/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/110128.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, January 28, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 20 Headlines A&T MOBILITY: 9th Cir. Orders Review on Gross Receipts Surcharge BEDFORD, TN: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over Bail System CABLE ONE: Faces Class Action for Charging Cable Box Rent Fees CARE INVESTMENT: Resolves "Briarwood" IPO Class Action Lawsuit COINSTAR INC: Accused in Wash. Suit of Misleading Shareholders DECHERT LLP: Judge OKs Final Meal-Break Class Action Settlement DRUG STORES: W.Va. Attorney General's Suit Not a Class Action FAMILY DOLLAR: Recalls 67,000 Remote-Controlled Toy Tanks FRONTPOINT PARTNERS: Faces Class Action for HGSI Insider Trading HOLIDAY SHORES: Heartland Seeks Discovery Stay in Atrazine Suit HSBC CARD: Sued in N.J. Over Fraudulent Business Practices KANG SHENG: Recalls 1,440 Butterfly Push Toy LEHIGH VALLEY: Judge Allows Overtime Class Action to Proceed LEXISNEXIS: Sued for Charging "Unsconscionable" E-Filing Fees RIDGELAND, SC: iTraffic Seeks Dismissal of Traffic Camera Suit STEELCASE INC: Recalls 165,000 Cachet Swivel Chairs STEWART INFORMATION: Delivers 660,000 Shares Under Suit Settlement TIGRENT INC: Parties Settle Lawsuit in Canada for C$250,000 TOYOTA MOTOR: Plaintiffs Fight Bid to Dismiss Brake Class Action UNITED STATES: Black Farmers Raise Pigford Settlement Concerns WASHINGTON: Sued for Scrapping Food Assistance Program Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dorset Doctor's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: PADEP Urges Cleanup at Jeannette Glass Facility ASBESTOS UPDATE: Illegal Landfill at Lymington May Have Asbestos ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Parker Sites to Cost $20T-$90T ASBESTOS UPDATE: Northamptonshire Trust Fined for Safety Breach ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flood Victims Could Be Exposed to Asbestos ASBESTOS UPDATE: $8.4T Fine for LaFranchi over Cleanup Breaches ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kainer Estate Sues 29 Firms in St. Clair Cty. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Packer Case v. 91 Firms Filed Dec. 17 in W.Va. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Peirce Firm Seeks Review of Fraud Claim Ruling ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Steers Clear From Hoelzer Settlement Feud ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sufferers in N. Ireland Could Get Compensation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wrexham Nightclub Owner Admits to Safety Breach ASBESTOS UPDATE: AirQuest Awarded Contract for Services in Fla. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer, Quigley Nearing Claims Settlement Deal ASBESTOS UPDATE: Worcestershire Council to Allay Asbestos Fears ASBESTOS UPDATE: Melrose Park Resident Sentenced for Tax Fraud ASBESTOS UPDATE: H Cope and Sons to Pay GBP12T for Worker's Fall ASBESTOS UPDATE: Case v. Coralville Businessman Filed on Dec. 28 ASBESTOS UPDATE: ASIC Seeks Leave to Appeal James Hardie Ruling ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Coolidge Elementary to Cost $92,007 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rochdale Council Blocks Homes Plan on T&N Site ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Sulphur Springs Schools Costs $230T ASBESTOS UPDATE: Caterpillar UK Awards Payout to Aspin's Family ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement at La Cruces Museum to Cost $156,400 ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Union Pacific Workers File Suit in St. Clair ASBESTOS UPDATE: Veterans Court Affirms Ruling in Reeves Action ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Appeals Court Issues Ruling in Rossi Case ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms Board's Decision in Martin Action ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Sets Aside Ruling in Casher Claim ********* A&T MOBILITY: 9th Cir. Orders Review on Gross Receipts Surcharge ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit asked the state Supreme Court in Washington to rule on whether cellular phone dealers can recoup state business and occupation taxes through a surcharge on gross receipts, as long as they disclose the fee. The question, filed Monday, relates to a proposed class action against AT&T's Cingular Wireless, in which Washington residents Jared Peck and James Bowden claim that the company's billing practices violate state law. Cingular mentions in its one-page Wireless Service Agreement that it charges various fees meant to recover state and federal telecom regulation taxes, "a gross receipts surcharge, and state and federal universal service charges," according to the order. The company also admits among other terms on its website that it collects "applicable taxes and governmental fees, whether assessed directly upon you or upon Cingular." Cingular's plan price does not include Washington's business and occupation tax, however, which showed up on the plaintiffs' bills as a "State B & O Surcharge" ranging from 5 cents to 44 cents per month. Mr. Peck sued the company in Washington state court, and Cingular removed the case to federal court. Mr. Peck appealed, and the case was sent back to state court on federal preemption grounds. There, Mr. Bowden joined the suit and sought class certification before Cingular removed the case again to federal court. The district court then granted Cingular summary judgment, finding that, based on a similar case that is also pending before the 9th Circuit, Cingular's practices did not violate state law. But on Monday the three-judge appeals panel found that the two cases were not similar enough to decide the present issue. "Considering the substantial factual differences between the present case and Washington case law, it is not clear how the Washington Supreme Court would rule on this issue," Judge Pamela Ann Rymer wrote for the panel. The panel sent the following certified question to the court for review: "Under Revised Code of Washington section 82.04.500, may a seller recoup its business and occupation taxes where, prior to the sale of a monthly service contract, the seller discloses that in addition to the monthly service fee, it collects a surcharge to cover gross receipts taxes?" A copy of the Order Certifying a Question to the Supreme Court of Washington in Peck, et al. v. AT&T Mobility, et al., No. 09-36113 (9th Cir.), is available at http://is.gd/tJ4xbS Plaintiff-Appellant James Bowden is represented by: Daniel F. Johnson, Esq. BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND PLLC 1111 Third Avenue, Suite 2230 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 652-8660 The Defendants-Appellees are represented by: Leonard J. Feldman, Esq. STOEL RIVES LLP 600 University Street, Suite 3600 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 624-0900 BEDFORD, TN: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over Bail System ------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Mosely, writing for Shelbyville Times-Gazette, reports attorneys for the county are denying the claims of a class action lawsuit and are asking a federal judge to dismiss it. In December, Ricky Robertson sued Bedford County, Deputy Kevin Roddy and John Does over alleged violations of the 4th, 8th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. He claimed in the suit that he was severely beaten at the jail and that the rights of thousands of others have been violated by the local bail bonding system. But in papers filed in federal court, attorneys stated that Mr. Robertson failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and that the statute of limitations has expired in the case. Mr. Robertson claimed in the class action part of his suit that he and countless others have had their due process rights violated because bail amounts in Bedford County are set in "an arbitrary manner." But attorney Michael T. Schmitt, representing the county, states that Mr. Robertson "lacks standing to bring claims on behalf of individuals other than himself." Mr. Schmitt also states that Mr. Robertson's bail was not excessive nor did it violate any laws, his arrest and detention was based on probable cause, any use of force was not excessive, no policy led to any alleged violation of his rights, he was not denied adequate medical care as a pretrial detainee and that Mr. Robertson was not denied due process of law. U.S. District Judge Harry S Mattice Jr. has set a scheduling date of Feb. 10 in the case. Beating denied According to jail records, Mr. Robertson was arrested on Nov. 28, 2009 for disorderly conduct and public intoxication and was released on $1,500 bond. He claims in the suit that he was in a verbal altercation with his son-in-law, who was on the phone with someone about him owing back child support. The person on the other end of the phone conversation called police upon hearing the argument between Mr. Robertson and the son-in-law. Deputies arrived at Mr. Robertson's house and he allowed them in and both men were questioned. The suit claims that a few minutes after Mr. Roddy and other deputies "stepped outside to confer among themselves," they asked Mr. Robertson to step outside, at which point he was arrested for public intoxication. Mr. Robertson claims that Mr. Roddy and/or the unknown deputies took him from the patrol car and forcefully pushed him into jail by lifting his handcuffed hands high above his shoulders from the back when they arrived. The suit claims that the more Mr. Robertson protested about the pain, the higher they lifted his handcuffed hands, and that he was beaten into unconsciousness after he slammed his wallet down in front of the booking officer. Mr. Robertson also claims that the deputies who did not participate in the alleged beating watched and did nothing to stop it, and when he woke up and asked for medical treatment, the deputies refused and laughed at him. He claimed that a bail bondsman took him to the hospital after seeing the results of the alleged beating and that X-rays were allegedly taken, as well as color photos by hospital staff. The suit alleges that the staff at the hospital called the sheriff's department to report the alleged beating, but was told that Mr. Robertson could complain about it to the judge at his next court hearing. Mr. Robertson also claims he was intimidated by "certain unknown deputies" after making inquiries with several attorneys in the Bedford County area and that he suffered a number of ailments as a result of the alleged beating, as well as medical expenses His suit claims that his bail was set "based on some rule of thumb or preset bail list" and that the county's monetary bail requirement is a violation of due process. Mr. Robertson says that the system "serves to enrich bail bondsman who are practically guaranteed a steady stream of relatively risk- free revenue through the process of requiring all detainees to post bonds for monetary bail." He is demanding two permanent injunctions -- one requiring training on the appropriate use of force against inmates and on probable cause for public intoxication, and the other requiring the setting of bail "in a consistent manner that comports with the requirements of due process." Mr. Schmitt stated on behalf of the county that alternate defenses in the case are the Doctrine of Qualified Immunity, the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act and that Robertson was provided a bond hearing within 48 hours. Mr. Schmitt also asks that the suit either be dismissed or set for a jury trial. CABLE ONE: Faces Class Action for Charging Cable Box Rent Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- Doug Walker, writing for WLOX, reports attorney Stephen Mullins says he's suing Cable One on behalf of thousands of South Mississippians who use a cable box required to receive dozens of additional channels. Mr. Mullins lawsuit alleges Cable One is violating anti-trust law by forcing customers to rent the box each month. "You're paying a flat fee for all these channels that you're getting, so why should you have to pay additional money for a box to get the services of the station that you're already paying for?" In court papers, Cable One has denied that, saying customers do have a choice. Mr. Mullins maintains there is no real choice. He says Cable One tells customers who want more channels, they must rent the box. "We've recently, I think a week or so ago, had people call in just to see what their response was and they were told specifically they had to have a box," Mr. Mullins said. "They say in this lawsuit that is not what they are doing, but we have dozens and dozens and dozens of customers that are telling us otherwise." The lawsuit also alleges because customers can't buy cable boxes outright from Cable One or any other source, the company has a monopoly that harms customers. Mr. Mullins also says the cable boxes are out of date. "My problem with this is that essentially this is a 1980s technology. A lot of these boxes look like they've been around since the 80s, that they are still using and charging people for solely for profit." Attempts to contact local Cable One officials for comment on this lawsuit have been unsuccessful. However, in court papers filed by the cable giant asking for the case to be dismissed, Cable One denies any wrong doing. No court date has been set at this time on either the actual lawsuit, or the request by Cable One to drop the case. CARE INVESTMENT: Resolves "Briarwood" IPO Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Care Investment Trust Inc., a real estate investment and finance company that invests in healthcare-related real estate, disclosed in a Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 24, 2010, that the class action lawsuit filed against the Company in 2007 in connection with its IPO (Briarwood v. Care) has been fully and finally resolved. Salvatore (Torey) V. Riso, President and Chief Executive Officer, said "We are pleased this lawsuit has been resolved in full so that the Company can continue to focus on its future growth." As reported by the Class Action Reporter on June 25, 2008, the suit was filed on Sept. 18, 2007, alleging that the registration statement relating to the initial public offering of shares of Care Investment Trust's common stock, filed on June 21, 2007, failed to disclose that certain of the assets in the contributed portfolio were materially impaired and overvalued and that Care was experiencing increasing difficulty in securing its warehouse financing lines. On Jan. 18, 2008, the court entered an order appointing co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel. On Feb. 19, 2008, the co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint citing additional evidentiary support for the allegations asserted in the complaint. The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on April 22, 2008. The suit is "Briarwood Investments, Inc., et al. v. Care Investment Trust Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-08159," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Louis L. Stanton, presiding. COINSTAR INC: Accused in Wash. Suit of Misleading Shareholders -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Coinstar's CEO, CFO and COO inflated the company's share price through false and misleading statements, and the price dropped 27 percent in a day when the truth came out, shareholders say in Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Packer v. Coinstar Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-00133 (W.D. Wash.