/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090227.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, February 27, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 41
Headlines
ADVOCATE HEALTH: Ill. Court OKs Settlement in Uninsureds' Suit
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Third Cicuit Reverses Ruling in in "Homa" Case
BASIN WATER: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Former Workers File Suit For Denied Overtime Pay
GENERAL REINSURANCE: Settles AIG-Related Litigation For $72M
HARRIS STRATEX: Securities Fraud Lawsuits Pending in Delaware
LEVEL 3 COMMS: Colo. Judge Orders Consolidation of Stock Suits
NORTH HUDSON: N.J. Court Certifies Class in Firefighters' Suit
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Ninth Circuit Yet to Rule on ERISA Suit Appeal
RBS GLOBAL: Units Face 11 Lawsuits Over Crimp Fittings Failure
SONIC SOLUTIONS: Feb. 26 Hearing Set for Calif. Shareholder Suit
SONIC SOLUTIONS: Consolidated Derivative Suits Pending in Calif.
SONIC SOLUTIONS: No Argument Date Yet for Appeal to Junked Suit
TOSHIBA AMERICA: N.Y. Court Approves DLP T.V. Suit Settlement
U.S. REMODELERS: Faces Labor-Related Lawsuits in Calif., N.J.
VERIZON WIRELESS: Sued For Misrepresenting Tax on N.Y. Bills
WASTE CONNECTIONS: Faces FLSA Violations Lawsuit in California
XEROX CORP: April 14 Hearing Set for $51M ERISA Suit Settlement
New Securities Fraud Cases
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
OPPENHEIMER FUNDS: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Fraud Suit
Asbestos Alerts
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Norfolk Still Subject to Occupational Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers Property Facing Insurance Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers Records $2.9B Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers, PPG Reach Settlement on Jan. 29
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 114T Claims Still Pending v. PPG at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enbridge Cites $5.5M for Cleanup at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Windstream Has $44.6Mil for ARO at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CSX Records $124M Liabilities at Dec. 2008
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CSX Has 4,904 Occupational Claims at Dec.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Harron's Motion to Dismiss CSX Claim Denied
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BP to Pay Nearly $180M for Cleanup Breaches
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Reverses Ruling in Neal Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ruling in National Engineering Case Upheld
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TRW Subsidiaries Subject to Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Has 75,706 Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Records $60M in Defense Costs
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Has $403MM Dec. 31 Receivable
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide's N.Y. Coverage Suit Ongoing
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NewMarket Cites $11.7M Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: USG States No Further Obligations to Trust
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: $3M Paid in 2008 for USG Corp. Damage Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArcelorMittal USA Cites $222Mil for Cleanup
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArcelorMittal Has 431 Pending French Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Caterpillar Still Subject to Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Proceedings v. Fresenius Unit Still Stayed
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Clutter's Action v. 70 Firms Filed in W.Va.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Health, Safety Meeting Slated for DIOSH Day
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court OKs Ruling in Brewster Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rulings Issued in Dufour's Lawsuit in Miss.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Cites $4.905M for Litigation Expense
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Cites $328.68MM Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Philips Records EUR239Mil Settlement Charge
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Philips' THAN Unit Facing Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Philips Cites EUR640M for Loss Contingency
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: FMC Corp. Facing 29,000 Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ConEd, Units Still Facing Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ConEd Incurs $35Mil Costs for Steam Rupture
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Parsons v. Reynolds Suit Still Stayed
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Lawsuits Ongoing v. Temple-Inland
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Records $1.202B Net Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: A.P. Green Confirmation Bid Still Pending
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ruling to Favor CNA Issued in Keasbey Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Burns & Roe Plan Hearing Held in Dec. 2008
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Companies Facing Inactive Cases in Tex.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Confirmation in Grace Case Set in April '09
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SC Upholds Ruling in Nostrom v. Chesterton
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Guardline Inc's Summary Judgment Bid Denied
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Diamond Offshore Still Faces Suits in Miss.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GATX, Units Facing 1,240 Lawsuits at Feb. 6
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Blackstone Fined $273T for Safety Breaches
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 9 Suits Filed in Madison During Feb. 9-13
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Former Navy Worker Settles Claims for $3.2M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Trial Commenced on Feb. 23 in Montana
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: University of Minnesota to Pay $60T Penalty
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lambie's Widow Gets GBP250T in Compensation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hearing in Mayo Group Case Held on Feb. 23
*********
ADVOCATE HEALTH: Ill. Court OKs Settlement in Uninsureds' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cook County Circuit Judge Sophia Hall approved the settlement of
a class-action lawsuit between patients and Advocate Health Care
that claimed the not-for-profit hospitals overcharged uninsured
patients, The Associated Press reports.
Under the settlement, tens of thousands of uninsured patients
might qualify for refunds on payments they made to eight Chicago
and suburban hospitals. The hospitals could refund up to $3.5
million to the uninsured, according to the AP report.
The Associated Press reports that Oak Brook-based Advocate is
the largest provider of medical care in the Chicago area. It
has recently sent notices to 170,000 former patients who may
qualify for the refunds.
Attorney Robert Cohen, Esq., represented the patients, and he
tells AP that he hopes the settlement can be a model for other
hospitals.
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Third Cicuit Reverses Ruling in in "Homa" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has reversed a
decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey to compel individual arbitration and dismiss the
complaint in the matter, "Homa v. American Express Company et
al.," Judy Greenwald of Business Insurance reports.
In a ruling issued on Feb. 24, 2009, the federal appeals court
said that plaintiffs can pursue the case under New Jersey law
rather than being forced to go through individual arbitration
under Utah law, according to the Business Insurance report.
Case Background
The putative class-action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey back in 2006. It alleges,
generally, misleading and fraudulent advertising of the "tiered"
"up to 5 percent" cash rebates with the Blue Cash card (Class
Action Reporter, Dec. 1, 2008).
The complaint initially sought certification of a nationwide
class consisting of "all persons who applied for and received an
American Express Blue Cash card during the period from September
30, 2003 to the present and who did not get the rebate or
rebates provided for in the offer."
On Dec. 1, 2006, however, plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint dropping the nationwide class claims and asserting
claims only on behalf of New Jersey residents who "while so
residing in New Jersey, applied for and received an American
Express Blue Cash card during the period from Sept. 30, 2003 to
the present."
The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other unspecified
relief that the Court deems appropriate.
In May 2007, the Court granted the Company's motion to compel
individual arbitration and dismissed the complaint.
The plaintiff has filed a Notice of Appeal of that decision with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The appeal has
been fully briefed and argument is expected to occur in December
2008.
American Express Co. -- https://home.americanexpress.com/ -- is
a global payments, network and travel company. The Company has
four operating segments: Global Network & Merchant Services,
U.S. Card Services, International Card & Global Commercial
Services and Corporate & Other. The products and services of
the Company include global card network services; charge card
and credit cards for consumers and businesses; consumer and
small business lending products; American Express travelers
cheques and gift cards; merchant acquiring and transaction
processing; business expense management products and services;
consumer travel services, and business travel and travel
management services, among others.
BASIN WATER: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Basin Water, Inc., continues to face a consolidated purported
securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California
On Dec. 27, 2007, and Jan. 2, 2008, two purported securities
class-action complaints were filed against Basin Water, Inc.,
Peter L. Jensen, Michael M. Stark and Thomas C. Tekulve for
violations of the Exchange Act.
These lawsuits, which contain similar allegations, are
captioned, "Poulos v. Basin Water, et al., Case No. CV 07-8359
GW (FFMx)," and "Nofer v. Basin Water, et al., Case No. CV 08-
0002 SGL (JCRx)."
The lawsuits, among other things, allege that the Basin
defendants "issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the company's business and financial results" because
the company "had not adequately accounted for reserves in
connection with its legacy system contracts."
The plaintiffs allege a putative class period between May 14,
2007, and Nov. 13, 2007, and do not claim a specific amount of
damages.
The lawsuits were subsequently consolidated, and on Oct. 3,
2008, a Consolidated Amended Complaint (CAC) was filed which
alleges that the company deliberately understated the reserves
it took for certain unprofitable contracts, and committed
various intentional violations of GAAP during a putative class
period between Nov.14, 2006 and Aug. 8, 2008 (the Federal
Lawsuit). The suit does not state a specific amount of damages,
according to the company's Feb. 10, 2009 Form 10-Q filing in the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2008.
Basin Water, Inc. -- http://www.basinwater.com/-- is a provider
of process solutions for a range of customers, which include
designing, building, implementing and servicing systems for the
treatment of contaminated groundwater, the treatment of
wastewater, waste reduction and resource recovery.
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Former Workers File Suit For Denied Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several former Domino's Pizza, Inc. workers have filed a class-
action lawsuit against the nationwide corporation and the owner
of several Domino's franchises in New Jersey, MYFOXNY.COM
reports.
The workers claim that the restaurants denied them overtime and
then fired them for complaining. They say the restaurant owners
used gimmicks to disregard minimum wage and other labor laws,
according to the MYFOXNY.COM report.
GENERAL REINSURANCE: Settles AIG-Related Litigation For $72M
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Reinsurance Corp., an indirect wholly owned subsidiary
of Berkshire Hathaway, Inc., has agreed to pay $72 million to
settle claims in a five-year-old class-action suit against
insurer American International Group Inc. and other defendants,
Business Courier of Cincinnati reports.
On Feb. 25, 2009, Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray said
Stamford, Conn.-based General Reinsurance Corp. has agreed to
pay to settle claims in a litigation against AIG. The state,
representing Ohio's public pension funds, had alleged the firm
conducted a fraudulent reinsurance transaction that allowed AIG
to inflate its loss reserves, according to the Business Courier
of Cincinnati report.
The Business Courier of Cincinnati reported that the Ohio Public
Employees Retirement System, State Teachers Retirement System
and Ohio Police and Fire Pension Fund through the attorney
general's office have been seeking damages for investors who
lost money after buying AIG securities between 1999 and 2005.
Former Attorney General Jim Petro first sued AIG in 2004 after
New York officials probed charges of bid-rigging among AIG and
other insurance companies. That probe uncovered new charges,
including the alleged transaction with General Reinsurance, and
led to the ouster of Hank Greenberg, AIG's longtime CEO.
A.G. Cordray spokesman Ted Hart told the Business Courier of
Cincinnati that litigation against AIG and other parties, a long
list of defendants that includes underwriters Wachovia
Securities and Merrill Lynch, remains unresolved.
The General Reinsurance settlement requires approval from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
reports the Business Courier of Cincinnati.
The suit, captioned, "In re American International Group
Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-8141," was originally
filed in April 2005, asserts various claims against AIG and
certain of its officers, directors, investment banks and other
parties. It was brought on behalf of investors who purchased
publicly traded securities of AIG between October 1999 and March
2005 (Class Action Reporter, March 14, 2008).
The complaint alleges that defendants violated Section 10(b) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 in connection
with the AIG Transaction. It seeks damages and other relief in
unspecified amounts.
The suit is "In Re American International Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:04-cv-08141-JES," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge John
E. Sprizzo presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Thomas A. Dubbs, Esq. (tdubbs@glrslaw.com)
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
100 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Phone: 212-907-0700
Fax: 212-818-0477
- and -
Louis Gottlieb, Esq. (lgottlieb@glrslaw.com)
Goldman Gruder & Wood
200 Connecticut Avenue
Norwalk, CT 06854
Phone: (212) 907-0872
Fax: (212) 883-7072
Representing the defendants are:
Steven Ian Froot, Esq. (sfroot@bsfllp.com)
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP
570 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (212)-446-2300
Fax: (212)-446-2350
- and -
George Abraham Zimmerman, Esq. (gzimmerm@skadden.com)
Skaddden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
Four Times Square
New York, NY 10036
Phone: (212) 735-2000 x2047
Fax: (212) 735-2000
HARRIS STRATEX: Securities Fraud Lawsuits Pending in Delaware
----------------------------------------------------------------
Harris Stratex Networks, Inc. continues to face several
purported securities fraud class-action suits in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware.
The company and certain of its executive officers were named in
a federal securities class-action complaint filed on Sept. 15,
2008 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware by
plaintiff Norfolk County Retirement System on behalf of an
alleged class of purchasers of the company's securities from
Jan. 29, 2007 to July 30, 2008, including shareholders of
Stratex Networks, Inc. who exchanged shares of Stratex Networks,
Inc. for the company's shares as part of the merger between
Stratex Networks and the Microwave Communications Division of
Harris Corp.
Similar complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware on Sept. 18, Oct. 6 and Oct. 30, 2008.
Each complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, as well as violations of Sections 11 and
15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and seeks, among other
relief, determinations that the action is a proper class action,
unspecified compensatory damages and reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs.
The company has entered into stipulations with plaintiffs'
counsel in these actions under which the company will not have
to respond to these claims until a lead plaintiff is selected by
the Court and that lead plaintiff has filed a consolidated class
action complaint, according to the company's Feb. 10, 2009 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Jan. 2, 2009.
Harris Stratex Networks, Inc. -- http://www.harrisstratex.com/
-- together with its subsidiaries, is a global supplier of
turnkey wireless network solutions and network management
software, backed by a suite of professional services and
support. The company offers a portfolio of wireless network
solutions, based on its microwave radio systems and network
management software. It serves market segments, including
mobile network operators, public safety agencies, private
network operators, utility and transportation companies,
government agencies and broadcasters. Products include point-
to-point digital microwave radio systems for mobile system
access, backhaul, trunking and license-exempt applications,
supporting network deployments, network expansion, and capacity
upgrades. Harris Stratex offers a range of products and
services, delivering them through three segments: North America
Microwave, International Microwave and Network Operations.
Network Operations serves all markets worldwide.
LEVEL 3 COMMS: Colo. Judge Orders Consolidation of Stock Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Philip Brimmer of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado has ordered the consolidation of three securities
class-action suits against Level 3 Communications Inc. that
allege the company did not tell investors it was struggling to
integrate several smaller firms it had acquired, an omission
that ultimately resulted in steep stock losses, Law360 reports.
In general, the complaints charge Level 3 and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 5, 2009).
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.
The complaints allege that the representations contained in
Level 3's press releases, SEC filings, conference calls, and
presentations during the Class Period were materially false and
misleading when made because they failed to disclose that:
-- the Company was experiencing problems integrating its
numerous acquisitions;
-- the Company's integration problems caused Level 3 to
experience severe provisioning problems which were
negatively impacting revenue growth; and
-- as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a
reasonable basis for their positive statements about
Level 3's business, operations and earnings prospects.
On Oct. 23, 2007, Level 3 issued a press release announcing its
financial results for the third quarter of 2007, the period
ending Sept. 30, 2007. For the quarter, the Company reported
consolidated revenue of $1.061 billion. Level 3 further
reported that its core communications services revenue was
negatively impacted by provisioning issues. In response to the
announcements, the price of Level 3 stock declined from $4.32
per share to $3.18 per share on Oct. 24, 2007, on extremely
heavy trading volume.
The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Level 3 common stock during the Class Period.
NORTH HUDSON: N.J. Court Certifies Class in Firefighters' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has
allowed a discrimination suit against the North Hudson Regional
Fire 38 Rescue service to proceed as a class-action case,
FireFighting News.com reports
In a 33-page opinion, Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise certified a
class that could potentially be as large as 872 African-
Americans from the three counties who passed a state
administered exam for firefighters between 1999 and 2006,
according to FireFighting News.com.
FireFighting News.com reported that the same opinion also
temporarily barred the agency from hiring firefighters until it
expands its residency requirement to include all of Hudson,
Essex and Union counties.
Case Background
Peter J. Sampson and Eric Hsu of NorthJersey.com previously
reported that The National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People (NAACP) filed a purported racial discrimination
class-action suit against North Hudson Regional Fire & Rescue
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 24, 2009).
The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey on April 10, 2007. Identified as plaintiffs in
the case are:
-- NAACP;
-- Newark Branch, NAACP;
-- New Jersey State Conference, NAACP;
-- Katrina Hall;
-- Keith Reeves;
-- Lamara Wapples; and
-- Altarik White.
Generally, the suit alleges that the regional fire department,
which is serving North Bergen and four other Hudson County
municipalities, hasn't hired a single black firefighter since it
was created nearly nine years ago (Class Action Reporter, April
19, 2007).
It contends that that department's preference for recruiting and
hiring employees who are residents of North Bergen, Union City,
Weehawken, West New York, and Guttenberg discriminates against
African-Americans.
The suit pointed out that the five towns, which merged their
departments in 1998, had a combined population of about 195,000
residents at the time of the 2000 census with less than 5
percent of which is African-American.
According to the suit, the department is passing up qualified
candidates simply because they don't live in the towns.
Four of the plaintiffs, namely, Ms. Hall, Mr. Reeves, Ms.
Wapples, and Mr. White, passed the state's firefighter exam and
applied for entry-level positions with the department.
However, according to the suit, because of the residency
preference, the four individuals and other outsiders from
predominately black municipalities such as Newark, East Orange,
Irvington, Jersey City and Orange are denied opportunities. The
suit pointed out that one black firefighter in 300-member
department was hired by North Bergen before the merger.
The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction barring North Hudson
Regional from discriminating against black candidates on the
basis of race and directing it to implement a vigorous
recruitment program designed to attract qualified minorities in
proportion to the labor market.
The suit is "The National Association For The Advancement Of
Colored People (NAACP) et al. v. North Hudson Regional Fire &
Rescue, Case No. 2:07-cv-01683-DRD-ES," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge Dickinson
R. Debevoise presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
David H. Ben-Asher, Esq.
