/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/091106.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, November 6, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 220
Headlines
DOLLAR THRIFTY: Rental Fee Lawsuit Dismissed on Summary Judgment
DOLLAR THRIFTY: California Court Dismisses "Miller" Suit
DOLLAR THRIFTY: Faces "Dillon" Suit Over Colorado CPA Violations
EQUINIX INC: N.Y. Court Approves Final Shareholder Settlement
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Automotive Filters Suits Still Pending
HONEYWELL INT: Court Grants Summary Judgment for Retirement Plan
MOTOROLA INC: Charging Problem Claims Must Be Filed by March 11
NETFLIX INC: "Nunez" Plaintiff Files Amended Complaint in Calif.
NETFLIX INC: Continues to Face Antitrust Suit Over DVD Sales
NYFIX INC: Inks MOU to Settle "Wissinger" Suit in New York
NYFIX INC: Enters into Settlement Agreement in Minard Suit
NYFIX INC: Wants to Settle New York "Winspear" Lawsuit
ON2 TECHNOLOGIES: Inks MOU to Settle Delaware and New York Suits
TEMPUR-PEDIC: Continues to Defend Securities Fraud Suit in Ga.
VIASYSTEMS INC: Merix Shareholders File Suit Against Merger Deal
WALGREEN CO: Plumbers and Steamfitters' N.D. Ill. Suit Dismissed
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS ALERT: Recon Packaging to Pay GBP8T for Safety Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 23,000 Claims Ongoing v. BorgWarner at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Inc. Still Party to Continental Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens Corning Cites $30Mil for Remaining Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Pays $38.2M for Claims in 3rd-Q.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Still Facing Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Facing 96,700 Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Still Facing Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fairmont Has 22,500 Exposure Claims in 7 States
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Armstrong Accrues $10M Interest on Tax Refunds
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Ind. Still Faces 8,000 Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sensus USA Inc. Still Subject to Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hardie Responds to Comments on Payout Funding
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Facing 1,400 Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. Court Reverses Ruling in Guilder's Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Conair Summary Judgment Bid in Rule Case Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Has $11.6M Current Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Ind. Records $336.3M Long-Term Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Norfolk Southern Subject to Occupational Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coca-Cola Co. Still Disputes Aqua-Chem Demands
ASBESTOS UPDATE: USG Corp. Records $6Mil Tax Benefit in 3rd-Qtr.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mine Safety Still Faces Product Liability Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaiser Aluminum Records $3.4MM AROs at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eight Lorillard Cases Set for Trial at Oct. 26
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leslie Facing 1,143 Pending Claims at Sept. 27
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leslie Records $3.2MM for Insurance at Sept. 27
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Spence & Hoke Still Subject to Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crum & Forster Has $260.37M in Net Losses, ALAE
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tidewater Inc. Still Involved in Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemtura Corp. Still Subject to Liability Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Still Ongoing v. Wabtec, Units
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Liability Remains at $19.64M in Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Still Facing 31T Cases at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Collects $47M Through Sept. 30 for Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Subject to Respirator Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Records $34M Aearo Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Records $126Mil Liabilities at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Has $852.7M Long-Term Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Has $325.40MM Sept. 30 Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Caterpillar Subject to Pending Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goates Case v. 34 Firms Filed Oct. 21 in Texas
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carolina Engineering Worker Awarded GBP140,000
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Neely Action v. DuPont, 20 Other Firms Ongoing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Md. Professor Awarded $20M in Payout on Oct. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Clifton Farms Facing Fines on Safety Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mancuso Brothers Convicted for Envt'l. Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Inspector Penalized for Accepting Bribe
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Corydon Hospital to Cost $800T-$900T
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wood Green Architect's Death Linked to Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Contractor Penalized for Cleanup Breaches
*********
DOLLAR THRIFTY: Rental Fee Lawsuit Dismissed on Summary Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court for Clark County Nevada granted the Dollar
Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in a
purported class action was filed by Walter Schenker, according to
the company's Oct. 26, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2009.
A purported class action was filed by Walter Schenker alleging
that the company is incorrectly calculating the Nevada statutory
recovery fee at Las Vegas International Airport, resulting in an
overcharge to customers, and alleging claims of deceptive trade
practices under Nevada law, unjust enrichment, and injunctive
relief.
The Court granted the company's motion for summary judgment and
entered judgment for the company on Sept. 22, 2009.
The Plaintiff had until Oct. 26, 2009 to file a notice of appeal.
Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. -- http://www.dtag.com/--
through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the business of daily
rental of vehicles to business and leisure customers through
company-owned stores. The company leases vehicles to franchisees
for use in the daily vehicle rental business, sells vehicle
rental franchises worldwide and provides sales and marketing,
reservations, data processing systems, insurance and other
services to franchisees. It owns DTG Operations, Inc., Dollar
Rent A Car, Inc. and Thrifty, Inc. The company has two
additional subsidiaries, Rental Car Finance Corp. and Dollar
Thrifty Funding Corp., which are special purpose financing
entities. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, Dollar and
Thrifty had 741 locations in the United States and Canada of
which 400 were company-owned stores and 341 were locations
operated by franchisees.
DOLLAR THRIFTY: California Court Dismisses "Miller" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action suit in California over insurance rates
against Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., has been dismissed
by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, according to the company's Oct. 26, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.
The class-action suit was filed against the company on June 12,
2008, by Zack Miller and unnamed members of the plaintiff class,
before the U.S. District Court for the Central District Court of
California. The suit is Zack Miller, et al v. DTG Operations,
Inc. d/b/a Dollar Rent A Car, d/b/a Thrifty Car Rental, Dollar
Rent A Car, Inc. Thrifty Car Rental System, Inc.
The lawsuit is an action claiming a violation of California
statute, including selling, soliciting, negotiating, brokering,
and effecting insurance contracts without first seeking or
obtaining approval of the California Insurance Commissioner for
the insurance rates charged, and charging rates which exceed
those approved by the California Insurance Commission.
On Aug. 26, 2009, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss and dismissed the Plaintiff's claims, with prejudice.
Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. -- http://www.dtag.com/--
through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the business of daily
rental of vehicles to business and leisure customers through
company-owned stores. The company leases vehicles to franchisees
for use in the daily vehicle rental business, sells vehicle
rental franchises worldwide and provides sales and marketing,
reservations, data processing systems, insurance and other
services to franchisees. It owns DTG Operations, Inc., Dollar
Rent A Car, Inc. and Thrifty, Inc. The company has two
additional subsidiaries, Rental Car Finance Corp. and Dollar
Thrifty Funding Corp., which are special purpose financing
entities. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, Dollar and
Thrifty had 741 locations in the United States and Canada of
which 400 were company-owned stores and 341 were locations
operated by franchisees.
DOLLAR THRIFTY: Faces "Dillon" Suit Over Colorado CPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., intends to defend a
purported class action complaint styled Susan and Jeffrey Dillon
v. DTG Operations, Inc. d/b/a Thrifty Car Rental Case No.
09CH34874, filed in the Cook County Circuit Court, Chancery
Division, Illinois, according to the company's Oct. 26, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.
On Sept. 22, 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed
by Susan and Jeffrey Dillon, individually and on behalf of all
persons who rented a vehicle from Thrifty Car Rental in Colorado
from Sept. 22, 2006 forward, who signed a rental agreement which
obligated them to pay for loss of use of a vehicle if damaged,
and who were charged for loss of use or an administrative fee
related to the vehicle damage claim.
Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract, violations of
the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, and for declaratory
judgment under the Colorado Uniform Declaratory Judgment Law
related to the assessment of loss of use and administrative fees
in connection with vehicle damage claims against renters.
Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. -- http://www.dtag.com/--
through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the business of daily
rental of vehicles to business and leisure customers through
company-owned stores. The company leases vehicles to franchisees
for use in the daily vehicle rental business, sells vehicle
rental franchises worldwide and provides sales and marketing,
reservations, data processing systems, insurance and other
services to franchisees. It owns DTG Operations, Inc., Dollar
Rent A Car, Inc. and Thrifty, Inc. The company has two
additional subsidiaries, Rental Car Finance Corp. and Dollar
Thrifty Funding Corp., which are special purpose financing
entities. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, Dollar and
Thrifty had 741 locations in the United States and Canada of
which 400 were company-owned stores and 341 were locations
operated by franchisees.
EQUINIX INC: N.Y. Court Approves Final Shareholder Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted final approval to the settlement entered into by Equinix,
Inc. and the plaintiff class in putative shareholder class action
lawsuits, according to the company's Oct. 26, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.
On July 30, 2001 and Aug. 8, 2001, putative shareholder class
action lawsuits were filed against the company, certain of its
officers and directors (the "Individual Defendants"), and several
investment banks that were underwriters of the company's initial
public offering (the "Underwriter Defendants").
The cases were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. Similar lawsuits were filed
against approximately 300 other issuers and related parties.
These lawsuits have been coordinated before a single judge.
The purported class action alleges violations of Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b), Rule 10b-5
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against us and
the Individual Defendants.
The plaintiffs have since dismissed the Individual Defendants
without prejudice.
The suits allege that the Underwriter Defendants agreed to
allocate stock in the company's initial public offering to
certain investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed
commissions and agreements by those investors to make additional
purchases in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.
The plaintiffs allege that the prospectus for the company's
initial public offering was false and misleading and in violation
of the securities laws because it did not disclose these
arrangements. The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount.
On Feb. 19, 2003, the court dismissed the Section 10(b) claim
against us, but denied the motion to dismiss the Section 11
claim.
The parties in the approximately 300 coordinated cases, including
Equinix, the Underwriter Defendants in the Equinix class action
lawsuit, and the plaintiff class in the Equinix class action
lawsuit, reached a settlement.
The insurers for the issuer defendants in the coordinated cases
will make the settlement payment on behalf of the issuers,
including Equinix.
On Oct. 6, 2009, the Court granted final approval to the
settlement.
The time to appeal the final approval decision will run on until
Nov. 5, 2009.
Equinix, Inc. -- http://www.equinix.com/-- provides network-
neutral colocation, interconnection and managed information
technology infrastructure services to enterprises, content
providers and financial companies. Through its International
Business Exchange (IBX) data centers, across 18 markets in North
America, Europe and Asia-Pacific, customers directly interconnect
with a network ecosystem of partners and customers. Its services
comprises colocation, interconnection and managed IT
infrastructure services. Colocation services include cabinets,
power, operations space and storage space for customers'
colocation needs. Interconnection services include cross
connects, as well as switch ports on the Equinix exchange
service. Managed IT infrastructure services helps customers to
leverage Equinix's telecommunications. In February 2008, it
acquired Virtu Secure Webservices B.V. In May 2009, the Company
announced the opening of the second phase expansion of its New
York-4 IBX data center in Secaucus, New Jersey.
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Automotive Filters Suits Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International, Inc., continues to face purported
class-action lawsuits in the U.S. and Canada over allegations
that 12 filter manufacturers engaged in a conspiracy to fix
prices, rig bids, and allocate U.S. customers for after-market
automotive filters.
Initially, a suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut on March 31, 2008, by S&E Quick Lube, a
filter distributor, under the caption, "S&E Quick Lube
Distributors Inc. v. Champion Laboratories, Inc. et al., Case No.
3:2008-cv-00475." It is a purported class-action lawsuit
brought on behalf of direct purchasers who bought filters from
the defendants.
Parallel purported class-action lawsuits, including those on
behalf of indirect purchasers of filters, have been filed by
other plaintiffs in a variety of jurisdictions in the U.S., and
Canada.
The U.S cases have been consolidated into a single multi-
district litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.
The Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) is
also investigating the allegations raised in these suits. The
company continues to cooperate with the DOJ investigation.
No further updates were reported in the company's Oct. 23, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.
The consolidated lawsuit is S&E Quick Lube Distributors Inc v.
Champion Labortories, Inc. et al., Case No. 2008-cv-00475 (Conn.)
(Arterton, J.)
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Kerry R. Callahan, Esq.
Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C.
One State St., Po Box 231277
Hartford, CT 06123-1277
Phone: 860-548-2600
E-mail: krcallahan@uks.com
HONEYWELL INT: Court Grants Summary Judgment for Retirement Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona granted
summary judgment in favor of the Honeywell Retirement Earnings
Plan with respect to the claim regarding the calculation of
benefits in the lawsuit captioned Allen, et al. v. Honeywell
Retirement Earnings Plan, according to Honeywell International
Inc.'s Oct. 23, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.