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/01/26/SCA.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Karl P. Barth, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 - and - Kim Miller, Esq. KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC 500 Fifth Avenue, Ste. 1810 New York, NY 10110 Telephone: (212) 696-3730 E-mail: kim.miller@ksfcounsel.com - and - Lewis Kahn, Esq. KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC 206 Covington Street Madisonville, LA 70447 Telephone: (504) 455-1400 E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com Goldfarb Branham Joins Fray Goldfarb Branham LLP is investigating whether certain officers and directors of Coinstar, Inc. violated shareholder protection laws between October 28, 2010 and January 13, 2011. Shareholders -- or anyone with knowledge of Coinstar's conduct during this time period -- are encouraged to contact: Hamilton Lindley, Esq. GOLDFARB BRANHAM LLP Telephone: 214-583-2233 Toll Free: 877-583-2855 Facsimile: 214-583-2234 E-mail: hlindley@goldfarbbranham.com Web site: http://www.goldfarbbranham.com/ "The class action states that the company failed to disclose important information about (1) poor inventory management; (2) lower sales of Blu-ray DVDs; (3) the 28-day delay imposed by movie studios was adversely affecting the company; (4) and online video streaming was affecting the company worse than the company had indicated," said securities lawyer Hamilton Lindley. "When defendants reported the results for the fourth quarter, the stock plummeted 30% in one day." Goldfarb Branham's lawyers have significant experience representing individual and institutional investors in over 100 shareholder class action cases. DECHERT LLP: Judge OKs Final Meal-Break Class Action Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Kate Moser, writing or The Recorder, reports San Francisco Superior Court Judge Peter Busch approved a final settlement on Jan. 24 in a class action that accused Dechert of having workers sign waivers in order to work through meal breaks. Dechert's payout to class members is around $429,000. According to lawyers for the class, nonexempt workers at Dechert were often required or permitted to sign a "Meal Break Waiver" form when they worked more than six or 12 hours in a day. Dechert's lawyer, Fenwick & West partner Victor Schachter, referred a request for comment to his client. A call to Jerome Hoffman, the Dechert of counsel who managed the case from Philadelphia, was routed to a firm spokeswoman, who declined to comment. A former administrative assistant in the Palo Alto office of what was then Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly filed the class action after the firm terminated her in 2005. The class lawyers, San Francisco attorney Jessica Christensen and Alan Bayer and Heather Borlase of Bayer & Borlase, argued that the waivers themselves provided "irrefutable evidence" that Dechert knew the employees were working when they should have been taking meal periods, as mandated by state statutes, and that the firm authorized them to do so. "As a large law firm, defendant is capable of maintaining staffing level sufficient to permit its non-exempt employees to take 30-minute uninterrupted meal periods," the lawyers wrote in a second-amended complaint, filed in October. The lawyers acknowledged Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (Hohnbaum), S166350, the big employment case -- currently under review by the Supreme Court -- that says employers have to provide workers with state-mandated meal and rest breaks but don't have to make sure they take the breaks. But the class action lawyers argued that even if the Supreme Court upholds the case, nothing would prohibit the plaintiffs' claims in the Dechert class action. The case is Shreve v. Dechert, 08-479951. DRUG STORES: W.Va. Attorney General's Suit Not a Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that calling some of its arguments "weak" and "absurd," West Virginia Attorney General Darrell McGraw has responded to a group of pharmacies that claims his lawsuit against it is a class action. Mr. McGraw submitted his response brief on Jan. 20 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which is weighing the appeal of six prescription drug retailers that feel McGraw's case should be heard in federal court because it is a class action. A lower court ruled against them, remanding the case to Boone County Circuit Court. The pharmacies -- Kmart, Wal-Mart, Target, Kroger, CVS and Walgreen -- allegedly did not pass savings on generic prescription drugs on to consumers. "Acting under the State's parens patriae authority to protect its sovereign and quasi-sovereign interests in enforcing its own laws, the state of West Virginia, by its Attorney General, is the real party in interest in this case," Mr. McGraw wrote. Mr. McGraw noted that the defendants have abandoned their three previous arguments for federal jurisdiction. "This case was not filed under West Virginia Rule 23, and therefore it is not a class action," Mr. McGraw wrote. "Nor was this matter filed 'as a class action.' "Rather, it was filed in the sovereign interest to carry out what the district court correctly described as the Attorney General's 'freestanding consumer-protection duty' and his 'broad powers to implement the (West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act) and protect and promote consumer welfare in the process.'" In its appeal brief, the group of pharmacies claims Mr. McGraw's lawsuit satisfies the jurisdictional requirements of the federal Class Action Fairness Act. "The AG's allegations make abundantly clear that more than $5 million and the interests of more than 100 persons are at issue. If the rightful interests of the West Virginia consumers on whose behalf the AG has brought suit are recognized, there also is undeniably minimal diversity between at least some plaintiffs (who are West Virginia citizens) and all defendants (as none of the defendants reside in or is a citizen of West Virginia." The pharmacies add that any consumer who was allegedly overcharged is a real party in interest to the case. Mr. McGraw hired two private firms -- Bailey & Glasser and DiTrapano Barrett & DiPiero -- to pursue the case, and another one against Rite Aid. The two firms have contributed more than $60,000 to Mr. McGraw's campaign fund over the years, including $11,800 for his 2008 race against Republican Dan Greear. Bailey & Glasser brought similar lawsuits in Michigan and Minnesota. The Michigan suits were dismissed by a state judge because the only specific pricing information was obtained by a West Virginia whistleblower who worked at Kroger. The Minnesota lawsuit, brought on behalf of unions that provide health care for their members, was initially dismissed in November 2009 by U.S. District Judge James Rosenbaum, who had harsh words for the plaintiffs attorneys. Mr. Rosenbaum was peeved that the complaint, filed against 13 defendants, only contained specific pricing information about two of them. "(T)his Complaint utterly fails to state a cause of action on any basis. There are no, none, factual allegations touching any defendant other than CVS and Walgreen's," Mr. Rosenbaum said Nov. 20, 2009. "There being no facts from which a fact finder could infer any liability concerning (the other defendants), and you asked me to sustain a complaint based upon that. It's not only laughable, it's absolutely reprehensible." The pharmacies brought up Mr. McGraw's use of outside counsel in their appeal brief. "First, and at the outset, the defendants' premise -- that the State's use of outside counsel somehow affects the jurisdictional analysis -- is absurd," Mr. McGraw wrote. "The text of the statute makes no distinction between state enforcement actions brought exclusively by state attorneys general and actions brought by attorneys general with the support of private counsel." FAMILY DOLLAR: Recalls 67,000 Remote-Controlled Toy Tanks --------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Family Dollar Services Inc., of Charlotte, N.C., announced a voluntary recall of about 67,000 Remote-controlled toy tanks. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The tank's controller can overheat and melt, posing a burn hazard to consumers. Family Dollar has received five reports of the controllers overheating and melting. No injuries have been reported. The recalled product involves the Authentic Heroes Target Practice Tank play set, a remote-controlled green toy tank attached by a cable to a grey battery-powered controller. The controller requires three AAA batteries to power the tank to move forward and backward and the tank turret to rotate and shoot projectiles. The controller is marked "Target Practice Tank Play Set." Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11107.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through family dollar stores nationwide from September 2010 through December 2010 for about $5. Consumers should take the toy away from children, remove batteries and return the toy to a Family Dollar store for a full refund. For additional information, contact Family Dollar at (800) 547- 0359 between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.familydollar.com/ FRONTPOINT PARTNERS: Faces Class Action for HGSI Insider Trading ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP has filed a class action alleging securities fraud and insider trading against FrontPoint Partners, LLC, Yves Benhamou, Joseph F. "Chip" Skowron and certain FrontPoint investment advisors and hedge funds. The Complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, on January 4, 2011, on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased shares of Human Genome Sciences, Inc., from December 7, 2007 through January 22, 2008. To our knowledge the class action filed by Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP is the only such action that has been filed concerning this matter. FrontPoint has liquidated the hedge fund defendants and distributed most of their assets to the investors in those hedge funds. To protect the interests of the members of the class, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP is currently seeking a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to prevent further distribution of monies from the FrontPoint hedge funds. The case is entitled Brodzinsky v. FrontPoint Partners, LLC, C.A. No. 3:11-cv-00010. If you are interested in serving as a lead plaintiff in this action, or if you have any questions regarding this case or would like to obtain a copy of the complaint in this action, please call attorneys Ian McLoughlin or Michelle Blauner of Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP at (800) 287-8119 or (617) 439-3939. You may also contact us via our Web site http://www.shulaw.com/or e-mail cases@shulaw.com The deadline for lead plaintiff applications is March 22, 2011. More information about Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP and its experience and qualifications is available on the firm's Web site at http://www.shulaw.com/ The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, six healthcare-related hedge funds managed by FrontPoint Partners LLC sold 6,164,500 shares of HGSI common stock while their portfolio manager, Joseph F. "Chip" Skowron, was in possession of material negative non-public information concerning HGSI's clinical trial for the drug Albumin Interferon Alfa 2-a. The Complaint alleges that Skowron's information came from Yves Benhamou, M.D., one of five members of a Steering Committee overseeing the Albuferon trial. On January 23, 2008, HGSI publicly disclosed the negative information regarding the Albuferon trial, causing the price of HGSI stock to fall $4.40 per share to $5.62 per share, a 44% decline. Accordingly, the Hedge Funds avoided just over $30 million in losses as a result of their unlawful sales of HGSI stock while in possession of material adverse information regarding HGSI. Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP seeks to recover that $30 million for the class of purchasers of HGSI stock during the Class Period. If you purchased shares of Human Genome Sciences, Inc., from December 7, 2007 through January 22, 2008, you are a member of the putative class in this action and Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP welcomes the opportunity to discuss this matter with you. Please call us at (800) 287-8119 or (617) 439-3939 or e-mail cases@shulaw.com HOLIDAY SHORES: Heartland Seeks Discovery Stay in Atrazine Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports a non-party to a proposed class action over the weed killer atrazine is asking to stop discovery in the Madison County suit while it appeals to the Illinois Supreme Court. The Heartland Institute filed its motion seeking the discovery stay on Jan. 21. Madison County Circuit Judge William Mudge is set to hear it Feb. 18. The Fifth District Appellate Court denied Heartland's discovery stay appeal on Jan. 13. According to Heartland Institute's motion, it is now seeking to appeal to the Illinois State Supreme Court. But it wants a halt to discovery in the Madison County suit first. "This stay is warranted because without one, Heartland will be required to produce the protected information; thus any First Amendment privileges Heartland possesses will be destroyed," the motion alleges. Heartland has been fighting discovery requests made by lead plaintiff Holidays Shores Sanitary District since June 2010. Holiday Shores is seeking documents from the institute in its fight with Syngenta Crop Protection Inc., the primary maker of atrazine. Holiday Shores proposes to lead a series of class actions against the makers and distributors of the herbicide atrazine. The classes in the suits, if certified, would include Illinois municipalities and water providers. The plaintiffs contend that atrazine runs off farm fields into their drinking water supplies and that they must remediate it. The 2004 suits sparked a nearly identical federal class action that could include water providers in multiple states last year. That case is led by the city of Greenville. It is pending in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. The Holiday Shores suit is currently in the discovery phase. Discovery hit a snag last year when Holiday Shores subpoenaed a number of non-parties to the suit including Heartland. Over the course of several hearings, Madison County Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder attempted to balance Holiday Shores' discovery interests with First Amendment right to association privileges claimed by the non-parties and Syngenta. Eventually, Holiday Shores, Syngenta and Heartland asked Crowder to certify questions for appeal in October 2010. But a move to clarify a September 2010 discovery order that set the appeals in place filed by Dr. Don Coursey of the University of Chicago, another third party in the case, is also pending. Judge Mudge took over the case from Crowder when she became Madison County's asbestos judge last year. Steven Tillery, Christie Deaton and others represent Holiday Shores. They also represent Greenville in the federal suit. Kurtis Reeg represents Syngenta. Mr. Reeg is also one of Syngenta's defense team members in the federal suit. C. Raymond Bell represents Heartland. The Syngenta case is Madison case number 04-L-710. The atrazine class actions are Madison case numbers 04-L-708 to 04-L-713. HSBC CARD: Sued in N.J. Over Fraudulent Business Practices ---------------------------------------------------------- Chris Fry at Courthouse News Service reports that one of the nation's biggest credit-card companies has found a new trick to squeeze money of out its customers, according to a federal class action. The class claims that HSBC Card Services makes settlement agreements with debtors' attorneys, then "accepts all but the remaining few payments" from the debtor and "unilaterally and without cause refuses to accept the remaining payment and instead deems the settlement null and void." Lead plaintiff Chastity Bradley claims that HSBC's "mistreatment of plaintiff and the class was in fact indiscriminate, occurring in the regular course of defendant's debt collection attempts whereby plaintiff was treated in the same general manner as it treats other consumers who are the objects of its collection efforts." Ms. Bradley says that in January 2010, through her attorney, she entered into a debt settlement agreement with HSBC for a past due credit account with a balance of $481. She says the bank promised that the account "would be settled and closed" after they received all her payments. Ms. Bradley says HSBC accepted and deposited all her payments on the settlement except the final one, which it returned "without explanation and insisted upon collection of the full balance due, in total disregard of the settlement agreement." The class claims that HSBC defrauds customers and breaches contract by its calculated policy of accepting "all but the final payment and proceed[ing] to declare the settlement void." She seeks punitive damages for the class. A copy of the Complaint in Bradley v. HSBC Card Services, Inc., Case No. 11-cv-_____, docketed as Doc. 3266 in Case No. 33-av- 00001 on Jan. 21, 2011 (D. N.J.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/01/25/HSBC.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce K. Warren, Esq. Brent F. Vullings, Esq. WARREN & VULLINGS, LLP 93 Old York Road, Suite 333 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Telephone: 215-745-9800 KANG SHENG: Recalls 1,440 Butterfly Push Toy -------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Kang Sheng Group, of Lexington, N.C., announced a voluntary recall of about 1,440 Butterfly Push Toy. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The plastic balls on the butterfly's wings can break, causing small metal balls inside to come free. These metal balls pose choking and aspiration hazards to young children. No injuries or incidents have been reported. This recall involves a plastic toy. It has a 21-inch long handle hooked like a cane. At the end of the handle is a butterfly with two movable 1 1/2-inch balls in each wing. The toy comes in various colors and makes noise when it moves. The item number L185819 is on a sticker on the package. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11108.html The recalled products were manufactured in Hong Kong and sold through Flea markets in North Carolina and South Carolina from May 2010 through October 2010 for about $2. Consumers should immediately take the recalled toys away from young children and return them to the place of purchase or contact Kang Sheng Group to receive a full refund or replacement. For additional information, contact Kang Sheng Group toll-free at (877) 485-7285 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, or e-mail the firm at ks9761@yahoo.com LEHIGH VALLEY: Judge Allows Overtime Class Action to Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------ WFMZ reports a lawsuit filed against the Lehigh Valley Health Network is now a class-action case. A federal judge has granted Joni Wright's request for collective action. Mr. Wright, a registered nurse for LVHN, sued the health network last year. She claims she was regularly made to work overtime without compensation. LVHN said it is reviewing the decision and evaluating its options, including the possibility of seeking a review of the decision. LEXISNEXIS: Sued for Charging "Unsconscionable" E-Filing Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- Cameron Langford at Courthouse News Service reports that LexisNexis has been charging litigants "unconscionable" rates to file online documents in Texas federal courts, creating a poll tax-like situation that creates an unconstitutional barrier to open courts, a class action claims in Bexar County Court. The company, and its Netherlands-based parent, Reed Elsevier, faces similar lawsuits in Georgia and Texas federal court. Lead plaintiff Karen McPeters says she was affected by the LexisNexis' deceptive practices when the discrimination case she filed against Montgomery County, Texas, was transferred to that county's court, where electronic filing is mandatory, in September 2007. LexisNexis unlawfully conceals that it charges "nearly $16 for every piece of paper filed" online in Montgomery County District Court, according to the complaint. "On January 27, 2009, the Montgomery County District Clerk notified counsel for Plaintiff McPeters that the case was designated as an e-file case," according to the complaint. "The clerk stated that e-filing was mandatory, and that all pleadings would have to be filed with LexisNexis. Counsel was told that LexisNexis charged litigants for E-filing and that plaintiff McPeters would have to pay those charges." Since neither Montgomery County nor LexisNexis provides litigants with a list of charges levied by Reed Elsevier -- the Netherlands- based parent company of LexisNexis -- Ms. McPeters says that she only leaned about the rates when the company first billed her counsel on March 6, 2009. "LexisNexis' charges are unconscionable and excessive as compared to (1) the cost of filing under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and (2) the charges of other providers of E-filing services (Texas On-Line)," the class claims. "Approximately 252 counties in Texas do not charge to file a paper copy of a motion or pleading in their district courts, other than filing fees at the time of filing the lawsuit. "Texas On-Line charges $7.24 to E-file a document and shows the charge at the time of filing," the complaint continues. "LexisNexis charges $15.98 (including tax) to e-file a document in the two counties that it services and does not disclose its charges at the time of filing. It charges $7 for filing and $8 for service; service is mandatory." E-filing through LexisNexis is also mandatory in one or more of the courts in Jefferson County, Texas, according to the complaint. Ms. McPeters claims that LexisNexis' fees for filing in Montgomery County District Court also violate Texas state law by duplicating "part of the fees charged by the district clerk when each lawsuit is filed." In addition to charging burdensome fees, Ms. McPeters says LexisNexis "made unlawful threats for collection including a threat to report each nonpaying litigant to the Texas State Bar and to the judge presiding in the case." The company also lied about being an agent of the Montgomery County District Clerk, Ms. McPeters says. "In fact, LexisNexis stated, 'LexisNexis has been acting in furtherance of official duties,'" according to the complaint. "The Montgomery County District Clerk denied that claim on Aug. 3, 2010 when it argued to the Ninth Court of Appeals that LexisNexis' charges were not court costs but were actually convenience fees." The complaint continues: "LexisNexis claims to act as the official agent of a district clerk with authority to regulate access to Texas courts. The Texas Supreme Court never agreed." In addition to charging fees that unreasonably obstruct court access, Ms. McPeters says Texas Supreme Court precedent shows that the charges simply duplicate ones already levied by the services of the court's clerk. LexisNexis gained its unfair hold over the Texas courts in 2003 when U.S. District Judge Frederick Edwards signed an order mandating E-filing through LexisNexis for all lawsuits in his court in Montgomery County, according to the complaint. The only cases exempt from the order -- and LexisNexis' fees -- are those brought by the Texas or Child Protective Services, as well as adoption, new divorce and annulment cases. While the Texas Supreme Court agreed that Montgomery County could establish an electronic system, it never authorized the mandatory fees, Ms. McPeters says. The complaint states that LexisNexis has defended its practice by pointing out that litigants have the option of bringing uploading documents themselves through a free computer terminal in the clerk's office. "The terminal, however, is no solution for out-of-county litigants and those who seek to file by mail under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure," according to the complaint. "One cannot reasonably require a litigant to drive to the courthouse each time he or she wishes to file a document." In any case, Ms. McPeters says that "free" computer requires users to subscribe to LexisNexis, according to the complaint. Montgomery County's district clerk will also not take any action on documents that are mailed or handed to her to file, according to a similar lawsuit in Houston federal court. Instead, she mails them back to the litigants without filing them and provides instructions on how to file through LexisNexis. LexisNexis has also allegedly pointed out that Judge Edwards' 2003 gives litigants the option to file a motion to file documents conventionally in his court, but "the order is not accessible online, through the District Clerk, LexisNexis, or the web page of any district court," Ms. McPeters claims. "The order actually allows a party to ask for permission to file a document by traditional means only when a transmission error or other technical problem has occurred when attempting electronic filing," according to the complaint. "There is actually no alternative to enduring the avalanche of charges from LexisNexis in a case assigned to the 9th District Court in Montgomery County," Ms. McPeters claims, referring to the Edwards' court. LexisNexis' attempts to charge and collect filing fees from litigants in the 9th Montgomery County District Court, and its failure to disclose charges and threats of unlawful collection measures, violating the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices - Consumer Protection Act, Ms. McPeters says. LexisNexis is also violating the Consumer Protection Act by passing off its goods or services as those of the Montgomery County District Clerk, and causing confusion about its affiliation with the clerk, according to the complaint. Ms. McPeters continues that LexisNexis knowingly violated the Texas Consumer Protection Act because it "knew or should have known that permissible fees and charges are set forth in the Texas Government Code and Local Government Code. LexisNexis knew, or should have known, that court filing fees are set by the state legislature, because court filing fee information is codified in Vernon's Texas Codes." When the Texas Legislature considered electronic filing in 1987, "it made no provision for additional mandatory filing fees or unregulated charges as a condition for access to any court," Ms. McPeters says. Ms. McPeters says more than 16,000 Montgomery County litigants have been subjected to LexisNexis illegal filing fees since 2000. "LexisNexis charges are an unconstitutional barrier to open courts according to authority from both the Texas Supreme Court and the Texas Attorney General," according to the complaint. "There is no precedent for this barrier. The charges are like a poll tax. Minorities, the poor, elderly and the less educated are likely to be denied their day in court. Is it reasonable to require them to be computer literate? Payment for justice is now a fact of life, but should it be?" Ms. McPeters seeks treble treble damages. A copy of the Complaint in McPeters v. LexisNexis, Case No. 2011CI-01119 (Tex. Dist. Ct., Bexar Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/01/25/Lexis.