Rabner, Allcorn, Baumgartner & Ben-Asher
52 Upper Montclair Plaza,
Montclair, NJ 07043
Phone: 973-744-4000
Web site: http://www.rabnerallcorn.com
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Ninth Circuit Yet to Rule on ERISA Suit Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has yet to rule
on an appeal regarding the denial of class-action status to the
case entitled "In Re Northrop Grumman Corporation ERISA
Litigation, Case No. 2:07-cv-00153-R-JC," which was filed in the
U.S. District for the Central District of California against
Northrop Grumman Corp.
The suit is a consolidation of these two separately filed
Employee Retirement Income Security Act class action complaints:
1. "Grabek v. Northrop Grumman Corporation, et al.,
previously styled Waldbuesser v. Northrop Grumman
Corporation, et al.," and
2. "Heidecker v. Northrop Grumman Corporation, et al."
The plaintiffs in "Grabek" alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by
the company, certain of its administrative and Board committees,
all members of the company's Board of Directors, and certain
company officers and employees with respect to alleged
excessive, hidden and otherwise improper fee and expense charges
to the Northrop Grumman Savings Plan and the Northrop Grumman
Financial Security and Savings Plan (both of which are 401(k)
plans).
The Heidecker case asserted similar claims, but dismissed the
company's Board of Directors.
Each lawsuit sought unspecified damages, removal of individuals
acting as fiduciaries to such plans, payment of attorney fees
and costs, and an accounting.
The suits were consolidated under the caption, "In Re Northrop
Grumman Corporation ERISA Litigation," for discovery and other
purposes, as each alleged similar issues of law and fact. They
were consolidated before the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.
On May 21, 2007, the Court granted a motion to dismiss with
prejudice the company and the Board of Directors from the Grabek
litigation. A few days later, the Court entered an order
dismissing the company with prejudice from the Heidecker
lawsuit.
On Aug. 7, 2007, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification. The plaintiffs then sought leave to file
an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
on the issue of class certification.
On Sept. 28, 2007, the Ninth Circuit ordered that the trial
court proceedings be stayed pending its decision on whether to
grant appellate review.
On Oct. 11, 2007, the Ninth Circuit granted appellate review,
which delayed the commencement of trial previously scheduled to
begin Jan. 22, 2008.
No further developments on the case were disclosed by the
company in its Feb. 10, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.
The suit is "In Re Northrop Grumman Corporation ERISA
Litigation, Case No. 2:07-cv-00153-R-JC," filed in the U.S.
District for the Central District of California, Judge Manuel L.
Real, presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Stephen M. Fishback, Esq. (sfishback@kfjlegal.com)
Keller Fishback
28720 Roadside Drive, Suite 201
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
Phone: 818-879-8033
- and -
Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. (tjmckenna@gaineyandmckenna.com)
Gainey and McKenna
295 Madison Avenue, 4th Fl
New York, NY 10017
Phone: 212-983-1300
RBS GLOBAL: Units Face 11 Lawsuits Over Crimp Fittings Failure
--------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global, Inc.'s subsidiaries, Zurn Pex, Inc. and Zurn
Industries, LLC (formerly known as Zurn Industries, Inc.), as of
Feb. 10, 2009, have been named as defendants in eleven lawsuits,
brought between July 2007 and October 2008, in various U.S.
federal courts (MN, ND, CO, NC, MT, AL, VA and LA).
The plaintiffs in these suits seek to represent a class of
plaintiffs alleging damages due to the alleged failure or
anticipated failure of the Zurn brass crimp fittings on the PEX
plumbing systems in homes and other structures.
The complaints assert various causes of action, including but
not limited to negligence, breach of warranty, fraud, and
violations of the Magnuson Moss Act and certain state consumer
protection laws, and seek declaratory and injunctive relief, and
damages (including punitive damages) in unspecified amounts.
The suits were transferred to a multi-district litigation docket
in the District of Minnesota for coordinated pretrial
proceedings.
The company is being provided a defense by its insurance
carrier, according to the company's Feb. 10, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 27, 2008.
RBS Global, Inc. -- http://www.rexnord.com/-- is a diversified,
multi-platform industrial company. Its business is comprised of
two platforms: Power Transmission (PT) and Water Management
(WM). Its PT product portfolio includes gears, industrial
bearings, flattop chain and modular conveyor belts, couplings,
aerospace bearings and seals, industrial chain. The products
are either incorporated into products sold by original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) or sold to end users through industrial
distributors as aftermarket products. The company's PT products
are used in the plants and equipment of companies in diverse
end-market industries, including aerospace, cement and
aggregates, construction, energy, food and beverages and forest
and wood products. RBS Global's WM platform is focused on non-
residential construction market for water management products.
On Feb. 7, 2007, the company acquired the Zurn plumbing products
business of Jacuzzi Brands, Inc. from an affiliate of Apollo
Management, L.P.
SONIC SOLUTIONS: Feb. 26 Hearing Set for Calif. Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Feb. 26, 2009 hearing has been set for the motion to dismiss a
consolidated amended putative shareholder class-action complaint
against Sonic Solutions and various of its executive officers
and directors, according to the company's Feb. 9, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008.
On Oct. 4, 2007, a putative shareholder class-action suit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against the company and certain of its executive
officers and directors on behalf of a proposed class of
plaintiffs comprised of persons that purchased the company's
shares between Oct. 4, 2002, and May 17, 2007. This action
alleges various violations of the Exchange Act and the rules
promulgated thereunder.
On March 21, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint against the company and various of its executive
officers and directors on behalf of a proposed class of
plaintiffs comprised of persons that purchased the company's
shares between Oct. 23, 2002, and May 17, 2007.
On May 27, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a "corrected" consolidated
amended complaint. The action alleges various violations of the
Exchange Act and the rules thereunder, and is based on
substantially similar factual allegations and claims as in the
derivative actions.
On June 27, 2008, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.
On Sept. 4, 2008, this action was reassigned to the judge
presiding over the Wilder v. Doris action. Upon the
reassignment, the court directed defendants to refile the motion
to dismiss.
Defendants refiled their motion to dismiss on Nov. 25, 2008.
The hearing for this motion is scheduled for Feb. 26, 2009.
Sonic Solutions -- http://www.sonic.com/-- develops and markets
computer software related to digital media, such as data,
photographs, audio and video in digital formats. Its product
lines focus on the two optical disc-based digital media formats,
the Compact Audio Disc and the Digital Video Disc, as well as
the High Definition Digital Video Disc and Blu-ray Disc formats.
Sonic's Professional Products Group offers hardware and software
authoring solutions for creating packaged media releases in DVD-
Video, DVD-read only memory, as well as HD DVD and BD next-
generation, high-definition and high-density disc formats. The
Roxio Division offers a number of digital media software
application products under the Roxio brand name. The Advanced
Technology Group develops software and software components that
it supplies to the other two operating units and that it
licenses to personal computer application and consumer
electronics developers.
SONIC SOLUTIONS: Consolidated Derivative Suits Pending in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sonic Solutions continues to face several derivative lawsuits in
California wherein it is named as a nominal defendant for
various alleged violations, according to the company's Feb. 9,
2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008.
Between March and June 2007, the company was notified that a
total of five shareholder derivative lawsuits had been filed by
persons identifying themselves as its shareholders and
purporting to act on the company's behalf, naming the company as
a nominal defendant and naming some of its current and former
officers and directors as defendants.
Four of these actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, and one was filed in the
Superior Court of California for the County of Marin.
In these actions, the plaintiffs assert claims against the
individual defendants for violations of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act, violations of the California Corporations Code,
breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting, abuse of
control, gross mismanagement, corporate waste, unjust
enrichment, rescission, constructive fraud, and an accounting
and a constructive trust.
The plaintiffs' claims concern the granting of stock options by
the company and the alleged filing of false and misleading
financial statements. All of these claims are asserted
derivatively on the company's behalf.
The plaintiffs seek, among other relief, an indeterminate amount
of damages from the individual defendants and a judgment
directing the company to reform its corporate governance.
The federal cases were consolidated on Aug. 2, 2007, into one
action captioned "Wilder v. Doris, et al. (C07-1500)," which is
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.
On April 30, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated class-
action and shareholder derivative complaint.
Pursuant to a stipulation by the parties, defendants' response
to the complaint was due Feb. 12, 2009.
On Sept. 19, 2007, the court in the state action granted the
company's motion to stay that proceeding in its entirety until
final resolution of the consolidated federal action. The court
in the state action is scheduled to review the status of the
stay on April 17, 2009.
Sonic Solutions -- http://www.sonic.com/-- develops and markets
computer software related to digital media, such as data,
photographs, audio and video in digital formats. Its product
lines focus on the two optical disc-based digital media formats,
the Compact Audio Disc and the Digital Video Disc, as well as
the High Definition Digital Video Disc and Blu-ray Disc formats.
Sonic's Professional Products Group offers hardware and software
authoring solutions for creating packaged media releases in DVD-
Video, DVD-read only memory, as well as HD DVD and BD next-
generation, high-definition and high-density disc formats. The
Roxio Division offers a number of digital media software
application products under the Roxio brand name. The Advanced
Technology Group develops software and software components that
it supplies to the other two operating units and that it
licenses to personal computer application and consumer
electronics developers.
SONIC SOLUTIONS: No Argument Date Yet for Appeal to Junked Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California for the County of Marin has not
yet set a date for oral argument on the appeal from the
dismissal of a putative shareholder class-action lawsuit against
Sonic Solutions and various of its executive officers and
directors.
The putative shareholder class-action suit was filed on Nov. 16,
2007, in the Superior Court of California for the County of
Marin against the company and various of its executive officers
and directors on behalf of a proposed class of persons who
purchased its shares between July 12, 2001, and May 17, 2007.
The action alleges breach of fiduciary duties, and is based on
substantially similar factual allegations and claims as in the
other lawsuits.
The court in the state putative shareholder class action suit
sustained the company's demurrers to the complaint with leave to
amend.
On April 21, 2008, the plaintiffs in that action filed an
amended complaint, which asserts additional claims under the
California Corporations Code. The court sustained the company's
demurrers to the amended complaint, without leave to amend in
part and with leave to amend in part.
The time for the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint in this
action has expired and they have not yet done so.
Accordingly, on July 30, 2008, the court dismissed the entire
case with prejudice and entered judgment in favor of the
defendants.
On Sept. 26, 2008, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the
court's order dismissing plaintiff's complaint with prejudice
and entering final judgment. On Jan. 15, 2009, Plaintiff-
appellant filed his opening brief. Defendants-respondents'
responding brief was due Feb. 17, 2009. The date for oral
argument has not been set by the court, according to the
company's Feb. 9, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008.
Sonic Solutions -- http://www.sonic.com/-- develops and markets
computer software related to digital media, such as data,
photographs, audio and video in digital formats. Its product
lines focus on the two optical disc-based digital media formats,
the Compact Audio Disc and the Digital Video Disc, as well as
the High Definition Digital Video Disc and Blu-ray Disc formats.
Sonic's Professional Products Group offers hardware and software
authoring solutions for creating packaged media releases in DVD-
Video, DVD-read only memory, as well as HD DVD and BD next-
generation, high-definition and high-density disc formats. The
Roxio Division offers a number of digital media software
application products under the Roxio brand name. The Advanced
Technology Group develops software and software components that
it supplies to the other two operating units and that it
licenses to personal computer application and consumer
electronics developers.
TOSHIBA AMERICA: N.Y. Court Approves DLP T.V. Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wed., Feb. 25, 2009 19:42:38 GMT -- WASHINGTON -- (Business
Wire) United States Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold of the
Eastern District of New York has entered an order granting final
approval of a class action settlement reached between purchasers
of certain models of Toshiba DLP televisions and Toshiba
America, Inc. and Toshiba America Consumer Products, L.L.C.
Originally filed in 2007, the class action lawsuit alleged
that the lamps of certain Toshiba DLP televisions were
susceptible to premature failure causing purchasers to
repeatedly expend hundreds of dollars for replacement bulbs,
which allegedly suffered from the same defect. Plaintiffs
pursued through their class action complaint claims sounding in
consumer protection law and breach of express and implied
warranty.
The settlement, a product of several months of negotiations
between counsel, provides reimbursement to class members who
purchased a bulb replacement that failed before its useful
service life and also extends the warranty on replacement bulbs
from six months to twelve months. The parties estimate that the
affected class is comprised of approximately 265,000 persons
throughout the United States and that the settlement is valued
in excess of $1 million.
"This settlement accomplishes precisely what we sought to
achieve when filing this litigation," said Gary E. Mason of The
Mason Law Firm, LLP and lead counsel for Plaintiffs. "It fully
addresses the complaints of class members who reasonably
expected their high-end DLP televisions to last several years
without the need to purchase costly replacement parts."
Plaintiffs were represented by The Mason Law Firm, LLP;
Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C.; Leiff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP; Mehri & Skalet, PLLC; The Mills Law Firm; and
Seeger Weiss LLP.
Additional information about this settlement is available on the
settlement website. Please contact Gary E. Mason of The Mason
Law Firm, LLP, 202-429-2290, gmason@masonlawdc.com, with any
questions.
For more details, contact:
Gary E. Mason, Esq. (gmason@masonlawdc.com)
The Mason Law Firm, LLP
Phone: 202-429-2290
Web site: http://www.dlplampsettlement.com
U.S. REMODELERS: Faces Labor-Related Lawsuits in Calif., N.J.
-------------------------------------------------------------
PHILADELPHIA, Feb. 25 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Two
separate class action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of
employees of U.S. Remodelers, Inc. who install kitchen cabinets
that are purchased in Home Depots across the country.
The first lawsuit, "Ozga v. U.S. Remodelers, Inc.," was
filed on Tuesday, February 17, 2009 in the Superior Court of
California, Alameda County, on behalf of all installer employees
of U.S. Remodelers, Inc. who worked in California during the
past four years.
The lawsuit alleges that U.S. Remodelers, Inc., who also
does business in California as U.S. Home Services, violated
California state wage and hour laws requiring employees to be
paid for all of their time spent working, and further alleges
that U.S. Remodelers maintains policies:
-- of requiring its employee installers to attend weekly
meetings, load equipment and materials, and travel to
and from work sites to the warehouse without being
compensated for these activities; and
-- of not providing meal and rest breaks to its employee
installers.
The second lawsuit, "Coluccio v. U.S. Remodelers, Inc.,"
which contains similar allegations, was filed on Tuesday,
February 24, 2009 in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, in Camden, New Jersey, and alleges on
behalf of installer employees of U.S. Remodelers, Inc. in every
state except California that U.S. Remodelers violated the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act by requiring its installer
employees to routinely work more than 40 hours per week without
receiving the legally mandated overtime pay. This lawsuit also
alleges class action claims under the New Jersey Wage and Hour
Law on behalf of all installer employees who worked in New
Jersey.
"U.S. Remodelers, Inc. is engaging in blatant violations of
the overtime laws by requiring its installers to spend numerous
hours working without being paid. This practice must stop, and
U.S. Remodelers, Inc. should be held accountable for this
illegal conduct," said Carolyn Cottrell of Schneider Wallace
Cottrell Brayton Konecky LLP, one of the attorneys for the
plaintiffs in both cases. Another attorney for the plaintiffs
in both cases, Shanon Carson of Berger & Montague, P.C., states,
"The employer/employee relationship is a highly one-sided
relationship, with companies too often taking advantage of its
workers by failing to pay them the compensation and overtime
they are owed under the law. It is important for courageous
workers to stand up for their rights, and the rights of their
co-workers, which is exactly what is going on here."
All current and former installer employees of U.S.
Remodelers, Inc. and U.S. Home Services who worked in California
during the past four years are covered by the California case.
All current and former installer employees of U.S. Remodelers in
all states other than California are covered by the second case
filed in federal court in New Jersey.
These cases are being prosecuted by Berger & Montague,
P.C., based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Schneider Wallace
Cottrell Brayton Konecky LLP, based in San Francisco,
California. An additional law firm, The Winebrake Law Firm,
LLC, is also representing the workers in the case filed in New
Jersey.
For more details, contact:
Shanon Carson
Phone: (215) 875-4656
- and -
Carolyn Cottrell
Phone: (415) 421-7100
e-mail: scarson@bm.net
VERIZON WIRELESS: Sued For Misrepresenting Tax on N.Y. Bills
------------------------------------------------------------
Verizon Wireless is facing a purported class-action lawsuit that
accuses it of misrepresenting to New York consumers the intended
target of a "metropolitan commuter transportation district" tax
charged to subscribers by the wireless provider, Jeffrey Silva
of RCR Wireless News reports.
The suit, captioned, "Levy v. Verizon Wireless, Case No. 1:2009-
cv-00659," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on Feb. 17, 2009 by Albert Levy on behalf
of himself and others, according to RCR Wireless News.
According to suit, "Defendant stated in its monthly bills to
consumers, as well as in other places, that this charge was a
tax that defendant is 'required by law to bill customers.' In
truth, defendant was under no legal obligation to bill customers
for this amount since that charge is one that is imposed on
wireless providers, not on consumers," reports RCR Wireless
News.
RCR Wireless News reported that Mr. Levy included a copy of his
August-September 2008 bill from Verizon Wireless showing a 44-
cent charge under the heading of "Taxes, Governmental Surcharges
and Fees." In addition to the metropolitan commuter
transportation district tax, there is a state enhanced 911 fee,
a New York City 911 surcharge, a state sales tax and a New York
City sales tax.
