/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090515.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, May 15, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 95 Headlines BASIN WATER: Aug. 13, 2009 Hearing Set for $7M Suit Settlement BIG 5: Appeal to Dismissal of "Zimerman" Suit Pending in Calif. BIG 5: Dismissal of "Gonzalez" Litigation in California Final CASH STORE: Settles B.C. Lawsuits Over Brokerage Fees, Interest CENTERPLATE INC: June 11 Hearing Set For Conn. Suit Settlement DAUPHIN COUNTY: Reaches $2.16M Settlement For Strip Search Suit ENVISION EMI: Faces D.C. Lawsuit Over Presidential Inauguration FUZE BEVERAGE: July 31, 2009 Hearing Set for $4.5M Settlement GEVITY HR: Reaches Settlement For Fla. Suit Over TriNet Merger GUIDANT CORP: Ontario Court Certifies Class in Pacemaker Lawsuit HANNAFORD BROS: Maine Judge Dismisses Claims in Data Breach Suit HARBOUR CAPITAL: Faces N.H. Lawsuit Over Unsolicited Junk Faxes IDEARC INC: Pa. Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Litigation INVESTFORCLOSURES FINANCIAL: Faces Ill. Securities Fraud Lawsuit METROLINK: Calif. Judge Dismisses Motion in Derailment Lawsuit NEW MEXICO: Attorney General Faces Lawsuit Over Cockfighting Ban NISOURCE INC: Motion to Dismiss Unjust Enrichment Claims Pending NISOURCE INC: Royalties Lawsuits in Kentucky Remain Pending NISOURCE INC: W.Va. Court Administers Tawney Settlement Proceeds PANERA BREAD: Reaches $671T Settlement For "Johns" Litigation PFIZER INC: Sept. 25 Hearing Set For $89M Calif. Suit Settlement PITNEY BOWES: Faces $20M Litigation in N.Y. Over Postage Meters PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Calif. Judge Approves $11M Suit Settlement REDBACK NETWORKS: Ninth Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Calif. Suit ROBERT COPELAND: Faces Ga. Lawsuit Over Elaborate Ponzi Scheme ROHM & HAAS: Ky. Residents Expresses Concern Over Settlements WACHOVIA CORP: Calif. Judge Give Preliminary OK to $39M Deal New Securities Fraud Cases SEQUENOM INC: Dyer & Berens Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Upholds Ruling in Hymel Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Split Ruling Issued in Liberty Mutual Claim ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Upholds Ruling in Lloyd Claim ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawsuits v. Fresenius Medical Still Stayed ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Corning Faces 10,300 Cases (42,800 Claims) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Cites 23,401 Abex Claims at March 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Cites $811.7MM Liability at March 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Cites $183.3M Receivable at March 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tennessee Valley Still Records $8M Expense ASBESTOS LITIGATION: USG Gets $1.061B Tax Refund Approval in '09 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Central Hudson Has 1,184 Cases at March 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BJ Services Still Has Suits in Miss. Courts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Has 74,802 Claims at March 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Has $11MM Defense at March 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Still Has $403Mil Receivable ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Coverage Case Pending in N.Y. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Upholds Ruling in Brown Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Interstate Records $1.8M Settled Liability ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tasty Baking Records $7.1M ARO at March 28 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enbridge Has $5.1M for Cleanup at March 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Skilled Healthcare Cites $5.4MM Liabilities ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. AK Steel ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Cases v. McKesson Increase to 475 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Still Has 50T Claims at March 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Still Party to Lawsuits in Texas ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Party to Lawsuits in Pa. Courts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NL Industries Still Facing Exposure Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TriMas Facing 777 Cases w/ 7,498 Claimants ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ladish Facing Exposure Lawsuits in 3 States ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Scotts Miracle-Gro Has Pending Injury Suits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Belden Facing 114 Injury Cases at April 20 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TRW Units Still Subject to Exposure Actions ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Briggs & Stratton Still Has Liability Cases ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Roper Ind. Still Subject to Exposure Cases ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navy Machinist Gets $12.1MM in Compensation ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace, Former Execs Cleared in Libby Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ore. Developer Charged for Exposing Hazards ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Victims to Appeal for Financial Aid ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Budget Hike Approved for Mo. Court Cleanup ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aircraft Worker Compensation Claim Ongoing ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judge Blasts Waters & Kraus in Injury Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tatera Lawsuit v. FMC Reinstated on May 12 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Jury Favors Defense in Gersten Suit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Ruling in Liberty Mutual Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dalmine Faces 41 Pending Claims at March 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Transocean Still Faces Suits in Mississippi ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Transocean Unit Has 1,065 Suits at March 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Noble Corp. Still Has 39 Cases at March 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CenterPoint Resources Still Facing Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Has $7.02M Claims Reserve at March 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 271 Cases Pending Against Entrx at March 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Cites $43.44M Receivables at March 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Metalclad Still Party to ACE Insurance Suit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Corp. Accrues $375T in Allstate Case ********* BASIN WATER: Aug. 13, 2009 Hearing Set for $7M Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California will hold a fairness hearing on Aug. 13, 2009 at 8:30 a.m. for the proposed $7,000,000 settlement in the matter, "In Re Basin Water, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. Cv-07-08359- GW(FFMx)." The hearing will be held before Judge George H. Wu at the U.S. Courthouse, 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, Calif. On Feb. 19, 2009, Basin Water, Inc. reached an agreement in principle to settle a consolidated purported securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Class Action Reporter, April 22, 2009). On Dec. 27, 2007, and Jan. 2, 2008, two purported securities class-action complaints were filed against Basin Water, Inc., Peter L. Jensen, Michael M. Stark and Thomas C. Tekulve for violations of the Exchange Act. These suits, which contain similar allegations, are captioned, "Poulos v. Basin Water, et al., Case No. CV 07-8359 GW (FFMx)," and "Nofer v. Basin Water, et al., Case No. CV 08-0002 SGL (JCRx)." The suits, among other things, allege that the Basin defendants "issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's business and financial results" because the company "had not adequately accounted for reserves in connection with its legacy system contracts." The plaintiffs allege a putative class period between May 14, 2007, and Nov. 13, 2007, and do not claim a specific amount of damages. The lawsuits were subsequently consolidated, and on Oct. 3, 2008, a Consolidated Amended Complaint (CAC) was filed which alleges that the company deliberately understated the reserves it took for certain unprofitable contracts, and committed various intentional violations of GAAP during a putative class period between Nov. 14, 2006 and Aug. 8, 2008. The suit does not state a specific amount of damages. On Feb. 19, 2009, the company and its insurance carriers reached an agreement in principle to settle the class action with representatives of the class. The settlement is still subject to preparation of a final settlement agreement, following which the company would intend to seek preliminary approval from the Court so that class members can receive notice of the settlement, providing them with the opportunity to accept its terms or to opt out and choose whether to pursue their own individual claims. Following a fair period of notice to the class, it would be the company's intention to seek final Court approval of the settlement and the dismissal of all claims against Basin Water. The company denies all of the allegations in the lawsuit and believes that its disclosures were appropriate under the law. Nevertheless, it has agreed to settle the litigation in order to avoid costly and time-consuming litigation. The company does not expect a cash effect of the settlement as the entire settlement amount is expected to be paid by its liability insurers, according to the company's March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. For more details, contact: Joy Ann Bull, Esq. (joyb@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 655 West Broadway Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-231-1058 - and - Daniel J. Tyukody, Jr., Esq. (dtyukody@orrick.com) Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe 777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-629-2020 BIG 5: Appeal to Dismissal of "Zimerman" Suit Pending in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- Big 5 Sporting Goods Corp. intends to defend the plaintiff's appeal to the dismissal of the purported class-action suit entitled "Adi Zimerman v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al.," according to the company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2009. On Jan. 17, 2008, the company was served with a complaint filed before the California Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles, entitled, "Adi Zimerman v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. BC383834." The complaint was brought as a purported class-action lawsuit on behalf of persons who made purchases at the company's stores in California using credit cards and were requested to provide their zip codes. The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that customers making purchases with credit cards at the company's stores in California were improperly requested to provide their zip code at the time of such purchases. The plaintiff seeks, on behalf of the class members, statutory penalties, injunctive relief to require the company to discontinue the allegedly improper conduct and attorneys' fees and costs. On Dec. 9, 2008, the California Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles dismissed the Zimerman case with prejudice. On Feb. 3, 2009, the plaintiff in the Zimerman case filed a Notice of Appeal of the dismissal. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corp. -- http://www.big5sportinggoods.com/ -- is a sporting goods retailer in the U.S., operating 381 stores in 11 states under the Big 5 Sporting Goods name at Dec. 28, 2008. BIG 5: Dismissal of "Gonzalez" Litigation in California Final ------------------------------------------------------------- The dismissal of the purported class-action lawsuit entitled, "Michele Gonzalez v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al.," is final, according to the company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2009. On May 31, 2008, the company was served with a complaint filed before the California Superior Court in the County of San Diego, entitled, "Michele Gonzalez v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. 37-2008-00083307-CU-BT-CTL." This suit alleges violations of the California Civil Code and California Business and Professions Code and invasion of privacy. The complaint was brought as a purported class action on behalf of persons who made purchases at the company's stores in California using credit cards and were requested to provide their zip codes. The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that customers making purchases with credit cards at the company's stores in California were improperly requested to provide their zip code at the time of such purchases. The plaintiff seeks, on behalf of the class members, statutory penalties, injunctive relief to require the company to discontinue the allegedly improper conduct and attorneys' fees and costs. The plaintiff also seeks, on behalf of the class members, general damages, special damages, exemplary or punitive damages, and disgorgement of profits. On Oct. 7, 2008, the California Superior Court in the County of San Diego dismissed the Gonzalez case with prejudice. On Feb. 20, 2009, the same court denied plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of such dismissal. The period for appealing such dismissal has expired and the dismissal of the Gonzalez case is final. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corp. -- http://www.big5sportinggoods.com/ -- is a sporting goods retailer in the U.S., operating 381 stores in 11 states under the Big 5 Sporting Goods name at Dec. 28, 2008. CASH STORE: Settles B.C. Lawsuits Over Brokerage Fees, Interest --------------------------------------------------------------- The Cash Store Financial Services Inc. (TSX: CSF), formerly Rentcash Inc., announced it has settled two class action suits commenced in British Columbia in 2005 and 2008 concerning brokerage fees and interest charged to customers of The Cash Store and Instaloans. The BC Settlement is conditional on receiving court approval, and follows a broader settlement already reached and approved in Ontario. Cash Store Financial has one remaining class action lawsuit outstanding which applies to customers who obtained loans in the Province of Alberta only. This settlement is restricted to customers who either obtained their loans in British Columbia, or alternatively, resided in British Columbia at certain specific time periods, and repaid their loan and broker fees in full within prescribed timelines. Some members of the Class may be eligible to participate in both the BC Settlement and the Ontario Settlement, in which case they will have to choose under which settlement to make a claim. Making a claim in one settlement renders the customer ineligible to participate in the other settlement. In accordance with the BC Settlement, Cash Store Financial will establish a settlement fund consisting of a cash and vouchers fund in an amount equal to 20% of the total broker fees paid by the settlement class members up to the court approval date. If the BC Settlement is approved, a final determination of the total broker fees paid will be calculated. However, the maximum amount of the settlement fund is not expected to exceed $14 million in cash and vouchers. The settlement fund will be used to make payments to the Class using a mix of cash and vouchers. The actual payments made to the Class from the settlement fund will depend on the number of class members who actually file a claim, that is, the "take-up" rate. The vouchers are non-transferable and may be used to pay either future or existing service fees on payday loans brokered by The Cash Store or Instaloans, or can be redeemed for cash only during the six month period which begins three years after the vouchers are issued. Legal fees and related costs will also be paid from the settlement fund. The BC Settlement does not constitute an admission of liability by Cash Store Financial, The Cash Store or Instaloans and contains a full and final release of all claims that have or could have been brought under the two actions unless class members have specifically opted out of the settlement. Cash Store Financial, The Cash Store and Instaloans maintain that they operate in compliance with all applicable federal and provincial laws. CENTERPLATE INC: June 11 Hearing Set For Conn. Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The Connecticut Superior Court of Stamford-Norwalk will hold a fairness hearing on June 11, 2009 at 2:00 p.m. for the proposed settlement of a litigation in connection with Centerplate, Inc.'s planned merger with an affiliate of Kohlberg & Company, L.L.C., a leading private equity firm. The hearing will be held at the Connecticut Superior Court of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford, 123 Hoyt St., Stamford, Connecticut 06905. Centerplate, Inc. reached a settlement to the purported class- action lawsuit styled, "Kaplan v. Williams, et al., Case No. FST-CV-084014996," according to the company's Jan. 14, 2009 Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 21, 2009). Counsel for the parties have agreed in principle to settle the action and have executed a Memorandum of Understanding dated Jan. 13, 2009, which is expected to be followed by a stipulation of settlement. As part of the settlement, and in exchange for a dismissal of the lawsuit and release, the company has agreed to file with the SEC a supplement to the previously-distributed proxy statement and mail a copy of the supplemental proxy statement to its investors. This settlement, which is subject to, among other conditions, preliminary and final Connecticut court approval after appropriate notice and a hearing to consider the fairness of the settlement, would resolve the claims in the currently pending lawsuit. The company and its officers and directors continue to deny any liability or responsibility for the claims made in the pending lawsuit and make no admission of any wrongdoing. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the Court will approve the settlement even if the parties enter into such a stipulation. In the event the settlement is approved, all holders of the company's securities, from April 30, 2008 through the date of consummation of the company's merger pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of Sept. 18, 2008 as amended on December 23, 2008 among the Company and affiliates of Kohlberg & Company, L.L.C., will release all claims (other than valid appraisal demands in connection with the Merger) relating to the transaction which were or could be brought against the Company, its officers and directors, Kohlberg, and their respective affiliates and agents. The settlement is also subject to the completion of the Merger. For more details, contact: Levi & Korsinsky 39 Broadway Suite 1601 New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 363-7500 or (800) 835-4950 Fax: (212) 363-7171 e-mail: info@zlk.com Web site: http://www.zlk.com/ - and - The Weiser Law Firm, P.C. 121 N. Wayne Ave., Suite 100 Wayne, PA 19087 Phone: (610) 225-2677 Fax: (610) 225-2678 DAUPHIN COUNTY: Reaches $2.16M Settlement For Strip Search Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The County of Dauphin in Pennsylvania settled a purported class- action lawsuit over the strip searching of several out-of-state partygoers at the county prison, The Associated Press reports. An attorney for the plaintiffs, who were partygoers strip- searched after authorities broke up a party on an undeveloped island in the Susquehanna River, says the $2.16 million settlement applies to about 9,000 people who were strip-searched at the Dauphin County Prison while being held on minor charges, according to the AP report. Attorney Alan Ross says the lawsuit was prompted by the arrest of about 50 people following a 2007 Labor Day party. Police broke it up after a man drowned trying to swim to the island, reports The Associated Press. The suit, "Reynolds et al. v. The County of Dauphin, Case No. 1:07-cv-01688-CCC," was filed by Elmer Robert Keach, III, an upstate New York attorney, on Sept. 16, 2007 (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 25, 2008). Listed as plaintiffs in the matter are: -- Ashley McCormick, -- Devon Shepard, -- Herbert Carter, and -- Jennifer Reynolds. More than 125 partygoers in the Labor Day weekend rave at McCormicks Island were arrested. At least 50 out-of-state residents who were unable to make bail ended up in the Dauphin County Prison. The federal class-action suit against the county is alleging that those detainees' civil rights were violated when they were strip-searched at the prison. It seeks to end the prison's alleged practice of strip-searching people facing misdemeanor charges. For more details, contact: Alan M. Ross, Esq. (amresquire@aol.com) Law Office of Alan M. Ross, LLC 2001 North Front Street Suite 220 Harrisburg, PA 17102 Phone: 717-238-6311 Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esq. (bobkeach@keachlawfirm.com) Law Offices of Elmer Robert Keach, III, PC 1040 Riverfront Center, P.O. box 70 Amsterdam, NY 12010 Phone: 518.434.1718 Charles J. LaDuca, Esq. (charlesl@cuneolaw.com) Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca 507 C Street, NE Washington, DC 20002 Phone: 202-789-3960 - and - Daniel C. Levin, Esq. (dlevin@lfsblaw.com) Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Phone: 215-592-1500 ENVISION EMI: Faces D.C. Lawsuit Over Presidential Inauguration --------------------------------------------------------------- Envision EMI is facing a federal class-action lawsuit that was filed on behalf of more than 15,000 students who paid thousands of dollars to attend President Barack Obama's inauguration but were left out in the cold, Nedra Pickler of The Associated Press reports. The lawsuit was filed on May 13, 2009 in Washington and alleges that Vienna, Va.-based company promised middle school, high school and college students across the country special access to the inauguration, parade, and a black tie inaugural ball, according to the AP report. However, once the students got to Washington, they had no tickets for the inauguration or parade. And the balls they attended were not official inaugural events, but staged in local high school gyms, reports The Associated Press. Envision said it would refund students $1 million, an amount the lawsuit says would reimburse each attendee about $65, The Associated Press reported. FUZE BEVERAGE: July 31, 2009 Hearing Set for $4.5M Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- The Los Angeles County Superior Court will hold a hearing on July 31, 2009, at 9:00 a.m. for the proposed $4.5 million settlement in the matter, "Ceballos et al., v. Fuze Beverage, LLC, Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC394521." The hearing will be held in Department 311 of the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, located at 600 S. Commonwealth Ave., Los Angeles, California 90005. The suit being settled claims that Fuze's marketing, advertising and labeling of its Slenderize, Vitalize, Refresh and Tea beverages misled consumers regarding ingredients contained in the beverages, as well as their potential functional benefits. It further alleges that Fuze misled consumers of its Slenderize beverages by claiming or inferring that the product promoted appetite suppression and/or weight loss. Representing the plaintiff is: Wayne Kreger, Esq. Milstein, Adelman & Kreger, LP 2800 Donald Douglas Loop North Santa Monica, CA 90405 Phone: 310-396-9600 or 888-835-8055 (Toll Free) Fax: 310-396-9635 Web site: http://www.makinjurylawyers.com/ - and - Settlement Administrator c/o Rust Consulting, Inc. P.O. Box 9341 Minneapolis, MN 55440-9341 Phone: 1-800-654-8874 Web site: http://www.fuzesettlement.com/ GEVITY HR: Reaches Settlement For Fla. Suit Over TriNet Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gevity HR, Inc. agreed to settle a putative class-action lawsuit alleging it had breached fiduciary duties to shareholders in its merger agreement with TriNet Group, Inc., The Tampa Bay Business Journal reports. The company agreed to a proposed settlement on May 4, 2009 in which all claims relating to the merger agreement and merger would be dismissed on behalf of the settlement class, Securities and Exchange Commission documents filed by Gevity said, reports The Tampa Bay Business Journal. In the proposed settlement, Gevity agreed to pay up to $290,000 fees and expenses to the plaintiff's counsel, according to The Tampa Bay Business Journal report. The Tampa Bay Business Journal previously reported that 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. (Class Action Reporter, March 20, 2009). 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. GUIDANT CORP: Ontario Court Certifies Class in Pacemaker Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In a decision released May 8, 2009, Justice Cullity of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified a national class action against Guidant Corporation (subsequently purchased by Boston Scientific) on behalf of a class of 28, 443 individuals for claims relating to allegedly defective pacemakers. Litigation in the U.S. resulted in a settlement of $240 million in late 2007 on behalf of approximately 8,000 plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs allege that the Guidant pacemakers are inherently defective and that Guidant knew about the defects in the pacemakers for a number of years, yet continued to market the pacemakers. The Claim also alleges that Guidant failed to disclose the defects to patients, health care providers and the regulatory authorities, including the FDA and Health Canada, thereby placing the health and well being of the class members in serious danger. In 2005 and 2006, Guidant undertook a series of recalls on a number of its pacemakers. The Claim seeks damages on behalf of all persons who have been implanted in Canada with a defective pacemaker. In Canada, 28,433 individuals were implanted with one of the pacemakers at issue. At least 3,559 patients have had their pacemaker explanted. The following models of pacemakers are subject to the action: - CONTAK TR: 1241; - DISCOVERY: 1174, 1175, 1273, 1274, 1275; - DISCOVERY II: 0481, 0981, 1184, 1186, 1187, 1283, 1284, 1285, 1286; - INTELIS II: 1384, 1385, 1349, 1483, 1484, 1485, 1499; - MERIDIAN: 0476, 0976,1176, 1276; - PULSAR: 0470, 0870, 0970, 0972, 1172, 1272; - PULSAR MAX: 1170, 1171, 1270; - PULSAR MAX II: 1180, 1181, 1280; - VIRTUS PLUS II: 1380, 1480; - INSIGNIA AVT DDD: 0982; - INSIGNIA AVT DR: 1292; - INSIGNIA AVT SR: 1192; - INSIGNIA AVT SSI: 482; - INSIGNIA AVT VDD: 882; - INSIGNIA Entra DDD: 0985, 0986; - INSIGNIA Entra DR: 1294, 1295, 1296; - INSIGNIA Entra SR: 1195, 1198; - INSIGNIA Entra SSI: 0484, 0485; - INSIGNIA Plus DR: 1297, 1298; - INSIGNIA Plus SR: 1194; - INSIGNIA Ultra SR: 1190; - INSIGNIA Ultra DR: 1290, 1291; - NEXUS AVT DDD: 1432; - NEXUS AVT DR: 1492; - NEXUS AVT SR: 1392; - NEXUS AVT SSI: 1328; - NEXUS AVT VDD: 1428; - NEXUS Entra DDD: 1425, 1426; - NEXUS Entra DR: 1466, 1494, 1495; - NEXUS Entra SR: 1395, 1398; - NEXUS Entra SSI: 1325, 1326; - NEXUS Plus DR: 1467, 1468; - NEXUS Plus SR: 1394; - NEXUS Ultra DR: 1490, 1491; and, - NEXUS Ultra SR: 1390. Guidant has admitted that there is widespread underreporting of device failures and that this underreporting leads to an underestimation of the actual failure rates. Further, and despite Guidant's allegations to the contrary, Justice Cullity found that more than 400 of the pacemakers were implanted after Guidant had identified the problem and model numbers effected and after an advisory had been sent to physicians. These findings are consistent with the findings of Guidant's own Independent Panel, which undertook a review of the company in 2006 and confirmed Guidant's culture of secrecy, underreporting and denial. Kim Orr Barristers P.C. and Lerners LLP represent the national plaintiff class. Further information may be found at: http://www.kimorr.ca/FL-Guidant_Pacemakers.html. HANNAFORD BROS: Maine Judge Dismisses Claims in Data Breach Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge D. Brock Hornby of the U. S. District Court for the District of Maine dismissed all but one of the civil claims brought against Hannaford Bros. over a data breach that exposed more than 4 million credit and debit card numbers to computer hackers, David Sharp of The Associated Press reports. In a ruling issued on May 12, 2009, Judge Hornby ruled that only those customers who weren't reimbursed for fraudulent charges may sue the Hannaford Bros. supermarket chain over the data breach, according to the AP report. Trevor Maxwell of The Portland Press Herald previously reported that Judge Hornby heard arguments in the purported class-action lawsuit (Class Action Reporter, April 6, 2009). On April 1, 2009, Judge Hornby heard arguments from both parties. Attorneys for Hannaford asked the judge to dismiss the lawsuit, which was filed against the Scarborough-based company last year. Attorneys for the plaintiffs said Judge Hornby should certify the case as a class-action suit and let it proceed toward trial, according to The Portland Press Herald report. The upcoming ruling will determine whether parts or all of the suit will go forward, reports The Portland Press Herald. The Morning Sentinel previously reported that case against the Scarborough-based supermarket giant began as more than 20 individual complaints were filed in four states. Specifically, the massive breach that compromised up to 4.2 million credit and debit card numbers used at 165 Hannaford supermarkets in the Northeast and 106 Sweetbay stores in Florida sparked 14 lawsuits in Maine, seven in Florida, one in New Hampshire and one in New York (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 4, 2008). The request to consolidate the lawsuits filed before the U.S. District Court in Bangor, Maine, on behalf of Greg Doherty and all others similarly situated, asserted that Hannaford was negligent in not providing adequate data security and did not inform customers of the breach quickly enough (Class Action Reporter, April 21, 2008). As recounted in earlier CAR reports, the breach occurred between Dec. 7, 2007, and March 10, 2008, and Hannaford did not notify the public of the breach until March 17, 2008. The litigation seeks credit monitoring or similar protection, unspecified damages, and attorneys' fees. HARBOUR CAPITAL: Faces N.H. Lawsuit Over Unsolicited Junk Faxes --------------------------------------------------------------- Harbour Capital Corp. faces a $5 million class-action lawsuit in New Hampshire for allegedly sending unsolicited junk faxes, Bob Sanders of The New Hampshire Business Review reports. The suit was filed by Menachem Raitport on May 5, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire under the caption, "Raitport v. Harbour Capital Corporation, Case No. 1:2009-cv-00156." Mr. Raitport of the Crown Kosher Meat Market in Brooklyn, charges that the Newington, N.H.-based business equipment financing firm sent him at least three unsolicited faxes in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) to protect businesses from being inundated by junk faxes, according to The New Hampshire Business Review report. TCPA calls for a penalty ranging from $500 to $1,500 a page, but plaintiffs' attorney Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq. contends that Harbour has sent at least 10,000 unsolicited faxes, and therefore owes the class recipients over $5 million, The New Hampshire Business Review reported. For more details, contact: Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq. (aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com) Bellin & Associates LLC 85 Miles Ave White Plains, NY 10606 Phone: 914 358-5345 - and - Michael J. Sheehan, Esq. (msheehan@usa.net) Sheehan Law Office 3 North Spring St, Ste 101 Concord, NH 03301 Phone: 603 225-5240 IDEARC INC: Pa. Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith of Pennsylvania filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased shares in phone directory publisher Idearc, Inc. between Aug. 10, 2007, and March 31, 2009, The Dallas Business Journal reports. The class-action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. It alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the market concerning Idearc's operations, prospects and financial performance, thereby artificially inflating the price of Idearc securities (Class Action Reporter, May 14, 2009). Specifically, the suit alleges that certain Idearc shareholders were misled by the company and executive officers who made false statements to the investing public saying credit policies had been tightened when in reality the law firm says the company loosened credit polices to establish revenue that "would not be collectable," The Dallas Business Journal reported. When the nature of the credit policies became known, Idearc's stock took several precipitous drops, according to a news release from law firm's office, according to The Dallas Business Journal report. The law firm said it is seeking to recover damages on behalf of class members who were hurt when the company's share price plummeted on news that Idearc's credit policies were not in line with previous expectations, reports The Dallas Business Journal. For more details, contact: Howard G. Smith, Esq. (howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com) Law Offices of Howard G. Smith 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 Phone: (215) 638-4847 or (888) 638-4847 INVESTFORCLOSURES FINANCIAL: Faces Ill. Securities Fraud Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- InvestForClosures Financial, L.L.C., and several others are facing a purported securities fraud class-action lawsuit in Illinois. The suit, captioned, "Schaufenbuel et al v. InvestForClosures Financial, L.L.C. et al., Case No. 1:2009-cv-01221," was filed on Feb. 25, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by Bradley J. Schaufenbuel, Robert N. Schaufenbuel, John Reed, IV, Sarah Reed, John Reed, III, Jan Reed, American Mass Media Corp. and Roberta K. Clark. Besides InvestForClosures Financial, other defendants in the suit are ROI Developers, InvestForClosures, InvestForClosures.com, LLC, InvestForClosures Ventures, LLC, Sands of Gold Escrow, Sands of Gold, ROI Financial, Realty Opportunities International Escrow 23, ROI Escrow, Realty Opportunities International S. de R.L. de C.V., Realty Opportunities International, ROI Mexico, Sands of Gold Estates, Francis X. Sanchez, James D. Bourassa, Scott D. Wessel, Deana M. Guidi, Daniel F Fitzgerald, Scott R. Slagle, Darcey L. Martin, Tom Rodriguez and John Does 1 � 30. The plaintiffs allege that various entities known as "InvestForClosures," "ROI," or "Sands of Gold" as lead by Frank Sanchez and Jim Bourassa sold securities in a Ponzi scheme and stole investors' money. The proposed class includes all persons who invested money with Mr. Sanchez and any of the IFC entities during the period July 1 1999 through Dec. 31, 2008. For more details, contact: Robert Craig Thurston, Esq. (tj@thurstonlawpc.com) Thurston Law Offices, P.C. 10469 Bethel Avenue Huntley, IL 60142 Phone: 847-659-8613 Fax: 847-628-0930 - and - Joel Martin Weiner, Esq. (jweiner@jweinerlaw.com) Law Offices of Joel M. Weiner 579 N. 1st Bank Drive Suite 150 Palatine, IL 60067 Phone: (847) 705-3838 METROLINK: Calif. Judge Dismisses Motion in Derailment Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- California Superior Court Judge Emilie Elias in Los Angeles dismissed a defense motion in a class-action lawsuit against Metrolink over the 2005 derailment that killed 11 passengers, Veronica Rocha of Glendale News Press reports. The defense motion argued that if the case goes to trial, it would set a dangerous precedent. Attorney James Wakefield, Esq., who is representing Metrolink in the civil proceedings, told Judge Elias that the crossing near the scene of the crash was similar to other right-of-way situations throughout the nation, and so allowing a class-action lawsuit to proceed would be the equivalent of calling hundreds of railroad crossings overtly dangerous, according to Glendale News Press report. Eleven passengers were killed and nearly 200 others injured when Juan Manuel Alvarez parked his Jeep Cherokee on the Metrolink tracks near Chevy Chase Drive, close to the Glendale-Los Angeles border, on Jan. 26, 2005. Mr. Alvarez was sentenced last year in criminal court to serve 11 consecutive life sentences in prison after he was convicted in June for causing the deadly train derailment, Glendale News Press reported. Survivors of the crash and family members of the deceased filed a wrongful-death and personal-injury lawsuit against Metrolink after the crash. Judge Elias, in denying Metrolink's motion, said the rail agency's attorneys failed to address the cause of the train derailment in their arguments. "I don't know how to derail a train," she said. "I don't know what it takes to derail a train," reports Glendale News Press. Glendale News Press reported Attorney Jerome Ringler, Esq. Who represents the victims, said Metrolink officials had to know that when Mr. Alvarez parked his car on the train tracks, a crash would occur. Metrolink had 200 car-train accidents over about a decade, he pointed out. NEW MEXICO: Attorney General Faces Lawsuit Over Cockfighting Ban ---------------------------------------------------------------- New Mexico Attorney General Gary King, whose office oversees an animal cruelty task force, is among 11 defendants in a purported class-action suit filed by local cockfighters who are seeking $77 million, claiming their civil rights were violated in the state's enforcement of a 2007 law banning the bloodsport, The Associated Press reports. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, challenging whether authorities had probable cause to make arrests and euthanize roosters during raids at New Mexico farms. It also alleges authorities wrongfully entered private property and improperly conducted interrogations, according to The Associated Press report. NISOURCE INC: Motion to Dismiss Unjust Enrichment Claims Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Columbia Gas Transmission Corp.'s motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment claims of the four remaining plaintiffs in a purported class-action lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of West Virginia, according to NiSource, Inc.'s May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. The lawsuit alleges certain "select shippers," including certain subsidiaries and affiliates of NiSource, Inc., have engaged in an "illegal gas scheme" that constituted a breach of contract and violated state law. Initially, on July 14, 2004, Stand Energy Corp. filed a complaint in the Kanawha County Court in West Virginia. This suit is styled, "Stand Energy Corp., et al. v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., et al." The complaint contains allegations against various NiSource subsidiaries and affiliates, including Columbia Transmission and Columbia Gulf, and asserts that those companies and certain "select shippers" engaged in the illegal gas scheme, constituting a breach of contract and violated state law. The "illegal gas scheme" relates to the Columbia Transmission and Columbia Gulf gas imbalance transactions that were the subject of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission enforcement staff investigation and subsequent settlement approved in October 2000. Columbia Transmission and Columbia Gulf filed a notice of removal with the U.S. District Court for the District of West Virginia on Aug. 13, 2004, and a motion to dismiss the suit on Sept. 10, 2004. In October 2004, however, the plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint, which clarified the identity of some of the "select shipper" defendants and added a federal antitrust cause of action. On Jan. 6, 2005, the court denied the Columbia companies' motion to strike the complaint and granted the plaintiffs leave to amend. To address the issues raised in the Second Amended Complaint, the Columbia companies revised their briefs in support of their previously filed motions to dismiss. In June 2005, the court granted in part and denied in part the Columbia companies' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. The Columbia companies have filed an answer to the Second Amended Complaint. One of the plaintiffs, Atlantigas Corp., was dismissed from the case, and has appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals. On Dec. 1, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the case as a class action. The defendants filed their opposition to this motion in March 2008. All briefing has been completed. Oral argument was heard on June 3, 2008, and on Aug. 19, 2008, the Court denied the Motion for Class Certification. In late December 2008, the lead plaintiff, Stand Energy Corporation, reached a settlement agreement of all claims with all Defendants. Stand Energy Corporation was dismissed from the case on Dec. 31, 2008. The Columbia companies continue to defend against the claims made by the remaining individual plaintiffs. On April 3, 2009, the Court denied all pending motions with the exception of Columbia's motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment claims of the four remaining plaintiffs. The suit is "Stand Energy Corp. v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-00867," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Judge Robert C. Chambers, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Joshua I. Barrett, Esq. Rudolph L. DiTrapano, Esq. Molly McGinley Han, Esq. Lonnie C. Simmons, Esq. Ditrapano Barrett & Dipiero 604 Virginia Street Charleston, WV 25301 Phone: 304-342-0133 Fax: 304-342-4605 Web site: http://www.ditrapanolaw.com/ - and - Robert C. Sanders, Esq. The Law Office of Robert C. Sanders 12051 Upper Marlboro Pike Upper Marlboro, MD 20772-2922 Phone: 301-574-3400 Fax: 301-574-2153 Representing the defendants are: Michael S. Becker, Esq. (mbecker@kirkland.com) Kirkland & Ellis Suite 1200, 655 Fifteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202-879-5000 Fax: 202-879-5200 - and - John H. Tinney, Esq. (JackTinney@tinneylawfirm.com) The Tinney Law Firm P. O. Box 3752 Charleston, WV 25337-3752 Phone: 304-720-3310 Fax: 304-720-3315 NISOURCE INC: Royalties Lawsuits in Kentucky Remain Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuits styled "John Thacker, et al. v. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C.," and "Kentucky Poplar Creek Development Company v. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C.," which name NiSource, Inc., as a defendant, remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. On Feb. 8, 2007, John Thacker filed the purported class-action suit, alleging that Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C., failed to pay royalty owners the correct amounts pursuant to the provisions of their oil and gas leases covering real property located within the state of Kentucky. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 19, 2007, which, among other things, added NiSource and Columbia Natural Resources as defendants. On March 31, 2008, the court denied a motion by the defendants to dismiss the case. The defendants then filed their answers to the complaint on April 25, 2008. On June 3, 2008, the plaintiffs moved to certify a class consisting of all persons entitled to payment of royalty by Chesapeake under leases operated by Chesapeake at any point after Feb. 5, 1992, on real property in Kentucky. The defendants' response to this certification motion was filed on July 18, 2008. The class certification hearing scheduled for Nov. 13, 2008 was vacated. On Oct. 9, 2008, Chesapeake tendered the Poplar Creek case to Columbia and Columbia subsequently assumed the defense of this matter pursuant to the provisions of the Stock Purchase Agreement. Poplar Creek also purports to be a class-action suit covering royalty owners in the state of Kentucky and alleges that Chesapeake has improperly deducted costs from the royalty payments; there is thus some overlap of parties and issues between the Poplar Creek and Thacker cases. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Oct. 12, 2008. Chesapeake filed its answer on Dec. 8, 2008, which is still pending with the court, according to the company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. The suit is "Thacker v. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Case No. 7:07-cv-00026-GFVT," filed in the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Kentucky, Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove, presiding. Representing the plaintiff is: Thomas E. Meng, Esq. (tmeng@stites.com) Stites & Harbison PLLC 250 W. Main Street, 2300 Lexington Financial Center Lexington, KY 40507 Phone: 859-226-2300 Fax: 859-425-7902 Representing the defendants are: Anne Adams Chesnut, Esq. (aac@gdm.com) Greenebaum, Doll & McDonald, PLLC 300 W. Vine Street, Suite 1100 Lexington, KY 40507 Phone: 859-288-4613 Fax: 859-255-2742 - and - Nora Clevenger Price, Esq. (pricenc@steptoe-johnson.com) Steptoe & Johnson 1000 Fifth Avenue, Suite 250 P.O. Box 2195 Huntington, WV 25722-2195 Phone: 304-522-8290 Fax: 304-526-8089 NISOURCE INC: W.Va. Court Administers Tawney Settlement Proceeds ---------------------------------------------------------------- The West Virginia Circuit Court for Roane County is supervising the administration of the settlement proceeds in a purported class-action suit involving the rights of mineral owners, which names NiSource, Inc., as a defendant. The suit is entitled, "Tawney, et al. v. Columbia Natural Resources, Inc." It alleges that the defendants underpaid royalties on gas produced on their land by improperly deducting post-production costs and not paying a fair value for the gas (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 28, 2008). In December 2004, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to add NiSource and Columbia Natural Resources, as defendants. The plaintiffs, who are West Virginia landowners, also claimed that the defendants fraudulently concealed the deduction of post-production charges. The court certified the case as a class action that includes any person who, after July 31, 1990, received or is due royalties from CNR (and its predecessors or successors) on lands lying within the boundary of the state of West Virginia. Although NiSource sold CNR in 2003, NiSource remains obligated to manage this litigation and for the majority of any damages ultimately awarded to the plaintiffs. In November 2008, a Roane County judge gave final approval to a deal that settles the 6-year old case. NiSource's share of the settlement liability is up to $338.8 million. NiSource has complied with its obligations under the settlement agreement to fund $85.5 million in the qualified settlement fund by Jan. 13, 2009. NiSource has also complied with its obligation to provide a letter of credit on Jan. 15, 2009, securing the unpaid portion of the settlement. The trial court entered its order discharging the judgment on Jan. 20, 2009. The Court is supervising the administration of the settlement proceeds. NiSource will be required to make additional payments, pursuant to the settlement, upon notice from the Class Administrator, according to the company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. The suit is "Tawney, et al. v. Columbia Natural Resources, Inc.," filed before the West Virginia Circuit Court for Roane County, Judge Thomas Evans, III, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Marvin Masters, Esq. 181 Summers Street Charleston, West Virginia 25301 Phone: 304-342-3106 Fax: 304-342-3189 Representing the defendants is: Timothy Miller, Esq. 400 Fifth Third Center, 700 Virginia St. P.O. Box 1791 Charleston, West Virginia 25326 Phone: 304-344-5800 Fax: 304-344-9566 PANERA BREAD: Reaches $671T Settlement For "Johns" Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------- Panera Bread Co. will pay more than $671,000 to settle a class- action lawsuit entitled, "Johns v. Panera Bread Company et al., Case No. 3:08-cv-01071-SC," which is accusing the company of misclassifying managers as exempt from overtime, Joe Harris of The Courthouse News Service reports. A final settlement order was recently signed by Judge Jean C. Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California. The order calls for Panera to pay $500,000 to a Gross Settlement Fund; $146,887.10 for attorneys' fees; $25,000 to The Garden City Group to cover costs of administration of the agreement; $7,500 to Johns; and $1,000 to the State of California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, according to The Courthouse News Service report. Previously, a settlement agreement in a purported class-action suit before the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California, entitled, "Johns v. Panera Bread Company et al., Case No. 3:08-cv-01071-SC," was preliminarily approved by the court (Class Action Reporter, April 6, 2009). The lawsuit was filed on Feb. 22, 2008, against the company and one of its subsidiaries by a former employee of the company, Pati Johns. The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the California Labor Code for failure to pay overtime and termination compensation. It seeks, among other relief, collective and class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court might find just and proper (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 20, 2008). Following mediation with the plaintiff, the company entered into a settlement agreement in late fiscal 2008, which has been preliminarily approved by the court, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 30, 2008. The suit is "Johns v. Panera Bread Company et al., Case No. 3:08-cv-01071-SC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California, Judge Samuel Conti, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: George A. Hanson, Esq. (hanson@stuevesiegel.com) Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: 816-714-7100 Fax: 816-714-7101 Representing the defendants is: Margaret Hart Edwards, Esq. (MHEdwards@littler.com) Littler Mendelson, A Professional Corporation 650 California Street, 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108-2693 Phone: 415-433-1940 Fax: 415-743-6641 PFIZER INC: Sept. 25 Hearing Set For $89M Calif. Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California will hold a hearing on Sept. 25, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. For the proposed $89 million settlement of the matter, "In re Bextra and Celebrex Marketing, Sales Practices, and Product Liability Litigation, No. 05-CV-01669, MDL No. 1699." A federal court in San Francisco has granted preliminary approval to a proposed settlement with Pfizer, Inc. related to the marketing of the prescription drugs Bextra and Celebrex (May 1, 2009). The settlement in the case called, "In re Bextra and Celebrex Marketing, Sales Practices, and Product Liability Litigation, No. 05-CV-01669, MDL No. 1699," which is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, will provide a Settlement Fund of $89 million to benefit a class of consumers and insurance companies or other entities (also called Third-Party Payors) that paid for either medicine before July 29, 2005. The lawsuit, which does not concern safety risk of either drug, claims that Pfizer falsely advertised Bextra and Celebrex as having greater benefits than less expensive pain medications, causing consumers and other entities to pay a greater price for Bextra and Celebrex than they would otherwise have paid for less expensive alternatives or no medications at all. The lawsuit also claims that the advertising was not consistent with the drugs' Food and Drug Administration approved labeling. Pfizer denies any wrongdoing and denies all of the claims in the lawsuit but is settling this lawsuit to avoid the cost and expense of further litigation. Consumers who paid for Bextra and/or Celebrex on or before July 29, 2005 are included in the Proposed Settlement. Third-Party Payors that paid or reimbursed for all or a percentage of the cost of Bextra and/or Celebrex on or before July 29, 2005 can also make a recovery under the Proposed Settlement. Third-Party Payors include insurance companies, union health and welfare plans, and self-insured employers. Consumers and Third-Party Payors that wish to remain in the Settlement and file a claim will be bound by the Court's orders and will give up the right to sue the defendants on their own. Claim forms must be postmarked by October 23, 2009. For more information, contact: Bextra and Celebrex Claims Administrator c/o Rust Consulting, Inc. P.O. Box 24675 West Palm Beach, FL 33416 Phone: 1-800-547-9360 Web site: http://www.BextraCelebrexSettlement.com/ e-mail: info@BextraCelebrexSettlement.com PITNEY BOWES: Faces $20M Litigation in N.Y. Over Postage Meters --------------------------------------------------------------- Pitney Bowes, Inc. is facing a $20 million purported class- action lawsuit, alleging that the Stamford-based maker of postage meters overcharges for its equipment return fee. The suit was filed on April 22, 2098 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under the caption, "Kings Choice Neckwear, Inc v. Pitney Bowes, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:2009-cv-03980." It was filed by Kings Choice Neckwear, Inc., a former tie maker from New York City against Pitney Bowes, Inc., Pitney Bowes Credit Corp., and Pitney Bowes Global Financial Services, LLC. In a 12-page complaint, Kings Choice said that the defendants breached lease agreements with clients by charging an "unconscionable, disproportionate and deceptive" equipment return fee of $100 to $250 or more as clients return hardware at the end of their leases. "It is then that Pitney pounces to extract its pound of fiscal flesh," according to the lawsuit. Kings Choice, which recently went out of business, alleges in the suit that it was charged $100 after returning in December a postage meter it leased for about six years. The plaintiff claims in the lawsuit that, according to the UPS Web site, it should have been charged only $11.90 in shipping to return the roughly 17-pound item via UPS to Pitney Bowes' collection center in Springboro, Ohio. The plaintiff is basing the amount of the suit on an estimated number of Pitney Bowes clients that have been overcharged by the equipment return fee, according to the Steven Wittels, an attorney for Kings Choice with Sanford, Wittels & Heisler LLP in New York City. The suit further states that the lease agreement's "Return of Equipment" section is "ambiguous, incomplete and unenforceable" because it does not describe how the fee will be assessed or its amount. "Because the conditions are ambiguous and were drafted by Pitney Bowes with no input from Plaintiff and the class of Pitney Bowes consumers, the contract must be construed against Pitney Bowes and in favor of Plaintiff and the class," the suit states. For more details, contact: Steven Lance Wittels, Esq. (swittels@nydclaw.com) Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP 950 Third Avenue 10th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (646) 723-2947 Fax: (646) 723-2948 PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Calif. Judge Approves $11M Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge David O. Carter of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California approved a final settlement in which Prudential Financial, Inc., whose retail brokerage division was sold to Wachovia Corp. in 2003, agreed to pay $11 million to former stock brokers, Amanda Bronstad of The National Law Journal reports. The settlement resolves litigation between Prudential and several stock brokers and producing managers who alleged that they were denied overtime pay and other wages. The stock brokers, referred to as financial advisers or financial adviser trainees, alleged that they were misclassified as exempt from overtime under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FSLA) and state wage and hour laws, The National Law Journal reported. They also claimed that they were not reimbursed for business expenses and did not receive timely paychecks upon leaving the company. California stock brokers alleged that they were not given breaks for meals and rest periods as required by state law, reports The National Law Journal. The settlement involved seven class-action suits filed by various financial advisers and producing managers. The settlement includes 2,329 class members who worked at Prudential before July 1, 2003, when Wachovia acquired the brokerage division, according to The National Law Journal report. REDBACK NETWORKS: Ninth Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Calif. Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a lower court's decision to throw out a putative securities class-action suit brought by Redback Networks, Inc. shareholders, who accused the telecommunications company's executives of fraud involving the purchase of revenues from Qwest Communications International Inc. and others through bribery. On May 11, 2009, the court affirmed a 2007 decision by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint. ROBERT COPELAND: Faces Ga. Lawsuit Over Elaborate Ponzi Scheme -------------------------------------------------------------- Attorney Robert Price Copeland, Esq., of Marietta is facing a purported class-action lawsuit by five people who are claiming that he defrauded them of millions of dollars in an elaborate Ponzi scheme, Megan Matteucci of The Atlanta Journal- Constitution reports. The suit was filed on May 5, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under the caption, "Smith et al v. Copeland et al., Case No. 1:09-cv-01200-JOF." It was filed by Joel Smith, Jr., Carolyn Smith, Norman Jones, Irene Jones and Christopher Robinson. Listed as defendants in the lawsuits are Robert Price Copeland, Robert P. Copeland, P.C., James Stephen Quay, Robert Patrick Stephens, John E. Redfearn, III, Jeffrey Reed Nesseth, Ronnie L. Lundy, Jr., Perimeter Wealth Management Group, Inc., Physicians Planning Group, LLC, John Beasley, Property Finders Online, Inc., QA3 Financial, LLC and First Trust Company of Onaga. In April, Mr. Copeland, 48, pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in Atlanta to one count of wire fraud. Prosecutors say Mr. Copeland's five-year scam defrauded more than 125 people out of $40 million, including some senior citizens who gave him their life savings, according to The Atlanta Journal- Constitution report. Five of those victims are behind the purported class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. They are asking for a jury trial, restitution, damages, and attorneys fees, reports The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Attorney Will Stone, Esq., who represents the five plaintiffs, told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution that he hopes to have all of the other victims join the suit. In general, the lawsuit claims that Mr. Copeland caused "massive financial losses, leaving many of the victims on the brink of financial ruin." It also alleges the scheme violated federal and state Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) laws and securities fraud laws, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported. For more details, contact: William Woodhull Stone, Esq. (wstone5@ugaalum.uga.edu) Webb, Klase & Lemond, L.L.C. Suite 480 1900 The Exchange, S.E. Atlanta, GA 30339 Phone: 770-444-9325 ROHM & HAAS: Ky. Residents Expresses Concern Over Settlements ------------------------------------------------------------- Some residents of Louisville, Kentucky say they are concerned with proposed settlements of two class-action lawsuits filed against Rohm and Haas, DuPont, and DuPont Performance Elastomers, United Press International reports. Louisville resident Linda Doyle said the letter she received detailing the litigation settlements only described a joint scholarship fund of nearly $800,000 the companies