The suit was filed with the U.S. District Court for the District
of Arizona by members of the company's retirement earnings plan.
The plaintiffs in the suit seek unspecified damages relating to
allegations that, among other things, Honeywell impermissibly
reduced the pension benefits of employees of Garrett Corp., a
predecessor entity, when the plan was amended in 1983 and failed
to calculate certain benefits in accordance with the terms of the
plan.
In the third quarter of 2005, the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on these
claims and in favor of the Honeywell on virtually all other
claims.
The company said it strongly disagrees with, and intends to
appeal, the court's adverse ruling. In September 2006, the court
certified a class.
During the third quarter of 2007, the company agreed to a
settlement in principle with the plaintiffs in this class action.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona gave final
approval to the settlement in February 2008.
Under the terms of the settlement in principle, 18 of the 21
claims alleged by plaintiffs would be dismissed with prejudice in
exchange for approximately $35 million, and the maximum aggregate
liability for the remaining three claims would be capped at $500
million.
Any amounts payable, including the settlement amount, have or
will be paid from the company's pension plan.
In October 2009, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of
the Honeywell Retirement Earnings Plan with respect to the claim
regarding the calculation of benefits.
The suit is Allen, et al. v. Honeywell Retirement Earnings Plan,
Case No. 04-cv-00424 (Ariz.) (Silver, J.)
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Daniel Lee Bonnett, Esq.
Jennifer Lynn Kroll, Esq.
Martin & Bonnett, PLLC
3300 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1720
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Phone: 602-240-6900
Fax: 602-240-2345
E-mail: dbonnett@martinbonnett.com
jkroll@martinbonnett.com
Representing the defendants are:
Michael L. Banks, Esq.
Amy Covert, Esq.
Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP
1701 Market St.
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2721
Phone: 215-963-5387 and 215-963-4749
Fax: 215-963-5001
E-mail: mbanks@morganlewis.com
acovert@morganlewis.com
- and -
Dawn L. Dauphine, Esq.
Osborn Maledon, PA
P.O. Box 36379
Phoenix, AZ 85067-6379
Phone: 602-640-9000
Fax: 602-640-6075
E-mail: ddauphine@omlaw.com
MOTOROLA INC: Charging Problem Claims Must Be Filed by March 11
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rust Consulting, Inc., and Kinsella Media, LLC, caused this
settlement notice in Schweinfurth, et al. v. Motorola, Inc.,
Civil Action No. 05-cv-0024 (N.D. Ohio) (Boyko, J.), to be
published in national newspapers:
If You Purchased Certain Motorola Cell Phones
and Had Difficulty Charging Your Phone,
You May Be Entitled to a Cash Payment.
Please Read This Legal Notice Carefully.
A Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit
against Motorola, Inc. on behalf of consumers who purchased
certain models of Motorola cellular telephones. (A list of the
models that are part of this Settlement is available through the
Web site or toll-free number below.) After final Court approval
of the Settlement, eligible Settlement Class Members may receive
cash payments.
What Is This Case About?
The Plaintiffs claimed that Motorola violated warranties and
consumer protection statutes when it designed, manufactured and
distributed certain cellular telephones containing an allegedly
defective charging port. Motorola denies these claims and
contends that it developed and sold quality products at
reasonable prices. The Court did not decide in favor of the
Plaintiffs or Motorola. Instead, both sides agreed to a
Settlement.
What Can I Get From This Settlement?
If you have one of the covered cell phones, you experienced
a charging problem with your Motorola cellular phone, and the
problem was not caused by misuse, you may submit a claim for
reimbursement. Depending upon the evidence that you submit with
your claim, and other factors, you may be entitled to
reimbursement for the cost of a replacement phone, repairs to
your phone and/or the cost of a replacement charger. For more
details, call the toll-free number or go to the website below.
What Are My Legal Rights?
If you wish to remain a member of the Settlement Class, you
need not take any action. However, in order to receive benefits,
you must file a claim.
If you do not wish to remain a member of the Settlement
Class, you must mail a written request to exclude yourself by
December 26, 2009, to Motorola's counsel:
Mark L. Durbin, Esq.
Wildman Harrold Allen & Dixon LLP
225 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3000
Chicago, IL 60606
How Can I File a Claim?
You must submit your claim to the Settlement Administrator.
A claim form can be obtained by visiting the website or by
writing to the Settlement Administrator at the address listed
below. The deadline for submitting a claim is currently March 11,
2010, but the date may be extended.
A final hearing on the proposed Settlement will be held on
January 25, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Christopher
Boyko in his Courtroom at the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio, which is located at Carl B. Stokes
United States Courthouse, 801 West Superior Avenue, Cleveland, OH
44113-1830.
This is only a summary. For a copy of the Notice and Claim
Form, call 1-800-253-1028, visit:
http://www.motorolaclaimsadministrator.com/
or write:
Settlement Administrator
P.O. Box 9488
Minneapolis, MN 55440-9488
The Plaintiff and Settlement Class is represented by:
David P. Meyer, Esq.
David P. Meyer & Associates Co., LPA
1320 Dublin Road, Suite 100
Columbus, OH 43215
NETFLIX INC: "Nunez" Plaintiff Files Amended Complaint in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Nunez, the plaintiff in a purported class-action lawsuit
against Netflix, Inc., has filed an amended complaint, according
to the company's Oct. 23, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2009.
On April 1, 2009, Jay Nunez, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated in California, filed a purported class action
lawsuit against the company in California Superior Court, County
of Orange.
The complaint asserts claims of unlawful, unfair and deceptive
business practices and violation of the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act relating to certain of the Company's marketing
statements. The complaint seeks restitution, injunction and
other relief.
On July 14, 2009, the company filed a demurrer to the first
amended complaint.
On Aug. 21, 2009, the Court granted the company's demurrer and
granted leave to amend.
Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on Sept. 11, 2009.
Netflix, Inc. -- http://www.netflix.com/-- provides online movie
rental subscription service in the United States to approximately
10 million subscribers. The company offers a variety of plans
and provides subscribers access to over 100,000 digital versatile
disc (DVD) and Blu-ray titles plus more than 12,000 streaming
content choices.
NETFLIX INC: Continues to Face Antitrust Suit Over DVD Sales
------------------------------------------------------------
Netflix, Inc., is facing a purported class-action lawsuit
claiming that the company, along with Wal-Mart Stores Inc., and
Walmart.com USA LLC, colluded to divide the rental and retail
markets for DVDs, thus driving up Netflix subscription prices
allowing Wal-Mart to overcharge for DVD sales.
In January through April of 2009, a number of purported anti-
trust class action suits were filed against the company. Wal-
Mart Stores, Inc. and Walmart.com USA LLC, collectively, Wal-
Mart, were also named as defendants in these suits.
Most of the suits were filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California and other federal
district courts around the country.
A number of suits were filed in the Superior Court of the State
of California, Santa Clara County.
The plaintiffs, who are current or former Netflix customers,
generally allege that Netflix and Wal-Mart entered into an
agreement to divide the markets for sales and online rentals of
DVDs in the United States, which resulted in higher Netflix
subscription prices.
The complaints, which assert violation of federal and/or state
antitrust laws, seek injunctive relief, costs, including
attorneys' fees, and damages in an unspecified amount.
On April 10, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered all cases pending in federal court transferred to the
Northern District of California to be consolidated or coordinated
for pre-trial purposes.
These cases have been assigned the multidistrict litigation
number MDL-2029.
The cases pending in the Superior Court of the State of
California, Santa Clara County have been consolidated.
In addition, in May of 2009, three additional lawsuits were
filed-two in the Northern District of California and one in the
Superior Court of the State of California, San Mateo County-
alleging identical conduct and seeking identical relief.
In these three cases, the plaintiffs are current or former
subscribers to the online DVD rental service offered by
Blockbuster Inc.
The two cases filed in federal court on behalf of Blockbuster
subscribers have been related to MDL-2029.
The lawsuit filed in Superior Court of the State of California,
San Mateo County has been coordinated with the cases pending in
Santa Clara County.
No further updates were reported in the company's Oct. 23, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.
Netflix, Inc. -- http://www.netflix.com/-- provides online movie
rental subscription service in the United States to approximately
10 million subscribers. The company offers a variety of plans
and provides subscribers access to over 100,000 digital versatile
disc (DVD) and Blu-ray titles plus more than 12,000 streaming
content choices.
NYFIX INC: Inks MOU to Settle "Wissinger" Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
NYFIX, Inc., has entered into memorandum of understanding
regarding the settlement of a lawsuit filed with the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, according to the company's
Oct. 23, 2009, Form 8-k filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
In Aug. 26, 2009, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with NYSE Technologies, Inc., and CBR Acquisition Corp.
Under the merger agreement, NYFIX will become a wholly owned
subsidiary of NYSE, and NYFIX stockholders will be entitled to
receive $1.675 in cash for each share of NYFIX common stock that
they own, and $50.134 in cash for each share of NYFIX Series B
voting convertible preferred stock that they own.
Following the announcement of the merger agreement, an action,
styled Wissinger, et al. v. NYFIX, Inc., et al., purporting to
challenge the merger, was filed in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York (County of New York, Commercial Division) on Sept. 2,
2009 (Index No. 650541/09).
The case asserts claims on behalf of a purported class of NYFIX
stockholders against NYFIX, each of its directors, NYSE Euronext
and Warburg Pincus LLC, related to an alleged breach of fiduciary
duty in connection with the merger.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that the NYFIX
directors, aided and abetted by NYSE Euronext and Warburg Pincus
LLC, breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize
stockholder value.
Among other things, the complaint seeks to enjoin NYFIX and its
directors from completing the merger. The complaint also seeks
unspecified monetary damages.
NYFIX, the other defendants and the plaintiffs entered into a
memorandum of understanding dated as of October 23, 2009
regarding the settlement of the lawsuit.
In connection with the settlement, the parties agreed that NYFIX
would make certain additional disclosures to its stockholders
beyond the information provided in the definitive proxy
statement.
Those additional disclosures include:
-- Interests of NYFIX Directors and Executive Officers in
the Merger,
-- Background of the Merger, and
-- Projections.
Following the completion of certain confirmatory discovery by
counsel to the plaintiffs, the parties entered into a stipulation
of settlement. The stipulation of settlement is subject to
customary conditions, including court approval.
If the court approves the settlement, the settlement will resolve
all of the claims that were or could have been brought in the
action being settled, including all claims relating to the
merger, the merger agreement and any disclosure made in
connection therewith.
NYFIX, Inc. -- http://www.nyfix.com/-- provides electronic
trading services, including trading workstations, trade messaging
software, and trade messaging services. In addition, the
company's registered broker-dealer subsidiaries also provide
automated trade execution services to institutional
counterparties and operate a matched-book stock borrow/stock loan
business. NYFIX has three principal operating divisions:
Financial Information eXchange (FIX), Transaction Services, and
Order Management Systems (OMS). The company offers products and
services that are designed to address the needs of Buy-Side and
Sell-Side institutions while providing automatic and seamless
unification of the data-elements of trade-management, trade-
routing, market access, computerized execution, and real-time
transaction analysis. NYFIX cross sells its products and
services across its community of Buy-Side and Sell-Side
institutions, through its operating divisions. On April 4, 2008,
NYFIX acquired FIXCITY Ltd.
NYFIX INC: Enters into Settlement Agreement in Minard Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
NYFIX, Inc., has entered into memorandum of understanding
regarding the settlement of a lawsuit filed with the Delaware
Court of Chancery, according to the company's Oct. 23, 2009, Form
8-k filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
In Aug. 26, 2009, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with NYSE Technologies, Inc., and CBR Acquisition Corp.
Under the merger agreement, NYFIX will become a wholly owned
subsidiary of NYSE, and NYFIX stockholders will be entitled to
receive $1.675 in cash for each share of NYFIX common stock that
they own, and $50.134 in cash for each share of NYFIX Series B
voting convertible preferred stock that they own.
On Sept. 14, 2009, an action purporting to challenge the merger,
styled Minard, et al. v. Warburg Pincus Private Equity IX, LP, et
al., was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery (Case No. 4894-
VCS).
