/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/101210.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, December 10, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 244 Headlines ADVANCE AMERICA: Inks $18.75 Million Payday Loan Settlement AVIAT NETWORKS: Class Action Suit in Delaware Still Pending BANK OF AMERICA: Underwood Firm Sues Over Mortgage Foreclosures BECHTEL CORPORATION: Inks $18.5 Million ERISA Settlement BENDIGO BANK: Supreme Court Rejects Class Action for Second Time BEXAR COUNTY: Settles Strip-Search Class Action BLUE CROSS: Seeks Testimony From Expert in ERISA Class Action CAESAR'S ENTERTAINMENT: Accused in N.J. of Not Paying Overtime CALUMET CITY: Sued for Violations of Freedom of Speech Rights CELLCOM ISRAEL: Faces Class Action Over Network Malfunction CHARLES SCHWAB: Law Firm Reopens Probe on YieldPlus Claims FACEBOOK INC: Removes "Scherek" Complaint to N.D. Calif. GENERAL MOTORS: Canadian Export Antitrust Suits Still Pending GENERAL MOTORS: American Export Antitrust Suit Still Pending GENERAL MOTORS: Canadian Dealer Lawsuit Still Pending GENERAL MOTORS: OnStar Analog Equipment Litigation Still Ongoing GENERAL MOTORS: Dropped From Unintended Acceleration Class Suit GENERAL WAX: Recalls 12,000 Silver Metallic Pillar Candles GENOPTIX INC: Accused in Calif. Suit of Misleading Shareholders GT SOLAR: Discovery in "Braun" Suit Ongoing GT SOLAR: "Hamel" Suit Still Pending in New Hampshire ISILON SYSTEMS: D&Os Sued Over Sale of Company to EMC Corporation LOS ANGELES FILM SCHOOL: Sued Over Deceptive Business Practices MASSACHUSETTS: MBTA Accessibility Reviewed After Class Settlement MDL 1775: Four Air Cargo Carriers Agree to Pay $118 Million MEYER CORPORATION: Recalls 59,000 Quart Teakettle NEXTWAVE WIRELESS: Class Action Suit in California Still Pending NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Faces Class Action Over Loan Interest Rates REED ELSEVIER: Judge Allows Lexis-Nexis Class Suit to Proceed SERVICE CORPORATION: Accused of Discriminating Against Blacks SONIC SOLUTIONS: Negotiates Tentative Deal to Resolve DivX Suit ST. JOE: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action STEVE MADDEN: To Submit MOU for Court Approval Next Year SYNGENTA CROP: Court Gets Discovery Order Appeal in Class Suit TARGET CORP: Recalls 1,500 Circo Children's Space Camp Combo Pack UNITED STATES: Native Americans in Class Suit Face Long Wait WASHINGTON COUNTY: Juvenile Center Faces Class Action Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS ALERT: Global Power Named a Defendant in Injury Actions ASBESTOS ALERT: U.S. Auto Parts Network Unit Has Exposure Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thomas Properties Cites $900,000 for Abatement ASBESTOS UPDATE: Imperial Industries Unit Faces 18 Injury Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS Global's Stearns Unit Facing 1,425 Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS Global's Prager Unit Still Facing 2 Actions ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS Global's Falk Unit Faces 190 Exposure Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6,000 Injury Lawsuits Ongoing v. Zurn at Oct. 2 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Still Named in Liability Actions ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chinea Case v. Ballantyne Strong Filed Aug. 17 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chase Corp. Still Facing Scott Lawsuit in Ohio ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chase Corp. Still Facing Jansen Lawsuit in Wis. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Facing 300 Injury Actions at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Katy Indus. Still Faces to 11 Cases in Alabama ASBESTOS UPDATE: Katy Still Subject to 2.8T Sterling Fluid Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: LaBour Pump Facing 90 Active Lawsuits at Oct. 1 ASBESTOS UPDATE: ABI's Liabilities Still at $17.7Mil at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Biltrite Has 1,237 Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Still Named in Injury Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sears Still Subject to Asbestos Exposure Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: 83T Claims Pending v. Ashland Inc. at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hercules Still Facing 20,000 Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Posts $66MM Liability at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: 26,000 Claims Pending v. Maremont at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Still Has Rockwell Int'l. Actions ASBESTOS UPDATE: National Fuel Has $101MM Sept. 30 ARO Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: WGL Holdings Has $174.5MM Sept. 30 ARO Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Corp. Still Subject to Respirator Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: United Refining Co. Posts $400,000 for Cleanup ASBESTOS UPDATE: Met-Pro Corp. Facing 97 Open Actions at Dec. 2 ASBESTOS UPDATE: OSHA Issues $51T Fine v. David H. Koch Theater ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scranton Property Owner to Follow Cleanup Rules ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aston University Penalized for Safety Breaches ASBESTOS UPDATE: Moore's Case for Compensation Ongoing in London ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standby Facility of AU$320MM for AICF Formalized ASBESTOS UPDATE: Downer EDI to Pay Workers While Hazard Removed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Malta Shipyards to Pay Fenech Family EUR103,114 ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Environmental Exposure" Ruled in Tuck's Death ASBESTOS UPDATE: DEQ Issues $18T Fine for Logan Cleanup Breaches ASBESTOS UPDATE: NPWS, BMCC Seek Info on Dump at Blue Mountains ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACT Govt. Seeks Inquiry on Asbestos at Molonglo ASBESTOS UPDATE: 53 New Lawsuits Filed in St. Clair as of Dec. 1 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oregon State Hospital to Undergo Hazard Cleanup ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Glan Clwys Hospital to Commence 2011 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement at North Queensland Schools Ongoing ********* ADVANCE AMERICA: Inks $18.75 Million Payday Loan Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- IF YOU GOT A PAYDAY LOAN AT ANY OF THESE STORES IN NORTH CAROLINA ON OR AFTER MARCH 1, 2003: * Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of North Carolina, Inc. * Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc. * Advance America, Cash Advance Centers * Advance America * Advance America, Cash Advance * National Cash Advance * McKenzie Cash Advance of North Carolina, LLC Please Read This Legal Notice -- It May Affect Your Rights A settlement has been proposed in a class action lawsuit, Kucan v. Advance America, case no. 04-CVS-2860 (New Hanover County). Superior Court Judge D. Jack Hooks, Jr., will conduct a final approval hearing on Monday, January 31, 2011, at 1:00 p.m. at the New Hanover County Courthouse, 316 Princess Street, Wilmington, North Carolina to decide whether to approve the proposed settlement. Additional information is available at http://www.NCAdvanceAmericaSettlement.com/or by calling 1-866- 428-0429. Who is in the Class? The Class Members are: All persons who have entered into one or more "Payday Loan" transactions at a North Carolina store at any time on or after March 1, 2003, and who do not validly opt out of the Class. A "Payday Loan" transaction is defined to mean cash advances, deferred deposit check cashing disbursements, loans (including installment loans and zero interest loans) or other transactions, including those transactions in which any defendants in this case marketed, serviced or processed a loan originated by a third party, as a consequence of which a Class Member came to be indebted in a consumer transaction conducted at a North Carolina office doing business under the names "Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of North Carolina, Inc.," "Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc.," "Advance America, Cash Advance Centers," "Advance America," "Advance America, Cash Advance," "National Cash Advance," and "McKenzie Cash Advance of North Carolina, LLC." What's the Case About? The lawsuit claims that Advance America violated provisions of the North Carolina Consumer Finance Act and other North Carolina laws. Advance America denies the allegations. A copy of the Complaint is available on the Web site http://www.NCAdvanceAmericaSettlement.com/ What Does the Settlement Provide? If approved, the settlement will require Advance America to pay $18.75 million into a settlement fund in three installments, the last of which will be paid in January of 2012. In addition to paying Class Members as described below, the settlement fund will pay attorney fees and expenses approved by the Court. If the attorneys fees and expenses expected to be requested are approved, approximately $12 million will be available for distribution to Class Members. Each Class Member who paid any payday or related loan fees will receive at least one distribution/payment from the settlement fund based on the ratio of the total fees paid by that particular Class Member to the total amount of all fees paid by all Class Members. How Do You Qualify For A Payment? To qualify for a payment, you do not need to do anything. If you are a Class Member, a settlement administrator will mail you a class notice. If you believe you are a Class Member and you do not receive a class notice in the mail, this may mean that the settlement administrator does not have your correct address. For information on how to contact the settlement administrator visit http://www.NCAdvanceAmericaSettlement.com/or call 1-866-428-0429. The Final Approval Hearing The Court will hold a final approval hearing in this case on Monday, January 31, 2011 at 1:00 p.m. at the New Hanover County Courthouse, 316 Princess Street, Wilmington, North Carolina to consider whether to approve the proposed settlement. You may ask to appear at the hearing, but you don't have to. For more information about the hearing and your right to participate visit http://www.NCAdvanceAmericaSettlement.com/or call 1-866-428-0429. What Else Will Be Considered at the Hearing? At the hearing the Court is expected to consider a motion for attorney fees in the amount of one-third of the settlement fund ($6.25 million), special fees for the two class representatives of $20,000 each, and a request for the payment of expenses incurred in prosecuting the case and administering the proposed settlement. For further information about these matters visit http://www.NCAdvanceAmericaSettlement.com/or call 1-866-428-0429. Class Members' Options. If you don't want to be legally bound by the settlement, you must exclude yourself or opt-out from the Class by no later than January 13, 2011. If you exclude yourself, you can't get money from this settlement. You may object to the settlement by no later than January 13, 2011. You may also object to the attorneys' fees request or any other aspect of the proceedings. You may obtain instructions about how to exclude yourself or object to the settlement by visiting http://www.NCAdvanceAmericaSettlement.com/ or calling 1-866-428-0429. The Plaintiff Class is represented by: Carlene McNulty, Esq. N.C. Justice Center 224 South Dawson St. P.O. Box 28068 Raleigh, NC 27611 and the Defendants are represented by: Lewis Wiener, Esq. Sutherland Asbill & Brennan 1275 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20004 Gilardi & Co. LLC serves as the settlement administrator in this litigation. AVIAT NETWORKS: Class Action Suit in Delaware Still Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Aviat Networks Inc. continues to defend itself from a consolidated class action complaint filed in Delaware, according to its November 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 1, 2010. Aviat Networks and certain of its current and former executive officers and directors were named in a federal securities class action complaint filed on September 15, 2008 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware by plaintiff Norfolk County Retirement System on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of Aviat Networks' securities from January 29, 2007 to July 30, 2008, including shareholders of Stratex Networks, Inc. who exchanged shares of Stratex Networks, Inc. for Aviat Networks' shares as part of the merger between Stratex Networks and the Microwave Communications Division of Harris Corporation. Similar complaints were filed in the United States District Court of Delaware on October 6 and October 30, 2008. Each complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and seeks, among other relief, determinations that the action is a proper class action, unspecified compensatory damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The actions were consolidated on June 5, 2009 and a consolidated class action complaint was filed on July 29, 2009. On July 27, 2010, the Court denied the motions to dismiss that Aviat Networks and the officer and director defendants had filed. BANK OF AMERICA: Underwood Firm Sues Over Mortgage Foreclosures --------------------------------------------------------------- Baldwin County NOW reports a Fairhope law firm has filed a lawsuit, which has evolved into a class action in Mobile federal court, challenging mortgage foreclosures by Bank of America, according to Earl Underwood, an attorney with the Underwood and Riemer firm. The case was brought on behalf of Kimberly George against Bank of America and its subsidiary BAC Home Lending Services, according to the firm's news release. The claims arise from the servicing of a real estate mortgage loan secured by George for property located in Mobile County, and the lawsuit alleges the Bank of America wrongfully attempted to foreclose on George's home. "This case is similar to many we continue to see rising out of misrepresentations and poor practices by mortgage companies regarding the handling of federal money passed to them under programs such as the 'Homeowner Affordability and Modification Program' (HAMP), stated Kenneth J. Riemer, Partner, Underwood & Riemer. "When Bank of America accepted billions of dollars in taxpayer bail out funds, it agreed to follow these HAMP rules, which are designed to help struggling homeowners. What we see in the George case, and many others like it, is a systematic refusal to follow these rules and a rush to foreclose when the homeowner has done everything to hold up their side of the HAMP." The case was filed in Mobile Circuit Court in October, which the defendant then moved to federal district court in Mobile, Underwood said. The Fairhope firm has associated the National Consumer Law Center as co-counsel and expect the case to be consolidated with other similar cases filed in other states. BECHTEL CORPORATION: Inks $18.5 Million ERISA Settlement -------------------------------------------------------- Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement This Legal Notice May Affect Your Rights Please Read It Carefully A settlement has been proposed in a class action lawsuit regarding the 401(k) plans sponsored by Bechtel Corporation that is now pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Who Is Included? Class members include anyone who participated in the Bechtel Trust & Thrift Plan and the Becon Trust & Thrift Plan (collectively, the "Plans") from January 1, 1992, through September 30, 2010, as well as their beneficiaries and alternate payees. What Is The Case About? The lawsuit was filed against Bechtel Corporation, Bechtel Trust & Thrift Plan Committee, Fremont Investment Advisors, Inc., and other defendants alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and prohibited transactions. On November 3, 2008, the Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims in the lawsuit (except for a portion of one claim covering a four month period, which claim has been resolved). Plaintiffs have appealed that decision. While the parties have decided to settle the case, the defendants adamantly deny any wrongdoing. What Does The Settlement Provide? The settlement, which must be approved by the court, creates an $18.5 million settlement fund. After payment of court approved attorneys' fees and expenses, money will be distributed to the members of the class based upon the length of participation in the plans. For current participants in the Plans, your portion will be deposited in your 401(k) account. For former participants or beneficiaries who no longer participate in the Plans (as of September 30, 2010), a check will be mailed to the address you give to the Settlement Administrator (see below). What Do You Need To Do? If you participated in one of the Plans at any point in time between January 1, 1992, and September 30, 2010 (or if you are the beneficiary of someone who had an account in one of the 401(k) Plans during this time) and you no longer had an account balance with one of the Plans as of September 30, 2010, you must submit a claim form by January 19, 2011 in order to receive any settlement payment. Call or visit the Web site below to get a claim form and obtain information about the proposed settlement. Current participants in the Plans (people with accounts in the Plans as of September 30, 2010) do not need to submit a claim form; any amount due to them will be deposited into their plan account unless they withdraw from the Plans before the settlement payments are distributed, in which case they will receive their settlement payments by check. Information can be obtained at http://www.btcERISAsettlement.com/ or by calling the settlement administrator at 1-877-814-0828. The Plaintiff Class in Kanawi, et al. v. Bechtel Corp., et al., Case No. 06-cv-05566 (N.D. Calif.), is represented by: SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON Attn: Bechtel ERISA Settlement 100 S. Fourth St., Suite 900 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: 314-621-6115 Fax: 314-621-715 E-mail: btcERISAsettlement@uselaws.com and the Defendants are represented by: D. Ward Kallstrom, Esq. Jami Wintz McKeon, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 442-1000 Fax: (415) 442-1001 E-mail: dwkallstrom@morganlewis.com jmckeon@morganlewis.com - and - Grace Carter, Esq. PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY &WALKER, LLP 55 Second Street, 24th Floor San Francisco, CA 94014 Telephone: (415) 856-7015 Fax: (415) 856-7115 E-mail: gracecarter@paulhastings.com The Honorable Charles R. Breyer has scheduled a Fairness Hearing at 10:00 a.m., prevailing Pacific Time, on Feb. 18, 2011, in San Francisco, to review the settlement pact and any objections filed and served by Jan. 19, 2011. BENDIGO BANK: Supreme Court Rejects Class Action for Second Time ---------------------------------------------------------------- Karen Sweeney, writing for Bendigo Advertiser, reports the Supreme Court has again struck out a multi-million dollar class action on behalf of Bendigo Bank borrowers involved in the collapsed Great Southern investment scheme. Macpherson+Kelley lawyers have failed to appease the court with their statement of claims rejected for the second time in two months. But they're not giving up with a third hearing scheduled for February next year. Tuesday's decision by the court follows an announcement in October when the entire statement was struck out. Bendigo Bank managing director Mike Hirst said he was concerned for borrowers in the wake of the decision. He said the rejection meant they would be forced to fund a third attempt at an arguable case. "Surely borrowers would have expected Macpherson+Kelley to put its best argument forward first so as to reduce the time and money spent on legal proceedings," he said. "After being knocked back in October you would have thought Macpherson+Kelley would have provided a better argument today but now Macpherson+Kelley will be spending more of their clients' money having a third bite of the cherry." Mr. Hirst urged borrowers involved in the class action to re- consider their involvement. "The time has come for borrowers to consider whether they should continue to expose themselves to compound and default interest by not bringing their loans up to date," Mr. Hirst said. Macpherson+Kelly will make a third attempt at filing a statement of claims in the Supreme Court in February next year. Investors involved in the class action collectively owe Bendigo Bank more than $450 million. BEXAR COUNTY: Settles Strip-Search Class Action ----------------------------------------------- Jeorge Zarazua, writing for San Antonio Express-News, reports thousands of people who were strip searched and booked into Bexar County Jail in recent years are entitled to money from a $4.5 million class-action lawsuit settlement. The county agreed to the settlement to protect itself from having to pay more if the case had gone to trial and its strip-search policies were ruled unconstitutional, said county spokeswoman Laura Jesse. As a result, people who went to jail between Nov. 15, 2005, and April 9, 2009, and were strip searched can receive up to $1,000 each, depending on the charge, Ms. Jesse said. She said as many as 30,000 people may qualify for some sort of payment under the agreement, which will become the county's first class-action settlement when U.S. District Judge Fred Biery gives it final approval in January, according to Jesse. Judge Biery conditionally approved the settlement Oct. 13. As part of the settlement, the county has begun its campaign to notify people who are eligible to be paid. It is also airing television and radio commercials informing the public of the settlement. Those who are eligible and want to be excluded have until the end of the month to notify officials. "The reason the (commissioners') court voted to go ahead and settle is because this sort of lawsuit has already been brought in six federal courts, where those courts found blanket searches for misdemeanants unconstitutional," Ms. Jesse said, adding that only two federal courts have not. The lawsuit against Bexar County was filed in 2005 by a Washington, D.C.