/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090724.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, July 24, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 145 Headlines AG-MART PRODUCE: Faces Farmworkers' Suits in Florida Over Wages ALTA CITRUS: Faces Farmworkers' FLSA Violations Suit in Florida BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Kansas Lawsuit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages C & B FARMS: Faces Migrant Farmworkers' Suit in Fla. Over Wages CAPITAL GROWTH: Nebraska Court Approves Settlement in "Brehm" CROUSE HOSPITAL: Faces N.Y. FLSA Litigation Over Overtime Pay FAXTON-ST. LUKE'S: Still Faces N.Y. ERISA, FLSA Violations Suit GAMING PARTNERS: Second Amended "Kaplan" Lawsuit Pending in Nev. GOOGLE INC: Plaintiffs Agree to Trim Claims in AdWords Lawsuit KADANT INC: Appeal to Dismissal of Consumer Fraud Suit Pending MEDIS TECHNOLOGIES: Second Circuit Affirms Nixing of N.Y. Suit NATHAN'S FAMOUS: Faces N.J. Lawsuit Over Cancer Risk of Hot Dogs NCAA: Hausfeld LLP Sues on Behalf of Former Student Athletes NEW MOTION: Continues to Dispute Claims Over Marketing Practices SEARS HOLDINGS: N.Y. Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Litigation SPARK NETWORKS: "Adelman" Lawsuit Dismissed in November 2008 ST. JOSEPH'S: Faces ERISA, FLSA Suit in N.Y. Over Overtime Pay STATION CASINOS: Nevada Court Dismisses "Lukevich" Labor Lawsuit TRIBUNE CO: Del. Judge Denies Bid to Pursue Pay Discrepancy Case VELOCITY EXPRESS: Dec. 2009 Trial Set for Contractors' Lawsuit VELOCITY EXPRESS: Still in Talks to Settle Consolidated Lawsuit VILLAGE OF BELLWOOD: Appeals Court Affirms Ruling in "Narducci" WAL-MART STORES: Wash. Judge Approves $35M Litigation Settlement WEST PUBLISHING: Judge Grants Attorney Fees in BAR/BRI Deal YUM! BRANDS: August 11 Trial Set for "Archila" Lawsuit v. KFC YUM! BRANDS: Dec. 16 Trial Set for Judgment Bid in Moeller Suit YUM! BRANDS: "Hardiman" Suit Consolidated w/ Suits v. Taco Bell YUM! BRANDS: "Leyva" Suit Consolidated with Suits v. Taco Bell YUM! BRANDS: "Medlock" Suit Consolidated w, Suits v. Taco Bell YUM! BRANDS: "Naranjo" Suit Consolidated w/ Suits v. Taco Bell YUM! BRANDS: Nov. 2009 Arbitration Set for Restitution Liability YUM! BRANDS: Sept. 25 Hearing Set for Calif. RGMs Certification YUM! BRANDS: Taco Bell Faces "Widjaja" Wage and Hour Lawsuit New Securities Fraud Cases ACCURAY INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL: Brower Piven Announces Stock Suit Filing MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Brower Piven Announces Stock Suit Filing MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Kendall Law Group Announces Lawsuit Filing MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Sarraf Gentile Announces Stock Suit Filing TRONOX INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Grants Ruling in Silta's Favor ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Defendants' Motion in Anderson Case Denied ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judgment for Caterpillar Upheld in Anderson ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Porter's Bid for Summary Judgment Affirmed ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Essex Summary Judgment OK'd in Whitt Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Griffin's Summary Judgment OK'd in Ransford ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Denies Lloyd's Summary Judgment Move ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio Court Reverses Ruling in Whipkey Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: New York Court Rules on TIG Insurance Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Rulings in McKee Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Ind. Cites $514MM Settlement at June 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bristol Floor Layer Gets GBP70T in Payout ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Ex-Handyman's Death Linked to Exposure ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Thurlby Resident's Death Linked to Exposure ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Scarborough Worker's Death Linked to Hazard ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lincoln Hall in Illinois Slated for Cleanup ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Irish Harbor Cleanup to Cost Up to EUR300T ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Probe on Illegal Dumping in Hawaii Ongoing ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Dumped at Heighington Countryside ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Discovered at Sinopec Star's Oil Rig ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dispute on "Dysfunctional Database" Settled ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ryder's Wife's Death Due to Hazard Exposure ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Oliver to Give GBP1T for Every Case Settled ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Discovered in Sumas River in Wash. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cork City Sues Bakery for Asbestos Breaches ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Waseca Library Renovation Estimated at $47T ASBESTOS LITIGATION: $450T Needed to Replace Water Lines in Ore. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Somerset Local Gets GBP175T in Compensation ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup to Commence at Bridge in Heuvelton ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Winona Memorial Closed July 15 Over Hazards ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Removed From Bridgewater Elementary ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BAVSG Seeks Probes for Schools in Bradford ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Forces Closure of Library in Glasgow ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Affirms Ruling in Darrah Claim ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Affirms Ruling in Bugosh Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Affirms Ruling in James Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Split Ruling Issued in Federal Ins. Lawsuit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court to Reverse Ruling in Nationwide Claim ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Langone's Claim v. Beloit City Filed July 6 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Citro Action v. Kraft Foods, Inc. Underway ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Columbus Dispute on CAD175,280 Bill Ongoing ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Concord Steam Charged $22,000 for Asbestos ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chilwell Resident's Death Linked to Hazards ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup at Marcy, N.Y. Center to Cost $420T ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Korean Gov't. to Tighten Hazard Regulations ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hampshire Locals Still Waiting for Payout ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dunfermline Local Gets Payout for Injuries ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MoD Notes GBP770T Paid to Civilian in 2008 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Flips Ruling in Vicknair Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Affirms Ruling in PWA Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Ruling in Parkland Claim ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Enters Ruling in Bailey Claim ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Velto's Motion for Default Judgment Denied ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Actions Ongoing v. Lockheed Martin ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cohen Claim Filed Against Nashua on March 3 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Badger Meter Still Has Multi-Party Lawsuits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 11 Cases Filed During July 13 to 17 in Ill. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 7 Actions Filed During July 6-10 in Madison ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tax Benefits Not Assured on Hardie Transfer ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Schmidheiny, Cartier Ordered to Stand Trial ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Found in 17 Products in South Korea ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Devoy's Widow Gets GBP500T in Compensation ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minn. Site Cleanup to Commence on August 24 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pa. DEP Issues NOV at Ambler Ex-Boiler Site ********* AG-MART PRODUCE: Faces Farmworkers' Suits in Florida Over Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Ag-Mart Produce, Inc. is facing two purported class-action lawsuits Florida that was filed by farmworkers who say they were cheated out of pay, Laura Layden of The Naples Daily News reports. The Migrant Farmworker Justice Project, an advocate for farmworker rights in Florida, filed the suits in June. These lawsuits are seeking damages and relief for more than 1,000 workers, who claim they were paid less than the minimum wage required by law for work they did during the past two seasons, according to The Naples Daily News. Seven farmworkers are named plaintiffs in the two cases, which were both filed on June 18, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. One suit was captioned, "Chavez-Guillermo et al v. Ag-Mart Produce, Inc., Case No. 2:2009-cv-00387." It was filed by Jaime Chavez-Guillermo, Irma Andres-Hernandez, Apolinar DeJesus and Rodrigo Rojas-Cristobal. The second suit is entitled, "Rojas-Cristobal et al v. Ag-Mart Produce, Inc., Case No. 2:2009-cv-00386." It was filed by Pablo Rojas-Cristobal, Alfredo Aristeo-Agustin and Maria Gabriel- Antonio. For more details, contact: Gregory Scott Schell, Esq. (Greg@Floridalegal.Org) Migrant Farmworker Justice Project 508 Lucerne Ave. Lake Worth, FL 33460-3819 Phone: 561/582-3921 Fax: 561-582-4884 ALTA CITRUS: Faces Farmworkers' FLSA Violations Suit in Florida --------------------------------------------------------------- Alta Citrus, LLC and its owner Carlos G. Gamez are facing a purported class-action lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Laura Layden of The Naples Daily News reports. The suit was filed on June 18, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida by Andres Gonzalez-Gonzalez, Francisco Acevedo-Hernandez and Nicolas Vega-Camacho, under the caption, "Gonzalez-Gonzalez et al v. Alta Citrus, LLC et al, Case No. 2:2009-cv-00388." The case is a class-action brought by three farmworkers, who were employed through the H-2A guest worker program. The farmworkers say that they were paid wages below what is required by the program and state law, according to The Naples Daily News. Earnings were based on a piece-rate and were routinely below the minimum wage, according to the lawsuit, reports The Naples Daily News. For more details, contact: Gregory Scott Schell, Esq. (Greg@Floridalegal.Org) Migrant Farmworker Justice Project 508 Lucerne Ave. Lake Worth, FL 33460-3819 Phone: 561/582-3921 Fax: 561-582-4884 BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Kansas Lawsuit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bank of America, N.A. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit accusing it of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act failing to pay overtime to some employees, Adam O'Daniel of Charlotte Business Journal reports. The suit was filed on Feb. 13, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas by Amanda Brawner and Gynon Hamilton, under the caption, "Brawner et al v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 2:2009-cv-02073." Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP and Donelon, P.C. recently filed a lawsuit against Bank of America, N.A. on behalf of bank tellers and personal bankers for allegedly unpaid wages and overtime worked at company bank branches across the country. The lawsuit was filed as a collective action, which means that other Bank of America employees with similar job duties may join the case to seek their allegedly unpaid wages (Class Action Reporter, July 13, 2009). In the Complaint, the employees allege that Bank of America failed to pay bank tellers and personal bankers for overtime worked. In particular, employees work more than forty hours in a work week, but instead of paying them overtime, Bank of America: -- gives them "comp time," -- tells them not to record the hours worked over forty, and/or -- lowers or "modifies" the tellers' and personal bankers' recorded hours by eliminating any overtime hours. Also, the lawsuit alleges that Bank of America automatically deducts time for meal breaks; however, employees were routinely required to perform work during unpaid meal breaks (or were not able to take such breaks). The failure to pay employees their earned overtime wages is in direct violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The FLSA provides for recovery of unpaid overtime wages, an equal amount for liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and litigation costs. Back wages can be sought over either a two- or three-year period from the date the employee joins the case, depending on whether the violation is deemed willful. Both present and former employees of Bank of America, N.A. may participate in the case. For more details, contact: Ashlea G. Schwarz, Esq. (ashlea@stuevesiegel.com) George Hanson, Esq. Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP 460 Nichols Road Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: 816-714-7103 Fax: 816-714-7101 Web site: http://www.stuevesiegel.com Charles J. Brown, Esq. (kclawyerbrown@yahoo.com) Brown & Associates, LLC 204B North US 169 Highway PO Box 125 Trimble, MO 64492-0125 Phone: 816-505-4529 Fax: 816-357-2101 Daniel William Craig, Esq. (dcraig@dancraigpc.com) Donelon, PC 1125 Grand Blvd. Suite 900 Kansas City, MO 64106 Phone: 816-221-7772 Fax: 816-283-3823 C & B FARMS: Faces Migrant Farmworkers' Suit in Fla. Over Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- C & B Farms, Inc. and its owner Charles W. Obern are facing a purported class-action lawsuit filed by farmworkers who say they were cheated out of pay, Laura Layden of The Naples Daily News reports. The suit was filed on June 18, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida by Joel Aleman, Jose Luis Ayala, Antonio Bareno, Jesus Bohorquez, Adolfo Carrillo, Melecio Castellon, Salvador Gomez, Erasto Gutierrez, Sebastian Hernadez, Antonio Lopez, Edgar Lopez, Crisanto Lopez-Mendoza, Francisco Lorenzo, Francisco Mejia, Lorenzo Mendez, Mateo Pascual, Domingo Perez-Gomez, Maria Teresa Pineda, Eleodoro Roblero, Eusebio Romero, Alma Dalia Santiago and Domingo G. Sebastian, under the caption, "Aleman et al v. Carrillo et al, Case No. 2:2009-cv- 00385." The 22 migrant workers say that in the 2008-09 season they were denied the proper record-keeping and wage statements required by law and that the grower routinely paid them less than minimum wage of $6.55 an hour, according to The Naples Daily News. The class includes more than 200 workers, most of whom aren't fluent in English and primarily come from Mexico and Central America, according to the lawsuit, reports The Naples Daily News. For more details, contact: Gregory Scott Schell, Esq. (Greg@Floridalegal.Org) Migrant Farmworker Justice Project 508 Lucerne Ave. Lake Worth, FL 33460-3819 Phone: 561/582-3921 Fax: 561-582-4884 CAPITAL GROWTH: Nebraska Court Approves Settlement in "Brehm" ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska gave preliminary approval to a proposed settlement in the matter, "Brehm et al v. Capital Growth Financial et al, Case No. 8:07- cv-00254-JFB-TDT," which alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act, The Associated Press reports. The class-action lawsuit was filed on June 29, 2007 by Willard F. Brehm, Gladys M. Brehm, Alvena T. Frost, Arlin Stutheit, Richard Hauberg, Elaine Hauberg, Gary Rademacher and Pamela Rademacher. It was filed against Capital Growth Financial, Rebecca Engle, Brian Schuster, Engle & Schuster Financial, American Capital, Royal Palm Capital Group, Capital Growth Equity Fund I, Alan Jacobs, Michael Jacobs, Gerald Parker, John Boyce, Geraldine Magaldinck, Patrick Harrington, Peter Kirschner and Stark Winter Schenkein & Co. The plaintiffs in the case are former clients of brokers Rebecca Engle and Brian Schuster, who both have pleaded not guilty to eight felony counts of securities fraud. Several lawsuits and arbitration claims have been filed against them and their former employers accusing Ms. Engle and Mr. Schuster of improperly selling risky investments, according to The Associated Press. Court documents filed in the lawsuits and criminal complaints say investors were defrauded out of at least $20 million. Most of the investors involved in the arbitration or lawsuits wanted conservative, stable investments with little risk because they were nearing retirement age or were already retired when they got involved with Ms. Engle and Mr. Schuster. They say the brokers instead invested their money in high-risk enterprises in Florida and never fully explained the risks, reports The Associated Press. Ms. Engle and Mr. Schuster, a former Nebraska football player, worked together in Nebraska City at times between 2000 and 2007. The brokers were affiliated with at least three different companies -- Capital Growth Financial LLC, Wachovia Securities LLC and VSR Financial Services Inc. -- during those years. The settlement that gained preliminary approval On July 21, 2009 is between the investors and Capital Growth along with two of the firm's former executives, Alan and Michael Jacobs, The Associated Press reported. The settlement terms were listed as confidential in U.S. District Court in Nebraska. But a copy of the settlement was filed in a related case in Florida, where Capital Growth was trying to collect from its insurer, Quanta Specialty Lines Insurance Co. According to those court documents, obtained by The Associated Press, Quanta will pay $646,160 to the class-action plaintiffs and another $93,840 to a specific investor who won an arbitration claim against Capital Growth. Separately, the Jacobses will pay $170,000 in a different arbitration claim. Quanta also agreed to pay $230,000 in legal fees related to the defense of Capital Growth and the Jacobses. This settlement does not represent the end of the case because several other defendants in the class-action lawsuit have not settled or admitted wrongdoing. And resolving some of the lawsuits or arbitration claims only generates additional litigation, according to The Associated Press. For more details, contact: James B. Cavanagh, Esq. (jcavanagh@liebenlaw.com) LIEBEN, WHITTED LAW FIRM 2027 Dodge Street Suite 100, Scoular Building Omaha, NE 68102 Phone: (402) 344-4000 Fax: (402) 344-4006 David M. Gaba, Esq. (davegaba@compasslegal.com) COMPASS LAW GROUP 1200 Fifth Avenue Suite 1900 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 251-5488 Fax: (206) 734-3854 Gregory C. Scaglione, Esq. (greg.scaglione@koleyjessen.com) KOLEY, JESSEN LAW FIRM 1125 South 103rd Street Suite 800, One Pacific Place Omaha, NE 68124 Phone: (402) 390-9500 Fax: (402) 390-9005 - and - John L. Spray, Esq. (JLS@mattsonricketts.com) MATTSON, RICKETTS LAW FIRM 134 South 13th Street Suite 1200 Lincoln, NE 68508-1901 Phone: (402) 475-8433 Fax: (402) 475-0105 CROUSE HOSPITAL: Faces N.Y. FLSA Litigation Over Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------------- Crouse Hospital in Syracuse, New York is facing a purported class-action lawsuit, which claims that employees at the hospital are owed overtime pay for working through their lunch breaks, The Associated Press reports. The suit was filed on Nov. 13, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York by Michele Fengler and Marianne Meyers, under the caption, "Fengler et al v. Crouse Health Foundation, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:2008-cv-01221." It generally alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Listed as defendants are: Crouse Health Foundation, Inc., Crouse Health System, Inc., Crouse Health, Inc., Crouse Health Hospital, Inc., Crouse Hospital Auxillary, Inc., Paul Kronenberg, John Bergemann, The Laboratory Alliance of Central New York, LLC, MDR MRI Technical Services, LLC, MDR/Little Falls Technical Services, LLC, MDR/Fulton MRI Technical Services, LLC, MDR/Crouse Technical Services, LLC, Syracuse Endoscopy Associates, LLC, Plaza Corporation of Central New York, Crouse Irving Alumnae Association, Crouse-Irving Memorial Physicians' Office Building, LLC, Crouse Physicians, P.C., Crouse Physician Organization IPA, Inc., Crouse Medical Group, P.C., Crouse Irving Management Services and Corporation and Crouse Hospital 401K Retirement Plan. In general, the suit claims that the hospital has practices and policies that automatically deduct hourly workers' lunch breaks from their pay, even when they work during those breaks caring for patients, according to AP. For more details, contact: Patrick J. Solomon, Esq. (psolomon@theemploymentattorneys.com) Dolin, Thomas Law Firm 693 East Avenue Rochester, NY 14607 Phone: 585-272-0540 Fax: 585-272-0574 FAXTON-ST. LUKE'S: Still Faces N.Y. ERISA, FLSA Violations Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Faxton-St. Luke's Healthcare continues to face a purported class-action lawsuit in New York generally alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the Fair Labor Standards Act, The Associated Press reports. Joleen Ferris of WKTV reported that the suit was filed by Dawn Hamelin, Julie Flint, and Rakiesha Griffin in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York on Nov. 13, 2008. It was brought on behalf of 89 current and former employees of the healthcare provider (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 17, 2008). Captioned, "Hamelin et al v. Faxton-St. Luke's Healthcare et al., Case No. 6:08-cv-01219-DNH-GJD," the suit is claiming that the healthcare organization's payroll system automatically and repeatedly deducted 30 minutes for lunch periods that the busy healthcare workers never took, according to WKTV. The suit is "Hamelin et al v. Faxton-St. Luke's Healthcare et al., Case No. 6:08-cv-01219-DNH-GJD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, Judge David N. Hurd, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: J. Nelson Thomas, Esq. (nthomas@theemploymentattorneys.com) Dolin, Thomas Law Firm 693 East Avenue Rochester, NY 14607 Phone: 585-272-0540 Fax: 585-272-0574 GAMING PARTNERS: Second Amended "Kaplan" Lawsuit Pending in Nev. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gaming Partners International Corp. continues to face a second amended complaint in the purported class action suit entitled, "Robert J. Kaplan v. Gerard P. Charlier, Melody J. Sullivan a/k/a Melody Sullivan Yowell, David Grimes, Charles T. McCullough, Eric P. Endy, Elisabeth Carrette and Gaming Partners International Corporation." On June 27, 2007, a putative class action complaint alleging violations of federal securities laws based on alleged misstatements and omissions by the company, entitled, "Robert J. Kaplan v. Gerard P. Charlier, Paul S. Dennis, Eric P. Endy, Alain Thieffry, Elisabeth Carrette, Robert J. Kelly, Charles R. Henry, Laura McAllister Cox and Gaming Partners International Corporation, Case No. 2:07-cv-00849-LDG-GWF," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, under. Mr. Kaplan has been designated by the court as lead plaintiff. On Feb. 12, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, deleting several of the originally named defendants, and adding three others. The action is now captioned, "Robert J. Kaplan v. Gerard P. Charlier, Melody J. Sullivan a/k/a Melody Sullivan Yowell, David Grimes, Charles T. McCullough, Eric P. Endy, Elisabeth Carrette and Gaming Partners International Corporation." The defendants, on April 16, 2008, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss was thereafter granted and an Order was entered dismissing the Amended Complaint without prejudice on Nove. 18, 2008. Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on Jan. 9, 2009. Defendants Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint was filed on Feb. 27, 2009, and remains pending, according to the company's May 13, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Gaming Partners International Corp. -- http://www.gpigaming.com/ -- manufactures and supplies casino table game equipment. The Company's business activities include the manufacture and/or supply of gaming chips, table layouts, wheels, playing cards, dice, gaming furniture and miscellaneous table accessories, which are used in conjunction with casino table games, such as blackjack, poker, baccarat, craps and roulette. It has three subsidiaries: Gaming Partners International USA, Inc. (GPI USA), Gaming Partners International SAS (GPI SAS) and GPI Mexicana S.A. de C.V. (GPI Mexicana). GPIC's products are sold to licensed casinos primarily in the United States and Canada, under the brand names Paulson, Bourgogne et Grasset (B&G), Bud Jones and T-K. The Company has existing production facilities in Las Vegas, Nevada; San Luis Rio Colorado, Mexico, and Beaune, France. GOOGLE INC: Plaintiffs Agree to Trim Claims in AdWords Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Google Inc. and the plaintiffs in a putative class-action suit over the Internet giant's popular AdWords program have struck a deal to end unjust enrichment claims against Google in exchange for the company's agreement to drop a breach of contract counterclaim, Law360 reports. Judge James Ware of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California signed off on the deal on July 15, 2009, according to Law360. KADANT INC: Appeal to Dismissal of Consumer Fraud Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs' appeal to the dismissal of a purported class- action lawsuit filed on behalf of a putative class of consumers who purchased defective decking and railing products manufactured by Kadant, Inc.'s discontinued operation. Specifically, the company was named as a co-defendant in a consumer class action suit brought by Terrence Fisher, Joseph Jennings, Paula Moore, and Larry Boylen on behalf of a putative class of individuals who own GeoDeck(TM) decking or railing products manufactured by Composites LLC between April 2002 and October 2003. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, under Docket Number 1:07-CV-12375- JLT, on Dec. 27, 2007, and notice was served on the company on Jan. 7, 2008. Other defendants named in the suit are Kadant Composites LLC and Liberty Diversified Industries, Inc. The complaint in this matter purports to assert, among other things, causes of action for unfair and deceptive trade practices, fraud, negligence, breach of warranty and unjust enrichment, and it seeks unspecified compensatory damages and punitive damages under various state consumer protection statutes. The plaintiffs claim that damages exceed $50 million. On March 14, 2008, the company and its co-defendants filed motions to dismiss all counts in the complaint. On Nov. 19, 2008, the Court dismissed the complaint in its entirety, including all claims against the company, Composites LLC, and the other co-defendant. On Dec. 4, 2008, the plaintiffs sought to vacate this order of dismissal in order to amend their complaint, and this motion was denied without prejudice by the Court on Jan. 12, 2009. On Jan. 27, 2009, the plaintiffs renewed their motion to vacate the order of dismissal in order to amend their complaint, which motion was opposed by the company on Feb. 10, 2009 and denied by the Court on March 3, 2009. On March 27, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended notice of appeal, clarifying an earlier notice and seeking to challenge the Court's dismissal on Nov. 19, 2008 and the Court's denial on March 3, 2009. On April 16, 2009, the Court formally opened the plaintiffs appeal and on April 23, 2009, the defendants moved to dismiss as untimely that portion of the plaintiffs appeal seeking to challenge the Nov. 19, 2008 dismissal. The Court has yet to schedule a hearing on the plaintiffs' appeal or defendants' partial motion to dismiss, according to Kadant's May 13, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 4, 2009.. The suit is "Fisher, et al. v. Liberty Diversified Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:07-CV-12375-JLT," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Judge Joseph L. Tauro, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq. (nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com) Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP 35 E. State Street Media, PA 19063 Phone: 610-891-9880 Fax: 610-891-9883 - and - Kristen Marquis Fritz, Esq. (kfritz@tenlaw.com) Thornton & Naumes LLP 30th Floor, 100 Summer Street Boston, MA 02110 Phone: 617-720-1333 Fax: 617-720-2445 Representing the defendants are: John G. Fabiano, Esq. (john.fabiano@wilmerhale.com) WilmerHale LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Phone: 617-742-9100 Fax: 617-526-5000 - and - Edward William Little Jr., Esq. (elittle@mccarter.com) McCarter & English, LLP 225 Franklin street Boston, MA 02110 Phone: 617-345-7018 Fax: 617-204-8018 MEDIS TECHNOLOGIES: Second Circuit Affirms Nixing of N.Y. Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Medis Technologies Ltd. (Nasdaq: MDTL) announced that the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the Southern District of New York's dismissal of the putative class action initiated against Medis and its former CEO, among others. Judge Paul A. Crotty of the Southern District of New York had dismissed the case captioned, "Medis Investor Group v. Medis Technologies Ltd. on August 18, 2008." Medis had vigorously denied any allegations of wrongdoing, and is gratified by the Second Circuit's decision. Medis Technologies Ltd. -- http://www.medistechnologies.com-- headquartered in New York, is the first company in the world to market a personal and portable liquid fuel cell capable of providing electrical power to the mobile electronics marketplace. The Medis fuel cell features a patented, proprietary fuel formulation that utilizes borohydride to generate electricity upon activation; it is safe, clean, silent, and recyclable. First generation products include the Medis 24- 7 Power Pack; 24-7 Xtreme Portable Power Solution; and the Medis Fuel Cell Power Emergency Kit. NATHAN'S FAMOUS: Faces N.J. Lawsuit Over Cancer Risk of Hot Dogs ---------------------------------------------------------------- Three New Jersey residents are suing Nathan's Famous, Kraft Foods/Oscar Mayer, Sara Lee, Con Agra Foods, and Marathon Enterprises for failing to warn consumers that hot dogs increase the danger of colorectal cancer. The action comes in the wake of landmark scientific studies linking hot dogs and similar meats to colon cancer. The class-action consumer fraud lawsuit, which is being filed July 22 in Superior Court in Essex County, seeks to compel all five companies to place cancer-risk warning labels on hot dog packages sold in New Jersey. The labels would read "Warning: Consuming hot dogs and other processed meats increases the risk of cancer." The nonprofit Cancer Project is filing the suit on behalf of John O'Donnell, Ruthann Hilland, and Michele DeScisciolo, who purchased hot dogs made by the companies without being made aware that processed meat products are a cause of colorectal cancer. "Just as tobacco causes lung cancer, processed meats are linked to colon cancer," says Neal Barnard, M.D., president of the Cancer Project. "Companies that sell hot dogs are well aware of the danger, and their customers deserve the same information." The lawsuit is based on the findings of a landmark report from the American Institute for Cancer Research, based on 58 separate scientific studies, showing that just one 50-gram serving of processed meat (about the amount in one hot dog) consumed daily increases the risk of colorectal cancer, on average, by 21 percent. Every year, about 150,000 Americans are diagnosed with colorectal cancer; approximately 50,000 die of it. In March, the National Cancer Institute published a study of more than half a million people showing that red and processed meat intake is associated with a higher risk of dying from cancer and cardiovascular disease. NCAA: Hausfeld LLP Sues on Behalf of Former Student Athletes ------------------------------------------------------------ Hausfeld LLP announced the filing of a federal class action lawsuit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) on behalf of former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon and a class of thousands of former NCAA Division I men's basketball and football players. The Complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that the NCAA has illegally deprived former student-athletes from receiving any compensation for the use of their images and likenesses in numerous revenue-generating formats, including DVD sales and rentals, photograph sales, video games, "stock footage" clips sold to corporate advertisers, jersey and other apparel sales, and rebroadcasts of "classic" games. Class representative Ed O'Bannon was named the Most Outstanding Player in the 1995 NCAA basketball tournament, in which he led his team to the national championship. Mr. O'Bannon's image is currently utilized in numerous DVDs and photographs offered for sale and rental by the NCAA and its business partners, in stock footage available for sale to corporate advertisers, and in a basketball video-game licensed by the NCAA. Mr. O'Bannon's games also appear on television as part of the rebroadcast of "classic" games. "College sports has become a multi-billion dollar business due to thousands of former student-athletes like myself. I'm participating in this case to stand up on behalf of all former players who have been treated unfairly," said Mr. O'Bannon. "It is not about personal gain for me, but a matter of basic fairness." The Complaint seeks injunctive relief that will enjoin the NCAA from its alleged anticompetitive practices and protect students in the future. Plaintiffs also seek damages for all those former Division I men's basketball and football players whose images have been licensed or sold by Defendants, their co- conspirators, and/or their licensees in the last four years. "No one has a right to own or control another person's image or likeness for eternity without providing fair compensation," said Michael D. Hausfeld, Chairman of Hausfeld LLP. "Former student athletes should have a voice in how their own images or likenesses -- once they are no longer students -- are used throughout their lifetime." NEW MOTION: Continues to Dispute Claims Over Marketing Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- New Motion, Inc. continues to dispute allegations concerning the company's marketing practices associated with some of its services billed and delivered via wireless carriers. The company is named in two class action lawsuits, in Florida and California, involving these allegations. In one of these matters, the company has received a Summary Judgment on its Motion to Dismiss related to a number of the allegations made in the original complaint. The company has accrued for the related costs through purchase accounting in the amount of $0.275 million in connection with these matters, according to the company's May 12, 2009 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. New York-based New Motion, Inc. -- http://www.atrinsic.com/-- doing business as Atrinsic, Inc., is a digital advertising and entertainment network in the United States. Atrinsic is organized around two divisions: Networks, which offers service online marketing and distribution, and Entertainment that offers its content direct to users. SEARS HOLDINGS: N.Y. Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a putative class-action lawsuit by Kmart Corp. shareholders for failing to back up allegations that top officers of the big box retailer -- now part of Sears Holding Corp. -- concealed the true value of the company's real estate assets, suppressing the company's stock price, Law360 reports. The motion to dismiss the purported class-action lawsuit, entitled, "In re: Sears Holdings Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:06-cv-04053-JES," remains pending (Class Action Reporter, June 15, 2009). In May and July 2006, two putative class action complaints -- each naming as defendants Sears Holdings Corp. and Edward S. Lampert -- were filed before U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, purportedly on behalf of a class of persons that sold shares of Kmart Holding Corp. stock on or after May 6, 2003, through June 4, 2004. Sears, Roebuck and Co. merged with Kmart which resulted in the 2004 formation of Sears Holdings. The plaintiffs in each case allege that Kmart's Plan of Reorganization and Disclosure Statement filed on Jan. 24, 2003, which was amended on Feb. 25, 2003, misrepresented Kmart's assets, particularly its real estate holdings, as evidenced by the prices at which Kmart subsequently sold certain of its stores in June 2004 to Home Depot and Sears. The plaintiffs seek damages for alleged misrepresentations. On Dec. 19, 2006, the Court consolidated the two suits and a consolidated complaint was later filed. On April 15, 2008, the Court denied without prejudice defendants' motion to dismiss. After taking some additional discovery, defendants filed another motion to dismiss which remains pending before the Court. On March 17, 2009, the Court heard arguments on the pending motion. The parties await a ruling, according to the company's May 29, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 2, 2009. The suit is "In re: Sears Holdings Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:06-cv-04053-JES," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge John E. Sprizzo, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. (nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com) Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP 369 Lexington Avenue 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-983-9330 Fax: 212-983-9331 Mark Casser Gardy, Esq. (mgardy@gardylaw.com) Gardy & Notis, LLP 440 Sylvan Avenue Suite 110 Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632 Phone: 201-567-7377 Fax: 201-567-7337 - and - Geoffrey Coyle Jarvis, Esq. (gjarvis@gelaw.com) Grant & Eisenhofer, PA Chase Manhattan Centre 1201 North Market Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: 302-622-7040 Fax: 302-622-7100 Representing the defendants is: David B. Anders, Esq. (dbanders@wlrk.com) Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz 51 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Phone: 212-403-1000 Fax: 212-403-2000 SPARK NETWORKS: "Adelman" Lawsuit Dismissed in November 2008 ------------------------------------------------------------ A purported class action suit filed against Spark Networks, PLC, which alleges violations of the California Dating Services Act, was dismissed in November 2008, according to the company's July 21, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. On Nov. 14, 2003, Jason Adelman filed a nationwide class action complaint against the company in the Los Angeles County Superior Court based on an alleged violation of California Civil Code section 1694 et seq., which regulates businesses that provide dating services. The complaint included allegations that the company is a dating service as defined by the applicable statutes and, as an alleged dating service, the company is required to provide language in contracts that allow: -- members to rescind their contracts within three days; -- reimbursement of a portion of the contract price if the member dies during the term of the contract; and -- members to cancel their contracts in the event of disability or relocation. Causes of action include breach of applicable state and federal laws, fraudulent and deceptive business practices, breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff sought remedies including declaratory relief, restitution, actual damages although not quantified, treble damages and punitive damages, and attorney's fees and costs. The case also sought to certify a nationwide class action based on their complaints. Because it was a class action, it was assigned to the Los Angeles Superior Court Complex Litigation Program. Mediation occurred in "Adelman" in 2004, but did not result in a settlement. A post-mediation status conference was held on July 16, 2004. At that status conference, the court suggested that the parties agree to a bifurcation of the liability issue. The purpose of the bifurcation is to allow the court to determine whether as a matter of law the California Dating Services Act applies to the company. In this way, if the court determines that the CDS Act is inapplicable, all further expenses associated with discovery and class certification can be avoided. The court has permitted limited discovery including document requests and interrogatories, the parties will each be permitted to take one deposition without further leave of the court, the parties will be allowed to designate expert witnesses, and the court will conduct a trial on the issue of the applicability of the CDS Act to the company's business in the spring of 2006. Although some written discovery relating to the bifurcated trial has been completed, depositions have not yet been completed. A second mediation occurred in "Adelman" on Feb. 10, 2006. The mediation resumed soon afterward, but did not result in a settlement. The bifurcated trial on the issue of the applicability of the CDS Act to the company's business in the Adelman action was set for Sept. 12, 2006. On Aug. 8, 2006, the court granted the company's application to bifurcate the trial of the issue of actual injury or damages and set the trial for Aug. 17, 2006. The court determined at the Bifurcated Damages Trial that Mr. Adelman did not suffer any actual injury or damages, thus Mr. Adelman's claims were dismissed and a judgment was entered to award attorneys' fees and costs to the company. On Jan. 31, 2007, the Court awarded the company $50,000 in legal fees. The company filed an appeal of the attorneys' fees award in order to seek an award of all of the attorneys' fees incurred in this matter. Although the company agrees that the Court properly granted its Attorneys' Fees Motion, it believes that the Court should have awarded the company attorneys' fees in the full amount it requested, approximately $390,000, and not the amount actually awarded, $50,000. Mr. Adelman has cross-appealed in an attempt to vacate the attorneys' fees award entirely. The Appellate Court heard oral argument on Feb. 19, 2008. On March 20, 2008, the Appellate Court issued an Order Vacating Submission in response to a letter dated March 17, 2008, from the Court of Appeals in which the Court asked to be briefed on certain additional issues. Briefs were filed by both parties on April 23, 2008. The matter has been submitted to the Court for decision and the company expects a decision within July 2008 (Class Action Reporter, June 26, 2008). On Aug. 13, 2008, the company and Mr. Adelman entered into a confidential settlement and release agreement. On Nov. 3, 2008, the Court formally entered a dismissal of the entire action with prejudice pursuant to a stipulation by the parties. Spark Networks, Inc. -- http://www.spark.net/-- is a provider of online personals services in the U.S. and internationally. The Web sites enable adults to meet online, participate in a community and form relationships. The features of the Company's Websites include such as detailed profiles, onsite email centers, real-time chat rooms, instant messaging services and offline singles events. The Websites include http://www.Jdate.com,http://www.AmericanSingles.com, http://www.BlackSingles.com,and http://www.ChristianMingle.com. It also operates several international Web sites and maintains operations in the United States and Israel. ST. JOSEPH'S: Faces ERISA, FLSA Suit in N.Y. Over Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------------------- St. Joseph's Hospital Health Center in Syracuse, New York is facing a purported class-action lawsuit, which claims that employees at the hospital are owed overtime pay for working through their lunch breaks, The Associated Press reports. The suit was filed on Nov. 13, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York by Robert Colozzi, Tammy Aiken and Christine Correia, under the caption, "Colozzi et al v. St. Joseph's Hospital Health Center et al, Case No. 5:2008- cv-01220." It generally alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974 and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Listed as defendants are: St. Joseph's Hospital Health Center, St. Joseph's Hospital, Theodore M. Pasinski, Frank Panzetta, St. Joseph's Health Center Properties Inc., St. Joseph's Hospital Health Center Foundation, Inc., Auxillary of St. Joseph's Hospital Health Center, Inc., Franciscan Health Support Services, LLC, Franciscan Health Support, Inc., Franciscan Management Services, Inc., Franciscan Associates, Inc., Alumnae of St. Joseph's Hospital Training School for Nurses, Alumni Association St. Joseph's College of Nursing Inc., St. Joseph's Health Center Medical Office Building, LLC, St. Joseph's Hospital Foundation-Elmira, N.Y. Inc., Health Care Management Administrators, Inc., Sisters of St. Francis of the Neumann Communities and St. Joseph's Hospital Health Center Employees 401K Savings and Retirement Plan and Trust. In general, the suit claims that the hospital has practices and policies that automatically deduct hourly workers' lunch breaks from their pay, even when they work during those breaks caring for patients, according to AP. For more details, contact: Justin M. Cordello, Esq. (jcordello@theemploymentattorneys.com) Dolin, Thomas Law Firm 693 East Avenue Rochester, NY 14607 Phone: 585-272-0540 Fax: 585-272-0574 STATION CASINOS: Nevada Court Dismisses "Lukevich" Labor Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada dismissed a massive proposed class-action lawsuit against Station Casinos Inc., alleging current and former Station employees are owed wages for unpaid hours they claimed to have worked, Steve Green of The Las Vegas Sun reports. In dismissing the lawsuit on July 16, 2009, Judge Larry Hicks of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada cited a little-known jurisdictional rule for class-action lawsuits, according to The Las Vegas Sun. The rule is called the "home-state controversy exception" and says federal courts must decline jurisdiction in such cases when two-thirds or more of the members of the proposed class-action, and the primary defendants, are citizens of the state in which the lawsuit was filed, reports The Las Vegas Sun. In this case, filed in 2008, the jurisdiction issue came up in March, court records show. Attorneys for Station Casinos asserted the home-state controversy argument and prevailed. That's because of the 20,219 people on the list of potential class-action plaintiffs, 18,899 have a Nevada address, The Las Vegas Sun reported. It was previously reported that the purported class-action complaint against the company was initiated on Feb. 4, 2008, by former Station Casinos employees Josh Luckevich, Cathy Scott and Julie St. Cyr (Class Action Reporter, July 14, 2009). Specifically, the complaint alleges that the company: -- failed to pay its employees for all hours worked, -- failed to pay overtime, -- failed to timely pay wages, and -- unlawfully converted certain earned wages. The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit, compensatory damages in excess of $5,000,000, punitive damages and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to the plaintiffs' counsel. The company filed a response to the complaint on March 10, 2008. The parties are currently in the discovery process. The company has yet to file a response to the complaint, according to the company's May 14, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. The suit is "Josh Lukevich v. Station Casinos, Inc., Case No. 2:08-cv-00141-LRH-LRL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, Judge Larry R. Hicks, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Kelly McInerney, Esq. (kelly@mcinerneylaw.net) McInerney & Jones 9460 Double R Blvd., Suite 103 Reno, NV 89521 Phone: 775-853-6440 Fax: 775-853-6445 - and - Matthew Righetti, Esq. (matt@righettilaw.com) Righetti Law Firm, P.C. 456 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415-983-0900 Fax: 415-397-9005 Representing the defendants is: Joanna S. Kishner, Esq. (joanna.kishner@dlapiper.com) DLA Piper US LLP 3960 Howard Hughes Pkwy, Suite 400 Las Vegas, NV 89169 Phone: 702-677-3900 Fax: 702-737-1612 TRIBUNE CO: Del. Judge Denies Bid to Pursue Pay Discrepancy Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- A former Tribune Co. account executive, who claims she was fired for complaining about alleged pay discrepancies and due to her age, has lost a bid to lift the automatic stay in the media giant's bankruptcy case to pursue a putative class-action suit, Law360 reports. On July 21, 2009, Judge Kevin J. Carey of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware denied Jayne Clement's motion, citing the plaintiff's failure to establish cause for relief, according to Law360. VELOCITY EXPRESS: Dec. 2009 Trial Set for Contractors' Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- A December 2009 trial is set for a purported class-action suit by independent contractors against Velocity Express Corp. and its subsidiary, CD&L Inc., according to the company's May 12, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 28, 2009. In connection with the CD&L acquisition, the company assumed the defense of a class action suit filed in December 2003, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, seeking to certify a class of California based independent contractors from December 1999 to the present. The complaint seeks unspecified damages for various employment related claims, including, but not limited to overtime, minimum wage claims, and claims for unreimbursed business expenses. CD&L filed an Answer to their Complaint on Jan. 2, 2004 denying all allegations. Plaintiff's motion for Class Certification was granted in part and denied in part on Jan. 28, 2007. During the three and nine-months ended March 28, 2009, the company recorded benefits of approximately $0.5 million and $1.5 million resulting from changes in the estimated settlement liability related to this matter. Discovery on this matter is ongoing and a trial date has been adjourned to December 2009. Velocity Express Corp. -- http://www.velocityexp.com/-- together with its subsidiaries, is engaged in the business of providing time definite ground package delivery services. VELOCITY EXPRESS: Still in Talks to Settle Consolidated Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Velocity Express Corp. remains in settlement discussions with the plaintiffs in the consolidated class-action lawsuit filed by independent contractor drivers. Nine purported class-action lawsuits were filed against the company between December 2007 and July 2008. These suits, which were filed by a very small group of independent contractor drivers in six different states, seek unspecified damages for various unsubstantiated employment related claims. In response to the proliferation of these cases, the company's outside counsel filed a motion to have the cases consolidated pursuant to federal multi-district litigation rules. On Oct. 8, 2008, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted the company's motion and ordered that the cases be consolidated for pretrial proceedings. The Panel ordered that the cases be consolidated in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. At this point, the cases have all been transferred to the Eastern District of Wisconsin, for