/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100430.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, April 30, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 84 Headlines ALLSTATE LIFE: AIC Continues to Defend Suit by EEOC ALLSTATE LIFE: AIC Continues to Defend ERISA Violations Suit AMERICAN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend "Rand" Suit in California ANADIGICS INC: Motion to Dismiss New Jersey Suit Still Pending ANIMALFEEDS: Sup. Ct. Decertifies Class in Price-Fixing Suit AWB: Australian Court Approves $40 Million Shareholder Settlement BELO CORP: Continues to Defend Wage Payment Violations Suit CELLCOM ISRAEL: Commercial Texting Suit Resolved for Donations CELLDEX THERAPEUTICS: CuraGen Acquisition Lawsuits Dismissed CITIZENS INC: Court Denies Recertification in Insurance Suit CYNOSURE INC: Continues to Defend TCPA Violations Suit in Mass. DEX ONE: Faces Securities Suits in Delaware DEX ONE: Faces ERISA Violations Suit in Illinois GULFPORT ENERGY: Delaware Court Dismisses 2nd Amended Complaint HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: Defends Consolidated Suit in Pennsylvania HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Suit HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Rich" Certification Hearing Set for May 7 HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Bagget" Plaintiff's Appeal Remains Pending HEWLETT-PACKARD: EDS Units Defends "Heffelfinger" Suit in Calif. HEWLETT-PACKARD: EDS Subsidiary Continues to Defend "Karlbom" HEWLETT-PACKARD: EDS Unit Defends "George" Suit in New York HEWLETT-PACKARD: Defends Inkjet Printer Litigation in Calif. HEWLETT-PACKARD: Continues to Defend "Blennis" Lawsuit HEWLETT-PACKARD: Four Suits in Canada over "Smart Chips" Pending HEWLETT-PACKARD: EDS Continues to Defend Labor-Related Lawsuits HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Skold" Appeal to Denied Certification Pending LIMELIGHT NETWORKS: Seeks Approval of Settlement Agreement MEDQUIST INC: No Decision Yet to Appeal in Dismissed "Kahn" Suit MERCK & CO: High Court Says N.J. VIOXX Litigation Not Time-Barred PACIFIC CAPITAL: Paskowitz Appealing Court's Dismissal Order PACIFIC CAPITAL: California Court Dismisses "Jurkowitz" Suit QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Being Sold for Too Little, Colo. Suit Says RALPH'S GROCERY: Proposed Settlement in Disabled Shopper Lawsuits SHUFFLE MASTER: Defends Consolidated Amended Complaint in Nevada STEP2 COMPANY: Recalls 21,000 Basic Rhythms Drum(TM) Toys STEVE MADDEN: Continues to Defend "Tahvilian" Suit in California UNITED RENTALS: Plaintiff's Appeal on Dismissal of Suit Pending Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS ALERT: MassDEP Issues $53,937 Fine to Rotation Dynamics ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Ongoing v. Goodrich, Units ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco, Units Still Facing Suits in Miss. Courts ASBESTOS UPDATE: Halliburton Accrues No Amounts for AMSF Action ASBESTOS UPDATE: ABB Ltd Provisions Amount to $53Mil at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hearing on Congoleum's Motion Slated for May 10 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nationwide Fined GBP4,500 for Safety Violations ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1T Claims Filed v. CertainTeed Corp. in 1Q-2010 ASBESTOS UPDATE: W. R. Grace Records $12.5Mil Costs at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSR Wins Aussie Court Appeal Over Spin-off Plan ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Vacates Ruling, Remands Finnell's Action ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Affirms Ruling in Molina's Action ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Affirms Ruling in Beavers Lawsuit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Flips Decision in Teruel-Armstrong ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Issues Split Rulings in Kuhlman Case ASBESTOS UPDATE: Conn. Court Issues Split Ruling in Allen Action ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Records $1.049B Liability at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Int'l. Cites $38MM Litigation Charges ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Cites $829M March 31 NARCO Receivable ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Records $300M March 31 NARCO Coverage ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims v. Bondex Increase to 20,900 at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: NARCO, Bendix Liability at $1.703B at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Generation Records $49Mil Reserves at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific's Liability at $169MM at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. Badger Meter ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurance Coverage Actions Ongoing v. Travelers ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Records $74Mil Losses, Expenses Paid ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boggs' Case v. 85 Firms Filed April 12 in W.Va. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Durabla Files for Bankruptcy Due to 108T Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement at Affton High School to Cost $86,281 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Ind. Still Faces 8,000 Claims at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Still Ongoing v. AK Steel Unit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eastman Chem. Still Subject to Exposure Actions ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Claims Still Pending v. PPG Industries ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Affirms Remand Motion in Luce Case ASBESTOS UPDATE: Split Rulings Issued in Johns-Manville Lawsuit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ga. Court OKs Summary Judgment in Adamson Case ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Issues Split Ruling in Palmer Case ASBESTOS UPDATE: Beard Action Filed v. 25 Firms in Jefferson Co. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Blake Seeks Help in Payout Case Against Lorival ASBESTOS UPDATE: PATH Worker's Widow Seeking Retrial in Lawsuit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Judge Flips $5.6Mil Award in Walton Case ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colo. AG Indicts Parker Local for Safety Breach ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sicily Court Rules v. Former Execs on April 26 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Windsor Widower Seeks Help in Compensation Case ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Pending v. Quaker Chemical ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Accrues $2.1M March 31 Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Miss. Actions Still Ongoing v. Diamond Offshore ASBESTOS UPDATE: Celanese Facing 516 Exposure Cases at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ladish Facing 14 Claims in 3 States at April 27 ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4,400 Cases Pending v. Tyco Int'l. at March 26 ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Facing 450 Active Suits at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.D. Court OKs Summary Judgment in Mertz Claim ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. District Court OKs Dunkin's Remand Move ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defendants' Summary Judgment in Morey Affirmed ASBESTOS UPDATE: 17 Lawsuits Filed During March 22-26 in Madison ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lowes Action v. James Hardie Filed in Australia ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Reserves $899Mil for Claims at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: GBP2Mil Awarded to Victims of Asbestos Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: 17 Actions Filed March 29 to April 2 in Madison ********* ALLSTATE LIFE: AIC Continues to Defend Suit by EEOC --------------------------------------------------- Allstate Insurance Company continues to defend a suit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and a former employee. A lawsuit was filed in 2001 by the EEOC alleging retaliation under federal civil rights laws (EEOC I suit) and a class action filed in 2001 by former employee agents alleging retaliation and age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, breach of contract and ERISA violations (Romero I suit). In 2004, in the consolidated EEOC I and Romero I litigation, the trial court issued a memorandum and order that, among other things, certified classes of agents, including a mandatory class of agents who had signed a release, for purposes of effecting the court's declaratory judgment that the release is voidable at the option of the release signer. The court also ordered that an agent who voids the release must return to AIC "any and all benefits received by the [agent] in exchange for signing the release." The court also stated that, "on the undisputed facts of record, there is no basis for claims of age discrimination." The EEOC and plaintiffs asked the court to clarify and/or reconsider its memorandum and order and in January 2007, the judge denied their request. In June 2007, the court granted AIC's motions for summary judgment. Following plaintiffs' filing of a notice of appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an order in December 2007 stating that the notice of appeal was not taken from a final order within the meaning of the federal law and thus not appealable at this time. In March 2008, the Third Circuit decided that the appeal should not summarily be dismissed and that the question of whether the matter is appealable at this time will be addressed by the Third Circuit along with the merits of the appeal. In July 2009, the Third Circuit vacated the decision which granted AIC's summary judgment motions, remanded the cases to the trial court for additional discovery, and directed that the cases be reassigned to another trial court judge. No further developments were reported in Allstate Life Insurance Company's March 12, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. Allstate Life Insurance Company -- http://www.allstate.com/-- is a stock life insurance company. The company, together with its subsidiaries, provides life insurance, retirement and investment products. It conducts substantially all its operations directly or through wholly owned United States subsidiaries. ALIC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Allstate Insurance Company, a stock property-liability insurance company. ALLSTATE LIFE: AIC Continues to Defend ERISA Violations Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Allstate Insurance Company continues to defend a putative nationwide class action alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. A putative nationwide class action was filed by former employee agents alleging various violations of ERISA, including a worker classification issue. These plaintiffs are challenging certain amendments to the Agents Pension Plan and are seeking to have exclusive agent independent contractors treated as employees for benefit purposes. This matter was dismissed with prejudice by the trial court, was the subject of further proceedings on appeal, and was reversed and remanded to the trial court in 2005. In June 2007, the court granted AIC's motion to dismiss the case. Following plaintiffs' filing of a notice of appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an order in December 2007 stating that the notice of appeal was not taken from a final order within the meaning of the federal law and thus not appealable at this time. In March 2008, the Third Circuit decided that the appeal should not summarily be dismissed and that the question of whether the matter is appealable at this time will be addressed by the Third Circuit along with the merits of the appeal. In July 2009, the Third Circuit vacated the decision which granted AIC's motion to dismiss the case, remanded the case to the trial court for additional discovery, and directed that the case be reassigned to another trial court judge. No further developments were reported in Allstate Life Insurance Company's March 12, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. Allstate Life Insurance Company -- http://www.allstate.com/-- is a stock life insurance company. The company, together with its subsidiaries, provides life insurance, retirement and investment products. It conducts substantially all its operations directly or through wholly owned United States subsidiaries. ALIC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Allstate Insurance Company, a stock property-liability insurance company. AMERICAN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend "Rand" Suit in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- American National Insurance Company continues to defend the matter Rand v. American National Insurance Company, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. American National is a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit, filed Feb. 12, 2009, wherein the Plaintiff proposes to certify a class of persons who purchased certain American National proprietary deferred annuity products. Plaintiff alleges that American National violated the California Insurance, Business & Professions, Welfare & Institutions, and Civil Codes through its marketing practices. Plaintiff seeks statutory penalties, restitution, interest, penalties, attorneys' fees, punitive damages and injunctive relief in an unspecified amount. No further developments were reported in the company's March 12, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. Chartered in 1905, American National Insurance Company -- http://www.anico.com/-- is headquartered in Galveston, Texas. American National Insurance Company has evolved into an industry leader, ranking among the largest of life insurance companies in the United States, with over $20.1 billion in assets. American National Insurance Company is rated A (Excellent) by A.M. Best Company, and AA- (Very Strong) by Standard & Poor's. ANADIGICS INC: Motion to Dismiss New Jersey Suit Still Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- ANADIGICS, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated amended class action complaint remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, according to the company's March 12, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. On or about Nov. 11, 2008, plaintiff Charlie Attias filed a putative securities class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Charlie Attias v. Anadigics, Inc., et al., No. 3:08-cv-05572, and, on or about Nov. 21, 2008, plaintiff Paul Kuznetz filed a related class action lawsuit in the same court, captioned Paul J. Kuznetz v. Anadigics, Inc., et al., No. 3:08-cv-05750. The Complaints in the Class Actions, which were consolidated under the caption In re Anadigics, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 3:08-cv-05572, by an Order of the District Court dated Nov. 24, 2008, seek unspecified damages for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, in connection with alleged misrepresentations and omissions in connection with, among other things, Anadigics's manufacturing capabilities and the demand for its products. On Oct. 23, 2009, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, which names the company, a current officer and a former officer-director, and alleges a proposed class period that runs from July 24, 2007 through Aug. 7, 2008. On Dec. 23, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The motion was scheduled to be fully briefed by the parties on or before March 30, 2010. ANADIGICS, Inc. -- http://www.anadigics.com/-- is a leading provider of semiconductor solutions in the growing broadband wireless and wireline communications markets. The company's products include power amplifiers, tuner integrated circuits, active splitters, line amplifiers, and other components, which can be sold individually or packaged as integrated radio frequency and front end modules. ANIMALFEEDS: Sup. Ct. Decertifies Class in Price-Fixing Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Nick Divito at Courthouse News Service reports that in a 5-3 decision with conservatives in the majority, the Supreme Court on Tuesday made it harder for consumers to join together in arbitration proceedings with businesses. The ruling tosses a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decision that allowed class arbitration to proceed in a dispute between shipping companies and their customers who accused them of price-fixing. In 2003, a Department of Justice criminal investigation found that shipping companies were engaging in an "illegal price fixing conspiracy," which prompted AnimalFeeds International to file a putative class action in Pennsylvania Federal Court. AnimalFeeds supplies raw ingredients like fish oil to animal feed producers around the world. The suit was consolidated with others like it, and the company sought arbitration in New York City on behalf of a class of purchasers of parcel tanker transportation services. The parties agreed to submit the question whether their arbitration agreement allowed for class arbitration to a panel of arbitrators. The panel determined that the arbitration clause allowed for class arbitration, but the District Court vacated the award, concluding that the arbitrators' award was "made in 'manifest disregard' of the law." The 2nd Circuit then reversed, finding that because petitioners cited no authority in applying a "maritime rule of custom and usage against class arbitration, the arbitrators' decision was not in manifest disregard of maritime law," according to the ruling. The high court found that "imposing class arbitration on parties who have not agreed to authorize class arbitration is consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority. "The differences between bilateral and class-action arbitration are too great for arbitrators to presume, consistent with their limited powers under the FAA, that the parties' mere silence on the issue of class-action arbitration constitutes consent to resolve their disputes in class proceedings." Justice Alito was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. In her dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the ruling premature. "When an arbitration clause is silent on the question, may arbitration proceed on behalf of a class?" she asked. "The court prematurely takes up that important question and, indulging in de novo review, overturns the ruling of experienced arbitrators." Justice Ginsburg was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer in the dissent. Justice Sonia Sotomayor did not participate. A copy of the opinion in Stolt-Nielsen S.A., et al. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp., No. 08-1198 (U.S.), is available at: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1198.pdf AWB: Australian Court Approves $40 Million Shareholder Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Herald and Weekly Times reports that AWB and shareholders agreed in February to settle the class action seeking compensation for AWB's failure to disclose Iraqi kickbacks under the United Nations' Oil For Food Program. AWB will pay $39.5 million, including interest and costs, to a group of more than 1,000 shareholders who were involved in the class action. The action was launched by retired wheat farmers and former AWB shareholders John and Kaye Watson, and was claiming over $100 million in losses. "As a result of the Federal Court approval, the class action against AWB is dismissed without admission of liability by the company," AWB said in a statement to the Australian Securities Exchange. "There are no outstanding conditions regarding this class action." AWB said the amount of the settlement would be provided for as a significant item in the half year accounts as at March 31, 2010. BELO CORP: Continues to Defend Wage Payment Violations Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Belo Corp. continues to defend a purported class action lawsuit alleging failure to pay wages. On April 13, 2009, four former independent contractor newspaper carriers of The Press-Enterprise, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals, filed a purported class- action lawsuit against A. H. Belo, Belo, Press Enterprise Company, and as yet unidentified defendants in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated California laws by allegedly improperly categorizing the plaintiffs and the purported class members as independent contractors rather than employees, and in doing so, allegedly failed to pay minimum, hourly and overtime wages to the purported class members and allegedly failed to comply with other laws and regulations applicable to an employer-employee relationship. Plaintiffs and purported class members are seeking minimum wages, unpaid regular and overtime wages, unpaid rest break and meal period compensation, reimbursement of expenses and losses incurred by them in discharging their duties, payment of minimum wage to all employees who failed to receive minimum wage for all hours worked in each payroll period, penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. No further developments were reported in the company's March 12, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. Belo Corp. -- http://www.belo.com/-- one of the nation's largest pure-play, publicly-traded television companies, owns and operates 20 television stations (nine in the top 25 markets) and their associated Web sites. Belo stations, which include affiliations with ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CW and MyNetwork TV, reach more than 14 percent of U.S. television households in 15 highly- attractive markets. Belo stations rank first or second in nearly all of their local markets. CELLCOM ISRAEL: Commercial Texting Suit Resolved for Donations -------------------------------------------------------------- Cellcom Israel Ltd. (NYSE: CEL) obtained dismissal of a purported class action lawsuit filed in March 2009 against the Company, in the District Court of Central Region, by a plaintiff alleging to be the Company's subscriber, in connection with allegations that the Company unlawfully sent its subscribers commercial messages. The purported class action was dismissed without prejudice, following the request of the plaintiff and the Company's agreement to donate a certain insignificant amount to worthy causes. Had the lawsuit been certified as a class action, the total amount claimed from the Company was estimated by the plaintiff to be approximately NIS 800 million. About Cellcom Israel Cellcom Israel Ltd., -- http://www.cellcom.co.il/-- was established in 1994, and is the leading Israeli cellular provider; Cellcom Israel provides its approximately 3.292 million subscribers (as at December 31, 2009) with a broad range of value added services including cellular and landline telephony, roaming services for tourists in Israel and for its subscribers abroad and additional services in the areas of music, video, mobile office etc., based on Cellcom Israel's technologically advanced infrastructure. The Company operates an HSPA 3.5 Generation network enabling advanced high speed broadband multimedia services, in addition to GSM/GPRS/EDGE and TDMA networks. Cellcom Israel offers Israel's broadest and largest customer service infrastructure including telephone customer service centers, retail stores, and service and sale centers, distributed nationwide. Through its broad customer service network Cellcom Israel offers its customers technical support, account information, direct to the door parcel services, internet and fax services, dedicated centers for the hearing impaired, etc. As of 2006, Cellcom Israel, through its wholly owned subsidiary Cellcom Fixed Line Communications L.P., provides landline telephone communication services in Israel, in addition to data communication services. Cellcom Israel's shares are traded both on the New York Stock Exchange (CEL) and the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (CEL). CELLDEX THERAPEUTICS: CuraGen Acquisition Lawsuits Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------ Two putative class actions against Celldex Therapeutics, Inc., relating to its proposed acquisition of CuraGen Corporation has been dismissed pursuant to an approved settlement agreement, according to the company's March 12, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. Following the announcement of the proposed acquisition by Celldex of CuraGen, a putative class action complaint, Margaret Capps v. Timothy Shannon, et al., was filed in the Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven, on June 9, 2009. A second putative class action complaint, Cheryl Smith v. CuraGen Corporation, et al., was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on June 15, 2009. Both lawsuits purported to have been brought on behalf of all public stockholders of CuraGen, and named CuraGen, all of its former directors, Celldex, and Celldex's merger subsidiary as defendants. On July 21, 2009, the attorneys for the parties in the two actions executed a memorandum of understanding pursuant to which such actions were subsequently dismissed with prejudice. CuraGen agreed to make certain revisions to the joint proxy statement/prospectus (which was prepared in connection with the approval by CuraGen's stockholders of the merger and by Celldex's stockholders of the stock issued to the former stockholders of CuraGen in the merger) as part of the agreement among the parties to settle the actions and agreed to pay attorneys' fees and expenses as awarded by the court, which had been expected to be $300,000 but ultimately were reduced to $200,000. On Aug. 27, 2009, a stipulation of settlement was submitted to the court for the action captioned Cheryl Smith