The case asserts claims on behalf of a purported class of NYFIX
stockholders, and names as defendants NYFIX, each of NYFIX's
directors, NYSE Euronext, NYSE, CBR Acquisition Corp., Warburg
Pincus Private Equity IX L.P., Warburg Pincus & Co. and Warburg
Pincus LLC.
The Minard complaint alleges, among other things, that the NYFIX
directors, aided and abetted by the NYSE and Warburg Pincus
defendants, breached their fiduciary duties by failing to
maximize stockholder value.
Among other things, the complaint seeks to enjoin NYFIX and
NYFIX's directors from completing the merger. The complaint also
seeks unspecified monetary damages.
NYFIX, the other defendants and the plaintiffs entered into a
memorandum of understanding dated as of October 23, 2009
regarding the settlement of the lawsuit.
In connection with the settlement, the parties agreed that NYFIX
would make certain additional disclosures to its stockholders
beyond the information provided in the definitive proxy
statement.
Those additional disclosures include:
-- Interests of NYFIX Directors and Executive Officers in
the Merger,
-- Background of the Merger, and
-- Projections.
Following the completion of certain confirmatory discovery by
counsel to the plaintiffs, the parties entered into a stipulation
of settlement. The stipulation of settlement is subject to
customary conditions, including court approval.
If the court approves the settlement, the settlement will resolve
all of the claims that were or could have been brought in the
action being settled, including all claims relating to the
merger, the merger agreement and any disclosure made in
connection therewith.
NYFIX, Inc. -- http://www.nyfix.com/-- provides electronic
trading services, including trading workstations, trade messaging
software, and trade messaging services. In addition, the
company's registered broker-dealer subsidiaries also provide
automated trade execution services to institutional
counterparties and operate a matched-book stock borrow/stock loan
business. NYFIX has three principal operating divisions:
Financial Information eXchange (FIX), Transaction Services, and
Order Management Systems (OMS). The company offers products and
services that are designed to address the needs of Buy-Side and
Sell-Side institutions while providing automatic and seamless
unification of the data-elements of trade-management, trade-
routing, market access, computerized execution, and real-time
transaction analysis. NYFIX cross sells its products and
services across its community of Buy-Side and Sell-Side
institutions, through its operating divisions. On April 4, 2008,
NYFIX acquired FIXCITY Ltd.
NYFIX INC: Wants to Settle New York "Winspear" Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
NYFIX, Inc., has entered into memorandum of understanding
regarding the settlement of a lawsuit filed with the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, according to the company's
Oct. 23, 2009, Form 8-k filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
In Aug. 26, 2009, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with NYSE Technologies, Inc., and CBR Acquisition Corp.
Under the merger agreement, NYFIX will become a wholly owned
subsidiary of NYSE, and NYFIX stockholders will be entitled to
receive $1.675 in cash for each share of NYFIX common stock that
they own, and $50.134 in cash for each share of NYFIX Series B
voting convertible preferred stock that they own.
On Sept. 23, 2009, an action purporting to challenge the merger,
styled Winspear, et al. v. Edelstein, et al., was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York (County of New York,
Commercial Division) (Index No. 602937/09).
The case asserts claims on behalf of a purported class of NYFIX
stockholders, and names NYFIX, each of NYFIX's directors, NYSE,
CBR Acquisition Corp. and Warburg Pincus LLC as defendants.
Like the Wissinger and Minard complaints, the Winspear complaint
alleges that the NYFIX directors breached their fiduciary duties
by failing to maximize stockholder value.
The Winspear complaint also asserts, among other things, that the
NYFIX directors breached their fiduciary duty of disclosure by
making purportedly misleading and incomplete disclosures in the
preliminary proxy statement, dated Sept. 10, 2009, concerning the
merger.
The complaint alleges that NYFIX, Warburg Pincus LLC and the NYSE
defendants aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary
duties by the NYFIX directors. Among other things, the complaint
seeks to enjoin NYFIX and NYFIX's directors from completing the
merger, and unspecified monetary damages.
NYFIX, the other defendants and the plaintiffs entered into a
memorandum of understanding dated as of October 23, 2009
regarding the settlement of the lawsuit.
In connection with the settlement, the parties agreed that NYFIX
would make certain additional disclosures to its stockholders
beyond the information provided in the definitive proxy
statement.
Those additional disclosures include:
-- Interests of NYFIX Directors and Executive Officers in
the Merger,
-- Background of the Merger, and
-- Projections.
Following the completion of certain confirmatory discovery by
counsel to the plaintiffs, the parties entered into a stipulation
of settlement. The stipulation of settlement is subject to
customary conditions, including court approval.
If the court approves the settlement, the settlement will resolve
all of the claims that were or could have been brought in the
action being settled, including all claims relating to the
merger, the merger agreement and any disclosure made in
connection therewith.
NYFIX, Inc. -- http://www.nyfix.com/-- provides electronic
trading services, including trading workstations, trade messaging
software, and trade messaging services. In addition, the
company's registered broker-dealer subsidiaries also provide
automated trade execution services to institutional
counterparties and operate a matched-book stock borrow/stock loan
business. NYFIX has three principal operating divisions:
Financial Information eXchange (FIX), Transaction Services, and
Order Management Systems (OMS). The company offers products and
services that are designed to address the needs of Buy-Side and
Sell-Side institutions while providing automatic and seamless
unification of the data-elements of trade-management, trade-
routing, market access, computerized execution, and real-time
transaction analysis. NYFIX cross sells its products and
services across its community of Buy-Side and Sell-Side
institutions, through its operating divisions. On April 4, 2008,
NYFIX acquired FIXCITY Ltd.
ON2 TECHNOLOGIES: Inks MOU to Settle Delaware and New York Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
On2 Technologies, Inc., has entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle two class action suits, according to the
company's Oct. 23, 2009, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.
Google Inc. entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated
August 4, 2009 by and among Google, Oxide Inc., a direct, wholly
owned subsidiary of Google, and the company. Under the terms of
the merger agreement, Oxide will merge with and into On2, with
On2 continuing as a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Google.
Since the announcement of the proposed merger, On2 has been
served with five purported class action complaints, four filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, which have been
consolidated into a single action, and another filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Queens.
On Sept. 17, 2009, plaintiffs in the Delaware Action filed a
Consolidated Verified Class Action Complaint and plaintiff in the
New York Action filed an Amended Class Action Complaint.
In general, these pleadings allege, among other things, that the
members of the On2 board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties to the stockholders of On2 in connection with negotiating
and entering into the merger agreement and by making materially
misleading disclosures about the merger negotiations and merger
terms in the initial preliminary proxy statement/prospectus and
that Google and On2 aided and abetted in such alleged breaches of
the directors' duties.
Both actions seek similar relief, including, among other things,
declaratory and injunctive relief, including enjoining the
closing of the proposed merger, and also seek damages in an
unspecified amount.
Although On2, the On2 directors and Google believe that the
Delaware Action and the New York Action are entirely without
merit and that they have valid defenses to all claims, to
minimize the costs associated with this litigation, on Oct. 23,
2009, On2 and the On2 directors and the plaintiffs to each of the
Delaware Action and the New York Action entered into a memorandum
of understanding contemplating the settlement of all claims in
each of the Delaware Action and the New York Action.
Under the MOU, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the
putative class, agreed to settle all the aforementioned
litigation and release the named defendants in the actions,
including Google, which is not participating in the settlement,
and their affiliates from, among other things, claims related to
the merger.
Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, On2 agreed to provide
additional supplemental disclosures.
The settlement is contingent upon, among other things, further
definitive documentation, approval of the settlement and the
dismissal with prejudice of the actions by, respectively, the
Delaware Court of Chancery and the Supreme Court of the State of
New York.
The proposed settlement is not in any way an admission of any
wrongdoing or liability in connection with the plaintiffs'
allegations and the On2 directors maintain that they diligently
and scrupulously complied with their fiduciary and other legal
duties.
On2 Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.on2.com/-- develops video
compression technology and technology that enables the creation,
transmission, and playback of multimedia in resource-limited
environments, such as cellular networks transmitting to battery
operated mobile handsets or high definition (HD) video
transmitted over the Internet. The company has developed a
technology platform and the On2 Video VPx family of video
compression/decompression (codec) software to deliver video at
the low data rates over networks and the Internet to personal
computers, wireless devices, set-top boxes and other devices. In
addition, through its wholly owned subsidiary, On2 Technologies
Finland Oy, the company licenses to chip and mobile handset
manufacturers, and other developers of multimedia consumer
products the hardware and software designs that make the encoding
or decoding of video possible on mobile handsets, set top boxes,
portable media players, cameras and other devices.
TEMPUR-PEDIC: Continues to Defend Securities Fraud Suit in Ga.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tempur-Pedic International Inc. continues to defend Jacobs, et
al. v. Tempur-Pedic International, Inc., Case No. 07-cv-00002
(N.D. Ga.) (Vining, J.), a class-action antitrust proceeding.
On Jan. 5, 2007 a purported class action was filed against the
company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, Rome Division. The action alleges violations of
federal antitrust law arising from the pricing of Tempur-Pedic
mattress products by Tempur-Pedic North America and certain
distributors.
The action further alleges a class of all purchasers of Tempur-
Pedic mattresses in the United States since Jan. 5, 2003 and
seeks damages and injunctive relief.
Count Two of the complaint was dismissed by the court on June
25, 2007 based on a motion filed by the company. Then,
following a decision issued by the U.S. Supreme Court in "Leegin
Creative Leather Prods., Inc. v. PSKS, Inc.," on June 28, 2007,
the company filed a motion to dismiss the remaining two counts
of the complaint on July 10, 2007.
On Dec. 11, 2007, that motion was granted and, as a result,
judgment was entered in favor of the company and the plaintiffs'
complaint was dismissed with prejudice.
Commenting on the recent ruling, Anita Nesser, Vice President
and Corporate Counsel of Tempur Pedic, stated, "We are quite
pleased that the court agreed completely with our view that the
plaintiff's allegations were without merit, and dismissed this
case in its entirety," (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 14, 2007).
On Dec. 21, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a "Motion to Alter or
Amend Judgment," which has been fully briefed. On May 1, 2008,
that motion was denied. The Jacobs appealed the dismissal of
their claims, and the parties argued the appeal before the U.S.
Circuit Court for the Eleventh Circuit on Dec. 11, 2008.
The matter has been taken under advisement by the court.
No further updates were reported in the company's Oct. 26, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.
VIASYSTEMS INC: Merix Shareholders File Suit Against Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit has been filed against
Viasystems, Inc., challenging its proposed merger with Merix
Corp., according to the company's Oct. 26, 2009, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2009.
Merix, its board of directors and Viasystems are named as
defendants in a purported class action lawsuit brought by alleged
Merix shareholders challenging Merix's proposed merger with
Viasystems.
The shareholder action was filed in the Circuit Court of the
State of Oregon, County of Multnomah captioned Asbestos Workers
Philadelphia Pension Fund v. Merix Corporation, et al., filed
Oct. 9, 2009, Case No. 0910-14399.
The shareholder action generally alleges, among other things,
that each member of the Merix board of directors breached
fiduciary duties to Merix and its shareholders by authorizing the
sale of Merix to Viasystems for consideration that does not
maximize value to Merix shareholders.
The complaint also alleges that Viasystems and Merix aided and
abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty allegedly committed by the
members of the Merix board of directors.
The shareholder action seeks equitable relief, including to
enjoin the defendants from consummating the merger on the agreed-
upon terms.
Viasystems, Inc. -- http://www.viasystems.com/-- is a worldwide
provider of complex multi-layer printed circuit boards (PCBs) and
electro-mechanical solutions (EMS). The products the company
manufactures include an array of products, including automotive
dash panels and control modules, telecommunications switching
equipment, data networking equipment, household appliances, wind
energy applications, and a range of complex medical and technical
instruments. As of Dec. 31, 2008, the company had six
manufacturing facilities located outside the United States,
including five manufacturing sites in The People's Republic of
China and one in Mexico.
WALGREEN CO: Plumbers and Steamfitters' N.D. Ill. Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action suit against Walgreen Co. has been
dismissed by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, according to the company's Oct. 23, 2009, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2009.