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Mays, Jr., Esq. 8626 Tesoro Drive, Suite 820 San Antonio, TX 78217 Telephone: 210-657-7772 RIDGELAND, SC: iTraffic Seeks Dismissal of Traffic Camera Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Donohue, writing for The Beaufort Gazette, reports the attorney for iTraffic, the company that helped launch Ridgeland's camera system on Interstate 95, has requested that a lawsuit against the town and the company be dismissed because the drivers who sued have paid their fines. By doing that, the drivers admitted guilt and have lost their right to sue, the attorney claims. The class-action suit, filed Dec. 20 in federal court by two Florida residents and a South Carolina resident, alleges various aspects of Ridgeland's use of automated cameras to ticket speeders on its stretch of I-95 are unconstitutional. Columbia attorney Pete Strom filed the suit on behalf of the three drivers and "several thousand" others who have been mailed tickets by the town since the system was put in place in August. In a response, Morgan Templeton of Charleston, the attorney for iTraffic, asked federal Judge Sol Blatt to dismiss the lawsuit, which also names Ridgeland's police force and other town officials. "The plaintiffs are not arguing that they did not commit a crime," Templeton wrote in the 12-page filing. "Rather, they are complaining that they got caught. In fact, the plaintiffs have conceded that they were speeding by virtue of the fact that they have paid the tickets. "It would be inconsistent for them to now come to this court and maintain their innocence in this action and seek to recover damages for criminal activity." Mr. Templeton's motion did not specifically address Strom's accusation that using "unauthorized mail service" to deliver tickets to offending drivers -- many of whom live outside Ridgeland's jurisdiction -- amounts to an illegal arrest. However, Mr. Templeton rejected the assertion that town and iTraffic officials conspired to deprive drivers of due process. Judge Blatt has yet to rule on Mr. Templeton's motion, according to court records. Ridgeland attorneys have not responded to Mr. Strom's initial filing, which asks that the town refund all fines and that it stop issuing tickets using the camera system. Attempts Tuesday to reach Mr. Strom were unsuccessful. STEELCASE INC: Recalls 165,000 Cachet Swivel Chairs --------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Steelcase Inc., of Grand Rapids, Mich., announced a voluntary recall of about 165,000 cachet swivel chairs. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The front seat support part of the chair can crack and fail, posing a fall hazard to consumers. The firm has received one report of a chair support failure resulting in a back injury. This recall involves all Steelcase Cachet swivel chairs with model number 487 manufactured between May 2002 and October 15, 2009. The chairs have a plastic slotted seat and back design and some were sold with back and seat cushions. The model number and manufacture date are printed on a label on the underside of the base of the chair. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11110.html The recalled products were manufactured in the United States and sold through authorized Steelcase dealers and retail outlets including Healthy Back Store, CSN, Home Office Solutions, Office & Company and Sam Flax stores nationwide and online at http://www.store.steelcase.com/between May 2002 and November 2009 for up to $600. Steelcase will replace chairs for individual consumers who purchased chairs online or from retail outlets listed above. For all commercial customers who purchase chairs in quantity, Steelcase will replace the chair support parts. Chairs should be inspected for cracks in the front seat support according to the instructions posted at http://recall.steelcase.com/ If any cracks are identified, consumers should immediately stop using the chairs and contact Steelcase. Even if no cracks are identified, consumers should contact Steelcase to arrange for the replacement process and periodically check for cracks until the chair supports are replaced. For additional information, contact Steelcase toll- free at (800) 391-7194 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at http://recall.steelcase.com/ Consumers can also email the firm at cachetrecall@steelcase.com STEWART INFORMATION: Delivers 660,000 Shares Under Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ On January 18, 2011, Stewart Information Services Corporation delivered 660,000 shares of its common stock, $1.00 per share par value, that were previously authorized to be issued to Gilardi & Co. LLC in connection with the settlement of four "wage and hour" class action lawsuits filed in California state and federal courts against its subsidiary, Stewart Title of California, Inc. The shares of common stock were issued without registration under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or state securities laws, in reliance on the exemptions provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, according to a Jan. 24, 2010 Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. TIGRENT INC: Parties Settle Lawsuit in Canada for C$250,000 ----------------------------------------------------------- On January 20, 2011, Tigrent, Inc., and its subsidiary Whitney Canada, Inc., entered into a Settlement Agreement which, subject to final Court approval, will settle all claims brought by the plaintiff class against the Tigrent Entities arising in the litigation case pending in the Superior Court for Province of Quebec, District of Hull (Canada), captioned David Brown versus Marc Jemus, Francois Roy, Robert Primeau et al. (originally filed in 2006). In connection with the settlement, the Tigrent Entities did not admit any liability in the case. As previously reported by the Class Action Reporter, on Jan. 11, 2007, Whitney Canada, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, and Whitney Information Network received notice of an Amended Motion for Authorization to Institute a Class Action in the Province of Quebec, Canada on behalf of all persons who are alleged to have made various real estate investments at the alleged inducement of, or through, Marc Jemus, Francois Roy, Robert Primeau and/or their companies, and/or B2B Trust, and/or Whitney Canada, Inc., and/or Jean Lafreniere and/or the Company. The complaint filed in Superior Court for the Province of Quebec, District of Hull (Canada), seeks repayment of $39,235 to the petitioner; unspecified payment to each member of the class of an amount corresponding to their lost investments; payment of $10,000 to each member of the class as general damages; recovery of costs and other litigation expenses; and unspecified equitable relief. On October 19 to 20, 2009, WIN argued its motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and challenging the authorization of the class claims against WIN. On November 3, 2009, the Canadian Court denied the Company's motion for lack of jurisdiction. On August 19, 2010, the Canadian Court denied the petitioner's Re-re- Amended Motion for Authorization to Institute a Class action against the Company, but granted the motion against, Whitney Canada, Inc. On September 17, 2010, the petitioner filed a notice of appeal with respect to the Canadian Court's denial of the petitioner's Re-re-Amended Motion for Authorization to Institute a Class action against the Company. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the plaintiff class, including the named plaintiffs and any other class member who does not opt out of the settlement in accordance with procedures applicable to settlements of class action litigation under the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure, have agreed to grant a full general release of all claims they had or could have brought against the Tigrent Entities in the litigation in exchange for aggregate payments of C$250,000 to be deposited into a trust account controlled by the attorneys for the plaintiffs from which the attorneys' costs will be paid with any balance being available for distribution to members of the plaintiff class who do not opt out of the settlement. Of the total settlement amount, C$50,000 is to be paid into the trust account within five days of the Settlement Agreement, and the remaining C$200,000 is to be paid into the trust account no later than March 18, 2011. The class action litigation against the other defendants in the litigation not affiliated with Tigrent remains pending and unsettled. The settlement and the Settlement Agreement remain subject to approval by the Court. In addition, if more than seven members of the plaintiff class opt out of the settlement, the Tigrent Entities can terminate the Settlement Agreement in their discretion if they determine that the remaining financial exposure is financially significant to them. If the Court does not approve the settlement or the Tigrent Entities elect to terminate the Settlement Agreement, then the settlement and the Settlement Agreement will be void and the funds deposited into the trust account will be returned to the Tigrent Entities, the Company disclosed in a January 24, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. TOYOTA MOTOR: Plaintiffs Fight Bid to Dismiss Brake Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Westlaw Journal Automotive reports class-action plaintiffs who charge that Toyota hybrids contain defective braking systems have asked a California federal court to deny the automaker's motion to dismiss, arguing they have stated valid claims under the state's consumer-protection, unfair-competition and warranty laws. The eight named plaintiffs allege Toyota violated California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 1770(a), which prohibits "unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in transactions for the sale or lease of goods to consumers." They also claim the company's actions violated the state's unfair- competition law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200, which bars unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practices. The allegedly defective hybrids are the 2004-2009 Toyota Prius, 2006-2010 Toyota Highlander, 2006-2008 Lexus RX 400h and 2010 Lexus RX 450h. The class-action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California says the electronic unit that controls the brakes is improperly programmed to engage the anti- lock braking system when the ABS is not needed. This "dangerously extends the amount of time and distance needed to stop the Toyota Hybrid vehicles," the plaintiffs say. Toyota was aware of the problem as early as 2004 but failed to disclose it or fix the defect, the suit says. "Defendants distributed misleading marketing materials for each Toyota Hybrid vehicle that touted the safety and functionality of the braking systems of the Toyota Hybrid vehicles," the plaintiffs claim. Toyota wants the court to dismiss the complaint or to strike the class allegations. In opposition, the plaintiffs assert they have actionable claims under the CLRA and unfair-competition law. The statutes require plaintiffs to allege an omission that is contrary to a defendant's actual representation or an omission of a fact that the defendant was required to disclose. The plaintiffs say they have alleged both. Warranty claims Toyota contends the plaintiffs lack the requisite privity to assert a claim for implied warranty of merchantability under the state's Song-Beverly Warranty Act, Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 1792. The plaintiffs counter that privity is not an element of a Song- Beverly claim. In support they cite In re NVIDIA GPU Litigation, No. C-08-04312 (N.D. Cal. 2009), which held that "the plain language of the Song-Beverly Act does not require vertical, contractual privity between a manufacturer and a consumer." The plaintiffs' attorneys are Paul R. Kiesel, Kiesel, Boucher & Larson, Beverly Hills, Calif.; Paul O. Paradis, Michael A. Schwartz, Gina M. Tufaro, Justin B. Shane and Alexandra L. Sims, Horwitz, Horwitz & Paradis, New York. In re Toyota Motor Corp. Hybrid Brakes Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2152 and No. 2:10-946, opposition to dismissal filed (C.D. Cal., W. Div. Nov. 29, 2010). UNITED STATES: Black Farmers Raise Pigford Settlement Concerns -------------------------------------------------------------- Terry Lewis, writing for Albany Herald, reports that in April of 1999, Judge Paul L. Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia approved a settlement agreement and consent decree in Pigford v. Glickman, a class action discrimination suit between the U.S. Department of Agriculture and black farmers. The suit claimed that the agency had discriminated against black farmers on the basis of race and failed to investigate or properly respond to complaints from 1983 to 1997. According to a report from the Congressional Research Service, "For many years, black farmers had complained that they were not receiving fair treatment when they applied to local county committees (which make the decisions) for farm loans or assistance. These farmers alleged that they were being denied USDA farm loans or forced to wait longer for loan approval than were non-minority farmers." "Many black farmers contended that they were facing foreclosure and financial ruin because the USDA denied them timely loans and debt restructuring." To date, more than $1 billion has been paid in $50,000 increments to more than 13,000 black farmers. The rub is, according to Buena Vista farmer Eddie Slaughter, many of the recipients of the settlement money are not farmers at all. According to a July 2010 report by Kate Pickert in Time.com, the largest single settlement under Pigford went to Shirley and Charles Sherrod, who were awarded $150,000 each for pain and suffering and $13 million for the defunct New Communities Inc. farms. "They are paying non-farmers while the bona fide black farmers are the ones who suffered the injustice," Slaughter, who was one of 157 farmers who brought the original suit in 1997, said. "The problem is there is so much money that the lawyers got involved, telling people how to fill out the claims and how to get around not having a farm ID number. "I know people who have gotten this money and they are not farmers. A lot of black folks look at it as reparations. But this is supposed to be about saving black farms, not reparations. If they want reparations, let them file their own lawsuit." "Pigford turned into 'The Trail of Tears' for black farmers," said Obie Beal, another of the original 157 farmers. "I haven't gotten a dime from the settlement. In fact, I've spent over $25,000 of my own money trying to get justice." Of the five farmers The Herald spoke to on Jan. 24, Mr. Slaughter is the only one to have received a $50,000 check from the settlement. Mr. Slaughter said that his claim was later denied and he is currently paying back the government $238 a month from his Social