/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/110520.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, May 20, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 99 Headlines APEX OIL: Judge Approves $4MM Hartford Class Action Settlement BATTEA - CLASS ACTION SERVICES: NY Court Dismisses Infinity Case CHUCK E. CHEESE'S: Faces Class Action Over Children's Games CNA FINANCIAL: Reaches MOU to Settle Consolidated New Jersey Suit DIRECTBUY INC: Connecticut Judge Rejects Class Action Settlement FELTEX CARPETS: Former Directors Face Investor Class Action FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS: Unit Still Face Claims in New Jersey Suit FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS: Appeal in Geauga County Suit Still Pending INTERNATIONAL COAL: Shareholder Files Class Action Over Merger JAMES LATHAM PETERS: Hepatitis C Victims Mount Class Action LORILLARD INC: Certiorari Petition in "Scott" Suit Remains Pending LORILLARD INC: New Trial Date in "Brown" Suit Not Yet Set LORILLARD INC: Appeal in "Cleary" Suit Remains Pending MCKESSON CORP: Gets $51MM Share in Settlement of Antitrust Suit PGA NATIONAL RESORT: Faces Class Action Over Unlawful Charges SONY COMPUTER: Faces 16th Suit Over Private Data Breach SONY ONLINE: Faces 17th Suit Over Private Data Breach SYNGENTA CROP: Judge to Review Class Action Documents in June TJX COMPANIES: Removes "Nelson" Song-Beverly Suit to N.D. Calif. VERISK ANALYTICS: "Mornay" Suit Remains Administratively Closed VERISK ANALYTICS: Appeal in "Cook" Suit Still Pending VERISK ANALYTICS: "Gluzman" Suit Settlement Gets Final Approval VONAGE HOLDINGS: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Okay WAFFLE HOUSE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wage Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Has $25.48MM March 31 Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leslie Records $79.80MM Liabilities at April 3 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coca-Cola Sees May 2011 Settlement in Aqua-Chem ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers' March 31 Current Liabilities at $8.56MM ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Estimates $638MM Liability at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: PREIT Posts $10MM-$20MM Coverage for A&E Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: 28 Exposure Cases Open v. Minerals Technologies ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Has 16,841 Claims at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Still Involved in Exposure Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Midwest Generation Facing 228 Cases at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: 103,678 Claims Pending v. ITT Corp. at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial in Cannon Electric Slated for August 2011 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Pending v. Anadarko Petroleum ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eastman Chemical Subject to Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fairmont Facing 22,500 Claims in 8 U.S. States ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims v. Rogers Corp. Surge to 214 at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Skilled Healthcare Group's Liability at $3.91MM ASBESTOS UPDATE: UIL Holdings Corp. Posts $18MM ARO at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Dynamics Subject to Potential Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: 11.2T Cases Pending v. Mallinckrodt at March 25 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Posts $2.1MM April 1 Litigation Expense ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Accrues $37.49MM Liabilities at April 1 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Facing to 21,774 Claims at April 1 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Reserves $425.8MM for Claims at April 1 ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Corp., 8 Units Subject to Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Subject to 52,230 Claims at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. Posts $16.2MM Liability at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Issues Split Ruling in Lucas Lawsuit ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.D. Court Upholds Ruling in Vicknair's Lawsuit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mich. Appeals Court OKs Ruling In Falk Lawsuit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plymouth Shipwright's Death Linked to Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartlepool Supervisor's Death Related to Hazard ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brown Awarded $322MM in Lawsuit v. Chevron, UCC ASBESTOS UPDATE: Clark Action v. 9 Firms Filed April 27 in Texas ASBESTOS UPDATE: Casey Injury Action V. Kaiser Settled on May 11 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trimble Case v. 41 Firms Filed April 6 in Ill. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hemphill Case v. 10 Firms Filed May 4 in Texas ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abbott and Mason Penalized for Safety Breaches ASBESTOS UPDATE: Briggs & Stratton Subject to Liability Actions ASBESTOS UPDATE: FirstEnergy Still Subject to Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: 14 Lorillard Cases Set for Trial as of April 27 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Has $400T Net Claims Provisions ASBESTOS UPDATE: TRW Automotive Still Party to Exposure Actions ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Issues Split Ruling in Greenspoon Action ASBESTOS UPDATE: District Court Dismisses Garner, Palermo Action ********* APEX OIL: Judge Approves $4MM Hartford Class Action Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Korris, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports that eight years of class action litigation over petroleum pollution in Hartford ended on May 2, when Madison County Circuit Judge William Mudge approved a $4 million settlement of claims against Apex Oil and Sinclair Oil. The settlement brought total recovery to $39 million, Judge Mudge wrote. BP, Shell Oil subsidiary Equilon, and Premcor Refining had previously settled class action claims that they created a lake of petroleum beneath Hartford. Apex and Sinclair agreed to pay $1,563,000 for