/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090814.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, August 14, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 160
Headlines
BALLY TOTAL: N.Y. Judge Rejects Motion by California Employees
BBC EQUITIES: Faces Mich. Securities Fraud Suit Over $53M Scheme
BELO CORP: Fifth Circuit Affirms Ruling in "Fener" Litigation
BIGBAND NETWORKS: Plaintiffs Seek Final OK for $11M Settlement
BIOSANTE PHARMACEUTICALS: Dismissal Bid in Investor Suit Pending
BIOSANTE PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Shareholder Suits in California
CARRIAGE SERVICES: Discovery Continues in "Leathermon" Lawsuit
CORNELL COS: VCDC Suit Settlement Got Final Approval in July
DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Fla. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
DR PEPPER: Third Circuit Reverses Dismissal of "Holk" Litigation
FREDDIE MAC: Consolidated Mortgage Borrowers' Suit Nixed in June
FREDDIE MAC: Faces "Kreysar" Suit Consolidated with "Mark" Suit
FREDDIE MAC: "Jacoby" Suit Over False Statements Pending in N.Y.
FREDDIE MAC: "Liberty Mutual" Securities Suit Pending in Mass.
FREDDIE MAC: Pursues Motion to Dismiss OPERS Securities Lawsuit
FREDDIE MAC: Reply to "Kuriakose" Securities Suit Due by Aug. 27
GAYLORD ENT: Sept. 2009 Hearing Set for Pension Fund's Suit Deal
GOOGLE INC: Faces Delaware Litigation Over On2 Technologies Deal
HOOTERS OF WASHINGTON: Faces D.C. Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
MARICOPA COUNTY: Faces $8M Suit in Arizona for Unpaid Overtime
NUCOR CORP: Fourth Circuit Reverses Ruling in Racial Bias Case
SPRINT NEXTEL: Oct. 21 Hearing Set for $17.5M ETF Settlement
STEEL DYNAMICS: Antitrust Lawsuits by Direct Purchasers Ongoing
STEEL DYNAMICS: Faces "Panasuk" Securities Fraud Suit in Indiana
UNITRIN INC: Faces Tex. Suit Over Hurricane Policy Cancellations
VANCOUVER CITY: Faces B.C. Litigation Over High Interest Rates
WEST CORP: Settlement of Suit Over Wage and Overtime Pay Pending
New Securities Fraud Cases
CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL: Charles H. Johnson Announces Suit Filing
HURON CONSULTING: Charles H. Johnson Announces Stock Suit Filing
HURON CONSULTING: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Charles H. Johnson Announces Lawsuit Filing
REPROS THERAPEUTICS: Charles Johnson Announces Stock Suit Filing
TRONOX INC: Barroway Topaz Announces N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
Asbestos Alerts
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Flips Ruling in Vicknair Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judgment Upheld in Maynard Case v. Norfolk
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Leslie Has 1,158 Active Cases at June 2009
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Leslie Records $4M for Insurance at June 28
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Spence & Hoke Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Faces 2,640 Respirator Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Records $34M Aearo Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Co. Records $131M Liabilities at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Continental Case v. 3M Still in Early Stage
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Coca-Cola Still Disputes Aqua-Chem Demands
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: District Court OKs Dennis' Motion to Remand
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crum & Forster Has $380.19M in Losses, ALAE
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kaiser Records $3.4M Retirement Obligations
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Old Republic Reserve at $142.5MM in June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tennessee Valley's Expenses Still at $8Mil
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Parsons Case v. Reynolds Units Still Stayed
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Still Has 50T Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Still Has Suits in Texas Courts
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Still Facing Cases in Pa. Courts
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Caterpillar Inc. Subject to Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SCC Affiliates Still Party to ASARCO Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ladish Co. Facing 15 Claims in Three States
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Has 74,957 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Cites $893M Claims Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Coverage Suit Ongoing in N.Y.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide's June 30 Receivable at $403M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Eastbourne Local's Death Linked to Asbestos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Normandy Veteran's Death Linked to Exposure
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sterlite Revises Bid to Purchase ASARCO LLC
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Armstrong Comments on Sale of Trust to TPG
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Mishandling Probe Ongoing in Mass.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Viad Fights Back in Modley Lawsuit in W.Va.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court OKs $200,000 Medical Monitoring Award
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ICJL Cites Madison County for Improvements
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lehigh County Granted $900T for Remediation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Upholds Board Ruling in Ozbolt
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Records $1.113B Net Reserves at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: A.P. Green's Confirmation Bid Still Pending
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Still Party to Keasbey Lawsuit in N.Y.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Burns & Roe Plan Confirmation OK'd June 15
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Units Still Facing Inactive Tex. Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Confirmation Hearing Set to Sept. '09
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Cable Facing 34,678 Cases at July 3
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ITT Corp. Facing 102,227 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Facing 203 Pending Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MeadWestvaco Facing 600 Lawsuits at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. CBS Decrease to 64,480 at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 512 Claims Ongoing v. Constellation & BGE
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bucyrus Int'l. Still Facing Liability Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Boss Holdings Still Facing Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: FirstEnergy, Units Facing Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tasty Baking Records $7.2Mil ARO at June 27
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Norfolk Still Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Roper Industries Still Has Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Winterton Case v. Donaldson & Finch Ongoing
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MCIC Insurers' Case Denied as Class Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hearing in Mayo Group Case Held on Aug. 12
*********
BALLY TOTAL: N.Y. Judge Rejects Motion by California Employees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jed Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York rejected a bid by Bally Total Fitness Corp.
employees in California to reverse a bankruptcy court's refusal
to allow their wage-and-hour violation claims to proceed against
the struggling gym operator, Law360 reports.
In a ruling issued on Aug. 11, 2009, Judge Rakoff affirmed the
bankruptcy court's order and denied the plaintiffs' motions to
proceed with their class-action lawsuit, according to Law360.
BBC EQUITIES: Faces Mich. Securities Fraud Suit Over $53M Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported securities fraud class-action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
against those accused of orchestrating a $53 million
"Billionaire Boys Club" Ponzi scheme, Paul Egan at The Detroit
News reports.
The suit was filed by J. Lincoln Crocker against BBC Equities,
L.L.C., Bravata Financial Group, L.L.C., BBC Capital, L.L.C.,
BBC Holdings 1-50, LLC, BBC Holdings I-XI, L.L.C., Ferndale
Lofts, L.L.C., Phoenix Ventures Capital, L.L.C., John J.
Bravata, Richard J. Trabulsy, Antonio M. Bravata, Shari A.
Bravata, Aaron Simon, and Equity Trust Co. It was filed on Aug.
11, 2009, and is captioned Crocker v. BBC Equities, L.L.C., et
al., Case No. 09-13158.
Mr. Crocker is one of an estimated 440 investors in BBC Equities
or Bravata Financial Group, two Southfield companies sued on
July 26, 2009, by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
and accused of civil fraud and the unlicensed sale of
securities, according to The Detroit News.
"Unbeknownst to the investors, their proceeds were used to
finance defendants' expensive lifestyles, paying for luxury
homes, watercraft, jewelry, gambling, exotic vacations, and
expensive cars," according to the lawsuit.
Mr. Crocker is represented by:
Christopher D. Kaye, Esq.
Miller Law Firm
950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Phone: 248-841-2200
Fax: 248-652-2852
E-mail: cdk@millerlawpc.com
BELO CORP: Fifth Circuit Affirms Ruling in "Fener" Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Belo Corp. (NYSE: BLC) and A. H. Belo Corp. (NYSE: AHC)
disclosed Wednesday that the U. S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit affirmed a U. S. District Court's denial of class
certification sought by the plaintiffs in litigation filed in
2004 related to circulation matters at The Dallas Morning News.
The Fifth Circuit's decision in Fener v. Belo, No.
08-10576, held that the plaintiffs had not presented sufficient
evidence for the case to proceed as a class action. The Company
and the other defendants will now seek to dismiss the
litigation.
Robert W. Decherd, Non-Executive Chairman of Belo Corp. and
Chief Executive Officer of A. H. Belo said, "This is a very
important victory for Belo. From the outset, we believed that
there was no evidence that the conduct of the Company or any of
its officers caused harm to the Company's shareholders, and the
opinion definitively holds that the plaintiffs did not provide
any meaningful evidence supporting that allegation. All along,
we said we would vigorously defend against the allegations in
this litigation, and we are gratified by the Court of Appeals'
decision."
In addition to Belo Corp., defendants in the litigation
include Decherd; James M. Moroney III, Publisher and Chief
Executive Officer of The Morning News; and, Barry T. Peckham, a
former officer of The News.
A free copy of the Fifth Circuit's Opinion is available at
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/08/08-10576-CV0.wpd.pdf
Belo Corp. (BLC) -- http://www.belo.com-- is one of the
nation's largest pure-play, publicly-traded television
companies, with 2008 annual revenue of $733 million. The
Company owns and operates 20 television stations (nine in the
top 25 markets) and their associated Web sites. Belo stations,
which include affiliations with ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CW and
MyNetwork TV, reach more than 14 percent of U.S. television
households in 15 highly-attractive markets. Belo stations rank
first or second in nearly all of their local markets.
BIGBAND NETWORKS: Plaintiffs Seek Final OK for $11M Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders of BigBand Networks, Inc., asked a federal judge
for final approval of an $11 million cash deal that would end a
consolidated securities fraud class-action suit against the
cable equipment provider, Law360 reports.
Lead plaintiff Gwyn Jones filed a motion for final approval on
Aug. 11, 2009, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, according to Law360.
The lawsuit is captioned In re BigBand Networks, Inc.,
Securities Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-05101.
The California federal court is set to hold a fairness hearing
on Sept. 15, 2009, at 1:00 p.m. to consider the proposed
settlement. The hearing will be held before the Honorable
Saundra B. Armstrong at the United States Courthouse in Oakland.
Todd Spangler of Multichannel News previously reported that
BigBand Networks, Inc., agreed to pay $1.5 million to settle a
consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed against
the company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 30, 2009).
The agreement, reached on Jan. 27, 2009, gives BigBand a full
release for all potential claims arising from the securities
laws alleged in the initial and consolidated complaints,
including claims for alleged violations of the Securities Act of
1933 and the Exchange Act of 1934, the company told Multichannel
News.
As a result of the settlement, BigBand said it would incur a
$1.5 million charge for litigation and related expenses to its
results of operations for the three months ended Dec. 31, 2008,
according to Multichannel News.
Case Background
Since Oct. 3, 2007, several purported shareholder class action
complaints were filed against the company, certain of its
officers and directors, and the underwriters of its initial
public offering. One of these suits was subsequently dismissed
(Class Action Reporter, Dec. 16, 2008).
The lawsuits allege that the company officers and directors made
false or misleading statements to investors in connection with
the company's initial public offering and that its registration
statement and prospectus contained false or misleading
statements regarding its business prospects.
The plaintiffs purport to represent anyone who purchased the
company's common stock in the initial public offering, or
purchased the company's common stock between March 14, 2007, and
Sept. 27, 2007.
The lawsuits assert causes of action for violations of Sections
11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, and
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934. It seeks unspecified monetary damages.
In February 2008, the lawsuits were consolidated and a lead
plaintiff was appointed by the Court.
In May 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint
against the Company, the directors and officers who signed the
Company's IPO registration statement, and the underwriters of
the Company's initial public offering.
The consolidated complaint alleges that the Company's IPO
prospectus contained false and misleading statements regarding
the Company's business strategy and prospects, and the prospects
of the Company's CMTS division in particular.
The lead plaintiff purports to represent anyone who purchased
the Company's common stock in the initial public offering.
The consolidated complaint asserts causes of action for
violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933. It seeks unspecified monetary damages.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Reed R. Kathrein, Esq.
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
Berkeley, CA 94710
Phone: 510-725-3000
Fax: 510-725-3001
E-mail: reed@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Lewis S. Kahn, Esq.
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150
New Orleans, LA 70130
Phone: 1-866-467-1400, ext. 100
E-mail: Lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
Representing the defendants is:
Michael Carl Tu, Esq.
Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
777 S. Figueroa St., Ste. 3200
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: 213-629-2020
Fax: 213-612-2499
E-mail: mtu@orrick.com
BIOSANTE PHARMACEUTICALS: Dismissal Bid in Investor Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to dismiss a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
in The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware are pending,
according to Biosante Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s Aug. 7, 2009, Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2009.
On July 6, 2009, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed in The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (Case
No. 4715-VCP) naming Cell Genesys, its officers and directors,
and the company as defendants and alleging that the proposed
merger between Cell Genesys and the company does not provide
Cell Genesys's stockholders fair compensation for the value of
their stock.
Plaintiffs seek an order certifying the lawsuit as a class
action, injunctive relief to enjoin the merger or, in the event
the merger is completed, rescission of the merger or rescissory
damages. Plaintiffs further seek an accounting for all damages
and an award of attorneys' fees and costs.
On July 27 and 28, 2009, Cell Genesys and Biosante filed motions
to dismiss the Delaware action.
Biosante Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.biosantepharma.com/
-- is a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on developing
products for female sexual health, menopause, contraception, and
male hypogonadism. The company primary products include gel
formulations of testosterone and estradiol. It is also engaged
in the development of its calcium phosphate nanotechnology
(CaP), primarily for aesthetic medicine, vaccines and drug
delivery. The company's principal products include LibiGel,
Bio-T-Gel and Pill-Plus. The company's CaP products in
development include BioLook, BioVant, BioOral and BioAir.
BIOSANTE PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Shareholder Suits in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Biosante Pharmaceuticals, Inc. faces several putative
shareholder class action lawsuits in California Superior Court,
according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2009.
On July 1, 2009, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed in California Superior Court in San Mateo County (Case No.
485528) naming Cell Genesys, Inc., its officers and directors,
and the company as defendants.
The lawsuit alleges that defendants breached their fiduciary
duties or aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary duties owed
to Cell Genesys's stockholders in connection with the proposed
merger between Cell Genesys and the company, including by
failing to engage in a fair process and obtain a fair price for
the sale of Cell Genesys.
Plaintiffs seek an order certifying the lawsuit as a class
action, injunctive relief to enjoin the merger or, in the event
the merger is completed, a rescission of the merger or
rescissory damages. Plaintiffs further seek an accounting for
all damages and an award of attorneys' fees and costs.
On July 6, 2009, a second putative shareholder class action
lawsuit naming the same parties and containing essentially
identical allegations was filed in California Superior Court in
San Mateo County (Case No. 485613).
On July 8, 2009, a third putative shareholder class action
lawsuit was filed in California Superior Court in San Mateo
County (Case No. 485528), which also named the same parties and
contained essentially identical allegations as the two prior
lawsuits.
On July 14, 2009, the parties to these three lawsuits filed a
stipulation and proposed order consolidating the actions and
appointing interim lead counsel, which was entered by the Court
on July 15, 2009.
Biosante Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.biosantepharma.com/
-- is a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on developing
products for female sexual health, menopause, contraception, and
male hypogonadism. The company primary products include gel
formulations of testosterone and estradiol. It is also engaged
in the development of its calcium phosphate nanotechnology
(CaP), primarily for aesthetic medicine, vaccines and drug
delivery. The company's principal products include LibiGel,
Bio-T-Gel and Pill-Plus. The company's CaP products in
development include BioLook, BioVant, BioOral and BioAir.
CARRIAGE SERVICES: Discovery Continues in "Leathermon" Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carriage Services, Inc., continues to defend a purported class-
action suit in Leathermon, et al. v. Grandview Memorial Gardens,
Inc., et al., Case No. 07-cv-137 (S.D. Ind.) (Barker, J.).
On Aug. 17, 2007, five plaintiffs filed a putative class-action
suit against the current and past owners of Grandview Cemetery
in Madison, Indiana, including Carriage subsidiaries that owned
the cemetery from January 1997 until February 2001, on behalf of
all individuals who purchased cemetery and burial goods and
services at Grandview Cemetery.
The plaintiffs claim that the cemetery owners performed burials
negligently, breached plaintiffs' contracts, and made
misrepresentations regarding the cemetery.
On Oct. 15, 2007, the case was removed from Jefferson County
Circuit Court, Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana.
On April 24, 2009, shortly before Defendants had been scheduled
to file their briefs in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, Plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint
to add new class representatives and claims, while also seeking
to abandon other claims. The company, as well as several other
defendants, opposed Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint
and add parties. The Court has not yet ruled on plaintiffs'
motion to amend.
In April 2009, two defendants moved to disqualify Plaintiffs'
counsel from further representing Plaintiffs in this action.
The company did not join in these motions.
