/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100528.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, May 28, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 104
Headlines
BILLING SOLUTIONS: Sued for Making Bogus 900 Telephone Charges
BP PLC: Vacation Home Owner Sues to Recover Oil Spill Losses
BP PLC: Senators Pressure DOJ to Take Action in Oil Spill
BRUNSWICK BOWLING: Recalls 830B and 830D Voltaire Swivel Chairs
CARDIONET INC: Wants Securities Violations Suit Dismissed
CARDIONET INC: Faces Suit Over IPO/Secondary Offering
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Subscriber Suit About Cell Phone Service & Safety
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Continues to Defend "Rivera" in California
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: To Challenge Conditional Certification
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Faces "Reed" Suit in Texas
CUMMINS POWER: Recalls 550 Portable Generators
DOLGENCORP INC: Accused in Ala. Suit of Not Paying Overtime
FRESH DEL MONTE: Subsidiaries Continue to Defend Suit in Tenn.
FRESH DEL MONTE: Plaintiffs Appeal Denial of Class Certification
FRESH DEL MONTE: Motion to Certify Class in Florida Suit Pending
GLG PARTNERS: Man Group Deal Schallenged in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
GLG PARTNERS: Man Group Deal Challenged in Del. Ch. Ct.
LAS VEGAS SANDS: Robbins Geller Files Shareholder Suit in D. Nev.
MASTERCARD INC: Settlement to Release Claims in Attridge Action
MASTERCARD INC: Several Plaintiffs Withdraw Appeal
MASTERCARD INC: Awaits Final Approval of Settlement Agreement
MASTERCARD INC: Bid to Junk Interchange Fees Suit Still Pending
MASTERCARD INC: Amended IPO-Related Suit Remains Pending
OHIO: Suit Challenges Bureau of Workers Compensation Payments
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: No Ruling Yet in "Hines" Suit Appeal
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: California Court Accepts Proposed Settlement
PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Class Action Complaint Filed in Israel
PELICAN INTERNATIONAL: Recalls 250 Utility Sled Tow Hitches
PR MARKETING: Sued for Refusal to Refund $78.95 Payment
ROCK OF AGES: Shareholder Suit Complains About Swenson Deal
SUN LIFE: E.D. Mich. Lawsuit Seeks Reversal of Claim Denials
TOYOTA MOTOR: Calif. Accelerator Suits Combined in Los Angeles
TRANSOCEAN LTD: Seeks Delay of Depositions in Oil Spill Lawsuits
TRANSOCEAN LTD: Ryan & Maniskas Fishing for 401(k) Participants
UNITED STATES: Settlement in Freedmen Suit Discriminatory
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS ALERT: Exposure Claim v. Cinch Filed Jan. 10 in Oregon
ASBESTOS ALERT: Savoir Penalized GBP15,000 for Safety Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9 Lorillard, Inc. Lawsuits Scheduled for Trial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. ConEd, Units
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ConEd Still Has 100 Steam Main Rupture Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. Gardner Denver
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Still Pending v. Wabtec, Units
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Premises" Cases Still Pending Against Huntsman
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alamo Group Records $277T Reserves for Gradall
ASBESTOS UPDATE: California Water Still Facing Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W. R. Grace Faces 430 Damage Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Personal Injury Actions Ongoing v. W. R. Grace
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Records $969M Excess Coverage at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Cites $51.5MM Libby Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tex. Court OKs Travelers Summary Judgment Move
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Dismisses Shamir Case v. Agilent, Others
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navigators Has $16.66M Net Reserves at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Fin'l. Has $6M A&E Charges at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Congoleum Records $47.9MM Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Has $967M for Carolinas at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allegheny Faces 868 Claims in W.Va. at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Group Ltd. Still Involved in A&E Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Ongoing v. Burlington Northern
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pepco Still Has 180 Lawsuits in Md. At March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Central Hudson Faces 1,189 Lawsuits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ga. Appeal Court Affirms Ruling in Adamson Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vaughan Claim v. 74 Firms Filed May 14 in W.Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1,400 Lawsuits Against CSX Dismissed on May 17
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Buckhurst Hill Welder's Death Linked to Hazard
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Firm Build Execs Charged for Safety Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Awards $14M Compensation to Sarasota Local
ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS Global Reserves $86M for Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Units Still Face Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Inc. Still Party to N.J. Coverage Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Cites $1.097B March 31 Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Noble Corp. Still Facing 39 Actions at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 482 Claims Ongoing v. Constellation Energy, BGE
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Records $3.409B Gross Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Int'l. Cites 5,208 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Appeals Court OKs BNSF Summary Judgment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 15 Cases Filed During May 3-7 in Madison County
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mass. Landlord Fined $6T for Disposal Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court OKs Board Ruling in Polverari Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Still Pending v. IPALCO Unit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Still Ongoing v. Mueller Units
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land, D/C Still Face Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Regal Beloit Corp. Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Imperial Industries Unit Faces 13 Injury Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Penn Millers' Liability at $2.31Mil at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Biltrite Still Has $17.7MM Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Biltrite Has 1,215 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tidewater Inc. Still Involved in Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sears Holdings Corp. Subject to Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roper Ind. Still Involved in Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Great Lakes, Ex-Unit Still Face Exposure Claims
*********
BILLING SOLUTIONS: Sued for Making Bogus 900 Telephone Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria Franzese, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Billing Solutions, Inc., Case No. 2010-CH-21981 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. May 21, 2010), asserts violations of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. Ms. Franzese accuses the billing
services provider of charging her for unspecified "900 calls" she
had not made.
The plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
James O. Latturner, Esq.
Francis R. Greene, Esq.
EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
120 S. LaSalle St., 18th Floor
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 739-4200
BP PLC: Vacation Home Owner Sues to Recover Oil Spill Losses
------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth A. Alexander, a partner with the Nashville office of
the national plaintiffs' law firm, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, and attorney Charles Barrett, of Nashville,
Tenn., has filed a class action lawsuit against BP on behalf of
an owner of a Gulf Coast vacation home. The plaintiff, a
Nashville resident and owner of beachfront property in Panacea,
Fla., brought the class action on behalf of herself and all
Tennessee residents who own property on the Gulf coast in
Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, and have suffered
economic losses caused by the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon
drilling rig and the resulting oil spill.
"This unfolding and unprecedented ecological and economic
disaster, the complaint charges, was the result of negligence by
BP and the other corporations involved in drilling at the
Deepwater Horizon oil rig," Ms. Alexander stated. "The value of
properties along the Gulf Coast and rental income for property
owners, including owners from Tennessee, have been negatively
impacted. BP and other defendants must take responsibility for
their losses."
Defendants named in the complaint include BP, PLC, and BP
America, Inc., which owns the oil well, Transocean Offshore
Deepwater Drilling, Inc., which leases the oil rig to BP,
Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., which was engaged in cementing
operations at the well, and Cameron International Corporation,
which supplied the blowout preventer valves for the Deepwater
Horizon oil rig that have failed to activate.
The complaint, entitled Simcox v. BP, PLC, et al., was filed
Tuesday afternoon in federal court in Nashville, Tennessee. The
complaint charges that defendants failed to employ necessary
safety measures and technologies to prevent the spill and damage
to marine and coastal environments. A copy of the complaint is
available at:
http://www.gulfoilspilllitigationgroup.com/pdf/20100525-tn-complaint.pdf
Legal Resources For Victims of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Disaster
The Deepwater Horizon oil disaster poses a severe threat to the
economic welfare of the Gulf Coast, including:
1. companies and individuals involved in the commercial
fishing, oyster and shrimping industries;
2. companies and individuals involved in the wholesale
seafood processing and packaging industry;
3. dock and marina owners and operators;
4. commercial and private boat owners;
5. restaurants;
6. property owners and developers; and
7. city, county and state public agencies and governments.
About Lieff Cabraser
The national plaintiffs law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, with offices in Nashville, New York and San
Francisco, has been recognized by The National Law Journal for
the past seven consecutive years as one of the nation's top
plaintiffs law firms. Lieff Cabraser has played a significant
role in achieving settlements and verdicts valued at more than
$62 billion, including against Exxon on behalf of thousands of
fisherman, landowners and others whose livelihoods were gravely
affected by the Exxon Valdez oil disaster.
BP PLC: Senators Pressure DOJ to Take Action in Oil Spill
---------------------------------------------------------
David Ingram at The National Law Journal reports that Democratic
members of a Senate committee examining the Deepwater Horizon oil
spill said Tuesday that they want the U.S. Department of Justice
to throw the book at the companies responsible. Republicans were
a little more cautious.
At a hearing Tuesday morning, senators urged Associate Attorney
General Thomas Perrelli to pursue civil liability against BP,
Transocean, and any other companies that could be found at fault.
They also repeatedly pushed for criminal investigations of the
companies.
"We need to ensure that those harmed by this accident are fully
compensated," said Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., chairman of the
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Senators expressed frustration with current law, which threatens
to cap liability for the Gulf of Mexico spill, beyond clean-up
costs, at $75 million. BP has said it will pay all "legitimate
claims" associated with the spill, but that has not lessened
lawmakers' skepticism.
"Exxon said many of these same things" -- after the 1989 Exxon
Valdez oil spill -- "and then they litigated all the way to the
Supreme Court," said Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J. He asked
Perrelli about pursuing a written consent agreement with BP.
Perrelli tried to reassure senators, telling them that the $75
million cap might not apply in the case of the Deepwater Horizon,
especially if the government has evidence of gross negligence or
willful misconduct. He declined to say whether it has such
evidence now. "There are many facts to be developed," he said.
Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., wondered whether BP's public
commitment to pay "legitimate claims" might be used against the
company in court. "Is their representation legally binding on
them?" Dorgan asked.
"They've certainly made that commitment very publicly," Perrelli
said. "We intend -- in a court of law or elsewhere -- we
certainly intend to have them uphold that commitment."
At Dorgan's request, Perrelli said the department would consider
ways to make BP's assurances legally binding. He also said it
would consider ways to stop a planned $1 billion dividend payout
to shareholders of drilling-rig owner Transocean, which also
faces liability claims.
Two weeks ago, Transocean filed a motion in federal court seeking
to cap its liability at $26.7 million. See Class Action
Reporter, May 17, 2010. That motion drew a heated response at
Tuesday's hearing from Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who accused
Transocean of a "pattern of activity" to avoid blame.
"I can't say it's illegal at this point, but it certainly ought
to be unacceptable given the crisis in the Gulf," Wyden said.
Perrelli said the Justice Department plans to oppose Transocean's
motion. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., was one of several senators
to ask Perrelli whether there are any ongoing criminal
investigations related to the spill. Perrelli declined to answer
those questions, but Sessions urged him not to hesitate to make
use of the FBI.
"If there is a possibility of a criminal investigation," Sessions
said, "the FBI should be involved in that."
Lawmakers are considering several proposals to change the law
related to oil spill liability and penalties, including possible
elimination of the $75 million cap. A bill introduced by Sen.
Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., would increase potential civil
penalties from $20,000 a day to $75,000 a day, and it would
increase potential criminal liabilities from $100,000 a day to
$10 million a day.
"The current penalties are inconsequential in the face of those
record industry profits," Whitehouse said at Tuesday's hearing.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, the energy committee's top
Republican, sounded a more-cautious note against "arbitrary"
changes. "We need to make the time, take the time to ensure that
we're building good policy on this," she said.
BRUNSWICK BOWLING: Recalls 830B and 830D Voltaire Swivel Chairs
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Brunswick Bowling & Billiards Corp., of Lake Forest, Ill.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 830B and 830D Voltaire
Swivel Chairs. Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.
The chair frame can separate from the seating section of the
chair, posing a fall hazard to consumers.
Brunswick has received one report of frame separation. No
injuries have been reported.
This recall involves swivel chairs with a steel frame attached
with wooden backrest and a wooden seat. The chairs are
identified as model numbers 830B and 830D. Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10738.html
The recalled products were manufactured in the United States and
sold through Brunswick distributors to bowling centers nationwide
from May 2008 through December 2008 for about $200. These
products were not sold at retail.
Consumers should immediately stop using the Voltaire Swivel
chairs and contact Brunswick to arrange a free replacement. All
known purchasers have been notified. For additional information,
contact the Brunswick Warranty Department at (800) 937-2695
between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday or visit the company's website at
http://www.brunswickbowling.com/
CARDIONET INC: Wants Securities Violations Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
CardioNet, Inc., has filed a motion to dismiss a consolidated
suit alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
according to the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.
Commencing on Aug. 26, 2009, two putative class actions were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania naming CardioNet, Inc., Randy Thurman and Martin P.
Galvan as defendants and alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
The complaints purport to bring claims on behalf of a class of
persons who purchased the company's common stock between April
30, 2009 and June 30, 2009 and between April 30, 2009 and July
10, 2009.
The complaints allege that the defendants issued various
materially false and misleading statements relating to the
company's projected performance that had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of its securities.
The complaints further allege that the alleged misstatements were
revealed to the public on June 30, 2009 and July 10, 2009 when
the company made certain announcements regarding potential lower
pricing for commercial and Medicare reimbursement rates.
These actions were consolidated on Sept. 9, 2009 under docket
number 09-3894.
On Oct. 26, 2009, two competing motions were filed for
appointment of lead plaintiffs and lead counsel pursuant to the
requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995.
On Dec. 22, 2009, the Court appointed lead plaintiff, but denied
its request for appointment of lead counsel and required lead
plaintiff to file an amended motion for approval of its selection
of class counsel.
Lead Plaintiff filed their amended motion for appointment of lead
counsel on Jan. 15, 2010, was granted on Feb. 3, 2010.
Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint on
Feb. 19, 2010, and the defendants filed a motion to dismiss on
March 26, 2010.
Lead plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion to dismiss on
April 30, 2010.
CardioNet, Inc. -- http://www.cardionet.com/-- provides
continuous, real-time ambulatory outpatient management solutions
for monitoring relevant and timely clinical information regarding
an individual's health. The Company is focused on the diagnosis
and monitoring of cardiac arrhythmias, or heart rhythm disorders,
through its core Mobile Cardiac Outpatient Telemetry (MCOT),
event and Holter services. The company's CardioNet Monitoring
Center provides analysis and response for all incoming
electrocardiogram (ECG) data. The company provides all cardiac
arrhythmia monitoring services for mobile cardiac outpatient
telemetry (MCOT) at this location. The company has developed an
ambulatory, continuous and real-time arrhythmia monitoring
solution that represents advancement over event and Holter
monitoring. In addition to MCOT, the Company offers event and
Holter monitoring services. It provides cardiologists and
electrophysiologists who prefer to use a single source of
arrhythmia monitoring services.
CARDIONET INC: Faces Suit Over IPO/Secondary Offering
-----------------------------------------------------
CardioNet, Inc., faces a putative class action complaint in
connection with its IPO and/or Secondary Offering on Aug. 6,
2008, according to the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2010.
On March 5, 2010, West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund filed a
putative class action complaint in California Superior Court, San
Diego County asserting claims for violations of Sections 11, 12
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, against
CardioNet, nine current and former officers and directors of
CardioNet and six underwriters of CardioNet's IPO and/or
Secondary Offering on Aug. 6, 2008.
The complaint filed March 5, 2010 also asserted claims for
alleged violations of Sections 25401 and 25501 of the California
Corporations Code against defendants James M. Sweeney and Fred
Middleton. The plaintiff seeks to bring claims on behalf of all
those who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of
CardioNet pursuant and/or traceable to the Offerings.
On March 10, 2010, plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint that
deleted the claims for violations of the California Corporations
Code. The claims are based on purported misrepresentations and
omissions in the Registration Statements for the Offerings
relating to alleged business decisions made by CardioNet that
were supposedly not disclosed to investors and alleged
misstatements concerning CardioNet's business.
On April 5, 2010, all defendants removed the case to the Southern
District of California, where it is pending.
On April 7, 2010, defendants filed a Motion to Transfer the case
to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which Motion to Transfer
is noticed for hearing on June 28, 2010.
CardioNet, Inc. -- http://www.cardionet.com/-- provides
continuous, real-time ambulatory outpatient management solutions
for monitoring relevant and timely clinical information regarding
an individual's health. The Company is focused on the diagnosis
and monitoring of cardiac arrhythmias, or heart rhythm disorders,
through its core Mobile Cardiac Outpatient Telemetry (MCOT),
event and Holter services. The company's CardioNet Monitoring
Center provides analysis and response for all incoming
electrocardiogram (ECG) data. The company provides all cardiac
arrhythmia monitoring services for mobile cardiac outpatient
telemetry (MCOT) at this location. The company has developed an
ambulatory, continuous and real-time arrhythmia monitoring
solution that represents advancement over event and Holter
monitoring. In addition to MCOT, the Company offers event and
Holter monitoring services. It provides cardiologists and
electrophysiologists who prefer to use a single source of
arrhythmia monitoring services.
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Subscriber Suit About Cell Phone Service & Safety
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. says a purported class action lawsuit against
the Company and the three other Israeli cellular operators was
filed in the District Court of Central Region, by four plaintiffs
alleging to be subscribers of the defendants. The plaintiffs
allege that the defendants unlawfully and in violation of their
license and agreements with their subscribers fail to construct
cell sites in a sufficient quantity, scope and coverage in order
to provide cellular services in the requisite quality; fail to
test, repair and notify the subscribers that non-ionizing
radiation level for repaired handsets may exceed the
manufacturer's specifications and the maximum level allowed by
law; fail to inform and caution the subscribers of the risks
related to the manner of carrying the handset and its distance
from the subscriber's body; all of which increase the level of
non-ionizing radiation and health risks to which the subscribers
are exposed.
The total amount claimed from the Company, if the lawsuit is
certified as a class action, is estimated by the plaintiffs to be
approximately NIS 3.68 billion (the total amount claimed from the
four defendants is estimated by the plaintiffs to be
approximately NIS 12 billion).