v. CuraGen Corporation, et al, pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, and thereafter a fairness hearing was held on Nov. 9, 2009, at which the court approved the settlement of the Delaware action and thereafter both the Delaware and Connecticut actions were dismissed. Celldex Therapeutics, Inc. -- http://www.celldextherapeutics.com/ -- is the first antibody-based combination immunotherapy company. Celldex has a pipeline of drug candidates in development for the treatment of cancer and other difficult-to-treat diseases based on its antibody focused Precision Targeted Immunotherapy Platform. The PTI Platform is a complementary portfolio of monoclonal antibodies, antibody-targeted vaccines and immunomodulators used in optimal combinations to create novel disease-specific drug candidates. CITIZENS INC: Court Denies Recertification in Insurance Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas has denied the recertification of the class in a lawsuit against Citizens, Inc., according to the company's March 12, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. The company a defendant in a lawsuit originally filed on Aug. 6, 1999 in the Texas District Court, Austin, Texas, now styled Citizens Insurance Company of America, Citizens, Inc., Harold E. Riley and Mark A. Oliver, Petitioners v. Fernando Hakim Daccach, Respondent, in which a class was originally certified by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Third District of Texas. The company appealed the grant of class status to the Texas Supreme Court, which on March 2, 2007, reversed the Court of Appeal's affirmation of the trial court's class certification order, decertified the class and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the Texas Supreme Court's opinion. The underlying lawsuit alleged that certain life insurance policies that we made available to non-U.S. residents, when combined with a policy feature that allowed certain cash benefits to be assigned to two non-U.S. trusts for the purpose of accumulating ownership of the company's Class A common stock, along with allowing the policyholders to make additional contributions to the trusts, were actually offers and sales of securities that occurred in Texas by unregistered dealers in violation of the Texas securities laws. The remedy sought was rescission and return of the insurance premium payments. On Nov. 16, 2009, the trial court conducted further proceedings on the case, in order to determine whether the class should be recertified. On Dec. 9, 2009, the trial court denied the recertification of the class. The remaining plaintiffs must now proceed individually, and not as a class, if they intend to pursue their cases against Citizens. Citizens, Inc. -- http://www.citizensinc.com/-- is a financial services company listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol CIA. The company expects to achieve its goal, established nearly a decade ago, to reach $1 billion in assets by the end of 2010, via the worldwide sale of U.S. Dollar-denominated whole life cash value insurance policies, coupled with the acquisition of other life insurance companies. Citizens' Class A common stock closed at $7.04 on March 10, 2010. CYNOSURE INC: Continues to Defend TCPA Violations Suit in Mass. --------------------------------------------------------------- Cynosure, Inc., continues to defend a suit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. In 2005, Dr. Ari Weitzner, individually and as putative representative of a purported class, filed a complaint against the company under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act in Massachusetts Superior Court in Middlesex County seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys fees. The complaint alleges that the company violated the TCPA by sending unsolicited advertisements by facsimile to the plaintiff and other recipients without the prior express invitation or permission of the recipients. Under the TCPA, recipients of unsolicited facsimile advertisements are entitled to damages of up to $500 per facsimile for inadvertent violations and up to $1,500 per facsimile for knowing or willful violations. Based on discovery in this matter, the plaintiff alleges that approximately three million facsimiles were sent on the company's behalf by a third party to approximately 100,000 individuals. On Feb. 6, 2008, several months after the close of discovery, the plaintiff served a motion for class certification, which the company opposed on numerous factual and legal grounds, including that: -- a nationwide class action may not be maintained in a Massachusetts state court by Dr. Weitzner, a New York resident; -- individual issues predominate over common issues; -- a class action is not superior to other methods of resolving TCPA claims; and -- Dr. Weitzner is an inadequate class representative. The company also believes it has have many merits defenses, including that the faxes in question do not constitute "advertising" within the meaning of the TCPA and many recipients had an established business relationship with the company and are thereby deemed to have consented to the receipt of facsimile communications. The Court held a hearing on the plaintiff's class certification motion on June 17, 2008, but no decision on the motion has been rendered. No further developments were reported in the company's March 12, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. Cynosure, Inc. -- http://www.cynosure.com/-- develops and markets aesthetic treatment systems that are used by physicians and other practitioners to perform non-invasive and minimally invasive procedures to remove hair, treat vascular and pigmented lesions, rejuvenate the skin, liquefy and remove unwanted fat through laser lipolysis and temporarily reduce the appearance of cellulite. Cynosure's products include a broad range of laser and other light-based energy sources, including Alexandrite, pulse dye, Nd:YAG and diode lasers, as well as intense pulsed light. Cynosure was founded in 1991. DEX ONE: Faces Securities Suits in Delaware ------------------------------------------- Dex One Corporation faces a series of putative securities class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, according to the company's March 12, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. Beginning on Oct. 23, 2009, a series of putative securities class action lawsuits were commenced on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's publicly traded securities between July 26, 2007 and the time the company filed for bankruptcy on May 28, 2009, alleging that certain company officers issued false and misleading statements regarding the company's business and financial condition and seeking damages and equitable relief. Dex One Corporation -- http://www.DexOne.com/-- is a leading marketing services company that helps local businesses reach, win and keep ready-to-buy customers. The company's highly-skilled, locally based marketing consultants offer a wide range of marketing products and services that help businesses get found more than 1.5 billion times each year by actively shopping consumers. The company offers local businesses personalized marketing consulting services and exposure across a broad network of local marketing products - including the company's "official" print, online and mobile yellow pages and search solutions, as well as major search engines. DEX ONE: Faces ERISA Violations Suit in Illinois ------------------------------------------------ Dex One Corporation faces a putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, according to the company's March 12, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. On Dec. 7, 2009, a putative ERISA class action lawsuit was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of certain participants in or beneficiaries of the R.H. Donnelley 401(k) Savings Plan at any time between July 26, 2007 and the time the lawsuit was filed and whose plan accounts included investments in R.H. Donnelley common stock. The putative ERISA class action complaint contains allegations against certain current and former company directors, officers and employees similar to those set forth in the putative securities class action lawsuit as well as allegations of breaches of fiduciary duties under ERISA and seeks damages and equitable relief. Dex One Corporation -- http://www.DexOne.com/-- is a leading marketing services company that helps local businesses reach, win and keep ready-to-buy customers. The company's highly-skilled, locally based marketing consultants offer a wide range of marketing products and services that help businesses get found more than 1.5 billion times each year by actively shopping consumers. The company offers local businesses personalized marketing consulting services and exposure across a broad network of local marketing products - including the company's "official" print, online and mobile yellow pages and search solutions, as well as major search engines. GULFPORT ENERGY: Delaware Court Dismisses 2nd Amended Complaint --------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware granted Gulfport Energy Corp.'s motion to dismiss a second amended complaint over the pricing of its 2004 rights offering remains pending, according to the company's March 12, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. On July 27, 2007, Robotti & Company, LLC filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware in and for Kent County, Delaware. The original complaint alleged a breach of fiduciary duty by the company and its then present directors in connection with the pricing of the company's 2004 rights offering. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 15, 2008, and the company filed a motion to dismiss in early February 2008 and filed the brief in support of such motion on April 29, 2008. The court held a hearing on Oct. 3, 2008, ultimately deciding to allow the plaintiff to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiff filed its second amended complaint Dec. 22, 2008, which sets forth class action and derivative claim allegations that the company's then present directors breached their fiduciary duty in connection with the pricing of the 2004 rights offering. The defendants filed their motion to dismiss on Jan. 19, 2009, and their brief in support of such motion on Feb. 20, 2009. Briefing by the parties concluded on April 6, 2009, oral arguments on the motion were heard by the court on April 22, 2009 and on Jan. 14, 2010, the court issued an opinion granting defendants' motion to dismiss and entered an order dismissing the case with prejudice. Gulfport Energy Corp. -- http://www.gulfportenergy.com/-- is an independent oil and natural gas exploration and production company with its principal producing properties located along the Louisiana Gulf Coast in the West Cote Blanche Bay (WCBB), Hackberry fields, and in West Texas in the Permian Basin. The company holds a significant acreage position in the Alberta oil sands in Canada, through its interest in Grizzly Oil Sands ULC, and in the Bakken Shale, and has interests in entities that operate in Southeast Asia, including the Phu Horm gas field in Thailand. As of Dec. 31, 2008, Gulfport had 25.5 million barrels of oil equivalent. The company's wholly owned subsidiary, Grizzly has approximately 511,000 acres under lease during 2008. Grizzly drilled an aggregate of 117 core holes, tested five separate lease blocks using up to four different rigs, and undertook a seismic program. HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: Defends Consolidated Suit in Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------------- Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc., continues to defend a suit styled In re Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. Litigation, Civil Action No. 09- 5262, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, according to the company's March 12, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. Between Nov. 10, 2009, and Dec. 29, 2009, five putative class actions were filed against the company and its Chief Executive Officer generally asserting that defendants misrepresented the status of the company's New Drug Application for Ampligen(R). Each action was purportedly brought on behalf of investors who purchased the company's publicly traded securities. The suits were consolidated by the Court as the "Securities Class Action Lawsuit." Also in December of 2009 and January of 2010, three Shareholder Derivative Complaints were filed against the company and some of its Officers and Directors. Those suits also allege that the defendants caused the company to misrepresent the status of its New Drug Application for Ampligen(R). As of March 12, no defendant had been served with a complaint in the derivative suits. On February 12, 2010, the Court consolidated the Class Action Lawsuit with the derivative suits for purposes of discovery. Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. -- http://www.hemispherx.net/-- is an advanced specialty pharmaceutical company engaged in the manufacture and clinical development of new drug entities for treatment of seriously debilitating disorders. Hemispherx's flagship products include Alferon N Injection(R) (FDA approved for a category of sexually transmitted diseases) and the experimental therapeutics Ampligenr and Alferon(R) LDO. Ampligen(R) is an experimental RNA nucleic acid being developed for globally important debilitating diseases and disorders of the immune system. Hemispherx's platform technology includes large and small agent components for potential treatment of various severely debilitating and life threatening diseases. Hemispherx has an extensive number of patents comprising its core intellectual property estate and a fully commercialized product (Alferon N Injection(R)). The company wholly owns and exclusively operates a GMP certified manufacturing facility in the United States for commercial products. HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Herley Industries, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a class action suit has been denied by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, according to the company's March 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 31, 2010. In June and July 2006, the company was served with several class- action complaints against the company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The claims are made under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the company's securities during various periods before June 14, 2006. All defendants in the class-action complaints filed motions to dismiss on April 6, 2007. On July 17, 2007, the Court issued an order denying the company's and its former Chairman's motion to dismiss and granted, in part, the other defendants' motion to dismiss. Specifically, the Court dismissed the Section 10(b) claim against the other defendants and denied the motion to dismiss the Section 20(a) claim against them. On July 9, 2008, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification. On March 4, 2009, all defendants filed an Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. On May 18, 2009, plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion for class certification. Oral argument regarding the plaintiffs' motion for class certification was held on July 17, 2009. On Oct. 9, 2009, the Court issued an order granting plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court certified a class consisting of all purchasers of Herley stock between Oct. 1, 2001 and June 14, 2006, who sustained a loss as a result of that acquisition. On October 30, 2009, the plaintiffs and the company each filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. On Jan. 29, 2010, the Court issued an order denying both summary judgment motions and has set a trial date of mid-July of 2010 for this action. Herley Industries, Inc. -- http://www.herley.com/-- is a leader in the design, development and manufacture of microwave technology solutions for the defense, aerospace and medical industries worldwide. Based in Lancaster, PA, Herley has seven manufacturing locations and approximately 1,000 employees. HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Rich" Certification Hearing Set for May 7 ----------------------------------------------------------- A May 7, 2010, class certification hearing has been set in a purported class-action suit filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Hewlett-Packard Co., according to the company's March 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 31, 2010. The suit was filed on May 22, 2006, against the company and alleges that HP designed its color inkjet printers to unnecessarily use color ink in addition to black ink when printing black and white images and text. The plaintiffs are seeking to certify a nationwide injunctive class and a California-only damages class. A class certification hearing is scheduled for May 7, 2010. The suit is Rich v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Case No. 06-cv-03361 (N.D. Calif.) (Fogel, J.). Representing the plaintiffs is: Brian S. Kabateck, Esq. KABATECK BROWN KELLNER, LLP 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213/217-5000 Fax: 213/217-5010 E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com - and - Stephen Michael Garcia, Esq. GARCIA LAW FIRM One World Trade Center, Suite 1950 Long Beach, CA 90831 Phone: 562-216-5270 E-mail: jmobley@lawgarcia.com Representing the defendants is: Christopher Chorba, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-229-7000 Fax: 213-229-7520 E-mail: cchorba@gibsondunn.com HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Bagget" Plaintiff's Appeal Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ The plaintiff's appeal of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California's summary judgment ruling in the matter Kelsea Baggett v. Hewlett-Packard Company et al., remains pending. The suit is a consumer class action filed against HP on June 6, 2007 alleging that HP employs a technology in its LaserJet color printers whereby the printing process shuts down prematurely, thus preventing customers from using the toner that is allegedly left in the cartridge. The plaintiffs also allege that HP fails to disclose to consumers that they will be unable to utilize the toner remaining in the cartridge after the printer shuts down. The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class of purchasers of all HP LaserJet color printers and seeks unspecified damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs. On Sept. 29, 2009, the court granted HP's motion for summary judgment against the named plaintiff and denied plaintiff's motion for class certification as moot. On Nov. 3, 2009, the court entered judgment against the named plaintiff. On Nov. 17, 2009, plaintiff filed an appeal of the court's summary judgment ruling with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. No further updates were reported in the company's March 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 31, 2010. The suit is Kelsea Baggett v. Hewlett-Packard Company et al., Case No. 07-cv-00667 (C.D. Calif.) (Guilford, J.) Representing the plaintiffs are: Brian S. Kabateck, Esq. KABATECK BROWN KELLNER 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-217-5000 E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com - and - Darren T Kaplan, Esq. CHITWOOD HARLEY HARNES 1230 Peachtree Street, Suite 2300 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: 404-873-3900 E-mail: dkaplan@chitwoodlaw.com Representing the defendant are: Samuel G. Liversidge, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Phone: 213-229-7000 E-mail: sliversidge@gibsondunn.com - and - Robert Particelli, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-963-5000 Fax: 215-963-5001 E-mail: rparticelli@morganlewis.com HEWLETT-PACKARD: EDS Units Defends "Heffelfinger" Suit in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett-Packard Co.'s subsidiary, Electronic Data Systems Corporation, faces several purported class actions alleging labor related violations in California. The plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime compensation and other damages based on allegations that various employees of EDS or HP have been misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and/or the California Labor Code. Heffelfinger, et al v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation is a class action filed in November 2006, in California Superior Court, claiming that certain EDS information technology workers in California were misclassified exempt employees. The case was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, which, on Jan. 7, 2008, certified a class of information technology workers in California. On June 6, 2008, the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs subsequently filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. No further updates were reported in the company's March 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 31, 2010. Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com/-- is a global provider of products, technologies, software, solutions and services to individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) and large enterprises, including customers in the government, health and education sectors. The company's offerings span multi-vendor customer services, including infrastructure technology and business process outsourcing, technology support and maintenance, application development and support services, and consulting and integration services; enterprise information technology infrastructure, including enterprise storage and server technology, networking products and resources, and software that optimizes business technology investments; personal computing and other access devices, and imaging and printing- related products and services. HEWLETT-PACKARD: EDS Subsidiary Continues to Defend "Karlbom" ------------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett-Packard Co.'s subsidiary, Electronic Data Systems Corporation, defends a purported class action styled Karlbom, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The suit was originally filed in the California Superior Court on March 16, 2009. The plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime compensation and other damages based on allegations that various employees of EDS or HP have been misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. No further updates were reported in the company's March 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 31, 2010. Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com/-- is a global provider of products, technologies, software, solutions and services to individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) and large enterprises, including customers in the government, health and education sectors. The company's offerings span multi-vendor customer services, including infrastructure technology and business process outsourcing, technology support and maintenance, application development and support services, and consulting and integration services; enterprise information technology infrastructure, including enterprise storage and server technology, networking products and resources, and software that optimizes business technology investments; personal computing and other access devices, and imaging and printing- related products and services. HEWLETT-PACKARD: EDS Unit Defends "George" Suit in New York ----------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett-Packard Co.'s subsidiary, Electronic Data Systems Corporation, defends a purported class action styled George, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit was originally filed in the California Superior Court on April 2, 2009. The plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime compensation and other damages based on allegations that various employees of EDS or HP have been misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. No further updates were reported in the company's March 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 31, 2010. Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com/-- is a global provider of products, technologies, software, solutions and services to individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) and large enterprises, including customers in the government, health and education sectors. The company's offerings span multi-vendor customer services, including infrastructure technology and business process outsourcing, technology support and maintenance, application development and support services, and consulting and integration services; enterprise information technology infrastructure, including enterprise storage and server technology, networking products and resources, and software that optimizes business technology investments; personal computing and other access devices, and imaging and printing- related products and services. HEWLETT-PACKARD: Defends Inkjet Printer Litigation in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------ Hewlett-Packard Co. continues to defend a consolidated lawsuit captioned In re HP Inkjet Printer Litigation, according to the company's March 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 31, 2010. The lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuits alleges breach of express and implied warranty, unjust enrichment, deceptive advertising and unfair business practices where the plaintiffs have alleged, among other things, that HP employed a "smart chip" in certain inkjet printing products in order to register ink depletion prematurely and to render the cartridge unusable through a built-in expiration date that is hidden, not documented in marketing materials to consumers, or both. The plaintiffs have also contended that consumers received false ink depletion warnings and that the smart chip limits the ability of consumers to use the cartridge to its full capacity or to choose competitive products. The plaintiffs are seeking class certification, restitution, damages (including enhanced damages), injunctive relief, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. On Jan. 4, 2008, the court heard plaintiffs' motions for class certification and to add a class representative and HP's motion for summary judgment. On July 25, 2008, the court denied all three motions. On March 30, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification. A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification was scheduled for April 9, 2010. Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com/-- is a global provider of products, technologies, software, solutions and services to individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) and large enterprises, including customers in the government, health and education sectors. The company's offerings span multi-vendor customer services, including infrastructure technology and business process outsourcing, technology support and maintenance, application development and support services, and consulting and integration services; enterprise information technology infrastructure, including enterprise storage and server technology, networking products and resources, and software that optimizes business technology investments; personal computing and other access devices, and imaging and printing- related products and services. HEWLETT-PACKARD: Continues to Defend "Blennis" Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------ Hewlett-Packard Co. continues to defend a suit styled Blennis v. HP, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, according to the company's March 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 31, 2010. The lawsuit was filed on Jan. 17, 2007, where the plaintiffs are seeking class certification, restitution, damages (including enhanced damages), injunctive relief, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. The lawsuits alleges breach of express and implied warranty, unjust enrichment, deceptive advertising and unfair business practices where the plaintiffs have alleged, among other things, that HP employed a "smart chip" in certain inkjet printing products in order to register ink depletion prematurely and to render the cartridge unusable through a built-in expiration date that is hidden, not documented in marketing materials to consumers, or both. The plaintiffs have also contended that consumers received false ink depletion warnings and that the smart chip limits the ability of consumers to use the cartridge to its full capacity or to choose competitive products. A class certification hearing was scheduled for May 21, 2010. Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com/-- is a global provider of products, technologies, software, solutions and services to individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) and large enterprises, including customers in the government, health and education sectors. The company's offerings span multi-vendor customer services, including infrastructure technology and business process outsourcing, technology support and maintenance, application development and support services, and consulting and integration services; enterprise information technology infrastructure, including enterprise storage and server technology, networking products and resources, and software that optimizes business technology investments; personal computing and other access devices, and imaging and printing- related products and services. HEWLETT-PACKARD: Four Suits in Canada over "Smart Chips" Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett-Packard Co. continues to face four purported class-action lawsuits over its use of "smart chips" in its inkjet printer cartridge. The four class actions against HP and its subsidiary, Hewlett- Packard (Canada) Co., pending in Canada are: -- one commenced in British Columbia in February 2006, -- two commenced in Quebec in April 2006 and May 2006, respectively, and -- one commenced in Ontario in June 2006, where the plaintiffs are seeking class certification, restitution, declaratory relief, injunctive relief and unspecified statutory, compensatory and punitive damages. The lawsuits alleges breach of express and implied warranty, unjust enrichment, deceptive advertising and unfair business practices where the plaintiffs have alleged, among other things, that HP employed a "smart chip" in certain inkjet printing products in order to register ink depletion prematurely and to render the cartridge unusable through a built-in expiration date that is hidden, not documented in marketing materials to consumers, or both. The plaintiffs have also contended that consumers received false ink depletion warnings and that the smart chip limits the ability of consumers to use the cartridge to its full capacity or to choose competitive products. A class authorization hearing for one of the cases pending in Quebec was tentatively scheduled for Dec. 10, 2009; that hearing has been postponed and no new date has been set by the court. No further updates were reported in the company's March 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 31, 2010. Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com/-- is a global provider of products, technologies, software, solutions and services to individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) and large enterprises, including customers in the government, health and education sectors. The company's offerings span multi-vendor customer services, including infrastructure technology and business process outsourcing, technology support and maintenance, application development and support services, and consulting and integration services; enterprise information technology infrastructure, including enterprise storage and server technology, networking products and resources, and software that optimizes business technology investments; personal computing and other access devices, and imaging and printing- related products and services. HEWLETT-PACKARD: EDS Continues to Defend Labor-Related Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett-Packard Co.'s subsidiary, Electronic Data Systems Corporation, faces several purported class actions alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and/or the California Labor Code. The plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime compensation and other damages based on allegations that various employees of EDS or HP have been misclassified as exempt employees under the FLSA and/or the California Labor Code. One suit styled Cunningham and Cunningham, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation, is a purported action filed on May 10, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York claiming that current and former EDS employees involved in installing and/or maintaining computer software and hardware were misclassified as exempt employees. Two other purported collective actions, Steavens, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation, filed on Oct. 23, 2007, and Azar v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation, filed on Feb. 20, 2009, are also pending in the same court alleging similar facts. No further updates were reported in the company's March 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 31, 2010. Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com/-- is a global provider of products, technologies, software, solutions and services to individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) and large enterprises, including customers in the government, health and education sectors. The company's offerings span multi-vendor customer services, including infrastructure technology and business process outsourcing, technology support and maintenance, application development and support services, and consulting and integration services; enterprise information technology infrastructure, including enterprise storage and server technology, networking products and resources, and software that optimizes business technology investments; personal computing and other access devices, and imaging and printing- related products and services. HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Skold" Appeal to Denied Certification Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs' appeal to the decision that denied the class certification motion in a lawsuit against Hewlett-Packard Co. in California with regards to the performance of Intel Corp.'s Pentium 4 processor remain pending. The suit, Skold, et al. v. Intel Corp. and Hewlett Packard Co., generally alleges that the company along with Intel, misled the public by suppressing and concealing the alleged material fact that systems that use the Pentium 4 processor are less powerful and slower than systems using the Pentium III processor and processors made by a competitor of Intel. The company was joined to the lawsuit on June 14, 2004. It was initially filed in state court in Alameda County, California, based upon factual allegations similar to those in the Illinois cases. The plaintiffs in the Skold matter seek unspecified damages, restitution, attorneys' fees and costs, and certification of a nationwide class. The Skold case has since been transferred to state court in Santa Clara County, California. The trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification on March 27, 2008, but granted plaintiffs' leave to file a new motion for class certification. On Feb. 27, 2009, the court denied without prejudice plaintiffs' motion for nationwide class certification for a third time. The plaintiffs have appealed the court's decision No further updates were reported in the company's March 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 31, 2010. Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com/-- is a global provider of products, technologies, software, solutions and services to individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) and large enterprises, including customers in the government, health and education sectors. The company's offerings span multi-vendor customer services, including infrastructure technology and business process outsourcing, technology support and maintenance, application development and support services, and consulting and integration services; enterprise information technology infrastructure, including enterprise storage and server technology, networking products and resources, and software that optimizes business technology investments; personal computing and other access devices, and imaging and printing- related products and services. LIMELIGHT NETWORKS: Seeks Approval of Settlement Agreement ---------------------------------------------------------- Limelight Networks, Inc., continues to seek approval of a settlement agreement resolving a consolidated complaint pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, according to the company's March 12, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. In August 2007, the company, certain of its officers and directors, and the firms that served as the lead underwriters in our initial public offering were named as defendants in several purported class action lawsuits. These lawsuits have been consolidated into a single lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The consolidated complaint asserts causes of action under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, on behalf of a professed class consisting of all those who were allegedly damaged as a result of acquiring the company's common stock in its initial public offering between June 8, 2007 and Aug. 8, 2007. The complaint seeks compensatory damages and plaintiffs' costs and expenses in the litigation. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company omitted and/or misstated certain facts concerning the seasonality of its business and that the loss of revenue with respect to certain customers. On March 17, 2008, the company and the individual defendants moved to dismiss all of the plaintiffs' claims, and a hearing was held on this motion on June 16, 2008. On Aug. 8, 2008, the court granted the motion to dismiss, dismissing plaintiffs' claims under Section 12 with prejudice and granting leave to amend the claims under Sections 11 and 15. Plaintiffs chose not to amend the claims under Sections 11 and 15, and on Aug. 29, 2008, the court entered judgment in favor of the company. On Sept. 5, 2008, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, and appellate briefs were filed by the parties in January and February 2009. In November 2009 the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to settle this lawsuit for an amount well within the coverage limits of the primary carrier of the company's directors and officers liability insurance, and the company isw seeking court approval to finalize the settlement. Limelight Networks, Inc. -- http://www.limelightnetworks.com/-- is trusted by the world's most innovative enterprise, entertainment, technology, and software brands to improve the performance and profitability of web sites and end-user experiences. the company's scalable, on-demand managed infrastructure solutions provide global reach and consistent high availability, by routing traffic over a private fiber-optic backbone rather than through the often-congested, unpredictable public Internet. MEDQUIST INC: No Decision Yet to Appeal in Dismissed "Kahn" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The New Jersey Appellate Division has yet to issue a decision on the appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of an amended class action complaint against MedQuist, Inc., according to the company's March 12, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. On Jan. 22, 2008, Alan R. Kahn, one of the company's shareholders, filed a shareholder putative class action lawsuit against the company, Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., the company's former majority shareholder, and four of the company's former non-independent directors, Clement Revetti, Jr., Stephen H. Rusckowski, Gregory M. Sebasky and Scott Weisenhoff. The action, entitled Alan R. Kahn v. Stephen H. Rusckowski, et al., Docket No. BUR-C-000007-08, was venued in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Burlington County. In the action, plaintiff purports to bring the action on his own behalf and on behalf of all current holders of the company's common stock. The original complaint alleged that defendants breached their fiduciary duties of good faith, fair dealing, loyalty, and due care by purportedly agreeing to and initiating a process for the company's sale or a change of control transaction which will allegedly cause harm to plaintiff and members of the putative class. Plaintiff sought damages in an unspecified amount, plus costs and interest, a judgment declaring that defendants breached their fiduciary duties and that any proposed transactions regarding our sale or change of control are void, an injunction preventing our sale or any change of control transaction that is not entirely fair to the class, an order directing us to appoint three independent directors to our board of directors, and attorneys' fees and expenses. On June 12, 2008, plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint against the company, eight of its current and former directors, and Philips in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division. In the amended complaint, plaintiff alleged that the company's current and former directors breached their fiduciary duties of good faith, fair dealing, loyalty, and due care by not providing our public shareholders with the opportunity to decide whether they wanted to participate in a share purchase offer with non-party CBaySystems Holdings Ltd. that would have allowed the public shareholders to sell their shares of the company's common stock for an amount above market price. Plaintiff further alleged that CBaySystems Holdings made the share purchase offer to Philips and that Philips breached its fiduciary duties by accepting CBaySystems Holdings' offer. Based on these allegations, plaintiff sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief from all defendants. Plaintiff claimed that the company was only named as a party to the litigation for purposes of injunctive relief. On July 14, 2008, the company moved to dismiss plaintiff's amended class action complaint, arguing: (1) that plaintiff's amended class action complaint did not allege that the company engaged in any wrongdoing which supported a breach of fiduciary duty claim and (2) that a breach of fiduciary duty claim is not legally cognizable against a corporation. Plaintiff filed an opposition to the company's motion to dismiss on July 21, 2008. On Nov. 21, 2008, the Court granted the company's motion and the motions filed by the other defendants and dismissed plaintiff's amended class action complaint with prejudice. On Dec. 31, 2008, plaintiff filed an appeal of the trial court's dismissal order with the New Jersey Appellate Division. Thereafter, the parties briefed all the issues raised in plaintiff's appeal. In the company's opposition brief, the company opposed all the arguments plaintiff raised with respect to the dismissal of the claims against it. On Sept. 24, 2009, the Appellate Division held oral argument on the issues that are the subject of plaintiff's appeal. MedQuist, Inc. -- http://www.medquist.com/-- is a leading provider of medical transcription services, and a leader in technology-enabled clinical documentation workflow. MedQuist's enterprise solutions -- including mobile voice capture devices, speech recognition, Web-based workflow platforms, and global network of medical editors -- help healthcare facilities improve patient care, increase physician satisfaction, and lower operational costs. MERCK & CO: High Court Says N.J. VIOXX Litigation Not Time-Barred ----------------------------------------------------------------- Merck is disappointed with this week's ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to affirm a lower court's ruling on when the statute of limitations began to run in a federal securities class action against the company and certain of its officers and directors. The effect of the ruling is to return the case to federal district court in New Jersey for further proceedings. The original suit, brought by investors, who allege that the company made material misstatements and omissions regarding the pain medication VIOXX(R), was dismissed by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in 2007, on the ground that the claims were time-barred under the statute of limitations. In 2008, however, a divided Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the district court's ruling. In May 2009, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Merck's appeal. "Merck is disappointed in today's decision, but believes that the allegations in the complaint are unfounded and will continue to defend itself vigorously," said Bruce Kuhlik, Merck Executive Vice President and General Counsel. "The company has already made a motion to dismiss the operative complaint on numerous other grounds, and will renew that motion in the district court." Kannon K. Shanmugam of Williams & Connolly LLP argued the case before the Supreme Court for Merck. The company is also represented by Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP. A copy of the opinion in Merck & Co., Inc., et al. v. Reynolds, et al., No. 08-905 (U.S.), is available at: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-905.pdf Status of Other Litigation Other shareholder cases relating to Vioxx, including individual securities actions and claims brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, are still pending in federal court in New Jersey. In November of 2007, Merck entered into an agreement to resolve state and federal myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke personal injury claims filed or tolled by November 9, 2007. More than 99 percent of all eligible personal injury claimants enrolled in the program and the program is proceeding as scheduled with payments expected to be completed later this year. About Merck Today's Merck -- http://www.merck.com/-- is a global healthcare leader working to help the world be well. Merck is known as MSD outside the United States and Canada. Through our prescription medicines, vaccines, biologic therapies, and consumer care and animal health products, we work with customers and operate in more than 140 countries to deliver innovative health solutions. We also demonstrate our commitment to increasing access to healthcare through far-reaching policies, programs and partnerships. PACIFIC CAPITAL: Paskowitz Appealing Court's Dismissal Order ------------------------------------------------------------ The plaintiff in a purported shareholder action against Pacific Capital Bancorp has filed a notice of appeal on the order of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissing the complaint, according to the company's March 12, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. On Sept. 4, 2009, an alleged shareholder of the company filed a purported shareholder action in federal district court in Los Angeles, against the company and all of its directors, captioned Laurence Paskowitz SEP IRA v. Pacific Capital Bancorp, et al., Case No. CV 09-6449-ODW. The complaint alleged that the company's Aug. 31, 2009 Proxy Statement, with respect to the proposal for shareholder authorization of a reverse stock split, contained certain allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions regarding certain alleged risks of the reverse stock split. The complaint asserted claims for injunctive and declaratory relief based on alleged proxy violations under the federal securities laws (Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 there under) and under unspecified California law. The complaint also asserted a purported class action claim, on behalf of a putative class of shareholders of the company, for monetary damages based on alleged breach of an alleged fiduciary duty of full disclosure under California law. On Sept. 9, 2009, plaintiff filed an ex parte application seeking a temporary restraining order, as well as an expedited hearing on a preliminary injunction motion, to prevent the company from conducting the planned shareholder vote on the reverse stock split proposal set for Sept. 29, 2009. On Sept. 11, 2009, the defendants filed an opposition to the ex parte application. On Sept. 14, 2009 the Court denied plaintiff's application in its entirety. The scheduled shareholder vote took place on Sept. 29, 2009, and the reverse stock split proposal was approved. On Oct. 8, 2009, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety with prejudice and without leave to amend. On Oct. 19, 2009, plaintiff filed opposition papers, and on Oct. 26, 2009, defendants filed reply papers. On Nov. 6, 2009, the Court granted the company's motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The plaintiff declined to amend the complaint. On Dec. 6, 2009, the Court ordered Judgment be entered dismissing the complaint with prejudice. On Dec. 31, 2009, plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal. Pacific Capital Bancorp is the parent company of Pacific Capital Bank, N.A., a nationally chartered bank that operates 46 branches under the local brand names of Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, First National Bank of Central California, South Valley National Bank, San Benito Bank and First Bank of San Luis Obispo. PACIFIC CAPITAL: California Court Dismisses "Jurkowitz" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted Pacific Capital Bancorp's motion to dismiss a purported securities class action entitled William Jurkowitz v. Pacific Capital Bancorp, George Leis, David Porter, Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP and Sandler O'Neill Asset Management LLC, CV 09-06501 RGK (PLAx), according to the company's March 12, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. The suit was filed on Sept. 8, 2009, against the company along with two of its officers. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Exchange Act, as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, for a purported class period running from April 30, 2009 when the company announced results for the first quarter of 2009, to July 30, 2009 when the company announced results for the second quarter of 2009. The complaint alleges that the company and the officer defendants made knowingly false statements of confidence regarding the adequacy of loan loss reserves taken in the first quarter of 2009, which plaintiffs contend were proven to be false when the company announced second quarter results, which included an additional $117 million reserve. On Oct. 30, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss the Jurkowitz complaint. On Jan. 28, 2010, the Court granted the company's motion to dismiss and denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment as Lead Counsel as moot. Pacific Capital Bancorp is the parent company of Pacific Capital Bank, N.A., a nationally chartered bank that operates 46 branches under the local brand names of Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, First National Bank of Central California, South Valley National Bank, San Benito Bank and First Bank of San Luis Obispo. QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Being Sold for Too Little, Colo. Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Qwest Communications is selling itself too cheaply to CenturyTel, in a $22.4 billion stock swap of 0.1664 Century shares for each Qwest share, shareholders say in six class actions in Denver County Court. A copy of the Complaint in Teamsters Allied Benefit Funds v. Mueller, et al., Case No. 3309 (Colo. Dist. Ct., Denver Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/27/Qwest.