The 27-page lawsuit, a copy of which was obtained by RCR
Wireless News stated, "Tellingly, one of Verizon Wireless'
largest competitors — Sprint [Nextel Corp.] — historically has
not charged consumers this amount at all, saving Sprint
customers a considerable amount of money."
The suit is "Levy v. Verizon Wireless, Case No. 1:2009-cv-
00659," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, Judge I. Leo Glasser, presiding.
Representing the plaintiff are:
Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
Lite DePalma Greenberg & Rivas, LLC
Two Gateway Center
12th Floor
Newark, NJ 07102
Phone: 973-623-3000
Fax: 973-623-0211
Michael Robert Reese, Esq. (michael@reeserichman.com)
Reese Richman LLP
875 Avenue of the Americas
18th Floor
New York, NY 10001
Phone: (212) 579-4625
Fax: (212) 253-4272
- and -
Kim Richman, Esq. (kerichman@gmail.com)
875 Avenue of the Americas
18th Floor
New York, NY 10001
Phone: 212-579-4625
Fax: 212-253-4272
WASTE CONNECTIONS: Faces FLSA Violations Lawsuit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Waste Connections, Inc. faces a purported class-action complaint
captioned, "Heath Belcher and Denessa Arguello v. Waste
Connections, Inc., and Waste Connections of California, Inc.,"
according to the company's Feb. 10, 2009 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2008.
On Jan. 15, 2009, the purported class action complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California, naming the company and its subsidiary, Waste
Connections of California, Inc., as defendants.
The complaint alleges violations under the Fair Labor Standards
Act related to overtime compensation, and alleges violations
under California labor laws related to overtime compensation,
unpaid wages, meal and rest breaks, and wage statements.
The complaint also alleges violations under the California
Unfair Competition Law based on the foregoing alleged
violations. It seeks class certification and various forms of
relief, including declaratory judgment, statutory penalties,
unpaid back wages, liquidated damages, restitution, interest,
and attorneys' fees and costs.
Waste Connections, Inc. -- http://www.wasteconnections.com/--
is an integrated, non-hazardous solid waste services company
that provides collection, transfer, disposal and recycling
services to commercial, industrial and residential customers in
the states of Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho,
Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.
XEROX CORP: April 14 Hearing Set for $51M ERISA Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut will
hold a fairness hearing on April 14, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. for the
proposed $51,000,000 settlement in the matter, "In Re Xerox
Corp. ERISA Litigation, Case No. 3:02-cv-01138-AWT," which
accuses Xerox Corp. of violating the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.
Case Background
On July 1, 2002, a class-action complaint, captioned "Patti v.
Xerox Corp. et al.," was filed over alleged ERISA violations.
Three additional class action suits -- "Hopkins," "Uebele" and
"Saba" -- were subsequently filed before the same court
asserting substantially similar claims (Class Action Reporter,
Oct. 30, 2008).
On Oct. 16, 2002, the four cases were consolidated as "In Re
Xerox Corp. ERISA Litigation." On Nov. 15, 2002, a consolidated
amended complaint was filed.
A fifth class action -- "Wright" -- was filed in the District of
Columbia. It has been transferred to Connecticut and
consolidated with the other actions.
The purported class includes all persons who invested or
maintained investments in the Xerox Stock Fund in the Xerox
401(k) Plans (either salaried or union) during the proposed
class period, May 12, 1997 through Nov. 15, 2002, and allegedly
exceeds 50,000 persons.
The named defendants include the company and these individuals
or groups of individuals:
-- Plan Administrator;
-- Board of Directors;
-- Fiduciary Investment Review Committee;
-- Joint Administrative Board;
-- Finance Committee of the Board of Directors; and
-- Treasurer.
The complaint claims that all the foregoing defendants were
fiduciaries of the Plan under ERISA and, as such, were obligated
to protect the Plan's assets and act in the interest of Plan
participants. The complaint alleges that the defendants failed
to do so and thereby breached their fiduciary duties.
Specifically, the plaintiffs claim that the defendants failed to
provide accurate and complete material information to
participants concerning company stock, including accounting
practices which allegedly artificially inflated the value of the
stock, and misled participants regarding the soundness of the
stock and the prudence of investing their retirement assets in
company stock.
The plaintiffs also claim that the defendants failed to invest
Plan assets prudently, to monitor the other fiduciaries and to
disregard Plan directives they knew or should have known were
imprudent, and failed to avoid conflicts of interest.
The complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought.
However, it asks that the losses to the Plan be restored, which
it describes as "millions of dollars."
It also seeks other legal and equitable relief, as appropriate,
to remedy the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, as well as
interest, costs and attorneys' fees.
The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
The plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion for class
certification and a motion to commence discovery. The
defendants have opposed these motions, contending that both are
premature before there is a decision on their motion to dismiss.
In the fall of 2004, the court requested an updated briefing on
the company's dismissal motion and update briefs were filed in
December that year.
On March 31, 2006, the court granted the company's motion to
postpone consideration of class certification pending
disposition of the dismissal motion, and granted the plaintiffs'
motion to commence formal discovery.
On April 17, 2007, the Court ruled on the dismissal motion,
granting it in part and denying it in part, and giving the
plaintiffs an opportunity to replead. In essence, the Court
stated that the class period does not extend past the date on
which the complaint was filed -- Nov. 15, 2002.
The Court also required the plaintiffs to plead with greater
specificity with regard to the defendants' alleged breach of
duties, and granted the motion with respect to the duty of
loyalty count, agreeing with defendants that ERISA does not
require fiduciaries to avoid conflicts of interest but rather
sets a loyalty standard to which fiduciaries must adhere when
faced with a conflict of interest. However, the Court did give
the plaintiffs leave to replead the duty of loyalty count.
Furthermore, the Court granted the plaintiffs' prayer for relief
seeking to enjoin the defendants from violating ERISA, holding
that an injunction must be more specific than a simple command
that the defendants obey the law.
The Court denied the motion as to the prudence count and the
monitoring count, ruling that further fact development is needed
as to those counts, and, on the disclosure count, determined
that plaintiffs have set forth a claim, rejecting the
defendants' assertion that SEC filings made by the company in
its corporate capacity and required by the federal securities
laws cannot be the basis of a fiduciary breach under ERISA even
if subsequently included in disclosures made directly to plan
participants.
Finally, the Court held that the plaintiffs are not precluded
from pursuing their claims under section 502(a)(2) merely
because any recovery will not be shared by all participants in
the plan but rather by a sub-class of participants who had
invested in Xerox stock during the class period.
Also on April 17, 2007, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion
to certify a class and said that the subject needs to be
addressed in a scheduling conference that the Court will convene
in the future.
The plaintiffs subsequently filed a second consolidated amended
complaint, alleging that some or all the defendants breached
their ERISA fiduciary duties during 1997-2002 by:
-- maintaining the Xerox Stock Fund as an investment
option under the Plan;
-- failing to monitor the conduct of Plan fiduciaries;
and
-- misleading Plan participants about Xerox stock as an
investment option under the Plans.
On July 18, 2007, the defendants answered the new complaint and
also filed a partial motion to dismiss.
On Aug. 9, 2007, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification and on Aug. 31, 2007, filed their opposition to
the defendants' partial motion to dismiss.
In March 2008, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, without prejudice against re-filing, and also
denied most of the defendants' partial motion to dismiss.
On July 1, 2008, the plaintiffs refiled their class
certification motion and also filed a Third Consolidated Amended
Complaint. The defendants filed their answer to the latest
complaint on July 15, 2008 and their opposition to class
certification on Sept. 5, 2008. Discovery in the case is
ongoing.
The suit is "In Re Xerox Corp. ERISA Litigation, Case No. 3:02-
cv-01138-AWT," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Connecticut, Judge Alvin W. Thompson, presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
Keller Rohrback L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: 206-623-1900
Fax: 206-623-3384
Web site:
http://www.KellerSettlements.com/XeroxERISA.html
- and -
Charles R. Watkins, Esq. (cwatkins@futtermanhoward.com)
Futterman Howard Watkins Wylie & Ashley, CHTD.
122 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1850
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 427-3600
Fax: (312) 427-1850
Web site: http://futtermanhoward.com/
Representing the defendants are:
William H. Boice, Esq. (bboice@kilpatrickstockton.com)
Kilpatrick Stockton
1100 Peachtree St., Ste. 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309-4530
Phone: 404-815-6464
Fax: 404-541-3134
- and -
William J. Egan, Esq. (wegan@brownraysman.com)
Brown Raysman Millstein Felder & Steiner
City Place II, 185 Asylum Street, 10th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
Phone: 860-275-6400
Fax: 860-275-6410
New Securities Fraud Cases
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
NEW YORK, Feb. 25, 2009 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Coughlin Stoia
Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP ("Coughlin Stoia")
(http://www.csgrr.com/cases/chesapeake/)announced that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
Chesapeake Energy Corporation ("Chesapeake" or the "Company")
stock issued pursuant to the registration statement and
prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in
connection with Chesapeake's July 2008 secondary public stock
offering (the "Offering").
The complaint charges Chesapeake, certain of its officers
and directors, and certain underwriters of the Offering with
violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act").
Chesapeake is the third largest independent producer of
natural gas in the United States. Chesapeake's strategy is
focused on discovering, acquiring and developing conventional
and unconventional natural gas reserves onshore in the United
States, east of the Rocky Mountains.
According to the complaint, on July 15, 2008, Chesapeake
completed a secondary public offering of 28.75 million shares of
common stock at $57.25 per share, receiving approximately $1.65
billion in gross proceeds, with net proceeds of $1.586 billion.
The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement
issued in connection with the Offering was materially false and
misleading because it failed to disclose numerous facts which
were required to be stated therein, including:
-- that the Company's exposure to natural gas price
declines had not been adequately limited by the
hedging actions the Company had undertaken prior to
the Offering, including its decision to increase its
hedge position from 20% to 80% of its production, as a
growing proportion of the hedging agreements on
Chesapeake's 2009 production contained so-called
"knockout" provisions that eliminated the counter-
party's financial obligation once the price of natural
gas fell below a certain benchmark;
-- though the Company disclosed it had entered into
hedging contracts to protect its production from
falling prices, the Registration Statement failed to
disclose that a significant proportion of these
contracts had been made with one of the underwriters
in the Offering, Lehman Brothers, though based on
Lehman Brothers' rapidly declining financial
condition, Lehman Brothers would be unable to fulfill
its financial commitment - rendering Chesapeake's
"protection" meaningless;
-- in the months leading up to the Offering, Chesapeake's
aggressive hedging activities (and those of certain of
the underwriter defendants) had been significantly
running up the price of natural gas and Chesapeake's
stock price, which moves in tandem with natural gas
prices;
-- that Chesapeake's "land men," i.e., lease brokers, had
been aggressively bidding up the prices Chesapeake was
obligated to pay in leases and royalty agreements in
the months leading up to the Offering, causing
Chesapeake to pay unreasonably high prices for certain
leases and royalty contracts;
-- that the Company was failing to write down impaired
goodwill on the assets it was acquiring, causing its
balance sheet and financial results to be artificially
inflated; and
-- that the Company's internal controls were inadequate
to prevent the Company from improperly reporting its
goodwill.
During late 2008 and early 2009, as these omitted facts
were revealed to the market, the price of Chesapeake stock
declined to less than $12 per share, approximately 80% below the
Offering price.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Chesapeake stock issued pursuant to the
Registration Statement issued in connection with Chesapeake's
July 2008 Offering (the "Class").
For more details, contact:
David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com)
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058
Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/cases/chesapeake/
COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS, N.J., Feb. 25, 2009 (GlobeNewswire via
COMTEX) -- Gardy & Notis, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Alabama on behalf of all purchasers of The Colonial BancGroup,
Inc. ("Colonial") securities between December 2, 2008 and
January 27, 2009, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Colonial and certain of its officers and directors
allegedly violated federal securities laws by issuing materially
false and misleading statements regarding Colonial's
participation in the United States Treasury Department's
Troubled Asset Relief Program ("TARP").
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that on December 2,
2008, Colonial announced that the United States Treasury had
approved an application for a $553 million preferred equity
investment through TARP. In response, shares of Colonial common
stock rallied 50%.
On January 27, 2009, however, Colonial announced for the
first time that the TARP funding was contingent upon Colonial
raising $300 million in capital on its own. Upon this
revelation, Colonial's stock price collapsed 46% on January 28,
2009.
Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of themselves
and all other individual and institutional investors who
purchased Colonial securities between December 2, 2008 through
January 27, 2009, excluding defendants and their affiliates.
For more information, contact:
Charles Germershausen, Esq.
(cgermershausen@gardylaw.com)
Kelly A. Noto, Esq. (knoto@gardylaw.com)
Gardy & Notis, LLP
Phone: 201-567-7377
Fax: 201-567-7337
Web site: http://www.gardylaw.com/
OPPENHEIMER FUNDS: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
February 25, 2009: 06:56 PM ET -- Marketwire -- Abraham,
Fruchter & Twersky, LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York against Oppenheimer Funds, Inc. ("Oppenheimer") on behalf
of purchasers of the Rochester Fund Municipals ("Rochester" or
the "Fund") (NASDAQ: RMUNX) (NASDAQ: RMUBX) (NASDAQ: RMUCX) from
February 26, 2006 through October 21, 2008 (the "Class Period").
The complaint charges Oppenheimer, the Fund and certain of
its Trustees with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. The
suit claims Oppenheimer, which runs the Fund, misled investors
about the risks of investing in the Fund, resulting in an over
30% decline in the Fund's value. The lawsuit identifies the
following funds as affected: A Shares (RMUNX), B Shares (RMUBX)
and C Shares (RMUCX).
The complaint alleges that the Registration Statements
through which shares of the Fund were sold failed to disclose
that under certain circumstances Trusts which contain Inverse
Floaters, such as those employed by the Fund, may be put to the
Fund for repayment of principal. This caused the Trusts to be
collapsed and required the Fund to repay the principal amount of
the tendered securities. In order to do so, the Fund was forced
to sell securities from its portfolio regardless of market
conditions and accept prices far below the values at which the
bonds were carried on its books.
This risk factor was always present wherever inverse
floaters were employed. However, no disclosure was made in any
of the Prospectuses filed as part of Registration Statements
with respect to the sale of the Fund's shares. Because of this
lack of disclosure, the Fund's shares traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.
On October 21, 2008, Rochester filed a Prospectus
Supplement which disclosed the relevant risks associated with
the Fund's investment in Inverse Floaters. As of October 21,
2008, the Fund's shares traded at $12.35 per share, down from
$18.00 per share at the beginning of the year.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those
who purchased shares of Rochester Fund Municipals from February
26, 2006 through October 21, 2008.
For more details, contact:
Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq.
Jack Fruchter, Esq.
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP
One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
New York, N.Y. 10119
Phone: (212) 279-5050
Fax: (212) 279-3655
Asbestos Alerts
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Norfolk Still Subject to Occupational Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern Corporation continues to be subject to
occupational claims, including asbestosis and other respiratory
diseases.
Many of these claims are being asserted by former or retired
employees, some of whom have not been employed in the rail
industry for decades.
No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 18, 2009.
Headquartered in Norfolk, Va., Norfolk Southern Corporation
controls a major freight railroad, Norfolk Southern Railway
Company. Norfolk Southern Railway transports raw materials,
intermediate products, and finished goods in the Southeast,
East, and Midwest and, via interchange with rail carriers, to
and from the rest of the United States.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers Property Facing Insurance Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc.'s subsidiary, Travelers Property
Casualty Corp. (TPC), continues to be a party to asbestos-
related insurance lawsuits filed in various courts.
In October 2001 and April 2002, two purported class action suits
(Wise v. Travelers and Meninger v. Travelers) were filed against
TPC and other insurers (not including St. Paul Companies Inc.
[SPC]) in state court in West Virginia. These and other cases
subsequently filed in West Virginia were consolidated into a
single proceeding in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, W.Va.
The plaintiffs allege that the insurer defendants engaged in
unfair trade practices by inappropriately handling and settling
asbestos claims. The plaintiffs seek to reopen large numbers of
settled asbestos claims and to impose liability for damages,
including punitive damages, directly on insurers.
Similar lawsuits were filed in Massachusetts and Hawaii state
courts (these suits and the West Virginia suits are collectively
referred to as the Statutory and Hawaii Actions).
In March 2002, the plaintiffs in consolidated asbestos actions
pending before a mass tort panel of judges in West Virginia
state court amended their complaint to include TPC as a
defendant, alleging that TPC and other insurers breached alleged
duties to certain users of asbestos products. The plaintiffs
seek damages, including punitive damages.
Lawsuits seeking similar relief and raising similar allegations,
primarily violations of purported common law duties to third
parties, are also pending in Texas state court against TPC and
SPC, and in Louisiana state court against TPC (the claims
asserted in these suits, together with the West Virginia suit,
are collectively referred to as the Common Law Claims).
The federal bankruptcy court that had presided over the
bankruptcy of TPC's former policyholder Johns-Manville
Corporation issued a temporary injunction prohibiting the
prosecution of the Statutory Actions (but not the Hawaii
Actions), the Common Law Claims and an additional set of cases
filed in various state courts in Texas and Ohio, and enjoining
certain attorneys from filing any further lawsuits against TPC
based on similar allegations. Notwithstanding the injunction,
additional common law claims were filed against TPC.