On April 16, 2008, the Plumbers and Steamfitters Local No. 7
Pension Fund filed a putative class action suit against the
company and its former and current Chief Executive Officers in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.
The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of company common
stock during the period between June 25, 2007, and Nov. 29, 2007.
The complaint, which was amended on Oct. 16, 2008, charged the
company and its former and current Chief Executive Officers with
violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, claiming that the company misled investors by failing to
disclose declining rates of growth in generic drug sales and a
contract dispute with a pharmacy benefits manager that allegedly
had a negative impact on earnings.
The U.S. District Court dismissed the suit on Sept. 24, 2009.
Walgreen Co. -- http://www.walgreens.com/-- is engaged in retail
drugstore business. As of Aug. 31, 2009, the company operated
7,496 locations in 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico and Guam. During the fiscal year ended Aug. 30, 2009, the
company opened or acquired 691 locations. Total locations do not
include 337 convenient care clinics operated by Take Care Health
Systems, Inc. within the Company's drugstores. The company's
drugstores are engaged in the retail sale of prescription and
non-prescription drugs and general merchandise. General
merchandise includes, among other things, household items,
personal care, convenience foods, beauty care, photofinishing,
candy, and seasonal items. Walgreens offers customers the choice
to have prescriptions filled at the drugstore counter, as well as
through the mail, by telephone and through the Internet.
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS ALERT: Recon Packaging to Pay GBP8T for Safety Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Trafford Magistrates's Court ordered Recon Packaging to pay a
total of GBP8,000 after the Company pleaded guilty to exposing
construction workers on its premises to asbestos fibers,
packagingnews.co.uk reports.
The Company, based in Ashton-under-Lyne, England, was handed a
GBP3,000 fine and ordered to pay GBP5,000 costs.
The court heard that employees of Industrial & Commercial
Building Services (ICBS), a Stockport-based company, had come
into contact with asbestos while demolishing part of the Recon
Packaging recycling plant in Miles Platting, near Manchester in
2006.
Recon Packaging hired ICBS to carry out the work after the plant
was damaged by fire in May 2005. The court heard that the
building included substantial amounts of asbestos but no site
assessment was carried out, and ICBS was not licensed to remove
it.
Recon Packaging pleaded guilty to a breach of the Control of
Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002 at the hearing on Oct. 27,
2009.
Meanwhile, ICBS and its managing director Kevin Bennett both
pleaded guilty to breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act
1974 and the Asbestos Licensing Regulations 1983 and were both
fined GBP2,000.
The prosecution was brought by the Health & Safety Executive
following a visit by inspector Stuart Kitchingman in April 2006.
Recon's ruling comes three weeks after Noble Gift Packaging was
fined GBP60,000 for exposing members of the public to asbestos
during work at its east London warehouse.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 23,000 Claims Ongoing v. BorgWarner at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. faced about 23,000 pending asbestos-related
product liability claims as of Sept. 30, 2009, compared with
27,000 claims as of Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Oct. 28, 2009.
As of June 30, 2009, the Company faced 24,000 asbestos-related
claims. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 7, 2009)
Of the 23,000 outstanding claims at Sept. 30, 2009, about 12,000
were pending in three jurisdictions, where significant tort and
judicial reform activities are underway.
In the first nine months of 2009, of about 4,800 claims resolved,
about 180 (3.8 percent) resulted in any payment being made to a
claimant by or on behalf of the Company. In 2008, of about 17,500
claims resolved, about 210 (1.2 percent) resulted in any payment
being made to a claimant by or on behalf of the Company.
Prior to June 2004, the settlement and defense costs associated
with all claims were covered by the Company's primary layer
insurance coverage, and these carriers administered, defended,
settled and paid all claims under a funding arrangement.
In June 2004, primary layer insurance carriers notified the
Company of the alleged exhaustion of their policy limits. This
led the Company to access the next available layer of insurance
coverage.
Since June 2004, secondary layer insurers have paid asbestos-
related litigation defense and settlement expenses pursuant to a
funding arrangement. To date, the Company has paid US$74.7
million in defense and indemnity in advance of insurers'
reimbursement and has received US$18.5 million in cash from
insurers. The outstanding balance of US$56.2 million is expected
to be fully recovered.
At Dec. 31, 2008, insurers owed US$35.9 million in association
with these claims.
At Sept. 30, 2009, the Company has an estimated liability of
US$45.9 million for future claims resolutions, with a related
asset of US$45.9 million to recognize the insurance proceeds
receivable by the Company for estimated losses related to claims
that have yet to be resolved.
Insurance carrier reimbursement of 100 percent is expected based
on the Company's experience, its insurance contracts and
decisions received to date in a declaratory judgment action. At
Dec. 31, 2008, the comparable value of the insurance receivable
and accrued liability was US$34.7 million.
BorgWarner Inc. makes power train products for automotive
manufacturers. Customers include Volkswagen (19 percent of
sales), Ford, and Daimler. Power train products include four-
wheel-drive and all-wheel-drive transfer cases (primarily for
light trucks and SUVs), and automatic transmission and timing-
chain systems. The Company is based in Auburn Hills, Mich.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Inc. Still Party to Continental Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related declaratory judgment action, filed in January
2004 in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill., by Continental
Casualty Company and related companies (CNA), continues to be
pending against BorgWarner Inc. and certain of its other
historical general liability insurers.
CNA provided the Company with both primary and additional layer
insurance, and, in conjunction with other insurers, is currently
defending and indemnifying the Company in its pending asbestos-
related product liability claims.
The lawsuit seeks to determine the extent of insurance coverage
available to the Company including whether the available limits
exhaust on a "per occurrence" or an "aggregate" basis, and to
determine how the applicable coverage responsibilities should be
apportioned. On Aug. 15, 2005, the Court issued an interim order
regarding the apportionment matter.
The interim order has the effect of making insurers responsible
for all defense and settlement costs pro rata to time-on-the-
risk, with the pro-ration method to hold the insured harmless for
periods of bankrupt or unavailable coverage.
Appeals of the interim order were denied. However, the issue is
reserved for appellate review at the end of the action.
In addition to the primary insurance available for asbestos-
related claims, the Company has substantial additional layers of
insurance available for potential future asbestos-related product
claims. The Company continues to believe that its coverage is
sufficient to meet foreseeable liabilities.
BorgWarner Inc. makes power train products for automotive
manufacturers. Customers include Volkswagen (19 percent of
sales), Ford, and Daimler. Power train products include four-
wheel-drive and all-wheel-drive transfer cases (primarily for
light trucks and SUVs), and automatic transmission and timing-
chain systems. The Company is based in Auburn Hills, Mich.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens Corning Cites $30Mil for Remaining Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Owens Corning, as of Sept. 30, 2009, had reserved about US$30
million to pay remaining asbestos claims in the bankruptcy,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 28, 2009.
The Company (f/k/a Owens Corning (Reorganized) Inc.) was
initially formed on July 21, 2006 as a wholly owned subsidiary of
Owens Corning Sales, LLC (f/k/a Owens Corning (Predecessor) and
did not conduct significant operations prior to Oct. 31, 2006
(Effective Date), when the Predecessor and 17 of its subsidiaries
(collectively with the Predecessor, the "Debtors") emerged from
Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.
The Debtors filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11
of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code to address the growing demands on
cash flow resulting from the multi-billion dollars of asbestos
personal injury claims that had been asserted against the
Predecessor and Fibreboard Corporation.
Under the terms of the plan of reorganization confirmed in the
bankruptcy proceedings, all asbestos claims against the
Predecessor or Fibreboard either:
-- Have been resolved, or
-- Are barred pursuant to the Plan and Confirmation Order.
Accordingly, the Company has no further asbestos liabilities.
Under the terms of the Plan, the Company is obligated to make
certain additional payments to certain creditors.
Owens Corning produces glass fiber reinforcements and other
materials for composites and of residential and commercial
building materials. The Company is based in Toledo, Ohio.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Pays $38.2M for Claims in 3rd-Q.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois, Inc.'s asbestos-related cash payments were
US$38.2 million during the third quarter of 2009, up from US$36.7
million during the third quarter of 2008, according to a Company
press release dated Oct. 28, 2009.
The Company's asbestos-related cash payments during the second
quarter of 2009 were US$49.4 million, down from US$63.4 million
during the second quarter of 2008. (Class Action Reporter, July
31, 2009)
The deferred amount payable for previously settled claims was
about US$33.2 million at the end of the third quarter, up
slightly from the second quarter.
New lawsuits and claims filed during the first nine months of
2009 were about 23 percent lower than the same period in 2008.
The number of pending asbestos-related lawsuits and claims was
about 7,000 as of Sept. 30, 2009, compared with about 11,000 at
year end 2008.
The Company's current asbestos-related liabilities were US$175
million as of both Sept. 30, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2008. Its long-
term asbestos-related liabilities were US$197.9 million as of
Sept. 30, 2009, compared with US$320.3 million as of Dec. 31,
2008.
Owens-Illinois, Inc. manufactures recyclable glass containers
that enable superior taste, purity, visual appeal, and value
benefits for its customers' products. The Company employs more
than 23,000 people with 79 manufacturing facilities in 21
countries. The Company is based in Perrysburg, Ohio.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Still Facing Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corporation continues to be a defendant in pending
lawsuits (which include, in many cases, multiple claimants) that
seek to recover damages for personal injury allegedly caused by
exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured and/or
distributed by the Company in the past.
While the overall number of asbestos-related claims has generally
declined in recent years, there can be no assurance that this
trend will continue, or that the average cost per claim will not
increase.
Asbestos-containing materials incorporated into those products
were primarily encapsulated and used as components of process
equipment, and the Company said it does not believe that any
significant emission of asbestos-containing fibers occurred
during the use of this equipment.
Flowserve Corporation provides pumps, valves and mechanical seals
primarily for oil and gas, chemical, power generation, water
management and other industries requiring flow management
products. The Company is based in Irving, Tex.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Facing 96,700 Claims at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company faced 96,700 asbestos claims
during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009 and 99,000 claims
during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Oct. 28, 2009.
The Company faced 96,600 pending asbestos claims during the six
months ended June 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 7, 2009)
The Company is a defendant in lawsuits alleging asbestos-related
personal injuries purported to result from alleged exposure to
certain asbestos products manufactured by the Company or present
in certain of its facilities. These lawsuits have been brought
against multiple defendants in state and Federal courts.
To date, the Company has disposed of about 75,500 claims by
defending and obtaining the dismissal thereof or by entering into
a settlement.
During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009, the Company had
1,100 new claims filed and 3,400 claims settled or dismissed.
Payments were US$13 million.
During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company had 4,600 new
claims filed and 23,000 claims settled or dismissed. Payments
were US$23 million.
The sum of the Company's accrued asbestos-related liability and
gross payments to date, including legal costs, totaled about
US$341 million through Sept. 30, 2009 and US$325 million through
Dec. 31, 2008.
The Company has recorded gross liabilities for both asserted and
unasserted claims, inclusive of defense costs, totaling US$135
million at Sept. 30, 2009 and US$132 million at Dec. 31, 2008.
The portion of the liability associated with unasserted asbestos
claims and related defense costs was US$70 million at Sept. 30,
2009 and US$71 million at Dec. 31, 2008.
The Company's liability with respect to asserted claims and
related defense costs was US$65 million at Sept. 30, 2009 and
US$61 million at Dec. 31, 2008. At Sept. 30, 2009, the Company
estimates that it is reasonably possible that its liabilities,
net of its estimate for probable insurance recoveries, could
exceed its recorded amounts by US$10 million.
The Company said it believes that at Sept. 30, 2009, it had at
least US$180 million in aggregate limits of excess level policies
potentially applicable to indemnity payments for asbestos
products claims, in addition to limits of available primary
insurance policies.
A portion of the availability of the excess level policies is
included in the US$66 million insurance receivable recorded at
Sept. 30, 2009.
The Company also had about US$15 million in aggregate limits for
products claims, as well as coverage for premise claims on a per
occurrence basis and defense costs available with its primary
insurance carriers through coverage-in-place agreements at Sept.
30, 2009.