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kip B. Shuman, Esq. Rusty E. Glenn, Esq. THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM 885 Arapahoe Ave. Boulder, CO 80302 Telephone: 303-861-3003 - and - Joseph E. White, III, Esq. Lester R. Hooker, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: 561-394-3399 RALPH'S GROCERY: Proposed Settlement in Disabled Shopper Lawsuits ----------------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE TO: All individuals who are mobility impaired or use wheelchairs or electric scooters for mobility and who, since January 17, 2005, have shopped at or attempted to shop at or will in the future shop at or attempt to shop at any Ralphs store in California. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN THIS LITIGATION. Class actions entitled Anthony Pereira and American Disability Institute vs. Ralph's Grocery Company, Case No. CV 07-841 PA (C.D. Calif.), and Sung Park, Rosaura Navar and American Disability Institute vs. Ralph's Grocery Company, Case No. CV 08-02021 CAS (C.D. Calif.), were filed, alleging that Ralphs Grocery Company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and other state laws, including the Disabled Persons Act and the Unruh Act, by failing to make its stores accessible to the mobility-impaired. These actions seek chain-wide injunctive relief at all Ralphs stores in California, including the parking facilities and outdoor seating areas serving the subject stores. In both cases, the district court certified the class to seek injunctive and declaratory relief as well as monetary damages. The parties to these actions have now agreed to a settlement of both actions, which the class attorneys have recommended that the district court approve. The settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing or liability by Defendant who has denied any wrongdoing. Nevertheless, to avoid the expense and uncertainty of protracted litigation, the settlement imposes a number of specific obligations on Defendant with respect to the accessibility of its Stores, including making necessary accessibility modifications and third party inspection for compliance. Defendant has also agreed to pay the reasonable attorney fees and costs of the class attorneys. The named plaintiffs in both actions are settling their individual damages claims and will receive $4,000.00 each. The Court will hold a fairness hearing at the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Spring Street Courthouse, 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90112 on June 28, 2010 at 1:30 p.m., in Courtroom 15, to determine whether the proposed settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable and adequate. If approved by the Court, this settlement will fully settle all claims of all class members for declaratory and injunctive relief alleged or that could have been alleged in these actions. No class member will be able to bring another lawsuit for injunctive or declaratory relief with respect to the accessibility of any Ralphs Store in California. This settlement will extinguish and/or bar past, pending and future claims/lawsuits for injunctive or declaratory relief with respect to the accessibility of any Ralphs Store in California. With the exception of the named plaintiffs who have settled their individual damages claim, no class member will recover statutory damages under the settlement, and nothing in this settlement shall affect class members' rights to pursue damages claims that may otherwise exist. Any class member may object to approval of this settlement by following the instructions for objections contained in the Detailed Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement, which is available at no charge by written request to: Evan Smith BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 or by download on the Internet at: http://www.RalphsCaliforniaDisabledAccessSettlement.com or by calling (949) 732-6502. You must object by May 17, 2010. If you do not timely submit an objection pursuant to the detailed instructions, you will have deemed to have forever waived any objections to the settlement. SHUFFLE MASTER: Defends Consolidated Amended Complaint in Nevada ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shuffle Master, Inc., continues to defend a consolidated amended class action complaint pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. On June 1, 2007, a putative class action complaint for violation of the federal securities laws against the company and its Chief Executive Officer, Mark L. Yoseloff and former Chief Financial Officer, Richard L. Baldwin, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on behalf of persons who purportedly purchased the company's stock between Dec. 22, 2006, and March 12, 2007. The case is entitled Joseph Stocke vs. Shuffle Master, Inc., Mark L. Yoseloff and Richard L. Baldwin. The complaint asserts claims pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. These claims allegedly relate to the company's March 12, 2007, announcement that the company would restate its Fiscal Fourth Quarter and full year financial results. The complaint seeks compensatory damages in an unstated amount. On or about Aug. 4, 2007, four plaintiffs moved the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff. On June 12, 2007, a second putative class action complaint for violation of the federal securities laws against the company and Dr. Yoseloff and Mr. Baldwin was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. The case is entitled Robert Armistead, Jr. vs. Shuffle Master, Inc., Mark L. Yoseloff and Richard L. Baldwin. This lawsuit effectively mirrors the allegations in the Stocke lawsuit filed against these same defendants on June 1, 2007, except that the Armistead complaint was filed on behalf of persons who purchased the company's stock between March 20, 2006 and March 12, 2007. On June 25, 2007, a third putative class action complaint for violation of the federal securities laws against the company, Dr. Yoseloff and Mr. Baldwin was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. The case is entitled Andrew J. Tempel vs. Shuffle Master, Inc., Mark L. Yoseloff and Richard L. Baldwin. This lawsuit is a "copycat" lawsuit of the Stocke lawsuit filed against these same defendants on June 1, 2007. On June 22, 2007, a Joint Stipulation was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada providing that all presently filed and any subsequently filed related class actions shall be consolidated and captioned In Re Shuffle Master, Inc. Securities Litigation. The company was not required to answer, move against or otherwise respond to any class action complaints until a consolidated complaint was filed. On Nov. 30, 2007, the Court appointed the "Shuffle Master Institutional Investor Group," consisting of the Tulsa Municipal Employees' Retirement Plan and the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, as Lead Plaintiff. Grant & Eisenhofer is the Lead Plaintiff's counsel. A consolidated amended class action complaint was filed on Feb. 5, 2008. The Consolidated Complaint asserts the same causes of action for violation of federal securities law as the initial lawsuits and applies to a class period of Feb. 1, 2006, to March 12, 2007. The Consolidated Complaint contains essentially the same material allegations as in the initial lawsuits and also contains allegations arising out of the company's acquisition of Stargames and disclosures concerning the company's internal controls. This Consolidated Complaint supersedes all previously filed lawsuits covering this class period. On March 25, 2008, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss. On March 23, 2009, the Court denied the company's Motion to Dismiss. The Defendants answered on April 29, 2009. The case is presently pending. No further updates were reported in the company's March 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 31, 2010. Shuffle Master, Inc. -- http://www.shufflemaster.com/-- is a gaming supply company specializing in providing its casino customers with improved profitability, productivity and security, as well as popular and cutting-edge gaming entertainment content, through value-add products in four distinct categories: Utility products which include automatic card shuffler, roulette chip sorters and intelligent table system modules, Proprietary Table Games which include live table game tournaments, Electronic Table Systems which include various e-Table game platforms and Electronic Gaming Machines which include traditional video slot machines for select markets. The company is included in the S&P Smallcap 600 Index. STEP2 COMPANY: Recalls 21,000 Basic Rhythms Drum(TM) Toys --------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with The Step2 Company LLC, of Streetsboro, OH, announced a voluntary recall of about 21,000 Step2(R) Basic Rhythms Drums(TM). Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The plastic clips used to attach the drumsticks to the drum can break. The small broken pieces present a choking to young children. No injuries or incidents have been reported. This recall involves Step2(R) Basic Rhythm Drums(TM) intended for preschool age children. The toy drum is sold with two drumsticks that can be stored in clips on the side of the drum. A red "Step2(R)" logo in printed on the side of the drum. A Picture of the recalled product is available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10206.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through Toys "R" Us, Burlington Coat Factory and other retail stores nationwide from August 2009 through March 2010 for between $10 and $15. Consumers should immediately take the recalled toy from children and contact Step2 to request a replacement toy. For additional information, contact Step2 toll-free at (866) 860-1887 between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.step2.com/ STEVE MADDEN: Continues to Defend "Tahvilian" Suit in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Madden, Ltd., continues to defend a class action lawsuit styled Shahrzad Tahvilian, et al. v. Steve Madden Retail, Inc. and Steve Madden, Ltd., Case No. BC 414217, pending in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, according to the company's March 12, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. The suit was filed on June 24, 2009, against the company and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Steven Madden Retail, Inc. The complaint, which seeks unspecified damages, alleges violations of California labor laws, including, among other things, that the company failed to provide mandated meal breaks to its employees and failed to provide overtime pay as required. The company filed an answer in the litigation denying all allegations stated in the complaint. The parties have agreed to submit the claim to private mediation, which was scheduled for March 29, 2010. The company, with the advice of legal counsel, has evaluated the liability in this case and believes that it is not likely to exceed $1 million. Accordingly, the company accrued $1 million in the fiscal year 2009. The accrual is subject to change to reflect the status of this matter. Steve Madden, Ltd., designs, sources, markets, and sells fashion- forward footwear and accessories for women, men and children. The shoes and accessories are sold through 85 Company owned stores (including the company's online store) as well as department stores, and apparel, footwear, and accessories specialty stores. The company's owned brands include Steve Madden, Steven by Steve Madden, Madden Girl and Big Buddha, among others. The company licenses certain of its brands to third parties for the marketing and sale of certain products, including for ready-to-wear, outerwear, cold weather accessories, eyewear, hosiery, and bedding and bath products. The company is the licensee of various brands including Olsenboye and Fabulosity for footwear, handbags and belts, Elizabeth and James and l.e.i. for footwear, Betsey Johnson for handbags and belts and Daisy Fuentes for handbags UNITED RENTALS: Plaintiff's Appeal on Dismissal of Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of the second consolidated amended complaint against United Rentals, Inc., remains pending. Subsequent to the company's Nov. 14, 2007 announcement that affiliates of Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., had notified the company that they were not prepared to proceed with the purchase of the company on the terms set forth in the merger agreement, three putative class action lawsuits were filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The plaintiff in each of the lawsuits sought to sue on behalf of a purported class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's securities between Aug. 29, 2007 and Nov. 14, 2007. The lawsuits named as defendants the company, its directors and certain of its officers and alleged, among other things, that the named plaintiff and members of the purported class suffered damages when they purchased or otherwise acquired securities issued by the company, as a result of false and misleading statements and/or material omissions relating to the contemplated merger with affiliates of Cerberus, contained in: (i) proxy materials that the Company disseminated and/or filed with the SEC in anticipation of the Oct. 19, 2007 special meeting of stockholders; and/or (ii) certain of the Company's filings with the SEC and other public statements. On the basis of those allegations, plaintiff in each action asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 thereunder; and against the individual defendants under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaints in these actions sought unspecified compensatory damages, costs, expenses and fees. The Court subsequently entered an order consolidating the three actions and appointed First New York Securities, L.L.C. and Omni Partners LLP as lead plaintiffs for the purported class. The actions are now consolidated under the caption First New York Securities, L.L.C., et al. v. United Rentals, Inc., et al. On March 24, 2008, pursuant to a schedule approved by the Court, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, which, among other things: (i) amended the purported class period to include purchasers of our securities from July 23, 2007 to Nov. 14, 2007; (ii) dropped as defendants one of our officers and all but one of our directors; (iii) named as additional defendants Cerberus, certain of its affiliates, its chief executive officer and one of its managing directors; and (iv) withdrew the previously asserted claim under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 thereunder. On March 10, 2009, the Court granted defendants' motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint without prejudice, and granted lead plaintiffs leave to move to reopen the case within 30 days and to file a proposed amended complaint. On April 9, 2009, lead plaintiffs moved to reopen the case and for leave to file a second consolidated amended complaint. With the court's permission, lead plaintiffs filed their second consolidated amended complaint on April 16, 2009. The second consolidated amended complaint continued to assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and, among other things: (i) amended the purported class period to include purchasers of our publicly traded securities from Aug. 30, 2007 to Nov. 14, 2007, and (ii) dropped as defendants one of the company's directors and the Cerberus related defendants. On Aug. 24, 2009, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint with prejudice and subsequently entered judgment in favor of defendants. On Sept. 22, 2009, lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the judgment dismissing the consolidated actions. No further developments were reported in the company's April 21, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. Greenwich, Connecticut-based United Rentals, Inc. -- http://www.unitedrentals.com/-- is the largest equipment rental company in the world, with an integrated network of 568 rental locations in 48 states, 10 Canadian provinces and Mexico. The company's 8,000 employees serve construction and industrial customers, utilities, municipalities, homeowners and others. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS ALERT: MassDEP Issues $53,937 Fine to Rotation Dynamics ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection assessed a US$53,937 penalty to Rotation Dynamics, an Illinois-based corporation, for asbestos violations that occurred at the Company's facility, located at 33 Hayes Memorial Drive in Marlborough, Mass., according to a MassDEP press release dated April 20, 2010. During a March 2008 site inspection, MassDEP inspectors determined that Company employees had used a forklift to remove a piece of decommissioned process equipment that contained asbestos insulation and left it uncontained in the parking lot. MassDEP observed numerous pieces of dry, friable asbestos insulation uncontained on the ground in the parking area, exposed to the ambient air. Rotation Dynamics was cited for failing to notify MassDEP of a demolition/renovation operation involving asbestos-containing materials, as required by law. The Company was also cited for improper removal and handling of asbestos-containing materials, improper packaging and storage of asbestos-containing waste materials, and allowing asbestos-containing materials to be handled in a manner that caused or contributed to a condition of air pollution at the site. Upon discovery of the violations, MassDEP required the Company to hire a Massachusetts Division of Occupational Safety licensed asbestos contractor to properly remove, package and dispose of all the asbestos-containing waste on site. Under the terms of a consent order with MassDEP, the Company will comply with all applicable regulations in the future and pay US$30,000 of the assessed penalty. The remaining US$23,937 penalty was suspended pending the Company's compliance with the terms of the order. Martin Suuberg, director of MassDEP's Central Regional Office in Worcester, Mass., said, "Corporations in Massachusetts must be fully aware of their responsibilities under the regulations to thoroughly inspect process equipment slated to be decommissioned and removed from their facility for the presence of asbestos- containing materials. "Failure to identify and remove asbestos materials prior to commencing such operations is an extremely serious, and ultimately a costly oversight that potentially exposes workers and the general public to a known carcinogen. As this case illustrates, noncompliance results in significant penalty exposure, as well as escalated cleanup, decontamination, disposal and monitoring costs." Property owners or contractors with questions about asbestos containing materials, proper removal, handling, packaging, storage and disposal procedures, or the asbestos regulations are encouraged to contact the appropriate MassDEP Regional Office for assistance. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Ongoing v. Goodrich, Units ---------------------------------------------------------------- Goodrich Corporation and some of its subsidiaries have been named as defendants in various actions by plaintiffs alleging damages as a result of exposure to asbestos fibers in products or at its facilities. A number of these cases involve maritime claims, which have been and are expected to continue to be administratively dismissed by the court, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on April 22, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Based in Charlotte, N.C., Goodrich Corporation serves regional/business aircraft, original equipment and aftermarket, helicopters, military, and space markets through its three aerospace divisions. Its largest unit, Actuation and Landing Systems, makes fuel systems, aircraft wheels, brakes, landing gear, and flight control systems. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco, Units Still Facing Suits in Miss. Courts ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ensco plc and certain current and former subsidiaries are still defendants, along with numerous other third-party companies as co-defendants, in three multi-party asbestos-related lawsuits filed in Mississippi. Filed during 2004, the lawsuits sought an unspecified amount of monetary damages on behalf of individuals alleging personal injury or death, primarily under the Jones Act, purportedly resulting from exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities during the period 1965 through 1986. In compliance with the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, the individual claimants in the original multi-party lawsuits whose claims were not dismissed were ordered to file either new or amended single plaintiff complaints naming the specific defendant(s) against whom they intended to pursue claims. As a result, out of more than 600 initial multi-party claims, the Company has been named as a defendant by 65 individual plaintiffs. Of these claims, 62 claims or lawsuits are pending in Mississippi state courts and three are pending in the U.S. District Court as a result of their removal from state court. To date, written discovery and plaintiff depositions have taken place in eight cases involving the Company. While several cases have been selected for trial during 2010 and 2011, none of the cases pending against the Company in Mississippi state court are included within those selected cases. In addition to the pending cases in Mississippi, the Company has three other asbestos or lung injury claims pending against the Company in litigation in various other jurisdictions. Based in London, Ensco plc is an offshore drilling contractor. It owns 46 offshore rigs, including 43 jack-ups, one barge rig, and two ultra-deepwater semisubmersibles. The Company conducts most of its drilling business in the Asia/Pacific region (which includes Asia, the Middle East, Australia, and New Zealand). ASBESTOS UPDATE: Halliburton Accrues No Amounts for AMSF Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Halliburton Company, as of March 31, 2010, had not accrued any amounts related to litigation involving asbestos, in which the Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund (AMSF) is the plaintiff. In June 2002, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in federal court alleging violations of the federal securities laws after the Securities and Exchange Commission initiated an investigation in connection with the Company's change in accounting for revenue on long-term construction projects and related disclosures. In the weeks that followed, about 20 similar class actions were filed against the Company. Several of those lawsuits also named as defendants several of the Company's present or former officers and directors. The class action cases were later consolidated, and the amended consolidated class action complaint, styled Richard Moore, et al. v. Halliburton Company, et al., was filed and served upon the Company in April 2003. As a result of a substitution of lead plaintiffs, the case is now styled Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund (AMSF) v. Halliburton Company, et al. The Company settled with the SEC in the second quarter of 2004. In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted by the court. In addition to restating the original accounting and disclosure claims, the second amended consolidated complaint included claims arising out of the 1998 acquisition of Dresser Industries, Inc. by Halliburton, including that the Company failed to timely disclose the resulting asbestos liability exposure. In April 2005, the court appointed new co-lead counsel and named AMSF the new lead plaintiff, directing that it file a third consolidated amended complaint and that the Company file its motion to dismiss. The court held oral arguments on that motion in August 2005, at which time the court took the motion under advisement. In March 2006, the court entered an order in which it granted the motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising prior to June 1999 and granted the motion with respect to certain other claims while permitting AMSF to re-plead some of those claims to correct deficiencies in its earlier complaint. In April 2006, AMSF filed its fourth amended consolidated complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss those portions of the complaint that had been re-pled. A hearing was held on that motion in July 2006, and in March 2007 the court ordered dismissal of the claims against all individual defendants other than the Company's Chief Executive Officer (CEO). The court ordered that the case proceed against the CEO and the Company. In September 2007, AMSF filed a motion for class certification. The district court issued an order on Nov. 3, 2008 denying AMSF's motion for class certification. AMSF then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On Feb. 10, 2010, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying class certification. AMSF has the opportunity to request additional review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Accordingly, the district court entered an order staying proceedings in that court until May 13, 2010, which is the deadline for AMSF to seek a writ of certiori in the U.S. Supreme Court. Based in Houston, Halliburton Company is an oilfield service company that serves the upstream oil and gas industry with a complete range of services, from the location of hydrocarbons to the production of oil and gas. The Company operates in two segments: Drilling and Evaluation and Completion and Production. ASBESTOS UPDATE: ABB Ltd Provisions Amount to $53Mil at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ABB Ltd's total asbestos-related provisions amounted to US$53 million as of March 31, 2010, the same as for the period ended Dec. 31, 2009. Of the US$53 million as of both March 31, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009, about US$28 million was under Provisions and other current liabilities and about US$25 million was under Other non-current liabilities. The Company's Combustion Engineering Inc. subsidiary (CE) was a co-defendant in a large number of lawsuits claiming damage for personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos. A smaller number of claims were also brought against the Company's former Lummus subsidiary as well as against other entities of the Company. Separate plans of reorganization for CE and Lummus, as amended, were filed under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The CE plan of reorganization and the Lummus plan of reorganization (collectively, the Plans) became effective on April 21, 2006 and Aug. 31, 2006, respectively. Under the Plans, separate personal injury trusts were created and funded to settle future asbestos-related claims against CE and Lummus and on the respective Plan effective dates, channeling injunctions were issued under Section 524(g) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code under which all present and future asbestos- related personal injury claims filed against the Company and its affiliates and certain other entities that relate to the operations of CE and Lummus are channeled to the CE Asbestos PI Trust or the Lummus Asbestos PI Trust, respectively. Included in the asbestos provisions are two additional payments of US$25 million each to the CE Asbestos PI Trust. One additional payment of US$25 million is payable in 2010 as the Company attained an earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) margin in excess of nine percent for 2009. The other payment of US$25 million is payable in 2011 if the Company attains an EBIT margin of 9.5 percent in 2010. If the Company is found by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to have defaulted on its asbestos payment obligations, the CE Asbestos PI Trust may petition the Bankruptcy Court to terminate the CE channeling injunction and the protections afforded by that injunction to the Company and other entities of the Company, as well as certain other entities, including Alstom SA. Based in Zurich, Switzerland, ABB Ltd specializes in power and automation technologies that improve the performance of utility and industry customers, while lowering environmental impact. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hearing on Congoleum's Motion Slated for May 10 ---------------------------------------------------------------- A hearing on Congoleum Corporation's motion, regarding a settlement agreement with the Chartis Companies, has been scheduled for May 10, 2010, according to a Company press release dated April 22, 2010. On April 16, 2010, the Company filed a motion seeking the approval of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey for a settlement agreement with the Chartis Companies. Subject to various requirements set forth in the settlement agreements and the approval of the District Court, the Chartis Companies have agreed to pay US$40 million over a period of six years in exchange for a buyback of certain subject insurance policies. The US$40 million will be paid into the trust to be formed under the Company's pending plan of reorganization for distribution to asbestos claimants. The settlement is subject to court approval and other conditions. Based 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. The Company markets its products through about a dozen distributors in more than 40 North American locations, as well as directly to large market retailers. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nationwide Fined GBP4,500 for Safety Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nationwide Building Contractors Limited, on April 22, 2010, was fined GBP4,500 at Darlington Magistrates' Court, on refurbishment work that triggered the temporary closure of country club near Darlington over fears of exposure to asbestos, according to a Health and Safety press release dated April 22, 2010. The Company is registered 1640 Parkway, Solent Business Park, Whiteley, Fareham, Hampshire, England. The Company was found guilty, in its absence, of breaching Regulations 5, 11 and 16 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006, between Jan. 7, 2008 and March 6, 2008. The Company had been contracted to refurbish Hall Garth Hotel Golf and Country Club, at Coatham Mundeville, near Darlington. When HSE inspectors visited the site, they found that work was carried out without adequate checks for asbestos or asbestos- containing materials, and served a Prohibition Notice - immediately stopping construction work. Further investigations found large amounts of asbestos pipe lagging in walls and floor voids where work had been undertaken. HSE worked with local Environmental Health Officers and the hotel management to ensure that asbestos fibres had not spread to the occupied areas of the hotel. The hotel was voluntarily closed while tests were undertaken. Fortunately the test results in the public areas were negative. After the case, HSE Inspector Victoria Wise said, "Construction and maintenance workers are the most at-risk groups from asbestos-related diseases due to the nature of their work. The widespread occurrence of asbestos as a product in buildings constructed or refurbished prior to 2000, means that inadvertent disturbance of asbestos-containing materials can be frequent and regular where asbestos products have not been adequately identified or managed. "Nationwide Building Contractors could have prevented this risk and should have ensured that the asbestos containing materials in the work areas had been identified and, where necessary, removed -- then the information passed on to those who were liable to disturb the fabric of the building." Nationwide Building Contractors Ltd is now in liquidation. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1T Claims Filed v. CertainTeed Corp. in 1Q-2010 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Some 1,000 asbestos claims were filed against Compagnie de Saint- Gobain's subsidiary in the United States, CertainTeed Corporation, in first-quarter 2010, in line with the number of claims filed in the three months to March 31, 2009. Taking into account some 1,000 claims settled during this period (unchanged from first-quarter 2009), the number of claims outstanding at March 31, 2010 was virtually the same as at Dec. 31, 2009, according to a Company press release dated April 22, 2010. Based in Courbevoie, France, Compagnie de Saint-Gobain, develops, manufactures, and distributes products for construction, transportation, industrial, food storage, and solar energy usage. The Company operates in five sectors: Construction Products, Building Distribution, Flat Glass, High-Performance Materials, and Packaging. ASBESTOS UPDATE: W. R. Grace Records $12.5Mil Costs at March 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- W. R. Grace & Co.'s net Chapter 11 and asbestos-related costs were US$12.5 million during the three months ended March 31, 2010, compared with US$48.3 million during the three months ended March 31, 2009, according to a Company press release dated April 22, 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 as well as 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 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 Plan. The 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 Plan 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 Plan concluded in January 2010. Confirmation and consummation of the 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 set forth in the Plan, many of which are outside the Company's control. At an omnibus hearing on April 19, 2010, the Bankruptcy Court indicated that it had the necessary submissions from the parties to the Chapter 11 cases to issue a confirmation ruling, but did not state when a confirmation ruling could be expected. The Company is preparing to consummate the Plan as quickly as practicable following receipt of a confirmation order from the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court. The Company's long-term asbestos-related contingencies amounted to US$1.7 billion as of both March 31, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009. The Company's long-term asbestos-related insurance amounted to US$500 million. Based 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: CSR Wins Aussie Court Appeal Over Spin-off Plan ---------------------------------------------------------------- CSR Limited won an appeal against an Australian court ruling that had blocked plans to spin-off the Company's sugar business, Bloomberg reports. The Company is Australia's second largest building products manufacturer. The appeal judges considered that an "error" was made in the initial ruling, according to a decision handed down on April 23, 2010 by the Federal Court in Sydney. The Company's mills produce 45 percent of Australia's raw sugar and account for about four percent of the international trade. The lower court ruled on Feb. 3, 2010 that the spin-off and proposed capital reduction would leave the Company with less capital to meet asbestos-related liabilities. On April 1, 2010, China's Bright Food Group Co. raised its offer for the sugar division to AUD1.75 billion (US$1.6 billion) after the Sydney-based company's preferred plan to separate the unit was blocked by the court. "We welcome today's judgment," CSR spokesman Martin Cole said, "We welcome today's judgment. We had appealed on the basis that the first judgment contained errors in law and we welcome the clarification in today's judgment." In 1855, the Company was formed and known as the Colonial Sugar Refining Company before changing its name in 1973 after an expansion into building materials and resource projects. The Company's asbestos liabilities are from personal injury claims related to mining in Australia, and the manufacture and sale of products containing the material. A provision of AUD446.8 million had been made as of Sept. 30, 2009 for claims in Australia and the United States, according to the Company's half-year report. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Vacates Ruling, Remands Finnell's Action --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims vacated a June 25, 2008 ruling of the Board of Veterans' Appeals, which denied Dennis W. Finnell's claims to entitlement to service connection for gluteal sarcoma and for pulmonary cancer. The case is styled Dennis W. Finnell, Appellant v. Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee. Judge Frank A. Neberker entered judgment in Case No. 08-2655 on March 8, 2010. Mr. Finnell served in the U.S. Navy from June 1974 to June 1978. Service records show that his military occupational specialty was that of a shipfitter with training as a hull maintenance technician. In his brief, Eric K. Shinseki, conceded that Mr. Finnell was exposed to radiation, noting that such exposure is demonstrated in a service personnel record from August and September 1975. Mr. Finnell filed his original claim for service connection for gluteal sarcoma in April 2003. In the August 2003 rating decision denying the claim, the VA regional office (RO) noted that Mr. Finnell's service records indicated "the potential for significant contact with asbestos." The RO acknowledged that, although "[a]sbestos exposure is recognized to increase the potential for development of certain respiratory cancers, [VA had not] found any medical information linking development of liposarcoma (also diagnosed as myxosarcoma) with such exposure." In April 2005, the RO denied Mr. Finnell's claim for pulmonary cancer, finding that that condition had metastasized from his gluteal sarcoma. Also in that decision, the RO again denied service connection for Mr. Finnell's gluteal sarcoma. Mr. Finnell's and Mr. Shinseki's briefs, and a review of the record on appeal, that part of the Board's June 25, 2008, decision that denied service connection for a gluteal sarcoma and for pulmonary cancer was vacated and the matters were remanded for further adjudication consistent with this decision. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Affirms Ruling in Molina's Action --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed the May 22, 2008 ruling of the Board of Veterans' Appeals, which ruled against Mary Lou Molina in an asbestos-related compensation claim involving veteran Melvin R. Castello. The case is styled Mary Lou Molina, Appellant v. Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee. Judge Mary J. Schoelen entered judgment in Case No. 08-1612 on March 11, 2010. Mr. Castello served in the U.S. Army from August 1961 to August 1963. He died on March 22, 2004. At the time of his death, his claims for service connection for coronary artery disease, bilateral hearing loss, tinnitus, visual impairment, a low back disability, and a pulmonary disorder, including as secondary to exposure to asbestos, were pending on appeal. On Jan. 22, 2005, Ms. Molina submitted an application for dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) benefits. She also submitted applications for accrued benefits and burial benefits. The VA regional office (RO) denied Ms. Molina's claims and she initiated an appeal. On May 22, 2008, the Board determined that Ms. Molina failed to establish entitlement to VA death benefits as the surviving spouse of Mr. Castello. The Board found that Ms. Molina and Mr. Castello were not lawfully married, and although living together, did not hold themselves out as husband and wife. The Board also concluded that the requirements for service connection for coronary artery disease, bilateral hearing loss, tinnitus, visual impairment, a low back disability, and a pulmonary disorder, including as secondary to exposure to asbestos, for the purpose of accrued benefits had not been met, and that Ms. Molina had not established entitlement to VA burial benefits. This appeal followed. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Affirms Ruling in Beavers Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Texas, Corpus Christi-Edinburg, upheld the ruling of the 347th District Court of Nueces County, Tex., which granted a no-evidence summary judgment in favor of several corporations in an asbestos case styled Gregory A. Beavers, et al., Appellants v. Aluminum Company of America, et al., Appellees. Judges Nelda V. Rodriguez, Dori Contreras Garza, and Gina M. Benavides entered judgment in Case No. 13-08-00214-CV on March 11, 2010. Appellants the case were Gregory A. Beavers; Alfredo A. Aguilar; Juan R. Curiel; Humberto De La Vina; Lazaro F. Garcia; Consuelo G. Gutierrez, individually and as representative of the estate of Alfredo C. Gutierrez; David C. Rodriguez; Gerald D. Sheets; Samuel S. Steele; and Nabbie Roberts, individually and as representative of the estate of Raymond J. Roberts. Appellants filed their fifth amended petition on June 25, 2004, alleging negligence, gross negligence, and strict liability claims against 143 defendants, some of which were appellees in this appeal. Throughout May and June 2004, appellees filed no-evidence motions for summary judgment. On June 18, 2004, appellants filed a collective response attaching evidence as exhibits. In reply, appellees filed objections to the evidence and motions to strike. On June 24, 2004, appellants filed a collective response to appellees' replies. On June 25, 2004, the trial court heard and considered appellees' no-evidence motions, appellants' responses, and appellees' objections and motions to strike appellants' summary judgment evidence. On July 15, 2004, the trial court signed and entered a final judgment sustaining appellees' objections and motions to strike appellants' responses and exhibits and ordering all of appellants' summary judgment evidence stricken. The trial court then granted appellees' no-evidence motions for summary judgment and rendered judgment that appellants take nothing from these appellees. Finally, appellants' claims and causes of action against appellees were severed out and docketed as a separate action, trial court cause number 04-3820-H. Appellants appealed from the trial court's judgment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Flips Decision in Teruel-Armstrong ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeal, Second District, California, reversed the ruling of the Los Angeles Superior Court, which granted summary judgment in favor of Borg-Warnter Morsetec, Inc., in an asbestos case styled Viviana Teruel-Armstrong et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants v. Borg-Warner Morsetec, Inc., et al., Defendants and Respondents. Judges Joan D. Klein, Patti S. Kitching, and H. Walter Croskey entered judgment in Case No. B215119 on March 16, 2010. Viviana Teruel-Armstrong and others appealed summary judgments in favor of Borg-Warner and Volvo Cars of North America, LLC, in a wrongful death action arising from exposure to asbestos. Cristobal Teruel worked as an automobile mechanic in the 1970s and 1980s, including work at a repair shop owned by Arnold Sutton from 1976 to 1978. Mr. Teruel was diagnosed with mesothelioma and died in October 2006 at the age of 74. He was survived by his wife, Ruth Teruel, and children Viviana Teruel-Armstrong, Mario Teruel, and Daniela Teruel. Viviana Teruel-Armstrong, individually and as guardian ad litem for Ruth Teruel, Mario Teruel, and Daniela Teruel, filed a complaint against Borg-Warner, Volvo, Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corporation and others in October 2007. Plaintiffs alleged 15 counts seeking damages for personal injuries and wrongful death allegedly caused by Cristobal Teruel's exposure to asbestos. Borg-Warner filed a summary judgment motion on Nov. 26, 2008, arguing that in light of the exclusion of plaintiffs' sole product identification witness, plaintiffs could not prove that Cristobal Teruel was exposed to any of its products containing asbestos. Volvo filed a similar motion. The court entered judgments in favor of those defendants on Jan. 26, 2009 and Feb.3, 2009, respectively. Plaintiffs timely appealed the judgments. The judgment was reversed with directions to the trial court to vacate the order of Nov. 4, 2008, and the orders granting summary judgment in favor of Borg-Warner and Volvo. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover their costs on appeal. Paul & Hanley, Dean A. Hanley, Esq., and Kelly A. McMeekin, Esq., represented the Teruels. Booth, Mitchel & Strange and Christopher C. Lewi, Esq., represented Borg-Warner Morsetec, Inc. Brady, Vorwerck, Ryder & Caspino, Timothy X. Lane, Esq., and David C. Olson, Esq., represented Volvo Cars of North America, LLC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Issues Split Rulings in Kuhlman Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois, issued split rulings in the asbestos case styled Martha Kuhlman, Individually and as the Special Administrator for the Estate of Franklin Swindle, Deceased, Plaintiff v. A.W. Chesterton, Inc., et al., Defendants. District Judge G. Patrick Murphy entered judgment in Civil Action No. 10-119-GPM on March 9, 2010. This matter was before the Court on the motion for recusal brought by Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation and the motion for remand of this case to state court brought by Ms. Kuhlman. This case, in which Ms. Kuhlman sought damages for the death of Mr. Swindle, allegedly as a result of exposure to asbestos, was filed originally in the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Ill., and Foster Wheeler removed the case to this Court. Foster Wheeler's motion for recusal was denied and Ms. Kuhlman's 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: Conn. Court Issues Split Ruling in Allen Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut, issued split rulings in the asbestos-related action styled Lorraine Allen, Executrix of the estate of Donald G. Allen, et al., Plaintiffs v. General Electric Co., et al., Defendants. District Judge Christopher F. Droney entered judgment in Civil Action No. 3:09-cv-372 (CFD) on March 9, 2010. Lorraine Allen brought this action on behalf of herself and in her capacity as executrix of the estate of Donald G. Allen against General Electric Co. (GE), Viad Corp., and Buffalo Pumps, Inc. in Connecticut Superior Court in January 2009. Mr. Allen worked for General Dynamics Corporation, Electric Boat Division as a sheet metal worker from 1957-1963 and as a Department Planner from 1963-1992. The complaint alleged that he developed mesothelioma because he was exposed to asbestos- containing products made by the defendants during those relevant time periods. Mrs. Allen claimed that the defendants violated their duty under Connecticut law to warn Mr. Allen of the dangers of asbestos exposure. On March 6, 2009, Buffalo Pumps filed a notice of removal. Viad and GE filed motions for joinder in this removal on March 17, 2009 and March 16, 2009, respectively. Mrs. Allen now sought to remand the case to state court. The Court found that Buffalo Pumps had met its burden to justify federal officer removal of this suit from the Connecticut Superior Court. Accordingly, Mrs. Allen's motion to remand was denied, and the case will remain in federal court. Both Viad's motion for joinder and GE's motion for joinder were granted. The defendants' motions to stay were denied as moot. Brian P. Kenney, Esq., Christopher Meisenkothen, Esq., of Early, Ludwick & Sweeney in New Haven, Conn., represented the Allens. Dan E. Labelle, Esq., Joshua M. Auxier, Esq., of Halloran & Sage in Westport, Conn., Christopher J. Lynch, Esq., of Leclairryan in Hartford, Conn., Bryna Rosen Misiura, Esq., Michael D. Simons, Esq., of Governo Law Firm LLC in Boston, Geoffrey Lane Squitiero, Esq., of Maher & Murtha in Bridgeport, Conn., represented the Defendants. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Records $1.049B Liability at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related liabilities were US$1.049 billion as of March 31, 2010, compared with US$1.040 billion as of Dec. 31, 2009, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed on April 23, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company's long-term insurance recoveries for asbestos-related liabilities were US$936 million as of March 31, 2010, compared with US$941 million as of Dec. 31, 2009. Like many other industrial companies, the Company is a defendant in personal injury actions related to asbestos. The Company did not mine or produce asbestos, nor did it make or sell insulation products or other construction materials that have been identified as the primary cause of asbestos related disease in the vast majority of claimants. Products containing asbestos previously manufactured by the Company or by previously owned subsidiaries primarily fall into two general categories: refractory products and friction products. Based 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: Honeywell Int'l. Cites $38MM Litigation Charges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International Inc.'s asbestos-related litigation charges, net of insurance, were US$38 million during the three months ended March 31, 2010, compared with US$36 million during the three months ended March 31, 2009. Based 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: Honeywell Cites $829M March 31 NARCO Receivable ---------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International Inc. recorded an insurance receivable corresponding to the liability for settlement of pending and future North American Refractories Company (NARCO)-related asbestos claims of US$829 million as of March 31, 2010 and US$831 million as of Dec. 31, 2009. The Company owned NARCO from 1979 to 1986. NARCO produced refractory products (high temperature bricks and cement) that were sold largely to the steel industry in the East and Midwest. Less than two percent of NARCO's products contained asbestos. When it sold the NARCO business in 1986, the Company agreed to indemnify NARCO with respect to personal injury claims for products that had been discontinued prior to the sale (as defined in the sale agreement). NARCO retained all liability for all other claims. On Jan. 4, 2002, NARCO filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. As a result of the NARCO bankruptcy filing, all of the claims pending against NARCO are automatically stayed pending the reorganization of NARCO. In addition, the bankruptcy court enjoined both the filing and prosecution of NARCO-related asbestos claims against the Company. The stay has remained in effect continuously since Jan. 4, 2002. In November 2007, the Bankruptcy Court entered an amended order confirming the NARCO Plan of Reorganization without modification and approving the 524(g) trust and channeling injunction in favor of NARCO and the Company. In December 2007, certain insurers filed an appeal of the Bankruptcy Court Order in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court Order in July 2008. In August 2008, insurers filed a notice of appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal is fully briefed, oral argument took place on May 21, 2009, and the matter has been submitted for decision. The Company expects that the stay enjoining litigation against NARCO and the Company will remain in effect during the pendency of these proceedings. The Company's consolidated financial statements reflect an estimated liability for settlement of pending and future NARCO- related asbestos claims as of March 31, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009 of US$1.1 billion. The estimated liability for pending claims is based on terms and conditions, including evidentiary requirements, in definitive agreements with about 260,000 current claimants, and an estimate of the unsettled claims pending as of the time NARCO filed for bankruptcy protection. Substantially all settlement payments with respect to current claims have been made. About $100 million of payments due under these settlements is due upon establishment of the NARCO trust. Based 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: Honeywell Records $300M March 31 NARCO Coverage ---------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International Inc. says that about US$300 million of coverage under certain asbestos insurance policies is included in its North American Refractories Company (NARCO)-related insurance receivable at March 31, 2010. In the second quarter of 2006, Travelers Casualty and Insurance Company filed a lawsuit against the Company and other insurance carriers in the Supreme Court of New York, County of New York, disputing obligations for NARCO-related asbestos claims under high excess insurance coverage issued by Travelers and other insurance carriers. In the third quarter of 2007, the Company prevailed on a critical choice of law issue concerning the appropriate method of allocating NARCO-related asbestos liabilities to triggered policies. The plaintiffs appealed and the trial court's ruling was upheld by the intermediate appellate court in the second quarter of 2009. Plaintiffs' further appeal to the New York Appellate Division, the highest court in New York, was denied in October 2009. A related New Jersey action brought by the Company has been dismissed, but all coverage claims against plaintiffs have been preserved in the New York action. Based 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: Claims v. Bondex Increase to 20,900 at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International Inc.'s Bendix friction material business faced 20,900 unresolved asbestos claims during the three months ended March 31, 2010 and 19,940 unresolved claims during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. During the three months ended March 31, 2010, Bendix recorded 644 claims filed and 316 claims resolved and reactivated during the period. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded 2,697 claims filed and 34,708 claims resolved and reactivated during the period. Bendix manufactured automotive brake parts that contained chrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated form. Existing and potential claimants consist of individuals who allege exposure to asbestos from brakes from either performing or being in the vicinity of individuals who performed brake replacements. From 1981 through March 31, 2010, the Company has resolved about 153,000 Bendix related asbestos claims. The Company had 129 trials resulting in favorable verdicts and 17 trials resulting in adverse verdicts. Four of these adverse verdicts were reversed on appeal, five verdicts were vacated on post-trial motions, three claims were settled and the remaining five have been or will be appealed. The Company currently has about US$1.9 billion of insurance coverage remaining with respect to pending and potential future Bendix related asbestos claims, of which US$169 at March 31, 2009 and US$172 million at Dec. 31, 2008 are reflected as receivables in its consolidated balance sheet. Based 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: NARCO, Bendix Liability at $1.703B at March 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International Inc.'s liabilities for its Bendix friction materials business and former unit, North American Refractories Company (NARCO), were US$1.703 billion during the three months ended March 31, 2010. Of the US$1.703 billion, US$575 million related to Bendix and US$1.128 billion related to NARCO, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on April 23, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company's insurance recoveries for Bendix and NARCO were US$998 million during the three months ended March 31, 2010, of which US$169 million related to Bendix and US$829 million related to NARCO. Based 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: Generation Records $49Mil Reserves at March 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- A subsidiary of Exelon Corporation, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, had reserved US$49 million at March 31, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2010 in total for asbestos-related bodily injury claims. Generation maintains a reserve for claims associated with asbestos-related personal injury actions in certain facilities that are currently owned by Generation or were previously owned by Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) and PECO Energy Company. The reserve is recorded on an undiscounted basis and excludes the estimated legal costs associated with handling these matters, which could be material. In the second quarter of 2008, Generation revised the period through which it estimates that claims will be presented from 2030 to 2050. As of March 31, 2010, about US$14 million of the US$49 million related to 164 open claims presented to Generation, while the remaining US$35 million of the reserve is for estimated future asbestos-related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through 2050 based on actuarial assumptions and analyses, which are updated on an annual basis. Based in Chicago, Exelon Corporation is a utility services holding company engaged in the generation and energy delivery businesses. The generation business consists of the electric generating facilities, the wholesale energy marketing operations and competitive retail supply operations of Exelon Generation Company, LLC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific's Liability at $169MM at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Union Pacific Corporation's asbestos-related liability was US$169 million for the three months ended March 31, 2010, compared with US$210 million for the three months ended March 31, 2009, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on April 23, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The current portion of the liability was US$13 million for the three months ended March 31, 2010, compared with US$12 million for the three months ended March 31, 2009. The Company is a defendant in a number of lawsuits in which current and former employees and other parties allege exposure to asbestos. Additionally, the Company has received claims for asbestos exposure that have not been litigated. The claims and lawsuits allege occupational illness resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products. In most cases, the claimants do not have credible medical evidence of physical impairment resulting from the alleged exposures. Additionally, most claims filed against the Company do not specify an amount of alleged damages. The Company has insurance coverage for a portion of the costs incurred to resolve asbestos-related claims, and the Company has recognized an asset for estimated insurance recoveries at March 31, 2010, and Dec. 31, 2009. Based in Omaha, Nebr., Union Pacific Corporation's Union Pacific Railroad subsidiary transports coal, chemicals, industrial products, and other bulk freight over a system of more than 32,000 route miles in 23 states in the western two-thirds of the United States. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. Badger Meter ---------------------------------------------------------------- Like other companies in recent years, Badger Meter, Inc. has been named as a defendant in numerous multi-claimant/multi-defendant lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. The asbestos was manufactured by third parties, and integrated into or sold with a very limited number of the Company's products, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on April 23, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Based in Milwaukee, Badger Meter, Inc. manufactures and markets products incorporating liquid flow measurement and control technologies developed both internally and with other technology companies. Its products are used in a wide variety of applications, including water, oil and chemicals. Its product lines fall into two categories: water applications and specialty applications. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurance Coverage Actions Ongoing v. Travelers ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Travelers Companies, Inc.'s subsidiary, Travelers Property Casualty Corp. (TPC), is still involved in asbestos-related insurance lawsuits that are pending in various courts. In October 2001 and April 2002, two purported class action suits (Wise v. Travelers and Meninger v. Travelers) were filed against TPC and other insurers (not including The St. Paul Companies, Inc. (SPC)) in state court in West Virginia. These and other cases subsequently filed in West Virginia were consolidated into a single proceeding in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, W.Va. The plaintiffs allege that the insurer defendants engaged in unfair trade practices in violation of state statutes by inappropriately handling and settling asbestos claims. The plaintiffs seek to reopen large numbers of settled asbestos claims and to impose liability for damages, including punitive damages, directly on insurers. Similar lawsuits alleging inappropriate handling and settling of asbestos claims were filed in Massachusetts and Hawaii state courts. These suits are collectively referred to as the Statutory and Hawaii Actions. In March 2002, the plaintiffs in consolidated asbestos actions pending before a mass tort panel of judges in West Virginia state court amended their complaint to include TPC as a defendant, alleging that TPC and other insurers breached alleged duties to certain users of asbestos products. The plaintiffs seek damages, including punitive damages. Lawsuits seeking similar relief and raising similar allegations, primarily violations of purported common law duties to third parties, have also been asserted in various state courts against TPC and SPC. The claims asserted in these suits are collectively referred to as the Common Law Claims. The federal bankruptcy court that had presided over the bankruptcy of TPC's former policyholder Johns-Manville Corporation issued a temporary injunction prohibiting the prosecution of the Statutory Actions (but not the Hawaii Actions), the Common Law Claims and an additional set of cases filed in various state courts in Texas and Ohio, and enjoining certain attorneys from filing any further lawsuits against TPC based on similar allegations. Notwithstanding the injunction, additional common law claims were filed against TPC. In November 2003, the parties reached a settlement of the Statutory and Hawaii Actions. This settlement includes a lump-sum payment of up to US$412 million by TPC, subject to a number of significant contingencies. In May 2004, the parties reached a settlement resolving substantially all pending and similar future Common Law Claims against TPC. This settlement requires a payment of up to US$90 million by TPC, subject to a number of significant contingencies. Among the contingencies for each of these settlements is a final order of the bankruptcy court clarifying that all of these claims, and similar future asbestos-related claims against TPC, are barred by prior orders entered by the bankruptcy court (the 1986 Orders). On Aug. 17, 2004, the bankruptcy court entered an order approving the settlements and clarifying that the 1986 Orders barred the pending Statutory and Hawaii Actions and substantially all Common Law Claims pending against TPC (Clarifying Order). On March 29, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York substantially affirmed the Clarifying Order while vacating that portion of the order that required all future direct actions against TPC to first be approved by the bankruptcy court before proceeding in state or federal court. Various parties appealed the district court's March 29, 2006 ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On Feb. 15, 2008, the Second Circuit issued an opinion vacating on jurisdictional grounds the District Court's approval of the Clarifying Order. On Feb. 29, 2008, TPC and certain other parties to the appeals filed petitions for rehearing and/or rehearing en banc, requesting reinstatement of the district court's judgment, which were denied. TPC and certain other parties filed Petitions for Writ of Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the Second Circuit's decision, and on Dec. 12, 2008, the Petitions were granted. On June 18, 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of TPC, reversing the Second Circuit's Feb. 15, 2008 decision, finding that the 1986 Orders are final and generally bar the Statutory and Hawaii actions and substantially all Common Law Claims against TPC. On Oct. 21, 2009, all but one of the objectors to the Clarifying Order requested that the Second Circuit dismiss their appeal of the order approving the settlement, and that request was granted. On March 22, 2010, the Second Circuit issued an opinion in which it found that the notice of the 1986 Orders provided to the remaining objector was insufficient to bar contribution claims by that objector against TPC. On April 5, 2010, TPC filed a Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc with the Second Circuit, requesting further review of its March 22, 2010 opinion. SPC, which is not covered by the Manville bankruptcy court rulings or the settlements, is a party to pending direct action cases in Texas state court asserting common law claims. All those cases that are still pending and in which SPC has been served are currently on the inactive docket in Texas state court. SPC was previously a defendant in similar direct actions in Ohio state court. Those actions have all been dismissed following favorable rulings by Ohio trial and appellate courts. Based in New York, The Travelers Companies, Inc. provides property and casualty insurance products and services to businesses, government units, associations and individuals, primarily in the United States and in selected international markets. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Records $74Mil Losses, Expenses Paid --------------------------------------------------------------- The Travelers Companies, Inc.'s net asbestos losses and expenses paid in the first three months of 2010 were US$74 million, compared with US$61 million in the same period of 2009, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on April 23, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. About 49 percent in the first three months of 2010 (38 percent in the first three months of 2009) of total net paid losses were related to policyholders with whom the Company had entered into settlement agreements limiting the Company's liability. Net asbestos reserves totaled US$2.684 billion at March 31, 2010, compared with $2.853 billion at March 31, 2009. Based in New York, The Travelers Companies, Inc. provides property and casualty insurance products and services to businesses, government units, associations and individuals, primarily in the United States and in selected international markets. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boggs' Case v. 85 Firms Filed April 12 in W.Va. ---------------------------------------------------------------- An asbestos lawsuit styled Deborah E. Boggs, Administratrix of the Estate of James A. Boggs, deceased vs. 20th Century Glove Corporation, Allied Glove Corporation, Anchor Packing Company, et al. was filed on April 12, 2010 in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports. Mr. Boggs was a production foreman and plant operator at Conoco Venco in Moundsville and was diagnosed with asbestosis and lung cancer. Mrs. Boggs claims the 85 defendants are responsible for Mr. Boggs' lung injuries and death. She seeks a jury trial to resolve all issues in her asbestos-related case. David P. Chervenick, Esq., Bruce E. Mattock, Esq., and Scott S. Segal, Esq., represent Mrs. Boggs. Case No. 10-C-685 is assigned to a visiting judge. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Durabla Files for Bankruptcy Due to 108T Cases --------------------------------------------------------------- Durabla Manufacturing, a Pennsylvania company that manufactured sealing products, filed for bankruptcy under the weight of 108,000 asbestos lawsuits, The Madison/St. Clair Record reports. U.S. District Judge Eduardo Robreno of Philadelphia, who responsible for asbestos claims nationwide, was notified on April 12, 2010 of Durabla's bankruptcy. Asbestos litigation has bankrupted 89 companies in 28 years, according to the Crowell Moring firm in Washington. Among the earliest was Johns-Manville in 1982; and among the latest was General Motors in 2009. Durabla received its first asbestos claim in 1980, Mark Eckard of Wilmington wrote for owner David Moser on Jan. 7, 2010. Primary coverage of US$8.5 million lasted until 2002, Mr. Eckard wrote, paying 16,017 claims at an average of US$531. Durabla had closed about 62,000 cases without payment by then, he wrote, but about 79,000 cases remained open between 2002 and 2009. Durabla showed a profit in 2002, Mr. Eckard wrote, and retained earnings of US$1,113,555. The Company showed a profit three of the next four years, he wrote, but sales did not cover overhead and Durabla ceased operation in 2007. The Company has spent cash and marketed securities to wind up its affairs, defend litigation and protect insurance coverage, Mr. Eckard wrote. As of last June 30, 2009, he wrote, the Company had US$318,847 in cash and US$1.5 million in coverage. Mr. Moser started an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court, seeking a declaration that he would not have to defend asbestos suits individually. Mr. Eckard wrote that as Durabla exhausted coverage in 2008, claimants started suing Mr. Moser and two companies as alter egos. Durabla lawyer Chad Toms, Esq., of Wilmington did not submit a list of creditors to bankruptcy court, instead identifying 20 firms with the most plaintiffs. Weitz and Luxenberg, of New York, leads the group with 33,649 plaintiffs. Jaques Admiralty Law Firm of Detroit nearly matches that, with 33,111. Peter Angelos, Esq., and Peter Nicholl, Esq., of Baltimore represent about 8,000 and 7,000. Morris, Sakalarios and Blackwell of Hattiesburg, Miss., represents about 5,000. About 4,000 suits come from other Mississippi firms: Conway and Martin of Gulfport; Byrd and Associates of Jackson; Foster Law Group of Ocean Springs; and Porter and Malouf of Ridgeland. Brent Coon and Associates of Dallas represents about 3,000, and so does Wilentz, Goldman and Spitzer of New York. Motley Rice of Mount Pleasant, S.C., did not make the list, but it entered an appearance in bankruptcy court 15 days after Durabla filed its petition. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement at Affton High School to Cost $86,281 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The abatement of asbestos at the Affton High School in Washington, Mo., is estimated at US$86,281, the South County Times reports. The Affton School Board at its April 2010 meeting chose Spray Services, a Washington, Mo., contractor, to abate the asbestos discovered in 2009 when the district took on the US$750,000 task of replacing the boilers at the 55-year-old Affton High School. Spray Services, owned and operated by James Bennight, submitted the low bid of US$86,281. Seven contractors bid on the asbestos work, with the remaining six bids ranging from US$160,777 to US$97,287. Building Committee Chairman Tom Bellavia said work on the project should begin in May 2010, but he noted "there is a small risk construction bids for the boiler replacements might exceed project cost estimates. As a precaution, actual asbestos abatement and demolition work will not begin until construction bids have been awarded." District Business Manager John Brazeal explained the asbestos work would be included in the overall project, which is to be funded through a zero-interest loan from the state and possibly an additional grant from Laclede Gas Company, which offers money for public projects geared at energy efficiency. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Ind. Still Faces 8,000 Claims at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cytec Industries Inc. faced 8,000 asbestos-related claims during the three months ended March 31, 2010, the same as for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on April 26, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company, like many other industrial companies, has been named as one of hundreds of defendants in lawsuits filed in the U.S. by persons alleging bodily injury from asbestos. The claimants allege exposure to asbestos at facilities that the Company owns or formerly owned or from products that it formerly manufactured for specialized applications. Historically, most of the closed asbestos claims against the Company have been dismissed without any indemnity payment by the Company. The Company's asbestos liability was US$44.9 million at March 31, 2010 (US$45 million at Dec. 31, 2009) and the insurance receivable related to the liability as well as claims for past payments was US$24.3 million at March 31, 2010 (US$26.5 million at Dec. 31, 2009). Based in Woodland Park, N.J., Cytec Industries Inc. is a global specialty chemicals and materials company that sells its products to diverse major markets for aerospace composites, structural adhesives, automotive and industrial coatings, chemical intermediates, electronics, inks, mining and plastics. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Still Ongoing v. AK Steel Unit ---------------------------------------------------------------- AK Steel Holding Corporation's subsidiary, AK Steel Corporation (or its predecessor, Armco Inc.), since 1990, has been named as a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. As of Dec. 31, 2009, there were about 426 such lawsuits pending against AK Steel. Most of these lawsuits have been filed on behalf of people who claim to have been exposed to asbestos while visiting the premises of a current or former AK Steel facility. About 40 percent of these premises suits arise out of claims of exposure at a facility in Houston that has been closed since 1984. Since the onset of asbestos claims against AK Steel in 1990, five asbestos claims against it have proceeded to trial in four separate cases. All five concluded with a verdict in favor of AK Steel. Based in West Chester, Ohio, AK Steel Holding Corporation is a fully-integrated producer of flat-rolled carbon, stainless and electrical steels and tubular products through its wholly owned subsidiary, AK Steel Corporation. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eastman Chem. Still Subject to Exposure Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Eastman Chemical Company, from time to time, is part to, or targets of, lawsuits, claims, investigations and proceedings, including product liability, personal injury, asbestos, patent and intellectual property, commercial, contract, environmental, antitrust, health and safety, and employment matters. No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's quarterly report filed on April 26, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Based in Kingsport, Tenn., Eastman Chemical Company produces chemicals, fibers, and plastics. Among the Company's operating segments are its CASPI (coatings, adhesives, specialty polymers, and inks), Specialty Plastics (engineering polymers), and Fibers (acetate tow and textile fibers) units. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Claims Still Pending v. PPG Industries ---------------------------------------------------------------- PPG Industries, Inc., for more than 30 years, continues to face lawsuits involving claims alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on April 26, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Most of the Company's potential exposure relates to allegations by plaintiffs that the Company should be liable for injuries involving asbestos-containing thermal insulation products, known as Unibestos, manufactured and distributed by Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (PC). The Company and Corning Incorporated are each 50 percent shareholders of PC. The Company has denied responsibility for, and has defended, all claims for any injuries caused by PC products. As of the April 16, 2000 order which stayed and enjoined asbestos claims against it, the Company was one of many defendants in numerous asbestos-related lawsuits involving about 114,000 claims served on the Company. During the period of the stay, the Company generally has not been aware of the dispositions, if any, of these asbestos claims. Based in Pittsburgh, PPG Industries, Inc. serves customers in industrial, transportation, consumer products, and construction markets and aftermarkets. The Company operates in more than 60 countries. Sales in 2009 were US$12.2 billion. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Affirms Remand Motion in Luce Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, granted Charles and Jean Luce's motion to remand an asbestos case to California Superior Court, in which the motion was filed on Feb. 10, 2010. The case is styled Charles Luce and Jean Luce, Plaintiffs v. A.W Chesterton Company, Inc., et al., Defendants. District Judge Maxine M. Chesney entered judgment in Case No. C- 10-0174 MMC on March 16, 2010. General Electric Company had filed opposition to the remand motion, in which CBS Corporation had joined. The Luces had filed a reply. The Court deemed the matter suitable for decision on the parties' respective written submissions and vacated the hearing scheduled for March 19, 2010. In their complaint, the Luces alleged that each plaintiff had been injured as a result of Mr. Luce's exposure to products containing asbestos. CBS removed the complaint from state court. In its Notice of Removal, CBS asserted that its predecessor Westinghouse Electric Corporation is a "person" who acted under an officer of the U.S. Navy, in that "Westinghouse acted under the direction of [the Navy]" when it "construct[ed] its marine steam turbines for the Navy." The complaint named over 30 defendants, some of which were sued in their capacity as successors-in-interest to one or more entities. The Luces motion to remand was granted and the complaint was hereby remanded to the Superior Court for the State of California, in and for the County of San Francisco. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Split Rulings Issued in Johns-Manville Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, issued split rulings in a case involving asbestos-related matters, which is part of John-Manville Corporation's bankruptcy. Judges Guido Calabresi and Richard C. Wesley entered judgment in Docket Nos. 06-2103-bk, 06-2118-bk, 06-2186-bk on March 22, 2010. This was an appeal from a March 28, 2006 order of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which affirmed in part and vacated in part an Aug. 17, 2004 order of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, which granted Travelers' motions for approval of a settlement agreement and for entry of a "Clarifying Order." For almost 30 years, the Johns-Manville Corporation and its insurers had sought to navigate the monumental liability arising out of its production of a once-valued substance--asbestos. The district court's March 28, 2006 order was affirmed as to the Objecting Plaintiffs and reversed as to Chubb Corporation. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ga. Court OKs Summary Judgment in Adamson Case --------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed the ruling of a trial court, which granted summary judgment in favor of six defendant corporations in an asbestos case styled Adamson v. General Electric, et al. Relative to this appeal, the trial court granted summary judgment to FMC Corporation and five defendants who have manufactured asbestos-containing products in the past: A. W. Chesterton Company, Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC, CBS Corporation (a successor to Westinghouse Electric Corporation), General Electric Company, and Union Carbide Corporation. Judges A. Harris Adams, G. Alan Blackburn and Sara L. Doyle entered judgment in Case No. A09A2302 on March 22, 2010. John H. Adamson contracted and died from mesothelioma. Prior to his death, he sued numerous parties allegedly responsible for his contact with asbestos. After his death, his son John D. Adamson took over the litigation as the executor of the estate. At issue in this appeal was whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment to six of the defendants. John H. Adamson, who was born on Oct. 25, 1925, worked as an electrician and an electrical crew supervisor for his entire 35- plus year career. From the early-1950s to 1967, he spent between 70 and 80 percent of his time at The National Test Reactor Station in Arco, Idaho known as "The Site" and the rest of the time at "a few jobs that I had back in around Pocatello and Idaho in a place called Soda Springs [a Monsanto Phosphate Plant]. I [also] worked on a phosphate plant [run by FMC Corporation]." From 1967 through his retirement, John H. Adamson worked as a supervisor for an electrical contractor named EBASCO Services, which designed and built electrical power houses. During this time, he often worked in electric generating facilities. He stated several times that as a supervisor he did not do any hands-on work and that he had, at times, hundreds of electricians working for him. During this time, John H. Adamson worked at many sites, and in his entire career, he worked at 18 or more job sites. In his complaint, John H. Adamson alleged that throughout his career, he came into contact with "asbestos related materials and other asbestos containing products mined, manufactured, processed, imported, converted, compounded, sold or distributed by" each of 119 named defendants as well as an unknown number of unidentified defendants. The trial court had denied summary judgment for some of the defendants and granted summary judgment for others; some parties had settled. Wendell K. Willard, Esq., Robert Cape Buck, Esq., G. Patterson Keahey, Esq., Gary M. DiMuzio, Esq., and Benjamin Ballenger, Esq., represented the Adamson estate. John Durand Dalbey, Esq., Amy Elizabeth Fouts, Esq., Nickolas P.T. Chilivis, Esq., Erin Elaine Shofner, Esq., Sara Ann Evans, Esq., Jennifer Maureen Techman, Esq., and Robert A. Barnaby II, Esq., represented General Electric and other defendants. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Issues Split Ruling in Palmer Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, issued split rulings in the asbestos case styled Ronald Palmer and Carol Palmer, Plaintiffs v. Pneumo Abex, LLC, et al., Defendants. District Judge Maxine M. Chesney entered judgment in Case No. C- 10-0712 MMC on March 18, 2010. Before the Court was Ronald and Carol Palmer's "Motion to Remand; for Costs and Fees; [and] for Issuance [of] Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions," filed Feb. 26, 2010. Pneumo Abex LLC and Ford Motor Company had filed separate oppositions, to which the Palmers had filed a single reply. In their complaint, initially filed in state court, the Palmers alleged that each plaintiff had been injured as a result of Mr. Palmer's exposure to products containing asbestos. The complaint named over 60 defendants. On Feb. 19, 2010, Abex removed the case to district court, stating in its Notice of Removal that on Feb. 18, 2010, shortly before a jury trial was set to begin in state court, plaintiffs, through counsel, informed the state court that plaintiffs had, in Abex's words, "either dismissed or entered into binding and enforceable settlement agreements with all defendants," other than Abex, Ford, Carlisle Corporation, Kelsey- Hayes Company, and Maremont Corporation (collectively, "Removing Defendants"). The Palmers' motion for remand and for an award of costs and fees was hereby granted in part and denied in part. To the extent the motion sought an order remanding the action, the motion was hereby granted, and the action was hereby remanded to the Superior Court for the State of California, in and for the County of San Francisco. To the extent the motion sought an award of fees and costs, the motion was hereby denied. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Beard Action Filed v. 25 Firms in Jefferson Co. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Beard, on behalf of Claris J. Beard Jr., on April 16, 2010, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 25 defendant Corporations in Jefferson County District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports. Michael Beard filed the second asbestos lawsuit. Claris J. Beard Jr. had already settled his claim for a non-malignant asbestos- related disease, but died of a different malignant disease, according to the complaint. Michael Beard claims Claris J. Beard Jr. developed the asbestos- related disease after working near asbestos-containing products during his work as an insulator, operator and laborer. Michael Beard seeks actual and exemplary damages, plus costs, pre- and post-judgment interest and other relief to which he may be entitled. Bryan O. Blevins Jr. Esq., and Aaryn K. Giblin, Esq., of Provost and Umphrey Law Firm in Beaumont, Tex., will represent Michael Beard. Case No. E186-572 has been assigned to Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd District Court. Manufacturer defendants are A.O. Smith Corp., Ametek, Bayer Cropscience, Certainteed Corp., Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Corp. and Union Carbide Corporation. Equipment defendants are Babcock Borsig Power, CBS Corp., Cleaver Brooks, Foster Wheeler Energy Corp., General Electric Corp., Goulds Pumps, Henry Vogt Machine Co., Ingersoll-Rand Co. and Zurn Industries. Foster Wheeler Corporation is the sole contractor and equipment defendant while Crane Co. is the only manufacturer and equipment defendant and Treco Construction Services is the only contractor defendant. Anco Insulation is the sole distributor defendant. Premises defendants include Chevron U.S.A., Citgo Petroleum Corp., Conoco Phillips Co., E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Co., Entergy Gulf States and Oxy U.S.A. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Blake Seeks Help in Payout Case Against Lorival ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jill Blake, the daughter of Edna White, who died on asbestos- related lung cancer in Greater Manchester, England, appeals for any of Mrs. White's former work colleagues to come forward in Mrs. Blake's claim for asbestos compensation, BBC News reports. Mrs. White died in May 2009 at the age of 68. She worked at Lorival Plastics in Bolton in the late 1960s. Mrs. Blake seeks more information about Mrs. White's time at the firm as she believes this was where her mother came into contact with the asbestos fibers. Lorival Plastics closed a number of years ago, but Mrs. Blake wants their insurers, Aviva, to admit the firm's liability. Mrs. White, who was a full-time carer for her husband, went from having an active and outgoing lifestyle, to gasping for breath and not being able to feed or dress herself as the disease took over. She was diagnosed in September 2008. It is believed asbestos was used in the Lorival factory, which specialized in injection-molded plastic products, to manufacture toilet cisterns and Mrs. Blake believes Mrs. White came into contact with it there. An Aviva insurance spokesman confirmed the firm was representing Lorival Plastics. ASBESTOS UPDATE: PATH Worker's Widow Seeking Retrial in Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Anne Olson, the widow of Alan Olson, who was a PATH (Port Authority Trans-Hudson) maintenance worker, seeks a new trial after a juror admitted to siding with PATH in an asbestos case to expedite deliberations, The Jersey Journal reports. A hearing on the motion is slated for April 30, 2010. Mrs. Olson, of Palisades Park, N.J., seeks US$1.3 million in damages from PATH, alleging that Mr. Olson's lung cancer was the result of working with asbestos and inhaling diesel fumes. Gregory Shaffer, Esq., an attorney with Woodbridge-based Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, representing Mrs. Olson, filed a motion with Hudson County Superior Court Judge Bernadette DeCastro seeking a new trial after receiving an e-mail from an unidentified juror on March 22, 2010. Mr. Olson worked as a PATH maintenance and sanitation worker in Hudson and Essex counties from 1986 to 2004, when he died at the age of 47. The jury voted 7-1 on March 16, 2010 against Mrs. Olson's claims under the Federal Employers' Liability Act that the Port Authority did not provide a safe working environment or properly warn her husband, who was a smoker, of the increased risk of lung cancer when exposed to asbestos. Had the juror who e-mailed Mr. Shaffer not switched sides, a 6-2 vote would have been insufficient for a verdict under state law. In his brief, Mr. Shaffer did not identify the juror, but cites the e-mail, in which the juror states, "Everything that was presented to us, I had in your favor." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Judge Flips $5.6Mil Award in Walton Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- A California appeals court wiped away Edward and Carol Walton's US$5.6 million judgment in an asbestos liability case, the Courthouse News Service reports. The Waltons won their case for negligence and strict liability over the William Powell Co. They had contended that Mr. Walton had contracted lung cancer from asbestos-laden materials associated with valves that were made by Powell. Mr. Walton worked with the materials during his service in the Navy from 1946 to 1968. He spent the next 31 years running a painting company, during which time he also worked with asbestos- laden products. The Waltons sued 46 defendants, but Powell was the one remaining by the middle of the trial, and the only one ordered to pay the US$5.6 million judgment. On appeal, Justice Nora Manella ruled that Powell was not liable for Mr. Walton's injuries, and overturned the award. She ruled that Mr. Walton was injured by the asbestos insulation around Powell's valves, not by the valves themselves. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colo. AG Indicts Parker Local for Safety Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Colorado Attorney General John Suthers announced on April 15, 2010 that attorneys from the office's Criminal Justice Section have secured an indictment from the Statewide Grand Jury against a Parker, Colo., man suspected of contributing to the release of a hazardous substance by misleading state officials, according to a Colorado AG press release dated April 15, 2010. According to the indictment, Michael Merit falsely claimed to be a certified asbestos inspector between Nov. 1, 2007 and Jan. 30, 2008 in order to obtain work in connection with the demolition of a mobile home park in Elizabeth, Colo. Once hired by the demolition company, Mr. Merit is suspected of performing the wrong tests to determine if asbestos was present in the mobile homes. Mr. Merit is then suspected of delivering the improper test results to the demolition company, which used them to apply for a demolition permit from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. According to the five-count indictment, the demolition company, the Resource Center, leveled three mobile homes, which resulted in the airborne release of asbestos. Following a tip, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment tested demolition site and determined that asbestos levels at levels high enough to pose a substantial threat to human health and the environment. The Office of the Attorney General investigated the case and secured the indictment with the assistance of the Colorado Environmental Crime Task Force, the Air Quality Unit of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, and the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Special Investigations. Prosecutors from the Office of the Attorney General will present its case in Elbert County District Court. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sicily Court Rules v. Former Execs on April 26 --------------------------------------------------------------- On April 26, 2010, a Sicilian court jailed three former executives of Fincantieri, a shipbuilding company, for negligent homicide after 37 workers died from exposure to asbestos, the ANSA news agency reports. The report said the sentences ranged from three years to seven and a half for the three Fincantieri executives, adding that they were ordered to pay several million euros in damages. Among the beneficiaries was a national insurer for workplace accidents that was a civil plaintiff in the case. Prosecutors said Fincantieri continued using asbestos until 1999, three years after the hazardous building material was outlawed in Italy. The 37 workers died from lung cancer, while another 26 suffered from asbestos-related diseases resulting from exposure asbestos. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Windsor Widower Seeks Help in Compensation Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Roy Windsor, the widower of Margaret Windsor, a former factory worker who was exposed to asbestos, is appealing for Mrs. Windsor's former colleagues to help in his fight for compensation, The Sentinel reports. Mrs. Windsor died at the age of 73 from mesothelioma in April 2009. An inquest resulted in a verdict of industrial disease. Mr. Windsor believes his wife was exposed while working at Enderley Mills, Newcastle, England, from 1951 to 1979. The textile factory has since been demolished, but Mr. Windsor has instructed law firm Irwin Mitchell to take legal action against its former owners. The couple, who were married for more than 50 years, met while they were working at the factory. Mr. Windsor, of Clayton, says Mrs. Windsor was mostly employed as a button holder in a room where asbestos was present in the pipes, roof and machinery. Lawyer Iain Shoolbred, who is representing Mrs. Windsor's family, said, "Every year this disease kills thousands of innocent victims who were exposed through the air that they breathed while at work. "In order to obtain justice for Mr. Windsor and his family, it is vital to obtain further information about working practices at Enderley Mills in the 1960s and 1970s." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Pending v. Quaker Chemical ---------------------------------------------------------------- An inactive subsidiary of Quaker Chemical Corporation that was acquired in 1978 and sold certain products containing asbestos, primarily on an installed basis, continues to be a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging injury due to exposure to asbestos. The subsidiary discontinued operations in 1991 and has no remaining assets other than the proceeds from insurance settlements received. To date, the overwhelming majority of these claims have been disposed of without payment and there have been no adverse judgments against the subsidiary. Based on a continued analysis of the existing and anticipated future claims against this subsidiary, it is currently projected that the subsidiary's total liability over the next 50 years for these claims is about US$8.5 million (excluding defense costs). Although the Company has also been named as a defendant in certain of these cases, no claims have been actively pursued against the Company, and the Company has not contributed to the defense or settlement of any of these cases pursued against the subsidiary. These cases were handled by the subsidiary's primary and excess insurers who had agreed in 1997 to pay all defense costs and be responsible for all damages assessed against the subsidiary arising out of existing and future asbestos claims up to the aggregate limits of the policies. A significant portion of this primary insurance coverage was provided by an insurer that is now insolvent, and the other primary insurers have asserted that the aggregate limits of their policies have been exhausted. The subsidiary challenged the applicability of these limits to the claims being brought against the subsidiary. In response, two of the three carriers entered into separate settlement and release agreements with the subsidiary for US$15 million in late 2005 and US$20 million in the first quarter of 2007. The payments under the latest settlement and release agreement were structured to be received over a four-year period with annual installments of US$5 million, the final installment which was received in the first quarter of 2010. The proceeds of both settlements are restricted and can only be used to pay claims and costs of defense associated with the subsidiary's asbestos litigation. During the third quarter of 2007, the subsidiary and the remaining primary insurance carrier entered into a Claim Handling and Funding Agreement, under which the carrier will pay 27 percent of defense and indemnity costs incurred by or on behalf of the subsidiary in connection with asbestos bodily injury claims for a minimum of five years beginning July 1, 2007. At the end of the term of the agreement, the subsidiary may choose to again pursue its claim against this insurer regarding the application of the policy limits. The Company also said it believes, that if the coverage issues under the primary policies with the remaining carrier are resolved adversely to the subsidiary and all settlement proceeds were used, the subsidiary may have limited additional coverage from a state guarantee fund established following the insolvency of one of the subsidiary's primary insurers. Nevertheless, liabilities in respect of claims may exceed the assets and coverage available to the subsidiary. Based in Conshohocken, Pa., Quaker Chemical Corporation provides process chemicals, chemical specialties, services, and technical expertise to a wide range of industries-including steel, automotive, mining, aerospace, tube and pipe, coatings and construction materials. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Accrues $2.1M March 31 Liability ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V., at March 31, 2010, had accrued about US$2.1 million for asbestos-related liability and related expenses, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on April 27, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. At Dec. 31, 2009, the Company had accrued about US$1.9 million for asbestos-related liability and related expenses. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 26, 2010) The Company is a defendant in lawsuits wherein plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos due to work the Company may have performed at various locations. The Company has never been a manufacturer, distributor or supplier of asbestos products. Through March 31, 2010, the Company has been named a defendant in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos involving about 4,900 plaintiffs and, of those claims, about 1,400 claims were pending and 3,500 have been closed through dismissals or settlements. Through March 31, 2010, the claims alleging exposure to asbestos that have been resolved have been dismissed or settled for an average settlement amount of about US$1,000 per claim. Based in The Hague, The Netherlands, Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. is an integrated engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) provider and major process technology licensor. The Company provides conceptual design, technology, engineering, procurement, fabrication, construction, commissioning and associated maintenance services to customers in the energy and natural resource industries. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Miss. Actions Still Ongoing v. Diamond Offshore ---------------------------------------------------------------- Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. continues to be one of several unrelated defendants in lawsuits filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi alleging that defendants manufactured, distributed or utilized drilling mud containing asbestos and, in the Company's case, allowed such drilling mud to have been utilized aboard its offshore drilling rigs. The plaintiffs seek an award of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. The Company expects to receive complete defense and indemnity from Murphy Exploration & Production Company under the terms of the Company's 1992 asset purchase agreement with them. Based in Houston, Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. provides contract drilling services to the energy industry around the globe and is a leader in offshore drilling with a fleet of 47 offshore rigs currently consisting of 32 semisubmersibles, 14 jack-ups and one drillship. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Celanese Facing 516 Exposure Cases at March 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Celanese Corporation and several of its U.S. subsidiaries, as of March 31, 2010, are defendants in about 516 asbestos cases, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on April 27, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. During the three months ended March 31, 2010, 17 new cases were filed against the Company and 27 cases were resolved. Celanese Ltd. and CNA Holdings, Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2009, faced about 526 asbestos cases. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 19, 2010) Because many of these cases involve numerous plaintiffs, the Company is subject to claims significantly in excess of the number of actual cases. The Company has reserves for defense costs related to claims arising from these matters. Based in Dallas, Celanese Corporation is a global integrated chemical and advanced materials company. The Company's business involves processing chemical raw materials, like methanol, carbon monoxide and ethylene, and natural products, including wood pulp, into value-added chemicals, thermoplastic polymers and other chemical-based products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ladish Facing 14 Claims in 3 States at April 27 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ladish Co., Inc., as of April 27, 2010, has 11 individual claims pending in Mississippi, two individual claims pending in Illinois and one individual claim pending in Wisconsin, for a total of 14 asbestos-related claims. The Company has been named as a defendant in a number of asbestos cases. The Company has never manufactured or processed asbestos. The Company's only exposure to asbestos involves products the Company purchased from third parties. Based in Cudahy, Wis., Ladish Co., Inc. designs, produces and markets forged and cast metal components for load-bearing and fatigue-resisting applications in the jet engine, aerospace and industrial markets. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4,400 Cases Pending v. Tyco Int'l. at March 26 --------------------------------------------------------------- Tyco International Ltd. says that, as of March 26, 2010, there were about 4,400 asbestos-related lawsuits pending against it and its subsidiaries, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on April 27, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Each lawsuit typically includes several claims, and the Company has determined that there were about 5,600 claims outstanding as of March 26, 2010. As of Sept. 25, 2009 and Dec. 25, 2009, the Company faced about 4,200 asbestos lawsuits against it and its subsidiaries. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 5, 2010) 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. 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 and believes that it will ultimately be overturned. As of March 26, 2010, the Company's estimated net liability of US$51 million was recorded within the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet as a liability for pending and future claims and related defense costs of uS$227 million, and separately as an asset for insurance recoveries of US$176 million. Based 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: U.S. Steel Facing 450 Active Suits at March 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- United States Steel Corporation, as of March 31, 2010, was a defendant in about 450 active asbestos cases involving about 3,010 plaintiffs, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on April 27, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. At Dec. 31, 2009, the Company was a defendant in about 440 active cases involving about 3,040 plaintiffs. Almost 2,560, or about 85 percent, of these claims are currently pending in jurisdictions which permit filings with massive numbers of plaintiffs. As of March 31, 2010, the Company recorded 105 claims dismissed, settled and resolved and 75 new claims. Amounts paid to resolve claims were US$2 million. As of Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded 200 claims dismissed, settled and resolved and 190 new claims. Amounts paid to resolve claims were US$7 million. These asbestos cases allege a variety of respiratory and other diseases based on alleged exposure to asbestos. The Company is currently a defendant in cases in which a total of about 200 plaintiffs allege that they are suffering from mesothelioma. Based in Pittsburgh, United States Steel Corporation produces and sells steel mill products, including flat-rolled and tubular products, in North America and Central Europe. Operations in North America also include transportation services (railroad and barge operations), real estate operations and engineering consulting services. ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.D. Court OKs Summary Judgment in Mertz Claim --------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the ruling of the District Court of Morton County, South Central Judicial District, which granted summary judgment in favor of defendants in an asbestos lawsuit filed by Shirley Mertz on behalf of her husband Allen Mertz. The judicial panel entered judgment in Case No. 20090031 on March 24, 2010. Mr. Mertz worked as a pipefitter for more than 30 years, during which he was allegedly exposed to asbestos-containing products manufactured, sold, or distributed by the Defendants. He was diagnosed with lung cancer in 1995 and died of the disease in 1996. Mrs. Mertz alleges that Mr. Mertz's doctors never informed him or any family member that his lung cancer was related to his exposure to asbestos. Rather, she alleged that she first learned of a possible connection with asbestos sometime after 2000, when a former co-worker of her husband suggested that she "check into" whether Mr. Mertz's lung cancer was related to his exposure to asbestos at work. In 2003, after reviewing the medical records, a doctor provided a written report indicating Mr. Mertz's exposure to asbestos "was a significant causative factor in his lung cancer." Mrs. Mertz brought this survival action on behalf of Mr. Mertz's estate in 2005, alleging Mr. Mertz's exposure to the Defendants' asbestos-containing products caused his cancer and death. Several of the Defendants moved for summary judgment, contending the action was barred by the statute of limitations. The district court concluded that, as a matter of law, Mr. Mertz and his family knew by 1995 that his cancer was related to his exposure to asbestos and that they were by that time aware of facts about his asbestos- related disease to put them on notice a potential claim existed. The district court therefore concluded the six-year statute of limitations had expired before this action was commenced in 2005 and ordered summary judgment be entered dismissing Mrs. Mertz's action as to all Defendants. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. District Court OKs Dunkin's Remand Move --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Oakland Division, granted Patrick and Mary Dunkin's motion to remand an asbestos-related lawsuit. The case is styled Patrick Dunkin, et al., Plaintiff v. A.W. Chesterton Co., et al., Defendants. District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong entered judgment in Case No. C 10-458 SBA on March 19, 2010. The Dunkins filed an asbestos personal injury action in state court against various Defendants. During trial, one of the non- diverse Defendants informed the trial court that it had reached a settlement with Plaintiffs. As a result of that announcement, Defendant Honeywell International f/k/a AlliedSignal Inc., successor-in-interest to The Bendix Corporation (Honeywell) removed the action to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Mr. Dunkin is a 63-year old male who is dying from mesothemelioma. On June 30, 2009, the Dunkins filed a Complaint for Personal Injury against 33 Defendants in Alameda County Superior Court. On Feb. 1, 2010, J.T. Thorpe & Sons, Inc. advised the court that it had settled with the Dunkins, which then excused Thorpe from further appearances. The Dunkins did not file a dismissal as to Thorpe, however. On Feb. 2, 2010, Honeywell filed a Notice of Removal ostensibly on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. In the Notice of Removal, Honeywell alleged that Thorpe was the only remaining non-diverse Defendant, and that Thorpe's settlement with Mr. Dunkin created completed diversity because the four remaining, non-settling Defendants (Dana Companies, LLC; Parker-Hannafin Corporation; and Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust) were diverse from Plaintiffs. The Dunkins now moved to remand the action. It was ordered that the Dunkins's Motion to Remand was granted. The instant action was remanded forthwith the Alameda County Superior Court. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defendants' Summary Judgment in Morey Affirmed --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the case styled Norman Morey, Plaintiff v. Somers Central School District, Joanne Marien, Superintendent of the Schools, and Kenneth Crowley, Assistant superintendent for Business, sued in their individual capacities, Defendants. District Judge Paul G. Gardephe entered judgment in Case No. 06 Civ. 1877(PGG) on March 19, 2010. Norman Morey worked as a custodian for the Somers School District from 1984 until his January 2004 termination. Beginning in November 1995, and continuing until his termination, he served as head custodian at the District's High School. During the relevant time period (May 2003 to January 2004) Defendants Joanne Marien and Kenneth Crowley served, respectively, as District Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent for Business. During his employment, but before becoming head custodian at the high school, Morey received district-sponsored training concerning the handling, inspection, and management of asbestos. In May 2003, Mr. Morey received a phone call stating that there was a "mess" in the high school gymnasium that required his attention. Later that day, Mr. Morey showed Mr. Ness where the insulation had come loose. He also alleged that he told Mr. Ness "that the gym should have been closed down until it was determined [whether the material] was asbestos ... via air samples or what have you." During the first week of September 2003, Ms. Marien removed Mr. Morey from his duties at the high school and instructed him to remain at home. On Sept. 18, 2003, Mr. Morey and his union representative met with Defendants Ms. Marien and Mr. Crowley, and Marien served Morey with disciplinary charges. It was undisputed that the alleged asbestos incident in the gym was not discussed at the meeting or addressed in the disciplinary charges. These charges were later rescinded because the Board of Education had not yet approved them. On Oct. 8, 2003, Mr. Morey was suspended and re-served with disciplinary charges. Mr. Morey filed this Section 1983 action on March 9, 2006. On June 12, 2006, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Judge Conner denied the motion in an opinion dated March 21, 2007. Judge Conner held that collateral estoppels based on the Section 75 and Article 78 proceedings did not bar Mr. Morey's First Amendment retaliation claim, that Mr. Morey's statements regarding possible asbestos in the high school are constitutionally protected because they involve a matter of public concern, and that the Complaint alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate a causal connection between the protected speech and his termination. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 17 Lawsuits Filed During March 22-26 in Madison ---------------------------------------------------------------- During the week of March 22, 2010 through March 26, 2010, a total of 17 asbestos-related lawsuits were filed in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison/St. Clair Record reports. These cases are: -- (Case No. 10-L-335) Boris Belenky of Michigan, a plumber from, claims mesothelioma. Randy S. Cohn, Esq., and Sean M. Keene, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Belenky. -- (Case No. 10-L-328) Ruby K. Bivens claims her deceased husband, Donald A. Bivens, developed lung cancer after his work as a boiler operator for Federal Paper Board and for Caterpillar. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., will represent Mrs. Bivens. -- (Case No. 10-L-334) Anthony and Rochelle M. Contreras claim Mr. Contreras developed lung cancer after his work as a taper, sander and drywall installer. Richard L. Saville Jr., Esq., and Ethan A. Flint, Esq., of Saville and Flint in Alton, Ill., will represent the Contreras couple. -- (Case No. 10-L-331) Sammy Corbin of Texas, who is a weigh clerk, order clerk and laborer, and a roofer, claims lung cancer. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Corbin. -- (Case No. 10-L-346) Ronald and Penny Defelippo of Wisconsin claim Mr. Defelippo developed mesothelioma after his work as a member of the U.S. Navy, as a general laborer on construction sites, as a letter carrier at the U.S. Postal Service, as a computer programmer/analyst, as a computer programmer and analyst and as a consultant. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., will represent the Defelippos. -- (Case No. 10-L-338) David S. and Faye V. Foster claim Mr. Foster developed mesothelioma after his work as an electrician in the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; as an attendant and mechanic at Detroit Beach Sunoco, Dodes Mobil and Gordon and Lee service stations; as an electrician in the IBEW No. 8; and as a self-employed real estate agent. Randy L. Gori, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., W. Mark Lanier, Esq., Patrick N. Haines, Esq., Angela B. Greenburg, Esq., Sam T. Richard, Esq., Bridget B. Truxillo, Esq., and Lauren H. Ware, Esq., of The Lanier Law Firm in Houston, will represent the Fosters. -- (Case No. 10-L-343) Michael Gross of Pennsylvania, a laborer, heavy equipment operator, utility mechanic and fire equipment inspector, claims mesothelioma. Richard L. Saville Jr., Esq., Ethan A. Flint, Esq., and D. Todd Matthews, Esq., of Saville and Flint in Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Gross. -- (Case No. 10-L-330) Christina Jackson of California claims her deceased father, John O'Brien, developed mesothelioma after his work as an electrician. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mrs. Jackson. -- (Case No. 10-L-339) Karen Lamke of Illinois claims the deceased Gretchen Lamke developed mesothelioma after she was secondarily exposed to asbestos through her father, who worked as a press operator and mechanic. T. Barton French Jr., Esq., of French and Mudd in St. Louis, will represent Ms. Lamke. -- (Case No. 10-L-324) Karen Lamke as next friend of minor James Tolley claims the recently deceased Gretchen Lamke developed mesothelioma after she was secondarily exposed to asbestos fibers through her father, Jim Lamke, who worked as a press operator and mechanic. T. Barton French Jr., Esq., and Nate Mudd, Esq., of French and Mudd in St. Louis will represent Ms. Lamke. -- (Case No. 10-L-336) Abundio and Celeste Luna of Texas claim Mr. Luna developed mesothelioma after his work as a sandblaster, as a truck unloader, as a railroad worker, as an operator and laborer, as a concrete worker, as a heavy equipment operator, as a painter and laborer, as a laborer and operator at an asphalt plant, as an assistant supervisor performing building and road construction, as a truck driver and as a maintenance worker. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., will represent the Lunas. -- (Case No. 10-L-327) Monica Meyer of Oklahoma claims her deceased father, Michael L. Thomas, developed lung cancer after his work as a carpenter for Hough Drywall, as a carpenter for the Indiana Housing Authority, as a carpenter for Hough Drywall and as a worker for Gibson and Lewis. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., will represent Mrs. Meyer. -- (Case No. 10-L-333) Johnie Morrow of California, a laborer at Hud-Vice Papermill, an attendant at a service station, a welder, a stock control clerk, a laborer and shipping clerk, a truck driver, a supervisor, a fork lift operator and a shadetree mechanic, claims mesothelioma. Randy L. Gori, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., will represent Mr. Morrow. -- (Case No. 10-L-342) Shirley D. Nall of Washington claims her deceased husband, Alvin W. Nall, developed mesothelioma after his work as a member of the U.S. Navy and as an electrician, laborer, driver, installer and operator. Richard L. Saville Jr., Esq., Ethan A. Flint, Esq., and Joseph P. Whyte, Esq., of Alton, Ill., will represent Mrs. Nall. -- (Case No. 10-L-344) James L. and Kathleen Smith of Tennessee claim Mr. Smith developed mesothelioma after his work as a gas attendant at Martin Oil, as a laborer in the warehouse/supply division of International Harvester, as a file clerk/contract purchaser at International Harvester, as a bus driver at Pace Bus Co. and as a laborer at a sewage treatment plant. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., will represent the Smiths. -- (Case No. 10-L-337) Paul Theisen of Wisconsin, a mechanic and a pipefitter, claims mesothelioma. Andrew O'Brien, Esq., Christopher Thoron, Esq., Christina J. Nielson, Esq., Bartholomew J. Baumstark, Esq., and Gerald J. FitzGerald, Esq., of O'Brien Law Firm in St. Louis, will represent Paul Theisen. -- (Case No. 10-L-347) Mark and Sue Wiese of Michigan claim Mr. Wiese developed mesothelioma after his work as a laborer at Jahr Roofing; as a pipefitter at DeFoe Ship Building; as a teamster at the Teamsters' Union; as a boiler inspector; as a construction worker at Ewald Boiler; and as a floor installer. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., will represent the Wieses. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lowes Action v. James Hardie Filed in Australia ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simon Lowes, a 40-year-old man from Perth, Australia, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against James Hardie Industries N.V., according to the Law Offices of Gregg J. Borri. Mr. Lowes was diagnosed with mesothelioma. He seeks just compensation for the hardships brought on by his illness. Mr. Lowes claimed that he contracted the disease as a result of being exposed to asbestos at a very young age, while visiting the Castledare Miniature Railway in Wilson, Western Australia, during his childhood. As reported by the media, land near the railways was used as a dumping site for asbestos tailings from the Hardie factories during the 1960s. They did not allow the toxic waste to be dumped near their own factories, rather, they carelessly dumped it on land near an orphanage. Mr. Lowes was exposed to the deadly asbestos fibers when his parents took him to play at that orphanage. According to Mr. Lowes' legal representative Michael Joseph, Hardie was well acquainted with the health hazards associated with asbestos exposure and yet continued to recklessly dump the toxic waste. Mr. Joseph asserted that the Company had remained unsuccessful in its duty to care and he "couldn't imagine a more tragic case" as regards his client. Although he has been living with a lot of pain since 2006, Mr. Lowes was only properly diagnosed in March 2009. He was reported to have undergone a radical surgery to remove asbestos-affected organs. He was forced to step down from his post at work after being diagnosed with mesothelioma. Mr. Lowes has sought record damages from the Company for exposing him to the toxic mineral, asbestos. Damages have been claimed taking into consideration the pain of being diagnosed with such a serious health ailment at a relatively young age and of being rendered unable to work. Mr. Lowes' lawyer said that the case was a little different from other cases related to asbestos exposure as Mr. Lowes was exposed to asbestos fibers in his early childhood. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Reserves $899Mil for Claims at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ashland Inc's long-term asbestos litigation reserve was US$899 million as of March 31, 2010, compared with US$796 million as of March 31, 2009, according to a Company press release dated April 27, 2010. The Company's noncurrent asbestos litigation reserve was US$906 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$807 million as of Dec. 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 29, 2010) The Company's long-term asbestos insurance receivable was US$478 million as of March 31, 2010, compared with US$440 million as of March 31, 2009. The Company's noncurrent asbestos insurance receivable was US$484 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$447 million as of Dec. 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 29, 2010) Based in Covington, Ky., Ashland Inc. provides specialty chemical products, services and solutions for many of the world's most essential industries. The Company operates through five commercial units: Ashland Aqualon Functional Ingredients, Ashland Hercules Water Technologies, Ashland Performance Materials, Ashland Consumer Markets (Valvoline) and Ashland Distribution. ASBESTOS UPDATE: GBP2Mil Awarded to Victims of Asbestos Exposure ---------------------------------------------------------------- UNISON revealed that nearly GBP2 million has been awarded to members who have suffered from deadly asbestos-related diseases in 2009 alone, according to a UNISON press release dated April 27, 2010. The figure, released on International Workers Memorial Day (April 28, 2010), highlights the risk that many workers face just doing their day-to-day jobs. General Secretary, Dave Prentis, will join public sector staff across the United Kingdom in a minute's silence at midday, to remember colleagues who have become victims of asbestos and other work-related diseases or those killed or injured in the workplace. The United Kingdom's largest public sector union has fought for justice for thousands of workers, who have been put in danger by their employers, including staff who had suffered permanent injuries as a result of violence while on duty. In the case of asbestos, many generations of workers have been exposed to it in oil refineries, hospitals, chemical plants, schools, building sites, shipyards, factories, building sites and while taking their lunch in canteens. Dave Prentis said, "Health and safety has barely been mentioned during the election campaign, but we want to see preventable accidents becoming a priority. Tighter regulations and more inspections - which have declined dramatically - would help tackle the problem. "It is shocking that so many workers have died, or been seriously injured, because employers have failed to take the necessary steps to protect them. Too many employers put short-cuts before the safety of their staff and many workers still suffer in silence, losing their physical and mental health before management are forced to take action." Regional breakdown for the compensation awarded for UNISON members suffering from asbestos related diseases, like mesothelioma, asbestosis and pleural thickening, in the last year: -- Eastern (GBP255,961.82) -- East Midlands (GBP140,949) -- Greater London (GBP106,013.50) -- Northern, Northeast and Cumbria (GBP394,761.10) -- South West (GBP108,000) -- Wales (GBP85,000) -- West Midlands (GBP140,078) -- Yorkshire and Humber (GBP599,868.17) ASBESTOS UPDATE: 17 Actions Filed March 29 to April 2 in Madison ---------------------------------------------------------------- During the week of March 29, 2010 through April 2, 2010, a total of 17 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-367) Orlene Dicks of Florida claims her deceased husband, Emory Lee Dicks, developed mesothelioma after his work as a boatswain's mate and truck driver. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mrs. Dicks. -- (Case No. 10-L-352) Mildred Dubois of Pennsylvania, an assembly worker, laborer, waitress and secretary, claims mesothelioma. Brian J. Cooke, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mrs. Dubois. -- (Case No. 10-L-373) Robert Franke of Texas, a pipe fitter, claims mesothelioma. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Franke. -- (Case No. 10-L-354) Billy R. and Edwina C. Hadley of Arizona claim Mr. Hadley developed mesothelioma after his work as a pipefitter. Ross D. Stomel, Esq., of Shrader and Associates in Houston, will represent the Hadleys. -- (Case No. 10-L-369) James Hall of Tennessee claims his deceased wife, Ina Hall, developed mesothelioma after her work as a secretary and taster. Brian J. Cooke, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Hall. -- (Case No. 10-L-351) William Harris of Illinois, a machine operator and janitor, claims mesothelioma. W. Brent Copple, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Harris. -- (Case No. 10-L-341) Mary Rita Herzog of Wisconsin claims her deceased father, Donald Lettenberger, developed mesothelioma after his work as an insulator and as a salesman. Andrew O'Brien, Esq., Christopher Thoron, Esq., Christina J. Nielson, Esq., Bartholomew J. Baumstark, Esq., and Gerald J. FitzGerald, Esq., of O'Brien Law Firm in St. Louis, will represent Mrs. Herzog. -- (Case No. 10-L-355) Teresa Montesano of California claims her deceased husband, Ronney Montesano, developed mesothelioma after his work as a member of the U.S. Navy, as a mill work performer and as a worker at Gray's Harbor, as an insulator, as a home remodeler and as an automotive repair worker. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., will represent Mrs. Montesano. -- (Case No. 10-L-368) Marie Odom of Georgia claims her deceased husband, Bobby Odom, developed lung cancer after his work as an electrician. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mrs. Odom. -- (Case No. 10-L-353) Lawrence Pool III of Minnesota claims his deceased father, Lawrence Pool II, developed mesothelioma after his work as a bricklayer and metallurgist. G. Michael Stewart, Esq., and Jill Price, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Pool. -- (Case No. 10-L-361) Carol Scott of Missouri claims her deceased husband, Robert Scott, developed mesothelioma after his work as a sales clerk at J.B. Russell Lumber Co., as a factory worker at Lyons Die Casting, performing various jobs at Armco Steel, as an employee at McDonald's, as a mechanic operator/laborer/torch man/crane operator, as a small engine mechanic at Feldman Brothers, as a general manager at Feldman Brothers, as a project manager at Pre-Fabricated Steel/Kan Build, as a store manager at Orscheln Farm and Home, as a department manager at Lowe's Home Improvement and as a truck driver for the Department of Transportation. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., will represent Mrs. Scott. -- (Case No. 10-L-372) Darmel Shaffer of British Columbia, an insulator, claims lung cancer. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Shaffer. -- (Case No. 10-L-360) Jess Solomon of Colorado, a carpenter, concrete worker and farmer, claims lung cancer. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Solomon. -- (Case No. 10-L-357) Edward Uriano of Connecticut, who worked as a laborer and construction worker, claims mesothelioma. Richard L. Saville Jr., Esq., and Ethan A. Flint, Esq., of Saville and Flint in Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Uriano. -- (Case No. 10-L-375) Bonnie Voseberg of Iowa claims her deceased husband, Richard Voseberg, developed lung cancer after his work as a dryer operator. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mrs. Voseberg. -- (Case No. 10-L-348) William and Kimberly Webb of Washington claim Mr. Webb developed mesothelioma after his work as an inspector, laborer, tech support engineer/electronics technician and radio and electronics installer. Timothy F. Thompson Jr., Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent the Webbs. -- (Case No. 10-L-362) Roberta Wright of Virginia claims the deceased William Anderson Sr. developed mesothelioma after his work as a laborer, driver and operator. Richard L. Saville Jr., Esq., Ethan A. Flint, Esq., and Joseph P. Whyte, Esq., of Alton, Ill., will represent Ms. Wright. ********* 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, Joy A. Agravante, Ronald Sy 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 * * *