The litigation is in the discovery stage, according to the
company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2009.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
John C. Eckert, Esq. (john@eckertlawfirm.net)
Eckert Law Firm
606 E. Main Street
Madison, IN 47250
Phone: 812-265-1606
Fax: 812-265-2951
- and -
J. Anthony Goebel, Esq. (tony@goebellawoffice.com)
Goebel Law Office
1034 Copperfield Drive
Georgetown, IN 47122
Phone: 812-951-2500
Fax: 812-951-2522
Representing the defendants are:
Robert Lewis Barlow, II, Esq. (rbarlow@blueriver.net)
Barlow Law Office
201 East Main Street
Madison, IN 47250
Phone: 812-273-4440
Fax: 812-273-2329
- and -
John B. Drummy, Esq. (jdrummy@k-glaw.com)
Kightlinger & Gray
151 North Delaware Street, Suite 600
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: 317-638-4521
Fax: 317-636-5917
CORNELL COS: VCDC Suit Settlement Got Final Approval in July
------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal District Court in Albuquerque, New Mexico, in July
2009, granted final approval of the settlement of a purported
class-action suit against Cornell Companies, Inc., filed by
individuals stripped searched at the Valencia County Detention
Center.
Joe Torres and Eufrasio Armijo filed the suit in April 2007.
Each alleged that he was stripped searched at VCDC in violation
of his federal rights under the Fourth, Fourteenth and Eighth
amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The claimants also allege
violation of their rights under state law and seek to bring the
case as a class action on behalf of themselves and all detainees
at VCDC during the applicable statues of limitation. The
plaintiffs seek damages and declaratory and injunctive
relief.
Valencia County is also a named defendant in the case and
operated the VCDC for a significantly greater portion of the
period covered by the lawsuit. Discovery has commenced in the
case.
In December 2008, the parties agreed to a proposed stipulation
of settlement and the Court has preliminarily approved the
settlement. The settlement amount under the terms of the
agreement is $3.3 million. Cornell's portion of the stipulated
settlement, based on the number of inmates housed at VCDC during
the time Cornell operated the facility in comparison to the
number of inmates housed at the facility during the time
Valencia County operated the facility, is $1.2 million and was
funded principally through the company's general liability and
professional liability coverage.
The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement in the
first quarter of 2009, and the claims administration process is
underway.
In July 2009, the Court granted final approval of the
settlement. The settlement amount under the terms of the
agreement is $3.3 million. Cornell's portion of the stipulated
settlement, based on the number of inmates housed at VCDC during
the time Cornell operated the facility in comparison to the
number of inmates housed at the facility during the time
Valencia County operated the facility, is $1.2 million and was
funded principally through our general liability and
professional liability coverage. The claims administration
process is underway and the company expects it to be completed
in the fourth quarter of 2009, according to its Aug. 7, 2009,
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.
Cornell Companies, Inc. -- http://www.cornellcompanies.com/--
provides correction, detention, education, rehabilitation and
treatment services for adults and juveniles. The company
partners with federal, state, county and local government
agencies. Cornell offers services in structured and secure
environments throughout three operating divisions: adult secure
institutions and detention centers, juvenile justice,
educational and treatment programs, and adult community-based
corrections and treatment programs.
DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Fla. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
dismissed a purported securities fraud class-action complaint
filed by an institutional shareholder against Darden
Restaurants, Inc., Law360 reports.
The complaint against Darden, which owns and operates more than
1,700 restaurants in the U.S. and Canada, failed to establish
either fraud or the requisite intent, the court ruled.
On March 13, 2008, a purported class-action complaint alleging
violation of the federal securities laws was filed by an
institutional shareholder against Darden and certain of the
company's current officers, one of whom is also a director, in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 5, 2009).
The complaint, filed on behalf of all purchasers of Darden's
common stock between June 19, 2007, and Dec. 18, 2007, is
captioned Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 51 Pension Fund, et al.
v. Darden Restaurants Inc., et al., Case No. 08-CV-00388.
The complaint alleges that during that period, the defendants
issued false and misleading statements in press releases and
public filings that misrepresented and failed to disclose
certain information, and that as a result, had no reasonable
basis for statements about Darden's prospects and guidance for
fiscal 2008.
The complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
The plaintiff seeks to recover unspecified damages on behalf of
the Class (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 26, 2009).
Darden and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the
complaint.
On July 2, 2009, the magistrate judge assigned to the action
entered a Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal of
all claims.
On July 17, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an objection to the
Report and Recommendation with the District Court Judge,
according to Darden Restaurants, Inc.'s July 24, 2009, Form 10-K
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended May 31, 2009.
Darden Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.dardenusa.com/-- is a
casual dining restaurant company. The company owns and operates
the Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Bahama Breeze, Smokey Bones
Barbeque & Grill, and Seasons 52 restaurant concepts located in
the U.S. and Canada.
DR PEPPER: Third Circuit Reverses Dismissal of "Holk" Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed a
2008 ruling by the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey that dismissed the purported class-action lawsuit
entitled Holk v. Cadbury Schweppes Americas Beverages et al.,
Case No. 07-03018 (Cooper, J.), Jef Feeley of Bloomberg reports.
Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc., the beverage company spun off by
Cadbury PLC last year, must face the case, the federal appeals
court ruled.
The court revived the case, after finding it wasn't barred by
U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations covering food
labeling, writes Mr. Feeley.
The three-judge panel concluded, "neither Congress nor the FDA
intended to occupy the field of food and beverage labeling and
juice products" in a way that would preempt state-court suits
challenging the accuracy of product labels, according to the
Bloomberg report.
In 2007, Snapple Beverage Corp. was sued by Stacy Holk in New
Jersey Superior Court, Monmouth County. The Holk case was filed
as a class-action case. Subsequent to filing, the Holk case was
removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey (Class Action Reporter, July 20, 2009).
Ms. Holk alleges that Snapple's labeling of certain of its
drinks is misleading and/or deceptive and seeks unspecified
damages on behalf of the class, including enjoining Snapple from
various labeling practices, disgorging profits, reimbursing of
monies paid for product and treble damages.
Snapple filed a motion to dismiss the Holk case on a variety of
grounds. On June 12, 2008, the district court granted Snapple's
motion to dismiss and the Holk case was dismissed. Ms. Holk, in
turn, appealed from Judge Cooper's order dismissing the case to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
A copy of the Third Circuit's ruling is available at no charge
at http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/083060p.pdf
Representing the plaintiff is:
Philip A. Tortoreti, Esq.
Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer
90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900
Woodbridge, NJ 07095
Phone: 732-636-8000
E-mail: ptortoreti@wilentz.com
Representing the defendants is:
Richard B. Harper, Esq.
Baker Botts, LLP
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112
Phone: 212-408-2675
Fax: 212-259-2475
E-mail: richard.harper@bakerbotts.com
FREDDIE MAC: Consolidated Mortgage Borrowers' Suit Nixed in June
----------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action by mortgage borrowers against
Freddie Mac was dismissed in June 2009, according to the
company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2009.
Beginning in January 2005, a number of class actions were filed
by mortgage borrowers against Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
These actions were consolidated for all purposes in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia and on Aug. 5, 2005,
a Consolidated Class Action Complaint was filed alleging that
both companies conspired to establish and maintain artificially
high management and guarantee fees.
The complaint covers the period Jan. 1, 2001, to the present and
asserts a variety of claims under federal and state antitrust
laws, as well as claims under consumer-protection and similar
state laws.
The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, unspecified damages
(including treble damages with respect to the antitrust claims
and punitive damages with respect to some of the state claims)
and other forms of relief.
The defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the action in
October 2005.
On Oct. 29, 2008, the Court entered an Order granting in part
and denying in part Freddie Mac's motion to dismiss.
On Nov. 13, 2008, the Court issued an order granting FHFA's
motion to intervene in its capacity as Conservator for Freddie
Mac and Fannie Mae, granting FHFA's motion to stay the
proceedings for 135 days, and ordering the parties to file a
joint status report on April 1, 2009.
On March 6, 2009, the Court stayed the proceedings for an
additional 90 days and ordered the parties to file a joint
status report and scheduling order by June 30, 2009.
On June 26, 2009, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice
pursuant to a stipulation among the parties.
Freddie Mac -- http://www.freddiemac.com/-- is a stockholder-
owned corporation established to support homeownership and
rental housing. Freddie Mac purchases residential mortgages and
mortgage-related securities in the secondary mortgage market,
and securitizes them into mortgage-related securities that can
be sold to investors. The company purchases single-family and
multi-family residential mortgages and mortgage-related
securities, which it finances primarily by issuing mortgage-
related securities and debt instruments in the capital markets.
Freddie Mac finances its purchases primarily by issuing a range
of debt instruments in the capital markets. The company
operates in three segments: Investments, Single-family Guarantee
and Multifamily.
FREDDIE MAC: Faces "Kreysar" Suit Consolidated with "Mark" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Freddie Mac continues to face a consolidated class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2009.
The lawsuit, Kreysar v. Syron, et al., Civ. Action No. 09-CV-832
(S.D.N.Y.), was filed on Jan. 29, 2009. A copy of the 59-page
Complaint is available at http://is.gd/2fcq5at no charge.
The complaint alleges that three former Freddie Mac officers:
-- Richard Syron,
-- Anthony Piszel, and
-- Patricia Cook,
and eight underwriters:
-- Goldman Sachs & Co.,
-- J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.,
-- Banc of America Securities LLC,
-- Citigroup Global Markets Inc.,
-- Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC,
-- Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.,
-- Morgan Stanley & Co., Incorporated, and
-- UBS Securities LLC,
violated federal securities laws by making material false and
misleading statements in connection with an offering by Freddie
Mac of $6 billion of 8.375% Fixed to Floating Rate Non-
Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock Series Z that commenced on
Nov. 29, 2007. The complaint further alleges that Messrs. Syron
and Piszel and Ms. Cook made additional false statements
following the offering.
Freddie Mac is not named as a defendant in this lawsuit.
On April 30, 2009, the Court consolidated Mark v. Goldman
Sachs & Co., et al., Civ. Action No. 08-cv-08181 (S.D.N.Y.),
with the Kreysar case, and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated
class action complaint on July 2, 2009.
The consolidated complaint alleges that Messrs. Syron and Piszel
and Ms. Cook, the eight underwriters, and Freddie Mac's auditor,
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, violated federal securities laws by
making material false and misleading statements in connection
with an offering by Freddie Mac of $6 billion of 8.375% Fixed to
Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock Series Z
that commenced on Nov. 29, 2007. The complaint further alleges
that certain defendants and others made additional false
statements following the offering.
Freddie Mac -- http://www.freddiemac.com/-- is a stockholder-
owned corporation established to support homeownership and
rental housing. Freddie Mac purchases residential mortgages and
mortgage-related securities in the secondary mortgage market,
and securitizes them into mortgage-related securities that can
be sold to investors. The company purchases single-family and
multi-family residential mortgages and mortgage-related
securities, which it finances primarily by issuing mortgage-
related securities and debt instruments in the capital markets.
Freddie Mac finances its purchases primarily by issuing a range
of debt instruments in the capital markets. The company
operates in three segments: Investments, Single-family Guarantee
and Multifamily.
FREDDIE MAC: "Jacoby" Suit Over False Statements Pending in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit styled Jacoby v. Syron, et
al., Case No. 08-cv-10894 (S.D.N.Y.), remains pending, according
to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2009.
On Dec. 15, 2008, a plaintiff filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against former Freddie Mac officers Richard Syron,
Patricia Cook, Anthony Piszel; Banc of America Securities LLC;
JP Morgan Chase & Co.; and FTN Financial Markets.
The complaint, as amended on Dec. 17, 2008, contends that the
defendants made material false and misleading statements in
connection with Freddie Mac's Sept. 29, 2007 offering of non-
cumulative, non-convertible, perpetual fixed-rate preferred
stock, and that such statements "grossly overstated Freddie
Mac's capitalization" and "failed to disclose Freddie Mac's
exposure to mortgage-related losses, poor underwriting standards
and risk management procedures." The complaint further alleges
that the former officers made additional false statements
following the offering.
Freddie Mac is not named as a defendant in this lawsuit.
Freddie Mac -- http://www.freddiemac.com/-- is a stockholder-
owned corporation established to support homeownership and
rental housing. Freddie Mac purchases residential mortgages and
mortgage-related securities in the secondary mortgage market,
and securitizes them into mortgage-related securities that can
be sold to investors. The company purchases single-family and
multi-family residential mortgages and mortgage-related
securities, which it finances primarily by issuing mortgage-
related securities and debt instruments in the capital markets.
Freddie Mac finances its purchases primarily by issuing a range
of debt instruments in the capital markets. The company
operates in three segments: Investments, Single-family Guarantee
and Multifamily.
FREDDIE MAC: "Liberty Mutual" Securities Suit Pending in Mass.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action lawsuit styled Liberty Mutual Insurance
Company, Peerless Insurance Company, Employers Insurance Company
of Wausau, Safeco Corporation, and Liberty Assurance Company of
Boston v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., et al., Case No. 09-cv-10668 (D.
Mass.) is pending, according to Freddie Mac's Aug. 7, 2009, Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2009.
By letter dated June 5, 2009, Freddie Mac received formal
notification of the putative class action lawsuit, which was
filed on April 6, 2009, in the Superior Court for the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, County of Suffolk and removed to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
April 24, 2009.
The complaint alleges that Goldman, Sachs & Co. omitted and made
untrue statements of material facts, committed unfair or
deceptive trade practices, common law fraud, and negligent
misrepresentation, and violated the laws of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts and the State of Washington while acting as the
underwriter of 240,000,000 shares of Freddie Mac preferred stock
(Series Z) issued Dec. 4, 2007.
On April 24, 2009, Goldman Sachs joined with defendants in
Jacoby v. Syron, et al., Case No. 08-cv-10894 (S.D.N.Y.),
and Mark v. Goldman Sachs & Co., et al., Civ. Action No.
08-cv-08181 (S.D.N.Y.), and Kreysar v. Syron, et al., Civ.
Action No. 09-CV-832 (S.D.N.Y.), in filing a motion to transfer
the Liberty Mutual and Jacoby cases to the judge hearing Mark
and Kreysar.
Freddie Mac is not named as a defendant in this lawsuit, but the
underwriters gave notice to Freddie Mac of their intention to
seek full indemnity and contribution under the Underwriting
Agreement, including reimbursement of fees and disbursements of
their legal counsel.
Freddie Mac -- http://www.freddiemac.com/-- is a stockholder-
owned corporation established to support homeownership and
rental housing. Freddie Mac purchases residential mortgages and
mortgage-related securities in the secondary mortgage market,
and securitizes them into mortgage-related securities that can
be sold to investors. The company purchases single-family and
multi-family residential mortgages and mortgage-related
securities, which it finances primarily by issuing mortgage-
related securities and debt instruments in the capital markets.
Freddie Mac finances its purchases primarily by issuing a range
of debt instruments in the capital markets. The company
operates in three segments: Investments, Single-family Guarantee
and Multifamily.
FREDDIE MAC: Pursues Motion to Dismiss OPERS Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in Ohio Public
Employees Retirement System v. Freddie Mac, et al., Civ. Action.
No. 08-cv-160 (N.D. Ohio) (Adams, J.), remains pending,
according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2009.
This putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against
Freddie Mac and certain former officers on Jan. 18, 2008, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio alleging
that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making
"false and misleading statements concerning our business, risk
management and the procedures we put into place to protect the
company from problems in the mortgage industry."
On April 10, 2008, the court appointed OPERS as lead plaintiff
and approved its choice of counsel.
On Sept. 2, 2008, defendants filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiff's amended complaint, which purportedly asserted claims
on behalf of a class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock between
Aug. 1, 2006 and Nov. 20, 2007.
On Nov. 7, 2008, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint,
which removed certain allegations against Richard Syron, Anthony
Piszel, and Eugene McQuade, thereby leaving insider-trading
allegations against only Patricia Cook.
The second amended complaint also extends the damages period,
but not the class period.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages and interest, and
reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney and expert
fees.
On Nov. 19, 2008, the Court granted FHFA's motion to intervene
in its capacity as Conservator.
On April 6, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint.
Freddie Mac -- http://www.freddiemac.com/-- is a stockholder-
owned corporation established to support homeownership and
rental housing. Freddie Mac purchases residential mortgages and
mortgage-related securities in the secondary mortgage market,
and securitizes them into mortgage-related securities that can
be sold to investors. The company purchases single-family and
multi-family residential mortgages and mortgage-related
securities, which it finances primarily by issuing mortgage-
related securities and debt instruments in the capital markets.
Freddie Mac finances its purchases primarily by issuing a range
of debt instruments in the capital markets. The company
operates in three segments: Investments, Single-family Guarantee
and Multifamily.
FREDDIE MAC: Reply to "Kuriakose" Securities Suit Due by Aug. 27
----------------------------------------------------------------
Freddie Mac's response to the amended consolidated complaint in
a putative class action lawsuit styled Kuriakose v. Freddie
Mac, et al., Civil Action No. 08-cv-07281 (S.D.N.Y.), is due by
Aug. 27, 2009.
