeler Ltd.'s subsidiaries in the United Kingdom face 347 open asbestos-related claims as of Sept. 26, 2008, according to the Company's latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Certain of the Company's subsidiaries in the U.K. faced 344 open asbestos-related claims as of June 27, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 15, 2008) To date, 889 claims have been brought against these subsidiaries. As of Sept. 26, 2008, the Company had recorded total liabilities of US$46 million comprised of an estimated liability relating to open (outstanding) claims of US$7.6 million and an estimated liability relating to future unasserted claims through the fiscal third quarter of 2023 of US$38.4 million. Of the total, US$2.8 million was recorded in accrued expenses and US$43.2 million was recorded in asbestos-related liability on the condensed consolidated balance sheet. An asset in an equal amount was recorded for the expected U.K. asbestos-related insurance recoveries, of which US$2.8 million was recorded in accounts and notes receivable-other and US$43.2 million was recorded as asbestos-related insurance recovery receivable on the condensed consolidated balance sheet. The liability estimates are based on a U.K. House of Lords judgment that pleural plaque claims do not amount to a compensable injury. If this ruling is reversed by legislation, the total asbestos liability and related asset recorded in the U.K. would be US$62.2 million. Clinton, N.J-based Foster Wheeler Ltd. designs, builds, and upgrades oil and gas processing facilities and manufactures power equipment through its two business units: Global Engineering & Construction and Global Power. Global E&C group clients include companies in the oil and gas, chemical, pharmaceutical, and biotechnology markets. Global Power group serves energy, utility, and industrial clients. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Corp. Facing 188 Claims at Sept. 28 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rogers Corporation faced 188 pending asbestos claims as of Sept. 28, 2008, compared with 192 pending claims at June 29, 2008 and 175 pending claims at Dec. 30, 2007. The Company has been named in asbestos litigation primarily in Illinois, Pennsylvania and Mississippi. The Company did not mine, mill, manufacture or market asbestos. Rather, the Company made some limited products, which contained encapsulated asbestos. Those products were provided to industrial users. The Company stopped manufacturing these products in 1987. Of the 188 claims pending as of Sept. 28, 2008, 54 claims do not specify the amount of damages sought, 130 claims cite jurisdictional amounts, and four claims (about 2.1 percent of the pending claims) specify the amount of damages sought not based on jurisdictional requirements. Of these four claims, one claim alleges compensatory and punitive damages of US$20 million; one claim alleges compensatory and punitive damages of US$1 million, and an unspecified amount of exemplary damages, interest and costs; and two claims allege compensatory damages of US$65 million and punitive damages of US$60 million. These four claims name from nine to 76 defendants. In the nine month period ended Sept. 28, 2008, the Company was able to have 43 claims dismissed and settled four claims. For the full year 2007, 59 claims were dismissed and 12 were settled. The majority of costs have been paid by the Company's insurance carriers, including the costs associated with the small number of cases that have been settled. Those settlements totaled about US$1.5 million in the first three quarters of 2008, compared with about US$2 million for the full year 2007. Rogers Corporation develops and manufactures high performance, specialty-material-based products for applications in diverse markets including: portable communications, communications infrastructure, computer and office equipment, consumer products, ground transportation, aerospace and defense. The Company is based in Rogers, Conn. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Katy Ind. Still Facing 10 Cases in Alabama ---------------------------------------------------------------- Katy Industries, Inc. continues to be a defendant in 10 asbestos-related lawsuits filed in state court in Alabama by a total of 324 individual plaintiffs. There are over 100 defendants named in each case. In all 10 cases, the Plaintiffs claim that they were exposed to asbestos in the course of their employment at a former U.S. Steel plant in Alabama and, as a result, contracted mesothelioma, asbestosis, lung cancer or other illness. They claim that they were exposed to asbestos in products in the plant which were manufactured by each defendant. In eight of the cases, Plaintiffs also assert wrongful death claims. The liability of the Company cannot be determined at this time. Bridgeton, Mo.-based Katy Industries, Inc. makes and markets maintenance products, including cleaning supplies, abrasives, and stains. Its Continental Commercial Products (CCP) subsidiary operates five divisions: Contico, Disco, Glit, Wilen, CCP Canada, and Gemtex. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Katy Ind. Cites 2,500 Sterling Fluid Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Katy Industries, Inc. says that Sterling Fluid Systems (USA) has tendered about 2,500 cases to the Company for indemnification. These cases are pending in Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Illinois, Nevada, Mississippi, Wyoming, Louisiana, Georgia, Massachusetts, Missouri, Kentucky, and California. With respect to one case, Sterling has demanded that the Company indemnify it for a US$200,000 settlement. Sterling bases its tender of the complaints on the provisions contained in a 1993 Purchase Agreement between the parties whereby Sterling purchased the LaBour Pump business and other assets from the Company. Sterling has not filed a lawsuit against the Company over these matters. The tendered complaints all purport to state claims against Sterling and its subsidiaries. The Company and its current subsidiaries are not named as defendants. The plaintiffs in the cases also allege that they were exposed to asbestos and products containing asbestos in the course of their employment. Each complaint names as defendants many manufacturers of products containing asbestos, apparently because plaintiffs came into contact with a variety of different products in the course of their employment. Plaintiffs claim that LaBour Pump Company, a former division of an inactive subsidiary of the Company, and Sterling may have manufactured some of those products. With respect to many of the tendered complaints, including the one settled by Sterling for US$200,000, the Company has taken the position that Sterling has waived its right to indemnity by failing to timely request it as required under the 1993 Purchase Agreement. With respect to the balance of the tendered complaints, the Company has elected not to assume the defense of Sterling in these matters. Bridgeton, Mo.-based Katy Industries, Inc. makes and markets maintenance products, including cleaning supplies, abrasives, and stains. Its Continental Commercial Products (CCP) subsidiary operates five divisions: Contico, Disco, Glit, Wilen, CCP Canada, and Gemtex. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: LaBour Pump Still Facing 100 Cases in N.J. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Katy Industries, Inc. says that LaBour Pump Company, a former division of an inactive Company subsidiary, still faces 100 active asbestos cases. LaBour has been named as a defendant in 400 of the New Jersey cases tendered by Sterling Fluid Systems (USA). The Company has elected to defend these cases, most of which have been dismissed or settled for nominal sums. Bridgeton, Mo.-based Katy Industries, Inc. makes and markets maintenance products, including cleaning supplies, abrasives, and stains. Its Continental Commercial Products (CCP) subsidiary operates five divisions: Contico, Disco, Glit, Wilen, CCP Canada, and Gemtex. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 34,731 Cases Ongoing v. General Cable Corp. ---------------------------------------------------------------- General Cable Corporation, as of Sept. 26, 2008, was a defendant in 34,731 asbestos-related cases, of which 1,249 were non- maritime cases and 33,482 were maritime cases. These cases were brought in various jurisdictions throughout the United States. The Company has accrued, on a gross basis, about US$4.8 million as of Sept. 26, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2007. The Company has recorded about US$500,000 of insurance recoveries for these lawsuits. Highland Heights, Ky.-based General Cable Corporation develops, designs, manufactures, and markets copper, aluminum and fiber optic wire and cable products. The Company manages its worldwide operations based on three geographic reportable segments: 1) North America, 2) Europe and North Africa and 3) Rest of World (ROW). ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Briggs & Stratton Facing Liability Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Briggs & Stratton Corporation continues to be subject to various unresolved legal actions, including asbestos-related product liability actions that arise in the normal course of its business. No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 5, 2008. Wauwatosa, Wis.-based Briggs & Stratton Corporation produces air cooled gasoline engines for outdoor power equipment. The Company designs, manufactures, markets and services these products for original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) worldwide. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CenterPoint Still Facing Exposure Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- CenterPoint Energy, Inc. or its subsidiaries continue to face lawsuits filed by a number of individuals who claim injury due to exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Some of the claimants have worked at locations owned by the Company, but most existing claims relate to facilities previously owned by the Company or its subsidiaries. The Company anticipates that additional claims like those received may be asserted in the future. In 2004, the Company sold its generating business, to which most of these claims relate, to Texas Genco LLC, which is now known as NRG Texas LP (NRG). Under the terms of the arrangements over separation of the generating business from the Company and its sale to Texas Genco LLC, ultimate financial responsibility for uninsured losses from claims relating to the generating business has been assumed by Texas Genco LLC and its successor. However, the Company has agreed to continue to defend those claims to the extent they are covered by insurance maintained by the Company, subject to reimbursement of the costs of such defense from the purchaser. Houston-based CenterPoint Energy, Inc. is a public utility holding company. Its operating subsidiaries own and operate electric transmission and distribution facilities, natural gas distribution facilities, interstate pipelines and natural gas gathering, processing and treating facilities. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SCC Affiliates Involved in ASARCO LLC Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- Southern Copper Corporation's direct and indirect parent corporations, including Americas Mining Corporation and Grupo Mexico, continue to face litigation (including asbestos-related) involving ASARCO LLC. In August 2002, the U.S. Department of Justice brought a claim alleging fraudulent conveyance in connection with AMC's then- proposed purchase of the Company from a subsidiary of Asarco. That action was settled under a Consent Decree dated Feb. 2, 2003. In March 2003, AMC purchased its interest in the Company from Asarco. In October 2004, AMC, Grupo Mexico, Mexicana de Cobre and other parties, not including the Company, were named in a lawsuit filed in New York State court in connection with alleged asbestos liabilities, which lawsuit claims that AMC's purchase of SCC from Asarco should be voided as a fraudulent conveyance. The lawsuit filed in New York State court was stayed as a result of the August 2005 Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing by Asarco. However, on Nov. 16, 2007, this lawsuit after being removed to federal court was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Brownsville, Tex., for resolution in conjunction with a new lawsuit filed by Asarco's creditors. On Feb. 2, 2007 a complaint was filed by Asarco on behalf of Asarco's creditors, alleging many of the matters previously claimed in the New York State lawsuit, including that AMC's purchase of the Company from Asarco should be voided as a fraudulent conveyance. In June 2008, the lawsuit was concluded in Brownsville, Tex. The constructive fraudulent conveyance claim was dismissed. However, the actual fraud and the aiding and abetting the breach of fiduciary duties counts were favorable to plaintiffs. The court's decision did not determine the damage amount. Grupo Mexico will appeal the ruling. In 2005, certain subsidiaries of Asarco filed bankruptcy petitions in connection with alleged asbestos liabilities. In July 2005, the unionized workers of Asarco commenced a work stoppage. As a result of various factors, including the work stoppage, in August 2005, Asarco filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Corpus Christi, Tex. Asarco's bankruptcy case is being joined with the bankruptcy cases of its subsidiaries. Asarco's bankruptcy could result in additional claims being filed against Grupo Mexico and its subsidiaries, including the Company, Minera Mexico or its subsidiaries. With its U.S. headquarters in Phoenix, Ariz., Southern Copper Corporation produces and sells copper. In the process of producing copper, a number of valuable metallurgical by-products are recovered, like molybdenum, zinc, silver, lead and gold, which the Company also produces and sells. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Cases Still Ongoing v. Westinghouse ---------------------------------------------------------------- Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation and certain of its affiliates continue to face asbestos lawsuits filed in various jurisdictions across the United States. The cases were filed by persons alleging bodily injury as result of exposure to asbestos-containing products. Since 2000, the number of those claims has increased and the resolution of these claims may take a significant period of time. Most of these claims have been made against the Company's wholly owned subsidiary, Railroad Friction Products Corporation, and are based on a product sold by RFPC prior to the time that the Company acquired any interest in RFPC. On April 17, 2005, a claim against the Company by a former stockholder of RFPC contending that the Company assumed that entity's liability for asbestos claims arising from exposure to RFPC's product was resolved in the Company's favor. Most of these claims, including all of the RFPC claims, are submitted to insurance carriers for defense and indemnity or to non-affiliated companies that retain the liabilities for the asbestos-containing products at issue. The Company's ultimate legal and financial liability with respect to these claims, as is the case with other pending litigation, cannot be estimated. Wilmerding, Pa.-based Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation provides products and services for the global rail industry. Products are found on U.S. locomotives, freight cars, and passenger transit vehicles. The Company has operations in 13 countries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Todd Shipyards Facing 516 Exposure Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Todd Shipyards Corporation faced 516 asbestos-related claims, of which 12 were "malignant" claims and 504 were "non-malignant" claims, according to the Company's report for the quarter ended Sept. 28, 2008. The Company is named as a defendant in civil actions by parties alleging damages from past exposure to toxic substances, generally asbestos, at closed former facilities. The cases generally include as defendants, in addition to the Company, other ship builders and repairers, ship owners, asbestos manufacturers, distributors and installers, and equipment manufacturers and arise from injuries or illnesses allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos or other toxic substances. The Company assesses claims as they are filed and as the cases develop, analyzing them in two different categories based on severity of illness. Based on current fact patterns, certain diseases including mesothelioma, lung cancer and fully developed asbestosis are categorized by us as "malignant" claims. All others of a less medically serious nature are categorized as "non-malignant." Seattle-based Todd Shipyards Corporation, through Todd Pacific Shipyards, repairs, maintains, overhauls, and builds government- owned and commercial vessels. Services range from minor repairs to major overhauls in dry dock at the Company's Seattle-area shipyard. The U.S. government, through the U.S. Navy and the Coast Guard, accounts for more than 60 percent of the Company's shipyard sales. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sunoco Inc. Still Subject to Exposure Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sunoco, Inc. continues to be subject to legal and administrative proceedings over allegations of exposures of third parties to toxic substances like asbestos and benzene. No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Philadelphia-based Sunoco, Inc. is an oil refiner and marketer. The Company operates five refineries, which have a combined processing capacity of 910,000 barrels of crude oil a day, and it has 5,450 miles of oil and refined products pipelines and 38 product terminals. The Company markets its Sunoco gasoline through more than 4,680 retail outlets (including Ultra Service Centers and APlus convenience stores). ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 26,236 Claims Ongoing v. Harsco at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Harsco Corporation, as of Sept. 30, 2008, faced 26,236 pending asbestos-related personal injury claims, according to the Company's latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company has been named as one of many defendants (about 90 or more in most cases) in legal actions alleging personal injury from exposure to airborne asbestos over the past several decades. In their suits, the plaintiffs have named as defendants many manufacturers, distributors and installers of numerous types of equipment or products that allegedly contained asbestos. Most of the asbestos complaints pending against the Company have been filed in New York. Almost all of the New York complaints contain a standard claim for damages of US$20 million or US$25 million against about 90 defendants. Of these cases, 25,719 were pending in the New York Supreme Court for New York County in New York State. The other claims, totaling 517, are filed in various counties in a number of state courts, and in certain Federal District Courts (including New York), and those complaints generally assert lesser amounts of damages than the New York State court cases or do not state any amount claimed. As of Sept. 30, 2008, the Company has obtained dismissal by stipulation or summary judgment prior to trial in 17,858 cases. As of Sept. 30, 2008, the Company has been listed as a defendant in 392 Active or In Extremis asbestos cases in New York County. The Court's Order has been challenged by plaintiffs. The Company's insurance carrier has paid all legal and settlement costs and expenses to date. Camp Hill, Pa.-based Harsco Corporation's MultiServ unit offers metal reclamation, slag processing, scrap management, and other services for steel and nonferrous metals producers. Its Access Services businesses, SGB Group, H�nnebeck Group, and Patent Construction Systems, rent and sell concrete-forming equipment, scaffolding, and bridge-decking products. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gardner Denver Still Facing Injury Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gardner Denver, Inc. continues to be a defendant in a number of asbestos personal injury lawsuits and silica exposure lawsuits. The plaintiffs in these suits allege exposure to asbestos or silica from multiple sources and typically the Company is one of about 25 or more named defendants. Predecessors to the Company sometimes manufactured, distributed and sold products allegedly at issue in the pending asbestos and silica litigation lawsuits. However, neither the Company nor its predecessors ever mined, manufactured, mixed, produced or distributed asbestos fiber or silica sand, the materials that allegedly caused the injury underlying the lawsuits. Moreover, the asbestos-containing components of the Products were enclosed within the subject Products. The Company has entered into a series of cost-sharing agreements with multiple insurance companies to secure coverage for asbestos and silica lawsuits. Quincy, Ill.-based Gardner Denver, Inc. makes compressors (reciprocating, rotary screw, and sliding vane) and positive displacement and centrifugal blowers. The Company also makes well-servicing pumps for oil and natural gas companies. More than half of the Company's sales come from outside the United States. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Miss. Lawsuits Still Pending v. Transocean ---------------------------------------------------------------- Certain subsidiaries of Transocean Inc., since 2004, have been facing asbestos lawsuits filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi. These 21 complaints involved 750 plaintiffs that alleged personal injury arising out of asbestos exposure in the course of their employment by some of these defendants between 1965 and 1986. The complaints also named as defendants certain subsidiaries of TODCO and certain subsidiaries of Sedco, Inc. to whom the Company may owe indemnity. Further, the complaints named other unaffiliated defendant companies, including companies that allegedly manufactured drilling related products containing asbestos. The complaints alleged that the defendants used asbestos- containing products in connection with drilling operations and included allegations of negligence, strict liability, and claims allowed under the Jones Act and general maritime law. The plaintiffs generally sought awards of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. The Special Master who was appointed to oversee these cases required that each plaintiff file a separate amended complaint and then he dismissed the original 21 complaints. The Company said it believes it has a direct or indirect interest in 44 of the resulting complaints. The Company has not been provided with sufficient information in all claims to determine the period of the claimants' exposure to asbestos, their medical condition or the vessels potentially involved in the claims. The Company historically has maintained broad liability insurance, but it is not certain whether its insurance will cover all liabilities arising out of the 44 claims. Houston-based Transocean Inc. provides offshore drilling services for oil and gas wells. At Sept. 30, 2008, the Company owned, had partial ownership interests in or operated 137 mobile offshore drilling units. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 1,031 Suits Ongoing v. Transocean Inc. Unit ---------------------------------------------------------------- An unnamed subsidiary of Transocean Inc., as of Sept. 30, 2008, faced about 1,031 asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Some of these lawsuits include multiple plaintiffs and the Company estimates that there are 3,064 plaintiffs in these lawsuits. This subsidiary is involved in lawsuits arising out of the its involvement in the design, construction and refurbishment of major industrial complexes. The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold and its operations discontinued in 1989, and the subsidiary has no remaining assets other than the insurance policies involved in its litigation, fundings from settlements with the primary insurers and funds received from the cancellation of certain insurance policies. For many of these lawsuits, the Company has not been provided with sufficient information from the plaintiffs to determine whether all or some of the plaintiffs have claims against the subsidiary, the basis of any such claims, or the nature of their alleged injuries. The first of the asbestos-related lawsuits was filed against this subsidiary in 1990. Through Sept. 30, 2008, the amounts expended to resolve claims (including both attorneys' fees and expenses, and settlement costs) have not been material, and all deductibles with respect to the primary insurance have been satisfied. The subsidiary continues to be named as a defendant in additional lawsuits and the Company cannot predict the number of additional cases in which it may be named a defendant nor can it predict the potential costs to resolve such additional cases or to resolve the pending cases. However, the subsidiary has in excess of US$1 billion in insurance limits. Houston-based Transocean Inc. provides offshore drilling services for oil and gas wells. At Sept. 30, 2008, the Company owned, had partial ownership interests in or operated 137 mobile offshore drilling units. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allstate Cites $1.24B Reserves at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Allstate Corporation's reserves for asbestos claims were a gross of US$1.24 billion at Sept. 30, 2008, compared with US$1.30 billion at Dec. 31, 2007. The Company's reserves for asbestos claims, net of reinsurance recoverables, were US$709 million at Sept. 30, 2008, compared with US$752 million at Dec. 31, 2007. About 64 percent of the total net asbestos reserves at Sept. 30, 2008 (63 percent at Dec. 31, 2007) were for incurred but not reported estimated losses. Reserve additions for asbestos totaled US$8 million in the third quarter of 2008 compared with US$6 million in the same period of 2007. Based in Northbrook, Ill., The Allstate Corporation is a personal lines insurer. The Company sells auto, homeowners, property/casualty, and life insurance products in Canada and the United States. The Company's life insurance subsidiaries include Allstate Life, American Heritage Life, and Lincoln Benefit Life. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tronox Reserves $3.8Mil for Cleveland Plant ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tronox Incorporated, in the second quarter of 2008, reserved US$3.8 million over an asbestos-related evaluation and other associated project requirements in its Cleveland, Ohio, facility. The Company is a former subsidiary of Kerr-McGee Corporation. Triple S Refining Corporation, formerly known as Kerr-McGee Refining Corporation, owned and operated a petroleum refinery near Cleveland, Okla., until the facility was closed in 1972. In 1992, Triple S entered into a Consent Order with the Oklahoma Department of Health, which addresses the remediation of air, soil, surface water and groundwater contaminated by hydrocarbons and other refinery related materials. Facility dismantling and several interim remedial measures have been completed. In 2006, the ODEQ approved the remedial design for soil and waste remediation, which includes construction of an on-site disposal cell. Triple S has completed a reassessment of the expected soil volumes that will require placement in the previously approved disposal cell. This reassessment was required due to additional findings of asbestos impacted material. The proposed disposal cell is anticipated to begin construction in 2010. A feasibility study of groundwater remedial measures is under review by the ODEQ. Duration of remedial activities currently cannot be estimated. Additional groundwater characterization will occur upon completion of the soils and sediments removal. Although actual costs may differ from current estimates, the amount of any revisions in remediation costs, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. Oklahoma City, Okla.-based Tronox Incorporated produces titanium dioxide (Ti02). The Company's products are sold under the TRONOX brand and are used as a whitening pigment in coatings, plastics, and paper. TiO2 sales account for most of the Company's revenues. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Roper Industries Still Has Exposure Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Roper Industries, Inc. and its subsidiaries continue to face asbestos-related litigation claims, according to the Company's latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. No significant resources have been required by the Company to respond to these cases and it said it believes it has valid defenses to those claims. Sarasota, Fla.-based Roper Industries, Inc. designs, manufactures and distributes energy systems and controls, scientific and industrial imaging products and software, industrial technology products and radio frequency products and services. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Belden Cites 3 Cases Set for Trial in 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Belden Inc. recorded three asbestos-related cases scheduled for trial during 2008, according to the Company's latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 7, 2008. The Company is party to various legal proceedings and administrative actions that are incidental to its operations. These proceedings include personal injury cases, about 125 of which the Company was aware at Oct. 29, 2008, in which the Company is one of many defendants. Electricians have filed a majority of these cases, primarily in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, generally seeking compensatory, special and punitive damages. The claimants in these cases allege injury from exposure to asbestos fiber. The Company's alleged predecessors had a small number of products that contained the fiber, but ceased production of those products more than 20 years ago. Through Oct. 29, 2008, the Company has been dismissed, or reached agreement to be dismissed, in 255 similar asbestos cases without any going to trial, and with 26 of these involving any payment to the claimant. St. Louis-based Belden Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets signal transmission solutions, including cable, connectivity and active components for mission-critical applications in markets ranging from industrial automation to data centers, broadcast studios, and aerospace. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Cites 25,125 Abex Claims at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cooper Industries, Ltd., at Sept. 30, 2008, recorded 25,125 pending asbestos-related claims that are part of its obligation to Pneumo Abex Corporation. At June 30, 2008, the Company recorded 25,741 pending asbestos- related claims that are part of its obligation to Pneumo Abex. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 22, 2008) In October 1998, the Company sold its Automotive Products business to Federal-Mogul Corporation. These discontinued businesses (including the Abex Friction product line obtained from Pneumo-Abex Corporation in 1994) were operated through subsidiary companies, and the stock of those subsidiaries was sold to Federal-Mogul under a Purchase and Sale Agreement dated Aug. 17, 1998. In conjunction with the sale, Federal-Mogul indemnified the Company for certain liabilities of these subsidiary companies, including liabilities related to the Abex Friction product line and any potential liability that the Company may have to Pneumo under a 1994 Mutual Guaranty Agreement between the Company and Pneumo. On Oct. 1, 2001, Federal-Mogul and several of its affiliates filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. The Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware confirmed Federal-Mogul's plan of reorganization and Federal-Mogul emerged from bankruptcy in December 2007. As part of Federal-Mogul's Plan of Reorganization, the Company and Federal-Mogul reached a settlement agreement that was subject to approval by the Bankruptcy Court resolving Federal- Mogul's indemnification obligations to the Company. On Sept. 30, 2008, the Bankruptcy Court issued its final ruling denying the Company's participation in the proposed Federal- Mogul 524(g) trust resulting in implementation of the previously approved Plan B Settlement. As part of its obligation to Pneumo for any asbestos-related claims arising from the Abex Friction product line ("Abex Claims"), the Company has rights, confirmed by Pneumo, to significant insurance for such claims. From Aug. 28, 1998 through Sept. 30, 2008, a total of 145,474 Abex Claims were filed, of which 120,349 claims have been resolved. During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008, 1,931 claims were filed and 6,265 claims were resolved. Since Aug. 28, 1998, the average indemnity payment for resolved Abex Claims was US$2,090 before insurance. A total of US$142.1 million was spent on defense costs for the period Aug. 28, 1998 through Sept. 30, 2008. Historically, existing insurance coverage has provided 50 percent to 80 percent of the total defense and indemnity payments for Abex Claims. However, insurance recovery is currently at a lower percentage (about 30 percent) due to exhaustion of primary layers of coverage and litigation with certain excess insurers. Houston-based Cooper Industries, Ltd. makes electrical products, tools, hardware, and metal support products. The Company's electrical products include electrical and circuit protection devices, residential and industrial lighting, and electrical power and distribution products for use by utility companies. Customers in the United States provide more than 70 percent of the Company's sales. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Cites $816.8M Liability at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cooper Industries, Ltd., as of Sept. 30, 2008, estimates that the asbestos-related liability for pending and future indemnity and defense costs for the next 45 years will be US$816.8 million. The estimated liability is before any tax benefit and is not discounted as the timing of the actual payments is not reasonably predictable. However, a discounted value would likely be about 60 percent or less of the US$816.8 million liability recorded. Pneumo Abex Corporation discontinued using asbestos in the Abex Friction product line in the 1970s and epidemiological studies that are publicly available indicate the incidence of asbestos- related disease is in decline and should continue to decline steadily. The Company utilized scenarios that it believed were reasonably possible that indicate a broader range of potential estimates from US$735 to US$950 million. Houston-based Cooper Industries, Ltd. makes electrical products, tools, hardware, and metal support products. The Company's electrical products include electrical and circuit protection devices, residential and industrial lighting, and electrical power and distribution products for use by utility companies. Customers in the United States provide more than 70 percent of the Company's sales. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Cites $192.3M Receivable at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cooper Industries, Ltd.'s receivable for recoveries of costs from insurers amounted to US$192.3 million, as of Sept. 30, 2008, of which US$72.7 million relate to costs previously paid or insurance settlements. The Company, through Pneumo-Abex LLC, as of Sept. 30, 2008, has access to Abex insurance policies with remaining limits on policies with solvent insurers in excess of US$750 million. Insurance recoveries reflected as receivables in the balance sheet include recoveries where insurance-in-place agreements, settlements or policy recoveries are probable. The Company's arrangements with the insurance carriers defer certain amounts of insurance and settlement proceeds that the Company is entitled to receive beyond 12 months. About 90 percent of the US$192.3 million receivable from insurance companies at Sept. 30, 2008 is due from domestic insurers whose AM Best rating is Excellent (A-) or better. The remaining balance of the insurance receivable has been significantly discounted to reflect management's best estimate of the recoverable amount. Houston-based Cooper Industries, Ltd. makes electrical products, tools, hardware, and metal support products. The Company's electrical products include electrical and circuit protection devices, residential and industrial lighting, and electrical power and distribution products for use by utility companies. Customers in the United States provide more than 70 percent of the Company's sales. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allegheny Has 845 W.Va. Claims at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Allegheny Energy, Inc., as of Sept. 30, 2008, faced 845 asbestos exposure claims in West Virginia, according to the Company's latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. As of Sept. 30, 2008, the Company faced five claims in West Virginia. The Company's asbestos exposure claims, as of June 30, 2008, totaled 848, of which 842 were filed in West Virginia and four were filed in Pennsylvania. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 22, 2008) The Company's Distribution Companies (Monongahela Power Company, The Potomac Edison Company, and West Penn Power Company) have been named as defendants in pending asbestos cases alleging bodily injury involving multiple plaintiffs and multiple sites. These suits have been brought mostly by seasonal contractors' employees and do not involve allegations of the manufacture, sale or distribution of asbestos-containing products by the Company. These asbestos suits arise out of historical operations and are related to the installation and removal of asbestos-containing materials at the Company's generation facilities. The Company's historical operations were insured by various foreign and domestic insurers, including Lloyd's of London. Asbestos-related litigation expenses have to date been reimbursed in full by recoveries from these historical insurers, and the Company said it believes that it has sufficient insurance to respond fully to the asbestos suits. Certain insurers, however, have contested their obligations to pay for the future defense and settlement costs relating to the asbestos suits. The Company is currently involved in three asbestos and environmental insurance-related actions. These actions are: -- Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London et al. v. Allegheny Energy, Inc. et al., Case No. 21-C-03-16733 (Washington County, Md.), -- Monongahela Power Company et al. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London and London Market Companies, et al., Civil Action No. 03-C-281 (Monongalia County, W.Va.); and -- Allegheny Energy, Inc. et al. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Civil Action No. 07-3168-BLS (Suffolk Superior Court, MA). The parties in these actions seek a declaration of coverage under the policies for asbestos-related and environmental claims. Greensburg, Pa.-based Allegheny Energy, Inc. is an integrated energy business that owns and operates electric generation facilities and delivers electric services to customers in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland and Virginia. The Company's two business segments are the Delivery and Services segment and the Generation and Marketing segment. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IPALCO Unit Facing 113 Lawsuits at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- IPALCO Enterprises, Inc.'s subsidiary, Indianapolis Power & Light Company, faced about 113 pending asbestos-related lawsuits as of Sept. 30, 2008, compared with 114 suits as of Dec. 31, 2007. These suits allege personal injury or wrongful death stemming from exposure to asbestos and asbestos containing products formerly located in IPL power plants. IPL has been named as a "premises defendant" in that it did not mine, manufacture, distribute or install asbestos or asbestos containing products. These suits have been brought on behalf of persons who worked for contractors or subcontractors hired by IPL. IPL has insurance which may cover some portions of these claims. Currently, these cases are being defended by counsel retained by various insurers who wrote policies applicable to the period of time during which much of the exposure has been alleged. Indianapolis-based IPALCO Enterprises, Inc. is a subsidiary of The AES Corporation. The Company owns all of the outstanding common stock of its subsidiaries. These include its regulated electric utility subsidiary, Indianapolis Power & Light Company, and its unregulated subsidiary, Mid-America Capital Resources, Inc. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Settles w/ Md. Schools on AHERA Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has settled four cases in Maryland in an effort to ensure the safe management of asbestos-containing materials in schools, according to a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency press release dated Nov. 12, 2008. In separate consent agreements with EPA, the Board of Education of Dorchester County Schools, St. Timothy's School in Stevenson, Md., the First English Evangelical Lutheran Church preschool and kindergarten in Baltimore, and Saint Paul's Evangelical Lutheran Church School in Kingsville, Md., have settled alleged violations of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA), the federal law requiring schools to inspect and manage asbestos-containing building materials. The three individual schools and one school district were cited for include failing to include all school buildings in the management plan, failure to conduct an initial inspection of all school buildings to determine if there was any asbestos located in the facility, failure to submit an asbestos management plan, failure to conduct reinspections of all friable and nonfriable asbestos every three years, and failure to provide annual notification of the management plan to parents, teachers, and employee organizations. EPA did not find that students or other building occupants were exposed to asbestos as a result of the alleged violations. The schools that were cited have now certified their compliance with the AHERA requirements. Under AHERA, EPA may agree to reduce or eliminate penalties due to the schools' cooperation with EPA, compliance activities and expenditures. The four Maryland settlement agreements are: -- EPA inspected St. Timothy's School, Stevenson, Md., and cited it for failing to maintain copies of updated management plans in the school, failing to inspect the athletic complex, and failing to provide annual notification to parents, teachers, and employees. The school has spent at least $17,195 to come into compliance, so there is a zero penalty amount. -- EPA inspected 13 schools in the Dorchester County Public School district, headquartered in Cambridge, Md. The violations vary from school to school but include failure to conduct reinspections of nine facilities every three years and failure to make management plans available for inspection. Dorchester County Public Schools has spent at least US$55,250 to comply with AHERA regulations, so there is zero penalty amount. -- EPA cited First English Evangelical Lutheran Church, Baltimore, Md. for AHERA violations discovered during inspections by the Maryland Department of the Environment, which included failure to have an initial inspection conducted at the facility to determine whether there was any asbestos in the facility prior to its use as a school, and failure to submit an asbestos management plan for the facility. EPA determined the civil penalty to be US$5,500. The school has spent US$3,000 on compliance and agrees to an additional penalty of US$2,500. -- EPA cited Saint Paul's Evangelical Lutheran Church, Kingsville, Md., for failing to include the parish hall, a school building used for recreational activities, in the management plans. The school has spent US$5,682 to come into compliance, so there is a zero penalty amount. The Nov. 12, 2008 action contributes to EPA's record-shattering enforcement results for the 2008 Fiscal Year. To date, EPA has concluded enforcement actions requiring polluters to spend an estimated US$11 billion on pollution controls, clean-up and environmental projects, an all time record for EPA. After these activities are completed, EPA expects annual pollution reductions of more than three billion pounds. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Freedom to Pay GBP6T for Mishandling Charge ---------------------------------------------------------------- Freedom Finance, a Wilmslow, Chesire, England-based firm known for looking after its employees, has been fined GBP6,000 for exposing them to asbestos, the Manchester Evening News reports. Freedom Finance pleaded guilty at Macclesfield Magistrates' Court to three offences of failing to manage asbestos. An employee complained in June 2007 to Macclesfield council that he might have been exposed to damaged asbestos while at work. It happened after an insurance company survey found asbestos in the boiler room and lift motor room at the Company's offices in Brook House, Church Road, Macclesfield. The court heard that Freedom Finance had arranged for the surveys to be carried out in April 2007 and June 2007, some three years later than it should have done, following a request from their insurers. A council investigation found that a number of employees had been exposed to asbestos. The Company was fined a total of GBP6,000 for breaching three different health and safety laws and ordered to pay council costs of almost GBP1,200. Freedom Finance has twice been included in The Sunday Times Best Company to work for list and also has Investors in People status. Freedom Finance has been praised for the way it treats employees. It has a Bupa Employee Scheme, a discount scheme, benefits such as above-average holiday entitlement and a pension scheme, a health and safety awareness program and NVQ training open to all staff. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kramer Pays $5T Penalty for Botched Cleanup ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gus Kramer, the assessor of Contra Costa County, Calif., paid US$5,000 to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for improperly demolishing a Bay Point house after ignoring warnings that it contained asbestos, The Mercury News reports. Officials say that Mr. Kramer violated numerous Bay Area Air Quality Management District regulations: -- Late notice of demolition; -- Asbestos was not removed before demolition; -- No survey was conducted; asbestos was discovered after demolition; -- Waste was not contained properly; and -- No waste records were kept. Mr. Kramer said the district erred in its report and that it makes demolition too difficult for the average person. He said, "The way I was treated by the air board was one more reason people hate government. My advice to the public is to never tear down a home. Let some demolition contractor do it who probably has some relationship with the air (expletive)." Mr. Kramer said the violations date to January 2006 he decided to demolish a vacant house he owned on Bella Vista Avenue after it was torched and had become a dumping ground and eyesore. A friend had gutted the house to its studs in 1992, so, Mr. Kramer said, he knew the house was asbestos free. District spokeswoman Jennifer Alverson said a base fine for improper asbestos removal is US$1,000. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: McCarty Says Many Workers Have False Papers ---------------------------------------------------------------- Don McCarty, manager for the Georgia Environmental Protection Division, says many of the people who work in asbestos removal have false documents, Times-Herald.com reports. Mr. McCarty told members of White Oak Golden K in Newnan, Ga., that Georgia has a number of regulations regarding asbestos, including a requirement for people who work at asbestos removal to complete certain training. A certificate program shows a person has completed that training, but Mr. McCarty told the group of about 70 at the Special Events Center that many of the people who can produce a certificate have not actually earned one. Mr. McCarty said that when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency checked a site in Florida where 89 people were working, the EPA found a third of the workers had authentic certificates, a third were working with a bogus certificate and Social Security number and a third had certificates with the names of "people who were dead." Fake certificates are sometimes made for illegal aliens, and sometimes workers have multiple false certificates from different states. Mr. McCarty said many building products still contain some asbestos. The EPA issued a ban on asbestos in 1989. A federal court subsequently ruled EPD could not ban existing uses of asbestos. Many people, Mr. McCarty said, heard about the ban but not about it being overturned. Because of the North American Free Trade Agreement, products can come from outside the United States that contain asbestos. Mr. McCarty said there are some 3,500 building products on the U.S. market that still contain asbestos. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wash. Court Orders Ross to Undergo Autopsy ---------------------------------------------------------------- A court is ordering James Ross, who is expected to die from mesothelioma, to undergo an autopsy after his death, in order for his estate to sue the company that allegedly exposed him to asbestos, Asbestos.Com reports. However, Mr. Ross is objecting to the procedure. Mr. Ross worked around asbestos for several decades during his employment with Burlington Northern Railroad. He also worked on a home remodeling during the 1960s and 1970s that he believes exposed him to the toxic substance. Mr. Ross is objecting to the procedure of an autopsy on moral grounds and is asking for the requirement to be waived even though it will make his case more difficult to prove. The defendants, Kaiser Gypsum and T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition, LLC believe the case should be dismissed if Mr. Ross does not comply with the request of the autopsy. According to Washington Law, individuals in asbestos litigation can opt out of the autopsy if they cite religious reasons. However, Mr. Ross is objecting because he believes that an autopsy results in the destruction and disfiguration of the body. The lawsuit has yet to move to trial because the defendants claim Mr. Ross has not been diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma. Though Mr. Ross and his lawyer understand the importance of an autopsy in their case, they are willing to stand by their decision in order to help future cases and their right to deny an autopsy. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: HSE Cites 131 Asbestos Claims in Calderdale ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Health and Safety Executive reports that a total of 131 people in Calderdale, West Yorkshire, England, have died from mesothelioma, the Evening Courier reports. The 131 in Calderdale includes workers at the Acre Mills asbestos factory at Old Town, Hebden Bridge, which closed in 1971. HSE figures for 1981 to 2005 show Calderdale has the fewest cases in West Yorkshire. However, chiefs warn that in years to come the biggest threat is likely to be to tradespeople rather than factory workers. Dr David Snowball, the HSE's regional director, said. "Exposure to asbestos is the biggest single cause of work-related deaths, with around 4,000 people a year dying. "Overall deaths are rising because a large number of workers already exposed to asbestos dust around 40 years ago will go on to develop mesothelioma." Between 1981 and 2005, mesothelioma claimed 579 people in Leeds, 213 in Kirklees, 197 in Bradford and 155 in Wakefield. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Inquest Links Barker's Death to Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- An inquest on Nov. 12, 2008 heard that the death of 67-year-old Robert Barker was linked to exposure to asbestos, the Diss Express reports. Mr. Barker, of East Harling, Norfolk, England, spent his working life as a production worker laborer and fork lift truck driver between 1959 and 1962 in Uxbridge and was exposed to asbestos powder put into a hopper. Mr. Barker was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in August 2008 and died on Oct. 24, 2008. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Armstrong's Death to Asbestos ---------------------------------------------------------------- An inquest in Kettering, England, on Nov. 17, 2008, heard that the death of 60-year-old Terence Armstrong was linked to workplace exposure to asbestos, the Evening Telegraph. Mr. Armstrong died at his home on July 28, 2008. The court heard that Mr. Armstrong had worked in several jobs as a carpenter and had been exposed to asbestos during this time. Coroner Anne Pember recorded a verdict that the death was due to an industrial disease. She said, "Sadly, he was exposed to asbestos and many years ago the dangers were not known and protective clothing not supplied." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: York Sufferers to Get Faster Compensation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Campaigners in York, England, welcomed new rules granting all victims of asbestos to get swift compensation from the United Kingdom Government, The Press reports. These victims include the wives of former York Carriageworks employees. Kim Daniells, the founder and chairwoman of the York Asbestos Support Group, said that until now, only people who were exposed to lethal asbestos dust during their work were able to claim state compensation. However, now anyone contracting the mesothelioma can claim the lump sum payment, including housewives who used to wash their husbands' overalls and breathed in the deadly dust. The Press reported earlier this decade how Lilian Browne died in 2000, aged 82, after developing mesothelioma. Her husband, Cyril, had worked as an engineer at the Carriageworks and changed out of his dirty overalls on arriving home after a day's work. In 2006, the newspaper reported how Marjorie Fox, 61, of Acomb, used to shake and then wash her carpenter husband's work clothes after he came home from work, and she believed this had caused the illness. On Nov. 13, 2008, Ms. Daniells said that Pensions Minister Lord McKenzie had said in a letter that people would now receive the lump sum within six weeks of claiming. She said the payments were calculated on a sliding scale, from a few thousand pounds to perhaps GBP20,000. People diagnosed as suffering from mesothelioma often needed swift payments of compensation to help pay mortgages and other bills, and their expected life span was often short. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Doberstein's Suit Filed in Ill. on Oct. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Donald A. Doberstein, of Wisconsin, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., on Oct. 30, 2008, JusticeNewsFlash.com reports. Mr. Doberstein filed the lawsuit stemming from his workplace exposure to asbestos. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma. The suit names various manufacturing companies like Sprinkmann Sons Corporation of Illinois and Young Insulation Group of St. Louis, where these asbestos insulation and linings were commonplace. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Court Denies Appeal in Clemenceau Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- A legal battle to stop the asbestos-contaminated French aircraft carrier, Clemenceau, being allowed into the United Kingdom for dismantling in County Durham has failed at the Court of Appeal, the Northumberland Gazette reports. Once the flagship of the French Navy, the Clemenceau was considered too toxic for Indian breakers' yards and is now destined for Graythorp, near Hartlepool, to be broken up by Able UK Ltd. Through law firm Public Interest Lawyers, campaign group Friends of Hartlepool challenged a High Court decision in September 2008, which allowed the project to go ahead. However, Lords Justice Rix, Dyson and Jackson dismissed the appeal, saying they would give their reasons at a later date. The Clemenceau, now known as Hull Q790, is estimated to contain 760 tons of asbestos and 330 tons of polychlorinated biphenyls. It has been docked off the port of Brest, France, since 2006, when the French government called it back from India in the wake of protests. Lawyers for the campaign group argued that the decision of the Health and Safety Executive to allow the importation of the Clemenceau and its carcinogenic cargo was unlawful. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Harrington Widow Loses Compensation Battle ---------------------------------------------------------------- James Harrington's widow, Iris Harrington, has been refused a penny in asbestos-related compensation, the Pontefract & Castelford Express reports. Mrs. Harrington blamed Mr. Harrington's death on his work at Fryston Colliery. Mrs. Harrington sought GBP80,000 in damages after Mr. Harrington died in July 2007 at the age of 70 of mesothelioma. Mr. Harrington worked as an apprentice bricklayer at the Castleford, England, pit when he was a teenager, between 1956 and 1958. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. County Needs $21Mil for Office Cleanup ---------------------------------------------------------------- Oneida County, N.Y., estimates to spend at least US$21 million to rid its office building in Utica, N.Y., of asbestos, The Observer-Dispatch reports. The office building was dedicated and opened to the public on June 13, 1970. At the time, asbestos-containing materials were widely used in construction. County Executive Anthony Picente said the asbestos contamination scare showed the abatement that was already under way is worth the money. "In normal office buildings, OSHA expects us to assume materials that are from 1980 or older have asbestos," Tom Laubenthal of the Atlanta-based Environmental Institute said, referring to the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The county already has spent about US$5.5 million on asbestos abatement on three floors of the 10-story building, as well as one of the basement levels, said Mark Laramie, the county Public Works Department's deputy commissioner of engineering. Completing such work on the rest of the building should cost another US$15.4 million, Mr. Laramie added. The county office building was shut on Nov. 12, 2008 after asbestos-containing material was found near the building's ventilation system. The material was discovered on Nov. 11, 2008, when the building was closed for Veterans Day. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos-Related Deaths Rise in Lancashire ---------------------------------------------------------------- Health and safety bosses warned that the rates of which people are dying of mesothelioma are increasing, the Lancashire Evening Post reports. More than 500 people in Lancashire, England, have died from asbestos-related cancer over a 24-year period. Wyre has the worst rate of asbestos-related deaths in the county. A total of 80 people died in the 24 years since 1981. The latest figures, included in a National Statistics report on mesothelioma deaths, reveal in Preston 60 people died from mesothelioma and 55 in Chorley. Chorley and South Ribble also have the highest rate of female casualties, 18 deaths. Alan Manning, regional secretary of the TUC union, which represents many tradesmen, said, "Asbestos may no longer be in use, but even those starting out in their careers in industry might encounter it as they refurbish, repair and refit ageing buildings." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court to Deny Petition Review in McGreevy ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, will deny a Petition for Review filed by Consolidation Coal Company, in an asbestos- related lawsuit involving John R. McGreevy. The case is styled Consolidation Coal Company, Petitioner v. John R. McGreevy; Benefits Review Board; Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, U.S. Department of Labor, Respondents. Judges Dolores Korman Sloviter, Morton Ira Greenberg, and Joseph E. Irenas entered judgment in Case No. 07-3944 on Nov. 10, 2008. Mr. McGreevy is an 81-year-old man who worked as a coal miner for Consolidation for 28 years and claimed he suffers from pneumoconiosis caused from exposure to "coal mine dust and asbestos during his mining career." Mr. McGreevy filed an unsuccessful claim with the Department of Labor ("DOL") for federal black lung benefits in 1993. In 2001, he filed a second claim, which was denied in 2002, and his case was forwarded to an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). Before the ALJ, Mr. McGreevy testified that he started smoking cigarettes when he was 17 or 18 years old, smoked between two and three packs per day before quitting in 1989, but still smoked "small cigars once or twice a day." On appeal, the Benefits Review Board vacated the ALJ's findings that Mr. McGreevy established the existence of pneumoconiosis, that Mr. McGreevy's medical condition had changed since the denial of his first black lung claim, and that Mr. McGreevy was totally disabled. The Board remanded the case to the ALJ to reconsider the medical opinions of Drs. Garson, Fino, and Renn, with consideration to whether Dr. Garson's opinion was "merely a restatement of an x- ray opinion." On remand, the ALJ again awarded benefits, explaining that Dr. Garson's opinion was still the most persuasive. The Board affirmed the award on June 29, 2007, and this petition followed. Consolidation petitioned for review of the decision of the Board, affirming an award of disability benefits Mr. McGreevy under the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, as amended, known as the Black Lung Benefits Act ("BLBA"). William S. Mattingly, Esq., for Jackson Kelly in Morgantown, W.Va., represented Consolidation Coal Company. Cheryl C. Cowen, Esq., in Waynesburg, Pa., represented John R. McGreevy. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany Int'l. Has 18,385 Claims at Oct. 27 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Albany International Corp. was defending against 18,385 asbestos claims as of Oct. 27, 2008, compared with 18,462 claims as of July 25, 2008, 18,529 claims as of May 2, 2008, and 18,789 claims as of Feb. 1, 2008. The Company faces lawsuits brought in various courts in the United States by plaintiffs who allege that they have suffered personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products previously manufactured by the Company. Albany produced asbestos-containing paper machine clothing synthetic dryer fabrics marketed from 1967 to 1976 and used in certain paper mills. These suits allege a variety of lung and other diseases based on alleged exposure to products previously manufactured by the Company. As of Oct. 27, 2008, the Company noted 523 claims dismissed, settled or resolved and 110 new claims. Amounts paid to settle or resolve claims were US$52,000. As of Oct. 27, 2008, about 12,436 of the claims pending against the Company were pending in Mississippi. Of these, about 11,871 are in federal court, at the multidistrict litigation panel, either through removal or original jurisdiction. In addition to the 11,871 Mississippi claims pending against the Company at the MDL, there are about 888 claims pending against the Company at the MDL removed from various U.S. District Courts in other states. As of Oct. 27, 2008, the remaining 5,949 claims pending against the Company were pending in states other than Mississippi. On May 31, 2007 the MDL issued an administrative order that required each MDL plaintiff to provide detailed information regarding the alleged asbestos-related medical diagnoses. The order does not require exposure information with this initial filing. The first set of plaintiffs were required to submit their filings with the Court by Aug. 1, 2007, with deadlines for additional sets of plaintiffs monthly thereafter until Dec. 1, 2007, but the process is continuing with defendants reviewing the submissions for compliance. The Company's insurer, Liberty Mutual, has defended each case and funded settlements under a standard reservation of rights. As of Oct. 27, 2008, the Company had resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 22,046 claims. The total cost of resolving all claims was US$6,758,000. Of this amount, US$6,713,000, or 99 percent, was paid by the Company's insurance carrier. The Company has about US$130 million in confirmed insurance coverage that should be available with respect to current and future asbestos claims, as well as additional insurance coverage that it should be able to access. Albany International Corp. makes paper machine clothing (PMC, custom-made fabric belts that move paper stock through each phase of production). The Company produces about 45 percent of the monofilament yarn used in its paper machine clothing and relies on independent suppliers for the remainder. The Company also makes industrial fabric doors (Rapid Roll Doors) like aircraft hangar doors, dock doors, synthetic insulation, and industrial fabric filters. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Brandon Drying Has 8,664 Claims at Oct. 27 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Albany International Corp.'s affiliate, Brandon Drying Fabrics, Inc., was defending against 8,664 asbestos-related claims as of Oct. 27, 2008, compared with 8,672 claims as of July 25, 2008, 8,689 claims as of May 2, 2008, and 8,741 claims as of Feb. 1, 2008. As of Oct. 27, 2008, the Company noted 86 Brandon claims dismissed, settled or resolved and 10 new claims. The Company acquired Geschmay Corp., formerly known as Wangner Systems Corporation, in 1999. Brandon is a wholly owned subsidiary of Geschmay Corp. In 1978, Brandon acquired certain assets from Abney Mills, a South Carolina textile manufacturer. Among the assets acquired by Brandon from Abney were assets of Abney's wholly-owned subsidiary, Brandon Sales, Inc., which had sold dryer fabrics containing asbestos made by its parent, Abney. It is believed that Abney ceased production of asbestos-containing fabrics prior to the 1978 transaction. As of Oct. 27, 2008, Brandon has resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 8,911 claims for a total of US$152,499. Brandon's insurance carriers initially agreed to pay 88.2 percent of the total indemnification and defense costs related to these proceedings. The remaining 11.8 percent of the costs had been borne directly by Brandon. During 2004, Brandon's insurance carriers agreed to cover 100 percent of indemnification and defense costs and too reimburse Brandon for all indemnity and defense costs paid directly by Brandon related to these proceedings. As of Oct. 27, 2008, 6,821 (or about 79 percent) of the claims pending against Brandon were pending in Mississippi. Albany International Corp. makes paper machine clothing (PMC, custom-made fabric belts that move paper stock through each phase of production). The Company produces about 45 percent of the monofilament yarn used in its paper machine clothing and relies on independent suppliers for the remainder. The Company also makes industrial fabric doors (Rapid Roll Doors) like aircraft hangar doors, dock doors, synthetic insulation, and industrial fabric filters. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany Int'l. Still Has Mt. Vernon Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- In some of the asbestos cases filed against it, Albany International Corp., still is named both as a direct defendant and as the "successor in interest" to Mount Vernon Mills. The Company acquired certain assets from Mount Vernon in 1993. Certain plaintiffs allege injury caused by asbestos-containing products alleged to have been sold by Mount Vernon many years prior to this acquisition. Mount Vernon is contractually obligated to indemnify the Company against any liability arising out of such products. The Company denies any liability for products sold by Mount Vernon prior to the acquisition of the Mount Vernon assets. Under its contractual indemnification obligations, Mount Vernon has assumed the defense of these claims. On this basis, the Company has successfully moved for dismissal in a number of actions. Albany International Corp. makes paper machine clothing (PMC, custom-made fabric belts that move paper stock through each phase of production). The Company produces about 45 percent of the monofilament yarn used in its paper machine clothing and relies on independent suppliers for the remainder. The Company also makes industrial fabric doors (Rapid Roll Doors) like aircraft hangar doors, dock doors, synthetic insulation, and industrial fabric filters. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Damage, Injury Suits Ongoing v. W. R. Grace ---------------------------------------------------------------- W. R. Grace & Co. continues to be a defendant in property damage and personal injury lawsuits relating to previously-sold asbestos-containing products. As of the April 2, 2001 Bankruptcy Filing Date, the Company was a defendant in 65,656 asbestos-related lawsuits, 17 involving Property Damage Claims (one of which has since been dismissed), and the remainder involving 129,191 Personal Injury Claims. Due to the Filing, holders of asbestos-related claims are stayed from continuing to prosecute pending litigation and from commencing new lawsuits against the Debtors. The Personal Injury and Property Damage Committees, representing the interests of property damage and personal injury claimants, respectively, and the legal representative of future asbestos claimants (FCR), representing the interests of future personal injury claimants, have been appointed in the Chapter 11 Cases. The Company's obligations with respect to present and future claims will be determined through the Chapter 11 process. Columbia, Md.-based W. R. Grace & Co., through its subsidiaries, engages in specialty chemicals and specialty materials businesses through two operating segments: "Grace Davison," which includes specialty catalysts and materials used in energy, refining, consumer, industrial, packaging and life sciences applications; and "Grace Construction Products," which includes specialty chemicals and materials used in commercial, infrastructure and residential construction. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace Has 445 Damage Claims at Oct. 20 ---------------------------------------------------------------- W. R. Grace & Co. says that, as of Oct. 20, 2008, following the reclassification, withdrawal or expungement of claims, about 445 asbestos-related Property Damage Claims, subject to a March 31, 2003 bar date, remain outstanding. The Bankruptcy Court has approved settlement agreements covering about 310 of those claims for an aggregate allowed amount of US$92 million. The Company said that, as of June 30, 2008, following the reclassification, withdrawal or expungement of claims, 460 asbestos-related property damage claims remained outstanding. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 29, 2008) The plaintiffs in asbestos property damage lawsuits generally seek to have the defendants pay for the cost of removing, containing or repairing the asbestos-containing materials in the affected buildings. Out of 380 asbestos property damage cases (which involved thousands of buildings) filed before the April 2, 2001 Bankruptcy Filing Date, 140 were dismissed without payment of any damages or settlement amounts. Judgments after trial were entered in favor of the Company in nine cases (excluding cases settled following appeals of judgments in favor of the Company). Judgments after trial were entered in favor of the plaintiffs in eight cases (one of which is on appeal) for a total of US$86.1 million, 207 property damage cases were settled for a total of US$696.8 million, and 16 cases remain outstanding (including the one on appeal). Of the 16 remaining cases, eight relate to Zonolite Attic Insulation and eight relate to a number of former asbestos- containing products (two of which also are alleged to involve ZAI). About 4,035 additional PD Claims were filed prior to the March 31, 2003 claims bar date established by the Bankruptcy Court. Eight of the ZAI property damage cases were filed as purported class action lawsuits in 2000 and 2001. In addition, 10 lawsuits were filed as purported class actions in 2004 and 2005 with respect to persons and homes in Canada. These cases seek damages and equitable relief, including the removal, replacement and disposal of all such insulation. The plaintiffs assert that this product is in millions of homes and that the cost of removal could be several thousand dollars per home. As a result of the Filing, the eight U.S. cases have been stayed. At the Debtors' request, in July 2008, the Bankruptcy Court established a bar date for U.S. ZAI PD Claims and approved a related notice program that requires persons with a U.S. ZAI PD Claim to submit individual proofs of claim no later than Oct. 31, 2008. The Bankruptcy Court denied the first three requests and has taken the motion to certify a class claim under advisement. On Sept. 2, 2008, the Company, Grace Canada and legal representatives of Canadian ZAI property damage claimants entered into an agreement (the "Minutes of Settlement") that would settle all Canadian ZAI PD Claims. The Minutes of Settlement were approved by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in the Grace Canada, Inc. proceeding pending under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, on Oct. 17, 2008. Under the Minutes of Settlement, all CDN ZAI PD Claims would be paid through a separate Canadian ZAI PD Claims fund to which the PD Trust would contribute CDN6.5 million. On Oct. 20, 2008, the Bankruptcy Court established Aug. 31, 2009 as the bar date for Canadian ZAI PD Claims. Columbia, Md.-based W. R. Grace & Co., through its subsidiaries, engages in specialty chemicals and specialty materials businesses through two operating segments: "Grace Davison," which includes specialty catalysts and materials used in energy, refining, consumer, industrial, packaging and life sciences applications; and "Grace Construction Products," which includes specialty chemicals and materials used in commercial, infrastructure and residential construction. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Personal Injury Suits Ongoing v. W.R. Grace ---------------------------------------------------------------- W. R. Grace & Co. still faces asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits, in which claimants allege adverse health effects from exposure to asbestos-containing products formerly manufactured by the Company. Cumulatively through the April 2, 2001 Bankruptcy Filing Date, 16,354 asbestos personal injury lawsuits involving about 35,720 Personal Injury Claims were dismissed without payment of any damages or settlement amounts (primarily on the basis that the Company products were not involved) and about 55,489 lawsuits involving approximately 163,698 PI Claims were disposed of (through settlements and judgments) for a total of US$645.6 million. As of the Filing Date, 129,191 PI Claims for personal injury were pending against the Company. The Company said it believes that a substantial number of additional PI Claims would have been received between the Filing Date and Sept. 30, 2008 had such PI Claims not been stayed by the Bankruptcy Court. The Bankruptcy Court has entered separate case management orders for estimating liability for pending and future PI Claims and adjudicating pending PD Claims, excluding Zonolite Attic Insulation claims. A trial for estimating liability for PI Claims began in January 2008 but was suspended in April 2008 as a result of the PI Settlement. Columbia, Md.