/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090213.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, February 13, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 31 Headlines CUBIC CORP: Faces Suit by U.S. Gov't. Subcontract Employees GOOGLE INC: Notification For Copyright Settlement in Progress HORIZON LINES: Domestic Ocean Shipping Services Suits Pending HORIZON LINES: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Delaware INSURANCE COMPANIES: Seek Dismissal of La.'s Road Home Lawsuit KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces Discrimination Lawsuit in California LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Lawyers Urge Judge to Consider $90M Award MARCUS & MILLICHAP: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Real Estate Scam NETFLIX INC: Faces Antitrust Suits in W.Va. Over DVD Rentals PARK WEST: Continues to Face Consumer Fraud Litigation in Fla. PFIZER INC: Pa. Court Decertifies Class in "Clark" Litigation POLO RALPH LAUREN: Awaits Court Approval for Calif. Settlement POLO RALPH LAUREN: Settlement of Club Monaco Lawsuits Approved POLO RALPH LAUREN: To Contest Suits by Former Store Employees TD AMERITRADE: No Ruling Yet on Settlement of "Elvey" Spam Suit TD AMERITRADE: Continues to Faces Lawsuits Over Sale of ARS TD AMERITRADE: Faces Suits Over Reserve Yield Plus Fund Shares WARNER MUSIC: Appeal to Junked Amended Complaint Pending in N.Y. WHIRLPOOL CORP: Mich. Court Certifies Class in Retirees' Lawsuit New Securities Fraud Cases EMCORE CORP: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.M. INTEGRAL SYSTEMS: Howard G. Smith Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing LEVEL 3 COMMS: The Shuman Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: The Shuman Law Firm Announces Suit Filing Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 4,800 Cases Pending Against Tyco at Dec. 26 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Holdings Cites $25M Charge at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Briggs & Stratton Still Has Liability Cases ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 525 Injury Claims Ongoing v. Todd Shipyards ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Scotts Miracle-Gro Still Has Injury Actions ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Magnetek Cites $700T Income During 2nd Qtr. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Fines 2 Conn. Cos. for Removal Breaches ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tewkesbury Engineer Death Linked to Hazard ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Westpoint Schoolcare Fined for Health Risks ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Malta Aims to Remove Asbestos in Buildings ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Supreme Court Rules on Nostrom Lawsuit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Affirms Order in Martin Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Columbus McKinnon Records $8.8Mil Liability ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Generation Records $52M Reserves at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Precision Castparts Facing Injury Lawsuits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Cases Still Pending Against Rockwell ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor Has $53M Liability at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Maremont Still Facing 35T Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor's Rockwell Liability at $16Mil ASBESTOS LITIGATION: STERIS Corp. Still Facing Exposure Actions ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Pacific Cites 1,867 Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Magnetek, Inc. Still Facing Exposure Cases ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Fin'l. Has $1.884Bil Net Liability ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Simmons Cleared in Ill. Malpractice Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Frye Suit v. DuPont, Others Filed in W.Va. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pa. Court OKs Ruling in Crown Cork's Favor ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dist. Court Issues Ruling on Sanborn Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trial in Martin v. MGP Set for April 2009 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Ashland Drop to 109T at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 27T Claims Ongoing v. Hercules at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cabot Subsidiary Faces AO Respiratory Cases ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mueller Units Still Facing Exposure Actions ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Miss. Actions Still Pending v. BJ Services ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 1,183 Cases Still Pending v. Central Hudson ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RBS Global Has $1.007B Insurance at Dec. 27 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RBS Global Still Facing 700 Stearns Actions ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Prager Unit Facing 1 Case with 3,700 Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Falk Unit Still Facing 170 Suits at Dec. 27 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. Zurn Ind. Drop to 6,100 at Dec. 27 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has $51M Charge at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bourton Carpenter's Death Linked to Hazard ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Willcox Says Hardie Estimates Are Reliable ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Nelson Builder's Death Linked to Exposure ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Carlisle Joiner's Death Linked to Exposure ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup at Cedar Falls Schools Costs $104T ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Polk County Court Cleanup to Cost $200,000 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Issues Ruling in Adkinson Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Dismissed in Louden, Border Actions ASBESTOS LITIGATION: United Technologies Facing Exposure Actions ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wood, Collins Face Prison for Asbestos Scam ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bristol Township to Clear Schools of Hazard ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Stuart Widow Awarded GBP9,500 Compensation ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bickle Widow to Launch Wrongful Death Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Hotel to Pay GBP52T for Safety Breach ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Electrician's Widow Gets GBP703T in Payout ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Factory Worker's Death Linked to Exposure ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Phillips Suit v. 27 Companies Filed in Tex. ********* CUBIC CORP: Faces Suit by U.S. Gov't. Subcontract Employees ----------------------------------------------------------- Cubic Corp. intends to defend a purported class-action lawsuit filed in December 2008, in the U.S. District Court, Southern District, California. In December 2008, the company was named in the suit seeking reclassification of certain employees working on a U.S. Government subcontract from salaried to hourly, overtime pay, back pay and damages under a variety of theories for violation of California and Federal labor and employment laws. The complaint alleges the value of these claims could exceed $5 million. No court date has been established while the court reviews jurisdictional issues. Management has made an indemnification demand on the prime contractor for damages that may arise from this action. Management intends also to work with the U.S. Government to rectify this litigation, according to the company's Feb. 4, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008. Cubic Corp. -- http://www.cubic.com-- incorporated in 1949, designs, develops, manufactures and installs products, which are electronic in nature, such as equipment for use in customized military range instrumentation, training and applications systems, simulators, communications and surveillance systems, surveillance receivers, power amplifiers, and avionics systems, and automated revenue collection systems, including contactless smart cards, passenger gates, central computer systems and ticket vending machines for mass transit networks, including rail systems, buses, and parking applications. The company also performs a variety of services, such as computer simulation training, distributed simulation and development of military training doctrine, as well as field operations and maintenance. It operates in two segments: defense and transportation systems. GOOGLE INC: Notification For Copyright Settlement in Progress ------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, Feb. 11 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Court- ordered process of officially notifying authors, publishers, and other copyright-holders about the landmark Google Book Search class-action settlement is underway. Authors and publishers throughout the world are receiving detailed information about their legal rights and options by email and postal mail. A Summary Notice is being published in 218 countries and 72 languages, which complements the mailed notice program. Class members should visit http://www.googlebooksettlement.comfor complete information, including the Notice of Class Action Settlement, and key dates. The Authors Guild, the Association of American Publishers, and Google announced the proposed settlement in late October 2008. The settlement, if Court-approved, will authorize Google to scan in-copyright Books and Inserts in the United States, maintain an electronic database of Books, and make various uses of the Books as specified in the settlement. For out-of-print Books and, if permitted by Rightsholders of in-print Books, Google will be able to sell access to individual Books and institutional subscriptions to the database, place advertisements on any page dedicated to a Book, and make other commercial uses of Books. At any time, Rightsholders can change instructions to Google regarding any of those uses. Through a Book Rights Registry ("Registry") established by the settlement, Google will pay Rightsholders 63% of all revenues from these uses. The settlement also provides for cash payments to Rightsholders of Books and Inserts that Google scans prior to May 5, 2009. Class members' rights may be affected by the settlement even if they do not act. Those who wish to opt out of or object to the settlement must do so by May 5, 2009. Claims for cash payments for Books and Inserts scanned by May 5, 2009 must be filed by January 5, 2010. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York will consider whether to grant final approval of the settlement at a hearing on June 11, 2009. Complete information about the settlement is available at http://www.googlebooksettlement.com,which is available in 36 languages. HORIZON LINES: Domestic Ocean Shipping Services Suits Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Horizon Lines, Inc., is facing several purported antitrust class-action lawsuits in Alaska, Florida, Puerto Rico, California, Oregon, and Washington over domestic ocean shipping services, according to the company's Feb. 4, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 21, 2008. On April 17, 2008, the company received a grand jury subpoena from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida seeking information regarding an investigation by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice into possible antitrust violations in the domestic ocean shipping business. Subsequent to the commencement of the DOJ investigation, a number of purported class action lawsuits were filed against the company and other domestic shipping carriers. Since April 22, 2008, fifty-six cases have been filed in the following federal district courts: -- eight in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, -- six in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, -- nineteen in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, -- eleven in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, -- two in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, -- one in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, -- eight in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, and -- one in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska. Each of the federal district court cases purports to be on behalf of a class of individuals and entities who purchased domestic ocean shipping services from the various domestic ocean carriers. The complaints allege price-fixing in violation of the Sherman Act and seek treble monetary damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and an injunction against the allegedly unlawful conduct. All of the foregoing district court cases that relate to ocean shipping services in the Puerto Rico tradelane were consolidated into a single mutlidisrict litigation proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. All of the foregoing district court cases that relate to ocean shipping services in the Hawaii and Guam tradelanes were consolidated into a MDL proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. One district court case remains in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, relating to the Alaska tradelane. Horizon Lines, Inc. -- http://www.horizon-lines.com/-- formerly known as H-Lines Holding Corp., is a container shipping and integrated logistics company. The company's subsidiaries include Horizon Lines, LLC (HL), Horizon Logistics Holdings, LLC (Horizon Logistics) and Horizon Lines of Puerto Rico, Inc. HLPR). With 21 vessels, 16 of which are fully qualified Jones Act vessels, and approximately 22,000 cargo containers the company provides shipping and logistics services in its markets. The company, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Horizon Logistics, offers inland transportation through its own trucking operations on the U.S. west coast and Alaska, and its integrated logistics services including relationships with third-party truckers, railroads, and barge operators in its markets. It ships a spectrum of consumer and industrial items ranging from foodstuffs (refrigerated and non-refrigerated) to household goods and auto parts to building materials and various materials used in manufacturing. HORIZON LINES: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Delaware ---------------------------------------------------------- Horizon Lines, Inc. intends to defend against two securities class-action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, naming the company and five current and former employees, including its Chief Executive Officer, as defendants. The first complaint was filed on Dec. 31, 2008, and the second complaint was filed on Jan. 27, 2009, and each complaint purports to be on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock during the period from March 2, 2007 through April 25, 2008. The complaints allege, among other things, that the company made material misstatements and omissions in connection with alleged price-fixing in the company's shipping business in Puerto Rico in violation of antitrust laws. The complaints seek compensatory damages for the alleged damages, as well as costs and attorneys' fees, according to the company's Feb. 4, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 21, 2008. Horizon Lines, Inc. -- http://www.horizon-lines.com/-- formerly known as H-Lines Holding Corp., is a container shipping and integrated logistics company. The company's subsidiaries include Horizon Lines, LLC (HL), Horizon Logistics Holdings, LLC (Horizon Logistics) and Horizon Lines of Puerto Rico, Inc. HLPR). With 21 vessels, 16 of which are fully qualified Jones Act vessels, and approximately 22,000 cargo containers the company provides shipping and logistics services in its markets. The company, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Horizon Logistics, offers inland transportation through its own trucking operations on the U.S. west coast and Alaska, and its integrated logistics services including relationships with third-party truckers, railroads, and barge operators in its markets. It ships a spectrum of consumer and industrial items ranging from foodstuffs (refrigerated and non-refrigerated) to household goods and auto parts to building materials and various materials used in manufacturing. INSURANCE COMPANIES: Seek Dismissal of La.'s Road Home Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys for some of the nation's largest insurance companies asked the U.S. District Court for the the Eastern District of Louisiana on Jan. 30, 2009 to dismiss a purported class-action lawsuit filed by a former Louisiana attorney general, calling it "a bald attempt" to force insurers to increase payouts for hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Michael Kunzelman of The Associated Press reports. Judge Stanwood Duval, Jr.. heard arguments from lawyers on both sides of the case, but didn't immediately rule on the companies' request for him to dismiss the class action suit filed in 2007 by former Attorney General Charles Foti. Lawyers for Allstate Insurance Co., State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., and other insurers claim the attorney general's office is trying to take over the rights to more than 155,000 policyholder claims, to recover money the state paid out through the federally funded Road Home homeowner grant program after the 2005 hurricanes. However, the companies say the state already had deducted insurance payments in calculating grant awards. Insurers' attorneys called the suit "a bald attempt by the state to squeeze more money out of the insurance companies" after they already have paid out more than $40 billion to Gulf Coast policyholders after Hurricane Katrina. In court papers obtained by The Associated Press, company lawyers wrote, "In the history of federal and state disaster relief for catastrophes, there is no known precedent for what the state seeks to do in this case." Attorney General James "Buddy" Caldwell inherited the case from A.G. Foti, who lost his bid for re-election when he finished third in an October 2007 primary. Insurers claim A.G. Caldwell's office is trying to act as a "superpolicyholder" over more than 155,000 insurance policies. However, A.G. Caldwell's office says it only has challenged settlements between insurers and policyholders that appear to be a "fraudulent effort to defeat the state's right to share in the recovery of ... settlement funds." "This litigation is intended to address this inequality," lawyers for A.G. Caldwell's office wrote. "Road Home is not and was never intended to benefit the industry as a substitute for insurance coverage." A.G. Caldwell's office is asking Judge Duval to forward claims for about 157,000 grant recipients to state court. "We're not looking to get rich off