The putative class-action lawsuit was filed against Freddie Mac
and certain former officers on Aug. 15, 2008, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York for alleged
violations of federal securities laws purportedly on behalf of a
class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from Nov. 21, 2007,
through Aug. 5, 2008.
The plaintiff claims that defendants made false and misleading
statements about Freddie Mac's business that artificially
inflated the price of Freddie Mac's common stock, and seeks
unspecified damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.
On Jan. 20, 2009, FHFA filed a motion to intervene and stay the
proceedings.
On Feb. 6, 2009, the court granted FHFA's motion to intervene
and stayed the case for 45 days.
According to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2009, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint on May 19, 2009.
Freddie Mac -- http://www.freddiemac.com/-- is a stockholder-
owned corporation established to support homeownership and
rental housing. Freddie Mac purchases residential mortgages and
mortgage-related securities in the secondary mortgage market,
and securitizes them into mortgage-related securities that can
be sold to investors. The company purchases single-family and
multi-family residential mortgages and mortgage-related
securities, which it finances primarily by issuing mortgage-
related securities and debt instruments in the capital markets.
Freddie Mac finances its purchases primarily by issuing a range
of debt instruments in the capital markets. The company
operates in three segments: Investments, Single-family Guarantee
and Multifamily.
GAYLORD ENT: Sept. 2009 Hearing Set for Pension Fund's Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
A final hearing on Gaylord Entertainment Co.'s proposed
settlement in NECA-IBEW Pension Fund v. Reed, et al.,
Case No. 08-cv-00814 (M.D. Tenn.) (Knowles, J.), is expected
in September 2009.
In August 2008, a union-affiliated pension fund filed a
purported derivative and class action complaint in Tennessee
state court alleging that the directors of the Company breached
their fiduciary duties by adopting a shareholder rights plan.
Subsequently, the plaintiffs purported to dismiss their state
court action, and they re-filed it in federal court.
On Oct. 27, 2008, the company (as the nominal defendant) filed a
motion to dismiss this lawsuit claiming, among other things,
that the plaintiff failed to make the required pre-suit demand
on the Company and that the allegations fail to state a claim
for breach of fiduciary duty (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 14,
2009).
On March 9, 2009, the company reached an agreement in principle
to settle the pending purported derivative and class-action
complaint. The company and the plaintiffs in the action,
together with their counsel, have agreed that the changes to the
company's Board of Directors and amendments to the Original
Rights Agreement reflected in the Amended Rights Agreement will
form the basis for that settlement.
The settlement agreement between the parties was preliminarily
approved by the court on June 9, 2009, and a final hearing on
the settlement terms has been scheduled by the court for
September 2009, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2009.
Headquartered in Nashville, Tenn., Gaylord Entertainment Co. --
http://www.gaylordentertainment.com/-- is a hospitality and
entertainment company that owns and operates Gaylord Hotels --
http://www.gaylordhotels.com/-- its network of meetings-focused
resorts and the Grand Ole Opry -- http://www.opry.com-- the
weekly showcase. The company's entertainment brands and
properties include the Radisson Hotel Opryland, Ryman
Auditorium, General Jackson Showboat, Gaylord Springs Golf
Links, Wildhorse Saloon and WSM-AM Radio. The company's
operations are organized into three principal business segments:
Hospitality, which includes its hotel operations; Opry and
Attractions, which includes its Nashville attractions and assets
related to the Grand Ole Opry, and Corporate and Other.
GOOGLE INC: Faces Delaware Litigation Over On2 Technologies Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Google, Inc. faces a purported class-action suit, challenging a
proposed deal to buy video compression software company On2
Technologies, Inc., Alexei Oreskovic at Reuters reports.
The suit was filed on Aug. 10, 2009 in Delaware Chancery Court,
by On2 shareholders unhappy about the $106.5 million price and
the terms of the deal.
The complaint seeks class action status, as well as a permanent
injunction blocking the deal. It also called on the defendants
to account for all damages caused, reports Mr. Oreskovic.
"Defendants rushed to announce the proposed transaction at $0.60
per share on August 5th ahead of the positive earnings results
announced the next day, thereby placing a cap on the company's
stock price," the suit reads.
According to the complaint, the deal contained various
provisions -- including a "no shop" clause and a $2 million
termination fee if On2's board accepts a superior deal -- to
ensure that no competing offers emerge, Mr. Oreskovic reported.
HOOTERS OF WASHINGTON: Faces D.C. Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hooters of Washington, D.C., and its Atlanta, Ga.-based parent
corporation Hooters of America, Inc., face a purported class-
action lawsuit for allegedly violating minimum wage laws, The
Blog of Legal Times reports.
The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia on Aug. 5, 2009, by thirteen current and former
"Hooters Girls." It accuses defendant of violating the Fair
Labor Standards Act and D.C. law.
The plaintiffs claim that for the past three years, the
defendants applied tips they received toward their minimum wage,
but then broke the law by requiring the waitresses to pay the
company for uniforms. The federally mandated minimum wage for
employees who receive tips is $2.13 per hour, according to The
BLT.
The complaint says Hooters also broke the law by requiring the
waitresses to share tips with employees who don't typically
receive them and for not paying the waitresses overtime for work
performed before and after their shifts, reports The BLT.
A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?4193
The plaintiffs are represented by:
Heidi Rhodes Burakiewicz, Esq.
Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq.
Woodley & McGillivary
1125 15th Street, NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 833-8855
Fax: (202) 452-1090
E-mail: hrb@wmlaborlaw.com
gkm@wmlaborlaw.com
MARICOPA COUNTY: Faces $8M Suit in Arizona for Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maricopa County faces a purported class-action lawsuit filed by
county sheriff's detention officers who are seeking $8 million
in compensation for unpaid overtime, Yvonne Wingett and JJ
Hensley of The Arizona Republic report.
The suit, Solano, et al. v. Maricopa County, Case No. 09-01642
(D. Ariz.), was filed on Aug. 10, 2009, by officers John Solano,
and Luis Altamirano.
The detention officers filed the class-action complaint claiming
they were required to attend briefings before their workdays
started yet were not paid for those briefings, according to the
newspaper.
The suit claims that about 2,000 employees are eligible for back
pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The plaintiffs are represented by:
James P. Abdo, Esq.
Napier Abdo Coury & Baillie PC
2525 E Arizona Biltmore Cir, Ste. 135
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Phone: 602-248-9107
Fax: 602-248-0971
E-mail: jimabdo@napierlawfirm.com
NUCOR CORP: Fourth Circuit Reverses Ruling in Racial Bias Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed a
ruling by the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina that denied class-action status in Quinton Brown, Jason
Guy, Ramon Roane, Alvin Simmons, Sheldon Singletary, Gerald
White, Jacob Ravenell v. Nucor Corporation and Nucor Steel
Berkeley, Case No. 04-22005 (D. S.C.), Nick Divito at Courthouse
News Service reports.
The case involves allegations of racial discrimination at a
steel manufacturing plant in Huger, South Carolina, owned by
Nucor Corp. and Nucor Steel Berkeley.
The lawsuit was filed on Aug. 25, 2004 in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Arkansas by seven black
workers.
The workers had complained that they and others were referred to
by white supervisors as "nigger," "bologna lips," "yard ape" and
"porch monkey," and that "monkey noises" were broadcast over the
radio system.
They brought the suit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 (2000) and
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on behalf of
themselves and approximately one-hundred other past and present
black employees at the plant.
The suit seeks a permanent injunction, back pay, compensatory
and punitive damages, and attorney's fees.
At the time the litigation commenced, there were 611 employees
working at Nucor's South Carolina plant, of whom seventy-one
were black.
The Western District of Arkansas severed the case and
transferred the claims brought by the seven plaintiffs in South
Carolina to the District of South Carolina.
On May 7, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification alleging:
-- A pattern or practice of disparate treatment against
African-American employees with respect to promotion
opportunities at the plant;
-- Nucor's promotion procedure, which allows white
managers and supervisors to use subjective criteria to
promote employees, has a disparate impact on African-
American employees who apply for promotions; and
-- Nucor requires African-American employees to work in a
plant-wide hostile work environment.
The district court denied the class certification motion. That
ruling was appealed to the Fourth Circuit.
In reversing the lower court's decision, the Fourth Circuit
found that the district court abused its discretion and erred as
a matter of law in denying class certification to the
plaintiffs-appellants. Thus, it vacated the order and remanded
the case to the district court for certification.
Specifically, the Fourth Circuit ruled that the workers
"certainly presented compelling direct evidence of
discrimination, such as denials of promotions when more junior
white employees were granted promotions, denial of the ability
to cross-train during regular shifts like their white
counterparts, and a statement by a white supervisor that he
would never promote a black employee."
That evidence alone, the Virginia-based appellate panel ruled,
"establishes common claims of discrimination worthy of class
certification."
The circuit court concluded that the evidence was valid to
support a class action, and that because the workers shared
common areas, all black employees were subjected to the
disparate treatment.
A copy of the opinion is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?418e
SPRINT NEXTEL: Oct. 21 Hearing Set for $17.5M ETF Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey will hold
a fairness hearing on Oct. 21, 2009, for the proposed
$17,500,000 settlement in Larson v. Sprint Nextel Corporation,
Civ. Action No. 2:07-cv-05325, Steve Korris of The St. Clair
Record reports.
On April 30, 2009, Judge Jose Linares withheld approval of
settlement between plaintiffs' attorneys and the company because
of weak response to the class notice (Class Action Reporter, May
6, 2009).
In general, the class-action lawsuit is alleging that Sprint
Nextel's flat-rate early termination fee (ETF) violates state
and federal law (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 6, 2009).
Under the settlement, Sprint Nextel has agreed to pay $14
million into a common fund to be distributed pursuant to the
settlement benefit rules set forth in the settlement agreement.
The company has also agreed to provide qualified settlement
class members up to $3.5 million in Non-Cash Benefits. It also
has agreed to not insert a flat-rate ETF provision into its
customer service agreements for personal wireless service in the
U.S. for 24 months.
Sprint Nextel customer agreements initiated after Nov. 3, 2008
have pro-rated ETFs, and the Settlement does not require Sprint
Nextel to modify those contracts.
The settlement will release all claims that customers may have
against Sprint Nextel relating in any way to its flat-rate ETFs
and term contracts, and will bar future claims, unless the
individual excludes him/her self from the settlement.
For more details, contact:
Sprint ETF Settlement Administrator
c/o Gilardi & Company LLC
P.O. Box 6002
Larkspur, CA 94977- 6002
Phone: 1-800-916-6940
Web site: http://www.sprintetfsettlement.com/
- and -
Carella, Byrne, Bain, Gilfillan, Cecchi, Stewart &
Olstein
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Phone: (973) 994-1700
Fax: (973) 994-1744
Web site: http://www.carellabyrne.com/
- and -
Freed & Weiss LLC
111 W Washington St # 1331
Chicago, IL 60602-3455
Phone: (312) 220-0000
Web site: http://www.freedweiss.com/
STEEL DYNAMICS: Antitrust Lawsuits by Direct Purchasers Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
A joint motion to dismiss all of the direct purchaser class
action antitrust lawsuits filed against Steel Dynamics, Inc.,
and eight other steel manufacturing companies was denied in June
2009.
On Sept. 17, 2008, the company and eight other steel
manufacturing companies were served with a class action
antitrust complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois in Chicago by Standard Iron Works
of Scranton, Pennsylvania, alleging violations of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act.
The Complaint alleges that the defendants conspired to fix,
raise, maintain and stabilize the price at which steel products
were sold in the United States, starting in 2005, by
artificially restricting the supply of such steel products.
Six additional lawsuits, each of them materially similar to the
original, have also been filed in the same federal court, each
of them likewise seeking similar class certification.
All but one of the Complaints purport to be brought on behalf of
a class consisting of all direct purchasers of steel products
between Jan. 1, 2005 and the present. The other Complaint
purports to be brought on behalf of a class consisting of all
indirect purchasers of steel products within the same time
period.
All Complaints seek treble damages and costs, including
reasonable attorney fees, pre- and post-judgment interest and
injunctive relief.
On Jan. 2, 2009, Steel Dynamics and the other defendants filed a
Joint Motion to Dismiss all of the direct purchaser lawsuits.
On June 12, 2009, however, the Court denied the Motion,
according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2009.
Steel Dynamics, Inc. -- http://www.steeldynamics.com/-- is a
steel producer and metals recycler. The Company has three
segments: steel operations, steel fabrication operations, and
metals recycling and ferrous resources operations. The Company's
products in its steel segment include hot rolled, cold rolled,
galvanized, Galvalume and painted sheet steel; various
structural steel beams and rails; special bar quality steel, and
various merchant steel products, including beams, angles, flats
and channels. Its products in the metals recycling segment
include ferrous and nonferrous scrap processing, scrap
management, transportation, and brokerage and trading products
and services. The steel fabrication segment produces steel
joists and decking materials.
STEEL DYNAMICS: Faces "Panasuk" Securities Fraud Suit in Indiana
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint, captioned Panasuk v. Steel Dynamics,
Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 09-cv-0066 (N.D. Inc.), remains
pending, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2009.
On March 18, 2009, the company, together with its Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer, Keith E. Busse, and John Bates, a
member of its board of directors, were served with the complaint
purporting to represent a class of purchasers of Steel Dynamics
common stock between Jan. 26, 2009, and March 11, 2009.
The complaint, which was amended on July 13, 2009, alleges
securities fraud in connection with the company's issuance of
certain earnings guidance and seeks damages in an unspecified
amount.
Steel Dynamics, Inc. -- http://www.steeldynamics.com/-- is a
steel producer and metals recycler. The Company has three
segments: steel operations, steel fabrication operations, and
metals recycling and ferrous resources operations. The Company's
products in its steel segment include hot rolled, cold rolled,
galvanized, Galvalume and painted sheet steel; various
structural steel beams and rails; special bar quality steel, and
various merchant steel products, including beams, angles, flats
and channels. Its products in the metals recycling segment
include ferrous and nonferrous scrap processing, scrap
management, transportation, and brokerage and trading products
and services. The steel fabrication segment produces steel
joists and decking materials.
UNITRIN INC: Faces Tex. Suit Over Hurricane Policy Cancellations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Unitrin, Inc., Capitol County Mutual Fire Insurance Co.,
Reliable Life Insurance Co., Trinity Universal Insurance Co.,
face a purported class-action suit over the collection of
premiums for storm coverage, Jeremy Choate at Courthouse News
Service reports.
The suit was filed by Ernest Stephens and Jeaneen Landor in the
District Court of Jefferson County, Texas and docketed as Cause
No. A 184-496.
The class-action claims that the defendants collect premiums for
storm coverage from November through May -- when there's no risk
of hurricanes -- then cancel policies by the thousand just
before hurricane season begins, writes Mr. Choate.
The plaintiffs claim that the scheme allows defendants to fix
prices and charge for insurance without providing it. They
specifically, claim that when the 2007 hurricane season was
predicted to be a big one, the defendants canceled many
"hurricane" policies.
In addition, after Hurricane Ike in 2008, the defendants
collected hurricane premiums from policyholders as long as
possible, then canceled more than 40 percent of residential
policies before the 2009 hurricane season started, according to
the complaint.
The suit claims that such cancellations require the defendants
to return unearned premiums, but the defendants are ducking that
by calling the cancellations "non-renewals," reports Mr. Choate.
A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?418f
For more details, contact:
Jason M. Byrd, Esq.
Snider & Byrd LLP
3560 Delaware St., Suite 308
Beaumont, Texas 77706
Phone: (409) 924-9595
Fax: (409) 924-0808
Web site: http://www.sniderbyrdlaw.com/
VANCOUVER CITY: Faces B.C. Litigation Over High Interest Rates
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Vancouver City Savings Credit Union faces a purported class-
action lawsuit, claiming it cheated customers by issuing lines
of credit, then sending letters claiming it was "mandatory" for
them to agree to pay higher interest rates, Darryl Greer at
Courthouse News Service reports.
The suit was filed by Marilyn Kidson in the B.C. Supreme Court
on Aug. 6, 2009. It claims the bank demanded she agree to the
new terms a year after it issued her an $81,000 line of credit,
according to Mr. Greer.
Ms. Kidson alleges that the bank "misrepresented to the
plaintiff that signing the amended agreement was mandatory and
that her failure to sign the amended agreement may result in her
line of credit being disrupted or at some unspecified risk."
She says the new terms breached contract and were "inequitable
and adverse" and deceptive, reports Courthouse News Service.
A copy of the Writ of Summons is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?4195
For more details, contact:
Sarando Matheos
210-15225 104th Avenue
Surrey, BC V3R 6Y8
Phone: 604-583-2200 or 1-800-688-1028
Fax: 604-583-3469
Web site: http://www.hwm.ca/
WEST CORP: Settlement of Suit Over Wage and Overtime Pay Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The tentative settlement of a putative class action lawsuit,
Tammy Kerce v. West Telemarketing Corporation, Case No.