property damage and loss of property value, and $1,042,000 for loss of enjoyment and use. Lawyers who represented village residents and property owners will collect the remainder -- about $1.4 million. The class includes all who resided in Hartford or owned property there since 1984. "These automatic payments will provide record owners of property with significant individual benefits on top of those already received in the former Premcor, Equilon and BP settlements," Judge Mudge wrote. "All settlement class members will be compensated based upon proximity of their residence to the underground accumulation of hydrocarbons and other petroleum products and the number of years in their residence," he wrote. "The settlement benefits allocated to property damage will be calculated based upon individual property value and the location of the property in proximity to the underground accumulation of hydrocarbons and other petroleum products and paid out automatically to all owners of record in the village," he wrote. About 1,500 persons live in Hartford. Thirteen Hartford residents who represented the class will receive $7,500 each. The village is represented by: Mark C. Goldenberg, Esq. Holly A. Reese, Esq. GOLDENBERG, HELLER, ANTOGNOLI & ROWLAND, P.C. 2227 S. State Route 157 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: 618-656-5150 E-mail: mark@ghalaw.com holly@ghalaw.com - and - Norman E. Siegel, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: 816-714-7112 E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com - and - Teresa A. Woody THE WOODY LAW FIRM PC 1044 Main Street, Suite 500 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: 816-421-4246 - and - Philip C. Graham, Esq. HELFREY, NEIERS & JONES P.C. 120 S. Central Ave, Ste. 1500 Clayton, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 725-9100 E-mail: pgraham@hnjlaw.com - and - Christopher W. Dysart DYSART LAW FIRM, P.C. 100 Chesterfield Business Pkwy Second Floor Chesterfield, MO 63005 Telephone: (636) 812-0191 E-mail: cdysart@dysart-law.com Apex is represented by: James O'Brien, Esq. Richard A. Ahrens, Esq. LEWIS, RICE & FINGERSH, L.C. 600 Washington, Suite 2500 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 444-1317 E-mail: jobrien@lewisrice.com rahrens@lewisrice.com - and - Theodore H. Lucas, Esq. FOX GALVIN, LLC One Memorial Drive, 12th Floor St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: 314-588-7000 x 156 E-mail: TLucas@FoxGalvin.com - and - William J. Knapp, Esq. KNAPP, OHL & GREEN 6100 Center Grove Road, P.O. Box 446 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: 618-656-5088 Sinclair is represented by: Joseph G. Nassif, Esq. Michael D. Montgomery, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP The Plaza in Clayton 190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: 314-480-1500 E-mail: joseph.nassif@huschblackwell.com michael.montgomery@huschblackwell.com - and - Bernard J. Ysursa, Esq. COOK, YSURSA, BARTHOLOMEW, BRAUER & SHEVLIN, LTD. 12 West Lincoln Street Belleville, IL 62220-2085 Telephone: 618-235-3500 BATTEA - CLASS ACTION SERVICES: NY Court Dismisses Infinity Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Battea - Class Action Services, LLC disclosed that a New York Court has dismissed a lawsuit brought against the Company in New York by Infinity Financial Partners, Inc., and its principal, Jeff Doria. In its lawsuit, Infinity had claimed that Battea was obligated to pay Infinity and Doria certain client referral fees. However, Justice O. Peter Sherwood of the Supreme Court of New York, in Manhattan, disagreed and ordered dismissal of all of Infinity's claims against the Company on the grounds that it had not entered into the referenced contract with Infinity or Doria. As a result, the Court held that the Company had no obligation to pay any monies to Infinity or Doria. This is not the first time a lawsuit filed by Infinity and Doria against the Company has been dismissed. Infinity's prior lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and the Southern District of New York were also dismissed in 2008 and 2010, respectively. Peter K. Hansen, Chairman of the Company stated, "Our Company has an impeccable record and in its ten year history has never been sued in any other matters. This was nothing short of an opportunistic suit that became a nuisance for the Company. We are gratified that the Court recognized that Infinity's and Doria's claims against Battea-Class Action Services were baseless and without any merit." About Battea - Class Action Services, LLC Through its proprietary technology platform, The Claims Engine(R), Battea ? Class Action Services -- http://www.battea.com-- optimizes class action settlement award recovery across all asset classes for more than 200 institutional investors, including hedge funds, asset management firms, sovereign and pension funds, endowments and family offices. The Company provides a full- service solution for the entire securities class action award recovery process -- from calculating recognized loss for every claim through the confirmation, receipt and delivery of settlement payouts. Battea is the industry leader and has been recovering funds for clients since 2001. Through significant on-going, focused investments in its case claims algorithms, advanced technology platform, infrastructure, and human capital, the Company continues to set new standards that other industry participants aspire to achieve. Battea is the only securities class action recovery firm that is fully SAS-70 compliant across all internal operations and external data center/networking partners. CHUCK E. CHEESE'S: Faces Class Action Over Children's Games ----------------------------------------------------------- Debra Cassens Weiss, writing for ABA Journal, reports that a San Diego mom has filed a potential class action against Chuck E. Cheese's that claims its games are illegal gambling devices. The federal suit by real-estate agent Denise Keller claims the games are similar to slot machines, the San Diego Union Tribune reports. Children play with tokens that cost 25 cents each, and the machines dispense tickets that can be redeemed for prizes. California generally bans gambling, but it makes an exception for games of skill. The suit claims the games at Chuck E. Cheese's are based mostly