In November 2003, the parties reached a settlement of the
Statutory and Hawaii Actions. This settlement includes a lump-
sum payment of up to US$412 million by TPC. In May 2004, the
parties reached a settlement resolving substantially all pending
and similar future Common Law Claims against TPC. This
settlement requires a payment of up to US$90 million by TPC.
On Aug. 17, 2004, the bankruptcy court entered an order
approving the settlements and clarifying its prior orders that
all of the pending Statutory and Hawaii Actions and
substantially all Common Law Claims pending against TPC are
barred.
On March 29, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York substantially affirmed the bankruptcy
court's orders while vacating that portion of the bankruptcy
court's orders that required all future direct actions against
TPC to first be approved by the bankruptcy court before
proceeding in state or federal court.
Various parties appealed the district court's March 29, 2006
ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On
Feb. 15, 2008, the Second Circuit issued an opinion vacating on
jurisdictional grounds the District Court's approval of an order
issued by the bankruptcy court prohibiting the prosecution of
the Statutory and Hawaii Actions and the Common Law Claims, as
well as future similar direct action litigation, against TPC.
On Feb. 29, 2008, TPC and certain other parties to the appeals
filed petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc, requesting
reinstatement of the district court's judgment, which were
denied. TPC and certain other parties filed Petitions for Writ
of Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the
Second Circuit's decision, and on Dec. 12, 2008, the Petitions
were granted.
Headquartered in New York, The Travelers Companies, Inc. offers
personal auto and homeowners insurance and also offers
commercial property/casualty insurance to businesses. The
Company also offers surety and fidelity bonds and professional
and management liability coverage for commercial operations.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers Records $2.9B Reserves at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc.'s net asbestos-related reserves
were US$2.914 billion at and for the year ended Dec. 31, 2008,
compared with US$3.734 billion at and for the year ended Dec.
31, 2007.
The Company's net asbestos reserves were US$3.596 billion at
June 30, 2008, compared with US$3.859 billion at June 30, 2007.
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 1, 2008)
The Company had a total of 1,674 policyholders at and for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2008, compared with 1,681 policyholders at
and for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007.
Net asbestos losses and expenses were US$658 million paid in
2008, compared with US$317 million in 2007. The increase in net
paid losses was the result of an ACandS, Inc. payment in the
third quarter of 2008. Excluding the ACandS settlement, payments
in 2008 were US$293 million.
About 59 percent in 2008 and 20 percent in 2007 of total net
paid losses related to policyholders with whom the Company had
entered into settlement agreements limiting the Company's
liability.
Headquartered in New York, The Travelers Companies, Inc. offers
personal auto and homeowners insurance and also offers
commercial property/casualty insurance to businesses. The
Company also offers surety and fidelity bonds and professional
and management liability coverage for commercial operations.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers, PPG Reach Settlement on Jan. 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc., PPG Industries, Inc., and about
30 other insurers of PPG, on Jan. 29, 2009, agreed in principle
on a modified settlement agreement to settle asbestos-related
coverage litigation under insurance policies issued to PPG,
according to the Company's annual report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 19, 2009.
The tentative settlement agreement has been incorporated into
the Modified Third Amended Plan of Reorganization (Amended Plan)
proposed as part of the Pittsburgh Corning Corp. (PCC, which is
50 percent owned by PPG) bankruptcy proceeding.
Under the proposed Amended Plan, which was filed on Jan. 30,
2009, PCC, along with enumerated other companies (including PPG
as well as the Company as a participating insurer), is to
receive protections afforded by Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy
Code from certain asbestos-related bodily injury claims.
The Company had entered into a prior agreement in principle with
PPG in 2002 which was contingent upon final court approval of
the Second Amended Plan of Reorganization for PCC, but in
December 2006, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court declined to confirm
that Plan of Reorganization.
As a result of the December 2006 ruling, the Company removed the
reserves associated with the prior agreement from the structured
settlement category of the asbestos reserve and made a
corresponding increase in the unallocated asbestos incurred-but-
not-reported (IBNR) reserve.
Under the current agreement in principle, the Company has the
option to make a series of payments over the next 20 years
totaling about US$620 million to the Trust to be created under
the Amended Plan, or it may elect to make a one-time discounted
payment, which, as of June 30, 2009, would total about US$430
million (about US$400 million after reinsurance).
The current agreement in principle with PPG is subject to
numerous contingencies, including final court approval of the
Amended Plan, and the Company has no obligation to make the
settlement payment until all contingencies are satisfied. The
Company's obligations under this agreement in principle continue
to be included in the unallocated asbestos IBNR reserve.
Headquartered in New York, The Travelers Companies, Inc. offers
personal auto and homeowners insurance and also offers
commercial property/casualty insurance to businesses. The
Company also offers surety and fidelity bonds and professional
and management liability coverage for commercial operations.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 114T Claims Still Pending v. PPG at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2008, continues to face
asbestos-related lawsuits involving about 114,000 open claims
served on the Company, according to the Company's annual report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 19,
2009.
As of Sept. 30, 2008, the Company was one of many defendants in
numerous asbestos-related lawsuits involving about 114,000 open
claims served on the Company. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 31,
2008)
For over 30 years, the Company has been a defendant in lawsuits
involving claims alleging personal injury from exposure to
asbestos. Most of the Company's potential exposure relates to
allegations by plaintiffs that the Company should be liable for
injuries involving asbestos-containing thermal insulation
products, known as Unibestos, manufactured and distributed by
Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (PC).
The Company and Corning Incorporated are each 50 percent
shareholders of PC. The Company has denied responsibility for,
and has defended, all claims for any injuries caused by PC
products.
The Company recorded US$244 million for asbestos settlement
(under long-term liabilities) as of Dec. 31, 2008, compared with
US$324 million as of Dec. 31, 2007. The Company recorded US$491
million for asbestos settlement (under current liabilities) as
of Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$593 million as of Dec. 31,
2007.
Headquartered in Pittsburgh, PPG Industries, Inc. supplies
paints, coatings, chemicals, optical products, specialty
materials, glass and fiber glass. The Company has more than 150
manufacturing facilities and equity affiliates and operates in
more than 60 countries.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enbridge Cites $5.5M for Cleanup at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. recorded US$5.5 million (in
"Accounts payable and other") for asbestos and environmental
cleanup as of Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$3.4 million as of
Dec. 31, 2007.
The Company recorded US$5.7 million, which was under "Accounts
payable and other," for asbestos and environmental cleanup costs
at Sept. 30, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 14, 2008)
The Company recorded US$2.8 million (in "Other long-term
liabilities") as of both Dec. 31, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2007 for A&E
cleanup.
The Company recorded US$3 million, which was under "Other long-
term liabilities," for A&E cleanup costs at Sept. 30, 2008.
(Class Action Reporter, Nov. 14, 2008)
The amounts recorded were primarily to address remediation of
contaminated sites, asbestos containing materials, management of
hazardous waste material disposal, outstanding air quality
measures for certain of the Company's liquids and natural gas
assets, and penalties the Company has or expects to be assessed.
Headquartered in Houston, Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. owns
the 1,900-mile United States portion of the world's longest
liquid petroleum pipeline. When combined with the Canadian
segment (owned and operated by Enbridge Inc.), the pipeline
system spans some 3,500 miles across North America.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Windstream Has $44.6Mil for ARO at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Windstream Corporation's asset retirement obligations amounted
to US$44.6 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, compared
with US$45.2 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, according
to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Feb. 19, 2009.
The Company's asset retirement obligations include legal
obligations to remediate the asbestos in certain buildings if
the Company were to abandon, sell or otherwise dispose of the
buildings and to dispose of its chemically-treated telephone
poles at the time they are removed from service.
These asset retirement obligations are included in other long
term liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets.
COMPANY PROFILE:
Windstream Corporation
4001 Rodney Parham Rd.
Little Rock, Ark., 72212-2442
United States
http://www.windstream.com/
Description:
The Company provides telecommunications services in rural
communities in the United States. The Company's subsidiaries
provide local telephone, high-speed Internet, long distance,
network access, and video services in 16 states.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CSX Records $124M Liabilities at Dec. 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corporation's total liabilities related to asbestos claims
were US$124 million at December 2008 and US$129 million at
December 2007, according to the Company's annual report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 19, 2009.
Current liabilities related to asbestos claims were US$11
million at December 2008 and US$15 million at December 2007.
The Company is party to a number of occupational claims by
employees alleging exposure to asbestos in the workplace.
The heaviest possible exposure for employees was due to work
conducted in and around steam locomotive engines that were
largely phased out beginning around the 1950s. However, other
types of exposures, including exposure from locomotive component
parts and building materials, continued until it was
substantially eliminated by 1985.
Reserves for asbestos related claims were US$124 million at
December 2008 and US$129 million at December 2007. Reserves for
all other occupational claims were US$80 million at December
2008 and US$79 million at December 2007.
Headquartered in Jacksonville, Fla., CSX Corporation is a
transportation supplier. The Company's rail and intermodal
businesses provide rail-based transportation services including
traditional rail service and the transport of intermodal
containers and trailers.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CSX Has 4,904 Occupational Claims at Dec.
----------------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corporation had 4,904 open asbestos and other occupational
claims at December 2008, compared with 10,988 claims at December
2007.
For the fiscal year ended December 2008, the Company noted 400
new claims filed, 392 claims settled, and 6,092 claims
dismissed. For the fiscal year ended December 2007, the Company
noted 930 new claims filed, 553 claims settled, and 505 claims
dismissed.
In the prior year, about 6,000 of the open claims were asbestos
claims against the Company's previously owned international
container shipping business. About 5,700 of these claims have
been administratively dismissed for lack of medical merit. This
reduced the open asbestos claims related to the shipping
business claims to about 165.
Because these claims were against multiple vessel owners, the
Company's reserves reflect its portion of those claims. The
Company had about US$3 million (at December 2008) and US$9
million (at December 2007) reserved for these shipping business
claims.
The remaining open claims were asserted against Company
subsidiary CSX Transportation, Inc.
Headquartered in Jacksonville, Fla., CSX Corporation is a
transportation supplier. The Company's rail and intermodal
businesses provide rail-based transportation services including
traditional rail service and the transport of intermodal
containers and trailers.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Harron's Motion to Dismiss CSX Claim Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Frederick Stamp, on Feb. 19, 2009, denied
the motion of Bridgeport, W.Va., radiologist Ray Harron to
dismiss CSX Railroad's fraud conspiracy claim, The West Virginia
Record reports.
Mr. Harron must now defend himself in Judge Stamp's court
against an allegation that he falsified a diagnosis of Earl
Baylor so lawyers could file an asbestos suit.
Mr. Harron argued that the claim did not meet a US$75,000
minimum for federal jurisdiction. However, Judge Stamp found
that CSX has spent more than that on legal fees.
CSX told Judge Stamp it spent about US$76,000 defending Mr.
Baylor's claim in state court and about US$68,000 investigating
and prosecuting the fraud claim in Judge Stamp's court.
CSX also urged Judge Stamp to add possible punitive damages to
the calculation.
CSX also seeks damages from Pittsburgh lawyers Robert Peirce,
Esq., Louis Raimond, Esq., Mark Coulter, Esq., and Robert
Gilkison, Esq.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BP to Pay Nearly $180M for Cleanup Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
BP Products North America Inc. has agreed to spend more than
US$161 million on pollution controls, enhanced maintenance and
monitoring, and improved internal management practices to
resolve Clean Air Act violations at its Texas City, Tex.,
refinery, according to a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
press release dated Feb. 19, 2009.
The announcement was made by the EPA and the U.S. Department of
Justice.
The Company will also pay a US$12 million civil penalty and
spend US$6 million on a supplemental project to reduce air
pollution in Texas City.
The Feb. 19, 2009 settlement addresses the Company's
noncompliance with a 2001 consent decree and Clean Air Act
regulations requiring strict controls on benzene and benzene-
containing wastes generated during petroleum refining
operations.
The Company is required to upgrade control equipment and
processes used to handle these materials and conduct in-depth
audits to ensure compliance and minimize the amount of benzene-
containing wastes generated at the refinery. It is estimated
that these actions will reduce emissions of benzene and other
volatile organic compounds by about 6,000 pounds annually.
Catherine R. McCabe, acting assistant administrator for EPA's
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, said, "BP failed
to fulfill its obligations under the law, putting air quality
and public health at risk. Today's settlement will improve air
quality for the people living in and around Texas City, many of
whom come from minority and low-income backgrounds."
John C. Cruden, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the
Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division,
said, "The Department of Justice and the EPA will aggressively
pursue those who fail to comply with the laws that protect our
environment, and we will hold them accountable. This new
agreement requires stringent new measures to protect air quality
and public health in Texas beyond those originally required at
the Texas City Refinery."
EPA identified the violations addressed in Feb. 19, 2009's
settlement during inspections of the Texas City refinery
initiated after a catastrophic explosion and fire in March 2005
that killed 15 people and injured more than 170 others.
In October 2007, the Company pleaded guilty to a felony
violation of the Clean Air Act and agreed to pay a US$50 million
fine for violations related to the explosion. The plea is still
under review by the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, and the settlement does not address any
claims arising from the March 2005 explosion.
The settlement requires that BP address violations of Clean Air
Act requirements limiting emissions of stratospheric ozone-
depleting hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) from leaking cooling
appliances. BP will eliminate about 51,000 pounds of HCFCs by
retrofitting industrial and commercial cooling appliances at
Texas City to use non-ozone-depleting refrigerants.
The Company has also agreed to improve its oversight and
management of asbestos-containing wastes generated during
routine renovation and demolition activities at the Texas City
Refinery.
As part of the settlement, the Company will spend an additional
US$6 million to reduce air pollution from diesel vehicle
emissions in Texas City and the surrounding area. BP will
convert about 100 diesel municipal vehicles, including several
dozen school buses, to operate on compressed or liquefied
natural gas and will construct four refueling stations for the
converted vehicles.
Based in Warrenville, Ill., BP Products North America operates
petroleum refineries in California, Indiana, Ohio, Texas and
Washington. The Texas City refinery has a production capacity of
more than 460,000 barrels per day.
The proposed settlement, lodged on Feb. 19, 2009 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, is subject
to a 30-day public comment period and final court approval.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Reverses Ruling in Neal Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second District, Montgomery
County, reversed the ruling of the Common Pleas Court, which
administratively dismissed an asbestos-related lawsuit filed by
Shirley Neal (for husband Arthur Neal) against various defendant
corporations.
The case is styled Shirley Neal, Ind. & as Exec. of the Estate
of Arthur Neal, et al., Plaintiff-Appellee v. A-Best Products
Co., et al., Defendant-Appellants.
Judges Mike Fain, William H. Wolff, Jr., and James A. Brogan
entered judgment in Case No. 22026 on Dec. 31, 2008.
Mrs. Neal sued 62 companies that had allegedly supplied
asbestos-containing products to workplaces frequented by Mr.
Neal.
Mrs. Neal alleged in the complaint that Mr. Neal had exposure to
asbestos and asbestos-containing products during 23 years of
employment as a sheet-metal worker and laborer. She further
alleged that Mr. Neal had developed asbestos-related lung
diseases and had died in September 2002, as a direct and
proximate result of his exposure to asbestos and the defendants'
tortious acts.
The causes of action in the complaint included negligence,
negligent misrepresentation, strict liability, breach of
warranty, fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation, products
liability, and conspiracy.
Defendants-Appellants appealed from an order of the trial court
holding 2003 Am. Sub. H.B. 292 unconstitutional, as applied. The
trial court concluded that H.B. 292 violated Ohio's
constitutional ban on retroactive legislation.
H.B. 292 became effective in September 2004, after Mrs. Neil's
complaint was filed. H.B. 292 was intended to reform the current
system of asbestos personal injury litigation.
In June 2005, Mrs. Neal filed a motion to prove a prima facie
case, but ultimately admitted that she could not meet the
requirements of H.B. 292. She contended that H.B. 292 was
unconstitutional as applied, and that her evidence met the
standards that had been previously applied to asbestos cases.
The trial court agreed with Mrs. Neal that H.B. 292's prima
facie case requirement could not constitutionally be applied.
The trial court also rejected the defendants' contention that
claimants must comply with certain elements or face dismissal.
The trial court concluded that Mrs. Neal did not have to
demonstrate causation, and that she had submitted sufficient
evidence to establish the accrual of a wrongful death action
related to asbestos exposure. The trial court entered an order
accordingly. Defendants-appellants appealed from this order.
Accordingly, the trial court's decision was reversed and this
cause is remanded for further proceedings.
Richard E. Reverman, Esq., and Kelly W. Thye, Esq., of Young,
Reverman & Mazzei Co., L.P.A., in Cincinnati, represented
Shirley Neal.
Richard D. Schuster, Esq., Nina I. Webb-Lawton, Esq., and
Anthony L. Osterlund, Esq., of Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease,
LLP, in Columbus, Ohio, and Rebecca C. Sechrist, Esq., of Bunda,
Stutz & DeWitt, PLL in Perrysburg, Ohio, represented the
Defendants-Appellants.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ruling in National Engineering Case Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District, Franklin County,
upheld the judgment of the Court of Claims of Ohio, in a lawsuit
involving asbestos abatement and National Engineering, Ltd.
The case is styled Waverly City School District Board of
Education et al., Plaintiffs/Fourth-Party Defendants-Appellees
v. Triad Architects, Inc., Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff-
Appellee v. National Engineering, Ltd., Third-Party
Defendant/Fourth-Party Plaintiff-Appellant v. A.J. Stockmeister,
Inc., Fourth-Party Defendant-Appellee.
