/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090320.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, March 20, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 56 Headlines 21 CLUB: Employees Files N.Y. Litigation Over "Stolen" Tips BARRICK GOLD: Reaches $24M Settlement in N.Y. Shareholders' Suit CB RICHARD: Employees File Wisconsin Suit Over Unpaid Overtime GEVITY HR: Faces Suit in Fla. Over TriNet Group Merger Agreement GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Pa. Judge Denies Bid to Junk Antitrust Case HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Court OKs Accident Victims' Suit to Proceed HOLIDAY GROUP: Announces March 26, 2009 Webinar on RCI Lawsuit INTEL CORP: Calif. Court Certifies Class in "Chapman" Litigation KNAUF GIPS: Faces Litigation in Louisiana Over Imported Drywalls METROPOLITAN LIFE: N.J. Court Revives Consumer Fraud Litigation NEW YORK: Fan Sues Giants, Jets Over "Personal Seat Licenses" PETLAND INC: Faces Lawsuit in Arizona Over Puppies Being Sold PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Fraud Suit in New Jersey REFCO INC: Mayer Brown Dismissed From N.Y. Securities Fraud Case TREE.COM INC: "Garcia" Suit Over FCRA Breach Pending Arbitration TREE.COM INC: Mortgage Store's Suit v. HLC Remains in Discovery TREE.COM INC: No Trial Date Yet for Motions in "Boschma" Lawsuit TREE.COM INC: No Trial Date Yet for "Gaines" Suit Over TrueCost TREE.COM INC: "Schnee" Litigation v. Units Remains in Discovery TRI-S SECURITY: Reaches Conditional Settlement of IPO Litigation VIVENDI UNIVERSAL: Claims of 33 Shareholders Dismissed in N.Y. WOLTERS KLUWER: Court Grants Final OK to Medi-Span's Amended AWP New Securities Fraud Cases OPPENHEIMER CALIFORNIA: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Lawsuit Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases Still Ongoing v. Morton Int'l. in La. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Assurant Reserves $30.3M for A&E, Liability ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Westinghouse, Units Facing Exposure Actions ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court to Set Quigley Hearing After March 16 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Optical Has 104T Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pfizer Facing Gibsonburg Lime Injury Suits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACE Records $1.369B Net Reserves at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACE Limited Records 1,198 Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Belden Inc. Has 130 Injury Cases at Feb. 9 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Domtar Ind. Still Has Injury Cases in U.S. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Split Rulings Issued in Price Pfister Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Upholds Ruling in Pierce Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OneBeacon Cites $1.098B Reserves at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OneBeacon Has 474 Policyholders at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Selective Insurance Has 2,037 Claims in '08 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allegheny Faces 853 W.Va. Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W. R. Grace's Libby Liability Totals $48.4M ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W. R. Grace Expends $29.7Mil for Libby Suit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace's Lawsuit in N.J. Stayed on Dec. 2008 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W. R. Grace Still Has Damage, Injury Suits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Records 465 Damage Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Maintains $916Mil Coverage at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W. R.'s Grace Amended Plan Filed on Feb. 27 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MetLife Unit Records 74,027 Claims at 2008 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ingersoll-Rand Has 63,308 Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trane Still Engaged in Coverage Litigation ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ingersoll-Rand Reports $1.195B Liability ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PICO Makes $500T Claims Reserve at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Markel Has $168.2MM Net Reserves at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Baldor Continues to Face Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Georgia-Pacific Still Facing Injury Actions ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Joy Global Still Facing Liability Lawsuits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PMA Cites $29.5MM Gross Reserves at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hexion Still Involved in Liability Lawsuits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Motor Faces 3,650 Cases at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: State Auto Fin'l. Reserves $3.4M for Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Houston Wire Faces Injury Suits in 3 States ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 27 New Suits Filed in Madison on March 2-6 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DuPont Motion in Whisnant OK'd on March 12 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bush Action v. 37 Firms Filed in Tex. Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fortier Widow to Get $2.6MM in Compensation ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Baron & Budd Resolves 6 Injury Suits in Pa. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup at Ark. Courthouse to Cost $20,842 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Inland Worker Sues 21 Firms in Hammond ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asarco's Policies Exclude Asbestosis Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Plumber to Gain GBP145T in Compensation ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Electrician's Death Linked to Exposure ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 2 Maryland Schools Resolve AHERA Breaches ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Segarra Seeks "Fee for Searching Records" ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Taylor's Suit v. 57 Firms Filed on March 2 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NHS Managers Suspended Over Exposure Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Probe Ongoing at Ash Grove Cement in Mont. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Scottish Lawyer Lauds Parliament's New Law ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Parker's Family to Continue Bid for Payout ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Central Point Local Files Suit for Exposure ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congress Panel to Probe Smithsonian Hazards ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3 McDonald, Pa., Locals Charged With Arson ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dispute Ongoing on Release of X-ray Reports ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell, Chrysler Bid for Autopsy Denied ********* 21 CLUB: Employees Files N.Y. Litigation Over "Stolen" Tips ----------------------------------------------------------- Several employees of New York's 21 Club claim in a lawsuit that the restaurant has been stealing a portion of their tips for years, The New York Times reports. The class-action lawsuit was filed on March 17, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. It claims the popular restaurant charges a 21.75 percent gratuity for private dining and banquet services, but pays only 18 percent of the bill collected to staff members, according to The New York Times. Attorney D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq., an attorney for the plaintiffs, told The New York Times that the amount of money withheld by the restaurant during the past six years -- as far back as the suit can go under the statute of limitations -- could exceed $1 million. BARRICK GOLD: Reaches $24M Settlement in N.Y. Shareholders' Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Barrick Gold Corp. settled for $24 million a class-action investor lawsuit alleging that the gold miner misled shareholders about the company's performance in 2002, Cameron French of Reuters reports. Investors filed the lawsuit in 2003, alleging that the gold producer did not adequately disclose the impact of higher mining costs, lower production, and its forward selling of gold, factors they said led to a sharp fall in the company's shares in late 2002, according to Reuters. Reuters reported that named in the lawsuit were the company, former Barrick chief executive Randall Oliphant, former chief operating officer John Carrington, and current chief financial officer Jamie Sokalsky. Company spokesman Vince Borg told Reuters that the settlement will go before a New York district court judge on March 31, 2009 to be finalized. CB RICHARD: Employees File Wisconsin Suit Over Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- CB Richard Ellis, Inc. faces a purported class-action lawsuit over unpaid overtime that was filed by a maintenance worker in its Milwaukee property management division, The Business Journal of Milwaukee reports. The CBRE worker, John Rulli, has hired Milwaukee's Cross Law Firm SC to represent him in the lawsuit filed on March 13, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Mr. Rulli, who lives in Muskego, has filed the suit individually and on behalf of similarly employed maintenance workers of CBRE throughout the nation, Nola Hitchcock Cross, managing partner Cross Law tells The Business Journal of Milwaukee. He is seeking back wages because the company forces hourly employees to carry BlackBerry telecommunications devices to stay in touch during off hours. The lawsuit doesn't mention a specific amount of money involved in the suit, according to The Business Journal of Milwaukee report. The suit is "Rulli v. CB Richard Ellis Inc., Case No. 2:09-cv- 00289-PJG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Judge Patricia J Gorence, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Nola J. Hitchcock Cross, Esq. (njhcross@crosslawfirm.com) Cross Law Firm SC 845 N 11th St Milwaukee, WI 53233 Phone: 414-224-0000 Fax: 414-279-7055 GEVITY HR: Faces Suit in Fla. Over TriNet Group Merger Agreement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gevity HR, Inc. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit in Manatee County Circuit Court in Florida alleging that the professional employer organization breached fiduciary duties to shareholders in its merger agreement with human resources provider TriNet Group, Inc., Tampa Bay Business Journal Filed March 13, 2009 the putative class-action lawsuit names Gevity, each of its directors and TriNet of San Leandro, Calif., claiming the merger agreement contained "preclusive deal protection measures and allegedly unfair merger consideration," according to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission documents filed by Gevity. Court records show the plaintiff Judy Crump is represented by William J. Schifino, Esq. In the transaction announced March 5, 2009, TriNet agreed to pay $4 a share in cash for outstanding common stock of Gevity, which was valued around $98 million. The transaction represented a premium of about 97 percent above the stock's March 4 closing price, a release from Gevity said. The complaint seeks an unspecified award of monetary damages and recovery of costs incurred by the plaintiff, according to the SEC documents, copies of which were obtained by Tampa Bay Business Journal. The acquisition, which the boards of directors of both companies approved unanimously, is expected to take place in the second quarter, pending regulatory approval and the approval of Gevity stockholders, according to Tampa Bay Business Journal. GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Pa. Judge Denies Bid to Junk Antitrust Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Mary A. McLaughlin of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied a motion that sought for the dismissal of an antitrust class action lawsuit against GlaxoSmithKline PLC and Biovail Corp., Ben Hallman of The Am Law Daily reports. In a ruling issued last week, Judge McLaughlin refused to dismiss monopolization claims against GSK and also allowed two of three claims to continue against Biovail, the Canadian company that GSK partnered with to market an extended release version of the popular antidepressant, according to The Am Law Daily report. Judge McLaughlin wrote in her ruling, "The plaintiffs have adequately alleged a conspiracy between GSK and Biovail to maintain GSK's monopoly over the American market for Wellbutrin XL." The lawsuit generally accused the pharmaceutical companies of colluding to delay generic versions of the drug Wellbutrin from coming to market. It was brought by direct purchasers who claim that GSK concocted a plan to keep Wellbutrin prices high by making fraudulent assertions to the Patent and Trademark Office and by engaging in "sham" patent litigation against generic drug manufacturers, reports The Am Law Daily. The Am Law Daily reported that the plaintiffs' lawyers, led by Thomas Sobol, Esq., and David Nalven, Esq., of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, argued that GSK and Biovail conspired to delay generic manufacturers from marketing competing versions of the drug, costing consumers $37 million per month for four months. Attorneys for GSK (Arthur Makadon, Esq.,of Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll) and Biovail (Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher's Sean Royall, Esq.) argued in their motion to dismiss that the plaintiffs failed to show any illegal conspiracy because GSK and Biovail could be viewed to have conducted "merely parallel" independent actions, The Am Law Daily reported. Judge McLaughlin disagreed, saying the plaintiffs had specifically alleged "joint action" by GSK and Biovail. She did, however, grant Biovail's motion to dismiss one of the monopolization claims, reports The Am Law Daily. HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Court OKs Accident Victims' Suit to Proceed --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut allowed a lawsuit that accuses The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. of fraudulently keeping millions in settlement money that should have gone to accident victims to proceed as a nationwide class-action suit, Diane Levick of The Hartford Courant reports. In a ruling issued last week, Judge Janet C. Hall stated that the case could proceed as a class action under alleged fraud and federal racketeering violations, but not on unjust enrichment and breach of contract claims, according The Hartford Courant report. The certified class involves people who entered into structured settlements with The Hartford from 1997 and that included annuities from Hartford Life. The case -- filed back in 2005 – was brought on behalf of three people in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Oklahoma, who had been injured in motor vehicle accidents by people insured by companies that are part of The Hartford Financial Services Group, reports The Hartford Courant. It involves "structured settlements," which resolve personal injury and workers' compensation claims and often use annuities to provide the payments. The suit alleges that the company gave people written statements of the cost or value of their settlement or annuity without indicating the company would take at least 15 percent of the amount for various fees, taxes, and profit, The Hartford Courant reported. The Hartford figured it could benefit by having its Hartford Life division provide the annuities for such settlements. The company started a program in 1997 using selected brokers to ensure the annuities for settlements that would be procured from Hartford Life instead of competitors, according to the suit. The plaintiffs alleged that the company "has profited enormously from its uniform policy, pattern and practice to deceive claimants and their representatives." They believe that there are more than 9,400 people affected by the company's actions, reports The Hartford Courant. HOLIDAY GROUP: Announces March 26, 2009 Webinar on RCI Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- SEATTLE, WASHINGTON -- March 18, 2009 -- (PRLEAP.COM) -- Holiday Resales, a division of Holiday Group, has announced its next webinar, "RCI Class Action Lawsuit Proposed Settlement: What Does This Mean to You?" The virtual seminar will take place on Thursday, March 26, from 5:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. PDT. The webinar is free and open to the public. Please visit https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/204121988 for information on registration, or email to webinars@holidaygroup.com. In 2006, two class action lawsuits were filed against RCI on behalf of members to address complaints regarding the renting of deposited weeks. While the lawsuits are now nearing a conclusion, some members still have questions as to how the proposed settlement will affect their timeshare exchanges. Holiday's upcoming webinar will examine this and other related issues in depth. Web seminars, popularly referred to as webinars, are a convenient alternative to traditional seminars, allowing people to participate via their computers from home or work. Attendees see and hear the live seminar, and can even interact with questions or comments of their own. Visit http://www.holidaygroup.com/webinarfor more information about Holiday's popular webinar series. The webinar will feature guest speakers Ray Jacobs and Shep Altshuler, founders of TimeSharing Today magazine (http://www.tstoday.com). "The class action lawsuit filed against RCI by timeshare owners is an effort to limit RCI's practice of renting deposited weeks to the general public instead of holding them for exchange to its members," said Jacobs. Holiday's Director of Sales, Gail Bennett, will host the webinar. "Consumers have a right to voice their opinion, band together, and make a statement," Bennett said. "I think a lot of folks are curious as to how the proposed settlement will affect them, both now and in the future. This webinar will address those concerns." Topics to be covered in the webinar include: -Background of the RCI Class Action lawsuit -Terms of the proposed settlement -Should you opt-out of the lawsuit? -Can you still file an objection? -TimeSharing Today's proposed objection "There are many advantages to joining the TimeSharing Today family of subscribers," Altshuler noted. "What we'll be sharing in this webinar about the RCI lawsuit is just one example of that. Information published in TimeSharing Today magazine enables owners to make independent and informed decisions about important timeshare issues that affect them." Holiday's webinars offer real-world knowledge about timesharing in a no-pressure, consumer friendly environment. The "RCI Lawsuit" webinar will last about 30 minutes and then be followed by an open question and answer session. "We are very excited to have TimeSharing Today's Ray and Shep share what they know about this issue, and help bring some clarity to it," said Bennett. Exchanges are one of the key values of timeshare ownership, so anyone interested in this subject won't want to miss the webinar." Related Information Date: Thursday, March 26, 2009 Time: 5:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. PDT Webinar registration: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/204121988 e-mail: webinars@holidaygroup.com Webinar home page: http://www.holidaygroup.com/webinar INTEL CORP: Calif. Court Certifies Class in "Chapman" Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Thu., 19 March 2009 00:04:37 GMT -- Market Wire -- SANTA CLARA, Calif. -- 03/18/09 -- In the case entitled, "Clark Chapman, and Diem Phuong Dang v. Intel Corporation, Case no. 107CVO82329," filed in Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, Intel employees holding the job titles of Systems Integrators and Graphics System Validation Engineers have been granted class certification status. Although not a ruling on the merits of the case, plaintiffs are one step closer to potentially obtaining, among other things, back overtime pay and related penalties. In its ruling, the court denied class certification for System Validation Engineers because neither of the named plaintiffs held that job title, but the court did give plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their request for certification of that class if they could find an adequate class representative who held that job title. California labor law attorneys, The Thierman Law Firm, Eric Epstein, APC and United Employees Law Group, PC represent the California Intel employees in the above case holding the job titles of Systems Integrators and Graphics System Validation Engineers. Walter Haines of United Employees Law Group commented, "This is a significant step for California information technology employees who may have been misclassified as not entitled to California overtime pay and who may have suffered by working long hours without additional pay." Intel denies plaintiffs' allegations. Intel is the world's largest semiconductor chip maker, developing advanced digital technology platforms for the computing and communications industries. United Employees Law Group, PC located in Long Beach, California is a California class action law firm experienced in labor law with an emphasis in employee overtime pay issues. For more details, contact: Walter Haines, Esq. United Employees Law Group, PC 110 Pine Avenue, Ste. 725 Long Beach, CA 90802 Phone: 888-474-7242 e-mail: info@california-labor-law-attorney.com KNAUF GIPS: Faces Litigation in Louisiana Over Imported Drywalls --------------------------------------------------------------- Knauf Gips KG, along with several others, is facing a purported class-action lawsuit in Louisiana over contaminated drywalls imported from China, The Wall Street Journal reports. Previously, homeowners in Florida raised health concerns about the imported construction material, according to the Wall Street Journal report. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on March 3, 2009 by Jill M. Donaldson and John Oertling. Aside from Knauf Gips, other entities named as defendants in the suit are: -- Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co., Ltd., -- Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd., -- USG Corp., -- L&W Supply Corp., -- Interior Exterior Building Supply, -- Independent Builders Supply Association, Inc., and -- Rothchilt International Limited. The plaintiffs claim that the wall board in their house smells and is causing respiratory problems and corroding electrical equipment. The couple has temporarily moved out of their home, reports The Wall Street Journal. The suit is "Donaldson et al v. Knauf Gips KG et al., Case No. 2:09-cv-02981-JCZ-JCW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Judge Jay C. Zainey, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Daniel E. Becnel, III (becketbec@aol.com) Becnel Law Firm, LLC 425 W. Airline Highway Suite B LaPlace, LA 70068 Phone: 985-651-6101 METROPOLITAN LIFE: N.J. Court Revives Consumer Fraud Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- A New Jersey appellate court resuscitated a consumer fraud suit filed against Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. that had been dismissed by a lower court, Martin C. Daks of NJBIZ reports. Previously, the CourtHouse News Service previously reported Metropolitan Life was facing a class-action complaint filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey alleging it defrauds customers by secretly applying smokers' rates to children who don't smoke, claiming that they will become smokers by the time they are adults (Class Action Reporter, May 15, 2008). A Middlesex County Superior Court judge dismissed the suit, saying that the plaintiff had failed to establish an "ascertainable loss" under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, according to the NJBIZ report. Case Background This class action is brought on behalf of all New Jersey residents who, from Jan. 1, 1998, to the date of the complaint, purchased from MetLife in the State of New Jersey permanent life insurance policies on the lives of insureds who at the time of purchase were non-smoking juveniles (that is, under 18 years of age) as stated in the policy contract, application and illustration provided at the time of application or policy delivery, who attained or will attain age 18 after Jan. 1, 1998, and whose policies are currently in-force or were in-force after the first payment of policy premiums (Class Action Reporter, May 15, 2008). The plaintiffs claim that MetLife conceals this deceitful policy, which violates underwriting guidelines. They claim MetLife's "'juvenile standard' or 'standard' rate and/or risk class is a blend of smoking and nonsmoking mortality experience. MetLife never disclosed this information to policyholders, defendant's own sales agents, or persons other than those MetLife actuaries and home office personnel involved in pricing MetLife's insurance policies." The plaintiffs ask the court for: -- an order certifying a plaintiff under R. 4:32, and designating named plaintiff Cindy J. Bethea as class representative and her counsel as counsel for the class; -- compensatory damages; -- treble damages under NJSA 56:8-19; -- imposition of a constructive trust, an injunction barring defendant from perpetuating its wrongful practices in the future, and such other equitable relief as the court deems just and proper; -- attorneys' fees, pursuant to NJSA 56:8-19, and costs of suit; -- pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and -- such other relief as the court deems equitable and just. The suit is "Cindy J. Bethea et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance company, Case No. L-3499-08," filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey. Representing the plaintiffs are: Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq. Jason E. Macias, Esq. Lite DePalma Greenberg & Rivas, LLC Newark, New Jersey 07302-5003 Phone: 973-623-3000 Fax: 973-623-0858 NEW YORK: Fan Sues Giants, Jets Over "Personal Seat Licenses" ------------------------------------------------------------- The New York Giants and Jets are facing a purported class-action lawsuit by a fan who claims the football teams are illegally forcing thousands of season-ticket holders to buy so-called personal seat licenses (PSLs) to finance a new $1.6-billion stadium, Erik Larson of Bloomberg News reports. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for District of New Jersey on March 16, 2009. It specifically names as defendants: -- New York Football Giants, Inc., -- Giants Stadium LLC, -- New York Jets LLC, -- Jets Stadium Development LLC, and -- New Meadowlands Stadium Company, LLC It alleges that the teams are violating competition law by requiring at least 45,000 season-ticket holders to make one-time payments of $1,000 to $25,000 for permanent licenses to buy future season tickets, according to Bloomberg News. The teams allegedly plan to confiscate the PSLs if fans stop buying season tickets after the National Football League arena opens in 2010, reports Bloomberg News. The Jets and Giants "fixed the prices for PSLs and 2010 season tickets at artificial, supra-competitive prices that were established by defendants to maximize near-term revenue and profits," Harold Oshinsky, a retired fan who has held Giants season tickets for 30 years, said in the 76-page complaint, a copy of which was obtained by Bloomberg News. Bloomberg News reported that the football teams are four months ahead of schedule on the new arena, situated next to the current stadium that the teams share in East Rutherford, New Jersey. The PSLs were used as a last resort to raise money for the 82,500-seat stadium, Giants co-owner John Mara said in a statement last year. The case is "Oshinsky v. New York Football Giants Inc., Case No. 2:09-cv-01186, filed in the U.S. District Court for District of New Jersey, Judge Katharine S. Hayden, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: James V. Bashian, Esq. (jbashian@bashianlaw.com) Law Office of James V. Bashian, PC 70 Adams Street, 4th Floor Hoboken, NJ 07030 Phone: (973) 227-6330 - and - Andrew D. Friedman, Esq. (afriedman@gbgfriedman.com) Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP 430 Park Avenue Suite 702 New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 308-6300 Fax: 212 308-6570 PETLAND INC: Faces Lawsuit in Arizona Over Puppies Being Sold ------------------------------------------------------------- Petland, Inc. and Hunte Corp. are facing a purported class- action lawsuit in Arizona that accuses them of operating "puppy mills," Greg Grisolano of The Joplin Globe reports. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on March 16, 2009 by several pet owners namely JoDell Martinelli, Stephanie Booth, Melia Perry, Abbigail King, Nicole Kersanty and Ruth Ross. The Humane Society of the United States and the pet owners who purchased their animals from Petland allege that the company conspired to sell sick puppies bred in filthy conditions, according to The Joplin Globe report. The suit seeks class-action status. It challenges the companies' conduct under federal racketeering statutes and consumer-protection laws in 20 states. In addition, the suit accuses Hunte of selling to Petland puppies that were "whelped at puppy mills," reports The Joplin Globe. The suit is "Martinelli et al v. Petland, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:09-cv-00529-DGC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Judge David G. Campbell, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Donald Andrew St. John (andy@hbsslaw.com) Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP 2425 E Camelback Rd Ste 650 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Phone: 602-840-5900 Fax: 602-840-3012 PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Fraud Suit in New Jersey --------------------------------------------------------------- Prudential Financial, Inc. and several of its executives are facing a purported class-action lawsuit in New Jersey, alleging that the insurer violated federal securities laws in a June 2008 public offering of junior subordinated notes, Darla Mercado of Investment News reports. The suit was filed by Karen M. Bauer in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 12, 2009. It is claiming that the registration statement and prospectus for the $920 million offering of the 9% junior subordinated notes failed to disclose that Prudential's asset-backed securities — which were collateralized with subprime mortgages — were more toxic than the company originally let on, according to the Investment News report. Investment News reported that among the executives named in the suit are Arthur F. Ryan, Prudential's chairman and chief executive; Richard J. Carbone, senior vice president and finance chief; and Peter B. Sayre, the company's controller. The suit also named as defendants offering underwriters RBC Capital Markets Corp. in Minneapolis; UBS Securities LLC of Stamford, Conn.; Wachovia Capital Markets LLC in Charlotte, N.C.; as well as Banc of America Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. and Morgan Stanley, all of New York, reports Investment News. According to the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by Investment News, the company's goodwill associated with some subsidiaries was also impaired to a greater extent than originally revealed. In addition, Ms. Bauer also alleged that the defendants failed to properly record losses for these toxic assets and that the company's internal controls were inadequate. Although the original offering sold off 36.8 million shares of the notes at $25 a share, the price of the securities ultimately took a dive when the insurer announced large writedowns related to its subprime exposure. Ms. Bauer and the rest of the class, represented by Bensalem, Pa., lawyer Howard G. Smith, Esq., are seeking compensatory damages, coverage of legal fees and any other relief deemed equitable by the court. The plaintiffs are also seeking a trial jury, according to the Investment News report. The suit is "Bauer v. Prudential Financial, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:09-cv-01120-jll-ccc," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge Jose L. Linares, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Peter S. Pearlman, Esq. (psp@njlawfirm.com) Cohn, Lifland, Pearlman, Herrmann & Knopf, LLP Park 80 Plaza West One Saddle Brook, NJ 07663 Phone: (201) 845-9600 REFCO INC: Mayer Brown Dismissed From N.Y. Securities Fraud Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Gerald Lynch of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed Mayer Brown LLP and a firm partner from a proposed securities class-action suit stemming from the collapse of Refco, Inc., saying outside counsel could not be held liable for the alleged multimillion-dollar fraud scheme that felled the defunct brokerage firm, Law360 reports. In a ruling issued on March 17, 2009, Judge Lynch granted motions by Mayer Brown and partner Joseph P. Collins to dismiss them as defendants in the case, according to the Law360 report. TREE.COM INC: "Garcia" Suit Over FCRA Breach Pending Arbitration ---------------------------------------------------------------- The putative class-action suit styled, "Marvin Garcia v. LendingTree, LLC, No. 08 Civ. 4551 (U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D.N.Y.)" is pending arbitration, according to Tree.com, Inc.'s Feb. 26, 2009 Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Tree.com is the parent of LendingTree, LLC, which was acquired by IAC/InterActiveCorp in 2003. On July 29, 2008, Marvin Garcia filed this putative class-action suit against LendingTree in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Plaintiff previously sued LendingTree in the Southern District of New York (Marvin Garcia v. LendingTree, LLC, No. 08 Civ. 4551 (U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D.N.Y.)), but on July 28, 2008, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed that action and subsequently filed the present suit in federal court in California. The case arises out of LendingTree's April 21, 2008 announcement that unauthorized persons had gained access to non-public information relating to its customers. Plaintiff alleges that LendingTree is a "consumer reporting agency" within the meaning of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). According to Plaintiff, LendingTree has intentionally violated the FCRA by failing to maintain reasonable procedures designed to limit the furnishing of consumer reports. Plaintiff also alleges LendingTree negligently violated the FCRA by failing to maintain reasonable procedures to protect Plaintiff's personal and financial information. Plaintiff also asserts claims against LendingTree, for negligence, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, misappropriation of confidential information in violation of California statute, and violation of California's Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (the "UCL"). Plaintiff purports to represent all similarly situated persons, and seeks damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. On June 11, 2008, the plaintiffs in the Spinozzi and Carson cases filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL Panel"), requesting that it: (1) exercise jurisdiction over all actions arising out of LendingTree's April 21, 2008 announcement that unauthorized persons had gained access to non-public information relating to its customers; and (2) consolidate all such cases and transfer them to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. On July 3, 2008, LendingTree joined the Spinozzi and Carson plaintiffs in support of this motion. On Sept. 12, 2008, LendingTree moved to dismiss the case or transfer it to the Western District of North Carolina in Charlotte to be consolidated with the Spinozzi, Carson and Mitchell cases. While this motion was pending, on Oct. 7, 2008, the MDL Panel granted the motion before it, transferring the Garcia lawsuit to the Western District of North Carolina. On Feb. 5, 2009, a hearing was held on LendingTree's September 2008 motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration. At the hearing, the court granted LendingTree's motion, ordering the Plaintiff to arbitration and staying the litigation pending outcome of the arbitration proceeding. Tree.com, Inc. -- http://www.tree.com/-- through its various subsidiaries, operates a lending business (the Lending Business) and a real estate business (the Real Estate Business). The Lending Business consists of online networks, principally LendingTree.com and GetSmart.com, as well as call centers, which match consumers with lenders and loan brokers. In addition, the Lending Business originates, processes, approves and funds various types of residential real estate loans under two brand names, LendingTree Loans and HomeLoanCenter.com, and offers residential mortgage loan settlement services under the name LendingTree Settlement Services. The Real Estate Business consists of an Internet-enabled national residential real estate brokerage that operates offices in 14 markets under the brand name RealEstate.com, REALTORS. TREE.COM INC: Mortgage Store's Suit v. HLC Remains in Discovery --------------------------------------------------------------- The putative class-action suit filed by The Mortgage Store, Inc. and Castleview Home Loans, Inc. against a Tree.com, Inc. subsidiary, Home Loan Center, Inc., remains in discovery. HLC operates primarily under the brand name "LendingTree Loans(R)." The suit styled, "Mortgage Store, Inc. v. LendingTree Loans d/b/ a Home Loan Center, Inc., No. 06CC00250 (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty.)," was filed on Nov. 30, 2006, in the California Superior Court for Orange County. Plaintiffs, two former Network Lenders, allege that HLC interfered with LendingTree's contracts with Network Lenders by taking referrals from LendingTree. The complaint is largely based upon the factual allegations made in the Schnee complaint that they used the LendingTree.com website to find potential lenders and without their knowledge were referred to LendingTree's direct lender, HLC; that Lending Tree, LLC and HLC did not adequately disclose the relationship between them; and that HLC charged Plaintiffs higher rates and fees than they otherwise would have been charged. Based upon these factual allegations, Plaintiffs assert claims for intentional interference with contractual relations, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and violation of the California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (the "UCL") and California Business and Professions Code Section 17500. Plaintiffs purport to represent all Network Lenders from Dec. 14, 2004 to date, and seek damages, restitution, attorneys' fees, and punitive damages. On Feb. 8, 2007, HLC filed a demurrer and a motion to strike portions of Plaintiffs' complaint. On March 15, 2007, the court overruled the demurrer but granted the motion to strike in part, striking the portion of the complaint that sought restitution and disgorgement of all profits made by HLC from Dec. 14, 2004 to date. In September 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion to have the discovery in this action consolidated with that in "Schnee v. LendingTree, LLC." The motion was denied. The case remains in discovery. Plaintiffs have not yet filed a motion for class certification. No trial date has been set, according to the company's Feb. 26, 2009 Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Tree.com, Inc. -- http://www.tree.com/-- through its various subsidiaries, operates a lending business (the Lending Business) and a real estate business (the Real Estate Business). The Lending Business consists of online networks, principally LendingTree.com and GetSmart.com, as well as call centers, which match consumers with lenders and loan brokers. In addition, the Lending Business originates, processes, approves and funds various types of residential real estate loans under two brand names, LendingTree Loans and HomeLoanCenter.com, and offers residential mortgage loan settlement services under the name LendingTree Settlement Services. The Real Estate Business consists of an Internet-enabled national residential real estate brokerage that operates offices in 14 markets under the brand name RealEstate.com, REALTORS. TREE.COM INC: No Trial Date Yet for Motions in "Boschma" Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- No trial date has been set yet for the motions to dismiss and to strike the third amended complaint in the putative class-action suit styled, "Boschma v. Home Loan Center, Inc., No. SACV07-613 (U.S. Dist. Ct., C.D. Cal.)." HLC is a subsidiary of the company that operates primarily under the brand name "LendingTree Loans(R)." On May 25, 2007, Clarence and Shirley Boschma filed this putative class action against HLC in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Plaintiffs allege that HLC sold them an option "ARM" (adjustable-rate mortgage) loan but failed to disclose in a clear and conspicuous manner, among other things, that the interest rate was not fixed, that negative amortization could occur and that the loan had a prepayment penalty. Based upon these factual allegations, Plaintiffs assert violations of the federal Truth in Lending Act (the "TILA"), violations of the California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (the "UCL"), breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (the "CLRA"). Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of all individuals who between June 1, 2003 and May 31, 2007 obtained through HLC an option ARM loan on their primary residence located in California, and seek rescission, damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. On Aug. 10, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint that dropped their CLRA claim. On Sept. 11, 2007, HLC filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike the amended complaint. In its motion to dismiss, HLC argued that Plaintiffs' UCL claim should be dismissed because they fail to properly allege that they or the putative class members suffered injury as a result of HLC's alleged misrepresentations. The motion to dismiss also requests dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract and for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. HLC's motion to strike requests that the court strike Plaintiffs' demand for class-wide rescission under the TILA and demand for disgorgement the UCL. Plaintiffs opposed both motions. On May 27, 2008, the court granted HLC's motion to dismiss, denied HLC's motion to strike as moot, and granted Plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint. On June 16, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which added a claim for fraudulent omissions. In response, HLC raised the issue that the class representatives had no standing to assert any claims for rescission under the TILA based on the fact that they had since refinanced their loan. On July 24, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint. In response, on Sept. 8, 2008, HLC filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike. The parties have agreed not to conduct discovery until after the court rules on HLC's motions. The court has taken the HLC's motions to dismiss and strike under submission. Plaintiffs have not yet filed a motion for class certification. No trial date has been set, according to the company's Feb. 26, 2009 Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Tree.com, Inc. -- http://www.tree.com/-- through its various subsidiaries, operates a lending business (the Lending Business) and a real estate business (the Real Estate Business). The Lending Business consists of online networks, principally LendingTree.com and GetSmart.com, as well as call centers, which match consumers with lenders and loan brokers. In addition, the Lending Business originates, processes, approves and funds various types of residential real estate loans under two brand names, LendingTree Loans and HomeLoanCenter.com, and offers residential mortgage loan settlement services under the name LendingTree Settlement Services. The Real Estate Business consists of an Internet-enabled national residential real estate brokerage that operates offices in 14 markets under the brand name RealEstate.com, REALTORS. TREE.COM INC: No Trial Date Yet for "Gaines" Suit Over TrueCost --------------------------------------------------------------- No trial date has been set yet for the putative class-action suit filed by Joanne Gaines and Johnnie Cave against Home Loan Center, Inc., and LendingTree, LLC, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Tree.com is the parent of LendingTree and HLC. The suit styled, "Gaines v. Home Loan Center, Inc., No. SACV08- 667 (U.S. Dist. Ct., C.D. Cal.)," was filed on June 13, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Plaintiffs allege, in essence, that (1) HLC failed to disclose that the bundled amount for certain loan closing services (called the "TrueCost") that HLC charged to Plaintiffs was greater than HLC's actual costs for those services; (2) HLC's option "ARM" (adjustable-rate mortgage) note failed to tell Plaintiffs