/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/110415.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, April 15, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 75 Headlines APPLE INC: Sued Over iPhone Free App "Game Currency" Charges ASSET ACQUISITION: Sued for Operating Without a License CELERA CORP: Board Sued Over Proposed Buyout of Company by Quest CLARUS MARKETING: Accused of Violations of the ECPA CLUB ONE: Faces Two Employee Discrimination Class Actions DIRECT BUY: Attorneys General Object to Class Action Settlement EARL BRADLEY: Sexual Abuse Suits to Be Combined EQT PRODUCTION: Request to Move Part of Class Action Denied EQUITITRUST: May Face Class Action Over Income Fund HADERA PAPER: Unit Continues to Defend Plastic Bag-Related Suit HARRY RUBINOFF: Sued for Chicago RLTO Violations HUFFINGTON POST: Faces Class Action Over Writers' Unpaid Work INTEGRITY LAND: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Practices JP MORGAN: AFTRA Retirement Board Files Class Action ROTHMAN FURNITURE: Sued in Ill. Over Deceptive Business Practice SECURITIES AMERICA: Settles Investor Class Action for $150-Mil. SKINDER-STRAUSS: Fax Spam Suit Granted Federal Jurisdiction STERLING BANCSHARES: Being Sold for Too Little, Tex. Suit Claims SYNGENTA CROP: Plaintiff Seeks JTA Documents in Atrazine Suit VOLVO CARS: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Class Action Over Sunroof Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS ALERT: Global Power Named a Defendant in Injury Actions ASBESTOS UPDATE: TOTAL S.A. Subject to Asbestos Exposure Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Premix-Marbletite Subject to 22 Exposure Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Settles 2 Claims, Cases at Feb. 26 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Penn Miller Posts $2.36MM Liability at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: J.C. Penney Has $37MM A&E Liability at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aviva plc Units Subject to Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land, D/C Subject to Exposure Actions ASBESTOS UPDATE: 201 Lawsuits Pending v. Entrx Corp. at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Entrx Corp. Still Faces ACE Coverage Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Entrx Corp. Records $39MM for Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pacific Office Posts $300T Liability at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: 11 Exposure Actions Still Ongoing v. Katy Ind. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Katy Ind. Cites 2,800 Tendered Sterling Actions ASBESTOS UPDATE: 90 LaBour Pump Company Cases Pending at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Seanergy Maritime Subject to Potential Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Int'l. Shipholding Has $284T Reserve at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: ABB Ltd Records $2MM Dec. 31 Asbestos Provision ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Auto Parts Unit Facing Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Met-Pro Corp. Has 93 Pending Cases at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: ING Groep Has EUR41MM for A&E Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Arabian American Facing 2 Lawsuits in Jefferson ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alcatel-Lucent Still Subject to Asbestos Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Biltrite Records $17.70MM Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Biltrite Faces 1,261 Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaiser Ventures Subject to 12 Exposure Actions ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colonial Involved in 6 Hilco Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Universal Supply Group Has One Claim at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: McJunkin Faces 940 Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Paragon Shipping Subject to Potential Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5 Lawsuits v. 159 Firms Filed March 25 in W.Va. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Murton Penalized for Exposing Workers to Hazard ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement Project at Western Galilee Commences ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wall Case v. Chesterton, Others Filed March 28 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stukey Case v. 21 Firms Filed March 24 in Texas ASBESTOS UPDATE: CK Batten Fined GBP5,015 for Safety Violations ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bristol Guild Fined GBP15T for Safety Breaches ASBESTOS UPDATE: 154 Actions Filed in Madison During First Qtr. ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Issues Abatement at Arsenal Business Center ASBESTOS UPDATE: Montana Facing $43MM Payout for Libby's Victims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judgment Affirmed in Nationwide Mutual Lawsuit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms Summary Judgment in Becnel Action ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameron Int'l. Has 16 Exposure Cases at Feb. 26 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Teledyne Technologies Named in Exposure Actions ASBESTOS UPDATE: Joy Global Still Facing Liability Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ore. Firms Fined $48T for Asbestos Mishandling ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minority Fined $1,125 for Notification Breaches ASBESTOS UPDATE: DENR Urged to Implement Philippine Asbestos Ban ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Issues Split Ruling in Fisher Case ASBESTOS UPDATE: Supreme Court Reverses Ruling in Stec's Lawsuit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bowater Still Subject to Personal Injury Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5,158 Cases Ongoing v. Albany Int'l. at Feb. 11 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brandon Drying Has 7,868 Open Claims at Feb. 11 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Still Subject to Mt. Vernon Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gorman-Rupp Still Subject to Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chiquita Brands Still Facing Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: NL Industries Still Named in Liability Actions ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Has $736.2MM Net A&E Reserves at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemtura Corp. Still Subject to Liability Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: State Auto Fin'l. Posts $1.5MM Reserves in 2010 ********* APPLE INC: Sued Over iPhone Free App "Game Currency" Charges ------------------------------------------------------------ Garen Meguerian, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 11-cv-01758 (N.D. Calif. April 11, 2011), accuses Apple of selling "Game Currency" to minors, without entering a password, and without the authorization of their parents, whose credit cards or PayPal accounts are automatically charged for the purchases, in breach of California's contract laws, and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq. Apple is one of the leading manufacturers and sellers of computers and computing devices. It is also the leading seller of "Apps," i.e., software applications that users download on their mobile computing devices. Among the many thousands of Apps that Apple offers for sale are gaming Apps targeted at children. Numerous gaming Apps are offered for free, although many such games are designed to induce purchases of what Apple refers to as "In-App Purchases" or "In-App Content," i.e., virtual supplies, ammunition, fruits and vegetables, cash and other fake "currency," etc., within the game in order to play the game with any success. Plaintiff Garen Meguerian resides in Phoenixville, Pennsylvania. Mr. Meguerian permitted his daughter to download from iTunes a number of free gaming Apps, including "Zombie Cafe," "Treasure Story" and "City Story." Mr. Meguerian says, however, that he was completely unaware that within the span of a few weeks his daughter bought such Game Currency as "Zombie Toxin," "Gems" and "City Cash." Those transactions between Apple and a nine-year- old child cost Mr. Meguerian approximately $200. A copy of the Complaint in Meguerian v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 11- cv-01758 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/12/Apple.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Boni, Esq. Joshua D. Synder, Esq. BONI & ZACK LLC 15 St. Asaphs Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (610) 822-0200 E-mail: MBoni@bonizack.com JSnyder@bonizack.com - and - Simon Bahne Paris, Esq. Patrick Howard, Esq. SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C. One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor 1650 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 575-3986 E-mail: sparis@smbb.com phoward@smbb.com - and - Benjamin G. Edelman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BENJAMIN EDELMAN 27A Linnaean Street Cambridge, MA 02138 Telephone: (617) 359-3360 ASSET ACQUISITION: Sued for Operating Without a License ------------------------------------------------------- Demetris C. Hawkins, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Asset Acquisition Group, LLC, Case No. 2011-CH-13573 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. April 11, 2011), is brought on behalf of all individuals against whom defendant Asset Acquisition Group filed a collection lawsuit in Illinois between January 1, 2008, and July 13, 2009. Defendant did not obtain a license until July 13, 2009. Plaintiff accuses the collection agency of operating without a license, in violation of the Illinois Collection Agency Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. Plaintiff says that as the defendant operated without a license during the class period, each judgment and order obtained by the defendant is void. Plaintiff therefore seeks vacation of those judgments. Plaintiff Hawkins is a resident of Cook County, Illinois. Defendant Asset Acquisition Group, a limited liability company organized under Colorado law, is engaged in the business of purchasing or claiming to purchase charged-off consumer debts and enforcing the debts against the consumers by filing collection lawsuits. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Cathleen M. Combs, Esq. James O. Latturner, Esq. Francis R. Greene, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 739-420 CELERA CORP: Board Sued Over Proposed Buyout of Company by Quest ---------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth M. Andal, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Celera Corporation, et al., Case No. 11-cv-01769 (N.D. Calif. April 11, 2011), accuses Celera and its board of directors of breaching their fiduciary duties owed to the Company's stockholders, in connection with the proposed buyout of Celera by Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, through its subsidiary Spark Acquisition Corporation. Plaintiff further alleges that defendants failed to provide shareholders with all material information about the sales process, the merger consideration, and the Company's intrinsic value. On March 17, 2011, Celera entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Quest, whereby Quest would, within a week of the deal's announcement, commence a tender offer to acquire all of the issued and outstanding shares of Celera common stock for $8.00 per share in cash. To ensure consummation of the transaction, the Board gave Quest "a panoply of deal protections", including a no-shop provision, unlimited matching rights, and a $23.45 million termination fee, which represents over 10% of the total value Quest is paying to acquire Celera's operations (i.e., net of cash and tax assets, both of which have a fixed and objective value and therefore should not be considered in assessing the reasonableness of the termination fee). In an attempt to secure shareholder approval of this unfair deal, on March 28, 2011, defendants filed a materially misleading Solicitation/Recommendation Statement. The Proxy recommends that Celera's shareholders accept the offer, tender their shares, and adopt the Merger Agreement. However, the Proxy is misleading because among other things, it almost wholly ignores material issues relating to the motivation for, and negotiation of, the proposed transaction, including the restatements to its prior SEC financial filings; the ongoing Celera securities class action and shareholder derivative lawsuit; and possible civil liability looming over the Celera Board and senior management. According to the Complaint, the restatements expose the fact that Celera's management has engaged in a wide-ranging accounting fraud over the past several years, which included improperly classifying and reporting bad debt expenses and unreimbursed and uncollectible charges. Plaintiff is a holder of Celera common stock. Defendant Celera is a healthcare business focusing on the integration of genetic testing into routine clinical care through a combination of products and services incorporating proprietary discoveries. Defendant Quest is a leading provider of diagnostic testing, information and services that patients and doctors need to make better healthcare decisions. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq. ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP 155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 986-1400 E-mail: jennie@andrusanderson.com - and - David A. P. Brower, Esq. Brian C. Kerr, Esq. BROWER PIVEN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 488 Madison Avenue, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 501-9000 E-mail: brower@browerpiven.com piven@browerpiven.com CLARUS MARKETING: Accused of Violations of the ECPA --------------------------------------------------- Nicole Hall, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Clarus Marketing Group, LLC, Provide Commerce, Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-01757 (N.D. Calif. April 08, 2011), accuses the defendants of using her and other class members' payment information to impose unauthorized charges through an online scam, in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act. While making their online purchases at one of the many websites owned and operated by Provide Commerce, defendants presented them with an online advertisement offering them "Free Shipping," not knowing that they had unwittingly enrolled in CMG's FreeShipping.com Insiders-Club for which they were thereafter charged a membership charge of between $9 to $20 per month. Plaintiff Hall says she never authorized Provide Commerce to provide her account information to CMG. Provide Commerce allegedly transmits customers' billing information directly to CMG under the pretense that plaintiff and class members authorized the transmission based solely on their provision of an email address or zip code. Plaintiff Nicole Hall resides in Norwell, Massachusetts. Defendant Provide Commerce, a Delaware corporation, is an ecommerce company that operates at least five online stores: RedEnvelope, ProFIowers, Cherry Moon Farms, Secret Spoon and Shari's Berries. Defendant CMG, a Connecticut corporation, operates as a marketing and Internet services company in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Vahn Alexander, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars, 2nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 461-1426 E-mail: valexander@faruqilaw.com CLUB ONE: Faces Two Employee Discrimination Class Actions --------------------------------------------------------- KMPH Fox 26 reports that Club One in Downtown Fresno has been hit with two class action lawsuits after more than 20 current and former workers said they were the victims of discrimination. The employees said the casino segregated and reduced the hours of Hmong poker dealers and fired older workers. The first lawsuit was filed in Fresno County Superior Court on April 11. It claims the new owner targeted employees over the age of 40 and tried to make them quit. The second suit says Club One cut hours for more than 20 Hmong dealers and excluded workers of Asian descent from working during high-profile poker tournaments. DIRECT BUY: Attorneys General Object to Class Action Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen filed an objection on April 12 to the settlement of a private, class-action lawsuit against Direct Buy Inc., because it offered no real benefit to consumers, a position joined by the attorneys general of 35 other states, the District of Columbia and Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. "The lawsuit was filed after I disclosed that Direct Buy lies to consumers when it tells them that spending thousands of dollars on a membership entitles them to the actual manufacturers costs. Direct Buy did the fact that it received secret discount which it did not pass on to its customers. Direct Buy stores are independent franchises that charge as much as $7,000 to belong as well as yearly fees promising huge discounts. However even the discounts are questionable since most of its products can be purchased at places like eBay for the same price or less." Several franchises have closed, leaving its customers stranded. The parent company is also have financial issues which could result in more franchises closing. This is believed to be the largest number of states joining in opposition to a proposed class-action settlement since the passage of the Class Action Fairness Act in 2005. The lawsuit accused DirectBuy of fraudulent misrepresentation because the company implied that paid memberships would entitle customers to purchase goods from manufacturers and suppliers at actual cost. However, DirectBuy allegedly received kickbacks and incentives from suppliers and manufacturers of goods purchased by DirectBuy members, which inflated the cost of the goods. The lawsuit alleges that DirectBuy did not disclose this arrangement to customers until early 2009. The pending lawsuit names Direct Buy, Inc., United Consumers Club, Inc. and DirectBuy Holdings, Inc. as defendants. Mr. Jepsen took issue with the proposed settlement in a 36-page amicus curiae brief filed in U.S. District Court in Connecticut. "The Attorneys General submit this brief to protect consumers who will be adversely affected by the approval of the proposed settlement," Mr. Jepsen said. "We urge the court not to approve a class-action settlement that has no real value to anybody but the plaintiffs' lawyers." Mr. Jepsen said