At this preliminary stage, the Company is unable to assess the
lawsuit's chances of success.
About Cellcom Israel
Established in 1994, Cellcom Israel Ltd. --
http://www.cellcom.co.il/-- is the leading Israeli cellular
provider; Cellcom Israel provides its approximately 3.313 million
subscribers (as at March 31, 2010) 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).
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Continues to Defend "Rivera" in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc., continues to defend that matter
captioned Rivera v. Sequoia Education, Inc. and Corinthian
Colleges, Inc.
On May 28, 2008, a putative class action demand in arbitration
was filed with the American Arbitration Association.
The plaintiffs are nine current or former HVAC students from the
company's WyoTech Fremont campus.
The arbitration demand alleges violations of California's
Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500, fraud and
intentional deceit, negligent misrepresentation, breach of
contract and unjust enrichment/restitution, all related to
alleged deficiencies and misrepresentations regarding the HVAC
program at these campuses.
The plaintiffs seek to certify a class composed of all HVAC
students in the company's WyoTech Fremont and WyoTech Oakland
campuses over the prior four years, and seek recovery of
compensatory and punitive damages, interest, restitution and
attorneys' fees and costs.
The company says it never operated any HVAC programs at the
company's WyoTech Oakland campus during its ownership of that
campus.
No further updates were reported in the company's May 4, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.
Corinthian Colleges, Inc. -- http://www.cci.edu/-- is a post-
secondary education company in the United States and Canada.
During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008 (fiscal 2008), the
company had a student enrolment of 69,200, and operated 89
schools in 24 states, and 17 schools in the province of Ontario,
Canada. The company offers a range of diploma programs and
associate's, bachelors and master's degrees. The training
programs include healthcare, criminal justice, mechanical,
trades, business and information technology. Since the company's
formation in 1995, it has acquired 74 colleges and has
opened 32 branch campuses. The company offers online education
to two categories of students, including those attending online
classes exclusively, and those attending a blend of traditional
classroom and online courses.
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: To Challenge Conditional Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc., intends to challenge the conditional
certification granted in the matter Mary Credille and Roger
Madden, on behalf of all similarly situated current and former
employees, v. Corinthian Colleges et al., according to the
company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.
On Nov. 17, 2008, an action was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois.
The two named plaintiffs are former employees of the company's
Chicago campus, and allege failure to receive proper compensation
for all overtime hours allegedly worked in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Credille has voluntarily
dismissed her claims against the company.
On Dec. 8, 2009, the Court granted Plaintiff Madden's motion to
conditionally certify a collective action to include those
current and former admissions representatives at the Company's
Chicago campus who also satisfy additional requirements.
It is unknown whether any, or how many, of the prospective
participants, estimated to be around 50 current and former
employees, will choose to "opt in" to participate in the lawsuit.
The company intends to challenge the conditional certification at
the second stage of the certification process.
Corinthian Colleges, Inc. -- http://www.cci.edu/-- is a post-
secondary education company in the United States and Canada.
During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008 (fiscal 2008), the
company had a student enrolment of 69,200, and operated 89
schools in 24 states, and 17 schools in the province of Ontario,
Canada. The company offers a range of diploma programs and
associate's, bachelors and master's degrees. The training
programs include healthcare, criminal justice, mechanical,
trades, business and information technology. Since the company's
formation in 1995, it has acquired 74 colleges and has
opened 32 branch campuses. The company offers online education
to two categories of students, including those attending online
classes exclusively, and those attending a blend of traditional
classroom and online courses.
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Faces "Reed" Suit in Texas
-----------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc., faces a putative class action
complaint captioned Reed, an individual, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Florida Metropolitan University,
Inc. and Corinthian Colleges, Inc., according to the company's
May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.
Florida Metropolitan University, Inc. is a wholly owned
subsidiary of the company.
The suit was filed on April 20, 2010, in the District Court of
Travis County, Texas.
Plaintiff purports to be a former student in the company's
Everest University Online operations.
The complaint claims violations of Texas Education Code Sections
132.051(a) and 132.059(a) for alleged failure of Everest
University Online to receive a Certificate of Approval or an
exemption from the appropriate Texas state licensing bodies to
offer online courses in the State of Texas and to register its
admissions representatives with the State of Texas.
The plaintiff seeks to certify a class composed of all persons
who contracted to receive distance education from Everest
University Online while residing in Texas, and seeks damages on
behalf of such persons, pre- and post-judgment interest,
declaratory and injunctive relief, cost of suit, and such other
relief as the court deems proper.
Corinthian Colleges, Inc. -- http://www.cci.edu/-- is a post-
secondary education company in the United States and Canada.
During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008 (fiscal 2008), the
company had a student enrolment of 69,200, and operated 89
schools in 24 states, and 17 schools in the province of Ontario,
Canada. The company offers a range of diploma programs and
associate's, bachelors and master's degrees. The training
programs include healthcare, criminal justice, mechanical,
trades, business and information technology. Since the company's
formation in 1995, it has acquired 74 colleges and has
opened 32 branch campuses. The company offers online education
to two categories of students, including those attending online
classes exclusively, and those attending a blend of traditional
classroom and online courses.
CUMMINS POWER: Recalls 550 Portable Generators
----------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Cummins Power Generation, of Minneapolis, Minn., announced a
voluntary recall of about 550 Portable Generators. Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.
Fuel can leak through the carburetor during normal usage, posing
a fire hazard to consumers.
The firm has received 25 reports of fuel leakage. No injuries or
property damage have been reported.
This recall involves Cummins Onan Portable Generators. "Cummins
Onan" and the model number are printed on the front of the
generator. The serial number is printed on the generator's name
plate. Only generators manufactured on or after June 2009 and
before December 2009 are included in this recall.
Model Numbers Serial Numbers starting with
------------------- ---------------------
P5350
P5350c
P5450e F09 through L09
P5450ec
P5550e
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10739.html
The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Authorized dealers nationwide from June 2009 through February
2010 for between $700 and $1,100.
Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled generators
and contact Cummins for a full refund plus a $100 check. All
known users have been contacted by the firm. For additional
information, contact Cummins at (800) 344-0039 between 8:00 a.m.
and 4:30 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.cumminsonan.com/portable/
DOLGENCORP INC: Accused in Ala. Suit of Not Paying Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Dolgencorp misclassifies
employees as managers to cheat them of overtime, a class action
claims in San Antonio Federal Court.
A copy of the Complaint in Gray, et al. v. Dolgencorp, Inc., et
al., Case No. 10-cv-00392 (N.D. Ala.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/25/Employ.pdf
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jere L. Beasley, Esq.
Wilson Daniel Miles, III, Esq.
Roman A. Shaul, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
Post Office Box 4160
Montgomery, AL 36103-4160
Telephone: 334-269-2343
FRESH DEL MONTE: Subsidiaries Continue to Defend Suit in Tenn.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc.'s subsidiaries continue to defend a
putative class action complaint alleging violations of the
Tennessee Trade Practices Act.
On March 5, 2004, an alleged individual consumer filed a putative
class action complaint against the company's subsidiaries in the
state court of Tennessee on behalf of consumers who purchased
(other than for resale) Del Monte Gold(R) Extra Sweet pineapples
in Tennessee from March 1, 1996, to May 6, 2003.
The complaint alleges violations of the Tennessee Trade Practices
Act and the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.
On Feb. 18, 2005, the company's subsidiaries filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint.
On May 15, 2006, the court granted the motion in part, dismissing
plaintiffs' claim under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.
No further developments were reported in the company's May 4,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended April 2, 2010.
Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. -- http://www.freshdelmonte.com/--
is a vertically integrated producer, marketer and distributor of
fresh and fresh-cut fruit and vegetables, as well as producer and
distributor of prepared fruit and vegetables, juices, beverages
and snacks. The company's global business, conducted through
subsidiaries, is primarily the worldwide sourcing, transportation
and marketing of fresh and fresh-cut produce together with
prepared food products in Europe, the Middle East and Africa.
Fresh Del Monte sources its products (bananas, pineapples,
melons, tomatoes, grapes, apples, pears, peaches, plums,
nectarines, cherries, kiwi) primarily from Central and South
America, Africa, and the Philippines. It also source products
from North America, Africa and Europe. The company distributes
its products in North America, Europe, Asia, the Middle East,
North Africa and South America. Fresh Del Monte markets its
products worldwide under the DEL MONTE brand.
FRESH DEL MONTE: Plaintiffs Appeal Denial of Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated complaint against Fresh Del Monte
Produce, Inc., are appealing the denial of class certification by
the state court of California.
Between March 17, 2004 and March 18, 2004, three alleged
individual consumers separately filed putative class action
complaints against the company and its subsidiaries in the state
court of California on behalf of residents of California who
purchased (other than for re-sale) Del Monte Gold(R) Extra Sweet
pineapples between March 1, 1996 and May 6, 2003.
On Nov. 9, 2005, the three actions were consolidated under one
amended complaint with a single claim for unfair competition in
violation of the California Business and Professional Code.
On Sept. 26, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class
action. The company and its subsidiaries filed an opposition on
Feb. 13, 2009, to which plaintiffs filed a reply on May 11, 2009.
At the hearing held on May 20, 2009, the court issued a tentative
opinion granting certification based on a California Supreme
Court decision issued on May 19, 2009, but requested further
briefing.
The company and plaintiffs have served supplemental briefs in
response.
On Aug. 20, 2009, the court reversed its tentative opinion of May
20, 2009 and denied class certification.
At the rescheduled case management conference held on Sept. 23,
2009, the court denied plaintiffs' request seeking withdrawal of
the court's class certification denial.
On Oct. 19, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the
court's order denying class certification.
No further developments were reported in the company's May 4,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended April 2, 2010.
Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. -- http://www.freshdelmonte.com/--
is a vertically integrated producer, marketer and distributor of
fresh and fresh-cut fruit and vegetables, as well as producer and
distributor of prepared fruit and vegetables, juices, beverages
and snacks. The company's global business, conducted through
subsidiaries, is primarily the worldwide sourcing, transportation
and marketing of fresh and fresh-cut produce together with
prepared food products in Europe, the Middle East and Africa.
Fresh Del Monte sources its products (bananas, pineapples,
melons, tomatoes, grapes, apples, pears, peaches, plums,
nectarines, cherries, kiwi) primarily from Central and South
America, Africa, and the Philippines. It also source products
from North America, Africa and Europe. The company distributes
its products in North America, Europe, Asia, the Middle East,
North Africa and South America. Fresh Del Monte markets its
products worldwide under the DEL MONTE brand.
FRESH DEL MONTE: Motion to Certify Class in Florida Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The motion of the plaintiffs to certify a class in a suit against
Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc., in Florida remains pending.
On April 19, 2004, an alleged individual consumer filed a
putative class action complaint against the company's
subsidiaries in the state court of Florida on behalf of Florida
residents who purchased (other than for re-sale) Del Monte
Gold(R) Extra Sweet pineapples between March 1, 1996 and May 6,
2003.
The only surviving claim under the amended complaint alleges
violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act relating only to pineapples purchased since April 19, 2000.
The company's subsidiaries filed an answer to the remaining claim
of the amended complaint on Oct. 12, 2006.
On Aug. 5, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class
action.
The company's subsidiaries filed an opposition on Jan. 22, 2009,
to which plaintiffs filed a reply on May 11, 2009.
No updates were reported in the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended April 2, 2010.
Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. -- http://www.freshdelmonte.com/--
is a vertically integrated producer, marketer and distributor of
fresh and fresh-cut fruit and vegetables, as well as producer and
distributor of prepared fruit and vegetables, juices, beverages
and snacks. The company's global business, conducted through
subsidiaries, is primarily the worldwide sourcing, transportation
and marketing of fresh and fresh-cut produce together with
prepared food products in Europe, the Middle East and Africa.
Fresh Del Monte sources its products (bananas, pineapples,
melons, tomatoes, grapes, apples, pears, peaches, plums,
nectarines, cherries, kiwi) primarily from Central and South
America, Africa, and the Philippines. It also source products
from North America, Africa and Europe. The company distributes
its products in North America, Europe, Asia, the Middle East,
North Africa and South America. Fresh Del Monte markets its
products worldwide under the DEL MONTE brand.
GLG PARTNERS: Man Group Deal Schallenged in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
Tanweer Zia, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. GLG Partners, Inc., et al., Case No. 650441/2010
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. May 24, 2010), accuses: (i) the
individual defendants of breaching their fiduciary duties to
GLG's public shareholders by consenting to sell the Company
through an insufficient process and for too low a price, and (ii)
GLG for aiding and abetting the individual defendants' breaches
of their fiduciary duties. The global asset management company
announced on May 17, 2010, that it had agreed to be acquired by
Man Group plc through a cash merger, and a share exchange
agreement with GLG's principals. Under the terms of the merger
agreement, Man will acquire the outstanding common stock of GLG
not subject to the share exchange for $4.50 per share through a
merger with a wholly owned subsidiary of Man. The transaction is
expected to close in the third quarter of 2010.
Mr. Zia alleges that the proposed transaction benefits only the
individual defendants at the expense of the Company's
shareholders. Mr. Zia relates that in the merger agreement, the
Company agreed that its officers and directors would receive
other benefits separate for those that would be received by the
Company's shareholders, including receiving stock in lieu of cash
pursuant to the share exchange agreement. Mr. Zia says that
these officers and directors would thus be able to participate in
the growth of the new company, to the exclusion of the Company's
common shareholders.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
Joseph Levi, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
30 Broad St., 15th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
- and -
Donald J. Enright, Esq.
Thomas M. Gottschlich, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
1050 30th Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20007
Telephone: (202) 337-8000
GLG PARTNERS: Man Group Deal Challenged in Del. Ch. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling GLG
Partners too cheaply through an unfair process to Man Group, for
$1.6 billion or $4.50 per share, shareholders claim in Delaware
Chancery Court.
A copy of the Complaint in Duva v. GLG Partners, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 5512 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/25/SCA.pdf
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carmella P. Keener, Esq.
Jessica Zeldin, Esq.
ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
919 North Market St., Suite 1401
Citizens Bank Center
P.O. Box 1070
Wilmington, DE 19899-1070
Telephone: 302-656-4433
- and -
Debra S. Goodman, Esq.
Henry J. Young, Esq.
THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C.
121 N. Wayne Ave., Suite 100
Wayne, PA 19087
Telephone: 610-225-2677
LAS VEGAS SANDS: Robbins Geller Files Shareholder Suit in D. Nev.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP filed a class action has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Las Vegas
Sands Corp. (NYSE:LVS) between August 1, 2007, and November 6,
2008, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel
H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900
or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com
If you are a member of this Class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/lasvegassands/
Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.
Fosbre v. Las Vegas Sands Corp., et al., Case No. 10-cv-_____ (D.
Nev.), charges Las Vegas Sands and certain of its officers and
executives with violations of the Exchange Act. Las Vegas Sands
and its subsidiaries own and operate resort and gaming properties
in Las Vegas, Macao and Singapore.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's true financial condition, business and prospects.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to
disclose that: (i) increasing competition in Macau was steadily
eroding the Company's foothold in the region, which undermined
defendants' representations that everything was proceeding
according to plan; (ii) the Company was facing a significant
liquidity crisis as a result of its ongoing expenditure of
capital in Macau and Singapore, which forced the Company to
divert funds from other operations to develop its Asian
properties; (iii) the Company could not, in fact, weather the
economic downturn, because the credit markets were drying up and
Las Vegas Sands had failed to timely access those markets; and
(iv) increasing visitor restrictions in Macau, which defendants
represented would not impact the Company as significantly as its
competitors (or otherwise publicly dismissed), were expected by
defendants to have just as devastating an effect on Las Vegas
Sands.
On November 6, 2008, the Company's auditor,
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, expressed doubt about the Company's
ability to continue as a going concern, prompting PwC to issue a
going concern qualification which alerted shareholders to the
true extent of the Company's perilous condition. In response, the
trading price of Las Vegas Sands common stock plummeted nearly
33%.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
the common stock of Las Vegas Sands during the Class Period. The
plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise
in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in
actions involving financial fraud.
Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com/-- is a 180-lawyer firm
with offices in San Diego, San Francisco, New York, Boca Raton,
Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Atlanta, and is active in
major litigations pending in federal and state courts throughout
the United States and has taken a leading role in many important
actions on behalf of defrauded investors, consumers, and
companies, as well as victims of human rights violations.
MASTERCARD INC: Settlement to Release Claims in Attridge Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California state court gave its preliminarily approval to the
settlement agreement which includes a release that encompasses
the claims asserted in the Attridge action, according to the
company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.
On April 29, 2005, a complaint was filed in California state
court on behalf of a putative class of consumers under California
unfair competition law (Section 17200) and the Cartwright Act
(Attridge action).
The claims in this action seek to piggyback on the portion of the
DOJ antitrust litigation with regard to the district court's
findings concerning MasterCard's CPP and Visa's related bylaw.
MasterCard and Visa moved to dismiss the complaint and the court
granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs'
Cartwright Act claims but denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss the plaintiffs' Section 17200 unfair competition claims.
MasterCard filed an answer to the complaint on June 19, 2006, and
the parties have proceeded with discovery.
On Sept. 14, 2009, MasterCard executed a settlement agreement
that is subject to court approval in the California consumer
litigations.
The agreement includes a release that the parties believe
encompasses the claims asserted in the Attridge action.
On Jan. 5, 2010, the court in the California consumer actions
executed an order preliminarily approving the settlement,
overruling objections by the plaintiff in the Attridge case.
A hearing on final approval of the settlement is set for
July 16, 2010.