-based law firm that had successfully sued other counties and jails across the country. Other law firms also are involved. The lawsuit named three people as plaintiffs, including Julia Ann Jackson, who was arrested in April 2006 on a warrant for driving with an invalid license. It alleged that people who were strip searched and booked into Bexar County Jail during that time had their Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches violated. "In short, the policy of Bexar County and the Bexar County Detention Center to force those charged with minor crimes to undergo the indignities of a strip search upon detention is not only clearly illegal, but is insensitive and unnecessary," the lawsuit claimed. James Harrington, director of Texas Civil Rights Project and one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, said he's satisfied with the settlement. "We're particularly glad that we were able to stop this kind of practice," he said. "It amazes me that it was able to go on." Bexar County asserts its policy to visually strip search everyone was done for the "protection of inmates, officers, and the general public who visited the jail." No contact was allowed and detainees were searched by members of the same sex. By agreeing to settle the lawsuit, Bexar County doesn't admit to any wrongdoing. But because of the potential of losing up to $55 million, Ms. Jesse said the county is settling and changed its strip-search policies in April 2009. Detainees charged with felony crimes, or those suspected of having contraband, will continue to be searched. Ms. Jesse said people who are eligible for money from the settlement have until March 16 to submit a claim. Payments -- to be made by the county's insurance -- will be made after that. Those benefiting from the settlement have been divided into two groups. People who were charged with misdemeanors involving drugs, weapons and shoplifting are in Subclass II and are eligible for $100 each. Those charged with other misdemeanor offenses can seek a claim of up to $1,000. The three named plaintiffs in the lawsuit will receive $15,000 each. Ms. Jesse said the settlement agreement contains a "reverter" clause, meaning that any money that goes unclaimed goes back to the county. Mr. Harrington said although the number of jails that strip search people charged with minor crimes is dwindling, some jurisdictions still do so. "My guess is most places have seen the writing on the wall in the courts and are abandoning this practice," he said. "But it does go on and when we do get complaints about it we will go ahead and file litigation." Making a claim To qualify for a payment, a claim must be postmarked by March 16. Claim forms are available online at http://www.bexarcountystripsearch.com/ If you are unsure if you are eligible for money, you can call 888- 448-2130 for more information or visit the Web site. Want to be excluded? To exclude yourself from the settlement, send an exclusion request to Bexar County Settlement Administration, c/o The Garden City Group Inc., P.O. Box 9667, Dublin, OH 43017-4967, by Dec. 31. Include name, address, telephone number and signature. BLUE CROSS: Seeks Testimony From Expert in ERISA Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- On December 6, 2010, Dr. Jin Zhou of ERISAclaim.com received a subpoena from 23 Blue Cross Blue Shield entities to testify on the matter of ERISA appeals practice in a national class action lawsuit against Blue Cross Blue Shield entities over overpayment recoupment dispute, as many provider plaintiffs were taught on ERISA appeal practice from Dr. Jin Zhou, in the wake of a federal court ruling on May 17, 2010 against Blue Cross Blue Shield entities permitting the providers' class-action to proceed under ERISA. PCA et al v. BCBSA et al, Case #:1:09-cv-05619 (N.D. Ill). In particular, sought by Blue Cross Blue Shield Entities, is the "Magic disk, a compact disc entitled "ERISA Demystified - Getting Paid by ERISA Compliance", as the textbook for ERISAclaim.com's basic ERISA appeal process class and advanced ERISA Claim Specialist Certification Class. ERISA appeal regulation has been adopted in its entirety by new federal reform law, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, PPACA, as the minimum requirements for all group plans and individual policies, effective September 23, 2010. On September 10, 2009, Pennsylvania Chiropractic Association (PCA) and Many Other chiropractic State associations as well as individual providers filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court against 23 Blue Cross Blue Shield entities in the dispute over overpayment recoupment and withholding practice by Blue Cross Shield entities in all 50 states. PCA et al v. BCBSA et al, Case #:1:09-cv-05619 (N.D. Ill). On May 17, 2010, the federal district court in Chicago ruled against Blue Cross Blue Shield entities in its motion to dismiss and permitted providers' class-action to proceed under federal law ERISA, rejecting BCBS's state law and provider contract arguments. The class action lawsuit is now in the discovery phase. Relevant to ERISA class-action, the provider plaintiffs were challenged by the defendants as to whether they have complied with federal law ERISA and exhausted ERISA appeals before the class-action lawsuit, and as many provider plaintiffs were taught by Dr. Jin Zhou on how to file ERISA appeals in compliance with the federal law and in accordance with ERISA Appeal Textbook, "ERISA Demystified - Getting Paid by ERISA Compliance". As national health expenditure has been skyrocketing, Congress made another health reform law, PPACA, early this year to mandate ERISA appeals by everyone. ERISAclaim.com has been the only consulting company in the nation to provide providers with ERISA and PPACA Appeals educational compliance practice. "The Affordable Care Act will help support and protect consumers and their healthcare providers to end some of the worst insurance company abuses. For too long, consumers and their providers have been forced to fend for themselves in a health care system that did not provide them with the support and assistance they needed and deserved. Today, ERISAclaim.com is offering advanced PPACA & ERISA certification program that will teach healthcare providers to appeal decisions made by the health plans and the availability of resources that will be used to provide highest quality care and help give consumers more control of their health care decisions," said Dr. Jin Zhou, President of ERISAclaim.com, a national PPACA & ERISA compliance and appeals expert. Further information on The Affordable Care Act's New Patient's Bill of Rights, governing the new PPACA & ERISA Claim Certification Program, can be found on the website of Department of Health & Human Services: "Fact Sheet: The Affordable Care Act: Protecting Consumers and Putting Patients Back in Charge of Their Care - July 22, 2010 The Affordable Care Act will help support and protect consumers and end some of the worst insurance company abuses. For too long, consumers have been forced to fend for themselves in a health care system that did not provide them with the support and assistance they needed and deserved. Today, the Obama Administration is announcing new regulations that will allow consumers to appeal decisions made by their health plans and the availability of resources that will be used to help give consumers more control of their health care decisions." "HHS, DOL & IRS News Release: The Affordable Care Act's New Patient's Bill of Rights New Regulations Give Patients Right To Appeal Health Plan Decisions; New Grants Program Strengthens State and Territory Consumer Assistance Programs" ERISAclaim.com, located in Chicago suburb in Illinois, offers free webinars, basic and advanced educational seminars and on-site claims specialist certification programs for doctors, hospitals and commercial companies, as well as litigation support. For a copy of BCBS ERISA subpoena: http://www.erisaclaim.com/BCBSsubpoena.pdf For more information on the "Magic Disc" sought by BCBS: http://www.erisaclaim.com/products.htm For a copy of federal court ruling in PAC et al v. BCBSA et al: http://www.erisaclaim.com/BCBS_Overpayment_%20Class_Action_Opinion.pdf For more information on how to become an ERISA-PPACA & ERISA Claims Specialist under new and existing federal appeals regulations. For any questions, please contact Dr. Jin Zhou, president of ERISAclaim.com, at 630-808-7237. CAESAR'S ENTERTAINMENT: Accused in N.J. of Not Paying Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that in a federal class action, game table supervisors claim Caesar's Entertainment and Harrah's Operation Co. stiff them for overtime. A copy of the Complaint in Joseph v. Caesar's Entertainment Corp., et al., Case No. 10-cv-_____, docketed as Doc. 991 in Case No. 33-av-00001 on Dec. 6, 2010 (D. N.J.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/07/Casinos.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin L. Swindler, Esq. Richard S. Swartz, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC 1878 Marlton Pike East, Suite 10 Cherry Hill, NJ 08003 Telephone: 856-685-7420 CALUMET CITY: Sued for Violations of Freedom of Speech Rights ------------------------------------------------------------- Hope Allen, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated employees of the City of Calumet City, Illinois v. The City of Calumet, et al., Case No. 2010-L-013775 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. December 3, 2010), seeks redress for actions taken against her by the defendants related to her exercise of her rights under the 1st and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 2 of the Illinois Constitution with respect to speech and association. The Calumet City is a municipal corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois pursuant to the Illinois Municipal Code. Also being charged in the Complaint are individual defendants George Vallis (Director of Personnel and Purchasing of Calumet City), Nick Manousopoulos (Alderman of the 6th Ward of Calumet City), Roger Munda (Alderman of the 5th Ward of Calumet City), Brian Wilson (Alderman of the 4th Ward of Calumet City), and Edward Gonzales (Alderman of the 1st Ward of the Calumet City), who are sued in their individual capacities. Ms. Allen relates that she was hired as an administrative assistant for the Mayor of the City of Calumet City in April of 2006, a position she says is non-managerial and is not a political position. Ms. Allen explains that after Mayour Qualkinbush won reelection, defendants Manousopoulos, Gonzalez, Munda, and Wilson, developed a policy of retaliation against her and others supporting the Mayor. Defendant Manousopoulos, Ms. Allen states, even physically assaulted her while she was at work. She says she filed a complaint with the Calumet City Police Department but was told that an act by the elected official was not a crime. Ms. Allen says that between October 2009 and June 2010, her salary was reduced and her stipends were taken away and that on July 23, 2010, defendant Vallis terminated her without cause. Ms. Allen claims her termination was in retaliation for her open support of Michelle Qualkinbush, who ran for election of Mayor of Calumet City in 2005 and 2009. Ms. Allen states that at one City Council meeting she complained about the defendants' self-serving actions, illegal use of taxpayer money, patronage hires and promotions and their general incompetence. She claims that similar complaints were also lodged against the City administration for the "financially rapacious" payments they made to themselves and their relatives and cronies." The Plaintiff is represented by: Luke A. Casson, Esq. ANDREOU & CASSON, LTD. 661 West Lake Street, Suite 2N Chicago, IL 60661 Telephone: (312) 935-2000 CELLCOM ISRAEL: Faces Class Action Over Network Malfunction ----------------------------------------------------------- Cellcom Israel Ltd. Tuesday disclosed that following its previous report dated December 2, 2010 regarding a major network malfunction, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the District Court of Central Region, by two plaintiffs alleging to be subscribers of the Company, claiming compensation for mental anguish, in connection with allegations that the Company unlawfully and in violation of its license and its agreement with the plaintiffs, failed to provide service to its subscribers during the network malfunction. The total amount claimed if the lawsuit is certified as a class action was estimated by the plaintiffs to be approximately NIS1.18 billion. At this preliminary stage, the Company is unable to assess the lawsuit's chances of success. For additional details see our immediate report on form 6-K dated December 2, 2010. Cellcom Israel Ltd. (NYSE: CEL) (TASE: CEL) -- http://www.cellcom.co.il/-- is an Israeli cellular provider. The Company provides its approximately 3.376 million subscribers (as at September 30, 2010) with a broad range of 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. 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). CHARLES SCHWAB: Law Firm Reopens Probe on YieldPlus Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LLP has reopened its investigation into the filing of individual arbitration claims against Charles Schwab. Recently, the US District Court has approved a proposed amendment to the Charles Schwab Corporation Securities Litigation settlement. The Supplemental Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action has been delivered to qualified class members. This includes those who may have held Schwab YieldPlus Fund shares on September 1, 2006 and obtained more of them between May 31, 2006 and March 17, 2008. Shares may have either been purchased or obtained through dividend reinvestment in the Fund. Class members cannot have been residents of California on September 1, 2006. Exclusion and Objection Deadlines: Your notice of exclusion or objection must be postmarked no later than January 14, 2011 and cannot be received after January 21, 2011. For those that decide to proceed with the class, you don't need to do anything to stay eligible. Filing an Individual Securities Claim Against Charles Schwab For those investors that choose to be excluded from the Charles Schwab YieldPlus class action and any related benefits, you can file your own arbitration claim against Schwab. Filing an individual claim may potentially allow a claimant to recover more than if he/she had stayed with the class action case. Our attorneys represent clients with securities frAU$ and other claims against many brokerage firms, including Charles Schwab. Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LLP -- http://www.sseklaw.com/-- has a team of attorneys, consultants and others with more than 100 years of combined experience in the securities industry and in securities law. CONTACT: Kirk G. Smith, Esq. Sam Edwards, Esq. SHEPHERD SMITH EDWARDS & KANTAS Telephone: 800-259-9010 E-mail: ksmith@sseklaw.com sedwards@sseklaw.com FACEBOOK INC: Removes "Scherek" Complaint to N.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------------------- Roxane Scherek, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Facebook, Inc., et al., Case No. CGC-10-504986 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty.), was filed on October 29, 2010. The plaintiff accuses Facebook, who operates a social networking Web site, of transferring, without consent, her personally identifying information, including but not limited to her unique Facebook identification number, with third parties, in violation of Federal and State law as well as defendants' own private policies. On the basis that the appropriate district court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d), Facebook, Inc., on December 6, 2010, removed the lawsuit to the Northern District of California, and the Clerk assigned Case No. 10-cv-05528 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Gutride, Esq. Seth A. Safier, Esq. Kristen Simplicio, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 835 Douglass Street San Francisco, CA 94114 Telephone: (415) 336-6545 Facebook, Inc., is represented by: Michael G. Rhodes, Esq. Matthew D. Brown, Esq. COOLEY LLP 101 California Street, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-5800 Telephone: (415) 693-2000 GENERAL MOTORS: Canadian Export Antitrust Suits Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Two consolidated class actions filed against General Motors Corporation in Maine and California remain pending, according to General Motors Company's November 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. Approximately eighty purported class actions on behalf of all purchasers of new motor vehicles in the United States since January 1, 2001, have been filed in various state and federal courts against General Motors Corporation, General Motors of Canada Limited, Ford Motor Company, Chrysler, LLC, Toyota Motor Corporation, Honda Motor Co., Ltd., Nissan Motor Company, Limited, and Bavarian Motor Works and their Canadian affiliates, the National Automobile Dealers Association, and the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association. The federal court actions have been consolidated for coordinated pretrial proceedings under the caption In re New Market Vehicle Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation Cases in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine, and the more than 30 California cases have been consolidated in the California Superior Court in San Francisco County under the case captions Belch v. Toyota Corporation, et al. and Bell v. General Motors Corporation. Old GM's liability in these matters was not assumed by General Motors Company as part of the 363 Sale. GMCL was not part of Old GM's bankruptcy proceeding and potentially remains liable in all matters. In the California state court cases, oral arguments on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and defendants' motion in limine were heard on April 21, 2009. The court ruled that it would certify a class. Defendants written appeal to the appropriate California court was denied. Defendants are preparing other substantive motions for summary judgment. In the Minnesota state court cases, the court granted defendants' motions to lift the stay of proceedings and granted summary judgment on September 16, 2010. Plaintiffs have not yet filed an appeal. The nearly identical complaints alleged that the defendant manufacturers, aided by the association defendants, conspired among themselves and with their dealers to prevent the sale to U.S. citizens of vehicles produced for the Canadian market and sold by dealers in Canada. The complaints alleged that new vehicle prices in Canada are 10% to 30% lower than those in the United States, and that preventing the sale of these vehicles to U.S. citizens resulted in the payment of higher than competitive prices by U.S. consumers. The complaints, as amended, sought injunctive relief under U.S. antitrust law and treble damages under U.S. and state antitrust laws, but did not specify damages. The complaints further alleged unjust enrichment and violations of state unfair trade practices act. On March 5, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine issued a decision holding that the purported indirect purchaser classes failed to state a claim for damages under federal antitrust law but allowed a separate claim seeking to enjoin future alleged violations to continue. The U.S. District Court for the District of Maine on March 10, 2006 certified a nationwide class of buyers and lessees under Federal Rule 23(b)(2) solely for injunctive relief, and on March 21, 2007 stated that it would certify 20 separate statewide class actions for damages under various state law theories under Federal Rule 23(b)(3), covering the period from January 1, 2001 to April 30, 2003. On October 3, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit heard oral arguments on Old GM's consolidated appeal of both class certification orders. On March 28, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the certification of the injunctive class and ordered dismissal of the injunctive claim. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit also vacated the certification of the damages class and remanded to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine for determination of several issues concerning federal jurisdiction and, if such jurisdiction still exists, for reconsideration of that class certification on a more complete record. On remand, plaintiffs again moved to certify a damages class, and defendants again moved for summary judgment and to strike plaintiffs' economic expert. On July 2, 2009, the court granted one of defendants' summary judgment motions. Plaintiffs did not appeal. As a result, the only issues remaining in the federal actions relate to disposition of the funds paid by Toyota in a settlement years ago. General Motors Company was formed by the United States Department of the Treasury in 2009 originally as a Delaware limited liability company, Vehicle Acquisition Holdings LLC, and subsequently converted to a Delaware corporation, NGMCO, Inc. This company, which on July 10, 2009 acquired substantially all of the assets and assumed certain liabilities of General Motors Corporation and changed its name to General Motors Company. GENERAL MOTORS: American Export Antitrust Suit Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ A lawsuit filed against General Motors Corporation in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice remains pending, according to General Motors Company's November 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010. On September 25, 2007, a claim was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against General Motors of Canada Limited and Old GM on behalf of a purported class of actual and intended purchasers of vehicles in Canada claiming that a similar alleged conspiracy was now preventing lower-cost U.S. vehicles from being sold to Canadians. The Plaintiffs have delivered their certification materials. An order staying claims against MLC was granted in November 2009. A certification hearing has not yet been scheduled. No determination has been made that the case may be maintained as a class action, and it is not possible to determine the likelihood of liability or reasonably ascertain the amount of any damages. General Motors Company was formed by the United States Department of the Treasury in 2009 originally as a Delaware limited liability company, Vehicle Acquisition Holdings LLC, and subsequently converted to a Delaware corporation, NGMCO, Inc. This company, which on July 10, 2009 acquired substantially all of the assets and assumed certain liabilities of General Motors Corporation and changed its name to General Motors Company. GENERAL MOTORS: Canadian Dealer Lawsuit Still Pending ----------------------------------------------------- General Motors of Canada Limited continues to defend itself from a lawsuit filed by Canadian dealers in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, according to General Motors Company's November 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. On January 21, 2010, a claim was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against General Motors of Canada Limited for damages on behalf of a purported class of 215 Canadian General Motors dealers which entered into wind-down agreements with GMCL in May 2009. GMCL offered the Plaintiff dealers the wind-down agreements to assist the Plaintiffs' exit from the GMCL Canadian dealer network upon the expiration of their GM Dealer Sales and Service Agreements (DSSAs) on October 31, 2010, and to assist the Plaintiffs in winding down their dealer operations in an orderly fashion. The Plaintiff dealers allege that the DSSAs have been wrongly terminated by GMCL and that GMCL failed to comply with franchise disclosure obligations, breached its statutory duty of fair dealing and unlawfully interfered with the dealers' statutory right to associate in an attempt to coerce the class member dealers into accepting the wind-down agreements. The Plaintiff dealers claim that the wind-down agreements are void. GMCL is vigorously defending the claims. A certification hearing has not yet been scheduled. No determination has been made that the case may be maintained as a class action, and it is not possible to determine the likelihood of liability or reasonably ascertain the amount of any damages. General Motors Company was formed by the United States Department of the Treasury in 2009 originally as a Delaware limited liability company, Vehicle Acquisition Holdings LLC, and subsequently converted to a Delaware corporation, NGMCO, Inc. This company, which on July 10, 2009 acquired substantially all of the assets and assumed certain liabilities of General Motors Corporation and changed its name to General Motors Company. GENERAL MOTORS: OnStar Analog Equipment Litigation Still Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- A motion to add General Motors LLC as defendant in a consolidated class action lawsuit filed against OnStar Corporation is still pending, according to General Motors Company's November 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. General Motors Company's wholly-owned subsidiary OnStar Corporation is a party to more than 20 putative class actions filed in various states, including Michigan, Ohio, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and California. All of these cases have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in a multi-district proceeding under the caption In re OnStar Contract Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The litigation arises out of the discontinuation by OnStar of services to vehicles equipped with analog hardware. OnStar was unable to provide services to such vehicles because the cellular carriers which provide communication service to OnStar terminated analog service beginning in February 2008. In the various cases, the plaintiffs are seeking certification of nationwide or statewide classes of owners of vehicles currently equipped with analog equipment, alleging various breaches of contract, misrepresentation and unfair trade practices. No determination has been made as to whether class certification motions are appropriate, and it is not possible at this time to determine whether class certification or liability is probable as to OnStar or to reasonably ascertain the amount of any liability. On August 2, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to add General Motors LLC as an additional defendant. General Motors Company will oppose that motion, which it believes is barred by the Sale Approval Order entered by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on July 5, 2009. General Motors Company was formed by the United States Department of the Treasury in 2009 originally as a Delaware limited liability company, Vehicle Acquisition Holdings LLC, and subsequently converted to a Delaware corporation, NGMCO, Inc. This company, which on July 10, 2009 acquired substantially all of the assets and assumed certain liabilities of General Motors Corporation and changed its name to General Motors Company. GENERAL MOTORS: Dropped From Unintended Acceleration Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- General Motors Company was dropped from a consolidated class action complaint filed against Toyota in California, according to the company's November 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010. General Motors Company had been named as a co-defendant in two of the many class action lawsuits brought against Toyota arising from Toyota's recall of certain vehicles related to reports of unintended acceleration. The two cases are Nimishabahen Patel v. Toyota Motors North America, Inc. et al. (filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on Feb. 9, 2010) and Darshak Shah v. Toyota Motors North America, Inc. et al. (filed in the United States District court for the District of Massachusetts on or about February 16, 2010). The 2009 and 2010 model year Pontiac Vibe, which was manufactured by a joint venture between Toyota and Old GM, included components that were common with those addressed by the Toyota recall and were accordingly the subject of a parallel recall by General Motors Company. Each case makes allegations regarding Toyota's conduct related to the condition addressed by the recall and asserts breaches of implied and express warranty, unjust enrichment and violation of consumer protection statutes and seeks actual damages, multiple damages, attorneys fees, costs and injunctive relief on behalf of classes of vehicle owners which include owners of 2009 and 2010 model year Pontiac Vibes. The cases were consolidated in the multi-district proceeding pending in the Central District of California created to administer all cases in the Federal court system addressing Toyota unintended acceleration issues. Although a comprehensive assessment of the cases is not possible at this time, General Motors Company believes that, with respect to the overwhelming majority of Pontiac vehicles addressed by the two cases, the claims asserted are barred by the Sale Approval Order entered by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on July 5, 2009. Moreover, on August 2, 2010, a consolidated complaint was filed in the multi-district proceeding and General Motors Company was omitted from the list of named defendants. Accordingly, it is possible that the claims asserted will not be further pursued against General Motors Company. General Motors Company was formed by the United States Department of the Treasury in 2009 originally as a Delaware limited liability company, Vehicle Acquisition Holdings LLC, and subsequently converted to a Delaware corporation, NGMCO, Inc. This company, which on July 10, 2009 acquired substantially all of the assets and assumed certain liabilities of General Motors Corporation and changed its name to General Motors Company. GENERAL WAX: Recalls 12,000 Silver Metallic Pillar Candles ---------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with General Wax & Candle Company, of North Hollywood, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 12,000 Silver Metallic Pillar Candles. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. No injuries or incidents have been reported. This recall involves metallic pillar candles sold in two sizes: 2.8 by 4 inches and 2.8 by 6 inches. "Metallic Pillar Candle" and UPC code 86718 56082 or 86718 56092 is printed on the bottom of the candles' plastic wrapping. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11061.html The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold through Bed Bath and Beyond stores nationwide from October 2010 through November 2010 for between $8 and $10. Consumers should stop using the recalled candles and return them to any Bed Bath and Beyond store or contact General Wax and Candle for a full refund. For additional information, contact General Wax and Candle at (800) 543-0642 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. PT, Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.generalwaxbbbrefund.com/ GENOPTIX INC: Accused in Calif. Suit of Misleading Shareholders --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders claim Genoptix propped up its stock price with false and misleading statements, and the share price dropped from $38.79 to $17.19 in 6 weeks when the truth came out, in Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Construction Workers Pension Trust Fund - Lake County and Vicinity v. Genoptix Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-02502 (S.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/07/SCA.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Darren J. Robbins, Esq. David C. Walton, Esq. Catherine J. Kowalewski, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-3301 Telephone: 619-231-1058 E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com davew@rgrdlaw.com katek@rgrdlaw.com GT SOLAR: Discovery in "Braun" Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in connection with an amended consolidated complaint filed against GT Solar International Inc. in New Hampshire, according to the company's November 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 2, 2010. Beginning on August 1, 2008, seven putative securities class action lawsuits were commenced in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, certain underwriters of its July 24, 2008 initial public offering and others, including certain investors in the Company. On October 3, 2008, the Court entered an order consolidating the federal class actions into a single action captioned Braun et al. v. GT Solar International, Inc., et al. The Court selected the lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel in the consolidated matter on October 29, 2008. The lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint on December 22, 2008. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint on February 5, 2009. On September 22, 2009, the Court denied the defendants' motion. Following the Court's denial of the motion, the parties submitted a proposed joint case management order to the Court on November 6, 2009. The lead plaintiff asserts claims under various sections of the Securities Act. The amended consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made false and materially misleading statements and failed to disclose material information in certain SEC filings, including the registration statement and Prospectus for the Company's July 24, 2008 initial public offering, and other public statements, regarding the Company's business relationship with LDK Solar, Ltd., one of the Company's customers, JYT Corporation, one of the Company's competitors, and certain of the Company's products, including the Company's DSS furnaces. Among other relief, the amended consolidated complaint seeks class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and such other relief as the Court should deem just and proper. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint on February 5, 2009. On September 22, 2009, the Court denied the defendant's motion. Following the Court's denial of the motion, the parties submitted a proposed joint case management order, which the Court approved on November 6, 2009. The case management order provides for discovery to close on May 25, 2011. GT SOLAR: "Hamel" Suit Still Pending in New Hampshire ----------------------------------------------------- GT Solar International Inc. still faces a putative securities class action under the caption Hamel v. GT Solar International, Inc., et al., in New Hampshire state court, according to the company's November 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 2, 2010. On September 18, 2008 a putative securities class action was filed in New Hampshire state court in the Superior Court for Hillsborough County, Southern District, under the caption Hamel v. GT Solar International, Inc., et al., against the Company, certain of the Company's officers and directors and certain underwriters of its July 24, 2008 initial public offering. The state class action plaintiff asserts claims under various sections of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The state class action complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made false and materially misleading statements and failed to disclose material information in certain SEC filings, including the registration statement for the Company's July 24, 2008 initial public offering, and other public statements, regarding the status of the Company's business relationship with LDK Solar. Among other relief, the state class action complaint seeks class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and such other relief as the State Court should deem just and proper. The Company removed the state class action to the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire on October 22, 2008. The state class action was consolidated with the federal class action on November 25, 2008. On February 2, 2009, the federal Court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand the state class action to New Hampshire State Court. On May 4, 2009, the parties agreed to a stay of the state class action, pending resolution of the motion to dismiss in the consolidated federal case. At a case structuring conference on June 3, 2009, the state court endorsed the proposed joint case management order filed by the parties which requires coordination of any discovery to be taken in the state class action with that taken in the federal class action. With the denial of the motion to dismiss the federal action, the parties submitted a proposed joint case management order to the State Court on November 6, 2009. On January 12, 2010, the State Court granted a joint motion of the parties to transfer the state class action to the State Court's Business and Commercial Dispute Docket. No further updates were reported in the company's latest SEC filing. ISILON SYSTEMS: D&Os Sued Over Sale of Company to EMC Corporation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Saravanan Coimbatore, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Isilon Systems, Inc., et al., Case no. 6050- (Del. Ch. Ct. December 6, 2010), seeks to enjoin the acquisition of the publicly owned shares of Isilon common stock by EMC Corporation, and its wholly owned subsidiary Electron Merger Corporation. Mr. Coimbatore says each of the defendants, including certain of the Company's directors and officers, violated applicable law by directly breaching and/or aiding the other defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties, by agreeing to facilitate the acquisition of the Company by EMC for grossly inadequate consideration, through a flawed process, and based upon grossly inadequate disclosures. On November 15, 2010, EMC and Isilon jointly announced that they had reached a definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger whereby EMC, through its wholly owned subsidiary, would acquire all outstanding shares of Isilon for $33.85 in cash per share in a transaction value at approximately $2.25 billion. Mr. Coimbatore says the consideration offered to Isilon's shareholders in exchange for their equity interest in the Company is wholly inadequate, given the Company's recent growth in revenue, earnings and free cash flow, and expectations of substantial growth. Mr. Coimbatore adds that while Company shareholders are offered grossly inadequate consideration, each of the individual defendants and other key executives will reap windfall benefits from the Proposed Transaction in the form of change of control payments for both vested and unvested stock options, restricted stock units, and severance payments. According to the lawsuit, defendant Sujal M. Patel, the founder of Isilon, a member of the Board, and President and CEO since October 2007, alone stands to collect over $17.8 million in said change of control payments, while directors William D. Ruckelshaus, Peter H. van Oppen, Elliott H. Jurgensen, Jr., and Donald J. Listwin will collectively receive more than $3.1 million for their Isilon options, the vesting of which is accelerated under the terms of the Merger Agreement. Moreover, according to the Complaint, the Company's three largest shareholders, Atlas Venture, Sequoia Capital and Madronna Venture Group, who together with their affiliates collectively hold 30,292,415 shares of Isilon stock, or 45.4% of the Company's outstanding shares, through their representatives on Isilon's Board "secured their $1.02 billion payday" by entering into Tender and Voting Agreements by which they agree to tender, and if necessary vote, their shares in favor of the Proposed Transaction. To further ensure the success of the Proposed Transaction, the Complaint says the Board locked up the deal by agreeing to impermissible "deal-protection" devices, effectively rendering the Proposed Transaction a fait d'accompli, including: (i) a "Top-Up Option," which allows EMC to acquire up to 90% plus 100 shares and pursue a merger under 8 Del C. Section 253, without a vote; (ii) a "no-shop" provision that prevents the Company from negotiating with or providing confidential Company information to competing bidders except under extremely limited circumstances; (iii) a "matching rights" provision that allows EMC three (3) business days to match any competing proposal in the unlikely event that one emerges; and (iv) a $100 million termination fee to be paid to EMC if the Board agrees to a competing proposal. Plaintiff Saravanan Coimbatore is a stockholder of defendant Isilon. Defendant Isilon, a Delaware corporation. is a network-attached storage ("NAS") systems company, with headquarters located at 3101 Western Avenue, Seattle, in Washington. EMC is a Massachusetts corporation which, according to Mr. Coimbatore, claims to be the world leader in products, services and solutions for information management and storage that help organizations extract the maximum value from their information, at the lowest total cost, across every point in the information lifecycle. EMC is headquartered in Hopkinton, Massachusetts. The Plaintiff is represented by: James C. Strum, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 482-3182 - and - Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 LOS ANGELES FILM SCHOOL: Sued Over Deceptive Business Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service reports that Los Angeles Film School and Los Angeles Recording School lure students with false claims about work placement and graduation rates, and maintain accreditation through deception, students say in a class action in Superior Court. Students say they paid $18,000 to $23,000 apiece in tuition. Students say the Film School owns and operates the so-called "Recording and Engineering school," and charges $18,000 to $23,000 for a 900-hour program -- but the class claims students do not really get 900 hours of instruction. The two named plaintiffs say they enrolled in the school's "900- Hour Recording Engineer Program." The school told them that the "900 Program is accredited by the Accrediting Council of Continuing Education & Training," that the Los Angeles Recording School "maintained a placement percentage sufficient to achieve ACCET accreditation," and that its career development department oversees "a curriculum designed to prepare students for the pursuit of internships and entry level employment, including instruction about resume creation, interview techniques, and the professionalism required within the industry," according to the complaint. Graduates receive a summary of the hours of instruction they "attempted" or that were "provided," but "not a single document . . . demonstrates that any student was actually 'offered' 900 hours of instruction," the complaint states. The plaintiffs say they received 800 to 860 hours of instruction. They say the school lures students by claiming that it is accredited by ACCET, but it employs deceptive practices to get that accreditation. They claim the school required all students to get business cards showing they were self-employed, and provided the cards to ACCET, leading the agency to believe that the students "were self-employed when in fact they were not." The class claims the school ran "business card promotions" where it offered gift cards to Target and Best Buy if students signed self-employment forms. And it listed jobs at Apple and Guitar Center stores as "creative positions" when students were only sales clerks, according to the complaint. When ACCET audited the recording school, "the