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company manufactures tires. The
Company operates 59 manufacturing facilities in 24 countries,
including the United States. It operates through four segments:
North American Tire; Europe, Middle East and Africa Tire; Latin
American Tire; and Asia Pacific Tire. The Company is based in
Akron, Ohio.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Still Facing Exposure Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy, Inc. (or its subsidiaries) continues to face
lawsuits filed by a number of individuals who claim injury due to
exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 28,
2009.
Some of the claimants have worked at locations owned by the
Company, but most existing claims relate to facilities previously
owned by its subsidiaries. The Company anticipates that
additional claims like those received may be asserted in the
future.
In 2004, the Company sold its generating business, to which most
of these claims relate, to Texas Genco LLC, which is now known as
NRG Texas LP.
Under the terms of the arrangements regarding separation of the
generating business from the Company and its sale to NRG Texas
LP, ultimate financial responsibility for uninsured losses from
claims relating to the generating business has been assumed by
NRG Texas LP, but the Company has agreed to continue to defend
those claims to the extent they are covered by insurance
maintained by the Company, subject to reimbursement of the costs
of such defense from NRG Texas LP.
CenterPoint Energy, Inc.'s subsidiaries own and operate electric
transmission and distribution facilities, natural gas
distribution facilities, interstate pipelines and natural gas
gathering, processing and treating facilities. As of Sept. 30,
2009, the Company's indirect wholly owned subsidiaries included
CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC and CenterPoint Energy
Resources Corp. The Company is based in Houston.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fairmont Has 22,500 Exposure Claims in 7 States
----------------------------------------------------------------
One of CONSOL Energy Inc.'s subsidiaries, Fairmont Supply
Company, which distributes industrial supplies, is named as a
defendant in about 22,500 asbestos claims in state courts in
Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Maryland, Mississippi, New
Jersey and Illinois.
Fairmont faced 25,000 asbestos claims in state courts in
Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Maryland, Mississippi, New
Jersey and Illinois. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 7, 2009)
Because a very small percentage of products manufactured by third
parties and supplied by Fairmont in the past may have contained
asbestos and many of the pending claims are part of mass
complaints filed by hundreds of plaintiffs against a hundred or
more defendants, it has been difficult for Fairmont to determine
how many of the cases actually involve valid claims or plaintiffs
who were actually exposed to asbestos-containing products
supplied by Fairmont.
CONSOL Energy Inc. is a coal mining company with some 4.5 billion
tons of proved reserves, mainly in northern and central
Appalachia and the Illinois Basin. The Company produces about 65
million tons of coal annually.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Armstrong Accrues $10M Interest on Tax Refunds
---------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong World Industries, Inc. had accrued US$10 million of
interest as of June 30, 2009 on an unrecognized asbestos-related
tax benefit as income tax expense, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Oct. 28, 2009.
In October 2007, the Company received US$178.7 million in refunds
for federal income taxes paid over the preceding 10 years. The
refunds resulted from the carryback of a portion of net operating
losses created by the funding of the Asbestos PI Trust in October
2006.
The refunds were subject to an examination by the Internal
Revenue Service. Upon receipt of the refunds in the fourth
quarter of 2007, the Company recorded a liability of US$144.6
million pending completion of the IRS audit.
The Company also recorded a non-current deferred tax asset of
US$144.6 million for future tax benefits that would result from a
disallowance of the refunds.
Armstrong World Industries, Inc.'s Floor Products unit produces
vinyl sheet and tile, linoleum, specialty carpet, and hardwood
flooring (Hartco, Bruce, and Robbins brands). Its Armstrong
Building Products unit produces acoustical ceilings and
suspension systems (mainly commercial).
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Ind. Still Faces 8,000 Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cytec Industries Inc. faced 8,000 asbestos claims during the nine
months ended Sept. 30, 2009, the same as for the period ended
June 30, 2009.
During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009, the Company recorded
200 claimants associated with claims closed and 100 claimants
associated with claims opened.
During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company recorded 200
claimants associated with claims closed and 100 claimants
associated with claims opened.
During the third quarter of 2009, the Company completed an
actuarial study of its asbestos related contingent liabilities
and related insurance receivables.
As a result of its findings, the Company recorded a decrease of
US$5 million to its self insured and insured contingent
liabilities for indemnity costs for pending and anticipated
probable future claims and recorded a decrease of US$4.9 million
related to receivables for probable insurance recoveries for
these pending and future claims.
The aggregate self-insured and insured contingent liability was
US$59.6 million as of Sept. 30, 2009 and US$66.2 million as of
Dec. 31, 2008, and the related insurance recovery receivable for
the liability as well as claims for past payments was US$27
million at Sept. 30, 2009 and US$33.1 million at Dec. 31, 2008.
The asbestos liability included in the above amounts at was
US$45.2 million at Sept. 30, 2009 and US$51.1 million at Dec. 31,
2008 and the insurance receivable related to the liability as
well as claims for past payments was US$25.6 million at Sept. 30,
2009 and US$32 million at Dec. 31, 2008.
Cytec Industries Inc. is a global specialty chemicals and
materials company and sells its products to diverse major markets
for aerospace, adhesives, automotive and industrial coatings,
chemical intermediates, inks, mining and plastics. The Company is
based in West Paterson, N.J.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sensus USA Inc. Still Subject to Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sensus USA Inc. and other third parties continue to be defendants
in several lawsuits filed related to illnesses from exposure to
asbestos or asbestos-containing products.
The complaints fail to specify which plaintiffs allegedly were
involved with the Company's products, and because the cases are
in initial stages, it is uncertain whether any plaintiffs have
asbestos-related illnesses or dealt with the Company's products,
much less whether any plaintiffs were exposed to an asbestos-
containing component part of the Company's product or whether
such part could have been a substantial contributing factor to
the alleged illness.
Although the Company is entitled to indemnification for legal and
indemnity costs for asbestos claims related to these products
from certain subsidiaries of Invensys plc under the stock
purchase agreement pursuant to which it acquired Invensys
Metering Systems, those indemnities, when aggregated with all
other indemnity claims, are limited to the purchase price paid by
the Company in connection with the acquisition of Invensys
Metering Systems.
The Company is unable to estimate the amount of its exposure, if
any, related to these claims at this time.
Sensus USA Inc. provides advanced utility infrastructure systems,
metering product technologies and related communication systems
to the worldwide utility industry. The Company is based in
Raleigh, N.C.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hardie Responds to Comments on Payout Funding
--------------------------------------------------------------
In response to extensive media coverage about a potential
shortfall in the asbestos compensation fund established in 2007,
James Hardie Industries N.V. has repeated its commitment to the
agreement negotiated between the Company, the Asbestos Injuries
Compensation Fund (AICF) and the NSW Government, according to a
Company press release dated Oct. 26, 2009.
Hardie CEO Louis Gries said, "The Amended and Restated Final
Funding Agreement (AFFA) continues to operate in accordance with
terms negotiated by all parties and James Hardie remains
committed to the performance of its obligations under the
agreement. James Hardie is committed to contributing to the AICF
when its net operating cash flow is positive."
Contributions to the AICF have been affected by the decline in
the Company's cash flow as a result of the unprecedented downturn
in the U.S. housing markets.
Mr. Gries commented that "New housing construction in the U.S.
has fallen over 75 percent, from its peak of more than two
million houses in late 2005-early 2006, to just over 500,000 in
2009. In fiscal year 2009, James Hardie derived approximately 77
percent of its net sales in the U.S."
While the extent of the current downturn in the U.S. housing
market could not have been foreseen, the AFFA between James
Hardie, the AICF and the New South Wales Government contemplated
potential shortfalls in AICF funding and set out the steps to be
followed.
Under the AFFA, the Company's contributions are set at a maximum
of 35 percent of its annual net operating cash flow, including
reductions for Company contributions to the AICF and tax
payments.
The Company notes that since the AICF was established in 2007,
James Hardie has contributed AUD302.2 million to the fund. In
addition, the Company is contributing AUD500,000 a year for 10
years towards medical research into the prevention, treatment and
cure of asbestos diseases, and AUD75,000 a year for 10 years for
an education program to inform home renovators of the risks
associated with asbestos.
Future funding for the AICF continues to be linked under the
terms of the AFFA to the long-term financial success of James
Hardie, especially the Company's ability to generate net
operating cash flow.
James Hardie continues to focus on optimizing its financial
results in very difficult markets.
The Company does not intend to comment further in relation to the
matter at this stage.
James Hardie Industries N.V. uses cellulose-reinforced fiber
cement to create products for residential and commercial
construction, including siding (Hardiplank), external cladding,
walls, fencing, and roofing. The Company also makes fiber-
reinforced concrete (FRC) pipe through its Hardie Pipe business.
The Company is based in Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Facing 1,400 Claims at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V., as of Sept. 30, 2009, still
faced 1,400 pending asbestos-related claims, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Oct. 28, 2009.
As of June 30, 2009, the Company still faced 1,400 asbestos-
related claims. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 7, 2009)
The Company is a defendant in lawsuits wherein plaintiffs allege
exposure to asbestos due to work the Company may have performed
at various locations. The Company has never been a manufacturer,
distributor or supplier of asbestos products.
Through Sept. 30, 2009, the Company has been named a defendant in
lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos involving about 4,700
plaintiffs and, of those claims, about 1,400 claims were pending
and 3,300 have been closed through dismissals or settlements.
Through Sept. 30, 2009, the claims alleging exposure to asbestos
that have been resolved have been dismissed or settled for an
average settlement amount of about US$1,000 per claim.
At Sept. 30, 2009, the Company had accrued about US$1.8 million
for liability and related expenses.
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. is an integrated engineering,
procurement and construction provider and major process
technology licensor. The Company provides conceptual design,
technology, engineering, procurement, fabrication, construction,
commissioning and associated maintenance services to customers in
the energy and natural resource industries. The Company is based
in The Hague, The Netherlands.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. Court Reverses Ruling in Guilder's Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, reversed
the ruling of the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, which
awarded Stephen Guilder and his children damages in the amount of
US$24.17 million for injuries sustained from asbestos exposure.
The case is styled Honeywell International Inc., etc., Appellant
v. Stephen Guilder, et al., Appellees.
Judges David M. Gersten, Leslie B. Rothenberg, and Barbara Lagoa
entered judgment in Case No. 3D08-1747 on Oct. 28, 2009.
In the 1970s and 1980s, Mr. Guilder was exposed to chrysotile
asbestos when he: remodeled an attic, worked as a road
construction worker, and repaired automobiles. More than 20 years
later, Mr. Guilder developed peritoneal mesothelioma.
Mr. Guilder sued Honeywell International Inc., as the successor
manufacturer of Bendix brake pads, Honda, BorgWarner, and several
other defendants that settled before trial, for injuries
sustained from asbestos exposure. Mr. Guilder sought to link his
disease to his brief exposures to asbestos.
Shortly before trial, Honeywell filed various motions in limine.
One motion sought to exclude or redact a Bendix employee's letter
to an asbestos supplier written in the late 1960s on grounds of
relevance. The trial judge denied this motion. The case then
proceeded to trial.
After Honeywell rested, Mr. Guilder moved for directed verdict on
Honeywell's claim that the verdict form should include various
third parties, such as Honda and BorgWarner, as Fabre defendants.
The trial judge granted the motion and did not include the Fabre
defendants on the verdict form. The jury awarded Mr. Guilder over
US$24 million in damages, which included US$10.4 million for Mr.
Guilder's children for loss of parental consortium.
After trial, Honeywell moved for a new trial, or in the
alternative for judgment in accordance with the prior motion for
directed verdict and/or motion for remittitur. Honeywell also
moved to alter or amend the judgment and for collateral source
setoff. The trial judge denied all post-trial motions. Honeywell
appealed.
The final judgment was reversed and the case was remanded for a
new trial.
White & Case and Raoul G. Cantero, III, Esq.; Adorno & Yoss, Jack
R. Reiter, Esq., Anthony Upshaw, Esq., and Jordan S. Kosches,
Esq., represented Honeywell International Inc.
The Ferraro Law Firm, P.A. (James L. Ferraro, Esq., and David A.
Jagolinzer, Esq.) represented appellees.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Conair Summary Judgment Bid in Rule Case Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of
Fairfield, denied Conair Corporation's motion for summary
judgment in an asbestos case styled Eileen Rule, et al. v. 84
Lumber Company, et al.