this, to get anything more than we deserve," A.G. Caldwell attorney Bryan McMinn, Esq. told Judge Duval, who didn't immediately rule on that request. Judge Duval said he expects the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifith Circuit to review his decision, "however I rule," according to The Associated Press report. KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces Discrimination Lawsuit in California ------------------------------------------------------------- Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. and a Kaiser doctors' group, Permanente Medical Group of Northern California, are facing a purported class-action lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court that accuses the health maintenance organization of discriminating against children with autism, FoxReno.com reports. Autism is a brain development disorder characterized by impaired communication skills, impaired social interaction and repetitive behavior. The lawsuit, Lissa Anderson and her 5-year-old autistic son; Paul Santiago and his 10-year-old autistic daughter; and an advocacy group called Equal Coverage for Autism, claims that Oakland-based Kaiser violates California civil rights and business laws by refusing to provide autistic children with speech, occupational and physical therapies. The plaintiffs, who are represented by lawyers from Berkeley- based Disability Rights Advocates, contend those therapies are a necessary medical treatment for autism, but say Kaiser has told them it does not consider the treatments to be health services and therefore will not provide them. Instead, the families claim, Kaiser told them to seek the services from school districts or regional developmental disability centers, which the families say are unable to provide adequate treatment. The lawsuit charges that Kaiser implements an "unlawful corporate policy calculated to avoid the cost of providing effective treatment to autistic children." The suit seeks to be certified as a class-action case on behalf of all California children with autism and their parents. It seeks a court order requiring Kaiser to change its practices. LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Lawyers Urge Judge to Consider $90M Award -------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys in a class-action lawsuit against Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp. asked a Jefferson Parish judge last January to award more than $90 million in penalties to policyholders whose 2005 hurricane claims were not adjusted on time, Rebecca Mowbray of The Times-Picayune reports. A set of motions for summary judgment in the case, "Geraldine Oubre et al v. Louisiana Citizens Fair Plan," asks Judge Henry Sullivan to find that the state-sponsored insurer of last resort did not initiate adjustment of hurricane claims within 30 days of being notified of storm damage, as required by law, according to The Times-Picayune. The Times-Picayune reported that using Citizens' own claims logs, Gretna attorney Wiley Beevers, Esq. and his staff built a spreadsheet to show when policyholders called to report damage and when Citizens made appointments to send adjusters to their homes. His legal team found 18,573 cases in which it took more than 30 days to start the adjustment process. Because Citizens' own information can prove the plaintiffs' case, the Beevers legal team said the court can wrap up the case with a finding in their favor without waiting for a full trial, which is set for March 2009. The Times-Picayune reported that Citizens though urged Judge Sullivan to reject the plaintiffs' motions for payment. The attorneys argue that Mr. Beevers' spreadsheet should not be accepted as undisputed fact, because his office prepared it and could have made judgments on what entries to select to prove his case. Moreover, Citizens says it found some errors in the spreadsheet. They also argued that the extreme conditions that prevailed after Hurricane Katrina, when courts were closed and executive orders made it difficult for people to enter storm-struck parishes, should have exempted Citizens from the 30-day adjustment timetable, reports The Times-Picayune. The attorneys also claimed that Citizens is not an insurance company, but rather a state-created non-profit. They said it serves no public purpose to hold Citizens to penalty statutes when it is taxpayers who could ultimately have to pick up the tab for any cost overruns. "Citizens is not an insurer for penalty purposes," argues attorney Jack Culotta, The Times- Picayune reported. No time frame is set for a ruling, according to The Times- Picayune report. MARCUS & MILLICHAP: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Real Estate Scam -------------------------------------------------------------- The Marcus & Millichap Co., along with several other defendants, is facing a purported class-action lawsuit in California that was filed by small investors who accused defendants of taking part in an elaborate scam that fleeced individual investors out of millions of dollars in recent years, Roger Vincent of The Los Angeles Times reports. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Feb. 4, 2009, alleges that brokers at Marcus & Millichap allegedly took part in a conspiracy to buy small commercial properties, artificially inflate their values and sell them to unsuspecting investors. The Los Angeles Times reported that the litigation was filed as a class-action lawsuit on behalf of 16 investors, mostly Californians, who bought 22 properties in four states. It seeks as much as $70 million in compensatory damages and up to $200 million altogether with punitive damages and treble damages under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations law. Listed as plaintiffs in the case are: -- Eclectic Properties East, LLC, -- Risola Family LP II, -- CECA 3000, LP, -- Cheatham Properties, LLC, -- VAS Enterprises I LLC, -- Amnon Danus, -- Rivka Danus, -- Fred Engelberg, -- Linda Farrell, -- Joseph W. Amirkhas, -- Justus L. Ahrend, -- Susan W. Ahrend, -- Kevork Belikian, -- Sylvia S. Belikian, -- Mani Etemad, -- Susan Khoshnood, -- Eugenia Gagnon, -- Thomas H. Linden, -- Sylvia E. Linden, -- Johannes Moderbacher, -- Eileen Starr Moderbacher, -- Richard W. Siebert, -- Debra M. Siebert, -- Allen Ernest Hom, and -- Linda J. Call. Aside form Marcus & Millichap, other defendants in the matter are: -- Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Services Inc., -- Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Brokerage Company, -- Sovereign Investment Company, -- Sovereign Scranton LLC, -- Sovereign CC, LLC, -- Sovereign JF, LLC, -- Paul A. Morabito, -- Eureka Petroleum Inc., -- Tibarom Inc., -- Tibarom NY LLC, -- Tibarom PA LLC, -- Scranton Lube, LLC, -- NY Seven Lube, LLC, -- New York Lube Number 3, LLC, -- Rochester Lube, LLC, -- Baruk Management, Inc., -- Jack Waelti, -- The QSR Group One, LLC, -- The QSR Group, LLC, -- The QSR Group II, LLC, -- PGP Valuation, Inc., -- Glen D. Kunofsky, -- Marcus Muirhead, -- Alexander Mickle, -- Sean Perkin, -- Donald Emas, -- Andrew Lesher, -- Stewart Weston, -- Brice Head, -- Daizy Gomez, and -- Bret King. "This scheme was employed with nearly mathematical precision and demonstrates a formula of fraud," plaintiffs' attorney David J. George, a partner in the San Diego law firm Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins tells The Los Angeles Times. The suit alleges that Messrs. Morabito and Waelti bought small franchises of Jiffy Lube and Church's Chicken, among others, and the real estate where the businesses were located. They then sold the properties to a subsidiary of Marcus & Millichap and leased them back at rents well above standard market rates, the suit contends. Based on those rents, the suit alleges that, the brokerage sold the properties to investors at inflated prices. According to the suit, Mr. Morabito and other tenants then closed the businesses, leaving the investors with greatly devalued real estate, reports The Los Angeles Times. The suit alleges that the defendants assembled a portfolio of overpriced properties and then marketed them to buyers they intended to deceive, The Los Angeles Times reported. The suit is "Eclectic Properties East, LLC et al v. The Marcus & Millichap Company et al., Case No. 5:09-cv-00511-RMW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Ronald M. Whyte, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq. (bonnys@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 655 West Broadway Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-231-1058 Fax: 619-231-7423 Representing the defendant is: Michael John Hassen, Esq. (mjh@jmbm.com) Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro Two Embarcadero Center Fifth Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 398-8080 Fax: (415) 398-5584 NETFLIX INC: Faces Antitrust Suits in W.Va. Over DVD Rentals ---------------------------------------------------------------- Netflix, Inc., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Walmart.Com USA, LLC are facing a purported class-action lawsuit in West Virginia that alleges the two companies conspired to raise prices and to eliminate competition in the DVD sales and online rental market, Kelly Holleran of The West Virginia Record reports. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virgina on Feb. 9, 2009, by Brandon and Jennifer Walters, who claim that they paid artificially high subscription fees to Netflix because of an agreement reached between Wal-Mart and Netflix on May 19, 2005. According to the complaint, before the alleged agreement, Wal- Mart had been selling DVDs online, however, under the agreement, Wal-Mart asserted it would stop selling DVDs online, thereby leaving Blockbuster as Netflix's only competition, reports The West Virginia Record. The West Virginia Record reported that in return, the suit states that Netflix agreed not to sell DVDs online and instead to promote DVD sales at Wal-Mart. It also stated, "Defendants' Market Division Agreement effectively eliminated competition in the Online DVD Rental Market and enabled Netflix to charge its subscribers higher subscription prices for the online rental of DVDS than it otherwise would have." The lawsuit alleges that soon after the alleged agreement, Wal- Mart placed a link to the Netflix Web site, urging its subscribers to transfer their subscriptions to Netflix. It also alleges that with Wal-Mart competition out of the way, Netflix raised its subscription price from $14.99 per month to $17.99 per month for up to three titles. The West Virginia Record reports that the Walters and the putative class are asking the court to declare the agreement between Wal-Mart and Netflix void and that the court prohibit the companies from engaging in similar conduct in the future. They are also seeking compensatory damages, costs, pre- and post-judgment interest and additional relief the court deems just, according to The West Virginia Record. The suit is "Walters et al v. Netflix, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:09-cv-00110," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virgina, Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr., presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: William L. Bands, Esq. (wlbands@belllaw.com) BELL & BANDS P.O. Box 1723 Charleston, WV 25326-1723 Phone: 304/347-1700 Fax: 304/347-1715 PARK WEST: Continues to Face Consumer Fraud Litigation in Fla. -------------------------------------------------------------- Park West Gallery, Inc., which says it sells 300,000 works annually and earns more than $300 million in annual art sales revenue, including through auctions on 85 cruise ships, continues to face a purported class-action lawsuit in Florida, alleging violations of the Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Martha Lufkin of The Art Newspaper reports. In June 2008, Park West was sued in a consumer class-action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida by David Bouverat, who says he bought art from Park West on a cruise. The Art Newspaper reported that Mr. Bouverat, who alleges violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and other claims, says that appraisals that the gallery provided were based on Park West Gallery's price for the art, not a replacement price "from some unknown reputable retail art gallery." The case is continuing, according to Mr. Bouverat's lawyer, Shawn Khorrami, Esq. of Los Angeles, according to The Art Newspaper report. PFIZER INC: Pa. Court Decertifies Class in "Clark" Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Mark I. Bernstein of the Court of Common Pleas, First Judicial District, Philadelphia granted a motion for class decertification of the matter, "Clark v. Pfizer, Inc.," Amaris Elliott-Engel of The Legal Intelligencer reports. A month before the case was set for trial, Judge Bernstein decertified the class of users of an epilepsy and neuralgia drug seeking reimbursement from the drug's maker after being prescribed the drug for uses not approved by federal regulators. The Legal Intelligencer reported that the suit was actually set to go to trial on March 9, 2009. Judge Bernstein had previously granted class certification to the case in 2007. However, his Feb. 9, 2009 ruling reverses that earlier decision. Class representatives Gregory Clark of Philadelphia and Linda Meashey of Annville, Lebanon County, brought claims of misrepresentation, negligence, negligence per se and breach of express warranty on behalf of other users of the drug Neurontin, or the generic equivalent, gabapentin, according to The Legal Intelligencer. The Legal Intelligencer reported that the proposed class was made up of people prescribed the drug for medical conditions other than epilepsy and the management of pain associated with herpes zoster rash outbreaks. The plaintiffs sought a refund of all noninsured payments for the drug. The plaintiffs argued that defendant, Warner-Lambert Co., and its merger partner, Pfizer, Inc., violated a federal law that prohibits drug manufacturers from marketing Food and Drug Administration-approved drugs for off-label uses, or uses not approved by federal regulators, according to court papers. The plaintiffs claimed that the drug company defendants conducted a campaign to promote the wider use of Neurontin and gabapentin. Judge Bernstein wrote in his opinion that he granted Pfizer's motion for decertification of the class because there was a question of fact about whether each class member had benefited or been harmed from their off-label prescriptions for Neurontin, reports The Legal Intelligencer. According to Judge Bernstein, "Since some class members have benefited from the use of Neurontin and other class members have not benefited, individual questions of fact are presented making the case unsuitable for class resolution. Whether an individual class member suffered a compensable loss is an inherently individualized question which predominates making class resolution impracticable and nearly impossible," The Legal Intelligencer reported. POLO RALPH LAUREN: Awaits Court Approval for Calif. Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The terms of the final settlement of two customer class-action lawsuits in California remain subject to court approval, according to Polo Ralph Lauren Corp.'s Feb. 5, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 27, 2008. On Oct. 11, 2007 and Nov. 2, 2007, two class-action lawsuits were filed by two customers in state court in California asserting that while they were shopping at certain of the company's factory stores in California, the company allegedly required them to provide certain personal information at the point-of-sale in order to complete a credit card purchase. The plaintiffs purported to represent a class of customers in California who allegedly were injured by being forced to provide their address and telephone numbers in order to use their credit cards to purchase items from the company's stores, which allegedly violated Section 1747.08 of California's Song-Beverly Act. The complaints sought an unspecified amount of statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. The company subsequently had the actions moved to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern and Central Districts of California. The company commenced mediation proceedings with respect to these lawsuits and on Oct. 17, 2008, the company agreed in principle to settle these claims by agreeing to issue $20 merchandise discount coupons with six month expiration dates to eligible parties. The terms of the final settlement remain subject to court approval and the resolution of the amount of attorneys' fees payable to plaintiffs' counsel in connection with these lawsuits. In connection with this settlement, the company recorded a $5 million reserve against its expected loss exposure during the second quarter of Fiscal 2009. Polo Ralph Lauren Corp. -- http://www.ralphlauren.com/-- is a global player in the design, marketing and distribution of lifestyle products, including men's, women's and children's apparel, accessories, fragrances and home furnishings. The Company operates in three segments: Wholesale, Retail and Licensing. POLO RALPH LAUREN: Settlement of Club Monaco Lawsuits Approved -------------------------------------------------------------- The terms of the settlement of lawsuits alleging Club Monaco stores' violations of California wage and hour laws were recently approved, according to Polo Ralph Lauren Corp.'s Feb. 5, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 27, 2008. On March 2, 2006, a former employee at the company Club Monaco store in Los Angeles, California filed a lawsuit against Polo Ralph Lauren in the San Francisco Superior Court alleging violations of California wage and hour laws. The plaintiff purported to represent a class of Club Monaco store employees who allegedly were injured by being improperly classified as exempt employees and thereby did not receive compensation for overtime and did not receive meal and rest breaks. The complaint sought an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, disgorgement of profits, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. On Aug. 21, 2007, eleven former and then current employees of the company's Club Monaco stores in California filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging similar claims as the Club Monaco action in San Francisco. The complaint sought an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and punitive damages. The parties to these two Club Monaco litigations agreed to retain a mediator in an effort to resolve both matters and recently agreed to settle all claims involving both litigations at an aggregate cost of $1.2 million. The terms of the settlement were recently approved by both the Los Angeles and San Francisco courts. Polo Ralph Lauren Corp. -- http://www.ralphlauren.com/-- is a global player in the design, marketing and distribution of lifestyle products, including men's, women's and children's apparel, accessories, fragrances and home furnishings. The Company operates in three segments: Wholesale, Retail and Licensing. POLO RALPH LAUREN: To Contest Suits by Former Store Employees ------------------------------------------------------------- Polo Ralph Lauren Corp. intends to contest the class-action lawsuit filed by four former employees of the company's Ralph Lauren stores in Palo Alto and San Francisco, California. On May 30, 2006, four former employees of Ralph Lauren stores filed a lawsuit in the San Francisco Superior Court alleging violations of California wage and hour laws. The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of employees who allegedly have been injured by not properly being paid commission earnings, not being paid overtime, not receiving rest breaks, being forced to work off of the clock while waiting to enter or leave the store and being falsely imprisoned while waiting to leave the store. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, damages for emotional distress, disgorgement of profits, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive and declaratory relief. The company has filed a cross-claim against one of the plaintiffs for his role in allegedly assisting a former employee to misappropriate company property. Subsequent to answering the complaint, the company had the action moved to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On July 8, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification, according to the company's Feb. 5, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 27, 2008. Polo Ralph Lauren Corp. -- http://www.ralphlauren.com/-- is a global player in the design, marketing and distribution of lifestyle products, including men's, women's and children's apparel, accessories, fragrances and home furnishings. The Company operates in three segments: Wholesale, Retail and Licensing. TD AMERITRADE: No Ruling Yet on Settlement of "Elvey" Spam Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has not yet issued a ruling on the proposed settlement of a lawsuit against TD Ameritrade Inc. that accuses the company of illegally selling e-mail addresses to spammers. Initially, one purported class-action lawsuit, captioned "Elvey v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-02852-BZ," was filed on May 31, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges that TDA Inc. disclosed, inadvertently or intentionally, the e-mail addresses of account holders to spammers, who then sent the account holders e-mail solicitations promoting certain stocks. The suit includes claims of alleged violations of California and federal statutes and alleged breach of fiduciary duty and requests injunctive and other equitable relief and damages. As disclosed in a press release dated Sept. 14, 2007, the company discovered and eliminated unauthorized code from its systems that allowed access to an internal database. The discovery was made as the result of an internal investigation of stock-related spam. The company hired an independent consultant to investigate whether identity theft occurred as a result of the breach. The consultant conducted four investigations over the last 12 months and found no evidence of identity theft. A second lawsuit, captioned "Zigler v. TD Ameritrade, Inc.," was filed on Sept. 26, 2007, in the same jurisdiction on behalf of a purported nationwide class of account holders. The factual allegations of this complaint and the relief sought are substantially the same as those in the first lawsuit. The cases were consolidated under the caption, "In re TD Ameritrade Accountholders Litigation." The parties entered into an agreement to settle the lawsuit on a class basis subject to court approval. A hearing on a motion requesting preliminary approval of the proposed settlement was held on June 12, 2008. At the hearing, one of the three plaintiffs objected to the proposed settlement. Thus, the court entered an order denying the motion for preliminary approval without prejudice and directed the parties to provide supplemental information to assist the court in evaluating the proposed settlement. On July 10, 2008, TDA Inc. and two of the plaintiffs provided supplemental information in response to the court's direction and in further support of the proposed settlement. After additional submissions were made by the parties, the Court held a further hearing on Oct. 7, 2008. The Court has not yet issued a ruling on the matter, according to the company's Feb. 5, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008. The suit is "Elvey v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv- 02852-BZ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Bernard Zimmerman, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Scott A. Kamber, Esq. (skamber@kolaw.com) Kamber & Associates, LLC 11 Broadway, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: 212-920-3072 Fax: 212-202-6364 - and - Alan Himmelfarb, Esq. Law Offices of Himmelfarb & Himmelfarb 2757 Leonis Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90058 Phone: 323-585-8696 Fax: 323-585-8198 e-mail: Consumerlaw1@earthlink.net TD AMERITRADE: Continues to Faces Lawsuits Over Sale of ARS ----------------------------------------------------------- TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. continues to face several purported class-action lawsuits over the company's sale of auction rate securities. Beginning in March 2008, lawsuits were filed against various financial services firms by customers related to their investments in auction rate securities. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege that the defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in statements to customers about investments in ARS and the manner in which the ARS market functioned in violation of provisions of the federal securities laws. Two purported class-action complaints have been filed alleging such conduct with respect to TDA Inc. and TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. The first case, filed on March 19, 2008, is captioned, "Humphrys v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. et al." The second case, filed on April 17, 2008, is captioned, "Silverstein v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. et al." Both complaints were filed on behalf of customers who purchased ARS between March 19, 2003, and Feb. 13, 2008. The complaints seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, injunctive relief, interest, and attorneys' fees. Both cases are pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. A motion has been filed by some plaintiffs requesting that the proceedings in the lawsuits against the various financial services firms in effect be consolidated before one judge. The company and the other defendants and several plaintiffs in other cases have filed oppositions to the proposed consolidation. The company and parties in other cases filed oppositions to the motion. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied the motion in October 2008, according to the company's Feb. 5, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008. TD AMERITRADE Holding Corp. -- http://www.amtd.com/-- is engaged in providing securities brokerage services and technology-based financial services to retail investors and business partners, predominantly through the Internet, a national branch network and relationships with independent registered investment advisors. The company offers touch-tone trading, trading over the Internet, unlimited, streaming, free real-time quotes, extended trading hour, direct access and commitment on the speed of execution to its customers. As of Jan. 24, 2006, the company acquired the U.S. brokerage business of TD Waterhouse Group, Inc.. The client offerings include TD AMERITRADE, TD AMERITRADE Institutional, TD AMERITRADE Izone, Amerivest, TDAX Independence ETFs and TD AMERITRADE Corporate Services. The products available to the clients include common and preferred stock, exchange-traded funds, option trades, mutual funds, fixed income, margin lending and cash management services. TD AMERITRADE: Faces Suits Over Reserve Yield Plus Fund Shares -------------------------------------------------------------- TD AMERITRADE Holding Corp. faces two purported class-action lawsuits filed in November and December 2008, with respect to the Yield Plus Fund. The lawsuits are captioned, "Ross v. Reserve Management Company, Inc. et al.," in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and Hamilton v. TD Ameritrade, Inc. et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The lawsuits are on behalf of persons who purchased shares of Reserve Yield Plus Fund. Both complaints name as defendants a number of entities and individuals related to The Reserve. The company is named as a defendant in both cases and TDA Inc. is named as a defendant in the Hamilton case. The complaints allege claims of violations of the federal securities laws and other claims based on allegations that false and misleading statements and omissions were made in the Reserve Yield Plus Fund prospectus and in other statements regarding the fund. The complaints seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, interest and attorneys' fees. TD AMERITRADE Holding Corp. -- http://www.amtd.com/-- is engaged in providing securities brokerage services and technology-based financial services to retail investors and business partners, predominantly through the Internet, a national branch network and relationships with independent registered investment advisors. The company offers touch-tone trading, trading over the Internet, unlimited, streaming, free real-time quotes, extended trading hour, direct access and commitment on the speed of execution to its customers. As of Jan. 24, 2006, the company acquired the U.S. brokerage business of TD Waterhouse Group, Inc.. The client offerings include TD AMERITRADE, TD AMERITRADE Institutional, TD AMERITRADE Izone, Amerivest, TDAX Independence ETFs and TD AMERITRADE Corporate Services. The products available to the clients include common and preferred stock, exchange-traded funds, option trades, mutual funds, fixed income, margin lending and cash management services. WARNER MUSIC: Appeal to Junked Amended Complaint Pending in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs' appeal to the decision dismissing their consolidated amended complaint against Warner Music Group Corp. remains pending in the Southern District of New York. Subsequent to the announcements of governmental investigations as to whether the company's activities relating to the pricing of digitally downloaded music violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act, more than 30 putative class action lawsuits concerning the pricing of digital music downloads were filed and were later consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the Southern District of New York. The consolidated amended complaint, filed on April 13, 2007, alleges conspiracy among record companies to delay the release of their content for digital distribution, inflate their pricing of CDs and fix prices for digital downloads. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory, statutory and treble damages. All defendants, including the company, filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on July 30, 2007. This motion was granted on Oct. 9, 2008. Plaintiffs appealed the decision, according to the company's Feb. 5, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008. Warner Music Group Corp. -- http://www.wmg.com-- is a music content company that classifies its business interests into two areas: Recorded Music and Music Publishing. The Recorded Music business produces revenue through the marketing, sale and licensing of recorded music in various physical (such as compact disc's (CDs), cassettes, long playings (LPs) and digital versatile discs (DVDs)) and digital (such as downloads and ringtones) formats. The Music Publishing business owns and acquires rights to musical compositions, exploits and markets these compositions and receives royalties or fees for their use. The company publishes music across a range of musical styles. The company own or control rights to more than one million musical compositions, including a number of pop music hits, American standards, folk songs, and motion picture and theatrical compositions. WHIRLPOOL CORP: Mich. Court Certifies Class in Retirees' Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan granted class-action status to the litigation, "Ginter et al v. Whirlpool Corporation et al.," which names Whirlpool Corp., and Whirlpool Corp. Group Benefit Plan, as defendants, John Jennings of the Newton Daily News reports. The lawsuit was brought by former Maytag employees against the company. These employees included: -- Reid Ginter, -- Willie L. Bennett, -- Stephen M. Murphy, -- Richard Poston, -- Robert L. Vander Leest, -- Carmen Vander Leest, and -- Sandra Davis. In a ruling issued in January 2009, Judge Gordon J. Quist of e U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, granted the motion to allow the case to be heard as a class- action lawsuit, according to the Newton Daily News. In 2008, Whirlpool announced that it intended to bring former Maytag employees' health insurance in line with Whirlpool workers, angering the Maytagers, who say they fought for and earned their current health insurace, reports the Newton Daily News. The Newton Daily News reported Whirlpool lawyers argued that the plaintiff's definition of those eligible for the health insurance was "complicated and unnecessary," however, the judge ruled otherwise, and that the definition "appears to cover all persons who may be entitled to health benefits, while defendants' definition excludes some of these persons." The suit is "Ginter et al v. Whirlpool Corporation et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-00750-GJQ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Judge Judge Gordon J. Quist, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: David R. Radtke, Esq. (dradtke@kmsmc.com) Klimist McKnight Sale McClow & Canzano PC 400 Galleria Officentre, Ste. 117 Southfield, MI 48034 Phone: (248) 354-9650 Representing the defendants is: Mark Casciari, Esq. (mcasciari@seyfarth.com) Seyfarth Shaw LLP 131 S. Dearborn St., Ste. 2400 Chicago, IL 60603-5577 Phone: (312) 460-5855 New Securities Fraud Cases EMCORE CORP: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.M. -------------------------------------------------------------- LOS ANGELES, Feb. 11, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Notice is hereby given that Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Emcore Corporation ("Emcore" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:EMKR), between June 12, 2007 and June 30, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint charges Emcore and certain of the Company's current and former executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Emcore provides compound semiconductor-based components and subsystems for the broadband, fiber optic, satellite and terrestrial solar power markets, including concentrating photovoltaic ("CPV") systems. Throughout the Class Period, Emcore touted its order backlog, which analysts, investors and other market participants considered an indication of future profitability. The Complaint alleges that defendants' Class Period statements were false and misleading or failed to disclose that, among other things: -- the Company's reported backlog was overstated; -- the Company overstated the demand for its products; -- the Company had improperly recognized revenue from transactions with customers that did not have the ability to pay the Company; -- the Company's financial results were overstated; -- the Company's financial results were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; and -- the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls. On March 18, 2008, a report on the market by Citron Research (the "Citron Report") shocked investors by challenging the quality of Emcore's customers, their ability to pay for orders placed with Emcore, and the quality of Emcore's reported backlog. The Citron Report asserted that Emcore's largest customer, Green and Gold Energy ("GGE"), which accounted for $78 million of Emcore's $86 million order backlog in terrestrial solar technology, did not have the ability to pay for the orders that GGE had placed with Emcore. Moreover, the report questioned Emcore's claim that GGE was a "world-leading CPV system provider" and GGE's ability to complete its transactions or meet its agreements with Emcore. On this news, shares of Emcore declined $2.05 per share, more than 23%, to close on March 18, 2008 at $6.78 per share, on unusually heavy volume. On June 30, 2008, a report on the market issued by research analysts from Canaccord Adams revealed, among other things, that upon meeting with ES Systems, one of Emcore's customers in South Korea, the analysts believed that market expectations for Emcore's business with ES Systems (based on Emcore's announcements) were overstated. On this news, shares of Emcore declined $0.97 per share, or 13.42%, on Monday June 30, 2008, and further declined an additional $0.68, or 10.86%, on July 1, 2008 to close on July 1, 2008 at $5.58 per share, on unusually heavy volume. Over this two-day period, Emcore's shares declined by $1.65 per share, or approximately 22%. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members. For more details, contact: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Michael Goldberg, Esq. Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP Los Angeles, CA Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224 e-mail: info@glancylaw.com Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com INTEGRAL SYSTEMS: Howard G. Smith Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- BENSALEM, Pa., Feb. 11, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces a February 16, 2009, deadline to move to be a lead plaintiff in the securities class action lawsuit filed on behalf of all purchasers of the securities of Integral Systems, Inc. ("Integral Systems" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:ISYS) between April 28, 2008 and December 10, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The shareholder lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the market concerning Integral Systems' business, operations and prospects, thereby artificially inflating the price of Integral Systems securities. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants' public statements were false and misleading or failed to disclose that: -- the Company improperly recognized revenue; -- as a result, the Company misstated its financial results during the Class Period; -- the Company's financial results were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; -- the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and -- as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On December 11, 2008, Integral Systems shocked investors when it revealed that the unaudited financial statements of the Company for the interim periods ended December 31, 2007, March 30, 2008 and June 30, 2008 should no longer be relied upon due to an error in the accounting treatment for certain transactions with respect to the timing of the recognition of revenue between periods. The Company further disclosed that, as a result, the Company would restate its previously filed financial statements for those interim quarterly periods in fiscal year 2008. On this news, shares of Integral Systems declined $6.38 per share, or 28.61%, to close on December 11, 2008 at $15.92 per share, on unusually heavy volume. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact: Howard G. Smith, Esq. (howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com) Law Offices of Howard G. Smith 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 Phone: (215) 638-4847 or (888) 638-4847 LEVEL 3 COMMS: The Shuman Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- BOULDER, Colo., Feb. 11, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The Shuman Law Firm announced that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of a class (the "Class") consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Level 3 Communications, Inc. ("Level 3" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:LVLT) between February 8, 2007 and October 23, 2007, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges Level 3 and certain of the Company's executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Level 3 engages in the communications business in North America and Europe. The Company's network and Internet services include transport services, high speed Internet protocol services, dedicated Internet access, virtual private network services, co- location services and dark fiber services. Between December 2005 and January 2007, Level 3 also acquired several companies. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public statements concerning Level 3's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants' public statements were false and misleading or failed to disclose or indicate that: -- the Company's efforts to integrate the numerous acquired companies were not going well; -- specifically, the Company was experiencing an increase in service activation times, which was negatively impacting the Company's service installation intervals and rate of revenue growth; -- the Company was also experiencing challenges in its service management processes that were resulting in longer response times to resolve customers' network service issues; -- steps taken by the Company to remedy the problems were not working, and actually were further complicating the issues and making them worse; -- as a result of the above, the Company did not have adequate provisioning capability to convert its sales, or signed orders, into revenue generating service; -- the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and -- as a result of the above, the statements made by the defendants during the Class Period lacked a reasonable basis. On October 23, 2007, Level 3 revealed that the Company was having extensive difficulties integrating the systems and customer-service processes of the numerous companies it had acquired, and these difficulties were causing an increase in service activation times. Moreover, Level 3 revised downward the Company's previously issued guidance for fourth quarter 2007 and full year 2008. On this news, shares of Level 3 declined $1.04 per share, or approximately 24%, to close on October 23, 2007 at $3.28 per share. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members. For more details, contact: Kip B. Shuman, Esq. (kip@shumanlawfirm.com) Rusty E. Glenn, Esq. (rusty@shumanlawfirm.com) The Shuman Law Firm 885 Arapahoe Avenue Boulder, CO 80203 Phone: 866-974-8626 Fax: 303-484-4886 Web site: http://www.shumanlawfirm.com RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: The Shuman Law Firm Announces Suit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- BOULDER, Colo., Feb. 10, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The Shuman Law Firm today announced that a lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a proposed class (the "Class") consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Rigel" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:RIGL) between December 13, 2007 and October 27, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Also included are those who acquired Rigel common stock in the Company's February 2008 Secondary Offering. The Complaint charges that Rigel and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws. Specifically, defendants are alleged to have issued materially false and misleading statements about a clinical trial (the "Study") of a new drug, R788, for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. The Study involved 189 patients in the U.S. and Mexico. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants failed to disclose the following: -- patients in Mexico had higher response rates in both the placebo and treated arms than the U.S. Patients, which may have contributed disproportionately to the overall reported benefit observed at the higher doses; -- R788 caused an increase in average blood pressure which could signal an increase in cardiovascular risk, and the mechanism that caused the increase was not well understood; and -- patients in the Study taking R788 experienced increased liver enzymes compared to patients taking the placebo. For more details, contact: Kip B. Shuman, Esq. (kip@shumanlawfirm.com) Rusty E. Glenn, Esq. (rusty@shumanlawfirm.com) The Shuman Law Firm 885 Arapahoe Avenue Boulder, CO 80203 Phone: 866-974-8626 Fax: 303-484-4886 Web site: http://www.shumanlawfirm.com Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 4,800 Cases Pending Against Tyco at Dec. 26 ---------------------------------------------------------------- About 4,800 asbestos-related liability cases as of Dec. 26, 2008 were pending against Tyco International Ltd. and its subsidiaries, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 3, 2009. The Company and its subsidiaries, as of Sept. 26, 2008, faced about 4,600 pending asbestos liability cases. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 21, 2008) The Company and some of its subsidiaries are named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials. The Company has observed an increase in the number of these lawsuits in the past several years. A limited number of the cases allege premises liability, based on claims that individuals were exposed to asbestos while on a subsidiary's property. Most of the cases involve product liability claims, based 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. 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 intends to appeal the verdict and said it believes that it will ultimately be overturned. Headquartered in Pembroke, Bermuda, 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: Crown Holdings Cites $25M Charge at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Crown Holdings, Inc., in the fourth quarter of 2008, recorded a charge of US$25 million (US$15 million, net of tax, or US$0.09 per diluted share) to increase its asbestos litigation reserve, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 2, 2009. The Company estimates that its asbestos liability for pending and future asbestos claims will range between US$201 million and US$239 million. At Dec. 31, 2007, the reported range was US$201 million to US$243 million. After the US$25 million charge, the Company's recorded liability at Dec. 31, 2008 was US$201 million, the same as at Dec. 31, 2007. Asbestos-related payments totaled US$25 million in 2008, compared with US$26 million in 2007. Cases filed against the Company declined to 3,100 in 2008 from 3,600 in 2007. Headquartered in Philadelphia, Crown Holdings, Inc. supplies packaging products to consumer marketing companies around the world. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Briggs & Stratton Still Has Liability Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- Briggs & Stratton continues to be subject to various unresolved legal actions, including asbestos-related product liability actions, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 4, 2009. Headquartered in Wauwatosa, Wis., 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: 525 Injury Claims Ongoing v. Todd Shipyards ---------------------------------------------------------------- Todd Shipyards Corporation faces about 525 asbestos-related claims, of which 14 are "malignant" and 511 are "non-malignant," according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 5, 2009. The Company faced 516 asbestos-related claims, of which 12 were "malignant" claims and 504 were "non-malignant" claims. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 21, 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 the Company as "malignant" claims. All others of a less medically serious nature are categorized as "non-malignant." As of Dec. 28, 2008, the Company has recorded a bodily injury liability reserve of US$5.3 million and a bodily injury insurance receivable of US$3.9 million. This compares to a previously recorded bodily injury reserve of US$5.4 million and insurance receivable of US$4 million at March 30, 2008. Headquartered in Seattle, 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: Scotts Miracle-Gro Still Has Injury Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company is still a defendant in cases alleging injuries that the lawsuits claim resulted from exposure to asbestos-containing products, apparently based on the Company's historic use of vermiculite in certain of its products. The complaints in these cases are not specific about the plaintiffs' contacts with the Company or its products, according to the Company's quarterly report dated Feb. 5, 2009. The Company in each case is one of numerous defendants and none of the claims seek damages from the Company alone. The Company is reviewing agreements and policies that may provide insurance coverage or indemnity as to these claims and is pursuing coverage under some of these agreements and policies. Headquartered in Marysville, Ohio, The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company manufactures, markets, and sells lawn and garden care products. The Company's customers include home centers, mass merchandisers, warehouse clubs, large hardware chains, independent hardware stores, nurseries, garden centers, food and drug stores, commercial nurseries and greenhouses and specialty crop growers. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Magnetek Cites $700T Income During 2nd Qtr. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Magnetek, Inc. reported an income of US$700,000 or US$0.02 per share related to discontinued operations in the second quarter of fiscal 2009, including an asbestos-related gain of US$500,000 related to a May 2007 settlement agreement between the Company and Federal-Mogul Corporation, according to a Company press release dated Feb. 5, 2009. The amount represents primarily the recovery of previously incurred legal fees for the defense of asbestos-related lawsuits, and brings the Company's total amounts received under the agreement to US$5.5 million, the maximum amount to which the Company is entitled under the terms of the agreement. The results of discontinued operations for the second quarter of fiscal 2008 include a gain of US$1.4 million from the settlement agreement with Federal-Mogul. Menomonee Falls, Wis.-based Magnetek, Inc. makes programmable motion control and power conditioning systems, including variable-frequency motor drives used in overhead cranes and elevators, power conditioners for stationary fuel cells, wind turbines, commercial solar power, and telecommunications power systems. The Company gets more than 80 percent of its sales in the United States. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Fines 2 Conn. Cos. for Removal Breaches ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Connecticut have reached a settlement with Anderson-Wilcox Corp. and Cutting Edge Concepts II LLC, for alleged violations of the federal Clean Air Act due to improper removal and disposal of asbestos at a New Haven, Conn., property that underwent renovation in 2002, according to an EPA press release dated Feb. 5, 2009. The settlement requires the companies to pay a fine of US$300,000 for the violations. The violations occurred in the spring and summer of 2002 during renovations at 116 Crown Street in New Haven. The property was a vacant, commercial property dating back to the late 1800s. Cutting Edge Concepts, the owner of the property, hired Anderson Wilcox, a construction company, who in turn retained a subcontractor to remove debris and perform construction/renovation work at the 19,500 square foot masonry structure. Despite being aware of the likelihood that asbestos was present throughout the basement of the building, the two companies failed to conduct any bulk sampling of suspected material to confirm the presence of asbestos. Nor did they follow proper procedures for the safe removal and disposal of asbestos. Instead, the companies instructed the subcontractor to remove suspected asbestos-containing materials and debris from the basement and dispose of them in standard trash dumpsters, potentially putting workers and the public at risk. The subcontractor was also directed to remove other building components, including a large amount of vinyl floor tiles from the upper floors that were believed to contain asbestos and to dispose of them in the same open-topped dumpsters located outside the building. The companies failed to ensure that these tiles and at least 20 bags of asbestos-containing pipe lagging from the basement were kept wet, as required by regulation to prevent asbestos fibers from becoming airborne. State officials alerted EPA to the potential violations after receiving a tip. The activities were in violation of the federal Clean Air Act and the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants for asbestos (Asbestos NESHAP). Specific violations included failure to: -- Thoroughly inspect the facility prior to beginning a renovation; -- Notify EPA or delegated state authority of the renovation; -- Keep asbestos adequately wet during stripping; -- Keep asbestos adequately wet before collection and containment for disposal; -- Properly label containers as required; and -- Deposit asbestos waste at a proper disposal site. EPA's asbestos regulations help protect workers and the public from inhaling airborne asbestos fibers. It is important for developers and construction companies to have trained inspectors perform thorough asbestos inspections prior to conducting renovation or demolition work to ensure that adequate measures are taken to protect the health of on-site workers and the general public. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tewkesbury Engineer Death Linked to Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- A Gloucestershire, England, inquest heard that the death of 65- year-old George Thompson, an engineering company boss, was linked to exposure to asbestos, the Tewkesbury ADMAG reports. However, on Feb. 5, 2009, County Coroner Alan Crickmore said he could not be sure how or when Mr. Thompson was exposed to asbestos. Dr. Crickmore recorded an open verdict on the death of Mr. Thompson, of Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire, England. Dr. Crickmore said he was satisfied Mr. Thompson died from malignant mesothelioma. He said that it was possible that Mr. Thompson's recollection of playing with pieces of asbestos in the streets as a boy might account for his exposure. The inquest heard that at the time of his death, Mr. Thompson chairman of Helander Precision in Tewkesbury. He became at about Christmas 2006 and was diagnosed with mesothelioma. Mr. Thompson was admitted to Tewkesbury Hospital on June 2, 2008 and died on June 3, 2008. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Westpoint Schoolcare Fined for Health Risks ---------------------------------------------------------------- Westpoint Schoolcare Ltd. was fined GBP1,000 and ordered to pay GBP515 costs after admitting failing to properly assess whether asbestos was present before starting renovation at the Manley Park Junior School in Manchester, England, The Clitheroe Advertiser and Times reports. The Groton, Manchester-based company also failed to take steps to prevent its employees being exposed to asbestos dust and undertook work without a license. The school identified that the ceiling tiles contained up to 50 percent brown asbestos but the Company did not act on this information and failed to tell its employees about the asbestos or how to work without disturbing the ceiling tiles. The ceiling was removed despite Westpoint Schoolcare not holding a license to do such work and without taking the necessary precautions. Inspector Thomas Merry said, "They had ample opportunity to ensure the ceiling was not disturbed, and arrange for a competent licensed contractor to remove the asbestos in a safe, controlled manner. Unfortunately this was not done and an employee was needlessly exposed to asbestos fibers." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Malta Aims to Remove Asbestos in Buildings ---------------------------------------------------------------- Buildings in Malta still house some 5,000 cubic meters of asbestos, Malta Today reports. According to the Solid Waste Management Plan, Malta has 2,000 cubic meters of asbestos still in storage awaiting disposal, while 5,000 cubic meters is installed in buildings that are waiting to be dismantled. The waste management plan blamed the private sector of failing to export this waste, calling for a feasibility study on how best to dispose of this waste. A Ministry of Resources and Rural Affairs spokesperson has insisted that most of the asbestos waste is already being exported to foreign countries. In Malta, there is currently no initiative to remove asbestos from buildings, but when these buildings are refurbished and the asbestos is dismantled, it has to be treated and disposed of in the most environmentally sound manner. Any storage, treatment, disposal or shipment of waste asbestos has to be registered with the MEPA, which is the only competent authority responsible for the management of waste asbestos. National waste agency WasteServ offers a collection service for asbestos resulting from households. It is also responsible for the disposal of this waste. To provide for this service, a contractor chosen by the public picks up the asbestos waste and decontaminates the site from where the asbestos was taken. It also takes the necessary measures to ensure the export and treatment of this waste. WasteServ pays the contractors involved EUR680 per ton. For the past seven months, this service has cost the national waste agency EUR30,650. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Supreme Court Rules on Nostrom Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York entered a ruling in the asbestos-related case styled Judith Nostrom, etc., Plaintiff-Appellant v. A.W. Chesterton Company, et al., Defendants, Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation, et al., Defendants-Respondents. Judges Luis A. Gonzalez, John T. Buckley, James M. Catterson, James M. McGuire, Rolando T. Acosta entered judgment in the case on Feb. 3, 2009. The Supreme Court, New York County, on Jan. 29, 2008 and Feb. 5, 2009 entered rulings in the action arising out of Ms. Nostrom's decedent's alleged exposure to asbestos in the workplace. The Supreme Court granted defendants-respondents' motions for summary judgment dismissing as against them Ms. Nostrom's Labor Law s 241(6) claims based on 12 NYCRR 12-1.4(b) (3),(4) and 12-1.6(a). The Appellate Court affirmed the ruling. Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. in New York (Jerry Kristal, Esq., of counsel), represented Ms. Nostrom. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Affirms Order in Martin Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, upheld the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky's ruling, which granted summary judgment to three companies in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed by David Martin on behalf of his late father, Dennis Martin. These companies are Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company, General Motors Corporation, and General Electric Company. The case is styled David Martin, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company, General Motors Corporation, General Electric Company, Defendants-Appellees. District Judge Thomas L. Ludington and Circuit Judges Eugene E. Siler, Jr. and David W. McKeague entered judgment in Case No. 07-6385 on Jan. 27, 2009. Dennis Martin died from malignant mesothelioma on March 22, 2002. David Martin filed a complaint based on asbestos exposure in Kentucky state court against nine defendants. Defendants removed the case to the Eastern District of Kentucky based on diversity. After various defendants settled or were dismissed from the suit, claims remained against CG&E, GE, and GM. The claims against CG&E and GE were based on asbestos that Dennis Martin's father, Vernon Martin, brought home on his work clothes while working for CG&E. The claim against GM was based on Dennis Martin's alleged exposure to asbestos while working as a ship mechanic from 1979 to 1984. The district court found that David Martin did not raise an issue of material fact regarding causation in his claim against GM, and so granted summary judgment to GM. The district court also granted summary judgment for CG&E and GE because the injury to Dennis Martin was not foreseeable at the time of exposure. David Martin appealed both orders. The Appeals Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of GM based on the lack of evidence connecting GM to Dennis Martin's asbestos exposure. The Appeals Court also affirmed summary judgment in favor of CG&E and GE because neither knew or should have known of the danger of secondary asbestos exposure. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Columbus McKinnon Records $8.8Mil Liability ---------------------------------------------------------------- Columbus McKinnon Corporation's estimation of its asbestos- related aggregate liability is about US$8.8 million, which has been reflected as a liability in the consolidated financial statements as of Dec. 28, 2008. The Company's estimation of its asbestos-related aggregate liability was about US$7.9 million, which has been reflected as a liability in the consolidated financial statements as of Sept. 28, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 14, 2008) The Company has estimated its asbestos-related aggregate liability through March 2027 and March 2039 to range between US$5.6 million and US$15.6 million using actuarial parameters of continued claims for a period of 18 to 30 years. Of the US$8.8 million, management expects to incur asbestos liability payments of about US$400,000 over the next 12 months. Headquartered in Amherst, N.Y., Columbus McKinnon Corporation manufactures and markets material handling products, systems and services that lift, secure, position and move material ergonomically, safely, precisely and efficiently. Key products include hoists, cranes, actuators, chain and forged attachments. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Generation Records $52M Reserves at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Exelon Corporation's subsidiary, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, reserves US$52 million for asbestos-related bodily injury claims at Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$50 million at Dec. 31, 2007, according to the Company's annual report filed on Feb. 6, 2009. As of Dec. 31, 2008, about US$14 million of this amount related to 167 open claims presented to Generation, while the remaining US$38 million of the reserve is for estimated future asbestos- related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through 2050. Generation maintains a reserve for claims associated with asbestos-related personal injury actions in certain facilities that are currently owned by Generation or were previously owned by other Company subsidiaries (Commonwealth Edison Company and PECO Energy Company). Generation had reserved US$52 million for asbestos-related bodily injury claims at Sept. 30, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 31, 2008) Headquartered in Chicago, Exelon Corporation, a utility services holding company, operates through its principal subsidiaries: Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Commonwealth Edison Company; and PECO Energy Company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Precision Castparts Facing Injury Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Precision Castparts Corp. continues to face lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to chemicals and substances in the workplace, including asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Feb. 6, 2009. To date, the Company has been dismissed from a number of these suits and has settled a number of others. Headquartered in Portland, Ore., Precision Castparts Corp. makes investment castings used in aerospace and power generation applications. Products include jet engine parts, fluid management valves, and deep-hole boring tools. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Cases Still Pending Against Rockwell ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rockwell Automation, Inc. (including its subsidiaries) continues to face lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos used in certain components of the Company's products, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Feb. 6, 2009. Thousands of claimants are in the lawsuits that name the Company as a defendant. In some cases, the claims involve products from divested businesses, and the Company is indemnified for most of the costs. The Company has agreed to defend and indemnify asbestos claims associated with products manufactured or sold by the Company's former Dodge mechanical and Reliance Electric motors and motor repair services businesses prior to their divestiture by the Company, which occurred on Jan. 31, 2007. The Company is also responsible for half of the costs and liabilities associated with asbestos cases against the former Rockwell International Corporation's divested measurement and flow control business. The Company has maintained insurance coverage that it said it believes covers indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured retentions, for claims arising from the Company's former Allen-Bradley subsidiary. Following litigation against Nationwide Indemnity Company and Kemper Insurance, the insurance carriers that provided liability insurance coverage to Allen-Bradley, the Company entered into separate agreements on April 1, 2008 with both insurance carriers to further resolve responsibility for ongoing and future coverage of Allen-Bradley asbestos claims. In exchange for a lump sum payment, Kemper bought out its remaining liability and has been released from further insurance obligations to Allen-Bradley. Nationwide administers the Kemper buyout funds and has entered into a cost share agreement to pay the substantial majority of future defense and indemnity costs for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims once the Kemper buy-out funds are depleted. The Company said that it believes that these arrangements will continue to provide coverage for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims throughout the remaining life of the asbestos liability. Headquartered in Milwaukee, Rockwell Automation, Inc. is an industrial automation company. The Company's Control Products & Solutions unit makes industrial automation products. To complement its automation product offerings, the Company also offers factory management software. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor Has $53M Liability at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ArvinMeritor, Inc.'s non-current asbestos-related liabilities were US$53 million as of Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$54 million as of Sept. 30, 2008, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Feb. 6, 2009. The Company's current asbestos-related liabilities were US$15 million as of Dec. 31, 2008, the same as for the period ended Sept. 30, 2008. The Company's non-current asbestos-related liabilities were US$44 million as of Dec. 31, 2008, the same as for the period ended Sept. 30, 2008. The Company's current asbestos-related recoveries were US$8 million as of Dec. 31, 2008, the same as for the period ended Sept. 30, 2008. Headquartered in Troy, Mich., ArvinMeritor, Inc. supplies integrated systems, modules and components serving commercial truck, trailer, light vehicle and specialty original equipment manufacturers (OEM) and certain aftermarkets. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Maremont Still Facing 35T Claims at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ArvinMeritor, Inc.'s subsidiary, Maremont Corporation, had about 35,000 pending asbestos-related claims at Sept. 30, 2008, in which there was no significant change in pending asbestos- related claims during the three months ended Dec. 31, 2008. Maremont manufactured friction products containing asbestos from 1953 through 1977, when it sold its friction product business. Arvin Industries, Inc., a predecessor of the Company, acquired Maremont in 1986. Maremont and many other companies are defendants in suits brought by individuals claiming personal injuries as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products. Although Maremont has been named in these cases, in the cases where actual injury has been alleged, very few claimants have established that a Maremont product caused their injuries. Plaintiffs' lawyers often sue dozens or even hundreds of defendants in individual lawsuits on behalf of hundreds or thousands of claimants, seeking damages against all named defendants irrespective of the disease or injury and irrespective of any causal connection with a particular product. Maremont's asbestos-related reserves for pending and future claims were US$52 million as of Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$53 million as of Sept. 30, 2008. Maremont's asbestos-related recoveries were US$36 million as of Dec. 31, 2008 and Sept. 30, 2008. Prior to February 2001, Maremont participated in the Center for Claims Resolution (CCR) and shared with other CCR members in the payment of defense and indemnity costs for asbestos-related claims. The CCR handled the resolution and processing of asbestos claims on behalf of its members until February 2001, when it was reorganized and discontinued negotiating shared settlements. Upon dissolution of the CCR in February 2001, Maremont began handling asbestos-related claims through its own defense counsel and has taken a more aggressive defensive approach that involves examining the merits of each asbestos-related claim. Maremont determined that as of Sept. 30, 2008 the most likely and probable liability for pending and future claims over the next 10 years is US$51 million. Headquartered in Troy, Mich., ArvinMeritor, Inc. supplies integrated systems, modules and components serving commercial truck, trailer, light vehicle and specialty original equipment manufacturers (OEM) and certain aftermarkets. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor's Rockwell Liability at $16Mil ---------------------------------------------------------------- ArvinMeritor, Inc.'s liability for defense and indemnity costs associated with Rockwell Automation, Inc. asbestos-related legacy claims was US$16 million at Dec. 31, 2008 and Sept. 30, 2008. The Company, along with many other companies, has also been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos used in certain components of Rockwell products many years ago. Liability for these claims was transferred to the Company at the time of the spin-off of the automotive business to Meritor from Rockwell in 1997. A significant portion of the claims do not identify any of Rockwell's products or specify which of the claimants, if any, were exposed to asbestos attributable to Rockwell's products, and past experience has shown that most of the claimants will never identify any of Rockwell's products. Historically, the Company has been dismissed from the vast majority of these claims with no payment to claimants. The Company has recorded an insurance receivable related to Rockwell legacy asbestos-related liabilities of US$16 million at each of Dec. 31, 2008 and Sept. 30, 2008. Headquartered in Troy, Mich., ArvinMeritor, Inc. supplies integrated systems, modules and components serving commercial truck, trailer, light vehicle and specialty original equipment manufacturers (OEM) and certain aftermarkets. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: STERIS Corp. Still Facing Exposure Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- STERIS Corporation is, and will likely continue to be involved in legal proceedings and claims related to asbestos product exposure. No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 6, 2009. Headquartered in Mentor, Ohio, STERIS Corporation develops, manufactures, and markets infection prevention, contamination control, microbial reduction, and surgical and critical care support products and services for healthcare, pharmaceutical, scientific, research, industrial, and governmental Customers. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Pacific Cites 1,867 Claims at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Union Pacific Corporation faced 1,867 open asbestos-related claims at Dec. 31, 2008, compared with 2,086 claims at Dec. 31, 2007, according to the Company's annual report for the year ended Dec. 31, 2008. At Dec. 31, 2008, the Company noted 256 new claims and 475 settled or dismissed claims. At Dec. 31, 2007, the Company noted 269 new claims and 460 settled or dismissed claims. The Company is a defendant in a number of lawsuits in which current and former employees and other parties allege exposure to asbestos. At Dec. 31, 2008, the Company's long-term asbestos liability was US$213 million, of which US$12 million was current. Credits were US$42 million and payments were US$10 million. At Dec. 31, 2007, the Company's long-term asbestos liability was US$265 million, of which US$11 million was current. Credits were US$20 million and payments were US$17 million. About 17 percent of the recorded liability related to asserted claims and about 83 percent related to unasserted claims at Dec. 31, 2008. These claims are expected to be paid out over the next 30 years. The Company's long-term asbestos-related liability was US$256 million in the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008, compared with US$272 million in the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 31, 2008) Headquartered in Omaha, Nebr., Union Pacific Corporation's Union Pacific Railroad Company links 23 states in the western two- thirds of the country and serves the fastest-growing U.S. population centers. The Company's business mix includes agricultural products, automotive, chemicals, energy, industrial products and intermodal. It offers long-haul routes from all major West Coast and Gulf Coast ports to eastern gateways. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Magnetek, Inc. Still Facing Exposure Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- Magnetek, Inc. continues to face asbestos-related lawsuits associated with business operations previously acquired by the Company, but which are no longer owned, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 6, 2009. During the Company's ownership, none of the businesses produced or sold asbestos-containing products. With respect to these claims, the Company is either contractually indemnified against liability for asbestos-related claims or believes that it has no liability for those claims. The Company also filed claims in the Federal-Mogul Corporation bankruptcy proceedings to recover attorney's fees for defense of these claims. In May 2007, the Company and Federal-Mogul entered into a settlement agreement under which the Company is entitled to receive amounts from a settlement trust established under Federal-Mogul's reorganization plan and funded by insurance proceeds. The Company was entitled to receive 15 percent of the first US$20 million and 10 percent of the next US$25 million of insurance proceeds, up to a maximum of US$5.5 million, in exchange for withdrawing its bankruptcy claims and objections to the reorganization plan and execution of certain releases. In January 2009, the Company received a payment of US$1 million under the settlement agreement, which brought the total proceeds received to date under the settlement agreement to US$5.5 million, the maximum amount to which the Company is entitled. The condensed consolidated statements of operations for the three- and six-months periods ended Dec. 28, 2008 include US$500,000 of income from the settlement trust in income (loss) from discontinued operations. The condensed consolidated statements of operations for the three- and six-months periods ended Dec. 30, 2007 include US$1.4 million of income from the settlement trust in income from discontinued operations. Several insurance carriers filed a declaratory judgment action relating to insurance coverage for such previously acquired businesses, seeking a determination that no coverage is available under the policies. Federal-Mogul, the Company and other defendants filed responsive pleadings and motions relating to the case, and the court granted the motions to stay the declaratory judgment action. Some of these insurers appealed such ruling and in November 2008, the ruling was upheld on appeal. Menomonee Falls, Wis.