further proceedings in that court. A non-binding mediation of these cases took place on April 14, 2009, and settlement discussions are ongoing. Unrelated discovery and motion practice is presently stayed. Velocity has filed answers rejecting all employment based allegations of the various complaints, according to the company's May 12, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 28, 2009. Velocity Express Corp. -- http://www.velocityexp.com/-- together with its subsidiaries, is engaged in the business of providing time definite ground package delivery services. VILLAGE OF BELLWOOD: Appeals Court Affirms Ruling in "Narducci" --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a district court's denial of the defendants' motion for summary judgment in the matter, "Narducci v. Bellwood, Vlg of, et al. Case No. 1:01-cv-01425," which names the mayor of Bellwood, Illinois, and its police chief as defendants, The Courthouse News Service reports. The suit was filed on Feb. 28, 2001 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by former village comptroller Nicholas Narducci against Mayor Donald Lemm, Police Chief Gregory Moore and other village officials, accusing them of surreptitiously recording phone calls from the village's finance department. Mr. Narducci sued the officials under the U.S. Constitution and a federal wiretapping law, claiming the village should have notified him and other finance employees when it began recording five finance department phone lines in 1994, according to The Courthouse News Service. The recording plan had been proposed by former comptroller Joe Lagen, who was concerned about the growing number of threats from angry residents whose water services had been turned off, usually for failure to pay utility bills. Officials also thought the emergency recording system would help root out abuse of village phones for personal calls and would shed light on complaints about finance department employees being rude to callers. A few years after Mr. Narducci replaced Mr. Lagen, he said he learned about the illegal recording scheme, reports The Courthouse News Service. The Courthouse News Service reported that Judge Milton I. Shadur of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the former comptroller's state-law claims and any federal constitutional claims involving calls made after Mr. Narducci learned about the recording in February 2000. However, Judge Shadur allowed the class-action case to proceed on the remaining illegal search and wiretap claims. The defendants appealed, asserting their immunity to the class- action allegations. However, the Chicago-based federal appeals court refused to reverse Judge Shadur's ruling. The court said, "Given that the allegations in this case include the recording of every phone call, for at least a six-year period, with no notice to the affected employees. Mr. Narducci has presented sufficient evidence of a violation of the Fourth Amendment to withstand summary judgment." It added, the employees' privacy rights were clearly established at the time, The Courthouse News Service reports. In addition, the court also dismissed the officials' motion for summary judgment on the remaining wiretapping claims, saying they failed to raise that defense in their initial appeal, according to The Courthouse News Service. "Lemm and Moore were the moving party for summary judgment; if they felt entitled to terminate the proceedings because of qualified immunity, they were required to bring that issue to the court's attention," according to the appeals court. The court further said, "Finally, as the district court pointed out, the present case has been litigated since 2001, while the motions for summary judgment were submitted in 2006; five years is ample time for the defendants to develop the issue and present it in their initial motion." A copy of the court ruling is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3fce WAL-MART STORES: Wash. Judge Approves $35M Litigation Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- King County Superior Court Judge Julie Spector granted final approval on July 20, 2009 to $35 million settlement that resolves a class action lawsuit brought in 2001 by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. workers in Washington State who alleged they were deprived of meal and rest breaks and worked off the clock at Walmart stores and Sam's Clubs. "We are pleased that Judge Spector found the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable," notes Class Counsel Beth Terrell of Seattle law firm Terrell Marshall & Daudt PLLC. The settlement provides for monetary compensation and injunctive relief. The injunctive relief benefits all employees by requiring Walmart to continue to take steps to prevent wage and hour violations at its 50 stores and clubs in Washington, steps that include the use of new technologies and compliance tools. As for monetary compensation, employees who fill out a simple claim form are eligible to receive a cash payment. "We encourage all employees and former employees who have not done so to fill out a claim form if they want a share of the settlement proceeds. The claim form only takes a few minutes to fill out," states Rachel Geman of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Class Counsel. Ms. Terrell further notes that "Employees still have until August 19th to submit a claim form and both Class Counsel and a claims administrator are available to help class members with any questions." "This lawsuit was filed years ago and the allegations are not representative of the company we are today," said Daphne Moore, Walmart spokesperson. "Our policy is to pay associates for every hour worked and to make rest and meal breaks available. This is a commitment we make to the more than 1.4 million associates who choose to work for Walmart and serve our customers and members every day. We have worked hard to have the right communication, processes, and systems in place to help ensure we live up to this commitment." Claim forms are available at http://www.walmartwageswa.comor by calling 1-877-867-6208. WEST PUBLISHING: Judge Grants Attorney Fees in BAR/BRI Deal ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Manuel Real of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted attorney fees to two law firms that objected to the $49 million settlement in an antitrust class-action suit against West Publishing Corp. and Kaplan, Inc., the publisher of the BAR/BRI bar examination review course, Amanda Bronstad of The National Law Journal reports. However, Judge Real, who originally had denied fees to the objectors, granted significantly less than the attorneys had requested. He also refused to grant fees to several pro se objectors, according to The National Law Journal. On July 13, 2009, Judge Real granted $8,125 to John W. Davis of the Law Office of John W. Davis in San Diego, who represented eight objectors, and $16,250 to C. Benjamin Nutley of Kendrick & Nutley in Pasadena, Calif., who represented five objectors, reports The National Law Journal. Mr. Davis had been seeking $42,655 in fees and $884 in costs; Mr. Nutley initially requested $108,000 in fees. The judge's ruling was in connection to an issue that had been remanded to his court by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The 2007 settlement came in a case filed on behalf of 300,000 class members who claimed to have overpaid, on average, about $1,000 for BAR/BRI's bar review course because its parent company, West Publishing Corp., conspired to monopolize the market in a deal with Kaplan Inc., which sells preparatory courses for the Law School Aptitude Test, reports The National Law Journal. The class sought $300 million, triple the estimated antitrust damages. Before the settlement was finalized, several objectors raised questions about the incentive awards, valued at $25,000 to $75,000, that five of the seven class representatives were to receive as part of the deal, The National Law Journal reported. Matthew Hirsch of Law.com previously reported that U.S. District Judge Manuel Real approved the $49 million settlement of the BAR/BRI class-action case on July 9, 2007 (Class Action Reporter, July 19, 2007). However, the judge rejected the incentive awards. He also refused to grant attorney fees to the lawyers for the objectors. In April 2009, the Ninth Circuit reversed Judge Real's decision on the fees, concluding that the objectors' efforts in raising the incentive award issue deserved some relief of legal costs, according to The National Law Journal. The appeals court specifically upheld a $49 million settlement in an antitrust class-action lawsuit against West Publishing Corp. and Kaplan, Inc. over test preparation courses for law school admissions and the bar exam, though the court has reversed and remanded an order approving attorneys' fees for the plaintiffs' counsel. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued it decision on April 23, 2009 (Class Action Reporter, April 28, 2009). Case Background The case was filed by former law students in California, Michigan and Louisiana, who had brought it on behalf of all persons who purchased a bar review course from BAR/BRI Bar Review from August 1997 (Class Action Reporter, July 17, 2006). Specifically, the suit accuses defendant West Publishing, d/b/a BAR/BRI of violating the federal antitrust laws and conspiring with Kaplan, Inc. to prevent competition in the market for full- service bar review courses. Kaplan is an international provider of educational and career services. BAR/BRI provides bar review courses throughout the U.S. to assist would-be attorneys in their preparation for taking one or more bar examinations required by each state and the District of Columbia prior to the issuance of a license to practice law. Plaintiffs allege that, as a result of defendants' conduct, consumers had to pay more for BAR/BRI bar review courses than they should have (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 19, 2007). In early December 2006, the parties agreed to a settlement of the litigation. On Feb. 2, 2007, the parties filed a settlement agreement with the court together with documents setting forth a procedure for class notice (Class Action Reporter, Mar. 29, 2007). Class members are all individuals who purchased a full-service bar review course from BAR/BRI anywhere in the U.S. Where BAR/BRI directly operated a course anytime from August 1997 up to the present time. Class members have until Sept. 17, 2007 to make a claim. Objections are due May 21, 2007. As a part of the settlement, defendants have agreed to establish a $49 million fund. The settlement also provides for other non- monetary relief. Class Members are eligible to obtain up to 30% of the total amount they paid for a bar review course from the fund. BAR/BRI Class Action Litigation on the net: http://www.barbri-classaction.com The suit is "Ryan Rodriguez et al. v. West Publishing Corp. et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-03222-R-Mc," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge Manuel L. Real with referral to Judge James W. McMahon. Representing the plaintiffs are: Eliot G. Disner, Esq. Noah E Jussim, Esq. McGuireWoods, LLP 1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-315-8299 Fax: 310-315-8298 e-mail: edisner@mcguirewoods.com Sidney K. Kanazawa, Esq. Tracy Evans Moyer, Esq. Colleen M. Regan, Esq. Van Etten Suzumoto and Becket 1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-315-8200 e-mail: skanazawa@vsblaw.com or cregan@vsblaw.com - and - Joanna Shally, Esq. Shearman and Sterling 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-848-4700 Representing the defendants are: Edward A. Klein, Esq. Liner Yankelevitz Sunshine & Regenstreif 1100 Glendon Ave, 14th Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90024-3503 Phone: 310-500-3500 Stuart N. Senator, Esq. Lee Scott Taylor, Esq. Munger Tolles & Olson 355 S Grand Ave., 35th Fl., Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 Phone: 213-683-9100 e-mail: stuart.senator@mto.com - and - Jeffrey A. LeVee, Esq. Courtney M. Schaberg, Esq. Brian A. Sun, Esq. Jones Day 555 South Flower Street, 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-489-3939 e-mail: jlevee@jonesday.com or cmschaberg@jonesday.com or basun@jonesday.com For more details, contact: BAR/BRI Class Action Administrator P.O. Box 24639 West Palm Beach, FL 33416 Phone: 1-888-285-7850 e-mail: BARBRI@completeclaimsolutions.com YUM! BRANDS: August 11 Trial Set for "Archila" Lawsuit v. KFC ------------------------------------------------------------- An Aug. 11, 2009 trial has been set for a putative class-action suit styled, "Kenny Archila v. KFC U.S. Properties, Inc.," in California state court, according to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s July 21, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 13, 2009. On Oct. 14, 2008, the class-action suit was filed in California state court on behalf of all California hourly employees alleging various California Labor Code violations, including rest and meal break violations, overtime violations, wage statement violations and waiting time penalties. KFC removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 7, 2009. On July 7, 2009, the Judge ruled that the case will not go forward as a class action. Plaintiff seeks recovery of civil penalties under the California Private Attorney General Act as a representative of other "aggrieved employees." Discovery is now complete, and a trial date has been set for Aug. 11, 2009. YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100 countries and territories. Through the five concepts of KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food items. In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates units or they are operated by independent franchisees or licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements. In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests in Unconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees. YUM! BRANDS: Dec. 16 Trial Set for Judgment Bid in Moeller Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- A hearing on the motion for summary judgment in a class-action lawsuit styled Moeller, et al. v. Taco Bell Corp. is scheduled for Dec. 16, 2009. Taco Bell is a concept of YUM! Brands, Inc. On Dec. 17, 2002, Taco Bell was named as the defendant in the class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On Aug.4, 2003, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that alleges, among other things, that Taco Bell has discriminated against the class of people who use wheelchairs or scooters for mobility by failing to make its approximately 220 company-owned restaurants in California (the "California Restaurants") accessible to the class. The plaintiffs contend that queue rails and other architectural and structural elements of the Taco Bell restaurants relating to the path of travel and use of the facilities by persons with mobility-related disabilities do not comply with the U.S. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Unruh Act), and the California Disabled Persons Act (CDPA). They have requested: (a) an injunction from the District Court ordering Taco Bell to comply with the ADA and its implementing regulations; (b) that the District Court declare Taco Bell in violation of the ADA, the Unruh Act, and the CDPA; and (c) monetary relief under the Unruh Act or CDPA. The plaintiffs, on behalf of the class, are seeking the minimum statutory damages per offense of either $4,000 under the Unruh Act or $1,000 under the CDPA for each aggrieved member of the class. They contend that there may be in excess of 100,000 individuals in the class. On Feb. 23, 2004, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The District Court certified a Rule 23(b)(2) mandatory injunctive relief class of all individuals with disabilities who use wheelchairs or electric scooters for mobility who, at any time on or after Dec. 17, 2001, were denied, or are currently being denied, on the basis of disability, the full and equal enjoyment of the California Restaurants. The class includes claims for injunctive relief and minimum statutory damages. Pursuant to the parties' agreement, on or about Aug. 31, 2004, the District Court ordered that the trial of this action be bifurcated so that stage one will resolve plaintiffs' claims for equitable relief and stage two will resolve plaintiffs' claims for damages. The parties are currently proceeding with the equitable relief stage of this action. On May 17, 2007, a hearing was held on plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment seeking judicial declaration that Taco Bell was in violation of accessibility laws as to three specific issues: indoor seating, queue rails and door opening force. On Aug. 8, 2007, the court granted plaintiffs' motion in part with regard to dining room seating. In addition, the court granted plaintiffs' motion in part with regard to door opening force at some restaurants (but not all) and denied the motion with regard to queue lines. The parties participated in mediation on March 25, 2008, and again on March 26, 2009, without reaching resolution. The court granted Taco Bell's request for an extension to file its motion for summary judgment on the ADA claims until Oct. 20, 2009. A hearing on the motion is scheduled for Dec. 16, 2009. Taco Bell has taken certain steps to address potential architectural and structural compliance issues at the restaurants in accordance with applicable state and federal disability access laws, according to the company's July 21, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 13, 2009. YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100 countries and territories. Through the five concepts of KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food items. In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates units or they are operated by independent franchisees or licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements. In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests in Unconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees. YUM! BRANDS: "Hardiman" Suit Consolidated w/ Suits v. Taco Bell --------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit styled, "Lisa Hardiman vs. Taco Bell Corp., et al.,"has been consolidated with other lawsuits in "In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions," according to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s July 21, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 13, 2009. On April 11, 2008, Lisa Hardiman filed a Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Fresno against Taco Bell Corp., the company and other related entities. This lawsuit, styled, "Lisa Hardiman vs. Taco Bell Corp., et al.," is filed on behalf of Hardiman individually and all other aggrieved employees pursuant to PAGA. The complaint seeks penalties for alleged violations of California's Labor Code. On June 25, 2008, Hardiman filed an amended complaint adding class-action allegations on behalf of hourly employees in California very similar to the Medlock case, including allegations of unpaid overtime, missed meal and rest periods, improper wage statements, non-payment of wages upon termination, unreimbursed business expenses and unfair or unlawful business practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200. On July 25, 2008, Taco Bell removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, and subsequently filed a notice of related case. On July 31, 2008, the case was transferred to the same judge as in the "Medlock" case. Taco Bell filed a motion to strike the PAGA claims. Taco Bell moved to consolidate the Medlock, Hardiman, Leyva and Naranjo matters and the court granted the motion to consolidate on May 19, 2009. The consolidated case is styled In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on June 29, 2009, and the court set a filing deadline of Aug. 26, 2010, for motions regarding class certification. The hearing on any class certification motion is currently scheduled for January 2011. Discovery is underway. YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100 countries and territories. Through the five concepts of KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food items. In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates units or they are operated by independent franchisees or licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements. In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests in Unconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees. YUM! BRANDS: "Leyva" Suit Consolidated with Suits v. Taco Bell -------------------------------------------------------------- A putative class-action lawsuit styled, "Miriam Leyva vs. Taco Bell Corp., et al.," has been consolidated with other lawsuits in "In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions," according to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s July 21, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 13, 2009. On June 16, 2008, the "Leyva" lawsuit against Taco Bell Corp. and the company was originally filed in Los Angeles Superior Court. The case was filed on behalf of Leyva and purportedly all other California hourly employees and alleges failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay wages upon discharge, failure to provide itemized wage statements, unfair business practices and wrongful termination and discrimination. This case is very similar to the "Medlock" case, accordingly, on July 3, 2008, Taco Bell filed a notice of related case. The company was dismissed from the case without prejudice on Aug. 20, 2008. Taco Bell removed the case to federal court in Los Angeles on Jan. 23, 2009. Plaintiff did not oppose removal, and the parties stipulated to transfer the case to the Eastern District of California, where the "Medlock" case is pending. Taco Bell moved to consolidate the Medlock, Hardiman, Leyva and Naranjo matters and the court granted the motion to consolidate on May 19, 2009. The consolidated case is styled In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on June 29, 2009, and the court set a filing deadline of Aug. 26, 2010, for motions regarding class certification. The hearing on any class certification motion is currently scheduled for January 2011. Discovery is underway. YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100 countries and territories. Through the five concepts of KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food items. In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates units or they are operated by independent franchisees or licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements. In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests in Unconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees. YUM! BRANDS: "Medlock" Suit Consolidated w, Suits v. Taco Bell -------------------------------------------------------------- A putative class action styled, "Sandrika Medlock v. Taco Bell Corp.," has been consolidated with other lawsuits in "In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions," according to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s July 21, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 13, 2009. On Sept. 10, 2007, a putative class action against Taco Bell Corp., the company and other related entities styled, "Sandrika Medlock v. Taco Bell Corp.," was filed in U.S. District Court, Eastern District, Fresno, California. The case was filed on behalf of all hourly employees who have worked for the defendants within the last four years and alleges numerous violations of California labor laws including unpaid overtime, failure to pay wages on termination, denial of meal and rest breaks, improper wage statements, unpaid business expenses and unfair or unlawful business practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200. The company was dismissed from the case without prejudice on Jan. 10, 2008. On March 24, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint adding a nationwide FLSA claim for unpaid overtime. Taco Bell opposed the motion and on June 10, 2008, the court denied plaintiff's motion to amend. Taco Bell moved to consolidate the Medlock, Hardiman, Leyva and Naranjo matters and the court granted the motion to consolidate on May 19, 2009. The consolidated case is styled In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on June 29, 2009, and the court set a filing deadline of Aug. 26, 2010, for motions regarding class certification. The hearing on any class certification motion is currently scheduled for January 2011. Discovery is underway. YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100 countries and territories. Through the five concepts of KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food items. In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates units or they are operated by independent franchisees or licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements. In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests in Unconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees. YUM! BRANDS: "Naranjo" Suit Consolidated w/ Suits v. Taco Bell -------------------------------------------------------------- A putative class-action lawsuit styled, "Loraine Naranjo v. Taco Bell Corp., et al.," has been consolidated with other lawsuits in "In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions," according to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s July 21, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 13, 2009. On Nov. 5, 2008, a putative class-action lawsuit against Taco Bell Corp. and the company was filed in Orange County Superior Court. The case was filed on behalf of Naranjo and purportedly all other California employees and alleges failure to pay overtime, failure to reimburse for business related expenses, improper wage statements, failure to pay accrued vacation wages, failure to pay minimum wage and unfair business practices. Taco