would create for residents within two miles of their local plants, according to a report by the Louisville (Ky.) Courier-Journal. "I thought it was very difficult to read. It was vague. I didn't know if they meant teenagers, kids in the household. It didn't say how much or how to apply," Ms. Doyle said. "My biggest thing was it didn't say you could opt out. If it did, I didn't understand it." The proposed settlements would seek an agreement from suit litigants to not file legal claims against the companies regarding any potential air pollution or toxic chemical damages during the next five years, United Press International reported. Louisville resident Earl Beason has also questioned how the settlements would benefit those in the Louisville neighborhood of Rubbertown, where the factories lie, reports the United Press International. WACHOVIA CORP: Calif. Judge Give Preliminary OK to $39M Deal ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge David O. Carter of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California approved a $39 million preliminary settlement to resolve the multidistrict litigation between Wachovia Corp. and more than 10,000 stock brokers who alleged that they were denied overtime pay and other wages, Amanda Bronstad of The National Law Journal reports. The stock brokers, referred to as financial advisers or financial adviser trainees, alleged that they were misclassified as exempt from overtime under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FSLA) and state wage and hour laws. They also claimed that they were not reimbursed for business expenses and did not receive timely paychecks upon leaving the company. California stock brokers alleged that they were not given breaks for meals and rest periods as required by state law, according to The National Law Journal report. The plaintiffs are represented in the case by Jeffrey Smith, Esq., a partner at New York's Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, and co-lead counsel Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy of Burlingame, Calif. In its motion for preliminary approval, Wachovia, recently acquired by Wells Fargo & Co. Inc., said that the recent change in its corporate ownership would result in changes in policy and practices that could complicate the litigation, reports The National Law Journal. The settlement includes attorney fees, litigation costs and $15,000 in enhancements paid to more than 30 named plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' attorneys are seeking less than 25% of the gross settlement amount. The settlement applies to financial advisers and trainees who worked for Wachovia Corp., Wachovia Securities LLC or First Union Securities, Inc. Most of the class members must make FLSA claims, but subclasses in the settlement are identified for workers with state claims in California, Illinois, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York and Ohio, The National Law Journal reports. A final approval hearing for the settlement is set for Oct. 5, 2009, The National Law Journal reported. New Securities Fraud Cases SEQUENOM INC: Dyer & Berens Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Dyer & Berens LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of investors of Sequenom, Inc. (NASDAQ: SQNM) who purchased the Company's common stock between June 4, 2008 and April 29, 2009. The complaint charges Sequenom and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the federal securities laws. The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants issued false and misleading statements regarding the Company's Down syndrome test under development. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that Sequenom employees mishandled test data and results regarding the Down syndrome test. On April 29, 2009, after the market closed, the Company issued a press release announcing that the expected launch of its Down syndrome test would be delayed due to the discovery by Company officials of employee mishandling of research and development test data and results. As a result, the Company could no longer rely on the previously announced test data and results. On this news, Sequenom's stock collapsed over $11 per share to as low as $3.23 per share, a one-day decline of more than 75%. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Sequenom investors. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before June 30, 2009. For more details, contact: Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. (jeff@dyerberens.com) 682 Grant Street Denver, CO 80203 Dyer & Berens LLP Phone: (888) 300-3362 or (303) 861-1764 Web site: http://www.DyerBerens.com Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Upholds Ruling in Hymel Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, upheld a July 21, 2008 ruling of the Civil District Court, Orleans Parish, which granted an exception of res judicata of J.D. Roberts and Commercial Union Insurance Company and dismissed Ralph Hymel's asbestos claims with prejudice. The case is styled Ralph J. Hymel and Linda Hymel v. Eagle, Inc., et al. Judges Joan Bernard Armstrong, Denise R. Bagneris, and Paul A. Bonin entered judgment in Case No. 2008-CA-1287 on March 18, 2009. The trial court judgment recognized and enforced the "Release, Discharge and Indemnity Agreement" executed by Mr. Hymel on Jan. 5, 1998 in the matter entitled In Re Asbestos Plaintiffs, Flight 6, No. 93-17362 of the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. This was an asbestos claim and the settlement and release specifically included release of any and all future asbestos related mesothelioma and cancer claims. Mr. Hymel claimed he was exposed to asbestos while he worked at Avondale Shipyards from 1958-1972. He was diagnosed with asbestosis (but not mesothelioma or any other form of cancer) in 1993, and he filed suit the same year against Avondale's executives and insurers, a suit that was settled in 1998 for US$15,000.00 when Mr. Hymel executed the "Release, Discharge and Indemnity Agreement." Mr. Hymel sued J.D. Roberts in his capacity as an alleged executive officer of Avondale Shipyards. Mr. Roberts did not admit to having acted in that capacity during the relevant time period. In spite of having executed this settlement agreement in 1998 and receiving a substantial payment of $15,000.00 as an inducement, Mr. Hymel filed the instant claim on Feb. 25, 2008, for mesothelioma that was dismissed with prejudice by the trial court on an exception of res judicata. Lawrence G. Gettys, Esq., of Brent Coon & Associates in Baton Rouge, La., and Andrew A. Lemmon, Esq., of Lemmon Law Firm, LLC in Hahnville, La., represented the Hymels. Samuel M. Rosamond III, Esq. and Adam D. Demahy, Esq., of Crawford Lewis PLLC in New Orleans, La., represented Commercial Union Insurance Company. C.J. Hebert, Esq., in New Orleans, La., represented J.D. Roberts. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Split Ruling Issued in Liberty Mutual Claim ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of Connecticut issued split rulings in a case involving asbestos styled Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Lone Star Industries, Inc., et al. Judges Fleming L. Norcott, Jr., Christine S. Vertefuille, Sullivan, and Sheldon entered judgment in Case No. 18199 on March 24, 2009. In this appeal, the Supreme Court considered numerous insurance coverage issues arising from asbestos and silica related injury and illness claims made against Lone Star Industries, Inc. in the wake of a settlement agreement entered into during its bankruptcy reorganization proceedings. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company brought this declaratory judgment action against Lone Star and numerous codefendant insurance companies that had issued liability policies covering Lone Star, to determine the coverage available for certain asbestos and silicosis claims brought against it. On appeal, Lone Star contended that the trial court improperly granted numerous defendants' motions for summary judgment because there were genuine issues of material fact with respect to the applicability of the policy exclusions upon which they relied. The Supreme Court agreed with Lone Star's claims in part, and concluded that the trial court improperly granted the motions for summary judgment filed by American Home, Hartford Accident and National Union. The Supreme Court dismissed Lone Star's appeal with respect to TIG Specialty Insurance Solutions for lack of a final judgment. The Court further concluded that a remand to the trial court is necessary to determine a question of subject matter jurisdiction, namely, whether the coverage claims under the excess policies issued by Lexington are ripe for judicial review. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed in part the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case to that court for further proceedings. Charles D. Ray, Esq., Charles T. Lee, Esq., Jennifer A. Black, Esq., James F. DeDonato, Esq., Catherine A. Mohan, Esq., Jennifer B. Strutt, Frank H. Griffin III, Esq., and Philip W. Vogler, Esq., represented Lone Star Industries, Inc. Robert L. Hoegle, Esq., Christopher P. Kriesen, Esq., Scott D. Camassar, Esq., Kenneth G. Williams, Esq., Mary S. Diemer, Esq., and Timothy J. Fitzgibbon, Esq., represented Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Upholds Ruling in Lloyd Claim ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California, upheld the ruling of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, which granted summary judgment in favor of Dartheatus Lloyd's former employer, the County of Los Angeles. The case is styled Dartheatus Lloyd, Plaintiff and Appellant v. County of Los Angeles, Defendant and Respondent. Judges Joan D. Klein, Patti S. Kitching, and Richard D. Aldrich entered judgment in Case No. B200505 on March 19, 2009. In 1991, Mr. Lloyd commenced his employment with the County. In 1995, he became a permanent heat and frost insulator. In June 2003, he was laid off. In March 2004, he was rehired as a temporary employee. He worked in that capacity until January 2006, until he was laid off for a second time. The operative second amended complaint, filed June 9, 2006, set forth five causes of action against the County. The gravamen of the action was that Mr. Lloyd (1) was laid off initially, (2) rehired as a temporary employee, (3) kept in a temporary appointment for nearly two years, and then (4) was laid off for a second time, all in retaliation for his complaints about asbestos removal at Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center (LAC- USC) and his refusal to remove asbestos without being duly certified. On March 12, 2007, the County filed a motion for summary judgment. On June 1, 2007, the matter came on for hearing. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment. Mr. Lloyd filed a timely notice of appeal from the judgment. The judgment was affirmed. Law Offices of Leo James Terrell and Leo James Terrell, Esq., represented Dartheatus Lloyd. Thomas and Thomas, Michael Thomas, Esq.; Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland, Martin Stein, Esq., and Alison M. Turner, Esq., represented the County of Los Angeles. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawsuits v. Fresenius Medical Still Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lawsuits involving asbestos filed against Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. (FMCH) are stayed and transferred to or are pending before the U.S. District Court as part of the W. R. Grace & Co. Chapter 11 Proceedings. FMCH is the holding company for Fresenius Medical Care AG & Co. KGaA's North American operations. The Company was originally formed as a result of a series of transactions it completed pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Reorganization dated as of Feb. 4, 1996, by and between Grace and Fresenius SE. At the time of the Merger, a Grace subsidiary known as W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn. had, and continues to have, significant liabilities arising out of product-liability related litigation (including asbestos-related actions), pre-Merger tax claims and other claims unrelated to National Medical Care, Inc. (NMC), which was Grace's dialysis business prior to the Merger. In connection with the Merger, W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn. agreed to indemnify the Company, FMCH, and NMC against all liabilities of Grace, whether relating to events occurring before or after the Merger, other than liabilities arising from or relating to NMC's operations. Grace and certain of its subsidiaries filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code on April 2, 2001. Prior to and after the commencement of the Grace Chapter 11 Proceedings, class action complaints were filed against Grace and FMCH by plaintiffs claiming to be creditors of W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn., and by the asbestos creditors' committees on behalf of the Grace bankruptcy estate in the Grace Chapter 11 Proceedings, alleging that the Merger was a fraudulent conveyance, violated the uniform fraudulent transfer act and constituted a conspiracy. In 2003, the Company reached agreement with the asbestos creditors' committees on behalf of the Grace bankruptcy estate and Grace in the matters pending in the Grace Chapter 11 Proceedings for the settlement of all fraudulent conveyance and tax claims against it and other claims related to the Company that arise out of the bankruptcy Grace. Under the terms of the settlement agreement as amended, fraudulent conveyance and other claims raised on behalf of asbestos claimants will be dismissed with prejudice and the Company will receive protection against existing and potential future Grace-related claims, including fraudulent conveyance and asbestos claims, and indemnification against income tax claims related to the non-NMC members of the Grace consolidated tax group upon confirmation of a Grace bankruptcy reorganization plan that contains those provisions. The Company is engaged in litigation with Sealed Air Corporation to confirm its entitlement to indemnification from Sealed Air for all losses and expenses incurred by the Company relating to pre-Merger tax liabilities and Merger-related claims. Under the Settlement Agreement, upon confirmation of a plan that satisfies the conditions of the Company's payment obligation, this litigation will be dismissed with prejudice. Based in Bad Homburg, Germany, Fresenius Medical Care AG & Co. KGaA provides dialysis services and manufacturing and distributing products and equipment for the treatment of end- stage renal disease. In the United States, the Company also performs clinical laboratory testing. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Corning Faces 10,300 Cases (42,800 Claims) ---------------------------------------------------------------- Corning Incorporated is involved in 10,300 cases (about 42,800 claims) alleging injuries from asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2009. The Company faced about 10,300 other cases (about 41,500 claims) alleging injuries from asbestos and similar amounts of monetary damages per case. (Class Action Reporter, March 6, 2009) The Company and PPG Industries, Inc. each own 50 percent of the capital stock of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (PCC). Over a period of more than two decades, PCC and several other defendants have been named in numerous lawsuits involving claims alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos. On April 16, 2000, PCC filed for Chapter 11 reorganization in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. At the time PCC filed for bankruptcy protection, about 12,400 claims were pending against the Company in state court lawsuits alleging various theories of liability based on exposure to PCC's asbestos products and typically requesting monetary damages in excess of US$1 million per claim. On March 28, 2003, the Company announced that it had reached agreement with the representatives of asbestos claimants for the resolution of all current and future asbestos claims against it and PCC, which might arise from PCC products or operations (the 2003 Plan). The 2003 Plan would have required the Company to relinquish its equity interest in PCC, contribute its equity interest in Pittsburgh Corning Europe N.V. (PCE), a Belgian corporation, contribute 25 million shares of Corning common stock, and pay a total of US$140 million in six annual installments (present value US$131 million at March 2003), beginning one year after the plan's effective date, with 5.5 percent interest from June 2004. On Dec. 21, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order denying confirmation of the 2003 Plan for reasons it set out in a memorandum opinion. Several parties, including the Company, filed motions for reconsideration. These motions were argued on March 5, 2007, and the Bankruptcy Court reserved decision. On Jan. 10, 2008, some of the parties in the proceeding advised the Bankruptcy Court that they had made substantial progress on an amended plan of reorganization (the Amended PCC Plan) that resolved issues raised by the Court in denying the confirmation of the 2003 Plan and that would therefore make it unnecessary for the Bankruptcy Court to decide the motion for reconsideration. On March 27, 2008 and May 22, 2008, the parties further informed the Bankruptcy Court on the progress toward the Amended PCC Plan. The parties filed a partial tentative plan on Aug. 8, 2008. The parties continued to inform the Bankruptcy Court of the status of their discussions on the Amended PCC Plan. The complete proposed Amended PCC Plan and its ancillary documents were filed with the Bankruptcy Court on Jan. 29, 2009. The proposed Amended Plan would require the Company to make one payment of US$100 million one year from the date the Amended PCC Plan becomes effective and certain conditions are met and five additional payments of US$50 million each on subsequent anniversaries of the first payment, subject to credits applicable under certain circumstances to the Company's final US$50 million payment. The Amended PCC Plan does not include non-PCC asbestos claims that may be or have been raised against Corning. The Company has recorded an additional US$150 million for those claims in its estimated asbestos litigation liability. The liability for the Amended PCC Plan and the non-PCC asbestos claims was estimated to be US$666 million at March 31, 2009, compared with an estimate of liability of US$662 million at Dec. 31, 2008. In the first quarter of 2009, the Company recorded asbestos litigation expense of US$4 million. In the three months ended March 31, 2008, the Company recorded a credit to asbestos litigation expense of US$327 million, as a result of the increase in likelihood of a settlement under the Amended PCC Plan and a corresponding decrease in likelihood of a settlement under the 2003 Plan. Based in Corning, N.Y., Corning Incorporated creates and makes components that enable high-technology systems for consumer electronics, mobile emissions control, telecommunications and life sciences. Products include glass substrates; ceramic substrates and filters; optical fiber, cable, hardware & equipment; optical biosensors; and other advanced optics and specialty glass solutions. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Cites 23,401 Abex Claims at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cooper Industries, Ltd., at March 31, 2009, recorded 23,401 pending asbestos-related claims that are part of its obligation to Pneumo-Abex Corporation (Pneumo), according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2009. At Dec. 31, 2008, the Company recorded 23,688 pending asbestos- related claims that are part of its obligation to Pneumo. (Class Action Reporter, March 6, 2009) In October 1998, the Company sold its Automotive Products business to Federal-Mogul Corporation. These discontinued businesses (including the Abex Friction product line obtained from Pneumo in 1994) were operated through subsidiary companies, and the stock of those subsidiaries was sold to Federal-Mogul under a Purchase and Sale Agreement dated Aug. 17, 1998. In conjunction with the sale, Federal-Mogul indemnified the Company for certain liabilities of these subsidiary companies, including liabilities related to the Abex Friction product line and any potential liability that the Company may have to Pneumo under a 1994 Mutual Guaranty Agreement between the Company and Pneumo. On Oct. 1, 2001, Federal-Mogul and several of its affiliates filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. The Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware confirmed Federal-Mogul's plan of reorganization and Federal-Mogul emerged from bankruptcy in December 2007. As part of its obligation to Pneumo for any asbestos-related claims arising from the Abex Friction product line, the Company has rights, confirmed by Pneumo, to significant insurance for those claims. From Aug. 28, 1998 through March 31, 2009, a total of 146,645 Abex Claims were filed, of which 123,244 claims have been resolved. During the three months ended March 31, 2009, 470 claims were filed and 757 claims were resolved. Since Aug. 28, 1998, the average indemnity payment for resolved Abex Claims was US$2,061 before insurance. A total of US$150.4 million was spent on defense costs for the period Aug. 28, 1998 through March 31, 2009. Historically, existing insurance coverage has provided 50 percent to 80 percent of the total defense and indemnity payments for Abex Claims. However, insurance recovery is currently at a lower percentage (about 30 percent) due to exhaustion of primary layers of coverage and litigation with certain excess insurers. Based in Houston, Cooper Industries, Ltd.'s electrical products segment makes circuit protection equipment, lighting fixtures, wiring devices, and other power management and distribution equipment for residential, commercial, and industrial use. The Company's other main business segment makes power tools for the industrial market and hand tools for the do-it-yourself and commercial markets. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Cites $811.7MM Liability at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cooper Industries, Ltd., as of March 31, 2009, estimates that the liability for pending and future indemnity and defense costs for the next 45 years will be US$811.7 million, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2009. The Company, as of Dec. 31, 2008, estimated that the liability for pending and future asbestos-related indemnity and defense costs for the next 45 years will be US$815.1 million. (Class Action Reporter, March 6, 2009) Pneumo-Abex Corporation discontinued using asbestos in the Abex Friction product line in the 1970s and epidemiological studies that are publicly available indicate the incidence of asbestos- related disease is in decline and should continue to decline steadily. Although the Company said that its estimated liability for pending and future indemnity and defense costs represents the best estimate of its future obligation, it utilized scenarios that it believed were reasonably possible that indicate a broader range of potential estimates from US$735 million to US$950 million (undiscounted). Based in Houston, Cooper Industries, Ltd.'s electrical products segment makes circuit protection equipment, lighting fixtures, wiring devices, and other power management and distribution equipment for residential, commercial, and industrial use. The Company's other main business segment makes power tools for the industrial market and hand tools for the do-it-yourself and commercial markets. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Cites $183.3M Receivable at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- As of March 31, 2009, Cooper Industries, Ltd.'s asbestos receivable for recoveries of costs from insurers amounted to US$183.3 million, of which US$66.9 million relate to costs previously paid or insurance settlements. The Company's asbestos-related receivable for recoveries of costs from insurers, as of Dec. 31, 2008, amounted to US$192.3 million, of which US$74.6 million related to costs previously paid or insurance settlements. (Class Action Reporter, March 6, 2009) As of March 31, 2009, the Company, through Pneumo-Abex LLC, has access to Abex insurance policies with remaining limits on policies with solvent insurers in excess of US$700 million. Insurance recoveries reflected as receivables in the balance sheet include recoveries where insurance-in-place agreements, settlements or policy recoveries are probable. The Company's arrangements with the insurance carriers defer certain amounts of insurance and settlement proceeds that the Company is entitled to receive beyond 12 months. About 90 percent of the US$183.3 million receivable from insurance companies at March 31, 2009 is due from domestic insurers whose AM Best rating is Excellent (A-) or better. Based in Houston, Cooper Industries, Ltd.'s electrical products segment makes circuit protection equipment, lighting fixtures, wiring devices, and other power management and distribution equipment for residential, commercial, and industrial use. The Company's other main business segment makes power tools for the industrial market and hand tools for the do-it-yourself and commercial markets. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tennessee Valley Still Records $8M Expense ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tennessee Valley Authority, during the second quarter of fiscal 2009, recorded an accretion expense of US$8 million related to coal-fired and gas/oil combustion turbine plants, asbestos, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The Company, during the first quarter of fiscal 2009, recorded a remaining accretion expense of US$8 million related to coal- fired and gas/oil combustion turbine plants, asbestos, and PCBs. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 20, 2009) During the second quarter of 2009, the Company's total asset retirement obligation liability increased US$32 million due to accretion. The nuclear accretion expense of US$24 million and the US$8 million of accretion expense related to coal-fired and gas/oil combustion turbine plants, asbestos, and polychlorinated biphenyls were deferred and charged to a regulatory asset. However, as amounts approximately equal to the non-nuclear accretion and depreciation were collected in rates during 2009, non-nuclear accretion and depreciation were expensed. Based in Knoxville, Tenn., Tennessee Valley Authority is a publicly-owned power producer in the United States, with more than 35,000 MW of generating capacity. Its facilities include 11 fossil-powered plants, 29 hydroelectric dams, three nuclear plants, and six combustion turbine plants. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: USG Gets $1.061B Tax Refund Approval in '09 ---------------------------------------------------------------- USG Corporation, in the first quarter of 2009, received final congressional Joint Committee on Taxation approval of a US$1.061 billion federal tax refund that the Company received in 2007. Of this amount, US$1.057 billion resulted from tax deductions generated by payments made to the asbestos trust in 2006 and the remaining US$4 million, which the Company expects to receive in 2009, results from finalization of the audit results for 2006 and prior years. During the fourth quarter of 2008, the Internal Revenue Service concluded its audit of the Company's federal income tax returns for the years 2005 and 2006. As a result of the audit, the Company's federal taxable income for these years will be increased by US$7 million in the aggregate, which resulted in a decrease to the amount of the Company's NOL carryforwards at March 31, 2009. As a result of the closure of the IRS audit, the Company has recorded an income tax benefit of US$6 million in the first quarter for release of federal FIN 48 reserves, as well as the impact of the audit results. Based in Chicago, USG Corporation manufactures and distributes building materials, producing products for use in new residential, new nonresidential, and repair and remodel construction as well as products used in certain industrial processes. Its operations are organized into three segments: North American Gypsum, Building Products Distribution and Worldwide Ceilings. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Central Hudson Has 1,184 Cases at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- CH Energy Group, Inc.'s subsidiary, Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation, as of March 31, 2009, faced 1,184 asbestos cases out of the 3,313 cases that had been filed against it. Central Hudson, as of Jan. 15, 2009, faced 1,183 asbestos cases out of the 3,312 cases brought against it. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 13, 2009) Of the cases no longer pending against Central Hudson, 1,978 have been dismissed or discontinued without payment by Central Hudson, and Central Hudson has settled 151 cases. Central Hudson is presently unable to assess the validity of the remaining asbestos lawsuits. Accordingly, it cannot determine the ultimate liability relating to these cases. Based in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., CH Energy Group, Inc. provides electricity to the Hudson Valley. Utility subsidiary Central Hudson Gas & Electric provides electricity to 367,000 customers in eight counties of New York State's Mid-Hudson River Valley, and delivers natural gas and electricity in a 2,600-square-mile service territory that extends from New York City to Albany. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BJ Services Still Has Suits in Miss. Courts ---------------------------------------------------------------- Certain predecessors of BJ Services Company, along with numerous other defendants, continue to face asbestos lawsuits filed in the Circuit Courts of Jones and Smith Counties in Mississippi since August 2004. These four lawsuits included 118 individual plaintiffs alleging that they suffer various illnesses from exposure to asbestos and seeking damages. The lawsuits assert claims of unseaworthiness, negligence, and strict liability; all based upon the status of the Company's predecessors as Jones Act employers. The plaintiffs were required to complete data sheets specifying the companies they were employed by and the asbestos-containing products to which they were allegedly exposed. Through this process, 25 plaintiffs have identified the Company or its predecessors as their employer. Amended lawsuits were filed by four individuals against the Company and the remainder of the original claims (114) was dismissed. Of these four lawsuits, three failed to name the Company as an employer or manufacturer of asbestos-containing products so the Company was thereby dismissed. Subsequently an individual from one of these lawsuits brought his own action against the Company. As a result, the Company is currently named as an employer in two of the Mississippi lawsuits. The Company said that it is possible that as many as 21 other claimants who identified the Company or its predecessors as their employer could file suit, but they have not done so at this time. Minimal medical information regarding the alleged asbestos-related disease suffered by the plaintiffs in the two lawsuits has been provided. Accordingly, the Company is unable to estimate its potential exposure to these lawsuits. The Company and its predecessors in the past maintained insurance which may be available to respond to these claims. In addition to the Jones Act cases, the Company has been named in a small number of additional asbestos cases. The allegations in these cases vary, but generally include claims that the Company provided some unspecified product or service which contained or utilized asbestos or that an employee was exposed to asbestos at one of the Company's facilities or customer job sites. Some of the allegations involve claims that the Company is the successor to the Byron Jackson Company. To date, the Company has been successful in obtaining dismissals of those successor cases without any payment in settlements or judgments, although some remain pending at the present time. Based in Houston, BJ Services Company provides pressure pumping services and other oilfield services to the oil and natural gas industry worldwide. Services are provided through four business segments: U.S./Mexico Pressure Pumping, Canada Pressure Pumping, International Pressure Pumping and the Oilfield Services Group. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Has 74,802 Claims at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Union Carbide Corporation faced 74,802 unresolved asbestos claims at March 31, 2009, compared with 90,184 claims at March 31, 2008, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2009. The Company faced 75,706 unresolved asbestos-related claims at Dec. 31, 2008, compared with 90,322 claims at Dec. 31, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 27, 2009) The Company is and has been involved in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during the past three decades. These suits principally allege personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products and frequently seek both actual and punitive damages. The alleged claims primarily relate to products that the Company sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products located on Company premises, and the Company's responsibility for asbestos suits filed against a former subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc. At March 31, 2009, the Company recorded 2,295 claims filed; 3,199 claims settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved; 24,126 claims against both the Company and Amchem; and 50,676 individual claimants. At March 31, 2008, the Company recorded 2,716 claims filed; 2,854 claims settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved; 28,893 claims against both the Company and Amchem; and 61,291 individual claimants. The Company's asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims was US$910 million at March 31, 2009. About 22 percent of the recorded liability related to pending claims and about 78 percent related to future claims. Headquartered in Houston, Union Carbide Corporation is a chemicals and polymers company. The Company is a subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Has $11MM Defense at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Union Carbide Corporation and Amchem Products, Inc.'s defense costs for asbestos claims were US$11 million for the three months ended March 31, 2009, compared with US$14 million for the three months ended March 31, 2008. Amchem is a former Company subsidiary. The Company and Amchem's resolution costs for asbestos claims were US$24 million for the three months ended March 31, 2009, compared with US$42 million for the three months ended March 31, 2008. The average resolution payment per asbestos claimant and the rate of new claim filings has fluctuated since the beginning of 2001. The Company's management expects those fluctuations to continue in the future based upon a number of factors, including the number and type of claims settled in a particular period, the jurisdictions in which those claims arose and the extent to which any proposed legislative reform related to asbestos litigation is being considered. Headquartered in Houston, Union Carbide Corporation is a chemicals and polymers company. The Company is a subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Still Has $403Mil Receivable ---------------------------------------------------------------- Union Carbide Corporation's receivable for insurance recoveries related to its asbestos liability was US$403 million at both March 31, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2008. At Dec. 31, 2002, the Company increased the receivable for insurance recoveries related to its asbestos liability to US$1.35 billion, substantially exhausting its asbestos product liability coverage. The insurance receivable related to the asbestos liability was determined after a thorough review of applicable insurance policies and the 1985 Wellington Agreement, to which the Company and many of its liability insurers are signatory parties, as well as other insurance settlements, with due consideration given to applicable deductibles, retentions and policy limits, and taking into account the solvency and historical payment experience of various insurance carriers. The Wellington Agreement and other agreements with insurers are designed to facilitate an orderly resolution and collection of the Company's insurance policies and to resolve issues that the insurance carriers may raise. At March 31, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2008, all of the receivable for insurance recoveries was related to insurers that are not signatories to the Wellington Agreement and do not otherwise have agreements in place regarding their asbestos-related insurance coverage. At March 31, 2009, the Company recorded a total of US$271 million in receivables for costs submitted to insurance carriers, in which US$26 million were for defense costs and US$245 million were for resolution costs. At Dec. 31, 2008, the Company recorded a total of US$272 million in receivables for costs submitted to insurance carriers, in which US$28 million were for defense costs and US$244 million were for resolution costs. Headquartered in Houston, Union Carbide Corporation is a chemicals and polymers company. The Company is a subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Coverage Case Pending in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Union Carbide Corporation's asbestos-related comprehensive insurance coverage continues to be pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. In September 2003, the Company filed the suit, seeking to confirm its rights to insurance for various asbestos claims and to facilitate an orderly and timely collection of insurance proceeds. This lawsuit was filed against insurers that are not signatories to the Wellington Agreement and do not otherwise have agreements in place with the Company regarding their asbestos-related insurance coverage, in order to facilitate an orderly resolution and collection of such insurance policies and to resolve issues that the insurance carriers may raise. Although the lawsuit is continuing, through the end of the first quarter of 2009, the Company had reached settlements with several of the carriers involved in this litigation. Headquartered in Houston, Union Carbide Corporation is a chemicals and polymers company. The Company is a subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Upholds Ruling in Brown Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed an Oct. 2, 2007 ruling of the Board of Veterans' Appeals, which denied Bobby M. Brown service connection for respiratory and sinus disorders due to exposure to asbestos. The case is styled Bobby M. Brown, Appellant v. Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee. Judge Ronald M. Holdaway entered judgment in Case No. 07-3182 on March 19, 2009. Mr. Brown served on active duty in the U.S. Navy from February 1964 to January 1968. His enlistment examination reflected a normal evaluation of his sinuses, lungs, and chest. He reported having had a history of asthma as a child. His service medical records (SMRs) indicated that he was allergic to smoke and dust. The SMRs also showed that Mr. Brown was treated for upper respiratory infections (URIs) in February and March 1964 and was treated for bronchopneumonia in May 1964. A November 1965 treatment record reflected that Mr. Brown had a negative chest x-ray. He received a diagnosis of multiple allergies, to include allergies to dust and penicillin, which were determined to have existed prior to his enlistment. His January 1968 separation examination revealed a normal evaluation of his lungs, chest, and sinuses. Mr. Brown's postservice medical records reflected that he was treated for sinusitis and bilateral bronchitis in 1978, sinusitis in January 1987, and URIs in November 1990, March 1993, and August 1994. A May 2000 x-ray report revealed that Mr. Brown's lungs were clear. In April 2002, Mr. Brown filed a claim for service connection for disabilities alleged to have been caused by exposure to asbestos while on board the USS Graffias in service. The VA regional office (RO) requested that Mr. Brown provide specific information concerning his alleged exposure to asbestos in a May 2002 letter. In June 2002, Mr. Brown provided a response stating that he had severe sinus problems since his separation from service and that he sought medical treatment for sinus infections immediately after his separation from service, but no medical records were available for any treatment prior to January 1984. Mr. Brown also indicated that he had smoked tobacco for 25 years, smoking about one to one and a half packs a day from 1960 to 1983. In May 2003, the RO denied Mr. Brown's claim for service connection for a respiratory and sinus condition claimed as residuals of asbestos exposure. Mr. Brown perfected an appeal. In October 2005, the Board remanded Mr. Brown's claim to obtain a medical opinion as to "whether any of the [appellant's] current respiratory disorders [were] due to asbestos exposure during service." Mr. Brown underwent a VA respiratory diseases examination. The examining physician diagnosed Mr. Brown's respiratory symptoms as "mild chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, tobacco induced; no asbestosis found." On Oct. 2, 2007, the Board issued its decision. This appeal followed. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Interstate Records $1.8M Settled Liability ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alliant Energy Corporation's subsidiary, Interstate Power and Light, in the first quarter of 2009, recorded liabilities settled of US$1.8 million due to expenditures for asbestos and lead remediation at its Sixth Street and Prairie Creek Generating Stations required as a result of the impacts of the severe Midwest flooding at these generating stations in June 2008. No other asbestos matters were disclosed in the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2009. COMPANY PROFILE: Alliant Energy Corporation 4902 N. Biltmore Lane Madison, Wis. 53718 Tel. No.: (608)458-3311 Description: Alliant Energy Corporation is an investor-owned public utility holding company whose primary subsidiaries are Interstate Power and Light Company, Wisconsin Power and Light Company, Resources and Corporate Services. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tasty Baking Records $7.1M ARO at March 28 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tasty Baking Company's asbestos asset retirement obligation was US$7.1 million as of March 28, 2009, compared with US$7 million as of Dec. 27, 2008, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2009. The Company has a conditional asset retirement obligation related to asbestos in its Philadelphia manufacturing facility. As a result of the Company's decision in May 2007 to relocate its Philadelphia operations, it was able to estimate a settlement date for the asset retirement obligation and recorded an obligation of US$6.6 million which was the present value of the future obligation. This obligation will continue to accrete to the full value of the future obligation over the remaining period until settlement of the obligation which is expected to occur in June 2010, while the capitalized asset retirement cost is depreciated through December 2044, the remaining useful life of the Philadelphia manufacturing facility. The Company recorded US$100,000 in interest associated with the ARO during the quarter ended March 28, 2009 and March 29, 2008. COMPANY PROFILE: Tasty Baking Company Navy Yard Corporate Center Three Crescent Drive, Suite 200 Philadelphia, Pa. 19112 Tel. No.: 215-221-8500 Description: The Company produces sweet baked goods and is an independent baking company, in operation since 1914. It has two manufacturing facilities, one in Philadelphia, and a second in Oxford, Pa. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enbridge Has $5.1M for Cleanup at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. recorded US$5.1 million in "Accounts payable and other" for asbestos and environmental cleanup as of March 31, 2009, compared with US$5.5 million as of Dec. 31, 2008. The Company recorded US$3.2 million in "Other long-term liabilities" for A&E cleanup as of March 31, 2009, compared with US$2.8 million as of Dec. 31, 2008. These amounts were primarily to address remediation of contaminated sites, asbestos-containing materials, management of hazardous waste material disposal, outstanding air quality measures for certain of the Company's liquids and natural gas assets, and penalties it has been or expects to be assessed. Based in Houston, Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. owns the 1,900- mile United States portion of the world's longest liquid petroleum pipeline. When combined with the Canadian segment (owned and operated by Enbridge Inc.), the pipeline system spans some 3,500 miles across North America. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Skilled Healthcare Cites $5.4MM Liabilities ---------------------------------------------------------------- Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc.'s long-term asbestos abatement liability was US$5,419,000 as of March 31, 2009, compared with US$5,372,000 as of Dec. 31, 2008. No other asbestos matters were disclosed in the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2009. Based in Foothill Ranch, Calif., Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc. provides integrated long-term healthcare services through its skilled nursing companies and rehabilitation therapy business. The Company also provides other related healthcare services, including assisted living care and hospice care. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. AK Steel ---------------------------------------------------------------- AK Steel Holding Corporation (or its predecessor, Armco Inc.), since 1990, has been facing lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. Most of these lawsuits have been filed on behalf of people who claim to have been exposed to asbestos while visiting the premises of a current or former Company facility. About 40 percent of these premises suits arise out of claims of exposure at a facility in Houston that has been closed since. Since the onset of asbestos claims against the Company in 1990, five asbestos claims against it have proceeded to trial in four separate cases. All five concluded with a verdict in favor of the Company. Based in West Chester, Ohio, AK Steel Holding Corporation produces flat-rolled carbon steels, including premium-quality coated, cold-rolled and hot-rolled products, and specialty stainless and electrical steels that are sold in hot band, sheet and strip form. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Cases v. McKesson Increase to 475 ---------------------------------------------------------------- McKesson Corporation, through its former McKesson Chemical Company division, is named in 475 cases involving the alleged distribution of asbestos, according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2009. The Company was named in about 450 cases involving the alleged distribution of asbestos. (Class Action Reporter, May 16, 2008) These cases typically involve either single or multiple plaintiffs claiming personal injuries and unspecified compensatory and punitive damages as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing materials. Under an indemnification agreement signed at the time of the 1987 sale of McKesson Chemical Company to what is now called Univar USA Inc., the Company has tendered each of these actions to Univar. Univar has raised questions concerning the extent of its obligations under the indemnification agreement. Univar continues to defend the Company in some of these cases, but since February 2005 has been rejecting tenders and accordingly, the Company is incurring defense costs in connection with the more recently served actions. The Company said it believes that Univar remains obligated under the terms of the indemnification agreement. The Company has filed an arbitration demand against Univar under the indemnification agreement seeking a determination that the liability for these cases is Univar's responsibility. An arbitration date of Aug. 31, 2009 has been agreed upon for commencement of the arbitration of this dispute. In addition to its indemnification rights against Univar, the Company said it believes that portions of these claims are covered by insurance and is pursuing that coverage. Based in San Francisco, McKesson Corporation provides supply, information and care management products and services designed to reduce costs and improve quality across the healthcare industry. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Still Has 50T Claims at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Crown Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., continues to face 50,000 outstanding asbestos-related claims at March 31, 2009, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2009. Crown Cork still faced 50,000 outstanding asbestos-related claims at Dec. 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, March 13, 2009) Crown Cork is one of many defendants in a substantial number of lawsuits filed throughout the United States by persons alleging bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. These claims arose from the insulation operations of a U.S. company, the majority of whose stock Crown Cork purchased in 1963. About 90 days after the stock purchase, this U.S. company sold its insulation assets and was later merged into Crown Cork. Prior to 1998, amounts paid to asbestos claimants were covered by a fund made available to Crown Cork under a 1985 settlement with carriers insuring Crown Cork through 1976, when Crown Cork became self-insured. The fund was depleted in 1998 and the Company has no remaining coverage for asbestos-related costs. During the three months ended March 31, 2009, Crown Cork received about 1,000 new claims, settled or dismissed about 1,000 claims for a total of US$1 million. Settlement amounts include amounts committed to be paid in future periods. The outstanding claims at March 31, 2009 exclude 33,000 pending claims involving plaintiffs who allege that they are, or were, maritime workers subject to exposure to asbestos. The outstanding claims also exclude about 19,000 inactive claims. As of March 31, 2009, the Company's accrual for pending and future asbestos-related claims and related legal costs was US$198 million, including US$135 million for unasserted claims and US$1 million for committed settlements that will be paid over time. Historically (1977-2008), Crown Cork estimates that about one- quarter of all asbestos-related claims made against it have been asserted by claimants who claim first exposure to asbestos after 1964. However, because of Crown Cork's settlement experience to date and the increased difficulty of establishing identification of the subsidiary's insulation products as the cause of injury by persons alleging first exposure to asbestos after 1964, the Company has not included in its accrual any amounts for settlements by persons alleging first exposure to asbestos after 1964. The Company's accrual of US$198 million includes estimates for probable costs for claims through the year 2018. Potential estimated additional claims costs of US$38 million beyond 2018 have not been included in the Company's accrual. Based in Philadelphia, Crown Holdings, Inc. supplies packaging products to consumer marketing companies around the world. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Still Party to Lawsuits in Texas ---------------------------------------------------------------- Crown Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., continues to be involved in asbestos-related lawsuits in Texas courts. In June 2003, the State of Texas enacted legislation that limits the asbestos-related liabilities in Texas courts of companies such as Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because they are successors by corporate merger to companies that had been involved with asbestos. The Texas legislation, which applies to future claims and pending claims, caps asbestos-related liabilities at the total gross value of the predecessor's assets adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-related claims than the total adjusted value of its predecessor's assets. In May 2006, the Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals upheld a grant of summary judgment to Crown Cork and upheld the state constitutionality of the statute (Barbara Robinson v. Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., No. 14-04-00658-CV, Fourteenth Court of Appeals, Tex.). The Appeals Court decision has been appealed by the plaintiff to the Texas Supreme Court. A favorable ruling for summary judgment in an asbestos case pending against Crown Cork in the district court of Travis County, Tex. (in Re Rosemarie Satterfield as Representative of the Estate of Jerrold Braley Deceased v. Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., No. 03-04-00518-CV, Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin) has been reversed on appeal on state constitutional grounds due to retroactive application of the statute. Although the Company said it believes that the Texas legislation is constitutional, there can be no assurance that the legislation will be upheld by the Texas Supreme Court on appeal. Based in Philadelphia, Crown Holdings, Inc. supplies packaging products to consumer marketing companies around the world. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Party to Lawsuits in Pa. Courts ---------------------------------------------------------------- Crown Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., continues to be involved in asbestos-related lawsuits in Pennsylvania courts. In December 2001, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted legislation that limits the asbestos-related liabilities of Pennsylvania corporations that are successors by corporate merger to companies involved with asbestos. The legislation limits the successor's liability for asbestos to the acquired company's asset value adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-related claims than the acquired company's adjusted asset value. In November 2004, the legislation was amended to address a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision (Ieropoli v. AC&S Corporation, et. al., No. 117 EM 2002), which held that the statute violated the Pennsylvania Constitution due to retroactive application. On Feb. 6, 2009, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed, due to the plaintiff's lack of standing, the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas' dismissal of three cases against Crown Cork raising federal and state constitutional challenges to the amended statute (Stea v. A.W. Chesterton, Inc., et. al, No. 2956 EDA 2006). The plaintiff has requested that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court accept the appeal of this decision. The Company cautions that the limitations of the statute, as amended, are subject to litigation and may not be upheld. Based in Philadelphia, Crown Holdings, Inc. supplies packaging products to consumer marketing companies around the world. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NL Industries Still Facing Exposure Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- NL Industries, Inc. continues to be a defendant in various lawsuits in several jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as a result of occupational exposure primarily to products manufactured by the Company's former operations containing asbestos, silica and mixed dust. During the first quarter of 2009, certain of these cases involving multiple plaintiffs were separated into single- plaintiff cases. As a result, the total number of outstanding cases increased. About 1,234 of these types of cases remain pending, involving a total of about 3,400 plaintiffs, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2009. In addition, the claims of about 7,500 plaintiffs have been administratively dismissed or placed on the inactive docket in Ohio state courts. The Company does not expect these claims will be re-opened unless the plaintiffs meet the courts' medical criteria for asbestos-related claims. To date, the Company has not been adjudicated liable in any of these matters. Based in Dallas, NL Industries, Inc. is primarily a holding company. It operates in the component products industry through majority-owned subsidiary, CompX International Inc. The Company operates in the chemicals industry through its non-controlling interest in Kronos Worldwide, Inc. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TriMas Facing 777 Cases w/ 7,498 Claimants ---------------------------------------------------------------- TriMas Corporation, as of March 31, 2009, was a party to 777 pending cases involving an aggregate of 7,498 claimants alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos containing materials, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2009. The asbestos formerly used in gaskets (both encapsulated and otherwise) manufactured or distributed by certain of the Company's subsidiaries for use primarily in the petrochemical refining and exploration industries. During the three months ended March 31, 2009, the Company noted 55 claims filed, 80 claims dismissed, and one claim settled. The average settlement amount per claim was US$95,000 and total defense costs were US$656,600. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company noted 723 claims filed, 2,668 claims dismissed, and 75 claims settled. The average settlement amount per claim was US$1,813 and total defense costs were US$3,448,000. In addition, the Company acquired various companies to distribute its products that had distributed gaskets of other manufacturers prior to acquisition. The Company said it believes that many of its pending cases relate to locations at which none of its gaskets were distributed or used. The large majority of claims do not specify the amount sought. Of the 7,498 claims pending at March 31, 2009, 139 set forth specific amounts of damages (other than those stating the statutory minimum or maximum). About 106 of the 139 claims sought between US$1 million and US$5 million in total damages (which includes compensatory and punitive damages), 32 sought between US$5 million and US$10 million in total damages (which includes compensatory and punitive damages) and one sought over US$10 million (which includes compensatory and punitive damages). Solely with respect to compensatory damages, 110 of the 139 claims sought between US$50,000 and US$600,000, 28 sought between US$1 million and US$5 million and one sought over US$5 million. Solely with respect to punitive damages, 106 of the 139 claims sought between US$0 million and US$2.5 million, 32 sought between US$2.5 million and US$5 million and one sought over US$5 million. In addition, relatively few of the claims have reached the discovery stage and even fewer claims have gone past the discovery stage. Total settlement costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all such cases, some of which were filed over 20 years ago, have been about US$5.3 million. All relief sought in the asbestos cases is monetary in nature. To date, about 50 percent of the Company's costs related to settlement and defense of asbestos litigation have been covered by its primary insurance. Effective Feb. 14, 2006, the Company entered into a coverage-in- place agreement with its first level excess carriers regarding the coverage to be provided to the Company for asbestos-related claims when the primary insurance is exhausted. The coverage-in-place agreement makes coverage available to the Company that might otherwise be disputed by the carriers and provides a methodology for the administration of asbestos litigation defense and indemnity payments. The coverage in place agreement allocates payment responsibility among the primary carrier, excess carriers and the Company's subsidiary. Based in Bloomfield Hills, Mich., TriMas Corporation is an industrial manufacturer and distributor of highly engineered products serving focused markets in a diverse range of commercial, industrial and consumer applications. The Company has five reportable segments: Packaging Systems, Energy Products, Industrial Specialties, RV & Trailer Products and Recreational Accessories. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ladish Facing Exposure Lawsuits in 3 States ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ladish Co., Inc. is party to asbestos lawsuits in Mississippi, Illinois, and Wisconsin courts. The Company has been named as a defendant in a number of asbestos cases in Mississippi, Illinois, Wisconsin and California. As of May 6, 2009, the Company has been dismissed from a majority of the cases in Mississippi, most of the cases in Illinois and the one case in California. The Company has never manufactured or processed asbestos. The Company's exposure to asbestos involves products the Company purchased from third parties. The Company has notified its insurance carriers of these claims and is vigorously defending these actions. The Company has not made any provision in its financial statements for the asbestos litigation. Based in Cudahy, Wis., Ladish Co., Inc. engineers, produces and markets forged and cast metal components for various load- bearing and fatigue-resisting applications in the jet engine, aerospace and industrial markets. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Scotts Miracle-Gro Has Pending Injury Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company continues to be involved in cases alleging injuries that the lawsuits claim resulted from exposure to asbestos-containing products, apparently based on the Company's historic use of vermiculite in certain of its products. The complaints in these cases are not specific about the plaintiffs' contacts with the Company or its products, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2009. The Company in each case is one of numerous defendants and none of the claims seek damages from the Company alone. The Company is reviewing agreements and policies that may provide insurance coverage or indemnity as to these claims and is pursuing coverage under some of these agreements and policies. Based in Marysville, Ohio, The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company manufactures, markets, and sells lawn and garden care products. The Company's customers include home centers, mass merchandisers, warehouse clubs, large hardware chains, independent hardware stores, nurseries, garden centers, food and drug stores, commercial nurseries and greenhouses and specialty crop growers. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Belden Facing 114 Injury Cases at April 20 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Belden Inc., at April 20, 2009, is party to 114 asbestos personal injury cases, in which it is one of many defendants, according to the Company's latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. At Feb. 9, 2009, the Company was aware of 130 asbestos-related personal injury cases, in which it is one of many defendants. (Class Action Reporter, March 20, 2009) 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 April 20, 2009, the Company has been dismissed, or reached agreement to be dismissed, in 285 similar cases without any going to trial, and with 31 of these involving any payment to the claimant. Based 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: TRW Units Still Subject to Exposure Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Certain subsidiaries of TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. are still subject to asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2009. These claims seek damages for illnesses alleged to have resulted from exposure to asbestos used in certain components sold by the Company's subsidiaries. The Company said it believes that the majority of the claimants were assembly workers at the major U.S. automobile manufacturers. Most of these claims name numerous manufacturers and suppliers of various products allegedly containing asbestos. Neither the Company's settlement costs in connection with asbestos claims nor its annual legal fees to defend these claims have been material in the past. The Company has been successful in obtaining the dismissal of many cases without any payment whatsoever. Based in Livonia, Mich., TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. supplies automotive systems, modules and components to global automotive original equipment manufacturers, and related aftermarkets. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Briggs & Stratton Still Has Liability Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- Briggs & Stratton Corporation continues to be subject to various unresolved legal actions, including asbestos-related product liability actions, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2009. Based in Wauwatosa, Wis., Briggs & Stratton Corporation produces air cooled gasoline engines for outdoor power equipment. The Company designs, manufactures, markets and services these products for original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) worldwide. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Roper Ind. Still Subject to Exposure Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- Roper Industries, Inc. and its subsidiaries still are subject to asbestos-related litigation claims, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2009. No significant resources have been required by the Company to respond to these cases and it said it believes it has valid defenses to those claims. Based in Sarasota, Fla., Roper Industries, Inc. designs, manufactures and distributes energy systems and controls, scientific and industrial imaging products and software, industrial technology products and radio frequency products and services. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navy Machinist Gets $12.1MM in Compensation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Charles H. Cundiff, a former U.S. Navy machinist, won US$12.1 million in asbestos damages from two firms: John Crane, Inc. and Lone Star Industries, AHN reports. On May 11, 2009, a Los Angeles County jury ruled that the manufacturer and supplier of an asbestos product must pay the 66-year-old Mr. Cundiff US$10 million for pain and suffering and US$506,000 in economic damages for lost wages because he is now afflicted with mesothelioma. Mr. Cundiff's wife was awarded US$1.5 million for loss of consortium. The jury said John Crane, Inc., which made Insulag, and Lone Star Industries, which delivered the asbestos-laced insulating cement to Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, made a defective product and failed to warn Mr. Cundiff of its health hazard. Mr. Cundiff handled Insulag cement in the overhauling of the USS Kitty Hawk that lasted nine months during his Navy tour from 1962 to 1966. Mr. Cundiff was absent during the hearing and his deposition was used as his testimony. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace, Former Execs Cleared in Libby Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- A federal jury cleared W. R. Grace and Co. and three of its former executives on all charges of knowingly exposing residents of Libby, Mont., to asbestos and concealing the danger, the Chemical & Engineering News reports. After a three-month trial and two days of deliberation, the jury rejected the U.S. Government's criminal case, filed in 2005. Between 1963 and 1990, Grace operated a mine in Libby processing vermiculite, which was contaminated with asbestos. At the time Grace and the executives were indicted, the Department of Justice said 1,200 area residents suffered from asbestosis. Grace CEO Fred E. Festa insists that the Company and its executives never conspired to either hurt people or skirt the law. He said, "We always believed that Grace and its former executives had acted properly and that a jury would come to the same conclusion." However, federal prosecutors depicted Grace and its executives as mine operators who conspired to frustrate government efforts to protect public health and safety. A conviction could have exposed the Company to millions of dollars in fines, and the executives named in the indictment could have faced up to 15 years in jail on the most serious charges. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ore. Developer Charged for Exposing Hazards ---------------------------------------------------------------- According to the Linn County District Attorney's Office, Dan Desler, a developer from Eugene, Ore., has been arrested on charges of unlawful air pollution, reckless endangerment and supplying false information to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, The Associated Press reports. The 65-year-old Mr. Mesler was lodged in the county jail on May 11, 2009 on a US$100,000 bail. The allegations stem from asbestos found in the demolition of buildings at a former lumber mill site in Sweet Home. The site, once owned by Willamette Industries, is now controlled by a trust Mr. Desler established in 2002 to build a subdivision. The arrest came a day after The Register-Guard newspaper published a front-page story about Mr. Desler's dealings in Sweet Home. Leah Koss, an environmental law specialist with the DEQ, said on May 11, 2009 that a Linn County grand jury indicted Mr. Desler and the Western States Land Reliance Trust on April 22, 2009. The trust was established to benefit a Portland charity called the Oregon Health Care Foundation, of which Mr. Desler is a board member. It received about 400 acres in land donations from Willamette Industries and Morse Bros., which received a combined US$6 million in tax write-offs, according to federal tax filings. Mr. Desler, in a recent interview with The Register-Guard, said Willamette Industries provided a report saying the mill site was asbestos-free. The city of Sweet Home issued Mr. Desler a demolition permit for the site, but it was revoked after the city was notified by the DEQ of asbestos on-site, according to Carol Lewis, the city's community development director. Mr. Desler hired Charles Corp to demolish the buildings in 2007. However, Mr. Corp, who testified before the grand jury, did not know the site contained asbestos, said deputy district attorney Heidi Sternhagen of Linn County. Mr. Desler's attorney, Michael Vergamini, Esq., said he was aware of the arrest, but it was unexpected and he could not comment on specifics. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Victims to Appeal for Financial Aid ---------------------------------------------------------------- Victims of the James Hardie Industries N.V. asbestos scandal will appeal to the government of Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd for a financial bailout, as the Hardie fund set up to make huge compensation payouts faces an AUD350 million shortfall, The Australian reports. The appeal follows an admission that the Hardie asbestos compensation fund established in 2006 cannot meet its payment targets over the next three to five years because of the impact of the recession on the building products company. Under the terms of an AUD1.5 billion settlement negotiated with Hardie, victims of asbestos-related diseases are to receive compensation installments if there is a fund shortfall. However, victims groups, backed by unions, want the Rudd Government to pay hundreds of injured workers and their families the agreed compensation in full and seek reimbursement later from Hardie. Under the proposal, victims would assign their rights to compensation to the Rudd Government, allowing it to legally collect any shortfall from the company. Victims groups are also appealing for special assistance from the New South Wales Government, which was instrumental in setting up the fund by passing special legislation three years ago. Paul Bastian, NSW secretary of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, said he would write to the Prime Minister asking for help and wanted Mr. Rudd to keep his word that "no one would go without compensation." On May 8, 2009, asbestos campaigners put pressure on the NSW Government to come to the party following a meeting in Sydney with NSW Attorney-General John Hatzistergos. Mr. Rudd took a special interest in the welfare of Hardie asbestos victims before the 2007 federal election, and has paid tribute to the work of their late campaigning leader, Bernie Banton. Mr. Bastian said one avenue of federal funding would be to allow AUD153 million in Hardie funds held by the tax office to be released for victims compensation payouts. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Budget Hike Approved for Mo. Court Cleanup ---------------------------------------------------------------- Saline County Commissioners in Marshall, Mo., on May 7, 2009, approved an increase of US$5,900 for asbestos removal work on the second floor of the courthouse, The Marshall Democrat-News reports. Gerken Environmental Enterprises Inc. of Springfield was originally contracted for US$14,980. However, small amounts of additional asbestos have been found on some pipes. In support of increasing the contract, Southern District Commissioner Richard Hassler said, "As long as they're here, we might as well get it done and get it done right." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aircraft Worker Compensation Claim Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- An asbestos compensation claim filed by Maximillian Surman, a retired aircraft worker of Nuneaton, England, is ongoing, the Coventry Telegraph reports. Mr. Surman was diagnosed with mesothelioma in August 2008. The 70-year-old Mr. Surman, who is a former Dunlop employee, is now undergoing chemotherapy treatment as part of a clinical trial. Mr. Surman worked in the aircraft industry for more than 30 years including two spells at Dunlop's site in Holbrook Lane, Holbrooks. He is believed to have been exposed to asbestos fibers while working as a bench hand or "fraser" at Dunlop Rim and Wheel Company from 1961 to 1970 and at Dunlop Ltd from 1974 to 1994. Mr. Surman also did a similar job for dissolved firm Dex Gears Ltd in Longford Road, Longford, from 1972 to 1973 and could have been exposed to asbestos there. He also fears he could have been exposed to asbestos when the Dunlop site was re-roofed during the 1980s. Tariq Khan, a workplace illness specialist with Irwin Mitchell solicitors, is urging anyone who worked with Mr. Surman to help him by sharing their memories about working practices at the firms. Mr. Khan said, "We are anxious to help Mr. Surman settle his legal claim for compensation as quickly as possible and it is vital we hear from people who have information concerning the working practices undertaken at these three firms." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judge Blasts Waters & Kraus in Injury Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- An unnamed judge in Los Angeles accused Dallas-based law firm, Waters & Kraus, of attempting to force settlement by filing asbestos cases in two separate jurisdictions, Mesothelioma Cancer News reports. According to a report by The National Law Journal, Waters & Kraus filed a lawsuit on behalf of a man in Los Angeles who passed away from mesothelioma in 2007, first in Texas and subsequently in California. Of their actions, Mr. Kraus is said by the Law Journal to have stated they did so in accordance with policies for filing in jurisdictions that allow ailing clients to not have to sit through lengthy depositions. Alexandra Epand with the Los Angeles asbestos litigation firm Nixon Peabody is quoted as stating of the case, "I definitely think this is something the defense and plaintiff's bar are going to watch very, very closely, and it will have very important ramifications regardless of whichever way it goes." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tatera Lawsuit v. FMC Reinstated on May 12 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The District 1 Court of Appeals, on May 12, 2009, reinstated an asbestos lawsuit filed by Vicki Tatera, of Greenfield, Wis., against FMC Corporation, the Chicago Tribune reports. The suit was filed on behalf of Mrs. Tatera's husband, Walter Tatera, who died of mesothelioma in 2004. Mrs. Tatera's suit claims Mr. Tatera developed cancer after working at a machine shop where he ground brake linings into specific shapes to be installed in automobiles. The court says Mrs. Tatera can sue FMC, the supplier of the linings, for negligence for failing to warn that the parts contained asbestos and could be dangerous. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Jury Favors Defense in Gersten Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- A jury in Alameda County, Calif., delivered a defense verdict in favor of an unnamed engineer/general contractor in a closely watched asbestos trial, according to a Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman LLP press release. The case is styled Ronald & Martha Gersten v. Asbestos Corp. Ltd., Et Al. This two-month trial is significant in that a jury exonerated the sole remaining defendant from any liability, despite evidence that Mr. Gersten, a prominent dentist, developed mesothelioma following exposure to asbestos fibers. The same jury rejected a claim for loss of consortium brought by Mr. Gersten's wife. Trial lawyers Kevin Smith, Esq., and Greg Amundson, Esq., retained two weeks before the start of the case, stated that this trial is important from a national perspective. Mr. Amundson said, "Many think that when a plaintiff walks into a courtroom with a confirmed diagnosis of mesothelioma, a short life expectancy, imminent painful death, and large medical bills, the result is automatic liability, regardless of the evidence against a particular defendant. It is this perception that has fueled large settlements and has led to crippling financial losses for many companies and their insurers." Alameda County is viewed by many as a hotbed of asbestos cases in California, with many filings made on a weekly basis for asbestos related claims. "This result should give parties cause to consider whether they are overpaying in settlement of mesothelioma cases, and possibly consider taking more of these cases to trial," said Mr. Smith, a founding partner of Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman. "We are pleased our case joins the ranks of the other defense verdicts, and hopefully serves as a reminder that this type of occupational exposure litigation can be successfully defended at trial." In this case, the original complaint named 21 separate defendants. Prior to trial, the majority of defendants settled. During jury selection five additional defendants reached settlements, leaving Mr. Smith's and Mr. Amundson's client as the sole remaining defendant by the time opening statements were presented. The amounts of the other parties' settlements reached were kept confidential. Mr. Gersten sought to hold this last defendant, an engineer/general contractor, liable on what is commonly referred to as the "single fiber theory." This theory claims that there was at least one single fiber of asbestos which Mr. Gersten was exposed to as a result of alleged negligence during the construction of a power plant in El Centro, Calif., in 1957. Mr. Smith and Mr. Amundson were successful in moving the court to dismiss Mr. Gersten's product liability claims. The case proceeded on a successive exposure theory, which contended that Mr. Gersten's diagnosis of mesothelioma 51 years after exposure to asbestos at the defendant's construction site could form the basis for liability. Prior to trial, the settlement demand was US$4.95 million, and the engineer/general contractor made a statutory offer of US$200,000. Mr. Gersten claimed special damages of US$1.7 million, and sought non-economic damages in multiples of the economic damages. As a result of the the statutory offer to compromise, Mr. Amundson/Mr. Smith's client can now recover all costs incurred in the defense of this matter. The Gerstens were represented by Gordon Greenwood, Esq., and Andrea Huston, Esq., of Kazan, McClain, Lyons, Greenwood & Harley of Oakland, Calif. The engineer/general contractor was represented by Kevin Smith, Esq., and Greg Amundson, Esq., of Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman, which has offices throughout California, Nevada, Arizona and Colorado. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Ruling in Liberty Mutual Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, upheld the ruling of the U.S District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, which granted summary judgment to Third-Party Defendants, the "UTC Companies," including United Technologies Corporation and denied Liberty Mutual Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment. The case is styled Elliott Company v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellant v. United Technologies Corporation, Third-Party Defendant-Appellee. Justices Karen Nelson Moore, Eric L. Clay, and Raymond M. Kethledge entered judgment in Case No. 08-3419 on March 23, 2009. Justice Moore dissented. The dispute between UTC and Liberty Mutual on appeal stemmed from a lawsuit that Elliott Company filed against Liberty Mutual seeking coverage under policies that Liberty Mutual issued to UTC and Carrier Corporation. In 1957, Elliott merged with Carrier and, in 1979, UTC acquired Carrier. In 1981, UTC incorporated Elliott as a subsidiary of UTC. UTC sold Elliott in 1987, and Elliott ceased to be affiliated with UTC. While Elliott was associated with Carrier, Liberty Mutual insured Carrier through policies effective between July 31, 1957 and Jan. 1, 1963 (the "Carrier Policies"). In 1987, UTC filed suit against Liberty Mutual, seeking a declaratory judgment regarding its rights to coverage under the UTC Policies for certain environmental claims filed against UTC. Carrier filed a similar suit against Liberty Mutual in 1988. Liberty Mutual filed a cross-complaint in the UTC action, seeking payment for insurance coverage allegedly owed to it by UTC. In December 1994, Liberty Mutual and the UTC Companies, including Carrier and UTC, entered into a Settlement Agreement (the "Agreement"). In April 2006, Elliott filed suit against Liberty Mutual in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas alleging entitlement to coverage for liability stemming from pending personal injury lawsuits against Elliott in which the plaintiffs sought damages for alleged exposure to asbestos. After removing the case to trial court, Liberty Mutual filed a third-party complaint against the UTC Companies. Liberty Mutual and Elliott filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On March 30, 2007, the district court denied Liberty Mutual's motion for reconsideration, motion to direct the entry of a final judgment or to amend the judgment. On Feb. 20, 2008, the district court entered final judgment in the case. Liberty Mutual appealed, arguing that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the UTC Companies on the issue of their indemnification obligation. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dalmine Faces 41 Pending Claims at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tenaris, S.A.'s Italian subsidiary, Dalmine S.p.A., as of March 31, 2009, faced a total of 41 pending asbestos claims, of which none were covered by insurance. As of Dec. 31, 2008, Dalmine faced 55 pending asbestos claims, of which none were covered by insurance. (Class Action Reporter, March 13, 2009) Dalmine S.p.A. is currently subject to 13 civil proceedings for work-related injuries arising from the use of asbestos in its manufacturing processes during the period from 1960 to 1980. In addition, another 28 asbestos related out-of-court claims have been forwarded to Dalmine. During the three-month period ended March 31, 2009, two new claims were filed, no claims were adjudicated, and no claims were paid, one claim was rejected, two claims were settled, no claim was time barred and 13 claims were dismissed further to the dismissal of a criminal case related to the death of workers employed in Dalmine's plant. Aggregate settlement costs to date for the Company are EUR7.4 million (US$9.8 million). Dalmine estimates that its potential liability in connection with the claims not yet settled is about EUR12.8 million (US$17 million). Based in Luxembourg, Tenaris, S.A. was incorporated on Dec. 17, 2001, as a holding company in steel pipe manufacturing and distributing operations. The Company holds, either directly or indirectly, controlling interests in various subsidiaries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Transocean Still Faces Suits in Mississippi ---------------------------------------------------------------- Certain subsidiaries of Transocean Ltd. continue to face asbestos exposure lawsuits in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi. In 2004, several of the Company's subsidiaries were named, along with numerous unaffiliated defendants, in 21 complaints involving 750 plaintiffs that alleged personal injury arising out of asbestos exposure in the course of their employment by some of these defendants between 1965 and 1986. The complaints also named as defendants certain subsidiaries of TODCO and certain subsidiaries of Sedco, Inc. to whom the Company may owe indemnity. Further, the complaints named other unaffiliated defendant companies, including companies that allegedly manufactured drilling related products containing asbestos. The complaints alleged that the defendants used asbestos- containing products in connection with drilling operations and included allegations of negligence, strict liability, and claims allowed under the Jones Act and general maritime law. The plaintiffs generally sought awards of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. The Special Master who was appointed to oversee these cases required that each plaintiff file a separate amended complaint for each individual plaintiff and then he dismissed the original 21 complaints. The Company said it believed that it may have a direct or indirect interest in 44 of the resulting complaints. The Company has not been provided with sufficient information in all claims to determine the period of the claimants' exposure to asbestos, their medical condition or, in some cases, the vessels potentially involved in the claims. The Company historically has maintained broad liability insurance, but it is not certain whether its insurance will cover all liabilities arising out of the 44 claims. Based in Vernier, Switzerland, Transocean Ltd. provides offshore contract drilling services for oil and gas wells. At March 31, 2009, the Company owned, had partial ownership interests in or operated 136 mobile offshore drilling units. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Transocean Unit Has 1,065 Suits at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- A subsidiary of Transocean Ltd. faced 1,065 asbestos lawsuits as of March 31, 2009, according to the Company's latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. An unnamed Company subsidiary, as of Dec. 31, 2008, was a defendant in 1,008 asbestos-related lawsuits. (Class Action Reporter, March 6, 2009) One of the Company's subsidiaries is involved in lawsuits arising out of the subsidiary's involvement in the design, construction and refurbishment of major industrial complexes. The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold and its operations discontinued in 1989, and the subsidiary has no remaining assets other than the insurance policies involved in its litigation, funding from settlements with the primary insurers and funds received from the cancellation of certain insurance policies. The subsidiary has been named as a defendant, along with numerous other companies, in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. Some of these lawsuits include multiple plaintiffs and the Company estimates that there are 2,821 plaintiffs in these lawsuits. For many of these lawsuits, the Company has not been provided with sufficient information from the plaintiffs to determine whether all or some of the plaintiffs have claims against the subsidiary, the basis of any such claims, or the nature of their alleged injuries. The first of the asbestos-related lawsuits was filed against this subsidiary in 1990. Through March 31, 2009, the amounts expended to resolve claims (including both attorneys' fees and expenses, and settlement costs) have not been material, and all deductibles with respect to the primary insurance have been satisfied. The subsidiary continues to be named as a defendant in additional lawsuits. The subsidiary has in excess of US$1 billion in insurance limits. Based in Vernier, Switzerland, Transocean Ltd. provides offshore contract drilling services for oil and gas wells. At March 31, 2009, the Company owned, had partial ownership interests in or operated 136 mobile offshore drilling units. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Noble Corp. Still Has 39 Cases at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Noble Corporation, at March 31, 2009, continues to be a defendant in 39 asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2009. The Company is from time to time a party to various lawsuits that are incidental to its operations in which the claimants seek an unspecified amount of monetary damages for personal injury, including injuries purportedly resulting from exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities. These lawsuits have been filed in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. Exposure related to these lawsuits is not currently determinable. Based in Sugar Land, Tex., Noble Corporation is an offshore drilling contractor for the oil and gas industry. The Company performs contract drilling services with its fleet of 62 offshore drilling units located worldwide, including the Middle East, India, the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, Mexico, the North Sea, Brazil, and West Africa. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CenterPoint Resources Still Facing Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp., or its predecessor companies, still face lawsuits filed by certain individuals who claim injury due to exposure to asbestos during work at those formerly-owned facilities. The Company anticipates that additional claims like those received may be asserted in the future, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2009. Based in Houston, CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. owns and operates natural gas distribution systems in six states. Its subsidiaries own interstate natural gas pipelines and gas gathering systems and provide various ancillary services. The Company is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of CenterPoint Energy, Inc. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Has $7.02M Claims Reserve at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Entrx Corporation's current reserve for asbestos liability claims was US$7,025,000 as of March 31, 2009, compared with US$7,250,000 as of Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2009. The long-term reserve for asbestos liability claims was US$36,412,500 as of March 31, 2009, compared with US$38 million as of Dec. 31, 2008. Prior to 1975, the Company was engaged in the sale and installation of asbestos-related insulation materials, which has resulted in numerous claims of personal injury allegedly related to asbestos exposure. Many of these claims are now being brought by the children and close relatives of persons who have died, allegedly as a result of the direct or indirect exposure to asbestos. To date, all of the Company's asbestos-related injury claims have been paid and defended by its insurance carriers. Based in Minneapolis, Entrx Corporation provides insulation installation, maintenance and removal services, and asbestos abatement services, primarily on the West Coast. The Company provides these services through Metalclad Insulation Corporation to industrial, commercial and public agency clients. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 271 Cases Pending Against Entrx at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Entrx Corporation had 271 pending asbestos cases as of March 31, 2009, compared with 288 pending cases as of Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2009. During the three months ended March 31, 2009, the Company noted 51 new cases filed, 28 defense judgments and dismissals, six plaintiff judgments and settled cases, and 34 total resolved cases. Total indemnity payments were US$1.7 million. The average indemnity paid on plaintiff judgments and settled cases was US$283,333 and the average indemnity paid on all resolved cases was US$50,000. In addition, direct defense costs per resolved claim increased from US$8,514 in 2003 to US$44,359 in 2008. The weighted average defense cost per resolved claim from 2005 through 2008 was US$18,233. Based in Minneapolis, Entrx Corporation provides insulation installation, maintenance and removal services, and asbestos abatement services, primarily on the West Coast. The Company provides these services through Metalclad Insulation Corporation to industrial, commercial and public agency clients. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Cites $43.44M Receivables at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Entrx Corporation recorded an asbestos insurance coverage receivable of US$43,437,500 as an asset on its balance sheets as of March 31, 2009, compared with US$45,250,000 as of Dec. 31, 2008. Although defense costs are included in its insurance coverage, the Company expended US$30,000 during the three months ended March 31, 2009 and US$107,000 during the three months ended March 31, 2008 to administer the asbestos claims and defend the ACE Lawsuit. There are numerous insurance carriers, which have issued a number of policies to the Company over a period extending from 1967 through 1985 that still provide coverage for asbestos- related injury claims. After 1985, the policies were issued with provisions which purport to exclude coverage for asbestos related claims. Based in Minneapolis, Entrx Corporation provides insulation installation, maintenance and removal services, and asbestos abatement services, primarily on the West Coast. The Company provides these services through Metalclad Insulation Corporation to industrial, commercial and public agency clients. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Metalclad Still Party to ACE Insurance Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Entrx Corporation's subsidiary, Metalclad Insulation Corporation, continues to be party to insurance litigation filed by ACE Property & Casualty Company, Central National Insurance Company of Omaha and Industrial Underwriters Insurance Company. On Feb. 23, 2005 ACE, Central National, and Industrial, which are all related entities, filed a declaratory relief lawsuit against Metalclad and a number of Metalclad's other liability insurers, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. ACE, Central National and Industrial issued umbrella and excess policies to Metalclad, which has sought and obtained from the plaintiffs both defense and indemnity under these policies for the asbestos lawsuits brought against Metalclad during the last four to five years. The ACE Lawsuit seeks declarations regarding a variety of coverage issues, but is centrally focused on issues involving whether historical and currently pending asbestos lawsuits brought against Metalclad are subject to either an "aggregate" limits of liability or separate "per occurrence" limits of liability. Whether any particular asbestos lawsuit is properly classified as being subject to an aggregate limit of liability depends upon whether or not the suit falls within the "products" or "completed operations" hazards found in most of the liability policies issued to Metalclad. The ACE Lawsuit also seeks to determine the effect of the settlement agreement between the Company and Allstate Insurance Company on the insurance obligations of various other insurers of Metalclad, and the effect of the "asbestos exclusion" in the Allstate policy. The ACE Lawsuit does not seek any monetary recovery from Metalclad. The ACE Lawsuit is principally about coverage responsibility among the several insurers, as well as total coverage. In addition, the ACE Lawsuit may result in the Company incurring costs in connection with obligations it may have to indemnify Allstate Insurance Company under a settlement agreement. Based in Minneapolis, Entrx Corporation provides insulation installation, maintenance and removal services, and asbestos abatement services, primarily on the West Coast. The Company provides these services through Metalclad Insulation Corporation to industrial, commercial and public agency clients. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Corp. Accrues $375T in Allstate Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Entrx Corporation, at March 31, 2009, has accrued US$375,000 as a potential loss in connection with a matter concerning Allstate Insurance Company. In June 2004, the Company and its subsidiary, Metalclad Insulation Corporation, entered into a Settlement Agreement and Full Policy Release releasing Allstate from its policy obligations for a broad range of claims arising from injury or damage which may have occurred during the period March 15, 1980 to March 15, 1981, under an umbrella liability policy (Policy). The Policy provided limits of US$5 million in the aggregate and per occurrence. Allstate claimed that liability under the Policy had not attached, and that regardless of that fact, an exclusion in the Policy barred coverage for virtually all claims of bodily injury from exposure to asbestos, which is of primary concern to Metalclad, which took the position that such asbestos coverage existed. The parties to the Agreement reached a compromise, whereby Metalclad received US$2.5 million in cash, and Metalclad and the Company agreed to indemnify and hold harmless the insurer from all claims, which could be alleged against the insurer respecting the policy, limited to US$2.5 million in amount. Based on past experience related to asbestos insurance coverage, the Company said it believes that the Agreement it entered into in June 2004, will result in a probable loss contingency for future insurance claims based on the indemnification provision in the Agreement. Although it is unable to estimate the exact amount of the loss, the Company said it believes at this time the reasonable estimate of the loss will not be less than US$375,000 or more than US$2.5 million (the US$2.5 million represents the maximum loss it would have based on the indemnification provision in the Agreement). The US$375,000 estimated loss contingency noted in the above range represents 15 percent of the US$2.5 million the Company received and is based upon its attorney's informal and general inquiries to an insurance company of the cost for the Company to purchase an insurance policy to cover the indemnification provision the Company entered into. Allstate, in a cross-complaint filed against Metalclad in October 2005, asked the court to determine the Company's obligation to assume and pay for the defense of Allstate in an ACE Lawsuit under the Company's indemnification obligations in the Settlement Agreement. If Allstate is required to provide indemnity for the Company's asbestos-related lawsuits, it is likely that the Company would have to indemnify Allstate for asbestos-related claims that it defends up to US$2.5 million in the aggregate. If Allstate is not required to provide indemnity, the Company would have no liability to Allstate. Based in Minneapolis, Entrx Corporation provides insulation installation, maintenance and removal services, and asbestos abatement services, primarily on the West Coast. The Company provides these services through Metalclad Insulation Corporation to industrial, commercial and public agency clients. ********* 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 * * *