on chance and they "create the same highs and lows experienced by adults who gamble their paychecks or the mortgage payment." Lawyers for the company that owns the restaurant chain, CEC Entertainment Inc., are seeking dismissal of the case. They claim the games aren't illegal, but if they were, Ms. Keller participated in the gambling and should be barred from collecting damages. CNA FINANCIAL: Reaches MOU to Settle Consolidated New Jersey Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- CNA Financial Corporation reached a memorandum of settlement understanding, subject to negotiation of additional terms and court approval, with plaintiffs in a consolidated class action lawsuit pending in a New Jersey court, according to the Company's May 3, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. In August 2005, CNAF and certain insurance subsidiaries were joined as defendants, along with other insurers and brokers, in multidistrict litigation pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, Civil No. 04-5184 (GEB). The plaintiffs' consolidated class action complaint alleges bid rigging and improprieties in the payment of contingent commissions in connection with the sale of insurance that violated federal and state antitrust laws, the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and state common law. After discovery, the District Court dismissed the federal antitrust claims and the RICO claims, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their complaint to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. In August 2010, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the antitrust claims and the RICO claims against CNAF and certain insurance subsidiaries, but vacated the dismissal of one portion of those claims against some other parties and remanded them for further proceedings on motions to dismiss. The Court of Appeals also vacated and remanded the dismissal of the state law claims against CNAF and certain insurance subsidiaries and other parties to allow for further proceedings relating to motions to dismiss before the District Court. In November 2010, CNAF and certain insurance subsidiaries filed in the district court a motion to dismiss the remaining state law claims pending against them. In March 2011, CNAF and certain insurance subsidiaries, along with certain other defendants, entered into a memorandum of settlement understanding with the plaintiffs to settle all claims asserted, or which could have been asserted, in the class action lawsuit. The settlement is subject to negotiation of additional terms, execution of a settlement agreement and court approval of the settlement. As currently structured, the settlement will not have a material impact on the Company's results of operations. Chicago-based CNA Financial Corporation is a commercial insurance writer and a property and casualty company. The Company's insurance products include standard commercial lines, specialty lines, surety, marine and other property and casualty coverages. DIRECTBUY INC: Connecticut Judge Rejects Class Action Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a federal judge in Connecticut issued an order on May 16 rejecting a proposed class action settlement with wholesale buying club DirectBuy Inc. Tennessee Attorney General Robert E. Cooper led the 40-state effort opposing the settlement with the company, which claims to sell home improvement items and furnishings at a "direct insider" price through a paid membership. The attorneys general, in a 36-page amicus brief filed in the U.S. District Court in Connecticut last month, said the company offered no real benefit to consumers. The lawsuit at issue accuses DirectBuy of fraudulent misrepresentation because the company implied that its 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. According to the lawsuit, which names DirectBuy Inc., United Consumers Club Inc. and DirectBuy Holdings Inc. as defendants, the company did not disclose this arrangement to customers until early 2009. Under the proposed DirectBuy agreement, current and former customers would be eligible to receive a "free" two-month membership to DirectBuy. The attorneys general argued the memberships offered were not fair, reasonable and adequate settlement for most of the customers harmed. "The scant relief offered under the proposed settlement to hundreds of thousands of absent class members nationwide stands in stark contrast to the $4,000 cash incentive payments to each of the named plaintiffs (totaling $28,000), the $350,000 to $1 million in attorneys' fees to class counsel provided under the proposed settlement . . . and the initial membership fees themselves, which ranged from $1,000 to $5,000 plus additional charges with financing," the attorneys general wrote in last month's brief. The attorneys general also had argued the proposed settlement would not prohibit similar future conduct by DirectBuy. According to the Tennessee Attorney General's Office, the multistate effort is the largest collective action by the attorneys general opposing a class-action settlement since the passage of the Class Action Fairness Act in 2005. "I want to make sure that consumers are treated fairly in class- action settlements," Mr. Cooper said in a statement on May 16. FELTEX CARPETS: Former Directors Face Investor Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Gregor, writing for NZ Herald News, reports that the former directors of Feltex Carpets have reached a settlement with the company's liquidators but still face a class action brought by aggrieved investors who collectively lost millions when the company collapsed in 2006. Liquidators McDonald Vague announced on May 12 that they had reached a "full and final" settlement with the former directors -- Peter Hunter, Peter Thomas, Tim Saunders, Michael Feeney and John Hagen -- and that the terms of the settlement were confidential. A case between the two parties was supposed to have started yesterday in the High Court at Auckland. Liquidators were appointed to Feltex in December 2006 after its main lender, ANZ, placed it into receivership in September because of a NZ$100 million debt. McDonald Vague said the settlement was entered into without any admission of liability by the directors. The directors pleaded not guilty to charges brought by the