Judges Patrick M. McGrath, Thomas F. Bryant, and Judith L.
French entered judgment in Case No. 08AP-329 on Dec. 30, 2008.
National appealed from the trial court's granting motions for
summary judgment filed by Waverly City School District Board of
Education and Ohio School Facilities Commission (OSFC)
(collectively, "plaintiffs"), and a motion to dismiss filed by
fourth-party A.J. Stockmeister, Inc. (AJS).
This matter arose out of a construction project known as the
Waverly City School District Permanent Improvement Project
(Waverly Project). OSFC and Waverly entered into a Project
Agreement on or about Dec. 20, 2000, under which they agreed to
collaborate on, co-fund, and co-own the Waverly Project.
The Waverly Project involved demolition and asbestos abatement
of existing buildings and the construction of four new buildings
in the Waverly City School District.
On or about March 12, 2001, Waverly entered into an Agreement
for Professional Design Services (Triad Agreement) with Triad
Architects, Inc. (Triad), under which Triad was responsible for
the design and construction of the heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning systems for the Waverly Project.
OSFC was identified as an intended third-party beneficiary in
the Triad Agreement.
Triad engaged National to perform the design of the HVAC systems
for the Waverly Project.
In December 2004, after the four new buildings encompassed
within the Waverly Project opened for classes, the freezer coils
for the HVAC systems in all four buildings froze and caused
damage.
On Nov. 30, 2006, plaintiffs filed a complaint against Triad for
breach of contract and professional negligence in the Pike
County Court of Common Pleas. On Jan. 22, 2007, Triad filed a
third-party complaint against National, alleging breach of
contract and claiming entitlement to indemnification.
On April 2, 2007, National filed an amended answer to Triad's
third-party complaint, along with a fourth-party complaint
against Waverly, OSFC, and AJS.
After filing its fourth-party complaint, with claims for
indemnification and contribution against OSFC, a state entity,
National filed a Petition for Removal, and this matter was
removed from the Pike County Court of Common Pleas to the Court
of Claims.
On May 10, 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss or, in the
alternative, for summary judgment on National's fourth-party
claims for contribution and indemnity. In an entry dated June
12, 2007, the trial court stated that it would treat plaintiffs'
motion as a motion for summary judgment.
On July 17, 2007, National responded to plaintiffs' motion and
filed motions to strike plaintiffs' supporting affidavits and
for a continuance to conduct discovery. On July 30, 2007, AJS
filed a motion to dismiss National's fourth-party complaint.
The trial court held an oral hearing on the motions for summary
judgment and to dismiss on Oct. 11, 2007. In a decision and
separate judgment entry, filed March 21, 2008, the trial court
granted the motions for summary judgment and to dismiss
National's fourth-party complaint. The court accordingly
dismissed National's fourth-party complaint and remanded this
matter to the Pike County Court of Common Pleas for proceedings
on plaintiffs' complaint and Triad's third-party complaint.
National filed a timely notice of appeal.
Having overruled each of National's assignments of error, the
Appeals Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Claims of
Ohio.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TRW Subsidiaries Subject to Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain subsidiaries of TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. continue
to be subject to asbestos-related claims, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 20, 2009.
These claims seek damages for illnesses alleged to have resulted
from exposure to asbestos used in certain components sold by the
Company's subsidiaries. The Company said it believes that the
majority of the claimants were assembly workers at the major
U.S. automobile manufacturers.
Most of these claims name numerous manufacturers and suppliers
of various products allegedly containing asbestos.
Neither the Company's settlement costs in connection with
asbestos claims nor its annual legal fees to defend these claims
have been material in the past. The Company has been successful
in obtaining the dismissal of many cases without any payment
whatsoever.
Headquartered in Livonia, Mich., TRW Automotive Holdings Corp.
supplies automotive systems, modules and components to global
automotive original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and related
aftermarkets.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Has 75,706 Claims at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation faced 75,706 unresolved asbestos-
related claims at Dec. 31, 2008, compared with 90,322 claims at
Dec. 31, 2007, according to the Company's annual report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 20, 2009.
The Company faced 82,823 unresolved asbestos claims at Sept. 30,
2008, compared with 103,902 claims at Sept. 30, 2007. (Class
Action Reporter, Nov. 7, 2008)
The Company has been involved in asbestos-related suits filed
primarily in state courts during the past three decades. These
suits allege personal injury resulting from exposure to
asbestos-containing products and frequently seek both actual and
punitive damages.
The alleged claims primarily relate to products that the Company
sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
products located on its premises, and its responsibility for
asbestos suits filed against a former subsidiary, Amchem
Products, Inc.
At Dec. 31, 2008, the Company recorded 10,922 claims filed;
25,538 claims settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved; 24,213
claims against both the Company and Amchem; and 51,493
individual claims.
At Dec. 31, 2007, the Company recorded 10,157 claims filed;
31,722 claims settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved; 28,937
claims against both the Company and Amchem; and 61,385
individual claims.
Plaintiffs' lawyers often sue dozens or even hundreds of
defendants in individual lawsuits on behalf of hundreds or even
thousands of claimants. As a result, the damages alleged are not
expressly identified as to the Company, Amchem or any other
particular defendant, even when specific damages are alleged
with respect to a specific disease or injury.
In December 2008, the Company decreased its asbestos-related
liability for pending and future claims to US$952 million. The
reduction was US$54 million. At Dec. 31, 2008, the asbestos-
related liability for pending and future claims was US$934
million.
At Dec. 31, 2008, about 21 percent of the recorded liability
related to pending claims and about 79 percent related to future
claims. At Dec. 31, 2007, about 31 percent of the recorded
liability related to pending claims and about 69 percent related
to future claims.
Headquartered in Houston, Union Carbide Corporation is a
chemicals and polymers company. The Company is a subsidiary of
The Dow Chemical Company.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Records $60M in Defense Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation and Amchem Products, Inc.'s asbestos-
related defense costs were US$60 million at Dec. 31, 2008,
compared with US$84 million at Dec. 31, 2007.
Amchem is a former Company subsidiary.
The Company's asbestos-related resolution costs were US$116
million at Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$88 million at Dec.
31, 2007.
In the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008, the Company recorded
US$127 million, in which US$37 million were for defense costs
and US$90 million were for resolution costs. (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 7, 2008)
The pretax impact for defense and resolution costs, net of
insurance, was US$53 million in 2008, US$84 million in 2007 and
US$45 million in 2006.
Headquartered in Houston, Union Carbide Corporation is a
chemicals and polymers company. The Company is a subsidiary of
The Dow Chemical Company.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Has $403MM Dec. 31 Receivable
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation's receivable for insurance recoveries
related to its asbestos liability was US$403 million at Dec. 31,
2008 and US$467 million at Dec. 31, 2007, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 20, 2009.
At Dec. 31, 2002, the Company increased the receivable for
insurance recoveries related to its asbestos liability to
US$1.35 billion, substantially exhausting its asbestos product
liability coverage.
The insurance receivable related to the asbestos liability was
determined after a thorough review of applicable insurance
policies and the 1985 Wellington Agreement, to which the Company
and many of its liability insurers are signatory parties, as
well as other insurance settlements, with due consideration
given to applicable deductibles, retentions and policy limits,
and taking into account the solvency and historical payment
experience of various insurance carriers.
The Wellington Agreement and other agreements with insurers are
designed to facilitate an orderly resolution and collection of
the Company's insurance policies and to resolve issues that the
insurance carriers may raise.
At Dec. 31, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2007, all of the receivable for
insurance recoveries was related to insurers that are not
signatories to the Wellington Agreement and do not otherwise
have agreements in place regarding their asbestos-related
insurance coverage.
At Dec. 31, 2008, receivables for defense costs were US$28
million and receivables for resolution costs were US$244 million
for a total of US$272 million.
At Dec. 31, 2007, receivables for defense costs were US$18
million and receivables for resolution costs were US$253 million
for a total of US$271 million.
Headquartered in Houston, Union Carbide Corporation is a
chemicals and polymers company. The Company is a subsidiary of
The Dow Chemical Company.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide's N.Y. Coverage Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation's asbestos-related comprehensive
insurance coverage case is ongoing in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, County of New York.
In September 2003, the Company filed the case seeking to confirm
its rights to insurance for various asbestos claims and to
facilitate an orderly and timely collection of insurance
proceeds.
This lawsuit was filed against insurers that are not signatories
to the Wellington Agreement and do not otherwise have agreements
in place with the Company regarding their asbestos-related
insurance coverage, in order to facilitate an orderly resolution
and collection of such insurance policies and to resolve issues
that the insurance carriers may raise.
Although the lawsuit is continuing, through the end of 2008, the
Company had reached settlements with several of the carriers
involved in this litigation.
Headquartered in Houston, Union Carbide Corporation is a
chemicals and polymers company. The Company is a subsidiary of
The Dow Chemical Company.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NewMarket Cites $11.7M Reserves at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
NewMarket Corporation's asbestos litigation reserve was
US$11,705,000 at Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$11,113,000 at
Dec. 31, 2007, according to the Company's annual report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 20, 2009.
The Company is a defendant in personal injury lawsuits involving
exposure to asbestos. These cases involve exposure to asbestos
in premises owned or operated, or formerly owned or operated, by
subsidiaries of the Company.
The Company has never manufactured, sold, or distributed
products that contain asbestos. Nearly all of these cases are
pending in Texas, Louisiana, or Illinois and involve multiple
defendants.
During 2005, the Company entered into an agreement with
Travelers Indemnity Company resolving certain long-standing
issues regarding its coverage for certain premises asbestos
claims. In addition, the Company's agreement with Travelers
provides a procedure for allocating defense and indemnity costs
with respect to certain future premises asbestos claims.
The lawsuit the Company had previously filed against Travelers
in the Southern District of Texas was dismissed. The Company
also settled its outstanding receivable from Albemarle
Corporation for certain premises asbestos liability obligations.
The Company has provided an undiscounted liability related to
premises asbestos claims of US$13 million at both year-end 2008
and year-end 2007.
Certain of these costs are recovered through the Company's
insurance coverage and agreement with Albemarle. The receivable
for these recoveries related to premises asbestos liabilities
was US$9.5 million at Dec. 31, 2008 and US$9 million at Dec. 31,
2007.
Headquartered in Richmond, Va., NewMarket Corporation is a
holding entity for two operating subsidiaries: Afton Chemical
(formerly Ethyl Petroleum Additives) and Ethyl. Afton Chemical
manufactures petroleum additives. Ethyl's main product is the
antiknock additive tetraethyl lead (TEL).
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: USG States No Further Obligations to Trust
----------------------------------------------------------------
USG Corporation states that it has no further payment
obligations to a trust created and funded under Section 524(g)
of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code for the payment of all of the
present and future asbestos personal injury liabilities of the
debtors, according to the Company's annual report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 20, 2009.
The Company's plan of reorganization confirmed in 2006 resolved
the debtors' liability for all present and future asbestos
personal injury and related claims.
Under the plan, the Company created and funded the trust. In
2006, the Company made payments totaling US$3.95 billion to the
asbestos personal injury trust.
The asbestos personal injury trust is administered by
independent trustees appointed under the plan. The trust will
pay qualifying asbestos personal injury and related claims
against the debtors under trust distribution procedures that are
part of the confirmed plan.
A key component of the Company's plan of reorganization is the
channeling injunction, which provides that all present and
future asbestos personal injury claims against the debtors must
be brought against the trust and no one may bring such a claim
against the debtors.
This channeling injunction applies to all present and future
asbestos personal injury claims for which any debtor is alleged
to be liable, including any asbestos personal injury claims
against U.S. Gypsum, L&W Supply or Beadex, as well as any
asbestos personal injury claims against the debtors relating to
A.P. Green Refractories Co., which was formerly one of the
Company's subsidiaries.
The Company's plan of reorganization and the channeling
injunction do not apply to any of its non-U.S. subsidiaries, any
companies it acquired during its reorganization proceedings, or
any companies that it acquired or may acquire after its
emergence from reorganization.
Headquartered in Chicago, USG Corporation manufactures and
distributes building materials, producing products for use in
new residential, new nonresidential, and repair and remodel
construction as well as products used in certain industrial
processes.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: $3M Paid in 2008 for USG Corp. Damage Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
USG Corporation made total payments of about US$3 million in
2008 for asbestos property damage settlements, compared with
US$40 million in 2007, according to the Company's annual report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 20,
2009.
Asbestos property damage claims against the debtors were not
part of the asbestos trust or the channeling injunction. The
Company's plan of reorganization provided that all settled or
otherwise resolved asbestos property damage claims that were
timely filed in its reorganization proceedings would be paid in
full.
During the Company's reorganization proceedings, the court set a
deadline for filing asbestos property damage claims against the
debtors. In response to that deadline, about 1,400 asbestos
property damage claims were timely filed. More than 950 of those
claims were disallowed or withdrawn.
In 2006 and 2007, the Company reached agreements to settle all
of the open asbestos property damage claims filed in the
Company's reorganization proceedings. In 2006, the Company made
total payments of about US$99 million for certain of these
settlements.
Based on the evaluation of its asbestos property damage
settlements, the Company reversed US$44 million of its reserve
for asbestos-related claims in 2006.
The current estimate of the cost of the remaining asbestos
property damage settlement that has not yet been paid is about
US$5 million. The estimate is included in accrued expenses and
other liabilities on the consolidated balance sheet as of Dec.
31, 2008.
Headquartered in Chicago, USG Corporation manufactures and
distributes building materials, producing products for use in
new residential, new nonresidential, and repair and remodel
construction as well as products used in certain industrial
processes.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArcelorMittal USA Cites $222Mil for Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
ArcelorMittal's subsidiary ArcelorMittal USA's environmental
provisions of US$222 million are mainly related to
investigation, monitoring and remediation of soil and
groundwater investigation at its current and former facilities
and to removal and disposal of PCBs and asbestos-containing
material.
The environmental provisions include US$4 million to address
ArcelorMittal USA's potential liability at two Superfund sites.
ArcelorMittal USA's largest environmental provisions relate to
investigation and remediation at Indiana Harbor (East),
Lackawanna, and its closed mining operations in southwestern
Pennsylvania.
Headquartered in Luxembourg, ArcelorMittal manufactures steel,
producing more than 100 million tons annually. Products include
slabs and coil, coated steel and tinplate, wire rod and rebar,
billets and blooms, as well as all manner of stainless steel
products.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArcelorMittal Has 431 Pending French Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
The number of outstanding asbestos exposure claims against
certain French subsidiaries of ArcelorMittal was 431 at Dec. 31,
2008, as compared to 449 at Dec. 31, 2007, according to the
Company's annual report, on Form 20-F, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on Feb. 20, 2009.
Various retired or present employees of certain French
subsidiaries of the former Arcelor have initiated lawsuits to
obtain compensation for asbestos exposure in excess of the
amounts paid by French social security.
The range of amounts claimed for the year ended Dec. 31, 2008
was EUR7,500 to EUR865,000 (about US$10,000 to US$1.15 million).
The aggregate costs for the year ended Dec. 31, 2008 were
EUR383,825 (about US$510,000). The aggregate costs for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2007 were EUR350,141 (about US$515,000).
During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company noted 63 claims
filed and 81 claims settled, dismissed, or otherwise resolved.
During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company noted 191
claims filed and 163 claims settled, dismissed, or otherwise
resolved.
Headquartered in Luxembourg, ArcelorMittal manufactures steel,
producing more than 100 million tons annually. Products include
slabs and coil, coated steel and tinplate, wire rod and rebar,
billets and blooms, as well as all manner of stainless steel
products.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Caterpillar Still Subject to Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Caterpillar Inc. is still subject to unresolved legal actions,
including asbestos-related, that arise in the normal course of
business.
The most prevalent of these unresolved actions involve disputes
related to product design, manufacture and performance liability
(including claimed asbestos and welding fumes exposure),
contracts, employment issues or intellectual property rights.
No other asbestos matters were disclosed in the Company's annual
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb.
20, 2009.
Headquartered in Peoria, Ill., Caterpillar Inc. makes
earthmoving machinery supplies agricultural equipment. The
Company makes construction, mining, and logging machinery;
diesel and natural gas engines; industrial gas turbines; and
electrical power generation systems. The Company has plants
worldwide and sells its equipment via 3,600 locations in 180
countries.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Proceedings v. Fresenius Unit Still Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cases involving asbestos filed against Fresenius Medical Care
Holdings, Inc. (FMCH) are stayed and transferred to or are
pending before the U.S. District Court as part of the W. R.
Grace & Co. Chapter 11 Proceedings.
FMCH is the holding company for Fresenius Medical Care AG & Co.
KGaA's North American operations.
Prior to and after the commencement of the Grace Chapter 11
Proceedings, class action complaints were filed against Grace
and FMCH by plaintiffs claiming to be creditors of W. R. Grace &
Co.-Conn., and by the asbestos creditors' committees on behalf
of the W. R. Grace & Co. bankruptcy estate in the Grace Chapter
11 Proceedings.
The suits allege that a Merger was a fraudulent conveyance,
violated the uniform fraudulent transfer act and constituted a
conspiracy.
On Sept. 30, 1996, the Company completed a series of
transactions to consummate an Agreement and Plan of
Reorganization entered into on Feb. 4, 1996 by Fresenius SE and
Grace, which the Company refers to as the "Merger."