MasterCard, Inc. -- http://www.mastercard.com/-- is a global
payment solutions company that provides a variety of services in
support of the credit, debit and related payment programs of over
24,000 financial institutions and other entities that are its
customers. Through its three-tiered business model as
franchisor, processor and advisor, the company develops and
markets payment solutions, process payment transactions, and
provides support services to its customers and, depending upon
the service, to merchants and other clients. It manages a family
of payment card brands, including MasterCard, MasterCard
Electronic, Maestro and Cirrus, which it licenses to its
customers. The Company conducts its business principally
through MasterCard Incorporated's principal operating subsidiary,
MasterCard International Incorporated.
MASTERCARD INC: Several Plaintiffs Withdraw Appeal
--------------------------------------------------
Several plaintiffs have requested to withdraw their appeals on
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York's final approval of the settlement agreements in the
lawsuit captioned In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust
Litigation, according to the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010.
MasterCard International, Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International
Corp., several member banks including Citibank (South Dakota),
N.A., Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A.
(USA), MBNA, and Citicorp Diners Club Inc. are defendants in a
number of federal putative class actions that allege, among other
things, violations of federal antitrust laws based on the
asserted one percent currency conversion "fee."
Pursuant to an order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, the federal complaints have been consolidated in MDL
No. 1409 before Judge William H. Pauley III in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.
In January 2002, the federal plaintiffs filed a Consolidated
Amended Complaint ("MDL Complaint") adding MBNA Corporation and
MBNA America Bank, N.A. as defendants.
This pleading asserts two theories of antitrust conspiracy under
Section 1 of the Sherman Act:
(i) an alleged "inter-association" conspiracy among
MasterCard (together with its members), Visa (together
with its members) and Diners Club to fix currency
conversion "fees" allegedly charged to cardholders of "no
less than 1% of the transaction amount and frequently
more"; and
(ii) two alleged "intra-association" conspiracies, whereby
each of Visa and MasterCard is claimed separately to have
conspired with its members to fix currency conversion
"fees" allegedly charged to cardholders of "no less than
1% of the transaction amount" and "to facilitate and
encourage institution-and collection-of second tier
currency conversion surcharges."
The MDL Complaint also asserts that the alleged currency
conversion "fees" have not been disclosed as required by the
Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z.
On July 20, 2006, MasterCard and the other defendants in the MDL
action entered into agreements settling the MDL action and
related matters, as well as the Schwartz matter. Pursuant to the
settlement agreements, MasterCard paid $72,480,000 to be
used for defendants' settlement fund to settle the MDL action and
$13,440,000 to settle the Schwartz matter. On Nov. 8, 2006,
Judge Pauley granted preliminary approval of the settlement
agreements. The settlement agreements are subject to final
approval by Judge Pauley, and resolution of all appeals. The
hearing on final approval of the settlement agreements was held
on March 31, 2008, and Judge Pauley reserved decision on final
approval.
On Nov. 15, 2006, the plaintiff in one of the New York state
court cases appealed the preliminary approval of the settlement
agreement to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
On June 6, 2007, the appellate court granted MasterCard's motion
to defer briefing until a final settlement is approved in the MDL
action. With regard to other state court currency
conversion actions, MasterCard has reached agreements in
principle with the plaintiffs for a total of $3,557,000, which
has been accrued. Settlement agreements have been executed with
plaintiffs in the Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Texas, Arkansas,
Tennessee, Arizona, New York, Minnesota and Illinois actions, but
such an agreement has not been executed with plaintiffs in the
Missouri action.
On Nov. 3, 2009, Judge Pauley signed a Final Judgment and Order
of Dismissal granting final approval to the settlement
agreements. On Nov. 20, 2009, the same plaintiff in the New York
state cases filed notice of appeal of final settlement approval
in the MDL action. Within the time period for appeal in the MDL
action, twelve other such notices of appeal were filed.
Subsequently, several plaintiffs have requested to withdraw their
appeals.
With regard to other state court currency conversion actions,
MasterCard has reached agreements in principle with the
plaintiffs. Settlement agreements have been executed with
plaintiffs in the Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Texas, Arkansas,
Tennessee, Arizona, New York, Minnesota, Illinois and Missouri
actions.
The suit is "In Re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation,
Master Docket No. 1:01-md-1409," (S.D.N.Y.) (Pauley, J.).
The plaintiffs are represented by::
David J. Bershad, Esq.
Michael Morris Buchman, Esq.
Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
One Pennsylvania Plaza
New York, NY 10119
Phone: (212) 594-5300 and (212) 946-9387
Fax: 212-868-1229
E-mail: mbuchman@milbergweiss.com
- and -
Christopher Burke, Esq.
Amelia F. Burroughs, Esq.
Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins, LLP
Suite 1800, 600 West Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 231-1058
Fax: (619) 231-7423
- and -
Sheldon V. Burman, Esq.
Law Offices of Sheldon V. Burman, PC
110 East 59th Street
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (212) 935-1600
MASTERCARD INC: Awaits Final Approval of Settlement Agreement
-------------------------------------------------------------
MasterCard International Incorporated continues to await final
approval of the settlement of putative class-action complaints
alleging state unfair competition, consumer protection and common
law claims, according to MasterCard Inc.'s May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010.
Individual or multiple complaints have been brought in 19
different states and the District of Columbia alleging state
unfair competition, consumer protection and common law claims
against MasterCard International (and Visa) on behalf of
putative classes of consumers.
The claims in these actions largely mirror the allegations made
in the U.S. merchant lawsuit and assert that merchants, faced
with excessive merchant discount fees, have passed these
overcharges to consumers in the form of higher prices on goods
and services sold.
MasterCard has been successful in dismissing cases in 17 of the
jurisdictions as courts have granted MasterCard's motions to
dismiss for failure to state a claim or plaintiffs have
voluntarily dismissed their complaints. However, there are
outstanding cases in New Mexico and California. The parties are
awaiting a decision on MasterCard's motion to dismiss in New
Mexico.
In December 2008, MasterCard reached an agreement in principle to
resolve the California state court actions for a payment by
MasterCard of $6,000,000. The parties are negotiating a
settlement agreement that will be subject to court approval.
On Sept. 14, 2009, the parties to the California state court
actions executed a settlement agreement which the parties believe
would resolve the actions, subject to approval by the California
state court. On Jan. 5, 2010, the court executed an order
preliminarily approving the settlement.
A hearing on final approval of the settlement is set for
July 16, 2010.
MasterCard, Inc. -- http://www.mastercard.com/-- is a global
payment solutions company that provides a variety of services in
support of the credit, debit and related payment programs of over
24,000 financial institutions and other entities that are its
customers. Through its three-tiered business model as
franchisor, processor and advisor, the company develops and
markets payment solutions, process payment transactions, and
provides support services to its customers and, depending upon
the service, to merchants and other clients. It manages a family
of payment card brands, including MasterCard, MasterCard
Electronic, Maestro and Cirrus, which it licenses to its
customers. The Company conducts its business principally
through MasterCard Incorporated's principal operating subsidiary,
MasterCard International Incorporated.
MASTERCARD INC: Bid to Junk Interchange Fees Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss the second consolidated class-action
complaint over MasterCard International Incorporated's
interchange fees remains pending.
On June 22, 2005, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by a
group of merchants in the U.S. District Court of Connecticut
against MasterCard International Incorporated, Visa U.S.A., Inc.,
Visa International Service Association and a number of member
banks alleging, among other things, that MasterCard's and Visa's
purported setting of interchange fees violates Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, which prohibits contracts, combinations and
conspiracies that unreasonably restrain trade. In addition, the
complaint alleges MasterCard's and Visa's purported tying and
bundling of transaction fees also constitutes a violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The suit seeks treble damages in
an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.
Since the filing of this complaint, there have been approximately
50 similar complaints (the majority styled as
class actions although a few complaints are on behalf of
individual plaintiffs) filed on behalf of merchants against
MasterCard and Visa (and in some cases, certain member banks) in
federal courts in California, New York, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania,
New Jersey, Ohio, Kentucky and Connecticut.
On Oct. 19, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
issued an order transferring these cases to Judge Gleeson of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York for
coordination of pre-trial proceedings in MDL No. 1720.
On April 24, 2006, the group of purported class plaintiffs filed
a First Amended Class Action Complaint.
Taken together, the claims in the First Amended Class Action
Complaint and in the complaints brought on the behalf of the
individual merchants are generally brought under both Section 1
of the Sherman Act and Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which
prohibits monopolization and attempts or conspiracies to
monopolize a particular industry.
Specifically, the complaints contain some or all of these claims:
(i) that MasterCard's and Visa's setting of interchange
fees (for both credit and offline debit transactions) violates
Section 1 of the Sherman Act; (ii) that MasterCard and Visa have
enacted and enforced various rules, including the no surcharge
rule and purported anti-steering rules, in violation of Section 1
or 2 of the Sherman Act; (iii) that MasterCard's and Visa's
purported bundling of the acceptance of premium credit cards to
standard credit cards constitutes an unlawful tying arrangement;
and (iv) that MasterCard and Visa have unlawfully tied and
bundled transaction fees. In addition to the claims brought
under federal antitrust law, some of these complaints contain
certain unfair competition law claims under state law based upon
the same conduct.
These interchange-related litigations also seek treble damages in
an unspecified amount (although several of the complaints
allege that the plaintiffs expect that damages will range in the
tens of billions of dollars), as well as attorneys' fees and
injunctive relief.
On June 9, 2006, MasterCard answered the complaint and moved to
dismiss or, alternatively, moved to strike the pre-2004 damage
claims that were contained in the First Amended Class Action
Complaint and moved to dismiss the Section 2 claims that were
brought in the individual merchant complaints. On Jan. 8, 2008,
the district court dismissed the plaintiffs' pre-2004 damage
claims. On May 14, 2008, the court denied MasterCard's motion to
dismiss the Section 2 monopolization claims. Fact discovery has
been proceeding and was generally completed by Nov. 21, 2008.
Briefs have been submitted on plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. The court heard oral argument on the plaintiffs'
class certification motion on Nov. 19, 2009. The parties are
awaiting a decision on the motion.
On Jan. 29, 2009, the class plaintiffs filed a Second
Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The allegations and claims
in this complaint generally mirror those in the first amended
class action complaint described above although plaintiffs have
added additional claims brought under Sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Act against MasterCard, Visa and a number of banks
alleging, among other things, that the networks and banks have
continued to fix interchange fees following each network's
initial public offering. On March 31, 2009, MasterCard and the
other defendants in the action filed a motion to dismiss the
Second Consolidated Class Action Complaint in its entirety, or
alternatively, to narrow the claims in the complaint. The
parties have fully briefed the motion and the court heard oral
argument on the motion on Nov. 18, 2009.
The parties are awaiting decisions on the motions.
No further developments were reported in the company's May 4,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.
MasterCard, Inc. -- http://www.mastercard.com/-- is a global
payment solutions company that provides a variety of services in
support of the credit, debit and related payment programs of over
24,000 financial institutions and other entities that are its
customers. Through its three-tiered business model as
franchisor, processor and advisor, the company develops and
markets payment solutions, process payment transactions, and
provides support services to its customers and, depending upon
the service, to merchants and other clients. It manages a family
of payment card brands, including MasterCard, MasterCard
Electronic, Maestro and Cirrus, which it licenses to its
customers. The Company conducts its business principally
through MasterCard Incorporated's principal operating subsidiary,
MasterCard International Incorporated.
MASTERCARD INC: Amended IPO-Related Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
A class-action complaint alleging violations related to
MasterCard Inc.'s initial public offering of its Class A Common
Stock in May 2006, remains pending.
On July 5, 2006, the group of purported class plaintiffs filed a
supplemental complaint alleging that MasterCard's IPO and
certain purported agreements entered into between MasterCard and
its member financial institutions in connection with the IPO: (1)
violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act because their effect
allegedly may be to substantially lessen competition, (2)
violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act because they allegedly
constitute an unlawful combination in restraint of trade and (3)
constitute a fraudulent conveyance because the member banks are
allegedly attempting to release without adequate consideration
from the member banks MasterCard's right to assess the member
banks for MasterCard's litigation liabilities in these
interchange-related litigations and in other antitrust
litigations pending against it.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and an order reversing
and unwinding the IPO.
On Sept. 15, 2006, MasterCard moved to dismiss all of the claims
contained in the supplemental complaint.
On Nov. 25, 2008, the district court granted MasterCard's motion
to dismiss the plaintiffs' supplemental complaint in its
entirety with leave to file an amended complaint.
On Jan. 29, 2009, the class plaintiffs repleaded their complaint
directed at MasterCard's IPO by filing a First Amended
Supplemental Class Action Complaint. The causes of action in the
complaint generally mirror those in the plaintiffs' original IPO-
related complaint although the plaintiffs have attempted to
expand their factual allegations based upon discovery that has
been garnered in the case. The class plaintiffs seek unspecified
damages and injunctive relief including, but not limited to, an
order reversing and unwinding the IPO.
On March 31, 2009, MasterCard filed a motion to dismiss the First
Amended Supplemental Class Action Complaint in its
entirety. The parties have fully briefed the motion to dismiss
and the court heard oral argument on the motion on Nov. 18, 2009.
The parties are awaiting a decision on the motion.
On July 2, 2009, the class plaintiffs and individual plaintiffs
served confidential expert reports detailing the plaintiffs'
theories of liability and alleging damages in the tens of
billions of dollars. The defendants served their expert reports
on Dec. 14, 2009 countering the plaintiffs' assertions of
liability and damages. Briefing on dispositive motions,
including summary judgment motions, is scheduled to be completed
on Oct. 25, 2010. No trial date has been scheduled.
The parties have also entered into court-recommended mediation.
No further developments were reported in the company's May 4,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.
MasterCard, Inc. -- http://www.mastercard.com/-- is a global
payment solutions company that provides a variety of services in
support of the credit, debit and related payment programs of over
24,000 financial institutions and other entities that are its
customers. Through its three-tiered business model as
franchisor, processor and advisor, the company develops and
markets payment solutions, process payment transactions, and
provides support services to its customers and, depending upon
the service, to merchants and other clients. It manages a family
of payment card brands, including MasterCard, MasterCard
Electronic, Maestro and Cirrus, which it licenses to its
customers. The Company conducts its business principally
through MasterCard Incorporated's principal operating subsidiary,
MasterCard International Incorporated.
OHIO: Suit Challenges Bureau of Workers Compensation Payments
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Koeninger at Courthouse News Service reports that Ohio is
giving Chase Bank a cut of workers compensation payments due to
injured workers, a class action claims in Cuyahoga County Court.
Lead plaintiff Michael Cirino claims the Ohio Bureau of Workers'
Compensation requires him to get his check through a Chase debit
card, and the bank charges him if he makes more than one
withdrawal a month.
Mr. Cirino claims the state did not give him the option of
"continuing to receive claims payment drafts or checks," but told
him that "For your security and convenience, BWC has established
an electronic transfer benefits (EBT) debit card account for
you." The Bureau of Workers' Compensation (BWC) issued his card
through Chase bank, Mr. Cirino says. He is or was receiving $443
a week in workers' comp, payable biweekly in $886 payments.
Mr. Cirino says that since the state sent him the form letter in
August 2009, he has had to get his worker's comp money from ATMs
owned and operated by Chase Bank.
And while the state claimed that the ATM's are surcharge-free,
Mr. Cirino says, "fees or surcharges are deducted or collected
for each transaction in excess of one per month and in order to
withdraw the payments that are credited to his account every 14
days, Mr. Cirino incurs fees, costs or deductions."
Mr. Cirino claims injured workers "have received reduced claim
payment amounts due to the withheld and collected transaction
fees that have been improperly and unlawfully charged against
their account balances."
Mr. Cirino claims this violates Ohio law. He seeks declaratory
judgment, class damages and restitution. Chase is not named as a
defendant; only the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation is.
A copy of the Complaint in Cirino v. Ohio Bureau of Workers'
Compensation, Case No. CV10727380 (Ohio C.P. Ct., Cuyahoga Cty.),
is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/25/WorkComp.pdf
The Plaintiff is represented by:
W. Craig Bashein, Esq.
John Hurst, Esq.
BASHEIN & BASHEIN CO., L.P.A.
Terminal Tower, 35th Floor
50 Public Square
Cleveland, OH 44113-2216
Telephone: 216-771-3239
E-mail: cbashein@basheinlaw.com
jhurst@basheinlaw.com
- and -
Charles J. Gallo, Esq.
CHARLES J. GALLO CO., L.P.A.
55 Public Square, Suite 2222
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: 216-771-1081
E-mail: gallolawfirm@aol.com
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: No Ruling Yet in "Hines" Suit Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York has
yet to rule on Overstock.com, Inc.'s appeal on the denial of
dismissal of a class action filed by Cynthia Hines, according to
the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.
On March 10, 2009, the company was sued in a class action filed
in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York.
Cynthia Hines is the nominative plaintiff. Ms. Hines alleges the
company failed to properly disclose its returns policy to her and
that it improperly imposed a "restocking" charge on her return of
a vacuum cleaner. The nominative plaintiff on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated, seeks damages under claims for
breach of contract, common law fraud and New York consumer fraud
laws.
The company filed a motion to dismiss based upon assertions that
the company's agreement with its customers requires all such
actions to be arbitrated in Salt Lake City, Utah. Alternatively,
the company asked that the case be transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Utah, so that arbitration may
be compelled in that district.
On Sept. 8, 2009 the motion to dismiss was denied, the court
stating that the company's browsewrap agreement was insufficient
under New York law to establish an agreement with the customer to
arbitrate disputes in Utah.
On Oct. 8, 2009, the company filed a Notice of Appeal of the
court's ruling and the appeal is in the briefing stage.
The appeal has been argued, but the court has not yet ruled on
the appeal.
Overstock.com, Inc. -- http://www.overstock.com/-- is an online
retailer offering brand-name merchandise at discount prices. The
company offers its customers an opportunity to shop for bargains
conveniently, while offering its suppliers an alternative
inventory distribution channel.