Securities Commission -- now the Financial Markets Authority -- alleging they had breached the Securities Act. The directors were acquitted last August. Both the liquidators and the commission's case against Feltex centered on the company's six-month accounts to December 31, 2005, which incorrectly classified its debt with ANZ as non-current when it should have been current -- meaning it was on call. But the class action against the directors, which excludes Hagen, is centered on the company's float in 2004. The investors claim Feltex's registered prospectus in 2004, the same year it floated, contained information that was misleading or wrong, or omitted to make information available that would have affected a person's decision to invest in the company. The defendants have denied the allegations. Also targeted is Credit Suisse First Boston Asian Merchant Partners, Credit Suisse Private Equity and joint lead float managers First New Zealand Capital and Forsyth Barr. An update on how the plaintiffs' case is progressing is due to be filed this month. FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS: Unit Still Face Claims in New Jersey Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- An affiliate of FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. continue to face claims in a consolidated lawsuit filed in New Jersey, according to the Company's May 3, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31. In July 1999, the Mid-Atlantic States experienced a severe heat wave, which resulted in power outages throughout the service territories of many electric utilities, including Jersey Central Power & Light Company. Two class action lawsuits (subsequently consolidated into a single proceeding) were filed in New Jersey Superior Court in July 1999 against JCP&L, GPU Inc. and other GPU companies, seeking compensatory and punitive damages due to the outages. After various motions, rulings and appeals, the Plaintiffs' claims for consumer fraud, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, strict product liability and punitive damages were dismissed, leaving only the negligence and breach of contract causes of actions. On July 29, 2010, the Appellate Division upheld the trial court's decision decertifying the class. Plaintiffs have filed, and JCP&L has opposed, a motion for leave to appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court. In November 2010, the Supreme Court issued an order denying Plaintiffs' motion. The Court's order effectively ends the class action attempt, and leaves only 9 plaintiffs to pursue their respective individual claims. The remaining individual plaintiffs have not taken any affirmative steps to pursue their individual claims. FirstEnergy Corp. is a diversified energy company headquartered in Akron, Ohio. Its subsidiaries and affiliates are involved in the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity, as well as energy management and other energy-related services. Its seven electric utility operating companies comprise the nation's fifth largest investor-owned electric system, based on 4.5 million customers served within a 36,100-square-mile area of Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Jersey; and its generation subsidiaries control more than 14,000 megawatts of capacity. FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS: Appeal in Geauga County Suit Still Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal of a ruling dismissing a class action lawsuit filed in Geauga County Court of Common Pleas against FirstEnergy Solutions Corp.'s parent remains pending, according to the Company's May 3, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. In February 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed in Geauga County Court of Common Pleas against FirstEnergy Corp., The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company and Ohio Edison Company seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, as well as compensatory, incidental and consequential damages, on behalf of a class of customers related to the reduction of a discount that had previously been in place for residential customers with electric heating, electric water heating, or load management systems. The reduction in the discount was approved by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. In March 2010, the named-defendant companies filed a motion to dismiss the case due to the lack of jurisdiction of the court of common pleas. The court granted the motion to dismiss on September 7, 2010. The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, which has not yet rendered an opinion. FirstEnergy Corp. is a diversified energy company headquartered in Akron, Ohio. Its subsidiaries and affiliates are involved in the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity, as well as energy management and other energy-related services. Its seven electric utility operating companies comprise the nation's fifth largest investor-owned electric system, based on 4.5 million customers served within a 36,100-square-mile area of Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Jersey; and its generation subsidiaries control more than 14,000 megawatts of capacity. INTERNATIONAL COAL: Shareholder Files Class Action Over Merger -------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that another common stock shareholder has filed a complaint alleging "inadequate compensation" in International Coal Group Inc.'s planned merger with Arch Coal Inc. Timothy Eyster filed the potential class-action lawsuit in Putnam County Circuit Court on May 13 on behalf of himself and other common stock shareholders. He is suing ICG, its board of directors and Arch. Mr. Eyster, like Damian Walker, who filed a potential class-action suit against ICG, its board and Arch on May 9, takes issue with the proposed sale of ICG to Arch at $14.60 per share. On May 2, ICG and Arch issued a joint statement announcing they entered into a definitive agreement and plan of merger in connection with the proposed acquisition. Arch would acquire ICG, a Delaware corporation headquartered in Scott Depot, W.Va., in an all-cash transaction valued at $3.4 billion. The plaintiffs in both cases allege that ICG's board of directors breached its fiduciary duties to its shareholders in merging with Arch. Mr. Eyster, in