Headquartered in Bad Homburg, Germany, Fresenius Medical Care AG
& Co. KGaA is a dialysis provider. The Company's staff treats
about 180,000 patients a year at some 2,300 dialysis clinics
worldwide, 1,500 of which are based in the United States. The
Company also makes dialysis machines, dialyzers, and other
supplies.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Clutter's Action v. 70 Firms Filed in W.Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Franklin Clutter, on Feb. 11, 2009, filed an asbestos-
related lawsuit against 70 defendant corporations in the Circuit
Court of Kanawha County, W.Va., The West Virginia Record
reports.
Mr. Clutter worked as a pipefitter for Weirton Steel Corp. from
1951-1954 and 1962-1995 during which time he claims to have been
exposed to asbestos dust and fibers. His complaint says he was
diagnosed with lung cancer on Jan. 26, 2009.
He sues the companies described as "miners, manufacturers,
processors, importers, converters, compounders, installers,
users and/or retailers" of asbestos or products containing
asbestos. He is seeking various compensatory and punitive
damages.
Brian A. Prim, Esq., represents Mr. Clutter in Case No. 09-C-
288.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Health, Safety Meeting Slated for DIOSH Day
----------------------------------------------------------------
A conference covering workplace safety and health issues will be
held on the 18th annual Downstate Illinois Occupational Safety
and Health Day (March 4, 2009) at the Peoria Civic Center in
Peoria, Ill., according to a U.S. Department of Labor press
release dated Feb. 20, 2009.
Workplace safety and health issues will be discussed and
information made available to employers, employees and the
general public.
Breakout sessions will address: overlooked construction hazards;
asbestos, lead and silica; combustible dust; heavy equipment and
cranes; machine safeguarding and several other topics. A mini
health fair will feature blood pressure, heart rate and glucose
level testing, and other valuable health screening services.
The conference is being jointly sponsored by the U.S. Department
of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration's
Peoria Area Office; the American Society of Safety Engineers
Central Illinois Chapter; the American Industrial Hygiene
Association, Prairie Section; the Greater Peoria Contractors and
Suppliers Association Inc.; the Illinois Department of Labor;
the Employers' Association; and the Tri-County Construction
Labor-Management Council.
Nick Walters, director of OSHA's area office in Peoria, said,
"Numerous exhibitors will join governmental and nonprofit
organizations in demonstrating useful and innovative products
and services designed to meet workplace safety and health goals.
The conference will offer safety professionals in downstate
Illinois the chance to network with hundreds of their peers and
to learn about resources available to businesses and employers."
The daylong event will open for registration at 7 a.m. CST and
continue with workshops and breakout sessions until 4 p.m.
Exhibit area hours will be from 7 a.m. until 3:10 p.m. CST.
Registration and additional information may be obtained by
calling 877-DIOSH-DAY (346-7432) or visiting the Web site at
www.DIOSHDay.com.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court OKs Ruling in Brewster Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Kentucky upheld the Court of Appeals'
ruling, which granted summary judgment to Colgate-Palmolive
Company and Jewish Hospital Healthcare Services, in an asbestos
suit filed by Charles E. Brewster.
The cases are styled Charles E. Brewster, Appellant v. Colgate-
Palmolive Company and Jewish Hospital Healthcare Services,
Appellees and Jewish Hospital Healthcare Services, Inc.,
Appellant v. Charles Brewster, Appellee.
Judges John D. Minton Jr., Bill Cunningham, Mary C. Noble, Wil
Schroder, Will T. Scott, and Daniel J. Venters entered judgment
on Case Nos. 2006-SC-000584-DG and 2007-SC-000366-DG on Jan. 22,
2009. Judges Venters and Scott dissented.
Mr. Brewster worked as a laborer for several employers on
numerous worksites between 1950 and 1979. Between 1966 and 1976,
he worked often for Dahlem Construction, a company based in
Louisville, Ky. While employed by Dahlem, he worked on projects
at the Colgate-Palmolive plant in Jeffersonville, Ind., for one
or more brief periods. He recalled tearing out various materials
at the plant. He also recalled pouring concrete for a new
construction project.
Between employment stints at Dahlem, Mr. Brewster worked for
Wilhelm Construction Company for a period beginning in 1970. He
spent all of his time working for Wilhelm at Louisville's Jewish
Hospital. He recalled tearing out old materials, including
insulation for ceilings, wiring, and tanks, while a new addition
to the hospital was being built. He also recalled being present
when new insulation was being installed.
A back injury disabled Mr. Brewster from work beginning in 1980.
In 2001, he was diagnosed with asbestosis and sued numerous
parties in Jefferson Circuit Court. His suit alleged negligence
claims against several property-owner defendants, including
Jewish Hospital and Colgate, stating that they breached duties
by failing to warn independent contractors working on their
premises of the presence and dangers of asbestos.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Jewish
Hospital on the grounds of Mr. Brewster's failure to produce
evidence of exposure to asbestos at Jewish Hospital and failure
to show breach of a duty owed to him by Jewish Hospital.
The trial court also granted summary judgment in favor of
Colgate based on Mr. Brewster's failure to show breach of any
duty owed to him by Colgate.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court on the ground that
the property owners did not have a duty to warn of dangers of
possible asbestos exposure or to take steps to protect Mr.
Brewster from asbestos exposure because there was no evidence
that either property owner had actual knowledge of a hidden
danger of asbestos.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling.
Kenneth L. Sales, Esq., Joseph Donald Satterley, Esq., Paul
Jason Kelley, Esq., and Rickie A. Johnson, Esq., of Sales,
Tillman, Wallbaum, Catlett & Satterley in Louisville, Ky.,
represented Charles E. Brewster.
Rebecca F. Schupbach, Esq., and Lisa Catherine DeJaco, Esq., of
Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs, LLP in Louisville, Ky., represented
Colgate-Palmolive Company.
James M. Gary, Esq., and Russell Harper Saunders, Esq., of Weber
& Rose P.S.C. in Louisville, Ky., represented Jewish Hospital
Healthcare Services, Inc.
Valerie F. Settles, Esq., of Pacific Legal Foundation in Stuart,
Fla., represented Amicus Curiae Pacific Legal Foundation.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rulings Issued in Dufour's Lawsuit in Miss.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Southern District of Mississippi,
Southern Division, issued several rulings in the asbestos
lawsuit filed by Douglas and Valerie Dufour against various
defendants including Ford Motor Company and General Motors
Corporation.
The case is styled Valerie Dufour, et al., Plaintiffs v. AGCO
Corporation, et al., Defendants.
District Judge Walter J. Gex, III entered judgment in Civil
Action No. 1:05cv169-WJG-JMR on Jan. 22, 2009.
This cause came before the Court on motion of Ford and GM for
summary judgment. Plaintiffs had filed a motion for summary
judgment against Ford and GM. Also pending before the Court were
motions involving these parties not directly related to the
summary judgment motions.
These motions included:
-- Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiffs' expert
witnesses Dr. William Longo and Dr. Michael
Neiswiadomy;
-- Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiffs' expert
witnesses Dr. Stephen Harless and Dr. Robert J.
Robbins;
-- Plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery from Ford;
-- Defendants' motion to strike certain requests made in
Plaintiffs' reply to Defendants' response to the motion
to compel discovery; and
-- Plaintiffs' motion to exclude the expert Brent
Saunders.
Mr. Dufour was exposed to asbestos containing products at Dufour
International, the International Harvester dealership owned by
Mr. Dufour's father.
Ford and GM contended that Plaintiffs cannot establish that Mr.
Dufour used or was exposed to any asbestos containing friction
product made or supplied by either Ford or GM.
No witness had identified Mr. Dufour as having worked on any
Ford or GM product while at Dufour International. According to
testimony, Mr. Dufour never owned a Ford or GM product and
although he helped a friend work on these type vehicles, the
replacement parts were not Ford or GM products.
The Court found that the motion filed by Ford and GM for summary
judgment should be granted. The Court further found that
Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment against Ford and GM
should be denied as moot.
The Court also found that Defendant's motion to strike
Plaintiffs' expert witnesses Dr. Longo and Dr. Neiswiadomy, and
Defendant's motion to strike Plaintiff's expert witnesses Dr.
Harless and Dr. Robbins should be denied as moot.
Plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery from Ford and the
associated motion filed by Ford and GM to strike certain
requests made in Plaintiffs' reply to Defendants' response to
the motion to compel discovery should be denied as moot.
Plaintiffs' motion to exclude the expert Brent Saunders should
also be denied as moot.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Cites $4.905M for Litigation Expense
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation's asbestos coverage litigation expenses were
US$4,905,000 during the three months ended Dec. 31, 2008,
compared with US$5,314,000 during the three months ended Dec.
31, 2007, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 20, 2009.
The Company's asbestos coverage litigation expenses were
US$5,148,000 during the three months ended Sept. 26, 2008,
compared with US$2,387,000 during the three months ended Sept.
28, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 21, 2008)
Asbestos coverage litigation expenses were US$17,162,000 during
the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$13,632,000 during
the year ended Dec. 31, 2007.
Asbestos liability and defense costs were US$1,987,000 during
the three months ended Dec. 31, 2008, and asbestos liability and
defense income was US$31,946,000 during the three months ended
Dec. 31, 2007.
Asbestos liability and defense income was US$4,771,000 during
the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$63,978,000 during
the year ended Dec. 31, 2007.
Headquartered in Richmond, Va., Colfax Corporation produces
fluid-handling solutions, including the manufacture of positive
displacement industrial pumps and valves used in global oil &
gas, power generation, marine, naval and a variety of other
industrial applications. Product brands include Allweiler,
Fairmount Automation, Houttuin, Imo, LSC, Portland Valve,
Tushaco, Warren and Zenith.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Cites $328.68MM Liability at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation's long-term asbestos liability was
US$328,684,000 as of Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$347,332,000
as of Dec. 31, 2007, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 20,
2009.
The Company's long-term asbestos liability was US$330,680,000 as
of Sept. 26, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 21, 2008)
The Company's current accrued asbestos liability was
US$28,574,000 as of Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$28,901,000
as of Dec. 31, 2007.
Long-term asbestos insurance asset was US$227,542,000 as of Dec.
31, 2008, compared with US$286,169,000 as of Dec. 31, 2007.
Current asbestos insurance asset was US$26,473,000 as of Dec.
31, 2008, compared with US$19,059,000 as of Dec. 31, 2007.
The Company's current asbestos insurance receivable was
US$36,371,000 as of Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US#44,664,000
as of Dec. 31, 2007.
Headquartered in Richmond, Va., Colfax Corporation produces
fluid-handling solutions, including the manufacture of positive
displacement industrial pumps and valves used in global oil &
gas, power generation, marine, naval and a variety of other
industrial applications. Product brands include Allweiler,
Fairmount Automation, Houttuin, Imo, LSC, Portland Valve,
Tushaco, Warren and Zenith.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Philips Records EUR239Mil Settlement Charge
----------------------------------------------------------------
During 2008, Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. (Royal Philips
Electronics) recorded an asbestos-related settlement charge of
EUR239 million, according to the Company's annual report, on
Form 20-F, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
Feb. 23, 2009.
Headquartered in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Koninklijke Philips
Electronics N.V. makes consumer electronics, including TVs,
VCRs, DVD players, and fax machines. The Company also makes
light bulbs, electric shavers and other personal care
appliances, picture tubes, medical systems, and silicon systems
solutions.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Philips' THAN Unit Facing Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. faces actions in the United
States, relating primarily to the activities of its U.S.
subsidiary TH Agriculture & Nutrition L.L.C. (THAN) prior to
1981, involving allegations of personal injury from alleged
asbestos exposure.
The claims generally relate to asbestos used in the manufacture
of unrelated companies' products in the United States and
frequently involved claims for substantial compensatory and
punitive damages.
THAN's businesses, which allegedly gave rise to these alleged
liabilities were completely sold in 1984 and its ongoing
operations are not material to its parent, Philips Electronics
North America Corporation (PENAC), or the Company.
During the past several years, certain of the asserted claims
were settled. Additionally, various alternatives for resolving
pending and future claims were explored, including the
possibility of THAN filing for bankruptcy.
In the fourth quarter of 2008, THAN solicited votes for the
acceptance of a plan of reorganization from the holders of
asbestos claims. About 90 percent of the claimants (both in
number and value of claims) voted in favor of the plan,
exceeding the thresholds of 75 percent in number and two-thirds
in value which are required for a prepackaged bankruptcy under
section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code.
On Nov. 24, 2008, THAN filed a petition, along with a
prepackaged plan of reorganization, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the Southern District of New York seeking reorganization
under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.
Under the proposed Plan of Reorganization an Asbestos Personal
Injury Trust would be established to assume, liquidate and
satisfy all liabilities of THAN determined to arise from, or
relate to pending and future claims alleging personal injury or
death based on or related to alleged exposure to asbestos fiber
distributed by THAN, a product containing asbestos fiber
distributed by THAN, or an asbestos-containing product
distributed by THAN.
The Trust would be funded by a contribution of US$900 million
(EUR639 million) by PENAC and THAN. Additionally, under the
Plan, PENAC will forgive certain debt of THAN and assume certain
liabilities from THAN.
If approved by the Courts, the Plan of Reorganization will
result in a permanent injunction directing all claims alleging
personal injury or death from exposure to asbestos distributed
by THAN to the Trust and will bar all related litigation against
THAN, its affiliates (including PENAC and the Company) and
certain third parties.
As a result of THAN's bankruptcy filing, an automatic stay has
been implemented, staying, restraining and enjoining the
commencement or continuation of any and all actions or other
proceedings against THAN.
On Dec. 3, 2008, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court issued a preliminary
injunction staying, restraining and enjoining the commencement
or continuation of any and all actions or other proceedings
against PENAC, its affiliates, and certain third parties, based
on or related to alleged exposure to asbestos fiber distributed
by THAN, a product containing asbestos fiber distributed by
THAN, or an asbestos-containing product distributed by THAN.
Headquartered in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Koninklijke Philips
Electronics N.V. makes consumer electronics, including TVs,
VCRs, DVD players, and fax machines. The Company also makes
light bulbs, electric shavers and other personal care
appliances, picture tubes, medical systems, and silicon systems
solutions.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Philips Cites EUR640M for Loss Contingency
----------------------------------------------------------------
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.'s recorded provision for
loss contingencies on asbestos product liability amounted to
EUR640 million at Dec. 31, 2008 (EUR316 million at Dec. 31,
2007), according to a Company report, on Form 6-K, filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 23, 2009.
A pre-tax charge to earnings of EUR326 million was recorded in
2008. In 2006, a pre-tax charge to earnings of EUR334 million
was recognized, representing the cost of disposing of pending
and estimated future claims filed through 2016. There was no
expense recognized in 2007.
During 2008, costs of EUR24 million were incurred with respect
to litigation, claims administration, insurance recoveries, and
bankruptcy related matters (EUR27 million was incurred in 2007
and EUR15 million was incurred in 2006).
In prior years, legal proceedings were commenced against certain
third-party insurance carriers which had provided various types
of product liability coverage to subsidiaries Philips
Electronics North America Corporation (PENAC) and TH Agriculture
& Nutrition L.L.C. (THAN).
During 2008 and the last several years, agreements were reached
with certain insurance carriers resolving disputes with respect
to the interpretation and available limits of the policies,
amounts payable to PENAC and THAN, and terms under which future
settlements and related defense costs are reimbursable. In
conjunction with these settlements, insurance recoveries of
EUR87 million were recognized in 2008 (EUR17 million was
recognized in 2007 and EUR79 million was recognized in 2006).
Insurers paid EUR113 million in 2008 (EUR27 million was paid in
2007 and EUR 34 million was paid in 2006) for asbestos-related
defense and indemnity costs.
At Dec. 31, 2008, EUR121 million was jointly held by PENAC and
THAN in an insurance settlement proceeds trust for future
contribution to the Trust if the Plan of Reorganization is
approved by the Courts.
Additionally, at Dec. 31, 2008, the recorded receivable from
insurance carriers, for which settlement agreements have been
reached amounted to EUR36 million (EUR62.7 million at Dec. 31,
2007) for the reimbursement of incurred defense and indemnity
costs as well as for probable recoveries of accrued projected
settlement costs with respect to pending and future claims,
which is reflected in the Company's consolidated balance sheet.
Headquartered in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Koninklijke Philips
Electronics N.V. makes consumer electronics, including TVs,
VCRs, DVD players, and fax machines. The Company also makes
light bulbs, electric shavers and other personal care
appliances, picture tubes, medical systems, and silicon systems
solutions.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: FMC Corp. Facing 29,000 Claims at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
FMC Corporation, as of Dec. 31, 2008, faced about 29,000 pending
premises and product asbestos claims in several jurisdictions,
according to the Company's annual report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 23, 2009.
About 29,000 premises and product asbestos claims were pending
against the Company in several jurisdictions as of Dec. 31,
2007. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 29, 2008)
The Company has been named as one of many defendants in
asbestos-related personal injury litigation. These cases (most
cases involve between 25 and 200 defendants) allege personal
injury or death resulting from exposure to asbestos in premises
of the Company or to asbestos-containing components installed in
machinery or equipment manufactured or sold by discontinued
operations.
To date, the Company has had discharged about 77,000 asbestos
claims against it, most of which have been dismissed without any
payment to the plaintiff. Settlements by the Company with
claimants to date have totaled US$20.3 million.