Security check. None of the five farmers said he received promised debt relief. Joe Leonard Jr., USDA assistant secretary for civil rights, was out of the office and unavailable for comment on Jan. 25. Alarmed by what they regarded as rampant fraud, Mr. Slaughter, Mr. Beal and four other black farmers met with Rep. Sanford Bishop Jr., D-Albany, in his Columbus office on Dec. 30, 2008, to voice their concerns. "We asked him several times about this fraud," Slaughter said in a video interview with Lee Stranahan. "We asked, why don't you have them tell you how many of these people who are getting this money have an actual farm ID number and are actual farmers? "(Bishop responded) 'no, no, no, man, they'll shut this thing down." Mr. Stranahan's video is posted on TheHuffingtonPost.com and on Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com Web site, which also originated the video footage of a Coffee County NAACP meeting that resulted last year in the forced resignation of Shirley Sherrod as USDA Georgia Rural Development Director. The initial clip on BigGovernment.com showed Sherrod admitting that she refused to give her full effort for a white farmer, but the full video of her speech showed the incident was a turning point for her on race relations and that she went back to the farmer and helped him with his problems. The farmer confirmed that Sherrod had been instrumental in keeping his family on its farm. The USDA offered Mr. Sherrod another job with the agency after the full unedited video was made public, but she declined the offer. Mr. Bishop last week confirmed meeting with the farmers, but when asked if he warned the farmers about shutting down the program, the congressman answered, "Absolutely not." But Willie Head of Pavo and Lucious Abrams of Waynesboro support Mr. Slaughter's story of the meeting. "I can verify he (Bishop) said every word of that," Mr. Head said. "I was sitting right across the desk from him when he said it." Mr. Abrams, a county commissioner for Burke County, agreed. "He (Bishop) absolutely said it," MR. Abrams said. "We all heard it. But I'll tell you this, we were better off before we filed the lawsuit. (The USDA) has taken discrimination and turned it into persecution." Mr. Bishop did not address the farmers' allegations, but instead issued a statement. "The Pigford-Cobell legislation signed into law last month included unprecedented safeguards to address any issues of fraud or abuse of funds awarded to compensate victims of discrimination in the Pigford settlement," Mr. Bishop said. "I am confident that the USDA will use these tools as Congress intended to ensure that taxpayer dollars awarded in the settlement only go to deserving individuals, and I will work with the USDA to ensure that the program meets this high standard." WASHINGTON: Sued for Scrapping Food Assistance Program ------------------------------------------------------ June Williams at Courthouse News Service reports that the state of Washington killed food stamps for legal immigrants but not for U.S. citizens, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, a class action claims in Federal Court. The state killed its Food Assistance Program for Legal Immigrants, effective Feb. 1, to save $7 million. But "Saving money is not adequate justification to discriminate against plaintiff and class members in violation of the Equal Protection Clause," says lead plaintiff Monica Navarro Pimentel. Ms. Navarro says she can't supply an "adequate and nutritious diet" for her family without food stamps. "Plaintiff Navarro Pimentel is indigent. At the time this dispute arose, plaintiff Navarro Pimentel and her household were receiving $647 in Basic Food benefits each month," according to the complaint. "This included $341 each month in federal Basic Food benefits and $306 each month in state-funded Basic Food benefits through the Food Assistance Program based on the Department's determination that she (1) was a Washington State resident; (2) met the immigrant eligibility requirements under WAC 388-424-0025; and (3) met the eligibility rules for the federally-funded Basic Food program, except for those rules related to alien status. Ms. Navarro Pimentel relies upon her federal and state-funded Basic Food benefits to purchase a nutritious diet. "On January 18, 2011, DSHS [Department of Social and Health Services] sent notice to plaintiff Navarro Pimentel and approximately 10,350 Basic Food households who were receiving state-funded Basic Food benefits through the Food Assistance Program for Legal Immigrants (FAP) authorized by RCW 74.08A.120 and WAC 388-400-0045. These notices stated that the Food Assistance Program for Legal Immigrants was ending January 31, 2011 because of state budget cuts. It also stated that recipients did not have administrative hearing rights when a program ends. "These notices listed the members of the assistance unit or household who according to DSHS had been receiving FAP benefits and set forth the amount of monthly Basic Food benefits that the household would receive when these benefits terminated on January 31, 2011 because of the elimination of the state-funded Food Assistance Program for Legal Immigrants. "These notices failed to adequately explain why ineligible household members did not meet the citizenship or alien status requirements for federal Basic Food benefits set forth in WAC 388- 424-0020 or indicate what information or verification the Department relied upon in reaching this determination. "These notices also failed to adequately show how the Department prorated any ineligible member's income or allowable expenses in accordance with WAC 388-450-0140 or otherwise adequately set forth the income, deduction, and expense figures used by the Department so that Plaintiff and subclass members could review the computation of their federal, Basic Food benefits. "These notices also failed to set forth all the rules that the Department relied upon in reducing or terminating Plaintiff's and subclass members' Basic Food benefits." In 1996, Congress terminated the eligibility of most legal immigrants for food stamps but granted states the authority to provide benefits. Washington started a food assistance program for legal immigrants in 1997 using state funds. "On January 12, 2011, DSHS headquarters notified its regional administrators that the Food Assistance Program for Legal Immigrants was being eliminated effective January 31, 2011 as a result of budget reductions. It informed them that change or termination letters would go to more than 10,350 Basic Food households who had members who would no longer be eligible for these benefits and set forth the reason code text that would be included in these letters. The letter also indicated that households would not have administrative hearing rights to contest the elimination of FAP," the complaint state. The defendant is Secretary of Social and Health Services Susan Dreyfus. The class wants to enjoin the termination or reduction of the Basic Food benefits until they are given adequate notice and wants DSHS to restore any benefits that were unlawfully withheld before service of adequate notice. A copy of the Complaint in Navarro Pimentel v. Dreyfus, Case No. 11-cv-00119 (W.D. Wash.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/01/25/SeattleFood.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory D. Provenzano, Esq. Amy L. Crewdson, Esq. COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 711 Capitol Way S., #304 Olympia, WA 98501 Telephone: (360) 943-6260 Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dorset Doctor's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure ---------------------------------------------------------------- According to ThisIsDorset.com, the death of 78-year-old Dr. Richard Pengelly Ashfield, a doctor from Dorset, England, was related to exposure to asbestos, Asbestos.Net reports. Dr. Ashfield, who worked in a number of hospitals from the 1960s until his retirement in 1995, passed away from mesothelioma in June 2010 from sarcomatoid mesothelioma. As part of the autopsy process, coroner Michael Johnston factored in conversations he had with Dr. Ashfield's daughter in which she remembered her father talking about asbestos dust he would regularly encounter while working at London's Westminster Hospital. Mr. Johnston said that Dr. Ashfield had likely been describing old underground passageways used by hospital workers that contained flaking asbestos on the walls. Dr. Ashfield worked at a number of London-area hospitals between 1962 and 1968, and he is not the first doctor from that time period who worked in that area and eventually was diagnosed and killed by mesothelioma. Doctors John Brian Chapman and James Emerson both died of mesothelioma decades after working in London's Middlesex Hospital during the 1960s. While Dr. Emerson's family successfully launched a lawsuit that won them GBP1.15 million in damages, Dr. Chapman's family -- as well as the family of Dr. Ashfield -- chose not to pursue damages. ASBESTOS UPDATE: PADEP Urges Cleanup at Jeannette Glass Facility ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection has ordered Abe Zion of New York, who owns the former Jeannette Glass Co. factory, to tear down the abandoned buildings and clean up the site because of the presence of asbestos and other hazardous wastes, the Pittsburgh-Tribune Review reports. On Jan. 19, 2011, PADEP issued the enforcement order against Mr. Zion of New York for the site, which encompasses more than 13 acres in the heart of the city. Regional manager of the Waste Management Program, Michael Forbeck, said, "Due to the deteriorating condition of many of the structures at the site, they will need to be razed and subsequently disposed of as construction and demolition waste." In addition to asbestos, PADEP inspectors found high levels of arsenic and lead; leaking electrical transformers containing PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, which can pose a health risk; and abandoned industrial batteries, according to the order. Mr. Zion and PADEP have been at odds since 1989, when the state first ordered him to clean up the site. He partially complied with the order. But in 2010, inspectors found high levels of arsenic along the perimeter of the plant, only 20 feet from homes. In June 2010, Mr. Zion refused to permit PADEP inspectors onto the site to take air, soil and water samples. They returned in October 2010 with search warrants to inspect the site. Officials found demolition and municipal waste along with ignitable solvents, such as acetone, solvent-based paints and barium carbonate, according to the order. Mr. Zion can appeal the order to the Environmental Hearing Board, which could drag out the process. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Illegal Landfill at Lymington May Have Asbestos ---------------------------------------------------------------- Experts will investigate the disposal of waste at an illegal landfill at the New Forest National Park in Lymington, England, for the presence of asbestos, the Mesothelioma & Asbestos Awareness Center reports. Experts will spend a minimum of three months testing soil to determine whether the buried waste is hazardous to human health and the environment. The GBP21,000 project is scheduled to begin in February 2011. The 58-year-old landowner, Kenneth Lovett, was fined over GBP3,000 three months ago for failing to clear thousands of cubic meters of waste material from land adjoining his home. Mr. Lovett reportedly used the waste to raise the level of the land and prevent it flooding. Experts fear that said material could produce methane, which could seep into surrounding homes and causing an explosion. Mr. Lovett said that the buried waste included concrete, tires and bricks, but nothing hazardous, yet an initial analysis conducted by the URS Corporation on behalf of the Environment Agency reported that lead, aluminum and zinc were found at the site. Additionally, and 18-page report submitted in the summer suggested that asbestos could also be found. The National Park Authority will take out an injunction against Mr. Lovett if he continues to ignore enforcement orders. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Parker Sites to Cost $20T-$90T ---------------------------------------------------------- At the Jan. 4, 2011 work session, Community Development Director Guy Gorman said a partial asbestos abatement of Parker, Ariz., town buildings could cost from US$15,000 to US$20,000 and a full abatement could go US$20,000 to US$90,000, the Parker Pioneer reports. Mr. Gorman explained to the Parker Town Council the process of abating asbestos in town buildings at a work session. The town received a Community Development Block Grant in the amount of US$236,000 nearly two years ago to bring town offices in compliance with handicapped accessibility. The CDBG funds are from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Back in October 2011, Mr. Gorman told the council a small amount of asbestos was found in the town hall, library and senior center. The town applied for a grant from Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and received US$56,000. Mr. Gorman told the council there was a US$6,000 application fee, so the grant was US$50,000. The ADEQ funding will be used for the removal/abatement of asbestos. Howard Lange, of EMC Labs of Phoenix, did the asbestos evaluation; more than 300 samples were taken from the three buildings. Mr. Gorman described the senior center with one small room having asbestos tile, and removal would be easy. In town hall, a wall adjacent to the police station has asbestos, as well as the under the floor tile in the station. The library had the most asbestos in the "popcorn" ceiling tile. It was hoped the abatement could start in March 2011 and finish at the end of April 2011. Mayor Steve Madoneczky asked Town Manager Lori Wedemeyer if the abatement was to cost US$90,000 and they have US$50,000 from ADEQ, where would the US$40,000 come from. She said it would come from the contingency fund. Mr. Gorman added that Arizona Department of Housing has granted a one year extension on the CDBG funds. After the removal of the asbestos, the town would have to consider the costs of replacing carpet, drywall and painting. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Northamptonshire Trust Fined for Safety Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- The Health and Safety Executive on Jan. 19, 2011, prosecuted Northamptonshire NHS Teaching Primary Care Trust, NUTEC Security Systems Ltd., company director Paul Beeby and at Wellingborough Magistrates' Court following an asbestos incident at Isebrook Hospital, Wellingborough, in 2008, according to an HSE press release dated Jan. 19, 2011. The parties were fined after potentially dangerous asbestos fibers were released in the county hospital. The court heard that the Trust employed NUTEC to upgrade security at Isebrook Hospital between April 21, 2008 and June 9, 2008. During the work, engineers ran cables through false ceilings and partition walls in public areas of the hospital. The work resulted in asbestos fibers being released into the hospital, which had remained open to the public and staff alike. HSE's investigation found that the Trust did not ensure that the contractor had received information on asbestos in the building or planned the project management of the work correctly. The investigation also found that NUTEC had assumed areas of the hospital did not contain asbestos and that Mr. Beeby had not ensured his surveys were sufficient to identify the presence of asbestos. The court was told that as a director of the company and the person undertaking the surveys, Mr. Beeby should have ensured he had accessed all areas where his employees were going to be working and as such had not informed engineers adequately of the potential risks they faced. Northamptonshire NHS Teaching Primary Care Trust pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 16 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and Regulation 5(1) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. It was fined a total of GBP4,000 and ordered to pay costs of GBP1,755. NUTEC Security Systems Ltd., of Quarry Park Close, Northampton, England, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 5(a), 10 (1)(a) and 16 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006. The company was fined a total of GBP4,200 and ordered to pay costs of GBP1,755. Paul Beeby, of The Avenue, Flore, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 5(a) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006. He was fined GBP1,200 and also ordered to pay GBP1,755 costs. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flood Victims Could Be Exposed to Asbestos ----------------------------------------------------------- Flood victims in Queensland, Australia, may be exposing themselves to unseen dangers like asbestos as they go about cleaning up and repairing their homes, ABC News reports. Many residents have started ripping out water-damaged walls and sheeting, which may contain asbestos. Queensland Government officials are warning people to take precautions and get experts to assess and remove the material safely. An asbestos researcher at the Wesley Institute in Brisbane, Dr. Roger Allen, says in most cases renovations should be delayed. But he says if people cannot wait, they should take precautions. But the advice from the Queensland manager of Archicentre, the building advisory service of the Australian Institute of Architects, is very different. Ian Agnew says people should call the experts rather than handle the toxic material on their own. Asbestos-removal experts, like most tradespeople in Queensland, will be in high demand over the next few weeks and even months. There are 300 asbestos-removal businesses listed in the Yellow Pages for the entire state. ASBESTOS UPDATE: $8.4T Fine for LaFranchi over Cleanup Breaches --------------------------------------------------------------- The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has issued an US$8,400 penalty to Ronald Charles LaFranchi, of Coquille, Ore., for allowing unlicensed workers to conduct an asbestos removal project on a residential structure he owns and uses as a business office in Sutherlin, according to an Oregon DEQ press release dated Jan. 18, 2011. On Aug. 13, 2010, Mr. LaFranchi assisted two workers in cutting and removing about 600 square feet of asbestos-containing vinyl asbestos tile from the interior of the structure Mr. LaFranchi owns at 551 W. Central Ave. in Sutherlin as an office for Ron's Oil Company. Neither Mr. LaFranchi nor the two other workers were licensed or certified by the state to perform asbestos abatement projects, and thus DEQ levied the US$8,400 penalty. As Mr. LaFranchi and the workers removed the tile, the material broke into numerous smaller pieces. This likely caused release of asbestos fibers into the atmosphere. DEQ also noted that after the tile was removed, the workers transported the unpackaged material to the Roseburg Landfill. A landfill employee informed them that the material likely contained asbestos and thus could not be accepted by the landfill. The workers drove the material back to the structure in Sutherlin and stored it in a garage on the property. These actions likely caused the further release of asbestos fibers into the environment. As owner of the residential structure where the asbestos abatement project took place, Mr. LaFranchi was responsible for ensuring that all asbestos was properly handled and disposed of. DEQ cited Mr. LaFranchi for openly accumulating asbestos-containing waste material on the property, but did not issue a formal penalty for this violation. Mr. LaFranchi has appealed the penalty and plans to meet with DEQ to discuss the matter further. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kainer Estate Sues 29 Firms in St. Clair Cty. -------------------------------------------------------------- The heirs of Emil T. Kainer, on Nov. 18, 2010, filed an asbestos lawsuit against 29 defendant corporations in St. Clair County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison/St. Clair Record reports. Dorothy L. Kainer, Kimberly M. Kainer and Lisa K. Foreman filed the lawsuit on Mr. Kanier's behalf. They will be represented by Michael J. O'Malley, Esq., of Carey, Danis and Lowe in Belleville and by Jeffrey J. Lowe, Esq., of Carey, Danis and Lowe in St. Louis. Devin C. McNulty, Esq., of Williams, Kherkher, Hart and Boundas in Houston will serve of counsel. In their complaint, the plaintiffs allege the defendant companies caused Mr. Kainer to develop mesothelioma after his exposure to asbestos-containing products throughout his career. He worked as an electrician from 1953 until 1996 and served in the U.S. Army. In their five-count complaint, the plaintiffs in Case No. 10-L-605 seek a judgment of more than US$100,000, compensatory damages of more than US$100,000 and punitive and exemplary damages of more than US$50,000. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Packer Case v. 91 Firms Filed Dec. 17 in W.Va. --------------------------------------------------------------- On Dec. 17, 2010, an asbestos lawsuit styled Richard Packer and Janet Packer, his wife vs. Accent Bearings Co., Inc.; American Standard, Inc.; American Insulated Wire Co. et al., was filed in Kanawha County Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports. Mr. Packer claims the 91 defendants are responsible for exposing him to asbestos. The couple is seeking compensatory and punitive damages. Browyn I. Rinehart, Esq., and Patrick J. Timmins, Esq., represent the Packers. Case No. 10-C-2267 is assigned to a visiting judge. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Peirce Firm Seeks Review of Fraud Claim Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- Peirce, Raimond & Coulter, a law firm from Pittsburgh accused of conspiring to fabricate asbestos claims, seeks a full panel of appellate judges to review a ruling that reinstated the fraud case against it, The Madison/St. Clair Record reports. Peirce submitted its petition for a rehearing by the entire roster of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. A December 2010 decision by three Fourth Circuit judges said CSX Transportation did not miss the statute of limitations when it filed the fraud lawsuit. Those judges were Allyson Davis, Steven Agee and Andre Davis. The Fourth Circuit has 15 judges. The Peirce firm says the December 2010 decision flies in the face of precedents established by the U.S. Supreme Court. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Steers Clear From Hoelzer Settlement Feud ---------------------------------------------------------------- Texas Supreme Court justices chose to stay out of a long running family feud over US$150,000 from the settlement of an asbestos suit in federal court at Beaumont, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports. On Jan. 7, 2011, the judges denied rehearing of a petition to review the removal of Richard Hoelzer as independent executor of the estate of his father, Carl Hoelzer. Judge Alfred Gerson of Jefferson County Court at Law No. 1 removed Hoelzer, and Ninth District appeals judges in Beaumont affirmed the removal in April 2010. The Supreme Court denied Richard Hoelzer's petition for review on Oct. 15, 2010 and his plea for a second chance did not sway them. Carl Hoelzer died in 1987, after executing a will that named wife Lillian Hoelzer as independent executor and sole beneficiary. Lillian Hoelzer filed an asbestos suit in federal court, and settled with various defendants. Carl Hoelzer's children, stepchildren of Lillian Hoelzer, intervened as wrongful death beneficiaries. In 1993, they filed a petition in probate court to remove Lillian Hoelzer as executor. They alleged she breached her fiduciary duty and embezzled proceeds of the estate. A judge denied their petition for lack of standing, and Ninth District judges dismissed their appeal. Then they sued Lillian Hoelzer in Orange County district court, alleging breach of fiduciary duty by embezzlement, self-dealing, misapplication of funds and gross misconduct. A judge granted summary judgment, and Ninth District judges affirmed the judgment. Lillian Hoelzer died in 2007, and under the terms of Carl Hoelzer's will, his son Richard Hoelzer succeeded her as executor. Richard Hoelzer filed a verified claim against the estate for himself and three siblings, requesting reimbursement of US$150,000 Lillian Hoelzer received from the asbestos litigation. Clyde Hebert, Lillian Hoelzer's son, moved to remove and disqualify Richard Hoelzer as executor. Mr. Hebert asserted sufficient grounds to support a belief that once the settlements are paid to the estate, Richard Hoelzer would pay himself and his siblings the full amount. He argued that according to courts, Richard Hoelzer and his siblings were not creditors of the estate and the claim was time barred. He filed an inventory that did not include the US$150,000 claim. Judge Gerson set a hearing, and on the hearing date Richard Hoelzer moved to continue it. He claimed he needed vital documents from lawyers who settled the asbestos case. Judge Gerson denied the motion, held the hearing, declared Richard unsuitable as executor, and removed him. On appeal, Richard Hoelzer argued there was insufficient evidence to warrant removal. He argued the statute of limitations hadn't run because no one filed a final accounting. He claimed he didn't receive 45 days' notice of the hearing, and pleaded that Judge Gerson should have continued it. Mr. Hebert answered that payment of the claim would be a misapplication of property. He claimed Richard Hoelzer tried to gain funds that prior judgment resolved against him. Ninth District judges affirmed Judge Gerson, finding he didn't have to determine the merits of Richard Hoelzer's claim to future payments. Justice David Gaultney wrote found probate law didn't require 45 days' notice of the hearing. He wrote that Richard Hoelzer didn't promptly bring the discovery issue to Judge Gerson's attention. Justices Charles Kreger and Hollis Horton joined the opinion. Bruce Gregory, Esq., represented Mr. Hebert. Roxie Lormand, Esq., represented Richard Hoelzer. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sufferers in N. Ireland Could Get Compensation --------------------------------------------------------------- Sufferers of some asbestos-related conditions in Northern Ireland, United Kingdom, are a step closer to accessing compensation following a Jan. 17, 2011 debate in the Assembly, 4NI.co.uk reports. Northern Ireland Finance Minister Sammy Wilson believes the proposed legislation is vital in providing assistance to those who have suffered wrong, mostly those who had worked in the construction or engineering sectors. During the 2nd Stage of the Bill, Mr. Wilson told the Assembly that bringing forward the legislation was the right thing to do. He said, "I believe this Bill seeks to support a fundamental principle of our justice system, namely access to justice for those who have suffered wrong. "There was a time when asbestos was regarded as a miracle mineral, however with time it was discovered that asbestos could cause a number of different conditions some of which are fatal. "Having consulted on this proposed legislation I believe that Northern Ireland should follow Scotland and restore pleural plaques as an actionable condition. "This Bill is vitally important and aims to ensure the continued availability of a method of redress for ordinary working men and women," he said. The Department of Finance and Personnel carried out a public consultation following a House of Lords decision in October 2007 that pleural plaques did not constitute actionable or "compensatable" damage for the purpose of the law of negligence. Following the consultation the Finance Minister concluded that the reinstatement of the right to claim compensation in negligence is just and fair and will ensure that people in Northern Ireland have the same rights and protections as people in Scotland. The Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) Bill aims to deal with certain asbestos-related conditions namely pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asbestosis. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wrexham Nightclub Owner Admits to Safety Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Campbell Murton, the owner of the former Scotts Nightclub in Wrexham, Wales, on Jan. 14, 2011, admitted stripping out asbestos without proper safeguards sparking a health scare, the Daily Post reports. The former Scotts Nightclub had to be cordoned off in February 2010 while tests were carried out by experts. On Jan. 14, 2011, Wrexham magistrates sitting at Mold heard Mr. Murton admit a raft of offenses over carrying out refurbishments without the necessary safeguards to prevent asbestos escaping from the building. The 35-year-old Mr. Murton, of Hillrest, Cleobury Road in Bewdley, Kidderminster, had purchased the former nightclub. It was being gutted and renovated. But works ongoing at the time were stopped after concerns were raised. The charges, brought by both the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency, centered on the escape of asbestos while fire proofing material was removed from the premises. No details of the prosecution case were outlined in court. But after Mr. Murton entered his guilty pleas the magistrates agreed with prosecutor Simon Parrington the case should be sent to the crown court for sentence. Mr. Murton admitted 12 offenses under the Hazardous Waste Regulations, the Environmental Protection Act and the Asbestos Regulations. He pleaded guilty to failing to prevent the exposure of employees to asbestos fibers and failing to prevent the spread of asbestos from the building. Mr. Murton also admitted failing to carry out an assessment into the presence of asbestos at the building and undertaking work with asbestos when he was not the holder of an asbestos license. And he admitted failing to retain records of hazardous waste movement, a waste transfer offence and mixed asbestos waste without a permit. In February 2011, a metal fence was erected around the nightclub cordoning it off from the public. Specialists were called in to assess the danger from the toxic substance which led to Mr. Murton's prosecution. Wrexham County Borough Council environment chiefs took the decision to shut the premises down and launch an investigation. The premises are close to a local primary school -- St Mary's RC School on Lea Road. It is also across the road from shops. ASBESTOS UPDATE: AirQuest Awarded Contract for Services in Fla. --------------------------------------------------------------- AirQuest Environmental, Inc. has been awarded a Florida state contact for asbestos consulting services on roadway projects in five counties, stretching from Broward to St. Lucie counties, according to an AirQuest Environmental, Inc. press release dated Jan. 14, 2011. This new FDOT award is in addition to a District VI project awarded to the firm last summer. Traci-Anne Boyle, president and owner of the Fort Lauderdale-based consulting firm, said Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) District IV office selected AirQuest to support its right-of-way expansion projects. AirQuest's new three-year contract includes asbestos survey, inspection, remediation planning, abatement oversight, re-inspection and final clearance for roadway projects. FDOT District IV is responsible for planning, designing, building and maintaining all state-owned roadways and bridges in Broward, Indian River, Martin, Palm Beach, and St. Lucie counties. AirQuest personnel have conducted hundreds of asbestos surveys and designed and managed numerous abatement projects. The firm's asbestos personnel are certified under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and Title II/Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA). ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer, Quigley Nearing Claims Settlement Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer Inc. and its bankrupt Quigley Co. unit are nearing a settlement with a group of alleged asbestos victims as the companies said the drugmaker may contribute hundreds of millions more to cover asbestos claims, Business Insurance reports. Edward Weisfelner, an attorney for the ad hoc committee of asbestos claimants in Quigley's bankruptcy, told U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Stuart M. Bernstein in Manhattan on Jan. 13, 2011 that the details could not yet be disclosed and the deal may take another 10 to 14 days to complete. Quigley, which made heat shields for the steel industry, was bought by Pfizer in 1968 and filed for bankruptcy in 2004. While the bankruptcy has been pending, creditors with alleged asbestos-related health problems have been unable to sue New York- based Pfizer and many have died, lawyers for the U.S. Trustee said in their request to dismiss the case. The U.S. Trustee is an arm of the Justice Department that monitors bankruptcy cases. In September 2010, Judge Bernstein denied Quigley permission to exit bankruptcy under a fourth proposed Chapter 11 plan, saying Pfizer had manipulated the bankruptcy process to benefit itself. Judge Bernstein said the plan was filed in bad faith, citing testimony that asbestos claims against Quigley could total US$4.45 billion over the next 42 years. The case is In re Quigley Co., 04-15739, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan). ASBESTOS UPDATE: Worcestershire Council to Allay Asbestos Fears --------------------------------------------------------------- The County Council in Worcestershire, England, has sought to allay fears that pupils and residents are being endangered by asbestos in a former Kidderminster school building, the Kidderminster Shuttle reports. According to a Worcestershire County Council spokesman, the asbestos will be removed before the old Offmore Primary School building is demolished and work starts on the new school. He added that the county council was always aware asbestos was sealed in the building and there would be no health risk to residents or pupils during its removal. The spokesman explained that the county council had not been able to carry out a detailed survey of the quantity of the asbestos until the building had been fully vacated. The removal work is expected to take about five weeks and the council said it would be working hard to minimize any disruption to the building schedule. Meanwhile, pupils will use the temporary school, which has been separated completely from the old building, including separate access. The Worcestershire County Council spokesman said, "We were always aware that there was asbestos sealed in the old Offmore Primary building, as it is a very commonly used material in buildings of this age. "However, we were unable to carry out a detailed survey of the quantity until the school had vacated the building. This survey has now been completed and we can begin removing the material, which will be finished before the building can be demolished. The removal, which we expect to take around five weeks, will be carried out by a contractor licensed by the Health and Safety Executive. "It will be contained within the old school building and will not pose any risk to anyone at the school or in the surrounding area. We will be working closely with the building contractor to minimize the impact of the removal work on the building schedule and completion date." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Melrose Park Resident Sentenced for Tax Fraud -------------------------------------------------------------- Michael J. Palmieri, a 55-year-old part-owner of a Melrose Park, Ill. asbestos removal company was sentenced on Jan. 13, 2011 to six months of home confinement for failing to report more than US$500,000 in income on his taxes, the Chicago Tribune reports. Mr. Palmieri could have faced two years in prison, but his attorney argued for leniency because he could go blind if he does not get special medical assistance for an eye disease. He also was sentenced to 3 years of probation. He pleaded guilty in October 2010 to one count of tax fraud. As part of his plea agreement, Mr. Palmieri has already paid US$458,000 in restitution and plans to pay an additional US$215,000 soon, his lawyers said. Prosecutors alleged that over a four-year period Mr. Palmieri failed to report US$1.6 million in income. He was also accused of failing to pay the pension fund of the Laborers Union more than US$205,000 and failing to pay withholding taxes and other taxes by not reporting US$546,000 in wages of employees. ASBESTOS UPDATE: H Cope and Sons to Pay GBP12T for Worker's Fall ---------------------------------------------------------------- H Cope and Sons Limited in Grimsby, Lincolnshire, England, was fined GBP12,000 after a certain Mr. Hope suffered life-changing injuries when he fell from a garage roof, the Grimsby Telegraph reports. The Company admitted safety breaches before Grimsby magistrates on Jan. 19, 2011. Mr. Hope was demolishing a garage at Walmsgate Place in Grimsby, part of a larger Shoreline Housing contract to pull down 1,100 garages, on Jan. 13, 2009. Mr. Hope, who was 38 at the time, was working with a colleague named as Mr. Mitchell, pulling down asbestos cement sheets, known as flashing. The pair realized they were unable to remove them from underneath, as they had been doing on other garages. They climbed on top of the roof and Mr. Hope began to snap off the 4ft flashing, while balancing in the gutter and skip, the court heard. As he started to throw the sheets into the skip, he slipped and fell 7ft through the roof on to a concrete surface, the court was told. Mr. Hope sustained multiple fractures to his right leg and inspector David Bradley, prosecuting on behalf of the Health and Safety Executive, said it was "pointing in the wrong direction." Mr. Hope also had a broken wrist and had to have reconstructive surgery, including four operations and a skin graft. Mr. Bradley said he underwent physiotherapy and has not worked since. The court heard H Cope And Sons had put together a method document, which stated a tower scaffold was needed to access the flashing from inside the garage. This was not provided. There was also no supervisor or toilets on site and workers -- whose only experience was pulling down a bus stop and cleaning bricks -- were using a bucket and baby wipes to clean themselves. The Company was fined GBP12,000 as well as GBP3,570.80 costs and a GBP15 Government-imposed victims' surcharge. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Case v. Coralville Businessman Filed on Dec. 28 ---------------------------------------------------------------- According to a criminal complaint filed by Iowa Assistant Attorney General Susan Krisko on Dec. 28, 2010, Randy P. Ward is being accused of knowingly disposing of demolished materials that contained asbestos, KCRG-TV NEWS reports. Mr. Ward faces nine aggravated misdemeanor charges for violating air quality standards which arose from an apartment complex demolition in 2008. Mr. Ward, who owns Randy's Carpet and Interiors in Coralville, Iowa, is a member of Le Chateau Apartments LLC, which owned the Le Chateau Apartments in Coralville in 2008. The apartment complex consisted of four, two-story buildings. During the summer flooding of 2008, the apartments were damaged and Ward had the buildings demolished in September 2008 and October 2008. According to Marion Burnside, a former coordinator of National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Le Chateau hired Aspec Environmental Testing, Inc. to inspect the presence of any asbestos containing materials and also sent samples to the Iowa Hygienic Laboratory for testing. Both tests showed asbestos was present in the site. In October 2008, Mr. Burnside said he received a complaint about the demolition and went to visit the site. He observed the office building and three of the four buildings had already been demolished and the fourth was in the process of demolished. He said the debris from the already demolished buildings was still on site. Mr. Burnside said he did not observe any practices being used to prevent the discharge of dust emissions. After speaking with a worker on site, the worker told him he had no experience in asbestos removal. In a document filed to Johnson County court, Mr. Burnside wrote after speaking with Ward, he told the DNR official he had "lost enough money from the flood and he was going to leave the pile of demolition debris where it was." However, Mr. Ward later contacted three companies to dispose of the debris, but did not clarify the materials contained asbestos. None of the trucks used special signage during the loading or unloading of the contaminated materials. After verifying disposal records from the Iowa City landfill, Mr. Burnside reported between Oct. 24, 2010 and Oct. 29, 2010 about 1,650 tons of debris, brought in over 330 truck loads was deposited from the Le Chateau demolition site. Mr. Ward made an initial appearance at the Johnson County Courthouse on Jan. 11, 2011 and waived a preliminary hearing. ASBESTOS UPDATE: ASIC Seeks Leave to Appeal James Hardie Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- The Australian Securities and Investments Commission said it will seek to appeal a decision which overturned bans on seven former directors of James Hardie Industries applying to the High Court for special leave, The Sydney Morning Herald reports. In December 2010, the full bench of the New South Wales Court of Appeal overturned a ruling that found the non-executive directors misled the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) about the Company's ability to fund asbestos claims. In doing so the directors, including former chairwoman Meredith Hellicar, were no longer banned from serving on Company boards until 2014. On Jan. 14, 2010, ASIC said it had filed applications in the High Court for special leave to appeal the decision. In a statement, ASIC said the judgment by the NSW Court of Appeal raised several issues of importance concerning ASIC's obligations in relation to the civil penalty proceeding. One of those was ASIC's decision not to call a partner for one of James Hardie's main external legal advisers Allens Arthur Robinson, David Robb, to give evidence during the proceedings. In handing down the judgment on Dec. 17, 2011, Chief Justice James Spigelman said Mr. Robb could have testified as to whether the directors at a February board meeting agreed to sign off on the misleading statement to the ASX. If granted leave, ASIC will contend that the Court of Appeal erred in describing the scope and content of its obligation and how that view affected the outcome of the appeal. Furthermore, ASIC will seek to challenge some of the conclusions reached by the court in assessing whether the James Hardie board approved the ASX announcement, which was claimed to be misleading. ASIC chairman Tony D'Aloisio said ASIC seeks to clarify the content and scope of its obligation during the civil penalty proceedings. The directors whose appeals were successful were Ms. Hellicar and former non-executive directors Michael Brown, Michael Gillfillan, Martin Koffel, Dan O'Brien, Greg Terry, and Peter Willcox. Former chief financial officer Phillip Morley had his appeal dismissed while former general counsel Peter Shafron's appeal was dismissed in part. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Coolidge Elementary to Cost $92,007 --------------------------------------------------------------- Asbestos uncovered in the south building of Coolidge Elementary School in Enid, Okla., means an extra US$92,007 expense to work on the building, the Enid News and Eagle reports. The Enid Public Schools Board of Education at its Jan. 17, 2011 meeting approved a change to the contract with Henson Construction Co. to remove the asbestos. The change order is for removal of all existing gypsum board ceilings and tile ceilings in the south building using proper abatement procedures. The removal will include all acoustical ceiling spray under the insulation, as well as overspray and the ceiling material it is sprayed on, in classroom and related areas. Asbestos also was found on an abandoned boiler in the school's mechanical room and on pipe insulation throughout the classrooms, hallway and boiler room. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rochdale Council Blocks Homes Plan on T&N Site --------------------------------------------------------------- The Rochdale Borough Council in Rochdale, Manchester, England, has refused planning permission for 600 homes on the old Turner and Newall site, which is a former asbestos factory, BBC News reports. First submitted in 2005, the plan was to build new houses on the old Turner and Newall site in Spodden Valley. Peter Rawlinson, Head of Planning at Rochdale Council, said there was not enough detail about how the site could be developed safely. A spokesman for developers MMC Estates said a revised application would be submitted to the council. Local people fought the GBP100 million scheme fearing that building work could release harmful asbestos fibers into the air. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Sulphur Springs Schools Costs $230T --------------------------------------------------------------- Asbestos removal cost for the school in Sulphur Springs, Ohio, which is estimated to have one percent asbestos, is estimated at US$230,000, Mesothelioma.com reports. With the construction of a new middle and intermediate school, the old Whetstone, North Robinson and Sulphur Springs schools are no longer needed. However, the Colonel Crawford Board of Education in Ohio does not think that in these times of economic restraint it is appropriate to spend money razing buildings that aren't in anyone's way. An estimated US$200,000 is needed to raze Whetstone, US$200,000 to demolish Sulphur Springs, and US$300,000 to tear down North Robinson. Plus, these figures do not include the cost of asbestos removal, which is found in just about every school building constructed prior to the 1980s. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Caterpillar UK Awards Payout to Aspin's Family --------------------------------------------------------------- The family of Denis Aspin, a former assembler at a Caterpillar UK factory, was awarded compensation after Mr. Aspin died from mesothelioma, the Post Online reports. Mr. Aspin from Earl Shilton, Leicester, England, was 64 years old when he died from mesothelioma in November 2008. He left behind his wife, Diane, his daughter and four stepchildren. Mr. Aspin was exposed to asbestos while working for Caterpillar UK's Desford factory as an assembler from 1979 until 2008, when he took voluntary redundancy. He was never warned that asbestos was being used nearby or of the dangers. Mr. Aspin went to his GP in September 2008 after suffering from breathlessness. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma and underwent surgery. He died in November 2008 after returning to hospital for a secondary operation. Before his death he instructed law firm Thompsons Solicitors to claim compensation from Caterpillar UK. Following his death, his wife continued his claim. Thompsons were successful in securing compensation from Caterpillar in an out of court settlement. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement at La Cruces Museum to Cost $156,400 --------------------------------------------------------------- It is estimated that lead and asbestos abatement at the future site of Las Cruces, N.M.'s first ever "arts and science" complex will cost US$156,400, the Las Cruces Sun-News reports. A contract worth more than US$821,000, for the first phase of construction of the city's Museum of Nature and Science, was unanimously approved on Jan. 18, 2011 by the City Council. Mayor Ken Miyagishima was absent from the meeting, but all of the remaining six council members voted to award the contract to Wooten Construction Co., of Las Cruces. Architectural design, exhibit construction and general construction of the building, at 411 N. Main St., will be done by Las Cruces businesses. Eric Martin, city project management administrator, said ASA Architects has a contract with the city for architectural design of the proposed museum, and Highland Enterprises, also of Las Cruces, has been hired to build exhibits. Mr. Martin said money to pay for the first phase of museum construction will come from grants the city has received. The phase will include the removal of asbestos and lead from the building, which has twice served as banks. The 8,900-square-foot building has been at its location for more than 45 years. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Union Pacific Workers File Suit in St. Clair --------------------------------------------------------------- Dale Chapman and Ron Mentel, two former Union Pacific Railroad Company workers, sued their employer - one alleging he developed multiple forms of cancer after his work for it and another saying his work caused him to develop degeneration of his hands, wrists and elbows, The Madison/St. Clair Record reports. Mr. Chapman claims he worked for the railroad from 1973 until 2008. During the course of his work, he was exposed to diesel exhaust and asbestos, causing him to develop lung cancer, according to the complaint filed on Dec. 22, 2010 in St. Clair County Circuit Court. Mr. Mentel claims he worked as an engineer in Union Pacific's transportation department from July of 1974 through June of 2009. During the course of his work, he was forced to work unsafely, causing him to develop degeneration of his hands, wrists and elbows and to endure carpal tunnel syndrome, according to his complaint filed on Dec. 21, 2010 in St. Clair County Circuit Court. Because of his injuries, Mr. Mentel suffered pain and disability, incurred medical costs, underwent surgery and lost his normal life, the suit states. In his complaint, Mr. Chapman seeks a judgment of more than US$50,000, plus costs. In his two-count complaint, Mr. Mentel seeks a judgment of more than US$100,000, plus costs. Both men will be represented by William P. Gavin, Esq., of Gavin Law Firm in Belleville. In addition, Mr. Mentel will be represented by Paul W. Johnson, Esq., of The Law Office of Paul W. Johnson in Belleville. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Veterans Court Affirms Ruling in Reeves Action --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims upheld the Sept. 18, 2008 ruling of the Board of Veterans' Appeals, which denied Dennis Reeves entitlement to service connection for asbestosis. The case is styled Dennis Reeves, Appellant v. Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee. Judge William A. Moorman entered judgment in Case No. 08-3226 on Nov. 23, 2010. Mr. Reeves served in the U.S. Air Force from February 1961 to December 1961 as an apprentice construction helper. In December 1993, he requested VA compensation for disease and injury caused by his exposure to asbestos and toxic chemicals. In May 1994, he submitted statements in support of his claim asserting he was exposed to asbestos at Vandenburg Air Force Base (AFB) while working in "all area[s] of civil engineering from upkeep of property to roads and buildings." Mr. Reeves also asserted that toxic chemicals, such as DDT, were used daily at the golf course at Vandenburg AFB. In August 1994, a VA regional office (RO) denied Mr. Reeves' claim for entitlement to service connection for a larynx growth secondary to asbestos exposure and toxic chemicals. In October 1994, Mr. Reeves filed a Notice of Disagreement. In May 1995, after the RO issued a Statement of the Case, Mr. Reeves perfected his Substantive Appeal to the Board. In March 1996, Mr. Reeves testified before a decision review officer. The Board remanded Mr. Reeves' claim for entitlement to service connection for cancer of the larynx, secondary to asbestos exposure in November 1996, July 1997, and February 1998. In July 1999, the Board denied Mr. Reeves' claim for entitlement to service connection for cancer of the larynx, secondary to asbestos exposure, and remanded his claim for entitlement to service connection for asbestosis. In 2000, 2001, 2002, and January 2003, VA requested information from the U.S. Air Force headquarters concerning any contact with or exposure to asbestos Mr. Reeves may have had in the performance of his duties as an apprentice construction worker. In July 2005, Mr. Reeves testified before the Board. In September 2005, the Board denied entitlement to service connection for asbestosis. The parties filed a joint motion to remand (JMR) the Board's 2005 decision. On Aug. 9, 2006, this Court granted the JMR. In February 2007, the Board again denied entitlement to service connection for asbestosis. In April 2008, the parties filed another JMR, asserting that the Board did not adequately explain its finding that the appellant was not entitled to a VA examination or whether his current diagnosis of parenchymal asbestosis was possibly connected to active service. On May 1, 2008, this Court granted the JMR. On Sept. 18, 2008, the Board issued the decision here on appeal, denying Mr. Reeves' claim for entitlement to service connection for asbestosis. The Board found that Mr. Reeves was not shown to have been exposed to asbestos in service and his allegations of such exposure were not credible. Mr. Reeves' motion for oral argument was denied. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Appeals Court Issues Ruling in Rossi Case --------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County, issued rulings in an asbestos case styled Elise S. Rossi, as Representative of the Estate of Robert A. Rossi, Plaintiff- Appellee v. Consolidated Rail Corporation and American Premier Underwriters, Inc., Defendants-Appellants. Judges Melody J. Stewart, Kenneth A. Rocco, and Colleen Conway Cooney entered judgment in Case No. 94628 on Nov. 24, 2010. This was an appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. Consolidated Rail Corporation, appealed from an order denying its motion for an administrative dismissal of asbestos-related claims brought by Elise Rossi, the representative of the estate of Robert Rossi, who died as this action was pending. Mr. Rossi worked in various capacities for the railroad and died of lung cancer that he alleged had been caused by asbestos exposure during his employment. The issue on appeal was whether the estate made the required prima facie showing that Mr. Rossi's alleged exposure to asbestos was a substantial factor in the development of his lung cancer. Mr. Rossi admitted to having smoked one to two packs of cigarettes per day for 48 years. This cause was reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. It was ordered that a special mandate be sent to the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution. Patrick C. Booth, Esq., David A. Damico, Esq., Ira L. Podheiser, Esq., of Burns White, LLC in Pittsburgh, represented appellants. Christopher Murphy, Esq., Michael L. Torcello, Esq., of Doran & Murphy, PLLC in Buffalo, N.Y., represented appellee. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms Board's Decision in Martin Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims upheld an April 7, 2009 ruling of the Board of Veterans' Appeals, appeals which denied Samuel Martin's claim for service connection for asbestosis. The case is styled Samuel Martin, Appellant v. Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee. Judge Alan G. Lance, Jr. entered judgment in Case No. 09-1515 on Nov. 24, 2010. Mr. Martin had active service in the U.S. Navy from July 1974 through July 1978. He contended that he was exposed to asbestos during his three years and eight months aboard the USS Mauna Kea. His claim has a long procedural history including an October 2008 remand by the Board and a subsequent December 2008 VA medical examination. In the decision on appeal, the Board concluded that the evidence did not demonstrate that Mr. Martin suffered from significant in- service asbestos exposure and that the medical evidence was against a finding that he had asbestosis. After consideration of Mr. Martin's and the Secretary's briefs, and a review of the record, the Board's April 7, 2009 decision was affirmed. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Sets Aside Ruling in Casher Claim ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims set aside an Oct. 15, 2008 ruling of the Board of Veterans' Appeals and remanded the matter for further development and readjudication of the issue of service connection for the cause of Charles Casher's death. The case is styled Gloria P. Casher, Appellant v. Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee. Judge Robert N. Davis entered judgment in Case No. 08-3625 on Nov. 30, 2010. Gloria P. Casher, widow of U.S. Army veteran Charles Casher, appealed the ruling that denied entitlement to service connection for the cause of Mr. Casher's death. The certificate of death for Mr. Casher, who served in Vietnam, lists the cause of his death as cardiac arrhythmia and the underlying cause of his death as "chronic lung disease, asbestosis." Mrs. Casher argued that VA failed to assist her and Mr. Casher in developing her claim because it provided two inadequate medical reports-a 1971 medical report used in determining whether service connection for sarcoidosis was warranted and a 2007 report to determine whether Mr. Casher's cause of death was connected to his service. Mrs. Casher further argued that the 2007 examination was not compliant with the Board's October 2006 remand order. On remand, Mrs. Casher will be free to submit additional evidence and argument in support of her claim, and the Board is required to consider any such evidence and argument. ********* 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 2011. 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 * * *