student files which would not 'qualify' were simply pulled by the Career Development Dept., never shown to ACCET, thus reducing the overall number of students and increasing the placement percentage," the complaint states. They claim that school canceled classes in which students did not test well, and regularly provided students with answers to test questions before exams. The class seeks compensatory and punitive damages, and wants the defendants enjoined from "unfair, unlawful and frAU$ulent business acts and practices." The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark Ozzello, Esq. Mikael Stahle, Esq. ARIAS, OZZELLO, AND GIGNAC LLP 6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor Los Angeles, California 90045 Telephone: 310-670-1600 MASSACHUSETTS: MBTA Accessibility Reviewed After Class Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Moskowitz, writing for The Boston Globe, reports the judge monitoring the settlement in a federal class-action lawsuit over MBTA accessibility said the T has made considerable progress in the last four years, but riders with disabilities still face daily obstacles to using the public transit system. "In some areas, a lot has been accomplished. In other areas, very little," said Patrick J. King, the retired state Superior Court judge appointed by a federal court to monitor the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority's compliance. "But the momentum has been in the right direction, and gradually we're seeing some changes." The 2002 lawsuit accused the T of moving too slowly to comply with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, citing inaccessible stations, subway cars, and buses; poor signage and unreliable announcements; and operators untrained or unwilling to assist riders with disabilities. In the 2006 settlement, the T pledged to reform its practices and to make its facilities more accessible. In one of the twice-yearly meetings required by the settlement, Judge King said Monday the T has made "tremendous progress" by spending hundreds of millions on new elevators and equipment, changing the atmosphere at the agency, and making a good-faith commitment to the agreement. Judge King said the speed of progress has been checked by the recession and the magnitude of the work needed, but not every delay is a result of money or construction schedules. For example, he said, the T has purchased more than 360 evacuation chairs, but riders with disabilities say the agency has not developed a comprehensive plan for using them during an emergency. The three-hour meeting, which drew more than 50 accessibility advocates and riders with disabilities, provided a forum for the public to comment on the settlement's progress. Karen Schneiderman of Jamaica Plain said her daily commute has been aided by bridge plates covering the gaps between platforms and subway cars -- sometimes half a foot or more -- that the T is using until it can upgrade the service with new trains and platforms. But Ms. Schneiderman, who uses a wheelchair, said some T workers on weekends are unfamiliar with the bridge plates, and do not know how to unlock them from station walls. "They're not doing this to be mean, they're not doing this to be rude," said Ms. Schneiderman, who works as a senior advocacy specialist for the Boston Center for Independent Living. "For the most part, they're very nice. But they don't know how to do it." Miriam Cooper, a college student from Cambridge, said she is disappointed that the screens being installed at MBTA stations to show real-time locations of subway cars do not also have an audio component for the blind. "Something like this, which is a new piece of equipment, to have it come out and be new and be inaccessible to me is extremely frustrating," said Ms. Cooper, who attended the meeting with her guide dog, Boe. Several senior managers from the T participated in the meeting, and their attendance was cited by the authority's general manager, Richard A. Davey, as evidence of the agency's intent. "My point is, we take this seriously," said Mr. Davey, in the T's top job since March. "You've got my commitment that to get our attention will never take a lawsuit again. You have our attention, you have our commitment, that we want to make public transportation accessible to all." The meeting came as Davey and the T try to manage the soaring cost of the Ride, a federally mandated service that provides door-to- door trips for those unable to use the public transit system because of a physical or mental disability. Over the past decade, MBTA spending on the program quadrupled to $85 million a year, and ridership continues to rise. Riders pay the equivalent of subway fare, and the T subsidizes the remaining 95 percent of the cost. Mr. Davey told the authority's board of directors last week at its monthly meeting that he wants to market the improvements the T has made to the subway and bus system to attract some Ride users who were discouraged by the old MBTA. "The experience they'll have today is completely different," Gary Talbot, the assistant general manager who oversees systemwide accessibility, said after Monday's meeting. MBTA customer Don Summerfield agreed. "There's a lot to be done," said the Cambridge resident, who uses a cane, "but in these past few years there's so much that's happened." MDL 1775: Four Air Cargo Carriers Agree to Pay $118 Million ----------------------------------------------------------- There are partial Proposed Settlements in In re Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1775; Master File No. 06-MD-1775 (E.D.N.Y.) (Gleeson, J.), totaling approximately $118 million in class action lawsuits about Airfreight Shipping Services that are proceeding in the United States and Canada. Airfreight Shipping Services are defined in this litigation as paid private air transport of freight or other cargo by an airline acting as a provider of such services for shipments to, from, or within the United States from January 1, 2000, to September 11, 2006. The Proposed Settlements are partial because there are a number of other Defendants remaining in the cases and the litigation is continuing as to those other Defendants. All of the settling carriers also have agreed to cooperate in the case against the remaining Defendants. The settling carriers have asserted a number of defenses to Plaintiffs' claims but have settled to avoid the cost and risk of a trial. Air France-KLM Settlement, Societe Air France, Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V., and Martinair Holland N.V., have paid $87 million. Japan Airlines International Co., Ltd. has paid US$12 million in the U.S. Settlement and CDN$738,000 in the Canadian Settlement. American Airlines, Inc. and AMR Corporation have paid $5 million. Scandinavian Airlines System and SAS Cargo Group A/S have paid $13.93 million. The U.S. District Court will hold a Fairness Hearing at 11:30 a.m. on March 3, 2011. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice will hold a Fairness Hearing at 10:00 a.m. on January 13, 2011. The Supreme Court of British Columbia will hold a Fairness Hearing at 9:00 a.m. on February 15, 2011. The Quebec Superior Court will hold a Fairness Hearing at 9:30 a.m. on March 3, 2011. At these hearings the Courts will consider whether the Proposed Settlements are fair, reasonable and adequate, and whether to approve the request for litigation expenses. If there are objections, the Court will consider them. After the hearings, the Courts will decide whether to approve the Proposed Settlements. Additional information is available at http://www.AirCargoSettlement2.com/from The Garden City Group Inc., in its role as the Settlement Administrator. The lawyers representing the Plaintiff Class are: Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. Hausfeld LLP 1700 K Street, NW, Suite 650 Washington, DC 20006 - and - Robert N. Kaplan, Esq. Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP 850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10022 - and - Hollis Salzman, Esq. Labaton Sucharow LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 - and - Howard J. Sedran, Esq. Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman 510 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 Societe Air France is represented by: James R. Warnot, Jr., Esq. Thomas A. McGrath, Esq. Linklaters LLP 1345 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10105 KLM Royal Dutch Airlines is represented by: John M. Nannes, Esq. Gary A. MacDonald, Esq. Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom 1440 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005-2111 Martinair Holland N.V. is represented by: Daniel G. Swanson, Esq. D. Jarrett Arp, Esq. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Japan Airlines International Co., Ltd., is represented by: William Karas, Esq. Kenneth P. Ewing, Esq. Steptoe & Johnson LLP 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 AMR Corporation and American Airlines, Inc., are represented by: Steven A. Reiss, Esq. Richard A. Rothman, Esq. Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153-0119 Scandinavian Airlines System and SAS Cargo Group A/S are represented by: Jeffrey Blumenfeld, Esq. George D. Ruttinger, Esq. Crowell & Moring LLP 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 MEYER CORPORATION: Recalls 59,000 Quart Teakettle ------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Meyer Corporation, U.S., of Vallejo, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 59,000 Rachael Ray(TM) Brand Two Quart Teakettle. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. Water heated in the teakettles can spill and spray while being poured, posing a burn hazard. The firm received eight complaints regarding the spilling of hot water from the teakettle's spout. Four of the complaints included reports of burn injuries. The recalled product is a Rachael Ray (TM) brand two quart teakettle. The teakettle has a stainless steel lid with a black handle and comes in four body colors: orange, blue, green and yellow. The teakettle's spout is opened by pushing forward a small black sliding piece on the teakettle's handle. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11059.html The recalled products were manufactured in Thailand and sold through the teakettles were sold at a variety of department, housewares and gourmet kitchen stores and at discount and online retailers. The teakettles were sold from December 2008 through October 2010 for between $18 and $40. Consumers should immediately stop using this product. Known consumers were mailed instructions for obtaining a replacement. Consumers should contact the firm to arrange for a replacement teakettle. For additional information or to obtain a replacement teakettle, please contact Meyer U.S. at (877) 782-8242 between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., PST, Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.meyer.com/rrteakettlerecall/ NEXTWAVE WIRELESS: Class Action Suit in California Still Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- A consolidated class action lawsuit filed against NextWave Wireless Inc. in California is still pending, according to the company's November 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 2, 2010. On September 16, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit, captioned "Sandra Lifschitz, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. NextWave Wireless Inc. et al., Defendants," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against NextWave Wireless and certain of its officers. The suit alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements and omissions in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The suit seeks unspecified damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and injunctive, equitable or other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of NextWave Wireless' common stock during the period from March 30, 2007 to August 7, 2008. A second putative class action lawsuit captioned "Benjamin et al. v. NextWave Wireless Inc. et al." was filed on October 21, 2008 alleging the same claims on behalf of purchasers of NextWave Wireless' common stock during an extended class period, from November 27, 2006 through August 7, 2008. On February 24, 2009, the Court issued an Order consolidating the two cases and appointing a lead plaintiff pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. On May 15, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, and on June 29, 2009, NextWave Wireless filed a Motion to Dismiss that Amended Complaint. On March 5, 2010, the Court granted NextWave Wireless' Motion to Dismiss without prejudice, permitting the lead plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint. On March 26, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint. On April 30, 2010, NextWave filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint and the Motion now has been fully briefed and is under submission to the court. NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Faces Class Action Over Loan Interest Rates ---------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Hrodey, writing for Milwaukee News Buzz, reports a Kansas City couple has filed a class action lawsuit against Milwaukee insurance giant Northwestern Mutual Life. They allege the company has kept interest rates on some loans, rates set during the raging inflation rates of the 1970s, in place for decades and refuses to lower them. An NML spokesperson says the company will "vigorously defend against these allegations," and it will need to: Law firms in Los Angeles, Chicago, St. Louis, Milwaukee and Florida have signed on to help the plaintiffs. A complaint filed in Milwaukee County Circuit Court the day before Thanksgiving says the number of life insurance policyholders affected by the interest rates "is at least several thousand and quite likely substantially more." Gad and Jean Smith of Kansas City purchased six $10,000 life insurance policies from Northwestern between 1963 and 1974, according to the complaint. As "whole" life insurance policies, they grew in value as the Smiths paid premiums on them. The Smiths, and other owners of such policies, could borrow money from their policies at an interest rate of five or six percent, depending on when the policies were issued. Then came stagflation in the late 1970s. In reaction to a stagnant economy and high inflation, the Federal Reserve increased interest rates dramatically. The lawsuit claims that with double-digit interest rates, Northwestern feared too many policyholders would pull money out of their policies, pay the five or six percent interest on the loan and still make a profit by investing the money on their own. The company worried this would "negatively affect the company's investment returns," the complaint says. In 1977, Northwestern offered increased dividends to policyholders who would be willing to raise their interest rates to a maximum of 8 percent. The statement from the company offering the change stated: "The rate will be adjusted up or down in line with prevailing long term economic condition but will never be higher than 8 percent." It added, "We believe this new provision will be to your advantage unless you expect to borrow extensively on your policy over long periods of time." In a later statement from the company, it sounded somewhat less likely that Northwestern would later lower the interest rate. "If you accept this offer," it said, the interest rate will be 8 percent. Then, in parenthesis, the company added that it "may charge less as long term economic conditions warrant." The Smiths signed on, agreeing to the increased dividends and potentially higher interest rates for all six of their policies. Their rates were set at 8 percent, but 33 years later, the complaint alleges, the company has yet to lower them, even after federal interest rates sank below 1 percent in the economic downturn. The complaint claims that newer life insurance policies from Northwestern offer lower premiums based on benchmarks such as the Moody's Bond Index. NML spokesperson Jean Towell said the company will "strongly dispute their allegations that the Company has failed to satisfy its contractual obligations or that it otherwise violated any legal duty." "Comparing loan rates on life insurance policies to loan rates available on consumer loans is like comparing apples to oranges. The plaintiffs' contract language does not include any linkage between policy loan rates and other loan rates. The rate that has been charged has been and still is appropriate," she stated. Finally, Ms. Towell noted, "By accepting the policy loan amendment with a guaranteed maximum policy loan rate, the plaintiffs benefited by being paid higher policy dividends than they otherwise would have been entitled to." Gad Smith declined on Monday to commit on the lawsuit. He said Gerry Goldsholle, a personal injury and insurance attorney based in the Los Angeles area, is the lead attorney for the case. A large legal team has already assembled to represent the Smiths and additional clients if the court grants the lawsuit class action status. Mr. Goldsholle is a former Chief Brokerage Executive at MetLife. He and another attorney from his firm have notified Milwaukee County Circuit Court that they intend to apply for approval to practice law in Wisconsin for this case. So have four other attorneys from a Chicago-area law firm, Foote, Meyers, Mielke & Flowers, that specializes in class action lawsuits. Also signing onto the case are attorneys from a Pensacola, Fla., law firm (Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz) and a St. Louis firm (The DeVoto Law Firm). The man-on-the-ground in Milwaukee is apparently Paul Scoptur of Aiken & Scoptur, a medical malpractice and personal injury attorney based in this city. Mr. Scoptur declined to comment on the case. He says Northwestern was given a copy of the complaint last week, but the company hasn't been formally served yet. He says he's scheduling a meeting with the company. Another class action lawsuit against Northwestern is pending in Milwaukee County court. The lawsuit -- fought on both sides by large teams of lawyers -- alleges that the company wrongfully denied dividend payments to some owners of the company's annuities. The company changed the portfolio on which the dividends were based without seeking customer approval, lowering returns. Northwestern has contended that it obtained approval from state regulators before making the change. A trial in the case unfolded across several days in November. A decision from Reserve Judge Dennis Flynn of Racine County isn't expected until early next year. REED ELSEVIER: Judge Allows Lexis-Nexis Class Suit to Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------- Jacqueline J. Holness at Courthouse News Service reports that a judge has allowed a class action to go forward accusing British- based Reed Elsevier Inc. of violating the Georgia Constitution by entering into a pact with Fulton County that forces litigants to file their papers through Reed's division Lexis-Nexis, and pay dearly for it. "The plaintiffs have stated facts that could support a claim against the Fulton courts and third parties acting together with the Fulton Courts, that the e-filing system as instituted is an unreasonable burden to litigants seeking redress in the courts of Fulton County," said Dekalb County Superior Court Judge Robert Castellani in his ruling. The judge also shot down arguments by lawyers for Reed Elsevier suggesting that the Georgia Constitution does not guarantee a right of access to Georgia's courts. "Based on Georgia Supreme Court precedent and the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, citizens of the State of Georgia do indeed have a right of access to the courts to resolve their disputes and neither the Legislature nor any court of this state can erect a total bar to that access or a bar that unreasonably restricts that right of access," the judge wrote. Steven J. Newton and other attorneys filed the Fulton County Superior Court case in January, claiming that Lexis-Nexis Courtlink, owned by publishing giant Reed Elsevier, and Fulton County, Ga., violates the constitutional right of access to state courts by forcing litigants to file electronically through Lexis Nexis. Judge Castellani assumed control of the case after all Fulton County State and Superior Court judges were recused. Judge Castellani denied Lexis-Nexis' motion to dismiss the case, except for three plaintiffs: W. Phillip McCurdy III, Michael Cawthorn and Nelson W. Picklesimer. "This does not have an effect on the two remaining plaintiffs," Mr. Newton said in an interview. "They can represent the other people. There is one commonality: They had to pay fees." Mr. Newton also represents Kenneth Clowdus as administrator for the estate of Kenneth Larry Clowdus and The Best Jewelry Manufacturing Co. Judge Castellani also denied the plaintiffs' motion to add defendants, saying his court sees no reason why additional parties "are required or necessary to fully resolve the matter before it." Judge Castellani noted that while the case is relatively simple in regard to the relief sought, the case "has had a long and convoluted procedural history." He advised counsel to adhere to the Civil Practices Act. "Given the history of this case and the propensity of counsel to use a shotgun when a carefully aimed rifle would be preferable, the court directs counsel to conduct themselves in future filings and arguments in a manner that comports with the goals of the Civil Practices Act," he wrote. Judge Castellani rebutted an argument by Lexis-Nexis attorney William K. Whitner, who said the lawsuit should be dismissed according to state law, which asserts that "a plaintiff's secondary voluntary dismissal of a complaint alleging the same basic claims against a defendant constitutes a final adjudication on the merits." "The court finds that dismissal