the so-called free and reduced-price memberships offered were not fair, reasonable and adequate settlement for most of the customers harmed. Also, the proposed settlement would not prohibit similar future conduct by DirectBuy and the proposed attorneys' fees were excessive and disproportionate compared to purported benefits to consumers. "The proposed settlement is, in essence, a sales vehicle for defendants designed to drive current and former customers into membership renewal contracts and to the same manufacturers and suppliers from whom defendants have acknowledged receiving kickbacks and incentives," Mr. Jepsen said. "Standing alone, the memberships have little value." Consumer Protection Commissioner William M. Rubenstein agreed. "I applaud the Attorneys General for standing up for consumers by opposing this ill-conceived settlement." "While class action lawsuits can be a powerful tool to protect consumers from improper business behavior, they must create real value by putting money back in consumers' pockets and stopping the improper behavior; this settlement does neither," Mr. Rubenstein said. Assistant Attorney General Matthew Fitzsimmons is representing Mr. Jepsen in this matter. A hearing on the proposed settlement is scheduled for May. EARL BRADLEY: Sexual Abuse Suits to Be Combined ----------------------------------------------- Sean O'Sullivan, writing for The News Journal, that dozens of civil lawsuits filed against pediatrician Earl Bradley, accused of molesting patients, and others linked to the case have been given class-action certification by a state judge. The order granting class-action status signed this month by Superior Court Judge Joseph R. Slights III is under seal, and attorney Bruce Hudson, who represents some of the plaintiffs, said there is a gag order in place, so he declined to discuss details. The court docket indicates the status was granted, but the document and any explanation or additional detail that may have been attached was closed from public view. Mr. Bradley is set to face a criminal trial in June in New Castle County Superior Court. It is not unusual for civil suits against a defendant to be put on hold or under seal until the criminal trial has concluded. Mr. Bradley is charged with molesting more than 100 of his patients at his Lewes-area office over a 10-year period, and investigators said Mr. Bradley documented many of those attacks on video. His medical license has been suspended and he remains incarcerated pending trial. A class-action certification will allow the judge to combine all the Bradley suits into one proceeding and treat them as a unit, rather than handling dozens of individual cases. The status may also make it easier for victims' families to join in the litigation and share in any damages award, without having to file separate lawsuits. Approximately 150 plaintiffs have filed suit against Mr. Bradley, as well as doctors and institutions associated with the case, who the plaintiffs say failed to warn state regulators and police about Mr. Bradley's unprofessional conduct. In the criminal case against Bradley, attorneys are awaiting a ruling from Judge William C. Carpenter about whether video evidence seized by police in a search of Mr. Bradley's office can be used at trial. EQT PRODUCTION: Request to Move Part of Class Action Denied ----------------------------------------------------------- Claire Galofaro, writing for TriCities.com, reports that in his first order in the sprawling class action lawsuits that accuse natural gas companies of stealing resources out from under coalfield landowners, U.S. District Judge James P. Jones denied the company's request to let the Virginia Supreme Court decide one suit's central question: whether the company is entitled to deduct the various costs of doing business from royalty payments to landowners. The order alone might mean millions of dollars to Southwest Virginia landowners, their attorney said. The class action, one of five pending against two of the state's most powerful natural gas companies, involves plaintiffs who voluntarily leased their gas to EQT Production Co. for one-eighth of the profits. For 20 years, the company has subtracted from those one-eighths royalties a portion of what it costs to transport the gas downstream, where it is collected, cleaned and compressed. Those costs showed up on payment stubs as general, unspecified deductions that were not explicitly allowed for by their leases. Don Barrett, a Mississippi-based attorney who leads the entourage of lawyers representing the landowners, estimates that for every $1,000 owed to his clients, $250 to $350 was deducted for post- production costs. In courtrooms across the country, there are basically two schools of thought on post-production deductions, though the issue remains unsettled by Virginia courts. The plaintiffs argue the "first marketable product rule" -- that the production company has an implied duty to turn the gas into a marketable commodity, thus the landowner should not shoulder the cost. On the other side of the debate, EQT says the sale price minus the cost of getting it there equals the value of the gas when it was sucked out of the coal seams, so the amount owed to the landowner. Both parties argued those points, along with many others, last fall before Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent. In January, she issued a 34-page opinion that on most points, including the issue of post-production costs, sided with the plaintiffs. In her opinion, Judge Sargent wrote that she believed Virginia courts would follow the "first marketable product rule," as other states have done, that holds the company "solely responsible for all costs making the gas produced from the well marketable unless . . . the parties specifically agree otherwise." In other words, unless the post-production deductions are clearly defined in the lease agreement, the company is not entitled to take them. Mr. Barrett said that opinion alone -- even without their other allegations that EQT sold to their affiliates at below-market prices, inflated the post-production deductions and underreported the amount of gas produced -- could mean "millions and millions and millions of dollars" for their clients. Last year, EQT settled a similar class action for $25 million. It, too, involved cost deductions from royalty payments. EQT responded to Judge Sargent's opinion with a fervent rejection, arguing that the company should not have to bear all of the costs of transporting the gas from the wellhead many miles downstream to the point of sale. The landowners should be compensated at the price the gas is worth at the wellhead, they argue, not what it's worth once the company has paid to enhance it. EQT filed a motion that the question be answered not by a federal judge who seemed to be leaning in an unfriendly direction, but by the Supreme Court of Virginia. In cases of weighty issues of state law, federal courts can certify specific questions to the Supreme Court if it is "determinative" in the pending case and has not yet been addressed by state courts. The plaintiffs filed in opposition to EQT's request for certification -- railing that the company simply didn't like the judge's decision and wanted a different audience. While post- production costs are an important point, they argued, it is not "determinative" in the suit, which would continue on even if the court ruled against them on the issue. U.S. District Judge James P. Jones, in his first order in the pending natural gas litigation, denied the motion for "judicial economy and efficiency." "Federal courts must routinely predict state law," he wrote, "and certifying the present question [to the Virginia Supreme Court] would add unnecessary expense and delay the case." Mr. Barrett described the order as a major victory for his clients. When he discusses the pending litigation, he cites Bible passages, namely Exodus 20:15. "Thou shalt not steal," he said on April 11, and that's precisely what they allege EQT did when subtracting unspecified costs from royalty payment. A spokesman for EQT did not return a message left on April 11. Both sides await Judge Jones' opinion on the remaining claims. Mr. Barrett said they won't know the exact size and scope of the class action until the court compels EQT to turn over facts and documents as the class actions make their way to jury trials. "EQT is going to have to honestly account to the court, and to the people of Southwest Virginia, for every dollar they have taken," he said. EQUITITRUST: May Face Class Action Over Income Fund --------------------------------------------------- Colin Kruger, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that Equititrust faces a potential class action from investors in its troubled Equititrust Income Fund after the Gold Coast mortgage fund operator ceased income distributions last week and flagged losses on unitholders' $200 million investment. Law firm Piper Alderman said it has received financial backing from a litigation funder to investigate potential claims by EIF unitholders. Piper Alderman partner Amanda Banton said "a litigation funder has agreed in principle to make funding available to unit holders to pursue a class action to recover what are anticipated to be substantial losses given the present financial position of EIF". The investigation is expected to look at potential claims against EIF's directors for allegedly breaching their statutory and fiduciary duties to the fund. This includes payments to Equititrust, as the fund's manager, which the law firm does not consider bona fide. In the second half of last year EIF paid Equititrust $4 million, leaving the fund with almost no cash by year's end. Also under investigation are possible unauthorized and imprudent investments. BusinessDay revealed this week that the fund was almost out of cash early this year when it asked NAB for a halt to repayments while it put forward a new debt proposal and considered a restructure. The company said it would offer an update on distributions within a month, and finalize valuations and unit pricing of the EIF and another fund under review -- the Equititrust Premium Fund -- within 90 days. HADERA PAPER: Unit Continues to Defend Plastic Bag-Related Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Hadera Paper Ltd.'s associated company, Hogla-Kimberly Ltd., continues to defend itself from a purported class action lawsuit alleging misrepresentation of biodegradable plastic bags, according to the Company's April 11, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. On June 15, 2010, a petition was filed against Hogla-Kimberly Ltd., an affiliated company (49.9%) and against another competitor company, for the approval of a class action. According to the petition, the Competitor and Hogla-Kimberly have misled the public by presenting plastic bags as oxo biodegradable and therefore environmentally friendly, while the products are breaking down into fragments. The plaintiff estimates the scope of the petition against Hogla-Kimberly, if approved as class action, to be approximately NIS 111 million. Hogla-Kimberly estimates, based on its legal advisors opinion, that at this stage the probability of the request for approval of a class action lawsuit will be approved is not higher than the probability that it will be rejected, therefore Hogla-Kimberly did not provide a provision at its financial statements for this petition. HARRY RUBINOFF: Sued for Chicago RLTO Violations ------------------------------------------------ Leo Shalman, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Harry W. Rubinoff, et al., Case No. 2011-CH-13490 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. April 11, 2011), alleges Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance Section 5-12-080 security deposit violations, including but not limited to defendants' failure to timely pay interest on tenant security deposits and defendants' failure to provide separate security deposit receipts; failure to tender an updated summary of the RLTO and the interest rate disclosure upon renewing or prospectively renewing their lease agreement; and failure to properly correct the defective, unsafe, unsanitary, and uninhabitable conditions at the property leased by plaintiff located at 1700 N. Northpark Avenue, in Chicago, Illinois, in which plaintiff was the tenant and defendants were the landlord. The plaintiff is represented by: Berton N. Ring, Esq. BERTON N. RING, P.C. 123 West Madison Street, 15th Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 781-0290 HUFFINGTON POST: Faces Class Action Over Writers' Unpaid Work ------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Kahn at Courthouse News Service reports that in a federal class action, a former head of the National Writers Union sued AOL and the Huffington Post for $105 million, claiming the Web site derived at least that much value from writers' unpaid work in its recent sale to AOL for $315 million. Lead plaintiff Jonathan Tasini says TheHuffingtonPost.com has posted links to 216 of his articles, for which the defendants did not pay him a dime. Mr. Tasini also sued Arianna Huffington and Kenneth Lerer, co-founders of the Web site. Mr. Tasini was head of the National Writers Union (United Auto Workers Local 1981) from 1990 to 2003, he says in his 38-page complaint. He also was lead plaintiff in Tasini v. The New York Times, which he describes as "the landmark electronic rights case that addressed the scope of copyrights belonging to thousands of freelance authors. Mr. Tasini won that case on behalf of himself and a class of copyright holders at the United States Supreme Court." Mr. Tasini says he has written four books and hundreds of articles for major magazines and newspapers, including The New York Times Magazine, The Atlantic, and The Wall Street Journal. They all pay him for it, he says. But according to his complaint: "TheHuffingtonPost.com has been unjustly enriched by engaging in and continuing to engage in the practice of generating enormous profits by luring carefully-vetted contributors, with the prospect of 'exposure' (which TheHuffingtonPost.com deceptively fails to verify), to provide valuable content at no cost to TheHuffingtonPost.com, while reaping the entirety of the financial gain derived from such content. "Due to the valuable and uncompensated efforts of plaintiff and the classes, the cost of high quality content at the TheHuffingtonPost.com was, and continues to be, extremely low, making TheHuffingtonPost.com an extremely valuable internet property. As set forth below, when TheHuffingtonPost.com was recently acquired by AOL for $315 million, the value added by the content provided by plaintiff and the classes to TheHuffingtonPost.com's price was at least $105 million, none of which was shared with plaintiff and the classes. "The injustice experienced by plaintiff and the classes is compounded by the fact that plaintiff and the classes were selected, and in some cases sought, by defendants because of their ability to produce high quality, engaging, content for the TheHuffingtonPost.com. The content provided by the plaintiff and the classes drove, and continues to drive, internet traffic to TheHuffingtonPost.com, creating revenue for that enterprise, none of which is shared with plaintiff and the classes. Moreover, plaintiff and the classes were, and continue to be, asked to drive internet traffic to TheHuffingtonPost.com by using social networking media and to advise internet users of the valuable content they provided to TheHuffingtonPost.com, and by so doing increase internet traffic to TheHuffingtonPost.com. "Finally, and perhaps most importantly, TheHuffingtonPost.com's continued assertion that it, alone, should be enriched by the valuable content provided by plaintiff and the classes has the broad detrimental effect of setting an artificially low price for the valuable digital content created by plaintiff and the classes, depressing the market for such content and, over the long term, having a serious depressing effect on the value of intellectual content being created by plaintiff and the classes and on the ability of plaintiff and the classes to support themselves as creators of high quality, engaging, digital content. According to Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, the purpose of copyright is 'to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts' by allowing creators to be appropriately compensated for their contributions. Yet, despite our founders' intent, TheHuffingtonPost.com continues to assert that it, alone, should be enriched by the valuable content provided by plaintiff and the classes. "As set forth within, this action is instituted in accordance with and to remedy defendants' inequitable, unfair, unlawful and unjust gain at the expense of the plaintiff and the classes. Plaintiff and the classes bring this action both individually and as a class action to recover damages and to enjoin defendants' unlawful conduct as it affects the classes. "Defendants' mistreatment of plaintiff and the classes was in fact indiscriminate, occurring in the regular course of Defendants' business throughout the United States and Canada, whereby plaintiff and the classes were treated in the same general manner by defendants." Mr. Tasini says the Huffington Post has posted links to 216 of his articles, which he cites, and on which he says he worked for 1 to 10 hours apiece. Yet, "Despite the fact that the 216 pieces of content listed above generated revenue for TheHuffingtonPost.com, Mr. Tasini has never been compensated by TheHuffingtonPost.com." Mr. Tasini seeks class certification, statutory or treble damages for deceptive business practices and unjust enrichment, "but not less than $105 million," plus costs. He is represented by: Jeffrey Mead Kurzon, Esq. Jesse Strauss, Esq. KURZON STRAUSS LLP 305 Broadway, 9th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 822-1496 E-mail: jeff@kurzonstrauss.com jesse@kurzonstrauss.com INTEGRITY LAND: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Practices ----------------------------------------------------------- Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims Integrity Land Title Co. charges for services it does not perform. Lead plaintiff Vivian Hayes says Integrity charges fees for filing releases of mortgages that are satisfied with proceeds derived from real estate closings. "The releases are supposed to be filed with the city or county in which the real property is located," the complaint states. "In most instances, however, Integrity does not file the releases and simply retains the money as ill-gotten profit." The class consists of anybody who was charged fees by Integrity in a real estate transaction in Missouri from April 2001 to the time notice was given to class members, who were charged for a release of their mortgage and on whose behalf Integrity did not record the release. The class is wants Integrity enjoined from charging such fees, disgorgement and damages. A copy of the Complaint in Hayes v. Integrity Land Title Company, Inc., Case No. 11SL-0001429 (Mo. Cir. Ct., St. Louis Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/12/Integrity.