/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100205.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, February 5, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 25 Headlines AMERICAN CENTURY: Sued for Illegal Gambling Company Investments BERNARD L. MADOFF: Ponzi Scheme Payout Plan Debated in Bank. Ct. BLUE CROSS: Accused of Predatory Pricing in Alabama Suit CHATTEM INC: Continues to Defend "Wilson" Suit in Florida CHATTEM INC: Looks to Settle 2 Suits over Planned sanofi Merger CHINA ORGANIC: Continues to Defend "Provo" Suit in New York CHORDIANT SOFTWARE: Appeal on Settlement's Approval Pending CVS PHARMACIES: Ill. Ct. Certified AirShield Plaintiff Class DOLLAR GENERAL: Recalls 9,600 Toy Gun Sets FIFTH THIRD: Lawsuit Filed in N.D. Ga. Contests Overdraft Fees FORTRESS INVESTMENT: Accused of Cheating Employees in Fla. Suit HARRIS CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit HARTE HANKS: Shoppers Settles Class Action for $6.95 Million IMS HEALTH: Inks Agreement to Settle Two Suits in Connecticut JOHNSON & JOHNSON: N.J. Methylene Chloride Suit Will Continue LODGIAN INC: Wolf Popper Files Shareholder Suit in Del. Ch. Ct. ONE IRON: Sued in Ill. for Unlawful Credit & Collection Practices OPTOMA TECHNOLOGY: Suit Complains About Home Theater Projectors PANASONIC CONSUMER: Sells Defective Plasma TVs, N.J. Suit Claims SERAGEN SECURITIES: Notice of Settlement in Del. Ch. Ct. Lawsuit SUNRISE HOSPITAL: Notice of Fla. Class Action ADA Settlement TOYOTA MOTOR: New Orleans Suit Complains About Sticky Pedals U.S. FINANCIAL FUNDING: N.D. Calif. Certifies ARM Borrower Class VIRGINIA: Prisoners Sue for Meaningful Consideration of Parole Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Pays $190.3MM for Claims in 2009 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyco Still Faces 4,200 Pending Cases at Dec. 25 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Henager Action v. 43 Firms Filed in Madison Co. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Conley Action v. 37 Firms Filed in Madison Co. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Clay Schools Settles AHERA Violation with EPA ASBESTOS UPDATE: Frank Bruce and Co. Fined for Safety Violations ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jean Charest Urged to Stop Exporting of Hazard ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial in Standard Coosa Case to Begin Feb. 2010 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard Abated From Lex Villa in Carrollton, Ga. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Split Rulings Issues in Oil Field Cases in Pa. ASBESTOS UPDATE: District Court Issues Split Ruling in Dent Case ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Court Remands Coulter to Correct Judgment ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Denies UCC Bid in Washington Case ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stay in Continental Case v. Indian Head Lifted ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Liability at $11M in Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell's Liabilities at $1.040Bil in Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: 20 Lawsuits Pending v. Ameron Int'l. at Nov. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sensus USA Inc. Still Facing Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.C. Court Affirms Commission's Ruling in Pope ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ark. Court Denies Union Pacific Bid in Fletcher ASBESTOS UPDATE: Motion to Remand Affirmed in Lindenmayer Action ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants Riniers' Remand Bid in Case v. FWC ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nafferton Joiner Seeks Colleagues Help in Claim ASBESTOS UPDATE: Robert Collins Facing Legal Action in Missouri ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnston Case v. 160 Firms Filed in Kanawha Co. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Congoleum Seeks Agreement With Insurance Groups ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Records 2,300 New Claims in 2009 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mayle Claim v. 160 Firms Filed Jan. 14 in W.Va. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wigal Claim v. 160 Firms Filed Jan. 14 in W.Va. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Morris Lawsuit v. CSX Filed Jan. 15 in Kanawha ASBESTOS UPDATE: Geary Claim v. CSX Filed Jan. 15 in Kanawha Co. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Barber Case v. CSX Filed Jan. 15 in Kanawha Co. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wood Action v. 125 Firms Filed Jan. 19 in W.Va. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kontra Case v. 67 Firms Filed Jan. 19 in W.Va. ASBESTOS UPDATE: McClure Case v. 63 Firms Filed Jan. 20 in W.Va. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Beckett Case v. 63 Firms Filed Jan. 20 in W.Va. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Daytona Beach Cleanup to Cost $80,000-$100,000 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement at Aviation Terminal in S.C. Ongoing ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bickle Widow Gets GBP50,000 Interim Settlement ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Sets Aside Ruling in Larsen Claim ASBESTOS UPDATE: Unitrin Reserves $71M for A&E Issues at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Chemical Records $734M Dec. 31 Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: 56 Cases Pending v. American Locker at Sept. 8 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tidewater Inc. Still Party to Exposure Actions ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Still Ongoing v. Graham Corp. ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Records $867.2M Dec. 31 Long-Term Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Markel Cites $10M A&E Loss Reserve Development ASBESTOS UPDATE: Briggs & Stratton Subject to Liability Actions ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gallagher Suit v. 40 Companies Filed in Kanawha ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Expends $11.6M for Bankruptcy in 4th-Qtr. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 14 Actions Filed in Madison County Jan. 18-22 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Miller Case v. 53 Firms Filed Jan. 14 in W.Va. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Baumener's Family Awarded $2Mil in Compensation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stewart's Lawsuit Now Ongoing in NSW High Court ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aussie Judge Rejects Demerger Plan of CSR Ltd. ********* AMERICAN CENTURY: Sued for Illegal Gambling Company Investments --------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that managers of the American Century International Discovery Fund cost investors millions of dollars by knowingly investing in illegal Internet gambling operations, a class action claims in Federal Court. Lead plaintiff Nelson Gomes says managers bought hundreds of thousands of shares of NETeller and Bwin, both of them illegal gambling entities. The purchases were made despite the U.S. Department of Justice's previous public warnings that Internet gambling companies that take wagers from U.S. customers are criminal entities and that supporting those entities is a crime, according to the complaint. Mr. Gomes says NETeller even warned potential investors in its 2004 prospectus, which stated that the Department of Justice viewed NETeller as a criminal operation and that there "could be no assurance that the U.S. will not try to threaten or try to prosecute the NETeller Group under federal law at some stage under existing or future regulations." Despite the warnings and prosecution of NETeller's and Bwin's competitors, the fund managers continued to buy shares of the organizations, the complaint states. After several competitors were shut down by U.S. agencies, Bwin shut itself down and took an impairment charge of nearly $680 million, the complaint states. On Jan. 15, 2007, NETeller's founders, Stephen Lawrence and John Lefebvre, were arrested and charged with conspiracy to violate anti-gambling laws, the complaint states. Mr. Gomes says Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Lefebvre pleaded guilty to felonies and agreed to forfeit $100 million. "Defendants' illegal investments for the Fund's portfolio directly injured plaintiff and other investors in the Fund because the value of the shares in the Fund is calculated daily on the basis of the net asset value of the Fund's portfolio," the suit states. "Each dollar lost by the defendants' investments in an illegal gambling business resulted in a dollar loss to the Fund portfolio and to the investors in the Fund on a pro rata basis." Mr. Gomes says investors lost more than 85 percent of their money in the Bwin purchases alone and adds that investors lost "millions" in the fund's investments in Bwin and NETeller. The class consists of all investors who bought one or more shares in the fund during the purchases. The class seeks disgorgement and actual and punitive damages for RICO violations. A copy of the Complaint in Gomes v. American Century Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-00083 (W.D. Mo.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/01/Casinos.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: John Wagner, Esq. Gregory P. Erthal, Esq. SIMMONS BROWDER GIANARIS ANGELIDES & BARNERD LLC 707 Berkshire Blvd. East Alton, IL 62024 Telephone: 618-259-2222 - and - Thomas I. Sheridan, III, Esq. Andrea Bierstein, Esq. HANLY CONROY BIERSTEIN SHERIDAN FISHER & HAYES, LLP 112 Madison Ave. New York, NY 10016-7416 Telephone: 212-784-6400 BERNARD L. MADOFF: Ponzi Scheme Payout Plan Debated in Bank. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Noeleen G. Walder at the New York Law Journal reports that the attorney for the bankruptcy trustee recovering the assets of Bernard L. Madoff argued before a packed courtroom Tuesday that "no one in their right mind" would use the financial statements concocted by Madoff as a basis for distributing the funds. During a nearly four-hour hearing: David J. Sheehan, Esq. BAKER HOSTETLER LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza, 11th Floor New York, NY 10111 Telephone: 212-589-4616 an attorney for trustee Irving H. Picard, urged Bankruptcy Judge Burton Lifland to accept Mr. Picard's "cash-in/cash-out" method of compensating investors. Under that approach, investors who withdrew less cash from their Madoff accounts than they deposited ("net losers") would share in whatever Mr. Picard recovers, now about $1.5 billion. On the other hand, investors who withdrew funds over and above what they invested ("net winners") would get nothing. Investors who object to Picard's plan insist that any payout should be based on what Madoff, 71, claimed they made as recorded in their Nov. 30, 2008, statement from Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, just two weeks before Madoff was arrested for his multibillion dollar Ponzi scheme. Sheehan contended at the hearing that the approach of the objecting investors would "ignore the reality" of a Ponzi scheme. "The last customer statement, being the concoction of a fraudster, is not something on which you can rely" in calculating net equity, said Sheehan, a partner at Baker & Hostetler. In fact, that would only "reinforce Bernie's fraud," he claimed. "It's really sad that some of my colleagues have led people down the wrong path," he said of the attorneys representing victims of Madoff's fraud. Stressing that about $600 million has been distributed to investors so far, Sheehan said "the trustee understands his responsibilities" under the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970. And he tried to dispel notions that the Securities Investor Protection Corp., a federally mandated nonprofit agency created to protect customers of failed brokerage firms, has an insurance fund to compensate victims. According to Mr. Sheehan, while investors can receive up to a $500,000 advance from the agency, that is only after someone has "already determined that you have an allowed claim." "There's no insurance. There's no $500,000 that everyone gets a check for. I don't understand why people don't get that," he told Judge Lifland. Another lawyer: Brian J. Neville, Esq. LAX & NEVILLE, LLP 1412 Broadway, Suite 1407 New York, NY 10018 Telephone: 212-696-1999 argued that the trustee's method was contrary to 80 years of precedent in securities law and a throwback to the discredited concept of "buyer beware." He said that SIPC, which acts as a "backstop" when a brokerage firm fails, had clearly "failed the Madoff victims." Another lawyer: Helen Davis Chaitman, Esq. PHILLIPS NIZER LLP 666 Fifth Avenue, 28th Floor New York, NY 10103-0084 Telephone: 212-977-9700 who has blasted Picard for his method of calculating claims and accused him of violating the mandates of SIPC, agreed that the agency had let down investors. Herself a victim of Madoff's fraud, Ms. Chaitman, who represents both "net winners" and "net losers," said that investors like Adele Fox, an 86-year-old retired schoolteacher who "lost everything to Madoff" had a "reasonable belief" she would receive at least $500,000 in "insurance" from SIPC. To the hundreds "of Adele Foxes I represent, that $500,000 is the difference between living" with or without bleeding ulcers, Mr. Chaitman said. She also accused SIPC of ignoring warnings from Congress that it was "grossly underfunded" and said that the agency, which had $1.7 billion at the time Madoff's fraud was uncovered but faced roughly $2.45 billion in exposure as a result of the scheme, was "saving money at the expense of the investors." Ms. Chaitman told Judge Lifland that accepting the trustee's methodology would lead investors to move their accounts every time there was an appreciation and result in a "musical chairs of brokerage firms." Both sides relied heavily on In re New Times Securities Services Inc., 371 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2004), which involved a 17-year Ponzi scheme in which hundreds of investors were defrauded out of approximately $32.7 million. Mr. Sheehan cited the case for the proposition that basing customer recoveries on "fictitious amounts in the firm's books and record" would enable customers to recoup "arbitrary amounts that have no relation to reality." However, Ms. Chaitman and other victims' lawyers contended the case meant that a customer's "legitimate expectations," based on written confirmations of transactions, should be protected. Judge Lifland suggested that parties might wind up arguing their differing views of the case to the Second Circuit. The judge, who said he had received 27 briefs from attorneys representing investors objecting to Mr. Picard's methodology and 22 submissions from pro se individuals, took the matter under advisement. But he warned attorneys and victims, "No matter how I come down and rule, it's going to be unpalatable to one party or the other." As of Jan. 29, the Madoff trustee Web site valued the total number of "allowed claims" at roughly $5.1 billion, which exceeds the statutory limits of SIPC protection by approximately $4.5 billion. Mr. Sheehan suggested at the hearing that the trustee could recover as much as $8 billion in assets. Fraud Suit Dismissed In other Madoff-related news, a federal court on Monday threw out civil securities fraud claims in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Cohmad Securities Corp., et al., Case No. 09-cv-05680 (S.D.N.Y.) (Stanton, J.). "Nowhere does the complaint allege any fact that would have put defendants on notice of Madoff's fraud," wrote Southern District Judge Louis Stanton. "Rather, the complaint supports the reasonable inference that Madoff fooled the defendants as he did individual investors, financial institutions and regulators." The regulators said the defendants were crucial to Madoff's success because they gave the impression that one could only invest with Madoff as a favor through special access. In his ruling -- a copy of which is available at no charge at http://www.nylj.com/nylawyer/adgifs/decisions/020310cohmad.pdf-- Judge Stanton noted that Madoff had operated his business since 1960 and that Maurice Cohn, the company's chairman, is Madoff's former neighbor. Cohmad was formed in 1985 and Cohn's daughter, Marcia, its chief operating officer, joined in 1988, three years before Madoff says he began operating his business as a fraud, the judge said. He also noted that the Cohns worked in Cohmad's New York office on the same floors as Madoff's legitimate market-making business. Robert Jaffe, Cohmad's vice president and broker, who lives in Palm Beach, Fla., previously headed Cohmad's Boston office. He is a son-in-law of Carl Shapiro, a prominent Boston-area businessman and philanthropist whose family was said to have lost hundreds of millions of dollars from their investments with Madoff. In its complaint, the SEC said Madoff directed Cohmad and its executives to maintain a cloud of secrecy about his business and banned all written marketing materials, cold calls and e-mails. It said he also told the defendants he would not accept investors in the finance and banking industry because sophisticated investors ask too many questions. The defendants countered the allegations by saying an aura of exclusivity is a common marketing tactic. The judge rejected the SEC's conclusion that the defendants' fraudulent intent could be inferred from allegations that Cohmad failed to disclose the full extent of its relationship with Madoff in its regulatory filings and books and records. He said the argument "that concealment was because any defendant knew that Madoff was committing fraud is speculative and flimsy." Judge Stanton gave the SEC permission to replead if it could provide facts to back up its allegations. A suit filed by Mr. Picard in June, which accused Cohmad of recouping decades of "ill gotten gains" as a result of the firm's "symbiotic relationship" with Madoff, is pending before Judge Lifland. Cohmad has moved to dismiss the trustee's suit as well. Mr. Madoff, who was sentenced to 150 years in prison in June, is incarcerated in a medium security facility in Butner, N.C. BLUE CROSS: Accused of Predatory Pricing in Alabama Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Tracey Dalzell Walsh at Courthouse News Service reports that in a class action in state court, four medical groups accuse Blue Cross Blue Shield of monopolizing insured medical services in Alabama through its preferred medical doctor requirements and "exclusionary" and "predatory conduct" designed to eliminate competition. The physicians say Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama controls 80 percent of the state's commercially insured residents. The complaint in Jefferson County Circuit Court claims that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama excludes physicians from practicing in the state by refusing to give them a provider number if they do not accept its underpayment. Dr. David Williamson and four medical groups claim that saying no to Blue Cross, and refusing to accept the PMD status it requires, would mean financial ruin for hospitals and doctors. The PMD requirement allows Blue Cross to reimburse "contracting" doctors at whatever rate it decides, according to the complaint. In Alabama, this rate is far lower than is given to doctors in other states and by other insurance providers. The physicians particularly object to the reimbursement Blue Cross pays to emergency physicians in Alabama. They say Blue Cross's "fee for service" is 54 percent lower than "reasonable commercial market reimbursement rates," and well below the national average for emergency room doctors. Blue Cross is driving away many board-certified emergency room doctors, and has created a shortage of doctors that is "critically affecting" emergency health care in Alabama, according to the complaint. Alabama has the lowest coverage ratio of board certified doctors to population of any Southeastern state, according to the complaint. The medical groups seek punitive damages of $100 million for breach of contract and tortious interference with contractual relations. A copy of the Complaint in Williamson, et al. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, Civil Action No. CV-2010-900303.00 (Ala. Cir. Ct., Jefferson Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/01/BlueCross.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steadman S. Shealy, Jr., Esq. Richard E. Crum, Esq. SHEALY, CRUM, & PIKE, P.C. 2346 W. Main St. Dothan, AL 36302-6346 Telephone: 334-677-3000 CHATTEM INC: Continues to Defend "Wilson" Suit in Florida --------------------------------------------------------- Chattem, Inc., continues to defend putative class action lawsuit relating to the labeling, advertising, promotion and sale of its Garlique product, according to the company's Jan. 28, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Nov. 30, 2009. The suit was filed by Florida consumer James A. Wilson in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The company was served with this lawsuit on May 27, 2009. The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorney fees. The plaintiff alleges that the company mislabeled its product and made false advertising claims. The plaintiff seeks certification of a national class. Chattem, Inc. -- http://www.chattem.com/-- markets and manufactures a portfolio of branded over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, toiletries and dietary supplements, in such categories as medicated skin care products, topical pain care, oral care, internal OTC, medicated dandruff shampoos, dietary supplements, and other OTC and toiletry products. CHATTEM INC: Looks to Settle 2 Suits over Planned sanofi Merger --------------------------------------------------------------- Chattem, Inc., has entered into an agreement to settle two purported class actions over its planned merger with sanofi- aventis, according to the company's Jan. 28, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Nov. 30, 2009. On Dec. 20, 2009, the company entered into an agreement and plan of merger, with sanofi-aventis, and River Acquisition Corp., an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of sanofi. Two purported class action complaints were filed in connection with the Merger Agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby in the Chancery Court for Hamilton County, Tennessee. The first complaint, captioned Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corporation Retiree Medical Benefits Trust, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Chattem, Inc., et al. was filed on Dec. 22, 2009. The second complaint, captioned Schipper v. Guerry, et al., was filed on Dec. 23, 2009. The complaints allege generally, among other things, that the members of the company's board breached their fiduciary duties to the shareholders by advancing their personal interests ahead of those of the shareholders and by engaging in self-dealing and failing to properly value or disclose the company's true value. The Pirelli complaint also alleges that the company aided and abetted the breaches of duty by its board and the Schipper complaint brings a similar aiding and abetting charge against sanofi. The complaints seek generally an injunction preventing the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement from being consummated or, to the extent any such transactions are consummated, that such transactions be rescinded and set aside. Plaintiffs in each action seek costs and disbursements in conjunction with the actions, including attorneys' fees, and Schipper seeks compensatory damages against defendants, both individually and severally. On Jan. 6, 2010, plaintiff in the Pirelli action moved to consolidate the actions and appoint its counsel as lead counsel in the consolidated action. On Jan. 8, 2010, the company moved to dismiss the Pirelli action for failure to state a claim and to stay discovery pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss. The parties to the purported class actions have, following arm's- length negotiations, agreed in principle upon a proposed settlement of such actions, which will be subject to court approval. Pursuant to this proposed settlement, the company will be making certain supplemental disclosures to its shareholders in connection with the Tender Offer. The company and the members of the board of directors have denied and continue to deny any wrongdoing or liability with respect to all claims, events and transactions complained of in the aforementioned actions or that the company or the members of its board of directors engaged in any wrongdoing. The company is settling the actions in order to eliminate the uncertainty, burden, risk, expense and distraction of further litigation. Chattem, Inc. -- http://www.chattem.com/-- markets and manufactures a portfolio of branded over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, toiletries and dietary supplements, in such categories as medicated skin care products, topical pain care, oral care, internal OTC, medicated dandruff shampoos, dietary supplements, and other OTC and toiletry products. CHINA ORGANIC: Continues to Defend "Provo" Suit in New York ----------------------------------------------------------- China Organic Agriculture, Inc., continues to face a class-action lawsuit alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act 0f 1934, as amended, according to the company's Jan. 27, 2010, Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. The suit was filed on Dec. 12, 2008, by Lance C. Provo, "on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated", in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company, past officers and directors of the company, and one current director of the company. The suit alleges, among other things, that the Defendants disseminated false and misleading statements or concealed materially adverse facts causing members of the class to purchase the company's stock at inflated prices, and engaged in other improper actions, including divesting the company of its sole productive asset and acquiring a luxury retreat for the use of the Defendants. The suit alleges that the Defendants' actions violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10(b) 5 under the Exchange Act. The suit seeks as relief civil penalties, attorney's fees, and disgorgement China Organic Agriculture, Inc., formerly Industrial Electric Services, Inc. -- http://www.chinaorganicagriculture.com/-- is engaged in the business of rice production, processing and distribution. China Organic Agriculture, Ltd. is the company's wholly owned subsidiary. It operates in three segments: Ankang, the segment for the trading of agricultural products; ErMaPao, the one for rice production and processing, and Bellisimo Vineyard, the segment for wine production. CHORDIANT SOFTWARE: Appeal on Settlement's Approval Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- The appeal of a number of Chordiant Software, Inc.'s shareholder on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York's final approval of an agreement settling a consolidated case against the company remains pending. Beginning in July 2001, the company and certain of its officers and directors were named as defendants in a series of class action stockholder complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, now consolidated under the caption "In re Chordiant Software, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-6222." In the amended complaint, filed in April 2002, the plaintiffs allege that the company, the Individuals, and the underwriters of the company's initial public offering, violated Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended , based on allegations that the company's registration statement and prospectus failed to disclose material facts regarding the compensation to be received by, and the stock allocation practices of, the company's IPO underwriters. The complaint also contains claims against the Individuals for control person liability under Securities Act Section 15 and Exchange Act Section 20. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. Similar complaints were filed in the same court against hundreds of other public companies that conducted IPO's of their common stock in the late 1990's or in the year 2000. On Feb. 25, 2009, liaison counsel for plaintiffs informed the district court that a settlement of the IPO Lawsuits had been agreed to in principle, subject to formal approval by the parties and preliminary and final approval by the court. On April 2, 2009, the parties submitted a tentative settlement agreement to the court and moved for preliminary approval thereof. On June 11, 2009, the Court granted preliminary approval of the tentative settlement, ordered that Notice of the settlement be published and mailed, and set a Final Fairness Hearing for Sept. 10, 2009. On Oct. 6, 2009, the District Court certified the settlement class in each IPO Case and granted final approval of the settlement. On or about Oct. 23, 2009, three shareholders filed a Petition for Permission To Appeal Class Certification Order, challenging the District Court's certification of the settlement classes. Beginning on Oct. 29, 2009, a number of shareholders filed direct appeals, objecting to final approval of the settlement. If the settlement is affirmed on appeal, the settlement will result in the dismissal of all claims against the company and its officers and directors with prejudice, and the company's pro rata share of the settlement fund will be fully funded by insurance, according to the company's Jan. 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2009. Chordiant Software, Inc. -- http://www.chordiant.com-- is an enterprise software company that delivers products and services designed to improve the customer experience in front-office processes for global companies primarily in the insurance, healthcare, telecommunications and financial services markets. CVS PHARMACIES: Ill. Ct. Certified AirShield Plaintiff Class ------------------------------------------------------------ Amelia Flood at The St. Clair Record reports that St. Clair County Circuit Judge Lloyd Cueto has allowed a class action over CVS Pharmacies Inc.'s version of "Airborne," to go ahead. Judge Cueto entered his certification order in a class led by lead plaintiff Iean Finley on Jan. 25. Judge Cueto heard arguments Jan. 11. The suit is one of several pending in St. Clair County over the generic forms of the popular immune system supplement. All of the suits were filed by Finley's legal team, Freed & Weiss LLC of Chicago and Becker, Paulson, Hoerner and Thompson P.C. of Belleville. Defendants in the other suits include K-Mart and Target. The class action case against Target was expanded last year to potentially include claims from Minnesota, California and Florida. According to the transcript of the Jan. 11 hearing, plaintiff's attorney Richard Burke of St. Louis argued that his client had more than proved that CVS knowingly misrepresented its "AirShield" as a supplement with the same effectiveness as Airborne. The suit alleges that CVS committed fraud and violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act in selling the product knowing it did not work. "It's snake oil," Burke told Judge Cueto. Burke cited proceedings against the company at the Federal Trade Commission that led to what he claimed was an admission by the company that it falsely marketed the drug's effectiveness. Defense counsel Robert Phillips countered that the FTC proceeding was not an admission and that Finley himself admitted that he had not gone in the store to buy the CVS product at all. He pointed to Finley's deposition that he had gone to the store to buy Airborne, hoping to ward off seasonal illness. "He gets over to the shelf, he sees Airborne and then he sees my client's product and he realizes it's a few dollars cheaper," Phillips explained. Judge Cueto countered with a question about the product and the store's intent. "Let's suppose he looked at the Airborne label that was there that day and he may have looked at your product as well. Isn't he going to see basically the exact same thing in a different language?" Judge Cueto asked. Phillips replied that Finley would not have seen the "exact same thing." Judge Cueto continued questioning the product's marketing and labeling. "So when you say compare us to Airborne you're pointing somebody out to a specific product that you're telling the consumer you're as good as and perhaps better than that product and you're going to save a few bucks too," Judge Cueto said. "But what I'm not doing when I make that comparison is adopting, embracing any false advertising or statement," Phillips replied immediately after. In Judge Cueto's Jan. 25 order, the class is certified and consists of all people who bought AirShield from CVS in Illinois from Dec. 1, 2003 to Jan. 25, 2010. Judge Cueto notes that although CVS only sold AirShield in the state from May 2004 onward, there is an evidentiary question that will be resolved in discovery and the class definition can be amended as the case goes on. Finley's suit asks for individual damages of not more than $75,000 per individual class member. CVS is represented by Phillips and Robert Bassett. The case is St. Clair case number 08-L-616. DOLLAR GENERAL: Recalls 9,600 Toy Gun Sets ------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with retailer Dollar General, of Goodlettsville, Tenn., and importer Dolgencorp LLC, of Goodlettsville, Tenn., announced a voluntary recall of about 9,600 Special Forces and Police SWAT Toy Gun Sets. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The orange tips located at the end of the toy guns' barrels, which are designed to distinguish them from real guns, can easily be removed from the barrels, posing a choking hazard to children. No incidents or injuries have been reported. This recall includes a Special Forces Weapons and Accessories Set and a SWAT Police Play Equipment Set. Each set includes two toy guns and related accessories. The number 48JQH09 is printed on the right side of the larger gun included in the recalled sets. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10132.html The recalled toys were manufactured in China and sold at Dollar General stores in 35 states from September 2009 through October 2009 for about $5. Consumers should immediately take the recalled toy guns away from children and return them to any Dollar General for a full refund or a replacement product. For additional information, contact Dollar General Corp. at (800) 678-9258 between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.dollargeneral.com/ FIFTH THIRD: Lawsuit Filed in N.D. Ga. Contests Overdraft Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- The Washington, D.C.-based law firm Tycko & Zavareei filed a class action lawsuit in the Northern District Court in Georgia against Cincinnati-based Fifth Third Bank on Monday, February 1, alleging predatory overdraft fee practices. Willard v. Fifth Third Bancorp, Case No. 10-cv-00271 (N.D. Ga.) (Shoob, J.), filed on behalf of Marlene Willard of Hephzibah, Georgia, charges that Fifth Third manipulates customer debit transactions by posting them to customer accounts in the order of largest amount to smallest, rather than time of receipt, in order to generate overdraft fees. The result of this alleged practice is that customers are charged overdraft fees even if they have money in their accounts, which the suit claims has resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars of illegally-generated fees. According to the suit, this practice violates federal and state laws as well as violating Fifth Third's contract with its clients. In addition, the suit charges Fifth Third with failing to disclose transaction fees, writing its contract with customers in a way that obscures its overdraft policies, and preventing customers from opting out of the overdraft protection program that generates the fees in question. This suit is, in part, the result of a November 2009 ruling by the Federal Reserve Board that prevents banks from charging overdraft fees without consumer consent, meaning that banks must now explain their overdraft policy to their customers, at which point the customer must opt in to the program. These new regulations have paved the way for lawsuits such as Ms. Willard's. Local counsel to Ms. Willard is: James M. Evangelista, Esq. David James Worley, Esq. PAGE PERRY LLC 1040 Crown Pointe Parkway, Suite 1050 Atlanta, GA 30338 Telephone: 770-673-0047 FORTRESS INVESTMENT: Accused of Cheating Employees in Fla. Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Fortress Investment Group and Nevada Gold Inc. deducted health insurance premiums for employees of its SunCruz Casinos, but never bought the insurance, and fired hundreds of workers without proper notice, a class action claims in Orlando Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Man, et al. v. Fortress Investment Group, et al., Case No. 10-cv-00172 (M.D. Fla.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/01/Employ.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Stein, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN STEIN 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: 310-587-2277 - and - Demetrios Kirkiles, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DEMETRIOS KIRKILES 1619 South Andrews Ave. Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: 954-463-6500 HARRIS CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Harris Corp. continues to defend a consolidated federal securities class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, according to the company's Jan. 