07-cv-00081 (S.D. Ga.) (Alaimo, J.), is pending, according to
West Corp.'s Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2009.
The lawsuit was filed on June 26, 2007. Ms. Kerce, a former
home agent, alleges that she was improperly classified as an
independent contractor instead of an employee and is therefore
entitled to minimum wage and overtime compensation. Plaintiff
sought to have the case certified as a collective action under
the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff's suit seeks statutory
and compensatory damages.
On Dec. 21, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Conditional
Certification in which she requested that the Court
conditionally certify a class of all West home agents who were
classified as independent contractors for the prior three years
for purposes of notice and discovery. West filed its Response
in Opposition to the Motion for Conditional Certification on
Feb. 11, 2008. The Court granted the Plaintiff's Motion for
Conditional Certification on May 21, 2008.
Individual agents were sent notice of the suit and provided an
opportunity to join as consenting plaintiffs. Of the 31,000
agents, approximately 2,800 elected to opt-in to the suit. The
deadline for joining the FLSA suit expired in December 2008.
Plaintiff Tammy Kerce recently filed a Motion to Amend her
Complaint seeking to assert a nation-wide class action based on
alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 and also seeking to add multiple state wage and hour
claims on a class basis. The Court granted leave to Plaintiff
to amend her Complaint on March 26, 2009, but Plaintiff has not
yet filed her amended complaint.
Plaintiff's counsel and West entered into a tentative settlement
during mediation held April 24, 2009.
West Corp. -- http://www.west.com/-- is a customer relationship
management (CRM) solution provider, offering comprehensive
customer service outsourcing programs.
New Securities Fraud Cases
CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL: Charles H. Johnson Announces Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles H. Johnson & Associates announces that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of purchasers of
Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. (AMEX: CPD) publicly
traded securities during the period May 29, 2008 through June
25, 2009.
The Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose
the following:
-- Caraco failed to meet the United States Food and Drug
Administration's ("FDA") current Good Manufacturing
Practice ("cGMP") requirements;
-- Caraco failed to take corrective measures in order to
have its manufacturing facilities comply with the
FDA's cGMP requirements;
-- Caraco had failed to remedy repeat violations of FDA
regulations previously observed and documented by the
FDA;
-- that the foregoing significantly jeopardized the
Company's ability to gain FDA approval of pending new
drug applications; and
-- as a result of the above, Caraco would have to recall
certain products.
On June 25, 2009, the FDA announced that U.S. Marshals had
seized drug products from the Company's facilities. According to
the FDA, this action followed Caraco's continued failure to meet
the FDA's cGMP requirements. On this news, shares of Caraco
declined $1.79 per share, or approximately 43%, to close on June
25, 2009 at $2.39 per share.
A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Sept. 15, 2009.
For more details, contact:
Neal Eisenbraun, Esq.
Charles H. Johnson & Associates
2599 Mississippi Street
New Brighton, MN 55112
Phone: (651) 633-5685
E-mail: cjohnsonlaw@gmail.com
HURON CONSULTING: Charles H. Johnson Announces Stock Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles H. Johnson & Associates announces that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of
Huron Consulting Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: HURN) publicly traded
securities during the period April 27, 2006 through July 31,
2009.
The Complaint alleges that Huron and certain of its
officers and directors made false statements concerning Huron's
financial performance and its compliance with General Accepted
Accounting Principles. Specifically, Huron misaccounted for
payments made as part of acquisitions. Because the Defendants
deceived the public by overstating Huron's income and business
prospects, the Company's stock traded at artificially inflated
prices.
On July 31, 2009, Huron announced that it would restate its
financial results from 2006 through 2008 and the first three
months of 2009 due to its failure to properly account for earn-
out payments made in connection with four of its acquisitions.
As a result, Huron expected to dramatically reduce its revenue
reported for the period: by 48%, from $120 million on an
aggregate basis to $63 million. Huron further announced that
the SEC had commenced an inquiry into the Company's allocation
of chargeable hours related to its recognition of revenue. On
this news, Huron's stock fell $30.66 per share to close at
$13.69 per share on August 3, 2009, a decline of approximately
69%.
A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Oct. 5, 2009.
For more details, contact:
Neal Eisenbraun, Esq.
Charles H. Johnson & Associates
2599 Mississippi Street
New Brighton, MN 55112
Phone: (651) 633-5685
E-mail: cjohnsonlaw@gmail.com
HURON CONSULTING: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on behalf of all purchasers of Huron Consulting Group,
Inc. (Nasdaq: HURN) common stock between April 27, 2006 and July
31, 2009, inclusive.
Huron and certain of its officers and directors are charged
with issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Huron failed to
disclose:
-- that shareholders of four businesses that Huron
acquired between 2005-2007 redistributed portions of
their acquisition-related payments among themselves
and the certain Huron employees;
-- that, as a result, the Company understated its non-
cash compensation expenses;
-- that the Company's financial statements were not
prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles ("GAAP");
-- that the Company lacked adequate internal and
financial controls; and
-- as a result of the above, the Company's financial
statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
On July 31, 2009, Huron shocked investors when it revealed
that the Company's financial statements for the fiscal years
2006, 2007, 2008, and the fiscal first quarter of 2009, should
no longer be relied upon and will have to be restated as a
result of the Company's accounting for certain acquisition-
related payments. On this news, shares of Huron declined $30.66
per share, or 69.13%, to close on August 3, 2009, at $13.69 per
share, on unusually heavy volume.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of himself and
all other individual and institutional investors who purchased
or otherwise acquired Huron common stock between April 27, 2006
through July 31, 2009.
A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Oct. 5, 2009.
For more details, contact:
Anthony Vozzolo, Esq.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP
369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330
E-mail: Avozzolo@faruqilaw.com
Web site: http://www.faruqilaw.com
MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Charles H. Johnson Announces Lawsuit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles H. Johnson & Associates announces that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona on behalf of purchasers of Matrixx
Initiatives, Inc. (Nasdaq: MTXX) publicly traded securities
during the period December 22, 2007 through June 15, 2009.
The Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose
material adverse facts concerning the Company's operational
well-being and future prospects. Specifically, 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
United States Food and Drug Administration ("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.
As a result of this news, the Company's shares declined
$13.46 per share, or approximately 70%, to close on June 16,
2009 at $5.78 per share.
A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Sept. 15, 2009.
For more details, contact:
Neal Eisenbraun, Esq.
Charles H. Johnson & Associates
2599 Mississippi Street
New Brighton, MN 55112
Phone: (651) 633-5685
E-mail: cjohnsonlaw@gmail.com
REPROS THERAPEUTICS: Charles Johnson Announces Stock Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles H. Johnson & Associates announces that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of
Repros Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: RPRX) publicly traded
securities during the period July 1, 2009 through August 3,
2009.
If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may move the
Court to serve as a lead plaintiff for the Class on or before
October 6, 2009. You do not need to be a lead plaintiff in order
to share in any recovery that may be obtained.
The Complaint alleges that Repros concealed the extent of
the serious adverse events suffered by patients in its clinical
trials for the drug Proellex. On July 1, 2009, Repros issued a
press release stating that the drug showed substantial promise
and had minimal side effects. However, Proellex elevated liver
enzymes to dangerous levels. By August 3, 2009, the extent of
these problems was fully revealed, and Repros announced the
cancellation of the clinical trial. During that time, the price
of Repros dropped over 73% from a close of $4.96 per share on
July 1, 2009 to a close of $1.31 per share on August 3, 2009.
A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Oct. 6, 2009.
For more details, contact:
Neal Eisenbraun, Esq.
Charles H. Johnson & Associates
2599 Mississippi Street
New Brighton, MN 55112
Phone: (651) 633-5685
E-mail: cjohnsonlaw@gmail.com
TRONOX INC: Barroway Topaz Announces N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP
that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of purchasers of Tronox, Inc. (Pink Sheets: TRXAQ, TRXBQ)
between November 28, 2005 and January 12, 2009 inclusive.
The Complaint charges Kerr-McGee Corporation, Anadarko
Petroleum Corporation and certain of Kerr-McGee and Tronox's
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
Tronox is not named in this action as a defendant because
it filed for bankruptcy protection in January 2009. Tronox is a
producer and marketer of titanium dioxide pigment (an inorganic
white pigment used in paint, coatings, plastics, paper and other
products).
Tronox was spun-off from Kerr-McGee in a two-step
transaction. In November 2005, Kerr McGee sold 17.5 million
shares of Tronox Class A shares in an initial public offering
for $14.00 per share generating proceeds for Kerr-McGee of $225
million. After the IPO, Kerr-McGee distributed the balance of
the shares that it owned as Class B shares to its shareholders
as a dividend.
More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material
adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:
-- that the Company's reserves for environmental
liabilities failed to include reserves for other
identified, but undisclosed sites;
-- that the Company faced extraordinarily high exposure
regarding its environmental liabilities, which it
failed to fully disclose to its shareholders;
-- that the Company's reserves for environmental
liabilities were wholly inadequate;
-- that the Company would face extremely high tort
liabilities, particularly for wood treatment claims;
-- that the Company's financial statements and,
specifically the methodology used to calculate the
Company's environmental liabilities reserve, were not
prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles;
-- that the Company lacked adequate internal and
financial controls;
-- that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
financial statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times; and
-- that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants'
statements about the Company's financial well-being
and future business prospects were lacking in any
reasonable basis when made.
As a result of defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and
the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class Members have suffered
significant losses and damages.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class
members.
A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Sept. 8, 2009.
For more details, contact:
Darren J. Check, Esq.
David M. Promisloff, Esq.
Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706
e-mail: info@btkmc.com
Web site: http://www.btkmc.com
Asbestos Alerts
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Flips Ruling in Vicknair Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed the ruling of the
trial court, which severed Joseph M. Vicknair and 14 other
plaintiffs from two asbestos lawsuits involving Phelps Dodge
Industries, Inc.
Judges Gerald W. Vandewalle, William F. Hodny, Ronald E.
Goodman, Kirk Smith, and Dale V. Sandstrom entered judgment in
Case No. 20080139 on June 29, 2009. Judges Hodny and Smith
disqualified.
Mr. Vicknair and the 14 other plaintiffs appealed from a
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 and
numerous other defendants.
The 15 plaintiffs in this case were originally part of a group
of individuals who, in December 2002, commenced two lawsuits in
Morton County against manufacturers, sellers, and distributors
of asbestos-containing products, claiming they became ill or
disabled after being exposed to those products. The defendants
are residents of or do business within North Dakota.
The 15 plaintiffs involved in this appeal are residents of
states other than North Dakota and did not claim their asbestos
exposure occurred in North Dakota. The defendants moved to
dismiss the plaintiffs' claims, arguing that North Dakota is an
inconvenient forum to conduct the litigation.
During the proceedings, counsel for the plaintiffs conceded that
13 of the 15 plaintiffs had missed the statute-of-limitations
periods in all jurisdictions except North Dakota when the
actions began in December 2002.
In three separate orders issued in 2005, 2006, and 2007, the
district court granted summary judgment dismissal of the
plaintiffs' claims without prejudice on the basis of forum non
conveniens.
The court's three orders were merged into a judgment in 2008,
and the claims of the 15 plaintiffs were severed from the two
main actions commenced in December 2002.
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded for further
proceedings.
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.
Larry L. Boschee, Esq., of Pearce & Durick in Bismarck, N.D.,
represented Phelps Dodge Industries, Inc.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judgment Upheld in Maynard Case v. Norfolk
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fourth District, Scioto County,
upheld the ruling of a trial court, which favored Norfolk
Southern Railway in a case involving asbestos filed by Mark G.
Maynard.
The case is styled Mark G. Maynard, Plaintiff-Appellant v.
Norfolk Southern Railway, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges William H. Harsha, Peter B. Abele, and Matthew W.
McFarland entered judgment in Case No. 08CA3267 on June 18,
2009.
Mr. Maynard appealed from a judgment on the pleadings in favor
of Norfolk. He contended that the trial court improperly relied
on evidentiary materials outside the pleadings to conclude that
he failed to timely file his complaint under the Federal
Employers' Liability Act (FELA).
On July 7, 2008, Mr. Maynard sued Norfolk, his former employer.
He alleged that as a direct and proximate result of Norfolk's
violations of the FELA and the Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act
(LBIA), he developed pulmonary problems due to exposures to
various toxic substances, including asbestos.
Norfolk filed an answer in which it asserted several affirmative
defenses, including statute of limitations and failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted. Norfolk then moved to
dismiss, arguing that Mr. Maynard failed to state a claim upon
which relief could be granted because his claims were barred by
the FELA's three year statute of limitations.
According to Norfolk, Mr. Maynard discovered his alleged
pulmonary problems and their cause, at the latest, on June 2,
2003 when he sued Norfolk in West Virginia. Norfolk argued that
even if the FELA's limitations period tolled during the pendency
of the West Virginia action, it began to run again on Dec. 18,
2003 when Mr. Maynard dismissed the action by an agreed order.
Therefore, he had to file suit against Norfolk, at the latest,
by Dec. 18, 2006.
Norfolk argued that while Mr. Maynard filed a complaint in
Scioto County, Ohio, on July 18, 2005, he voluntarily dismissed
the suit on July 23, 2007. Therefore, Norfolk contended that Mr.
Maynard had to re-file his suit by Dec. 18, 2006. Mr. Maynard
waited until July 7, 2008 to re-file his complaint.
The trial court found that Mr. Maynard's claim was barred by the
FELA's statute of limitations and that there was "no legal or
equitable basis to circumvent the expired limitations." After
the court granted Norfolk's motion to dismiss, Mr. Maynard filed
this appeal.
The Appeals Court affirmed the trial court's judgment.
Mark T. Wade, Esq., Pittsburgh, and Michael P. Giertz, Esq., of
Hartley & O'Brien, PLLC in Wheeling, W.Va., represented Mark G.
Maynard.
R. Leland Evans, Esq., Aaron M. Shank, Esq., and L. Bradfield
Hughes, Esq., of Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, LLP in
Columbus, Ohio, represented Norfolk Southern Railway.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Leslie Has 1,158 Active Cases at June 2009
---------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc.'s subsidiary, Leslie Controls, Inc.,
as of the end of June 2009, faced 1,158 active, unresolved
asbestos-related claims filed in California, Texas, New York,
Massachusetts, Illinois, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Rhode
Island and 23 other states.
Leslie, as of March 29, 2009, faced 1,103 active, unresolved
asbestos claims. (Class Action Reporter, May 8, 2009)
About 584 of the pending claims at June 28, 2009 involve
claimants allegedly suffering from (or the estates of decedents
who allegedly died from) mesothelioma.
In addition to these claims, Leslie remains a named defendant in
about 4,700 unresolved asbestos-related claims filed in
Mississippi.
During 2007, Los Angeles state court juries rendered two
verdicts that, if allowed to stand, would result in a liability
to Leslie of about US$3.8 million.
Although Leslie accrued a liability during 2007 for each of
these verdicts, both verdicts have been appealed. With respect
to each verdict, the Company said it believes there are strong
grounds for overturning such verdict, significantly reducing the
amount of the award or for requiring a new trial.
In addition, Leslie has recorded US$700,000 in accrued interest
for both adverse verdicts.
Burlington, Mass.-based CIRCOR International, Inc. provides
valves and other highly engineered products and subsystems that
control the flow of fluids safely and efficiently in the
aerospace, energy and industrial markets.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Leslie Records $4M for Insurance at June 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc. says that, as of June 28, 2009, the
aggregate amount of indemnity (on a cash basis) remaining on
subsidiary Leslie Controls, Inc.'s primary layer of asbestos
insurance was about US$4 million.
After giving effect to the Company's accrual for adverse
verdicts currently on appeal, the remaining amount of Leslie's
primary layer of insurance is US$2 million.
Leslie reduced its asbestos insurance recovery receivable by
US$2.1 million in the first quarter of 2009. (Class Action
Reporter, May 8, 2009)
Burlington, Mass.-based CIRCOR International, Inc. provides
valves and other highly engineered products and subsystems that
control the flow of fluids safely and efficiently in the
aerospace, energy and industrial markets.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Spence & Hoke Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos-related claims are still filed against two of CIRCOR
International, Inc.'s subsidiaries: Spence Engineering Company,
Inc. (the stock of which the Company acquired in 1984) and Hoke,
Inc. (the stock of which the Company acquired in 1998).
Due to the nature of the products supplied by these entities,
the markets they serve and its historical experience in
resolving these claims, the Company said it does not believe
that asbestos-related claims will have a material adverse effect
on the financial condition, results of operations or liquidity
of Spence or Hoke, or the financial condition, consolidated
results of operations or liquidity of the Company.