for having filed and voluntarily dismissed two previous actions applies only to the first original plaintiffs, to wit, McCurdy, Cawthorn, and Picklesimer, but not to plaintiffs Clowdus and The Best Jewelry Manufacturing Company, as neither of these parties was a party to the first federal action and therefore has only voluntarily dismissed this action once," the judge wrote. "The remaining plaintiffs will still have to demonstrate that this action is properly brought as a class action, that they are adequate representatives of the class, or that additional plaintiffs will need to be added to achieve adequate representation." Judge Castellani also struck down Mr. Whitner's argument that the "plaintiffs' claim alleging a joint venture or partnership between it and Fulton County must fail, as it is only an independent contractor bound by a contract to provide the services of e- filing." Judge Castellani said that he agrees with the plaintiffs' assertion that "the contractor has not demonstrated there is no set of facts which would support plaintiffs' claim of joint venture or partnership." Mr. Whitner also claimed the plaintiffs' misconstrued a clause in the Georgia Constitution which states that "no person shall be deprived of the right to prosecute or defend, either in person or by an attorney, that person's own cause in any of the courts of this state." The plaintiffs have argued that the clause guarantees rights of access to the court, which that Lexis-Nexis Courtlink and Fulton County have denied by charging excessive and unauthorized fees. Mr. Whitner disagreed, saying the clause does not guarantee rights of access to the courts, but to self-representation. He said there is "no express constitutional 'rights of access to the courts' under the Georgia Constitution." Judge Castellani sided with the plaintiffs on that argument. "The plaintiffs have stated facts that could support a claim against the Fulton courts and third parties acting together with the Fulton Courts, that the e-filing system as instituted is an unreasonable burden to litigants seeking redress in the courts of Fulton County," Judge Castellani wrote. He also addressed issues concerning frAU$, sovereign immunity and indispensable parties, before summarizing his reasons for denying Mr. Whitner's motion to dismiss. He said he will set a hearing date after the first of the year on the discovery needed for a ruling class certification and discovery. The lawsuit is the fourth claim against Fulton County and Lexis- Nexis Courtlink. The Fulton County Superior Court case was originally filed in May 2009, then voluntarily dismissed and refiled on Jan. 6. Mr. Newton filed a similar lawsuit against Lexis-Nexis Courtlink and Fulton County in Federal Court. He filed the original federal claim in December 2007 but withdrew it in March 2008, then refiled it in June 2008. Cathlene "Tina" Robinson and Mark N. Harper, Fulton County Superior and State Court clerks, respectively, were defendants in the federal case. That case was dismissed in March 2009. SERVICE CORPORATION: Accused of Discriminating Against Blacks ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims that Service Corporation International, the biggest funeral services company in the country, discriminates against blacks. The named plaintiff says SCI has just one black location manager in its 1,800 outlets. A copy of the Complaint in Holmes v. Service Corporation International, Case No. 10-cv-04841 (S.D. Tex.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/07/EmployBias.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Martin Shellist, Esq. Sidd Rao, Esq. SHELLIST, LAZARZ & SLOBIN, LLP 3D/International Tower 1900 West Loop South, Suite 1910 Houston, TX 77027 Telephone: (713) 621-2277 - and - N. Jill Yaziji, Esq. YAZIJI LAW FIRM 1001 Texas Avenue, Suite 1400 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 436-6664 SONIC SOLUTIONS: Negotiates Tentative Deal to Resolve DivX Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Sonic Solutions has reached a tentative agreement to resolve allegations asserted against it in a stockholder class litigation relating to the Company's acquisition of DivX, Inc., according to the company's November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010. In connection with the acquisition of DivX, Inc., the Company is a defendant in several putative shareholder class action lawsuits filed in Delaware Chancery Court and California Superior Court: * The lawsuits in California Superior Court are captioned Gahlen v. DivX, Inc., Case No. 37-2010-00094693-CU-SL-CTL, and Pared v. DivX, Inc., Case No. 37-2010-00096242-CU-SL-CTL, and were consolidated as In re DivX, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 37-2010-00094693-CU-SL-CTL. * The lawsuits in Delaware Chancery Court are captioned Chropufka v. DivX, Inc., C.A. No. 5643-CC, and Willis v. DivX, Inc., C.A. No. 5647-CC, and were consolidated as In re DivX, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 5463-CC. These lawsuits were originally filed against DivX, members of the DivX board of directors, Sonic, Siracusa Merger Corporation, and Siracusa Merger LLC, Sonic's merger subsidiaries. The lawsuits, brought by individual DivX stockholders, challenged the proposed merger and sought, among other things, to enjoin defendants from completing the merger pursuant to the terms of the merger agreement. On August 22, 2010, the parties reached a tentative agreement to settle all of these lawsuits and signed a memorandum of understanding that is subject to confirmatory discovery, a more detailed settlement agreement and court approval. As of November 9, 2010, the parties are negotiating the fees payable to the plaintiff's counsel and other matters relating to the settlement. If the parties cannot agree on the fees, plaintiffs will file a fee application with the court. ST. JOE: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action ---------------------------------------------- Pomerantz HAU$ek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against The St. Joe Company and certain of its officers. The class action (Civil Action No.: 10-cv-0504) is on behalf of a class of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired St. Joe securities, including purchasers and sellers of options during the period from February 19, 2008 through October 12, 2010, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. St. Joe, one of the largest real estate development companies in Florida, is engaged in town and resort development, commercial and industrial development and rural land sales. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) as the Florida real estate market was in decline, St. Joe was failing to take adequate and required impairments and accounting write-downs on many of its Florida based property developments; (2) as a result, St. Joe's financial statements materially overvalued the Company's Florida based property developments; (3) the Company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; (4) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On October 13, 2010, David Einhorn of Greenlight Capital Inc. detailed the need of the Company to take "substantial impairments" and accounting writedowns on many of its properties, and warned that further building by the Company would drive the stock price to zero. Mr. Einhorn's presentation noted that St. Joe's "development plans have fallen flat, leaving it with 'ghost towns' and inevitable writedowns." For example, Mr. Einhorn said he would "generously" place a value of $17.8 million on the remaining residential development at St. Joe's Windmark Beach property, while the Company is carrying the property at $164.5 million on its balance sheet. Mr. Einhorn also stated that the Company "was 'stuck' after making an aggressive bet on beachfront developments that have gone nowhere, and that it was overvaluing the real estate holdings on its books." On this news, shares of the Company's stock declined $2.38 per share, or 9.7% on October 13, 2010. The next trading day, the Company's shares declined an additional $2.42 per share, or 10.9%, to close at $19.74 per share. Cumulatively over these two days, St. Joe's shares declined a total of $4.80 per share, or over 19.5%. If you are a shareholder who purchased St. Joe securities during the Class Period, you have until January 3, 2011 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class. A copy of the complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com/ To discuss this action, contact Fei-Lu Qian at flqian@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone number. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago and Washington, D.C., -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com/-- is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 70 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities frAU$, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. STEVE MADDEN: To Submit MOU for Court Approval Next Year -------------------------------------------------------- Steve Madden Ltd.'s memorandum of understanding to resolve a class action lawsuit over overtime pay and mandated meal breaks will be submitted for court approval in early 2011, the Company noted in its November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. On June 24, 2009, a class action lawsuit, Shahrzad Tahvilian, et al. v. Steve Madden Retail, Inc. and Steve Madden, Ltd., Case No. BC 414217, was filed in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, against the Company and its wholly owned subsidiary alleging violations of California labor laws including, among other things, failure to provide mandated meal breaks and overtime pay to employees as required. The parties have agreed to resolve the dispute in private mediation and, on August 31, 2010, entered into a memorandum of understanding which remains subject to court approval. The memorandum of understanding is not expected to be submitted to the court for approval until early 2011. Based on the memorandum of understanding, the Company has increased its reserve for the related claim from $1,000,000 to $2,750,000. SYNGENTA CROP: Court Gets Discovery Order Appeal in Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports the appellate court at Mount Vernon has received the appeal of a discovery order targeted by both sides and third parties in one of a series of proposed class actions over the weed killer atrazine. Lead plaintiff Holiday Shores Sanitary District, defendant Syngenta Crop Protection Inc. and non-parties to the suit including the Heartland Institute took issue with a discovery order signed in September by Madison County Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder that sought to deal with discovery requests and subpoenas. Holiday Shores is suing Syngenta and other makers and distributors of atrazine over alleged water contamination it and other water providers claim they must remediate. Although the United State Environmental Protection Agency has declared that atrazine is safe in drinking water up to three parts per billion, the plaintiffs contend they and a class of water providers have been damaged. The plaintiffs also claim that concentrations of atrazine that are lower than the EPA limit are harmful to human health. The Syngenta case is one of six proposed class actions filed over atrazine in Madison County six years ago by the lead plaintiff. The Syngenta case has made the most progress to date because the company is the primary maker of the herbicide. Holiday Shores had subpoenaed and served discovery requests related to Syngenta and atrazine on the Heartland Institute, Illinois Farm Bureau and chemical industry trade groups. The non-parties objected to the requests on First Amendment grounds. They asked Judge Crowder to quash the subpoenas. After hearing arguments, Crowder issued a discovery order Sept. 22 in which the judge wrote she attempted to balance the First Amendment concerns with what Holiday Shores could discover. Both sides asked for clarification and eventually Crowder certified questions for appeal submitted by the two tables. Most recently, the farm bureau submitted its response to a Holiday Shores discovery request Nov. 24. It is also awaiting the outcome of the appeal, according to that filing. Another third party in the suit, Du-Con is also seeking to quash a defense discovery subpoena, claiming that Holiday Shores and not Du-Con has the records Syngenta seeks. The appellate court received the appeal Dec. 1, according to the letter notifying Madison County dated two days later. Stephen Tillery, Christie Deaton and others represent Holiday Shores. Kurtis Reeg and others represent Syngenta. Mark Bell represents the Heartland Institute. Christopher Byron represents the farm bureau. Bob Perica represents Du-Con. Although Crowder has overseen hearings and made rulings in the case to date, the case was technically transferred to former Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack's docket. Judge Stack retired Friday. Former Madison County State's Attorney William Mudge won Judge Stack's seat in November's election. He was sworn in Monday. The Syngenta case is Madison case number 04-L-710. The atrazine cases are case numbers 04-L-708 to 04-L-713. TARGET CORP: Recalls 1,500 Circo Children's Space Camp Combo Pack ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Target Corp., of Minneapolis, Minn., announced a voluntary recall of about 1,500 Circo Children's Space Camp Combo Pack. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The floor of the tent failed a flammability test and poses a fire hazard. No injuries or incidents have been reported. This recall involves one model of the Circo Space Combo pack, which includes a children's tent, sleeping bag, backpack and a headlamp. The tent is green and dark blue with planets, stars and figures printed on it. The packing box has the UPC number: 490911500926, DPCI: 091-15-0092. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11060.html The recalled products were manufactured in Bangladesh and sold through Target stores nationwide and online at http://www.target.com/from September 2010 through October 2010 for approximately $25. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled tents and return them to any Target store for a full refund or store credit. For additional information, contact Target at (800) 440-0680 between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Central Time, Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.target.com/ UNITED STATES: Native Americans in Class Suit Face Long Wait ------------------------------------------------------------ Matt Volz, writing for The Associated Press, reports Native Americans who sued the federal government over lost royalties have been waiting nearly 15 years for the $3.4 billion settlement Congress passed last month. Now they'll have to wait some more. The plaintiffs expect it will be at least next August before Indian trust landowners see a dime, and six months after that before the last claims are settled with trust account holders. That's because when the political wrangling ends, the red tape begins. The lead plaintiff in the class-action lawsuit, Elouise Cobell of Browning, Mont., said the biggest obstacle by far to the settlement was obtaining congressional approval -- indeed, it took nearly a year and a couple of false starts before the Senate authorized the deal. "I want to run out and thank the whole world for getting it through the Senate," Ms. Cobell told The Associated Press. "We still have work to do. One thing about this case, it hasn't been easy. You don't take anything for granted. You make sure it all gets approved." Once President Barack Obama signs the legislation, the settlement must still go through a gauntlet of court hearings, a media campaign to notify beneficiaries, waiting periods for comments and appeals. Even after the first checks are cut, it will still take months more to sort through the process of deciding who should or should not be included as a plaintiff -- a number that will likely end up somewhere between 300,000 and 550,000, plaintiffs' representatives said. "Making sure it is a fair process takes time," said Geoffrey Rempel, an accountant consulting for Ms. Cobell's Washington, D.C., legal team. The dispute began over property owned by the Indians and held in trust by the government. The Department of Interior leases that land to others for farming or resource development, and is supposed to pay the Indians the money generated by the land into Individual Indian Money trust accounts, or IIMs. Those IIMs were created in 1887 by lawmakers who believed at the time that Indians could not handle their own financial affairs. But Ms. Cobell found there was no real accounting of how much money was in the trust pool of IIM accounts. She estimated the amount of money mishandled, stolen or squandered from those accounts over the last century may actually total more than $100 billion. Under the settlement, $1.5 billion would go to individual Indian account holders. Another $1.9 billion would be used by the government to buy up fractionated Indian lands from individual owners willing to sell, and then turn those lands over to tribes. Another $60 million would be used for a scholarship fund for Indian students. But it will take time to divvy up that $3.4 billion pie. The White House said it has not picked a date to sign the legislation which also includes a $1.2 billion settlement with black farmers who say they were discriminated against. The Cobell plaintiffs said they expect the signing to happen this week. If that happens, Mr. Rempel said, it will kick off a complicated process that would span into early 2012 in a best-case scenario. First, a preliminary court hearing would be scheduled for mid- December. That hearing would trigger a 30-day ramp-up notice to buy advertisements and get the material together for the class notification. Under that time frame, the 90-day class notification period involving ad campaigns would begin in January and run until April. Another 30-day period is required after that to give the parties a chance to respond to any questions that come up. The settlement would then be finalized at a fairness hearing, which would be held in May in this scenario. Any beneficiary who wished to comment on the settlement would be able to speak, and the judge would then give his final ruling. Another 60-day waiting period would follow that hearing, during which time any party can appeal the court's ruling. The deal is final after that period elapses, which would be August in this scenario. Only then would the first checks go to the 337,000 plaintiffs in the lawsuit's first class, the group known as the "historical accounting class" who have been identified by the Department of Interior since 1994, just before the lawsuit was filed, Mr. Rempel said. The historical class members would receive $1,000 each. Then Mr. Rempel expects it to take another six months to determine who is entitled to receive a portion of the settlement in the second class of the lawsuit, the trust administration class. Those plaintiffs, which can also include Indians from the historical class, could receive anywhere between $500 to $1 million each, depending on the estimated value of their trust accounts. But the Interior Department has lost track of some beneficiary records, have records that may be in conflict or have old addresses for beneficiaries, Mr. Rempel said. So the lead plaintiffs are expecting it to take another six months to sort and decide the applications from Indians wishing to be included in that class, Mr. Rempel said. But even with all that red tape still ahead, Native Americans should not let that dilute their victory, Ms. Cobell said. "I just hope that they (the beneficiaries) get the word, they can rejoice and feel that maybe justice has been delivered," Ms. Cobell said. WASHINGTON COUNTY: Juvenile Center Faces Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- Justin McIntosh, writing for Parkersburg News and Sentinel, reports a class-action lawsuit filed Monday claims eight youths formerly held at the Washington County Juvenile Center were denied basic necessities like water, medical attention and toilet paper and subjected to excessively harsh punishment that left them scarred physically and mentally. The county, meanwhile, has agreed to enter mediation in the case, which would expedite the lawsuit through the court system. It would also result in the formation of a set of agreed-upon practices for the juvenile center to follow in the future, said Cincinnati-based attorney Al Gerhardstein, who's representing the juveniles. "That's unusual," he said. "Normally, people spend their time filing motions and delaying things. I think (the county) deserves a little credit for trying to get to the bottom of things quickly." The class-action lawsuit alleging gross mistreatment of inmates at the juvenile center was filed Monday in a federal court in Columbus. The suit was filed on behalf of eight former inmates and charges a number of county employees with wrongdoing. Juvenile/Probate Judge Timothy A. Williams said in a release Monday that he believes the center practices proper policies and procedures. Specifically named in the lawsuit are the county; its board of commissioners; Williams; former juvenile center director Rae Ward; interim director Brian Hesson; employees Brian Orders, Stephanie Galati and Michelle Burkhart; and Dr. David Matthew Montgomery, a contractor providing medical services to the center. Another 20 employees of the county were included in the suit but not named. Mr. Gerhardstein said the plaintiffs just want to make sure they don't have to live through the conditions at the center again and hope to keep others from experiencing them as well. "(The plaintiffs) are fine with being accountable for their misconduct; they just want to be treated fairly," he said. "We have an honest disagreement with the county about what's appropriate. But the county wants to hear us out and figure out what those forms (of procedures) might be for the kids that are in there now. "We're not saying every kid is innocent of every type of misconduct. The focus is on giving youth appropriate rehabilitation treatment that fits their problem, and certainly these conditions, where you lock kids down 23 hours a day and put them in shackles for the few minutes they're out of their cell, can't be right. That's a part of what we're challenging. We just want things done fairly." Among the many complaints listed in the lawsuit are charges of inhumane, illegal and abusive practices. The lawsuit was filed late Monday afternoon and as a result many of the officials named in the suit were not available for comment. Judge Williams issued a release to The Marietta Times, saying the court was disappointed to learn of the filing. "Our top priority has always been to ensure the safety, health and rehabilitation of all the juveniles entrusted to our care," the release says. "The Ohio Department of Youth Services has routinely found the center to be in full compliance with the law in their annual audits." The release states the court believes the policies and procedures practiced at the center are proper and appropriate. In order to avoid expending extensive resources defending the matter, the center will meet with the plaintiffs in the suit for some resolution, it says. The plaintiffs were identified by initials, not their full names, in the lawsuit. They complained of many of the same charges, including: -- Long hours in solitary confinement. -- Being forced to wear suicide gowns with nothing on underneath, despite not being suicidal. -- Ignoring, delaying or providing inappropriate medical treatment for needs such as cuts, depression or scabies. -- Having to clean gym floors with toothbrushes. -- Being denied regular education and recreation opportunities. -- Being called names like "stupid," "mama's boy," "snaggletooth," "hillbilly" and "worthless." -- Being forced to participate in recreation activities while wearing shackles, which led to falls, cuts, bruises and scars. -- Being denied water and toilet paper as punishment. Having to shower and use the restroom while juvenile center employees of the opposite gender watched on a surveillance camera. -- Having to work at private, for-profit businesses -- like Kmart, Wal-Mart, Holiday Inn and a strawberry farm -- without proper equipment or compensation and doing work not appropriate for their ages. -- Being denied clothes, bedding and heat while sleeping in cells. -- Being locked in cells for 23 hours a day. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS ALERT: Global Power Named a Defendant in Injury Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Global Power Equipment Group Inc. has been named as a defendant in a limited number of asbestos personal injury lawsuits, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 15, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Neither the Company nor its predecessors ever mined, manufactured, produced or distributed asbestos fiber, the material that allegedly caused the injury underlying these actions. The bankruptcy court's discharge order issued upon emergence from bankruptcy extinguished the claims made by all plaintiffs who had filed asbestos claims against the Company before that time. COMPANY PROFILE: Global Power Equipment Group Inc. 5199 N. Mingo Road Tulsa, Okla. 74117 Telephone No.: (918) 488-0828 Description: The Company designs, engineers and manufactures heat recovery and auxiliary power equipment and provides routine and specialty maintenance services to customers in the utility and industrial sectors. ASBESTOS ALERT: U.S. Auto Parts Network Unit Has Exposure Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc.'s subsidiary, Automotive Specialty Accessories and Parts (WAG), is a named defendant in several lawsuits involving claims for damages caused by installation of brakes during the late 1960s and early 1970s that contained asbestos. WAG marketed certain brakes, but did not manufacture any brakes, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 16, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. WAG maintained liability insurance coverage to protect its and the Company's assets from losses arising from the litigation and coverage is provided on an occurrence rather than a claims made basis. COMPANY PROFILE: U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc. 17150 South Margay Avenue Carson, Calif. 90746 Telephone No.: (310) 735-0085 Website: http://www.usautoparts.net/ Description: The Company is an online provider of aftermarket auto parts, including body parts, engine parts, performance parts and accessories. Its flagship Web sites are located at http://www.autopartswarehouse.com/and http://www.partstrain.com/ ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thomas Properties Cites $900,000 for Abatement --------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Properties Group, Inc., as of Sept. 30, 2010, had accrued about US$900,000 for estimated future costs of asbestos removal or abatement at its City National Plaza and Brookhollow properties. As of June 30, 2010, the Company had accrued about US$800,000 for estimated future costs of asbestos removal or abatement at its City National Plaza and Brookhollow properties. The Company has removed or abated asbestos-containing building materials from certain tenant and common areas at its City National Plaza and Brookhollow properties. The Company continues to remove or abate asbestos from various areas of the building structures, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 12, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Headquartered in Los Angeles, Thomas Properties Group, Inc. owns, manages, leases, acquires and develops real estate, consisting primarily of office properties and related parking garages, located in Southern California; Sacramento, Calif.; Philadelphia; Northern Virginia; Houston; and Austin, Tex. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Imperial Industries Unit Faces 18 Injury Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Imperial Industries, Inc.'s subsidiary, Premix-Marbletite Manufacturing Co., is a defendant in 18 claims (10 of which include the Company as a defendant) that allege bodily injury due to exposure to asbestos contained in products manufactured in excess of 30 years ago. Premix faced 17 claims (10 of which include the Company as a defendant) that alleged bodily injury due to exposure to asbestos contained in products manufactured in excess of 30 years ago. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 10, 2010) The Company has identified at least 10 of its prior insurance carriers including both primary and carriers that have provided liability coverage to it, 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 our behalf in prior asbestos claims. Headquartered 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: RBS Global's Stearns Unit Facing 1,425 Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Multiple lawsuits -- with about 1,425 claimants -- are pending related to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in certain brakes and clutches previously made by RBS Global, Inc.'s Stearns division and/or its predecessor owners. Invensys plc and FMC, prior owners of the Stearns business, have paid 100 percent of the costs to date related to the Stearns lawsuits, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 12, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Headquartered in Milwaukee, RBS Global, Inc. is the parent company of Rexnord LLC, whose subsidiaries serve the Company's two main segments: Process Motion Control and Water Management. ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS Global's Prager Unit Still Facing 2 Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- RBS Global, Inc.'s Prager subsidiary continues to face two pending multi-defendant lawsuits related to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in a product allegedly manufactured by Prager. There are about 3,700 individuals who have filed asbestos related claims against Prager. However, these claims are currently on the Texas Multi-district Litigation inactive docket. To date, the Company's insurance providers have paid 100 percent of the costs related to the Prager asbestos matters. The Company said it believes that the combination of its insurance coverage and the Invensys indemnity obligations will cover any future costs of these matters. Headquartered in Milwaukee, RBS Global, Inc. is the parent company of Rexnord LLC, whose subsidiaries serve the Company's two main segments: Process Motion Control and Water Management. ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS Global's Falk Unit Faces 190 Exposure Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- RBS Global, Inc.'s Falk unit, through its successor entity, is a defendant in about 190 lawsuits pending in state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in certain clutches and drives previously manufactured by Falk. There are about 560 claimants in these suits, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 12, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Hamilton Sundstrand is defending the Company in these lawsuits under its indemnity obligations and has paid 100 percent of the costs to date. Headquartered in Milwaukee, RBS Global, Inc. is the parent company of Rexnord LLC, whose subsidiaries serve the Company's two main segments: Process Motion Control and Water Management. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6,000 Injury Lawsuits Ongoing v. Zurn at Oct. 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------- RBS Global, Inc.'s Zurn division and an average of 80 unrelated companies, as of Oct. 2, 2010, faced about 6,000 asbestos related lawsuits representing about 28,500 claims, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 12, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Plaintiffs' claims allege personal injuries caused by exposure to asbestos used primarily in industrial boilers formerly manufactured by a segment of Zurn. Zurn did not manufacture asbestos or asbestos components. Instead, Zurn purchased them from suppliers. These claims are being handled pursuant to a defense strategy funded by insurers. As of Oct. 2, 2010, the Company estimates the potential liability for asbestos-related claims pending against Zurn as well as the claims expected to be filed in the next 10 years to be about US$86 million of which Zurn expects to pay about US$67 million in the next 10 years on such claims, with the balance of the estimated liability being paid in subsequent years. Management estimates that its available insurance to cover its potential asbestos liability as of Oct. 2, 2010, is about US$268 million. However, principally as a result of the past insolvency of certain of the Company's insurance carriers, certain coverage gaps will exist if and after the Company's other carriers have paid the first US$192 million of aggregate liabilities. In order for the next US$51 million of insurance coverage from solvent carriers to apply, management estimates that it would need to satisfy US$14 million of asbestos claims. Layered within the final US$25 million of the total US$268 million of coverage, management estimates that it would need to satisfy an additional US$80 million of asbestos claims. As of Oct. 2, 2010, the Company recorded a receivable from its insurance carriers of US$86 million, which corresponds to the amount of its potential asbestos liability that is covered by available insurance and is currently determined to be probable of recovery. However, there is no assurance that US$268 million of insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that Zurn's asbestos liabilities will not ultimately exceed US$268 million. Headquartered in Milwaukee, RBS Global, Inc. is the parent company of Rexnord LLC, whose subsidiaries serve the Company's two main segments: Process Motion Control and Water Management. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Still Named in Liability Actions ---------------------------------------------------------- Magnetek, Inc. is named along with multiple other defendants, in asbestos-related lawsuits associated with business operations previously acquired by the Company, but which are no longer owned. During the Company's ownership, none of the businesses produced or sold asbestos-containing products, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 12, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Headquartered in Menomonee Falls, Wis., Magnetek, Inc. provides digital power control systems that are used to control motion and power primarily in material handling, elevator and energy delivery applications. The Company's products consist primarily of programmable motion control and power conditioning systems used on the following applications: overhead cranes and hoists; elevators; coal mining equipment; and renewable energy. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chinea Case v. Ballantyne Strong Filed Aug. 17 --------------------------------------------------------------- Ballantyne Strong, Inc. is currently a defendant in an asbestos case entitled Manuel H. Chinea and Janet M. Chinea v. American Optical Company, Ballantyne Strong, Inc. a/k/a Ballantyne of Omaha, et al., filed Aug. 17, 2010 in the Superior Court of the State of New York. The Company is one of 25 defendants, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 15, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Headquartered in Omaha, Nebr., Ballantyne Strong, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, services and distributes theater and lighting systems. The Company's products are distributed to movie exhibition companies, sports arenas, auditoriums, amusement parks and special venues. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chase Corp. Still Facing Scott Lawsuit in Ohio --------------------------------------------------------------- Chase Corporation is one of over 100 defendants in Marie Lou Scott's lawsuit pending in Ohio, which alleges personal injury from exposure to asbestos contained in certain Chase products. The case is captioned Marie Lou Scott, Executrix of the Estate of James T. Scott v. A-Best Products, et al., No. 312901 in the Court of Common Pleas for Cuyahoga County, Ohio. The plaintiff in the case issued discovery requests to the Company in August 2005, to which the Company timely responded in September 2005. The trial had initially been scheduled to begin on April 30, 2007. However, that date had been postponed and no new trial date has been set. As of October 2010, there have been no new developments as this Ohio lawsuit has been inactive with respect to the Company. Headquartered in Bridgewater, Mass., Chase Corporation is a global manufacturer of tapes, laminates, sealants, and coatings for high reliability applications. The Company is currently organized into one operating segment with multiple facilities. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chase Corp. Still Facing Jansen Lawsuit in Wis. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chase Corporation is named a defendant in a complaint filed on June 25, 2009, in a lawsuit captioned Lois Jansen, Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Thomas Jansen v. Beazer East, Inc., et al., No. 09-CV-6248 in the Milwaukee County (Wisconsin) Circuit Court. The plaintiff alleges that her husband suffered and died from malignant mesothelioma resulting from exposure to asbestos in his workplace. The plaintiff has sued seven alleged manufacturers or distributors of asbestos-containing products, including Royston Laboratories (formerly an independent company and now a division of the Company). The Company has filed an answer to the claim denying the material allegations in the complaint. The parties are currently engaged in discovery. Headquartered in Bridgewater, Mass., Chase Corporation is a global manufacturer of tapes, laminates, sealants, and coatings for high reliability applications. The Company is currently organized into one operating segment with multiple facilities. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Facing 300 Injury Actions at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Park-Ohio Holdings Corp., at Sept. 30, 2010, was a co-defendant in about 300 cases asserting claims on behalf of about 1,240 plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 15, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages. In every asbestos case in which the Company is named as a party, the complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from US$25,000 to US$75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages sought. There are five asbestos cases, involving 25 plaintiffs, which plead specified damages. In each of the five cases, the plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of action. In three cases, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the amount of US$3 million for four separate causes of action and US$1 million for another cause of action and punitive damages in the amount of US$10 million. In the fourth case, the plaintiff has alleged against each named defendant, compensatory and punitive damages each in the amount of US$10 million for seven separate causes of action. In the fifth case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the amount of US$20 million for three separate causes of action and US$5 million for another cause of action and punitive damages in the amount of US$20 million. Headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, Park-Ohio Holdings Corp., through the subsidiaries owned by its direct subsidiary, Park-Ohio Industries, Inc., is an industrial supply chain logistics and diversified manufacturing business operating in three segments: Supply Technologies, Aluminum Products and Manufactured Products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Katy Indus. Still Faces to 11 Cases in Alabama --------------------------------------------------------------- Katy Industries, Inc. has been named as a defendant in 11 asbestos lawsuits filed in state court in Alabama by a total of about 325 individual plaintiffs. There are over 100 defendants named in each case. In all 11 cases, the Plaintiffs claim that they were exposed to asbestos in the course of their employment at a former U.S. Steel plant in Alabama and, as a result, contracted mesothelioma, asbestosis, lung cancer or other illness. They claim that while in the plant they were exposed to asbestos in products which were manufactured by each defendant. In nine of the cases, Plaintiffs also assert wrongful death claims. Headquartered in Bridgeton, Mo., Katy Industries, Inc. is a manufacturer, importer and distributor of commercial cleaning and storage products. Its commercial cleaning products are sold to janitorial/sanitary and foodservice distributors that supply end users like restaurants, hotels, healthcare facilities and schools. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Katy Still Subject to 2.8T Sterling Fluid Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- Katy Industries, Inc. says that Sterling Fluid Systems (USA) has tendered about 2,800 asbestos cases pending in Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Illinois, Nevada, Mississippi, Wyoming, Louisiana, Georgia, Massachusetts, Missouri, Kentucky, California, South Carolina and Canada to the Company for defense and indemnification. With respect to one case, Sterling has demanded that the Company indemnify it for a US$200,000 settlement. Sterling bases its tender of the complaints on the provisions contained in a 1993 Purchase Agreement between the parties whereby Sterling purchased the LaBour Pump business and other assets from the Company. Sterling has not filed a lawsuit against the Company in connection with these matters. The tendered complaints all purport to state claims against Sterling and its subsidiaries. The Company and its current subsidiaries are not named as defendants. The plaintiffs in the cases also allege that they were exposed to asbestos and products containing asbestos in the course of their employment. Each complaint names as defendants many manufacturers of products containing asbestos, apparently because plaintiffs came into contact with a variety of different products in the course of their employment. Plaintiffs claim that LaBour Pump Company, a former division of an inactive subsidiary of the Company, and/or Sterling may have manufactured some of those products. With respect to many of the tendered complaints, including the one settled by Sterling for US$200,000, the Company has taken the position that Sterling has waived its right to indemnity by failing to timely request it as required under the 1993 Purchase Agreement. Headquartered in Bridgeton, Mo., Katy Industries, Inc. is a manufacturer, importer and distributor of commercial cleaning and storage products. Its commercial cleaning products are sold to janitorial/sanitary and foodservice distributors that supply end users like restaurants, hotels, healthcare facilities and schools. ASBESTOS UPDATE: LaBour Pump Facing 90 Active Lawsuits at Oct. 