Judge Trial Referee David W. Skolnick entered judgment in Case
No. FBTCV065005164S on Oct. 5, 2009.
Eileen Rule claimed that she was exposed to asbestos repeatedly
during the 1970s when, as a young girl, she daily used hairdryers
manufactured and marketed by Conair. Following daily drying of
her "waist length hair," she was diagnosed with mesothelioma on
or around April 12, 2006.
Conair moved for summary judgment based on the premise that the
plaintiffs had not produced any admissible evidence showing Ms.
Rule's exposure to Conair asbestos products. The court did not
agree.
The Court's examination of Conair's motion disclosed that "prior
to the voluntary recall of hairdryers containing asbestos in
March of 1979 Conair Pistol Power Hairdryers contained either a
mica or asbestos liner. Model designation 0991 had an asbestos
liner and Model 99R had a mica liner."
Therefore, Conair admitted that its Power Pistol hairdryer
contained asbestos during the later years of the seventies prior
to the "voluntary recall," and the motion did not disclose the
manner of notice given to users of the hairdryer which would
determine the effectiveness of such recall.
Ms. Rule testified that she's "had a Conair since 1970, about 30
of them over the years." And that in the years when she was on
swim and volleyball teams in high school she would wash and dry
her hair twice a day.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Has $11.6M Current Liability at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc.'s current asbestos liability was
US$11,605,000 as of Sept. 30, 2009, compared with US$9,310,000 as
of Dec. 31, 2008, according to a Company press release dated Oct.
29, 2009.
The Company's current asbestos liability was US$13,182,000 as of
June 28, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, July 3, 2009)
The Company's long-term asbestos liability was US$12,070,000 as
of Sept. 27, 2009, compared with US$9,935,000 as of Dec. 31,
2008.
Long-term asbestos liability was US$11,836,000 as of June 28,
2009. (Class Action Reporter, July 31, 2009)
Asbestos charges were US$1,977,000 during the three months ended
Sept. 27, 2009, compared with US$3,808,000 during the three
months ended Sept. 28, 2008.
Asbestos charges were US$13,682,000 during the nine months ended
Sept. 27, 2009, compared with US$6,893,000 during the nine months
ended Sept. 28, 2008.
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. The Company is based in Burlington, Mass.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Ind. Records $336.3M Long-Term Liability
---------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc.'s long-term asbestos liability was
US$336.3 million as of Sept. 30, 2009, compared with US$380.2
million as of Dec. 31, 2008, according to a Company press release
dated Oct. 29, 2009.
The Company's current asbestos liability was US$85.2 million as
of Sept. 30, 2009, compared with US$85.3 million as of Sept. 30,
2008.
Long-term asbestos insurance receivable was US$186.4 million as
of Sept. 30, 2009, compared with US$239.5 million as of Dec. 31,
2008.
Current asbestos insurance receivable was US$66.3 million as of
Sept. 30, 2009, compared with US$67.9 million as of Dec. 31,
2008.
Payments of asbestos claims and expenses, net of insurance
receipts, were US$30.9 million in the first nine months of 2009,
compared with US$20.1 million in the first nine months of 2008.
The increase primarily reflects differences in the timing of
payments and insurance receipts.
For the full year of 2009, the Company expects a modest increase
in net outflows for asbestos over 2008, when they were US$37
million.
Asbestos-related payments were US$13.7 million during the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2009, compared with US$13 million during the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.
Asbestos-related payments were US$41.6 million during the nine
months ended Sept. 30, 2009, compared with US$37.3 million during
the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008.
EnPro Industries, Inc. manufactures sealing products, metal
polymer and filament wound bearings, compressor systems and
components, diesel and dual-fuel engines and other engineered
products for use in critical applications by industries
worldwide. The Company is based in Charlotte, N.C.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Norfolk Southern Subject to Occupational Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern Corporation is still subject to occupational
claims (including asbestosis and other respiratory diseases, as
well as conditions allegedly related to repetitive motion),
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 30, 2009.
These claims are often not caused by a specific accident or event
but rather allegedly result from a claimed exposure over time.
Many of these claims are being asserted by former or retired
employees, some of whom have not been employed in the rail
industry for decades.
Norfolk Southern Corporation's subsidiary, Norfolk Southern
Railway, transports freight over a network of more than 21,000
route miles in 22 states in the eastern United States and in
Ontario, Canada. The Company is based in Norfolk, Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coca-Cola Co. Still Disputes Aqua-Chem Demands
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Coca-Cola Company continues to dispute 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,
Inc., now known as Cleaver-Brooks, Inc. 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 the Company 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.
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. The Company is
based in Atlanta.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: USG Corp. Records $6Mil Tax Benefit in 3rd-Qtr.
----------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of the closure of an Internal Revenue Service audit,
USG Corporation recorded an income tax benefit (involving
asbestos) of US$6 million in the first nine months of 2009 for
release of reserves established and the impact of the audit
results.
During the fourth quarter of 2008, the IRS concluded its audit of
the Company's federal income tax returns for the years 2005 and
2006.
In the first quarter of 2009, the Company received final
congressional Joint Committee on Taxation approval of a US$1.061
billion federal tax refund that the Company received in 2007.
Of this amount, US$1.057 billion resulted from tax deductions
generated by payments made to the asbestos trust in 2006 and the
remaining US$4 million, which the Company expects to be received
in 2009, results from finalization of the audit results for 2006
and prior years.
As a result of the audit, the Company's federal taxable income
for these years increased by US$7 million in the aggregate, which
resulted in a decrease to the amount of the Company's NOL (net
operating loss) carryforwards at Sept. 30, 2009.
USG Corporation manufactures and distributes building materials,
producing a range of products for use in new residential, new
nonresidential, and repair and remodel construction as well as
products used in certain industrial processes. The Company is
based in Chicago.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mine Safety Still Faces Product Liability Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Various product liability lawsuits and claims (including
asbestos-related) are still pending against Mine Safety
Appliances Company.
The Company is named as a defendant in about 2,500 lawsuits,
primarily involving respiratory protection products allegedly
manufactured and sold by the Company. Collectively, these
lawsuits represent a total of about 11,700 plaintiffs.
About 90 percent of these lawsuits involve plaintiffs alleging
they suffer from silicosis, with the remainder alleging they
suffer from other or combined injuries, including asbestosis.
These lawsuits typically allege that these conditions resulted in
part from respirators that were negligently designed or
manufactured by the Company.
In recent years, there has been an increase in the number of
asserted claims that could potentially involve the Company.
Mine Safety Appliances Company makes protective equipment for
workers in the military and miners, as well as the fire service,
construction, and homeland security industries. The Company
produces air-purifying respiratory equipment, gas masks, and head
protection gear, much of which carries the MSA Safety Works
brand. The Company is based in Pittsburgh.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaiser Aluminum Records $3.4MM AROs at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
The estimated fair value of Kaiser Aluminum Corporation's
conditional asset retirement obligations (CAROs) at Sept. 30,
2009 was US$3.4 million, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct.
29, 2009.
The Company has CAROs at several of its fabricated products
facilities. Most of these 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.
The Company's estimates and judgments that affect the probability
weighted estimated future contingent cost amounts did not change
during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009.
The Company's results for the quarters ended Sept. 30, 2009 and
2008 each reflect an accretion of the estimated liability of
US$100,000 (recorded in Cost of products sold).
In addition, the Company's results for the nine months ended
Sept. 30, 2009 and 2008 each reflect an accretion of the
estimated liability of US$200,000 (recorded in Cost of products
sold).
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation manufactures semi-fabricated
specialty aluminum products for aerospace/high strength, general
engineering and custom automotive and industrial applications.
The Company is based in Foothill Ranch, Calif.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eight Lorillard Cases Set for Trial at Oct. 26
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. says that, as of Oct. 26, 2009, eight asbestos-
related Filter Cases were scheduled for trial, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Oct. 29, 2009.
The Company said that, as of July 27, 2009, six asbestos-related
Filter Cases are scheduled for trial. (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 7, 2009)
Trial dates are subject to change.
Claims have been brought against the Company and its subsidiary
Lorillard Tobacco Company by individuals who seek damages
resulting from their alleged exposure to asbestos fibers that
were incorporated into filter material used in one brand of
cigarettes manufactured by Lorillard Tobacco for a limited period
of time ending more than 50 years ago.
Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in 31 of those cases. The
Company is a defendant in three Filter Cases, including two that
also name Lorillard Tobacco.
Since Jan. 1, 2007, Lorillard Tobacco has paid, or has reached
agreement to pay, a total of about US$18.3 million in settlements
to finally resolve about 80 claims.
In the sole case tried since Jan. 1, 2007, a jury in the District
Court of Bexar County, Tex., returned a verdict for Lorillard
Tobacco in September 2008 in the case of Young v. Lorillard
Tobacco Company.
Lorillard, Inc. manufactures and sells cigarettes. Its principal
products are marketed under the brand names of Newport, Kent,
True, Maverick and Old Gold with substantially all of its sales
in the United States of America. The Company is based in
Greensboro, N.C.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leslie Facing 1,143 Pending Claims at Sept. 27
---------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc.'s subsidiary, Leslie Controls, Inc.,
faced 1,143 asbestos claims (of which 612 were mesothelioma
claims) during the three months ended Sept. 27, 2009, according
to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Oct. 29, 2009.
During the three months ended Sept. 27, 2009, the Company
recorded 131 claims filed and 146 claims resolved and dismissed.
Leslie, which the Company acquired in 1989, has been and
continues to be named as a defendant in product liability actions
brought on behalf of individuals who seek compensation for their
alleged exposure to airborne asbestos fibers.
As of the end of September 2009, Leslie was a named defendant in
unresolved asbestos-related claims filed in California, Texas,
New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, Pennsylvania, West Virginia,
Rhode Island and about two dozen other states.
In addition to these claims, Leslie remains a named defendant in
about 4,700 unresolved asbestos-related claims filed in
Mississippi.
As of the end of June 2009, Leslie 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. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 14,
2009)
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 were
appealed and, during September 2009, the California Court of
Appeals reversed one of the two judgments against Leslie.
Subsequently, however, the Court of Appeals granted the
plaintiff's petition for a re-hearing and thus vacated its
appellate order.
While it remains optimistic that the Court of Appeals ultimately
will issue a final order reversing the judgment, the Company has
not reduced the accrued liability.
With respect to the remaining verdict, appellate arguments have
not yet been scheduled. However, the Company continues to believe
there are strong grounds for overturning this verdict, or for
significantly reducing the amount of the award or requiring a new
trial.
Leslie has recorded US$800,000 in accrued interest for both
adverse verdicts.
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. The Company is based in Burlington, Mass.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leslie Records $3.2MM for Insurance at Sept. 27
----------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc. says that, as of Sept. 27, 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$3.2 million.
As of June 28, 2009, the aggregate amount of indemnity (on a cash
basis) remaining on subsidiary Leslie's primary layer of asbestos
insurance was about US$4 million. (Class Action Reporter, Aug.
14, 2009)
After giving effect to the Company's accrual for the adverse
verdicts currently on appeal, the remaining amount of Leslie's
primary layer of insurance is US$1.5 million.
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. The Company is based in Burlington, Mass.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Spence & Hoke Still Subject to Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos-related claims are pending against two of CIRCOR
International, Inc.'s subsidiaries: Spence Engineering Company
and Hoke, Inc.
The Company acquired Spence's stock in 1984 and Hoke's stock in
1998.
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. The Company is based in Burlington, Mass.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crum & Forster Has $260.37M in Net Losses, ALAE
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crum & Forster Holdings Corp.'s net unpaid losses and allocated
loss adjustment expense for asbestos claims were US$260,370,000
during the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009, compared
with US$312,140,000 during the three and nine months ended Sept.
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. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 14,
2009)
The Company's gross unpaid losses and ALAE for asbestos claims
were US$358,828,000 during the three and nine months ended Sept.
30, 2009, compared with US$395,628,000 during the three and nine
months ended Sept. 30, 2008.
The Company's gross unpaid losses and ALAE 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. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 14,
2009)
For the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009, net losses
and ALAE incurred and paid reflect a recovery of US$13,750,000
associated with an asbestos lawsuit that the Company settled in
2008 and for which it incurred a charge of US$25,500,000 in the
nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008.