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: California Court Accepts Proposed Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has accepted the proposed settlement resolving a class action
suit against Overstock.com, Inc., over its use of a product known
as Facebook Beacon, according to the company's May 4, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2010.
On Aug. 12, 2008, the company along with seven other defendants,
was sued in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, by Sean Lane, and seventeen other individuals, on
their own behalf and for others similarly in a class action suit,
alleging violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Video Privacy Protection Act, and
California's Consumer legal Remedies Act and Computer Crime Law.
The complaint relates to the company's use of a product known as
Facebook Beacon, created and provided to the company by Facebook,
Inc. Facebook Beacon provided the means for Facebook users to
share purchasing data among their Facebook friends.
The parties extended by agreement the time for defendants'
answer, including the company's answer, and thereafter, the
Plaintiff and Facebook proposed a stipulated settlement to the
court for approval, which would resolve the case without
requirement of financial contribution from the company.
On March 17, 2010, over objections lodged by some parties, the
court accepted the proposed settlement.
Unless the objecting parties appeal, the company expects the
court's acceptance to be final in May 2010 and the administrative
details of settlement to be finalized in the months following.
Overstock.com, Inc. -- http://www.overstock.com/-- is an online
retailer offering brand-name merchandise at discount prices. The
company offers its customers an opportunity to shop for bargains
conveniently, while offering its suppliers an alternative
inventory distribution channel.
PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Class Action Complaint Filed in Israel
--------------------------------------------------------------
On May 24, 2010, Partner Communications Company Ltd. was served
with a lawsuit and a motion for its recognition as a class
action, filed on May 23, 2010 against Partner and the other
cellular operators, in Israel's Central District Court (Petach
Tikva). The claim alleges that Partner, as well as the other
defendants, is breaching its contractual and/or legal obligation
to erect cellular sites in the appropriate scope, quantity and
coverage in order to provide cellular services in the required
and appropriate quality. The plaintiffs claimed that this
omission also causes, inter alia, monetary damages caused to
consumers as a result of lack of sufficient coverage, including
call disconnections, insufficient voice quality etc., as well as
a significant increase in the non-ionized radiation that the
public is exposed to mainly from the cellular telephone handset.
In addition, it is claimed that Partner and the other defendants
are breaching their contractual and/or legal obligation to ensure
and/or check and/or repair and/or notify the consumer, that after
repair and/or upgrade and/or exchange of cellular handsets, the
handsets may emit radiation in levels that exceed the levels of
radiation as set forth by the manufacturer in the handset data
and even exceeds the maximum permitted levels set forth by law.
In addition, it was claimed that Partner and the other defendants
do not fulfill their obligation to caution and warn the consumers
of the risks involved in holding the handset and the proximity of
the handset to the body while carrying it and during a phone
call. In addition, it was claimed that if the handsets marketed
by the Company and the other defendants emit non-ionizing
radiation above the permitted level, at any distance from the
body, then the marketing and sale of such handsets is prohibited
in Israel. The total amount claimed is estimated by the
plaintiffs to be approximately NIS 3.677 billion.
Partner Communications Company Ltd. is a leading Israeli provider
of telecommunications services (cellular, fixed-line telephony
and internet services) under the orange(TM) brand. The Company
provides mobile communications services to over 3 million
subscribers in Israel (as of December 31, 2009). Partner's ADSs
are quoted on the NASDAQ Global Select Market(TM) and its shares
are traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (NASDAQ and TASE:
PTNR).
Partner is an approximately 45%-owned subsidiary of Scailex
Corporation Ltd. Scailex's shares are traded on the Tel Aviv
Stock Exchange under the symbol SCIX and are quoted on "Pink
Quote" under the symbol SCIXF.PK. Scailex currently operates in
two major domains of activity in addition to its holding in
Partner (after selling "Dynamic", a chain of retail stores and
booths to Cellcom on April 1, 2010): (1) the sole import,
distribution and maintenance of Samsung mobile handset and
accessories products primarily to the major cellular operators in
Israel (2) management of its financial assets.
PELICAN INTERNATIONAL: Recalls 250 Utility Sled Tow Hitches
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Pelican International, of Quebec, Canada, announced a voluntary
recall of about 250 Utility sled tow hitches. Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.
The screw(s) in the hitch can become loose and fall off due to
vibrations when items are being towed, allowing the sled and
hitch to detach from the towing vehicle. This poses an injury
hazard to the user and bystanders.
The firm has received 10 reports of the screw coming loose. No
injuries have been reported.
The tow hitch pivot is black metal and measures about 9.25 inches
in length and 3.25 inches in diameter. The hitch is used in
connection with the Pelican Snow Trek Utility sled. The hitch
allows a Snow Trek sled to be connected to a snowmobile or other
similar transportation device. Recalled models include:
Product code Product Name UPC
------------ ------------ ---
LDT60PC00 Snow Trek 60 with runners and hitch 776324512597
LDT75PC01 Snow Trek 75 with runners and hitch 776324514041
LDT75PD01 Snow Trek 75 with runners, hitch
and cover 776324515222
PS2003-1 Kit Sled Tow Hitch 776324511101
PS2003-00 Kit Sled Tow Hitch 776324506480
PS2003-1-00 Kit Sled Two Hitch 776324512689
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10242.html
The recalled products were manufactured in China and Canada and
sold through Paricon Inc., V.G. Grace and other regional
distributors and sports retailers nationwide from January 2007
through December 2009 for about $50 if sold alone, and between
$130 and $250 if sold with the sled.
Consumers should immediately stop using the sled tow hitch and
contact the firm to receive a free replacement kit and
installation instructions. For additional information, contact
Pelican International toll-free at (888) 669-6960 between
8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday or visit the firm's
Website at http://www.pelicansport.com/
PR MARKETING: Sued for Refusal to Refund $78.95 Payment
-------------------------------------------------------
Shenina Fletcher, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. PR Marketing, Inc., d/b/a Cardinal Fitness
Management, et al., Case No. 2010-CH-21951 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook
Cty. May 21, 2010), asserts violations of the Illinois Physical
Services Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act. Ms. Fletcher says that on July 20, 2009,
she sent Cardinal Fitness a notice of cancellation by certified
mail, but Cardinal Fitness refused to refund the $78.95 that she
paid through her credit card. Ms. Fletcher explains that under
the relevant provisions of the Illinois Physical Fitness Services
Act all contract for physical fitness services may be cancelled
by the customer within 3 business days, and all monies paid may
be refunded to the customer.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lance A. Raphael, Esq.
Stacy M. Bardo, Esq.
Allison A. Krumhorn, Esq.
Ravinder S. Sahota, Esq.
THE CONSUMER ADVOCACY CENTER, P.C.
180 West Washington, Suite 700
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 782-5808
- and -
Jonathan Nachsin, Esq.
JONATHAN NACHSIN, P.C.
105 West Adams St., Suite 3000
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 327-1777
ROCK OF AGES: Shareholder Suit Complains About Swenson Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rock of Ages Corporation learned that a purported shareholder of
Rock of Ages has commenced a purported class action lawsuit
against Rock of Ages, all of the members of its Board of
Directors and certain officers, and Swenson Granite Company, LLC,
in connection with the previously announced acquisition proposal
submitted by Swenson on May 6, 2010 to Rock of Ages' Board of
Directors. The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the
directors and named officer defendants of Rock of Ages breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with the Swenson proposal,
that Swenson's proposed offer is inadequate, and that the persons
constituting a group with Swenson with respect to the Swenson
proposal, including Rock of Ages' controlling shareholders, would
benefit from the proposed transaction to the detriment of Rock of
Ages' other shareholders. The plaintiff seeks, among other
things, damages and injunctive relief against the consummation of
the transaction proposed by Swenson. Rock of Ages believes the
complaint is without merit and plans a vigorous defense.
As previously reported, a Special Committee of independent
directors has determined to commence a process to explore
possible strategic alternatives for Rock of Ages while it
continues to evaluate the Swenson proposal. The Special Committee
has retained legal counsel and Covington Associates LLC as its
financial advisor to assist and advise the Special Committee in
connection with these matters. There can be no assurance that the
Swenson proposal will lead to a definitive acquisition agreement,
or that a transaction contemplated by the Swenson proposal or any
other transaction will be approved or completed.
About Rock of Ages
Rock of Ages -- http://www.RockofAges.com/-- is the largest
integrated granite quarrier and manufacturer of finished granite
memorials and granite blocks for memorial use in North America.
SUN LIFE: E.D. Mich. Lawsuit Seeks Reversal of Claim Denials
------------------------------------------------------------
An occupationally disabled woman suffering from severe back
injury has filed a lawsuit alleging that Sun Life Assurance
Company of Canada violated insurance reforms issued by the State
of Michigan's Insurance Commissioner and applicable to disability
insurance contracts delivered within the state. The lawsuit
seeks class action status for all persons who were covered under
short and long-term disability contracts issued by Sun Life after
June 1, 2007 and which contained so-called "discretionary proof"
clauses and had their claims denied by Sun Life. The lawsuit
seeks to overturn all denied claims and require Sun Life to
reimburse policyholders for their lost benefits.
The lawsuit was filed by Reyna Allen, a former hourly employee,
whose disability claim was denied after several attempts to
overturn the denial using Sun Life's mandated appeals process.
After Ms. Allen exhausted the company's internal appeals, Sun
Life claimed that it was "not satisfied" that Ms. Allen's medical
condition had caused a loss of income.
The 2008 disability insurance contract issued by Sun Life to Ms.
Allen contained a discretionary proof clause. The lawsuit
alleges that the contract was issued in violation of insurance
regulations.
Discretionary proof clauses have been the subject of intense
scrutiny by state regulators and insurance commissioners. The
clauses provide that an insurer will pay a disability claim only
if it is "satisfied" with the policyholder's proof. Many insured
persons claim that despite extensive proof of medical disability,
including surgical reports, treatment records, and doctors'
affidavits, Sun Life and other insurers are "never satisfied"
leaving them without disability coverage.
On June 1, 2007, the State of Michigan Insurance Commissioner
outlawed discretionary proof clauses in all disability contracts
delivered within the state. The insurance industry challenged
the Michigan regulation, and on March 18, 2009, a federal appeals
court decision found that the Michigan regulation was valid and
lawful in American Council of Life Insurers v. Ross, 558 F.3d 600
(6th Cir. 2009).
"Our suit alleges that discretionary proof clauses have been used
by Sun Life and other insurance companies to wrongfully deny
valid disability claims for years," said John J. Conway, one of
the attorneys representing Ms. Allen.
"The State of Michigan's Insurance Commissioner wisely recognized
that insurers who wrongfully deny disability claims were harming
Michigan's residents and adding to our economic difficulties.
When hard-working people become disabled and have insurance when
illness or injury strikes, they should not be forced onto the
public assistance rolls," said Mr. Conway.
"The class we seek to represent are people who acted responsibly.
They purchased insurance coverage in the event that they became
sick or injured. The Complaint alleges that Sun Life wrongfully
denied their claims and held policyholders to a higher level of
proof than Michigan law requires," said Gerard Mantese, one of
the attorneys representing Ms. Allen.
"Insurers are hurting our residents when they are most
vulnerable. As a result, everyone in Michigan suffers because
these individuals cannot pay their medical bills, their housing
payments, or car payments. Often times, these residents file for
bankruptcy, their homes fall into foreclosure, and the only place
to turn is to public assistance. All the while they had
insurance that was supposed to protect them," said Conway.
The Plaintiff in Allen v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada,
Case No. 10-cv-12043 (E.D. Mich.) (O'Meara, J.), is represented
by:
John J. Conway, Esq.
JOHN J. CONWAY, PC
622 Woodward Ave., Ste. 225
Royal Oak, MI 48067
Telephone: 313-961-6525
- and -
Gerard Mantese, Esq.
MANTESE HONIGMAN ROSSMAN AND WILLIAMSON, PC
1361 E. Big Beaver
Troy, MI 48083
Telephone: 248-457-9200
TOYOTA MOTOR: Calif. Accelerator Suits Combined in Los Angeles
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad at The National Law Journal reports that lawsuits
filed in California's state courts against Toyota Motor Corp.
over sudden unintended acceleration will be coordinated in a
single proceeding, a Los Angeles judge ruled tentatively on
Tuesday.
The proceeding was the first to address at least 21 lawsuits
filed in California's state courts over a myriad of claims that
include economic losses on behalf of consumers, lemon law
violations and damages for those who have been injured or died in
a Toyota.
"The common thread is unintended acceleration that binds these
cases together," Los Angeles County, Calif., Superior Court Judge
Carl West told a group of 30 lawyers in a downtown Los Angeles
courtroom.
The state court actions are separate from nearly 300 lawsuits
pending in multidistrict litigation in federal court in Santa
Ana, Calif.
Lawyers on both sides of the state court cases have attempted to
coordinate them into a single proceeding to expedite and
streamline the discovery process, particularly as it relates to
depositions. Leading that effort has been:
Mark P. Robinson, Jr.
ROBINSON, CALCAGNIE & ROBINSON INC.
620 Newport Center Drive, 7th Floor
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: 949-720-1288
Calcagnie & Robinson, who was named co-liaison counsel of the
personal injury and wrongful death plaintiffs' steering committee
in the federal MDL.
Five plaintiffs lawyers with eight personal injury or wrongful
death lawsuits argued against coordinating the cases.
"We'll be slowed down considerably," said:
Garo Mardirossian, Esq.
MARDIROSSIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
6311 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90048
Telephone: 323-617-4510
who represents the husband of a woman who died on Aug. 28 after
her Toyota accelerated to 100 miles per hour, crashing into a
median.
Also opposing coordination was:
John Gomez, Esq.
THE GOMEZ LAW FIRM
625 Broadway, Suite #1200
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 619-237-3490
who represents the relatives of California Highway Patrol Officer
Mark Saylor. Saylor was killed, along with his wife, his daughter
and his brother-in-law, when his Lexus crashed after suddenly
accelerating to 120 miles per hour on a San Diego highway.
The Aug. 28 crash prompted Toyota's first wave of recalls, which
now number more than 8 million vehicles worldwide.
Gomez told the judge that in the state court claims against
Bridgestone Corp.'s Firestone Tire Co. years ago, not all the
individual personal injury cases were coordinated even though
there were far more of them than in the Toyota litigation.
The judge did not seem persuaded. "We have five to eight here to
begin with. How many more are there?" he said.
Toyota's lawyer:
Lisa Gilford, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
333 South Hope Street, 16th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: 213-576-1000
E-mail: lisa.gilford@alston.com
said she preferred to have all the cases in a single proceeding.
But she recognized the individual facts inherent in the personal
injury and wrongful death cases, which could number as many as 15
in California's state courts.
"We are acknowledging certain types of cases will likely move
along different tracks," she said.
In the end, West issued a tentative order coordinating the cases
under a state procedure called Judicial Council Coordinated
Proceedings, or JCCP.
"I'm sympathetic to the concern you have but also think that
there are significant issues to be addressed" in all the cases,
West told the lawyers opposing the move. Among those issues are
the defects and claims regarding failure to warn and negligence.
He offered two options for combining the actions, however. One
option would create a second coordinated proceeding before the
same judge to address specific issues unique to the personal
injury and wrongful death cases. Another option, he said, would
allow the cases to move forward in the same proceeding but on a
separate track that would be "reflective of their different
characteristics."
The judge refused to rule on where the coordinated proceeding
should take place. He left that decision to California's chief
justice, Ronald George.
Most of the plaintiffs' lawyers argued that the cases should be
coordinated in Los Angeles, while Gilford requested Orange
County, where the federal MDL is taking place. Orange County
District Attorney Tony Rackauckas said the Orange County, Calif.,
Superior Court is "not terribly congested."
"We are certainly able to come to L.A. if that's what is
determined, but we think Orange County makes sense," he said.
TRANSOCEAN LTD: Seeks Delay of Depositions in Oil Spill Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ramit Plushnick-Masti at The Associated Press reports that the
company that owns the sunken Deepwater Horizon rig argued in
federal court Tuesday that plaintiffs should not begin collecting
evidence and testimony on the Gulf oil spill until the November
deadline for claimants to file suit.
Transocean Ltd. made its arguments in Houston after the federal
court there accepted the company's petition to limit its
liability in the oil spill to less than $27 million, the amount
the company says the sunken rig is worth, as reported in the
May 17, 2010, edition of the Class Action Reporter.
U.S. District Judge Keith Ellison made no rulings Tuesday. He
scheduled two more court dates for early June, noting he wants to
focus on whether the suit should remain in Texas or move
elsewhere and whether depositions should begin immediately.
Ellison indicated he didn't want to wait.
"Is that a luxury we have in this case? Isn't that an awful long
delay?" he asked the Transocean attorneys who argued to wait
until all the lawsuits have been filed.
Transocean owned the rig that blew up April 20, killing 11
workers and causing one of the worst U.S. oil spills in decades.
The liability limit set by Ellison's court is based on a 19th
century federal maritime law. Lawsuits have been filed in
numerous states, and Transocean has said it filed its petition
under the 1851 Shipowner's Limitation of Liability Act to get all
the lawsuits aggregated in one court.
Attorneys representing workers' widows and workers injured in the
initial explosion said the limitation can be broken if they can
prove Transocean was negligent. They also argued it was unfair to
make families who have suffered wait even longer.
Kurt Arnold, an attorney who has filed suit on behalf of at least
15 families, argued he can get the case moving along if he is
allowed to begin the evidence-collecting process immediately.
"Let's get some documents produced in 30 days," Arnold argued.
"Let's get some depositions and then we'll prove to Your Honor
that we don't even need limitations."
While the judge acknowledged the families' pain and what he
called a "horrific personal tragedy," he also noted the lawsuits
and issues were complex.
"I do want to proceed cautiously," Ellison said. "I know the
stakes are high."