Headquartered in Philadelphia, FMC Corporation is a chemical
company providing innovative solutions, applications and market
leading products to various markets. The Company operates in
three business segments: Agricultural Products, Specialty
Chemicals, and Industrial Chemicals.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ConEd, Units Still Facing Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s subsidiaries continue to face
lawsuits in New York State and federal courts, wherein
plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages for deaths
and injuries allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos at various
premises of the Utilities.
These Utilities are: Consolidated Edison Company of New York,
Inc. and Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.
The suits that have been resolved have been resolved without any
payment by the Utilities, or for amounts that were not, in the
aggregate, material to them. The amounts specified in all the
remaining thousands of suits total billions of dollars.
In 2008, Con Edison of New York estimated that its aggregate
undiscounted potential liability for these suits and additional
suits that may be brought over the next 15 years is US$9
million.
In addition, certain current and former employees have claimed
or are claiming workers' compensation benefits based on alleged
disability from exposure to asbestos.
Con Edison of New York is permitted to defer as regulatory
assets (for subsequent recovery through rates) costs incurred
for its asbestos lawsuits and workers’ compensation claims.
For the Company at Dec. 31, 2008, accrued liability for asbestos
suits was US$10 million, regulatory assets for asbestos suits
were US$10 million, accrued liability for workers' compensation
was US$114 million, and regulatory assets for workers'
compensation were US$38 million.
For Con Edison of New York at Dec. 31, 2008, accrued liability
for asbestos suits was US$9 million, regulatory assets for
asbestos suits were US$9 million, accrued liability for workers'
compensation was US$109 million, and regulatory assets for
workers' compensation were US$38 million.
Headquartered in New York, Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s main
subsidiary, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, distributes
electricity to more than 3.2 million residential and business
customers in New York City; it also delivers natural gas to
about 1.1 million customers. Subsidiary Orange and Rockland
Utilities serves more than 424,350 electric and gas customers in
three states.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ConEd Incurs $35Mil Costs for Steam Rupture
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2008, with respect to
a steam main rupture incident, incurred estimated operating
costs of US$35 million for property damage, cleanup and other
response costs.
As of Dec. 31, 2008, the Company recorded US$21 million in
actual and expected insurance recoveries and invested US$12
million in capital, retirement and other costs.
In July 2007, a Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
steam main located in midtown Manhattan ruptured. It has been
reported that one person died and others were injured as a
result of the incident. Several buildings in the area were
damaged. Debris from the incident included dirt and mud
containing asbestos.
The response to the incident required the closing of several
buildings and streets for various periods.
Over 90 suits are pending against the Company seeking generally
unspecified compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages,
for personal injury, property damage and business interruption.
The Company has notified its insurers of the incident and said
it believes that the policies in force at the time of the
incident will cover most of the Company's costs.
In November 2008, the PSC approved a Joint Proposal among Con
Edison of New York, the PSC staff and the New York State
Consumer Protection Board with respect to the PSC's ongoing
proceeding relating to the steam main rupture.
In August 2008, the Company entered into a second agreement with
the PSC staff, which became effective upon the approval by the
PSC of the Joint Proposal, pursuant to which in lieu of a
penalty action for violations, if any, of the Public Service Law
or the PSC's regulations or orders as a result of the steam main
rupture, the Company accrued a US$4 million regulatory liability
to be used for future steam customer benefit.
Headquartered in New York, Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s main
subsidiary, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, distributes
electricity to more than 3.2 million residential and business
customers in New York City; it also delivers natural gas to
about 1.1 million customers. Subsidiary Orange and Rockland
Utilities serves more than 424,350 electric and gas customers in
three states.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Parsons v. Reynolds Suit Still Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related lawsuit, which is pending in a West Virginia
court and filed against Reynolds American Inc. subsidiaries: R.
J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Brown & Williamson Holdings Inc., is
still stayed, according to the Company's annual report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 23, 2009.
In Parsons v. A C & S, Inc., a case filed in February 1998 in
Circuit Court, Ohio County, W.Va., the plaintiff sued asbestos
manufacturers, U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR
Tobacco and B&W, and parent companies of U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including RJR, seeking to recover US$1 million in
compensatory and punitive damages individually and an
unspecified amount for the class in both compensatory and
punitive damages.
The class is brought on behalf of persons who allegedly have
personal injury claims arising from their exposure to respirable
asbestos fibers and cigarette smoke. The plaintiffs allege that
Mrs. Parsons' use of tobacco products and exposure to asbestos
products caused her to develop lung cancer and to become
addicted to tobacco.
The case has been stayed pending a final resolution of the
plaintiffs' motion to refer tobacco litigation to the judicial
panel on multi-district litigation filed in In Re: Tobacco
Litigation in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.
On Dec. 26, 2000, three defendants, Nitral Liquidators, Inc.,
Desseaux Corporation of North American and Armstrong World
Industries, filed bankruptcy petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware, In re Armstrong World
Industries, Inc.
Under section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, Parsons is
automatically stayed with respect to all defendants.
Headquartered in Winston-Salem, N.C.-based Reynolds American
Inc. makes cigarettes and tobacco. Its wholly owned subsidiaries
include its operating subsidiaries, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
Company; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; Lane, Limited;
R. J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.; and Conwood Company, LLC,
Conwood Sales Co., LLC, Scott Tobacco LLC and Rosswil LLC.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Lawsuits Ongoing v. Temple-Inland
----------------------------------------------------------------
Temple-Inland Inc. continues to be a defendant in various
lawsuits involving alleged workplace exposure to asbestos,
according to the Company's annual report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 23, 2009.
These cases involve exposure to asbestos in premises owned or
operated by the Company.
The Company does not manufacture any products that contain
asbestos, and all its cases in this area are limited to
workplace exposure claims.
Historically, the Company's aggregate annual settlements related
to asbestos claims have been about US$1 million. The number of
claims has remained relatively constant in the past few years.
Headquartered in Austin, Tex., Temple-Inland Inc. manufactures
corrugated packaging and building products.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Records $1.202B Net Reserves at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation's net asbestos-related reserves were
US$1.202 billion at Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$1.322
billion at Dec. 31, 2007, according to a Company report, on Form
8-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb.
23, 2009.
The Company's net asbestos reserves were US$1.215 billion at
Sept. 30, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 31, 2008)
Gross asbestos reserves were US$2.112 billion at Dec. 31, 2008,
compared with US$2.352 billion at Dec. 31, 2007.
The Company recorded US$27 million for the year ended Dec. 31,
2008 and US$6 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007 of
unfavorable asbestos-related net claim and claim adjustment
expense reserve development.
The Company recorded no asbestos-related net claim and claim
adjustment expense reserve development recorded for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.
The Company paid asbestos-related claims, net of reinsurance
recoveries, of US$147 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2008,
US$136 million for the year Dec. 31, 2007, and US$102 million
for the year Dec. 31, 2006.
Headquartered in Chicago, CNA Financial Corporation's core
property and casualty insurance operations are reported in two
business segments: Standard Lines and Specialty Lines. The
Company's insurance products include commercial property and
casualty coverages. Non-core insurance products include life and
accident and health insurance; retirement products and
annuities; and property and casualty reinsurance.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: A.P. Green Confirmation Bid Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation says that several insurers' appeal on
the confirmation of A.P. Green's plan of reorganization is still
pending, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 23, 2009.
On Feb. 13, 2003, the Company announced it had resolved
asbestos-related coverage litigation and claims involving A.P.
Green Industries, A.P. Green Services and Bigelow–Liptak
Corporation.
Under the agreement, the Company is required to pay US$70
million, net of reinsurance recoveries, over a 10-year period
commencing after the final approval of a bankruptcy plan of
reorganization. The settlement received initial bankruptcy court
approval on Aug. 18, 2003.
The debtor's plan of reorganization includes an injunction to
protect the Company from any future claims. The bankruptcy court
issued an opinion on Sept. 24, 2007 recommending confirmation of
that plan.
On July 25, 2008, the District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy
Court's ruling.
Several insurers have appealed that ruling to the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals.
Headquartered in Chicago, CNA Financial Corporation's core
property and casualty insurance operations are reported in two
business segments: Standard Lines and Specialty Lines. The
Company's insurance products include commercial property and
casualty coverages. Non-core insurance products include life and
accident and health insurance; retirement products and
annuities; and property and casualty reinsurance.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ruling to Favor CNA Issued in Keasbey Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
A New York appellate court, on Dec. 30, 2008, entered a
unanimous decision in favor of CNA Financial Corporation in an
insurance coverage litigation involving the former Robert A.
Keasbey Company.
The Company is engaged in insurance coverage litigation in New
York State Court, filed in 2003, with a defendant class of
underlying plaintiffs who have asbestos bodily injury claims
against Keasbey. The case is styled Continental Casualty Co. v.
Employers Ins. of Wausau et al., No. 601037/03 (N.Y. County).
Keasbey, a currently dissolved corporation, sold and installed
asbestos-containing insulation products in New York and New
Jersey. Thousands of plaintiffs have filed bodily injury claims
against Keasbey.
However, under New York court rules, asbestos claims are not
cognizable unless they meet certain minimum medical impairment
standards. Since 2002, when these court rules were adopted, a
small portion of those claims have met medical impairment
criteria under New York court rules and as to the remaining
claims, Keasbey's involvement at a number of work sites is a
highly contested issue.
The Company issued Keasbey primary policies for 1970-1987 and
excess policies for 1971-1978. The Company has paid an amount
substantially equal to the policies' aggregate limits for
products and completed operations claims in the confirmed CNA
policies.
Claimants against Keasbey allege that the Company owes coverage
under sections of the policies not subject to the aggregate
limits, an allegation the Company vigorously contests in the
lawsuit.
In the litigation, the Company and the claimants seek
declaratory relief as to the interpretation of various policy
provisions.
On Dec. 30, 2008, a New York appellate court entered a unanimous
decision in favor of the Company on multiple alternative grounds
including findings that claims arising out of Keasbey's asbestos
insulating activities are included within the products
hazard/completed operations coverage, which has been exhausted.
The defendant claimant class is subject to the affirmative
defenses that the Company may have had against Keasbey, barring
all coverage claims. The parties have the right to seek further
appellate review of the decision.
Headquartered in Chicago, CNA Financial Corporation's core
property and casualty insurance operations are reported in two
business segments: Standard Lines and Specialty Lines. The
Company's insurance products include commercial property and
casualty coverages. Non-core insurance products include life and
accident and health insurance; retirement products and
annuities; and property and casualty reinsurance.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Burns & Roe Plan Hearing Held in Dec. 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation says that Burns & Roe Enterprises,
Inc.'s (a bankrupt insured) confirmation hearing was held n
December 2008 before the the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
District of New Jersey and District Court jointly.
The Company has insurance coverage disputes related to asbestos
bodily injury claims against Burns & Roe. These disputes are
currently part of coverage litigation (stayed in view of the
bankruptcy) and an adversary proceeding in In re: Burns & Roe
Enterprises, Inc., pending in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
District of New Jersey, No. 00-41610.
Burns & Roe provided engineering and related services in
connection with construction projects. At the time of its
bankruptcy filing, on Dec. 4, 2000, Burns & Roe asserted that it
faced about 11,000 claims alleging bodily injury resulting from
exposure to asbestos as a result of construction projects in
which Burns & Roe was involved.
The Company allegedly provided primary liability coverage to
Burns & Roe from 1956-1969 and 1971-1974, along with certain
project-specific policies from 1964-1970. In September 2007, the
Company entered into an agreement with Burns & Roe, the Official
Committee of Unsecured Creditors appointed by the Bankruptcy
Court and the Future Claims Representative (Addendum), which
provides that claims allegedly covered by CNA policies will be
adjudicated in the tort system, with any coverage disputes
related to those claims to be decided in coverage litigation.
With the approval of the Bankruptcy Court, Burns & Roe included
the Addendum as part of its Fourth Amended Plan, which was filed
on June 9, 2008.
Burns & Roe requested a confirmation hearing before the
Bankruptcy Court and District Court jointly, and that hearing
was held in December 2008. There has been no ruling.
Headquartered in Chicago, CNA Financial Corporation's core
property and casualty insurance operations are reported in two
business segments: Standard Lines and Specialty Lines. The
Company's insurance products include commercial property and
casualty coverages. Non-core insurance products include life and
accident and health insurance; retirement products and
annuities; and property and casualty reinsurance.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Companies Facing Inactive Cases in Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Inactive asbestos-related cases are pending against CNA
Financial Corporation subsidiaries in Texas courts.
About 80 lawsuits were filed in Texas beginning in 2002, against
two CNA companies and numerous other insurers and non-insurer
corporate defendants asserting liability for failing to warn of
the dangers of asbestos (e.g. Boson v. Union Carbide Corp.,
(Nueces County, Tex.)).
During 2003, several of the Texas suits were dismissed and while
certain of the Texas courts' rulings were appealed, plaintiffs
later dismissed their appeals. However, a different Texas court
denied similar motions seeking dismissal.
After that court denied a related challenge to jurisdiction, the
insurers transferred the case to a state multi-district
litigation court in Harris County charged with handling asbestos
cases. In February 2006, the insurers petitioned the appellate
court in Houston for an order of mandamus, requiring the multi-
district litigation court to dismiss the case on jurisdictional
and substantive grounds.
On Feb. 29, 2008, the appellate court denied the insurers'
mandamus petition on procedural grounds, but did not reach a
decision on the merits of the petition. Instead, the appellate
court allowed to stand the multi-district litigation court's
determination that the case remained on its inactive docket and
that no further action can be taken unless qualifying reports
are filed or the filing of such reports is waived.
With respect to the cases that are still pending in Texas, in
June 2008, plaintiffs in the only active case dropped the
remaining CNA company from that suit, leaving only inactive
cases against CNA companies.
Headquartered in Chicago, CNA Financial Corporation's core
property and casualty insurance operations are reported in two
business segments: Standard Lines and Specialty Lines. The
Company's insurance products include commercial property and
casualty coverages. Non-core insurance products include life and
accident and health insurance; retirement products and
annuities; and property and casualty reinsurance.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Confirmation in Grace Case Set in April '09
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation says that a confirmation hearing on W.
R. Grace & Co.'s Plan of Reorganization is currently scheduled
to begin in April 2009.
On March 22, 2002, a direct action was filed in Montana
(Pennock, et al. v. Maryland Casualty, et al. First Judicial
District Court of Lewis & Clark County, Mont.) by eight
individual plaintiffs (all employees of W.R. Grace & Co.) and
their spouses against the Company, Maryland Casualty and the
State of Montana.
This action alleges that the carriers failed to warn of or
otherwise protect Grace employees from the dangers of asbestos
at a Grace vermiculite mining facility in Libby, Mont. The
Montana direct action is currently stayed because of W. R.
Grace's pending bankruptcy.
On April 7, 2008, Grace announced a settlement in principle with
the asbestos personal injury claimants committee subject to
confirmation of a plan of reorganization by the bankruptcy
court.
The settlement in principle with the asbestos claimants has no
present impact on the stay currently imposed on the Montana
direct action.
Headquartered in Chicago, CNA Financial Corporation's core
property and casualty insurance operations are reported in two
business segments: Standard Lines and Specialty Lines. The
Company's insurance products include commercial property and
casualty coverages. Non-core insurance products include life and
accident and health insurance; retirement products and
annuities; and property and casualty reinsurance.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SC Upholds Ruling in Nostrom v. Chesterton
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New
York, affirmed the ruling of the Supreme Court, New York County,
which granted summary judgment to defendants in an asbestos
lawsuit filed by Judith Nostrom.
The case is 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, and Rolando T. Acosta entered judgment in the
case on Feb. 3, 2009.
Ms. Nostrom, on behalf of deceased worker, brought action
against owner and contractor, alleging violation of Labor Law
and Industrial Code related to decedent's exposure to asbestos.
Judge Helen E. Freedman of the Supreme Court granted defendants'
summary judgment motion.
The Appellate Division held that owner/contractor vicarious
liability under Labor Law could not be based on Industrial Code
regulations regarding control of air pollutants.
The judgment was affirmed.
Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., New York (Jerry Kristal, Esq., of
counsel), represented Judith Nostrom.
Thompson Hine LLP, New York (Joseph B. Koczko, Esq., of
counsel), represented Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation.
Office of Richard W. Babinecz, New York (Andrew J. Czerepak,
Esq., of counsel), represented Consolidated Edison Company of
New York, Inc. and Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc..
Landman Corsi Ballaine & Ford P.C., New York (William G.
Ballaine, Esq., of counsel), represented Sequoia Ventures, Inc.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Guardline Inc's Summary Judgment Bid Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of
Fairfield denied Guardline, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment
in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed by Louise Humphrey, on
behalf of Clara Green.
The case is styled Janet Longo et al. (Louise Humphrey Executor
of the Estate of Clara Green) v. General Electric Co. et al.
(Guardline, Inc. f/k/a 20th Century Glove Corp. of Texas).
Judge Trial Referee David W. Skolnick entered judgment in Case
No. CV044002257S on Jan. 27, 2009.
Ms. Humphrey claimed that Ms. Green suffered exposure to
asbestos products manufactured and sold by Guardline to Electric
Boat Corporation during her years of working as a painter and
cleaner of submarines under construction or refurbishing from
1973 to 1992, a total of 19 years.
Ms. Green worked as a painter and cleaner during her years of
employment at Electric Boat. As a result of her asbestos
exposure, Ms. Green developed mesothelioma, which caused her
death.