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Wilkins, Esq. Eric Holland, Esq. Steven Stolze, Esq. HOLLAND, GROVES, SCHNELLER & STOLZE LLC 300 N. Tucker, Suite 801 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-8111 E-mail: kwilkins@allfela.com JP MORGAN: AFTRA Retirement Board Files Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Handel, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that the board of trustees of AFTRA's retirement plan, in conjunction with two other retirement/pension plans, filed a class action suit against JP Morgan Chase, alleging that the bank left a half- billion dollars of client money in a "structured investment vehicle" called Sigma even as the bank was expressing doubts at the highest levels about the safety of the client transaction. Meanwhile, the bank itself lent money to Sigma, but under terms that would allow it to profit if the company failed, according to the plaintiffs. Sigma ultimately did collapse, and the investors were left with assets worth six cents on the dollar, the suit contends, while JP Morgan Chase made profits of more than $1.9 billion on the deal. The suit, filed two years ago in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, was brought to wide public notice Monday by the New York Times, which reported on detailed documents unsealed in the suit last month. The amount lost by AFTRA's retirement plan was $2 million to $3 million, according to a source with knowledge of the matter. That's only around a tenth of a percent of the plan's total assets of about $2 billion, said the source, who declined to be identified. Nonetheless, the plan, which is frequently asked to be lead plaintiff in class actions, decided to do so in this instance even though it more often elects not to. The suit is being handled by lawyers on a contingent-fee basis. The Plan, like most or all of the Hollywood union pension and health plans, is governed by a board with equal representation from management and labor. Each of the pension/retirement and health plans are legally separate entities from the related union, with separate staff and offices. Telephone calls and emails to AFTRA, the Plan and its lawyers, and JP Morgan Chase were not immediately returned. The Plan's suit alleges that the bank breached its fiduciary duty to its clients. The bank disagrees, arguing that the two halves of its business -- investing client money versus lending its own money -- are maintained on opposite sides of an "information wall" (often referred to as a Chinese wall or firewall) and that the lending business has no fiduciary duty to clients of the investment operation. A finding of fiduciary duty, says the bank, would make it impossible for the bank to lend money or conduct other activities, such as issuing research reports, without subjecting the bank to liability. Steve Diamond, a professor at Santa Clara law school and observer of Hollywood labor matters, criticized AFTRA itself, asking on his blog "when [AFTRA] was approached by the bank about dumping millions of dollars of actors' money into an offshore tax haven, did it consider the risks sufficiently?" A source countered that the same type of transaction -- known as "securities lending" -- had made money for the Plan in the past, and was just a small piece of a diversified portfolio of various types of stocks, bonds and "alternative investments" including commercial real estate partnerships. Plan investments are made by some 20 or so money managers who specialize in different types of investments, and it is not clear that the Plan's board would have been asked to approve the investment in the JP Morgan Chase securities lending program, let alone the transaction with Sigma. The latter appears to be only one of a number of securities lending transactions made through JP Morgan Chase. The money managers are selected by the plan in consultation with outside counsel based on the managers' investment philosophy and track records. The managers have discretion in making investments within specified parameters. The Plan holds investments in at least 1000 different companies, according to the source, and a smaller number of alternative investments, which is the category into which the Sigma investment falls. A source argued that the transaction was not particularly risky, but also noted that the AFTRA Plan no longer permits its money managers to engage in securities lending on its behalf. ROTHMAN FURNITURE: Sued in Ill. Over Deceptive Business Practice ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that Rothman Furniture Stores didn't deliver on its offer of free gasoline and free groceries, a class action claims in St. Clair County Court. Named plaintiff William Wiley says he bought more than $900 worth of furniture from Rothman during the promotion in February 2009. A Rothman radio commercial stated that customers who bought $600 worth of furniture would get $600 in free gasoline and customers who spent $600 more would also get $600 in free groceries, according to the complaint. Mr. Wiley says he asked for the free gas and groceries and filled out paperwork to enroll in the program. The program required him to submit monthly gas and grocery receipts for more than $100, after which Mr. Wiley would receive two $25 debit cards each month for 24 months, the complaint states. But Mr. Wiley says he is still waiting for the debit cards. The class consists of all consumers who bought furniture in Rothman's Illinois stores during the promotion and did not receive the debit cards. It seeks punitive damages for violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. A copy of the Complaint in Wiley v. Rothman Furniture Stores, Inc., Case No. 11L171 (Ill. Cir. Ct., St. Clair County), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/12/Rothman.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: David T. Butsch, Esq. James J. Simeri, Esq. Matthew R. Fields, Esq. BUTSCH SIMERI FIELDS LLC 231 South Bemiston Ave., Suite 260 Clayton, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 863-5700 E-mail: butsch@bslawfirm.com simeri@bslawfirm.com fields@bslawfirm.com SECURITIES AMERICA: Settles Investor Class Action for $150-Mil. --------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph A. Giannone, writing for Reuters, reports that Ameriprise Financial and its brokerage unit, Securities America Inc., have agreed to pay about $150 million to clients who lost about $400 million on private placements that turned out to be frauds. Omaha-based Securities America notified lawyers on April 12 that a preliminary agreement had been reached that would settle a class- action lawsuit and dozens of individual investor arbitration cases, lawyers involved in the talks told Reuters. Daniel Girard of San Francisco-based Girard Gibbs confirmed there was an agreement in principle to settle the class action suit for $80 million. Securities America separately agreed to pay $70 million to investors currently pursuing claims in industry arbitration, lawyers who had been contacted by the brokerage said. The lawyers asked not to be identified because the settlement is still pending. The deal translates roughly to a recovery rate of 40 cents on the dollar, net of fees. Because Securities America has very little net capital, the lion's share of the payment will be made by Ameriprise. Lawyers involved with the case expect investors will receive payments in the fall. Lawyers for Securities America told lawyers for the plaintiffs that a sufficient number clients had agreed to settlement terms struck in mediation sessions last month. Ameriprise wants to be sure that a majority of clients do not opt out of a deal and pursue their own cases. Ameriprise spokesman Ben Pratt declined to comment. HUNDREDS LOST MONEY The next step, lawyers said, would be to get approval for the new agreement from Dallas Federal Court Judge Royal Furgeson, who last month threw out a $21 million class action agreement struck by Girard and Securities America. SKINDER-STRAUSS: Fax Spam Suit Granted Federal Jurisdiction ----------------------------------------------------------- Chris Fry at Courthouse News Service reports that in a hairsplitting decision, a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted federal jurisdiction to a $5 million class action lawsuit over fax spam. Three New Jersey federal judges had dismissed the separate suits, now consolidated on appeal, after finding that Congress intended for such claims to be brought in state court. Lead plaintiffs Landsman & Funk and Goodrich Management say that their New York or New Jersey offices have received more than 10,000 unsolicited fax advertisements from three companies in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Thousands of others throughout the country are in the same position, according to the plaintiffs' three original complaints. Goodrich is the lead plaintiff in two of the suits. When Congress enacted the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, it included a provision for private causes of action that allows consumers to seek relief in state courts. But in simply enabling state enforcement, the law does not strip District Courts from exercising diversity jurisdiction, Judge Marjorie Rendell wrote for the majority of a three-judge panel. Under the diversity jurisdiction doctrine, federal courts are endowed with the right to hear civil cases involving parties of diverse citizenship. Ordinarily, private citizens suing under the act achieve maximum damages awards of $500 -- far short of the minimum $75,000 statutory damages to justify a federal cause of action -- but the plaintiffs vault this obstacle by exceeding the $5 million requirement to file as a class, the April 4 decision states. "We have little doubt that in designing a statute to provide relief to aggrieved recipients of unsolicited faxes, Congress expected that these individuals would sue in state court and did not want federal court to be bothered with their claims," Judge Rendell wrote. But precedent dictates that legislators' inability to foresee the situation at hand does not in itself bar jurisdiction. "Its failure to anticipate this circumstance does not signal or predict its intent now that the circumstance has arisen," Judge Rendell continued. "To conclude otherwise is to enter the realm of speculation. We would prefer to let Congress speak for itself. As it stands, the TCPA does not direct us to treat diversity jurisdiction any differently than we normally would, and the litigants present no argument for why we should disrupt the standard premise that a federal forum is available for completely diverse parties where the amount in controversy is $75,000 or more and for minimally diverse parties where the amount is $5 million or more." In vacating the lower courts' dismissal orders, the majority noted that "a more robust record must be developed here as to the precise nature of the class claims." Judge Leonard Garth dissented from the panel, saying he would affirm the dismissal of all three complaints as there is no federal question jurisdiction and no diversity jurisdiction. "It is evident that the Senate was keenly aware of both state and Federal jurisdictions, and had both in mind when it sorted them out for defined purposes: A consumer's private right of action had to be brought in state court; a State's cause of action had to be brought in Federal court," Judge Garth wrote. "What could be plainer or more unambiguous?" A copy of the Opinion of the Court in Landsman & Funk PC v. Skinder-Strauss Associates, et al., Case No. 09-cv-03105, Goodrich Management Corp. v. Afgo Mechanical Services Inc., Case No. 09-cv-03532, and in Goodrich Management Corp. v. Flierwire Inc., Case No. 09-cv-03793 (3rd Cir.), is available at: http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/093105p.pdf The Appellants were represented by: Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq. BELLIN & ASSOCIATES 85 Miles Avenue White Plains, NY 10606 Tel: 914-358-5345 E-mail: Aytan.Bellin@bellinlaw.com Skinder Strauss Associates was represented by: Michael R. McDonald, Esq. Damian V. Santomauro, Esq. GIBBONS P.C. One Gateway Center Newark, NJ 07102-5310 Tel: 973-596-4473 Fax: 973-639-8364 E-mail: mmcdonald@gibbonslaw.com dsantomauro@gibbonslaw.com Afgo Mechanical Services Inc. was represented by: Louis A. Bove, I, Esq. Jay M. Green, Esq. BODELL, BOVE GRACE & VAN HORN 30 South 15th Street One Penn Square West, 6th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Tel: 215-864-6602 Fax: 215-864-6610 E-Mail: lbove@bodellbove.com jgreen@bodellbove.com - and - Kristin Hitsous, Esq. ROSABIANCA & ASSOCIATES 14 Wall Street, 20th Floor New York, NY 10005 Tel: 212-269-7722 Fax: 212-269-7799 Email: kristin@rosabiancalaw.com Flierwire Inc. was represented by: David J. Bloch, Esq. L'ABBATE, BALKAN, COLAVITA & CONTINI 7 Regent Street, Suite 711 Livingston, NJ 07039 Tel: (973) 422-0422 Fax: (973) 422-0420 E-mail: DBloch@lbcclaw.com STERLING BANCSHARES: Being Sold for Too Little, Tex. Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Sterling Bancshares is selling itself too cheaply through an unfair process to Comerica Bank, in a 1-for-0.2365-share, $1 billion stock swap, shareholders say. A copy of the Complaint in Stockton v. Bird, et al., Case No. 2011-21925 (Tex. Dist. Ct., Harris Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/12/SCA.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel W. Jackson, Esq. EMMONS & JACKSON, P.C. 3900 Essex Lane, Suite 1116 Houston, TX 77027 Telephone: (713) 522-4435 E-mail: daniel@emmonsjackson.com - and - Joseph Levi, Esq. Eric M. Andersen, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 30 Broad Street, 15th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 E-mail: jlevi@zlk.com eandersen@zlk.com - and - Stephen J. Oddo, Esq. ROBBINS UMEDA LLP 600 B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 525-3990 E-mail: soddo@robbinsumeda.com SYNGENTA CROP: Plaintiff Seeks JTA Documents in Atrazine Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports that lead plaintiff Holiday Shores Sanitary District has asked Madison County Circuit Judge William Mudge to order defendant Syngenta Crop Protection Inc. to turn over documents related to Chicago public relations firm Jayne Thompson & Associates that it claims are not privileged. Judge Mudge has taken the documents at issue for an in camera review in the weeks leading up to a May 6 evidentiary hearing on the question of when Syngenta retained an expert witness through the public relations firm. JTA's role in the litigation surrounding Syngenta's weed killer atrazine has come into focus in recent discovery disputes including one discussed at a March 30 hearing. Holiday Shores on April 7 filed its memorandum concerning Judge Mudge's in camera review of the JTA documents held by Syngenta. Holiday Shores filed six proposed class actions in 2004 against Syngenta and the other makers and distributors of atrazine. Proposing to lead a class of water providers and municipalities, Holiday Shores claims that atrazine runs off farm fields into drinking water supplies that the plaintiffs must then remediate. The six Madison County cases sparked a nearly identical federal class action led by the City of Greenville, Ill. in the United States District Court for Southern Illinois. Neither the Madison County classes nor the Greenville multi-state class have been certified to date. The Holiday Shores suit against Syngenta has been bogged down in discovery disputes since the beginning of the year. The most heated of the recent disputes centers on when Syngenta retained University of Chicago professor Don Coursey to study the economic impact of an atrazine ban and to act as a consulting expert witness. Documents released in February by the University of Chicago indicated that Mr. Coursey was not formerly retained until January 2009. The court's previous understanding of the retention date was that Syngenta hired Mr. Coursey in 2006. Syngenta had claimed privilege over Mr. Coursey's work from 2006 to the present until the 2009 date came to light. Holiday Shores, represented by attorney Stephen Tillery, has moved for sanctions against Syngenta in relation to the retention date matter. JTA's role in the dispute was touched on several times during the March 30 hearing. In the April 7 filing, Holiday Shores contends that Syngenta can't claim privilege to JTA's work because it cannot prove that the public relations firm was hired to work actively on the litigation itself. "In light of the documents that Dr. Coursey belatedly produced after Plaintiffs filed their motion for an evidentiary hearing, it is apparent that JTA merely orchestrated a public relations campaign designed to generate negative publicity toward this lawsuit -- a campaign centered on creating and publicizing alarmist 'economic studies,'" the plaintiffs' memorandum states. "Plaintiffs have not seen and Syngenta has not produced any evidence indicating that JTA advised Syngenta's attorneys on litigation strategy." The plaintiffs also contend that JTA's work does not contain protected legal opinions and that Syngenta itself made an issue of JTA's work in connection with when it claims to have hired Coursey. The plaintiffs go on to ask Judge Mudge to order Syngenta to immediately produce an unredacted copy of JTA's 2005 proposal related to its work on the atrazine class action. Kurtis Reeg and others represent Syngenta. C. Raymond Bell represents Coursey. JTA does not have representation listed in the suit currently. Madelyn Lamb and others represent Coursey's employer, the University of Chicago. The case is Madison case number 04-L-710. The atrazine cases are case numbers 04-L-708 to 04-L-713. VOLVO CARS: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Class Action Over Sunroof -------------------------------------------------------------- Reuben Kramer at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge declined to dismiss a putative class action that says Volvo manufactured cars with allegedly defective "sunroof drainage systems." This purported defect lets water enter the passenger compartment and soak floor mats, the proposed class of Volvo owners claim. Volvo Cars of North America and Volvo Car Corporation claimed it would be impossible for plaintiffs to ever obtain class certification, which would entail plaintiffs proving that every potential class member suffered water damage due to the alleged defect. But in a six-page opinion filed on April 11, U.S. District Judge Dennis Cavanaugh found that plaintiffs have yet to even request such certification. "To disallow certification before it has even been requested seems to the Court like putting the cart before the horse," the judge ruled. A copy of the Opinion in Neal, et al. v. Volvo Cars of North America, LLC, et al., Case No. 10-cv-04407 (D. N.J.