TRANSOCEAN LTD: Ryan & Maniskas Fishing for 401(k) Participants
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP says it is investigating potential claims
against Transocean Ltd. (NYSE: RIG) concerning whether the
Company's retirement plans imprudently invested in Transocean
stock and whether the Plans' administrators breached their
fiduciary duties to participants in violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
For more information regarding this investigation, please
contact:
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
Telephone: (877) 316-3218
E-mail: rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com
http://www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/transocean401k/
The Firm's investigation concerns whether Transocean, which
permitted investment of Company stock in Transocean's retirement
plans, breached its fiduciary duty to plan participants by
failing to disclose known hazards associated with its use of
certain blowout preventers on ultra-deepwater drilling
engagements from investors in its 2009 and 2010 statements. These
actions made investing in Transocean stock by plan participants
an imprudent investment.
UNITED STATES: Settlement in Freedmen Suit Discriminatory
---------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Curtis at Courthouse News Service reports that descendants
of slaves once owned by Native Americans demand a cut of a $3.4
billion class-action settlement that Congress is reviewing, from
the case of Cobell v. Ken Salazar. The Harvest Institute Freedom
Federation claims that the settlement resolving the Department of
the Interior's centuries-long abuse of Native American trust
funds "perpetuates past unlawful racial discrimination" by
failing to compensate "Freedmen slaves of the Five Civilized
tribes."
Some freedmen were given membership in some tribes after slavery
was abolished, according to the federal complaint.
The so-called Five Civilized tribes were the Cherokee, Creek,
Choctaw, Chickasaw and Seminoles.
Eloise Cobell, a Blackfoot, is lead plaintiff in a long-running
class action against the Department of the Interior, which spent,
lost and otherwise abused billions of dollars it was supposed to
hold in trust for Native Americans, for more than a century. The
class action turned up a history of such incompetence and deceit
over so many years that the federal judge hearing the case in
Washington, D.C., Royce Lambeth, eventually was removed from it
after a series of blistering rulings against the federal
government. The case was settled in December 2009. The
settlement calls for $1.4 billion to go to plaintiffs and their
attorneys, and $2 billion to be used to repurchase land that the
government gave away or sold.
The legislation at issue, the American Workers, State and
Business Relief Act of 2010, was approved by the Senate on May
18. A vote is pending on the House version, H.R. 4213.
The Harvest Institute wants that vote enjoined, claiming that it
will irreparably harm the descendants of freedmen, unless their
claims are considered. The Harvest Institute claim that the Five
Civilized Tribes made treaties with the Confederacy during the
Civil War, but that the United States has not repudiated its
obligations to the rebellious tribes, though the legislation in
effect repudiates its obligation to their slaves.
The class wants approval of the settlement enjoined, and the
House vote enjoined, until the class's rights are considered.
A copy of the Complaint in Harvest Institute Freedman Federation,
LLC, et al. v. The United States of America, et al., Case No. 10-
cv-00449 (S.D. Ohio) (Smith, J.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/25/Freedmen.pdf
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Percy Squire, Esq.
PERCY SQUIRE CO., LLC
514 S. High St.
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: 614-224-6528
E-mail: psquire@sp-lawfirm.com
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS ALERT: Exposure Claim v. Cinch Filed Jan. 10 in Oregon
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bel Fuse Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Cinch, is a defendant in
an asbestos lawsuit captioned Engelbrecht v. Motorola, et al.
brought in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the
County of Douglas on Jan. 10, 2010.
With respect to this action, the plaintiff claims that Cinch was
engaged in the manufacture and sale of asbestos-containing radio
components which allegedly caused him to sustain personal
injuries due to his exposure to asbestos.
Cinch filed an answer to the Complaint, denying any legal
liability or fault for the damages alleged in the Complaint, and
affirmatively pleaded that the plaintiff's alleged damages, if
any, were caused by persons for whom Cinch is not responsible.
COMPANY PROFILE:
Bel Fuse Inc.
206 Van Vorst St.
Jersey City, N.J. 07302
Phone: 201-432-0463
Fax: 201-432-9542
Description:
The Company designs, manufactures and markets a broad array of
magnetics, modules (including power conversion and integrated
modules), circuit protection devices and interconnect products.
ASBESTOS ALERT: Savoir Penalized GBP15,000 for Safety Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Savoir Developments Ltd was fined a total of GBP15,000 at
Bournemouth Crown Court on May 21, 2010 for exposing employees
and members of the public to the danger of asbestos containing
material while carrying out work at a property in Poole,
according to a Health and Safety Executive press release dated
May 21, 2010.
Savoir, of Colchester, Essex, England, pleaded guilty at earlier
hearing to breaching Regulation 5 and Regulation 16 of the
Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and was fined GBP7,500 for
each offense.
The Company failed to carry out a sufficient assessment as to
whether asbestos might be present, which potentially exposed
employees and also failed to reduce the spread of asbestos on
site. Savoir was also ordered to pay costs of GBP10,461.
The incident happened at 24 Market Street, Poole in March 2008 as
the building was being converted into three residential
properties.
Following concern raised by neighbors about dust from the work,
an HSE inspector visited the site. After the hearing, HSE
inspector, Kathy Gostick, said, "This sentence sends a clear
message that employers must check for the presence of asbestos
and take measures to ensure its safe handling and removal and to
avoid its spread."
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9 Lorillard, Inc. Lawsuits Scheduled for Trial
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. says that, as of May 3, 2010, nine asbestos-
related Filter Cases were scheduled for trial, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed on May 6, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Trial dates are subject to change.
As of Feb. 22, 2010, ten asbestos-related Filter Cases were
scheduled for trial. (Class Action Reporter, March 12, 2010)
Claims have been brought against the Company and its subsidiary,
Lorillard Tobacco Company, by individuals who seek damages
resulting from their alleged exposure to asbestos fibers that
were incorporated into filter material used in one brand of
cigarettes manufactured by Lorillard Tobacco for a limited period
of time ending more than 50 years ago. Lorillard Tobacco is a
defendant in 30 cases.
The Company is a defendant in four Filter Cases, including two
that also name Lorillard Tobacco. Since Jan. 1, 2008, Lorillard
Tobacco has paid, or has reached agreement to pay, a total of
about US$14.3 million in settlements to finally resolve about 75
claims.
The related expense was recorded in selling, general and
administrative expenses on the consolidated statements of income.
Since Jan. 1, 2008, verdicts have been returned in two Filter
Cases.
During September 2008, a jury in the District Court of Bexar
County, Tex., returned a verdict for Lorillard Tobacco in the
case of Young v. Lorillard Tobacco Company. Plaintiffs in the
Young case did not pursue an appeal and that matter is concluded.
In January 2010, a jury in the Superior Court of California, Los
Angeles County, returned a verdict for Lorillard Tobacco in the
case of Cox v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd., et al. In the case of
Cox, the deadline for plaintiffs to pursue an appeal had not
expired as of May 3, 2010.
Based in Greensboro, N.C., Lorillard, Inc., through its
subsidiaries, manufactures and sells cigarettes. Its principal
products are marketed under the brand names of Newport, Kent,
True, Maverick and Old Gold with substantially all of its sales
in the United States of America.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. ConEd, Units
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc. and its subsidiaries (Consolidated
Edison of New York, Inc. [CECONY] and Orange and Rockland
Utilities, Inc.) are still defendants in asbestos-related
lawsuits in New York State and federal courts.
In these cases, a large number of plaintiffs sought large amounts
of compensatory and punitive damages for deaths and injuries
allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos at various premises of
the Utilities.
The suits that have been resolved, which are many, have been
resolved without any payment by the Utilities, or for amounts
that were not material to them. The amounts specified in all the
remaining thousands of suits total billions of dollars. However,
the Utilities believe that these amounts are greatly exaggerated,
based on the disposition of previous claims.
In 2008, CECONY estimated that its aggregate undiscounted
potential liability for these suits and additional suits that may
be brought over the next 15 years is US$9 million.
At March 31, 2010, the Company's accrued liability for asbestos
suits was US$10 million, its regulatory assets for asbestos suits
were US$10 million, its accrued liability for workers'
compensation was US$111 million, and its regulatory assets for
workers' compensation were US$36 million.
At March 31, 2010, CECONY's accrued liability for asbestos suits
was US$9 million, its regulatory assets for asbestos suits were
US$9 million, its accrued liability for workers' compensation was
US$106 million, and its regulatory assets for workers'
compensation were US$36 million.
The Company's asbestos-related costs were US$10 million as of
both March 31, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009. CECONY's asbestos-related
costs were US$9 million as of both March 31, 2010 and Dec. 31,
2009.
Based in New York, Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s main subsidiary,
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, distributes electricity
to 3.3 million residential and business customers in New York
City; it also delivers natural gas to about 1.1 million
customers.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ConEd Still Has 100 Steam Main Rupture Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
About 100 lawsuits are still pending against Consolidated Edison,
Inc. concerning its subsidiary Consolidated Edison Company of New
York's (CECONY) steam main rupture in midtown Manhattan in July
2007.
In July 2007, a CECONY steam main located in midtown Manhattan
ruptured. It has been reported that one person died and others
were injured as a result of the incident.
Several buildings in the area were damaged. Debris from the
incident included dirt and mud containing asbestos.
The response to the incident required the closing of several
buildings and streets for various periods.
Based in New York, Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s main subsidiary,
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, distributes electricity
to 3.3 million residential and business customers in New York
City; it also delivers natural gas to about 1.1 million
customers.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. Gardner Denver
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gardner Denver, Inc. continues to be a defendant in a number of
asbestos personal injury lawsuits, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed on May 6, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The plaintiffs in these suits allege exposure to asbestos from
multiple sources and typically the Company is one of about 25 or
more named defendants. In the Company's experience to date, the
substantial majority of the plaintiffs have not suffered an
injury for which the Company bears responsibility.
Predecessors to the Company sometimes manufactured, distributed
and/or sold products allegedly at issue in the pending asbestos
litigation lawsuits.
However, neither the Company nor its predecessors ever mined,
manufactured, mixed, produced or distributed asbestos fiber, the
materials that allegedly caused the injury underlying the
lawsuits. Moreover, the asbestos-containing components of the
Products, if any, were enclosed within the subject Products.
The Company has entered into a series of cost-sharing agreements
with multiple insurance companies to secure coverage for asbestos
lawsuits. The Company also believes some of the potential
liabilities regarding these lawsuits are covered by indemnity
agreements with other parties.
Based in Quincy, Ill., Gardner Denver, Inc. makes blowers,
petroleum pumps, and various compressors, such as reciprocating,
rotary screw, and sliding vane compressors, as well as positive
displacement and centrifugal blowers.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Still Pending v. Wabtec, Units
----------------------------------------------------------------
Claims have been filed against Westinghouse Air Brake
Technologies Corporation and certain of its affiliates in various
jurisdictions across the United States by persons alleging bodily
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products.
Most of these claims have been made against the Company's wholly
owned subsidiary, Railroad Friction Products Corporation (RFPC),
and are based on a product sold by RFPC prior to the time that
the Company acquired any interest in RFPC.
Most of these claims, including all of the RFPC claims, are
submitted to insurance carriers for defense and indemnity or to
non-affiliated companies that retain the liabilities for the
asbestos-containing products at issue.
Based in Wilmerding, Pa., Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies
Corporation (d/b/a Wabtec) provides equipment and services for
the global rail industry. In 2009, the Company had sales of about
US$1.4 billion and net income of about US$115.1 million.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Premises" Cases Still Pending Against Huntsman
----------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Corporation has been named as a "premises defendant" in
a number of asbestos exposure cases, typically claims by non-
employees of exposure to asbestos while at a facility.
In the past, these cases typically have involved multiple
plaintiffs bringing actions against multiple defendants, and the
complaints have not indicated which plaintiffs were making claims
against which defendants, where or how the alleged injuries
occurred or what injuries each plaintiff claimed.
Where a claimant's alleged exposure occurred before the Company's
ownership of the "premises," the prior owners generally have
contractually agreed to retain liability for, and to indemnify
the Company against, asbestos exposure claims.
During the three months ended March 31, 2010, the Company
recorded six tendered claims, five resolved claims, and 1,130
unresolved claims. During the three months ended March 31, 2009,
the Company recorded six tendered claims, 10 resolved claims, and
1,136 unresolved claims.
The Company has never made any payments with respect to these
cases. As of March 31, 2010, the Company had an accrued liability
of US$16 million relating to these cases and a corresponding
receivable of US$16 million relating to its indemnity protection
with respect to these cases.
Certain cases in which the Company is a "premises defendant" are
not subject to indemnification by prior owners or operators.
During the three months ended March 31, 2010, the Company
recorded one claim filed, one claim resolved, and 39 unresolved
claims. During the three months ended March 31, 2009, the Company
recorded two claims resolved and 41 unresolved claims.
The Company paid gross settlement costs for asbestos exposure
cases that are not subject to indemnification of US$75,000 during
the three months ended March 31, 2010.
Based in Salt Lake City, Utah, Huntsman Corporation manufactures
differentiated organic chemical products and inorganic chemical
products. Its products are used in applications including those
in the adhesives, aerospace, automotive, construction products,
durable and non-durable consumer products, electronics, medical,
packaging, paints and coatings, power generation, refining,
synthetic fiber, textile chemicals and dye industries.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alamo Group Records $277T Reserves for Gradall
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alamo Group Inc. still has a reserve of US$277,000 concerning a
potential asbestos issue at Gradall's facility in New
Philadelphia, Ohio, that is expected to be abated over time.
At March 31, 2010, the Company had an environmental reserve in
the amount of US$1,608,000 related to the acquisition of
Gradall's facility.
Three specific remediation projects that were identified prior to
the acquisition are in process of remediation with a remaining
reserve balance of US$143,000.
The balance of the reserve, US$1,188,000, is mainly for potential
ground water contamination/remediation that was identified before
the acquisition and believed to have been generated by a third
party company located near the Gradall facility.
Based in Seguin, Tex., Alamo Group Inc. designs, manufactures,
distributes and services high quality equipment for right-of-way
maintenance and agriculture.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: California Water Still Facing Exposure Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
From time to time, California Water Service Group has been named
as a co-defendant in several asbestos-related lawsuits, according
to the Company's quarterly report filed on May 7, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company has been dismissed without prejudice in several of
these cases. In other cases, the Company's contractors and
insurance policy carriers have settled the cases with no effect
on the Company's financial statements.
Based in San Jose, Calif., California Water Service Group is a
holding company that provides water utility and other related
services in California, Washington, New Mexico and Hawaii through
its wholly owned subsidiaries.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W. R. Grace Faces 430 Damage Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. says that, as of March 31, 2010, following the
reclassification, withdrawal or expungement of claims, about 430
Property Damage Claims subject to a March 31, 2003 bar date
remain outstanding.
The plaintiffs in asbestos property damage lawsuits generally
seek to have the defendants pay for the cost of removing,
containing or repairing the asbestos-containing materials in the
affected buildings.
Out of 380 asbestos property damage cases (which involved
thousands of buildings) filed prior to April 2, 2001 Bankruptcy
Filing Date, 140 were dismissed without payment of any damages or
settlement amounts; judgments after trial were entered in favor
of the Company in nine cases; judgments after trial were entered
in favor of the plaintiffs in eight cases for a total of US$86.1
million; 207 property damage cases were settled for a total of
US$696.8 million; and 16 cases remain outstanding (including the
one on appeal).
Of the 16 remaining cases, eight relate to ZAI (Zonolite Attic
Insulation) and eight relate to a number of former asbestos-
containing products (two of which also are alleged to involve
ZAI). About 4,300 additional PD claims were filed prior to the
March 31, 2003 claims bar date established by the Bankruptcy
Court.
The Bankruptcy Court has approved settlement agreements covering
about 375 of such claims for an aggregate allowed amount of
US$144 million.
Eight of the ZAI cases were filed as purported class action
lawsuits in 2000 and 2001. In addition, 10 lawsuits were filed as
purported class actions in 2004 and 2005 with respect to persons
and homes in Canada.
At the Debtors' request, in July 2008, the Bankruptcy Court
established a bar date for U.S. ZAI PD Claims and approved a
related notice program that required any person with a U.S. ZAI
PD Claim to submit an individual proof of claim no later than
Oct. 31, 2008.
About 17,960 U.S. ZAI PD Claims were filed prior to the Oct. 31,
2008 claims bar date and, as of March 31, 2010 an additional
1,300 U.S. ZAI PD Claims were filed.
On Dec. 13, 2009, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, in the
Grace Canada, Inc. proceeding pending under the Companies'
Creditors Arrangement Act, approved the Amended Settlement that
would settle all Canadian ZAI PD Claims on the terms of the Joint
Plan.
On Oct. 20, 2008, the Bankruptcy Court established Aug. 31, 2009
as the bar date for Canadian ZAI PD Claims. About 13,100 Canadian
ZAI PD Claims were filed prior to the bar date and, as of March
31, 2010, an additional 1,000 Canadian ZAI PD Claims were filed.
Under the Amended Settlement, all Canadian ZAI PD Claims filed
before Dec. 31, 2009 would be eligible to seek compensation from
the Canadian ZAI property damage claims fund.
On Nov. 21, 2008, the Debtors, the Putative Class Counsel to the
U.S. ZAI property damage claimants, the PD FCR, and the Equity
Committee reached an agreement in principle designed to resolve
all present and future U.S. ZAI PD Claims.
The terms of the U.S. and Canadian ZAI agreements in principle
have been incorporated into the terms of the Joint Plan and
related documents. The Company's recorded asbestos related
liability does not include the agreements in principle to settle
the ZAI liability that is part of the Joint Plan.
The asbestos related liability at March 31, 2010, which is based
on the Prior Plan, assumes the risk of loss from ZAI litigation
is not probable.