Burlington, Mass.-based CIRCOR International, Inc. provides
valves and other highly engineered products and subsystems that
control the flow of fluids safely and efficiently in the
aerospace, energy and industrial markets.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Faces 2,640 Respirator Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company, as of June 30, 2009, faced respirator mask and
asbestos lawsuits that purport to represent 2,640 individual
claimants.
As of March 31, 2009, the Company faced respirator mask and
asbestos lawsuits that purport to represent 2,680 individual
claimants. (Class Action Reporter, May 8, 2009)
Most of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently
pending against the Company allege use of some of the Company's
mask and respirator products and seek damages from the Company
and other defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace
exposures to asbestos, silica, coal or other occupational dusts
found in products manufactured by other defendants or generally
in the workplace.
A minority of claimants generally allege personal injury from
occupational exposure to asbestos from products previously
manufactured by the Company, which are often unspecified, as
well as products manufactured by other defendants, or
occasionally at Company premises.
On July 6, 2009, after nearly four months of trial in the
Superior Court of Alameda County, Calif., the trial judge
granted the Company's motion to dismiss all claims against the
Company at the end of the plaintiff's case.
The plaintiff, who is suffering from mesothelioma as a result of
his exposure to asbestos, claimed that the Company's respirators
were defective and failed to provide him with adequate
protection and came with inadequate warnings.
The trial judge dismissed all claims against the Company because
the plaintiff failed to prove that a defect in the Company's
respirator or its warnings was a substantial factor in causing
the plaintiff's mesothelioma.
With this dismissal, the Company has prevailed in all nine cases
taken to trial, including seven of the eight cases tried to
verdict (those trials occurred in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004,
and 2007), and an appellate reversal in 2005 of the one jury
verdict adverse to the Company.
St. Paul, Minn.-based 3M Company is a diversified global
manufacturer, technology innovator and marketer of various
products and services. The Company manages its operations in six
operating business segments: Industrial and Transportation,
Health Care, Consumer and Office, Safety, Security and
Protection Services, Display and Graphics and Electro and
Communications.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Records $34M Aearo Liability at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company, through its Aearo Technologies subsidiary, as of
June 30, 2009, has recorded US$34 million as an estimate of the
probable liabilities for product liabilities and defense costs
related to current and future Aearo-related asbestos and silica-
related claims.
The Company, as of March 31, 2009, recorded US$35 million as an
estimate of the probable liabilities for product liabilities and
defense costs related to current and future Aearo-related
asbestos and silica-related claims. (Class Action Reporter, May
8, 2009)
On April 1, 2008, a subsidiary of the Company purchased the
stock of Aearo Holding Corp., the parent of Aearo, which makes
and sells various products, including personal protection
equipment, such as eye, ear, head, face, fall and respiratory
protection products.
As of June 30, 2009, Aearo and other companies that previously
owned and operated Aearo's respirator business (American Optical
Corporation, Warner-Lambert LLC, AO Corp. and Cabot Corporation)
are named defendants, with multiple co-defendants, including the
Company, in numerous lawsuits in various courts. In these cases,
plaintiffs allege use of mask and respirator products and seek
damages from Aearo and other defendants for alleged personal
injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica-related, or
other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other
defendants or generally in the workplace.
Responsibility for legal costs, as well as for settlements and
judgments, is currently shared in an informal arrangement among
Aearo, Cabot, American Optical Corporation and a subsidiary of
Warner Lambert and their insurers (Payor Group).
St. Paul, Minn.-based 3M Company is a diversified global
manufacturer, technology innovator and marketer of various
products and services. The Company manages its operations in six
operating business segments: Industrial and Transportation,
Health Care, Consumer and Office, Safety, Security and
Protection Services, Display and Graphics and Electro and
Communications.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Co. Records $131M Liabilities at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company's liabilities for asbestos or respirator mask claims
were US$131 million as of June 30, 2009, compared with US$140
million as of Dec. 31, 2008.
The Company's liabilities for asbestos or respirator mask claims
were US$133 million as of March 31, 2009. (Class Action
Reporter, May 8, 2009)
The Company's insurance receivables for asbestos or respirator
mask claims were US$173 million as of June 30, 2009, compared
with US$193 million as of Dec. 31, 2008.
The Company's insurance receivables for asbestos or respirator
mask claims were US$180 million as of March 31, 2009. (Class
Action Reporter, May 8, 2009)
As a result of the costs of aggressively defending itself and
the greater cost of resolving claims of persons with malignant
conditions, the Company increased its reserves for respirator
mask or asbestos liabilities by about US$7 million in the second
quarter of 2009 and increased its receivables for insurance
recoveries by about US$2 million related to this litigation.
As a result of settlements reached with its insurers, the
Company was paid about US$8.5 million in the second quarter of
2009 in connection with the respirator mask/asbestos receivable.
St. Paul, Minn.-based 3M Company is a diversified global
manufacturer, technology innovator and marketer of various
products and services. The Company manages its operations in six
operating business segments: Industrial and Transportation,
Health Care, Consumer and Office, Safety, Security and
Protection Services, Display and Graphics and Electro and
Communications.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Continental Case v. 3M Still in Early Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related declaratory judgment action filed by
Continental Casualty and Continental Insurance Co. (both part of
the Continental Casualty Group) remains in its early stages.
On Jan. 5, 2007 the Company was served with a declaratory
judgment action filed on behalf of two of its insurers (the
Continental parties) disclaiming coverage for respirator mask or
asbestos claims.
These insurers represent about US$14 million of the US$173
million insurance recovery receivable.
The action seeks declaratory judgment regarding the allocation
of covered costs among the policies issued by the various
insurers. It was filed in Hennepin County, Minn., and names, in
addition to the Company, over 60 of the Company's insurers.
This action is similar in nature to an action filed in 1994 with
respect to breast implant coverage, which ultimately resulted in
the Minnesota Supreme Court's ruling of 2003 that was largely in
the Company's favor.
At the Company's request, the case was transferred to Ramsey
County, over the objections of the insurers. The Minnesota
Supreme Court heard oral argument of the insurers' appeal of
that decision in March 2008 and ruled in May 2008 that the
proper venue of that case is Ramsey County.
The case has been assigned to a judge in Ramsey County District
Court. The plaintiff insurers have served an amended complaint
that names some additional insurers and deletes others.
St. Paul, Minn.-based 3M Company is a diversified global
manufacturer, technology innovator and marketer of various
products and services. The Company manages its operations in six
operating business segments: Industrial and Transportation,
Health Care, Consumer and Office, Safety, Security and
Protection Services, Display and Graphics and Electro and
Communications.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Coca-Cola Still Disputes Aqua-Chem Demands
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Coca-Cola Company still disputes former subsidiary Aqua-
Chem, Inc.'s (n/k/a Cleaver-Brooks, Inc.) claims over Aqua-
Chem's demands for about US$10 million for out-of-pocket
asbestos litigation-related expenses.
During the period from 1970 to 1981, the Company owned Aqua-
Chem. A division of Aqua-Chem manufactured certain boilers that
contained gaskets that Aqua-Chem purchased from outside
suppliers. Several years after the Company sold this entity,
Aqua-Chem received its first lawsuit relating to asbestos, a
component of some of the gaskets.
In September 2002, Aqua-Chem notified the Company that it
believed it was obligated for certain costs and expenses
associated with its asbestos litigations. Aqua-Chem demanded
that the Company reimburse it for about US$10 million for out-
of-pocket litigation-related expenses.
Aqua-Chem also demanded that the Company acknowledge a
continuing obligation to Aqua-Chem for any future liabilities
and expenses that are excluded from coverage under the
applicable insurance or for which there is no insurance.
The parties entered into litigation in Georgia to resolve this
dispute, which was stayed by agreement of the parties pending
the outcome of litigation filed in Wisconsin by certain insurers
of Aqua-Chem.
In that case, five plaintiff insurance companies filed a
declaratory judgment action against Aqua-Chem, the Company and
16 defendant insurance companies seeking a determination of the
parties' rights and liabilities under policies issued by the
insurers and reimbursement for amounts paid by plaintiffs in
excess of their obligations.
During the course of the Wisconsin coverage litigation, Aqua-
Chem and the Company reached settlements with several of the
insurers, including plaintiffs, who have or will pay funds into
an escrow account for payment of costs arising from the asbestos
claims against Aqua-Chem.
On July 24, 2007, the Wisconsin trial court entered a final
declaratory judgment regarding the rights and obligations of the
parties under the insurance policies issued by the remaining
defendant insurers, which judgment was not appealed.
The judgment directs that each insurer whose policy is triggered
is jointly and severally liable for 100 percent of Aqua-Chem's
losses up to policy limits.
The Georgia litigation remains subject to the stay agreement.
Headquartered in Atlanta, The Coca-Cola Company manufactures,
distributes, and markets nonalcoholic beverage concentrates and
syrups. The Company markets four of the world's top five
nonalcoholic sparkling brands, including Diet Coke, Fanta and
Sprite.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: District Court OKs Dennis' Motion to Remand
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Northern District of California,
granted William Dennis and Joanne Dennis' motion to remand an
asbestos case filed against Foster Wheeler LLC.
The case is styled William Dennis and Joanne Dennis, Plaintiffs
v. Allis-Chalmers Corporation Product Liability Trust, et al.,
Defendants.
District Judge Jeffrey S. White entered judgment in Case No. C
09-02363 JSW on June 26, 2009.
This matter was set for a hearing on July 31, 2009 at 9:00 a.m.
on Plaintiffs' motion to remand. On June 5, 2009, the Court
ordered that an opposition to the motion was due to be filed by
no later than June 19, 2009 and a reply brief filed by no later
than June 26, 2009.
The Court has received no opposition to the motion and found the
motion appropriate for decision without oral argument.
Accordingly, the Court vacated the hearing date of July 31,
2009. The Court granted the motion to remand.
On April 6, 2009, the Dennises filed the complaint in this
action in the Superior Court for the State of California, County
of San Francisco, alleging state law claims arising out of
exposure to asbestos.
On May 28, 2009, Foster Wheeler removed the action to district
court. No other defendant joined in Foster Wheeler's notice of
removal or asserted any other ground for removal jurisdiction.
On June 1, 2009, the Dennises dismissed their complaint against
Foster Wheeler.
The Dennises alleged no federal claims, and no defendant except
Foster Wheeler had yet appeared, the Court found it appropriate
to remand the action to state court.
The action was remanded to the Superior Court in the State of
California in and for the County of San Francisco.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crum & Forster Has $380.19M in Losses, ALAE
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crum & Forster Holdings Corp.'s gross unpaid losses and
allocated loss adjustment expense for asbestos claims were
US$380,196,000 during the three and six months ended June 30,
2009, compared with US$421,617,000 during the three and six
months ended June 30, 2008.
The Company's net unpaid losses and ALAE for asbestos claims
were US$266,525,000 during the three and six months ended June
30, 2009, compared with US$339,268,000 during the three and six
months ended June 30, 2008.
The Company's net unpaid losses and ALAE for asbestos exposures
were US$277,024,000 during the three months ended March 31,
2009, compared with US$351,016,000 during the three months ended
March 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, May 8, 2009)
The Company has exposure to asbestos and environmental claims
arising from the sale of general liability, commercial multi-
peril and umbrella insurance policies, the majority of which
were written for accident years 1985 and prior.
For the three and six months ended June 30, 2009, the Company
reported favorable prior years' loss development as compared to
adverse loss development in the corresponding 2008 periods. The
adverse loss development in 2008 was primarily attributable to a
loss on commutation of a finite reinsurance contract of
US$75,470,000 in the second quarter.
In addition, for the six months ended June 30, 2008, prior year
loss development was also adversely impacted by a US$25,500,000
loss attributable to the settlement of an asbestos lawsuit.
Losses and LAE paid related to prior years for the three and six
months ended June 30, 2008 includes proceeds from the
aforementioned commutation of US$302,500,000.
Morristown, N.J.-based Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. offers
commercial property and casualty insurance distributed through
an independent producer force located across the United States.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kaiser Records $3.4M Retirement Obligations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation's estimated fair value of
conditional asset retirement obligations (CAROs), including for
asbestos, at June 30, 2009 was US$3.4 million.
The Company's estimated fair value of CAROs, including for
asbestos, at March 31, 2009 was US$3.3 million. (Class Action
Reporter, May 8, 2009)
The Company has CAROs at several of its fabricated products
facilities. The vast majority of such CAROs consist of
incremental costs that would be associated with the removal and
disposal of asbestos (all of which is believed to be fully
contained and encapsulated within walls, floors, ceilings, or
piping) at certain of the older plants if such plants were to
undergo major renovation or be demolished.
No plans currently exist for any renovation or demolition of
those facilities and the Company's current assessment is that
the most probable scenarios are that no material CARO will be
triggered for 20 or more years.
Foothill Ranch, Calif.-based Kaiser Aluminum Corporation
manufactures semi-fabricated specialty aluminum products for
aerospace/high strength, general engineering and custom
automotive and industrial applications. The Company has two
reportable operating segments: Fabricated Products and Primary
Aluminum, and a Corporate segment.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Old Republic Reserve at $142.5MM in June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International Corporation's net asbestos and
environmental claim reserves were US$142.5 million at June 30,
2009, compared with US$145 million at Dec. 31, 2008.
The Company's net A&E claim reserves were US$142.6 million at
March 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, May 1, 2009)
The Company's gross A&E claim reserves were US$180.4 million at
June 30, 2009, compared with US$172.4 million at Dec. 31, 2008.
Chicago-based Old Republic International Corporation is an
insurance underwriter. It conducts its operations through
regulated insurance company subsidiaries organized into three
major segments, namely its General Insurance (property and
liability insurance), Mortgage Guaranty and Title Insurance
Groups.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tennessee Valley's Expenses Still at $8Mil
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee Valley Authority's accretion expense related to coal-
fired and gas/oil combustion turbine plants, asbestos, and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) remained at US$8 million during
the third quarter of 2009.
During the second quarter of fiscal 2009, the Company recorded
an accretion expense of US$8 million related to coal-fired and
gas/oil combustion turbine plants, asbestos, and PCBs. (Class
Action Reporter, May 15, 2009)
During the third quarter of 2009, the Company's total asset
retirement obligation (ARO) liability increased $33 million due
to accretion.
The nuclear accretion expense of US$25 million and the US$8
million were deferred and charged to a regulatory asset.
However, as amounts about equal to the non-nuclear accretion and
depreciation were collected in rates during 2009, non-nuclear
accretion and depreciation were expensed.
Knoxville, Tenn.-based Tennessee Valley Authority is a publicly-
owned power producer in the United States, with more than 35,000
MW of generating capacity. Its facilities include 11 fossil-
powered plants, 29 hydroelectric dams, three nuclear plants, and
six combustion turbine plants.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Parsons Case v. Reynolds Units Still Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos lawsuit, pending in a West Virginia court and filed
against Reynolds American Inc. subsidiaries: R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co. and Brown & Williamson Holdings Inc., is still
stayed.
In Parsons v. A C & S, Inc., a case filed in February 1998 in
Circuit Court, Ohio County, W.Va., the plaintiff sued asbestos
manufacturers, U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR
Tobacco and B&W, and parent companies of U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including RJR.
The suit seeks to recover US$1 million in compensatory and
punitive damages individually and an unspecified amount for the
class in both compensatory and punitive damages. The class was
brought on behalf of persons who allegedly have personal injury
claims arising from their exposure to respirable asbestos fibers
and cigarette smoke.
The plaintiffs allege that Mrs. Parsons' use of tobacco products
and exposure to asbestos products caused her to develop lung
cancer and to become addicted to tobacco. The case has been
stayed pending a final resolution of the plaintiffs' motion to
refer tobacco litigation to the judicial panel on multi-district
litigation filed in In re: Tobacco Litigation in the Supreme
Court of Appeals of West Virginia.
On Dec. 26, 2000, three defendants, Nitral Liquidators, Inc.,
Desseaux Corporation of North American and Armstrong World
Industries, filed bankruptcy petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware, In re Armstrong World
Industries, Inc.
Under section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, Parsons is
automatically stayed with respect to all defendants.
Winston-Salem, N.C.-based Reynolds American Inc. makes
cigarettes and tobacco. Its wholly owned subsidiaries include
its operating subsidiaries, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company;
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; Lane, Limited; R. J.
Reynolds Global Products, Inc.; and Conwood Company, LLC,
Conwood Sales Co., LLC, Scott Tobacco LLC and Rosswil LLC.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Still Has 50T Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Crown Cork & Seal Company,
Inc., still faced 50,000 outstanding asbestos claims during the
six months ended June 30, 2009.
During the six months ended June 30, 2009, Crown Cork received
about 1,000 new claims and settled or dismissed about 1,000
claims for a total of US$5 million.