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/12/volvoopinion.pdf Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS ALERT: Global Power Named a Defendant in Injury Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Global Power Equipment Group, Inc. has been named as a defendant in a limited number of asbestos personal injury lawsuits, according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2011. Neither the Company nor its predecessors ever mined, manufactured, produced or distributed asbestos fiber, the material that allegedly caused the injury underlying these actions. The bankruptcy court's discharge order issued upon emergence from bankruptcy extinguished the claims made by all plaintiffs who had filed asbestos claims against the Company before that time. COMPANY PROFILE: Global Power Equipment Group Inc. 5199 N. Mingo Road Tulsa, Okla. 74117 Phone No.: (918) 488-0828 Description: The Company is a comprehensive provider of power generation equipment and maintenance services for customers in the domestic and international energy, power infrastructure and service industries. ASBESTOS UPDATE: TOTAL S.A. Subject to Asbestos Exposure Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Like many other industrial groups, TOTAL S.A. is affected by reports of occupational diseases caused by asbestos exposure, according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2011. The circumstances described in these reports generally concern activities prior to the beginning of the 1980s, long before the adoption of more comprehensive bans on the new installation of asbestos-containing products in most of the countries where the Company operates (Jan. 1, 1997, in France). The Company's various businesses are not particularly likely to lead to significant exposure to asbestos-related risks, since this material was generally not used in manufacturing processes, except in limited cases. The main potential sources of exposure are related to the use of certain insulating components in industrial equipment. These components are being gradually eliminated from the Company's equipment through asbestos-elimination plans that have been underway for several years. However, considering the long period of time that may elapse before the harmful results of exposure to asbestos arise (up to 40 years), the Company anticipates that other reports may be filed in the years to come. Asbestos-related issues have been subject to close monitoring in all the Company's business units. TOTAL S.A., which is an integrated oil company, explores for, develops, and produces crude oil and natural gas; refines and markets oil; and trades and transports both crude and finished products. The Company is based in Courbevoie, France. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Premix-Marbletite Subject to 22 Exposure Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Imperial Industries, Inc.'s subsidiary, Premix-Marbletite Manufacturing Co., is a defendant together with non-affiliated parties in 22 asbestos claims (12 of which include the Company as a defendant). The claims allege bodily injury due to exposure to asbestos contained in products manufactured in excess of 30 years ago. The Company has identified at least 10 of its prior insurance carriers including both primary and excess/umbrella liability carriers that have provided liability coverage to the Company, including potential coverage for alleged injuries relating to asbestos exposure. Several of these insurance carriers have been and continue to provide a defense to Premix and the Company under a reservation of rights in all of the asbestos cases. Certain of these underlying insurance carriers have denied coverage to Premix and the Company on the basis that certain exclusions preclude coverage and/or that their policies have been exhausted. In June 2009, one such carrier filed suit in Miami-Dade Circuit Court against Premix and the Company, wherein the carrier sought a declaration from the Court that its insurance policies do not provide coverage for the asbestos claims against Premix and the Company. The carrier also asserted a claim for reimbursement of defense costs and indemnity payments that it voluntarily made on the Company's behalf in prior asbestos claims. The Company filed a counterclaim against the carrier for breach of contract, and also asserted claims for damages and attorneys' fees as a result of the carriers' unlawful denial of coverage. In December 2010, Premix, the Company and this carrier resolved their dispute, with the carrier paying a settlement to Premix and the Company. As part of the settlement, there is no longer additional coverage under the disputed policy. During the first quarter of 2011, the Company resolved a dispute with another carrier regarding primary-layer insurance coverage, which also resulted in this carrier paying a settlement to Premix and the Company. Imperial Industries, Inc. manufactures and distributes building materials through its wholly owned subsidiary, Premix-Marbletite Manufacturing Co. to building materials dealers and others located primarily in Florida, and to a lesser extent, other states in the Southeastern United States. The Company is based in Pompano Beach, Fla. ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Settles 2 Claims, Cases at Feb. 26 --------------------------------------------------------------- H.B. Fuller Company settled two asbestos lawsuits and claims during the 13 weeks ended Feb. 26, 2011 and the 13 weeks ended Feb. 28, 2010, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission March 28, 2011. The Company settled four asbestos-related lawsuits and claims during the year ended Nov. 27, 2010, compared with seven lawsuits and claims during the year ended Nov. 27, 2010. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 24, 2011) The Company has been named as a defendant in lawsuits in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to products containing asbestos manufactured more than 25 years ago. The plaintiffs generally bring these lawsuits against multiple defendants and seek damages (both actual and punitive) in very large amounts. In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable injuries or that the injuries suffered were the result of exposure to products manufactured by the Company, which is typically dismissed as a defendant in such cases without payment. Historically, insurers have paid a significant portion of the Company's defense costs and settlements in asbestos-related litigation. However, certain of its insurers are insolvent. The Company has entered into cost-sharing agreements with its insurers that provide for the allocation of defense costs and, in some cases, settlements and judgments, in asbestos-related lawsuits. Under these agreements, the Company is required in some cases to fund a share of settlements and judgments allocable to years in which the responsible insurer is insolvent. In addition, to delineate its rights under certain insurance policies, in October 2009, the Company commenced a declaratory judgment action against one of its insurers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. Additional insurers have been brought into the action to address issues related to the scope of their coverage. The lawsuit is in its early stages. H.B. Fuller Company is a worldwide formulator, manufacturer and marketer of adhesives, sealants, paints and other specialty chemical products. Sales operations span 39 countries in North America, Europe, Latin America, the Asia Pacific region, India, the Middle East, and Africa. The Company is based in St. Paul, Minn. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Penn Miller Posts $2.36MM Liability at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Penn Miller Holding Corporation's estimated liability for asbestos and environmental claims was US$2,363,000 at Dec. 31, 2010 and US$2,397,000 at Dec. 31, 2009. A substantial portion of such liability results from the Company's participation in assumed reinsurance pools, according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2011. Penn Miller Holding Corporation provides various property and casualty insurance products designed to meet the insurance needs of certain segments of the agricultural industry and the needs of small and middle market commercial businesses. The Company is based in Wilkes-Barre, Pa. ASBESTOS UPDATE: J.C. Penney Has $37MM A&E Liability at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- J. C. Penney Company, Inc., as of Jan. 29, 2011, estimated its total potential environmental liabilities to range from US$36 million to US$42 million and recorded its best estimate of US$37 million in other liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of that date. This estimate covered potential liabilities primarily related to underground storage tanks, remediation of environmental conditions involving the Company's former drugstore locations and asbestos removal in connection with approved plans to renovate or dispose of its facilities. The Company continues to assess required remediation and the adequacy of environmental reserves as new information becomes available and known conditions are further delineated. J. C. Penney Company, Inc. is a major retailer, operating 1,106 department stores in 49 states and Puerto Rico as of Jan. 29, 2011. Its business consists of selling merchandise and services to consumers through its department stores and through the Internet Web site at jcp.com. The Company is based in Plano, Tex. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aviva plc Units Subject to Asbestos Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- Various companies within Aviva plc receive general insurance liability claims, and become involved in actual or threatened related litigation in respect of asbestos production and handling in various jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, Ireland, the Netherlands and Canada. Given the significant delays that are experienced in the notification of these claims, the potential number of incidents, which they cover and the uncertainties associated with establishing liability and the availability of reinsurance, the ultimate cost cannot be determined with certainty. Aviva plc offers both life and general insurance. Its long-term savings segment focuses on life insurance, pensions, unit trusts, and other products; its general insurance segment includes the stuff which is called "non-life" or "property/casualty" elsewhere: home, auto, and fire coverage. The Company is based in London. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land, D/C Subject to Exposure Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kaanapali Land, LLC and subsidiary D/C Distribution Corporation have been named as defendants in personal injury actions allegedly based on exposure to asbestos. While there are only a few such cases that name the Company, there are a substantial number of cases that are pending against D/C on the U.S. mainland (primarily in California). Cases against the Company are allegedly based on its prior business operations in Hawaii and cases against D/C are allegedly based on the sale of asbestos-containing products by D/C's prior distribution business operations primarily in California. On Feb. 15, 2005, D/C was served with a lawsuit entitled American & Foreign Insurance Company v. D/C Distribution and Amfac Corporation, Case No. 04433669 filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco, Central Justice Center. In the eight-count complaint for declaratory relief, reimbursement and recoupment of unspecified amounts, costs and for such other relief as the court might grant, plaintiff alleged that it is an insurance company to whom D/C tendered for defense and indemnity various personal injury lawsuits allegedly based on exposure to asbestos containing products. Plaintiff alleged that because none of the parties have been able to produce a copy of the policy or policies in question, a judicial determination of the material terms of the missing policy or policies is needed. Plaintiff sought a declaration: of the material terms, rights, and obligations of the parties under the terms of the policy or policies; that the policies were exhausted; that plaintiff is not obligated to reimburse D/C for its attorneys' fees in that the amounts of attorneys' fees incurred by D/C have been incurred unreasonably; that plaintiff was entitled to recoupment and reimbursement of some or all of the amounts it has paid for defense and/or indemnity; and that D/C breached its obligation of cooperation with plaintiff. D/C filed an answer and an amended cross-claim. In order to fund such action and its other ongoing obligations while such lawsuit continued, D/C entered into a Loan Agreement and Security Agreement with the Company, in August 2006, whereby the Company provided certain advances against a promissory note delivered by D/C in return for a security interest in any D/C insurance policy at issue in this lawsuit. In June 2007, the parties settled this lawsuit with payment by plaintiffs in the amount of US$1.6 million. Such settlement amount was paid to the Company in partial satisfaction of the secured indebtedness. Because D/C was substantially without assets and was unable to obtain additional sources of capital to satisfy its liabilities, D/C filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Illinois, its voluntary petition for liquidation under Chapter 7 of Title 11, U.S. Bankruptcy Code during July 2007, Case No. 07- 12776. The deadline for filing proofs of claim against D/C with the bankruptcy court passed in October 2008. Prior to the deadline, the Company Land filed claims that aggregated about US$26.8 million, relating to both secured and unsecured intercompany debts owed by D/C to the Company. In addition, a personal injury law firm based in San Francisco that represents clients with asbestos-related claims, filed proofs of claim on behalf of about 700 claimants. Kaanapali Land, LLC operates in two primary business segments: Property and Agriculture. The Company operates through a number of subsidiaries. The Company is based in Chicago. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 201 Lawsuits Pending v. Entrx Corp. at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Entrx Corporation faced 201 pending asbestos cases during the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with 239 pending cases during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2011. Prior to 1975, the Company sold and installed asbestos-related insulation materials, which has resulted in numerous claims of personal injury allegedly related to asbestos exposure. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, the Company recorded 142 new cases filed, 125 defense judgments and dismissals, 55 plaintiff judgments and settled cases, and 180 total resolved cases. The Company recorded US$3,617,000 total indemnity payments, US$65,764 in average indemnity paid on plaintiff judgments and settled cases, and US$20,094 in average indemnity paid on all resolved cases. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded 188 new cases filed, 168 defense judgments and dismissals, 52 plaintiff judgments and settled cases, and 220 total resolved cases. The Company recorded US$5,345,000 total indemnity payments, US$102,788 in average indemnity paid on plaintiff judgments and settled cases, and US$24,295 in average indemnity paid on all resolved cases. The Company estimates that there will be 832 asbestos-related injury claims made against the Company after Dec. 31, 2010. The 832, in addition to the 201 claims existing as of Dec. 31, 2010, totals 1,033 current and future claims. As of Dec. 31, 2010, the Company projects that about 121 new asbestos-related claims will be commenced and about 152 cases will be resolved in 2011, resulting in an estimated 170 cases pending at Dec. 31, 2011. Entrx Corporation provides insulation installation, maintenance and removal services, and asbestos abatement services, primarily on the West Coast. The Company provides these services through Metalclad Insulation Corporation to a wide range of industrial, commercial and public agency clients. The Company is based in Minneapolis. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Entrx Corp. Still Faces ACE Coverage Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Entrx Corporation, since Feb. 23, 2005, has been involved a declaratory relief lawsuit filed by ACE Property & Casualty Company, Central National Insurance Company of Omaha and Industrial Underwriters Insurance Company. The case was filed against Company subsidiary Metalclad Insulation Corporation and a number of Metalclad's other liability insurers, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. ACE, Central National and Industrial issued umbrella and excess policies to Metalclad, which has sought and obtained from the plaintiffs both defense and indemnity under these policies for the asbestos lawsuits brought against Metalclad during the last four to five years. The ACE Lawsuit seeks declarations regarding a variety of coverage issues, but is centrally focused on issues involving whether historical and currently pending asbestos lawsuits brought against Metalclad are subject to either an "aggregate" limits of liability or separate "per occurrence" limits of liability. The ACE Lawsuit also seeks to determine the effect of the settlement agreement between the Company and Allstate Insurance Company on the insurance obligations of various other insurers of Metalclad, and the effect of an "asbestos exclusion" provision in the Allstate policy. The ACE Lawsuit does not seek any monetary recovery from Metalclad. In addition, the ACE Lawsuit may result in the Company incurring costs in connection with obligations it may have to indemnify Allstate under a settlement agreement. Allstate, in a cross- complaint filed against Metalclad Insulation Corporation in October 2005, asked the court to determine the Company's obligation to assume and pay for the defense of Allstate in the ACE Lawsuit under the Company's indemnification obligations in the settlement agreement. If Allstate is required to provide indemnity for the Company's asbestos-related lawsuits, it is likely that the Company would have to indemnify Allstate for asbestos-related claims that it defends up to US$2,500,000 in the aggregate. If Allstate is not required to provide indemnity, the Company would have no liability to Allstate. The Company has accrued US$375,000 as a potential loss in connection with the Allstate matter. Entrx Corporation provides insulation installation, maintenance and removal services, and asbestos abatement services, primarily on the West Coast. The Company provides these services through Metalclad Insulation Corporation to a wide range of industrial, commercial and public agency clients. The Company is based in Minneapolis. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Entrx Corp. Records $39MM for Claims at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Entrx Corporation's reserve for asbestos liability claims was US$39 million as of Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$44 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2011. Entrx Corporation provides insulation installation, maintenance and removal services, and asbestos abatement services, primarily on the West Coast. The Company provides these services through Metalclad Insulation Corporation to a wide range of industrial, commercial and public agency clients. The Company is based in Minneapolis. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pacific Office Posts $300T Liability at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The liability in Pacific Office Properties Trust, Inc.'s consolidated balance sheets for conditional asset retirement obligations related to asbestos removal was US$300,000 as of both Dec. 31, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2011. The accretion expense related to asbestos removal was US$20,000 for each of the years ended Dec. 31, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009. Pacific Office Properties Trust, Inc. is a self-administered and self-managed REIT that owns and operates primarily institutional- quality office properties principally in selected long-term growth markets in southern California and Hawaii. The Company is based in San Diego, Calif. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 11 Exposure Actions Still Ongoing v. Katy Ind. --------------------------------------------------------------- Katy Industries, Inc. has been named as a defendant in eleven asbestos lawsuits filed in state court in Alabama by a total of about 325 individual plaintiffs, according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2011. There are over 100 defendants named in each case. In all eleven cases, the Plaintiffs claim that they were exposed to asbestos in the course of their employment at a former U.S. Steel plant in Alabama and, as a result, contracted mesothelioma, asbestosis, lung cancer or other illness. They claim that while in the plant they were exposed to asbestos in products, which were manufactured by each defendant. In nine of the cases, Plaintiffs also assert wrongful death claims. Katy Industries, Inc. is a manufacturer, importer and distributor of commercial cleaning and storage products. The Company is based in Bridgeton, Mo. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Katy Ind. Cites 2,800 Tendered Sterling Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Katy Industries, Inc. says Sterling Fluid Systems (USA) has tendered about 2,800 asbestos cases pending in Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Illinois, Nevada, Mississippi, Wyoming, Louisiana, Georgia, Massachusetts, Missouri, Kentucky, California, South Carolina and Canada to the Company for defense and indemnification. With respect to one case, Sterling has demanded that the Company indemnify it for a US$200,000 settlement. Sterling bases its tender of the complaints on the provisions contained in a 1993 Purchase Agreement between the parties whereby Sterling purchased the LaBour Pump business and other assets from the Company. Sterling has not filed a lawsuit against the Company in connection with these matters. The tendered complaints all purport to state claims against Sterling and its subsidiaries. The Company and its current subsidiaries are not named as defendants. The plaintiffs in the cases also allege that they were exposed to asbestos and products containing asbestos in the course of their employment. Each complaint names as defendants many manufacturers of products containing asbestos, apparently because plaintiffs came into contact with a variety of different products in the course of their employment. Plaintiffs claim that LaBour Pump Company, a former division of an inactive subsidiary of the Company, and/or Sterling may have manufactured some of those products. With respect to many of the tendered complaints, including the one settled by Sterling for $200,000, the Company has taken the position that Sterling has waived its right to indemnity by failing to timely request it as required under the 1993 Purchase Agreement. With respect to the balance of the tendered complaints, the Company has elected not to assume the defense of Sterling in these matters. Katy Industries, Inc. is a manufacturer, importer and distributor of commercial cleaning and storage products. The Company is based in Bridgeton, Mo. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 90 LaBour Pump Company Cases Pending at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Katy Industries, Inc. says that there are about 90 asbestos cases concerning its former LaBour Pump Company, which remain active as of Dec. 31, 2010, according to the Company's annual report filed on March 31, 2011 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. LaBour Pump Company, a former division of an inactive subsidiary of the Company, has been named as a defendant in about 420 of the New Jersey cases tendered by Sterling. The Company has elected to defend these cases, the majority of which have been dismissed or settled for nominal sums. Katy Industries, Inc. is a manufacturer, importer and distributor of commercial cleaning and storage products. The Company is based in Bridgeton, Mo. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Seanergy Maritime Subject to Potential Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Seanergy Maritime Holdings Corp. may be, from time to time, involved in asbestos and other toxic tort claims, according to the Company's annual report, on Form 20-F, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2011. Seanergy Maritime Holdings Corp. is a shipping company with a fleet consisting of 20 dry bulk carriers: four Capesize, three Panamax, two Supramax, one Handymax, and 10 Handysize dry bulk carriers with a combined cargo-carry capacity of over 1.3 million dwt (dead weight tons). The Company is based in Athens, Greece. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Int'l. Shipholding Has $284T Reserve at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- International Shipholding Corporation's reserves for asbestos and hearing loss lawsuits were US$284,000 as of Dec. 31, 2010 and US$279,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009. The Company has been named as a defendant in numerous lawsuits claiming damages related to occupational diseases, primarily related to asbestos and hearing loss. International Shipholding Corporation operates a diversified fleet of U.S. and International Flag vessels that provide international and domestic maritime transportation services to commercial and governmental customers primarily under medium to long-term time charters or contracts of affreightment. As of March 3, 2011, the Company owned or operated 33 ocean-going vessels and had seven Newbuildings on order for future delivery. The Company is based in Mobile, Ala. ASBESTOS UPDATE: ABB Ltd Records $2MM Dec. 31 Asbestos Provision ---------------------------------------------------------------- ABB Ltd recorded asbestos provisions of US$2 million as of Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$53 million as of Dec. 31, 2009. The Company's Combustion Engineering Inc. subsidiary (CE) was a co-defendant in a large number of lawsuits claiming damage for personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos. A smaller number of claims were also brought against the Company's former Lummus subsidiary as well as against other entities of the Company. Separate plans of reorganization for CE and Lummus, as amended, were filed under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The CE plan of reorganization and the Lummus plan of reorganization (collectively, the Plans) became effective on April 21, 2006 and Aug. 31, 2006, respectively. The Company recorded cash expenditures of US$51 million as of Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$1 million as of Dec. 31, 2009. In December 2010, the Company made a payment of US$25 million (included in the US$51 million cash expenditures) to the CE Asbestos PI Trust and thereby discharged its remaining payment obligations to the CE Asbestos PI Trust. ABB Ltd engineers power and automation technologies for a broad base of utility, industrial, and commercial customers. Its lines run from robots to light switches. Power products include transmission and distribution components, as well as turnkey substation systems. The Company is based in Zurich, Switzerland. ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Auto Parts Unit Facing Exposure Lawsuits -------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc.'s subsidiary, Automotive Specialty Accessories and Parts (WAG) is a named defendant in several lawsuits involving claims for damages caused by installation of brakes during the late 1960s and early 1970s that contained asbestos. WAG marketed certain brakes, but did not manufacture any brakes. WAG maintained liability insurance coverage to protect its and the Company's assets from losses arising from the litigation and coverage is provided on an occurrence rather than a claims made basis, and the Company is not expected to incur significant out- of-pocket costs. U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc. is an online source for automotive aftermarket parts and repair information. The Company is based in Carson, Calif. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Met-Pro Corp. Has 93 Pending Cases at March 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- There were a total of 93 asbestos cases pending against Met-Pro Corporation (with a majority of those cases pending in New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Mississippi) as of March 17, 2011, as compared with 106 cases that were pending as of Jan. 31, 2010. Beginning in 2002, the Company began to be named in asbestos- related lawsuits filed against a large number of industrial companies including, in particular, those in the pump and fluid handling industries. The Company has been dismissed from or settled a large number of these cases. The sum total of all payments through March 17, 2011 to settle cases involving asbestos-related claims was US$616,500, all of which has been paid by the Company's insurers including legal expenses, except for corporate counsel expenses, with an average cost per settled claim, excluding legal fees, of about US$32,500. During the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2011, 59 new cases were filed against the Company, and the Company was dismissed from 74 cases and settled two cases. Most of the pending cases have not advanced beyond the early stages of discovery, although a number of cases are on schedules leading to, or are scheduled for trial. During the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2011, a rehabilitation order was entered against one of the Company's insurers, based upon its alleged insolvency. Met-Pro Corporation manufactures and sells product recovery and pollution control equipment for purification of air and liquids, fluid handling equipment for corrosive, abrasive and high temperature liquids, and filtration and purification products. The Company is based in Harleysville, Pa. ASBESTOS UPDATE: ING Groep Has EUR41MM for A&E Claims at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ING Groep N.V. had an outstanding balance of EUR41 million at Dec. 31, 2010 (2009: EUR42 million) relating to environmental and asbestos claims of the insurance operations, according to the Company's annual report, on Form 20-F, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2011. ING Groep N.V., an insurance and financial services company, is focused on its home Benelux market, as well as the rest of Europe, the Asia/Pacific region, and North America. Key products include life and non-life insurance, pensions, and retirement services. The Company is based in Amsterdam. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Arabian American Facing 2 Lawsuits in Jefferson ---------------------------------------------------------------- Arabian American Development Company is a defendant in two asbestos-related cases that are pending in Jefferson County, Tex. On Sept. 14, 2010, the Company received notice of a lawsuit filed in Jefferson County. The suit alleges that the plaintiff became ill from exposure to asbestos. There are about 44 defendants named in the suit. On Oct. 18, 2010, the Company received notice of another lawsuit filed in Jefferson County. The suit alleges that the plaintiff became ill from benzene exposure during his employment from 1970 to 2008 with Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, a customer of South Hampton. There are about seven defendants named in the suit. Arabian American Development Company's principal business activity is the manufacturing of various specialty petrochemical products. The Company is based in Sugar Land, Tex. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alcatel-Lucent Still Subject to Asbestos Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alcatel-Lucent is a defendant in various lawsuits, including matters like commercial disputes, claims regarding intellectual property, customer financing, product discontinuance, asbestos claims, labor, employment and benefit claims and others. No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the Company's annual report, on Form 20-F, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 21, 2011. Alcatel-Lucent supplies digital subscriber line (or DSL) technology. The Company also supplies communications products that deliver innovative voice and multimedia services across a variety of devices and converged networks. The Company is based in Paris. ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Biltrite Records $17.70MM Liabilities --------------------------------------------------------------- American Biltrite Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related liabilities were US$17,700,000 as of both Dec. 31, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 23, 2011. Long-term insurance for asbestos-related liabilities was US$16,746,000 as of both Dec. 31, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009. American Biltrite Inc.'s major operations include its Tape Division, its jewelry division K&M Associates L.P., and its Canadian division, which consists of American Biltrite (Canada). The Company is based in Wellesley Hills, Mass. ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Biltrite Faces 1,261 Claims at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- American Biltrite Inc. faced 1,261 asbestos-related claims at Dec. 31, 2010, compared with 1,193 claims at Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 23, 2011. The Company is a co-defendant with many other manufacturers and distributors of asbestos containing products in claims involving about 1,807 individuals as of Dec. 31, 2010. These claims relate to products of the Company's former tile division, which the Company contributed to Congoleum in 1993. At Dec. 31, 2010, the Company recorded 304 new claims, 29 settlements and 207 dismissals. At Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded 240 new claims, 25 settlements and 291 dismissals. American Biltrite Inc.'s major operations include its Tape Division, its jewelry division K&M Associates L.P., and its Canadian division, which consists of American Biltrite (Canada). The Company is based in Wellesley Hills, Mass. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaiser Ventures Subject to 12 Exposure Actions --------------------------------------------------------------- Kaiser Ventures LLC is currently subject to 12 active asbestos- related lawsuits, according to the Company's annual report filed on March 23, 2011 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. There are pending asbestos litigation claims, primarily bodily injury, against Kaiser LLC and Kaiser Steel Corporation (the bankruptcy estate of Kaiser Steel Corporation is embodied in KSC Recovery, Inc.). Many of the plaintiffs allege that they or their family members were aboard Kaiser ships or worked in shipyards in the Oakland/San Francisco, Calif., area or Vancouver, Wash., area in the 1940s and that the Company and/or KSC Recovery were in some manner associated with one or more shipyards or has successor liability. However, about half of the current claim relate to other facilities such as the former Kaiser Steel Mill Site Property. Most of these lawsuits are third party premises claims alleging injury resulting from exposure to asbestos or asbestos containing products and involve multiple defendants. Of the claims resolved to date, more than about 60% have been resolved without payment to the plaintiffs. To date, substantially all defense costs and any settlements have been paid by third-parties. The Company determined that a conditional asset retirement obligation exists for asbestos remediation. The Company would be required to take the appropriate remediation procedures in compliance with state law to remove the asbestos. The fair value of the conditional asset retirement obligation for the future abatement of asbestos-containing products in certain of the viable structures at Eagle Mountain was estimated at about US$1.2 million. Kaiser Ventures LLC's oversees recycling and solid waste investments. The Company's holdings include an 83.1% stake in Mine Reclamation Corporation (MRC) and a 50% stake in West Valley Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station, which separates waste materials for recycling or storage. The Company is based in Ontario, Canada. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colonial Involved in 6 Hilco Claims at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Colonial Commercial Corp. says that, as of Dec. 31, 2010, there existed six plaintiffs in lawsuits relating to alleged sales of asbestos products, or products containing asbestos, subsidiary Universal Supply Group, Inc.'s predecessor, Hilco, Inc. The Company understands that Hilco and many other companies have been sued in the Superior Court of New Jersey (Middlesex County) by plaintiffs filing lawsuits alleging injury due to asbestos. Of the existing plaintiffs as of Dec. 31, 2010, four filed actions in 2010 and two filed actions in 2009. There are 207 other plaintiffs that have had their actions dismissed and 16 other plaintiffs that have settled as of Dec. 31, 2010 for a total of US$3,361,500. There has been no judgment against Hilco. Colonial Commercial Corp. distributes heating, ventilating and air conditioning equipment (HVAC), parts and accessories, climate control systems, appliances, and plumbing and electrical fixtures and supplies, primarily in New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts and portions of eastern Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Vermont. The Company is based in Hawthorne, N.J. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Universal Supply Group Has One Claim at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Colonial Commercial Corp. says that, following dismissed and settled asbestos actions, there existed one plaintiff that named subsidiary Universal Supply Group, Inc. as of Dec. 31, 2010. Universal was named by 37 plaintiffs; of these, one filed an action in 2010, 11 filed actions in 2007, six filed actions in 2006, 11 filed actions in 2005, five filed actions in 2001, one filed an action in 2000, and two filed actions in 1999. Thirty-three plaintiffs naming Universal have had their actions dismissed and, of the total US$3,361,500 of settled actions, three plaintiffs naming Universal have settled for US$27,500. No money was paid by Universal in connection with any settlement. Colonial Commercial Corp. distributes heating, ventilating and air conditioning equipment (HVAC), parts and accessories, climate control systems, appliances, and plumbing and electrical fixtures and supplies, primarily in New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts and portions of eastern Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Vermont. The Company is based in Hawthorne, N.J. ASBESTOS UPDATE: McJunkin Faces 940 Claims at Dec. 31 ----------------------------------------------------- McJunkin Red Man Corporation, as of Dec. 31, 2010, is a defendant in asbestos-related lawsuits involving about 940 such claims, according to a Company report, on Form S-1, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2011. The Company is involved in various legal proceedings and claims, both as a plaintiff and a defendant, which arise in the ordinary course of business. These legal proceedings include claims where the Company is named as a defendant in lawsuits brought against a large number of entities by individuals seeking damages for injuries allegedly caused by certain products containing asbestos. Each claim involves allegations of exposure to asbestos-containing materials by a single individual or an individual, his or her spouse and/or family members. The complaints typically name many other defendants. In a majority of these lawsuits, little or no information is known regarding the nature of the plaintiff's alleged injuries or their connection with the products distributed by the Company. Through Dec. 31, 2010, lawsuits involving over 11,700 claims have been brought against the Company. No asbestos lawsuit has resulted in a judgment against the Company to date, with the majority being settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved. In total, since the first asbestos claim brought against the Company through Dec. 31, 2010, about US$1.2 million has been paid to asbestos claimants in connection with settlements of claims against the Company without regard to insurance recoveries. Of this amount, about US$1 million has been paid to settle claims alleging mesothelioma, US$200,000 for claims alleging lung cancer and US$100,000 for non-malignant claims. McJunkin Red Man Corporation distributes pipe, valves and fittings (PVF) and related products and services to the energy industry. The Company is based in Houston. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Paragon Shipping Subject to Potential Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- Paragon Shipping Inc. may be, from time to time, involved in various litigation matters, which include asbestos and other toxic tort claims. No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the Company's annual report filed on March 4, 2011 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Paragon Shipping Inc. is a global provider of shipping transportation services. The Company specializes in transporting drybulk cargoes, including such commodities as iron ore, coal, grain and other materials, and container cargo products, along worldwide shipping routes. The Company is based in Voula, Greece. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5 Lawsuits v. 159 Firms Filed March 25 in W.Va. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The asbestos cases of Ronald W. Cloherty and Debra L. Cloherty, David Edgell and Loretta Edgell, Betty I. Kucera, Livio M. Miller and Linda K. Miller, and Nathan Shrewsbury vs. 20th Century Glove Corporation of Texas; 4520 Corp., Inc.; Ajax Magnethermic Corporation, et al., were filed on March 25, 2011 in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports. Mr. Cloherty, Mr. Edgell, Ms. Kucera and Mr. Shrewsbury were diagnosed with asbestosis and lung cancer, and Mr. Miller was diagnosed with asbestosis. They claim the 159 defendants are responsible for their diagnoses. They seek jury trials to resolve all issues involved. David P. Chervenick, Esq., Bruce E. Mattock, Esq., and Scott S. Segal, Esq., represent the plaintiffs. Case Nos. 11-C-485, 11-C- 487, 11-C-488, 11-C-489, and 11-C-490 are being assigned to a visiting judge. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Murton Penalized for Exposing Workers to Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Murton, a 36-year-old property developer of Bewdley, near Kidderminster, England, put his workers at risk by failing to identify the presence of asbestos before allowing them to start work on a nightclub in Wrexham, according to a Health and Safety Executive press release dated April 5, 2011. Mr. Murton instructed contractors to remove sprayed coating containing amosite (brown asbestos) from steel beams while refurbishing the nightclub. The workers were exposed to the asbestos between Feb. 11, 2010 and Feb. 24, 2010 at 33-35 Brook Street, Wrexham. An HSE investigation found Mr. Murton had failed to survey the property before the work started. This led to the unlicensed and uncontrolled removal of the asbestos-containing material and its subsequent spread in and around the building. Mr. Murton previously pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 5, 8(1), 11(1)(a) and 16 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 at Mold Magistrates Court. Mr. Murton also pleaded guilty to an offense contrary to Regulation 19 of the Hazardous Waste Regulations 2005, two duty of care offences contrary to Section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. He also pleaded guilty to a charge of treating and disposing of asbestos in a manner likely to cause harm to human health or pollution of the environment contrary to Section 33 (1)(c) Environmental Protection Act 1990. These charges were brought by the Environment Agency Wales. At Mold Crown Court on April 5, 2011, Mr. Murton was given a suspended sentence of eight months for breaching the Control of Asbestos Regulations. He was also given a 12-month suspended sentence for breaching Section 33 (1)(c) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and eight months suspended sentence for the offence contrary to Regulation 19 of the Hazardous Waste Regulations 2005. Mr. Murton was also ordered to carry out 200 hours of community service and to pay costs of GBP10,000 over two years. HSE Inspector, Debbie John, said, "This is a serious incident and one that could have easily been avoided. Had Mr. Murton surveyed the property for the presence of asbestos prior to the start of construction work, the sprayed coating would have been identified and arrangements made for its controlled removal by an HSE- licensed contractor. "Instead, Mr Murton; construction workers; waste management contractors and others were exposed to potentially deadly asbestos-containing materials." Speaking after the case, Environment Agency Wales officer Sally Connah, said, "There are specific rules and laws around the disposal of any waste, but specifically hazardous substances like asbestos. If we do not enforce these laws, people's health and the environment can be put at risk." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement Project at Western Galilee Commences --------------------------------------------------------------- Israel's Ministry of Environmental Protection commenced a five- year asbestos abatement project in Western Galilee, with a an approved preliminary budget of ILS20 million shekels (about US$5.5 million), according to a Ministry of Environmental Protection press release dated April 5, 2011. However, total costs are expected to reach ILS300 million (about US$83 million). Asbestos waste, which originated in the Eitanit factory which operated in Nahariya in Israel's north for some 50 years, has accumulated in both public and private lands in the Western Galilee. Approved by the Knesset in March 2011, the Asbestos Hazard Prevention Law stipulates that Eitanit, which was responsible for asbestos contamination in the region, will be responsible for half of the costs of the project, up to ILS150 million. The project is carried out with the full cooperation of and in coordination with the relevant local authorities, the Municipality of Nahariya and the Mate Asher Regional Council. In the first phase, asbestos waste will be removed from public areas which were mapped during the course of two surveys commissioned by the Ministry of Environmental Protection. In the next phase, private areas with asbestos waste will be mapped and removal of asbestos from these areas will begin. The Ministry of Environmental Protection has put special emphasis on transparency of the project and on public participation and involvement. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wall Case v. Chesterton, Others Filed March 28 --------------------------------------------------------------- Billy F. Wall and his wife, Sandra, on March 28, 2011, sued A.W. Chesterton Co., Cleaver-Brooks Co. Inc., Goulds Pumps Inc., Shreveport Rubber & Gasket and J. Graves Insulation Co. Inc. for asbestos-related damages in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, The Southeast Texas Record reports. Mr. Wall worked in maintenance as a pipefitter, welder and insulator at the Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant in Harrison County from 1974 to 1996. He said he was exposed to asbestos fibers on a daily basis as his job duties required him to remove asbestos insulation from piping and install new asbestos insulation. In June 2010, Mr. Wall was found to have colon cancer and was treated through surgery, chemotherapy and radiation. In 2011, he was diagnosed with asbestos-related pleural disease and mild interstitial pulmonary fibrosis. The suit claims the asbestos, asbestos fibers and asbestos- containing products were manufactured, distributed and supplied by defendants J. Graves Insulation Co., A.W. Chesterton and Shreveport Rubber & Gasket. Mr. Wall seeks damages for medical expenses, mental anguish, impairment, loss of enjoyment, physical pain and suffering, disfigurement and court costs. D. Scott Carlile, Esq., Bruce Craig, Esq., and Casey Q. Carlile, Esq., of Carlile Craig in Marshall, Tex., represent the Walls. U.S. District Judge T. John Ward is assigned to Case No. 2:11-cv- 00196. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stukey Case v. 21 Firms Filed March 24 in Texas ---------------------------------------------------------------- Doris Stukey, on behalf of Daryl Stukey, on March 24, 2011, filed an asbestos lawsuit against 21 defendant corporations in Jefferson County District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports. The defendants named in the suit include Able Supply, Alstom Power, AMF, CBS, Certainteed, Crown Cork & Seal, Deltak, Foster wheeler Energy, General Electric, Georgia-Pacific, Goulds Pumps, Goulds Pump Texas, Guard-Line, Henry Vogt Machine, Ingersoll-Rand, Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing, Owens-Illinois, Riley Power, Triplex, Union Carbide and Zurn Industries. Court records allege Mr. Stukey was first exposed to asbestos while working for DuPont de Nemours from 1946 to the 1970s. The suit states, "Stukey died on April 12, 2009, from a . . . painful asbestos-caused disease known as lung cancer." The Stukey family seeks all wrongful death damages allowable under law. Beaumont attorney Tina Bradley, Esq., of Hobson & Bradley represents the Stukey family. Judge Gary Sanderson, 60th District Court, has been assigned to Case No. B189-652. ASBESTOS UPDATE: CK Batten Fined GBP5,015 for Safety Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- A jury at Ipswich Crown Court fined Colin Batten, of Frinton, England-based CK Batten Builders, about GBP5,015 for not protecting staff and customers at an electrical store from exposure to asbestos, the Essex County Standard reports. Mr. Batten was taken to court after a council officer spotted suspect material during a routine inspection at the Stellison electrical store in Harwich Road, Colchester. Colchester Council claimed Mr. Batten had carried out work on the premises involving materials containing asbestos, which he was not licensed to do. He denied this. Mr. Batten told the Gazette he had been in the building trade for more than 30 years and would not do anything that would put people at risk. He said, "The judge said I was of good character and had no police record, cautions or warnings." Previously, Stellison was fined GBP13,000 in 2010 after admitting failing to adequately manage asbestos at its Colchester branch. Colchester Council said Stellison failed to ensure damaged asbestos-containing materials were removed until March 2007, despite having an asbestos survey almost two years earlier. Stellison said it did not know the contractor had left brown asbestos at the premises. A Colchester Council spokesman said, "We will continue to ensure local businesses fulfill their legal duties to identify and manage materials containing asbestos on their premises." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bristol Guild Fined GBP15T for Safety Breaches --------------------------------------------------------------- Bristol Guild of Applied Art, a specialist gift shop, was handed a penalty of GBP15,000 for exposing electrical contractors to asbestos, the Evening Post reports. Bristol Guild of Applied Art did not carry out its health-and- safety responsibilities in allowing an electrician to unknowingly take down a sheet of asbestos from the basement ceiling. Bristol Magistrates' Court heard that asbestos had been identified as being in the basement in a 2004 report; however, no action was taken. Trading for more than 100 years, the shop changed hands in 2005, but the outgoing managing director did not tell his successor. Mike Cannings, the new boss, said that when he took over the position he did not realize that health and safety was one of his areas of responsibility. A 2008 health-and-safety inspection found that electrical work needed to be carried out and, when inspectors asked for an asbestos survey, they were told the shop could not find it. When inspectors returned in March 2009 to examine the electrical work they discovered asbestos in the basement's ceiling boards. The area was cordoned off and the problem fixed within months but one of the six electricians had come into contact with the asbestos. Prosecuting for the council, Adam Fuller said, "The asbestos in the basement had been identified in 2004 and hadn't been dealt with. Our judgment was that the health-and-safety issue had gone to sleep at the Bristol Guild for four years and that no one was taking care of it." Magistrates fined the company GBP15,000 and ordered it to pay GBP6,868 in costs. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 154 Actions Filed in Madison During First Qtr. --------------------------------------------------------------- During the first quarter of 2011, at least 154 new asbestos- related lawsuits have been filed in Madison County, Ill., The Madison/St. Clair Record reports. In a review of suits filed between Jan. 1, 2011 and March 29, 2011, about 117 of the cases were mesothelioma claims. There were 30 lung cancer, four asbestosis claims and one each of pleural plaques, colon cancer and adrenocarcinoma claims. Of the 154 filed, about 19 were claims made by Illinois residents and 135 claims were made by non-residents. Meanwhile, Judge Barbara Crowder considers recommendations made by both sides of the asbestos bar regarding the allocation of trial dates. Judge Crowder heard arguments on March 25, 2011, among plaintiffs who would retain a calendar providing about 500 trial dates a year, defendants proposing 250 dates, and other defendants opposing both. At the hearing, defense attorney Robert "Barney" Shultz, Esq., said there are about 2,900 mesothelioma diagnoses in the nation and about 140 in Illinois each year. He said there were 506 mesothelioma cases filed in Madison County in 2010. ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Issues Abatement at Arsenal Business Center ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, on March 31, 2011 issued an administrative compliance order to the owner (Arsenal Associates) and the property management company (Hankin Management, Inc.), of the Arsenal Business Center (formerly known as the Frankford Arsenal), which is located at 2275 Bridge Street, Philadelphia, according to an EPA press release dated April 1, 2011. EPA's order, which becomes effective on April 6, 2011, addresses alleged violations of Clean Air Act regulations of demolition and renovation activities involving buildings with asbestos-containing materials. The alleged violations were discovered during a series of inspections at the facility conducted by the City of Philadelphia's Department of Public Health Air Management Services (AMS) and EPA between September 2010 and March 2011. The order alleges that Hankin and Arsenal violated the Clean Air Act asbestos regulations by: -- Failing to provide adequate notice to EPA of demolition or renovation projects involving asbestos; -- Failing to adequately wet all regulated asbestos containing material which had been removed or stripped from the site and to ensure that all of these materials remained adequately wet until collected and contained in preparation for proper disposal; and -- Failing to properly dispose of asbestos-containing waste material as soon as practical. EPA's order requires Arsenal Associates and Hankin Management to take several measures to address the alleged regulatory violations at the Arsenal Business Center and to protect public health. Future demolition and redevelopment activities at the site must be in compliance with EPA's order. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Montana Facing $43MM Payout for Libby's Victims ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Legislative Fiscal Division recently confirmed that the entire US$43 million payout proposed to settle claims by Libby asbestos victims will come from the State of Montana's general fund, the Daily Inter Lake reports. Lawyers for more than 1,100 claimants with asbestos disease linked to the former W.R. Grace & Co. vermiculite mine in Libby told victims several months ago that the state's insurance company would split the cost of the settlement; however, that is currently not the case. The proposed US$43 million settlement will need legislative approval and is among US$103.8 million in unexpected budget increases, according to a list prepared by the Legislative Fiscal Division. If the Legislature approves the settlement for asbestos victims as part of overall budget bill, it also needs court approval before it is final. Lawyers would get a 33% cut of the settlement and US$500,000 would be held back for a contingency fund. Victims with mesothelioma, one of the most severe asbestos-related cancers, would get US$60,723 each in the proposed settlement, according to legal documents. That is before attorney fees are subtracted. Those with lung cancer and other cancers each would get US$51,908. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judgment Affirmed in Nationwide Mutual Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, affirmed the ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, in a case involving asbestos styled Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. Geo. V. Hamilton, Inc., Appellant. Judges McKee, Smith, and Stearns entered judgment in Case No. 10-2329 on Feb. 1, 2011. George V. Hamilton, Inc., appealed from the District Court's denial of its motion for summary judgment and the allowance of Nationwide Mutual Life Insurance Company's motion to compel arbitration. Nationwide issued GVH, an installer of commercial and industrial insulation, a policy of liability insurance against claims of asbestos-related injuries arising from GVH's installations between Jan. 30, 1985 and Jan. 30, 1986. On June 12, 1992, GVH, Nationwide, and three other of GVH's insurers, American Insurance Company, American States Insurance Company (ASIC), and Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association Insurance Company (PMA), entered into an Interim Claims Handling and Settlement Agreement (Agreement) intended to resolve disputes over the processing of claims and the allocation of defense and indemnity resources under their various policies. In 2005, PMA and ACE Property & Casualty Insurance Company -- PMA was a party to the Agreement, ACE was not -- filed separate lawsuits in the Pennsylvania state courts requesting a declaration of their rights and obligations under the policies they had issued to GVH. Nationwide was not a party to either lawsuit. In a Complaint filed on March 1, 2005, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, PMA sought a declaration that it had exhausted its policy limits and had no further obligation to GVH. Five days after instituting suit, PMA served GVH with an arbitration demand invoking the arbitration clause of the Agreement. GVH rejected the demand and filed counterclaims and a separate lawsuit against PMA asserting breach of contract, bad faith, and a breach of the duty to indemnify and defend. In March 2005, PMA filed preliminary objections arguing that GVH's counterclaims were also subject to arbitration. On Dec. 7, 2005, ACE filed a largely identical lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, which provoked a similar response from GVH. On July 25, 2006, the PMA and ACE actions were consolidated before the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. On May 20, 2007, the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County granted PMA's arbitration demand. On May 30, 2007, GVH sent notice of its withdrawal from the Agreement to all of the signatories (including Nationwide). On June 22, 2007, the state court vacated its May 20, 2007 Order, and overruled PMA's preliminary objections. On June 7, 2007, American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Co. (AGLIC), another non-party to the Agreement and a defendant in the ACE state court litigation, filed a third-party Complaint against Nationwide for declaratory judgment and for contribution with respect to the defense and indemnification of GVH under its policy. Nationwide answered on Aug. 10, 2007. On Oct. 19, 2007, GVH tendered new asbestos-related claims to Nationwide -- the first since it had accepted Nationwide's assertion of exhaustion in 1997. On Feb. 4, 2008, GVH filed amended cross-claims in the ACE action including, for the first time, claims against Nationwide. In its response to GVH's amended cross-claims, Nationwide invoked the arbitration clause of the Agreement as an affirmative defense. On April 1, 2008, Nationwide sent GVH a letter demanding arbitration under the Agreement. On May 7, 2008, GVH rejected the demand. On May 13, 2008, Nationwide brought this action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania styled as a Petition to Compel Arbitration. On July, 10, 2008, GVH moved for summary judgment. On Nov. 8, 2008, Chief Judge Lancaster granted GVH's motion. Nationwide appealed the decision to this Court. This Court reversed. Ultimately, this court remanded the case to the District Court for consideration of the merits of Nationwide's Petition to Compel Arbitration. On April 9, 2010, Chief Judge Lancaster denied GVH's motion for summary judgment and allowed Nationwide's petition for arbitration. GVH then took this appeal. Eric E. Caugh, Esq., Rolf E. Gilbertson, Esq., Christopher Paar, Esq., of Zelle, Hofmann, Voelbel & Mason in Minneapolis, Peter B. Skeel, Esq., of Summers, McDonnell, Walsh & Skeel in Pittsburgh represented Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company. Joseph E. Linehan, Esq., of Meyer, Unkovic & Scott in Pittsburgh represented Appellant. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms Summary Judgment in Becnel Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in an asbestos-related case styled Gail Becnel, et al., Plaintiffs v. Anco Insulations, Inc., et al., Defendants. District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno entered judgment in Case No. 08-315 (part of MDL No. 875) on Jan. 28, 2011. The motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant-Travelers Indemnity Company, Defendant-American Motorists Insurance Company, and Defendant-Commercial Union Insurance Company was granted. Plaintiffs are the wife and sons of Carl Becnel, Sr., who worked as an electrician for Avondale Industries, Inc. beginning in 1970. During such time, James O'Donnell served as an executive officer for Avondale. Plaintiffs sued Mr. O'Donnell, alleging that he failed to provide Becnel with a safe working environment at Avondale. Defendants have moved for summary judgment as Mr. O'Donnell's insurer, contending that a federal statute immunizes Mr. O'Donnell from liability insofar as Mr. O'Donnell was Mr. Becnel's co-employee. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameron Int'l. Has 16 Exposure Cases at Feb. 26 --------------------------------------------------------------- Ameron International Corporation was a defendant in 16 asbestos- related cases as of Feb. 27, 2011, compared with 14 cases as of Nov. 30, 2010, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 4, 2011. The Company is a defendant in a number of asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits. These cases generally seek unspecified damages for asbestos-related diseases based on alleged exposure to products previously manufactured by the Company and others. During the quarter ended Feb. 27, 2011, there were four new asbestos-related cases, two dismissed cases, no settled cases and no judgments or recovery; and expenses totaled US$5,000. The Company incurred expenses from asbestos-related lawsuits of US$49,000 during the quarter ended Feb. 28, 2010, and recovered US$27,000. Ameron International Corporation is a multinational manufacturer of highly-engineered products and materials for the chemical, industrial, energy, transportation and infrastructure markets. The Company is headquartered in Pasadena, Calif. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Teledyne Technologies Named in Exposure Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Teledyne Technologies Incorporated has been joined, among a number of defendants (often over 100), in lawsuits alleging injury or death as a result of exposure to asbestos. The filings typically do not identify any of the Company's products as a source of asbestos exposure, and the Company has been dismissed from cases for lack of product identification, but only after some defense costs have been incurred. Also, because of the prominent "Teledyne" name, the Company may be mistakenly joined in lawsuits involving a company or business that was not assumed by the Company as part of the its 1999 spin-off. Certain gas generators historically manufactured by Teledyne Energy Systems, Inc. contained a sealed, wetted asbestos component. While the Company has transitioned to a replacement material, had placed warning labels on its products and took care in handling of this discontinued material by employees, there is no assurance that the Company will not face product liability or workers compensation claims involving this component. Teledyne Technologies Incorporated provides sophisticated electronic components and subsystems, instrumentation and communications products. The Company also provides engineered systems and information technology services for defense, space, environmental and nuclear applications, and supply energy generation, energy storage and small propulsion products. The Company is headquartered in Thousand Oaks, Calif. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Joy Global Still Facing Liability Lawsuits ----------------------------------------------------------- Joy Global Inc. and its subsidiaries are involved in various unresolved legal matters that arise in the normal course of operations, the most prevalent of which relate to product liability (including over 1,000 asbestos and silica-related cases), employment, and commercial matters. No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the Company's quarterly report filed on March 4, 2011 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Joy Global Inc. provides high productivity mining solutions and manufactures and markets original equipment and aftermarket parts and services for both underground and surface mining and certain industrial applications. The Company is headquartered in Milwaukee. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ore. Firms Fined $48T for Asbestos Mishandling --------------------------------------------------------------- The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has issued a total of US$48,000 in penalties to Cascade Paving Inc., of Salem, and the Oregon Employees Federal Credit Union for asbestos-related violations stemming from the September 2010 demolition of a 90- year-old home owned by the credit union at 645 Winter St. NE in downtown Salem, according to an Oregon DEQ press release dated April 6, 2011. Grinding of asbestos-containing debris from the demolition resulted in fine particulate emissions that coated neighboring buildings and vehicles and potentially exposed people to asbestos fibers, which are a respiratory hazard proven to cause lung cancer, mesothelioma and asbestosis. On Sept. 26, 2010, the Oregon Employees Federal Credit Union, located at 631 Winter St. SE, allowed Cascade Paving Inc. to demolish a house it had bought adjacent to the credit union's Salem location. Cascade Paving was not licensed to conduct an asbestos abatement project. Two days later, Cascade Paving employees processed a portion of the demolition debris through a grinder. A Sept. 29, 2010 DEQ inspection of the site revealed that the debris, which had run through the grinder contained asbestos-containing sheet vinyl flooring. The grinding resulted in emissions of fine particulate matter into the environment. DEQ's asbestos inspector also noted demolition debris openly piled at the 645 Winter St. site; this debris contained asbestos- containing heat duct insulation, vinyl floor tile, sheet vinyl flooring and roof tar adhesive. During its Sept. 29, 2010 inspection, DEQ also learned that Cascade Paving transported a portion of the ground-up debris to its property at 3750 Mainline Drive NE. Cascade Paving officials later told DEQ that it transported this unpackaged debris to the Riverbend Landfill near McMinnville. Riverbend Landfill is not authorized to accept asbestos-containing waste. DEQ issued US$27,000 in penalties to Cascade Paving Inc., citing the following violations: -- Openly accumulating asbestos-containing waste material. Cascade Paving failed to package the material in leak-tight containers, as required by state asbestos regulations. (US$10,200 penalty) -- Failing to dispose of asbestos-containing waste material at a disposal site authorized to accept such material. (US$9,600 penalty) -- Causing visible emissions while performing demolition activity. (US$7,200 penalty) -- Performing an asbestos abatement project without a license. (DEQ did not issue a penalty for this violation) DEQ issued US$21,000 in penalties to Oregon Employees Federal Credit Union, citing the following violations: -- Allowing an unlicensed person to perform an asbestos abatement project on a facility it owned (US$10,800 penalty) -- Openly accumulating asbestos-containing waste material, failing to properly package the friable, breakable material (US$10,200) -- Failing to have an accredited inspector survey the property for the presence of asbestos-containing material prior to having a renovation/demolition project performed (DEQ did not issue a penalty for this violation) DEQ told Oregon Employees Federal Credit Union officials that it was concerned the organization demolished the house without having any materials sampled for the presence of asbestos. In February 2010, the organization had been provided a report stating the materials in the structure likely contained asbestos and that a licensed asbestos abatement contractor would need to be hired to remove any asbestos-containing materials prior to demolition. Oregon Employees Credit Union appealed its penalties on March 17, 2011. Cascade Paving Inc. has until April 14, 2011 to appeal its penalties. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minority Fined $1,125 for Notification Breaches ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has issued a US$1,125 penalty to Minority Abatement Contractors Inc., of Vancouver, Wash., for failing to submit required notification to DEQ before beginning an asbestos abatement project in downtown Portland, according to an Oregon DEQ press release dated April 6, 2011. The firm, which is licensed by the state of Oregon to conduct asbestos abatement projects, did such a project in an office building at 426 SW Stark St., Portland, on Nov. 5, 2010 and Nov. 6, 2010. The Company was required to send DEQ notification about its intent to do the project five days before doing the work. DEQ did not receive project notification until more than two months later, on Jan. 25, 2011. DEQ did not receive the accompanying project notification fee from Minority Abatement Contractors until Jan. 28, 2011. DEQ issued the penalty because all licensed asbestos abatement contractors are responsible for ensuring that the state receives all required notification forms and fees in a timely manner. Without timely notification, DEQ is unable to inspect asbestos abatement projects to ensure they are done safely and in compliance with all applicable regulations. In assessing this penalty, DEQ noted that Minority Abatement Contractors Inc. committed the same violation in August 2010. Rather than appeal the penalty, Minority Abatement Contractors Inc. paid the penalty in full in March 2011. ASBESTOS UPDATE: DENR Urged to Implement Philippine Asbestos Ban ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Philippine Department of Environment and Natural Resources is being asked by labor and environment groups to review and revise the "outdated" Chemical Control Order to implement a total ban the use of asbestos, the Manila Bulletin reports. In a joint statement issued by the Ecological Waste Coalition (EcoWaste), Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (TUCP), Associated Labor Unions (ALU), Building and Wood Workers International (BWI), and Alliance of Progres-sive Labor (APL), the groups called for an immediate review and revision of CCO for asbestos issued by DENR in January 2000 to prevent lung cancer and other asbestos-related diseases among Filipinos. The groups said that the CCO, while banning the use of amosite (brown) and crocidolite (blue) asbestos fibers, allows the use of asbestos and asbestos-containing materials for asbestos roofing felts, cement roofing, cement flat sheet and several other applications. The groups also pushed for multi-sector support to House Bills 896 and 479 on asbestos, sponsored by TUCP party-list Rep. Raymond Democrito Mendoza and Akbayan party-list Rep. Kaka Bag-ao, which were recently approved by the House Committee on Ecology. Both bills seek to prohibit "the importation, manufacture, processing, use or distribution in commerce of asbestos and asbestos-containing products." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Issues Split Ruling in Fisher Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County, issued split rulings in a case involving asbestos styled Eugene R. Fisher, Jr., for the Estate of Eugene R. Fisher, Sr., Plaintiff- Appellant v. Alliance Machine Company, et al., Defendants- Appellees. Judges Boyle, Kilbane, and Rocco entered judgment in Case No. 94836 on Jan. 27, 2011. This was a civil appeal from the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court. Eugene Fisher, Jr., for the estate of plaintiff, Eugene Fisher, Sr., appealed from a judgment granting summary judgment in favor of Arthur Louis Supply Company and Clark Industrial Insulation Company. In this appeal, the estate contended that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment to A. Louis and Clark. After a thorough review of the record, the Appeals Court affirmed with respect to Clark, but reverse with respect to A. Louis. The elder Mr. Fisher worked as an electrician at Reactive Metals, Inc. from Sept. 16, 1957 to June 14, 1963, where his estate claimed he was exposed to asbestos products supplied by A. Louis and Clark. The elder Mr. Fisher developed mesothelioma from his exposure to asbestos and filed a complaint on June 6, 2006 against numerous entities, including A. Louis and Clark, for damages arising from his disease. He died on June 21, 2006, just over two weeks after he filed his complaint. The younger Mr. Fisher was substituted as plaintiff in the case. Louis and Clark moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted both summary judgment motions. It was from these judgments that the Fisher estate appealed. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Supreme Court Reverses Ruling in Stec's Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of Connecticut reversed the ruling of the Appellate Court in an asbestos case styled Richard Stec et al. v. Raymark Industries, Inc., et al. Judges Rogers, Katz, Palmer, McLachlan, Everleigh and Vertefeuille entered judgment in Case No. 18412 on Dec. 28, 2010. The sole issue in this certified appeal was whether the failure to file an appeal from the decision of a workers' compensation commissioner within the 20 day limit deprived the compensation review board of subject matter jurisdiction over that appeal. Specifically, the Supreme Court must determine whether the Appellate Court properly concluded that the board improperly had dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction the appeal of the second injury fund from a decision of the commissioner concluding that June Stec, the surviving spouse of the Richard Stec, was entitled to dependent widow benefits from the Mr. Stec's employer, Raymark Industries, Inc. The Hartford Insurance Group, an insurance carrier that the fund claimed was potentially responsible for any benefits owed, claimed that filing an appeal outside the 20 day limit set forth deprived the board of subject matter jurisdiction over an appeal. Conversely, the fund claimed that an appeal filed outside the 20 day limit is voidable, but not void. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Appellate Court. The case was remanded to that court with direction to affirm the decision of the compensation review board. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bowater Still Subject to Personal Injury Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- AbitibiBowater Inc. says that, since late 2001, Bowater Incorporated, several other paper companies, and numerous other companies have been named as defendants in asbestos personal injury actions. These actions generally allege occupational exposure to numerous products. The Company has denied the allegations and no specific product of the Company has been identified by the plaintiffs in any of the actions as having caused or contributed to any individual plaintiff's alleged asbestos-related injury. These suits have been filed by about 1,800 claimants who sought monetary damages in civil actions pending in state courts in Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Mississippi, Missouri, New York and Texas. About 1,000 of these claims have been dismissed, either voluntarily or by summary judgment, and about 800 claims remain. AbitibiBowater Inc. is a global forest products company with a significant regional and global market presence in newsprint, coated mechanical and specialty papers, market pulp and wood products. As of Dec. 31, 2010, the Company owned or operated 18 pulp and paper manufacturing facilities located in Canada, the United States and South Korea and 24 wood products facilities located in Canada. The Company is headquartered in Montreal, Canada. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5,158 Cases Ongoing v. Albany Int'l. at Feb. 11 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Albany International Corp. was defending against 5,158 asbestos claims as of Feb. 11, 2011, according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2011. This compares with 5,170 asbestos claims as of Oct. 29, 2010, 7,343 claims as of July 23, 2010, and 7,464 claims as of April 29, 2010. The Company is a defendant in suits brought in various courts in the United States by plaintiffs who allege that they have suffered personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products that the Company previously manufactured. The Company produced asbestos-containing paper machine clothing synthetic dryer fabrics marketed during the period from 1967 to 1976 and used in certain paper mills. Those fabrics generally had a useful life of three to 12 months. Pleadings and discovery responses in those cases in which work histories have been provided indicate claimants with paper mill exposure in about 15% of the total claims filed against the Company to date, and a portion of those claimants have alleged time spent in a paper mill to which the Company is believed to have supplied asbestos-containing products. As of Feb. 11, 2011, about 758 claims remained against the Company in the MDL. This compares to 12,758 claims that were pending at the MDL as of Feb. 6, 2009. Of these remaining 758 MDL claims, about 429 were originally filed in state courts in Mississippi. As of Feb. 11, 2011, the remaining 4,400 claims pending against the Company were pending in a number of jurisdictions other than the MDL. Pleadings and discovery responses in those cases in which work histories have been provided indicate claimants with paper mill exposure in about 25% of total claims reported, and a portion of those claimants have alleged time spent in a paper mill to which the Company is believed to have supplied asbestos-containing products. As of Feb. 11, 2011, the Company had resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 35,519 claims. The total cost of resolving all claims was US$7.045 million. Of this amount, almost 100% was paid by the Company's insurance carrier. The Company has about US$130 million in confirmed insurance coverage that should be available with respect to current and future asbestos claims, as well as additional insurance coverage that the Company should be able to access. Albany International Corp. and its subsidiaries are engaged in five business segments: The Paper Machine Clothing segment, The Engineered Composites segment (AEC), Albany Door Systems (ADS), The Engineered Fabrics (EF) segment, and The PrimaLoft Products segment. The Company is headquartered in Rochester, N.H. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brandon Drying Has 7,868 Open Claims at Feb. 11 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Albany International Corp. says Brandon Drying Fabrics, Inc. was defending against 7,868 asbestos-related claims as of Feb. 11, 2011, according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2011. This compares with 7,869 asbestos claims as of Oct. 28, 2010, about 7,907 claims as of July 23, 2010 and April 29, 2010, and compares with 7,905 such claims as of Feb. 16, 2010. Brandon, a subsidiary of Geschmay Corp., which is a Company subsidiary, is a separate defendant in many of the asbestos cases in which the Company is named as a defendant. The Company acquired Geschmay Corp., formerly known as Wangner Systems Corporation, in 1999. Brandon is a wholly owned subsidiary of Geschmay. In 1978, Brandon acquired certain assets from Abney Mills, a South Carolina textile manufacturer. Among the assets acquired by Brandon from Abney were assets of Abney's wholly owned subsidiary, Brandon Sales, Inc., which had sold dryer fabrics containing asbestos made by its parent, Abney. As of Feb. 11, 2011, Brandon has resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, about 9,719 claims for a total of US$200,000. Brandon's insurance carriers initially agreed to pay 88.2% of the total indemnification and defense costs related to these proceedings, subject to the standard reservation of rights. The remaining 11.8% of the costs had been borne directly by Brandon. During 2004, Brandon's insurance carriers agreed to cover 100% of indemnification and defense costs, subject to policy limits and the standard reservation of rights, and to reimburse Brandon for all indemnity and defense costs paid directly by Brandon related to these proceedings. As of Feb. 11, 2011, about 6,821 (or about 81%) of the claims pending against Brandon were pending in Mississippi. Albany International Corp. and its subsidiaries are engaged in five business segments: The Paper Machine Clothing segment, The Engineered Composites segment (AEC), Albany Door Systems (ADS), The Engineered Fabrics (EF) segment, and The PrimaLoft Products segment. The Company is headquartered in Rochester, N.H. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Still Subject to Mt. Vernon Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- In some asbestos cases, Albany International Corp. is named both as a direct defendant and as the "successor in interest" to Mount Vernon Mills. The Company acquired certain assets from Mount Vernon in 1993. Certain plaintiffs allege injury caused by asbestos-containing products alleged to have been sold by Mount Vernon many years prior to this acquisition. Mount Vernon is contractually obligated to indemnify the Company against any liability arising out of such products. Under its contractual indemnification obligations, Mount Vernon has assumed the defense of these claims. On this basis, the Company has successfully moved for dismissal in a number of actions. Albany International Corp. and its subsidiaries are engaged in five business segments: The Paper Machine Clothing segment, The Engineered Composites segment (AEC), Albany Door Systems (ADS), The Engineered Fabrics (EF) segment, and The PrimaLoft Products segment. The Company is headquartered in Rochester, N.H. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gorman-Rupp Still Subject to Exposure Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- The Gorman-Rupp Company and two of its subsidiaries are subject to mass-scaled asbestos-related litigation, typically as one of hundreds of co-defendants in a particular proceeding -- the vast majority of these cases are against Patterson Pump Company. For more than 10 years, numerous business entities in the pump and fluid-handling industries, as well as a multitude of companies in many other industries, have been targeted in a series of lawsuits in several jurisdictions by various individuals seeking redress to claimed injury as a result of the entities' alleged use of asbestos in their products. The allegations in the lawsuits involving the Company and/or its subsidiaries are vague, general and speculative, and most cases have not advanced beyond the early stage of discovery. In addition, the Company and/or its subsidiaries are parties in a small number of legal proceedings arising out of the ordinary course of business. The Gorman-Rupp Company designs, manufactures and globally sells pumps and related equipment (pump and motor controls) for use in water, wastewater, construction, industrial, petroleum, original equipment, agriculture, fire protection, heating, ventilating and air conditioning, military and other liquid-handling applications. The Company is headquartered in Mansfield, Ohio. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chiquita Brands Still Facing Exposure Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- For more than 20 years, a number of claims have been filed against Chiquita Brands International, Inc. on behalf of merchant seamen or their personal representatives alleging injury or illness from exposure to asbestos while employed as seamen on company-owned ships at various times from the mid-1940s until the mid-1970s. The claims are based on allegations of negligence and unseaworthiness. In these cases, the Company is typically one of many defendants, including manufacturers and suppliers of products containing asbestos, as well as other ship owners. Seven of these cases are pending in state courts in various stages of activity. Over the past 12 years, 26 state court cases have been settled and 43 state court cases have been resolved without any payment. In addition to the state court cases, there are about 4,000 federal court cases that are currently inactive (known as the MARDOC cases). The MARDOC cases are managed under the supervision of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In 1996, the Federal Court administratively dismissed all then-pending MARDOC cases without prejudice for failure to provide evidence of asbestos-related disease or exposure to asbestos. Under this order, all MARDOC cases subsequently filed against the Company also were administratively dismissed. Recently the Court has begun to reinstate some of the MARDOC cases, and to date, 44 MARDOC cases have been reinstated against the Company. Twelve of these cases have been dismissed without any settlement payment. It is expected that the Court will activate more cases during 2011 and that a considerable number ultimately will be dismissed without payment. Chiquita Brands International, Inc. markets and distributes (1) bananas and other fresh produce sold under the Chiquita and other brand names in nearly 70 countries and (2) packaged salads sold under the Fresh Express(R) and other brand names primarily in the United States. The Company is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NL Industries Still Named in Liability Actions --------------------------------------------------------------- NL Industries, Inc. has been named as a defendant in various lawsuits in several jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as a result of occupational exposure primarily to products manufactured by its former operations containing asbestos, silica and/or mixed dust. In addition, some plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos from working in various facilities previously owned and/or operated by the Company. There are 1,226 of these types of cases pending, involving a total of about 2,670 plaintiffs. In addition, the claims of about 7,500 plaintiffs have been administratively dismissed or placed on the inactive docket in Ohio, Indiana and Texas state courts. NL Industries, Inc. through its majority-owned subsidiary, CompX, manufactures components that are sold to industries including office furniture, recreational transportation (including performance boats), mailboxes, tool boxes, home appliances, banking equipment, vending equipment and computer-related equipment. The Company is headquartered in Dallas. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Has $736.2MM Net A&E Reserves at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Enstar Group Limited's net provision for asbestos and environmental claims and allocated loss adjustment expenses was US$736,172,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$667,632,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. The Company's gross provision for A&E claims and ALAE was US$825,212,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$750,972,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. Enstar Group Limited was formed in August 2001 to acquire and manage insurance and reinsurance companies in run-off and portfolios of insurance and reinsurance business in run-off, and to provide management, consulting and other services to the insurance and reinsurance industry. The Company is headquartered in Hamilton, Bermuda. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemtura Corp. Still Subject to Liability Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chemtura Corporation is subject to product liability claims, including claims related to its current products and asbestos- related claims concerning premises and historic products of its corporate affiliates and predecessors. The Company said it believes the claims relating to the period before the filing of the Chapter 11 cases are subject to discharge under the Plan and will be satisfied, to the extent allowed by the Bankruptcy Court, solely from the Disputed Claims Reserve. Chemtura Corporation is a diversified global developer, manufacturer and marketer of performance-driven engineered specialty chemicals. For the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, global net sales were US$2.8 billion. As of Dec. 31, 2010, global total assets were US$2.9 billion. The Company is based in Middlebury, Conn. ASBESTOS UPDATE: State Auto Fin'l. Posts $1.5MM Reserves in 2010 ---------------------------------------------------------------- State Auto Financial Corporation's asbestos reserves are US$1.5 million, and environmental reserves are US$8.8 million, for a total of US$10.3 million, or 1.2% of net losses and loss expenses payable. Asbestos reserves decreased US$500,000 and environmental reserves increased US$200,000 from 2009. State Auto Financial Corporation is primarily engaged in writing both personal and business lines of insurance. Its subsidiaries include State Auto P&C, Milbank, Farmers, and SA Ohio, each of which is a property and casualty insurance company, and Stateco, which provides investment management services to affiliated insurance companies. The Company is based in Columbus, Ohio. ********* 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, Noemi Irene A. Adala, 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 * * *