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: Personal Injury Actions Ongoing v. W. R. Grace
---------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos personal injury claimants allege adverse health effects
from exposure to asbestos-containing products formerly
manufactured by W. R. Grace & Co.
Cumulatively through the April 2, 2001 Bankruptcy Filing Date,
16,354 asbestos personal injury lawsuits involving about 35,720
PI Claims were dismissed without payment of any damages or
settlement amounts (primarily on the basis that Grace products
were not involved) and about 55,489 lawsuits involving about
163,698 PI Claims were disposed of (through settlements and
judgments) for a total of US$645.6 million.
As of the Filing Date, 129,191 PI Claims were pending against the
Company.
The Bankruptcy Court has entered a case management order for
estimating liability for pending and future PI Claims. A trial
for estimating liability for PI Claims began in January 2008 but
was suspended in April 2008 as a result of the PI Settlement.
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: Grace Records $969M Excess Coverage at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. says that, as of March 31, 2010, there remains
about US$969 million of excess asbestos-related coverage from 53
presently solvent insurers.
The Company holds insurance policies that provide coverage for
1962 to 1985 with respect to asbestos-related lawsuits and
claims. For the most part, coverage for years 1962 through 1972
has been exhausted, leaving coverage for years 1973 through 1985
available for pending and future asbestos claims. Since 1985,
insurance coverage for asbestos-related liabilities has not been
commercially available to the Company.
The Company has entered into settlement agreements that are not
dependent upon the effectiveness of the Joint Plan with various
excess insurance carriers. These settlements involve amounts paid
and to be paid to the Company. The unpaid maximum aggregate
amount available under these settlement agreements is about
US$487 million.
Excluding settlement agreements that are dependent upon the
effectiveness of the Joint Plan, the Company has no agreements in
place with insurers with respect to about US$483 million of
excess coverage. Those policies are at layers of coverage that
have not been triggered, but certain layers would be triggered if
the Prior Plan became effective at the recorded asbestos-related
liability of US$1.7 billion.
In addition, the Company has about US$253 million of excess
coverage with insolvent or non-paying insurance carriers. The
Company has entered into settlement agreements that are dependent
upon the effectiveness of the Joint Plan with underwriters of a
portion of the Company's excess insurance coverage.
Under these agreements, the insurers have agreed, subject to
certain conditions, to pay to the PI Trust (directly or through
an escrow arrangement) an aggregate of about US$229 million in
respect of claims for which the Company was provided coverage
under the affected policies.
The Company estimates that eligible claims would have to exceed
US$4 billion to access total coverage.
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: Grace Cites $51.5MM Libby Liability at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co.'s total estimated liability for asbestos
remediation related to its former vermiculite operations in
Libby, Mont., including the cost of remediation at vermiculite
processing sites outside of Libby, was US$51.5 million at March
31, 2010 and US$51.6 million at Dec. 31, 2009.
During 2009, the Company learned that the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency may reinvestigate about 100 former or currently
operating plants at which vermiculite concentrate from the Grace-
owned Libby vermiculite mine was expanded. Of these expansion
plants, seven are currently owned by the Company.
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: Tex. Court OKs Travelers Summary Judgment Move
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division granted The Travelers Indemnity Company, Travelers
Casualty and Surety Company, and Travelers Casualty and Surety
Company of America's Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in
Support in a case filed by Ford, Bacon & Davis, LLC.
The case is styled Ford, Bacon & Davis, LLC, Plaintiff v. The
Travelers Insurance Company, Travelers Casualty and Surety
Company, and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America,
Defendants.
District Judge Ewing Werlein, Jr. entered judgment in Civil
Action No. H-08-2911 on April 7, 2010.
In this insurance coverage dispute, Ford, Bacon & Davis, LLC
(FBD, LLC) sought a declaration that The Travelers Indemnity
Company, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, and Travelers
Casualty and Surety Company of America (collectively,
"Travelers") owed it a defense against a series of underlying
asbestos products-liability lawsuits, and further sought
compensation of costs already incurred in defending the
underlying lawsuits.
FBD, LLC acquired "the goodwill and certain assets" of Ford,
Bacon & Davis, Inc. and its subsidiaries (FBD, Inc.) under an
Asset Purchase Agreement dated Nov. 19, 1996. Under the
Agreement, FBD, Inc. sold certain assets, including the right to
use its name, to S & B Acquisition L.L.C., which subsequently
became known as FBD, LLC. The entity formerly known as FBD, Inc.
changed its name to SFB Companies, Inc.
Starting in 2005, FBD, LLC's general counsel was and continued to
be unable to locate any individual who represented SFB. According
to Travelers, SFB had been dissolved. With the demise of SFB,
there was no longer an SFB counsel to persuade plaintiffs to drop
claims against FBD, LLC, and FBD, LLC no longer has a
counterparty to call upon for its contracted-for indemnity.
By letter dated Feb. 9, 2007, FBD, LLC notified Travelers of the
claims against it in the underlying suits and sought a defense
against the claims.
Accordingly, it was ordered that The Travelers Indemnity Company,
Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, and Travelers Casualty and
Surety Company of America's Motion for Summary Judgment was
hereby granted.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Dismisses Shamir Case v. Agilent, Others
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
dismissed an asbestos case filed by Ruth Shamir against Hewlett-
Packard and Agilent Technologies (collectively "HP").
The case is styled Ruth Shamir, Plaintiff v. Agilent
Technologies, Inc., et al., Defendants.
District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno entered judgment in Civil
Action No. 08-76816 on April 5, 2010.
Ruth Shamir commenced this action on behalf of her deceased
husband, Mordechai Shamir, for his exposure to asbestos-
containing products. Mr. Shamir died of mesothelioma on April 7,
2007. Mrs. Shamir brought the action against HP as successors in
interest to the original manufacturers of the products in
question.
On Jan. 5, 2010, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the
grounds that this claim was barred by the New Jersey Workers'
Compensation Act ("NJWCA") by virtue of Mr. Shamir's status as an
employee of HP during the time of the exposure.
The products in question were gas chromatographs that contain
thermal conductivity detectors and electric wiring, both of which
were insulated by asbestos.
Beginning in 1961, a company called F & M Scientific Company
began manufacturing these devices. In 1965, HP acquired F & M and
F & M was merged out of existence. HP took over the manufacturing
of the devices and continued to develop the line of business it
acquired from F & M. In 1999, HP separated this part of its
operations to create Agilent.
Mr. Shamir was hired by HP in 1966 as an electronics technician.
In 1968, he became a lead electronics technician in the HP repair
center in Paramus, N.J., where he worked until 1973. He was then
promoted to engineer, and retired as an employee of Agilent in
2001.
During Mr. Shamir's tenure at the repair center, his job was to
repair the thermal conductivity detectors that were manufactured
by F & M. He was responsible for unpacking, disassembling,
cleaning, and re-insulating the devices, and was exposed to dust
and fiber during each of these stages.
Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted. Mrs. Shamir's request
for additional discovery regarding F & M's manufacturing was
denied as moot. It was further ordered that the case shall be
closed.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navigators Has $16.66M Net Reserves at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Navigators Group, Inc.'s net asbestos reserves amounted to
US$16,662,000 during the three months ended March 31, 2010,
compared with US$16,763,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.
The Company's gross asbestos reserves amounted to US$21,907,000
during the three months ended March 31, 2010, compared with
US$22,147,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.
The Company's exposure to asbestos liability principally stems
from marine liability insurance written on an occurrence basis
during the mid-1980s. In general, the Company's participation on
such risks is in the excess layers, which requires the underlying
coverage to be exhausted prior to coverage being triggered in the
Company's layer.
In many instances, the Company is one of many insurers who
participate in the defense and ultimate settlement of these
claims and the Company is generally a minor participant in the
overall insurance coverage and settlement.
The reserves for asbestos exposures at March 31, 2010 are for:
-- One large settled claim for excess insurance policy limits
exposed to a class action suit against an insured involved in
the manufacturing or distribution of asbestos products being
paid over several years (two other large settled claims were
fully paid in 2007);
-- Other insureds not directly involved in the manufacturing or
distribution of asbestos products, but that have more than
incidental asbestos exposure for their purchase or use of
products that contained asbestos; and
-- Attritional asbestos claims that could be expected to occur
over time.
Substantially all of the Company's asbestos liability reserves
are included in its marine loss reserves.
At March 31, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009, the ceded asbestos paid and
unpaid reinsurance recoverables were US$8.9 million.
Based in Rye Brook, N.Y., The Navigators Group, Inc. is an
international insurance company focusing on specialty products
for niches within the overall property/casualty insurance market.
Its largest product line and most long-standing area of
specialization is ocean marine insurance.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Fin'l. Has $6M A&E Charges at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Financial Group, Inc. recorded asbestos and
environmental charges of US$6 million during the three months
ended March 31, 2010, compared with US$1 million during the three
months ended March 31, 2009.
Based in Cincinnati, Ohio, American Financial Group, Inc. offers
commercial property/casualty insurance focused on specialties
like workers' compensation, professional liability, ocean and
inland marine, and multi-peril crop insurance.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Congoleum Records $47.9MM Liability at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Congoleum Corporation's current asbestos-related liabilities
amounted to US$47,900,000 as of March 31, 2010, compared with
US$48,458,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed on May 7, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.
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.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Has $967M for Carolinas at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation says that amounts recognized as asbestos-
related reserves related to subsidiary Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
totaled US$967 million as of March 31, 2010 and US$980 million as
of Dec. 31, 2009.
The Company has experienced numerous claims for indemnification
and medical cost reimbursement relating to damages for bodily
injuries alleged to have arisen from the exposure to or use of
asbestos in connection with construction and maintenance
activities conducted by Duke Energy Carolinas on its electric
generation plants prior to 1985.
Duke Energy Carolinas has a third-party insurance policy to cover
certain losses related to Duke Energy Carolinas' asbestos-related
injuries and damages above an aggregate self insured retention of
US$476 million. Duke Energy Carolinas' cumulative payments began
to exceed the self insurance retention on its insurance policy
during the second quarter of 2008.
Future payments up to the policy limit will be reimbursed by Duke
Energy Carolinas' third party insurance carrier. The insurance
policy limit for potential future insurance recoveries for
indemnification and medical cost claim payments is US$1.037
billion in excess of the self insured retention.
Insurance recoveries of US$970 million as of March 31, 2010 and
US$984 million as of Dec. 31, 2009 related to this policy are
classified in the respective Condensed Consolidated Balance
Sheets in Other within Investments and Other Assets and
Receivables.
Based in Charlotte, N.C., Duke Energy Corporation is an energy
company primarily located in the Americas. The Company operates
in the United States primarily through its direct and indirect
wholly owned subsidiaries, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Duke
Energy Ohio, Inc., which includes Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc., and
Duke Energy Indiana, Inc., as well as in South and Central
America through International Energy.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allegheny Faces 868 Claims in W.Va. at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny Energy, Inc.'s total number of claims alleging exposure
to asbestos was 868 in West Virginia and five in Pennsylvania as
of March 31, 2010, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed on May 7, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company's total number of claims alleging exposure to
asbestos was 861 in West Virginia and four in Pennsylvania, as of
Dec. 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, March 26, 2010)
Allegheny's Distribution Companies (Monongahela Power Company,
The Potomac Edison Company, and West Penn Power Company) have
been named as defendants, along with multiple other defendants,
in pending asbestos cases alleging bodily injury involving
multiple plaintiffs and multiple sites.
These suits have been brought mostly by seasonal contractors'
employees and do not involve allegations of the manufacture, sale
or distribution of asbestos-containing products by the Company.
These asbestos suits arise out of historical operations and are
related to the installation and removal of asbestos-containing
materials at the Company's generation facilities.
The Company's historical operations were insured by various
foreign and domestic insurers, including Lloyd's of London.
Certain insurers have contested their obligations to pay for the
future defense and settlement costs relating to the asbestos
suits.
The Company is currently involved in two asbestos and/or
environmental insurance-related actions:
-- Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London et al. v. Allegheny
Energy, Inc. et al., Case No. 21-C-03-16733 (Washington
County, Md.) and
-- Monongahela Power Company et al. v. Certain Underwriters at
Lloyd's London and London Market Companies, et al., Civil
Action No. 03-C-281 (Monongalia County, W.Va.).
The parties seek a declaration of coverage under the policies for
asbestos-related and environmental claims.
Based in Greensburg, Pa., Allegheny Energy, Inc. is an integrated
energy business that owns and operates electric generation
facilities and delivers electric services to customers in
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland and Virginia. The Company
manages its operations through two business segments: Merchant
Generation and Regulated Operations.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Group Ltd. Still Involved in A&E Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enstar Group Limited anticipates that it will continue to be
subject to litigation and arbitration proceedings in the ordinary
course of business, including litigation generally related to the
scope of coverage with respect to asbestos and environmental
claims.
No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed on May 7, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.
Based in Hamilton, Bermuda, Enstar Group Limited acquires and
manages insurance and reinsurance companies in run-off and
portfolios of insurance and reinsurance business in run-off, and
to provide management, consulting and other services to the
insurance and reinsurance industry.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Ongoing v. Burlington Northern
----------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC is party to a number of
personal injury claims by employees and non-employees who may
have been exposed to asbestos, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed on May 7, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The heaviest exposure for Company employees was due to work
conducted in and around the use of steam locomotive engines that
were phased out between the years of 1950 and 1967. However,
other types of exposures, including exposure from locomotive
component parts and building materials, continued after 1967
until they were substantially eliminated at the Company by 1985.
Based on the Company's estimate of the potentially exposed
employees and related mortality assumptions, it is anticipated
that unasserted asbestos claims will continue to be filed through
the year 2050.
Based in Fort Worth, Tex., Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC is a
holding company that conducts no operating activities and owns no
significant assets other than through its interests in its
subsidiaries. Through its subsidiaries, the Company is engaged
primarily in the freight rail transportation business. At Dec.
31, 2009, the Company and its subsidiaries had about 35,000
employees.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pepco Still Has 180 Lawsuits in Md. At March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pepco Holdings, Inc. says that, as of March 31, 2010, there were
about 180 asbestos-related cases still pending against its
subsidiary Potomac Electric Power Company (Pepco) in the State
Courts of Maryland.
In 1993, Pepco was served with Amended Complaints filed in the
state Circuit Courts of Prince George's County, Baltimore City
and Baltimore County, Md., in separate ongoing, consolidated
proceedings known as "In re: Personal Injury Asbestos Case."
Pepco and other corporate entities were brought into these cases
on a theory of premises liability.
Under this theory, the plaintiffs argued that Pepco was negligent
in not providing a safe work environment for employees or its
contractors, who allegedly were exposed to asbestos while working
on Pepco's property. Initially, a total of about 448 individual
plaintiffs added Pepco to their complaints.
While the pleadings are not entirely clear, it appears that each
plaintiff sought US$2 million in compensatory damages and US$4
million in punitive damages from each defendant.
Since the initial filings in 1993, additional individual suits
have been filed against Pepco, and significant numbers of cases
have been dismissed. As a result of two motions to dismiss,
numerous hearings and meetings and one motion for summary
judgment, Pepco has had about 400 of these cases successfully
dismissed with prejudice, either voluntarily by the plaintiff or
by the court.
Of the pending cases as of March 31, 2010, about 90 cases were
filed after Dec. 19, 2000, and were tendered to Mirant
Corporation for defense and indemnification under the terms of
the Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement between Pepco and Mirant
under which Pepco sold its generation assets to Mirant in 2000.
The aggregate amount of monetary damages sought in the remaining
suits (excluding those tendered to Mirant) is about US$360
million.
Based in Washington, D.C., Pepco Holdings, Inc. distributes
electricity and natural gas through its Potomac Electric Power,
Delmarva Power & Light, and Atlantic City Electric utilities to
more than 1.9 million customers in Delaware, Maryland, New
Jersey, and Washington, D.C.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Central Hudson Faces 1,189 Lawsuits at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
CH Energy Group, Inc. says that, as of March 31, 2010, of the
3,319 asbestos cases brought against subsidiary, Central Hudson
Gas & Electric Corporation, about 1,189 remain pending.
As of Dec. 31, 2009, of the 3,319 asbestos cases brought against
Central Hudson, about 1,188 remain pending. (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 12, 2010)
Of the cases no longer pending against Central Hudson, about
1,978 have been dismissed or discontinued without payment by
Central Hudson, and Central Hudson has settled 152 cases.
Based in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., CH Energy Group, Inc.'s subsidiary,
Central Hudson Gas & Electric, provides electricity to about
300,000 electric and 74,000 natural gas customers in eight
counties of New York State's Mid-Hudson River Valley, and
delivers natural gas and electricity in a 2,600-square-mile
service territory that extends from New York City to Albany.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ga. Appeal Court Affirms Ruling in Adamson Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed the ruling of the Fulton
Superior Court, which granted summary judgment in favor of six
defendants in the asbestos case styled Adamson v. General
Electric, et al.
Judges G. Alan Blackburn, Sara L. Doyle, and A. Harris Adams
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.
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].
At FMC Corporation, John H. Adamson was employed by an electrical
contractor-Bechtel Corporation-that had been hired by FMC. FMC
admitted that it supplemented its in-house electricians with
electrical contractors from time to time.
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.
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.
Relative to this appeal, the trial court granted summary judgment
to FMC and five defendants who had 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.
FMC successfully invoked the exclusive remedy bar of workers'
compensation. The five manufacturer defendants all claimed lack
of proof of exposure to their products, and the trial court ruled
in their favor on that issue.
Wendell K. Willard, Esq., Robert C. Buck, Esq., W. Benjamin
Ballenger, Esq., David A. Webster, Esq., represented John D.