-based Magnetek, Inc. makes programmable motion control and power conditioning systems, including variable-frequency motor drives used in overhead cranes and elevators, power conditioners for stationary fuel cells, wind turbines, commercial solar power, and telecommunications power systems. The Company gets more than 80 percent of its sales in the United States. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Fin'l. Has $1.884Bil Net Liability ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.'s net asbestos- related liability amounted to US$1.884 billion during the three months and year ended Dec. 31, 2008, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 6, 2009. Total net losses and loss adjustment expenses incurred in Ongoing Operations for the three months ended Dec. 31, 2008 includes US$3 million (US$16 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2008) related to asbestos and environmental claims. Total net losses and loss adjustment expenses paid in Ongoing Operations for the three months ended Dec. 31, 2008 includes US$6 million (US$13 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2008) related to A&E claims. Gross of reinsurance, asbestos reserves, including liabilities in Ongoing Operations, were US$2.498 billion as of Dec. 31, 2008, US$2.625 billion as of Sept. 30, 2008, and US$2.707 billion as of Dec. 31, 2007. The one year and average three year net paid amounts for asbestos claims, including Ongoing Operations, are US$189 million and US$283 million, respectively, resulting in a one year net survival ratio of 10.0 and a three year net survival ratio of 6.7. The year ended Dec. 31, 2008 included US$50 million net asbestos reserve strengthening. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. offers personal and commercial insurance products, including homeowners, auto, and workers' compensation. Since 1810, the Company sells its products through about 11,000 independent agencies and more than 100,000 registered broker-dealers. The Company is headquartered in Hartford, Conn. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Simmons Cleared in Ill. Malpractice Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Madison County Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder, on Jan. 30, 2009, dismissed John Simmons, Esq., and his firm from an asbestos- related legal malpractice suit against Mark Goldenberg, Esq., and his firm, The Madison St. Clair Record reports. Judge Crowder said no one filed opposition to a summary judgment motion from Simmons. She continued trial from Feb. 9, 2009 to Oct. 13, 2009. Plaintiff Judy Buckles alleges that Mr. Goldenberg's firm mishandled an asbestos suit she filed for the estate of her late husband. Mr. Simmons worked for Mr. Goldenberg when she filed her suit, and when he left he took the Buckles file with him. Although Mrs. Buckles alleged that Mr. Simmons negligently represented her, he answered that he reached settlements with some defendants on "sketchy product identification." Mr. Simmons claimed that he even settled a case that had outrun the statute of limitations. Judge Crowder decided on the spot what to do about Mr. Simmons, but she will take time deciding whether to disqualify the LakinChapman law firm from representing Mrs. Buckles. Mr. Goldenberg seeks to oust LakinChapman because former Lakin lawyer Gary Peel, Esq., represented the Goldenberg firm in a related case. Representing Mr. Goldenberg, Dan Konicek, Esq., of Chicago told Judge Crowder a law firm cannot switch sides. Roy Dripps, Esq., of LakinChapman said Mr. Peel had limited involvement in the case, received no confidential information and took no part in settlement negotiations. He said Mr. Peel is no longer with the firm or practicing law. Mr. Konicek said he presumed Mr. Peel had confidential information. Judge Crowder said she received a response that day from Mr. Dripps. She said she must balance any presumptions against Mrs. Buckles' right to choose counsel. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Frye Suit v. DuPont, Others Filed in W.Va. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anise Virginia Frye, on Jan. 12, 2009, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit in Marshall County Circuit Court, W.Va., against E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company and other defendant corporations, The West Virginia Record reports. Ms. Frye, individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Robert L. Frye, demands judgment against DuPont, jointly and severally, in this asbestos complaint. She seeks compensatory and punitive damages. Leslie Ann James, Esq., represents Ms. Frye. Case No. 09-C-5 is assigned to Circuit Judge Mark A. Karl. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pa. Court OKs Ruling in Crown Cork's Favor ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the ruling of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Civil Division, in which the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Crown Cork & Seal Co. in asbestos actions filed by Bruce Johnson, Dorothy Mauger, and Dolores Stea. Judges Kate Elliot Ford, Correale F. Stevens, John L. Musmanno, Joan Orie Melvin, Maureen E. Lally-Green, Richard B. Klein, Susan P. Gantman, Jack A. Panella, and Christine L. Donohue entered judgment in Case Nos. Nos. 2954 EDA 2006, 2955 EDA 2006, 2956 EDA 2006 on Feb. 6, 2009. Judges Klein, Musmanno, Panella, and Donohue dissented. Mr. Johnson, Ms. Mauger, and Ms. Stea were executors of the estates of three individuals who died of asbestos-related mesothelioma. They sued Crown Cork and numerous other defendants. All defendants other than Crown Cork had settled. Crown Cork filed motions for summary judgment in all three cases, arguing that the Statute protected Crown Cork from liability. Appellants raised constitutional challenges to the Statute. The trial court rejected those challenges and granted summary judgment to Crown Cork. These consolidated appeals followed. The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's rulings. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dist. Court Issues Ruling on Sanborn Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, granted David Sanborn and Cecilia A. Sanborn's motion to lift the stay of an asbestos action to allow Mr. Sanborn to be deposed. The case is styled David Sanborn and Cecilia A. Sanborn, Plaintiffs v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd., et al., Defendants. District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton entered judgment in Case No. C 08-5260 PJH on Feb. 5, 2009. The complaint alleged asbestos-related personal injury claims by Mr. Sanborn and a loss of consortium claim by his wife, Mrs. Sanborn. The Sanborns alleged that Mr. Sanborn is dying from malignant mesothelioma caused by exposure to asbestos products made by defendants during his service as an aircraft mechanic in the U.S. Air Force from 1958 to 1985. This action was originally filed on Oct. 6, 2008, in the Superior Court of the State of California, Alameda County. The Boeing Company removed the action on Nov. 20, 2008, on the basis of federal officer jurisdiction. Upon removing this action to federal court, Boeing filed a Notice of Pendency of Other Proceedings. On Nov. 24, 2008, Boeing filed notice of a tag-along action, notifying this court that this action was a potential tag-along action which may be subject to transfer to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Sanborns moved to remand on Dec. 19, 2008. On Jan. 9, 2009, the MDL Panel issued a conditional transfer order, transferring this action to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On Jan. 27, 2009, the court stayed the instant action until a final decision regarding transfer is rendered by the MDL Panel. On Jan. 30, 2009, the Sanborns filed an administrative motion seeking to lift the stay for the limited purpose of deposing David Sanborn. Oppositions were filed by defendants on Feb. 2, 2009. Other defendants in the case include United Technologies Corporation, among others. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trial in Martin v. MGP Set for April 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------- An asbestos lawsuit filed by Daniel Martin against MGP Ingredients, Inc. and other defendants is scheduled for trial in April 2009. On Aug. 19, 2008, the suit styled Daniel Martin v. MGP Ingredients, Inc., et al. (No. 08-L-697) was filed in the Circuit Court for the Third Circuit, Madison County, Ill. This suit was originally brought against the Company and about 70 other defendants, wherein the claimant alleges that he contracted desmoplastic mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos. The Company understands that of the original group of defendants, the claim is being actively pursued against a lesser number of defendants but including the Company. The claimant alleges that in the late 1980s or early 1990s, his company was retained to install insulation at the Pekin, Ill., facility at the same time that the Company was conducting asbestos abatement projects in the facility. The claimant seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. The matter remains in discovery. Headquartered in Atchison, Kans., MGP Ingredients, Inc. produces ingredient solutions, distillery and other products. For the quarter and year to date period ended Dec. 31, 2008, revenues from products in the other segment represent less than two percent of the Company's consolidated revenues. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Ashland Drop to 109T at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Asbestos-related claims against Ashland Inc. dropped to 109,000 during the three months ended Dec. 31, 2008 from 115,000 claims during the year ended Sept. 30, 2008 and 120,000 claims during the three months ended Dec. 31, 2007. The Company is subject to liabilities from claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos. Those claims result primarily from indemnification obligations undertaken in 1990 in connection with the sale of former subsidiary Riley Stoker Corporation. During the three months ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company recorded 1,000 new claims filed, 1,000 claims settled, and 6,000 claims dismissed. During the three months ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company recorded 1,000 new claims filed, 1,000 claims settled, and 14,000 claims dismissed. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company recorded 4,000 new claims filed, 2,000 claims settled, and 21,000 claims dismissed. Asbestos reserve was US$560 million during the three months ended Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$596 million during the three months ended Dec. 31, 2007. Asbestos reserve was US$572 million during the year ended Sept. 30, 2008. At Dec. 31, 2008, the Company's receivable for recoveries of litigation defense and claim settlement costs from insurers amounted to US$442 million, of which US$71 million relates to costs previously paid. Receivables from insurers amounted to US$458 million at Sept. 30, 2008 and US$478 million at Dec. 31, 2007. Headquartered in Covington, Ky., Ashland Inc. provides specialty chemical products, services, and solutions. The Company operates through five commercial units: Ashland Aqualon Functional Ingredients, Ashland Hercules Water Technologies, Ashland Performance Materials, Ashland Consumer Markets (Valvoline) and Ashland Distribution. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 27T Claims Ongoing v. Hercules at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ashland Inc.'s subsidiary, Hercules Incorporated, during the three months ended Dec. 31, 2008, faced 27,000 open asbestos- related claims, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 9, 2009. As of Sept. 30, 2008, Hercules faced about 25,563 unresolved claims, of which about 895 were premises claims and the rest were products claims. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 7, 2008) Hercules has liabilities from claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos. Those claims typically arise from alleged exposure to asbestos fibers from resin encapsulated pipe and tank products which were sold by one of Hercules' former subsidiaries to a limited industrial market. During the three months ended Dec. 31, 2008, Hercules recorded 1,000 new claims filed and 1,000 claims dismissed. Asbestos reserve at the end of the period was US$335 million. In November 2008, the Company completed its acquisition of Hercules. At that time, Hercules' recorded reserve for asbestos claims was US$233 million for indemnity costs. The Company's accounting policy in recording reserves for asbestos claims is to include amounts for both projected indemnity and defense costs. As a result, the Company recorded a US$105 million increase to the asbestos reserve for Hercules to include projected defense costs. As of Dec. 31, 2008, all of the cash recovered and placed into a trust from the settlements with certain of Hercules' insurance carriers has been exhausted. With the addition of estimated defense costs, the total Hercules asbestos reserve will exceed the amount needed to obtain reimbursements pursuant to coverage- in-place agreements with certain other insurance carriers. Accordingly, the Company has estimated the amount of future projected costs that will be reimbursable by such insurance and has recorded a US$35 million receivable within the noncurrent asbestos insurance receivable caption of the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. Headquartered in Covington, Ky., Ashland Inc. provides specialty chemical products, services, and solutions. The Company operates through five commercial units: Ashland Aqualon Functional Ingredients, Ashland Hercules Water Technologies, Ashland Performance Materials, Ashland Consumer Markets (Valvoline) and Ashland Distribution. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cabot Subsidiary Faces AO Respiratory Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cabot Corporation is party to cases, including asbestos-related, in connection with a safety respiratory products business that a subsidiary acquired from American Optical Corporation (AO) in an April 1990 asset purchase transaction. The subsidiary manufactured respirators under the AO brand and disposed of that business in July 1995. As of Dec. 31, 2008, there were about 54,000 claimants in pending cases asserting claims against AO in connection with respiratory products. As of Sept. 30, 2008, there were about 55,000 claimants in pending cases, including asbestos-related, asserting claims against AO in connection with respiratory products. (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 5, 2008) In connection with its acquisition of the business, the subsidiary agreed, in certain circumstances, to assume a portion of AO's liabilities, including costs of legal fees together with amounts paid in settlements and judgments, allocable to AO respiratory products used prior to the 1990 purchase by the Cabot subsidiary. As more fully described in the 2008 10-K, the Company's respirator liabilities involve claims for personal injury, including asbestosis, silicosis and coal worker's pneumoconiosis, allegedly resulting from the use of AO respirators that are alleged to have been negligently designed or labeled. The Company has a reserve to cover its expected share of liability for existing and future respirator liability claims. The book value of the reserve is being accreted up to the undiscounted liability through interest expense over the expected cash flow period, which is through 2052, and, at Dec. 31, 2008, is about US$14 million on a discounted basis (or US$24 million on an undiscounted basis). Cash payments related to this liability were less than US$1 million for the three months ended Dec. 31, 2008. Headquartered in Boston, Cabot Corporation produces carbon black, a reinforcing and pigmenting agent used in tires, inks, cables, and coatings. The Company also holds its own as a maker of fumed metal oxides like fumed silica and fumed alumina, which are used as anti-caking, thickening, and reinforcing agents in adhesives and coatings. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mueller Units Still Facing Exposure Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Certain of Mueller Water Products, Inc.'s subsidiaries continue to face asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 9, 2009. Headquartered in Atlanta, Mueller Water Products, Inc. operates in three business segments: Mueller Co., U.S. Pipe and Anvil. Mueller Co. manufactures and sells fire hydrants, valves and related products used in residential water and gas systems. U.S. Pipe manufactures and sells ductile iron pipe, restrained joint products, fittings and other products. Anvil manufactures and sells a variety of pipe fittings, couplings, pipe hangers, pipe nipples and related products. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Miss. Actions Still Pending v. BJ Services ---------------------------------------------------------------- Certain predecessors of BJ Services Company, along with numerous other defendants, still face asbestos lawsuits filed in the Circuit Courts of Jones and Smith Counties in Mississippi since August 2004. These four lawsuits included 118 individual plaintiffs alleging that they suffer various illnesses from exposure to asbestos and seeking damages. The lawsuits assert claims of unseaworthiness, negligence, and strict liability, all based upon the status of the Company's predecessors as Jones Act employers. The plaintiffs were required to complete data sheets specifying the companies they were employed by and the asbestos-containing products to which they were allegedly exposed. Through this process, 25 plaintiffs have identified the Company or its predecessors as their employer. Amended lawsuits were filed by four individuals against the Company and the remainder of the original claims (114) were dismissed. Of these four lawsuits, three failed to name the Company as an employer or manufacturer of asbestos-containing products so the Company was thereby dismissed. Subsequently an individual from one of these lawsuits brought his own action against the Company. As a result, the Company is currently named as an employer in two of the Mississippi lawsuits. It is possible that as many as 21 other claimants who identified the Company or its predecessors as their employer could file suit against the Company, but they have not done so at this time. Minimal medical information regarding the alleged asbestos-related disease suffered by the plaintiffs in the two lawsuits has been provided. Accordingly, the Company is unable to estimate its potential exposure to these lawsuits. The Company and its predecessors in the past maintained insurance which may be available to respond to these claims. In addition to the Jones Act cases, the Company has been named in a small number of additional asbestos cases. The allegations in these cases vary, but generally include claims that the Company provided some unspecified product or service which contained or utilized asbestos or that an employee was exposed to asbestos at one of the Company's facilities or customer job sites. Some of the allegations involve claims that the Company is the successor to the Byron Jackson Company. To date, the Company has been successful in obtaining dismissals of those successor cases without any payment in settlements or judgments, although some remain pending at the present time. Headquartered in Houston, BJ Services Company provides pressure pumping services and other oilfield services to the oil and natural gas industry worldwide. Services are provided through four business segments: U.S./Mexico Pressure Pumping, Canada Pressure Pumping, International Pressure Pumping and the Oilfield Services Group. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 1,183 Cases Still Pending v. Central Hudson ---------------------------------------------------------------- CH Energy Group, Inc.'s subsidiary, Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation, as of Jan. 15, 2009, faced 1,183 asbestos cases out of the 3,312 cases brought against it. As of Oct. 10, 2008, of the 3,312 asbestos cases brought against Central Hudson, 1,183 remain pending. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 14, 2008) Since 1987, Central Hudson has been joined as a defendant or third-party defendant in 3,312 asbestos lawsuits commenced in New York State and federal courts. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits have each sought millions of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages from all defendants. The cases were brought by or on behalf of individuals who have allegedly suffered injury from exposure to asbestos, including exposure which allegedly occurred at the Roseton Electric Generating Plant and the Danskammer Plant. Of the cases no longer pending against Central Hudson, 1,978 have been dismissed or discontinued without payment by Central Hudson, and Central Hudson has settled 151 cases. Headquartered in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., CH Energy Group, Inc. provides electricity to the Hudson Valley. Utility subsidiary Central Hudson Gas & Electric provides electricity to 367,000 customers in eight counties of New York State's Mid-Hudson River Valley, and delivers natural gas and electricity in a 2,600- square-mile service territory that extends from New York City to Albany. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RBS Global Has $1.007B Insurance at Dec. 27 ---------------------------------------------------------------- RBS Global, Inc.'s insurance for asbestos claims was US$1.0078 billion as of Dec. 27, 2008, compared with US$1.3317 billion as of March 31, 2008, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Feb. 10, 2009. Headquartered in Milwaukee, RBS Global, Inc. is an industrial company comprised of two key segments, Power Transmission and Water Management. Power Transmission makes gears, couplings, industrial bearings, flattop chain and modular conveyer belts, aerospace bearings and seals, special components, and industrial chain and conveying equipment. Water Management supplies specification drainage, PEX piping, commercial brass and water and waste water treatment and control products. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RBS Global Still Facing 700 Stearns Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- About 700 asbestos-related lawsuits (with about 6,950 claimants) are stil pending over alleged personal injuries due asbestos allegedly found in certain brakes and clutches previously made by RBS Global, Inc.'s Stearns division and its predecessor owners. The Company faced about 700 asbestos-related lawsuits (with about 6,950 claimants) concerning its Stearns division. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 14, 2008) Invensys plc and FMC, prior owners of the Stearns business, have paid 100 percent of the costs to date related to the Stearns lawsuits. Headquartered in Milwaukee, RBS Global, Inc. is an industrial company comprised of two key segments, Power Transmission and Water Management. Power Transmission makes gears, couplings, industrial bearings, flattop chain and modular conveyer belts, aerospace bearings and seals, special components, and industrial chain and conveying equipment. Water Management supplies specification drainage, PEX piping, commercial brass and water and waste water treatment and control products. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Prager Unit Facing 1 Case with 3,700 Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- RBS Global, Inc.'s Prager subsidiary is a defendant in one pending multi-defendant lawsuit relating to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in a product allegedly manufactured by Prager. About 3,700 claimants are in this Prager lawsuit as of Dec. 27, 2008, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Feb. 10, 2009. To date, the Company's insurance providers have paid 100 percent of the costs related to the Prager asbestos claims. Prager faced two pending multi-defendant lawsuits over alleged personal injuries due to the presence of asbestos in a product allegedly made by Prager. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 14, 2008) Headquartered in Milwaukee, RBS Global, Inc. is an industrial company comprised of two key segments, Power Transmission and Water Management. Power Transmission makes gears, couplings, industrial bearings, flattop chain and modular conveyer belts, aerospace bearings and seals, special components, and industrial chain and conveying equipment. Water Management supplies specification drainage, PEX piping, commercial brass and water and waste water treatment and control products. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Falk Unit Still Facing 170 Suits at Dec. 27 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Through its successor entity, RBS Global, Inc.'s Falk unit still faces about 170 asbestos lawsuits, according to the Company's report for the quarterly period ended Dec. 27, 2008. About 1,360 claimants are in these suits. These suits are pending in state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in certain clutches and drives previously manufactured by Falk. Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation is defending the Company in these lawsuits under its indemnity obligations and has paid 100 percent of the costs to date. Headquartered in Milwaukee, RBS Global, Inc. is an industrial company comprised of two key segments, Power Transmission and Water Management. Power Transmission makes gears, couplings, industrial bearings, flattop chain and modular conveyer belts, aerospace bearings and seals, special components, and industrial chain and conveying equipment. Water Management supplies specification drainage, PEX piping, commercial brass and water and waste water treatment and control products. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. Zurn Ind. Drop to 6,100 at Dec. 27 ---------------------------------------------------------------- One of RBS Global Inc.'s Water Management's subsidiaries, Zurn Industries, LLC, and 115 unrelated companies, as of Dec. 27, 2008, faced about 6,100 asbestos lawsuits with about 45,500 claims. Zurn and 113 other unrelated companies faced about 6,500 asbestos related suits representing about 45,000 claims, as of Sept. 27, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 14, 2008) The suits alleged damages in an aggregate amount of about US$16.1 billion against all defendants. Plaintiffs' claims allege personal injuries caused by exposure to asbestos used primarily in industrial boilers formerly made by a segment of Zurn. The Company currently estimates the potential liability for asbestos-related claims pending against Zurn and the claims expected to be filed in the next 10 years is about US$134 million, of which Zurn expects to pay about US$116 million in the next 10 years on such claims, with the balance of the estimated liability being paid in subsequent years. Management estimates that its available insurance to cover its potential asbestos liability as of Dec. 27, 2008, is about US$277 million. As of Dec. 27, 2008, the Company recorded a receivable from its insurance carriers of US$134 million, which corresponds to the amount of its potential asbestos liability that is covered by available insurance and is currently determined to be probable of recovery. However, there is no assurance that US$277 million of insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that Zurn's asbestos liabilities will not ultimately exceed US$277 million. Headquartered in Milwaukee, RBS Global, Inc. is an industrial company comprised of two key segments, Power Transmission and Water Management. Power Transmission makes gears, couplings, industrial bearings, flattop chain and modular conveyer belts, aerospace bearings and seals, special components, and industrial chain and conveying equipment. Water Management supplies specification drainage, PEX piping, commercial brass and water and waste water treatment and control products. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has $51M Charge at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation, for the year and quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008, recorded a pre-tax charge of US$51,018,000 for estimated costs of asbestos-related litigation, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 10, 2009. Sales for the year were US$394,513,000 compared with US$346,834,000 in 2007. Sales for the fourth quarter were US$88,088,000 compared with sales of US$83,194,000 for the same quarter of 2007. Income (loss) from operations, including the pre-tax charge of US$51,018,000 for asbestos costs net of estimated insurance recoveries, equaled US$13,608,000 for the 12 months ended Dec. 31, 2008 and US$(36,526,000) for the three months ended Dec. 31, 2008. Headquartered in Pittsburgh, Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation manufactures metal products. The Company's forged and cast steel rolls unit makes hardened-steel rolls for the steel and aluminum industries. The air and liquid processing segment includes Buffalo Pumps, Aerofin, and Buffalo Air Handling. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bourton Carpenter's Death Linked to Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- An inquest heard that the death of 71-year-old James Bredin, a carpenter from Bourton, Cotswold, England, was linked to exposure to asbestos, the Cotswold Journal reports. The inquest heard that Mr. Bredin, a carpenter and builder retired eight-nine months before his death. His son, James, Jr., told the inquest Mr. Bredin did maintenance work at Sudeley Castle, near Winchcombe, in the 1990s. James Bredin, Jr., said, "In the Sixties, I had been present when he cut asbestos sheets with a handsaw to fit backing plates to fires." He said his father became unwell after his retirement and his GP treated him for a lung infection. During tests, a radiographer told Mr. Bredlin, Sr. that he had a terminal disease that was later confirmed to be mesothelioma. He died on March 23, 2008 at Cheltenham General Hospital. Pathologist, Doctor Richard Bryan, undertook a post mortem that found 32,421 fibers of asbestos per gram of dry lung tissue, a "relatively low" level but higher than would be found in someone who had never been exposed to it industrially. He gave the cause of death as bronchial pneumonia due to mesothelioma. Gloucestershire coroner, Alan Crickmore, recorded a verdict of death by industrial disease on Mr. Bredin, Sr. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Willcox Says Hardie Estimates Are Reliable ---------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Willcox, a former director of James Hardie Industries N.V., on Feb. 9, 2009, told the New South Wales Supreme Court that expert estimates of future asbestos disease claims were reliable enough to set up a new compensation trust in February 2001, Fairfax Digital reports. This was despite written advice from the Company's management in the preceding months that future claims could not be reliably measured. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission is suing 10 former Hardie executives and directors over allegedly misleading statements about asbestos compensation in 2001. Mr Willcox, a non-executive director from May 1992 to October 2001, said he was satisfied with summaries prepared by Hardie executives of reports from the actuarial firm Trowbridge Consulting. The court heard that in a January 2001 board paper, the then chief executive Peter Macdonald told directors that the potential cost of claims was "not capable of reliable measurement." In a December 2000 memo to directors, Mr. Macdonald wrote that "it is not possible today to accurately estimate the total likely asbestos cash flows." Mr. Willcox agreed that in May 2000, he signed Hardie's financial statements for the year to March, which contained the statement that "James Hardie cannot measure reliably its exposure with respect to future asbestos-related claims." Mr. Willcox is the last of the 10 defendants to give evidence. Four chose not to take the stand in their own defense: Mr. Macdonald; the former general counsel Peter Shafron; and the former non-executive directors Dan O'Brien and Greg Terry. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Nelson Builder's Death Linked to Exposure ---------------------------------------------------------------- An inquest heard that the death of 77-year-old George Wilkinson, a builder from Nelson, Lancashire, England, was linked to exposure to asbestos, the Burnley Express reports. The inquest heard that Mr. Wilkinson was diagnosed with asbestos disease in July 2008. A statement from Mr. Wilkinson's his son, John, said his father had been a builder by trade, working in construction, both building and scaffolding. His duties had involved cleaning sites and he had worked for the council. John Wilkinson added that by the time his father realized he may have been overly exposed to asbestos, it was too late. Dr. Abdul Al-Dawoud, who carried out the post-mortem examination, told East Lancashire Coroner Mr. Richard Taylor that Mr. Wilkinson's employment history since the 1970s showed that he would regularly be surrounded by asbestos. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Carlisle Joiner's Death Linked to Exposure ---------------------------------------------------------------- A Feb. 4, 2009 inquest heard that the death of 78-year-old Derick Davidson, a joiner from Carlisle, England, was linked to exposure to asbestos, News & Star reports. Mr. Davidson spent around 48 years working in the city as a joiner and was diagnosed with mesothelioma in March 2007. Speaking after the inquest, William Whalen, the local secretary of the Union of Construction, Allied Traders and Technicians (UCATT), said. "Before he died Derick asked me to do all I could to highlight the dangers of asbestos. He felt very strongly about that." Mr. Davidson, who had been retired for 16 years at the time of his diagnosis, began his apprenticeship with Carlisle joinery firm William Batey when he was 14 or 15. When Mr. Batey moved to the joinery firm Michael Thompson, in Upperby, Mr. Davidson followed and remained there until he retired in 1991. After he moved to Michael Thompson, the court heard how the nature of Mr. Davidson's work had changed, and he had spent more time on building sites. Mr. Davidson died on April 6, 2008 at the Eden Valley Hospice in Carlisle. Coroner John Taylor ruled that Mr. Davidson had died because of exposure to an industrial disease. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup at Cedar Falls Schools Costs $104T ---------------------------------------------------------------- Asbestos cleanup at two schools under the Cedar Falls, Iowa, Community School District is estimated at US$104,300, WCFCOURIER.com reports. Waterloo, Iowa-based Advanced Environmental will complete abatement work at Peet Junior High School (US$59,700) and Holmes Junior High (US$44,600). Work at both schools is expected to be finished by July 4, 2009. On Feb. 9, 2009, the Board of Education Monday accepted the low bids from Advanced Environmental. The bids came in more than US$135,000 under budget. The district is using physical plant and equipment levy dollars to finance the work. The district received three other bids from Iowa and Illinois businesses ranging in cost from US$49,799 to US$115,000 for Holmes and US$65,365 to US$140,000 for Peet. Advanced Environmental also was awarded a contract for a small asbestos abatement project at Orchard Hill. Abatement work will begin at both junior high schools in June 2009. Though the asbestos abatement will mostly be completed this summer, the floor tiles in both schools will not be replaced for up to 18 months between the two schools. The floors will be cleaned and sealed and look much like an industrial technology shop floor in the interim. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Polk County Court Cleanup to Cost $200,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The asbestos-removal project in the Polk County Courthouse in Des Moines, Iowa, costs US$200,000, in which the project is estimated to last five to six months, The Des Moines Register reports. Pro Environmental Abatement Inc. will work at night to remove asbestos insulation from individual rooms in the courthouse. The rooms being worked on will be sealed during the day. Polk County Planning Specialist Bob Raker said the asbestos in its current condition is not a health risk to people who visit or work in the courthouse, but the work, by certified contractors, is needed to remove all the asbestos from the 102- year old building to prevent future problems. Pro Environmental Abatement, a Des Moines-based company, has completed projects in more than 30 cities across Iowa. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Issues Ruling in Adkinson Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second District, Montgomery County, will affirm the Common Pleas Court ruling, which overruled objections filed by homeowner Dianne Adkinson in a case against furnace contractor Southtown Heating and Cooliing, Inc. The case is styled Dianne Adkinson, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Southtown Heating and Cooling, Inc., et al., Defendants- Appellees. Judges Thomas J. Grady, James A. Brogan, and Mike Fain entered judgment in Case No. 22668 on Feb. 6, 2009. The underlying litigation arose from dealings between Southtown and Ms. Adkinson. Southtown abandoned its promised work to remove an existing furnace system from Ms. Adkinson's home in order to install a new furnace after Southtown encountered asbestos products in the existing system that Southtown is not licensed to remove. Ms. Adkinson then had another contractor complete the work, using a new furnace unit Southtown had left at the job site. Ms. Adkinson sued Southtown on claims for relief alleging violations of the Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA), negligence, and other related causes. Southtown counterclaimed, alleging fraud. Ms. Adkinson filed a jury demand with her complaint. The case was referred to a magistrate to preside over the jury trial. Southtown offered evidence at trial showing that after Southtown had told Ms. Adkinson that it was not licensed to remove asbestos products; another contractor told her that if a contractor lacking the required license performed the work, Ms. Adkinson could probably get a new furnace free of charge. The jury returned verdicts for Southtown on all of Ms. Adkinson's claims for relief. The jury returned a verdict for Southtown in the amount of US$2,512.52 on its fraud claim, an amount corresponding to the value of Southtown's furnace that Ms. Adkinson had installed by another contractor. Ms. Adkinson filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, alternatively, for a new trial. The magistrate overruled both of Ms. Adkinson's alternative motions. She filed objections to the magistrate's decision denying her motions. The magistrate had erroneously endorsed the judgment he filed on the jury's verdicts as a final, appealable order, and because of that Ms. Adkinson filed an appeal to this court from the judgment the magistrate filed. The Appeals court dismissed that appeal for lack of a final order. Following the dismissal, the trial court overruled Ms. Adkinson's objections to the magistrate's decision denying her alternative motions, and the court adopted the judgment on the jury's verdict the magistrate had filed. Ms. Adkinson filed a timely notice of appeal. This was an appeal from the trial court's order overruling objections to a magistrate's denial of motions for a new trial or for a judgment notwithstanding a jury's verdict. The assignments of error were overruled. The judgment of the trial court will be affirmed. Patrick K. Adkinson, Esq., in Dayton, Ohio, represented Dianne Adkinson. Christopher Epley, Esq., in Dayton, Ohio, represented Defendants-Appellees. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Dismissed in Louden, Border Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of Ohio upheld the Court of Appeals ruling, which dismissed notices of appeal filed by Bertha Louden and Mary K. Border (appellants) in asbestos cases filed against various defendants. The case is styled Louden, Exr., Appellant, et al. v. A.O. Smith Corporation et al.; Goulds Pumps, Inc. et al., Appellees. Judges Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Thomas J. Moyer, Maureen O'Connor, Terrence O'Donnell, Robert R. Cupp, Judith Ann Lanzinger, and Paul E. Pfeifer entered judgment in Case Nos. 2007-1819 and 2007-1821 on Feb. 4, 2009. Judge Pfeifer dissented and Judge Lanzinger concurred in part and dissented in part. Recognizing the proliferation of asbestos cases on its docket in 1998, the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas found that "current methods in processing, serving, and storing the paper will soon be inadequate." To manage its asbestos docket more efficiently, the court issued a case management order that adopted the Complex Litigation Automated Docket system (CLAD) provided by Lexis-Nexis for managing filings in asbestos cases. Id. In 2003, the court switched from the CLAD system to the "File & Serve" system, another electronic filing service provided by Lexis-Nexis. This second order is at issue in this case. Subsequent to the implementation of the File & Serve system, appellants filed separate civil actions alleging that their husbands had contracted asbestos-related disease in the workplace. The court consolidated the two cases. Appellees Goulds Pumps, Inc. and Ingersoll-Rand Company filed motions for summary judgment. On April 5, 2007, the trial court issued entries granting summary judgment to appellees. On May 4, 2007, appellants, using the File & Serve system, electronically transmitted notices of appeal to the clerk of courts for the trial court for the purpose of initiating an appeal of both summary judgments. However, the trial court clerk did not forward the notices to the Eighth District Court of Appeals. On July 24, 2007, appellants filed paper copies of their notices of appeal with the clerk of the trial court. This time, the clerk forwarded the notices to the court of appeals. However, the court of appeals sua sponte dismissed appellants' notices of appeal as being untimely filed. The Supreme Court accepted this matter as a discretionary appeal. The appellants' notices of appeal filed electronically were invalid. Appellants' subsequently filed paper notices of appeal were untimely. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' judgment dismissing appellants' appeals. Mazur & Kittel, P.L.L.C. (John I. Kittel, Esq., and Bryan M. Frink, Esq.) and Paul W. Flowers Co., L.P.A. (Paul W. Flowers, Esq.) represented appellants. Gallagher Sharp, John A. Valenti, Timothy J. Fitzgerald, and Holly M. Olarczuk-Smith represented appellees. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: United Technologies Facing Exposure Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- United Technologies Corporation or its subsidiaries continue to face lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos integrated into certain of the Company's products or premises, according to the Company's annual report filed on Feb. 11, 2009. While the Company has never manufactured asbestos and no longer incorporates it in any currently-manufactured products, certain of its historical products, like those of many other manufacturers, have contained components incorporating asbestos. A substantial majority of these asbestos-related claims have been covered by insurance or other forms of indemnity or have been dismissed without payment. The remainder of the closed cases has been resolved for amounts that are not material individually or in the aggregate. Headquartered in Hartford, Conn., United Technologies Corporation provides high technology products and services to the building systems and aerospace industries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wood, Collins Face Prison for Asbestos Scam ---------------------------------------------------------------- John Wood, owner of J.W. Construction Inc., and Curtis Collins, Mr. Wood's former employee and owner of Adirondack Asbestos, head to federal prison for a scam that left several homes and businesses contaminated with asbestos, the Press Republican reports. The pair had faced up to five years in prison and escaped a potential $250,000 fine. Mr. Wood was sentenced to four years in prison and ordered to pay about US$854,000 of restitution to his former clients. He will have to spend three years on the supervised-release program. Mr. Collins will serve a two-year prison term and must pay about Mr. $115,000 in restitution. He will also have three years of supervised release. Mr. Wood and Mr. Collins, both of North Country, N.Y., will pay their former customers tens of thousands of dollars in restitution. The pair, along with Mark Desnoyers, owner of Adirondack Environmental Associates, conspired to hide large traces of asbestos in homes and businesses, posing a serious health risk to numerous area residents. During the two-year scheme, the 59-year-old Mr. Wood and the 50- year-old Mr. Collins made secret deals with Mr. Desnoyers to falsify air-monitor records so their clients would be fooled into thinking the asbestos had been safely removed. Federal prosecutors said the scam started in 2005, shortly after Mr. Wood was released from prison on unrelated larceny and fraud charges and started up his Plattsburgh, N.Y.-based construction company. Authorities say Mr. Wood ran a "rip and run" removal scam that intentionally left asbestos in several city homes and businesses, including the Strand Theatre. The situation at the Strand caused an eight-month delay in the theater's renovation project. Prosecutors said Mr. Wood and Mr. Collins also illegally buried asbestos on a Willsboro farm. In 2008, both pleaded guilty to their roles in the scheme and testified against their Mr. Desnoyers, who was later convicted of mail fraud, making false statements and violating the Clean Air Act. Mr. Wood also pleaded guilty to criminal contempt for continuing the asbestos scam while he was being prosecuted. Mr. Desnoyers, who was convicted on all charges, will be sentenced on March 1, 2009. He faces a maximum of 25 years to life in prison and a possible US$1.25 million fine. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bristol Township to Clear Schools of Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- Eileen Kelliher, a spokeswoman for the Bristol Township School district, on Feb. 10, 2009, said the District plans to begin a five-year asbestos-removal effort in several schools during the summer of 2009, the Bucks County Courier Times reports. Ms. Kelliher added the school system did most of its asbestos abatement in the 1970s when it removed all asbestos insulation and some tile flooring. However, some asbestos-containing tiles remain in the floors of Franklin D. Roosevelt Middle School and the district's nine elementary schools. Officials said Clara Barton Elementary School (in Levittown, Pa.) and Maple Shade Elementary School (in Croydon, Pa.) are set to undergo cleanup this summer. During the school board's planning session on Feb. 9, 2009, it should cost about US$52,000 for the Barton job and about US$120,000 for the older Maple Shade. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Stuart Widow Awarded GBP9,500 Compensation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Stuart was awarded GBP9,500 in compensation after her husband, George Stuart, died from asbestos-related disease, NEWS.scotsman.com reports. In December 2006, Mr. Stuart died at the age of 89 and doctors confirmed to the court that he had developed asbestosis from exposure to asbestos dust. Mrs. Stuart launched the bid against the Advocate General for Scotland, representing the ministries, at the Court of Session. In a written judgment, Lord Brodie ruled that Mrs. Stuart was entitled to the cash payout after the defendants admitted that Mr. Stuart's exposure to the dust was "negligent." Mr. Stuart began to suffer respiratory problems towards the end of his life after previously being fit and active. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bickle Widow to Launch Wrongful Death Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- June Bickle, the widow of 58-year old Alan Bickle, prepares for a legal battle to prove that asbestos caused Mr. Bickle's death, the Chronicle reports. Mr. Bickle died of asbestos-related lung cancer in a South Tyneside, England, hospice. The 60-year-old Mrs. Bickle, who is represented by Irwin Mitchell, said her husband believed he was exposed to asbestos while working as a fitter/turner 25 years ago with Filtrona, based in Jarrow, where he made cigarette filters, and before that when he worked for Tyneside shipbuilders Hawthorn Leslie, which no longer exists, 40 years ago. Filtrona has denied that Mr. Bickle was exposed to asbestos at their factory, but South Tyneside coroner Terence Carney has already opened and adjourned an inquest into Mr. Bickle's death from mesothelioma. Industrial diseases expert Roger Maddocks, a partner at Newcastle law firm Irwin Mitchell, who was instructed by Mrs. Bickle to investigate a compensation claim against her husband's former employers, said, "Mesothelioma is known as the silent killer. It can remain dormant for many years during which period the victim can appear perfectly healthy. Its diagnosis is often a complete and shattering surprise. "We are looking for anyone who worked at the Hawthorn Leslie yard, in the mid to late 1960s, even if they did not know Mr. Bickle. We are particularly keen to talk to anyone familiar with conditions in the places he worked, in the stores, pneumatic plant and machine shop. Witnesses are often crucial to a claim of this nature." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Hotel to Pay GBP52T for Safety Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Kensington Edwardian, a hotel in South Kensington, London, England, is to pay a GBP52,000 penalty for exposing guests and staff to asbestos, the London Informer reports. At Kingston Crown Court on Feb. 5, 2009, Realco Plc, the company that manages the Kensington Edwardian Hotel, was also ordered to pay a council's costs of GBP11,200. Realco has pleaded guilty to two breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act after inspectors found asbestos on the fourth floor. During a visit to the 22-bed hotel in November 2006, a Kensington and Chelsea Council environmental health officer became concerned when he found building work had exposed damaged asbestos on the fourth floor. Although the floor was unoccupied, the hotel was 40 percent full and there was a risk that the asbestos fibers could have spread through the ventilation system. The court heard how Realco failed to carry out a risk assessment before carrying out the refurbishment in September 2006. Handing down his sentence, Judge Bining referred to the fact that the company was obliged by legislation brought in 2002 to survey their premises for the presence of asbestos. Realco has subsequently carried out substantial renovation work to the hotel, which is expected to re-open in February 2009. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Electrician's Widow Gets GBP703T in Payout ---------------------------------------------------------------- Susan Smith, the widow of former electrician Michael Victor Smith, has won a GBP703,347 asbestos payout at London's High Court, the Leicester Mercury reports. Mr. Smith died of mesothelioma in May 2004 at the age of 52. Mrs. Smith blamed two of her husband's former employers for his exposure to asbestos dust. Judge Oliver-Jones, QC, rejected Mrs. Smith's claim against Leicestershire-based J and M Morris (Electrical Contractors) Ltd, saying he was not satisfied Mr. Smith had been exposed to asbestos while working for the company between 1978 and 1982. However, Judge Oliver-Jones awarded Mrs. Smith GBP703,347 damages from the Midland Co-Operative Society Ltd, for which Mr. Smith worked as an electrician between 1982 and 1987. Judge Oliver-Jones said Mrs. Smith's damages claim had originally been valued by her legal team at GBP2,750,158, largely for her "loss of dependency" on her husband's high earnings as an employee of real estate, construction and infrastructure consultancy firm, EC Harris LLP. Mr. Smith became a partner in the firm before the early signs of his terminal illness ended his career in February 2003. He had a senior role as an area leader for the firm and his widow's lawyers argued that, had he kept his health, he would have been paid more than GBP400,000, before tax, in 2008 alone. However, in assessing his widow's damages, Judge Oliver-Jones said Mr. Smith had been "under-performing" in his job before his departure and the judge said it was unlikely he would have remained an equity partner at EC Harris in the long term. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Factory Worker's Death Linked to Exposure ---------------------------------------------------------------- An inquest heard that the death of factory worker, Gloria Lawrence, was linked to exposure to asbestos used in car parts, the Evening Telegraph reports. A mother of three, Mrs. Lawrence contracted mesothelioma while working on starter motors and alternators. She removed parts from scrap cars and cleaned them so they could be sold on. After developing the disease, Mrs. Lawrence, of Linton, Derbyshire, England, fought a battle with Derbyshire health chiefs to receive the drug Alimta which, medics argue, can help prolong sufferers' lives. Health chiefs argued its benefits were unproven, and the GBP8,000-a-year cost of treatment was prohibitive, but they later allowed Mrs. Lawrence's treatment after a change in national guidance. The Feb. 10, 2009 inquest at Derby Coroner's Court heard how the 55-year-old Mrs. Lawrence was exposed to asbestos while working at Lucas Aftermarket Operations, now TRW Ltd, formerly of Birmingham, now of Solihull. A statement from expert Colin Plum, of consultant engineers Morgan, Finch and Partners, in Stoke-on-Trent, said, "There can be no doubt that some of the starter motors and alternators upon which the claimant worked incorporated asbestos-containing materials. "Starter motors contained resin-bonded chrysotile (white asbestos). It is a matter for medical opinion whether white asbestos would cause mesothelioma." Linda Millband, the lawyer for Mrs. Lawrence's family, said she had taken advice from Nottingham law firm Thompsons, experts in personal injury. They had consulted a medical expert who confirmed white asbestos would cause mesothelioma. Mrs. Lawrence had worked at Lucas from 1989 to 2000. Deputy coroner Louise Pinder said Mrs. Lawrence died of mesothelioma, and recorded a verdict of death due to industrial disease. Mrs. Lawrence died on Nov. 27, 2008, four months after completing a course of Alimta. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Phillips Suit v. 27 Companies Filed in Tex. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Curtis Blake Phillips, on behalf of recently deceased relative Omar Rucker Phillips, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 27 defendant corporations in Texas, The Southeast Texas Record reports. Defendants include A.O. Smith Corp., A.W. Chesterton Co., American Optical Corp., Bechtel Corp., Westinghouse Electric Corp., Fluor Maintenance, Foster Wheeler Constructors, General Electric, Ingersoll Rand Co., Lockheed Martin, Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. and Zurn Industries. Curtis Phillips claims the asbestos-related disease with which Omar Phillips was diagnosed was wrongfully caused. Curtis Phillips claims Omar Phillips worked as a pipefitter and welder where he was required to work with or around asbestos-containing products and materials. Although Omar Phillips already sued for a non-malignant asbestos-related disease, Curtis Phillips alleges his claim is allowable because Omar Phillips died from a different malignant disease than what was presented in his original suit. Curtis Phillips cites Pustejovsky vs. Rapid American Corp., a 2000 decision in which the Texas Supreme Court ruled that a victim may file an additional suit for asbestos-related cancer if he develops a second illness from the same cause at a later date. Curtis Phillips states the defendants were negligent because they did not adequately test products before putting them into the stream of commerce, according to the lawsuit. Curtis Phillips seeks actual and exemplary damages within the jurisdictional limits of the court, plus court costs, pre- and post-judgment interest and other relief to which he may be entitled. Bryan O. Blevins Jr., Esq., and Aaryn K. Giblin, Esq., of Provost and Umphrey Law Firm in Beaumont, Tex., represent Curtis Phillips. Case No. B183-228 has been assigned to Judge Gary Sanderson, 60th District Court. ********* 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 2009. 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 * * *