Crown Cork faced 50,000 outstanding asbestos-related claims at
March 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, May 15, 2009)
Crown Cork is one of many defendants in lawsuits filed
throughout the United States by persons alleging bodily injury
as a result of exposure to asbestos. These claims arose from the
insulation operations of a U.S. company, the majority of whose
stock Crown Cork bought in 1963. About 90 days after the stock
purchase, this U.S. company sold its insulation assets and later
merged into Crown Cork.
Prior to 1998, amounts paid to asbestos claimants were covered
by a fund made available to Crown Cork under a 1985 settlement
with carriers insuring Crown Cork through 1976, when Crown Cork
became self-insured. The fund was depleted in 1998 and the
Company has no remaining coverage for asbestos-related costs.
During 2009, the States of Indiana, North Dakota, Oklahoma and
Wisconsin enacted legislation that limits asbestos-related
liabilities under state law of companies such as Crown Cork that
allegedly incurred these liabilities because they are successors
by corporate merger to companies that had been involved with
asbestos.
The outstanding claims at June 30, 2009 exclude 33,000 pending
claims involving plaintiffs who allege that they are maritime
workers subject to exposure to asbestos. The outstanding claims
also exclude about 19,000 inactive claims.
Of the 50,000 claims outstanding at the end of 2008, about 96
percent were filed by plaintiffs who do not claim a specific
amount of damages or claim a minimum amount as established by
court rules relating to jurisdiction; about two percent were
filed by plaintiffs who claim damages of less than US$5 million.
About two percent were filed by plaintiffs who claim damages
from US$5 million to less than US$100 million (90 percent of
whom claim damages from US$10 million to less than US$25
million) and one was filed by a plaintiff who claims damages of
US$111 million.
As of June 30, 2009, the Company's accrual for pending and
future asbestos-related claims and related legal costs was
US$192 million, including US$134 million for unasserted claims
and US$1 million for committed settlements that will be paid
over time.
Philadelphia-based Crown Holdings, Inc. produces consumer
packaging; steel and aluminum food and beverage cans and related
packaging are its primary source of income. Other products are
aerosol cans and metal caps, crowns, and closures, as well as
specialty packaging, like decorative novelty containers and
industrial paint cans.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Still Has Suits in Texas Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Crown Cork & Seal Company,
Inc., is still involved in asbestos-related lawsuits in Texas
courts.
In June 2003, the State of Texas enacted legislation that limits
the asbestos-related liabilities in Texas courts of companies
like Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities
because they are successors by corporate merger to companies
that had been involved with asbestos.
The Texas legislation, which applies to future claims and
pending claims, caps asbestos-related liabilities at the total
gross value of the predecessor's assets adjusted for inflation.
Crown Cork has paid more for asbestos-related claims than the
total adjusted value of its predecessor's assets.
In May 2006, the Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals upheld a
grant of summary judgment to Crown Cork and upheld the state
constitutionality of the statute (Barbara Robinson v. Crown Cork
& Seal Company, Inc., No. 14-04-00658-CV, Fourteenth Court of
Appeals, Texas). The Appeals Court decision has been appealed by
the plaintiff to the Texas Supreme Court.
A favorable ruling for summary judgment in an asbestos case
pending against Crown Cork in the district court of Travis
County, Texas (in Re Rosemarie Satterfield as Representative of
the Estate of Jerrold Braley Deceased v. Crown Cork & Seal
Company, Inc., No. 03-04-00518-CV, Texas Court of Appeals, Third
District, at Austin) has been reversed on appeal on state
constitutional grounds due to retroactive application of the
statute.
Although the Company said it believes that the Texas legislation
is constitutional, there can be no assurance that the
legislation will be upheld by the Texas Supreme Court on appeal.
Philadelphia-based Crown Holdings, Inc. produces consumer
packaging; steel and aluminum food and beverage cans and related
packaging are its primary source of income. Other products are
aerosol cans and metal caps, crowns, and closures, as well as
specialty packaging, like decorative novelty containers and
industrial paint cans.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Still Facing Cases in Pa. Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Crown Cork & Seal Company, is
still involved in asbestos-related lawsuits in Pennsylvania
courts.
In December 2001, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted
legislation that limits the asbestos-related liabilities of
Pennsylvania corporations that are successors by corporate
merger to companies involved with asbestos. The legislation
limits the successor's liability for asbestos to the acquired
company's asset value adjusted for inflation.
Crown Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-related
claims than the acquired company's adjusted asset value.
In November 2004, the legislation was amended to address a
Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision (Ieropoli v. AC&S
Corporation, et. al., No. 117 EM 2002), which held that the
statute violated the Pennsylvania Constitution due to
retroactive application.
On Feb. 6, 2009, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed,
due to the plaintiff's lack of standing, the Philadelphia Court
of Common Pleas' dismissal of three cases against Crown Cork
raising federal and state constitutional challenges to the
amended statute (Stea v. A.W. Chesterton, Inc., et. al, No. 2956
EDA 2006).
The plaintiff has requested that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
accept the appeal of this decision.
Philadelphia-based Crown Holdings, Inc. produces consumer
packaging; steel and aluminum food and beverage cans and related
packaging are its primary source of income. Other products are
aerosol cans and metal caps, crowns, and closures, as well as
specialty packaging, like decorative novelty containers and
industrial paint cans.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Caterpillar Inc. Subject to Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Caterpillar Inc. continues to be subject to unresolved legal
actions, including asbestos-related, that arise in the normal
course of business.
The most prevalent of these unresolved actions involve disputes
related to product design, manufacture and performance liability
(including claimed asbestos and welding fumes exposure),
contracts, employment issues or intellectual property rights.
No other asbestos matters were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 31, 2009.
Peoria, Ill.-based Caterpillar Inc. makes construction, mining,
and logging machinery; diesel and natural gas engines;
industrial gas turbines; and electrical power generation
systems. The Company has plants worldwide and sells its
equipment globally via a network of 3,500 locations in 180
countries.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SCC Affiliates Still Party to ASARCO Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Copper Corporation's direct and indirect parent
corporations, including Americas Mining Corporation and Grupo
Mexico S.A.B. de C.V., continue to be parties to litigation
(including asbestos-related) involving Asarco LLC.
In August 2002, the U.S. Department of Justice brought a claim
alleging fraudulent conveyance in connection with AMC's then-
proposed purchase of the Company from a subsidiary of Asarco.
That action was settled under a Consent Decree dated Feb. 2,
2003. In March 2003, AMC purchased its interest in the Company
from Asarco.
In October 2004, AMC, Grupo Mexico, Mexicana de Cobre S.A. de
C.V. and other parties, not including the Company, were named in
a lawsuit filed in New York State court in connection with
alleged asbestos liabilities, which lawsuit claims that AMC's
purchase of the Company from Asarco should be voided as a
fraudulent conveyance.
The lawsuit filed in New York State court was stayed as a result
of the August 2005 Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing by Asarco.
However, on Nov. 16, 2007, this lawsuit after being removed to
federal court was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas in Brownsville, Tex., for resolution
in conjunction with a new lawsuit filed by Asarco's creditors.
On Feb. 2, 2007, a complaint was filed by Asarco on behalf of
Asarco's creditors, alleging many of the matters previously
claimed in the New York State lawsuit, including that AMC's
purchase of SCC from Asarco should be voided as a fraudulent
conveyance. In June 2008 the lawsuit was concluded in
Brownsville, Tex.
The constructive fraudulent conveyance claim was dismissed.
However, the actual fraud and the aiding and abetting the breach
of fiduciary duties counts were favorable to plaintiffs. On
April 15, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas entered a judgment awarding Asarco certain
shares of the Company, which represents about 30.6 percent of
the Company's current outstanding common shares, and an amount
equal to the dividends paid on those shares of common stock of
the Company since the date of their acquisition by AMC, plus
interest.
Grupo Mexico announced that AMC is appealing that judgment and
enforcement of the judgment has been stayed pending the appeal.
In 2005, certain subsidiaries of Asarco filed bankruptcy
petitions in connection with alleged asbestos liabilities. In
July 2005, the unionized workers of Asarco commenced a work
stoppage.
In August 2005, Asarco filed a voluntary petition for relief
under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code before the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court in Corpus Christi, Tex.
Asarco's bankruptcy case is being joined with the bankruptcy
cases of its subsidiaries. Asarco's bankruptcy could result in
additional claims being filed against Grupo Mexico and its
subsidiaries, including the Company, Minera Mexico or its
subsidiaries.
Phoenix, Ariz.-based Southern Copper Corporation's business is
the production and sale of copper. In the process of producing
copper, metallurgical by-products are recovered, like
molybdenum, zinc, silver, lead and gold, which the Company also
produces and sells.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ladish Co. Facing 15 Claims in Three States
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ladish Co., Inc., as of Aug. 3, 2009, faces a total of 15
asbestos claims (13 individual claims pending in Mississippi,
one individual claim pending in Illinois, and one individual
claim pending in Wisconsin).
The Company has never manufactured or processed asbestos. The
Company's only exposure to asbestos involves products the
Company purchased from third parties.
Given that the consortium of insurers are handling the defense
of the Company, combined with the lack of actual exposure or
prior negative judgments, the Company has not made any provision
in its financial statements for the asbestos litigation.
Cudahy, Wis.-based Ladish Co., Inc. designs and manufactures
high-strength forged and cast metal components for aerospace and
industrial markets. Jet engine parts, missile components,
landing gear, helicopter rotors, and other aerospace products
generate about 75 percent of the Company's sales. General
industrial components account for the remaining 25 percent.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Has 74,957 Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation faced 74,957 unresolved asbestos
claims at June 30, 2009, compared with 88,694 claims at June 30,
2008, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 3, 2009.
The Company faced 74,802 unresolved asbestos claims at March 31,
2009, compared with 90,184 claims at March 31, 2008. (Class
Action Reporter, May 15, 2009)
The Company is and has been involved in asbestos-related suits
filed primarily in state courts during the past three decades.
These suits allege personal injury resulting from exposure to
asbestos-containing products and frequently seek both actual and
punitive damages.
The alleged claims primarily relate to products that the Company
sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
products located on Company premises, and the Company's
responsibility for asbestos suits filed against a former
subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc.
At June 30, 2009, the Company noted 4,263 claims filed, 5,012
claims settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved, 24,138
claimants with claims against both the Company and Amchem, and
50,819 individual claimants.
At June 30, 2008, the Company noted 6,035 claims filed, 7,663
claims settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved, 28,154
claimants with claims against both the Company and Amchem, and
60,540 individual claimants.
Houston-based Union Carbide Corporation, a subsidiary of The Dow
Chemical Company, produces building-block chemicals like
ethylene and propylene, which are converted into the most widely
used plastics resins: polyethylene and polypropylene.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Cites $893M Claims Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation's asbestos-related liability for
pending and future claims was US$893 million at June 30, 2009,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 3, 2009.
About 23 percent of the recorded liability related to pending
claims and about 77 percent related to future claims.
During the six months ended June 30, 2009, the Company recorded
US$20 million defense costs and US$41 million resolution costs.
During the six months ended June 30, 2008, the Company recorded
US$23 million defense costs and US$68 million resolution costs.
Houston-based Union Carbide Corporation, a subsidiary of The Dow
Chemical Company, produces building-block chemicals like
ethylene and propylene, which are converted into the most widely
used plastics resins: polyethylene and polypropylene.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Coverage Suit Ongoing in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation's asbestos-related comprehensive
insurance coverage is still ongoing in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, County of New York.
In September 2003, the Company filed the coverage case, seeking
to confirm its rights to insurance for various asbestos claims
and to facilitate an orderly and timely collection of insurance
proceeds.
This lawsuit was filed against insurers that are not signatories
to the Wellington Agreement and do not otherwise have agreements
in place with the Corporation regarding their asbestos-related
insurance coverage, in order to facilitate an orderly resolution
and collection of those insurance policies and to resolve issues
that the insurance carriers may raise.
Although the lawsuit is continuing, through the end of the
second quarter of 2009, the Company had reached settlements with
several of the carriers involved in this litigation.
Houston-based Union Carbide Corporation, a subsidiary of The Dow
Chemical Company, produces building-block chemicals like
ethylene and propylene, which are converted into the most widely
used plastics resins: polyethylene and polypropylene.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide's June 30 Receivable at $403M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation's receivable for insurance recoveries
related to its asbestos liability was US$403 million at both
June 30, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2008.
At June 30, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2008, all of the receivable for
insurance recoveries was related to insurers that are not
signatories to the Wellington Agreement and do not otherwise
have agreements in place regarding their asbestos-related
insurance coverage.
At June 30, 2009, the Company had a total of US$262 million in
receivables for defense and resolution, of which US$23 million
related to defense and US$239 million related to resolution.
Houston-based Union Carbide Corporation, a subsidiary of The Dow
Chemical Company, produces building-block chemicals like
ethylene and propylene, which are converted into the most widely
used plastics resins: polyethylene and polypropylene.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Eastbourne Local's Death Linked to Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of Anthony John Coffey, a 62-
year-old theater designer from Eastbourne, England, was linked
to exposure to asbestos, the Eastbourne Herald Gazette reports.
Mr. Coffey died at his home address on Feb. 5, 2009. The inquest
was held at Eastbourne Magistrates Court on Aug. 4, 2009.
Mr. Coffey's wife, Olivia Coffey, explained she had been married
to him for 32 years but they had separated in 2007. She said
their relationship was amicable and she knew he had been
receiving treatment for an asbestos-related illness.
Mrs. Coffey also told the coroner her husband had mentioned
working in a building with asbestos years ago.
Elaine Davis, Mr. Coffey's partner of two and a half years, said
he was diagnosed with mesothelioma and had received chemotherapy
at Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton, but had reacted badly
to it and felt he was unable to continue.
Pathologist Dr Hassan El Teraifi carried out a post- mortem at
Eastbourne DGH and found the cause of death to be mesothelioma.
He said no asbestos bodies were found on a small sample of Mr
Coffey's lungs but added, "It is well known that mesothelioma is
almost always caused by asbestos bodies.
Kate Palmer, assistant deputy coroner for East Sussex, held
recorded a verdict of death by industrial disease.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Normandy Veteran's Death Linked to Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of James Peacock, an 86-year-old
veteran involved in the Normandy landings during the Second
World War, was linked to exposure to asbestos, the Sunday Sun
reports.
Mr. Peacock died in July 2008, a year after developing
mesothelioma.
The inquest found that he was exposed to asbestos fibers as a
buildings supply manager for Henry Foster Building Products in
Northallerton, England, between 1967 and 1985.
Mr. Peacock also worked at Henry Foster Building Products, which
later became Ferguson Foster Limited and then Ferguson
International Holdings Limited, which had sites in
Northallerton, Bishop Auckland and Newcastle.
The inquest was told Mr. Peacock used to frequently handle
asbestos sheets which were delivered to the builders' merchants
without any form of protection such as a mask or respirator.
The Peacock family has been campaigning for justice since Mr.
Peacock's death. However, so far they have been unable to trace
the firm's insurers at the time.
Mr. Peacock, from Pocklington, York, England, performed critical
communications tasks for the Second Tactical Air Force during
Operation Overlord and the Normandy landings, ensuring that
inland troops were given the supplies they needed.
Mr. Peacock's family has instructed law firm Irwin Mitchell to
pursue legal action against the firm.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sterlite Revises Bid to Purchase ASARCO LLC
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sterlite Industries (India) Limited, a subsidiary of Vedanta
Resources plc, the London-based FTSE 100 metal and mining group
Limited, has changed its bid to purchase operating assets of
Asarco LLC, according to a Sterlite press release dated Aug. 11,
2009.
The revised consideration includes (a) Cash of US$1.587 billion
and (b) a US$208 million Copper Price Participation Note
(reduced from earlier US$770 million).
The consideration was changed to reflect an increase in copper
prices and to meet the expectations of creditors. Higher cash
consideration also reflects Sterlite's offer of cash in lieu of
the reduction in value of the Copper Price Participation Note
from US$770 million to US$208 million.
Sterlite will also be the beneficiary of 50 percent of the
proceeds from General Unsecured Creditors' interest in a
judgement against Americas Mining Corporation awarded by the
U.S. District Court of Texas, Brownsville Division, once the
General Unsecured Creditors are paid in full including post
petition interest.
Terms of the agreement with asbestos representatives remain
unchanged.
Mumbai, India-based Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd is a non-
ferrous metals and mining company with interests and operations
in aluminum, copper, zinc and lead and Power.
Tucson, Ariz.-based ASARCO LLC is an integrated copper mining,
smelting and refining company with about 2,600 employees. The
Company operates mines, mills and a smelter in Arizona and a
smelter and refinery in Texas.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Armstrong Comments on Sale of Trust to TPG
----------------------------------------------------------------
TPG Capital announced it has agreed to purchase seven million
shares of Armstrong World Industries, Inc. and economic
interests in an additional 1,039,777 shares, from the Armstrong
World Industries Inc. Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement Trust,
according to an Armstrong press release dated Aug. 11, 2009.