Bell removed the case to federal court on Dec. 5, 2008. Plaintiffs did not oppose removal and agreed to transfer the case to the Eastern District of California, where the "Medlock" case is pending. The company filed a motion to dismiss on Dec. 15, 2008, which was denied on Jan. 20, 2009. Taco Bell moved to consolidate the Medlock, Hardiman, Leyva and Naranjo matters and the court granted the motion to consolidate on May 19, 2009. The consolidated case is styled In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on June 29, 2009, and the court set a filing deadline of Aug. 26, 2010, for motions regarding class certification. The hearing on any class certification motion is currently scheduled for January 2011. Discovery is underway. YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100 countries and territories. Through the five concepts of KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food items. In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates units or they are operated by independent franchisees or licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements. In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests in Unconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees. YUM! BRANDS: Nov. 2009 Arbitration Set for Restitution Liability ---------------------------------------------------------------- A November 2009 arbitration has been set for liability during a portion of the alleged restitution policy period in a putative class action on behalf of general and assistant restaurant managers of YUM! Brands, Inc.'s LJS concept. On Nov. 26, 2001, Kevin Johnson, a former LJS restaurant manager, filed a collective action against LJS in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") on behalf of himself and allegedly similarly-situated LJS general and assistant restaurant managers. Mr. Johnson alleged that LJS violated the FLSA by perpetrating a policy and practice of seeking monetary restitution from LJS employees, including Restaurant General Managers ("RGMs") and Assistant Restaurant General Managers ("ARGMs"), when monetary or property losses occurred due to knowing and willful violations of LJS policies that resulted in losses of company funds or property, and that LJS had thus improperly classified its RGMs and ARGMs as exempt from overtime pay under the FLSA. Mr. Johnson sought overtime pay, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees for himself and his proposed class. LJS moved the Tennessee district court to compel arbitration of Mr. Johnson's suit. The district court granted LJS's motion on June 7, 2004, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed on July 5, 2005. On Dec. 19, 2003, while the arbitrability of Mr. Johnson's claims was being litigated, former LJS managers Erin Cole and Nick Kaufman, represented by Mr. Johnson's counsel, initiated an arbitration with the American Arbitration Association ("AAA") (the "Cole Arbitration"). The Cole Claimants sought a collective arbitration on behalf of the same putative class as alleged in the Johnson lawsuit and alleged the same underlying claims. On June 15, 2004, the arbitrator in the Cole Arbitration issued a Clause Construction Award, finding that LJS's Dispute Resolution Policy did not prohibit Claimants from proceeding on a collective or class basis. LJS moved unsuccessfully to vacate the Clause Construction Award in federal district court in South Carolina. On Sept. 19, 2005, the arbitrator issued a Class Determination Award, finding, inter alia, that a class would be certified in the Cole Arbitration on an "opt-out" basis, rather than as an "opt-in" collective action as specified by the FLSA. On Jan. 20, 2006, the district court denied LJS's motion to vacate the Class Determination Award and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision on Jan. 28, 2008. A petition for a writ of certiorari filed in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking a review of the Fourth Circuit's decision was denied on Oct. 7, 2008. The parties participated in mediation on April 24, 2008, and again on Feb. 28, 2009, without reaching resolution. Arbitration on liability during a portion of the alleged restitution policy period is currently scheduled for November 2009. LJS expects, based on the rulings issued to date in this matter, that the Cole Arbitration will more likely than not proceed as an "opt-out" class action, rather than as an "opt-in" collective action. LJS denies liability and is defending the claims in the Cole Arbitration, according to the company's July 21, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 13, 2009. YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100 countries and territories. Through the five concepts of KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food items. In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates units or they are operated by independent franchisees or licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements. In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests in Unconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees. YUM! BRANDS: Sept. 25 Hearing Set for Calif. RGMs Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- A hearing on plaintiffs' class certification motion in the putative class action lawsuits filed on behalf of all current and former Restaurant General Managers ("RGMs") against Taco Bell Corp., a concept owned and operated by YUM! Brands, Inc., has been continued to Sept. 25, 2009. On Aug. 4, 2006, a putative class action lawsuit against Taco Bell Corp. styled, "Rajeev Chhibber vs. Taco Bell Corp.," was filed in Orange County Superior Court. On Aug. 7, 2006, another putative class action lawsuit styled, "Marina Puchalski v. Taco Bell Corp.," was filed in San Diego County Superior Court. Both lawsuits were filed by a Taco Bell RGM purporting to represent all current and former RGMs who worked at corporate- owned restaurants in California from August 2002, to the present. The lawsuits allege violations of California's wage and hour laws involving unpaid overtime and meal period violations and seek unspecified amounts in damages and penalties. As of Sept. 7, 2006, both cases have been consolidated in San Diego County. Discovery is underway. Based on plaintiffs' revised class definition in their class certification motion, Taco Bell removed the case to federal court in San Diego on Aug. 29, 2008. Plaintiffs have sought to remand the case back to state court and the court took the matter under submission without a hearing on Nov. 17, 2008. On March 17, 2009, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to remand. A hearing on plaintiffs' class certification motion has been continued to Sept. 25, 2009, according to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s July 21, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 13, 2009. YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100 countries and territories. Through the five concepts of KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food items. In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates units or they are operated by independent franchisees or licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements. In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests in Unconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees. YUM! BRANDS: Taco Bell Faces "Widjaja" Wage and Hour Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ A putative class action lawsuit styled, "Endang Widjaja vs. Taco Bell Corp., et al.," is pending, according to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s July 21, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 13, 2009. Taco Bell is a concept of YUM! Brands, Inc. On March 26, 2009, Taco Bell was served with the putative class action lawsuit filed in Orange County Superior Court against Taco Bell and the Company. The case was filed on behalf of Widjaja, a former California hourly assistant manager, and purportedly all other individuals employed in Taco Bell's California restaurants as managers and alleges failure to reimburse for business related expenses, failure to provide rest periods, unfair business practices and conversion. This case appears to be duplicative of Taco Bell's pending consolidated hourly class action case (In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions). Taco Bell removed the case to federal district court and filed a notice of related case. On June 18, 2009, the case was transferred to the Eastern District of California where the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions case is pending and was subsequently transferred to the same district court judge. Taco Bell requested that the court consolidate this case with the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions, and the court deferred its decision pending a noticed motion. YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100 countries and territories. Through the five concepts of KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food items. In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates units or they are operated by independent franchisees or licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements. In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests in Unconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees. New Securities Fraud Cases ACCURAY INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of Accuray Inc. NASDAQ: ARAY) common stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's Initial Public Offering on or about February 7, 2007, as well as purchasers of the Company's common stock between February 7, 2007 and August 19, 2008, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint charges Accuray and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act and the Exchange Act. Accuray designs, develops, and sells the CyberKnife system, an image-guided robotic radio surgery system for the treatment of solid tumors. The CyberKnife system combines continuous image-guidance technology with a compact linear accelerator to deliver high doses of radiation to a tumor from different directions. The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants misrepresented and failed to disclose material information concerning the quality and realistic likelihood of fulfillment of contracts in Accuray's "backlog," a figure representing the direct revenue that Accuray expects to receive from the sale and servicing of the CyberKnife system. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts: -- at the time of Accuray's IPO, Accuray changed its definition of backlog to include both contingent and non-contingent contracts; -- beginning in the fiscal quarter ending March 31, 2007 (at the time of the IPO), Accuray would report backlog that consisted of both contingent and non-contingent backlog, thereby increasing the total reported backlog; -- defendants materially overstated the amount of the Company's backlog; -- Accuray reported as backlog orders for the CyberKnife system that did not have a substantially high probability of being booked as revenue; -- a significant portion of commissions paid to CyberKnife sales personnel were earned prior to those potential sales being booked as revenue; -- Accuray sales personnel entered into contingent contracts for CyberKnife systems that did not have a substantially high probability of being booked as revenue; -- Accuray did not have adequate internal controls and procedures to ensure that potential orders reported as backlog had a substantially high probability of being booked as revenue; and -- based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company, its backlog, earnings, operations and prospects. On August 19, 2008, Accuray announced its fiscal fourth quarter and full year 2008 financial results for the period ended June 28, 2008 in a press release titled "Accuray Announces Results for the Fourth Quarter and Fiscal Year End 2008; 28 New Contracts Valued at $115.5 Million Signed in Fourth Quarter." That same day, Accuray held a conference call with analysts and reiterated the financial results in the press release and revealed that Accuray removed another $39 million from backlog. Thus, Accuray removed approximately $127 million in backlog during the last three quarters of fiscal 2008. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Accuray common stock during the Class Period, as well as purchasers of Accuray common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO on or about February 7, 2007. For more details, contact: Darren J. Robbins, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058 Web site http://www.csgrr.com/cases/accuray/ CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL: Brower Piven Announces Stock Suit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announces that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. (AMEX: CPD) during the period between May 29, 2008 and June 25, 2009, inclusive. The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the Company's failure to disclose during the Class Period that the Company failed to meet the United States Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") current Good Manufacturing Practice ("cGMP") requirements; that the Company failed to take corrective measures to have its manufacturing facilities comply with cGMP requirements; that the Company failed to remedy known violations of FDA regulations; that as a result of the foregoing the Company's ability to secure FDA approval for pending drug applications was jeopardized; and that as a further result of the above, the Company would have to recall certain products. According to the complaint, on June 25, 2009, after the FDA announced that U.S. Marshals had seized drug products manufactured by Caraco from the Company's facilities because of the Company's failure to comply with the FDA's cGMP requirements, the value of Caraco's stock declined significantly. No class has yet been certified in the above action. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before Sept. 15, 2009. For more details, contact: Charles J. Piven, Esq. (hoffman@browerpiven.com) Brower Piven The World Trade Center-Baltimore 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 Phone: 410/332-0030 Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Brower Piven Announces Stock Suit Filing ------------------------------------------------------------- Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announces that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. (NASDAQ: MTXX) during the period between December 22, 2007 and June 15, 2009, inclusive. The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the Company's failure to disclose during the Class Period that Matrixx had received notice of hundreds of serious adverse events regarding the Zicam Cold Remedy Products; that Matrixx failed to report these incidents to the FDA despite having an obligation to do so; that the Company failed to comply with FDA regulations despite repeated assurances of its compliance; and that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements about its meeting FDA regulations were false and misleading when made. According to the complaint, on June 15, 2009, after the FDA banned the use of certain zinc-containing Zicam products, the value of Matrixx's stock declined significantly. No class has yet been certified in the above action. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before Sept. 15, 2009. For more details, contact: Charles J. Piven, Esq. (hoffman@browerpiven.com) Brower Piven The World Trade Center-Baltimore 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 Phone: 410/332-0030 Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Kendall Law Group Announces Lawsuit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- Kendall Law Group, led by a former federal judge and U.S. Attorney, announced that a securities class action was filed against Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. (NASDAQ: MTXX) on behalf of investors who purchased stock at artificially inflated prices between December 22, 2007 and June 15, 2009. According to the complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, defendants failed to disclose that: -- Matrixx had received notice of hundreds of serious adverse events involving consumers' use of the Zicam Cold Remedy Products; -- Matrixx failed to report these incidents to the FDA; -- Matrixx failed to comply with FDA regulations despite repeated assurances of its compliance. On June 16, 2009, Matrixx disclosed that it had received a warning letter from the FDA and would withdraw its Zicam Cold Remedy Products from the market. On this news, the price of Matrixx stock fell almost 70% on heavy trading volume. By September 15, 2009, a Matrixx shareholder must move for lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and participate in important decisions including whether to accept a settlement and how much of a settlement to accept for the Class in the action. For more details, contact: Hamilton Lindley, Esq. (hlindley@kendalllawgroup.com) Kendall Law Group 3232 McKinney, Ste. 700 Dallas, TX 75204 Phone: (214) 744-3000 or (877) 744-3728 Fax: (214) 744-3015 Web site: http://www.kendalllawgroup.com MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Sarraf Gentile Announces Stock Suit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- Sarraf Gentile LLP announces that on July 17, 2009, a class action lawsuit was filed against Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. (NASDAQ: MTXX) and its top officers. The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona and seeks damages for violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who purchased Matrixx stock between December 22, 2007 and June 15, 2009, inclusive. Matrixx is a nutrient and drug delivery company that develops, manufactures and markets delivery systems for bioactive compounds. According to the complaint, defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts concerning the company's operational well being and future prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose or indicate: -- that Matrixx had received notice of hundreds of serious adverse events involving consumers' use of the Zicam Cold Remedy Products; -- that Matrixx failed to report these incidents to the FDA despite having an obligation to do so; -- that Matrixx failed to comply with FDA regulations despite repeated assurances of its compliance; and -- that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements about meeting FDA regulations were false and misleading. On June 16, 2009, Matrixx disclosed that it had received a warning letter from the FDA and would withdraw its Zicam Cold Remedy Products from the market. On this news, the price of Matrixx stock fell roughly 70%. No class has yet been certified in the action. For more information, contact: Joseph Gentile, Esq. Sarraf Gentile LLP 11 Hanover Square New York, NY 10005 Phone: 212-868-3610 Fax: 212-918-7967 Web site: http://www.sarrafgentile.com/ TRONOX INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- On July 21, 2009, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock (Class A or B) of Tronox, Inc.[OTC:TRXAQ; OTC:TRXBQ] between November 29, 2005 and January 12, 2009 against certain officers and directors of Tronox, Kerr- McGee Corporation, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, and certain officers and directors of Kerr-McGee pursuant to Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a)] and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC [17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5]. The case name is styled, "Shi v. Kerr-McGee Corporation, et al." The Complaint alleges that the Defendants fraudulently concealed Tronox's massive environmental liabilities and resulting financial problems causing massive losses to innocent investors while unjustly enriching themselves. Kerr-McGee spun-off Tronox into an independent entity in a two-step process. First, in November of 2005, Kerr-McGee generated $225 million in proceeds following the initial public offering of Tronox at the price of $14.00 per share and retained control of 56.7% of Tronox's outstanding common stock. Next, in March of 2006, Kerr-McGee distributed its remaining 56.7% stake in Tronox to shareholders as Class B shares by way of a dividend. The Complaint further alleges that defendants, at the time of the IPO, knowingly mislead and misrepresented investors by materially understating the scope of Tronox's environmental and tort liabilities. The Registration Statement, and the prospectus therein, contained information that was materially false, misleading and ignored the adverse conditions facing Tronox. As is explained in further detail in the Complaint, Tronox has put forth allegations in its bankruptcy action (Tronox, Inc. v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp., et al.) that the Registration Statement was materially misleading and greatly understated the liabilities that Tronox was burdened with. The Defendants continually misled investors throughout the Class Period by making materially false statements and concealing the true nature of Tronox's liabilities in numerous press releases and SEC filings. On June 22, 2006, Anadarko made an offer seeking to acquire Kerr-McGee for $18 billion, which included $16.4 billion in cash. On August 10, 2006, the Kerr-McGee shareholders voted to approve the offer and Kerr-McGee became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Anadarko, and as a result, Anadarko became the successor-in-interest to Kerr-McGee. Eventually, the market was able to uncover what the Defendants were attempting to conceal, Tronox's environmental and tort liabilities were in far excess of what had been represented, and, as a result, Tronox was in financial ruin and would need to seek the protection of bankruptcy laws therefore rendering the stockholders' investments virtually worthless. In ignorance of the false and misleading nature of the statements described in the complaint, and the deceptive and manipulative devices and contrivances employed by said defendants, plaintiff and the other members of the Class relied, to their detriment, on the integrity of the market price of Tronox common stock. Had plaintiff and the other members of the Class known the truth, they would not have purchased said securities, or would not have purchased them at the inflated prices that were paid. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before Sept. 8, 2009. For more details, contact: Gregory M. Nespole, Esq. Derek Behnke Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Phone: 800-575-0735 e-mail: classmember@whafh.com Web site: http://www.whafh.com Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Grants Ruling in Silta's Favor ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, upheld the ruling of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, which returned a verdict in favor of M.M. Silta, Inc., in a breach of contract action involving asbestos filed against Cliffs Erie, L.L.C. (Cliffs). The case is styled M.M. Silta, Inc., Plaintiff/Appellee v. Cleveland Cliffs, Inc.; Cliffs Mining Company, Defendants, Cliffs Erie, L.L.C., Defendant/Appellant, John Does, Number 1 through 5, Defendants. Circuit Judges Roger L. Wollman, Myron H. Bright, and Steven M. Colloton entered judgment in Case No. 08-2620 on July 16, 2009. Silta brought this breach of contract action against Cliffs, alleging that Cliffs failed to perform its obligations under two agreements stemming from reclamation of a Minnesota taconite mine. Cliffs is a subsidiary of Cleveland-Cliffs, Inc., an iron ore producer. In 2002, Cliffs began liquidating the assets of a Hoyt Lakes, Minn., mine that it had purchased from a bankrupt competitor. Stephen DeVaney was charged with selling the equipment on Cliffs' behalf. Melvin Silta, the owner and primary employee of Silta, was a frequent customer of Mr. DeVaney's. Between 2002 and 2006, Mr. Silta purchased hundreds of items from the mine, paying about US$3.5 million. Mr. Silta operated a salvage business, wherein he would purchase equipment and resell it for a profit. The transaction giving rise to this appeal occurred in June 2004. Mr. Silta approached Mr. DeVaney and proposed purchasing 248 industrial circuit breakers that were located throughout the mine and used for operating high voltage machinery. Mr. Silta wrote Cliffs a check for US$2,480 and Mr. DeVaney typed a sales invoice stating that Silta had purchased 248 "MS 13 Asbestos containing breakers." The breakers remained undisturbed and unnoticed until January 2006, when Mr. DeVaney told Mr. Silta to remove his equipment from the mine because of an impending sale of the property to a third party, PolyMet Mining, Corp. Later that month, Mr. Silta presented his sales invoice and attempted to move the breakers, but Cliffs told Mr. Silta that the breakers had been sold to PolyMet, along with a mining facility that Polymet had purchased. Cliffs thereafter sent Mr. Silta a US$2,480 refund check, which he refused, insisting that he wanted the breakers. Cliffs continued to reject Mr. Silta's claim, arguing that he had abandoned the breakers by not removing them at an earlier date. By the time the case went to trial, both Mr. Silta and Cliffs had discovered that the breakers contained only a small quantity of non-friable asbestos that did not require abatement. In addition, Mr. Silta introduced evidence that the breakers had substantial value. He cited several trade journals indicating that similar breakers sold for between US$23,000 and US$65,000 each, and he pointed to the fact that PolyMet was apparently using the breakers to operate mining equipment at the Hoyt Lakes facility. Cliffs countered that Mr. Silta had abandoned the breakers by leaving them on Cliffs' property for 19 months. Alternatively, Cliffs argued that Mr. Silta's failure to abate the asbestos or remove the breakers was a material breach of contract that excused its own performance. Cliffs also maintained that, if it had breached the agreement, the proper measure of Mr. Silta's damages was the scrap value of the breakers (about US$500 per breaker) because the parties had not contemplated that the breakers might be resold. The jury concluded that Cliffs had breached the contract, and it awarded Mr. Silta US$27,500 for each of the 248 breakers. The district court denied Cliffs' post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, and it added prejudgment interest of US$509,166.25, for a total judgment of US$7,329,166.25. Louis A. Chaiten, Esq., Jeffery D. Ubersax, and Peter G. Pattakos, Esq., all of Cleveland, Ohio, represented Cliffs Erie, L.L.C. Kyle E. Hart, Esq., and Kristine Kroenke, Esq., both of Minneapolis, represented M.M. Silta, Inc. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Defendants' Motion in Anderson Case Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, denied motions in limine "Based Upon the Virginia Statute of Repose" filed by defendants, in an asbestos action filed by Barbara Anne Anderson. The case, which is part of In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No. VI), is styled Barbara Anne Anderson, Plaintiff v. Alfa Laval, Inc., et al., Defendants. U.S. Magistrate Judge David R. Strawbridge entered judgment in the case on July 10, 2009. Before the Court were the motions in limine "Based Upon the Virginia Statute of Repose" filed by Defendants Bondex International, Inc.; RPM Inc. and RPM International; and Georgia-Pacific Corporation, on May 21, 2009, both adopted on that same date by Defendant Union Carbide Corporation. Ms. Anderson filed a timely response on June 10, 2009. Oral argument was heard upon the motions on June 16, 2009. The motions asserted that Ms. Anderson's claims of exposure to asbestos during the construction of drywall partitions at various federal installations at which she worked from 1962 to 1985 were barred by the Virginia statute of repose. Defendants sought the entry of an Order precluding any evidence of those exposures. This case was initially filed in the Richmond Circuit Court on Oct. 26, 2006, and was then removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. It was transferred to this Court on April 23, 2007 as part of Multidistrict Litigation Docket 875. On June 17, 2009, Judge Eduardo C. Robreno, to whom MDL 875 is assigned, referred the case to this court. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judgment for Caterpillar Upheld in Anderson ---------------------------------------------------------------- Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1, affirmed the ruling of the King County Superior Court, which ruled in favor of Caterpillar, Inc., in an asbestos case filed by Ruby J. Anderson. Judges Ronald E. Cox, Linda Lau, and Marlin J. Appelwick entered judgment in Case No. 60271-3-I on July 13, 2009. On Aug. 11, 2008, the Appeal Court filed its original decision in this case. There, the Appeal Court affirmed the trial court's summary dismissal of the claims against defendants Lockheed Shipbuilding Company and Todd Shipyards Corporation. However, the Appeal Court reversed its order in limine at trial excluding the theory of the case that Caterpillar had a duty to warn of the dangers of using asbestos insulation with the engines it manufactured. Thereafter, the Supreme Court granted Caterpillar's petition for review and remanded this case to this court for reconsideration. Accordingly, the Appeal Court had reconsidered its original decision and now affirmed the judgment on the defense verdict at trial. Here, the trial court decided that Caterpillar had no duty to warn about asbestos insulation used with the engines it manufactured. William Joel Rutzick, Esq. of Schroeter Goldmark & Bender in Seattle represented Ruby J. Anderson. John Alan Knox, Esq., of William Kastner & Gibbs, PLLC, Walter Eugene Barton, Esq., Robert Hopkins Madden, Esq., in Seattle, represented Caterpillar, Inc. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Porter's Bid for Summary Judgment Affirmed ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, granted Porter Hayden Company's motion for partial summary judgment in an asbestos insurance case filed by National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA. The case is styled National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, et al., Plaintiffs v. Porter Hayden Company, Defendant. District Judge Andre M. Davis entered judgment in Civil Action Nos. AMD 03-3408 and AMD 03-3414 on July 7, 2009. Porter Hayden is a Maryland corporation that sold and installed industrial insulation products containing asbestos fibers from the 1920s into the 1980s. In 1973, Porter Hayden ceased all of its installation operations. However, it continued selling insulation materials and other products until 1982. Porter Hayden purchased four comprehensive general liability (CGL) policies from National Union. In December 2000, Porter Hayden brought a declaratory judgment action in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City seeking coverage for tens of thousands of asbestos-related claims under two insurance policies issued by National Union covering the period from April 1, 1984, to April 1, 1986. In March 2002, while that suit was pending in state court, Porter Hayden filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland. On June 30, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court confirmed Porter Hayden's Third Amended Second Modified Plan of Reorganization. Porter Hayden moved for partial summary judgment for a declaration that National Union's obligation to defend Porter Hayden against policy holders' allegations of covered injury during a relevant policy period included paying for costs incurred in handling claims presented to the Porter Hayden Asbestos Bodily Injury Trust. National Union filed a cross- motion for partial summary judgment. National Union's motion for partial summary judgment was denied and Porter Hayden's motion for partial summary judgment was granted. Timothy R. Dingilian, Esq., Brian Charles Malone, Esq., of Jackson and Campbell PC, Barry J. Fleishman, Esq., of Dickstein Shapiro LLP in Washington, D.C., represented Plaintiffs. Robert E. Johnston, Esq., Donald Robertson McMinn, Esq., Marc S. Mayerson, Esq., Stephanie D. David, Esq., of Spriggs and Hollingsworth, Michael R. Engleman, Esq., of Dickstein Shapiro LLP in Washington, D.C., Deborah Hunt Devan, Esq., of Neuberger Quinn Gielen Rubin and Gibber PA in Baltimore, represented Porter Hayden Company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Essex Summary Judgment OK'd in Whitt Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, granted Essex Insurance Co.'s motion for partial summary judgment in a case involving asbestos filed by Whitt Machine, Inc. The case is styled Whitt Machine, Inc., Plaintiff v. Essex Insurance Co., Defendant. Senior District Judge S. Arthur Spiegel entered judgment in Case No. 1:08-CV-00439 on April 14, 2009. Whitt owns real property and improvements located at 800/806 Central Avenue, Middletown, Ohio. It obtained insurance policy number 1CJ7894 from Essex for the Building. The Policy was in full force and effect from Feb. 16, 2007, through Feb. 16, 2008, and covered losses due to fire. On or about May 26, 2007, a fire destroyed the Building. Whitt notified Essex and timely submitted claims for damage to the Building, debris removal, additional debris removal, and pollutant cleanup. Essex paid directly to Whitt, and to others on its behalf, US$600,000 to cover the direct physical loss of the Building. In addition, Essex tendered to Whitt a check in the amount of US$10,000 to discharge its obligations under the Policy's Debris Removal Additional Coverage provision. Whitt had not accepted the check in anticipation of the resolution of this litigation. Whitt paid more than US$200,000 to remove debris and clean up and remove asbestos from the Building. Essex refused to cover Whitt's asbestos removal expenses and refused to pay more than US$10,000 for debris removal. Whitt brought suit in Ohio state court alleging breach of contract and bad faith in Essex's refusal to cover the costs of debris removal and pollutant clean up in excess of the US$600,000 Essex had paid and the US$10,000 Essex had proffered. Whitt and Essex both filed their cross motions for summary judgment on Oct. 31, 2008. The Court denied Whitt's motion for partial summary judgment and granted Essex's motion for partial summary judgment. The Court dismissed Whitt's breach of contract claim. James Papakirk, Esq., Todd J. Flagel, Esq., of Flagel & Papakirk LLC in Cincinnati, Ohio, represented Whitt Machine, Inc. David Laurence Eidelberg, Esq., of Columbus, Ohio, Richard D. Sweebe, Esq., of Ulmer & Berne LLP in Cleveland, Ohio, represented Essex Insurance Co. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Griffin's Summary Judgment OK'd in Ransford ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California, upheld the ruling of the San Francisco County Superior Court, which granted summary judgment in favor of Griffin Wheel Company, Inc., in an asbestos case filed by Alva Ransford. The case is styled Alva Ransford et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants v. Griffin Wheel Company, Inc., Defendant and Respondent. Judges James A. Richman, J. Anthony Kline, and Paul R. Haerle entered judgment in Case No. A121620 on July 9, 2009. Mr. Ransford is dying of mesothelioma he claimed was caused by asbestos encountered in 39 years of repairing and replacing brakes on locomotives and rolling stock owned by the Union Pacific and Southern Pacific railroads. For 15 of those 39 years, Mr. Ransford came into contact with a type of brake shoe containing asbestos that was manufactured by Griffin. Joined by his wife, Ora Myrtle Ransford, Mr. Ransford filed a complaint for damages against Griffin in August 2007. The trial court granted Griffin's motion for summary judgment after concluding that "pursuant to the Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act and the Safety Appliances Act, the plaintiffs' causes of action were preempted" by these federal statutes. The summary judgment was affirmed. Steven Marc Harowitz, Esq., of Harowitz & Tigerman in San Francisco, Ted W. Pelletier, Esq., of the Law Office of Ted W. Pelletier in San Anselmo, Calif., represented the Ransfords. Monty Bottom, Esq., Larry D. Ottaway, Esq., of Foliart, Huff, Ottaway & Bottom in Oklahoma City, Okla., Douglas A. Kroesch, Esq., of Gallawa, Brown, Kroesch & Kauffroath in Sacramento, Calif., represented Griffin Wheel Company, Inc. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Denies Lloyd's Summary Judgment Move ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Fairfield, denied Lloyd Lumber Co.'s motion for summary judgment in an asbestos case filed by Richard Roule. The case is styled Richard L. Roule, Executor of the Estate of Margaret Roule et al. v. ACMAT Corporation et al. Judge Trial Referee David W. Skolnick entered judgment in Case No. CV075006975S on May 29, 2009. Mr. Roule, Executor of the Estate of his deceased wife Margaret and as her surviving spouse, brought the instant action against Lloyd Lumber claiming that Mrs. Roule was exposed to asbestos- containing products purchased from Lloyd causing her to develop mesothelioma, and resulting in her death on or around April 11, 2005. Cargill, Inc. (successor to Lloyd Lumber) now moved for summary judgment arguing that the Roules had not produced any admissible evidence showing exposure by Mrs. Roule to Lloyd asbestos products. Accordingly, Lloyd Lumber's motion for summary judgment as against Mr. Roule was denied. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio Court Reverses Ruling in Whipkey Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County, reversed the ruling of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, which ruled in favor of William Whipkey and Marilyn Whipkey in an asbestos case filed against General Motors Corporation and Garlock Sealing Technologies (jointly "appellants"). The case is styled William Whipkey, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees v. Aqua-Chem, Inc., et al., Defendants-Appellants. Judges Larry A. Jones, Colleen Conway Cooney, and Frank D. Celebrezze, Jr. entered judgment in Case No. 88240 on July 9, 2009. GM and Garlock appealed the judgment of the lower court, finding that R.C. 2307.93 cannot be retroactively applied to the lawsuit filed by the Whipkeys. The Appeals Court reversed the ruling and remanded the case to the lower court. Mr. Whipkey passed away in September 2007, but the action was maintained by Mrs. Whipkey. On Feb. 9, 2004, the Whipkeys filed a complaint against various defendants, including GM and Garlock, alleging injury due to exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured and distributed by each defendant. More specifically, the Whipkeys' claim is based upon Mr. Whipkey's development of lung cancer. In August 2005, GM moved to administratively dismiss the Whipkeys' lawsuit. After a hearing in February 2006, the trial court denied GM's motion, finding that the Whipkeys filed their complaint in February 2004, which was prior to the effective date of H.B. 292. Therefore, the court concluded that the case would proceed under the law that was in effect prior to Sept. 2, 2004. It is from this order that GM and Garlock appealed. The Whipkeys moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of final appealable order. The Appeals Court granted the claimants' motion to dismiss in July 2006. Appellants then appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, contending that the trial court's decision was a final appealable order. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the matter, finding that the trial court's decision was a final appealable order. Appellants now appealed. Judgment was hereby reversed and remanded. The case was remanded to the lower court for further proceedings. Susan Squire Box, Esq., Brad A. Rimmel, Esq., Nathan F. Studeny, Esq., of Roetzel & Andress in Akron, Ohio, represented General Motors Corp, et al. Victoria D. Barto, Esq., Christina Tuggey Hidek, Esq., Matthew C. O'Connell, Esq., Douglas R. Esq., of Simek, Sutter, O'Connell & Farchione Co. LPA in Cleveland, Ohio, represented Garlock Sealing Technologies. Mary Brigid Sweeney, Esq., Christopher J. Hickey, Esq., of Brent Coon & Associates in Cleveland, Ohio, represented the Whipkeys. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: New York Court Rules on TIG Insurance Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, issued rulings in the case involving asbestos styled AIU Insurance Company, Plaintiff v. TIG Insurance Company, Defendant. U.S. Magistrates Judge Henry Pitman entered judgment in Case No. 07 Civ. 7052(SHS)(HBP) on July 8, 2009. By notice of motion dated Sept. 15, 2008, TIG Insurance Company moved for partial reconsideration of Judge Pitman's Opinion and Order dated Aug. 28, 2008 (August 28 Order). The August 28 Order granted in part and denied in part AIU Insurance Company's motion to compel the production of documents listed on TIG's privilege log as withheld on the basis of the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine. TIG now moved for partial reconsideration over 25 of the documents, which Judge Pitman ordered produced. AIU brought this action alleging breach of contract and seeking declaratory relief for TIG's failure to pay amounts due under four reinsurance contracts. AIU issued four umbrella insurance policies to the Foster Wheeler Corporation and its affiliates covering the period from Oct. 1, 1978 to Oct. 1, 1982. AIU subsequently reinsured its exposure under the umbrella insurance policies with International Insurance Company, TIG's predecessor company, under the Reinsurance Contracts. Foster Wheeler manufactures boilers and other steam-generating and heat-exchange equipment and, since the late 1970s, it has been the subject of thousands of asbestos-related personal injury claims. On Aug. 7, 2007, AIU sued TIG, alleging that TIG had breached the Reinsurance Contracts by failing to indemnify AIU for its share of the settlement payments. On Nov. 12, 2007, AIU served its First Request for Production of Documents on TIG. On or about June 24, 2007, Judge Pitman directed that the documents in issue be submitted to his chambers for in camera review. After reviewing the documents in camera, Judge Pitman found that many of the documents were not privileged attorney-client communications or attorney work-product and on August 28, Judge Pitman issued an Order which directed the production of these documents. TIG now moved for partial reconsideration with respect to about 25 of the documents that Judge Pitman ordered produced. Accordingly, Judge Pitman's August 28 Order was hereby modified on reconsideration. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Rulings in McKee Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh District, Mahoning County, issued split rulings in the asbestos case styled Charles McKee, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees v. A-Best Products Co., et al., Defendants-Appellants. Judges Cheryl L. Waite, Gene Donofrio, and Joseph J. Vukovich entered judgment in Case No. 06 MA 164 on June 30, 2009. Appellant A-Best Products, Co. is one of 80 named defendants in a personal injury case involving claims of asbestos-related injury filed in the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas. The allegations included negligence, negligent installation, strict liability, breach of warranty, fraudulent concealment, and conspiracy. The particular ruling at issue in this appeal granted a motion filed by the Appellees requesting that the case be set for trial and that the case be tried under the law as it existed prior to the enactment of H.B. 292. The Appellees argued that the retroactive application of H.B. 292 was unconstitutional. The trial court granted the Appellees' motion. The court held that H.B. 292 was unconstitutionally retroactive because it denied the Appellees a vested right. The court ordered the case to proceed under common law standards rather than the new statutory standards. This appeal followed. The trial court also incorrectly found that Appellee Joseph Shary met his prima facie evidentiary burden. The judgment of the trial court was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings. The trial court was also ordered to administratively dismiss, without prejudice, the claims of Mr. Shary. Richard E. Reverman, Esq., Kelly W. Thye, Esq., of Young, Reverman & Mazzei Co., LPA in Cincinnati, Ohio, and Vincent L. Greene, Esq., of Motley Rice LLC in Providence, R.I., represented Plaintiffs-Appellees. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Ind. Cites $514MM Settlement at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- PPG Industries, Inc.'s asbestos settlement (under current liabilities) was US$514 million as of June 30, 2009, compared with US$613 million as of June 30, 2008, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 16, 2009. The Company's asbestos settlement (under current liabilities) was US$484 million as of March 31, 2009, compared with US$579 million as of March 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, April 24, 2009) The Company recorded US$3 million as net asbestos settlement during the three months ended June 30, 2009, compared with US$4 million during the three months ended June 30, 2008. The Company recorded US$7 million as net asbestos settlement during the six months ended June 30, 2009, compared with US$4 million during the six months ended June 30, 2008. Second quarter 2009 net income includes an aftertax charge of US$2 million, or US$0.02 per share, to reflect the net increase in the current value of the Company's obligation under its proposed asbestos settlement, which is pending court proceedings. Reported second quarter 2008 net income included one-time, aftertax charges related to the Company's AG&S business of US$23 million, or US$0.14 per share, and an aftertax charge of US$2 million, or US$0.01 per share, for the proposed asbestos settlement. Pittsburgh-based PPG Industries, Inc. supplies paints, coatings, optical products, specialty materials, chemicals, glass and fiber glass. The Company has more than 140 manufacturing facilities and equity affiliates and operates in more than 60 countries. Sales in 2008 were US$15.8 billion. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bristol Floor Layer Gets GBP70T in Payout ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cornelius Doherty, a 76-year-old former floor layer from Bristol, England, was GBP70,000 in compensation for his injuries developed after exposure to asbestos, the Evening Post reports. When he was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2008, Mr. Doherty was told he probably had 18 months to live and suffers pain every day. Mr. Doherty, who served with the Oxfordshire & Buckinghamshire Light Infantry in the 1950s, said he had friends who have died as a result of exposure to asbestos. He said, "Asbestos was there but we did not know the damage it could do. Some of the apprentices used to make snowballs out of it. No one knew it could harm us. We would not have done it if we had." Mr. Doherty worked for Bedminster-based C W Jones Flooring Ltd on and off from 1963 to 2005 along with other companies in the Bristol area that no longer exist. He also worked in building in New Zealand. His case was brought against C W Jones Flooring, which remained the sole defendant. Mr. Doherty was represented by Simon Allen, partner at Russell Jones and Walker, who said that about 2,000 people die from the cancer in the UK every year and it is expected to peak in 2020. The case was settled out of court three weeks before it was due to be heard but the firm did not admit liability. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Ex-Handyman's Death Linked to Exposure ---------------------------------------------------------------- An inquest at Gloucester, England, ruled that the death of Phillip Stanton was linked to exposure to workplace asbestos, this is Gloucestershire.co.uk reports. The 72-year-old Mr. Stanton, a former laborer and handyman, worked for Ford and Weston and Hyett Builders, as well as many other local companies, Gloucestershire deputy coroner David Dooley was told. Mr. Stanton died on March 26, 2009. His wife, Pamela Stanton, said her husband had worked at Gloster Saro in Brockworth when Hyett Builders had been carrying out work there. She said, "He said he had to go into a boiler room where other men were wearing suits and masks to remove asbestos after the company closed, but he was not given any protection. "He also worked at Gloucester Docks in buildings where there were great clouds of dust and the debris had to be swept down from floor to floor. "He retired at 69 and was very active. He was still riding his bike until he started having breathing problems. He went to Gloucestershire Royal Hospital where they found he had fluid on his lungs. He was referred to Bristol Royal Infirmary and they found he had mesothelioma." Dr. Dooley said that Gloster Saro made firefighting equipment, so there was likely to have been asbestos there. In a statement made to his solicitors before he died, Mr. Stanton said until the diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma, he had no previous chest illnesses and was relatively fit for his age enjoying a wide variety of activities. He detailed all the places he had worked in his life and the deputy coroner thought he would almost certainly have come into contact with asbestos in many of them. Mr. Stanton said he had been aware of the dangers of asbestos exposure from the 1980s. He remembered working with powdery asbestos when contractors were removing it but he had to go into the same boiler room with nothing but a mask. Pathologist Dr. John McCarthy said the malignant mesothelioma (cancer) had affected one lung and the heart. Microscopic examination showed asbestosis damage in the lung and a level of asbestos fibers in a range of results where mesothelioma could result. Dr. McCarthy added that Mr. Stanton had died of bronchial pneumonia caused by the mesothelioma and the death was related to asbestos exposure. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Thurlby Resident's Death Linked to Exposure ---------------------------------------------------------------- An inquest heard that the death of 63-year-old driving instructor Trevor Alburey, of Thurlby by Bourne, England, was linked to exposure to asbestos, the Evening Telegraph reports. Mr. Alburey was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2008 and died at his home on April 9, 2009. The inquest into Mr. Alburey's death at Stamford Town Hall heard the only time he had been exposed to asbestos was when he was a child as his father worked with asbestos. Mr. Alburey's wife, Jean, said when he was diagnosed with the disease, they had tried to recall a time when he had worked with asbestos. She told the inquest, "He recalled that his father used to come home covered in white powder and play with him and his sister." A post-mortem examination found the cause of death to be pulmonary thromboembolism and bronchopneumonia. Recording a verdict of accidental death, coroner Gordon Ryall said, "It was accidental because his father wasn't aware he was passing the asbestos on. The speed at which the condition progressed to the diagnosis is quite normal but unfortunately there is no cure. It is a very unpleasant condition." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Scarborough Worker's Death Linked to Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- An inquest at Scarborough County Court heard that the death of 78-year old James McBride, of Lythe, Scarborough, England, was linked to exposure to asbestos, the Scarborough Evening News reports. Mr. McBride had worked in the Merchant Navy and then for Dorman Long Chemicals, in Teesside. A statement written by Mr. McBride before he died was summarized by coroner Michael Oakley at the inquest. It stated that Mr. McBride worked closely with asbestos during both jobs. Mr Oakley said, "He came into contact with asbestos when in the navy. He refers to having to remove pipes that were lagged with asbestos. "When he worked at Dorman Long Chemicals even in a more management position he says he came into contact with asbestos." A post mortem examination concluded that Mr. McBride died of mesothelioma. Mr. Oakley recorded that Mr. McBride died from industrial disease. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lincoln Hall in Illinois Slated for Cleanup ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Lincoln Hall of the University of Illinois in Urbana, Ill., particularly the basement, is earmarked for asbestos abatement, Mesothelioma & Asbestos Awareness Center reports. On July 13, 2009, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed off on a grant of US$57 million to be used for renovations. The grant money is part of a statewide capital improvement plan, which is funded by taxes as well as online gambling. The Lincoln Hall will benefit from this renovation money. The last renovation at the building was nearly 70 years ago. Matthew Tomaszewski, the director of facilities and planning at the University of Illinois, said, "You enter into the building and the first thing you see is the damage to the floor. It's a tripping hazard." The basement is filled with asbestos and aging pipes. Mr. Tomaszewski added, "I know it does seem like a joke, but this is true. The students would come down the steps we just came down to find their academic advisor." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Irish Harbor Cleanup to Cost Up to EUR300T ---------------------------------------------------------------- Asbestos abatement at the harbor in Dun Laoghaire, Ireland, will cost between EUR150,000 and EUR300,000 and will take about 10 weeks to complete, Herald.ie reports. The Dun Laoghaire Harbour Company (DLHC) plans to carry out works which will see a number of old buildings containing asbestos removed. Specialized contractors will be required due to the presence of asbestos. Plans to develop the area around Carlisle Pier have been in the pipeline for some time but have been hit by a series of delays. It is not operational at the moment. According to documents seen by the Herald, the current phase will "comprise building demolition and site clearance within the boundary of Dun Laoghaire Harbour." However, extra care will have to be taken because the works "will involve asbestos removal and work in a maritime environment." At present, the Harbour Company is looking for a suitable and experienced contractor to carry out the work. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Probe on Illegal Dumping in Hawaii Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- The investigation of the State Departments of Health and Hawaiian Homelands into the illegal dumping of asbestos in Waianae, Hawaii, is ongoing, Mesothelioma.com reports. The Department of Hawaiian Homelands began removing the waste and disposing of it properly and safely on July 16, 2009. Students from Leeward Community College and their instructors are outraged by the dump. Lucy Gay of Leeward Community College says, "We're sick and tired of having people take advantage of our community." According to Carroll Cox of Envirowatch, the site of the illegal dumping grounds is owned by the state, and has a locked gate. Despite the "No Trespassing" sign at the site, it appears that the area has been used for several years to dispose of hazardous waste. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Dumped at Heighington Countryside ---------------------------------------------------------------- Corrugated sheets of asbestos were dumped and left out in the open on a county path near Heighington, County Durham, England, the Darlington & Stockton Times reports. The sheets were disposed of by Darlington Borough Council, but Heighington councilor Gerald Lee has appealed for anyone who knows anything about the incident to come forward. Councilor Lee said, "Fly tipping not only kills animals. It also costs the English tax payer millions of pounds to remove the tons of waste dumped every day. It also leaves our beautiful towns and countryside unsightly." A spokeswoman for the council said the sheets were cleared as soon as Councilor Lee informed them of the situation. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Discovered at Sinopec Star's Oil Rig ---------------------------------------------------------------- Asbestos was discovered on an oil rig owned by China-based Sinopec Star Petroleum Co, Ltd, Mining Safety reports. The oil rig, located at Lascelles Wharf in Geelong, Australia, is operated by Maersk Drilling Services A/S. The 30,000-ton rig, Kan Tan IV, is undergoing a multi-million dollar, six-week refit, according to WorkSafe Victoria. Dieter Vetter, a former worker and elected health and safety officer on the rig, says that asbestos had posed danger to workers refurbishing the rig. He alleges he was squeezed out of his position because he raised concerns about safety. State union officials say that the rig's owners were pushing hard to meet a deadline to guide the rig back through shipping channels into Bass Strait and have accused the company of not taking proper precautions. Maersk Drilling says that asbestos had been found and dealt with in pipe gaskets and an exhaust system on the rig. Jakob Diemer, the Company's senior general manager of engineering, said an asbestos audit carried out on the rig in Trinidad by an Australian company had issued an all-clear. He says that while finding the asbestos had been frustrating, the Company had gone to extra lengths to ensure safety. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dispute on "Dysfunctional Database" Settled ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Varas, Esq., of Hazelhurst, Miss., and Marcy Croft, Esq., of Jackson, Miss., on July 13, 2009, advised District Judge Eduardo Robreno that they met and resolved issues concerning a "dysfunctional database" in asbestos litigation, The Madison St. Clair Record reports. Mr. Varas, who charged that defendants in national asbestos litigation generated false allegations against his clients from a dysfunctional database, withdrew the charge. Mr. Varas withdrew a July 6, 2009 motion for sanctions and Ms. Croft withdrew a motion to dismiss claims of Mr. Varas' clients. They wrote that they would provide the court with a list of plaintiffs whose claims would be dismissed, transferred to bankruptcy dockets or proceeded upon. Judge Robreno presides over pretrial proceedings in asbestos suits from around the nation by appointment of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation. In 2008, Judge Robreno ordered any plaintiff suing more than one defendant to sever the suit and state a specific claim against each defendant. Asbestos lawyers began settling and dropping cases at a phenomenal rate. In May 2009, Judge Robreno reported resolution of more than 500,000 claims in four months. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ryder's Wife's Death Due to Hazard Exposure ---------------------------------------------------------------- Trevor Ryder, of Welwyn Garden City, England, says that the death of his wife Maureen was due to second-hand exposure to asbestos, due to his work with Norton Abrasives, Asbestos.com reports. Norton Abrasives, which manufactures and supplies abrasives for technical manufacturing and commercial applications, household and automotive refinishing solutions, was bought by Saint-Gobain in 1990. Mr. Ryder worked for the Company from 1963 through 1985 and said he was unknowingly exposed to asbestos dust on the job. Upon returning home at the end of the workday, he recalls his wife brushing the dust off his clothing. Mr. Ryder said, "She would brush the dust from my clothes every evening and then hand wash them ready for the next day." This resulted in the secondhand exposure to asbestos he believes led to his wife's mesothelioma diagnosis. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Oliver to Give GBP1T for Every Case Settled ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chester, England-based solicitors Oliver and Co promised to donate GBP1,000 to MacMillan Cancer Support and British Lung Foundation for every asbestos case they settle in court, the Chester Chronicle reports. Oliver and Co has agreed to donate funds to the charity of their client's choice after recovering millions of pounds in damages in recent years. Partner Craig Howell said, "We work closely with both charities because they provide great support in all aspects of care to our clients who find themselves facing the most difficult time. We see how hard they work and want to give something back to these worthy causes." Clients who suffer from asbestosis and asbestos-related lung cancer have often developed the illnesses after coming into contact with asbestos in their place of work. Oliver and Co recently settled a case for a man who was exposed to asbestos while working in industry in the South East more than 30 years ago. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Discovered in Sumas River in Wash. ---------------------------------------------------------------- According to samples recently collected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, naturally-occurring asbestos has been carried downstream of Swift Creek and along the banks of the Sumas River in the State of Washington, according to an EPA press release dated July 20, 2009. The asbestos comes from a landslide on Sumas Mountain that deposits asbestos-laden sediment into Swift Creek, the focus of previous health and environmental studies. The EPA's sampling revealed asbestos and several metals in water, bank sediments, and recent flood deposits in Whatcom County, north of Swift Creek, and approaching the Canadian Border. EPA has shared the study results with local property owners, the local and state health departments, the Washington Department of Ecology, and officials in Canada where the Sumas River continues northward. Dan Opalski, Director of EPA's Superfund Cleanup Office in Seattle, said "These asbestos levels deserve close attention. The new data will enable agencies to make important health recommendations so local families make informed decisions to protect themselves." The samples taken from the Sumas riverbank showed higher concentrations of asbestos than previous samples of Swift Creek dredged material. Concentrations ranged up to 27 percent asbestos along the Sumas riverbank. The Whatcom County Health Department and Washington Department of Health have sent an advisory to residents and property owners along the Sumas River. The advisory outlines measures people can take to limit their exposure to asbestos in water, sediment and flood deposits. Agencies including Whatcom County Health Department and Whatcom County Public Works, state departments of Health, Ecology, and Labor and Industries, and federal Army Corps of Engineers, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and EPA are coordinating resources and information to address this problem for both the near term and long term. Engineering options, including building a structure that would control sediment near the landslide, are being considered. The situation may also call for changes to local land use planning. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cork City Sues Bakery for Asbestos Breaches ---------------------------------------------------------------- The city of Cork, Ireland, initiated legal action against the owners of the former Keating's Bakery, on Tramore Road, for allowing material including asbestos to be stored in it, the Irish Examiner reports. Councilor Mary Shields questioned city manager Joe Gavin on the issue at the last council meeting. Mr. Gavin said the legal action was being taken under Section 14 and Section 32 of the 1996 Waste Management Act. Section 14 allows a local authority take action where there may be a risk of environmental pollution arising from the carrying on of an activity at a certain premises. Section 32 deals with the collection and movement of waste. The original bakery firm traded for many years in Cork city, and moved from Coburg Street in the 1970s to Tramore Road, taking over a former shoe factory. The business went into receivership in 1987, and Keating's bakeries in Kanturk invested and it ran again with Fitzgerald family involvement up to 1997 when production ceased. The 1.7- acre site has had a long and complex planning history since. The Keating family applied to develop residential projects on the site, but one was refused by An Bord Pleanala following third party appeals in 2003, while a subsequent proposal in 2005 was withdrawn just before Christmas. The site was sold soon afterwards to Frinailla Developments, which in turn lodged plans to develop the site. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Waseca Library Renovation Estimated at $47T ---------------------------------------------------------------- The renovation and removal of asbestos at the Waseca-LeSueur Regional Library in Waseca, Minn., is estimated at US$47,000, in which the City of Waseca is covering the cost of the project, the Waseca County News reports. Starting July 30, 2009 and running through Aug. 23, 2009, the Waseca-LeSueur Regional Library will be closed for asbestos removal and renovation. Along with the removal of asbestos tiles, the project will also see new carpeting installed in the library. In the meantime, library director Theresa Meadows encourages everyone looking to get some summer reading material to come over to the library so they have plenty to read while they are closed. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: $450T Needed to Replace Water Lines in Ore. ---------------------------------------------------------------- An issue in need of funding is a US$450,000 project to replace an aging asbestos cement water line in Eagle Point, Ore., Mesothelioma.com reports. The pipes, made from cement that contains asbestos, are six inches in diameter. The funding would upgrade the water line to new materials, and expand the size to 12 inches in diameter. City officials in Eagle Point hope that if they receive federal stimulus money they will be able to update the city's water system, part of which is run through asbestos-laden cement pipes. City officials are hoping to use the money to pay off a loan of nearly US$3 million, which was used to retrofit a four million gallon tank. The tank would effectively double the city's water capacity. According to city administrator David Hussell, if the city receives the federal funds, they can afford to pay off the 40 year loan, and then tackle other water-related projects. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Somerset Local Gets GBP175T in Compensation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alan Ward, a 61-year-old resident of Somerset, England, received GBP175,000 in compensation over his asbestos-related cancer, BBC News reports. Mr. Ward was exposed to asbestos while working in hospitals in Wakefield between 1964 and 1972 and has cancer of the lung lining. He was suing Yorkshire and Humber Strategic Health Authority. However, the settled before the case got to court. Mr. Ward, a plumber, said he had never been warned of the danger asbestos posed to his health. He said, "We just smashed off the asbestos and carried on working." Dave Prentis, general secretary of the union Unison, said, "Alan is one of a growing number of workers whose health has been fatally damaged just through going to work. "Employers have to face up to their responsibilities to make sure they don't put their workers at risk of injury or death." A spokesperson for NHS Yorkshire and the Humber said: "Mr. Ward's claim, which dates back to 1964, relates to a predecessor NHS organization. When Mr. Ward's claim was presented, we investigated his allegations and on the advice of our solicitors admitted liability." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup to Commence at Bridge in Heuvelton ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Slate Hill Construction Co. will begin stripping asbestos off State Street bridge in Heuvelton, N.Y., the Watertown Daily Times reports. Contractors have been erecting a canvas enclosure around the bridge to ensure that the asbestos remains contained during the removal process. Michael R. Flick, a Region 7 spokesman for the state Department of Transportation, said the removal process will take about four weeks, after which crews will begin taking apart the bridge. Single-lane alternating traffic will continue on the bridge as the asbestos is removed. Once deconstruction of the bridge begins, a temporary bridge will bypass the construction site, running parallel with the stone bridge along the eastern side. It also will support single-lane traffic. Slate Hill also has addressed safety issues related to emergency services, by rigging the traffic signals with a device that allows firefighters to stop traffic when necessary. The US$5.5 million project is expected to be completed by November 2009. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Winona Memorial Closed July 15 Over Hazards ---------------------------------------------------------------- Workers of Indianapolis, Ind., on July 15, 2009, boarded up and sealed off the old Winona Memorial Hospital over asbestos and safety concerns, the Mesothelioma & Asbestos Awareness Center reports. The building has been vacant since 2004, when the hospital went bankrupt. In 2008, the facility was declared a hazard to public health. The property is owned by the city, but all efforts to secure the building against unauthorized entry have been unsuccessful. Despite signs that warn of the presence of asbestos, "No Trespassing" signs were nowhere to be seen. City workers have now sealed up the windows and doors, and the local police will be watching the property closely. Captain Robert Holt said, "I've assigned an officer to check the building regularly to ensure that it isn't open to someone who is just wandering in." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Removed From Bridgewater Elementary ---------------------------------------------------------------- On July 13, 2009, contractors removed asbestos from the Bridgewater Elementary Center in Kanawha County, W.Va., WiredPRNews.com reports. The work was one of several asbestos-abatement projects to be completed during the summer within Kanawha County schools. As noted in a report, 85,000 square feet of space total will be the focus of the projects. Maintenance director of the county, Terry Hollandsworth, said, "It's mostly floor tiles, and we do a little bit of ceiling work as well. And we're removing the asbestos chalkboards while we're there, too." Mr. Hollandsworth also stated of the Bridgewater project, "I can't tell you exactly what we're doing right now at Bridgeview." However, it is said to be one of the smaller assignments. Mr. Hollandsworth further stated, "We hire contractors to come in and do the asbestos abatement, and they have to be licensed and certified. Asbestos abatement is heavily regulated." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BAVSG Seeks Probes for Schools in Bradford ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Bradford Asbestos Victim Support Group is calling for district-wide checks on the management and cleanup of asbestos in schools across Bradford, England, the Telegraph & Argus reports. BAVSG wants to see a comprehensive audit of schools to find out whether asbestos is being safely managed and is calling for the removal of the lethal material. The group has backed national plans to carry out independent tests for asbestos. MPs, leaders of the teaching unions and families of teachers, who died of asbestos-related diseases, have arranged tests on 100 schools across the country. Jane Howie, a development worker for BAVSG said, "There is evidence that often the standard of asbestos management, in schools all over the country, was not satisfactory and very dangerous. We are very concerned about the levels of asbestos the children of the Bradford district are being exposed to and we need to have a comprehensive audit of all the schools in Bradford." Six teaching unions have backed the need for more checks and the Bradford Area Safety Reps Association is planning to look at the management of asbestos in schools. Earlier in 2009, the Telegraph & Argus revealed that 500 public buildings, including more than 200 schools, had been found to contain asbestos. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Forces Closure of Library in Glasgow ---------------------------------------------------------------- Asbestos was found at the Govanhill and Crosshill Public Library in Glasgow, Scotland, forcing library bosses to close the building until 2010, the Evening Times reports. The library has moved into Govanhill Neighbourhood Centre in Daisy Street until repairs are completed. In June 2009, the library was closed when plaster crashed through a false ceiling into the children's section. It was the second time in five years the Victorian building has been shut for repairs. Staff from City Building had thought the library would have to stay closed for a week. However, a detailed inspection found the problem was worse than expected. As a result, Culture and Sport Glasgow, which runs the city's libraries, announced the building would shut for 12 weeks. Now, it has now been revealed that workmen have discovered asbestos in the ceiling meaning specialist contractors will have to be called in. A Culture and Sport spokesman said, "Libraries staff have pulled out all the stops to set up a temporary home at the Govanhill Neighbourhood Centre, thus maintaining a facility in the heart of the community." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Affirms Ruling in Darrah Claim ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh District, Jefferson County, affirmed the judgment of the Jefferson County Court of Common Pleas, which granted Duane Darrah's motion in an asbestos case filed against various defendants. The case is styled Duane Darrah, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees v. A-Best Products Co., et al., Defendants-Appellants. Judges Gene Donofrio, Joseph J. Vukovich, and Cheryl L. Waite entered judgment in Case No. 06 JE 47 on June 30, 2009. A-Best Products, Co. is one of 83 named defendants in a personal injury case involving claims of asbestos-related injury. The defendants included Westinghouse Electric Corporation, General Electric Company, Uniroyal Rubber Company, Pfizer, Inc., Union Carbide Chemical and Plastics Co., Inc., Mobil Oil Corp., Owens- Illinois Corporation, Inc., CertainTeed Corp., and Amchem Products, Inc. The allegations included negligence, negligent installation, strict liability, breach of warranty, fraudulent concealment, and conspiracy. The particular ruling at issue in this appeal granted a motion filed by the plaintiffs requesting a declaration that changes in R.C. Chapter 2307 that became effective after the filing of this lawsuit should not be applied retroactively. Appellees argued that the retroactive application of H.B. 292 was unconstitutional. The trial court granted Appellees' motion. This appeal followed on Nov. 15, 2006. Richard E. Reverman, Esq., Kelly W. Thye, Esq., of Young, Reverman & Mazzei Co., LPA in Cincinnati, Ohio, Vincent L. Greene, Esq., of Motley Rice LLC in Providence, R.I., represented Duane Darrah. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Affirms Ruling in Bugosh Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, affirmed the ruling of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Civil Division, which favored Judith R. Bugosh (on behalf of Edward J. Bugosh) in an asbestos case filed against various defendants. This was an appeal filed by I.U. North America, Inc. Appeal dismissed as having been improvidently granted. Judges Ronald D. Castille, Thomas G. Saylor, J. Michael Eakin, Max Baer, Debra Todd, Seamus P. McCaffery, and Jane Cutler Greenspan entered judgment in the case on June 15, 2009. Judge Saylor issued a dissenting opinion, in which Judge Castille joined. Jennifer E. Watson, Esq., Robert B. Lawler, Esq., of Willbraham, Lawler & Buba, P.C. in Philadelphia, Susan Regrut Mitchell, Esq., of Willbraham, Lawler & Buba, P.C. in Pittsburgh, represented I.U. North America, Inc. Janice Marie Savinis, Esq., of Savinis, D'Amico & Kane, L.L.C. in Pittsburgh, Clifford Alan Rieders, Esq., Pamela L. Shipman, Esq., of Rieders, Travis, Humphrey, Harris, Waters & Waffenschmidt in Williamsport, Pa., represented Judith R. Bugosh. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Affirms Ruling in James Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh District, Mahoning County, affirmed the ruling of the Court of Common Pleas of Mahoning County, Ohio, which favored plaintiffs in the case styled Charles James, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees v. A-Best Products Co., et al., Defendants-Appellants. Judges Gene Donofrio, Joseph J. Vukovich, and Cheryl L. Waite entered judgment in Case Nos. 07-MA-42, 07-MA-43, 07-MA-44, 07- MA-45, 07-MA-46, 07-MA-47, 07-MA-48, 07-MA-49, 07-MA-50, 07-MA- 51 on June 30, 2009. Defendants-appellants, A-Best Products Co. and other defendants appealed the trial court's decisions, allowing plaintiffs- appellees' (Charles James, et al.) claims of asbestos-related injuries to move forward based on its determination that each appellee had submitted sufficient evidence to establish a prima- facie case in compliance with the requirements of R.C. 2307. The central issue of this appeal concerned appellees' ability to recover for asbestos-related injuries and whether recent legislation enacted governing asbestos litigation was unconstitutionally retroactive. This case involved 109 plaintiffs-appellees in 10 cases that brought asbestos-related claims against numerous defendants- appellants. In 10 separate judgment entries, the trial court found that appellees had submitted evidence demonstrating a prima facie case complying with the requirements of R.C. 2307, thereby allowing the claims to move forward. This appeal followed. Richard E. Reverman, Esq., Kelly Thye, Esq., of Young, Reverman & Mazzei in Cincinnati, Ohio, represented plaintiffs-appellees. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Split Ruling Issued in Federal Ins. Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, First Division, issued split rulings in the case involving asbestos styled Federal Insurance Company, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross Appellee v. Binney & Smith, Inc., a subsidiary of Hallmark Cards, Inc., Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant. Judges Wolfson, Gordon, and Hall entered judgment in Case No. 1- 08-0843 on June 30, 2009. Federal Insurance Co. filed a declaratory judgment action in the Circuit Court of Cook County against Binney & Smith, Inc., seeking a declaration that it did not owe a duty to defend or indemnify Binney in connection with a class action lawsuit filed against Binney in 2000. On May 23, 2000, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported finding asbestos in three major brands of crayons, including the Crayola brand crayons manufactured by Binney. The asbestos was believed to be found in the talc used by crayon manufacturers as a binding agent. In June 2000, Steven Schwab, individually and as a parent and guardian of Anne Elise Schwab, filed a national class action complaint against Binney in the Chancery Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill. The putative class consisted of all individuals who ever purchased Binney's Crayola brand crayons. The class plaintiffs alleged test results showed the presence of asbestos fibers. The class plaintiffs in the Schwab action brought three causes of action against Binney: breach of implied warranty of merchantability, violation of the Illinois' Consumer Fraud Act and Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and breach of express warranty. The damages sought had to do with the purchase price of the crayons. Between 1969 and 1996, Federal issued Binney comprehensive general liability insurance policies. Three of the policies provided Binney with broad defense and indemnity coverage against claims arising out of "advertising injury." The limit for advertising injury coverage under each of the policies was US$500,000. Six months after the Schwab action was filed, Binney and the class plaintiffs reached a settlement. On June 15, 2001, the Cook County Chancery Court approved the settlement after conducting a fairness hearing. On Sept. 19, 2000, Federal filed a complaint for declaratory judgment, seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Binney in the Schwab action. Binney filed an answer and counterclaim, alleging breach of contract against Federal in connection with the Schwab action and three similar putative class actions. Binney also filed a third party complaint against Royal Insurance Company of America, seeking defense and indemnification for the Schwab action and two other asbestos-related lawsuits. Binney's third party complaint was dismissed after it entered into a confidential settlement with Royal. Binney sought the full amount of its Schwab-related settlement costs and prejudgment interest at the rate of five percent from Federal. Following a bench trial, the trial court found in Binney's favor. The trial court denied Binney's request for prejudgment interest. Federal appealed. Binney cross-appealed. The Appellate Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the cause for proceedings consistent with its opinion. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court to Reverse Ruling in Nationwide Claim ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, will reverse the ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, in a case involving asbestos styled Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Appellant v. George V. Hamilton, Inc., Appellee. Judges Fuentes, Jordan, and Nygaard entered judgment in Case No. 08-4733 on July 6, 2009. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company appealed the order of the District Court granting George V. Hamilton, Inc. summary judgment and dismissing Nationwide's motion to compel arbitration. Nationwide issued a single policy of liability insurance to Hamilton, which provided Hamilton with coverage from Jan. 30, 1985 to Jan. 30, 1986. During the policy period, Hamilton, an installer of commercial and industrial insulation, received claims for asbestos-related injuries allegedly caused by products it had installed. In 1992, Hamilton and Nationwide, along with other carriers, including Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association Insurance Company (PMA), entered into an Interim Claim Handling and Settlement Agreement. Nationwide participated in the Settlement Agreement until early 1996, when it claimed to have exhausted its policy limits and provided proof of exhaustion to both Hamilton and its fellow carriers. On Jan. 5, 2005, PMA filed a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pa., seeking a declaratory judgment against Hamilton and several insurers other than Nationwide. On May 20, 2007, the Court of Common Pleas issued an order sustaining PMA's objections. On May 30, 2007, Hamilton responded by sending to Nationwide and the other Settlement Agreement signatories notice of its intent to withdraw from the Agreement. The Court of Common Pleas, on June 22, 2007, granted Hamilton's motion to vacate and overruled PMA's objections to the counterclaims. On Dec. 7, 2005, a second Hamilton insurer, ACE Property & Casualty Co., though it was not a party to the Settlement Agreement, also filed an action against Hamilton and other insurers seeking declaratory relief regarding its duty to defend and indemnify Hamilton. Again, Nationwide was not made a party. The court in Philadelphia transferred the case to the Court of Common Pleas in Allegheny County on July 25, 2006. The ACE action has since been coordinated with the PMA Action and both cases remain pending. On June 7, 2007, a co-insurer defendant in the ACE Action filed a third-party complaint against Nationwide, which filed its answer to the third-party complaint on Aug. 10, 2007. On Sept. 28, 2007, Hamilton filed an answer, new matter counterclaim and crossclaims. On Oct. 19, 2007, Hamilton tendered new asbestos-related claims to Nationwide and other insurers seeking indemnity and defense. On Feb. 4, 2008, Hamilton filed amended crossclaims in the ACE Action. However, under the Settlement Agreement, Nationwide served Hamilton with an arbitration demand on April 1, 2008. Hamilton denied the demand, and Nationwide then filed this action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to compel arbitration. Hamilton moved to dismiss or for summary judgment and, on Nov. 8, 2008, the District Court granted the summary judgment motion. Peter B. Skeel, Esq., of Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, LLP in Pittsburgh, Rolf E. Gilbertson, Esq., Eric E. Caugh, Esq., Christopher R. Paar, Esq., Kathryn M. Hoffman, Esq., of Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP in Minneapolis, represented Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company. Frederick J. Francis, Esq., Joseph E. Linehan, Esq., Richard T. Victoria, Esq., of Meyer, Unkovic & Scott LLP, in Pittsburgh, represented George V. Hamilton, Inc. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Langone's Claim v. Beloit City Filed July 6 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Langone, a business owner, filed a lawsuit involving asbestos and environmental matters against the City of Beloit, Wis., on July 6, 2009 in the Rock County Circuit Court, the Beloit Daily News reports. Mr. Langone assumed the City completed its contractual responsibilities before selling him property. Eleven years later, he sued the municipality for allegedly failing to fix environmental hazards. Mr. Langone, president of Belcoat Corporation, hired a company to inspect his property at 1515 Yates Ave., earlier in 2009. After spending 10 hours collecting 70 samples, the company's determined the building's roofs, windows, steam pipes and water pipes contained asbestos and needed to be removed and replaced at an estimated cost of US$750,000. City Attorney Tom Casper, Esq., confirmed the City received the paperwork. City Manager Larry Arft confirmed the City's relationship with Belcoat, an industrial warehouse. Mr. Langone purchased the property, formerly the Department of Public Works, in 1998 with an agreement that the City would correct all environmental hazards, he said. He had no reason to question whether the work had been completed until he sought to demolish a wing last October 2008. The Department of Natural Resources asked for the building's environmental certificate before the razing. Mr. Langone found none, leading him to believe the work promised to him had not been done. In November 2008, the City sent a contractor to the site who confirmed the presence of asbestos. However, Mr. Langone said, the City told him it could not pay for the work under the 2008 budget and that the project would be bid out in 2009. A survey was taken of the property early in 2009, but Mr. Langone would not let the City proceed with improvements once he learned it planned to only address a portion of what his inspector found. After trying to contact the City further about the issue, Mr. Langone decided going to court was the next step. Mr. Casper said the city has about 20 days since the case was filed to respond. The asbestos abatement has stalled his plan of selling about US$80,000 worth of brick and wood from the wing he wanted to demolish. With it, Mr. Langone's ability to financially survive for 12 to 18 months before having to find new tenants has disappeared. Mr. Langone said, "My attorneys have advised me not to lease out space to anyone based on the liability I might face. I'm in default of my loan because I can't generate any money. It puts at risk my mortgage and second mortgage. It's basically destroying me." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Citro Action v. Kraft Foods, Inc. Underway ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Citro, on July 20, 2009, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against Kraft Foods, Inc., alleging he was exposed to asbestos at a Nabisco bakery, Chicago Now reports. Mr. Citro, who worked for nine years at the Bakery, also alleged that he developed a serious medical condition as a result. Mr. Citro filed a petition for discovery, asking Kraft to turn over records concerning asbestos-containing materials or any asbestos removal that occurred between 1950 and 1979 at Kraft's Nabisco north bakery in Chicago. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Columbus Dispute on CAD175,280 Bill Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- The City of Prince George, in British Columbia, Canada, and the prior owners of the Columbus Hotel are still in dispute over who should pay a CAD175,280 bill for demolition of the building last September 2008, a total that would have been lower if not for the asbestos found in the structure, the Prince George Citizen reports. When the City sought bids on the job, bidders were asked not to provide an estimate for the cost of removing hazardous material, just the basic effort to level the building. Western Thermal Contractors won the contract with a low bid of CAD46,800. However, by the time the work was done, the company had earned more than three and a half times as much. Scott Bone, city supply and services manager, says that bids in those cases are for basic demolition only may be surprising, but there are good reasons for the approach. They begin with the fact that no one knows how much hazardous material needs to be removed until one has entered the building, and one cannot enter until the building has been made safe, and that cannot occur until the demolition starts. After that, the contractor earns additional money to remove the material, but Mr. Bone stressed the amount is based on how much was bid to win the contract. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Concord Steam Charged $22,000 for Asbestos ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued a penalty of US$22,000 to Concord Steam Corporation for asbestos accumulation over a leaking boiler incident in Concord, N.H., the Union Leader reports. OSHA proposed total fines of US$104,200 against Concord Steam in connection with a Jan. 22, 2009 fire in which a worker was injured. In the incident, pressurized oil ignited after leaking from a boiler, OSHA said. A subsequent investigation resulted in 73 allegations of willful, serious and other than serious violations of safety standards. OSHA also identified various chemical, electrical, mechanical, asbestos and other fire- related hazards in the plant. Aside from the asbestos citation, OSHA also issued 65 serious citations with US$79,800 in fines. The Company also faces seven citations, with US$2,400 in fines, chiefly for inadequate or incomplete injury and illness recording, OSHA said. Concord Steam was notified of the alleged violations on July 20, 2009. The Company has scheduled an informal conference with OSHA for Aug. 10, 2009. Concord Steam vice president Mark Salzman said the Company is still reviewing the citations. OSHA said its inspection found that the boiler's doors were bulging and cracked and not properly secured against the escape of embers and fire, posing a fire and explosion hazard. Rosemarie Ohar, OSHA's area director in Concord, said, "The conditions found in this plant expose its employees to the risks of fire, explosion, lacerations, crushing injuries, falls, hazardous chemicals, electrocution, suffocation, lung disease and being unable to promptly exit the plant in a fire or other emergency." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chilwell Resident's Death Linked to Hazards ---------------------------------------------------------------- An inquest heard that the death of 68-year-old Edward Clark, of Westbury Close, Chilwell, England, was linked to workplace exposure to asbestos, the Evening Post reports. Mr. Clarke died at Nottingham's City Hospital on July 13, 2009. He suffered from mesothelioma. Mr. Clarke previously worked as a brake drum cleaner, which exposed him to asbestos dust. The inquest, at Nottingham Coroner's Court, was opened and adjourned until a later date. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup at Marcy, N.Y. Center to Cost $420T ---------------------------------------------------------------- An asbestos abatement project at the Central New York Psychiatric Center in Marcy, N.Y., is estimated at US$420,462, the Rome Sentinel reports. Sunshine Environmental Services of Waterville, N.Y., is the lowest bidder for the project. Contracts are expected to be awarded to apparent low bidders following the regular review and approval process via the state Comptroller's Office. A total of 18 firms bid on the Central New York Psychiatric Center project, which involves a "contract to abate asbestos containing pipe insulation in the basement of Building No. 39," according to a state announcement. Sunshine was the primary contractor for the asbestos removal and demolition at the former Rome Free Academy that was completed in 2008, receiving over US$2 million in work for the project that still faces some complications. Sunshine is involved in legal disputes with the Rome school district involving additional payment claims for services on the project, while the Environmental Protection Agency has a pending complaint against the school district and Sunshine. The Central New York Psychiatric Center work was one of six contracts statewide for which the state Office of General Services announced low bidders. The bids represented more than US$8 million in new construction involving sites in six counties. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Korean Gov't. to Tighten Hazard Regulations ---------------------------------------------------------------- The administration of South Korean president, Lee Myung-bak, will mandate stricter regulations on how asbestos-contaminated tiles are handled, The Korea Times reports. A revised legislation of the Industrial Safety and Health Act, which was deliberated in a Cabinet meeting on July 21, 2009, will update safe work measures and procedures to minimize the potential hazards of asbestos. Building owners and officials will be required to hire demolition experts to tear down structures if the asbestos used in the construction materials is more than one percent of the total within a floor space of 50 square meters or larger. In April 2009, the government confirmed that asbestos was found near the former Samsung Group headquarters in central Seoul. The latest discovery at the site of the Samsung building raised the need for tighter regulations overseeing construction work procedure, as many of the country's older buildings facing renovation have been built with slate and heat insulators made out of asbestos. Aside from setting stricter standards on construction sites, the revision also details the qualifications required to be a licensed asbestos inspection agency and reasons a license can be revoked. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hampshire Locals Still Waiting for Payout ---------------------------------------------------------------- Thousands of people in Hampshire, England, who suffer from various asbestos-related conditions, will have to wait a few more months to hear if they will get compensation, ThisIsHampshire.net reports. Jack Straw, the Secretary of State for Justice, who was expected to announce a final decision on July 22, 2009, told the Commons he would instead give "further consideration" to the issue before making a statement in autumn. Those diagnosed with pleural plaques had hoped Mr. Straw would agree to meet their requests for payments following a two-year campaign. Their battle began when a House of Lords decision removed their right to compensation which had existed for 20 years. The Ministry of Justice was expected to announce whether it would reverse that landmark judgment following a consultation held on the issue last summer. The Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians (UCATT) had said earlier it believed the Government would propose to pay GBP5,000 to the 6,500 pleural plaques victims whose cases are on hold. The summer recess, which begins on July 22, 2009, runs until Oct. 9, 2009. Campaigners, seeking between GBP5,000 and GBP15,000 compensation for victims, estimate that thousands of people across Hampshire are affected by pleural plaques. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dunfermline Local Gets Payout for Injuries ---------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Young, a 60-year-old former shipyard worker from Dunfermline, Scotland, received an undisclosed amount of compensation for his asbestos-related injuries, The Courier reports. Mr. Young's former employers, the Ministry of Defence and the Coal Board, both admitted negligently exposing him to asbestos. However, they argued that his breathing difficulties were caused by an unrelated condition called cryptogenic fibrosing alveolitis (CFA). The Court of Session accepted medical evidence that Mr. Young would already be dead if he had CFA (its victims have a life expectancy of less than five years) and awarded him undisclosed compensation. Bruce Shields, of Thompsons Solicitors, the firm which represented Mr. Young, said the case had important implications for other asbestosis sufferers where there are conflicting opinions from medical experts. During his career, Mr. Young spent a decade as a fitter at Rosyth dockyard working on the refit of naval vessels, where he had frequent contact with dust from asbestos lagging on pipes being stripped and renewed. He later worked at Comrie Colliery in Fife as a fitter and was exposed to more asbestos dust working on steam boilers and valves. Five years ago, Mr. Young noticed he was becoming increasingly short of breath and doctors at Queen Margaret Hospital found evidence of lung disease, attributing it to his former employment. Temporary Judge Morag Wise QC heard conflicting evidence from two expert chest physicians before ruling that Mr. Young's illness was indeed asbestosis and awarding damages. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MoD Notes GBP770T Paid to Civilian in 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------- New figures have shown that, in 2008, the largest amount paid by the Ministry of Defence to a British civilian was GBP770,000 to an elderly victim of asbestos poisoning from working in a Portsmouth, England, naval shipyard, the Telegraph reports. In 2008, civil compensation claims have cost the MoD GBP84 million. The highest single claim was paid to a Royal Navy surgeon who received GBP3.6 million for severe spinal injuries following a helicopter crash during an exercise in Northern Ireland. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Flips Ruling in Vicknair Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of North Dakota, reversed the ruling of the District Court, Morton County, South Central Judicial District, which dismissed 15 plaintiffs' (including Joseph M. Vicknair) asbestos claims against various defendants. Judges Gerald W. Vande Walle, William F. Hodny, Ronald E. Goodman, Kirk Smith, and Dale v. Sandstrom entered judgment in Case No. 20080139 on June 29, 2009. Judges Hodny, Goodman, Smith, Crothers, and Kapsner disqualified. Mr. Vicknair and 14 other plaintiffs appealed from the judgment severing them from two lawsuits and dismissing without prejudice on the ground of forum non conveniens their asbestos-related product liability action against Phelps Dodge Industries, Inc., and numerous other defendants. Although the defendants cross-appealed, they abandoned the cross-appeal by failing to raise any cross-appeal issues in their brief or argument. The Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in granting the motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens, because the defendants had not shown an adequate alternative forum existed in another jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiffs' claims. The judgment was reversed and remanded. David C. Thompson, Esq., of David C. Thompson, P.C. in Grand Forks, N.D., and Jeanette Boechler, Esq., of Boechler Law Firm in Fargo, N.D., represented the plaintiffs and appellants. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Affirms Ruling in PWA Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of Minnesota affirmed the ruling of the District Court, Ramsey County, which denied Paul W. Abbott Company, Inc.'s (PWA) motion for a protective order in a case involving asbestos. The case is styled In re Paul W. Abbott Company, Inc., Appellant, In re Minnesota Asbestos Litigation. Judges Alan Page, Eric J. Magnuson, and Lorie Skjerven Gildea entered judgment in Case No. A08-1105 on June 18, 2009. PWA, a corporation that was involuntarily dissolved under Minnesota law in 1997, is a defendant in the asbestos litigation. The respondents in this appeal are the plaintiffs in that litigation. One of the insurance companies defending PWA's interests in the asbestos litigation is TIG Insurance Company. At issue was whether respondents may depose an attorney who, as part of PWA's defense strategy in the asbestos litigation, assisted PWA in obtaining a certificate of voluntary dissolution from the Minnesota Secretary of State. The district court denied PWA's motion for a protective order, and PWA petitioned the court of appeals for a writ of prohibition and for discretionary review. The court of appeals denied both petitions. The Supreme Court affirmed. Richard J. Leighton, Esq., of Johnson, Killen & Seiler, P.A. in Duluth, Minn., represented Paul W. Abbott Company, Inc. Michael S. Polk, Esq., Michael R. Strom, Esq., Chad C. Alexander, Esq., Shauna M. Verheyen, Esq., of Sieben Polk, P.A. in Hastings, Minn., represented respondents. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Ruling in Parkland Claim ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, Central District of Illinois, issued split rulings in the case styled Parkland Environmental Group, Inc., an Illinois corporation, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant v. Laborers' International Union of North America, Laborers' Local #477, Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff. U.S. District Judge Jeanne E. Scott entered judgment in Case No. No. 06-3238 on July 8, 2009. This matter came before the Court on cross motions for summary judgment. Laborers' Local 477's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Parkland's Complaint to Vacate the Arbitration Award and as to Laborer's Local 477's Counterclaim to Confirm the Arbitration Award (Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment); Motion for Summary Judgment (Parkland's Motion for Summary Judgment). Parkland Environmental Group, Inc. filed the pending Complaint in October 2006, under the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), seeking to vacate an arbitration award that was issued on July 18, 2006. In June 2007, Laborers' International Union of North America, Laborers' Local 477 filed a Counterclaim, seeking confirmation of the award. Parkland's request to vacate the arbitration award was denied and the Union's request for confirmation of the award was allowed. Parkland provides asbestos abatement and other services. Parkland typically employs three to four full-time employees. The Union is a labor organization with its principal place of business in Springfield, Ill. The parties disputed whether a collective bargaining agreement between them existed covering the work upon which the July 18, 2006 arbitration award was based. Matthew J. Cate, Esq., R. Kurt Wilke, Esq., Randy S. Paswater, Esq., of Barber Segatto Hoffee Wilke & Cate in Springfield, Ill., represented Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant. John T. Long, Esq., of Cavanagh & O'Hara in Springfield, Ill., represented Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Enters Ruling in Bailey Claim ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of the United States entered rulings in the case styled Travelers Indemnity Co., et al., Petitioners v. Pearlie Bailey et al. Judges Souter, Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, and Alito entered judgment in Case Nos. 08-295 and 08-307 on June 18, 2009. Judges Stevens and Ginsburg dissented. As part of the 1986 reorganization plan of the Johns-Manville Corporation, an asbestos supplier and manufacturer of asbestos- containing products, the Bankruptcy Court approved a settlement providing that Manville's insurers, including The Travelers Indemnity Company and related companies, would contribute to the corpus of the Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust, and releasing those insurers from any "Policy Claims," which were channeled to the Trust. The settlement agreement and reorganization plan were approved by the Bankruptcy Court (1986 Orders) and were affirmed by the District Court and the Second Circuit. Over a decade later, plaintiffs began filing asbestos actions against Travelers in state courts (Direct Actions), often seeking to recover from Travelers not for Manville's wrongdoing but for Travelers' own alleged violations of state consumer-protection statutes or of common law duties. Invoking the 1986 Orders, Travelers asked the Bankruptcy Court to enjoin 26 Direct Actions. Ultimately, a settlement was reached, in which Travelers agreed to make payments to compensate the Direct Action claimants, contingent on the court's order clarifying that the Direct Actions were, and remained, prohibited by the 1986 Orders. The court made extensive factual findings, concluding that Travelers derived its knowledge of asbestos from its insurance relationship with Manville and that the Direct Actions are based on acts or omissions by Travelers arising from or related to the insurance policies. It then approved the settlement and entered an order (Clarifying Order), which provided that the 1986 Orders barred the pending Direct Actions and various other claims. Objectors to the settlement appealed. The District Court affirmed, but the Second Circuit reversed. Agreeing that the Bankruptcy Court had jurisdiction to interpret and enforce the 1986 Orders, the Circuit nevertheless held that the Bankruptcy Court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin the Direct Actions because those actions sought not to recover based on Manville's conduct, but to recover directly from Travelers for its own conduct. The judgment was reversed and remanded. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Velto's Motion for Default Judgment Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, at Tacoma, denied without prejudice Christopher Velto's Motion for Entry of Default Judgment against Salus Surgical Group, LLC. The case is styled Christopher Velto, a Washington Citizen, Plaintiff v. Draeger Medical, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, and Salus Surgical Group, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendants. U.S. District Judge Ronald B. Leighton entered judgment in Case No. C06-5190RBL on June 12, 2009. Mr. Velto is a resident of Washington and an employee of Draeger Medical. Draeger Medical was hired by Century City Doctors Hospital, LLC (CCDH) to build the Century City Doctor's Hospital in California. CCDH is a limited partnership and defendant Salus is the managing member of that partnership. Draeger Medical placed Mr. Velto in charge of building the Century City Doctor's Hospital. Mr. Velto originally worked on the Hospital from an on site office. He claimed he suffered adverse health consequences resulting from his exposure to excessive heat, smoke and fume-clogged air, and asbestos dust while working on site. Mr. Velto allegedly asked his employer multiple times to move him and his staff, or provide filtration and air conditioning systems for the office. Mr. Velto claimed these concerns were not sufficiently addressed until late into the project. Mr. Velto then filed a worker's compensation claim on April 29, 2005 for physical symptoms he was experiencing as a result of working on site. Around April 2005, his treating physician recommended he change occupations and refrain from returning to the Hospital worksite. Mr. Velto lived and maintained a home office in Vancouver, Wash. While working at home, he participated in numerous conference calls with CCDH management. He claimed that CCDH verbally harassed him on the telephone, and this harassment constituted the tort of Outrage. He alleged that CCDH demanded that he return to the unsafe worksite, and blamed him for delays in the installation of an information and monitoring system. Draeger Medical then terminated Mr. Velto on Oct. 6, 2005, citing communication issues. Mr. Velto brought this suit against Draeger Medical, Salus, and CCDH. He claimed that Salus was responsible for emotional distress resulting from this harassment, in addition to the physical effects of being forced to work on-site. Salus had not appeared or answered, and had not responded to Mr. Velto's motion. He filed a Motion for Default Judgment on April 27, 2009. He sought a Default Judgment of US$85,000 for lost wages, emotional distress and gastrointestinal distress resulting from Salus' actions. Christopher G. Lundberg, Esq., Matthew E. Malmsheimer, Esq., Shay S. Scott, Esq., of Haglund Kelley Horngren Jones & Wilder LLP in Portland, Ore., represented Christopher Velto. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Actions Ongoing v. Lockheed Martin ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lockheed Martin Corporation is still a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos integrated into its premises and certain historical products, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 22, 2009. The Company has never mined or produced asbestos and no longer incorporates it in any currently manufactured products. The Company has been successful in having a substantial number of these claims dismissed without payment. The remaining resolved claims have settled for amounts that are not material individually or in the aggregate. Most of the asbestos-related claims have been covered by insurance or other forms of indemnity. Bethesda, Md.-based Lockheed Martin Corporation is a global security company that researches, designs, develops, manufactures, integrates, and sustains advanced technology systems and products. The Company provides management, engineering, technical, scientific, logistic, and information services. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cohen Claim Filed Against Nashua on March 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nashua Corporation, on March 3, 2009, was served papers on March 3, 2009 relative to the asbestos action styled Shlomo Cohen and Roni Cohen vs. American Standard, Inc. et al. (including Nashua Corporation), according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 22, 2009. There are 53 defendants in this case. The suit alleges that the Company engaged in the sale and distribution of materials and products containing asbestos. The action claims that Mr. Cohen, for a period of many years, worked with or came in contact with or was exposed to asbestos products while working in various shipyards, steel mills, refineries, paper mills, chemical plants, industrial sites and facilities, construction sites and other facilities or was exposed to the defendants' products through the normal use of these products. The case alleges Mr. Cohen's exposure to asbestos products has resulted in his sickness. Subsequently, the Company has learned that Mr. Cohen worked in a press room, which used Nashua papers and glue. The Company is in the process of obtaining part numbers. Nashua, N.H.-based Nashua Corporation's Specialty Paper Products segment coats, converts, prints, and sells papers and films for use in package identification systems, gaming and airline ticketing systems, and fax machines. Its Label Products segment makes pressure-sensitive labels for merchants, radio frequency identification (RFID) labels, and retail shelf tags. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Badger Meter Still Has Multi-Party Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Badger Meter, Inc. is still a defendant in multi-claimant/multi- defendant lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, manufactured by third parties, and integrated into or sold with a very limited number of the Company's products. No claimant has demonstrated exposure to products manufactured or sold by the Company and a number of cases have been voluntarily dismissed, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 22, 2009. Milwaukee-based Badger Meter, Inc. manufactures and markets products incorporating liquid flow measurement and control technologies developed both internally and in conjunction with other technology companies. Company products are used in applications to measure and control the flow of liquids, primarily water. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 11 Cases Filed During July 13 to 17 in Ill. ---------------------------------------------------------------- During the week of July 13, 2009 through July 17, 2009, a total of 11 asbestos-related lawsuits were filed in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports. These cases are: -- (Case No. 09-L-728) Barbara R. Brobst of Pennsylvania claims her deceased husband, Ernest F. Brobst, developed mesothelioma after he served in the U.S. Air Force and after his work as a home remodeler. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., represent Mrs. Brobst. -- (Case No. 09-L-740) Jesse W. and Mollie Clements claim Mr. Clements developed mesothelioma after his work as a furnace installer at Red Boyer, as a carpenter's helper and carpenter, as a missionary and social worker at various private churches, as a missionary and social worker performing home construction and repair work, as a maintenance and carpentry man, as a carpenter for a non- profit center, and as a home remodeler and repairman for his home. Randi L. Gori of Gori, Esq., of Julian and Associates in Alton, Ill., represents the Clements couple. W. Mark Lanier, Esq., Patrick N. Haines, Esq., Angela B. Greenburg, Esq., Sam T. Richard, Esq., Bridget B. Truxillo, Esq., and Lauren H. Ware, Esq., of The Lanier Law Firm in Houston will serve of counsel. -- (Case No. 09-L-730) Fred L. Hall Sr. and Betty D. Hall of South Carolina claim Mr. Hall developed mesothelioma after serving in the U.S. Navy and after working at the Charleston Naval Shipyard and at the Naval Weapons Station. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., represent Mrs. Hall. -- (Case No. 09-L-727) Daniel Haun of Tennessee, a mechanic, laborer and exterminator, claims mesothelioma. Brian J. Cooke, Esq. of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represents Mr. Haun. -- (Case No. 09-L-738) Curtis and Alice Hines of Indiana claim Mr. Hines developed mesothelioma after his work as a janitor from and as a boatswain's mate. Donald M. Flack, Esq., of Flack Law Office in Wood River, Ill., represents the Hines couple. -- (Case No. 09-L-729) Mary J. Hultgren of Florida claims her deceased husband, Roy C. Hultgren, developed mesothelioma after his work as a machine operator, carpenter's apprentice, carpenter and contractor. T. Barton French Jr., Esq., and Jackalyn A. Olinger, Esq., of French and Mudd in St. Louis represent Mrs. Hultgren. -- (Case No. 09-L-731) Wilbert and Joyce Jones of Missouri claim Mr. Jones developed lung cancer after his work as a laborer in Jeanerette, La., as a laborer for Blue Line Chemical Company and Switzer Candy Company, and as a laborer at Independent Packing House and at Anheuser-Busch Brewery. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., represent the Jones couple. -- (Case No. 09-L-735) Thomas and Virginia Kersting of Missouri allege Mr. Kersting developed mesothelioma after his work as a sheet metal worker. John A. Barnerd, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent the Kerstings. -- (Case No. 09-L-733) Orville and Sylvia Mueth of Illinois allege Mr. Mueth developed esophageal cancer after his work as a manager, electrician and plumber. Christopher R. Guinn, Esq., and Christopher J. Levy, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent the Mueths. -- (Case No. 09-L-739) Charles W. Welden Jr. of Alabama, a sheetrock and drywall installer, a carpenter, a brake worker, and an airport mechanic, claims mesothelioma. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., represent Mr. Welden. -- (Case No. 09-L-732) Joshua J. Wise of Illinois claims a deceased man, Eddy Lee Grady, developed lung cancer after his work as a laborer at International Vermiculite Co., as a butcher at Girard Meat Locker, as a carpenter at Gulf, Mobile and Ohio Railroad, as a carpenter at National Homes, as a laborer at Hulcher Train Wrecking, and as a laborer for Springfield Plastics. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., represent Mr. Wise. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 7 Actions Filed During July 6-10 in Madison ---------------------------------------------------------------- During the week of July 6, 2009 through July 10, 2009, a total of seven new asbestos-related lawsuits were filed in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports. These cases are: -- (Case No. 09-L-716) Luther Gibson of Wisconsin, a field worker, laborer and machinist, claims mesothelioma. Nicholas J. Angelides, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represents Mr. Gibson. -- (Case No. 09-L-720) Beverly Grinko of Illinois claims her deceased husband, Donald Grinko, developed mesothelioma after his work as a sheet metal worker. Randy S. Cohn, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represents Mrs. Grinko. -- (Case No. 09-L-721) David Hicks of California, a quartermaster, machinist and repair man, claims mesothelioma. Randy S. Cohn, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represents Mr. Hicks. -- (Case No. 09-L-705) James L. McClain Jr. and Dianne McClain of Mississippi claim Mr. McClain developed mesothelioma after his work as a machinist, as a plumber's helper, and as a laborer, cementer and supervisor. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., represent the McClains. -- (Case No. 09-L-703) Sheryl McClary of Illinois claims deceased William Burke developed lung cancer after his work as a mold maker at Owens-Illinois Glass in Alton, Ill. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., represent Ms. McClary. -- (Case No. 09-L704) Paul and Genevieve Padalino claims Mr. Padalino developed mesothelioma after his work as a heating and furnace repair worker, sheet metal worker, power plant operator and pipefitter, and operator. He also performed home remodeling and construction. Randy L. Gori, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Alton, Ill., represents the Padalinos. W. Mark Lanier, Esq., Patrick N. Haines, Esq., Angela B. Greenburg, Esq., Sam T. Richard, Esq., Bridget B. Truxillo, Esq., and Lauren H. Ware, Esq., of The Lanier Law Firm in Houston will serve of counsel. -- (Case No. 08-L-715) Joseph Zembala of Indiana claims his deceased wife, Bernadette Zembala, developed mesothelioma after she was secondarily exposed to asbestos through her husband, who worked as a millwright. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., represent Mr. Zembala. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tax Benefits Not Assured on Hardie Transfer ---------------------------------------------------------------- James Hardie Industries N.V. says that there can be no guarantee a proposed move to Ireland will deliver tax benefits to shareholders or the Company, The West Australian reports. In June 2009, the Company announced that it would shift to Ireland in order to improve the chances of qualifying for tax benefits in the United States, where a majority of its operations are conducted. The proposed move could cost the Company as much as AUD71 million. The Company has said the move would not affect its commitment to contribute to the asbestos diseases fund, but may reduce payments in the short-term. These factors could result in adverse reaction from the Australian government or state and territory governments, as well as unions and asbestos disease groups, the Company said. Shareholders will vote on the first stage of the proposal on Aug. 21, 2009. If both stages receive approval, the move is expected to be finalized by the end of January 2010. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Schmidheiny, Cartier Ordered to Stand Trial ---------------------------------------------------------------- An Italian judge, on July 22, 2009, ordered Stephan Schmidheiny of Switzerland and Jean-Louis de Cartier of Belgium to stand trial for alleged negligence leading to hundreds of deaths linked to asbestos plants, The Associated Press reports. Prosecutors say Mr. Schmidheiny and Mr. de Cartier were key shareholders in Eternit N.V. Prosecutors allege the two were ultimately responsible for the death of some 2,000 workers and residents from asbestos-related diseases. Most of the cases occurred around an Eternit plant in Casale Monferrato, a town near Turin, Italy. Lawyers and prosecutors said Mr. Cartier and Mr. Schmidheiny are charged with causing an environmental disaster and failing to take proper precautions. Their trial is set to begin Dec. 10, 2009 in Turin. Eternit closed its Italian operation in 1986. However, people continue to become sick as a result of the contamination, prosecutor Raffaele Guariniello said. Mr. Guariniello alleged that Eternit spread asbestos fibers over wide areas by allowing powder left over from the production of roof coverings and pipes to spread in the air. They also sold asbestos locally for the construction of roads and houses, he told The Associated Press. Mr. Schmidheiny and Mr. de Cartier do not deny that the deaths were caused by asbestos, but claim they did everything they could to limit the risks and inform the public, said Astolfo Di Amato, a lawyer for Mr. Schmidheiny. Mr. Schmidheiny's spokesman, Peter Schuermann, said in an e-mail that Mr. Schmidheiny "was never the owner of the Italian factory, but the biggest shareholder of the Swiss Eternit Group for just a few years. Before, Italian owners steered the company and afterward Belgians." Aside from the dead, some 800 residents and former workers are still suffering from illnesses including asbestosis and mesothelioma, said Bruno Pesce, the head of a victims association. Up to 50 new cases are diagnosed each year in Casale alone. Some 3,000 victims and family members have joined in a civil lawsuit attached to the criminal proceedings in Turin. Many were in the courtroom on July 22, 2009 and cried and applauded after the ruling, Mr. Pesce said. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Found in 17 Products in South Korea ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Korean Agency for Technology and Standards and the Ministry of Knowledge, on July 22, 2009, released a list of 17 products (including bicycles, refrigerators, electric ovens, and balloons) in six categories confirmed as containing asbestos, Joong Ang Daily. The list came from the study of 524 products in 46 categories suspected of containing the material. The study was conducted in three stages between April 2009 and June 2009. Almost all products found to contain asbestos have been recalled and banned by the government. A Korean-made balloon and refrigerator were confirmed to contain asbestos. Bicycles had the largest number of cases among asbestos-containing products. A total of 11 bicycles were found to contain asbestos, including bicycles manufactured primarily in China and bicycles manufactured by Donggrami Utopia, a Korean company. Motorcycle brake pads manufactured by two companies in China and Vietnam were also found to contain asbestos. The brake pads entered the country via small manufacturers the government said it could not identify. Song Jae-bin, the standards agency's product safety bureau general, said, "From September, asbestos fibers will be banned from all products for children and products that come into contact with the skin. Asbestos content in all manufactured goods will have to be under 0.1 percent." The government exempted a wallpaper company from the sales ban and recall because it said the amount of asbestos found in its product was miniscule. In addition, the surface of the wallpaper was coated, making it unlikely the material would enter the air, the standards agency said. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Devoy's Widow Gets GBP500T in Compensation ---------------------------------------------------------------- On July 22, 2009, Carol Devoy, a 65-year-old widow of of West Rainton, Houghton-le-Spring, County Durham, England, won GBP500,726 in asbestos-related damages, The Northern Echo reports. The Chronicle had reported that Mrs. Devoy sued for a record GBP1 million in damages over her husband's, Alexander Devoy, death from asbestos disease. (Class Action Reporter, June 19, 2009) Mrs. Devoy told the High Court in London she lost far more than a spouse when Mr. Devoy died from mesothelioma in 2007. Judge Michael Reddighough said that had Mr. Devoy - a former chief engineer - lived, he would have shouldered the main burden of caring for his wife, who needs support due to her Parkinson's disease and a painful spinal condition. The North-East has one of highest death rates in the United Kingdom for mesothelioma and many similar claims from people who worked in shipyards, mines and factories, where asbestos was widely used, are now going through the courts. Mrs. Devoy had to give up her career as secretary when she was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease 13 years ago. According to her counsel, Christopher Melton QC, Mr. Devoy was his wife's constant and devoted companion and carer. Mrs. Devoy sued shipbuilders, William Doxford Ltd, for whom her husband worked as a fitter between 1955 and 1959, and Stuntbrand Line Ltd, for whose predecessors, Clan Line Steamers Ltd, he worked between 1960 and 1970. During both periods of employment, Mr. Devoy was exposed to asbestos or asbestos dust and neither defendant contested liability in the case. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minn. Site Cleanup to Commence on August 24 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Austin, Minn., city engineer Jon Erichson said that the environmental portion of the cleanup (mostly asbestos removal) at a fire-damaged site in downtown Austin, Minn., will begin at around Aug. 24, 2009, Mesothelioma.com reports. The fire at the Austin site occurred on Jan. 15, 2009. Mr. Erichson said that the area may finally be clean by October 2009. Demolition at the site would take place after the asbestos removal is completed. Officials believe that demolition will probably start around Sept. 7, 2009 and would be completed by the beginning of October 2009. Bids for the environmental and demolition work will be accepted starting July 28, 2009 and the bids will be awarded by the city council at the beginning of August 2009. The project will be financed by Maria Leon, who owns the Mia Tierra properties that cover most of the area. This is due to a legal settlement. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pa. DEP Issues NOV at Ambler Ex-Boiler Site ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection issued a Notice of Violation for asbestos-related demolition work done at the Ambler boiler house in Ambler, Pa., the Ambler Gazette reports. According to a 2007 report from the Center for Public Environmental Oversight, the boiler house is located in a brownfield site on South Maple Street. The brownfield site was owned by Keasbey and Mattison and consists of two facilities: a former asbestos manufacturing factory and the boiler house, which is also contaminated after being used as an asbestos disposal site. According to the notice of violation, the DEP investigated the site on May 29, 2009 and discovered roofing materials were being removed. The property owners had not submitted an Asbestos Abatement and Demolition/Renovation Notification Form, violating the DEP's Air Pollution Rules and Regulations. Lale Byers, an environmental trainee in the Montgomery County air quality division, issued a notice of violation June 9, 2009 to Ronald Hamilton of Hatfield, one of the members of Ambler Smokestack LLC, which owns the property. Mr. Hamilton was given until June 18, 2009 to submit "an abatement plan that details what [he] will do to assure compliance with this permit requirement in future projects that incorporate the removal of regulated asbestos containing materials," according to the notice. Currently, there is partial fencing at the site that does not prevent access to the site. The boiler house, which had been abandoned for nearly 40 years, came back into the public's attention last August 2008 when Gov. Ed Rendell announced the property would receive a US$4 million grant from the state's Redevelopment Assistance Capital Program to help transform the brownfield site into a condominium and office complex. Strategic Realty Investments, Summit Realty Advisors and Westrum Development Co. together planned to remediate the site and create 42,500 square feet of office space at the boiler house, with 288 condominiums to be built adjacent. The construction has been postponed due to current economic conditions. ********* 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, 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 * * *