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Katy Industries, Inc. says there are about 90 asbestos cases of former affiliate, LaBour Pump Company, which remain active as of Oct. 1, 2010. LaBour Pump Company, a former division of an inactive subsidiary of the Company, has been named as a defendant in about 420 of the New Jersey cases tendered by Sterling Fluid Systems (USA). The Company has elected to defend these cases, the majority of which have been dismissed or settled for nominal sums. Headquartered in Bridgeton, Mo., Katy Industries, Inc. is a manufacturer, importer and distributor of commercial cleaning and storage products. Its commercial cleaning products are sold to janitorial/sanitary and foodservice distributors that supply end users like restaurants, hotels, healthcare facilities and schools. ASBESTOS UPDATE: ABI's Liabilities Still at $17.7Mil at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- American Biltrite Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related liabilities were US$17,700,000 as of both Sept. 30, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 15, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company's insurance for asbestos-related liabilities was US$17,646,000 as of both Sept. 30, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009. Headquartered in Wellesley Hills, Mass., American Biltrite Inc.'s Tape division makes 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. The Company also designs and distributes wholesale jewelry and accessories to specialty and department stores through its K&M subsidiary, while its AB Canada subsidiary makes floor tile and rubber products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Biltrite Has 1,237 Claims at Sept. 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- American Biltrite Inc. is a co-defendant with many other manufacturers and distributors of asbestos containing products in about 1,237 pending asbestos claims involving about 1,783 individuals as of Sept. 30, 2010, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 15, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. These claims relate to products of the Company's former Tile division, which the Company sold to Congoleum Corporation in 1993. The claimants allege personal injury or death from exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products. During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010, the Company reported 221 new claims, 20 settlements, and 157 dismissals. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company reported 240 new claims, 25 settlements, 291 dismissals, and 1,193 ending claims. The Company has multiple excess layers of insurance coverage for asbestos claims. The total indemnity costs incurred to settle claims were US$2 million during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 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. Headquartered in Wellesley Hills, Mass., American Biltrite Inc.'s Tape division makes 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. The Company also designs and distributes wholesale jewelry and accessories to specialty and department stores through its K&M subsidiary, while its AB Canada subsidiary makes floor tile and rubber products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Still Named in Injury Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rockwell Automation Inc., including its subsidiaries, has been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos that was used in certain components of its products many years ago. Currently there are a few thousand claimants in lawsuits that name the Company as defendant, together with hundreds of other companies. In some cases, the claims involve products from divested businesses, and the Company is indemnified for most of the costs. However, it has agreed to defend and indemnify asbestos claims associated with products manufactured or sold by the Company's Dodge mechanical and Reliance Electric motors and motor repair services businesses prior to their divestiture by the Company, which occurred on Jan. 31, 2007. The Company also is responsible for half of the costs and liabilities associated with asbestos cases against Rockwell International Corporation's divested measurement and flow control business. The Company has maintained insurance coverage that it believes covers indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured retentions, for claims arising from its former Allen-Bradley subsidiary. Following litigation against Nationwide Indemnity Company and Kemper Insurance, the insurance carriers that provided liability insurance coverage to Allen-Bradley, the Company entered into separate agreements on April 1, 2008 with both insurance carriers to further resolve responsibility for ongoing and future coverage of Allen-Bradley asbestos claims. In exchange for a lump sum payment, Kemper bought out its remaining liability and has been released from further insurance obligations to Allen-Bradley. Nationwide administers the Kemper buyout funds and has entered into a cost share agreement with the Company to pay the substantial majority of future defense and indemnity costs for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims once the Kemper buyout funds are depleted. Headquartered in Milwaukee, Rockwell Automation, Inc. provides industrial automation power, control and information solutions that help manufacturers achieve a competitive advantage for their businesses. The Company continues the business founded as the Allen-Bradley Company in 1903. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sears Still Subject to Asbestos Exposure Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sears Holdings Corporation continues to be subject to environmental and asbestos exposure allegations and other consumer-based claims, each of which may seek compensatory, punitive or treble damage claims (potentially in large amounts), as well as other types of relief. No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 18, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Headquartered 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 2,206 full-line and 1,340 specialty retail stores in the United States, operating through Kmart and Sears, and 456 full-line and specialty retail stores in Canada operating through Sears Canada Inc., a 90%-owned subsidiary. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 83T Claims Pending v. Ashland Inc. at Sept. 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- Ashland Inc. faced 83,000 open asbestos claims during the year ended Sept. 30, 2010, compared with 100,000 claims during the year ended Sept. 30, 2009, according to the Company's annual report filed on Nov. 22, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company faced 84,000 open asbestos-related claims during the nine months ended June 30, 2010, compared with 103,000 open claims during the nine months ended June 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 27, 2010) The claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos asserted against Ashland result primarily from indemnification obligations undertaken in 1990 in connection with the sale of Riley, a former subsidiary. During the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2010, the Company recorded 2,000 new claims filed; 1,000 claims settled; and 18,000 claims dismissed. During the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2009, the Company recorded 2,000 new claims filed; 1,000 claims settled; and 16,000 claims dismissed. Total reserves for asbestos claims were $537 million at Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$543 million at Sept. 30, 2009. At Sept. 30, 2010, the Company's receivable for recoveries of litigation defense and claim settlement costs from insurers amounted to US$421 million, of which US$56 million relates to costs previously paid. Receivables from insurers amounted to US$422 million at Sept. 30, 2009. Headquartered in Covington, Ky., Ashland Inc.'s business consists of five reportable segments: Ashland Aqualon Functional Ingredients; Ashland Hercules Water Technologies; Ashland Performance Materials; Ashland Consumer Markets (Valvoline); and Ashland Distribution. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hercules Still Facing 20,000 Claims at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ashland Inc.'s subsidiary, Hercules, faced 20,000 open asbestos- related claims during the year ended Sept. 30, 2010, compared with 21,000 open claims during the year ended Sept. 30, 2009. Hercules has liabilities from claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos. Such claims typically arise from alleged exposure to asbestos fibers from resin encapsulated pipe and tank products which were sold by one of Hercules' former subsidiaries to a limited industrial market. During the year ended Sept. 30, 2010, Hercules had 1,000 claims. Asbestos reserve was US$375 million. During the year ended Sept. 30, 2009, Hercules had 1,000 new claims filed and 7,000 claims dismissed. Asbestos reserve was US$484 million. Headquartered in Covington, Ky., Ashland Inc.'s business consists of five reportable segments: Ashland Aqualon Functional Ingredients; Ashland Hercules Water Technologies; Ashland Performance Materials; Ashland Consumer Markets (Valvoline); and Ashland Distribution. ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Posts $66MM Liability at Sept. 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- ArvinMeritor, Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related liabilities were US$66 million as of Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US61 million as of Sept. 30, 2009, according to the Company's annual report filed on Nov. 24, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Current asbestos-related recoveries were US$18 million as of Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$16 million as of Sept. 30, 2009. Long-term asbestos-related recoveries were US$55 million as of Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$47 million as of Sept. 30, 2009. Current asbestos-related recoveries were US$11 million as of Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$8 million as of Sept. 30, 2009. Headquartered in Troy, Mich., ArvinMeritor, Inc. is a premier global supplier of integrated systems, modules and components to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and the aftermarket for the commercial vehicle, transportation and industrial sectors. The Company serves commercial truck, trailer, off-highway, military, bus and coach and other industrial OEMs and certain aftermarkets, and light vehicle OEMs. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 26,000 Claims Pending v. Maremont at Sept. 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- ArvinMeritor, Inc.'s subsidiary, Maremont Corporation, faced about 26,000 pending asbestos-related claims at Sept. 30, 2010 and Sept. 30, 2009. Maremont manufactured friction products containing asbestos from 1953 through 1977, when it sold its friction product business. Arvin Industries, Inc., a predecessor of the Company, acquired Maremont in 1986. Maremont and many other companies are defendants in suits brought by individuals claiming personal injuries as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products. Maremont's reserves for pending and future claims was US$67 million at Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$61 million at Sept. 30, 2009. Asbestos-related insurance recoveries were US$57 million at Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$43 million as of Sept. 30, 2009. Headquartered in Troy, Mich., ArvinMeritor, Inc. is a premier global supplier of integrated systems, modules and components to original equipment manufacturers and the aftermarket for the commercial vehicle, transportation and industrial sectors. The Company serves commercial truck, trailer, off-highway, military, bus and coach and other industrial OEMs and certain aftermarkets, and light vehicle OEMs. ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Still Has Rockwell Int'l. Actions --------------------------------------------------------------- ArvinMeritor, Inc. and many other companies have been named as defendants in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos used in certain components of Rockwell International products many years ago. Liability for these claims was transferred to the Company at the time of the spin-off of the automotive business to Meritor from Rockwell in 1997. Currently there are thousands of claimants in lawsuits that name the Company, together with many other companies, as defendants. The Company determined that the probable liability for pending and future claims over the next four years is US$17 million as of Sept. 30, 2010 and US$16 million as of Sept. 30, 2009. The Company has recorded an insurance receivable related to Rockwell legacy asbestos-related liabilities of US$9 million at Sept. 30, 2010 and US$12 million at Sept. 30, 2009. Headquartered in Troy, Mich., ArvinMeritor, Inc. is a premier global supplier of integrated systems, modules and components to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and the aftermarket for the commercial vehicle, transportation and industrial sectors. The Company serves commercial truck, trailer, off-highway, military, bus and coach and other industrial OEMs and certain aftermarkets, and light vehicle OEMs. ASBESTOS UPDATE: National Fuel Has $101MM Sept. 30 ARO Liability ---------------------------------------------------------------- National Fuel Gas Company recorded US$101,618,000 asset retirement obligations during the year ended Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$91,373,000 during the year ended Sept. 30, 2009. The Company has recorded future asset retirement obligations associated with the plugging and abandonment of natural gas storage wells in the Pipeline and Storage segment and the removal of asbestos and asbestos-containing material in various facilities in the Utility and Pipeline and Storage segments. Headquartered in Williamsville, N.Y., National Fuel Gas Company explores for, produces, stores, transmits, and distributes natural gas. The Company's utility, National Fuel Gas Distribution distributes gas to about 727,000 customers in New York and Pennsylvania. ASBESTOS UPDATE: WGL Holdings Has $174.5MM Sept. 30 ARO Liability ----------------------------------------------------------------- WGL Holdings, Inc. incurred asset retirement obligation liabilities of US$174.5 million as of Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$766.3 million as of Sept. 30, 2009. The Company's asset retirement obligations include the costs to cut, purge and cap its natural gas distribution system, remove asbestos and plug storage wells upon their retirement. Headquartered in Washington, D.C., WGL Holdings, Inc.'s Washington Gas Light utility distributes natural gas to more than one million customers in Washington, D.C., and adjacent areas of Maryland and Virginia. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Corp. Still Subject to Respirator Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Cabot Corporation is subject to respirator liabilities, which involve claims for personal injury, including asbestosis, silicosis and coal worker's pneumoconiosis, allegedly resulting from the use of respirators that are claimed to have been negligently designed or labeled. The Company has exposure in connection with a safety respiratory products business that a subsidiary acquired from American Optical Corporation in an April 1990 asset purchase transaction. The subsidiary manufactured respirators under the AO brand and disposed of that business in July 1995. In connection with its acquisition of the business, the subsidiary agreed, in certain circumstances, to assume a portion of AO's liabilities, including costs of legal fees together with amounts paid in settlements and judgments, allocable to AO respiratory products used prior to the 1990 purchase by the Cabot subsidiary. Other parties, including AO, AO's insurers, and another former owner and its insurers -- Payor Group -- are responsible for significant portions of the costs of these liabilities, leaving the Company's subsidiary with a portion of the liability in only some of the pending cases. The subsidiary transferred the business to Aearo Corporation in July 1995. The Company agreed to have the subsidiary retain certain liabilities allocable to respirators used prior to the 1995 transaction so long as Aearo paid, and continues to pay, Cabot an annual fee of US$400,000. Aearo can discontinue payment of the fee at any time, in which case it will assume the responsibility for and indemnify the Company against the liabilities allocable to respirators manufactured and used prior to the 1995 transaction. The Company anticipates that it will continue to receive payment of the US$400,000 fee from Aearo and thereby retain these liabilities for the foreseeable future. The Company has no liability in connection with any products manufactured by Aearo after 1995. As of September 30, 2010 and 2009, There were about 45,000 claimants as of Sept. 30, 2010 and 47,000 claimants as of Sept. 30, 2009 in pending cases asserting claims against AO in connection with respiratory products. The Company has recorded on a net present value basis a US$15 million reserve (US$20 million on an undiscounted basis) to cover its estimated share of liability for pending and future respirator claims. Cash payments related to this liability were about US$2 million in each of fiscal 2010, 2009 and 2008. Headquartered in Boston, Cabot Corporation is a global specialty chemicals and performance materials company. Its principal products are rubber and specialty grade carbon blacks, fumed metal oxides, tantalum and related products, inkjet colorants, aerogels and cesium formate drilling fluids. ASBESTOS UPDATE: United Refining Co. Posts $400,000 for Cleanup --------------------------------------------------------------- United Refining Company, during the fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2010, recorded US$400,000 for asbestos abatement, according to the Company's annual report filed on Nov. 29, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Headquartered in Warren, Pa., United Refining Company is an integrated refiner and marketer of petroleum products in its primary market area, which encompasses western New York and northwestern Pennsylvania. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Met-Pro Corp. Facing 97 Open Actions at Dec. 2 --------------------------------------------------------------- There were a total of 97 asbestos ases pending against Met-Pro Corporation as of Dec. 2, 2010 (with a majority of those cases pending in Mississippi, Pennsylvania and New York), as compared with 106 cases that were pending as of Jan. 31, 2010. There were a total of 74 asbestos cases pending against the Company (with a majority of those cases pending in Mississippi and New York) as of Aug. 26, 2010. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 10, 2010) Beginning in 2002, the Company began to be named in asbestos- related lawsuits filed against a large number of industrial companies including, in particular, those in the pump and fluid handling industries. The complaints allege that the Company, along with the numerous other defendants, sold unidentified asbestos-containing products and engaged in other related actions which caused injuries (including death) and loss to the plaintiffs. Counsel has advised that more recent cases typically allege more serious claims of mesothelioma. The Company has been dismissed from or settled a large number of these cases. The sum total of all payments through Dec. 2, 2010 to settle these cases involving asbestos-related claims was US$612,500, all of which have been paid by the Company's insurers including legal expenses, except for corporate counsel expenses, with an average cost per settled claim, excluding legal fees, of about US$34,000. For the Feb. 1, 2010 through Dec. 2, 2010 period, about 47 new cases were filed against the Company, and the Company was dismissed (some of which were without prejudice) from 55 cases and settled one case. Most of the pending cases have not advanced beyond the early stages of discovery, although a number of cases are on schedules leading to, or are scheduled for trial. During the three months ended Oct. 31, 2010, a rehabilitation order was entered against one of the Company's insurers, based upon its alleged insolvency. Headquartered in Harleysville, Pa., Met-Pro Corporation manufactures and sells product recovery and pollution control equipment for purification of air and liquids, fluid handling equipment for corrosive, abrasive and high temperature liquids, and filtration and purification products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: OSHA Issues $51T Fine v. David H. Koch Theater --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration has cited the David H. Koch Theater, located at the Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts in Manhattan, for alleged repeat and serious violations of workplace health and safety standards, according to an OSHA press release dated Dec. 2, 2010. The theater faces a total of US$51,000 in proposed fines, chiefly for asbestos, fall and crushing hazards identified during an OSHA inspection prompted by worker complaints. OSHA's inspection found that employees of the theater and of outside contractors had not been informed of the presence of asbestos-containing and potentially asbestos-containing materials in the theater's promenade area and in nearby electrical closets. The materials had not been labeled and asbestos warning signs had not been posted. In addition, an exit door was stuck and unable to be used, and a portable fire extinguisher was not mounted. As these conditions were similar to those cited by OSHA during a 2009 inspection of the theater, they resulted in the agency issuing the theater four repeat citations with US$45,000 in proposed fines. Kay Gee, OSHA's Manhattan area director, said, "The recurrence of these conditions is disturbing. For the health and safety of its employees as well as outside contractors, the theater must take effective steps to identify and permanently eliminate these and other hazards identified during this latest OSHA inspection." OSHA also found that, due to a lack of guarding, theater employees were exposed to falls into the orchestra pit when the stage was raised above the pit, and to being struck or crushed by the stage when it descended into the pit. These conditions, plus the use of temporary wiring in place of permanent lighting in the promenade area, resulted in OSHA also issuing the theater three serious citations with US$6,000 in proposed fines. Robert Kulick, OSHA's regional administrator in New York, said, "One means of eliminating hazards such as these is for employers to establish an illness and injury prevention program, in which workers and management jointly work to identify and eliminate hazardous conditions on a continual basis." The theater has 15 business days from receipt of the citations and proposed penalties to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA's area director or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. The inspection was conducted by OSHA's Manhattan Area Office, telephone 212-620-3200. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scranton Property Owner to Follow Cleanup Rules ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has ordered the owner of an abandoned factory known as the Hillcrest Building, located on the 500 block of Hillcrest Drive, Old Forge, Pa., to comply with asbestos cleanup regulations, according to an EPA press release dated Dec. 6, 2010. The building's owner, Walter Stocki, of Old Forge, Pa., allegedly violated the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Asbestos by demolishing portions of the Hillcrest Building without taking precautions to minimize the airborne release of asbestos. EPA ordered Mr. Stocki to secure the site and cease all activities that might cause further release of asbestos fibers; ensure that the building and exterior dumpster are sealed; and post warning signs around the building until a cleanup is performed. The order also directs Mr. Stocki to submit to EPA a work plan within seven days. In June 2010 and August 2010, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection conducted two inspections and issued two notices of violation to Mr. Stocki for violating asbestos regulations by demolishing, without proper notice or precautions. EPA conducted a follow-up inspection on Nov. 17, 2010 and confirmed that the property was still contaminated with asbestos. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aston University Penalized for Safety Breaches --------------------------------------------------------------- Aston University, a Birmingham, England-based university has been fined, along with a security systems firm, after two workers were exposed to dangerous asbestos fibers while fitting CCTV cameras, according to a Health and Safety Executive press release dated Dec. 3, 2010. The worker and a 17-year-old trainee were installing the cameras in the reception area at Aston University's Recreation Centre on July 21, 2009 when they drilled into material containing asbestos fibers. Both the university and Warwickshire-based Access Fire and Security Ltd -- the contractor carrying out the work -- were prosecuted by the HSE following the incident. Birmingham Magistrates' Court heard the university failed to follow its own procedures on managing, planning and preparing for the installation and the arrangements were unclear and not widely known within the university. Aston University, of Aston Triangle, Birmingham, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 5(1) of the Management of Health and Safety Regulations 1999 and Regulation 4(9)(c) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and was fined GBP4,000 and ordered to pay GBP2,000 costs. Access Fire and Security Ltd, which operates from a unit in Henley Court, Henley-in-Arden, and is registered at an address in Yardley Wood, Billesley, Birmingham, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 5(a) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and was fined GBP1,000 and ordered to pay GBP1,000 costs. Karl Raw, the investigating inspector at HSE, said, "While the amount of asbestos involved in this incident was small, two people now have to live with the knowledge that they may become ill from lung disease in the future. "Aston University failed to ensure university employees and others working across the site were aware of the presence of asbestos fibers. "Surveys on the location and conditions of asbestos and materials containing asbestos had been carried out across the university but there was no procedure for communicating the details to contractors. "Access Fire and Security Ltd, a long-term contractor with the university, had never been given any information about asbestos - and had never asked for it. They also failed to assess whether asbestos was present, what type of asbestos was involved and what condition it was in, before undertaking work." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Moore's Case for Compensation Ongoing in London ---------------------------------------------------------------- The family of Alan Moore, a former Cambridge United manager, has launched asbestos-related legal proceedings in the Royal Courts of Justice in London, Cambridge-news.co.uk reports. East Anglian solicitors Kester Cunningham John filed the case on behalf of the family. Mr. Moore was first player-coach and then player-manager of Cambridge United from December 1959 until October 1963. He died in 2008 at the age of 81. Mr. Moore's family and lawyers believe exposure to asbestos while working as an electrician for six years in the 1940s was a serious contributory factor to the ill-health and discomfort he suffered, and to his death. Mr. Moore and his wife Miriam made Cambridge their home from the early 1960s. He helped oversee the Club's transition into a professional side in the 1960s and later managed Great Shelford and Histon football clubs. Mr. Moore started his working life in Tyne and Wear where as an electrician, his family claims, he was exposed to asbestos when working on repairing ships at Palmers Hebburn Co. Simon Davis, who is representing the Moores, told the News, "Alan was a very fit man but at the end did suffer from terrible breathing difficulties. It is well-known that asbestos-related disease can lie dormant for many years before manifesting itself. In Alan's case he first experienced significant asbestos-related respiratory disability in early 2007. "This became increasingly debilitating towards the end of his life, and it is our belief had he not contracted the disease, he would have been able to enjoy at least another two years with, and providing for, his family." Mr. Moore had also played for several clubs including Sunderland, Nottingham Forest, Hull City, Coventry City and Swindon Town. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standby Facility of AU$320MM for AICF Formalized ----------------------------------------------------------------- James Hardie Industries SE noted that the New South Wales Government and the Australian Government, on Dec. 7, 2010, announced that a standby loan facility of up to AU$320 million for the Asbestos Injuries Compensation Fund has been formalized, according to a Company press release dated Dec. 7, 2010. The standby loan facility will assist the AICF to meet short-term funding shortfalls, and to continue to make payments to claimants should contributions made by Hardie under the Amended and Restated Funding Agreement be insufficient to maintain liquidity in the fund. Drawing under the standby loan facility is conditional on the AFFA being varied to reflect the arrangements entered into in connection with this facility and the Australian Taxation Office providing Hardie and the AICF with private rulings to replace those previously issued in connection with the AFFA and confirmation that the accepted tax conditions -- as defined in the AFFA -- will remain unchanged in all material respects. It has been agreed with the NSW Government that Hardie and the AICF will apply to the ATO for the relevant rulings. On Dec. 2, 2009, the NSW Parliament passed the James Hardie Former Subsidiaries (Winding up and Administration) Amendment Act 2009 to authorize and approve the standby loan facility, associated guarantees and security arrangements. Hardie notes that the provision of the proposed standby loan facility to the AICF does not reduce the Company's obligations under the AFFA. The obligation to pay claimants remains with AICF, and it is anticipated that its primary source of funding will continue to be contributions for Hardie. In addition, Hardie anticipates that, based on its fiscal year 2011 results to date, it expects to make a contribution to the AICF, in accordance with the AFFA, in 2011. Hardie made a contribution of about AU$72.8 million -- US$63.7 million -- to the AICF on July 1, 2010. The amount represented 35 percent of the Company's free cash flow for fiscal year 2010, as defined by the AFFA. Since the AICF was established in February 2007, the Company has contributed AU$375 million to the fund. The Company is also contributing AU$500,000 a year for 10 years towards medical research into the prevention, treatment and cure of asbestos diseases, and AU$75,000 a year for 10 years for an education program to inform home renovators of the risks associated with asbestos. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Downer EDI to Pay Workers While Hazard Removed --------------------------------------------------------------- Downer EDI Limited, which builds trains, has agreed to continue paying employees who refuse to work due to asbestos contamination fears at its Cardiff, New South Wales, Australia, rail workshops, ABC News reports. On Dec. 6, 2010, the Company told workers at a mass meeting that it would isolate the stores area of the plant until it can be decontaminated tomorrow. The Company has assured employees it will not dock their pay if they decide not to work until air monitoring results give the all clear. Jim O'Neill from the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union says things should return to normal by the end of the week. He said, "It'll depend on what happens with the air monitoring that's taking place today in and around the stores areas and testing of samples and air monitoring in other areas of the plant." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Malta Shipyards to Pay Fenech Family EUR103,114 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeal of Malta, on Dec. 3, 2010, ordered Malta Shipyards to pay Dorothy Fenech and the rest of her family EUR103,114 in compensation for the asbestos-related death of her father, Joseph Fenech, at the age of 55, the Times of Malta reports. The Appeals Court, on Dec. 3, 2010, also confirmed previous judgments. The Court found that the dockyard had failed to provide the required safety measures against asbestos. It found that the shipyard did not provide any protective clothing or masks to Mr. Fenech, who died in 1997 from mesothelioma. The appeal had been filed by the shipyards after, in 2006, a civil court ruled in favor of Mr. Fenech's wife Carmena and his children Dorothy and James, who had started legal proceedings in June 1997, four months after Mr. Fenech died. The company also appealed a second judgment -- handed down in 2008 -- where it was ordered by a civil court to pay EUR103,114 in damages to the Fenech family. Mr. Fenech worked at the shipyard for 36 years, having started as yard boy in 1959 and worked his way up to boilermaker until he opted for an early retirement scheme in 1995. Three years before retiring, he started suffering from shortness of breath, lack of appetite and also developed a cough. Medical tests revealed Mr. Fenech was suffering from malignant mesothelioma. The cancer spread and he died in 1997. Ms. Fenech thanked ex-Prime Minister Karm Mifsud Bonnici who, as a lawyer, had started the case and her lawyer, Juliette Galea, for all their help and support. ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Environmental Exposure" Ruled in Tuck's Death --------------------------------------------------------------- West Dorset coroner Michael Johnston ruled that Audrey Linda Tuck, a former care home manager, may have contracted mesothelioma through hugging her husband while he was covered in asbestos dust, the Daily Echo reports. Mrs. Tuck, of Bournemouth Road, Charlton Marshall near Blandford, England, died at the age of 77 in Dorset County Hospital, Dorchester, earlier in 2010. Mr. Johnston said that Mrs. Tuck, in an interview before she died, said she could not remember ever working in close contact with asbestos dust. However, the inquest heard she did recall her husband Paul, a farm manager, had once worked on a project that involved renovating a poultry house into a piggery. Mr. Johnston said Mrs. Tuck remembered her husband being "very hands on" during the renovation and came home with his hair, eyebrows and clothes covered in asbestos dust from work. The inquest heard Mrs. Tuck used to hug her husband when he came home from working on the project and also shook out and washed his clothes. Mr. Johnston said that because Mrs. Tuck had not come into contact with asbestos dust through her work he had to record her death as being due to an "environmental exposure" to asbestos. He added that this probably came as a result of close contact with asbestos dust on her husband's clothes. ASBESTOS UPDATE: DEQ Issues $18T Fine for Logan Cleanup Breaches ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has issued a total of US$18,000 in penalties in connection with environmental violations during an asbestos removal project at a residence at 3551 SW Logan St., Portland, Ore., in September 2010, according to an Oregon DEQ press release dated Dec. 8, 2010. DEQ issued an US$8,400 penalty to Vidovic Enterprises Inc. (d/b/a Superior Siding Solutions) for allowing Richard Heup Construction, a Battle Ground, Wash.-based contractor without the required license, to perform an asbestos abatement project at the residence. At the time of the violation, Vidovic Enterprises was responsible for the renovation project being performed at this house. Richard Neal Heup and his employees removed cement asbestos board siding, improperly handling the siding and causing it to break apart. Mr. Heup also failed to handle the asbestos-containing waste properly. DEQ issued a US$9,600 penalty to Richard Neal Heup, doing business as Richard Heup Construction, for performing an asbestos abatement project without a license. DEQ issued the penalties because this abatement project did not comply with applicable state asbestos regulations, and likely caused the release of asbestos fibers into the atmosphere. Both Vidovic Enterprises Inc. and Richard Neal Heup have appealed their penalties. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NPWS, BMCC Seek Info on Dump at Blue Mountains --------------------------------------------------------------- The National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Blue Mountains City Council appeal to the Blue Mountains community in New South Wales, Australia, for information on the recent illegal dumping of asbestos in and around the Blue Mountains National Park, the Blue Mountains Gazette reports. NPWS Upper Blue Mountains Area manager Richard Kingswood said he was frustrated by the complete lack of regard for the environment and health of local residents displayed in such careless acts. He said, "The costs of getting caught for illegal dumping are great, with fines as high as AU$1 million for corporations and AU$250,000 for individuals, but the potential cost to people's health is even higher." Mr. Kingswood said disposing of asbestos sheeting must be done properly in a safe manner and depending on the size, may need to be handled by a licensed operator. Blue Mountains mayor Daniel Myles also expressed his concern at the reckless disregard of dumpers, stating "the dumping of any rubbish in our bush land is irresponsible but to dump a substantial amount of hazardous waste such as asbestos defies belief." ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACT Govt. Seeks Inquiry on Asbestos at Molonglo ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Australian Capital Territory Government has tasked Auditor- General Tu Pham to investigate "significant errors" leading up to the discovery of 90,000 tons of asbestos-contaminated waste at a Molonglo public building project, The Canberra Times reports. However, the Opposition says the inquiry is a cynical move designed to "hang officials out to dry" while avoiding ministerial responsibility for the mess. The Canberra Times revealed on Dec. 4, 2010 the waste had been found in the ground at the North Weston Pond building site and that work on the project had been halted. Builders excavating the site also found the buried but near-intact buildings of the former Weston Sewage Treatment Works, structures that had been thought to have been completely demolished. Initial scoping studies of the site, which was used as a dumping ground for builders as far back as 1978, found 500 tons of asbestos, but clearly missed the much larger deposit of the material. Now Chief Minister Jon Stanhope has called in Auditor-General Tu Pham, asking for an investigation into the discovery of asbestos, which led to workers being ordered off site on Dec. 2, 2010 and redeployed to other building jobs around Molonglo. On initial estimates, the waste could cost up to AU$17 million to remove safely, blowing out the cost of building the pond from AU$20 million to AU$37 million. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 53 New Lawsuits Filed in St. Clair as of Dec. 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------- A total of 53 new asbestos-related cases were filed in St. Clair County, Ill., as of Dec. 1, 2010, compared with a total of four new asbestos cases filed in 2009, The Madison/St. Clair Record reports. Most of the cases have been filed by Judy Cates, Esq., of Belleville, Richard Saville, Esq., of Alton and Randy Gori, Esq., of Edwardsville. Presiding Associate Judge Andrew Gleeson was assigned to the asbestos docket in the wake of Circuit Judge Patrick Young's retirement. Before Judge Young, Circuit Judge Robert LeChien oversaw asbestos cases in St. Clair County. Meanwhile, neighboring Madison County has seen a steady number of cases added to its already heavy asbestos docket. As of Oct. 27, 2010, about 650 asbestos cases had been filed in Madison County. Long-time asbestos chief Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack retired on Dec. 3, 2010 after six years heading Madison's packed docket. The docket hit an all-time high just prior to Judge Stack's tenure at 953 the year before he took over the docket from then-Madison County Circuit Judge Nicholas Byron. The numbers dipped into the 300s following Judge Byron's retirement but have been going up since 2007. In 2009, there were 814 asbestos cases filed in Madison County. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oregon State Hospital to Undergo Hazard Cleanup ---------------------------------------------------------------- The 127-year-old Oregon State Hospital in Salem, Ore., must undergo asbestos abatement before demolition, Mesothelioma.com reports. The Oregon State Hospital in Salem became famous when it made its film debut in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest." However, Oregon officials said that the dilapidated asylum will be replaced with a new hospital. Forty percent of the building has been deemed unusable and major problems, such as toxic paint, a leaky roof and asbestos, plague the facility. The new facility will mimic daily life outside the institution as much as possible. It will offer sensitivity rooms with adjustable lighting and music, where patients can calm down, and the imprisoning metal bars have been replaced with shatterproof windows. Patients will also have their own rooms. The most architecturally significant part of the old hospital will be renovated and will eventually house a mental health museum. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Glan Clwys Hospital to Commence 2011 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Removal of asbestos from ceilings above theaters and corridors at Ysbyty Glan Clwyd in Bodelwyddan, Denbighshire, Wales, will start in 2011, BBC News Wales reports. A spokesman for Betsi Cadwaladr Local Health Board said the asbestos posed no "immediate risk" to patients' safety. Emergency and elective surgery will continue despite the disruption. The Health Board said medical staff will lead the planning to make sure patients can access care during the work. The work is expected to be completed by next winter. A spokesman for the Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board said, "We would like to reassure patients, visitors and staff that there is no immediate risk to their safety." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement at North Queensland Schools Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- Public Works Minister Robert Schwarten said Queensland's State Government is working hard to remove asbestos from schools in far north Queensland, ABC News reports. Opposition public works spokesman Andrew Cripps has criticized the State Government for not doing enough. He says the Government needs to prioritize the safety of students and teachers in schools that still have asbestos. However, Mr. Schwarten says Mr. Cripps does not realize the Government has been removing asbestos from school buildings during the holidays for the past 12 years. He said, "There is no different system this time and about AU$800,000 of asbestos will be removed from schools in this region alone, so I suggest he hasn't got a clue what's going on." Mr. Schwarten says the State Government has always used the holidays to remove asbestos. ********* 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. Leah Felisilda, Neil U. Lim, Rousel Elaine Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Ronald Sy, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan 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 * * *