TPG's purchase price per share of US$22.31 is the 20-day
trailing volume-weighted average price through Friday, Aug. 7,
2009. The transaction is expected to be completed during the
next several weeks, and will result in about US$180 million of
proceeds for the Trust.
TPG will initiate a tender offer for 4,435,935 shares (or about
eight percent) of the Company's outstanding shares from
investors unaffiliated with the Trust. The tender, at the same
price per share, will be consistent with certain requirements of
Armstrong's governing documents and commence promptly following
completion of the Trust transaction.
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Michael D. Lockhart, said,
"TPG has a proven record of helping companies increase their
value through operational improvements and by providing an
environment in which the Company can better realize its longer
term strategic potential.
"We believe TPG's involvement should make it easier for AWI to
realize its objective to emerge from the downturn better
positioned than it was when it entered, and to remain solidly
profitable throughout the period."
Lancaster, Pa.-based Armstrong World Industries, Inc.
manufactures and designs floors, ceilings and cabinets. In 2008,
the Company's consolidated net sales totaled about US$3.4
billion.
Fort Worth, Tex.-based TPG Capital is the global buyout group of
TPG, a private investment firm with about US$45 billion of
assets under management and offices in San Francisco, London,
Hong Kong, New York, Fort Worth, Menlo Park, Washington, D.C.,
Melbourne, Moscow, Mumbai, Paris, Luxembourg, Beijing, Shanghai,
Singapore and Tokyo.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Mishandling Probe Ongoing in Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Environmental Protection specialists are
investigating a July 2009 incident at Myrtle Avenue, Fitchburg,
Mass., in which a group of construction workers allegedly
mishandled "asbestos-containing materials" without proper safety
precautions, SentinelandEnterprise.com reports.
City Sanitary Code Inspector Jeffrey Stephens immediately issued
a cease-and-desist order on the property and contacted MassDEP.
MassDEP spokesman Joe Ferson said, "There is no threat of
asbestos exposure to the surrounding properties (in this
instance)."
When Mr. Stephens drove up to the Myrtle Avenue work site on
July 24, 2009, he witnessed workers handling the apparent
asbestos material without any proper removal equipment or
personal safety materials.
Normally, workers wear masks and full body suits to prevent
contamination if the asbestos is in a friable condition, which
means it is loose, broken and in a potentially hazardous state
if it is handled.
Mr. Stephens said he was alerted about the two-family home in
May 2009 and, during his first inspection, cited the property
with having friable asbestos.
Ward 5 Councilor Joseph Solomito said he got some calls from
concerned neighbors in July 2009. He said he drove to the area
and found workers handling the metal piping wearing only gloves
and filling pickup trucks with the materials.
Mr. Stephens said he found a Dumpster with apparent asbestos-
laden material in it, a pickup truck loaded with the material
and scrap pieces of metal with alleged asbestos contamination.
Mr. Stephens alerted police to place a parking boot on the truck
so it would not be removed and covered the area with a large
tarp, posting a warning to keep away.
A licensed asbestos removal contractor was hired to properly
dispose of the material, and it has since been removed and
cleaned. The property owner was charged for the contractor's
work.
Mr. Stephens said the owner, Timothy First, of Concord, Mass.,
recently purchased the house and is apparently attempting to
clean it up to rent the space out.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Viad Fights Back in Modley Lawsuit in W.Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Viad Corp, a defendant in an asbestos suit filed by the estate
of Franklin J. Modley, fights back, alleging the complaint
against it should be dismissed because it had no choice other
than to follow the U.S. Navy's strict specifications when it
manufactured products for a ship, The West Virginia Record
reports.
Viad claims it is not responsible for the asbestos exposure that
Robert W. Modley alleges caused Franklin J. Modley's asbestos-
related disease that led to his death.
In a lawsuit originally filed in Kanawha Circuit Court, Robert
W. Modley says Franklin J. Modley was exposed to asbestos while
working as a boiler tender and technician for the U.S. Navy from
1954 until 1957.
Robert W. Modley named Viad as a defendant in the suit,
believing the business was a successor in interest to Griscom-
Russell Company, which is a defunct company that made
evaporators and fuel oil heaters placed on U.S. Naval vessels in
the 1940s and 1950s, including the ship where Franklin J. Modley
worked, according to the complaint.
However, Viad asserts that no complaint should be filed against
it because it is not successor in interest to Griscom-Russell.
In an affidavit, C.R. Cushing and Company President Charles R.
Cushing corroborates Viad's defense.
Viad removed the Modley complaint to federal court because it is
including federal defenses in its answer to the lawsuit. Viad
denied all of Robert Modley's allegations against it. It says
Franklin Modley's injuries were caused by his mishandling of
products and not by the company's negligence.
Robert Modley's complaint includes punitive damages. Viad is
asking the court to dismiss the Modley complaint against it and
that it recover costs, including attorneys' fees.
R. Scott Lang, Esq., Jeffrey H. Hall, Esq., and Stephen M.
Schwartz, Esq., of Eckert, Seamans, Cherin and Mellott in
Charleston, Va., will be representing Viad.
Victoria Antion, Esq., of Motley Rice in Mt. Pleasant, S.C., and
Cindy J. Kilblinger, Esq., and James A. McKowen, Esq., of James
F. Humphreys and Associates in Charleston, W.Va., will be
representing Robert W. Modley.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court OKs $200,000 Medical Monitoring Award
----------------------------------------------------------------
The New Jersey Appellate Division, on July 31, 2009, affirmed a
jury award of US$200,000 for medical monitoring,
WorkersCompensation.com reports.
The case is styled Sarkozy v A.P. Green, et al., NJ Super A-
0312-07T1 (App Div).
The unnamed injured worker was exposed to asbestos as a
millwright for a paper mill during the years 1956 through 1994
and a Johns Manville for about six months in 1955. He was
diagnosed as having "pleural plaques" on his lungs.
The Court, relying on other judicial precedent, held that the
award of damages for future medical monitoring was "consistent
with well-accepted legal principles" and "the important public
health interest in fostering access to medical testing for
individuals whose exposure to toxic chemicals creates an
enhanced risk of disease."
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ICJL Cites Madison County for Improvements
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois Civil Justice League (ICJL) gave Madison County,
Ill., high marks for improving its transparency and public
access in asbestos cases during a presentation to the county
Judiciary Committee on Aug. 7, 2009, The Madison St. Clair
Record reports.
According to ICJL president Ed Murnane and ICJL vice president
Al Adomite, Madison County is no longer a judicial "hell-hole,"
a title that the American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) had
bestowed a few years ago due to the county's swollen civil court
dockets.
Madison County Circuit Judges Barbara Crowder and Daniel Stack
were on hand for the meeting and were praised, along with Chief
Judge Ann Callis for the improvements.
Mr. Adomite and Mr. Murnane presented an analysis of litigation
filings compiled by the ICJL. Mr. Murnane is currently the
chairman of the ATRA.
Mr. Murnane and Mr. Adomite cited St. Clair County as an example
of a county that could improve its court systems, both in case
numbers and openness.
Madison County and neighboring St. Clair County have acquired
the hell-hole reputations in legal circles due to their high
number of asbestos and other civil litigation filings. In 2003,
Madison County had nearly a record number of cases filed.
The analysis of Illinois Supreme Court records used to compile
the presentation's data showed that while 100 other counties
outside of Cook County had an average of about two lawsuits
filed per 1,000 people, Madison had eight filings per 1,000. St.
Clair County was next in line with four filings per 1,000.
Mr. Adomite told those gathered that, if Madison could drop
another 50 cases from its dockets, it would be perfectly in line
with the other 100 or so counties forming what he called "the
Downstate average."
According to Mr. Adomite, an asbestos case is 135 times more
likely to be filed in Madison County than in the more heavily
populated Cook County.
After reviewing 469 cases from Madison County, Mr. Adomite
continued, he found 90 percent to be related to asbestos that he
believed lacked a connection to Madison County. Seventy percent
of those filings, he said, seemed to lack an Illinois
connection.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lehigh County Granted $900T for Remediation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency awarded Lehigh County,
Pa., a grant of US$900,000 for asbestos cleanup at the now-empty
headquarters of Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Mesothelioma
reports.
A major renovation project is underway for the 21-storey Martin
Tower site that involves creating residential and retail spaces
for future occupancy. Lewis Ronca and Norton Herrick, the
developers in charge of the project, plan to transform the
former corporate office building into apartments, retail
outlets, office spaces, and parking garage.
In July 2009, the city council of Bethlehem approved acceptance
of a grant from the state government for the project, which
totaled US$1.25 million.
The area has suffered due to the bankruptcy of Bethlehem Steel
in 2001 and its sale in 2003 as well as the global economic
downturn in 2008. The renovation project on the building is
estimated to cost in excess of US$150 million.
The level of asbestos contamination in the building was so
extensive that the asbestos removal and remediation portion of
the project is estimated to run up to almost US$7.5 million by
itself.
Cindy Feinberg, the economic development director for Lehigh
County, said that the asbestos removal was the biggest and most
substantial portion of the remodeling project.
Lehigh County Executive and former mayor of Bethlehem Don
Cunningham said that plans for a quick turnaround of the
remodeling project, including the asbestos remediation, are an
important of re-opening the building for other commercial uses
and re-establishing the local property tax base and stimulating
new job opportunities.
The EPA also offered a grant of US$300,000 to nearby Northampton
County for asbestos remediation and cleanup efforts at a site
the former site of the Bethlehem Steel foundry.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Upholds Board Ruling in Ozbolt
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims upheld the ruling
of the Board of Veterans' Appeals, which denied Bobby W.
Ozbolt's claim for service connection for diabetes mellitus,
hearing loss, and asbestos exposure.
The case is styled Bobby W. Ozbolt, Appellant v. Eric K.
Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.
Judge William A. Moorman entered judgment in Case No. 07-2952 on
June 30, 2009.
The Board also dismissed Mr. Ozbolt's claim for service
connection for a bilateral foot injury and remanded his claim
for service connection for chemical exposure of the hands and
feet. Both parties filed briefs.
Mr. Ozbolt served on active duty in the U.S. Army from March
1950 to March 1953. In August 2004, he filed a claim for service
connection for asbestos exposure, diabetes mellitus, and left
ear hearing loss.
In January 2005, a VA regional office (RO) denied Mr. Ozbolt's
claims. Mr. Ozbolt perfected an appeal of the RO's decision to
the Board. On Sept. 27, 2007, the Board issued the decision.
Mr. Ozbolt appealed.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Records $1.113B Net Reserves at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation's net asbestos reserves were US$1.113
billion as of June 30, 2009, compared with US$1.202 billion as
of Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 3,
2009.
The Company's net asbestos reserves were US$1.151 billion at
March 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, May 8, 2009)
The Company's gross asbestos reserves were US$1.964 billion as
of June 30, 2009, compared with US$2.112 billion as of Dec. 31,
2008.
There was no asbestos-related net claim and claim adjustment
expense reserve development recorded for the six months ended
June 30, 2009. The Company recorded US$6 million of unfavorable
asbestos-related net claim and claim adjustment expense reserve
development for the six months ended June 30, 2008.
The Company paid asbestos-related claims, net of reinsurance
recoveries, of US$89 million for the six months ended June 30,
2009 and US$99 million for the six months ended June 30, 2008.
Chicago-based CNA Financial Corporation provides commercial
coverage, with standard offerings as workers' compensation,
general and professional liability, and other products for
business and institutions. The Company also sells specialty
insurance including professional liability for doctors, lawyers,
and architects, and vehicle warranty service contracts.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: A.P. Green's Confirmation Bid Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation says that several insurers' appeal on
the confirmation of A.P. Green's plan of reorganization
continues to be pending, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug.
3, 2009.
On Feb. 13, 2003, the Company announced it had resolved
asbestos-related coverage litigation and claims involving A.P.
Green Industries, A.P. Green Services and Bigelow-Liptak
Corporation.
Under the agreement, the Company is required to pay US$70
million, net of reinsurance recoveries, over a 10-year period
commencing after the final approval of a bankruptcy plan of
reorganization. The settlement received initial bankruptcy court
approval on Aug. 18, 2003.
The debtor's plan of reorganization includes an injunction to
protect the Company from any future claims. The bankruptcy court
issued an opinion on Sept. 24, 2007 recommending confirmation of
that plan.
On July 25, 2008, the District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy
Court's ruling. Several insurers have appealed that ruling to
the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
Chicago-based CNA Financial Corporation provides commercial
coverage, with standard offerings as workers' compensation,
general and professional liability, and other products for
business and institutions. The Company also sells specialty
insurance including professional liability for doctors, lawyers,
and architects, and vehicle warranty service contracts.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Still Party to Keasbey Lawsuit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation continues to be engaged in insurance
coverage litigation in New York State Court, filed in 2003, with
a defendant class of underlying plaintiffs who have asbestos
bodily injury claims against the former Robert A. Keasbey
Company.
The case is styled Continental Casualty Co. v. Employers Ins. of
Wausau et al., No. 601037/03 (N.Y. County).
Keasbey, currently a dissolved corporation, sold and installed
asbestos-containing insulation products in New York and New
Jersey. Thousands of plaintiffs have filed bodily injury claims
against Keasbey. However, under New York court rules, asbestos
claims are not cognizable unless they meet certain minimum
medical impairment standards.
Since 2002, when these court rules were adopted, a small portion
of those claims have met medical impairment criteria under New
York court rules and as to the remaining claims, Keasbey's
involvement at a number of work sites is a highly contested
issue.
The Company issued Keasbey primary policies for 1970-1987 and
excess policies for 1971-1978. The Company has paid an amount
substantially equal to the policies' aggregate limits for
products and completed operations claims in the confirmed CNA
policies.
Claimants against Keasbey allege that the Company owes coverage
under sections of the policies not subject to the aggregate
limits. In the litigation, the Company and the claimants seek
declaratory relief as to the interpretation of various policy
provisions.
On Dec. 30, 2008, a New York appellate court entered a unanimous
decision in favor of the Company on multiple alternative grounds
including findings that claims arising out of Keasbey's asbestos
insulating activities are included within the products
hazard/completed operations coverage, which has been exhausted;
and that the defendant claimant class is subject to the
affirmative defenses that the Company may have had against
Keasbey, barring all coverage claims.
The claimants have sought further appellate review of the
decision. The New York appellate court denied leave to appeal to
the Court of Appeals.
The Claimants have sought leave to appeal directly from the
Court of Appeals and the decision whether to accept appeal is
pending.
Chicago-based CNA Financial Corporation provides commercial
coverage, with standard offerings as workers' compensation,
general and professional liability, and other products for
business and institutions. The Company also sells specialty
insurance including professional liability for doctors, lawyers,
and architects, and vehicle warranty service contracts.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Burns & Roe Plan Confirmation OK'd June 15
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation says that, on June 15, 2009, the
confirmation order of Burns & Roe Enterprises, Inc.'s Fourth
Amended Plan of Reorganization became final and may not be
appealed.
The Company has insurance coverage disputes related to asbestos
bodily injury claims against Burns & Roe, a bankrupt insured.
These disputes are currently part of coverage litigation (stayed
in view of the bankruptcy) and an adversary proceeding in In re:
Burns & Roe Enterprises, Inc., pending in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of New Jersey, No. 00-41610.
Burns & Roe provided engineering and related services in
connection with construction projects.
At the time of its bankruptcy filing, on Dec. 4, 2000, Burns &
Roe asserted that it faced about 11,000 claims alleging bodily
injury resulting from exposure to asbestos as a result of
construction projects in which Burns & Roe was involved.
The Company allegedly provided primary liability coverage to
Burns & Roe from 1956-1969 and 1971-1974, along with certain
project-specific policies from 1964-1970. In September 2007, the
Company entered into an agreement with Burns & Roe, the Official
Committee of Unsecured Creditors appointed by the Bankruptcy
Court and the Future Claims Representative (Addendum), which
provides that claims allegedly covered by CNA policies will be
adjudicated in the tort system, with any coverage disputes
related to those claims to be decided in coverage litigation.
With the approval of the Bankruptcy Court, Burns & Roe included
the Addendum as part of its Fourth Amended Plan, which was
confirmed on Feb. 23, 2009.
Chicago-based CNA Financial Corporation provides commercial
coverage, with standard offerings as workers' compensation,
general and professional liability, and other products for
business and institutions. The Company also sells specialty
insurance including professional liability for doctors, lawyers,
and architects, and vehicle warranty service contracts.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Units Still Facing Inactive Tex. Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Inactive asbestos-related cases are still pending against CNA
Financial Corporation subsidiaries in Texas courts.
About 80 lawsuits were filed in Texas beginning in 2002, against
two CNA companies and numerous other insurers and non-insurer
corporate defendants asserting liability for failing to warn of
the dangers of asbestos (e.g. Boson v. Union Carbide Corp.,
(Nueces County, Tex.).