Ms. Green's duties included working in all areas of the ship
including the cleaning out of the bilges, the area aboard the
ship where all waste products of construction were thrown,
including assorted debris, asbestos dust, and discarded asbestos
blankets and gloves after their useful life concluded. She and
fellow workers would use high powered air hoses to dislodge
debris from submarine walls. This made the work area very dusty.
Ms. Humphrey had produced evidence pointing to the fact that
asbestos gloves were present and used at Electric Boat during
the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.
Guard-Line moved for summary judgment, arguing that no evidence
existed that Ms. Green was ever exposed to asbestos containing
products manufactured, distributed or sold by Guard-Line.
Guard-Line's motion for summary judgment as against The Estate
of Clara Green was denied.
Embry & Neusner in Groton, Conn., represented Janet Longo et al.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Diamond Offshore Still Faces Suits in Miss.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. is still a defendant in
asbestos-related lawsuits filed in the Circuit Courts of the
State of Mississippi, according to the Company's annual report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 24,
2009.
The suits allege that defendants manufactured, distributed or
utilized drilling mud containing asbestos and, in the Company's
case, allowed such drilling mud to have been utilized aboard its
offshore drilling rigs.
The plaintiffs seek an award of unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages.
The Company expects to receive complete defense and indemnity
from Murphy Exploration & Production Company under the terms of
the Company's 1992 asset purchase agreement with them.
Headquartered in Houston, Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. is an
offshore oil and gas drilling contractor with a current fleet of
45 offshore rigs consisting of 30 semisubmersibles, 14 jack-ups,
and one drillship.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GATX, Units Facing 1,240 Lawsuits at Feb. 6
----------------------------------------------------------------
GATX Corporation and its subsidiaries, as of Feb. 6, 2009, faced
1,240 pending asbestos-related cases, according to the Company's
annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on Feb. 25, 2009.
The Company's current or former subsidiaries, as of Feb. 15,
2008, faced 1,331 pending asbestos-related cases. (Class Action
Reporter, March 28, 2008)
Several of the Company's subsidiaries have been named as
defendants or co-defendants in cases alleging injury relating to
asbestos. In these cases, the plaintiffs seek an unspecified
amount of damages based on common law, statutory or premises
liability or, in the case of subsidiary American Steamship
Company (ASC), the Jones Act, which makes limited remedies
available to certain maritime employees.
Out of the total number of pending cases as of Feb. 6, 2009,
1,203 are Jones Act claims, most of which were filed against ASC
before the year 2000.
During 2008, 10 new cases were filed, and four cases were
dismissed or settled. During 2007, 18 new asbestos-related cases
were filed and eight cases were dismissed or settled. During
2006, 12 new asbestos-related cases were filed and 21 cases were
dismissed or settled.
For this three-year period, the aggregate amount paid to settle
asbestos-related cases filed against the Company and its
subsidiaries was less than US$75,000. In addition, demand has
been made against the Company for asbestos-related claims under
limited indemnities given in connection with the sale of certain
former subsidiaries of the Company.
Headquartered in Chicago, GATX Corporation leases, operates and
manages long-lived, widely used assets in the rail, marine and
industrial equipment markets. The Company has three financial
reporting segments: Rail, Specialty and American Steamship
Company (ASC). At Dec. 31, 2008, the Company had total assets of
US$6.3 billion, comprised of railcars, marine vessels and joint
venture investments.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Blackstone Fined $273T for Safety Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health
Administration cited Jamestown, N.Y.-based Blackstone Business
Enterprises Inc. for 18 alleged willful and serious violations
of OSHA standards for failing to protect contract employees
against asbestos hazards, according to an OSHA press release
dated Feb. 25, 2009.
The sheet metal and structural steel fabricator faces US$273,000
in proposed fines for failing to provide required safeguards for
temporary employees who were hired to remove asbestos-containing
insulation from steam pipes at the Company's Blackstone Avenue
plant.
Arthur Dube, OSHA's area director in Buffalo, N.Y., said, "The
sizable fines proposed here reflect the fact that this company
knew several of these critical safeguards were necessary yet
chose not to provide them."
Specifically, Blackstone did not perform air monitoring to
determine the level of asbestos exposure nor did it provide
workers with respirators, protective clothing and asbestos
training. These conditions resulted in four willful citations,
carrying US$224,000 in proposed fines.
The Company also has been issued 14 serious citations, with
US$49,000 in fines, for failing to determine the presence,
location and quantity of asbestos-containing material; establish
a regulated work area; properly clean and dispose of asbestos-
containing material and contaminated clothing; inform employees
and tenants of the asbestos removal; label asbestos-containing
insulation and trash bags; and have the work overseen by a
competent person.
The Company has 15 business days from receipt of the citations
to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA's area
director in Buffalo or contest the citations and penalties
before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review
Commission.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 9 Suits Filed in Madison During Feb. 9-13
----------------------------------------------------------------
During the week of Feb. 9, 2009 through Feb. 13, 2009, nine
asbestos-related lawsuits were filed in Madison County Circuit
Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports.
These claims are:
-- In Case No. 09-L-0110, Harvey Bentley of Florida, a
brick mason and home builder throughout Illinois, Ohio,
West Virginia, Louisiana, Kentucky, Tennessee and
Alabama from 1947 until 1985, claims mesothelioma.
Timothy F. Thompson Jr., Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East
Alton, Ill., represents Mr. Bentley.
-- In Case No. 09-L-0117, Gayla DuMont of Florida claims
mesothelioma on behalf of her deceased mother, June
Mols, who worked from 1941 until 1973 as an assembly
line worker at various locations. Robert Phillips,
Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in
East Alton, Ill., represent Mrs. DuMont.
-- In Case No. 09-L-0104, John and Dorothy Istenes of
Indiana claim Mr. Istenes developed mesothelioma after
his work from 1949 until 1951 as a mechanic, from 1951
until 1954 as a combat engineer, from 1954 until 1957
as an operator, as a truck mechanic in 1957, as a
policeman from 1957 until 1978, as a security guard
from 1978 until 1994 and as a member of the Local
Corvair Club from 1978 until 2005. Randy L. Gori, Esq.,
and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates
in Alton, Ill., represent the Istenes couple.
-- In Case No. 09-L-0118, Gary Jenkins of Texas claims
mesothelioma on behalf of his recently deceased father,
William Jenkins, who worked as a laborer from 1954
until 1972. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Bowder,
Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent
Gary Jenkins.
-- In Case No. 09-L-0111, Doris Kindelspire of Illinois
claims mesothelioma on behalf of her deceased husband,
Raymond C. Kindelspire, who worked as an owner and
clerk at Kindelspire's Auto Supply from 1937 until
2005. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland,
Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in
Edwardsville, Ill., represent Mrs. Kindelspire.
-- In Case No. 09-L-0121, Karen Spiker of Illinois claims
lung cancer on behalf of her deceased father, William
Spiker, who worked from 1949 until 1982 as a laborer in
Illinois. Brian J. Cooke, Esq., and Drew Sealey, Esq.,
of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent Ms.
Spiker.
-- In Case No. 09-L-0123, Clarence Turnbough of Missouri,
a carpenter and laborer at various locations throughout
Illinois and Missouri from 1936 until 1981, claims
mesothelioma. Nicholas J. Angelides, Esq., of
SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represents Mr.
Turnbough.
-- In Case No. 09-L-0122, Robert Ward of Tennessee claims
lung cancer on behalf of his deceased wife, Carolyn A.
Ward, who worked as a seamstress at Charles H. Bacon
Hoisery Mill, as a laborer at Eaton Yale and Towne
Lock, and as an operator at Union Carbide Corporation.
Mrs. Ward was also exposed to asbestos fibers through
her husband, who worked as a laborer at various
construction sites, as a laborer and foreman at William
Versavage Construction Company and as an owner, laborer
and foreman at Bud Ward Contracting Company. Elizabeth
V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of
Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in
Edwardsville, Ill., represent Mr. Ward.
-- In Case No. 09-L-0120, Roy T. White of Missouri claims
mesothelioma on behalf of his deceased brother, Billy
G. White, who worked as a heavy equipment operator,
laborer, truck driver, superintendent for Pike County
Highway Department and shipper from 1963 until 1995.
Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of
Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in
Edwardsville, Ill., represent Roy T. White.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Former Navy Worker Settles Claims for $3.2M
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C. has negotiated total asbestos
settlements of US$3.2 million on behalf of a former U.S. Navy
man and his wife, according to a Baron & Budd press release
dated Feb. 24, 2009.
The unnamed Navy worker was exposed to asbestos in the boiler
rooms of two naval destroyers, the USS Rupertus and the USS
Hooper, and developed malignant mesothelioma.
This former serviceman specialized in repairing the hundreds of
valves that were sold to the Navy for use aboard these ships.
These steam valves contained asbestos packing and gaskets. To
repair the valves, the asbestos-containing gaskets and packing
had to be scraped out, which released asbestos fibers into the
air, ultimately causing this serviceman to develop asbestos
cancer.
The manufacturers who put asbestos on these ships - without
warning the servicemen who would work, live and sleep surrounded
by it - argued that they should not be liable for the harm they
caused because they obtained governmental contracts to supply
asbestos-containing products for use aboard Navy ships and
submarines.
Baron & Budd attorneys presented evidence that the valve
manufacturers designed their valves to use asbestos packing and
gaskets regardless of whether they were selling them to the
government or to chemical refineries. No matter who the valve
manufacturers sold their valves to, they provided no warnings
about the danger of asbestos components of the valves.
Asbestos manufacturers have a history of hiding their knowledge
of risks from the public and the government. Manufacturers
cannot push the blame on to the government for their failure to
warn servicemen of the danger they faced, and Baron & Budd does
not attempt to sue the U.S. Navy or the federal government in
asbestos cases like this one.
Russell Budd, Esq., the law firm's managing shareholder, said
"It is an honor for Baron & Budd to advocate for this serviceman
and his family. The sacrifices that come with serving our
country should never have included asbestos exposure and its
horrific consequences."
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Trial Commenced on Feb. 23 in Montana
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related trial involving W. R. Grace & Co. commenced
on Feb. 23, 2009 in the U.S. District Court in Missoula, Mont.,
the Associated Press reports.
In an opening statement, prosecutor Kris McLean said that Grace
"and individual executives chose profits at the expense of
people's health and chose avoiding liability over disclosing
health hazards to the government."
Grace and five retired executives are charged with violating the
federal Clean Air Act and obstructing a U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency investigation into the asbestos contamination.
All the executives face up to 15 years in prison and fines
totaling millions of dollars.
Grace mined vermiculite in Libby, Mont., but the mine was
contaminated with naturally occurring asbestos mineral fibers.
Lawyers for area residents contend asbestos exposure killed more
than 200 people and sickened some 2,000.
Mr. McLean said the Company did its own research and learned
that even low levels of asbestos in the vermiculite became
dangerous when disturbed. Even so, Grace donated dangerous mine
waste to Libby schools for use in building tracks for runners.
The legal issue is whether Grace, which bought the mine in 1963,
and its co-defendants knew of the health risks associated with
the mine for years before federal regulators arrived. The
government contends the Company and some of its managers
conspired to hide health risks from its workers.
Lawyers for Grace deny there was any conspiracy to knowingly
release asbestos, and also contend that most of the releases
occurred years before an applicable law was passed in 1990.
The trial is expected to last several months.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: University of Minnesota to Pay $60T Penalty
----------------------------------------------------------------
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency officials, on Feb. 24, 2009,
said that the University of Minnesota has agreed to pay
US$60,000 in penalties for two asbestos violations, the
Minnesota Daily reports.
Mark Rotenberg, the University's General Counsel said University
officials disagree there were any violations, but agreed to pay
the fine because they "didn't think it was worth arguing about
any further."
As part of the settlement agreement, the University will pay two
US$5,000 fines, one for each violation uncovered in 2007 at the
Centennial Showboat in St. Paul and UMore Park in Rosemount.
The University has also agreed to give US$50,000 to an
environmental project that will support on-campus research
related to asbestos issues.
Mr. Rotenberg said that money to pay the fines will come out of
the University's general fund.
The violation at the Centennial Showboat, which is dry-docked in
St. Paul, Minn., and serves as a theater venue for University
students, involved 45 cubic yards of asbestos left over from the
dismantling of a boiler. Spokeswoman Jennie Germain said, that
over the course of last summer, more than 13,000 people attended
performances at the Showboat.
Derek Pemble, pollution control specialist in the asbestos and
demolition program at the MCPA, said that when the boiler was
taken apart, the asbestos was not properly disposed and dried
out, increasing the chance of asbestos fibers becoming airborne.
Mr. Rotenberg said the boiler was dismantled as part of an
effort by the landowner to salvage the boat. He added that the
landowner hired a specialist to make sure the ship complied with
asbestos regulations, and the specialist found the ship to be in
compliance.
UMore Park's violation stemmed from asbestos panels left from
buildings demolished in the 1940s. During recent removal of
trees and brush from the 8,000-acre research site, some panels
were crushed, resulting in a possible airborne release of
asbestos fibers, Mr. Pemble said.
The University contests that asbestos from the site became
airborne, Mr. Rotenberg said, something Mr. Pemble admitted "is
hard to prove.”
Mr. Rotenberg said both sites have been cleaned up and noted
that the University having to pay fines for environmental
violations is "quite rare."
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lambie's Widow Gets GBP250T in Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law firm, Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP, has recovered more than
GBP250,000 in compensation at the High Court on behalf of a
widow whose husband died from mesothelioma, according to a Field
Fisher press release dated Feb. 20, 2009.
John Lambie of Spalding, Lincolnshire, England, died in November
2006 at the age of 62 from mesothelioma. He was exposed to
asbestos between 1965 and 1970 when he worked for New Century
Group Ltd, based in Harlesden, London, as an industrial cleaner,
cleaning factories and bakeries all over the South East. His job
involved cleaning the asbestos corrugated roofs of factories and
cleaning pipes lagged with asbestos.
Mr. Lambie's widow, Jane Beesley, who has now re-married, nursed
him during his illness at home. In addition to general damages,
the Judge awarded GBP25,000 compensation to Mrs. Beesley for the
care and assistance she gave to her dying husband which is the
highest ever award for care and assistance in a mesothelioma
claim.
Harminder Bains, lawyer in the Asbestos Claims Group at Field
Fisher Waterhouse, was instructed to claim compensation from New
Century Group Ltd on behalf of Mrs. Beesley. The total award,
which included interest, was GBP253,310.
This includes the sum of GBP72,000 for pain and suffering, one
of the highest awards for this type of case, and GBP25,000 for
the care and assistance given by Mrs. Beesley, which is the
highest ever award for this item in a mesothelioma case.
Harminder Bains, the lawyer who dealt with the case, at Field
Fisher Waterhouse said. "Mrs. Beesley attended to all of her
dying husband's needs in an attempt to give him some comfort. I
am satisfied that in this case the Court recognized the
extraordinary effort it takes to look after a dying man. I hope
it is recognized in future cases."
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hearing in Mayo Group Case Held on Feb. 23
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Mayo Group Development LLC, on Feb. 23, 2009, was arraigned
in Superior Court in Worcester, Mass., for asbestos-related
violations, WorkersCompensation.com reports.
The Mayo Group is a real estate investment, development, and
management company based in Boston.
A Worcester County Grand Jury returned indictments against the
Mayo Group Development LLC, on Jan. 23, 2009. The Mayo Group is
due back in court for a pre-trial conference on April 9, 2009.
The arraignment was on charges the Mayo Group violated the Clean
Air Act for failure to file notices of asbestos removal with the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP)
(two counts), failure to comply with procedures for asbestos
emissions control (two counts), and improper disposal of
asbestos waste (one count). The Mayo Group entered a plea of not
guilty.
The charges stem from an investigation by the Massachusetts
Environmental Crimes Strike Force (ECSF), an interagency unit
that includes prosecutors from the Attorney General's Office,
Environmental Police Officers assigned to the Attorney General's
Office, and investigators and engineers from the MassDEP.
Authorities allege that the Mayo Group used its own employees to
demolish parts of Worcester Commons, a 10-story building located
at 50 Franklin Street, and failed to conduct a full asbestos
survey of the building and properly remove asbestos from the
site before it began demolition or renovation work. Authorities
also allege that residents were living in the building while
workers were demolishing structural elements that contained
asbestos.
Investigators allege that in February 2007, MassDEP employees
observed demolition debris being thrown out of a window at
Worcester Commons. An inspection conducted by authorities
resulted in the discovery of impacted asbestos-containing
material within the building and in a waste pile and disposal
trailer on the property's premises. Authorities also allege
asbestos from the site was scheduled for disposal at a landfill
that was not a designated site for the disposal of asbestos
waste.
MassDEP issued a cease and desist order in the spring of 2007
following an inspection that found impacted asbestos containing
material on the second floor of the building, but authorities
allege that unauthorized asbestos removal continued in other
parts of the 10-story building where residents continued to
reside, posing a risk to both residents and the workers
involved.
Authorities further allege that the Mayo Group violated the
Massachusetts Clean Air Act by failing to notify MassDEP of
asbestos demolition, failing to follow mandated asbestos removal
procedures during the demolition and renovation, and improperly
disposing of asbestos waste.
This case was investigated by the Massachusetts Environmental
Crimes Strike Force (ECSF), which is overseen by Attorney
General Coakley, MassDEP Commissioner Laurie Burt and Energy and
Environmental Affairs Secretary Ian A. Bowles.
Assistant Attorney General Wendoly Ortiz Langlois, of Attorney
General Coakley's Environmental Crimes Strike Force, is
prosecuting the case.
*********
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 * * *