his complaint, calls the sale process "flawed." He points to the merger agreement's $115 million termination fee, which requires that ICG pay $115 million should it decide to accept a competing offer. "The Termination Fee impairs (ICG's) Board of Directors from freely and effectively exercising their business judgment in the interests of (ICG's) shareholders and also discourages other potential bidders from emerging, including those who would be willing to pay more than $14.60 per share for the Company," Mr. Eyster wrote. He continued, "If the Proposed Transaction is consummated, Arch and (ICG) insiders will enrich themselves by acquiring the public shareholders' interest in the Company without paying a fair and adequate price, thereby irreparably harming Plaintiff and the other (ICG) shareholders not affiliated with Arch." ICG, its board and Arch are forcing "an oppressive and fundamentally unfair transaction" onto ICG's shareholders, Mr. Eyster says. Like Mr. Walker, Mr. Eyster is seeking to enjoin the close of the proposed acquisition, which is scheduled to close at the end of the second quarter of 2011. Mr. Eyster also is asking that the board "diligently avail themselves of all material information necessary to make an informed judgment concerning the fairness of the proposed transaction," and that it "fully and accurately disclose all material information to (ICG's) public shareholders so they can make an informed decision" on whether to tender their shares. Counsel for the plaintiff include: Kevin W. Thompson, Esq. Smith & Thompson Huntington Square Building 900 Lee Street, Suite 804 P.O. Box 11178 Charleston, WV 25339 Telephone: (304) 343-6383 David R. Barney Jr., Esq. 2030 Kanawha Blvd., E. Charleston, West Virginia - and - Joseph E. White III, Esq. Lester R. Hooker, Esq. SAXENA WHITE PA 2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: 561-394-3399 - and - Jonathan M. Stein, Esq. Law Office of Jonathan M. Stein, P.L. 1 West Ames Court, Suite 201, Plainview, NY 11803 Telephone: 561-961-2244 E-mail: jstein@jonathansteinlaw.com ICG is one of the leading producers of coal in Northern and Central Appalachia. It has 12 mining complexes located in West Virginia, Kentucky, Virginia and Maryland. It was founded in 2004 and was taken public in 2005. Arch is one of the world's largest coal producers. According to its Web site, it contributes roughly 15% of America's coal supply. It has mining complexes in Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, West Virginia, Kentucky and Virginia. JAMES LATHAM PETERS: Hepatitis C Victims Mount Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Herald Sun reports that victims of an anaesthetist accused of infecting his patients with hepatitis C are calling for him to be charged after health bosses said it was "hard to believe" it was an accident. Almost 50 women have the same strain of hepatitis C as Dr. James Latham Peters after having abortions at the Croydon Day Surgery. A further 19 women treated by Dr. Peters showed signs of past infection but there was not enough virus present for a definitive ruling. The public health inquiry, which resulted in 4,312 women being tested, has concluded -- but it could not prove -- it was a deliberate act. Victoria's Chief Health Officer Dr. John Carnie said it was hard to believe the 49 women had been "accidentally" infected. "It would be very hard to determine some accidental means that would involve this number of patients at just the one clinic," Dr. Carnie said. Slater & Gordon lawyer Paula Shelton, Esq., mounting a class action on behalf of victims, said they were disappointed by the slow progress. Many are undergoing a punishing regime of weekly injections and tablets. "It's pretty tough for them looking down the barrel of a serious chronic illness, which can cause liver failure," she said. One of the victims, a woman in her 30s, has a 99.8% match to Dr. Peters. The mother of two said she wants Victoria Police to charge him. "I'm blown away that it has taken this long. I'm mortified, I just feel let down," she said. Dr. Peters has been banned from practicing medicine. The case began in April 2010, with revelations of 12 women being infected at the Croydon Centre but that quickly grew as more women tested positive. No other cases have been found at any of Dr. Peters' other abortion clinics. The police taskforce set up to investigate, Taskforce Clays, has faced significant obstacles with the number of victims and witnesses interviewed and the complexity and breadth of the case. Supt. Gerry Ryan said the police investigation was ongoing and methodical. "We are progressing," Supt. Ryan said. He said the taskforce would not be rushed into completing its inquiries. Dr. Peters had a history of drug use and was last year convicted of possessing images of child pornography. LORILLARD INC: Certiorari Petition in "Scott" Suit Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ A petition for writ of certiorari filed by defendants in the class action captioned Scott v. The American Tobacco Company, et al. (District Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, filed May 24, 1996), remains pending, according to Lorillard, Inc.'s May 3, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. In one of the class actions pending against Lorillard Tobacco, Scott v. The American Tobacco Company, et al. (District Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, filed May 24, 1996), the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, issued a decision in April 2010 that modified the trial court's 2008 amended final judgment. The April 2010 Decision reduced the judgment amount from approximately $264 million to approximately $242 million to fund a ten year, court-supervised smoking cessation program. The April 2010 Decision also changed the date on which the award of post-judgment interest will accrue to July 2008. Interest awarded by the amended final judgment will continue to accrue from July 2008 until the judgment either is paid or is reversed on appeal. As of April 27, 2011, judicial interest totaled approximately $34.6 million. Lorillard, Inc., which was a party to the case in the past, is no longer a defendant. In its April 2010 Decision, the Court of Appeal expressly preserved defendants' right to assert claims on unspent or surplus funds, should any such funds be present, at the conclusion of the ten-year smoking cessation program. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied review of the petitions that were filed by the defendants and the plaintiffs. The U.S. Supreme Court has granted defendants' application to stay execution of the amended final judgment until defendants' petition for writ of certiorari is resolved. As of April 27, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court had not determined whether it would grant review of defendants' certiorari petition. In 1997, Scott was certified a class action on behalf of certain cigarette smokers resident in the State of Louisiana who desire to participate in medical monitoring or smoking cessation programs and who began smoking prior to September 1, 1988, or who began smoking prior to May 24, 1996 and allege that defendants undermined compliance with the warnings on cigarette packages. Trial in Scott was heard in two phases. At the conclusion of the first phase in July 2003, the jury rejected medical monitoring, the primary relief requested by plaintiffs, and returned sufficient findings in favor of the class to proceed to a Phase II trial on plaintiffs' request for a statewide smoking cessation program. Phase II of the trial, which concluded in May 2004, resulted in an award of $591 million to fund cessation programs for Louisiana smokers. In February 2007, the Louisiana Court of Appeal reduced the amount of the award by approximately $328 million; struck an award of prejudgment interest, which totaled approximately $440 million as of December 31, 2006; and limited class membership to individuals who began smoking by September 1, 1988, and whose claims accrued by September 1, 1988. In January 2008, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' and defendants' separate petitions for review. In May 2008, U.S. Supreme Court denied defendants' request that it review the case. The case was returned to the trial court, which subsequently entered an amended final judgment that ordered the defendants to pay approximately $264 million to fund the court- supervised smoking cessation program for the members of the certified class. The Court of Appeal's April 2010 Decision was an appeal from this judgment. Should the amended final judgment be sustained on appeal, Lorillard Tobacco's share of that judgment, including the award of post-judgment interest, has not been determined. In the fourth quarter of 2007, Lorillard, Inc. recorded a pretax provision of approximately $66 million for this matter which was included in selling, general and administrative expenses on the consolidated statements of income and was reclassified from other liabilities to accrued liabilities in the second quarter of 2010 on the consolidated balance sheets. The parties filed a stipulation in the trial court agreeing that an article of Louisiana law required that the amount of the bond for the appeal be set at $50 million for all defendants collectively. The parties further agreed that the plaintiffs have full reservations of rights to contest in the trial court the sufficiency of the bond on any grounds. Defendants collectively posted a surety bond in the amount of $50 million, of which Lorillard Tobacco secured 25%, or $12.5 million, which is classified as restricted cash within other current assets on the consolidated balance sheet. While Lorillard Tobacco believes the limitation on the appeal bond amount is valid as required by Louisiana law, in the event of a successful challenge the amount of the appeal bond could be set as high as 150% of the judgment and judicial interest combined. If such an event occurred, Lorillard Tobacco's share of the appeal bond has not been determined. Lorillard, Inc. -- http://www.lorillard.com/-- is the third largest manufacturer of cigarettes in the United States. Founded in 1760, Lorillard is the oldest continuously operating tobacco company in the U.S. Newport, Lorillard's flagship menthol- flavored premium cigarette brand, is the top selling menthol and second largest selling cigarette in the U.S. In addition to Newport, the Lorillard product line has five additional brand families marketed under the Kent, True, Maverick, Old Gold and Max brand names. These six brands include 43 different product offerings which vary in price, taste, flavor, length and packaging. Lorillard maintains its headquarters and manufactures all of its products in Greensboro, North Carolina. LORILLARD INC: New Trial Date in "Brown" Suit Not Yet Set --------------------------------------------------------- A new trial date in the class action lawsuit captioned Brown v. The American Tobacco Company, Inc., et al. (Superior Court, San Diego County, California, filed June 10, 1997), has not been set, according to Lorillard, Inc.'s May 3, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. In the Class Action Case pending against Lorillard Tobacco, Brown v. The American Tobacco Company, Inc., et al. (Superior Court, San Diego County, California, filed June 10, 1997), the California Supreme Court in 2009 vacated an order that had previously decertified a class and returned Brown to the trial court for further activity. The trial court has informed the parties that it believes the class previously certified in Brown has been reinstated as a result of the California Supreme Court's ruling. The class previously certified in Brown is composed of residents of California who smoked at least one of defendants' cigarettes between June 10, 1993, and April 23, 2001, and who were exposed to defendants' marketing and advertising activities in California. The trial court also has ruled that it will permit plaintiffs to assert claims regarding the allegedly fraudulent marketing of "light" or "ultra-light" cigarettes. Trial in Brown had been scheduled for May 2011, but the court vacated (or canceled) this setting. As of April 27, 2011, a new date for trial had not been set. Trial dates are subject to change. Lorillard, Inc. is not a defendant in Brown. Lorillard, Inc. -- http://www.lorillard.com/-- is the third largest manufacturer of cigarettes in the United States. Founded in 1760, Lorillard is the oldest continuously operating tobacco company in the U.S. Newport, Lorillard's flagship menthol- flavored premium cigarette