Adamson.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vaughan Claim v. 74 Firms Filed May 14 in W.Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related lawsuit styled George A. Vaughan and Connie
S. Vaughan vs. A.K. Steel Corporation, A.W. Chesterton Company,
et al. was filed on May 14, 2010 in Kanawha County Court, W.Va.,
The West Virginia Record reports.
The Vaughans claim the 74 defendants are responsible for Mr.
Vaughan's lung cancer. He was diagnosed with lung cancer on Feb.
26, 2010.
The Vaughans seek a jury trial to resolve all issues involved in
their asbestos-related case. Thomas P. Maroney, Esq., and
Victoria Antion, Esq., represent the Vaughans.
Case No. 10-C-874 is assigned to a visiting judge.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1,400 Lawsuits Against CSX Dismissed on May 17
---------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Arthur Recht, at a hearing on May 17, 2010,
dismissed about 1,400 asbestos-related lawsuits that Robert
Peirce of Pittsburgh filed against CSX Transportation Inc., The
West Virginia Record reports.
Robert Daley of Mr. Peirce's firm moved in February 2010 to
dismiss them without prejudice, after Judge Recht denied a motion
to vacate rules he imposed in 2009.
Mr. Daley continued to resist Judge Recht's requirement of
testimony from pulmonologists, pleading that the rule exceeded
standards of the Supreme Court of Appeals. In March, Jim Turner
of Huntington opposed the motion for CSX.
Mr. Turner wrote that Mr. Peirce's firm submitted a fraudulent
medical diagnosis bearing the name of a fictitious doctor, Oscar
Frye.
Mr. Turner quoted to Judge Recht his own order finding that
although the firm did not know about the forgery, the firm
enabled the forgery. He wrote that most cases had been pending
since 2003 or before.
Mr. Turner wrote that the Peirce firm actively recruited clients
as far away as Oregon, Texas, Missouri and New York. He wrote
that the firm opposed sending cases to home courts and appealed
the issue all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Mr. Turner wrote that the firm pushed for limited discovery and
mandatory settlement conference instead of bona fide pretrial
orders. He added that the firm pushed mediation even after its X-
ray reader, radiologist Ray Harron of Bridgeport, "was proven to
be completely incredible."
All the cases alleged asbestos disease but not malignancy. The
Peirce firm continues to pursue 62 malignancy claims in Judge
Recht's court.
Judge Recht disposed of two smaller packages, dismissing a few
dozen Peirce suits against Norfolk Southern and Conrail.
Judge Recht presides over Peirce cases by appointment of the
Supreme Court of Appeals, where he served as Justice.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Buckhurst Hill Welder's Death Linked to Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
A May 20, 2010 inquest at the Walthamstow Coroners Court heard
that the death of 77-year-old John Charles Burdikin, a retired
pipefitter and welder from Buckhurst Hill, England, was linked to
workplace exposure to asbestos, the Guardian reports.
Mr. Burdikin was exposed to asbestos fibers in many premises he
worked in during his career, including hospitals and prisons in
and around London. He died in the Royal London Hospital in
Whitechapel, a few months after being diagnosed with
mesothelioma.
Mr. Burdikin's son, Simon, gave evidence at the inquest,
confirming the identity of his late father and that he worked in
environments that could well have contained asbestos.
The coroner Dr. William Dolman recorded a verdict that Mr.
Burdikin had died from the industrial disease of malignant
mesothelioma.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Firm Build Execs Charged for Safety Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
Three former executives of the defunct Firm Build (Rudy Buendia
III, Patrick Bowman, and Joseph Cuellar) were charged of
knowingly exposing high school students to asbestos, the Merced
Sun-Star reports.
Merced County, Calif., District Attorney Larry Morse II said the
47-year-old Mr. Buendia and the 43-year-old Mr. Bowman turned
themselves in to law enforcement on May 20, 2010 and were booked
into the Merced County Main Jail. The 70-year-old Mr. Cuellar
turned himself in to the Fresno County Jail on May 21, 2010 and
will be sent back to Merced County.
The charges claim the exposure occurred under the guise of
involving the students in work experience and job training
programs. Investigators with the Merced County District
Attorney's Office said the have found at least five victims,
although up to 80 teens may have been affected.
Mr. Morse said that each suspect will be charged with five felony
counts of child endangerment and five counts of exposing someone
to harmful materials.
Meantime, DA investigators said the students removed asbestos
from the Automotive Training Center, located at 2245 Jetstream
Drive, within the Castle Commerce Center, under the direction of
Firm Build between September 2005 and March 2006.
The students allegedly removed asbestos floor tiles and
insulation from pipes inside the old building. According to
investigators, the students also demolished tiles with hammers
and other tools, creating an airborne dust of asbestos fibers
they may have inhaled.
Some students reported the dust was so thick inside the building
they sometimes had to leave for fresh air, investigators said.
The students were around 16 and 17 years old at the time, and
were supplied with cotton masks, hard hats and goggles, equipment
which fell far short of the protective suits needed to properly
remove asbestos.
News of the students' possible exposure to asbestos is the latest
in a deluge of criminal charges already facing the former Firm
Build execs.
The asbestos investigation was launched in November 2009 after
the DA's office received a witness tip.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Awards $14M Compensation to Sarasota Local
----------------------------------------------------------------
A jury in Miami-Dade County, Fla., awarded more than US$14
million in asbestos compensation to William Aubin, of Sarasota,
Fla., the Miami Herald reports.
Jurors found that Union Carbide Corporation was negligent for
selling asbestos fibers to other companies, which had used the
fibers to make joint compounds used by construction companies,
like the one Mr. Aubin's family owned.
According to Mr. Aubin, his parents, who founded Aubin
Construction on Key Biscayne in the 1960s, used the asbestos-
laden compounds. The now-59-year-old Mr. Aubin, a retired
firefighter, worked in his parents' company after they moved it
to Sarasota.
Juan Bauta, Esq., of the Ferraro Law Firm, said that's how Mr.
Aubin was exposed to asbestos and eventually developed peritoneal
mesothelioma.
Jurors also found that four of the compound manufacturers,
including Georgia-Pacific, share some of the responsibility for
causing Mr. Aubin's illness.
Mr. Bauta said he expects Union Carbide to appeal the verdict.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS Global Reserves $86M for Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global, Inc.'s reserve for asbestos-related claims was US$86
million as of March 31, 2010, compared with US$90 million as of
March 31, 2009, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed
on May 25, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company's long-term insurance for asbestos claims was US$86
million as of March 31, 2010, compared with US$90 million as of
March 31, 2009.
Based in Milwaukee, RBS Global, Inc. is the parent company of
Rexnord LLC, whose subsidiaries manufacture power transmission
and conveying equipment like drives, gears, bearings, chains, and
couplings for the aerospace, construction, chemicals, energy,
mining, material handling, marine, and petrochemical industries.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Units Still Face Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain wholly owned subsidiaries of Ingersoll-Rand plc are named
as defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits in state and federal
courts, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on May
7, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
In virtually all of the suits, a large number of other companies
have also been named as defendants. The vast majority of those
claims has been filed against either Ingersoll-Rand Company (IR-
New Jersey) or Trane Inc. and generally allege injury caused by
exposure to asbestos contained in certain historical products
sold by IR-New Jersey or Trane, primarily pumps, boilers and
railroad brake shoes.
Neither IR-New Jersey nor Trane was a producer or manufacturer of
asbestos. However, some formerly manufactured products utilized
asbestos-containing components like gaskets and packing purchased
from third-party suppliers.
Based in Dublin, Ireland, Ingersoll-Rand plc is a diversified,
global company that provides products, services and solutions to
enhance the quality and comfort of air in homes and buildings,
transport and protect food and perishables, secure homes and
commercial properties, and increase industrial productivity and
efficiency.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Inc. Still Party to N.J. Coverage Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand plc's subsidiary Inc. continues to be in
litigation against certain carriers whose policies it believes
provide coverage for asbestos claims.
The insurance carriers named in this suit have challenged Trane's
right to recovery. Trane filed the action in April 1999 in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, against various
primary and lower layer excess insurance carriers, seeking
coverage for environmental claims (the NJ Litigation).
The NJ Litigation was later expanded to also seek coverage for
asbestos-related liabilities from 21 primary and lower layer
excess carriers and underwriting syndicates. The environmental
claims against the insurers in the NJ Litigation have been
resolved or dismissed without prejudice for later resolution.
On Sept. 19, 2005, the court granted Trane's motion to add claims
for insurance coverage for asbestos-related liabilities against
16 additional insurers and 117 new insurance policies to the NJ
Litigation. The court also required the parties to submit all
contested matters to mediation. Trane engaged in its first
mediation session with the NJ Litigation defendants on Jan. 18,
2006 and has engaged in active discussions since that time.
Trane has now settled with the majority of the insurers in the NJ
Litigation, collectively accounting for about 95 percent of its
recorded asbestos-related liability insurance receivable as of
Jan. 31, 2010.
Most, although not all, of Trane's settlement agreements
constitute "coverage-in-place" arrangements, in which the insurer
signatories agree to reimburse Trane for specified portions of
its costs for asbestos bodily injury claims and Trane agrees to
certain claims-handling protocols and grants to the insurer
signatories certain releases and indemnifications.
Based in Dublin, Ireland, Ingersoll-Rand plc is a diversified,
global company that provides products, services and solutions to
enhance the quality and comfort of air in homes and buildings,
transport and protect food and perishables, secure homes and
commercial properties, and increase industrial productivity and
efficiency.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Cites $1.097B March 31 Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand plc's liability for asbestos-related matters
totaled US$1.097 billion at March 31, 2010, compared with
US$1.113 billion at Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed on May 7, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The asset for probable asbestos-related insurance recoveries
totaled US$409.7 million at March 31, 2010, compared with
US$424.2 million at Dec. 31, 2009.
Based in Dublin, Ireland, Ingersoll-Rand plc is a diversified,
global company that provides products, services and solutions to
enhance the quality and comfort of air in homes and buildings,
transport and protect food and perishables, secure homes and
commercial properties, and increase industrial productivity and
efficiency.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Noble Corp. Still Facing 39 Actions at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
At March 31, 2010, there were about 39 of these lawsuits in which
Noble Corporation is one of many defendants, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed on May 7, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company is from time to time a party to various lawsuits that
are incidental to its operations in which the claimants seek an
unspecified amount of monetary damages for personal injury,
including injuries purportedly resulting from exposure to
asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities.
These lawsuits have been filed in the states of Louisiana,
Mississippi and Texas. Exposure related to these lawsuits is not
currently determinable.
Based in Baar, Switzerland, Noble Corporation is an offshore
drilling contractor for the oil and gas industry. The Company
performs contract drilling services with its fleet of 62 offshore
drilling units located worldwide.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 482 Claims Ongoing v. Constellation Energy, BGE
----------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 482 individuals who were never employees of
Constellation Energy, Inc. or its subsidiary Baltimore Gas and
Electric Company (BGE) have pending claims each seeking several
million dollars in compensatory and punitive damages.
About 494 individuals who were never employees of the Company or
BGE had pending asbestos claims each seeking several million
dollars in compensatory and punitive damages. (Class Action
Reporter, March 12, 2010)
Since 1993, BGE and certain Company subsidiaries have been
involved in several actions concerning asbestos. The actions are
based upon the theory of "premises liability," alleging that BGE
and the Company knew of and exposed individuals to an asbestos
hazard. In addition to BGE and the Company, numerous other
parties are defendants in these cases.
Cross-claims and third party claims brought by other defendants
may also be filed against BGE and the Company in these actions.
To date, most asbestos claims which have been resolved have been
dismissed or resolved without any payment.
Based in Baltimore, Constellation Energy Group, Inc.'s
subsidiary, Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGE), distributes
electricity and natural gas in central Maryland. The Company
trades and markets wholesale energy through subsidiary
Constellation Energy Commodities Group.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Records $3.409B Gross Liability at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc.'s gross asbestos liability for
unpaid claims and claims adjustment expense was US$3.409 billion
during the three months ended March 31, 2010, compared with
US$3.330 billion during the three months ended March 31, 2009.
The Company's gross asbestos liability for unpaid claims and
claims adjustment expense was US$3.236 billion during the year
ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$3.443 billion during the
year ended Dec. 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, March 26, 2010)
The Company's net liability for unpaid claims and claims
adjustment expense was US$1.105 billion during the three months
ended March 31, 2010, compared with US$1.195 billion during the
three months ended March 31, 2009.
The Company's net asbestos liability for unpaid claims and claims
adjustment expense was US$1.151 billion during the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$1.2 billion during the year ended
Dec. 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, March 26, 2010)
The Company's gross asbestos liability for IBNR (incurred but not
reported) claims was US$2.016 billion during the three months
ended March 31, 2010, compared with US$2.246 billion during the
three months ended March 31, 2009.
The Company's net asbestos liability for IBNR claims was US$838
million during the three months ended March 31, 2010, compared
with US$929 million during the three months ended March 31, 2009.
Based in New York, American International Group, Inc. provides
insurance property/casualty and specialty insurance to
commercial, institutional, and individual customers in the United
States. Overseas, the Company provides reinsurance, life
insurance and retirement services, asset management, and
financial services (including financing commercial aircraft
leasing) in more than 120 countries.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Int'l. Cites 5,208 Claims at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc. recorded 5,208 asbestos claims
during the three months ended March 31, 2010, compared with 5,701
claims during the three months ended March 31, 2009.
The Company recorded 5,417 asbestos claims as of Dec. 31, 2009,
compared with 5,780 asbestos claims as of Dec. 31, 2008. (Class
Action Reporter, March 26, 2010)
During the three months ended March 31, 2010, the Company
recorded 133 claims opened, 55 claims settled, and 287 claims
dismissed or otherwise resolved.
During the three months ended March 31, 2009, the Company
recorded 232 claims opened, 133 claims settled, and 178 claims
dismissed or otherwise resolved.
The Company's gross survival ratio for asbestos claims was 4.5
years during the three months ended March 31, 2010, compared with
5.0 years during the three months ended March 31, 2009.
The Company's net survival ratio for asbestos claims was 3.9
years during the three months ended March 31, 2010 and March 31,
2009.
Based in New York, American International Group, Inc. provides
insurance property/casualty and specialty insurance to
commercial, institutional, and individual customers in the United
States. Overseas, the Company provides reinsurance, life
insurance and retirement services, asset management, and
financial services (including financing commercial aircraft
leasing) in more than 120 countries.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Appeals Court OKs BNSF Summary Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, Second District, California, affirmed the
ruling of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, which granted
summary judgment in favor of BNSF Railway Company, in an asbestos
lawsuit filed by Josh Haver.
The case is styled Josh Haver, as Successor in Interest, etc.,
Plaintiff and Appellant v. BNSF Railway Company, Defendant and
Respondent.
Judges Epstein, Manella, and Willhite entered judgment in Case
No. B215600 on April 16, 2010.
Lynne Haver appealed from a judgment entered in favor of BNSF
Railway Company (BNSF) (sued as successor in interest to the
Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company (ATSF)), after the
trial court granted BNSF's motion for summary judgment.
The motion for summary judgment was based on the ground that
there was no triable issue of fact as to whether BNSF could be
held liable in state court for Mrs. Haver's mesothelioma, which
she allegedly developed in part because her former husband was
exposed to asbestos from locomotives while he was employed by
ATSF, because such liability is preempted by federal law.
Mrs. Haver conceded that point in opposition to the motion for
summary judgment, but raised a new theory, that her former
husband was exposed to asbestos contained in pipe insulation in
the railroad buildings.
BNSF objected in its reply papers that Mrs. Haver could not
expand the issues to be addressed on summary judgment beyond what
was encompassed in her complaint, and also argued that she had
not raised a triable issue of fact regarding the existence of
asbestos in the insulation, that it did not owe a duty to warn a
spouse of an employee regarding potential work hazards, and that
BNSF neither owed nor breached a duty to Mrs. Haver because her
injury was not known or reasonably foreseeable.
The trial court granted the motion and entered judgment in favor
of BNSF.
After the trial court entered judgment, Mrs. Haver died of
mesothelioma. Shortly thereafter, this appeal was filed on her
behalf by her attorneys. Her son, Josh Haver, filed a motion in
this court asking that he be substituted in Mrs. Haver's place,
as her successor in interest. He also filed a declaration stating
that there was no proceeding pending in California for the
administration of Mrs. Haver's estate, and that he is the
authorized decedent's successor in interest. The Appeals Court
granted the motion.
The Appeals Court concluded that Mrs. Haver was not permitted to
raise a new basis for liability arising from previously unpleaded
factual allegations in opposition to the motion for summary
judgment, and therefore the motion was properly granted in favor
of BNSF.
The Appeals Court affirmed the judgment, and found it unnecessary
in so doing to resolve other issues raised by the parties on
appeal.
Waters Kraus & Paul (Michael B. Gurien, Esq., and Paul C. Cook,
Esq.) represented Josh Haver.
Sims Law Firm and Selim Mounedji, Esq., represent BNSF Railway
Company.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 15 Cases Filed During May 3-7 in Madison County
----------------------------------------------------------------
During the week of May 3, 2010 through May 7, 2010, a total of 15
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-480) Darlene S. Acosta of Wisconsin claims the
deceased Stanley W. Piwowarczyk developed lung cancer after
his work as a hammer man, helper and oven loader. Richard L.
Saville Jr., Esq., Ethan A. Flint, Esq., and Joseph P. Whyte,
Esq., of Saville and Flint in Alton, Ill., will represent Ms.
Acosta.
-- (Case No. 10-L-495) Phoebe Adams of Maryland claims her
deceased husband, Albert R. Adams Sr., developed lung cancer
after his work as a self-employed carpenter, an assembly line
worker, grounds maintenance worker, roofer and laborer.
Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of
Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East
Alton, Ill., will represent Mrs. Adams.
-- (Case No. 10-L-491) Eugene Cox claims his deceased wife,
Rosann Cox, developed mesothelioma after her work as a
homemaker. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq.,
of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Cox.