-based W. R. Grace & Co., through its subsidiaries, engages in specialty chemicals and specialty materials businesses through two operating segments: "Grace Davison," which includes specialty catalysts and materials used in energy, refining, consumer, industrial, packaging and life sciences applications; and "Grace Construction Products," which includes specialty chemicals and materials used in commercial, infrastructure and residential construction. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Maintains $916MM Coverage at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- W. R. Grace & Co. says that, as of Sept. 30, 2008, there remains about US$916 million of asbestos-related excess coverage from 53 presently solvent insurers. The Company said that, as of June 30, 2008, there remained about US$917 million of excess coverage from 54 presently solvent insurers. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 29, 2008) The Company holds insurance policies that provide coverage for 1962 to 1985 with respect to asbestos-related lawsuits and claims. For the most part, coverage for years 1962 through 1972 has been exhausted, leaving coverage for years 1973 through 1985 available for pending and future asbestos claims. Since 1985, insurance coverage for asbestos-related liabilities has not been commercially available to the Company. The Company has entered into settlement agreements with various excess insurance carriers. These settlements involve amounts paid and to be paid to the Company. The unpaid maximum aggregate amount available under these settlement agreements is about US$433 million. Presently, the Company has no settlement agreements in place with insurers with respect to about US$483 million of excess coverage. Those policies are at layers of coverage that have not yet been triggered, but certain layers would be triggered if the Prior Plan were approved at the recorded asbestos-related liability of US$1.7 billion. In addition, the Company has about US$254 million of excess coverage with insolvent or non-paying insurance carriers. In November 2006, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with an underwriter of a portion of its excess insurance coverage. The insurer paid a settlement amount of US$90 million directly to an escrow account for the benefit of the holders of claims for which the Company was provided coverage under the affected policies. The escrow account balance at Sept. 30, 2008 was about US$96.7 million, including interest earned on the account. Funds will be distributed from this account directly to claimants at the direction of the escrow agent under the terms of a confirmed plan of reorganization or as otherwise ordered by the Bankruptcy Court. The settlement agreement provides that unless the Company confirms a plan of reorganization by Dec. 31, 2008, at the option of the insurer, exercisable at any time prior to April 30, 2009, the escrow amount with interest must be returned to the insurer. The Company estimates that eligible claims would have to exceed US$4 billion to access total coverage. The Company further estimates that, assuming the resolution value of asbestos- related claims is equal to the recorded liability of US$1.7 billion (which should fund claim payments in excess of US$2 billion), it should be entitled to about US$500 million of insurance recovery, including the escrow. Columbia, Md.-based W. R. Grace & Co., through its subsidiaries, engages in specialty chemicals and specialty materials businesses through two operating segments: "Grace Davison," which includes specialty catalysts and materials used in energy, refining, consumer, industrial, packaging and life sciences applications; and "Grace Construction Products," which includes specialty chemicals and materials used in commercial, infrastructure and residential construction. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W. R. Grace Records $50.4M Libby Liability ---------------------------------------------------------------- W. R. Grace & Co.'s total estimated liability for asbestos remediation related to its former vermiculite operations in Libby, Mont., including the cost of remediation at vermiculite processing sites outside of Libby, was US$50.4 million at Sept. 30, 2008, compared with USUS$270.8 million at Dec. 31, 2007. The Company's total estimated liability for asbestos remediation related to its former vermiculite operations in Libby, including the cost of remediation at vermiculite processing sites outside of Libby, was US$200.9 million at June 30, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 29, 2008) As a result of a 2003 U.S. District Court ruling, the Company was required to reimburse the U.S. Government for US$54.5 million (plus interest) in costs expended through December 2001, and for all appropriate future costs to complete asbestos- related remediation relating to the Company's former vermiculite mining and processing activities in the Libby, Mont., area. These costs include cleaning and demolition of contaminated buildings, excavation and removal of contaminated soil, health screening of Libby residents and former mine workers, and investigation and monitoring costs. The Company and the U.S. Department of Justice agreed to settle the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's cost recovery claims with respect to the Company's former Libby operations for a payment by the Company of US$250 million (including the US$54.5 million). The settlement covers all past and future remediation costs in the Libby area, except for those relating to the Company-owned mine. In return, the EPA has agreed to take no action against the Company with respect to the Libby Asbestos Superfund Site. In June 2008, the Bankruptcy Court approved the settlement agreement. In June 2008, the Company paid US$100 million of the settlement amount plus accrued interest of about US$1.6 million. In July 2008, the Company paid the remaining US$150 million, plus about US$400,000 of accrued interest. The estimated obligation at Sept. 30, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2007 does not include the cost to remediate the Company-owned mine site at Libby. Columbia, Md.-based W. R. Grace & Co., through its subsidiaries, engages in specialty chemicals and specialty materials businesses through two operating segments: "Grace Davison," which includes specialty catalysts and materials used in energy, refining, consumer, industrial, packaging and life sciences applications; and "Grace Construction Products," which includes specialty chemicals and materials used in commercial, infrastructure and residential construction. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Spends $16.6M in 3Q08 for Libby Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Total expense for W. R. Grace & Co. and seven current and former senior level employees, over a lawsuit on the Company's former vermiculite mining and processing activities in Libby, Mont., was US$16.6 million for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008, compared with US$11.2 million for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007. Cumulative expenses to address this matter were US$108.3 million through Sept. 30, 2008. Total expense for the Company and seven current and former senior level employees, over the Libby suit was US$8.5 million for the six months ended June 30, 2008, compared with US$6.3 million for the six months ended June 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 29, 2008) On Feb. 7, 2005, the U.S. Department of Justice announced the unsealing of a grand jury indictment against the Company and seven current or former senior level employees (United States of America v. W. R. Grace & Co. et al) relating to the Company's former vermiculite mining and processing activities in Libby, Mont. The indictment accuses the defendants of: (1) conspiracy to violate environmental laws and obstruct federal agency proceedings; (2) violations of the federal Clean Air Act; and (3) obstruction of justice. The Company purchased the Libby mine in 1963 and operated it until 1990. Vermiculite processing activities continued until 1992. The grand jury charges that the conspiracy took place from 1976 to 2002. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the Company could be subject to fines in an amount equal to twice the after-tax profit earned from its Libby operations or twice the alleged loss suffered by victims, plus additional amounts for restitution to victims. The indictment alleges that such after- tax profits were US$140 million. The Company has categorically denied any criminal wrongdoing. The District Court has set a trial date of Feb. 17, 2009 and has indicated that the trial could last three to five months. The Bankruptcy Court previously granted the Company's request to advance legal and defense costs to the employees involved in this case, subject to a reimbursement obligation if it is later determined that the employees did not meet the standards for indemnification set forth under the appropriate state corporate law. For the remainder of 2008, the Company expects legal fees for this matter to be in the range of about US$8 million to US$10 million. Columbia, Md.-based W. R. Grace & Co., through its subsidiaries, engages in specialty chemicals and specialty materials businesses through two operating segments: "Grace Davison," which includes specialty catalysts and materials used in energy, refining, consumer, industrial, packaging and life sciences applications; and "Grace Construction Products," which includes specialty chemicals and materials used in commercial, infrastructure and residential construction. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal on Dismissal of Grace Action Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The State of New Jersey's appeal over the dismissal of an asbestos-related lawsuit against W. R. Grace & Co. and two former employees is still pending. On June 1, 2005, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection filed a lawsuit against the Company and the two former employees in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division: Mercer County (N.J. Dept. of Environmental Protection v. W.R. Grace & Co. et al.). The suit seeks civil penalties for alleged misrepresentations and false statements made in a Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation Report and Negative Declarations submitted by the Company to the DEP in 1995 under the New Jersey Industrial Site Recovery Act. The Company submitted the report, which was prepared by an independent environmental consultant, in connection with the closing of the Company's former plant in Hamilton Township, N.J. The State of New Jersey and the U.S. Department of Justice also have conducted criminal investigations related to the Company's former operations of the Hamilton plant, but the Company is not aware of any recent activity related to such investigations. The Company purchased the Hamilton plant assets in 1963 and ceased operations in 1994. During the operating period, the Company produced spray-on fire protection products and other vermiculite-based products at this plant. The current property owners have carried out remediation activities as directed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The property owners and the EPA have filed proofs of claim against the Company with respect to the Hamilton plant site. These claims were resolved as part of the multi-site settlement agreement described above for a total of about US$4.1 million. In August 2007, the Bankruptcy Court denied the State of New Jersey's motion for leave to file a late proof of claim in the amount of US$31 million. This ruling, which the State of New Jersey has appealed, does not affect the claims against the former employees, for which the Company would have an indemnification obligation. On April 1, 2008, the Bankruptcy Court issued an opinion and order directing New Jersey to dismiss its lawsuit against the Company with prejudice. Columbia, Md.