brand, is the top selling menthol and second largest selling cigarette in the U.S. In addition to Newport, the Lorillard product line has five additional brand families marketed under the Kent, True, Maverick, Old Gold and Max brand names. These six brands include 43 different product offerings which vary in price, taste, flavor, length and packaging. Lorillard maintains its headquarters and manufactures all of its products in Greensboro, North Carolina. LORILLARD INC: Appeal in "Cleary" Suit Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------ An appeal from a ruling dismissing claims in the class action lawsuit captioned Cleary v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al. (U.S. District Court, Northern District, Illinois, filed June 3, 1998), remains pending, according to Lorillard, Inc.'s May 3, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. In the Class Action Case pending against Lorillard Tobacco, Cleary v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al. (U.S. District Court, Northern District, Illinois, filed June 3, 1998), a court allowed plaintiffs to amend their complaint in an existing class action to assert claims on behalf of a subclass of individuals who purchased "light" cigarettes from the defendants, but it subsequently dismissed the "light" cigarettes claims asserted against Lorillard Tobacco. In June 2010, the court dismissed plaintiffs' remaining claims, and it entered final judgment in defendants' favor. Plaintiffs have noticed an appeal from the final judgment, including the prior ruling that dismissed plaintiffs' "lights" claims against Lorillard Tobacco, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Lorillard, Inc. is not a defendant in Cleary. Lorillard, Inc. -- http://www.lorillard.com/-- is the third largest manufacturer of cigarettes in the United States. Founded in 1760, Lorillard is the oldest continuously operating tobacco company in the U.S. Newport, Lorillard's flagship menthol- flavored premium cigarette brand, is the top selling menthol and second largest selling cigarette in the U.S. In addition to Newport, the Lorillard product line has five additional brand families marketed under the Kent, True, Maverick, Old Gold and Max brand names. These six brands include 43 different product offerings which vary in price, taste, flavor, length and packaging. Lorillard maintains its headquarters and manufactures all of its products in Greensboro, North Carolina. MCKESSON CORP: Gets $51MM Share in Settlement of Antitrust Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- McKesson Corporation disclosed in its May 3, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that cost of sales for the year ended March 31, 2011, includes an asset impairment charge of $72 million in its Technology Solutions segment for capitalized software held for sale, and a credit of $51 million in its Distribution Solutions segment representing the Company's share of a settlement of an antitrust class action lawsuit brought against a drug manufacturer. McKesson Corporation -- http://http://www.mckesson.com/-- is a healthcare services and information technology company dedicated to helping its customers deliver high-quality healthcare by reducing costs, streamlining processes, and improving the quality and safety of patient care. Over the course of its 177-year history, McKesson has grown by providing pharmaceutical and medical-surgical supply management across the spectrum of care; healthcare information technology for hospitals, physicians, homecare and payors; hospital and retail pharmacy automation; and services for manufacturers and payors designed to improve outcomes for patients. PGA NATIONAL RESORT: Faces Class Action Over Unlawful Charges ------------------------------------------------------------- The PGA may be a stickler for fairness on the golf course, but when it comes to honestly disclosing guest fees at its nationally renowned resort hotel in Palm Beach, the organization's practices are tantamount to kicking the ball to get a better lie, according to Sanford Wittels & Heisler LLP. That's the assertion at the heart of a $25 million class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on May 16 by New York residents Alison Handwerker and Jeffrey Greenburg, two of the tens of thousands of customers who were hit with a daily resort fee charge by the PGA Resort. The class comprises all individuals who were charged the daily resort fee that was not disclosed to them prior to, or at the time they made their reservations using the PGA's Web site or by calling the PGA Resort directly. Ms. Handwerker, Mr. Greenberg and the class are represented by: Steven L. Wittels, Esq. Jeremy Heisler, Esq. SANFORD WITTELS & HEISLER, LLP 1350 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 723-2947 E-mail: swittels@swhlegal.com jheisler@swhlegal.com Florida-based PGA National Resort & Spa and Illinois-based Walton Street Capital LLC are named as defendants in the suit. "Guests at the PGA's Palm Beach Resort expect courteous treatment and hospitality," said Mr. Wittels. "But instead, the organization tees up deceit and trickery by forcing its departing guests to pay an undisclosed and surprise 'resort fee' of $25 for each day of their stay, plus taxes on that fee. The PGA keeps this fee hidden until guests check out, despite purporting to provide 'full-pricing' information to potential customers over the telephone and on the resort's reservation Web site." The Complaint alleges that the PGA's undisclosed charges violate the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and also constitute common law breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The complaint asks the Court to certify the Plaintiff Class, issue a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from continuing to charge the undisclosed fees, and award the Plaintiffs actual damages, punitive damages, and restitution for the undisclosed fees they have already been forced to pay. "There's no place in the legitimate tourism business for the kind of chicanery PGA Resorts perpetrates on its customers every day in the Palm Beach Hotel," said Mr. Heisler. "Resort owners can charge any legal fees they wish. But they can't hide the fee and then charge customers at check-out time. That flim-flammery has to end, and we