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 1, 2010. Harris Stratex Networks, Inc., a former subsidiary of the company, and certain of its current and former officers and directors, including certain current officers of the company, were named as defendants in a federal securities class action complaint filed on Sept. 15, 2008 by plaintiff Norfolk County Retirement System on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of HSTX securities from Jan. 29, 2007 to July 30, 2008, including shareholders of Stratex Networks, Inc. who exchanged shares of Stratex for shares of HSTX as part of the combination between Stratex and our former Microwave Communications Division to form HSTX. Similar complaints were filed in the Court on Oct. 6, 2008 and Oct. 30, 2008. The complaints were consolidated in a slightly expanded complaint filed on July 29, 2009 that added Harris Corp. and Ernst & Young LLP as defendants. This action relates to public disclosures made by HSTX on Jan. 30, 2007 and July 30, 2008, which included the restatement of HSTX's financial statements for the first three fiscal quarters of its fiscal 2008 (the quarters ended March 28, 2008, Dec. 28, 2007 and Sept. 28, 2007) and for its fiscal years ended June 29, 2007, June 30, 2006 and July 1, 2005 due to accounting errors. The consolidated complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and of Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as violations of Section 11 and Section 15 of the Securities Act, and seeks, among other relief, determinations that the action is a proper class action, unspecified compensatory damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Harris Corp. -- http://www.harris.com/-- together with its subsidiaries, is an international communications and information technology (IT) company serving government and commercial markets in more than 150 countries. The company is focused on developing assured communications products, systems and services for global markets, including radio frequency (RF) communications, government communications and broadcast communications. The company is organized in three segments: RF Communications segment, Government Communications Systems segment and Broadcast Communications segment. HARTE HANKS: Shoppers Settles Class Action for $6.95 Million ------------------------------------------------------------ Harte-Hanks, Inc.'s subsidiary, Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc., reached an agreement in principle to settle a class action lawsuit for $6.95 million, according to the company's Jan. 28, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On March 23, 2001, Shoppers employee Frank Gattuso and former employee Ernest Sigala filed a putative class action against Shoppers, claiming that Shoppers failed to comply with a California statutory provision requiring an employer to indemnify employees for expenses incurred on behalf of the employer. The plaintiffs allege that Shoppers failed to reimburse them for expenses of using their automobiles as outside sales representatives and failed to accurately itemize these expenses on plaintiffs' wage statements. The suit was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The class that plaintiffs seek to represent has been limited to all California Harte-Hanks outside sales representatives who were not separately reimbursed apart from their base salary and commissions for the expenses they incurred in using their own automobiles after early 1998. The plaintiffs seek indemnification and compensatory damages, statutory damages, exemplary damages, penalties, interest, costs of suit, and attorneys' fees. Shoppers filed a cross-complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that the plaintiffs have been indemnified for their automobile expenses by the higher salaries and commissions paid to them as outside sales representatives. The cross-complaint also alleges conversion, unjust enrichment, constructive trust and rescission and restitution based on mutual mistake. On Jan. 30, 2002, the trial court ruled that California Labor Code Section 2802 requires employers to reimburse employees for mileage and other expenses incurred in the course of employment, but that an employer is permitted to pay increased wages or commissions instead of indemnifying actual expenses. On May 28, 2003, the trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On Oct. 27, 2005, the California Court of Appeal issued a unanimous opinion affirming the trial court's rulings, including the interpretation of Labor Code Section 2802 and denial of class certification. On Nov. 23, 2005, the Court of Appeal denied the plaintiffs' petition for rehearing. On Nov. 5, 2007, the California Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's ruling that Labor Code Section 2802 permits lump sum reimbursement and that an employer may satisfy its obligations to indemnify employees for reasonable and necessary business expenses under Labor Code Section 2802 by paying enhanced taxable compensation. The Supreme Court remanded the matter back to the trial court for further proceedings related to the class certification issue and directed the trial court to consider whether the following issues could properly be resolved on a class-wide basis: (1) did Shoppers adopt a practice or policy of reimbursing outside sales representatives for automobile expenses by paying them higher commission rates and base salaries than it paid to inside sales representatives, (2) did Shoppers establish a method to apportion the enhanced compensation payments between compensation for labor performed and expense reimbursement and (3) was the amount paid for expense reimbursement sufficient to fully reimburse the employees for the automobile expenses they reasonably and necessarily incurred. On July 29, 2008, the trial court stated its intention to issue a split class action certification ruling, certifying a class action with respect to the first two questions listed immediately above (adoption of a policy or practice, and establishment of an apportionment method) and denying class certification on the third question listed immediately above (sufficiency of reimbursement). On May 19, 2009, the trial court issued its written partial class certification order. This matter was set for a class trial in April 2010 on the first two questions (adoption of a policy or practice, and establishment of an apportionment method). On Jan. 25, 2010, Shoppers, reached an agreement in principle with Shoppers employee Mr. Gattuso and former employee Mr. Sigala, individually and on behalf of a certified class, to settle and resolve the class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Shoppers, without any admission of liability, agreed, subject to certain conditions, that it will pay to the class settlement fund a total of $6.95 million. The proposed settlement is subject to the entry of an order of the trial court granting preliminary approval and, following notice to class members, final approval of the settlement and providing for the dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice against all class members. The parties have agreed in principle to promptly negotiate, sign and submit a formal, binding stipulation of settlement to the trial court to resolve this matter. Pursuant to the agreement in principle, in return for the above consideration, each member of the class, including Gattuso and Sigala, will release all claims against Shoppers and its affiliates that in any way arose from or related to the matters which were the subject of, or could have been the subject of, the claims alleged in the class action lawsuit. The company expects to incur a $6.95 million charge in the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2009, associated with the proposed settlement. Harte-Hanks, Inc. -- http://www.harte-hanks.com/-- is a worldwide direct and targeted marketing company that provides direct marketing services and shopper advertising opportunities to a range of local, regional, national and international consumer and business-to-business marketers. The company manages its operations through two operating segments: Direct Marketing, which operates both nationally and internationally, and Shoppers, which operates in local and regional markets in California and Florida. IMS HEALTH: Inks Agreement to Settle Two Suits in Connecticut ------------------------------------------------------------- IMS Health Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs regarding the settlement of the two putative stockholder class action lawsuits filed in the Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk, according to the company's Jan. 28, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On Nov. 6, 2009, a putative stockholder class action, styled Trust for the Benefit of Sylvia B. Piven v. IMS Health Incorporated, et al., CV09-5013110-S, was filed in the Superior Court of Connecticut against the company, the members of its board of directors, TPG Capital, L.P. and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, asserting the directors breached their fiduciary duties, and asserting that the company, TPG and CPPIB aided and abetted those alleged breaches of duty. On Nov. 10, 2009, a putative stockholder class action, styled John Felhaber v. David R. Carlucci, et al., CV09-5013139-S, was filed in the Superior Court of Connecticut, against the company, its directors, TPG, Parent and Merger Sub, also asserting claims for breaches of fiduciary duties and aiding and abetting such breaches. On Dec. 8, 2009, plaintiff Felhaber filed an amended complaint asserting, among other things, that the company's directors had breached their duty of disclosure in the Preliminary Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A filed with the SEC by the company on Nov. 25, 2009. On Dec. 18, 2009, the Company director defendants filed motions to dismiss for failure to properly effect service, and on December 21, 2009 the Company filed motions to strike, the Piven complaint and the Felhaber amended complaint filed in the Superior Court of Connecticut. On January 5, 2010, plaintiff Felhaber filed an application for temporary injunction seeking, among other things, disclosure-based relief in advance of the February 8, 2010 Special Meeting of the Company's stockholders, and on January 11, 2010, the Company and its directors filed an objection to the application. During a January 13, 2010 hearing before the Superior Court of Connecticut, the Company director defendants withdrew their motions to dismiss. On Jan. 27, 2010, the company entered into a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs regarding the settlement of the two putative stockholder class action lawsuits filed in the Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Stamford- Norwalk. IMS Health Inc. -- http://www.imshealth.com/-- provides market intelligence to the pharmaceutical and healthcare industries. With $2.3 billion in 2008 revenue and more than 50 years of industry experience, IMS offers market intelligence products and services that are integral to clients' day-to-day operations, including product and portfolio management capabilities; commercial effectiveness innovations; managed care and consumer health offerings; and consulting and services solutions that improve productivity and the delivery of quality healthcare worldwide. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: N.J. Methylene Chloride Suit Will Continue ------------------------------------------------------------- Henry Gottlieb at the New Jersey Law Journal reports that a federal judge in Newark, N.J., has ruled plaintiffs can pursue a class action suit alleging that Johnson & Johnson and Wal-Mart baby bath products are unfit for sale because they contain a banned chemical that could cause cancer. U.S. District Judge Dennis Cavanaugh denied the companies' motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim, saying the plaintiffs had made a good enough case to seek economic damages on theories that the companies committed deceptive trade practices and breached an implied warranty. The allegations about Johnson & Johnson's Baby Shampoo and Wal- Mart's Equate Tearless Baby Wash do not say anyone has been harmed, and two of the three allegedly hazardous chemicals in the products have not been banned by the Food and Drug Administration for use in cosmetics. But since 1989 the FDA has banned use of the third chemical, methylene chloride, and that gives the plaintiffs standing to make a case that the sale of the products caused economic damages to purchasers, Judge Cavanaugh ruled in Levinson v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Case No. 09-03317 (D. N.J.). The suit, on behalf of two women from St. Louis, is one of four putative class actions filed by law firm Keller Rohrback of Seattle against baby shampoo and soap manufacturers last year. The suits followed a March 2009 report by a Washington, D.C., health advocacy group, Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, that tests found traces of methylene chloride, formaldehyde and a chemical called 1,4-dioxane in various products. The suit says independent testing also showed the chemicals were in the product and that the presence was not disclosed by the companies. In their briefs, the companies did not dispute the allegation that the products contained traces of the chemicals. But they assert that no one was harmed and the suits don't allege that anyone had been harmed. "Millions of parents and caregivers have bought and used Johnson's Baby Shampoo without any incident or injury to their children," Daniel B. Carroll, Esq. DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 500 Campus Dr. Florham Park, NJ 07932-1047 Telephone: (973) 549-7296 said in a brief. And people continue to use the 50-year-old product around the world every day without harm, the brief added. Judge Cavanaugh ruled the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring claims for economic damages for the use of the two chemicals permitted in cosmetics by the FDA. But the plaintiffs do have standing to sue over the presence of methylene chloride because it is subject to a specific legal prohibition, he held. The deceptive trade practices claim survived because Judge Cavanaugh chose to apply the law of Missouri, the plaintiffs' home state, rather than New Jersey law. In New Jersey, consumer fraud claims arising from the sale of defective products are covered by the Product Liability Act, and liability under that act requires proof of harm. "The Court does not agree that articulating a claim in terms of pure economic harm where the core issue is the potential injury arising as a consequence of the products' allegedly harmful chemicals converts the underlying defective product claim into an independent and unrelated consumer fraud issue," Judge Cavanaugh ruled. The principle comes from Sinclair v. Merck & Co., 195 N.J. 51 (2008), a New Jersey Supreme Court ruling that said claims that painkiller Vioxx caused risk of heart attacks could be pursued under the Product Liability Act, but not the Consumer Fraud Act. The Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, however, does allow recovery for economic damages arising from any merchandise in trade or commerce. And because the plaintiffs are from Missouri, that state's law applies to the case, Judge Cavanaugh ruled. He also declined to disturb a claim for violation of a breach of implied warranty but did dismiss a claim for unjust enrichment. According to the suits, the FDA banned the use of methylene chloride in 1989 because its presence threatens an elevated risk of cancer. If the substance occurs as a byproduct of other chemical reactions within a product, it can be removed by a process called "vacuum stripping," but the defendants chose not to do so, the suits say. Similar suits are pending against Gerber Products Company, Kimberly-Clark and Proctor & Gamble Distributing. Plaintiffs lawyer: Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3052 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 says it's too early to tell, given the number of similar cases pending, what the damage claim or size of the class might be. "We are heartened by Judge Cavanaugh's ruling," she says. "The court recognized that plaintiffs stated viable claims under Missouri state law and may proceed with their lawsuit." Wal-Mart counsel: David E. Sellinger, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 200 Park Avenue P.O. Box 677 Florham Park, NJ 07932 Telephone: (973) 360-7900 referred a New Jersey Law Journal reporter's call to Greg Rossiter, a spokesman for Wal-Mart, who says, "Wal-Mart sells millions of safe, affordable quality products to customers every day and while we can't comment specifically on this case, we're pleased that the judge had significantly narrowed the plaintiffs claims." LODGIAN INC: Wolf Popper Files Shareholder Suit in Del. Ch. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- On January 29, 2010, Wolf Popper LLP filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of United Capital Corp. and other public shareholders of Lodgian Inc. (AMEX: LGN), in the Delaware Court of Chancery. United Capital Corp. owns approximately 9.9% of the outstanding common shares of Lodgian. The lawsuit seeks injunctive and other appropriate relief relating to the proposed acquisition of Lodgian's public shares pursuant to a merger whereunder an affiliate of Lone Star Funds is seeking to acquire Lodgian (the "Merger Agreement") for $2.50 per share. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that Lodgian's Board of Directors failed to conduct an auction or an adequate market check before entering into the Merger Agreement which contains provisions that act to discourage a potential superior proposal by another acquiror. The Complaint also contends that the $2.50 per share price is unfair and inadequate. If you have any information concerning this action, please contact: Chet B. Waldman, Esq. James Kelly-Kowlowitz, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: 212-759-4600 ONE IRON: Sued in Ill. for Unlawful Credit & Collection Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that One Iron Ventures dba First Cash Advance illegally rolls over payday loans at 416 percent annual interest, creating a mounting tsunami of debt, a class action claims in Cook County Court. A copy of the Complaint in Green v. One Iron Ventures, Inc., Case No. 10CH04127 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/01/Lending.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Cathleen M. Combs, Esq. James O. Latturner, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 120 S. LaSalle Str., 18th Floor Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: 312-739-4200 OPTOMA TECHNOLOGY: Suit Complains About Home Theater Projectors --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Optoma Technology's FU250W home theater projectors have "unreasonably short life spans" that cause the lamps to blow out quickly, a class action claims in Bergen County Court, Hackensack, N.J. PANASONIC CONSUMER: Sells Defective Plasma TVs, N.J. Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Panasonic sells defective Viera plasma TVs that randomly turn off, have failing picture or sound or other defects, a class action claims in Newark Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Cohen v. Panasonic Consumer Electronics Company, et al., Case No. 10-cv-_____, docketed as Doc. 7676 in Case No. 33-av-00001 on Jan. 29, 2010 (D. N.J.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/01/CCAPanasonic.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO 5 Becker Farm Rd. Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: 973-994-1700 - and - Peter Safirstein, Esq. Andrei Rado, Esq. Roland Riggs, Esq. Elizabeth S. Metcalf, Esq. MILBERG LLP One Pennsylvania Plaza New York, NY 10119 Telephone: 212-594-5300 SERAGEN SECURITIES: Notice of Settlement in Del. Ch. Ct. Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE SERGIO M. OLIVER, RONALD OLIVER, ) EMILY OLIVER, GREGORY O. GRUSE, ) ANN O. GRUSE, WILLIAM M. ) STERRETT, BLACKSBURG TRANSFER ) & STORAGE, INC., DAVID MCDANIEL, ) WALLACE L. HUFF, and DANIEL R. ) C.A. No. 16570-VCN CANADA, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) BOSTON UNIVERSITY, JOHN R. SILBER, ) LEON C. HIRSCH, TURI JOSEFESEN, REED ) R. PRIOR, GERALD S.J. CASSIDY, ) KENNETH G. CONDON, NORMAN A. ) JACOBS, JEAN C. NICHOLS, SERAGEN, ) INC., SERAGEN TECHNOLOGY, INC., and ) MARATHON BIOPHARMACEUTICALS LLC, ) ) Defendants. ) NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, CERTIFICATION OF CLASS, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION, SETTLEMENT HEARING AND RIGHT TO APPEAR TO: ALL HOLDERS AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF SHARES OF COMMON STOCK OF SERAGEN, INC. ("SERAGEN") ON NOVEMBER 4, 1997 AND ON AUGUST 12, 1998 (THE "CLASS CERTIFICATION DATES") Common shareholders of Seragen stock brought the above action ("Action") against Boston University ("BU"), John R. Silber, Gerald S. J. Cassidy, Kenneth G. Condon, Reed R. Prior, Norman A. Jacobs, Jean C. Nichols, and others. The complaint alleges that certain defendants caused Seragen to enter into "self-dealing" transactions that were unfair to Seragen's minority shareholders. The complaint also alleges that the defendants engaged in wrongdoing in connection with the August 12, 1998 ("Merger Date") merger between Seragen and Ligand Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Before commencement of trial, three Defendants - Reed Prior, Norman Jacobs and Jean Nichols - settled in exchange for $1,500,000 ("Partial Settlement"). That Partial Settlement fund was administered and paid to Class members who made valid claims. Trial went forward in February 2005 against non-settling defendants who had not previously been dismissed from the Action ("BU Defendants"). The Court issued its post-trial Opinion on April 14, 2006. In its Opinion, the Court found in favor of the BU Defendants on certain claims but also found the BU Defendants liable for breach of fiduciary duty. The parties briefed numerous post-trial issues raised in connection with entry of a form of judgment order, including BU's claim to entitlement to receive any unclaimed portion of the judgment award. The Court issued its letter ruling on these issues on May 29, 2009. In the May 29, 2009 letter ruling, the Court, among other things: (i) held it would enter a judgment against the BU Defendants in the amount of $2,837,454 plus interest at the legal rate from the date of the Merger; (ii) awarded $40,000 to lead plaintiff Sergio Oliver; (iii) awarded $936,360 in attorneys' fees to Class Counsel plus interest thereon from January 1, 2004; (iv) awarded costs and out-of-pocket expenses; and (vi) directed that BU was entitled to receive the portion of the judgment award not claimed by members of the Class. The parties thereafter reached a settlement, subject to approval of the Court ("Settlement"), before the entry of a judgment implementing the Court's various post-trial rulings. The Settlement calls for the creation of a Settlement Fund in the amount of $4,375,000 from which all awarded fees, expenses and administration costs are to be paid, with the net amount to be distributed pro rata to the members of a Settlement Class whose claims are approved. BU is not entitled to receive any unclaimed portion of the Settlement Fund. In exchange, claims against the BU Defendants and other Released Parties are to be released and the Action will be dismissed with prejudice. The complete terms of the Settlement are set forth in the Settling Parties' Stipulation, which is available for inspection at the Register in Chancery of the New Castle County Courthouse, 500 North King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801. If you held Seragen common stock on either of the Class Certification Dates, you may be a member of the Settlement Class and your rights may be affected by the Settlement. Class members wishing to participate in the Settlement must submit either a Claim Confirmation form (if the Class member had an approved and paid claim for shares held as of the Merger Date in connection with the Partial Settlement) or a Proof of Claim form so that it is received by The Garden City Group, Inc. (the "Claims Administrator"), no later than June 7, 2010. FAILURE TO FILE A CLAIM CONFIRMATION OR A PROOF OF CLAIM FORM, EVEN IF YOU HAD A CLAIM APPROVED IN THE PRIOR SETTLEMENT, WAIVES ANY RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND. All Class members will be bound by any judgment entered with respect to certification of the Class and the Stipulation and Settlement, regardless of whether you submit a Claim Confirmation or Proof of Claim form. If you object and wish to be heard with respect to either the Settlement or the certification of the Class, you must file an objection by March 5, 2010, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice referred to below. In order to receive a detailed Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Certification of Class, Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Settlement Hearing and Right to Appear and a Claim Confirmation and Proof of Claim form, please contact: In re Seragen Securities Litigation II, c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 9595, Dublin, OH 43017-4895, Phone (888) 281-2470. A hearing with respect to confirmation of the Class and with respect to the Settlement will be held before the Honorable Vice Chancellor Noble, on March 15, 2010 at 10:00 a.m., at the New Castle County Courthouse, 500 North King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801. Questions concerning the Settlement may be directed to: Michael A. Weidinger, Esq. Pinckney, Harris & Weidinger, LLC 1220 N. Market Street, Suite 950 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 504-1528 SUNRISE HOSPITAL: Notice of Fla. Class Action ADA Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ TO: ALL PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES WITH DISABILITIES AS THAT TERM HAS BEEN DEFINED BY 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12102(2), INCLUDING THOSE PERSONS WHO HAVE AN IMPAIRMENT THAT SUBSTANTIALLY LIMITS A MAJOR LIFE FUNCTION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO MOBILITY, HEARING, AND SIGHT, WHO SEEK, HAVE SOUGHT, OR WILL SEEK ACCESS TO OR USE OF ANY GOOD, SERVICE, PROGRAM, FACILITY, PRIVILEGE, OR ACCOMMODATION OF THE FACILITIES OF SUNRISE HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER, LLC. You are covered by and will be bound by the settlement of a class action lawsuit involving physical access barriers at the Facilities of Sunrise Hospital and Medical Center, LLC d/b/a Sunrise Hospital and Medical Center. This Notice is to inform you of facts which affect your legal rights. SUMMARY OF THE LAWSUIT A class action lawsuit entitled Access Now, Inc., et al. v. Ambulatory Surgery Center Group, Ltd., et al., Case No. 99-cv-00109 (S.D. Fla.) (Garber, J.), is currently pending and involves disability access at the facilities of Sunrise Hospital and Medical Center, LLC (Medical Center). The complaint alleges on behalf of all disabled individuals, including individuals with mobility, visual, or hearing impairments, that the Medical Center is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations. The complaint alleges that the Medical Center has failed to provide equal access for persons with disabilities to the Medical Centers facilities, because numerous physical, communication, structural, and program barriers exist at the Medical Center. The Medical Center has denied these allegations. By entering into a settlement of this action, the Medical Center does not admit or imply that it engaged in any wrongful action or inaction, or damages or injured anyone in any fashion. This lawsuit has been certified by the Court as a class action. The Named Plaintiffs serve as class representatives, and their counsel are: Miguel M. de la O, Esq. David E. Marko, Esq. DE LA O, MARKO, MAGOLNICK AND LEYTON 3001 S.W. 3rd Ave. Miami, FL 33129 Those lawyers serve as counsel for the class. The Medical Center is represented by: Pedro P. Forment, Esq. FORD AND HARRISON LLP 100 S.E. 2nd Street, Suite 2150 Miami, FL 33131 DEFINITION OF THE CLASS You are a member of the class if you are an individual with any type of disability whatsoever, and seek, have sought, or will seek access to or use of any facility of Medical Center. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT The named plaintiffs and the Medical Center have reached a proposed settlement of this class action lawsuit as to the Medical Center. The United States District Court has preliminarily approved that settlement, although the Court has made no findings and offers no opinion with respect to the merits of the settlement. The proposed settlement provides in substances that the Medical Center will make modifications and alterations to its Facilities, including public restrooms, paths of travel, parking, and other public areas within the facilities, with the express purpose of improving and/or providing equal access to and usability of the Facilities by persons with disabilities. No money damages are to be paid to members of the class. PROCEDURES CONCERNING THE SETTLEMENT Court Hearing. On April 1, 2010, at 10:00 a.m., the court will hold a hearing at the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Courtroom Four, 10th Floor, 99 N.E. 4th Street, Miami, Florida 33132, to determine whether the proposed settlement agreement is fair and reasonable and should be given Final Approval, and to consider the application Notice. More detailed information about the settlement of the Action, including a complete copy of the settlement agreement, may be obtained from class counsel. Objections to the Settlement. If you believe the Court should not approve the settlement, you may advise the Court of your objections and a special hearing will be scheduled on a date to be determined by the Court. To be considered by the Court, however, any objections to the final approval of the settlement must state the basis for the objection and must be timely filed in writing, along with all other papers or briefs the objector wishes the Court to consider, with the office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, 301 N. Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida, 33128, and served upon Class Counsel and counsel for Defendant on or before March 17, 2010 (Cutoff Date). All objections must include at the top of the document the case name, the case number, and the name of the Defendant to whom the objections relate. If any attorney will be representing an individual objecting to the settlement, the attorney shall file a notice of appearance with the Court and serve counsel for all parties on or before the Cutoff Date. Any member of the class who does not timely file and serve a written objection in the manner prescribed herein (1) shall not be permitted to raise such objection, except for good cause shown, and (2) shall be deemed to have waived, and shall be foreclosed from raising, any such objection. Entry of Judgment. If the settlement is approved by the Court, the order approving the proposed settlement and a judgment dismissing this action with prejudice as to Medical Center, will be entered on or after April 1, 2010. You should not expect to receive any further notices concerning the entry of such order and judgment, or of the proceedings which occur before such entry. All class members will be bound by the judgment. The judgment will bar all class members from asserting any claims under or related to Title III of the ADA and its implementing regulations against the Medical Center concerning physical, communication, structural and program access barriers in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. Also, pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement in this matter, all class members are deemed to have waived the protection provided by any state statutes or codes with respect to unknown claims at the time of a general release, and the general release in this action will be effective to forever discharge any claims relating to physical, communication, structural and program access barriers under or related to Title III of the ADA and its implementing regulations, if any, at the Medical Center by a class member at the time of the settlement agreement whether known or unknown to the class member. FURTHER INFORMATION The nature of this lawsuit and the proposed settlement are summarized in this or by consulting the public file on the case at the Office of the Clerk of the Court, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 301 N. Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida. Please Follow the Procedures Set out Above. Please Do Not Contact the Judge or the Clerk of the Court With Any Question About the Settlement TOYOTA MOTOR: New Orleans Suit Complains About Sticky Pedals ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that Toyota faces a class action in New Orleans Federal Court for the 5.3 million vehicles recalled for sticky accelerator pedals. A similar class action, in Corpus Christi Federal Court, blames the sticky pedals for 16 deaths and 243 injuries. A copy of the Complaint in Wiemer, et al. v. Toyota Motor North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-00219 (E.D. La.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/01/Toyota.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Esq. June A. Oswald, Esq. Jennifer L. Crose, Esq. BECNEL LAW FIRM, LLC 106 West 7th St. P.O. Drawer H Reserve, LA 70084 Telephone: 985-536-1186 - and - Hugh P. Lambert, Esq. Linda J. Nelson, Esq. Cayce C. Peterson, Esq. LAMBERT & NELSON, PLC 701 Magazine St. New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: 504-581-1750 U.S. FINANCIAL FUNDING: N.D. Calif. Certifies ARM Borrower Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Edstrom at http://livinglies.wordpress.org/reports that a nationwide class of individuals who obtained "pick-a-pay" option ARM loans has been certified in Lymburner v. U.S. Financial Funds, Inc., Case No. 08-cv-00325 (N.D. Calif.) (Laporte, J.). With an option ARM loan, Mr. Edstrom explains, the customer picks what payment he will make among a menu of payment options. In most circumstances, the customer picks the minimum payment. Any interest due which the minimum payment does not cover gets tacked on to the principal. Michael Lueder at http://cfslbulletin.com/relates that plaintiff Dian Lymburner refinanced her existing home loan with an option ARM loan. The loan had a low monthly payment option of $700. Shortly after plaintiff got her first bill, she realized that with each payment, the amount she owed went up, not down as she had expected. She sued, claiming violations of the Truth in Lending Act and California Unfair Competition Law. Ms. Lymburner claimed that the loan documents she signed did not disclose that her $700 payments would not cover all the interest owed and that negative amortization would result. In its opinion, Mr. Lueder reports, the Court carefully reviewed each factor supporting class certification. Among the considerations was all putative class members had the same loan documents which said negative amortization "may," rather then "will," result if minimum payment is made. Although the Court did not address the merits, plaintiff will likely argue that the clause is misleading in that it suggests that negative amortization is merely a possibility where, in fact, under every circumstance, it is certainty that if one makes only the minimum payment the loan balance will go up. Ms. Lymburner is represented by: Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq. ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP 155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: 415-986-1400 - and - David M. Arbogast, Esq. Jeffrey K. Berns, Esq. ARBOGAST & BERNS LLP 6303 Owensmouth Avenue, 10th Floor Woodland Hills, CA 91367-2263 Telephone: 818-961-2000 - and - Patrick DeBlase, Esq. Michael C. Eyerly, Esq. Paul R. Kiesel, Esq. KIESEL BOUCHER & LARSON LLP 8648 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910 Telephone: 310-854-4444 - and - Christopher Peter Fields, Esq. 3701 Wilshire Blvd., St. 510 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: 213-380-5858 - and - Joshua H. Haffner, Esq. Brian S. Kabateck, Esq. Richard L. Kellner, Esq. Lina Berjouhi Melidonian, Esq. KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: 213-217-5000 - and - Edward Young Lee, Esq. LEE & FIELDS, A.P.C. 3701 Wilshire Blvd., #510 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: 213-380-5858 U.S. Financial Funding, Inc., is represented by: Shahram Nassi, Esq. Roger Scott Raphael, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH One Sansome Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: 415-362-2580 The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, appearing as an interested party, is represented by: Ryan E. Bull, Esq. Mary Jocelyn Schmid, Esq. David A. Super, Esq. BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. The Warner 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004-2400 Telephone: 202-639-7986 - and - Kevin E. Cadwell, Esq. BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. 620 Hansen Way Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: 650-739-7504 VIRGINIA: Prisoners Sue for Meaningful Consideration of Parole -------------------------------------------------------------- The Legal Aid Justice Center, with the assistance of Troutman Sanders LLP and other attorneys, filed a class action in federal court in Richmond on behalf of 11 Virginia inmates. The suit challenges the Virginia Parole Board's administration of the parole process in a manner that deprives the thousands of Virginia inmates convicted of violent offenses committed prior to 1995 of their right to fair and meaningful consideration for parole as required by Virginia law and the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit, Burnette v. Fahey, was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Richmond. "We are filing this lawsuit today on behalf of those imprisoned in Virginia who are eligible for parole but are being denied their constitutional rights. Virginia law requires the Parole Board to release those found suitable for parole and to consider a broad range of circumstances in making this determination. In violation of Virginia law and protections under the U.S. Constitution, the Parole Board has been making parole determinations without considering all the circumstances Virginia law requires," said: Stephen A. Northup, Esq. Troutman Sanders LLP 1001 Haxall Point Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: 804-697-1200 Virginia law and the Virginia Parole Board's written manual state that the circumstances to be considered in making a parole determination include the nature of the crime, the sentence imposed, the inmate's prior record, the inmate's record in prison, whether the inmate has been rehabilitated, and whether release would be an acceptable risk. Virginia abolished discretionary parole in 1995. The men and women who committed crimes in Virginia before 1995, however, are still eligible for parole. For individuals sentenced under the old parole system, judges often imposed lengthy sentences, believing that these men and women would be released on parole after serving as little as one-quarter of the sentence they received. Abigail Turner, the Litigation Director for the Legal Aid Justice Center, stated, "The Parole Board's unlawful conduct has prolonged the plaintiffs' imprisonment and caused them to serve far longer sentences than those contemplated by the law at the time the sentences were handed down prior to 1995. The Parole Board's treatment of parole-eligible inmates convicted of violent offenses has amounted to a de facto abolition of parole, violating not only due process but also the ex post facto provision of the U.S. Constitution that prohibits punishment beyond that issued at the time of conviction." William R. Richardson, Jr., an attorney from Arlington who has worked with members of the Virginia General Assembly to reform the parole process, stated, "The failure of the Virginia Parole Board to give fair and meaningful consideration of parole for 'old law' inmates, in addition to being illegal, harms Virginia taxpayers, who must bear the cost of warehousing thousands of men and women who by any reasonable measure have rehabilitated themselves and no longer belong in prison. Continuing to lock away so many men and women who have learned useful job skills also deprives the Commonwealth of revenue they could contribute from their work. And it deprives their families of money for support as well as emotional support of children as they grow up and of parents as they age." The Virginia Institutionalized Persons Project of the Legal Aid Justice Center and a group of private attorneys concerned about Virginia's broken parole system are representing the plaintiffs and the class. The class action includes approximately 6,000 men and women incarcerated in Virginia for violent offenses committed before 1995. The plaintiffs have asked the court to order the Board to issue new rules which conform to the requirements of due process and ensure fair and meaningful consideration of parole for inmates convicted of violent offenses. In addition, plaintiffs ask the court to require the Parole Board to specifically consider all of the required factors in reaching parole decisions and to enjoin the Parole Board from focusing solely on the nature of the crime in deciding suitability for parole. LEGAL AID JUSTICE CENTER, VIRGINIA INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS PROJECT Additional information about the lawsuit is available at: http://www.justice4all.org/our_programs/VIP About the Legal Aid Justice Center The Legal Aid Justice Center provides legal representation for low-income individuals in Virginia who have the least access to legal resources. The LAJC staff of 40 work from offices in Charlottesville, Falls Church, Petersburg, and Richmond. The Virginia Institutionalized Persons (VIP) Project within the LAJC led the effort to bring this lawsuit. The VIP's mission is to investigate the conditions of Virginia's prisons and mental institutions and, through political advocacy and legal action, to increase accountability within the system to ensure that Virginia operates its institutions consistent with constitutional standards and human dignity. About Troutman Sanders LLP Troutman Sanders LLP -- http://www.troutmansanders.com/-- is an international law firm with over 650 lawyers and 15 offices in North America, Europe and Asia. The firm's lawyers provide counsel and advice in practically every aspect of civil and commercial law related to the firm's core practice areas: Corporate, Finance, Litigation, Public Law and Real Estate. See for more information. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Pays $190.3MM for Claims in 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Owens-Illinois, Inc.'s asbestos-related cash payments were US$190.3 million during the full year of 2009 and US$67.9 million during the fourth quarter of 2009, according to a Company press release dated Jan. 27, 2010. The Company'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. (Class Action Reporter Nov. 6, 2009) The Company's asbestos-related cash payments were US$210.2 million during the full year of 2008 and US$69.9 million during the fourth quarter of 2008. The deferred amount payable for previously settled claims was about US$36.3 million at the end of 2009, up slightly from year end 2008. New lawsuits and claims filed were about 6,000 during full year 2009, compared with about 5,000 in 2008. The number of pending asbestos-related lawsuits and claims were about 7,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with about 11,000 at year end 2008. The current portion of asbestos-related liabilities was US$175 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$175 million as of Dec. 31, 2008. The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities were US$320.3 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$320.3 million as of Dec. 31, 2008. Headquartered in Perrysburg, Ohio, Owens-Illinois, Inc. manufactures consumer-preferred, 100 percent recyclable glass containers that enable superior taste, purity, visual appeal and value benefits for its customers' products. The Company employs more than 22,000 people with 78 plants in 21 countries. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyco Still Faces 4,200 Pending Cases at Dec. 25 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tyco International Ltd., as of Sept. 25, 2009 and December 25, 2009, faced about 4,200 asbestos lawsuits pending against it and its subsidiaries, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Jan. 28, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company and certain of its subsidiaries are named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials. These cases typically involve product liability claims based primarily on allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial products that either contained asbestos or were attached to or used with asbestos-containing components manufactured by third-parties. Each case typically names between dozens to hundreds of corporate defendants. Of the lawsuits that have proceeded to trial since 2005, the Company has won or settled all but one case, with that one case returning an adverse jury verdict for about US$7.7 million, which included both compensatory and punitive damages. The Company has appealed the verdict. Each lawsuit typically includes several claims, and the Company has determined that it had about 5,500 claims outstanding as of Sept. 25, 2009. The number of claims has not significantly changed since Sept. 25, 2009. As of Dec. 25, 2009, the Company's estimated net liability of US$58 million was recorded within the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet as a liability for pending and future claims and related defense costs of US$235 million, and separately as an asset for insurance recoveries of US$177 million. Headquartered in Schaffhausen, Switzerland, Tyco International Ltd. is made up of five divisions: Fire Protection Services (fire detection and suppression systems), Electrical and Metal Products (steel tubing, pipes, and cables for commercial construction), ADT Worldwide (security systems), Safety Products (protective equipment), and Flow Control (valves). ASBESTOS UPDATE: Henager Action v. 43 Firms Filed in Madison Co. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Leonore Hall, on behalf of her father Leon Henager, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit on Jan. 12, 2010 against 43 defendant corporations in St. Clair County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports. Mr. Henager was diagnosed with lung cancer on March 4, 2009. Mrs. Hall says her father worked from 1949 until 1953 in the U.S. Air Force and worked as a manufacturing mechanical foreman from the 1950s until 1986. According to the suit, Mrs. Hall states Mr. Henager's exposure was foreseeable and should have been anticipated by the defendants. She claims Mr. Henager's disease was caused after he was exposed to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers. Mrs. Hall alleges the asbestos-related disease caused Mr. Henager to incur substantial medical costs. He also experienced great physical pain and mental anguish as a result of the disease, Mrs. Hall claims in the lawsuit. In the 10-count lawsuit, Mrs. Hall seeks sums in excess of US$200,000, economic damages of more than US$150,000, compensatory damages of more than $100,000 and punitive and exemplary damages in excess of US$50,000. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., represent Mrs. Hall in Case No. 10-L-14. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Conley Action v. 37 Firms Filed in Madison Co. --------------------------------------------------------------- Clara Conley, on behalf of her late husband Albert Conley, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit on Jan. 12, 2010 against 37 defendant corporations in St. Clair County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports. Mr. Conley was diagnosed with lung cancer on June 29, 2009. Mrs. Conley says he worked from 1955 until 1956 as a machinist at Paper Ball Company, as a printer at Beaumont Enterprise and Journal from 1956 until 1957, as an aviation machinist mate in the U.S. Navy from 1957 until 1977 and as a self-employed salesman from 1977 until 2007. Mrs. Conley claims Mrs. Conley's disease was caused after he was exposed to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers. In the six-count lawsuit, Mrs. Conley seeks sums in excess of US$150,000, economic damages of more than US$50,000 and compensatory damages of more than US$100,000. He is represented by Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., represent Mrs. Conley in Case No. 10-L-15. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Clay Schools Settles AHERA Violation with EPA -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reached a settlement with Clay County Schools in Clay, W. Va., for one violation of the Asbestos Hazards Emergency Response Act (AHERA) at the Lizemore School, an elementary school in Lizemore, W.Va., according to an EPA press release dated Jan. 27, 2010. AHERA is the federal law requiring schools to inspect and manage asbestos-containing materials. Lizemore School is located at 100 Lizemore Lions Road, Lizemore, W.Va. According to the EPA, an inspection conducted in 2007 by the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources resulted in one violation: failure to re-inspect all areas containing asbestos in each school building at least once every three years. A re- inspection helps prevent exposure to asbestos by ensuring that any maintenance or other routine school activities will not disturb asbestos. Lizemore School was assessed a civil penalty of US$5,525. Since the school spent US$600 to come into compliance with AHERA, the civil penalty has been reduced to US$4,925. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Frank Bruce and Co. Fined for Safety Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Frank Bruce and Company Ltd, of Bristol, England, was fined for putting its workers at risk of asbestos-related diseases while working on a property in the city, according to a Health and Safety Executive press release dated Jan. 27, 2010. Frank Bruce pleaded guilty at Bristol Magistrates in relation to refurbishment work at Lawrence Hill Industrial Park in the city during February 2009 and March 2009. The court heard HSE inspectors visited industrial units where Frank Bruce had organized refurbishment work involving the removal of a large quantity of asbestos insulation board without taking statutory safety precautions. This led to exposure of the workers to the asbestos and also the contamination of the units being renovated. The court heard Frank Bruce plead guilty to breaches under Regulation 14 of the Construction (Design and Management) [CDM] Regulations 2007 by failing to appoint a CDM-coordinator or principal contractor for notifiable construction work and Regulation 4 (10) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations by failing to review or implement a plan to manage materials containing asbestos. On Jan. 27, 2010, Frank Bruce and Co was fined GBP18,000 for breaching the regulations and ordered to pay GBP6,679 costs. Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Sue Adsett said, "The decision not to have large quantities of asbestos insulation board removed by licensed contractors before the general refurbishment work began, put the workers at risk and contaminated the site. "The work was stopped and the defendant paid to make the site safe, but this doesn't change the fact that seven construction workers were exposed to asbestos, which we know can cause fatal diseases. "Landlords and property developers need to be very wary of organizing construction work themselves if they haven't got appropriate experience of managing health and safety in building projects." Around 500,000 buildings built before 2000 could contain asbestos, according to HSE estimates. If managed properly and kept in good condition, asbestos need not pose safety concerns. Landlords need to arrange for "Type 3" surveys to be done before refurbishment or demolition and pass this information on to builders before asking them to start work. Certain asbestos products like Asbestos Insulation Boards or Asbestos Insulation can only be removed by specially licensed contractors. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jean Charest Urged to Stop Exporting of Hazard --------------------------------------------------------------- The Premier of the Canadian province of Quebec, Jean Charest, has been urged by more than 100 scientists from 28 countries to put a stop to asbestos exports from the province, The Canadian Press reports. The scientists ask Mr. Charest to take heed of extensive international scientific opinion that all forms of asbestos present a danger for public health. Dated Jan. 28, 2010, the scientists' letter to Mr. Charest is the outburst in an ongoing battle over asbestos mining in Quebec and comes as Mr. Charest prepares to depart on a trade mission to India, one of the major importers of Canadian asbestos. The scientists say the province needs to stop mining asbestos (also called chrysotile) and stop sending it abroad to developing countries. Several poor countries still import asbestos from Canada despite numerous studies linking it to health hazards, including cancer. However, the facts and figures cited were quickly dismissed as rehashed arguments by the Chrysotile Institute, an asbestos lobby group and a fierce defender of the product. The asbestos industry claims chrysotile can be used safely as long as precautions are followed. President Clement Godbout said in an interview after reading the letter, "Instead of giving new scientific research or data, they are just launching accusations. "If they have new data and studies showing that the way chrysotile is used today in Canada and Quebec is an unacceptable risk for people, please send them to us because I've never seen such a study." The academics say Quebec's position is hypocritical and that the province should stop funding the pro-asbestos lobby. Dr. Fernand Turcotte, a professor of public health at Universite de Laval said, "It's a good occasion for him to realize the Quebec asbestos question is a worldwide problem right now." The letter states that while Quebec exports asbestos, it rarely uses it in construction projects at home. The letter states, "Quebec itself uses virtually none of the asbestos it mines, in spite of major infrastructure projects currently underway. "Instead virtually all Quebec's asbestos is exported to developing countries, where protections are few and awareness of hazards are non-existent." In 2008, Canada exported 175,000 tons of chrysotile - almost all of it to developing nations like India, Bangladesh and Indonesia. Industry critics have declared that safety precautions are rarely enforced in those countries. Canada's US$100-million-a-year asbestos industry is localized mainly in Thetford Mines, Que., home to the country's last operational mine with about 400 employees. Figures released by Quebec's Workers Health and Safety Board indicated that asbestos-related deaths are the most common among workers in Quebec. In 2008, of 127 deaths, 58 were linked to asbestos. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial in Standard Coosa Case to Begin Feb. 2010 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Trial in an asbestos lawsuit, regarding the former site of the Standard Coosa-Thatcher Company textile plant in Chattanooga, Tenn., will commence on February 2010, Mesothelioma reports. In February 2010, three defendants will stand trial in federal court on 11 counts of conspiracy to defraud the government and violate the Clean Air Act by making false statements and obstructing the course of justice in relation to asbestos remediation. The defendants have pleaded not guilty, but, if found in violation of NESHAP rules after the trial (beginning on Feb. 16, 2010) concludes, face up to five years in prison and fines of up to US$250,000. The defendants are Donald Fillers, David Wood, and James Mathis (of the Mathis Companies, Inc.). Mr. Fillers and Mr. Wood are the owners of a company called the Watkins Street Project, LLC, which was formed in 2003 to buy and demolish the Standard Coosa textile plant, intending to salvaging equipment and materials. A fourth member of the consortium, Gary Fillers, has already pleaded guilty to what federal investigators and prosecutors suspect was a hugely understated amount of asbestos removed from the textile factory during 2004 and 2005, under conditions which clearly did not comply with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's NESHAP (National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants) regulations. The indictment charges the defendants with submitting a 10-day notice (in August 2004) with the Chattanooga-Hamilton County Air Pollution Control Bureau, the agency regulating asbestos removal and other hazardous air pollutants. The notice is described by officials as having vastly understated the amount of asbestos involved in removal. Other counts include: -- Failure to wet the tools used in asbestos removal; -- Failure to hire trained personnel; -- Failure to provide those hired with protective equipment; -- Sorting the removed asbestos from salvage items by hand; -- Disposing of removed asbestos by throwing it out windows; -- Putting the discarded asbestos into open piles, accessible to the general public, or; -- Hiding it in dumpsters and; -- Transporting removed asbestos offsite without proper packaging, labeling or shipping, and disposing of it in facilities not licensed for hazardous waste. The Standard Coosa-Thatcher textile plant asbestos removal is one of the most scandalous examples of NESHAP violations on record, and some of the victims - being homeless and thus transitory - may never be found, in spite of efforts by local regulators to identify them by placing ads in the local newspaper on Jan. 10, 2010. As U.S. Attorney Greg Sullivan notes, state and federal governments have an obligation to notify victims of their rights under the law. So far, however, only two people have been reported responding to the advertisement. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard Abated From Lex Villa in Carrollton, Ga. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Lex Villa Building on Tanner Street in Carrollton, Ga., underwent asbestos abatement in preparation for demolition and to pave way for the new Carroll County justice center, the Mesothelioma & Asbestos Awareness Center reports. The demolition has been scheduled for February 2010, according to Carroll County Public Works/Solid Waste Superintendent Charles Pope. In the meantime, workers at the site are collecting glass and other recyclable materials. The asbestos abatement was performed by Pyramid Remedial Systems Inc. of Alpharetta, Ga., and was completed on the Jan. 12, 2010. The removal of asbestos must be done by licensed specialists, as there are a number of state and federal laws which govern and regulate how asbestos must be handled and disposed of. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Split Rulings Issues in Oil Field Cases in Pa. --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, issued split rulings in the asbestos case styled Various Plaintiffs v. Various Defendants (Oil Field Cases). District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno entered judgment in Civil Action No. 09-MC-103 on Dec. 10, 2009. The instant motion to remand was filed on behalf of 444 plaintiffs arguing that this Court must remand their actions to Mississippi state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants filed timely responses. These cases originated in Mississippi state court and were removed to federal court by defendants Union Carbide and ConocoPhillips. The basis for removal was the allegedly fraudulent joinder of two non-diverse defendants, Oilfield Service & Supply, Inc. and Mississippi Mud., Inc. In addition, 25 of these cases were removed under the theory that plaintiffs were entitled to assert federal jurisdiction under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). After removal, plaintiffs filed motions to remand, on the same grounds considered here, in the Southern District of Mississippi. After considering these motions, U.S. District Judge Walter Gex remanded five of these cases to Mississippi state court. Before Judge Gex was able to rule on the remaining motions, the cases were transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and consolidated as part of MDL-875 by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. The remand motions remaining on the docket at the time of the consolidation with MDL-875 were denied by the MDL court without prejudice. Plaintiffs had renewed their request for remand in the 444 cases and these renewed motions are now before the Court. After removal, the cases in all three categories were grouped by the Court for settlement purposes, under MDL-875 procedures. After attending several settlement conferences with defendants and Magistrate Judge Strawbridge, plaintiffs filed the instant motion to remand. The motion was granted in part and denied in part. ASBESTOS UPDATE: District Court Issues Split Ruling in Dent Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, issued split rulings in the asbestos case styled Reginald Dent v. Westinghouse, et al. MDL No. 875. U.S. Magistrates Judge Elizabeth T. Hey entered judgment in EDPA Civil Action No. 08-83111 on Jan. 4, 2010. Warren Pumps, a defendant in this asbestos action, filed a motion to compel Reginald Dent to respond to certain interrogatories and requests for production of documents. Specifically, Warren Pumps sought information on the settlement of any claim asserted in Mr. Dent's complaint. Mr. Dent sued a total of 10 defendants in this action, seven of which have been dismissed. The Court denied in part and dismissed as moot in part Warren Pumps' motion to compel. To the extent Warren Pumps sought settlement information, the motion was denied. The remainder of the Motion was dismissed as moot based on Mr. Dent's representation that counsel has resolved the other issues raised in the Motion. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Court Remands Coulter to Correct Judgment ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1, remanded the asbestos case styled Ernest Coulter and Lerose Coulter, Appellants v. Asten Group, Inc., Respondent, to correct a judgment. Judges Marlin Appelwick, Robert Leach and Kenneth Grosse entered judgment in Case No. 63148-9-I on Jan. 11, 2010. This was an appeal from King County Superior Court. Ernest and Lerose Coulter sued AstenJohnson, Inc. and other sellers and manufacturers of asbestos-containing products Mr. Coulter was exposed to during the course of his work at the Port Townsend Paper Mill. By the time of trial, Asten was the only remaining defendant. The jury apportioned two percent of the liability to Mr. Coulter, five percent to Asten, and 93 percent to all the other suppliers of asbestos-containing products to the mill. The total damages award was US$242,500. The trial court entered judgment against Asten in the amount of US$12,125 plus US$611.31 in taxable costs, according to the jury's apportionment of liability. This court directed the trial court to hold a reasonableness hearing to determine the appropriate offset for the full amount of Mr. Coulter's pretrial settlements with other defendants. Once the offset amount was established, this court directed the trial court to award damages consistent with Asten's joint and several liability. Without offset, Asten would be responsible for 98 percent of the judgment, for a total of US$237,650. Upon remand, the parties agreed that the offset amount for settlements from other defendants and bankruptcy trusts should be US$94,977. Asten did not challenge the reasonableness of these specific agreed upon settlements. Asten argued, however, that it was entitled to an additional offset based on unrecovered settlement amounts Mr. Coulter might receive in the future. Mr. Coulter asked for postjudgment interest on the original judgment amount. The trial court agreed that the offset should be US$94,977 for paid settlement proceeds. The trial court also offset the judgment by US$57,215 for probable recovery from future trust applications, and US$7,200 for the unpaid portion of the Coulters' agreement with the Bartells Asbestos Settlement Trust, for a total of US$64,415 for potential future recovery. The total offset was US$159,392. The offsets resulted in a total judgment against Asten in the amount of US$78,258, plus US$611.31 in taxable costs. The court determined Mr. Coulter was not entitled to prejudgment interest, because their tort claims were unliquidated. It also decided that postjudgment interest should accrue from the date of the entry of final judgment, which was March 3, 2009. Mr. timely appealed the order. Philip Albert Talmadge, Esq., Sidney Charlotte Tribe, Esq., of Talmadge/Fitzpatrick in Tukwila, Wash., Cameron O. Carter, Esq., of Brayton Purcell LLP in Portland, Ore., represented Ernest Coulter and Lerose Coulter. G. William Shaw, Esq., of Sarah Christine Johnson K & L Gates LLP in Seattle, and Kevin A. Rosenfield, Esq., of Ball Janik LLP in Seattle, represented Asten Group, Inc. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Denies UCC Bid in Washington Case --------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California, denied Union Carbide Corporation's petition for writ of mandate in an asbestos case styled Union Carbide Corporation, Petitioner v. The Superior Court o Los Angeles County, Respondent; Helen P. Washington et al., Real Parties In Interest. Judges Judith M. Ashmann-Gerst, Roger W. Boren and Victoria M. Chavez entered judgment in Case No. B216591 on Jan. 15, 2010. This was an action brought by real parties in interest Helen P. Washington and others for the wrongful death of John H. Washington, Jr., due to his exposure to asbestos (wrongful death action). At issue was the Los Angeles Superior Court's denial of a motion by Union Carbide to preclude the use of Mr. Washington's deposition from a personal injury action he filed in Texas to prove liability in the wrongful death action. The petition was denied. From 1964 to 1996, Mr. Washington worked in the maintenance department at the Los Angeles Unified School District. He worked with equipment that may have contained asbestos (boilers, gaskets, pumps, steam traps and valves), joint compounds that may have contained asbestos (Bondex, Georgia Pacific, Goldbond, Kaiser Gypsum and Paco), and insulation. Mr. Washington was diagnosed with mesothelioma in December 2006. In January 2007, he contacted Waters & Kraus, a law firm experienced in asbestos litigation. On May 21, 2007, Waters & Kraus filed the Texas action and alleged multiple tort claims on behalf of Mr. Washington based on his exposure to asbestos- containing products, and a loss of consortium claim on behalf of Mrs. Washington. Union Carbide was served as a defendant on May 24, 2007. Mr. Washington was deposed at his home in Huntsville, Ala., in July 2007 on the 19th, 20th, 25th and 26th. Counsel for various defendants asked questions, but counsel for Union Carbide, Brennon D. Gamblin, Esq., opted not to conduct an examination. Within the next few days, the Washingtons filed a first amended complaint and a second amended complaint. A month later, they dismissed the Texas action without prejudice. The Washingtons then filed a similar personal injury action in California and once again named Union Carbide as a defendant. When Union Carbide noticed Mr. Washington's deposition at a Los Angeles location, Waters & Kraus objected on the grounds that Mr. Washington resided in Huntsville and that he was too ill to attend in any event. Counsel for Union Carbide withdrew the notice of Mr. Washington's Los Angeles deposition. On Dec. 21, 2007, Mr. Washington passed away. Subsequently, Mrs. Washington and the other plaintiffs filed the wrongful death action. Union Carbide moved to exclude Mr. Washington's deposition. The Appeals Court summarily denied Union Carbide's petition for writ of mandate. Following a petition for review with the California Supreme Court, the case was transferred back to the Appeals Court. The temporary stay was vacated. Real parties in interest, Helen Washington and Dana Washington, are entitled to recover the cost of these proceedings. McKenna Long & Aldridge (William J. Sayer, Esq., and Margaret I. Johnson, Esq.) represented Union Carbide Corporation. Waters, Kraus & Paul (Paul C. Cook, Esq., and Michael B. Gurien, Esq.) represented Helen P. Washington and Dana Washington. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stay in Continental Case v. Indian Head Lifted --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, lifted the stay in the case styled Continental Casualty Company and Columbia Casualty Company, Plaintiffs/Counter- Defendant v. Indian Head Industries, Incorporated, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff. District Judge Denise Page Hood entered judgment in Civil Action No. 05-73918 on Jan. 15, 2010. This matter was before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Issue of Allocation. Briefs have been filed and a hearing was held on the matter. Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Issue of Allocation was granted. A hearing was held on the matter. Since 1994, Continental Casualty Company had defended and indemnified Indian Head Industries, Inc. against numerous asbestos-related lawsuits. The underlying claimants had asserted exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured by Indian Head, or one of its predecessors. Claimants alleged exposure as early as the 1940s and continued exposure through the present. In April 1984, Continental Casualty issued a policy of primary liability insurance to Indian Head with effective dates of April 8, 1984 through April 8, 1985. In April 1985, Continental Casualty issued a renewal of policy number GLP 062339817, with effective dates of April 8, 1985 through April 8, 1986. In April, 1986, Continental Casualty again renewed policy number GLP 062339817, with effective dates of April 8, 1986 through April 8, 1987. Although Continental Casualty was able to point to policy numbers issued from April 8, 1987 through April 8, 1988 and April 8, 1988 through April 8, 1989, Continental Casualty contended that Indian Head had failed to provide full and complete copies of those policies. Continental Casualty alleged that, to the extent that it issued liability insurance policies for periods beginning on or subsequent to April 8, 1987, those policies contained "absolute asbestos" exclusions. Continental Casualty's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Issue of Allocation (No. 24, filed Sept. 6, 2006) was granted. A Status Conference would be held in this matter on Feb. 8, 2010 to address further discovery and hearing dates. It was further ordered that the stay in this action be lifted. Ralph C. Chapa, Jr., of Kaufman, Payton in Farmington Hills, Mich., and Lisa A. Pach, Esq., of Colliau, Elenius in Chicago, represented Continental Casualty Company and Columbia Casualty Company. James E. Wynne, Esq., Butzel Long, Esq., of Detroit, represented Indian Head Industries, Incorporated. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Liability at $11M in Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Columbus McKinnon Corporation's asbestos-related aggregate liability amounted to US$11 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Jan. 29, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company recorded an asbestos-related liability of US$9,350,000 as of Sept. 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 20, 2009) Based on actuarial information, the Company has estimated its asbestos-related aggregate liability including related legal costs through March 31, 2027 and March 31, 2039 to range between US$6.5 million and US$18 million using actuarial parameters of continued claims for a period of 18 to 30 years. Headquartered in Amherst, N.Y., Columbus McKinnon Corporation designs, markets and manufactures material handling products, systems and services, which efficiently and ergonomically move, lift, position and secure material. Key products include hoists, cranes, rigging tools including chain and forged attachments, and actuators. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell's Liabilities at $1.040Bil in Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International Inc.'s long-term asbestos liabilities amounted to US$1.040 billion as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$1.583 billion as of Dec. 31, 2008, according to a Company press release dated Jan. 29, 2010. Headquartered in Morris Township, N.J., Honeywell International Inc. is a manufacturer that serves customers worldwide with aerospace products and services; control technologies for buildings, homes, and industry; automotive products; turbochargers; and specialty materials. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 20 Lawsuits Pending v. Ameron Int'l. at Nov. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ameron International Corporation was a defendant in 20 asbestos- related cases as of Nov. 30, 2009, compared with 23 cases as of Aug. 30, 2009, according to the Company's annual report filed on Jan. 21, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company is a defendant in a number of asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits. These cases generally seek unspecified damages for asbestos-related diseases based on alleged exposure to products previously manufactured by the Company and others. During the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2009, there were four new asbestos-related cases, seven cases dismissed, no cases settled, no judgments and aggregate net costs and expenses of US$134,000. Headquartered in Pasadena, Calif., Ameron International Corporation is a multinational manufacturer of highly-engineered products and materials for the chemical, industrial, energy, transportation and infrastructure markets. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sensus USA Inc. Still Facing Exposure Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- Sensus USA Inc. and other third parties continue to be defendants in several lawsuits related to illnesses from exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Jan. 29, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. 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 the Company acquired Invensys Metering Systems, such 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. Headquartered in Raleigh, N.C., Sensus USA Inc. provides advanced utility infrastructure systems, metering product technologies and related communication systems to the worldwide utility industry. ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.C. Court Affirms Commission's Ruling in Pope --------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of North Carolina upheld the ruling of the North Carolina Industrial Commission, which favored Horace K. Pope, Jr. in an asbestos case styled Horace K. Pope, Jr., Employee, Plaintiff, Appellee v. Johns Manville, Employer, St. Paul Travelers Indemnity Company, Carrier-Defendant, Defendants- Appellants. Judges Sam Ervin, Martha Geer and Donna Stroud entered judgment in Case No. COA09-281 on Jan. 19, 2010. This was an appeal by Defendants from Opinion and Award entered Nov. 7, 2008 by the North Carolina Industrial Commission. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeals on Sept. 16, 2009. Johns Manville and Travelers Indemnity Company appealed from an Opinion and Award of the Commission entered Nov. 7, 2008, concluding that Mr. Pope was exposed to asbestos during his employment with Defendants; that Mr. Pope had contracted asbestosis; that Mr. Pope is disabled; and that Mr. Pope should be awarded total disability benefits in the amount of US$399.06 per week, medical expenses, and reasonable attorneys' fees. Mr. Pope, who was 80 years old at the time of the Commission's decision, worked from Jan. 1, 1949 to Jan. 1, 1950 and from Aug. 1, 1952 to Aug. 31, 1968 at a Johns Manville manufacturing plant located in Marshville, N.C. The facility was initially owned by Union Asbestos and Rubber Company, but was purchased by Johns Manville in 1962. At the Marshville facility, raw asbestos fibers were mixed with either cotton or rayon to form asbestos yarn, which was woven into cloth or tape. Beginning in 1952, Mr. Pope worked as a "spare hand," which meant that he performed various tasks in the facility. He testified that he became the "supervisor of the whole yarn manufacturing part of the company" in 1957. In that capacity, he oversaw between 45 and 80 employees and spent about 90 percent of his time on the plant floor overseeing the manufacturing process. However, once he began to work as a supervisor, he did not have responsibility for performing "hands on" work except for occasionally repairing machinery. Although he stopped working at Johns Manville in August 1968, Mr. Pope was paid through June 1969 as the result of accumulated vacation time and the receipt of nine months severance pay. At that point, he began working at Armour Creameries, a turkey and chicken processing plant. Subsequently, he worked at Masterspun Yarn, a carpet yarn plant, and Maylock Industries, a plastic injection molding plant. After working in various industries for several years, Mr. Pope began raising turkeys full-time and remained in that occupation from 1986 until 2003, when he was 75. As a turkey grower, he would keep about 18,000 to 20,000 turkeys at one time. Mr. Pope began smoking cigarettes in 1944, when he was 16 years old, and stopped smoking in 1992, when he was 64. He usually smoked a pack a day during the time that he smoked. He has had multiple heart catheterizations, including one in 1999, which led to a quadruple bypass procedure, and another one in 2003, shortly before he stopped working as a turkey grower. On May 24, 2005, Mr. Pope filed an Industrial Commission Form 18 against Defendants seeking workers compensation benefits for asbestosis. The matter was heard before Deputy Commissioner George T. Glenn, II on Nov. 15, 2006. On Feb. 25, 2008, the Deputy Commissioner entered an Opinion and Award finding that Mr. Pope had been exposed to asbestos during his employment with Johns Manville and had developed asbestosis as a result of that exposure. The Deputy Commissioner ordered Defendants to pay disability benefits to Mr. Pope from September 2003 until such time as Mr. Pope returned to work at the same or greater wages or upon further order of the Commission. On Feb. 26, 2008, Defendants appealed the Deputy Commissioner's decision to the Commission. On Nov. 7, 2008, the Commission entered an Opinion and Award affirming the Deputy Commissioner's decision. Defendants noted an appeal from the Commission's order to this Court. Wallace and Graham, P.A. (Michael B. Pross, Esq.) represented Horace K. Pope, Jr. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ark. Court Denies Union Pacific Bid in Fletcher ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division, denied Union Pacific Railroad Company's motion to sever the injury claims of Eugene J. Fletcher, Robert Davis, and Lonnie Hughes. The case is styled Eugene J. Fletcher, Robert Davis and Lonnie Hughes, Plaintiffs v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, Defendant. Judge Brian S. Miller entered judgment in Case No. 5:09-CV-030 BSM on Jan. 21, 2010. The plaintiffs claimed that, while employed at Union Pacific, they suffered musculosekeletal injuries and other conditions as a result of Union Pacific's negligence. They alleged that Union Pacific failed to provide them with safe working conditions and they were exposed to excessive and harmful cumulative trauma. Plaintiffs also claimed that Union Pacific provided them with wholly inadequate training programs aimed at preventing or decreasing the risk of injuries. Mr. Fletcher worked as freight conductor for Union Pacific and its predecessor, Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, from 1971 to 2006. Mr. Fletcher stated that as a result of his employment with Union Pacific: (1) he was exposed to asbestos; (2) he suffers from bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome; and (3) he has injuries to his right knee and his neck. Mr. Davis worked as a brakeman and conductor for Union Pacific from 1970 to 2007. He claimed that as a result of his employment, he has injuries to his left shoulder and his right wrist. Mr. Hughes worked as a brakeman and conductor for Union Pacific and its predecessors from 1972 to 2007. He claimed that, as a result of his employment, he suffers from injuries to his right shoulder. Union Pacific's motion to sever was denied. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Motion to Remand Affirmed in Lindenmayer Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, granted Robert and Beverly Lindenmayer's motion to remand an asbestos lawsuit filed against Foster Wheeler LLC and other defendants. The case is styled Robert Lindenmayer and Beverly Lindenmayer, Plaintiffs v. Allied Packing & Supply, Inc., et al., Defendants. District Judge Thelton E. Henderson entered judgment in Case No. No. C09-05800 THE on Jan. 14, 2010. This matter came before the Court on Jan. 5, 2010, on the motion to remand filed by the Lindenmayers. This was a tort action against Foster Wheeler LLC and dozens of other defendants seeking damages for injuries based on Mr. Lindenmayer's exposure to asbestos. Foster Wheeler removed this matter to federal court from Alameda County Superior Court on Dec. 10, 2009. The Lindenmayers moved to remand on the following day, and simultaneously moved to shorten time for the hearing on that motion, citing Mr. Lindenmayer's terminal illness. The Court heard the motion on shortened time, and now decided whether to remand this action to state court. Mr. Lindenmayer was diagnosed with mesothelioma, and his doctor attested that there is "substantial medical doubt that he will survive more than six months beyond" Dec. 11, 2009. The Lindenmayers alleged that Mr. Lindenmayer was exposed to asbestos while working as a machinist mate in the U.S. Navy aboard the USS America from 1964 to 1967. The Lindenmayers brought multiple claims alleging defective design, failure to warn and other theories against Foster Wheeler, which confirmed that it manufactured marine steam generators, including boilers and economizers, for that vessel. Because it acted under an officer or agency of the United States in manufacturing and selling that equipment, Foster Wheeler argued that federal jurisdiction was proper under the federal officer removal statute. The Lindenmayers disputed federal jurisdiction and sought remand on that basis. This matter shall be remanded to Alameda County Superior Court, where the Lindenmayers shall waive any claims against Foster Wheeler based on a design-defect theory of liability. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants Riniers' Remand Bid in Case v. FWC ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois, affirmed Henry Rinier, Jr. and Miriam Ann Kreider-Rinier's motion to remand an asbestos lawsuit filed against Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation and other defendants. The case is styled John Henry Rinier, Jr., and Miriam Ann Kreider-Rinier, Plaintiffs v. A.W. Chesterton, Inc., et al., Defendants. District Judge Patrick G. Murphy entered judgment in Civil No. 09-1068-GPM on Jan. 19, 2010. This matter was before the Court on Foster Wheeler's motion to recuse and the Riniers' motion for remand of this case to state court. This case, in which Mr. and Mrs. Rinier sought damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos, was filed originally in the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Ill., and Foster Wheeler had removed the case to this Court. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' motion for remand of this case was granted. This case was remanded to the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Ill., for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nafferton Joiner Seeks Colleagues Help in Claim ---------------------------------------------------------------- William Henry Mathison, a 76-year-old former joiner from Nafferton, England, is calling for help in finding his former colleagues to help in his claim for asbestos compensation, the Driffield Times reports. Mr. Mathison worked at Nafferton-based firm E Sutton as an apprentice joiner between 1947 and 1954, and as a qualified joiner from 1961 to 1973. Mr Mathison, who was diagnosed with asbestosis over a year ago and suffers chronic breathlessness, claims he was regularly covered from head to foot in asbestos dust when he worked there. Mr. Mathison, said, "During my employment at E Sutton I would spend around 60 percent to 70 percent of my time working with asbestos and I was never given any form of protection to prevent me from inhaling the asbestos dust and fibers, not even a mask." Law firm Irwin Mitchell is investigating a compensation claim against E Sutton which ceased trading some years ago. The law firm wants to hear from anybody who worked there during the same period or who had sued E Sutton, having been unable to trace the company's insurance company. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Robert Collins Facing Legal Action in Missouri --------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Collins Contracting is facing legal action over asbestos cleanup violations at a building in the 5200 block of Page Boulevard in St. Louis, the St. Louis Business Journal reports. Robert Collins Contracting failed to perform asbestos inspections and submit notification to the St. Louis Air Pollution Control Program before the building's demolition, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources said on Jan. 29, 2010. In June 2009, DNR issued a notice of violation. The notice also included citations for failure to properly control fugitive particulate matter or dust emissions during the demolition. On Jan. 29, 2010, DNR said it referred this case to Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster's Office to pursue legal action for violations of Missouri's Air Conservation Law and Regulations. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnston Case v. 160 Firms Filed in Kanawha Co. ---------------------------------------------------------------- An asbestos case styled Danny R. Johnston and Marilou Johnston, his wife vs. 20th Century Glove Corporation, A.O. Smith Corporation, et al. was filed on Jan. 14, 2010 in Kanawha County Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports. The Belmont, Ohio, couple is suing the 160 defendants for Mr. Johnston's asbestosis. They claim the defendants caused his asbestosis. The Johnstons seek a trial by jury to resolve all matters related to their asbestos-related case. David P. Chervenick, Esq., Bruce E. Mattock, Esq., Lee W. Davis, Esq., and Scott S. Segal, Esq., represent the Johnstons. Case No. 10-C-0075 is assigned to a visiting judge. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Congoleum Seeks Agreement With Insurance Groups ---------------------------------------------------------------- Congoleum Corporation, on Jan. 28, 2010, filed a motion seeking the approval of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey for settlement agreements with nine insurance groups and the New Jersey insurance guaranty associations. Subject to various requirements set forth in the settlement agreements and the approval of the District Court, the insurance companies will pay US$100 million to settle certain policies issued to the Company and such amount will be paid to a plan trust of which US$97 million will be available for the payment of asbestos claims. A hearing on the motion has been scheduled for Feb. 19, 2010, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed on Feb. 1, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Headquartered in Mercerville, N.J., Congoleum Corporation makes flooring products for residential and commercial use, including resilient sheet flooring (linoleum or vinyl flooring), do-it- yourself vinyl tile, and commercial flooring. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Records 2,300 New Claims in 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Asbestos-related cases filed against Crown Holdings, Inc. declined to 2,300 in 2009 from 3,100 in 2008, according to a Company press release dated Feb. 2, 2010. The Company recorded a charge in the fourth quarter of 2009 of US$55 million (US$36 million, net of tax, or US$0.22 per diluted share) to increase its asbestos litigation reserve. The Company estimates that its liability for pending and future asbestos claims will range between US$230 million and US$268 million. At Dec. 31, 2008, the reported range was US$201 million to US$239 million. After the US$55 million charge, the Company's recorded liability at Dec. 31, 2009 was US$230 million, compared with US$201 million at Dec. 31, 2008. Asbestos-related payments totaled US$26 million in 2009, compared with US$25 million in 2008, and the Company expects 2010 payments of about US$25 million. Headquartered in Pittsburgh, Crown Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, supplies packaging products to consumer marketing companies around the world. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mayle Claim v. 160 Firms Filed Jan. 14 in W.Va. ---------------------------------------------------------------- An asbestos lawsuit styled Robert F. Mayle Sr. and Dorothy V. Mayle, his wife vs. 20th Century Glove Corporation, A.O. Smith Corporation, et al. was filed on Jan. 14, 2010 in Kanawha County Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports. The Mayles, from Mingo Junction, Ohio, sues 160 defendant corporations for Mr. Mayle's asbestosis and lung cancer. They claim the defendants caused his asbestosis and lung cancer. In Case No. 10-C-0076, the Mayles seek a trial by jury to resolve all matters related to their asbestos-related case. David P. Chervenick, Esq., Bruce E. Mattock, Esq., Lee W. Davis, Esq., and Scott S. Segal, Esq., represent the Mayles. This case is assigned to a visiting judge. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wigal Claim v. 160 Firms Filed Jan. 14 in W.Va. ---------------------------------------------------------------- On Jan. 14, 2010, an asbestos lawsuit styled Guelda M. Wigal, executrix of the Estate of John A. Wigal Sr., deceased vs. 20th Century Glove Corporation, A.O. Smith Corporation, et al. was filed against 160 defendant corporations in Kanawha County Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports. Mrs. Wigal, of Belpre, Ohio, is suing for her late husband's asbestosis and mesothelioma. She claims the defendants caused Mr. Wigal's asbestosis and mesothelioma. She seeks a trial by jury to resolve all matters related to her asbestos-related case. David P. Chervenick, Esq., Bruce E. Mattock, Esq., Lee W. Davis, Esq., and Scott S. Segal, Esq., represent Mrs. Wigal. Case No. 10-C-0077 is assigned to a visiting judge. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Morris Lawsuit v. CSX Filed Jan. 15 in Kanawha --------------------------------------------------------------- On Jan. 15, 2010, an asbestos lawsuit styled Crystal L. Morris, executrix of the Estate of Stuart E. McQuain, deceased vs. CSX Transportation was filed in Kanawha County Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports. Mrs. Morris is Mr. McQuain's daughter. Mr. McQuain worked for CSX Transportation and died on Aug. 11, 2008 of lung cancer. She claims her father was exposed to and caused to inhale asbestos fibers, fibrosis-inducing materials and carcinogenic materials while working for CSX. Mrs. Morris seeks a trial by jury to resolve all matters related to the case. Robert F. Daley, Esq., and Elizabeth Chiappetta, Esq., represent Mrs. Morris. Case No. 10-C-0084 is assigned to a visiting judge. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Geary Claim v. CSX Filed Jan. 15 in Kanawha Co. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pamela Geary, on behalf of Virgil Floyd Geary, filed an asbestos lawsuit against CSX Transportation on Jan. 15, 2010 in Kanawha County Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports. Mrs. Geary is the widow of Mr. Geary, who worked for CSX Transportation and died on Feb. 1, 2008 of lung cancer. Mrs. Geary claims her late husband was exposed to and caused to inhale asbestos fibers, fibrosis-inducing materials and carcinogenic materials while working for CSX. Mrs. Geary seeks a trial by jury to resolve all matters related to the case. Robert F. Daley, Esq., and Elizabeth Chiappetta, Esq., represent Mrs. Geary. Case No. 10-C-0085 is assigned to a visiting judge. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Barber Case v. CSX Filed Jan. 15 in Kanawha Co. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Donna G. Barber, on Jan. 15, 2010, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against CSX Transportation in Kanawha County Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports. Ms. Barber worked for CSX Transportation and claims she was exposed to and caused to inhale asbestos fibers, fibrosis- inducing materials and carcinogenic materials while working for the company. She claims this caused her asbestosis and lung cancer. Ms. Barber seeks a trial by jury to resolve all matters related to her case. Robert F. Daley, Esq., and Elizabeth Chiappetta, Esq., represent Ms. Barger. Case No. 10-C-0086 is assigned to a visiting judge. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wood Action v. 125 Firms Filed Jan. 19 in W.Va. ---------------------------------------------------------------- An asbestos lawsuit against 125 defendant corporations styled Robert L. Wood and Candice J. Wood vs. 3M Company, A.O. Smith Corporation et al. was filed on Jan. 19, 2010 in Kanawha County Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports. The Woods are suing the defendants for Mr. Wood's mesothelioma. Mr. Wood was diagnosed on Dec. 14, 2009. He claims he smoked for six years in the 1960s, but quit. The Woods seek a trial by jury to resolve all matters related to their asbestos-related case. Victoria Antion, Esq., Anne McGinnes Kearse, Esq., and J.D. McMullen, Esq., represent the Woods. Case No. 10-C-0091 is assigned to a visiting judge. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kontra Case v. 67 Firms Filed Jan. 19 in W.Va. --------------------------------------------------------------- An asbestos lawsuit styled John D. Kontra Sr. and Mary Ann Kontra vs. 3M Company, A.W. Chesterton Company, Inc., et al. was filed against 67 defendant corporations on Jan. 19 2010 in Kanawha County Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports. The Kontras are suing the defendants for Mr. Kontra's lung cancer. Mr. Kontra was diagnosed on July 23, 2009. He claims he smoked one and one-half pack per day from 1961 until 2006. The Kontras seek a trial by bury to resolve all matters related to their asbestos-related case (Case No. 10-C-0093). ASBESTOS UPDATE: McClure Case v. 63 Firms Filed Jan. 20 in W.Va. ---------------------------------------------------------------- An asbestos case styled David L. McClure and Nancy A. McClure vs. A.W. Chesterton Company, Inc., Amchem Products, Inc., et al. was filed against 63 defendant corporations on Jan. 20, 2010 in Kanawha County Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports. The McClures claim the defendants exposed Mr. McClure to asbestos materials. They claim the defendants manufactured, processed, converted, distributed, supplied and/or sold the products that contained asbestos materials that presented a substantial risk of harm to Mr. McClure. The McClures seek a trial by jury to resolve all matters related to their case. William K. Schwartz, Esq., represents the McClures. Case No. 10- C-0105 is assigned to a visiting judge. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Beckett Case v. 63 Firms Filed Jan. 20 in W.Va. ---------------------------------------------------------------- An asbestos lawsuit styled Billy R. Beckett and Helen J. Beckett vs. A.W. Chesterton Company, Inc., Amchem Products, Inc., et al. was filed on Jan. 20, 2010 against 63 defendant corporations in Kanawha County Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports. Billy R. and Helen J. Beckett claim the defendants exposed Mr. Beckett to asbestos materials. They claim the defendants manufactured, processed, converted, distributed, supplied and/or sold the products that contained asbestos materials that presented a substantial risk of harm to Mr. Beckett. The Becketts seeks a trial by jury to resolve all matters related to their case. William K. Schwartz, Esq., represents the Becketts. Case No. 10- C-0106 is assigned to a visiting judge. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Daytona Beach Cleanup to Cost $80,000-$100,000 --------------------------------------------------------------- The asbestos removal bill for the Daytona Beach Pier in Daytona Beach, Fla., could be about US$80,000 to US$100,000, said Tom Huger, the city's facilities construction and maintenance manager, news-journalonline.com reports. The asbestos removal will take about 45 to 60 days to complete once it gets under way. After the City took control of the 84-year-old pier for the first time in fall 2009, inspectors discovered asbestos in paint on the interior and exterior of the historic restaurant and casino building that has been perched on the pier for decades. City leaders said they expected to reopen the pier to the public in January 2010, but now it looks like it could be summer 2010 before the asbestos removal and various upgrades are completed on the 745-foot-long wooden structure. The city bought out its last leaseholder a few months ago for US$1.3 million. City officials say the pier slid into disrepair, and they plan to sink at least US$1.6 million into repairs and upgrades. "We were very optimistic," said J. Paul Wetzel, the City's support services director. "Once you get in there you never know what you'll find." He added that the full gamut of repairs will probably take about two years. Mayor Glenn Ritchey said, "It's just prudent to take our time and do it right." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement at Aviation Terminal in S.C. Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- Asbestos removal at the old General Aviation Terminal in Myrtle Beach, S.C., is ongoing, WMBF News reports. The new General Aviation Terminal in Myrtle Beach is up and running, but there still has not been a grand opening. Airport officials say that is because the old terminal is blocking the progress. General Aviation Manager Mike Marlowe says the asbestos removal will take about four weeks. It is a long process because DHEC is supervising to make sure the asbestos does not spread into the environment. Mr. Marlowe says that when crews went inside the old building, they found more asbestos than they were anticipating, so that has delayed the project a bit. Once crews remove the asbestos and tear down the old building, airport officials want to build a passenger drop off area and parking lot. Mr. Marlowe says that the U.S. Air Force built the old building in 1956, and when the new terminal opened in October 2009, it was past time for an update. He says the grand opening should happen by May 2010. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bickle Widow Gets GBP50,000 Interim Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Alan Bickle's widow, June Bickle, was awarded GBP50,000 as an interim asbestos settlement while the full value of the settlement is calculated, the Jarrow & Hebburn Gazette reports. On January 2009, Mr. Bickle died at the age of 58 of mesothelioma after working with asbestos at the Filtrona factory in Jarrow, England. Almost exactly a year to the day since Mr. Bickle died, the 61-year-old Mrs. Bickle was told by her solicitors that the case with Filtrona had been settled. Mr. Bickle worked as a turner and grinder at Filtrona, a cigarette filter manufacturer, at Bede Industrial Estate in Jarrow for more than 30 years. He was made redundant about seven years ago and later worked for other Tyneside companies. In February 2008, Mr. Bickle felt a pain in his right lung and a scan revealed he had mesothelioma. He died at St Clare's Hospice in Jarrow on Jan. 30, 2009. Filtrona denied responsibility for exposing Mr. Bickle to asbestos, but abandoned its defense just minutes before a High Court hearing on Jan. 28, 2010. The High Court ordered judgment to be entered against the Company and Mrs. Bickle has been awarded an interim payment of GBP50,000. A spokesman for Filtrona said, "There has been a settlement and compensation will be paid, but we cannot comment further, as the matter is still with our solicitors." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Sets Aside Ruling in Larsen Claim --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims set aside a Sept. 23, 2008 ruling of the Board of Veterans' Appeals, which denied Gwen Larsen's claim for accrued benefits. The matter was remanded for further adjudication. The case is styled Gwen Larsen, Appellant v. Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee. Judge Bruce E. Kasold entered judgment in Case No. 08-3280 on Jan. 29, 2010. Mrs. Larsen, surviving spouse of veteran Harry D. Larsen, appealed through counsel a Sept. 23, 2008 decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals that denied her claim for accrued benefits and for the cause of her husband's death because there was no evidence that Mr. Larsen's lung cancer was related to service. The Board found no evidence that Mr. Larsen had been exposed to asbestos while in service, but Mrs. Larsen contended he likely was exposed to asbestos when he served on the U.S.S. Yorktown. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Unitrin Reserves $71M for A&E Issues at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Property and Casualty Insurance Reserves related to Unitrin, Inc.'s Discontinued Operations are predominantly long-tailed exposures, of which US$71 million was related to asbestos, environmental matters and construction defect exposures at Dec. 31, 2009. Headquartered in Chicago, Unitrin, Inc.'s subsidiaries serve the basic financial needs of individuals, families and small businesses by providing property and casualty insurance, life and health insurance, and automobile finance services. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Chemical Records $734M Dec. 31 Liabilities --------------------------------------------------------------- The Dow Chemical Company's non-current asbestos-related liabilities amounted to US$734 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$824 million as of Dec. 31, 2008, according to a Company press release dated Feb. 2, 2010. The Company's non-current asbestos-related insurance receivables were US$330 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$658 million as of Dec. 31, 2008. Headquartered in Midland, Mich., The Dow Chemical Company's diversified industry-leading portfolio of specialty chemical, advanced materials, agrosciences and plastics businesses deliver technology-based products and solutions to customers in about 160 countries and in high growth sectors like electronics, water, energy, coatings and agriculture. In 2009, the Company had annual sales of US$45 billion and employed about 52,000 people worldwide. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 56 Cases Pending v. American Locker at Sept. 8 --------------------------------------------------------------- The balance of unresolved cases against American Locker Group Incorporated, as of Sept. 8, 2009, the most recent date information is available, is about 56 cases, according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 2, 2010. Beginning in September 1998, the Company has been named as an additional defendant in about 200 cases pending in state court in Massachusetts and one in the state of Washington. The plaintiffs in each case assert that a division of the Company manufactured and furnished components containing asbestos to a shipyard during the period from 1948 to 1972 and that injury resulted from exposure to such products. The assets of this division were sold by the Company in 1973. During the process of discovery in certain of these actions, documents from sources outside the Company have been produced which indicate that the Company appears to have been included in the chain of title for certain wall panels which contained asbestos and which were delivered to the Massachusetts shipyards. Defense of these cases has been assumed by the Company's insurance carrier, subject to a reservation of rights. Settlement agreements have been entered in 27 cases with funds authorized and provided by the Company's insurance carrier. Further, over 125 cases have been terminated as to the Company without liability to the Company under Massachusetts procedural rules. Headquartered in Grapevine, Tex., American Locker Group Incorporated manufactures and distributes lockers, locks and keys with a wide-range of applications for use in numerous industries. The Company is known for manufacturing and servicing the widely- utilized key and lock system with the iconic plastic orange cap. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tidewater Inc. Still Party to Exposure Actions --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Feb. 2, 2010. Headquartered in New Orleans, 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. At Dec. 31, 2009, the Company had 394 vessels (including joint-venture vessels and vessels withdrawn from service) servicing the energy industry. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Still Ongoing v. Graham Corp. --------------------------------------------------------------- Graham Corporation is still named as a defendant in certain lawsuits alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos contained in products made by the Company, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Feb. 3, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company is a co-defendant with numerous other defendants in these lawsuits. The claims are similar to previous asbestos suits that named the Company as defendant, which either were dismissed when it was shown that the Company had not supplied products to the plaintiffs' places of work or were settled for amounts below the expected defense costs. Headquartered in Batavia, N.Y., Graham Corporation designs and manufactures custom-engineered ejectors, vacuum systems, condensers, liquid ring pump packages and heat exchangers. ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Records $867.2M Dec. 31 Long-Term Liability ---------------------------------------------------------------- ITT Corporation's long-term asbestos-related liabilities amounted to US$867.2 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$225.9 million as of Dec. 31, 2008, according to a Company press release dated Feb. 3, 2010. The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities were US$852.7 million as of Sept. 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 6, 2009) The Company's long-term asbestos-related assets amounted to US$604.3 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$201.2 million as of Dec. 31, 2008. The Company's long-term asbestos-related assets were US$601.6 million as of Sept. 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 6, 2009) Net asbestos-related costs were US$13 million during the three months ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$3.1 million during the three months ended Dec. 31, 2008. Asbestos-related costs were US$237.5 million during the 12 months ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$14.3 million during the 12 months ended Dec. 31, 2008. Headquartered in White Plains, N.Y., ITT Corporation is an engineering and manufacturing company operating on all seven continents in three vital markets: water and fluids management, global defense and security, and motion and flow control. The company generated 2009 revenue of US$10.9 billion. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Markel Cites $10M A&E Loss Reserve Development --------------------------------------------------------------- Markel Corporation says its Other Insurance (Discontinued Lines) segment's underwriting loss for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009 included US$10 million of loss reserve development on asbestos and environmental exposures compared to US$24.9 million in 2008, according to a Company press release dated Feb. 3, 2010. The Other Insurance (Discontinued Lines) segment produced an underwriting loss of US$4.7 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with an underwriting loss of US$28.1 million in 2008. The underwriting loss in both 2009 and 2008 was primarily a result of loss reserve development on asbestos and environmental exposures. Headquartered in Glen Allen, Va., Markel Corporation markets and underwrites specialty insurance products and programs to a variety of niche markets. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Briggs & Stratton Subject to Liability Actions --------------------------------------------------------------- Briggs & Stratton Corporation continues to be subject to various unresolved legal actions that relate to product liability (including asbestos-related liability), patent and trademark matters, and disputes with customers, suppliers, distributors and dealers, competitors and employees. No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's quarterly report filed on Feb. 3, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Headquartered in Wauwatosa, Wis., Briggs & Stratton Corporation produces air cooled gasoline engines for outdoor power equipment. The Company designs, manufactures, markets and services these products for original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) worldwide. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gallagher Suit v. 40 Companies Filed in Kanawha ---------------------------------------------------------------- Aloysius Gallagher and his wife, Maureen Gallagher, on Jan. 7, 2010, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 40 defendant corporations in Kanawha County Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports. Mr. Gallagher claims throughout his life he worked for and with, or came in contact with products by the defendants and on March 1, 2009, was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma. Mr. Gallagher claims the defendants are liable to him and Mrs. Gallagher for being generally negligent in failing to provide a safe product. The Gallaghers seek compensatory and punitive damages. Craig E. Coleman, Esq., represents the Gallaghers. Case No. 10-C-47 has been assigned to a visiting judge. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Expends $11.6M for Bankruptcy in 4th-Qtr. ---------------------------------------------------------------- W. R. Grace & Co.'s Chapter 11 expenses, net of filing entity interest income, were US$11.6 million in the fourth quarter of 2009, compared with US$17.4 million in the prior year quarter, according to a Company press release dated Feb. 2, 2010. Chapter 11 expenses, net of filing entity interest income, were US$48 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$65.8 million in the prior year. Expenses related to the Company's Chapter 11 proceedings, net of filing entity interest income, were US$18.4 million in the third quarter of 2009, compared with US$12 million in the prior year quarter. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 30, 2010) On April 2, 2001, the Company and 61 of its United States subsidiaries and affiliates, including its primary U.S. operating subsidiary W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn., filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in order to resolve the Company's asbestos-related liabilities. On Sept. 19, 2008, the Company filed a Joint Plan of Reorganization and several associated documents, including a disclosure statement, with the Bankruptcy Court. The Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants, the Representative for Future Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants, and the Official Committee of Equity Security Holders are co- proponents of the Joint Plan. The committee representing general unsecured creditors and the Official Committee of Asbestos Property Damage Claimants and the Representative for Future Asbestos Property Damage Claimants are not co-proponents of the Joint Plan. The Joint Plan is consistent with the terms of the previously announced settlements of the Company's asbestos personal injury liability and claims related to its former attic insulation product. The Joint Plant also requires the establishment of two asbestos trusts under Section 524(g) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code to which all present and future asbestos-related claims would be channeled. Confirmation hearings on the Joint Plan concluded in January 2010. Confirmation and consummation of the Joint Plan are now subject to the findings of the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court for the District of Delaware and the satisfaction of other conditions, many of which are outside the Company's control. Until such findings are made and the conditions to consummation of the Joint Plan are satisfied or waived, the timing of the Company's emergence from Chapter 11 will be uncertain. Subject to this uncertainty, the Company is preparing to consummate the Joint Plan in June 2010. The Company's long-term asbestos-related contingencies were US$1.7 billion as of both Dec. 31, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2008. The Company's long-term asbestos-related insurance was US$500 million as of both Dec. 31, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2008. Headquartered in Columbia, Md., W. R. Grace & Co. supplies catalysts and other products to petroleum refiners; catalysts for the manufacture of plastics; silica-based engineered and specialty materials for a wide range of industrial applications; sealants and coatings for food and beverage packaging, and specialty chemicals, additives and building materials for commercial and residential construction. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 14 Actions Filed in Madison County Jan. 18-22 -------------------------------------------------------------- During the week of Jan. 18, 2010 through Jan. 22, 2010, about 14 new asbestos-related lawsuits were filed in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports. These cases are: -- (Case No. 10-L-59) James R. Bell of Alabama, a laborer and carpenter, claims lung cancer. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Bell. -- (Case No. 10-L-64) David and Bernice Belton of Arizona claim Mr. Belton developed lung cancer after his work as a laborer performing home repairs, as a stone maker and layer, as a welder for R.F.P. and as a welder for Chrysler. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., will represent the Beltons. -- (Case No. 10-L-58) Willie Buchanan of Minnesota, a laborer and carpenter, claims lung cancer. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Buchanan. -- (Case No. 10-L-53) Louise Dotson of Illinois, a laborer, welder and machinist, claims lung cancer. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Dotson. -- (Case No. 10-L-60) Terry L. Hupp of Ohio, a lab technician, claims lung cancer. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Hupp. -- (Case No. 10-L-57) Rogelio Perez Sr. of Indiana, a painter, laborer and operator, claims lung cancer. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Perez. -- (Case No. 10-L-49) Mary Phillips of Georgia claims the deceased Gertha Phillips developed mesothelioma after her work as a splicer at Anderson Mills, as an inspector at Smith and Nephew, as a battery inspector at Masbac and as a custodian at Muscogee County School District. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., will represent Ms. Phillips. -- (Case No. 10-L-51) Mary Ramsey claims her deceased husband, James Ramsey, developed mesothelioma after his work as a carpenter helper at Ragland, as a lathe operator at CAPCO Finish, as a tester at Stockham Valve, as an assembly line worker at Anniston Depot Assembly Line, as a supply clerk at Anniston Depot Supply, as a mechanic at Anniston Depot Electric and as a mechanic at Anniston Depot Fuel and Electric. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., will represent Mrs. Ramsey. -- (Case No. 10-L-56) James R. Smith of Mississippi, a laborer and carpenter, claims lung cancer. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Smith. -- (Case No. 10-L-54) Ginger Vail of Mississippi, a laborer, claims mesothelioma. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Ms. Vail. -- (Case No. 10-L-61) William Warren of Utah, a boiler technician and supervisor, claims mesothelioma. Randy S. Cohn, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Warren. -- (Case No. 10-L-55) Eddie Williams of Missouri, a laborer and assembler, claims lung cancer. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Williams. -- (Case No. 10-L-63) Anna Mae Willie of Indiana claims her deceased husband, Franklin D. Willie, developed lung cancer after his work as a plumber and electrician for Kitchen Kompact. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., will represent Mrs. Willie. -- (Case No. 10-L-65) Frances Winberg claims her deceased husband, Tracy Winberg, developed mesothelioma after his work as a baker and as a construction worker. Matthew B. McLeod, Esq., of Shrader and Associates in Houston, will represent Mrs. Winberg. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Miller Case v. 53 Firms Filed Jan. 14 in W.Va. --------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Ronald and Nola A. Miller, a couple from Ashland, Ky., filed an asbestos lawsuit against 53 defendant corporations in Kanawha County Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports. Mr. Miller claims he was exposed to asbestos products of the defendants while working at various job sites over many years. On Sept. 18, 2009, he was diagnosed with lung cancer. He claims he smoked one and one-half pack of cigarettes per day from the late 1960s until 1991. According to the suit, the defendants are being sued for negligence, contaminated buildings, breach of expressed/implied warranty, strict liability, intentional tort, conspiracy, misrepresentations and post-sale duty to warn. The Millers seek a trial by jury to resolve all issues concerning their asbestos-related case. Cindy J. Kiblinger, Esq. of James F. Humphreys & Associates, and Victoria Antion, Esq., of Motley Rice represent the Millers. Case No.: 10-C-0079 has been assigned to a visiting judge. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Baumener's Family Awarded $2Mil in Compensation ---------------------------------------------------------------- An Allegheny County, Pa., jury awarded the family of Barry Baumener, of Plum, Pa., US$2 million in compensation for Mr. Baumener's exposure to asbestos, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports. The jury returned a US$50 million verdict in favor of the Barry Baumener estate and against 25 companies named as defendants after a two-week trial. All defendants except Oglebay Norton Co. of Ohio and its division, Ferro Engineering, settled out of court, Mr. Baumener's attorney, John Kane, Esq., said. Ferro will have to pay US$2 million because the jury ordered each of the 25 defendants to pay four percent of the total. The 24 companies who settled out of court are immune to the jury's verdict. Mr. Baumener was diagnosed with mesothelioma in April 2009 and died at the age of 62 in October 2009. He worked for Carpenter Technology, a steel mill in Reading, Pa. He sued several companies in May 2009, including Ferro, alleging that the company sold asbestos-containing products to the mill where he worked. Mr. Baumener and his wife, Marsha, moved from their Reading home into his daughter's Plum home after his diagnosis. Mr. Kane declined to say how much the family settled for in the other cases but said it was far less than US$50 million. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stewart's Lawsuit Now Ongoing in NSW High Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Irene Stewart, the widow of Angus Stewart who died from mesothelioma after wearing asbestos gloves at work 40 years ago, on Feb. 2, 2010, took his battle for compensation to the New South Wales, Australia, High Court, The Australian reports. Mr. Stewart had worked for the now-defunct windscreen manufacturer Pilkington Brothers. By the time he fell ill, the company's insurance policy had vanished. The NSW Dust Diseases Tribunal initially ordered insurer QBE and asbestos supplier Wallaby Grip to pay Mr. Stewart more than AUD350,000 in compensation. However, the two companies successfully argued in the NSW Court of Appeal that compensation for Mr. Stewart should be limited to AUD40,000, the statutory minimum cover at the time, unless the Stewarts could prove the policy was worth more. The Court of Appeal dismissed the insurer's argument that Pilkington had not been negligent in supplying Mr. Stewart with asbestos gloves and tape. Mr. Stewart spent just 18 months at the windscreen factory in Sydney's west after moving with his family from Scotland in 1964. The High Court agreed to hear the case because the insurance issue had become significant in the United States, but not all courts had treated it in the same way. On Feb. 2, 2010, Mrs. Stewart's barrister, David Jackson QC, told the High Court it should be up to the insurers, who had access to the insurance contract, to prove the level of cover was limited to the statutory minimum. Mr. Jackson said that if the insurance company could not do that, the High Court should not treat AUD40,000 as a starting point for compensation. QBE's barrister, Alan Sullivan QC, argued that, as the person seeking compensation, Mrs. Stewart should bear the burden of proving the insurance policy was worth more than the statutory minimum. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aussie Judge Rejects Demerger Plan of CSR Ltd. --------------------------------------------------------------- An Australian Federal Court judge, Margaret Stone, dismissed CSR Limited's proposed demerger of its sugar unit, citing uncertainty on how asbestos claims against the Company would be funded if CSR split in two, The Wall Street Journal reports. A CSR spokesman said the Company would consider Judge Stone's decision. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission and other objectors raised concerns about how ongoing asbestos claims would be funded if CSR were to spin off its sugar and renewable energies business into a unit that would be called Sucrogen. CSR had proposed funding the liabilities exclusively from the remaining building products and aluminum business, which the claims had been against. However, Judge Stone said that the plan left many uncertainties for asbestos claimants and therefore the demerger application should be dismissed. ********* 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 2010. 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 * * *