During 2003, several of the Texas suits were dismissed and while
certain of the Texas courts' rulings were appealed, plaintiffs
later dismissed their appeals. A different Texas court, however,
denied similar motions seeking dismissal.
After that court denied a related challenge to jurisdiction, the
insurers transferred the case to a state multi-district
litigation court in Harris County charged with handling asbestos
cases. In February 2006, the insurers petitioned the appellate
court in Houston for an order of mandamus, requiring the multi-
district litigation court to dismiss the case on jurisdictional
and substantive grounds.
On Feb. 29, 2008, the appellate court denied the insurers'
mandamus petition on procedural grounds, but did not reach a
decision on the merits of the petition. Instead, the appellate
court allowed to stand the multi-district litigation court's
determination that the case remained on its inactive docket and
that no further action can be taken unless qualifying reports
are filed or the filing of such reports is waived.
With respect to the cases that are still pending in Texas, in
June 2008, plaintiffs in the only active case dropped the
remaining CNA company from that suit, leaving only inactive
cases against CNA companies.
In those inactive cases, numerous factual and legal issues
remain to be resolved that are critical to the final result.
Chicago-based CNA Financial Corporation provides commercial
coverage, with standard offerings as workers' compensation,
general and professional liability, and other products for
business and institutions. The Company also sells specialty
insurance including professional liability for doctors, lawyers,
and architects, and vehicle warranty service contracts.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Confirmation Hearing Set to Sept. '09
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation says that the second phase of the
confirmation hearing of W. R. Grace & Co.'s Plan of
Reorganization begins in September 2009.
On March 22, 2002, a direct action was filed in Montana by eight
individual plaintiffs (all Grace employees) and their spouses
against the Company, Maryland Casualty and the State of Montana.
The case is styled Pennock, et al. v. Maryland Casualty, et al.
and was filed in the First Judicial District Court of Lewis &
Clark County, Mont.
This action alleges that the carriers failed to warn of or
otherwise protect Grace employees from the dangers of asbestos
at a W. R. Grace vermiculite mining facility in Libby, Mont. The
Montana direct action is currently stayed because of Grace's
pending bankruptcy.
On April 7, 2008, Grace announced a settlement in principle with
the asbestos personal injury claimants committee subject to
confirmation of a plan of reorganization by the bankruptcy
court.
The confirmation hearing is held in two phases. The first was
held in June 2009.
Chicago-based CNA Financial Corporation provides commercial
coverage, with standard offerings as workers' compensation,
general and professional liability, and other products for
business and institutions. The Company also sells specialty
insurance including professional liability for doctors, lawyers,
and architects, and vehicle warranty service contracts.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Cable Facing 34,678 Cases at July 3
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Cable Corporation, as of July 3, 2009, faced a total of
34,678 asbestos cases (1,128 cases were non-maritime and 33,550
cases were maritime) in various jurisdictions throughout the
United States.
The Company faced 34,692 asbestos cases as of April 3, 2009, of
which 1,159 cases were non-maritime and 33,533 were maritime
cases. (Class Action Reporter, May 22, 2009)
Company subsidiaries have been named as defendants in lawsuits
alleging exposure to asbestos in products manufactured by the
Company.
The Company has accrued, on a gross basis, about US$4.8 million
as of July 3, 2009 and US$5 million as of Dec. 31, 2008 of
insurance recoveries for these suits. The Company has recorded
about US$500,000 of insurance recoveries for these suits.
Highland Heights, Ky.-based General Cable Corporation develops,
designs, manufactures, markets and distributes copper, aluminum
and fiber optic wire and cable products. The Company manages its
operations based on three geographical reportable segments: 1)
North America, 2) Europe and North Africa and 3) Rest of World.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ITT Corp. Facing 102,227 Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corporation, as of June 30, 2009, faced 102,227 open
asbestos-related claims filed against it, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Aug. 3, 2009.
As of March 31, 2009, the Company faced 102,577 open asbestos
claims. (Class Action Reporter, May 1, 2009)
The Company, including its subsidiary Goulds Pumps, Inc., has
been joined as a defendant with numerous other companies in
product liability lawsuits alleging injury due to asbestos.
These claims allege that the Company's products sold prior to
1985 contained a part manufactured by a third party, e.g., a
gasket, which contained asbestos. The asbestos was encapsulated
in the gasket (or other) material and was non-friable.
In certain other cases, it is alleged that former ITT companies
were distributors for other manufacturers' products that may
have contained asbestos.
During the first six months of 2009, the Company resolved 2,970
claims and recorded 2,191 claims filed.
The Company's estimated accrued costs, net of expected insurance
recoveries, for the resolution of all pending claims, were
US$29.4 million as of June 30, 2009 and US$27.6 million as of
Dec. 31, 2008.
White Plains, N.Y.-based ITT Corporation designs, manufactures,
and sells engineered products. The Company also provides related
services.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Facing 203 Pending Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation faced 203 pending asbestos claims as of June
30, 2009, compared with 163 pending claims as of Dec. 31, 2008,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 4, 2009.
The Company faced 185 pending asbestos claims as of March 31,
2009. (Class Action Reporter, May 8, 2009)
The Company did not mine, mill, manufacture or market asbestos.
Rather, it made some limited products, which contained
encapsulated asbestos. Those products were provided to
industrial users. The Company stopped manufacturing these
products in 1987.
The Company has been named in asbestos litigation primarily in
Illinois, Pennsylvania and Mississippi.
Of the 203 claims pending as of June 30, 2009, 61 claims do not
specify the amount of damages sought, 138 claims cite
jurisdictional amounts, and four claims (or about two percent of
the pending claims) specify the amount of damages sought not
based on jurisdictional requirements.
Of these four claims, one claim alleges compensatory and
punitive damages of US$20 million; one claim alleges
compensatory and punitive damages of US$1 million and an
unspecified amount of exemplary damages, interest and costs; and
two claims allege compensatory damages of US$65 million and
punitive damages of US$60 million. These four claims name from
nine to 76 defendants.
In the six month period ended June 30, 2009, the Company was
able to have 31 claims dismissed and settled seven claims. For
the full year 2008, about 83 claims were dismissed and four were
settled. Most of the costs have been paid by the Company's
insurance carriers, including the costs associated with the
small number of cases that have been settled.
Those settlements totaled US$2.1 million for the first half of
2009, compared with US$1.5 million for the full year 2008.
Rogers, Conn.-based Rogers Corporation develops and manufactures
high performance, specialty-material-based products for
applications including: portable communications, communications
infrastructure, computer and office equipment, consumer
products, ground transportation, aerospace and defense.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MeadWestvaco Facing 600 Lawsuits at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
MeadWestvaco Corporation, as of June 30, 2009, faced 600
outstanding asbestos lawsuits, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Aug. 5, 2009.
As of March 31, 2009, the Company faced 630 asbestos-related
lawsuits. (Class Action Reporter, May 22, 2009)
As with numerous other large industrial companies, the Company
has been named a defendant in asbestos-related personal injury
litigation. Typically, these suits also name many other
corporate defendants.
All of the claims against the Company resolved to date have been
concluded before trial, either through dismissal or through
settlement with payments to the plaintiff that are not material
to the Company. To date, the costs resulting from the
litigation, including settlement costs, have not been
significant.
At June 30, 2009, the Company had recorded litigation
liabilities of about US$18 million, a significant portion of
which relates to asbestos.
Glen Allen, Va.-based MeadWestvaco Corporation provides
packaging solutions to many of the world's brands in the
healthcare, personal and beauty care, food, beverage, tobacco,
home and garden, and media and entertainment industries. The
Company's other business operations serve the consumer and
office products, specialty chemicals, forestry and real estate
markets.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. CBS Decrease to 64,480 at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation faced 64,480 pending asbestos claims as of June
30, 2009, compared with 68,520 claims as of Dec. 31, 2008 and
73,940 claims as of June 30, 2008.
The Company faced 67,540 asbestos claims as of March 31, 2009,
compared with 72,870 claims as of March 31, 2008. (Class Action
Reporter, May 22, 2009)
The Company is a defendant in lawsuits claiming various personal
injuries related to asbestos and other materials, which
allegedly occurred principally as a result of exposure caused by
various products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor,
generally prior to the early 1970s. Westinghouse was neither a
producer nor a manufacturer of asbestos.
The Company is typically named as one of a large number of
defendants in both state and federal cases. In the majority of
asbestos lawsuits, the plaintiffs have not identified which of
the Company's products is the basis of a claim.
Claims against the Company in which a product has been
identified principally relate to exposures allegedly caused by
asbestos-containing insulating material in turbines sold for
power-generation, industrial and marine use, or by asbestos
containing grades of decorative micarta, a laminate used in
commercial ships.
During the second quarter of 2009, the Company received about
930 new claims and closed or moved to an inactive docket about
3,990 claims.
New York-based CBS Corporation is comprised of the following
segments: Television, Radio, Outdoor, Interactive, and
Publishing.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 512 Claims Ongoing v. Constellation & BGE
----------------------------------------------------------------
Constellation Energy, Inc. and its subsidiary, Baltimore Gas and
Electric Company (BGE) face 512 asbestos-related claims.
These claims were filed by individuals who were never employees
of BGE or the Company and these claims each seek several million
dollars in compensatory and punitive damages.
Since 1993, BGE and certain Company subsidiaries have been
involved in several actions concerning asbestos. The actions are
based upon the theory of "premises liability," alleging that BGE
and the Company knew of and exposed individuals to an asbestos
hazard. In addition to BGE and the Company, numerous other
parties are defendants in these cases.
Cross-claims and third-party claims brought by other defendants
may also be filed against BGE and the Company in these actions.
To date, most asbestos claims which have been resolved have been
dismissed or resolved without any payment and a small minority
has been resolved for amounts that were not material to the
Company's financial results.
Baltimore-based Constellation Energy Group, Inc. is an energy
company that conducts its business through various subsidiaries
including a merchant energy business and Baltimore Gas and
Electric Company (BGE).
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bucyrus Int'l. Still Facing Liability Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bucyrus International, Inc. continues to be a co-defendant in
numerous personal injury liability cases alleging damages due to
exposure to asbestos and other substances, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Aug. 10, 2009.
The Company has insurance covering most of these cases and has
various limits of liability depending on the insurance policy
year in question. At the time a liability associated with a case
becomes probable and can be reasonably estimated, the Company
accrues for the liability by a charge to earnings.
For all other cases, an estimate of the costs associated with
the matters cannot be made due to the inherent uncertainties in
the litigation process.
South Milwaukee, Wis.-based Bucyrus International, Inc. designs,
manufactures, and markets high productivity mining equipment for
surface and underground mining.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Boss Holdings Still Facing Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Boss Holdings, Inc. continues to be a defendant in several
lawsuits alleging past exposure to asbestos contained in gloves
sold by one of the Company's predecessors-in-interest, according
to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Aug. 11, 2009.
These actions are being defended by one or more of the Company's
products liability insurers.
Kewanee, Ill.-based Boss Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Boss
Manufacturing Company (BMC), imports and markets gloves and
protective wear sold through mass merchandisers, hardware
stores, and other retailers in the US and Canada. It also sells
its products directly to commercial users in industries like
agriculture and automotive.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: FirstEnergy, Units Facing Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Various lawsuits, claims (including claims for asbestos
exposure) and proceedings are still pending against FirstEnergy
Corp. and its units.
No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Aug. 3, 2009.
Akron, Ohio-based FirstEnergy Corp.'s utilities provide
electricity to 4.5 million customers in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
New Jersey. The Company's domestic power plants have a total
generating capacity of more than 14,120 MW, most generated by
coal-fired plants.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tasty Baking Records $7.2Mil ARO at June 27
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tasty Baking Company's asbestos asset retirement obligation was
US$7.2 million as of June 27, 2009, compared with US$7 million
as of Dec. 27, 2008, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 3,
2009.
The Company's asbestos ARO was US$7.1 million as of March 28,
2009. (Class Action Reporter, May 15, 2009)
The Company has a conditional ARO related to asbestos in its
Philadelphia manufacturing facility. As a result of the
Company's decision to relocate its Philadelphia operations, it
was able to estimate a settlement date for the ARO and recorded
an obligation of US$6.6 million which was the present value of
the future obligation.
This obligation will continue to accrete to the full value of
the future obligation over the remaining period until settlement
of the obligation which is expected to occur in June 2010, while
the capitalized asset retirement cost is depreciated through
December 2044, the remaining useful life of the Philadelphia
manufacturing facility.
The Company recorded US$100,000 during the 13 weeks ended June
27, 2009 and US$200,000 during the 26 weeks ended June 27, 2009
associated with the ARO.
Philadelphia-based Tasty Baking Company produces sweet baked
goods and is an independent baking company. It has two
manufacturing facilities: one in Philadelphia and a second in
Oxford, Pa.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Norfolk Still Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern Corporation continues to be subject to
occupational claims including asbestos-related asbestosis and
other respiratory diseases, as well as conditions allegedly
related to repetitive motion.
These claims are often being asserted by former or retired
employees, some of whom have not been employed in the rail
industry for decades.
No other asbestos matters were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Aug. 3, 2009.
Norfolk, Va.-based Norfolk Southern Corporation controls a major
freight railroad, Norfolk Southern Railway Company. Norfolk
Southern Railway transports raw materials, intermediate
products, and finished goods in the Southeast, East, and Midwest
and, via interchange with rail carriers, to and from the rest of
the United States.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Roper Industries Still Has Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roper Industries, Inc. or its subsidiaries have been named as
defendants in asbestos-related litigation claims.
Over recent years there has been a significant increase in
certain U.S. states in asbestos-related litigation claims
against numerous industrial companies.
No significant resources have been required by the Company to
respond to these cases, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug.
4, 2009.
Sarasota, Fla.-based Roper Industries, Inc. is a diversified
growth company that designs, manufactures and distributes energy
systems and controls, scientific and industrial imaging products
and software, industrial technology products and radio frequency
(RF) products and services.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Winterton Case v. Donaldson & Finch Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos lawsuit filed by the 67-year-old George Winterton
against former employer, Donaldson & Finch (n/k/a Vinaflex
Manufacturing) is ongoing, The Environmental Industry Online
reports.
Mr. Winterton says he was exposed to the asbestos that caused
his mesothelioma while working for Donaldson & Finch from 1966
to 1977.
Mr. Winterton worked with machines wrapped with asbestos fabric
that became worn and frayed and, over time, allowed asbestos
particle to enter the air where anyone nearby could inhale or
ingest them into the body.
"My exposure must have been minimal but, apparently, that does
not matter. The smallest amount is enough. I did not think it
was a dangerous job," Mr. Winterton said.
Mr. Winterton has since filed a lawsuit and seeks damages for
his development of mesothelioma.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MCIC Insurers' Case Denied as Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit against a group of insurance companies for allegedly
misrepresenting the extent of their coverage of MCIC Inc., an
asbestos insulation contractor, cannot proceed as a class
action, Judge W. Michel Pierson has ruled in Baltimore City
Circuit Court.
The decision means that each of the more than 11,000 prospective
plaintiffs will have to be named and their damages must be
evaluated individually if they wish to proceed.
Filed in May 2005, the case alleges that insurers for MCIC
fraudulently understated its insurance coverage in negotiations
leading to a US$12.3 million settlement in 1994.
Although a class action was the plaintiff attorneys' idea,
Arnold M. Weiner, Esq., the most recent lawyer for the vast
majority of the plaintiffs, had become less enthusiastic about
the idea since entering the case in 2008 and said on Aug. 11,
2009 that he is "very pleased" with the ruling.
John Amato IV, Esq., who represents some of the 1,060 plaintiffs
who are not Mr. Weiner's clients, has filed an objection to
Judge Pierson's July 28, 2009 ruling.
"I guess from the standpoint that the plaintiffs had all
requested class certification and the defendants argued against
it, I guess the defendants won that motion," said Louis Grenzer,
Esq., who represents MCIC.
MCIC's insurers are United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.,
Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., Continental Insurance Co.,
Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., Liberty Mutual Insurance
Co., Royal Indemnity Co.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hearing in Mayo Group Case Held on Aug. 12
----------------------------------------------------------------
A pre-trial hearing in an asbestos case filed against Mayo Group
Development, Llc and Worcester Commons LLC was held on Aug. 12,
2009, NECN.com reports.
The case against the Boston-based Mayo Group alleges the Company
illegally disposed of asbestos in a downtown Worcester, Mass.,
building.
A former resident, who did not want her name revealed, said she
lived in the building on Franklin Street in 2006 and 2007 when
construction was underway. She says the material was just thrown
away into a dumpster, and it filled the air of the apartments.
A grand jury indicted Mayo Group and Worcester Commons earlier
in 2009.
*********
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 * * *