In addition, for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009 and the
three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008, net paid losses and
ALAE reflect a payment of US$18,333,000 in each period, related
to the asbestos lawsuit settlement.
Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. is owned by Fairfax Inc., which is
ultimately owned by Fairfax Financial Holdings. The Company
offers commercial property and casualty insurance distributed
through an independent producer force located across the United
States. The Company is based in Morristown, N.J.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tidewater Inc. Still Involved in Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tidewater Inc. continues to be involved in various legal
proceedings that relate to asbestos and other environmental
matters.
No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Oct. 29, 2009.
Tidewater Inc. provides offshore service vessels and equipment to
the global offshore energy industry through the operation of a
diversified fleet of marine service vessels. The Company is based
New Orleans.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemtura Corp. Still Subject to Liability Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chemtura Corporation is still subject to litigation, including
liability claims related to its current products and asbestos-
related claims, concerning premises and historic products of its
corporate affiliates and predecessors.
No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Oct. 29, 2009.
Chemtura Corporation produces chemicals for the automotive,
transportation, construction, packaging, agriculture, lubricants,
plastics for durable and non-durable goods, industrial rubber and
home pool and spa chemicals markets. The Company is based in
Middlebury, Conn.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Still Ongoing v. Wabtec, Units
----------------------------------------------------------------
Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation (d/b/a Wabtec)
and certain of its affiliates continue to face lawsuits in the
United States filed by persons alleging bodily injury as a result
of exposure to asbestos-containing products.
Over the last four years, the overall number of new claims filed
has significantly decreased as compared to the previous four-year
period. Most of these claims have been made against the Company's
wholly owned subsidiary, Railroad Friction Products Corporation
(RFPC), and are based on a product sold by RFPC prior to the time
that the Company acquired any interest in RFPC.
Most of these claims, including all of the RFPC claims, are
submitted to insurance carriers for defense and indemnity or to
non-affiliated companies that retain the liabilities for the
asbestos-containing products at issue.
Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation provides value-
added, technology-based products and services for the global rail
industry. The Company is based in Wilmerding, Pa.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Liability Remains at $19.64M in Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation's long-term asbestos-related liabilities were
US$19,644,000 as of Sept. 30, 2009, the same as for the period
ended Dec. 31, 2008, according to a Company press release dated
Nov. 2, 2009.
The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities were
US$19,644,000 at June 30, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2008. (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 7, 2009)
Current asbestos-related liabilities were US$4,632,000 as of
Sept. 30, 2009, the same as for the period ended Dec. 31, 2008.
Long-term asbestos-related insurance receivables were
US$19,416,000 as of Sept. 30, 2009, the same as for the period
ended Dec. 31, 2008.
The Company's current asbestos-related insurance receivables were
US$4,632,000 as of Sept. 30, 2009, the same as for the period
ended Dec. 31, 2008.
Rogers Corporation develops and manufactures high performance,
specialty-material-based products for a variety of applications
in diverse markets including: portable communications,
communications infrastructure, computer and office equipment,
consumer products, ground transportation, aerospace and defense.
The Company is based in Rogers, Conn.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Still Facing 31T Cases at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Holding Corporation had about 31,000 active pending asbestos
personal injury liability claims at Sept. 30, 2009 and at Dec.
31, 2008, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 3, 2009.
The Company had about 31,000 active pending asbestos personal
injury liability claims at June 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 28, 2009)
In addition, about 12,000 mostly inactive claims have been
settled and are awaiting final documentation and dismissal, with
or without payment. The Company has accrued US$114 million for
indemnity and defense costs for settled, pending and future
claims at Sept. 30, 2009, compared with US$124 million at Dec.
31, 2008.
In the second quarter of 2009, based on the volume of asbestos
claims filed subsequent to its emergence from Chapter 11, the
Company reevaluated its estimated liability.
The Company revised its estimates of claims expected to be
compensated in the future, which reduced its estimated obligation
for asbestos personal injury claims by US$12 million and the
related insurance recoverable by US$6 million.
The Company recorded the net benefit of US$6 million in selling,
general and administrative expense in the second quarter of 2009.
At Sept. 30, 2009, the Company had recorded US$57 million as an
asset for probable recovery from its insurers for the pending and
projected asbestos personal injury liability claims.
Dana Holding Corporation supplies axles; driveshafts; and
structural, sealing and thermal-management products; as well as
genuine service parts. Customers include vehicle manufacturers in
the automotive, commercial vehicle, and off-highway markets. The
Company is based in Maumee, Ohio.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Collects $47M Through Sept. 30 for Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Holding Corporation, through Sept. 30, 2009, had collected
the entire US$47 million paid to claimants with respect to Center
for Claims Resolution (CCR) asbestos claims.
After the CCR discontinued negotiating shared settlements for
asbestos claims for its member companies in 2001, some former CCR
members defaulted on the payment of their shares of some
settlements and some settling claimants sought payment of the
unpaid shares from other members of the CCR at the time of the
settlements, including from the Company.
The Company has been working with the CCR, other former CCR
members, the Company's insurers and the claimants over a period
of several years in an effort to resolve these issues.
Efforts to recover additional CCR-related payments from surety
bonds and other claims are continuing.
Additional recoveries are not assured and accordingly have not
been recorded at Sept. 30, 2009.
Dana Holding Corporation supplies axles; driveshafts; and
structural, sealing and thermal-management products; as well as
genuine service parts. Customers include vehicle manufacturers in
the automotive, commercial vehicle, and off-highway markets. The
Company is based in Maumee, Ohio.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Subject to Respirator Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company, as of Sept. 30, 2009, faced respirator mask cases
(including asbestos-related) in various courts with 2,490
individual claimants, down from the number of individual claims
pending at June 30, 2009, March 31, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2008.
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.
3M Company is a 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. The Company is based in St. Paul,
Minn.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Records $34M Aearo Liability at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company, through its Aearo Technologies unit, as of Sept. 30,
2009, 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.
On April 1, 2008, a subsidiary of the Company purchased the stock
of Aearo Holding Corp., the parent of Aearo Technologies. Aearo
manufactures and sells various products, including personal
protection equipment, such as eye, ear, head, face, fall and
respiratory protection products.
As of Sept. 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 suits, 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 and 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).
Liability is allocated among the parties based on the number of
years each company sold respiratory products under the "AO
Safety" brand and owned the AO Safety Division of American
Optical Corporation and the alleged years of exposure of the
individual plaintiff.
Aearo's share of the contingent liability is further limited by
an agreement entered into between Aearo and Cabot on July 11,
1995. This agreement provides that, so long as Aearo pays to
Cabot an annual fee of US$400,000, Cabot will retain
responsibility and liability for, and indemnify Aearo against,
asbestos and silica-related product liability claims for
respirators manufactured prior to July 11, 1995.
To date, Aearo has elected to pay the annual fee. Aearo could
potentially be exposed to additional claims for some part of the
pre-July 11, 1995 period covered by its agreement with Cabot if
Aearo elects to discontinue its participation in this
arrangement, or if Cabot is no longer able to meet its
obligations in these matters.
3M Company is a 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. The Company is based in St. Paul,
Minn.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Records $126Mil Liabilities at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company's liabilities for asbestos and respirator mask claims
were US$126 million as of Sept. 30, 2009, compared with US$140
million as of Dec. 31, 2008.
The Company's liabilities for asbestos or respirator mask claims
were US$131 million as of June 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 14, 2009)
The Company's insurance receivables for asbestos and respirator
mask claims were US$174 million as of Sept. 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$173 million as of June 30, 2009. (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 14, 2009)
As of Sept. 30, 2009, the Company increased its reserves for
respirator mask or asbestos liabilities by US$13 million (US$7
million in the second quarter and US$6 million in the third
quarter of 2009) and increased its receivables for insurance
recoveries by US$4 million (US$2 million in each of the second
and third quarters of 2009) related to this litigation.
As a result of settlements reached with its insurers, the Company
was paid US$23 million for the first nine months of 2009 in
connection with the respirator mask or asbestos receivable.
On Jan. 5, 2007 the Company was served with a declaratory
judgment action filed on behalf of two of its insurers
(Continental Casualty and Continental Insurance Co. - both part
of the Continental Casualty Group) disclaiming coverage for
respirator mask or asbestos claims.
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 named, 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. Several of the
insurer defendants named in the amended complaint have been
dismissed because of settlements they have reached with the
Company regarding the matters at issue in the lawsuit.
The case remains in its early stages.
3M Company is a 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. The Company is based in St. Paul,
Minn.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Has $852.7M Long-Term Liability at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corporation's long-term asbestos-related liabilities were
US$852.7 million as of Sept. 30, 2009, compared with US$225.9
million as of Dec. 31, 2008, according to a Company press release
dated Oct. 30, 2009.
The Company's long-term asbestos-related assets were US$601.6
million as of Sept. 30, 2009, compared with US$201.2 million as
of Dec. 31, 2008.
Net asbestos-related costs were US$222.9 million during the three
months ended Sept. 30, 2009, compared with US$1.6 million during
the three months ended Sept. 30, 2008.
Net asbestos-related costs were US$224.5 million during the nine
months ended Sept. 30, 2009, compared with US$11.2 million during
the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008.
ITT Corporation is an engineering and manufacturing company
operating in three markets: water and fluids management, global
defense and security, and motion and flow control. The Company is
based in White Plains, N.Y.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Has $325.40MM Sept. 30 Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler AG's long-term asbestos-related liability was
US$325,401,000 as of Sept. 30, 2009, compared with US$355,779,000
as of Dec. 26, 2008, according to a Company press release dated
Nov. 4, 2009.
The Company's long-term asbestos liability was US$336,556,000 as
of June 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 7, 2009)
The Company's long-term asbestos insurance recovery receivable
was US$259,553,000 as of Sept. 30, 2009, compared with
US$355,779,000 as of Dec. 26, 2008.
The Company's long-term asbestos insurance recovery receivable
was US$276,060,000 as of June 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 7, 2009)
Net asbestos-related provision was US$1,745,000 during the fiscal
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009, compared with US$1,725,000 during
the fiscal quarter ended Sept. 26, 2008.
Net asbestos-related provision was US$5,251,000 during the fiscal
nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009. Net asbestos-related gain was
US$30,738,000 during the fiscal nine months ended Sept. 26, 2008.
Foster Wheeler AG is an engineering and construction contractor
and power equipment supplier delivering technically advanced,
reliable facilities and equipment. The Company is based in Zug,
Switzerland.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Caterpillar Subject to Pending Exposure Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Caterpillar Inc. is still involved in unresolved legal actions,
including asbestos-related, that arise in the normal course of
business.
No further asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Oct. 30, 2009.
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. The Company is based
in Peoria, Ill.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goates Case v. 34 Firms Filed Oct. 21 in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos lawsuit, on Oct. 21, 2009, was filed on behalf of
Marvin Clyde Goates against 34 defendant corporations in
Jefferson County District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record
reports.
The suit was filed by Mr. Goates' widow, Ginger Sue Goates, and
their daughter, Carolyn Sue Blackmon.
Defendants are: A.W. Chesterton Company, American Optical
Corporation, Ametek, Inc., Bayer CropScience AG, Bechtel
Corporation, CBS Corporation, CertainTeed Corporation, Coltec
Industries, Crane Co., Crown, Cork and Seal Company, D&F
Distributing, Dana Companies, Fluor Enterprises, Fluor
Maintenance Services, Foster Wheeler Constructors, and Foster
Wheeler Corporation.
Defendants also include: Garlock Sealing Technologies, General
Electric Corporation, General Refractories Company, Goulds Pumps,
Henry Vogt Machine Company, Honeywell International Inc.,
Industrial Holdings, Ingersoll-Rand Company, John Crane Inc., 3M
Company, Owens-Illinois Inc., Sepco Corporation, Treco
Construction Services, Union Carbide Corporation and Uniroyal.
Before his death, Mr. Goates filed an asbestos suit, but the
plaintiffs bring their complaint on allegations that he died from
a different asbestos-related disease than was named in his
previous lawsuit under Pustejovsky v. Rapid-American Corp.