-- (Case No. 10-L-483) Charles Curtis claims his deceased wife,
Rita Curtis, developed mesothelioma after she was secondarily
exposed to asbestos fibers through her husband, who worked
for Nunn Electric. Allyson M. Romani, Esq., and Ross D.
Stomel, Esq., of Shrader and Associates in Houston, will
represent Mr. Curtis.
-- (Case No. 10-L-488) Thelma J. Daniely of Missouri, an
asbestos coat assembler, a product demonstrator and
department manager and a seamstress and collar setter, claims
asbestosis. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland,
Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in
Edwardsville, Ill., will represent Ms. Daniely.
-- (Case No. 10-L-494) Joan and Houston Dewey of Virginia claim
Mrs. Dewey developed mesothelioma after her work as a
registered nurse. Timothy F. Thompson Jr., Esq., of Simmons,
Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill.,
will represent the Deweys.
-- (Case No. 10-L-484) Eligah Gibbs of Mississippi, a laborer
and truck driver, claims mesothelioma. Brian J. Cooke, Esq.,
of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East
Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Gibbs.
-- (Case No. 10-L-501) Kelly Dean Joyce of Illinois, a service
station attendant, agricultural worker, maintenance
instructor, maintenance supervisor and laborer, claims
mesothelioma. Myles L. Epperson, Esq., and W. Brent Copple,
Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in
East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Joyce.
-- Glenn and Joyce Metzger of Washington claim Mr. Metzger
developed mesothelioma after his work as an insulator.
Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of
Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville,
Ill., will represent the Metzgers.
-- (Case No. 10-L-497) Peggy Nitchals of Kansas claims her
deceased husband, James Nitchals, developed mesothelioma
after his work as a general superintendant. Robert Phillips,
Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of Simmons, Browder,
Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will
represent Mrs. Nitchals.
-- (Case No. 10-L-477) John C. O'Donnell of Wisconsin, a service
station attendant, laborer, manager, plumber, customer
service agent and pump mechanic, claims mesothelioma. Myles
L. Epperson, Esq., and W. Brent Copple, Esq., of Simmons,
Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill.,
will represent Mr. O'Donnell.
-- (Case No. 10-L-496) La-Tisha Robinson of Indiana claims her
deceased father, Ethel Julkes, developed lung cancer after
his work as a laborer and painter. Robert Phillips, Esq., and
Perry J. Browder, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris,
Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent
Mrs. Robinson.
-- (Case No. 10-L-487) Linda Rose of Florida claims her deceased
husband, Milo M. Rose Jr. II, developed mesothelioma after
his work as a plant maintenance worker. Robert Phillips,
Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of Simmons, Browder,
Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will
represent Mrs. Rose.
-- (Case No. 10-L-486) Robert Shelleby of Pennsylvania, a
laborer and maintenance foreman, claims mesothelioma. Brian
J. Cooke, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and
Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Shelleby.
-- (Case No. 10-L-479) Eric Williams of Illinois, a laborer and
truck driver, claims mesothelioma. Shane F. Hampton, Esq.,
and Paul M. Dix, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris,
Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr.
Williams.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mass. Landlord Fined $6T for Disposal Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
(MassDEP) has levied a US$6,000 fine against Paul L. Holt for
violating state asbestos regulations, according to a MassDEP
press release dated May 26, 2010.
The violations were discovered during a MassDEP investigation
into alleged illegal asbestos siding removal activities at a two-
family rental building located in Northampton, Mass.
In July 2007, MassDEP conducted a site investigation and
determined that Mr. Holt had been removing asbestos transite-
shingle siding and placing intact and broken shingles into trash
bags. He transported the bagged shingles to another property
where the bags were placed into a dumpster. During these
activities, he did not employ the proper asbestos-handling and
disposal procedures.
Under the terms of a consent order issued by the MassDEP, Mr.
Holt is required to comply with asbestos regulations in the
future and has agreed to pay a penalty of US$6,000.
Michael Gorski, director of MassDEP's Western Regional Office in
Springfield, Mass., said, "Improper removal and handling of
asbestos-containing materials places tenants as well as the
general public at risk. When properly followed, the asbestos
regulations provide for the protection of the public health."
Property owners or contractors with questions about asbestos-
containing materials, notification requirements, 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: Appeal Court OKs Board Ruling in Polverari Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims upheld the Board of
Veterans' Appeals July 14, 2008 decision that determined that new
and material evidence had not been submitted sufficient to reopen
William F. Polverari's claim for service connection for
asbestosis.
The case is styled William F. Polverari, Appellant v. Eric K.
Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.
Judge Alan G. Lance, Sr. entered judgment in Case No. 08-3058 on
April 16, 2010.
Mr. Polverari served in the U.S. Navy from March 1959 to February
1963. Subsequent to his service, he spent 30 years working
various jobs as an insulator and pipe coverer with the Asbestos
Workers Union. In November 1986, he was diagnosed with
asbestosis.
Mr. Polverari's claim for service connection for asbestosis was
originally denied by the Cleveland, Ohio, regional office (RO) on
April 3, 2001, because the evidence of record was not "sufficient
to support a finding that the current medical condition is due to
and proximately caused by the veteran's active military service
that ended in 1963."
In July 2003, Mr. Polverari sought to reopen his claim but his
request was denied by the St. Petersburg, Fla., regional office
because he had not submitted new and material evidence since an
April 3, 2001, RO decision. He appealed this decision and the
Board similarly denied Mr. Polverari's claim to reopen.
In December 2006, upon a joint motion of the parties, the Court
vacated the Board's decision and remanded to the Board because
the VA had not fulfilled "its duty to notify the appellant of the
evidence necessary to support his effort to reopen a claim of
entitlement to service connection for asbestosis, based on new
and material evidence."
On July 14, 2008, the Board issued the decision here on appeal.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Still Pending v. IPALCO Unit
---------------------------------------------------------------
IPALCO Enterprises, Inc.'s subsidiary, Indianapolis Power & Light
Company (IPL), as of March 31, 2010, is a defendant in a little
more than 100 lawsuits alleging personal injury or wrongful death
stemming from exposure to asbestos and asbestos containing
products formerly located in IPL power plants.
IPL has been named as a "premises defendant" meaning that IPL did
not mine, manufacture, distribute or install asbestos or asbestos
containing products. These suits have been brought on behalf of
persons who worked for contractors or subcontractors hired by
IPL.
IPL has insurance which may cover some portions of these claims.
Currently, these cases are being defended by counsel retained by
various insurers who wrote policies applicable to the period of
time during which much of the exposure has been alleged.
Based in Indianapolis, Inc., IPALCO Enterprises, Inc.'s business
consists of the generation, transmission, distribution and sale
of electric energy conducted through subsidiary Indianapolis
Power & Light Company (IPL).
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Still Ongoing v. Mueller Units
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of Mueller Water Products, Inc.'s subsidiaries are still
named as defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits.
No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed on May 10, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.
Based in Atlanta, Mueller Water Products, Inc. operates in three
business segments: Mueller Co., U.S. Pipe and Anvil. Mueller Co.
manufactures valves for water and gas systems, including
butterfly, iron-gate, tapping, check, plug and ball valves, as
well as dry-barrel and wet-barrel fire hydrants and a full range
of metering products for the water infrastructure industry.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land, D/C Still Face Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land, LLC, as successor by merger to other entities,
and subsidiary D/C Distribution Corporation are still defendants
in personal injury actions allegedly based on exposure to
asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on
May 11, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
While there are a few such cases that name the Company, there are
a substantial number of cases that are pending against D/C on the
U.S. mainland (primarily in California). Cases against the
Company are allegedly based on its prior business operations in
Hawaii and cases against D/C are allegedly based on sale of
asbestos-containing products by D/C's prior distribution business
operations primarily in California.
On Feb. 15, 2005, D/C was served with a lawsuit entitled American
& Foreign Insurance Company v. D/C Distribution and Amfac
Corporation, Case No. 04433669 filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Francisco, Central
Justice Center. No other purported party was served.
In the eight-count complaint for declaratory relief,
reimbursement and recoupment of unspecified amounts, costs and
for such other relief as the court might grant, plaintiff alleged
that it is an insurance company to whom D/C tendered for defense
and indemnity various personal injury lawsuits allegedly based on
exposure to asbestos containing products.
Plaintiff alleged that because none of the parties have been able
to produce a copy of the policy or policies in question, a
judicial determination of the material terms of the missing
policy or policies is needed.
In order to fund such action and its other ongoing obligations
while such lawsuit continued, D/C entered into a Loan Agreement
and Security Agreement with the Company in August 2006, whereby
the Company provided certain advances against a promissory note
delivered by D/C in return for a security interest in any D/C
insurance policy at issue in this lawsuit. In June 2007, the
parties settled this lawsuit with payment by plaintiffs in the
amount of US$1,618,000. Such settlement amount was paid to the
Company in partial satisfaction of the secured indebtedness.
Because D/C was substantially without assets and was unable to
obtain additional sources of capital to satisfy its liabilities,
D/C filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of
Illinois, its voluntary petition for liquidation under Chapter 7
of Title 11, U.S. Bankruptcy Code during July 2007 (Case No. 07-
12776). The deadline for filing proofs of claim against D/C with
the bankruptcy court passed in October 2008.
Prior to the deadline, the Company filed claims that aggregated
about US$26.8 million, relating to both secured and unsecured
intercompany debts owed by D/C to the Company.
In addition, a personal injury law firm based in San Francisco
that represents clients with asbestos-related claims, filed
proofs of claim on behalf of about 700 claimants.
Based in Chicago, Kaanapali Land, LLC's continuing operations are
in two business segments: Agriculture and Property. The
Agriculture segment grows seed corn and soybeans under contract
and is engaged in farming and milling operations relating to the
coffee orchards on behalf of the applicable land owners. The
Property segment primarily develops land for sale and negotiates
bulk sales of undeveloped land.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Regal Beloit Corp. Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Regal Beloit Corporation, from time to time, continues to be
party to litigation that arises in the normal course of its
business operations, including product warranty and liability
claims, contract disputes and environmental, asbestos, employment
and other litigation matters.
The Company's products are used in industrial, commercial and
residential applications that subject the Company to claims that
the use of its products is alleged to have resulted in injury or
other damage.
Based in Beloit, Wis., Regal Beloit Corporation manufactures
commercial, industrial, and heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning (HVAC) electric motors, electric generators and
controls, and mechanical motion control products.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Imperial Industries Unit Faces 13 Injury Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Imperial Industries, Inc.'s subsidiary, Premix-Marbletite
Manufacturing Co., is a defendant in 13 claims (seven of which
include the Company as a defendant), which allege bodily injury
due to exposure to asbestos contained in products manufactured in
excess of 30 years ago.
Premix faced 11 asbestos claims (seven of which include the
Company as a defendant). (Class Action Reporter, March 26, 2010)
The Company has identified at least 10 of its prior insurance
carriers including both primary and excess/umbrella liability
carriers that have provided liability coverage to the Company,
including potential coverage for alleged injuries relating to
asbestos exposure.
Several of these insurance carriers are providing a defense to
Premix and the Company under a reservation of rights in all of
these asbestos cases. Certain of these underlying insurance
carriers have denied coverage to Premix and the Company on the
basis that certain exclusions preclude coverage and/or that their
policies have been exhausted.
In June 2009, one such carrier filed suit in Miami-Dade Circuit
Court against Premix and the Company, wherein the carrier seeks a
declaration from the Court that its insurance policies do not
provide coverage for the asbestos claims against Premix and the
Company. The carrier also asserts a claim for reimbursement of
defense costs and indemnity payments that it voluntarily made on
the Company's behalf in prior asbestos claims.
Premix and the Company have filed a counter claim against the
carrier for breach of contract, and asserted claims for damages
and attorneys' fees as a result of the carrier's unlawful denial
of coverage.
Nevertheless, until this suit has been resolved, and as a result
of the positions taken by certain other carriers, the "underlying
coverage layer" at this time has been exhausted, and the
"umbrella/excess carrier group" has assumed the defense and
indemnity of the pending asbestos claims under a reservation of
rights.
Based in Pompano Beach, Fla., Imperial Industries, Inc.
manufactures and distributes building materials to building
materials dealers and others located primarily in Florida, and to
a lesser extent, other states in the Southeastern United States.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Penn Millers' Liability at $2.31Mil at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Penn Millers Holding Corporation's estimated liability for
asbestos and environmental claims was US$2,318,000 at March 31,
2010, and US$2,397,000 at Dec. 31, 2009.
A substantial portion of the liability results from the Company's
participation in assumed reinsurance pools.
Based in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., Penn Millers Holding Corporation
provides property and casualty insurance products designed to
meet the insurance needs of certain segments of the agricultural
industry and the needs of middle market commercial businesses.
The Company is licensed in 39 states, but it currently limits its
sales of its insurance products to 33 states.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Biltrite Still Has $17.7MM Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Biltrite Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related liabilities
amounted to US$17.7 million as of both March 31, 2010 and Dec.
31, 2009, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2010.
The Company's long-term insurance for asbestos-related
liabilities was US$17,646,000 as of both March 31, 2010 and Dec.
31, 2009.
Based in Wellesley Hills, Mass., American Biltrite Inc.'s tape
division manufactures adhesive-coated, pressure-sensitive tapes
and films used to protect materials during handling and storage,
as well as for applications in the heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning, automotive, and electrical industries.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Biltrite Has 1,215 Claims at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Biltrite Inc. is a co-defendant with many other
manufacturers and distributors of asbestos containing products in
about 1,215 pending claims involving about 1,770 individuals as
of March 31, 2010, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed on May 17, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.
American Biltrite Inc. is a co-defendant with many other
manufacturers and distributors of asbestos containing products in
1,193 pending claims involving 1,739 individuals as of Dec. 31,
2009. (Class Action Reporter, April 16, 2010)
These claims relate to products of the Company's former Tile
Division, which the Company contributed to Congoleum Corporation
in 1993. The claimants allege personal injury or death from
exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products.
During the three months ended March 31, 2010, the Company
recorded 62 new claims, six settlements, and 34 dismissals.
The Company has multiple excess layers of insurance coverage for
asbestos claims. The total indemnity costs incurred to settle
claims were US$415,000 during the three months ended March 31,
2010 and US$5.7 million during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, all
of which were paid by the Company's first-layer excess umbrella
insurance carriers, as were the related defense costs.
Based in Wellesley Hills, Mass., American Biltrite Inc.'s tape
division manufactures adhesive-coated, pressure-sensitive tapes
and films used to protect materials during handling and storage,
as well as for applications in the heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning, automotive, and electrical industries.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tidewater Inc. Still Involved in Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tidewater Inc. continues to be involved in various legal
proceedings that relate to asbestos and other environmental
matters.
No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's
annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on May 20, 2010.
Based in New Orleans, Tidewater Inc. provides offshore service
vessels and equipment to the global offshore energy industry
through the operation of a diversified fleet of marine service
vessels. At Dec. 31, 2009, the Company had 394 vessels (including
joint-venture vessels and vessels withdrawn from service)
servicing the energy industry.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sears Holdings Corp. Subject to Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sears Holdings Corporation continues to be subject to legal
proceedings, in which some matters contain asbestos exposure
allegations, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 21, 2010.
Each claim may seek compensatory, punitive or treble damage
claims (potentially in large amounts), as well as other types of
relief.
Based in Hoffman Estates, Ill., Sears Holdings Corporation is the
parent company of Kmart Holding Corporation and Sears, Roebuck
and Co. The Company is a broadline retailer with 2,227 full-line
and 1,322 specialty retail stores in the United States, operating
through Kmart and Sears, and 416 full-line and specialty retail
stores in Canada operating through Sears Canada Inc., a 90
percent-owned subsidiary.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roper Ind. Still Involved in Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roper Industries, Inc. or its subsidiaries has been named
defendants in some asbestos-related cases, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed on May 7, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Over recent years there has been a significant increase in
certain U.S. states in asbestos-related litigation claims against
numerous industrial companies.
Based in Sarasota, Fla., Roper Industries, Inc. is a diversified
growth company that designs, manufactures and distributes energy
systems and controls, scientific and industrial imaging products
and software, industrial technology products and radio frequency
(RF) products and services.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Great Lakes, Ex-Unit Still Face Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation and its former subsidiary,
NATCO Limited Partnership, are still involved in pending
asbestos-related lawsuits.
The Company or NATCO is named as a defendant in about 251
lawsuits, the majority of which were filed between 1989 and 2000.
In these lawsuits, the plaintiffs allege personal injury,
primarily pleural abnormality or asbestosis, from exposure to
asbestos on the Company's vessels.
The vast majority of these lawsuits have been filed in the
Northern District of Ohio and a few in the Eastern District of
Michigan. All of the cases filed against the Company prior to
1996 were administratively dismissed in May 1996 and any cases
filed since that time have similarly been administratively
transferred to the inactive docket.
Plaintiffs in these cases could seek to reinstate the cases at a
future date without being barred by the statute of limitations.
By order dated Oct. 29, 2009, however, the presiding judge
reactivated 512 lawsuits in an effort to clean out the
administrative docket and has stated that he intends to
reactivate about 250 cases each month.
Six of the cases reactivated to date name the Company as a
defendant. Of these six cases, one of the plaintiffs has elected
not to pursue his claims. The remaining five cases are proceeding
through the discovery process.
In addition, by order entered March 2, 2010, the judge dismissed
7,405 lawsuits pending in the administrative docket, including 12
that named the Company as a defendant.
Based in Oak Brook, Ill., Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation
provides dredging services in the East, West and Gulf Coasts of
the United States and worldwide. The Company also owns a majority
interest in NASDI, a demolition services provider located in the
Boston area. The Company operates in two reportable segments:
dredging and demolition.
*********
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 * * *