that the stated interest rate and payment amounts would change after the first month and that the payment amount stated in the note was not sufficient to pay interest charges, resulting in negative amortization; and (3) HLC misrepresented that Plaintiffs would have to obtain a home equity line of credit in order to obtain a low interest rate on their option ARM loans. Based upon these factual allegations, Plaintiffs assert violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the federal Truth in Lending Act (the "TILA"), the California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (the "UCL"), California Business and Professions Code Section 17500, California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (the "CLRA"), breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, conversion, and money had and received. Plaintiffs purport to represent all HLC customers who, since Dec. 14, 2004 (1) were charged by HLC and paid an amount that exceeded HLC's actual costs for those services; and/or (2) entered into option ARM loan agreements with HLC; and/or (3) were misled into taking out a home equity line of credit along with their option ARM mortgage. Plaintiffs seek restitution, disgorgement, damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. On July 28, 2008, HLC filed a motion to dismiss. The court issued an order taking HLC's motion to dismiss under submission and cancelled a scheduled Oct. 6, 2008 hearing. HLC has objected to served discovery and awaits the court's scheduling order. Plaintiffs have not yet filed a motion for class certification. No trial date has been set, according to the company's Feb. 26, 2009 Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Tree.com, Inc. -- http://www.tree.com/-- through its various subsidiaries, operates a lending business (the Lending Business) and a real estate business (the Real Estate Business). The Lending Business consists of online networks, principally LendingTree.com and GetSmart.com, as well as call centers, which match consumers with lenders and loan brokers. In addition, the Lending Business originates, processes, approves and funds various types of residential real estate loans under two brand names, LendingTree Loans and HomeLoanCenter.com, and offers residential mortgage loan settlement services under the name LendingTree Settlement Services. The Real Estate Business consists of an Internet-enabled national residential real estate brokerage that operates offices in 14 markets under the brand name RealEstate.com, REALTORS. TREE.COM INC: "Schnee" Litigation v. Units Remains in Discovery --------------------------------------------------------------- The putative class-action suit styled, "Schnee v. LendingTree, LLC and Home Loan Center, Inc., No. 06CC00211 (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty.)," remains in discovery. Tree.com, Inc. is the parent of LendingTree and HLC. On Oct. 11, 2006, four individual plaintiffs filed this putative class action against LendingTree and HLC in the California Superior Court for Orange County. Plaintiffs allege that they used the LendingTree.com website to find potential lenders and without their knowledge were referred to LendingTree's direct lender, HLC; that Lending Tree, LLC and HLC did not adequately disclose the relationship between them; and that HLC charged Plaintiffs higher rates and fees than they otherwise would have been charged. Based upon these allegations, Plaintiffs assert that LendingTree and HLC violated the California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (the "UCL"), California Business and Professions Code Section 17500, and California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (the "CLRA"). Plaintiffs purport to represent a nationwide class of consumers who sought lender referrals from LendingTree and obtained loans from HLC since Dec. 1, 2004. Plaintiffs seek damages, restitution, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. On Nov. 27, 2006, LendingTree and HLC filed demurrers and a motion to strike portions of the complaint, arguing, among other things, that the complaint did not adequately allege that the named class representatives read and relied upon the allegedly deceptive representations on LendingTree's website. On Jan. 25, 2007, the court sustained the demurrers and granted the motion to strike on the reliance issue, but otherwise overruled the demurrers and denied the motion to strike. On Feb. 14, 2007, Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint. On March 12, 2007, LendingTree and HLC filed demurrers and a motion to strike portions of the first amended complaint. On May 17, 2007, the court overruled the demurrers and denied the motion to strike. On June 11, 2007, LendingTree and HLC filed an answer to the first amended complaint. On July 28, 2008, LendingTree and HLC filed a motion for summary judgment. On Sept. 2, 2008, a Second Amended Complaint was filed, adding a new named plaintiff and naming Tree.com, Inc. and LendingTree's former parent, IAC/InterActiveCorp, as defendants. On Nov. 19, 2008 a Third Amended complaint was filed and the Answer was filed Dec. 22, 2008. The case remains in discovery. Plaintiffs have not yet filed a motion for class certification. No trial date has been set, according to the company's Feb. 26, 2009 Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Tree.com, Inc. -- http://www.tree.com/-- through its various subsidiaries, operates a lending business (the Lending Business) and a real estate business (the Real Estate Business). The Lending Business consists of online networks, principally LendingTree.com and GetSmart.com, as well as call centers, which match consumers with lenders and loan brokers. In addition, the Lending Business originates, processes, approves and funds various types of residential real estate loans under two brand names, LendingTree Loans and HomeLoanCenter.com, and offers residential mortgage loan settlement services under the name LendingTree Settlement Services. The Real Estate Business consists of an Internet-enabled national residential real estate brokerage that operates offices in 14 markets under the brand name RealEstate.com, REALTORS. TRI-S SECURITY: Reaches Conditional Settlement of IPO Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- ATLANTA, March 18 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Tri-S Security Corp. (Nasdaq: TRIS), (the "Company") a provider of security services and equipment for government and private entities, is pleased to announce that the Company has entered into a Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release (the "Settlement Agreement") with respect to the previously-disclosed class action complaint filed against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, its former Chief Financial Officer and the lead underwriters in its initial public offering, alleging, among other things, certain violations of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with its initial public offering. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the court's order granting preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement, the Company (on behalf of all defendants) shall make a cash settlement payment of $1 million no later than March 20, 2009, in return for a release and dismissal with prejudice of all claims against the Company and the other defendants. The Company's insurance carrier and insurance broker have jointly agreed to fund the entirety of the cash settlement payment. The Settlement Agreement is subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions, including, without limitation, the entry by the court of a final order approving the Settlement Agreement. If such final approval is not obtained, then the Settlement Agreement will become null and void. "We are particularly pleased that we have been able to reach a settlement regarding this matter, thus enabling us to fully concentrate on running the business for the advantage of all our stakeholders," said Ron Farrell, Chairman and CEO of the Company. Based in Atlanta, GA, Tri-S Security Corp. (NASDAQ: TRIS) is a provider of security services and equipment for government and private entities. Security services include uniformed guards, personnel protection, access control, crowd control and the prevention of sabotage, terrorist and criminal activities. Tri- S Security assumes responsibility for the marketing, infrastructure and overall operational performance for its subsidiaries. Tri-S Security's management leverages highly trained government officers, experienced industry leaders, proven financial executives and infrastructure experts to consolidate the fragmented security industry into one efficient and effective security force. VIVENDI UNIVERSAL: Claims of 33 Shareholders Dismissed in N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Richard J. Holwell of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed without prejudice the claims brought by 33 individual shareholders in a long-standing securities fraud class-action lawsuit against two former executives of Vivendi Universal SA, saying they failed to serve one of the defendants on time, Law360 reports. In a ruling issed on March 16, 2009, Judge Holwell approved former Vivendi Chief Financial Officer Guillaume Hannezo's motion to dismiss the shareholders' claims, according to the Law360 report. WOLTERS KLUWER: Court Grants Final OK to Medi-Span's Amended AWP ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wed, 18 Mar 2009 14:16:37 GMT -- INDIANAPOLIS - (Business Wire) Wolters Kluwer Health, a leading global provider of information for healthcare professionals, announced that the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts has granted final approval to the amended settlement between Medi-Span and the plaintiffs who filed a class action lawsuit against them in May of 2007. The plaintiffs alleged that Wolters Kluwer Health's Medi- Span negligently published Average Wholesale Price (AWP) information that had been wrongfully inflated by First DataBank, Inc., a prior owner of Medi-Span. Wolters Kluwer Health continues to deny the plaintiffs' allegations and any liability based on those allegations. In addition to other provisions, Wolters Kluwer Health has agreed to the following terms as a part of the amended settlement: -- Adjust to 1.20 the mark-up factor applied to Wholesale Acquisition Cost (WAC) to determine the AWP that Medi- Span publishes for the 1,442 NDCs that were identified in the plaintiff's complaint and that currently have an AWP that is based on a markup factor in excess of 1.20. -- This adjustment will take place no earlier than one hundred eighty (180) days from March 17, 2009. Independent of the amended settlement, Wolters Kluwer Health's Medi-Span has decided to implement editorial policy changes which will apply the same adjustments required by the settlement to all other NDCs in the Medi-Span files whose AWP is determined by a markup factor to the product's WAC or Direct Price (DP) in excess of 1.20. In addition, Medi-Span will discontinue publishing current AWPs for all products in the Medi-Span files within approximately 2 years of March 17, 2009. Wolters Kluwer Health remains committed to providing the industry with content that is accurate, current and meets business needs. Medi-Span's content continues to be maintained according to editorial policies grounded in integrity and guided by clinical experience. Medi-Span is part of Wolters Kluwer Health -- http://www.wolterskluwer.com-- a leading provider of information and business intelligence for students, professionals and institutions in medicine, nursing, allied health, pharmacy and the pharmaceutical industry. Wolters Kluwer Health is a division of Wolters Kluwer, a leading global information services and publishing company. The company provides products and services for professionals in the health, tax, accounting, corporate, financial services, legal, and regulatory sectors. New Securities Fraud Cases OPPENHEIMER CALIFORNIA: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- March 18, 2009 03:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time -- SAN DIEGO -- (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Coughlin Stoia)(http://www.csgrr.com/cases/oppenheimercalmuni/) announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or held shares of the Oppenheimer California Municipal Fund ("California Fund" or the "Fund") (NASDAQ:OPCAX), (NASDAQ:OCABX), (NASDAQ:OCACX) offered by OppenheimerFunds, Inc. ("OppenheimerFunds") in connection with its September 27, 2006, March 8, 2007 and October 31, 2007 offerings (the "Offerings"). The complaint charges the California Fund, OppenheimerFunds and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Company Act of 1940. The California Fund is a mutual fund that seeks as high a level of current interest income exempt from federal and California income taxes for individual investors as is consistent with preservation of capital. The complaint alleges that while the California Fund promoted itself as focusing on capital preservation and being safer than a high yield municipal bond fund, the Fund altered its investment style and began to significantly increase its risk in the hopes of seeking higher returns. Defendants concealed that the California Fund had increased its exposure in these excessively risky bets, such that investors remained unaware of these additional risk exposures. Then, beginning in late September 2008 and continuing through February 2009, the Fund began to acknowledge the serious deterioration in its portfolio. As a result of these disclosures, the price of the Fund's shares collapsed. According to the complaint, the true facts which were omitted from the Registration Statements/Prospectuses issued in connection with the Offerings were as follows: -- the Fund was no longer adhering to its objective of preserving capital, but in an effort to achieve greater yields was pursuing riskier instruments; -- the extent of the Fund's liquidity risk due to the illiquid nature of a large portion of the Fund's portfolios; -- the extent to which the Fund's portfolio contained unrated securities; -- the Fund's internal controls were inadequate to prevent defendants from taking on excessive risk or to prevent them from improperly evaluating the credit quality of unrated securities; and -- the extent of the Fund's leverage exposure was misstated. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or held shares of the California Fund in connection with the September 27, 2006, March 8, 2007 and October 31, 2007 offerings (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/oppenheimercalmuni Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases Still Ongoing v. Morton Int'l. in La. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rohm and Haas Company's subsidiary, Morton International, Inc., still has pending suits related to employee exposure to asbestos at a manufacturing facility in Weeks Island, La., with more suits expected. The Company expects that most of these cases will be dismissed because they are barred under workers' compensation laws. However, cases involving asbestos-caused malignancies may not be barred under Louisiana law. Subsequent to the Morton acquisition, the Company commissioned medical studies to estimate possible future claims and recorded accruals based on the results. Morton has also been sued in connection with asbestos-related matters in the former Friction Division of the former Thiokol Corporation, which merged with Morton in 1982. Settlement amounts to date have been minimal and many cases have closed with no payment. The Company estimates that all costs associated with future Friction Division claims, including defense costs, will be well below the Company's insurance limits. As a result of the bankruptcy of asbestos producers, plaintiffs' attorneys have focused on peripheral defendants, including the Company, which had asbestos on its premises. Historically, these premises cases have been dismissed or settled for minimal amounts because of the minimal likelihood of exposure at the Company's facilities. The Company has reserved amounts for premises asbestos cases that it currently believes are probable and estimable. Headquartered in Philadelphia, Rohm and Haas Company is a global specialty materials company. The Company reported sales of US$9.6 billion in 2008 on global businesses including electronic materials, specialty materials and salt. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Assurant Reserves $30.3M for A&E, Liability ---------------------------------------------------------------- Assurant, Inc. carries case reserves and IBNR (incurred but not reported) reserves for asbestos, environmental, and general liability claims totaling US$30.3 million (net of reinsurance) and US$32 million (before reinsurance) at Dec. 31, 2008. The Company's property and warranty line of business includes exposure to asbestos, environmental and other general liability claims arising from its participation in various reinsurance pools from 1971 through 1985. This exposure arose from a short duration contract that the Company discontinued writing many years ago. Headquartered in New York, Assurant, Inc. provides specialized insurance products and related services in North America and selected other international markets. The Company has four operating segments: Assurant Solutions, Assurant Specialty Property, Assurant Health, and Assurant Employee Benefits. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Westinghouse, Units Facing Exposure Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation (d/b/a Wabtec) and certain of its affiliates continue to face claims asserted by persons alleging bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products in various jurisdictions across the United States. Most of these claims have been made against the Company's wholly owned subsidiary, Railroad Friction Products Corporation (RFPC), and are based on a product sold by RFPC prior to the time that the Company acquired any interest in RFPC. Most of these claims, including all of the RFPC claims, are submitted to insurance carriers for defense and indemnity or to non-affiliated companies that retain the liabilities for the asbestos-containing products at issue. More specifically, as to RFPC, Management's belief that any losses due to asbestos-related cases would not be material is also based on the fact that RFPC owns insurance which provides coverage for asbestos-related bodily injury claims. To date, RFPC's insurers have provided RFPC with defense and indemnity in these actions. As to the Company and its divisions, Management's belief that asbestos-related cases will not have a material impact is also based on its position that it has no legal liability for asbestos-related bodily injury claims, and that the former owners of the Company's assets retained asbestos liabilities for the products at issue. To date, the Company has been able to successfully defend itself on this basis, including two arbitration decisions and a judicial opinion, all of which confirmed the Company's position that it did not assume any asbestos liabilities from the former owners of certain Company assets. Headquartered in Wilmerding, Pa., Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation provides equipment and services for the global rail industry. Its products can be found on U.S. locomotives, freight cars, subway cars and buses. In 2008, the Company had sales of about US$1.6 billion and net income of about US$130.6 million. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court to Set Quigley Hearing After March 16 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York has scheduled a confirmation hearing of Quigley Company, Inc.'s (a Pfizer Inc. subsidiary) Plan of Reorganization to be held sometime after March 16, 2009. After that time, the Bankruptcy Court will consider any objections to the plan's confirmation and determine whether to approve the plan. If approved by the claimants and the courts, the amended reorganization plan will result in a permanent injunction directing all pending and future claims alleging personal injury from exposure to Quigley products to a Trust. Quigley was acquired by the Company in 1968 and sold small amounts of products containing asbestos until the early 1970s. In September 2004, the Company and Quigley took steps that were intended to resolve all pending and future claims against the Company and Quigley in which the claimants allege personal injury from exposure to Quigley products containing asbestos, silica or mixed dust. The Company recorded a charge of US$369 million before-tax (US$229 million after-tax) in the third quarter of 2004 in connection with these matters. In September 2004, Quigley filed a petition in the Bankruptcy Court seeking reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. In March 2005, Quigley filed a reorganization plan in the Bankruptcy Court that needed the approval of both the Bankruptcy Court and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York after receipt of the vote of 75 percent of the claimants. In connection with that filing, the Company entered into settlement agreements with lawyers representing more than 80 percent of the individuals with claims related to Quigley products against Quigley and the Company. The agreements provide for a total of US$430 million in payments, of which US$215 million became due in December 2005 and is being paid to claimants upon receipt by the Company of certain required documentation from each of the claimants. The reorganization plan provided for the establishment of a Trust for the payment of all remaining pending claims as well as any future claims alleging injury from exposure to Quigley products. As certified by the balloting agent in May 2006, more than 75 percent of Quigley's claimants holding claims that represented more than two-thirds in value of claims against Quigley voted to accept Quigley's plan of reorganization. In August 2006, in reviewing the voting tabulation methodology, the Bankruptcy Court ruled that certain votes that accepted the plan were not predicated upon the actual value of the claim. As a result, the reorganization plan was not accepted. In June 2007, Quigley filed an amended plan of reorganization that is intended to address the Bankruptcy Court's concerns regarding the voting tabulation methodology. In February 2008, the Bankruptcy Court authorized Quigley to solicit its amended reorganization plan for acceptance by claimants. According to the official report filed with the court by the balloting agent in July 2008, the requisite number of votes was cast in favor of the amended plan of reorganization. Under the amended reorganization plan (as under the original reorganization plan), the Company will contribute to the Trust US$405 million through a note as well as about US$100 million in cash and insurance, and will forgive a US$30 million secured loan to Quigley. In addition, the Company entered into an agreement with the representative of future claimants that provides for the contribution to the Trust of an additional amount with a present value of US$88.4 million. In a separately negotiated transaction with an insurance company in August 2004, the Company agreed to a settlement related to certain insurance coverage which provides for payments to the Company over a 10-year period of amounts totaling US$405 million. Headquartered in New York, Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures and markets safe and effective medicines; explores ideas that advance the frontiers of science and medicine; and supports programs dedicated to illness prevention, health and wellness, and increased access to quality healthcare. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Optical Has 104T Claims at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer Inc. says that, as of Dec. 31, 2008, about 104,000 claims naming American Optical Corporation and numerous other defendants were pending in various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged personal injury from exposure to asbestos and other hazardous materials. As of Dec. 31, 2007, about 106,000 claims naming American Optical Corporation and numerous other defendants were pending in various federal and state courts. (Class Action Reporter, March 28, 2008) Between 1967 and 1982, Warner-Lambert Company owned American Optical, which manufactured and sold respiratory protective devices and asbestos safety clothing. In connection with the sale of American Optical in 1982, Warner-Lambert agreed to indemnify the purchaser for certain liabilities, including certain asbestos-related and other claims. The Company is actively engaged in the defense of, and will continue to explore various means to resolve, these claims. Several of the insurance carriers that provided coverage for the American Optical asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials claims have denied coverage. Headquartered in New York, Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures and markets safe and effective medicines; explores ideas that advance the frontiers of science and medicine; and supports programs dedicated to illness prevention, health and wellness, and increased access to quality healthcare. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pfizer Facing Gibsonburg Lime Injury Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer Inc. faces lawsuits in federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged personal injury from exposure to products containing asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials sold by Gibsonburg Lime Products Company. Gibsonburg was acquired by the Company in the 1960s and sold small amounts of products containing asbestos until the early 1970s. There also are a small number of lawsuits pending in various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged exposure to asbestos in facilities owned or formerly owned by the Company or its subsidiaries. Headquartered in New York, Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures and markets safe and effective medicines; explores ideas that advance the frontiers of science and medicine; and supports programs dedicated to illness prevention, health and wellness, and increased access to quality healthcare. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACE Records $1.369B Net Reserves at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACE Limited's net asbestos-related reserves were US$1.369 billion at Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$1.482 billion at Dec. 31, 2007. The Company's gross asbestos-related reserves were US$2.629 billion at Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$2.942 billion at Dec. 31, 2007. The Company's exposure to asbestos and environmental claims principally arises out of liabilities acquired when it purchased Westchester Specialty in 1998 and the P&C business of CIGNA in 1999, with the larger exposure contained within the liabilities acquired in the CIGNA transaction. The A&E net loss reserves including allocated and unallocated loss expense reserves and provision for uncollectible reinsurance at Dec. 31, 2008, of US$1.683 billion are comprised of US$1.29 billion in reserves held by Brandywine run-off companies, US$122 million of reserves held by Westchester Specialty, US$154 million of reserves held by ACE Bermuda and US$117 million of reserves held by Insurance – Overseas General. For asbestos, the Company faces claims relating to policies issued to manufacturers, distributors, installers, and other parties in the chain of commerce for asbestos and products containing asbestos. Claims can be filed by individual claimants or groups of claimants with the potential for hundreds of individual claimants at one time. Claimants will generally allege damages across an extended time period which may coincide with multiple policies for a single insured. Headquartered in Zurich, Switzerland, ACE Limited is a global insurance and reinsurance organization, with operating subsidiaries in more than 50 countries serving the needs of commercial and individual customers in more than 140 countries. The Company serves the property and casualty (P&C) insurance needs of businesses. At Dec. 31, 2008, the Company had total assets of about US$72 billion and shareholders' equity of about US$14 billion. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACE Limited Records 1,198 Claims at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACE Limited recorded 1,198 open asbestos claims for the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, compared with 1,169 claims for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company recorded 75 newly reported claims and 46 claims closed or otherwise disposed. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company recorded 87 newly reported claims and 309 claims closed or otherwise disposed. Closed or otherwise disposed claims were significantly higher in 2007, compared with 2008, following a review in 2007 of inactive files that revealed that payment was no longer sought on the files, therefore, the files were closed. Headquartered in Zurich, Switzerland, ACE Limited is a global insurance and reinsurance organization, with operating subsidiaries in more than 50 countries serving the needs of commercial and individual customers in more than 140 countries. The Company serves the property and casualty (P&C) insurance needs of businesses. At Dec. 31, 2008, the Company had total assets of about US$72 billion and shareholders' equity of about US$14 billion. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Belden Inc. Has 130 Injury Cases at Feb. 9 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Belden Inc., at Feb. 9, 2009, was aware of 130 asbestos-related personal injury cases, in which it is one of many defendants, according to the Company's 2008 annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. These proceedings include personal injury cases, about 125 of which the Company was aware at Oct. 29, 2008, in which the Company is one of many defendants. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 21, 2008) Electricians have filed a majority of these cases, primarily in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, generally seeking compensatory, special and punitive damages. Typically in these cases, the claimant alleges injury from alleged exposure to heat-resistant asbestos fiber. The Company's alleged predecessors had a small number of products that contained the fiber, but ceased production of those products more than 20 years ago. Through Feb. 9, 2009, the Company has been dismissed, or reached agreement to be dismissed, in about 262 similar cases without any going to trial, and with only 29 of these involving any payment to the claimant. Headquartered in St. Louis, Belden Inc. designs, manufactures and markets signal transmission solutions, including cable, connectivity and active components for mission-critical applications in markets ranging from industrial automation to data centers, broadcast studios, and aerospace. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Domtar Ind. Still Has Injury Cases in U.S. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Domtar Corporation says that various asbestos-related personal injury claims are pending in U.S. state and federal courts against Domtar Industries Inc. and certain other affiliates of the Company. These claims are filed in connection with alleged exposure by people to products or premises containing asbestos, according to the Company's 2008 annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. As of Dec. 31, 2008, the Company had a provision of US$99 million for environmental expenditures, including certain asset retirement obligations (such as for land fill capping and asbestos removal) (US$119 million as of Dec. 30, 2007). Headquartered in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Domtar Corporation manufactures and markets freesheet paper in North America. The Company also manufactures papergrade, fluff and specialty pulp. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Split Rulings Issued in Price Pfister Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 3, California, issues split rulings in an asbestos-related case styled "Price Pfister, Inc., Plaintiff and Appellant v. TriMas Corporation, Defendant and Appellant." Judges Richard D. Fybel, Kathleen O'Leary, and Eileen C. Moore entered judgment on Case No. G039081 on Feb. 3, 2009. In 1910, Emil Price and William Pfister founded the Price Pfister Company and became a wholly owned subsidiary of Norris Industries, Inc. In 1979, Price-Pfister Brass Mfg. Co. merged into its parent corporation, Norris Industries, Inc. On Dec. 8, 1981, Norind Holdings, Inc. acquired Norris Industries, Inc.; Norris Industries, Inc. became Norind Holding, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary. On Dec. 29, 1981, Norind Holdings, Inc. changed its corporate name to Norris-NI Industries, Inc. On Oct. 4, 1982, NI Industries, Inc. was operated as a wholly owned subsidiary of Norris-NI Industries, Inc. On Dec. 31, 1982, Norris-NI Industries, Inc. "acquired certain assets and liabilities of its [other] wholly owned subsidiary, Norris Industries, Inc., a California corporation including, but not limited to, the assets and liabilities of the Price Pfister Division of Norris Industries, Inc." On Jan. 31, 1983, Norris-NI Industries, Inc. "merged its wholly owned subsidiary, NI Industries, Inc., into itself and changed its corporate name to NI Industries, Inc." In May 1983, Price Pfister was incorporated in Delaware as Price Pfister, NI Industries, Inc., and later changed its corporate name to Price Pfister, Inc. On June 24, 1983, NI Industries, Inc., and Price Pfister entered into an agreement. In 2005, Price Pfister filed a complaint against TriMas (as successor in interest to NI Industries, Inc.) and Metaldyne Corporation (TriMas' immediate predecessor in interest) for express indemnity, breach of contract, implied indemnity/equitable indemnity, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief. The complaint stated that, beginning in October 2000, Price Pfister has been sued in 11 product liability cases in California, "alleging injury from 'Price Pfister' products, which allegedly incorporated asbestos-containing gaskets, washers, and/or packings." In February 2006, Price Pfister filed a motion for summary judgment. TriMas filed a motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication challenging Price Pfister's claim for implied indemnity/equitable indemnity on the ground the Agreement prohibited Price Pfister from pursuing that claim. In June 2006, the trial court denied Price Pfister's motion for summary judgment. In November 2006, Price Pfister filed a first amended complaint against TriMas. Following a bench trial, the court rendered a tentative decision which became the court's final statement of decision. Price Pfister and TriMas have each appealed from the judgment. TriMas filed a motion for sanctions, which the Appeals Court denied. Price Pfister filed a cross-motion for sanctions, but shortly thereafter withdrew it. The Appeals Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Appeals Court affirmed the portion of the judgment in which the trial court interpreted the indemnity provision to apply to (1) products manufactured by NI Industries, Inc., not to products manufactured by NI Industries, Inc.'s predecessors in interest and (2) actual occurrences of death, personal injury and/or property damage caused by a NI Industries, Inc., manufactured product. The Appeals Court reversed the portion of the judgment denying Price Pfister defense costs with directions to the trial court to determine whether, in any of the 11 cases filed against Price Pfister, the duty to defend had been triggered, and whether Price Pfister is entitled to recover attorney fees and/or costs under Price Pfister's claims for express indemnity and breach of contract. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Upholds Ruling in Pierce Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed the Board of Veterans' Appeals ruling, which denied Jerry D. Pierce entitlement to benefits for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asbestosis, sleep apnea, diabetes mellitus, and a pancreatic condition. The case is styled Jerry D. Pierce, Appellant v. Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee. Judge Lawrence B. Hagel entered judgment in Case No. 06-1361 on Feb. 3, 2009. Mr. Pierce served in the U.S. Navy from June 1959 until October 1963. While stationed onboard a ship in March 1962, he was burned by steam escaping from a boiler. He had burns on about 15 percent of his body and suffered from first and second degree burns on his face, neck, and upper body. In August 2002, Mr. Pierce applied for VA benefits for respiratory conditions including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asbestosis, and for sleep apnea, diabetes mellitus, and a pancreatic condition as secondary to his respiratory conditions. Mr. Pierce asserted that his respiratory problems were caused when he inhaled steam escaping from the boiler during the March 1962 incident and from exposure to asbestos on his ship. In June 2003, a VA regional office provided a physical examination in connection with Mr. Pierce's claims. In August 2003, the regional office denied Mr. Pierce entitlement to service connection for all of his claimed conditions. In September 2004, the VA examiner opined that there was "little to suggest" that Mr. Pierce currently had asbestosis. The examiner also stated that Mr. Pierce's chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was consistent with lung disease caused by smoking, of which he had a long history. On July 25, 2005, VA sent a letter to Mr. Pierce informing him that he could request a hearing before the Board. In October 2005, Mr. Pierce sent a letter requesting that his case remain at the Board. In December 2005, Mr. Pierce's service office representative submitted a brief to the Board on Mr. Pierce's behalf. In January 2006, the Board issued the decision on appeal, denying entitlement to disability compensation for a lung disease to include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asbestosis. The Board also denied benefits for sleep apnea, diabetes mellitus, and a pancreatic condition as secondary to the lung conditions. Mr. Pierce appealed. He asserted that his claims for service connection for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asbestosis were supported by medical evidence. The Jan. 11, 2006 Board decision was affirmed. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OneBeacon Cites $1.098B Reserves at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- OneBeacon Insurance Group, Ltd., as of Dec. 31, 2008, had established gross loss and loss adjustment expense reserves for asbestos claims of US$1.098 billion. About 99 percent of these loss and LAE reserves are covered under reinsurance arrangements. The Company's net loss and LAE reserves for asbestos claims, after giving effect to third party reinsurance other than the NICO Cover, was US$741.5 million at Dec. 31, 2008. The Company's net loss and LAE reserves for asbestos claims, after giving effect to both third party reinsurance and the NICO Cover, was US$6.5 million at Dec. 31, 2008. The Company also incurred asbestos and environmental losses via its participation in industry pools and associations. The most significant of these pools was Excess Casualty Reinsurance Association, or ECRA, which provided excess liability reinsurance to U.S. insurers from 1950 until the early 1980s. ECRA incurred significant liabilities for A&E, of which the Company bears about a 4.7 percent share at both Dec. 31, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2007, or US$40 million at Dec. 31, 2008 and US$59.5 million at Dec. 31, 2007. Headquartered in Minnetonka, Minn., OneBeacon Insurance Group, Ltd. OneBeacon Insurance Group, Ltd. is a property and casualty insurance writer that provides specialty insurance products and segmented commercial and personal insurance products. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OneBeacon Has 474 Policyholders at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- OneBeacon Insurance Group, Ltd., at Dec. 31, 2008, had 474 policyholders who have asbestos-related claims against the Company, according to the Company's 2008 annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. At Dec. 31, 2007, the Company had 491 policyholders who had asbestos-related claims against it. Since the 1990s, the Company has experienced an influx of claims from commercial insureds, including many non-Fortune 500-sized accounts written during the 1970s and 1980s, which are named as defendants in asbestos lawsuits. As a number of large well-known manufacturers of asbestos and asbestos-containing products have gone into bankruptcy, plaintiffs have sought recoveries from peripheral defendants, such as installers, transporters or sellers of such products, or from owners of premises on which the plaintiffs' exposure to asbestos allegedly occurred. In 2008, 80 new insureds with such peripheral involvement presented asbestos claims under prior policies the Company had written. As of Dec. 31, 2008, there were about 242 active claims by insureds against the Company without product liability coverage asserting operations or premises coverage, which may not be subject to aggregate limits under the policies. The Company has ceded estimated incurred losses of about US$2.2 billion to the NICO Cover at Dec. 31, 2008. Since entering into the NICO Cover, US$44.7 million of the US$2.2 billion of utilized coverage relates to uncollected amounts from third party reinsurers through Dec. 31, 2008. Net losses paid totaled US$1.1 billion as of Dec. 31, 2008, with US$108.5 million paid in 2008. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company recorded 80 accounts reporting asbestos claims opened and 97 accounts reporting asbestos claims closed. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company recorded 102 accounts reporting asbestos claims opened and 153 accounts reporting asbestos claims closed. Headquartered in Minnetonka, Minn., OneBeacon Insurance Group, Ltd. OneBeacon Insurance Group, Ltd. is a property and casualty insurance writer that provides specialty insurance products and segmented commercial and personal insurance products. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Selective Insurance Has 2,037 Claims in '08 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Selective Insurance Group, Inc. had 2,037 asbestos-related claims at Dec. 31, 2008, compared with 2,177 claims at Dec. 31, 2007, according to the Company's 2008 annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. At Dec. 31, 2008, the Company noted 124 claims received during year and 264 claims closed during year. The average gross loss settlement on closed claims was US$32,000, the gross amount paid to administer closed claims was US$110,582,000, and the net survival ratio was 15. At Dec. 31, 2008, the Company noted 114 claims received during year and 210 claims closed during year. The average gross loss settlement on closed claims was US$81,000, the gross amount paid to administer closed claims was US$51,868,000, and the net survival ratio was 16. Asbestos claims constituted 86 percent of the Company's 2,362 environmental claims at Dec. 31, 2008, compared with 89 percent of its 2,448 outstanding environmental claims at Dec. 31, 2007. Included in the Company's loss and loss expense reserves are amounts for environmental claims, both asbestos and non- asbestos. Carried net loss and loss expense reserves for environmental claims were US$44.1 million as of Dec. 31, 2008 and US$51.4 million as of Dec. 31, 2007. The Company's asbestos and non-asbestos environmental claims have arisen primarily from insured exposures in municipal government, small commercial risks, and homeowners policies. Headquartered in Branchville, N.J., Selective Insurance Group, Inc. offers property and casualty insurance products and diversified insurance services and products. The Company has three operating segments: Insurance Operations, Investments, and Diversified Insurance Services. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allegheny Faces 853 W.Va. Claims at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Allegheny Energy, Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2008, faced 853 asbestos exposure claims in West Virginia and five exposure claims in Pennsylvania, according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2009. As of Sept. 30, 2008, the Company faced 845 asbestos exposure claims in West Virginia and five claims in Pennsylvania. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 21, 2008) Allegheny's Distribution Companies (Monongahela Power Company, The Potomac Edison Company, and West Penn Power Company) have been named as defendants, along with multiple other defendants, in pending asbestos cases alleging bodily injury involving multiple plaintiffs and multiple sites. These suits have been brought mostly by seasonal contractors' employees and do not involve allegations of the manufacture, sale or distribution of asbestos-containing products by the Company. These asbestos suits arise out of historical operations and are related to the installation and removal of asbestos- containing materials at the Company's generation facilities. The Company's historical operations were insured by various foreign and domestic insurers, including Lloyd's of London. Asbestos-related litigation expenses have to date been reimbursed in full by recoveries from these historical insurers. Certain insurers, however, have contested their obligations to pay for the future defense and settlement costs relating to the asbestos suits. The Company is currently involved in three asbestos and environmental insurance-related actions. These actions are: -- Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London et al. v. Allegheny Energy, Inc. et al., Case No. 21-C-03-16733 (Washington County, Md.), -- Monongahela Power Company et al. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London and London Market Companies, et al., Civil Action No. 03-C-281 (Monongalia County, W.Va.) and -- Allegheny Energy, Inc. et al. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Civil Action No. 07-3168-BLS (Suffolk Superior Court, Mass.). The Company and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company have resolved their dispute and, therefore, Civil Action No. 07-3168-BLS will be voluntarily dismissed. The parties in the remaining actions are seeking a declaration of coverage under the policies for asbestos-related and environmental claims. Headquartered in Greensburg, Pa., Allegheny Energy, Inc. is an integrated energy business that owns and operates electric generation facilities and delivers electric services to customers in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland and Virginia. The Company has two business segments: Delivery and Services segment and Generation and Marketing. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W. R. Grace's Libby Liability Totals $48.4M ---------------------------------------------------------------- W. R. Grace & Co.'s total estimated liability for asbestos remediation over its former vermiculite operations in Libby, Mont., was US$48.4 million, excluding interest at Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$296.9 million, excluding interest, at Dec. 31, 2007. The estimated obligation as of each date does not include the cost to remediate the Company-owned Libby vermiculite mine, which is not currently estimable. The Company's total estimated liability for asbestos remediation related to Libby, including the cost of remediation at vermiculite processing sites outside of Libby, was US$50.4 million at Sept. 30, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 21, 2008) As a result of a 2002 U.S. District Court ruling, the Company is required to reimburse the United States Government for US$54.5 million (plus interest) in costs expended through December 2001, and for all appropriate future costs to complete asbestos- related remediation relating to the Company's former vermiculite mining and processing activities in the Libby area. These costs include cleaning and demolition of contaminated buildings, excavation and removal of contaminated soil, health screening of Libby residents and former mine workers, and investigation and monitoring costs. In June 2008, the Bankruptcy Court approved an agreement (EPA Cost Recovery Agreement), between the Company and the U.S. Department of Justice to settle the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's cost recovery claims for all past and future remediation costs with respect to the Company's former Libby operations, except for those relating to the Company-owned Libby vermiculite mine, for a payment by the Company of US$250 million. In addition, EPA has agreed to take no action against the Company with respect to the Libby Asbestos Superfund Site. During 2008, the Company paid US$250 million plus accrued interest of about US$2 million in satisfaction of its obligations under the EPA Cost Recovery Agreement. Headquartered in Columbia, Md., W. R. Grace & Co. supplies catalysts and other products to petroleum refiners; catalysts for the manufacture of plastics; silica-based engineered and specialty materials for industrial applications; sealants and coatings for food and beverage packaging, and specialty chemicals, additives and building materials for commercial and residential construction. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W. R. Grace Expends $29.7Mil for Libby Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Total expense for W. R. Grace & Co. and certain of its current and former employees over a lawsuit concerning criminal activities at the Company's former vermiculite mine in Libby, Mont., was US$29.7 million at Dec. 31, 2008, US$19 million at Dec. 31, 2007, and US$52.7 million at Dec. 31, 2006. Cumulative expenses to address this matter were US$121.4 million through Dec. 31, 2008. Total expense over the Libby suit US$16.6 million for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008, compared with US$11.2 million for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 21, 2008) In February 2005, the U.S. Department of Justice announced the unsealing of a grand jury indictment against the Company and seven former senior level employees (one of whom is now deceased) (United States of America v. W. R. Grace & Co. et al) relating to vermiculite mining and processing activities in Libby. The indictment accuses the defendants of (1) conspiracy to violate environmental laws and obstruct federal agency proceedings; (2) violations of the federal Clean Air Act; and (3) obstruction of justice. The Company purchased the Libby mine in 1963 and operated it until 1990; vermiculite processing activities continued until 1992. The grand jury charges that the conspiracy took place from 1976 to 2002. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the Company could be subject to fines in an amount equal to twice the after-tax profit earned from its Libby operations or twice the alleged loss suffered by victims, plus additional amounts for restitution to victims. The indictment alleges that those after- tax profits were US$140 million. The Company has categorically denied any criminal wrongdoing. The trial began Feb. 19, 2009 and is expected to last three to four months. Under instructions issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, the Company is prohibited from making any public comments about the proceeding. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court previously granted the Company's request to advance legal and defense costs to the employees involved in this case, subject to a reimbursement obligation if it is later determined that the employees did not meet the standards for indemnification set forth under the appropriate state corporate law. The Company expects legal fees for this matter to be in the range of US$19 million to US$21 million per quarter from January 2009 through the end of the trial. Headquartered in Columbia, Md., W. R. Grace & Co. supplies catalysts and other products to petroleum refiners; catalysts for the manufacture of plastics; silica-based engineered and specialty materials for industrial applications; sealants and coatings for food and beverage packaging, and specialty chemicals, additives and building materials for commercial and residential construction. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace's Lawsuit in N.J. Stayed on Dec. 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, in December 2008, ordered a lawsuit against W. R. Grace & Co. stayed and administratively terminated. To the extent this lawsuit proceeds against the two former Grace employees, the Company may have an indemnification obligation. In 2005, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection filed a lawsuit against the Company and two former employees, which was removed at the Company's request to the District Court (N.J. Dept. of Environmental Protection v. W.R. Grace & Co. et al.). The suit seeks civil penalties for alleged misrepresentations and false statements made in a Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation Report and Negative Declarations submitted by the Company to the NJDEP in 1995 under the New Jersey Industrial Site Recovery Act. The Company submitted the report, which was prepared by an independent environmental consultant, in connection with the closing of the Company's former vermiculite expansion plant in Hamilton Township, N.J. In 2005, the Bankruptcy Court stayed this lawsuit. In April 2008, the Bankruptcy Court issued an opinion stating that the action filed by New Jersey was in violation of the automatic stay and enjoined further pursuit of all claims in the lawsuit and New Jersey appealed this order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In April 2007, New Jersey filed a motion for leave to file a late proof of claim in the amount of US$31 million with respect to substantially the same claims set forth in the lawsuit. In August 2007, the Bankruptcy Court denied this motion and the Delaware District Court affirmed this ruling on appeal in March 2008. In April 2008, New Jersey appealed this ruling to the Third Circuit. Headquartered in Columbia, Md., W. R. Grace & Co. supplies catalysts and other products to petroleum refiners; catalysts for the manufacture of plastics; silica-based engineered and specialty materials for industrial applications; sealants and coatings for food and beverage packaging, and specialty chemicals, additives and building materials for commercial and residential construction. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W. R. Grace Still Has Damage, Injury Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- W. R. Grace & Co. is still a defendant in property damage and personal injury lawsuits relating to previously sold asbestos- containing products. As of the April 2, 2001 bankruptcy Filing Date, the Company was a defendant in 65,656 asbestos-related lawsuits, 17 involving claims for property damage (one of which has since been dismissed), and the remainder involving 129,191 claims for personal injury. Due to the Filing, holders of asbestos-related claims are stayed from continuing to prosecute pending litigation and from commencing new lawsuits against the Debtors. The Personal Injury and Property Damage Committees, representing the interests of property damage and personal injury claimants, respectively, and the legal representative of future asbestos claimants (FCR), representing the interests of future personal injury claimants, have been appointed in the Chapter 11 Cases. The Company's obligations with respect to present and future claims will be determined through the Chapter 11 process. Cumulatively through the Filing Date, 16,354 asbestos personal injury lawsuits involving 35,720 PI Claims were dismissed without payment of any damages or settlement amounts (primarily on the basis that Grace products were not involved) and 55,489 lawsuits involving 163,698 PI Claims were disposed of (through settlements and judgments) for a total of US$645.6 million. As of the Filing Date, 129,191 PI claims for personal injury were pending against the Company. The Bankruptcy Court has entered a case management order for estimating liability for pending and future PI Claims. A trial for estimating liability for PI Claims began in January 2008 but was suspended in April 2008 as a result of the PI Settlement. Headquartered in Columbia, Md., W. R. Grace & Co. supplies catalysts and other products to petroleum refiners; catalysts for the manufacture of plastics; silica-based engineered and specialty materials for industrial applications; sealants and coatings for food and beverage packaging, and specialty chemicals, additives and building materials for commercial and residential construction. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Records 465 Damage Claims at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Following the reclassification, withdrawal or expungement of claims, W. R. Grace & Co., as of Dec. 31, 2008, said that about 465 asbestos-related Property Damage Claims, subject to a March 31, 2003 bar date, remain outstanding. The Bankruptcy Court has approved settlement agreements covering about 375 of those claims for an aggregate allowed amount of US$93 million. The plaintiffs in asbestos property damage lawsuits generally seek to have the defendants pay for the cost of removing, containing or repairing the asbestos-containing materials in the affected buildings. Out of 380 asbestos property damage cases (which involved thousands of buildings) filed prior to the April 2, 2001 bankruptcy Filing Date, 140 were dismissed without payment of any damages or settlement amounts; judgments after trial were entered in favor of the Company in nine cases (excluding cases settled following appeals of judgments in favor of the Company); judgments after trial were entered in favor of the plaintiffs in eight cases (one of which is on appeal) for a total of US$86.1 million; 207 property damage cases were settled for a total of US$696.8 million; and 16 cases remain outstanding (including the one on appeal). Of the 16 remaining cases, eight relate to the Company's Zonolite Attic Insulation (ZAI) product and eight relate to a number of former asbestos-containing products (two of which also are alleged to involve ZAI). About 4,300 additional PD claims were filed prior to the March 31, 2003 claims bar date established by the Bankruptcy Court. Eight of the ZAI cases were filed as purported class action lawsuits in 2000 and 2001. In addition, 10 lawsuits were filed as purported class actions in 2004 and 2005 with respect to persons and homes in Canada. These cases seek damages and equitable relief, including the removal, replacement and disposal of all such insulation. The plaintiffs assert that this product is in millions of homes and that the cost of removal could be several thousand dollars per home. As a result of the Filing, the eight U.S. cases have been stayed. The plaintiffs in the ZAI lawsuits (and the U.S. government in the Montana criminal proceeding) dispute the Company's position on the safety of ZAI. In October 2004, the Bankruptcy Court held a hearing on motions filed by the parties to address a number of important legal and factual issues regarding the ZAI claims. In December 2006, the Bankruptcy Court issued an opinion and order holding that, although ZAI is contaminated with asbestos and can release asbestos fibers when disturbed, there is no unreasonable risk of harm from ZAI. The ZAI claimants sought an interlocutory appeal of the opinion and order with the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, but that request was denied. In the event the Joint Plan is not confirmed, the ZAI claimants have reserved their right to appeal such opinion and order if and when it becomes a final order. At the Debtors' request, in July 2008, the Bankruptcy Court established a bar date for U.S. ZAI PD Claims and approved a related notice program that required any person with a U.S. ZAI PD Claim to submit an individual proof of claim no later than Oct. 31, 2008. About 16,200 U.S. ZAI PD Claims were filed prior to the Oct. 31, 2008 claims bar date and, as of Dec. 31, 2008 an additional 1,755 U.S. ZAI PD Claims were filed. On Oct. 17, 2008, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, in the Grace Canada, Inc. proceeding pending under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, approved the Minutes of Settlement that would settle all Canadian ZAI PD Claims on the terms of the Joint Plan. On Oct. 20, 2008, the Bankruptcy Court established Aug. 31, 2009 as the bar date for Canadian ZAI PD Claims. On Nov. 21, 2008, the Debtors, the Putative Class Counsel to the U.S. ZAI property damage claimants, the PD FCR, and the Equity Committee reached an agreement in principle designed to resolve all present and future U.S. ZAI PD Claims. Headquartered in Columbia, Md., W. R. Grace & Co. supplies catalysts and other products to petroleum refiners; catalysts for the manufacture of plastics; silica-based engineered and specialty materials for industrial applications; sealants and coatings for food and beverage packaging, and specialty chemicals, additives and building materials for commercial and residential construction. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Maintains $916Mil Coverage at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- W. R. Grace & Co. says that, as of Dec. 31, 2008, there remains about US$916 million of asbestos-related excess coverage from 53 presently solvent insurers. The Company holds insurance policies that provide coverage for 1962 to 1985 with respect to asbestos-related lawsuits and claims. For the most part, coverage for years 1962 through 1972 has been exhausted, leaving coverage for years 1973 through 1985 available for pending and future asbestos claims. Since 1985, insurance coverage for asbestos-related liabilities has not been commercially available to the Company. The Company has entered into settlement agreements with various excess insurance carriers. These settlements involve amounts paid and to be paid to the Company. The unpaid maximum aggregate amount available under these settlement agreements is about US$433 million. Presently, the Company has no agreements in place with insurers with respect to about US$483 million of excess coverage. Those policies are at layers of coverage that have not yet been triggered, but certain layers would be triggered if the Prior Plan were approved at the recorded asbestos-related liability of US$1.7 billion. In addition, the Company has US$253 million of excess coverage with insolvent or non-paying insurance carriers. Non-paying carriers are those that, although technically solvent, are not currently meeting their obligations to pay claims. The Company has filed and continues to file claims in the insolvency proceedings of these carriers. In November 2006, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with an underwriter of a portion of its excess insurance coverage. The insurer paid a settlement amount of US$90 million directly to an escrow account for the benefit of the holders of claims for which the Company was provided coverage under the affected policies. The escrow account balance was US$97.1 million at Dec. 31, 2008 and US$94.8 million at Dec. 31, 2007. Funds will be distributed from this account directly to claimants at the direction of the escrow agent under the terms of a confirmed plan of reorganization or as otherwise ordered by the Bankruptcy Court. The settlement agreement provides that unless the Company confirms a plan of reorganization by Dec. 31, 2008, at the option of the insurer, exercisable at any time prior to April 30, 2009, the escrow amount with interest must be returned to the insurer. The Company estimates that eligible claims would have to exceed US$4 billion to access total coverage. The Company further estimates that, assuming the resolution value of asbestos- related claims is equal to the recorded liability of US$1.7 billion (which should fund claim payments in excess of US$2 billion), it should be entitled to about US$500 million of insurance recovery, including the escrow. Headquartered in Columbia, Md., W. R. Grace & Co. supplies catalysts and other products to petroleum refiners; catalysts for the manufacture of plastics; silica-based engineered and specialty materials for industrial applications; sealants and coatings for food and beverage packaging, and specialty chemicals, additives and building materials for commercial and residential construction. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W. R.'s Grace Amended Plan Filed on Feb. 27 ---------------------------------------------------------------- W. R. Grace & Co. and its debtor subsidiaries, on Feb. 27, 2009, filed a proposed amended joint plan of reorganization, a proposed disclosure statement in support of the Joint Plan and certain proforma and prospective financial information with the Delaware Bankruptcy Court, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 27, 2009. The Disclosure Statement and proforma and prospective financial information have been prepared in accordance with Section 1125 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and Rule 3016 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. The Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants, the legal representative of future asbestos personal injury claimants and the Official Committee of Equity Security Holders are joint proponents of the Joint Plan. However, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, the Official Committee of Asbestos Property Damage Claimants and the legal representative of future asbestos property damage claimants are not proponents of the Joint Plan. The Joint Plan and the Disclosure Statement and the exhibits thereto amend the proposed Joint Plan of Reorganization and Disclosure Statement filed by the Debtors and the Joint Proponents on Sept. 19, 2008 and previously amended on Dec. 18, 2008 and Feb. 3, 2009. Headquartered in Columbia, Md., W. R. Grace & Co. supplies catalysts and other products to petroleum refiners; catalysts for the manufacture of plastics; silica-based engineered and specialty materials for industrial applications; sealants and coatings for food and beverage packaging, and specialty chemicals, additives and building materials for commercial and residential construction. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MetLife Unit Records 74,027 Claims at 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------- MetLife, Inc.'s subsidiary, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, recorded 74,027 asbestos personal injury claims at Dec. 31, 2008, compared with 79,717 claims at Dec. 31, 2007, according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2009. At Dec. 31, 2008, MLIC recorded 5,063 new claims during the year and made settlement payments of US$99 million during the year. At Dec. 31, 2007, MLIC recorded 7,161 new claims during the year and made settlement payments of US$28.2 million during the year. MLIC is and has been a defendant in a large number of asbestos- related suits filed primarily in state courts. These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages. The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with respect to certain research, publication and other activities of one or more of MLIC's employees during the period from the 1920s through about the 1950s and allege that MLIC learned or should have learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos and improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health risks. Claims asserted against MLIC have included negligence, intentional tort and conspiracy concerning the health risks associated with asbestos. During the course of the litigation, certain trial courts have granted motions dismissing claims against MLIC, while other trial courts have denied MLIC's motions to dismiss. During 1998, MLIC paid US$878 million in premiums for excess insurance policies for asbestos-related claims. The excess insurance policies for asbestos-related claims provided for recovery of losses up to US$1.5 billion in excess of a US$400 million self-insured retention. The Company's initial option to commute the excess insurance policies for asbestos-related claims would have arisen at the end of 2008. On Sept. 29, 2008, MLIC entered into agreements commuting the excess insurance policies as of Sept. 30, 2008. As a result of the commutation of the policies, MLIC received cash and securities totaling US$632 million. Of this total, MLIC received US$115 million in fixed maturity securities on Sept. 26, 2008, US$200 million in cash on Oct. 29, 2008, and US$317 million in cash on Jan. 29, 2009. MLIC recognized a loss on commutation of the policies in the amount of US$35.3 million during 2008. Headquartered in New York, MetLife, Inc. provides individual insurance, employee benefits and financial services with operations throughout the United States, Latin America, Europe, and Asia Pacific. The Company also offers life insurance, annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking and other financial services to individuals, as well as group insurance and retirement & savings products and services to corporations and other institutions. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ingersoll-Rand Has 63,308 Claims at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ingersoll-Rand Company Limited recorded 63,308 open asbestos claims of its legacy businesses at Dec. 31, 2008, compared with 100,623 claims at Dec. 31, 2007. At Dec. 31, 2008, the Company had 4,567 new claims filed; 3,693 claims settled; and 38,189 claims dismissed. At Dec. 31, 2007, the Company had 5,398 new claims filed; 5,005 claims settled; and 1,479 claims dismissed. Certain wholly owned subsidiaries of the Company are named as defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits in state and federal courts. In virtually all of the suits, a large number of other companies have also been named as defendants. Most of those claims has been filed against either Ingersoll-Rand Company (IR- New Jersey) or Trane Inc. and generally allege injury caused by exposure to asbestos contained in certain historical products sold by IR-New Jersey or Trane, primarily pumps, boilers and railroad brake shoes. From receipt of its first asbestos claims more than 25 years ago to Dec. 31, 2008, the Company has resolved (by settlement or dismissal) about 253,000 claims arising from the legacy Ingersoll Rand businesses. The total amount of all settlements paid by the Company (excluding insurance recoveries) and by its insurance carriers is US$351 million, for an average payment per resolved claim of US$1,387. The average payment per claim resolved during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008 was US$952. From receipt of the first asbestos claim more than 20 years ago through Dec. 31, 2008, the Company has resolved about 74,000 (by settlement or dismissal) claims arising from the legacy Trane business. The Company and its insurance carriers have paid settlements of about US$125.4 million on these claims, which represent an average payment per resolved claim of US$1,694. There were 98,339 open claims pending against Trane at Dec. 31, 2008, compared with 105,023 claims at Dec. 31, 2007. At Dec. 31, 2008, Trane had 3,626 new claims filed; 600 claims settled; and 9,710 claims dismissed. At Dec. 31, 2007, Trane had 3,019 claims filed; 740 claims settled; and 1,826 claims dismissed. At December 31, 2008, over 90 percent of the open claims against the Company are non-malignancy claims, many of which have been placed on inactive or deferral dockets and the vast majority of which have little or no settlement value against the Company, particularly in light of recent changes in the legal and judicial treatment of such claims. Headquartered in Hamilton, Bermuda, Ingersoll-Rand Company Limited provides products, services and solutions to improve air in homes and buildings, transport and protect food and perishables, secure homes and commercial properties, and increase industrial productivity and efficiency. The Company's businesses consist of Air Conditioning Systems and Services, Climate Control Technologies, Industrial Technologies and Security Technologies. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trane Still Engaged in Coverage Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ingersoll-Rand Company Limited's subsidiary, Trane Inc., continues to be in litigation against certain carriers whose policies it believes provide coverage for asbestos claims. The insurance carriers named in this suit have challenged Trane's right to recovery. Trane filed the action in April 1999 in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, against various primary and lower layer excess insurance carriers, seeking coverage for environmental claims (NJ Litigation). The NJ Litigation was later expanded to also seek coverage for asbestos-related liabilities from 21 primary and lower layer excess carriers and underwriting syndicates. The environmental claims against most of the insurers in the NJ Litigation have been settled. On Sept. 19, 2005, the court granted Trane's motion to add claims for insurance coverage for asbestos-related liabilities against 16 additional insurers and 117 new insurance policies to the NJ Litigation. The court also required the parties to submit all contested matters to mediation. Trane engaged in its first mediation session with the NJ Litigation defendants on Jan. 18, 2006 and has engaged in active discussions since that time. Trane has now settled with a substantial number of its insurers, collectively accounting for about 80 percent of its recorded asbestos-related liability insurance receivable as of Jan. 31, 2009. More specifically, effective Aug. 26, 2008, Trane entered into a coverage-in-place agreement with the following five insurance companies or groups: 1) Hartford; 2) Travelers; 3) Allstate (solely in its capacity as successor-in-interest to Northbrook Excess & Surplus Insurance Company); 4) Dairyland Insurance Company; and 5) AIG. The August 26 Agreement provides for the reimbursement by the insurer signatories of a portion of Trane's costs for asbestos bodily injury claims under specified terms and conditions and in exchange for certain releases and indemnifications from Trane. In addition, on Sept. 12, 2008, Trane entered into a settlement agreement with Mt. McKinley Insurance Company and Everest Reinsurance Company, both members of the Everest Re group, resolving all claims in the NJ Litigation involving policies issued by those companies. The Everest Re Agreement contains elements, including policy buy-outs and partial buy-outs in exchange for a cash payment along with coverage-in-place features similar to those contained in the August 26 Agreement, in exchange for certain releases and indemnifications by Trane. More recently, on Jan. 26, 2009, Trane entered into a coverage- in-place agreement with Columbia Casualty Company, Continental Casualty Company, and Continental Insurance Company in its own capacity and as successor-in-interest to Harbor Insurance Company and London Guarantee & Accident Company of New York. The CNA Agreement provides for the reimbursement by the insurer signatories of a portion of Trane's costs for indemnification from Trane. Trane remains in settlement negotiations with the insurer defendants in the NJ Litigation not encompassed within the August 26 Agreement, Everest Re Agreement, and the CNA Agreement. Once concluded, the Company said it believes NJ Litigation will resolve coverage issues with respect to about 95 percent of Trane's recorded insurance receivable in connection with asbestos-related liabilities. Headquartered in Hamilton, Bermuda, Ingersoll-Rand Company Limited provides products, services and solutions to improve air in homes and buildings, transport and protect food and perishables, secure homes and commercial properties, and increase industrial productivity and efficiency. The Company's businesses consist of Air Conditioning Systems and Services, Climate Control Technologies, Industrial Technologies and Security Technologies. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ingersoll-Rand Reports $1.195B Liability ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ingersoll-Rand Company Limited's liability for asbestos-related matters totaled US$1.195 billion at Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$754.9 million. The Company's asset for probable asbestos-related insurance recoveries totaled US$423.8 million at Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$249.8 million at Dec. 31, 2007. Headquartered in Hamilton, Bermuda, Ingersoll-Rand Company Limited provides products, services and solutions to improve air in homes and buildings, transport and protect food and perishables, secure homes and commercial properties, and increase industrial productivity and efficiency. The Company's businesses consist of Air Conditioning Systems and Services, Climate Control Technologies, Industrial Technologies and Security Technologies. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PICO Makes $500T Claims Reserve at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- PICO Holdings, Inc.'s insurance subsidiary, Citation Insurance Company, created a new reserve of US$500,000 for asbestos claims during 2008, according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2009. Citation did not previously have a separate reserve for asbestos claims, but an increasing number of asbestos claims have been received in recent years. Typically, the asbestos claims are shared among a number of workers' compensation carriers, and Citation's share of total settlements is less than 10 percent. COMPANY PROFILE: PICO Holdings, Inc. 875 Prospect Street, Suite 301 La Jolla, Calif. 92037 Tel. No.: (858) 456-6022 Description: PICO Holdings, Inc. invests in undervalued businesses and has assets various industries. Among the Company's investments are Vidler Water Company and Nevada Land & Resource. The Company's insurance subsidiaries, Citation Insurance Company and Physicians Insurance Company of Ohio, are running off their historical property/casualty, workers' compensation, and medical professional liability insurance loss reserves. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Markel Has $168.2MM Net Reserves at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Markel Corporation's asbestos-related reserves, at Dec. 31, 2008, were US$168.2 million on a net basis and US$304.7 million on a gross basis, according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2009. Net reserves for reported claims (US$129.4 million) and net incurred but not reported reserves (US$108.9 million) were recorded for asbestos and environmental exposures at Dec. 31, 2008. Inception-to-date net paid losses and loss adjustment expenses for A&E related exposures totaled US$331.7 million at Dec. 31, 2008, which includes US$56.9 million of litigation-related expense. The favorable development on prior years' loss reserves in 2008 was partially offset by US$24.9 million of adverse development on prior years' loss reserves on asbestos and environmental exposures and related reinsurance bad debt. Headquartered in Glen Allen, Va., Markel Corporation markets and underwrites specialty insurance products and programs to niche markets. The Company has three segments: the Excess and Surplus Lines, the Specialty Admitted and the London markets. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Baldor Continues to Face Exposure Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Baldor Electric Company continues to be a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos that was allegedly used in certain components of its products many years ago, according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2009. Currently, there are hundreds of claimants in lawsuits that name the Company as a defendant, together with hundreds of other companies. The great bulk of the complaints do not identify any of the Company's products or specify which of these claimants, if any, were exposed to asbestos attributable to the Company's products. Past experience has shown that most of the claimants will never identify any of the Company's products. Headquartered in Fort Smith, Ark., Baldor Electric Company markets, designs, and manufactures industrial electric motors, mechanical power transmission products, drives, and generators, currently supplying over 9,500 customers in more than 160 industries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Georgia-Pacific Still Facing Injury Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- BlueLinx Holdings Inc. says that Georgia-Pacific Corporation faces suits brought in various courts around the nation by plaintiffs who allege that they have suffered personal injury as a result of exposure to products containing asbestos. These suits allege lung and other diseases based on alleged exposure to products previously manufactured by Georgia-Pacific. The Company was created on March 8, 2004 as a Georgia corporation named ABP Distribution Holdings Inc. ABP was owned by Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., a private, New York-based investment firm, and members of the Company's management team. Before May 7, 2004, certain of the Company's assets were owned by the distribution division of Georgia-Pacific. It could be possible that circumstances may arise under which asbestos-related claims against Georgia-Pacific could cause the Company to incur substantial costs, according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2009. Headquartered in Atlanta, BlueLinx Holdings Inc., operating through its wholly owned subsidiary, BlueLinx Corporation, distributes building products in the United States. As of Jan. 3, 2009, the Company distributed more than 10,000 products to about 11,500 customers through more than 70 warehouses and third-party operated warehouses. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Joy Global Still Facing Liability Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joy Global Inc. and its subsidiaries continue to be involved in various unresolved legal matters that arise in the normal course of operations, the most prevalent of which relate to product liability (including asbestos-related and silicosis liability), employment and commercial matters. No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2009. Headquartered in Milwaukee, Joy Global Inc. manufactures and services high-productivity mining equipment for the extraction of coal and other minerals and ores. The Company's equipment is used in mining regions throughout the world to mine coal, copper, iron ore, oil sands and other minerals. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PMA Cites $29.5MM Gross Reserves at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- PMA Capital Corporation's gross reserves for asbestos-related losses were US$29.5 million at Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$25.7 million at Dec. 31, 2007, according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2009. The Company's reserves for asbestos-related losses, net of reinsurance, were US$11.4 million at Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$10.8 million at Dec. 31, 2007. Discontinued operations' gross reserves for asbestos-related losses were US$7.9 million at Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$7.5 million at Dec. 31, 2007. Discontinued operations' reserves for asbestos-related losses, net of reinsurance, were US$1.3 million at Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$1.6 million at Dec. 31, 2006. Headquartered in Blue Bell, Pa., PMA Capital Corporation is a holding company whose operating subsidiaries provide insurance and fee-based services. The Company's insurance products include workers' compensation and other commercial property and casualty lines of insurance, which are marketed primarily in the eastern part of the United States. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hexion Still Involved in Liability Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc. continues to be involved in asbestos-related product liability actions, according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2009. Headquartered in Columbus, Ohio, Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc. produces thermosetting resins, or thermosets. Thermosets are used in paints, coatings, glues and other adhesives produced for consumer or industrial uses. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Motor Faces 3,650 Cases at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Standard Motor Corporation says that, at Dec. 31, 2008, about 3,650 asbestos-related cases were outstanding for which it was responsible for related liabilities, according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2009. At Sept. 30, 2008, the Company had about 3,620 asbestos-related cases outstanding for which it was responsible for related liabilities. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 14, 2008) In 1986, the Company acquired a brake business, which it subsequently sold in March 1998. When it acquired this brake business, the Company assumed future liabilities relating to any alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured by the seller of the acquired brake business. In accordance with the related purchase agreement, the Company agreed to assume the liabilities for all new claims filed after Sept. 1, 2001. Since inception in September 2001 through Dec. 31, 2008, the amounts paid for settled claims are about US$7.1 million. The Company recorded an after-tax gain charge of US$1.8 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2008 and US$3.2 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007 as loss from discontinued operation to account for legal expenses and potential costs associated with its asbestos-related liability. The Company is responsible for certain future liabilities relating to alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products. In accordance with its accounting policy, the Company's actuarial study as of Aug. 31, 2008 estimated an undiscounted liability for settlement payments, excluding legal costs, ranging from US$25.3 million to US$69.2 million for the period through 2059. As a result, in 2008 an incremental US$2.1 million provision in the Company's discontinued operation was added to the asbestos accrual increasing the reserve to about US$25.3 million as of that date. Headquartered in Long Island City, N.Y., Standard Motor Products, Inc. manufactures engine management and air- conditioning replacement parts for the automotive aftermarket. Products include ignition and electrical parts, emission and engine controls, voltage regulators, sensors, ignition wires, and distributor caps and rotors. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: State Auto Fin'l. Reserves $3.4M for Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- State Auto Financial Corporation's asbestos reserves were US$3.4 million for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2009. Asbestos reserves increased US$200,000 from 2007. Headquartered in Columbus, Ohio, State Auto Financial Corporation writes both personal and business lines of insurance. The Company owns State Auto P&C, Milbank, Farmers, SA Ohio, and SA National, each of which is a property and casualty insurance company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Houston Wire Faces Injury Suits in 3 States ---------------------------------------------------------------- Houston Wire & Cable Company, along with many other defendants, faces asbestos lawsuits in the state courts of Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota, according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2009. The suits allege that certain wire and cable, which may have contained asbestos, caused injury to the plaintiffs who were exposed to this wire and cable. These lawsuits are individual personal injury suits that seek unspecified amounts of money damages as the sole remedy. It is not clear whether the alleged injuries occurred as a result of the wire and cable in question or whether the Company, in fact, distributed the wire and cable alleged to have caused any injuries. The Company maintains general liability insurance that has applied to these claims. To date, all costs associated with these claims have been covered by the applicable insurance policies and all defense of these claims has been handled by the applicable insurance companies. In addition, the Company did not manufacture any of the wire and cable at issue, and it would rely on any warranties from the manufacturers of such cable if it were determined that any of the wire or cable that the Company distributed contained asbestos which caused injury to any of these plaintiffs. In connection with ALLTEL Corporation's sale of the Company in 1997, ALLTEL provided indemnities with respect to costs and damages associated with these claims. Headquartered in Houston, Houston Wire & Cable Company distributes specialty wire and cable and related services to the U.S. electrical distribution market. During 2008, the Company served about 3,200 customers. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 27 New Suits Filed in Madison on March 2-6 ---------------------------------------------------------------- During the week of March 2, 2009 through March 6, 2009, a total of 27 new asbestos-related lawsuits were filed in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports. These claims are: -- (Case No. 09-L-0190) John Bunting of Illinois claims mesothelioma on behalf of his recently deceased father, Robert Bunting, who worked as a street car conductor, cable splicer and supply room clerk. Amy E. Garrett, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represents John Bunting. -- (Case No. 09-L-0215) Frank Carrier of Indiana claims mesothelioma on behalf of his deceased wife, Nancy Carrier, who worked as a production worker. Timothy F. Thompson Jr., Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represents Mr. Carrier. -- (Case No. 09-L-0226) Charles R. Chew Jr. and Frances Chew of New York claim Mr. Chew developed mesothelioma after his work as a laborer, boiler worker, and night watchman. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Alton, Ill., represent the Chews. -- (Case No. 09-L-0214) Thomas Clark of Illinois claims mesothelioma on behalf of his recently deceased father, Frank J. Clark, who worked as an electrician. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., represent Thomas Clark. -- (Case No. 09-L-0218) William and Sharon Dillon of Indiana claim Mr. Dillon developed mesothelioma after his work as a laborer, conveyor leader, warehouse and stockroom worker and metal lathe worker. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Alton, Ill., represent the Dillons. -- (Case No. 09-L-0225) Lucy G. Fabrizius of Kansas claims mesothelioma on behalf of her deceased husband, Kenneth G. Fabrizius, who worked as a grinder, welder, farmer, and cattler. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., represent Mrs. Fabrizius. -- (Case No. 09-L-0222) Ruth Geiger of Ohio claims mesothelioma on behalf of her deceased husband, Charles Geiger, who worked as a superintendent of street, water, sewer and cemetery and as a laborer in the construction industry. G. Michael Stewart, Esq., and Jill Price, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent Mrs. Geiger. -- (Case No. 09-L-0192) Carol Grass of Washington claims mesothelioma on behalf of her deceased father, Stephen Major, who worked from as a drywall installer, floorer, sewer and plumber. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent Mrs. Grass. -- (Case No. 09-L-0209) Ronald Haug of Minnesota, a cook, truck driver and press operator, claims mesothelioma. He was also exposed to asbestos fibers through a family member, Marlis Haug, who worked as a laborer. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent Mr. Haug. -- (Case No. 09-L-0191) Linda Herzing of Illinois claims lung cancer on behalf of her deceased husband, Willard Herzing, who worked as a core helper, core maker, core finisher and boiler tender. Amy E. Garrett, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represents Mrs. Herzing. -- (Case No. 09-L-0201) Robert and Evelyn Heward of Michigan claim Mr. Heward developed mesothelioma after his work as a laborer and security guard. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Alton, Ill., represent the Hewards. -- (Case No. 09-L-0205) Andrea Huston claims mesothelioma on behalf of her deceased father, Andrew Balzano, who worked from as a laborer. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent Mrs. Huston. -- (Case No. 09-L-0195) Diana Jones of Kentucky, a nurses' aide, assembly line worker, seamstress, sewing machine operator and physician's assistant, claims mesothelioma. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent Ms. Jones. -- (Case No. 09-L-0206) Jewell Jones claims mesothelioma on behalf of his deceased mother, Gertie Jones, who worked as a nurses' aide. Mrs. Jones was also exposed to asbestos through her family member, Herschel Jones, who worked as a coal miner. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent Jewell Jones. -- (Case No. 09-L-0223) Victoria Martinez of Colorado, a manufacturer and clerical worker, claims mesothelioma. She was also exposed to asbestos through her husband, who worked for the railroad. G. Michael Stewart, Esq., and Jill Price, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent Mrs. Martinez. -- (Case No. 09-L-0196) Thomas and Kathryn Mershon of Ohio claim Mr. Mershon developed mesothelioma after his work as a laborer, mechanic and manager. Shane F. Hampton, Esq., Paul M. Dix, Esq., and Courtney Harashe, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent the Mershons. -- (Case No. 09-L-0200) Elaine McCann of Washington claims mesothelioma. She was exposed to asbestos through her father, Benjamin Walker, who worked as a welder and mechanic and through her husband, Tom McCann, who worked in the automobile industry. Brian J. Cooke, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represents Mrs. McCann. -- (Case No. 09-L-0207) Connie Montana claims mesothelioma on behalf of her deceased husband, Gustavo Montana, who worked as a welder, tool maker and jig fixture maker. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent Mrs. Montana. -- (Case No. 09-L-0197) Susan and Brocton Norman of Oregon claim Mrs. Brocton developed mesothelioma after her work as a secretary and nurse. She was also exposed to asbestos through her father, who worked as a longshoreman. Shane F. Hampton, Esq., Paul M. Dix, Esq., and Courney Harashe, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent the Normans. -- (Case No. 09-L-0227) Kimberly Parks of Missouri, a laborer, claims mesothelioma. She was also exposed to asbestos fibers through several of her relatives, including her father, who worked as a printer; her grandfather, who worked as a carpenter; her cousin, who worked as an electrician; and her uncle. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Alton, Ill., represent Ms. Parks. -- (Case No. 09-L-0204) James K. Richardson claims lung cancer on behalf of his deceased father, James A. Richardson, who worked from 1968 until 1990 as a laborer and heavy equipment operator at various locations. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent Mr. Richardson. -- (Case No. 09-L-0194) Francis Russo of New Hampshire, a construction worker and mason, claims lung cancer. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent Mr. Russo. -- (Case No. 09-L-0221) Cora Smith of Florida claims mesothelioma on behalf of her deceased husband, Donald Mark Smith, who worked as an electrician. G. Michael Stewart, Esq., and Jill Price, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent Mrs. Smith. -- (Case No. 09-L-0202) Mary Beth Smith of Ohio claims mesothelioma on behalf of her deceased husband, Robert M. Smith, who worked as a boiler worker, hose maker and laborer. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Alton, Ill., represent Mrs. Smith. -- (Case No. 09-L-0208) Donald Winnings of Indiana, a carpenter, heavy equipment operator and welder claims lung cancer. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent Mr. Winnings. -- (Case No. 09-L-0224) Pamela and William Wright of Illinois claim Mrs. Wright developed mesothelioma after her work as a teacher and through her father, who worked as a carpenter and laborer. Shane F. Hampton, Esq., Paul M. Dix, Esq., and Courtney Harashe, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent the Wrights. -- (Case No. 09-L-0193) Eugene Zweigle of Massachusetts, a carpenter, patent maker and maintenance worker at various locations claims mesothelioma. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represents Mr. Zweigle. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DuPont Motion in Whisnant OK'd on March 12 ---------------------------------------------------------------- An order approving a motion for continuance filed by E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company was filed on March 12, 2009 in Jefferson County District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports. In February 2009, DuPont petitioned the Supreme Court of Texas to enforce a civil jury verdict in the Company's favor after being shut down by a district court and an appeals court. The retrial of Willis Whisnant Jr. et al vs. DuPont was first set to begin on Feb. 9, 2009 but was reset and slated for April 2009. Now, the new trial has been put on hold indefinitely while the Supreme Court examines the case. DuPont filed a motion for continuance on Feb. 18, asking 172nd District Judge Donald Floyd to indefinitely approve its motion while the Supreme Court evaluated the case. In 2008, DuPont's attorneys convinced a Jefferson County jury that the Company was not responsible for former contractor Whisnant's mesothelioma. A few months later, Judge Floyd granted Mr. Whisnant's motion for a new trial and set the date for Feb. 9, 2009. DuPont attorneys appealed the judge's ruling, and on July 24, 2008, the Texas Ninth District Court of Appeals denied the Company's writ of mandamus. DuPont then filed a petition for writ of mandamus in Texas' Supreme Court. The trial of the case styled Whisnant et al vs. DuPont (Case No. E159-183-Q) was held in February 2008 and March 2008. The plaintiffs claimed that Mr. Whisnant contracted mesothelioma and died because of his exposure to asbestos at DuPont's Sabine River Works. Mr. Whisnant was a former B.F. Shaw pipe fitter who worked at DuPont back in 1966 as an independent contractor. Jurors found no negligence on the part of DuPont and awarded nothing to Mr. Whisnant's family. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bush Action v. 37 Firms Filed in Tex. Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joyce Bush, on behalf of her late husband Donnie Ray Bush, on March 13, 2009, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 37 defendant corporations in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas, The Southeast Texas Record reports. Mrs. Bush claims her husband died on March 25, 2007, from lung cancer after 25 years of work-related asbestos exposure. Defendants include: A.W. Chesterton Co., CertainTeed Corp., Crown Cork and Seal Co., Foster Wheeler Energy Corp., Garlock Sealing Technologies, General Electric Co., Georgia Pacific, H.B. Fuller Co., Honeywell International Inc., IMO Industries, Ingersoll-Rand Co., John Crane Co., McMaster-Carr Supply Co., Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Owens-Illinois, Parker Seal Group, SEPCO, J. Graves Insulation Co., Tuthill Corp., Union Carbide, Uniroyal Holding, Viacom, Vulcan Iron Works, Zurn Industries, Conoco Philips Co., Chevron Phillips and the Dow Chemical Co. According to the suit, Mr. Bush worked from 1967 to 1992 as a heavy equipment operator for Job Corp., on a drilling rig for East Texas Drilling, as a heavy equipment operator for John Wadell Construction, a furnace worker for LeTourneau, Inc., a carpenter for Roscoe Adams Carpet Service, in maintenance for DRECO and as a furnace worker for Norris Industries. The lawsuit alleges the defendants manufactured, distributed, and supplied asbestos, asbestos fibers and asbestos-containing products in which Mr. Bush was exposed. Mrs. Bush brings a survival claim seeking damages for the deceased's conscious pain and suffering, mental anguish, medical, funeral, and burial expenses. The lawsuit also seeks damages for loss of income, impairment, and loss of enjoyment of life. Mrs. Bush requests a trial by jury and is represented by Marshall attorneys D. Scott Carlile, Esq., and Paul W. Turner, Esq., of The Carlile Law Firm LLP. U.S. District Judge T. John Ward will preside over Case No. 2:09cv074 and has referred the case to Magistrate Judge Charles Everingham for pretrial proceedings. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fortier Widow to Get $2.6MM in Compensation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Port Orange, Fla., resident, Gail Fortier, has won nearly US$2.6 million in asbestos-related compensation after a trial that concluded on March 12, 2009, in which she fought for the wrongful death of her husband, former U.S. Navy firefighter David Fortier, Asbestos.com reports. Mrs. Fortier will receive US$2,595,000 from Allis-Chalmers Corp. Mr. Fortier died at the age of 59 as a result of mesothelioma. Mr. Fortier worked on the USS Forrestal aircraft carrier as a fireman for the majority of his service in the U.S. Navy, which lasted from 1969 to 1972. The USS Forrestal was constructed at Newport News Shipbuilding, a shipyard known to have used asbestos-contaminated materials in the creation of ships and vessels in Virginia. According to Mrs. Fortier's attorney, Mr. Fortier worked on pumps and other equipment heavily insulated with asbestos while serving on the ship. The products were manufactured by Allis- Chalmers. Mr. Fortier was diagnosed with mesothelioma in October 2006 and filed a lawsuit in December 2006. He died on June 20, 2008. The six-person jury deliberated for less than a day and a half after the two-month trial concluded. The trial took place before Judge David Tobin in Connecticut and is the first asbestos- related case to go to verdict in Connecticut in 20 years. The Fortiers used to reside in Connecticut. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Baron & Budd Resolves 6 Injury Suits in Pa. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C. announced that lawsuits brought by the families of six Pennsylvania men who died of malignant mesothelioma were successfully resolved this past week, according to a Baron & Budd press release dated March 16, 2009. The deceased men (an electrician, a carpenter, a pipefitter, a maintenance worker, a weekend home remodeler, and a Navy sailor) had all been the victims of occupational asbestos exposure. Three of the cases settled before verdict for more than US$1 million each. The remaining three cases were tried to verdict against Ericsson Inc., Georgia-Pacific Corporation, and Melrath Gasket Inc. In what is believed to be the nation's first asbestos verdict against a wiring manufacturer, an electrician was exposed to asbestos in the lining of certain Anaconda electrical wiring that he used while working at a printing company. The six Philadelphia cases involved: -- An electrician who was exposed to asbestos in the lining of certain Ericsson, Inc. "Anaconda brand" electrical wiring. -- A professional carpenter and remodeler who was exposed to Georgia-Pacific asbestos-containing joint compound. -- A weekend and evenings home remodeler who was exposed to Georgia-Pacific asbestos-containing joint compound. -- A maintenance worker who was exposed to asbestos fireproofing and gaskets in boilers made by Kewanee, now known as Oakfabco; -- A pipefitter who for many years was exposed to asbestos- containing pipe insulation and asbestos gaskets used to join hundreds of miles of pipe at a large chemical plant.; and -- A Navy sailor who was exposed to asbestos-containing gaskets made by Crane Co. Baron & Budd attorneys John Langdoc, Esq., Eric Brown, Esq., and Chris Norris, Esq., represented the families at trial. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup at Ark. Courthouse to Cost $20,842 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Washington County, Ark., on March 16, 2009, awarded Snyder Environmental & Construction a US$20,842 bid to remove asbestos from the 1905 historic courthouse in Fayetteville, Ark., The Morning News reports. Snyder is a certified asbestos remover and estimated that the job will take one month. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Inland Worker Sues 21 Firms in Hammond ---------------------------------------------------------------- James H. Johnson, a former Inland Steel worker, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 21 companies in federal court in Hammond, Ind., Trading Markets reports. The lawsuit claims Mr. Johnson worked near the allegedly harmful products in 34 years at the East Chicago, Ind., steel plant. Inland Steel is defunct, and the companies named in the suit all are based outside Indiana. The suit accuses the companies of negligently manufacturing and selling products that exposed Mr. Johnson to asbestos dust or fibers. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asarco's Policies Exclude Asbestosis Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge J. Manuel Banales of the 105th Judicial District Court of Nueces County, Tex., ruled that Asarco LLC's insurance policies exclude only asbestosis claims and not other asbestos-related diseases, Reuters reports. The ruling paves the way for Asarco to seek US$60 million in insurance coverage. Asarco filed for bankruptcy in 2005 after it was sued for US$1 billion over environmental cleanup and asbestos claims. In a motion filed with the Court in April 2008, Asarco had asked Judge Manuel Banales to hold that the "asbestosis exclusion" in its insurance policies with Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. should refer to only claims arising out of the specific disease and to none of the many other conditions caused by exposure to asbestos. Asarco's lead counsel, Rhonda Orin, said, "The ruling will affect more than 100,000 claimants." She added, "It's a partial summary judgment -- meaning the case isn't over, but this issue is over. It is now the law of the case." The Company bought three excess insurance policies from Fireman's Fund Insurance in the 1980s. All three policies excluded claims arising out of asbestosis and silicosis. In a response to Asarco's motion, Fireman's Fund had said the move boiled down to a "disingenuous attempt" by Asarco to obtain a potential US$60 million windfall for claims that were meant to be excluded from coverage. Earlier this month, India's Sterlite Industries agreed to pay US$1.7 billion in cash and notes to buy Asarco. Case No. 01-2680-D is styled Asarco LLC et al vs. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co et al, 105th Judicial District Court, Nueces County, Tex. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Plumber to Gain GBP145T in Compensation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Colin Gardner, who worked as an apprentice plumber for C Watson and Sons between 1957 and 1961, has been successful in his bid to win GBP145,000 in compensation, Russell Jones & Walker Solicitors reports. Mr. Gardner was diagnosed with mesothelioma in November 2007. He developed the condition as a result of having been exposed to asbestos at C Watson and Sons. Judge Sir Robert Nelson ruled that Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance, which provided cover for the firm during the period in question, should pay out GBP145,000. Moreover, Royal and Sun was ordered to cover Mr. Gardner's legal costs, which are thought to be more than GBP40,000. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Electrician's Death Linked to Exposure ---------------------------------------------------------------- An inquest heard that the death of 76-year-old John Scott, a retired electrician from Sellafield, England, was linked to exposure to asbestos, the North-West Evening Mail reports. Mr. Scott died died at the West Cumberland Hospital on June 27, 2008 from the industrial disease mesothelioma. He had worked at Sellafield from 1958 to 1993. Fellow worker Alan Cathrall told the inquest how they had been exposed to the substance. He said, "Asbestos dust fell like snow inside the reactor building when lagging was removed." West Cumbria coroner John Taylor ruled that Mr. Scott died from industrial disease. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 2 Maryland Schools Resolve AHERA Breaches ---------------------------------------------------------------- The mid-Atlantic office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, on March 12, 2009, announced that the owners of the school buildings for the Grace Cooperative Nursery in Aberdeen, Md., and the Maryland School for the Blind in Baltimore, have settled violations of a federal law on the management of asbestos materials in school buildings, according to an EPA press release dated March 12, 2009. The Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) requires owners and operators of buildings in which private non-profit schools are operated to develop a management plan for asbestos- containing materials, detailing procedures to prevent asbestos releases. The management plan must be available at the school, with annual notification to parent, teacher and employee organizations of the plan and any asbestos abatement activities. Schools must train personnel on AHERA compliance, and conduct inspections and periodic surveillance of asbestos-containing materials. The settlements announced on March 12, 2009 resolved alleged AHERA violations at the schools for which EPA assessed penalties. The school building owners, Grace United Methodist Church and Maryland School for the Blind, have certified that non-penalty AHERA violations also discovered at the respective schools have been corrected. Consistent with the law, EPA has reduced potential penalties because of the expenditures for AHERA compliance. As part of the settlements, neither Grace United Methodist Church nor Maryland School for the Blind admitted nor denied the alleged violations, but have certified compliance with applicable AHERA requirements. At the Maryland School for the Blind, a 2007 inspection, conducted by the Maryland Department of the Environment, resulted in several findings of violations, including three that involved the assessment of penalties: failing to reinspect all areas containing asbestos in each school building at least once every three years, failing to annually notify in writing parent, teacher, and employee organizations of the availability of the asbestos management plan, and failing to include the school's Russo Art Center in the school management plan. Penalty: none after the expenditure of US$7,089 in AHERA compliance costs. At the Grace Cooperative Nursery School, an inspection conducted in 2007 by the Maryland Department of the Environment, resulted in several findings of violations, including two that involved the assessment of penalties: failing to reinspect all areas containing asbestos in each school building at least once every three years, and failing to include pertinent information in the required asbestos management plan such as a plan for reinspection and recommendations to the local environmental agency regarding emergency response actions. Penalty: US$4,525 after the expenditure of US$1,000 in AHERA compliance costs. The settlements are part of EPA's ongoing efforts to work throughout the mid-Atlantic states to reduce asbestos hazards in schools. EPA offers compliance assistance for public, private, charter and parochial schools, and has conducted outreach at educational conferences. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Segarra Seeks "Fee for Searching Records" ---------------------------------------------------------------- Radiologist Jay Segarra, on March 4, 2009, requested a "fee for searching his records" as he attempts to comply with U.S. District Judge Eduardo Robreno of Philadelphia's order. Mr. Segarra also asked for 120 days to comply, rather than 20 days. Judge Robreno, responsible for about 90,000 asbestos suits from around the nation, stripped Mr. Segarra of doctor-patient privilege in February. Judge Robreno wrote, "Doctor Segarra was not consulted by the plaintiffs in order to provide treatment. Rather, he was consulted by plaintiffs to provide a diagnosis, which would be relied upon by the individual plaintiffs to support a personal injury claim." Judge Robreno refused to define Mr. Segarra as a health care provider for purposes of federal law that protects privacy of patient records. The judge refused to define Mr. Segarra as a non-testifying expert, safe from subpoena. Judge Robreno ordered Segarra "to produce all information relating to diagnosing reports or opinions for plaintiffs with claims currently pending" before the judge. Mr. Segarra's lawyer, Matthew Mestayer, Esq., of Biloxi, Miss., responded that Mr. Segarra doesn't know their names. Mr. Mestayer wrote, "Dr. Segarra must be provided with a list of the names of plaintiffs who have claims currently pending." While targets of asbestos suits seek to hold Mr. Segarra accountable in Judge Robreno's court, one target seeks accountability in federal court at Jackson, Miss. National Services Industries sued Mr. Segarra in February 2009, claiming he led a conspiracy to supply asbestos lawyers with phony X-ray reports. NSI seeks damages from Mr. Segarra and others, claiming it lost US$80 million to the conspiracy. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Taylor's Suit v. 57 Firms Filed on March 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The family of Gerald C. Taylor Sr., of Nederland, Tex., filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 57 defendant corporations in Jefferson County District Court on March 2, 2009, The Southeast Texas Record reports. On behalf of herself and Florenda Gale Gonzales and Gerald C. Taylor Jr., Delores Del Taylor claims Gerald C. Taylor Sr. died from asbestos disease on June 6, 2006. Gerald C. Taylor Sr. worked as a boilermaker, heavy equipment operator, sandblaster, shipfitter and lab technician in Port Neches, Tex., at Uniroyal, Texas US Chemical, Texaco Butadiene, Synpol, Texaco, Neches Butane, Uniroyal Goodrich Tire and Ameripol-Synpol as well as in Galveston, Tex., at the Todd Shipyard. These companies are named as "premises defendants" in the lawsuit. Other defendant companies are generally the manufacturers and marketers of the asbestos containing products or companies that sold, supplied, installed and marketed the asbestos containing products. Defendants listed include American Petroleum Institute, Bechtel Group Inc., CertainTeed Corporation, Chevron Corporation, Fluor Corporation, Foster Wheeler Ltd., General Refractories, H.B. Zachry Company, Holman Boiler Works Inc, Huntsman Corporation, Michelin North America Inc., Owens-Illinois Inc., Superior Boiler Works and Welding Limited, Trinity Construction Enterprises Inc., Washington Group, and Zurn Industries. Delores Del Taylor states Gerald C. Taylor Sr. was exposed to asbestos fibers through thermal and electrical insulation products, flooring materials, textiles, gaskets, wicking and packing, mastics, cement products, coatings and asbestos mineral used at his work places. She claims his disease was caused after he was exposed to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers. Delores Del Taylor seeks punitive damages in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of the court, plus pre- and post- judgment interest, costs and other relief to which she is entitled. Glen W. Morgan, Esq., and Chris Portner, Esq., of Reaud, Morgan and Quinn in Beaumont, Tex., represent Delores Del Taylor. Case No. B183-414 has been assigned to Judge Gary Sanderson, 60th District Court. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NHS Managers Suspended Over Exposure Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Three unnamed senior managers of NHS Wales were suspended and an investigation was launched over claims that hospital workers were exposed to asbestos, the South Wales Echo reports. Their suspension follows allegations that they took no action to deal with asbestos despite warnings. The managers all work for the newly formed Cwm Taf NHS Trust, which runs hospitals in Rhondda Cynon Taff and Merthyr Tydfil. Health and Safety Executive officials say they are investigating the asbestos scare which appears to center on the boiler-house, laundry and service ducts of the old East Glamorgan Hospital site in Church Village, Wales. An HSE spokesman said, "We are currently inspecting Cwm Taf NHS Trust over concerns raised on the management of asbestos at the trust. As the inspection is currently ongoing it is not appropriate to make any further comment at this stage." A Cwm Taf sspokeswoman said, "The trust is able to confirm that three managers have been suspended from duty while further investigations are conducted." It is understood the managers were suspended on March 11, 1009 and the HSE started their investigations on March 13, 2009. Andrea Jones, a regional officer for Unite – which represents the health workers who may have been exposed to asbestos – said, "Concerns were raised two months ago by our members and we have since taken legal advice and are now working with the trust to resolve this issue. They are no longer working in the areas that have been identified and the HSE is investigating." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Probe Ongoing at Ash Grove Cement in Mont. ---------------------------------------------------------------- An asbestos-related investigation is ongoing at the Ash Grove Cement Co. operation near Helena, Mont., the Associated Press reports. Employees were told not to report for work until instructed to do so. In a statement released on March 16, 2009, the Company said that what appears to be tremolite, a type of asbestos, has been identified in one section of its limestone Quarry at Montana City about seven miles south of Helena. The Company said independent analysts had been called to examine the material. The Company said that manufacturing operations at Ash Grove's Montana City kiln and quarry have been shut down for routine maintenance since Jan. 31, 2009., according to the company. Ash Grove said the shutdown is an ordinary part of the maintenance, which occurs annually. Based in Overland Park, Kans., Ash Grove operates cement plants in nine states. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Scottish Lawyer Lauds Parliament's New Law ---------------------------------------------------------------- An Ayrshire, Scotland, lawyer has welcomed the passing of a new law by the Scottish Parliament which will mean that people negligently exposed to asbestos and diagnosed with pleural plaques will continue to be able to raise an action for damages, The Open Press reports on March 16, 2009. The Scottish Parliament has passed the Scottish Government's Damages (Asbestos-related conditions) (Scotland) Bill, ensuring that a contrary House of Lords judgment will not have effect in Scotland. Norman Geddes is senior partner at the Accident and Injury Claims Centre and Frazer Coogans Solicitors in Ayr, Scotland. In October 2007, Mr. Geddes expressed his disappointment at the House of Lords judgment blocking compensation for pleural plaques. Mr. Geddes said at the time, "It is disappointing that the House of Lords has ruled that people with pleural plaques shouldn't be awarded compensation. The condition of pleural plaques, which causes thickening of the lung membranes, clearly indicates the presence of asbestos fibers in the lungs, and can lead to clinical depression caused by anxiety over that asbestos, which may in turn cause life-threatening illnesses to develop later. "This judgment can only cause further anxiety for people who are already living with the knowledge that their lungs have been irreparably scarred by asbestos, but who have not yet developed an even more serious condition. The Scottish Government must enact legislation urgently to remedy this most unjust situation." For over two decades, it had been accepted that pleural plaques constitute an injury for which damages are recoverable in civil law. However, a series of cases were contested by insurers, and on Oct. 17, 2007, the House of Lords ruled that pleural plaques do not merit compensation in tort law. While restricted to England and Wales and not binding in Scotland, the judgment would be considered as highly persuasive by the Scottish courts. In November 2007, the Scottish Government announced that it intended to ensure that the judgment did not have effect in Scotland. In June 2008, after a period of consultation, the Scottish Government introduced the Damages (Asbestos-related conditions) (Scotland) Bill, to ensure that - despite the House of Lords judgment - pleural plaques and other asymptomatic asbestos-related conditions remain actionable. The Bill was scrutinized by the Justice Committee and, in November 2008, was endorsed unanimously by the Scottish Parliament. At that time, the Scottish Government agreed to review the financial implications of the Bill and, after further consultation and analysis, in February 2009 revised financial estimates were presented to the Justice Committee. Commenting on the passing of the new Bill, Minister for Community Safety Fergus Ewing said, "Many Scots in the past contributed to our nation's wealth, working in industries such as ship building and construction. Some were not properly protected against exposure to the potentially lethal substance of asbestos. "We have a moral duty to ensure that those who suffer the effects of asbestos due to our industrial past should be able to claim for damages. "The Parliament has today agreed that the House of Lords judgment which denied compensation for pleural plaques in England should not have effect in Scotland. I welcome that decision." Mr. Geddes concluded, "The Scottish Parliament is to be commended for this unprecedented initiative. The fact that party politics were set aside to permit a unanimous endorsement of this change in the law is notable and refreshing. Scots Law can now continue to provide the protection to our citizens for which it is renowned." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Parker's Family to Continue Bid for Payout ---------------------------------------------------------------- The family of Kelvin Parker, a local of Halesowen, England, who died of exposure to asbestos, will continue his fight for compensation against his former employers, TIS Modular Structures, the Halesowen News reports. Mr. Parker was diagnosed with mesothelioma in August 2007. He died n November 2008 following chemotherapy in a bid to slow down his illness. The Parker family is now appealing for Mr. Parker's former workmates to get in touch. Mr. Parker came into contact with asbestos during the 1970s and 1980s while working for TIS on a long term contract at the Rover Longbridge site fitting suspended ceilings. An inquest into his death on March 11, 2009 held in Smethwick saw Sandwell Coroner Robin Balmain returned a verdict of death as a result of industrial disease. Iain Shoolbred, of law firm Irwin Mitchell who is representing Mr. Parker's family said, "During his work with TIS we know that he was often exposed to asbestos. Mr Parker claimed that his employers did not provide him or his workmates with masks, ventilation equipment or any warning regarding the dangers of asbestos when he worked for TIS at Rover's Longbridge site." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Central Point Local Files Suit for Exposure ---------------------------------------------------------------- An unnamed local of Central Point, Ore., charged that his work for the City exposed him and other City work crew to asbestos, Mesothelioma reports. Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Division officers are investigating charges that the deconstruction of a 100-year-old house at 712 Manzanita Street, on the northwest side of the City, created a health hazard for city workers. The potential contamination of city employees was confirmed by the state's Occupational Health and Safety (OSHA) spokesperson, Melanie Mesaros, who acknowledged that an investigation was in progress based on samples taken from the site. Ms. Mesaros expects results to be available within 14 days. Central Point Public Works Director Bob Pierce concurs. Mr. Pierce notes that the unnamed employee originally reported the potential exposure to the state's Department of Environmental Quality occupational health division a week after the deconstruction (which occurred on Feb. 11, 2009) was completed and the materials removed for disposal. Ms. Mesaros said testing will be done on the site's ground to determine if asbestos was present. According to other DEQ officials, ground testing is adequate to determine whether asbestos was present before and during demolition. According to Mr. Pierce, the two-story house, which burned down in 2005, was uninhabitable, and was thoroughly inspected by a city official before the 20-minute deconstruction process began. He added that little or no dust was observable during the process, that all appropriate paperwork was filed with the court and relevant agencies before the tear down commenced, and that steps were taken beforehand to insure worker's were protected. The Manzanita address was the first house to come down after the city passed a set of ordinances in 2008 to eliminate 'blight,' or uninhabitable and unusable buildings in residential and commercial districts. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congress Panel to Probe Smithsonian Hazards ---------------------------------------------------------------- House Administration Committee Chairman Robert A. Brady (D-Pa.) said on March 17, 2009 that he would hold a hearing to investigate health-and-safety allegations over the handling of asbestos at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., The Washington Post reports. Mr. Brady said the April 2009 hearing is meant to investigate "dangerous workplace conditions" at the Smithsonian after The Washington Post's article on March 15, 2009 about a worker who contends that his work on asbestos-containing walls at the National Air and Space Museum made him sick. Museum lighting specialist Richard Pullman filed a federal whistleblower claim on March 17, 2009 with the Office of Special Counsel alleging that the institution retaliated by effectively demoting him for reporting workplace-safety violations. The Smithsonian denies retaliating but acknowledges that it did not notify some workers of the asbestos. Spokeswoman Linda St. Thomas said that the museum is safe for visitors and that tests show there is nothing harmful in the air. Mr. Pullman's diagnosis is of asbestosis. His workers' compensation claim was denied, and he is appealing. A 27-year employee at the Air and Space museum, the 53-year-old Mr. Pullman said he learned one year ago that the compound used to join walls at the Air and Space museum contained asbestos. Mr. Brady, who leads the committee that oversees the Smithsonian, criticized museum officials who acknowledged to The Post that notification regarding asbestos had not been passed to workers after a consultant's finding in 1992 that the walls contained asbestos. In the whistleblower filing, Mr. Pullman's attorneys also made a fresh allegation of a workplace violation: that contractors on Feb. 3, 2009 "tracked drywall dust and debris into museum galleries visited by the public because the contractors were not following the proper asbestos procedures." Mr. Pullman's attorney David J. Marshall wrote in a letter to the office, "The museum attempted to clean up the potential asbestos release but its efforts were most likely not adequate because NASM management insisted that cleanup work be completed before the Museum opened at 10 a.m." The Office of Special Counsel investigates retaliation against workers for reporting wrongdoing. Whistleblower cases in recent years generally have been unsuccessful, said lawyer Tom Devine, Esq., of the Government Accountability Office, which is urging the Obama administration to support reforms proposed by Congress. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3 McDonald, Pa., Locals Charged With Arson ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General charged two McDonald, Pa., firefighters and another man for conspiring to burn down a house for fire training purposes while knowing it had asbestos, the Observer-Reporter reports. The charges were filed against the three men on Feb. 20, 2009, following a yearlong investigation into why a controlled burn was allowed at 118 W. Lincoln Ave. in McDonald. State investigators arrested Thomas Krenn, a 30-year veteran and assistant chief of McDonald Volunteer Fire Department, Mark Slack, a 20-year member and first assistant chief, and Dale Csonka, a local businessman. Mr. Krenn was charged with arson, causing or risking a catastrophe, tampering with public records, unlawful conduct and two counts each of conspiracy and unsworn falsification to authorities. Both Mr. Slack and Mr. Csonka face charges of arson, causing or risking catastrophe, unlawful conduct and two counts of criminal conspiracy. Richard Bosco, a special agent for the state attorney general's office, filed the charges through District Judge Valarie Costanzo's office, and all three men were released on US$20,000 unsecured bond. Brant T. Miller, Esq., a lawyer who represents the fire department, said Mr. Krenn and Mr. Slack were placed on administrative leave following the charges. According to the criminal affidavit, Mr. Csonka owned the house on West Lincoln Avenue and approached McDonald fire Chief Doug Cooper about using it for training purposes. Mr. Cooper forwarded the request to Mr. Krenn and Mr. Slack, who is also an assistant general manager for Specialized Professional Services Inc. of Washington, and tasked them with testing the structure to find if it contained hazardous materials. Mr. Slack asked Adam Lohr, a colleague at SPSI, to take samples at the house so it could be approved by the state Department of Environmental Protection. The results showed the building had a material that contained asbestos. After receiving the results in December 2007, Mr. Krenn, Mr. Slack and Mr. Csonka met and discussed retesting the home and agreed not to use samples from the exterior or siding, according to the criminal affidavit. Mr. Krenn and Mr. Slack allegedly instructed Mr. Lohr not to use the building's exterior or siding when he took a second sample in January 2008. The affidavit claims Mr. Krenn submitted a DEP burn permit application that made no mention of asbestos. The following month, the DEP and state fire academy granted permission to proceed with the March 29, 2008 controlled burn of the house. Mr. Cooper, several McDonald firefighters, Peters Township firefighter Noel McMullen and numerous residents witnessed the burning without knowing about the asbestos. Mr. Bosco wrote in the affidavit that "the fire produced clouds of smoke and ash debris that covered the surrounding area." Two days later, the DEP's emergency response team came to the house following reports of toxic smoke and collected samples from the rubble. The DEP tested the material and returned positive results for asbestos. The attorney general's office reviewed the DEP permit application and found inconsistencies. The DEP later told investigators it would not have granted the permit had it known about the problems with the application, the affidavit said. The preliminary hearing for the three men is scheduled with Ms. Costanzo for 1:30 p.m. on March 19, 2009. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dispute Ongoing on Release of X-ray Reports ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jackson, Miss., lawyer Marcy Croft, Esq., on March 12, 2009, challenged the law firm of Motley Rice's standing to move for clarification of an order that would compel radiologists to produce X-ray reports, The Madison St. Clair Record reports. Ms. Croft represents General Electric Company. U.S. District Judge Eduardo Robreno of Philadelphia, responsible for about 90,000 asbestos suits from around the nation, signed the order on Feb. 24, 2009. Motley Rice moved for clarification on March 6, 2009, claiming the radiologists qualified for privilege as non-testifying consulting experts. Ms. Croft replied that Judge Robreno has consistently ruled that the privilege does not apply. She argued that Judge Robreno should not even consider the motion. Ms. Croft wrote, "Motley Rice continues to file motions that fail to identify the plaintiffs for whom it allegedly asserts a consulting expert privilege. Without this information, this law firm lacks standing because a movant is required to identify the specific parties on whose behalf a motion is filed. Standing is a threshold question that cannot be waived." Ms. Croft wrote that the contents of the motion revealed that the firm itself was the movant. She said, "Motley Rice is not a party to this litigation and has not moved the court for permission to intervene." Judge Robreno took charge of the national asbestos docket in 2008, by appointment of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation. He set a series of settlement conferences before various magistrates. He set hearings throughout April 2009 on qualifications of expert witnesses. Judge Robreno also began enforcing a rule he inherited, requiring each plaintiff to state a specific claim against each defendant. The rule split the docket into roughly three million claims. Ms. Croft wrote earlier in 2009 that defendants received responses or partial responses for about half the claims, leaving a million and a half claims hanging by a thread. Formal separation of valid claims from empty ones began on March 17, 2009, when lawyer David Lipman, Esq., of Coral Gables, Fla., moved to dismiss 29 of his cases. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell, Chrysler Bid for Autopsy Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- An appeals court panel, on March 4, 2009, affirmed Superior Court Judge Philip Paley's ruling, which denied Honeywell International Inc. and Chrysler Motor Corp. the right to have an autopsy performed on Harold St. John, who died of asbestos- related lung cancer in February 2009, The Star-Ledger reports. The family of the 67-year-old Mr. St. John opposes autopsies on religious and moral grounds, according to their attorney, Moshe Maimon, Esq., who said Mr. St. John also objected to autopsies and that the family does not want his body disturbed. The judges lifted an order they had placed on the St. John family and the funeral director on March 4, 2009, the day of the funeral. The order was served on the funeral director moments before Mr. St. John was to be buried. Hours later, his family was told his body had been returned to the funeral home. Mr. St. John had worked in a family-owned auto repair shop in the 1950s and 1960s. He later worked as a baggage handler for United Airlines, retiring in 2001. He and his wife, Diana, moved to Florida in 2002. He died on Feb. 28, two days before the civil trial of his lawsuit was set to begin before Judge Paley. Michael Palese, a spokesman for Chrysler, said, "We are disappointed with the decision of the New Jersey (appeals court). We are considering our legal options." On March 12, 2009, Judge Paley, who held a three-day hearing soliciting medical testimony at the request of the appeals court, found the objections voiced by Mr. St. John and his family against an autopsy take precedence over the need for the corporations to obtain lung tissue from St. John to determine if asbestos from their products caused his mesothelioma. ********* 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 * * *