-based W. R. Grace & Co., through its subsidiaries, engages in specialty chemicals and specialty materials businesses through two operating segments: "Grace Davison," which includes specialty catalysts and materials used in energy, refining, consumer, industrial, packaging and life sciences applications; and "Grace Construction Products," which includes specialty chemicals and materials used in commercial, infrastructure and residential construction. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Majestic Star Spends $300T on Pa. Abatement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Majestic Star Casino, LL, as of Sept. 30, 2008, has spent US$300,000 on asbestos abatement in the 302 Carson Street Office Building in Pittsburgh. As of June 30, 2008, the Company spent US$200,000 on asbestos abatement in the 02 Carson Street Office Building in Pittsburgh. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 5, 2008) On March 31, 2008, the Company entered into a lease with Carson Properties Nevada LLC ("Landlord"), a subsidiary of Barden Development, Inc., for office space ("Lease"). The Lease has an initial term of five years and six months ("Initial Term") and allows for one five-year extension under substantially similar terms as the Initial Term. The Lease will commence upon receipt of a temporary certificate of occupancy and abatement of asbestos to the area being occupied by the Company ("Premises"). Base rent will be US$1.80 per square foot, for a total of 11,549 square feet, for the first 18 months and US$2.50 per square foot beginning in month 19, and will increase by three percent on the second anniversary date of commencement of the Lease and every anniversary date thereafter. The Company will perform asbestos abatement to the Premises and be reimbursed by the landlord for all direct and indirect costs, not to exceed US$400,000, through rent offset. In October 2008, the Landlord sold the building and assigned the Lease to the buyer. The Landlord reimbursed the Company for US$600,000 of general improvements previously made to the Premises by the Company. The US$300,000 spent on asbestos treatment will be reimbursed through rent offset from the new landlord. Based in Las Vegas, The Majestic Star Casino, LLC is a multi- jurisdictional gaming company with operations in three states: Indiana, Mississippi and Colorado. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Corporation Plan Filed on Nov. 14 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Congoleum Corporation, jointly with the Official Committee of Bondholders and Asbestos Claimants' Committee, on Nov. 14, 2008, filed an amended plan of reorganization and disclosure statement with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 19, 2008. A hearing to consider the adequacy of the Disclosure Statement describing the Amended Plan is scheduled for Dec. 18, 2008. If the Amended Plan is approved by the Bankruptcy Court and accepted by the requisite creditor constituencies, it will permit the Company to exit Chapter 11 free of liability for existing or future asbestos claims. Under the terms of the Amended Plan, a trust will be created that will assume the liability for the Company's current and future asbestos claims. That trust will receive the proceeds of various settlements the Company has reached with a number of insurance carriers, and will be assigned the Company's rights under its remaining policies covering asbestos product liability. The trust will also receive 70 percent of the newly issued common stock in reorganized Congoleum when the Amended Plan takes effect and US$5 million in new 9.75 percent senior secured notes that mature five years from issuance. Holders of the Company's US$100 million in 8.625 percent senior notes that matured in August 2008 will receive on a pro rata basis US$70 million in new 9.75 percent senior secured notes that mature five years from issuance. The new senior secured notes will be subordinated to the working capital facility that provides the Company's financing upon exiting reorganization. In addition, holders of the US$100 million in 8.625 percent senior notes due in August 2008 will receive 30 percent of the common stock in reorganized Congoleum. The Company's obligations for the US$100 million in 8.625 percent senior notes due in August 2008, including accrued interest (which amounted to US$44.6 million at Dec. 31, 2007) will be satisfied by the new senior secured notes and the common stock issued when the Amended Plan takes effect. Under the terms of the Amended Plan, existing Class A and Class B common shares of Congoleum will be canceled when the plan takes effect and holders of those shares, including the current controlling shareholder, American Biltrite Inc., will not receive anything on account of their canceled shares. The Company expects existing management will continue post- reorganization. Mercerville, N.J.-based Congoleum Corporation makes flooring products for residential and commercial use, including resilient sheet flooring (linoleum or vinyl flooring), do-it-yourself vinyl tile, and commercial flooring. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tyco Int'l. Facing 4,600 Cases at Sept. 26 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tyco International Ltd. and its subsidiaries, as of Sept. 26, 2008, faced about 4,600 pending asbestos liability cases, according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 19, 2008. Asbestos-related liability cases against the Company and its subsidiaries dropped to 4,700 cases as of June 27, 2008, from 5,800 cases as of March 28, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 15, 2008) A majority of the cases involve product liability claims, based principally on allegations of past distribution of heat- resistant industrial products incorporating asbestos or the past distribution of industrial valves that incorporated asbestos- containing gaskets or packing. Each case typically names between dozens to hundreds of corporate defendants. The Company's involvement in asbestos cases has been limited because its subsidiaries did not mine or produce asbestos. Furthermore, in the Company's experience, a large percentage of these claims were never substantiated and, as a result, have been dismissed by the courts. The Company has recently experienced an increase in the number of lawsuits that have proceeded to trial. Of the lawsuits that have proceeded to trial in 2008, the Company has won or settled all but one case, with that one case returning an adverse jury verdict for about US$7.7 million, which included both compensatory and punitive damages. The Company has filed post-trial motions seeking to overturn the verdict or order a new trial, and said it believes that the verdict will ultimately be overturned. Pembroke, Bermuda-based Tyco International Ltd. makes electrical and metal products (steel tubing, pipes, cables) for commercial construction. Its flow control unit makes valves and related products for water, wastewater, and the oil and gas markets. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Royal Mail Reaches GBP155T Deal w/ Russell ---------------------------------------------------------------- Royal Mail has reached an out-of-court settlement with Lesley Russell for GBP155,000 over her husband's (Keith Russell) exposure to asbestos at work, Safety Med!a reports. Mrs. Russell says Mr. Russell's mesothelioma was caused by the presence of asbestos in the building where he used to work for Royal Mail, the Evening Post reports. While the Royal Mail asserts there is not enough evidence to suggest it is responsible for "negligently exposing" Mr. Russell to asbestos, it has agreed to the deal. Mr. Russell worked for the business between 1957 and 1992 at a site where there is information to suggest asbestos fibers were present. As part of the Health and Safety Executive's Asbestos: The Hidden Killer campaign, student tradesmen will be targeted with information on how to minimize the risks it presents. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 2 Workers Win Injury Action v. William Gray ---------------------------------------------------------------- Two clients of Askews Solicitors have won their fight for asbestos compensation against William Gray and Company Ltd, a former Hartlepool, England-based shipbuilding firm, the Evening Gazette reports. William Gray closed in 1968. The two clients shared a GBP100,000-plus payout following a dogged fight by Askews' personal injury specialist, partner Chris Buckland. Of the two victims, only one survives. He was diagnosed with an asbestos-linked illness in 2005. The second died of the lung disease mesothelioma. Mr. Buckland said, "Both cases hinged on us being able to establish that the company could be legally recognized in spite of it having gone out of business almost 40 years previously." Hartlepool was revealed to be one of the Health and Safety Executive's asbestos black spots. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Conn's Lawsuit v. DuPont Filed on Nov. 12 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Helen Veigh Conn, of Hardin County, Tex., filed an asbestos- related lawsuit against E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, on Nov. 12, 2008, in Jefferson County District Court, The Southeast Texas Record reports. Mrs. Conn says that her husband, Elray Conn, died from asbestos- related disease on Aug. 26, 2008. According to the suit, Mrs. Conn says Mr. Conn worked for DuPont at its Beaumont Works facility. She states Mr. Conn was exposed to toxic and carcinogenic dusts, including asbestos, during his work. She claims the Company failed to timely warn workers of the dangers of the dusts. Mrs. Conn seeks unspecified exemplary and punitive damages, plus interest at the legal rate and other relief the court deems just. Darren L. Brown, Esq., of Provost and Umphrey Law Firm in Beaumont, Tex., represents Mrs. Conn. Case No. E182-695 has been assigned to Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd District Court. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 2 South Koreans' Kin File Action v. 3 Firms ---------------------------------------------------------------- It was revealed that bereaved families of two South Korean residents who died from mesothelioma after living near an asbestos factory filed a damages suit against three parties, The Mainichi Daily News reports. On Nov. 13, 2008, their bereaved families sued Nippon Asbestos (forerunner of Nichias Corp.) and Jeil E&S (formerly Jeil Asbestos), and the South Korean government for "failing to take measures to improve the factory." In the suit filed at the Busan district court, plaintiffs demanded companies including Tokyo-based Nichias pay KPW200 million (about JPY14 million) each in compensation. It is the first time that local residents near an asbestos factory have filed a damages suit in South Korea. The plant -- an asbestos spinning factory -- was run by Jeil Asbestos, which was jointly established by Nippon Asbestos and a South Korean company near Busan city hall in 1971. The plant continued to operate until 1992. One of the victims was living 900 meters away from the factory for seven years in the 1980s and subsequently died in 2006 from mesothelioma at age 44. The other victim was living 2.1 kilometers away from the factory for four years during the 1970s and died in 2002 from mesothelioma at age 62. According to the complaint, the plaintiffs claim that Nichias established the joint venture while knowing the toxicity of asbestos but concealed it from the public. In a related development in December 2008, the Daegu district court in South Korea ordered Jeil E&S to pay KPW158 million in compensation to a female former employee of its Busan factory who died from mesothelioma. The court case has subsequently prompted a series of damages suits against the company by its former employees. ********* A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged. Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target asbestos defendants that, according to independent research, collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related liabilities. ********* 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., Frederick, Maryland USA. Glenn Ruel S. Senorin, Stephanie T. Umacob, Gracele D. Canilao, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2008. 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 $575 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 Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300. * * * End of Transmission * * *