Mrs. Coates and Mrs. Blackmon allege the defendant companies
caused Mr. Goates' disease because they failed to adequately test
their products and failed to warn of the dangers of asbestos
exposure.
At the time the products were manufactured, the defending
companies knew of the hazards associated with asbestos but failed
to remove their products from the market, according to the
complaint.
Some defendant companies like 3M and American Optical
Corporation, failed to provide Mr. Goates with adequate masks to
protect him from the asbestos, while other businesses forced
Goates to work in close proximity to asbestos, the suit states.
The plaintiffs seek actual and exemplary damages, plus costs,
pre- and post-judgment interest and other relief.
Bryan O. Blevins Jr., Esq., of Provost and Umphrey Law Firm in
Beaumont, Tex., is representing the plaintiffs.
Case No. D185-182 has been assigned to Judge Milton Shuffield,
136th District Court.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carolina Engineering Worker Awarded GBP140,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ronnie Cadwaller, a former welder for Carolina Engineering, was
awarded GBP140,000 in asbestos compensation from his former
employer's insurers, after they initially denied being on cover,
HeatingandVentilating.net reports.
From 1950-1955 and 1957-1960, Mr. Cadwallader worked for Bootle,
Merseyside, England-based firm, stripping off asbestos lagging on
pipes and boilers, as part of maintenance and repair work.
Mr. Cadwallader was diagnosed with mesothelioma in November 2007.
Carolina Engineering was one of two firms who were responsible
for exposing Mr. Cadwaller to asbestos. However, both of the
firms stopped trading and went out of business many years before.
Mr. Cadwallader initially instructed local solicitors who tried
to trace the previous employer liability insurers of Carolina
Engineering. This included making an application in January 2008
to the Association of British Insurers (ABI) under their
voluntary code for tracing insurers. However, the response to his
first claim came back negative.
Following a two year battle against the cancer and his former
employer's insurers for damages, Mr. Cadwallader was finally
offered GBP140,000 by Carolina Engineering's insurer Zurich,
which he accepted. The case was listed for trial on Nov. 10,
2009.
After the deduction of government benefits which the 76-year-old
had already received, Mr. Cadwallader can expect to get damages
of around GBP115,000 in his hand.
Solicitor Kevin Johnson of John Pickering and Partners said,
"Ronnie's claim had not been able to proceed until we traced the
insurers and if we had not submitted another ABI search then the
case would probably have failed. Many asbestos sufferers and
other people with serious illness and injuries go uncompensated
because of the failure of insurers to ensure that their records
were retained."
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Neely Action v. DuPont, 20 Other Firms Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos lawsuit filed by Roger Neely is ongoing against E. I.
du Pont de Nemours and Company and 20 other defendants in
Tennessee, the Tennessean reports.
For two decades, Lively Neely went to work at the DuPont plant in
Old Hickory, Tenn. During the time, he brought home asbestos dust
to his wife, Ruby.
Now, Roger Neely sued DuPont and the other companies that
subcontracted at the plant over the years, alleging that the
Company's failure to warn its employees of the danger of wearing
work clothes out of the plant is responsible for the death of
Ruby Neely.
H. Douglas Nichol, Esq., the Neely family attorney, said, "DuPont
failed to provide any type of warnings or instructions about the
safe use of asbestos."
Ruby Neely died in 2009 of mesothelioma. According to the suit,
information about the dangers of asbestos had been available to
the Company as early as the 1930s, but they still were not
informing insulators on the line of the hazards until the 1970s,
when many workers had already died of asbestos-related illnesses.
According to the suit, Lively Neely would cut, mold and fit
asbestos containing insulation and cement onto the various lines
at DuPont.
Lively Neely also died of asbestos-related disease, Mr. Nichol
said, and had settled a lawsuit with the Company in the 1980s.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Md. Professor Awarded $20M in Payout on Oct. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
On Oct. 30, 2009, a Baltimore City Circuit Court jury awarded
more than US$20 million in asbestos damages to 57-year-old
Jocelyn Farrar, a University of Maryland nursing professor, The
Daily Record reports.
Ms. Farrar contracted mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos
while washing the work clothes of her grandfather, an insulation
worker, in the 1960s. She was diagnosed with the cancer in June
2008.
According to the trial testimony, while in her late teens, Ms.
Farrar helped with the laundry at her grandparents' home in
Silver Spring, Md.
Ms. Farrar's grandfather, John Hentgen, worked at the Forrestal
Building in Washington from December 1968 through the following
spring. Insulation for the building was provided by Georgia
Pacific Corp., the defendant in the case.
The jury returned with its US$20,272,000 damages award after a
two-week trial, presided over by Judge Barry G. Williams.
Ms. Farrar's lawywer, Armand J. Volta Jr., Esq., said, "She feels
vindicated.
Of the award, US$18.5 million was for non-economic damages, such
as pain and suffering; US$1.6 million was for lost earnings and
earnings capacity; US$97,000 was for past medical expenses and
US$75,000 was for future medical expenses, Mr. Volta said.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Clifton Farms Facing Fines on Safety Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Clifton Farms & Excavating Co., a Perryville, Mo.-based
demolition firm, faces possible civil penalties after a Missouri
Air Conservation Commission vote to seek legal action by Missouri
Attorney General Chris Koster, the Southeast Missourian reports.
The commission sent the case to Mr. Koster during a meeting on
Oct. 29, 2009 in Jefferson City, Mo.
The commission found Clifton Farms failed to obtain an asbestos
inspection, provide notice of a demolition job and failed to
respond to several attempts to settle the case.
Bernard Clifton, the Company's owner, said he believed the matter
was being handled by the property owner and denied violating any
environmental rule deliberately.
The case involves the final demolition of two homes at 902 and
905 N. Kingshighway in Perryville. The Department of Natural
Resources investigated the work June 15, 2009 and discovered the
lack of an asbestos inspection and demolition notice.
The department sought to settle the case for US$4,000 on July 15,
2009, sending a registered letter. Mr. Clifton said he turned the
letter over to Bank of Missouri, which owns the land and hired
him to demolish the houses. He said he had no trouble obtaining a
city demolition permit and thought at the time he did the work
that all requirements had been met.
The fine being sought by the department is more than he was paid
for the work, Mr. Clifton said.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mancuso Brothers Convicted for Envt'l. Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Mancuso (46 years old) and his brother, Steven Mancuso (38
years old), both of Utica, N.Y., were convicted on Oct. 30, 2009
for environmental violations and fraud relating to their illegal
asbestos removal business, 9WSYR.com reports.
The convictions follow a nine day trial in Syracuse, N.Y.,
federal court.
Paul Mancuso and Steven Mancuso join their 71-year old father,
Lester Mancuso, who pleaded guilty before the trial. A third
brother, Ronald Mancuso, also pleaded guilty in Federal District
Court on Oct. 2, 2009 to being involved in the illegal dumping of
asbestos in open fields in Poland, N.Y.
Paul Mancuso was previously convicted of illegal asbestos removal
and disposal in 2003, and convicted of insurance fraud related to
his business in 2004. As a result, the U.S. Department of Justice
says Paul Mancuso was banned from doing any asbestos abatement
work.
The DOJ says Paul Mancuso established companies in the names of
relatives with the help of his brother Steven Mancuso, who is a
lawyer. Steven Mancuso prepared fraudulent documents in an effort
to make the asbestos activities appear legal.
Paul Mancuso, Ronald Mancuso, and their workers dumped asbestos
in fields of unsuspecting property owners.
The DOJ also says Paul Mancuso also had "enforcers" beat up a
former employee who threatened to report him to the Environmental
Protection Agency.
Paul Mancuso now faces a maximum possible penalty of 55 years in
jail and a fine of US$2,750,000. Steve Mancuso and Lester Mancuso
face a maximum possible penalty of five years in jail, and a fine
of US$250,000.
Ronald Mancuso faces a maximum possible penalty of three years in
jail and a fine of US$250,000.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Inspector Penalized for Accepting Bribe
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal prosecutors said that 39-year-old Michael Cease, an
inspector from the Chicago Department of Environment, was charged
on Oct. 28, 2009 in a complaint with taking asbestos bribes after
an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and
Chicago's Office of Inspector General, the Chicago Tribune
reports.
Mr. Cease was accused of pocketing US$1,150 in September 2009 to
help a business owner avoid a fine for asbestos.
Authorities said a meeting between Mr. Cease and the cooperating
business owner on Sept. 15, 2009 was secretly recorded, and Mr.
Cease promised to make the situation go away for another bribe.
Investigators were listening as cash was passed to Mr. Cease, and
two FBI agents allegedly followed him to a bank where some of the
money was deposited in his account.
Mr. Cease was released on Oct. 28, 2009 on US$20,000 bail by U.S.
Magistrate Judge Morton Denlow, authorities said.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Corydon Hospital to Cost $800T-$900T
----------------------------------------------------------------
The removal of asbestos at the old hospital campus in Corydon,
Ind., will cost between US$800,000 to US$900,000, The Corydon
Democrat reports.
On Nov. 2, 2009, Bret Dodd of RQAW Corp. reported to the Harrison
County Board of Commissioners that asbestos removal at the old
hospital could cost triple the amount estimated.
The removal of asbestos is one of the first physical actions in
the US$13 million to US$15 million county government complex
project at the old hospital campus in Corydon.
The original estimate in the budget was between US$200,000 and
US$300,000. Mr. Dodd said the company accessing the asbestos in
the building, AsbesTECH Inc., began nearly a month ago and said
asbestos was found throughout the building.
The board gave Mr. Dodd the go-ahead to send out bid
specifications for the Purdue Cooperative Extension building, the
health and education center, the government complex and the
asbestos work.
The board will open a portion of the bids at a special meeting on
Dec. 8, 2009, at 6:30 p.m. at the courthouse in Corydon, Ind.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wood Green Architect's Death Linked to Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at St Pancras Coroner's Court heard that the death of
66-year-old Brian Pettit, an architect from Wood Green, London,
was linked to exposure to asbestos, the Tottenham, Wood Green &
Edmonton Journal reports.
Mr. Pettit died on Aug. 2, 2009 at the Marie Curie Hospice in
Hampstead, after developing a cancerous tumor on his left lung.
The inquest heard that Mr. Pettit had inhaled asbestos while
working as a site architect for British Home Stores in the early
1970s.
Amelia Haskell, Mr. Pettit's friend, told the Court, "He worked
for BHS from 1971 onwards. When he got the diagnosis Brian said
he worked on site where they were sawing up asbestos insulation
boards.
"The first symptom he was aware of was the second May Bank
Holiday [this year] when he had a feeling of a broken rib on his
left hand side. It took several weeks to get him to go to the
doctors."
Recording a verdict of death by industrial disease, coroner Dr.
Andrew Reid said the time lag between exposure to asbestos and
developing cancer "can be many decades," adding, "The prognosis
can be very poor."
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Contractor Penalized for Cleanup Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
An unnamed contractor from Washington was fined tens of thousands
of dollars by environmental regulators in Oregon for violating
asbestos regulations during an abatement project, according to an
EMSL Analytical, Inc. press release dated Nov. 3, 2009.
The contractor has appealed the fine according to reports from
the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).
The Clean Air Act and the National Emission Standard for
Hazardous Air Pollutants require contractors to follow certain
steps during projects that involve asbestos. These requirements
include actions that must be taken before work commences, during
renovations and to ensure proper waste disposal.
The contractor has been accused of multiple violations related to
an asbestos abatement project the contractor was involved with at
a retirement facility. According to the DEQ the contractor did
not complete all the required documentation and removed
containment materials before sampling the air quality. This is
the second time this year this contractor has faced fines from
the DEQ over asbestos violations.
EMSL Analytical has been providing asbestos testing services
since 1981. Joe Frasca, Executive Vice President for EMSL
Analytical, said, "EMSL strongly encourages contractors to have
suspect building materials tested before any renovations or
abatement projects begin.
"It is a quick and cost effective way to ensure materials are
handled safely to protect workers, building occupants and to
prevent costly fines."
EMSL Analytical, Inc. provides consumer product, environmental,
industrial hygiene, food and materials testing services and
products to professionals and the general public. The Company is
based in Westmont, N.J.
*********
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. Gracele D. Canilao, Leah Felisilda 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 * * *