hope this lawsuit does exactly that." About SWH Sanford Wittels & Heisler LLP is a law firm with offices in Washington, D.C., New York, and San Francisco that specializes in employment discrimination, wage and hour, consumer and complex corporate class action litigation and has represented thousands of individuals in some of the major class action cases in the United States. The firm also represents individual clients in employment, employment discrimination, sexual harassment, whistleblower, public accommodations, commercial, medical malpractice, and personal injury matters. SONY COMPUTER: Faces 16th Suit Over Private Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------- Mark Obregon, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC, et al., Case No. 11-cv-02342 (N.D. Calif. May 11, 2011), accuses the Sony defendants of failing to protect otherwise private credit card and personal data of its U.S. based subscribers/users of PlayStation, in violation of state and federal law. The Plaintiff says that as a result of the Sony defendants' lack of appropriate security measures, third party "hackers" have compromised and otherwise gained access to private data information of millions of class members. Furthermore, plaintiff avers that defendants covered up the security breach and only disclosed the breach in its blog more than a week after the breach first occurred. Mr. Obregon, a citizen of the State of Georgia, was recently advised that his personal data, as provided to defendants, had been accessed by an unauthorized third party. Defendant Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company with its headquarters in Foster City, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron H. Darsky, Esq. AARON DARSKY, P.C. 345 Franklin Street, Suite 103 San Francisco. CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 515-4220 E-mail: aaron@darskylaw.com - and - William M. Audet, Esq. Kevin L. Thomason, Esq. Joshua C. Ezrin, Esq. Jonas P. Mann, Esq. AUDET & PARTNERS LLP 221 Main Street, Suite 1460 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 568-2555 E-mail: WAudet@audetlaw.com KThomason@audetlaw.com JEzrin@audetlaw.com jmann@audetlaw.com SONY ONLINE: Faces 17th Suit Over Private Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------- George Thompson, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Sony Online Entertainment, LLC, et al., Case No. 11-cv-02340 (N.D. Calif. May 11, 2011), brought a class action complaint against Sony for failing to secure and safeguard its users' private personal and financial data, including e-mail addresses, passwords, login credentials, home addresses, dates of birth, and credit card information. According to the Complaint, because of Sony's lax security, information was stolen from all of the approximately 24.6 million Sony Online Entertainment (SOE) accounts including to the extent, the information was provided to SOE, the names, addresses, e-mail addresses, birthdates, genders, phone numbers, login names, and hashed passwords. Moreover, credit card information from certain account holders was also obtained by the hackers. Mr. Thompson is a resident of Patchogue, New York. In 2004, plaintiff purchased retail box versions of the SOE games EverOuest and Star Wars Galaxies. Plaintiff Thompson also purchased a retail boxed version of the SOE games EverOuest II in 2007 and DC Universe Online in January 2011. On May 3, 2011, plaintiff Thompson received a notice from SOE via e-mail informing him that his personal data may have been compromised in connection with a breach of SOE's security. The security breach occurred after plaintiff Thompson canceled his subscriptions. Defendant Sony Online Entertainment LLC (formerly Sony Online Entertainment, Inc.) is a Delaware limited liability company with its executive offices and principal place of business and corporate headquarters in San Diego, California. SOE is a game development and game publishing Company that is best known for creating massive multiplayer online role playing games. 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 SYNGENTA CROP: Judge to Review Class Action Documents in June ------------------------------------------------------------- Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports that Madison County Circuit Judge William Mudge has set a June date to privately review documents in a 2004 proposed class action against Syngenta Crop Protection Inc. over alleged water contamination caused by atrazine. According to the case docket sheet, Judge Mudge has set June 22 as the day he will review documents in the suit in camera, or in private. A number of discovery disputes and other matters have been pending before Judge Mudge in the suit filed by lead plaintiff Holiday Shores Sanitary District Shores. Holiday Shores currently leads six proposed class actions against Syngenta and other groups over virtually identical claims. Holiday Shores contends that it and a possible class of Illinois water providers have been forced to remediate their water supplies after atrazine made by Syngenta and other companies runs off farm fields into those water supplies. Atrazine is a weed killer commonly used by farmers. The 2004 Madison County case has sparked a nearly identical federal class action against Syngenta and its parent company. That case, led by the City of Greenville, Ill., is pending in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. None of the Madison County cases have been certified to date nor has the proposed multi-state federal class. Judge Mudge canceled a May 6 hearing in the suit after ruling that Syngenta must turn over documents related to work done on its behalf by a public relations firm in Chicago. Other disputes in the case have centered on discovery from non- parties on the case and when an expert witness was retained by Syngenta. The plaintiffs' lead counsel is: Stephen Tillery, Esq. KOREIN TILLERY, LLC One U.S. Bank Plaza 505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63101-1625 Telephone: 314-241-4844 E-mail: STillery@koreintillery.com The defendants' team is represented by: Kurtis B. Reeg, Esq. REEG LAWYERS, LLC One North Brentwood Boulevard Suite 950 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: 314-446-3350 E-mail: kreeg@reeglawfirm.com The Syngenta case is Madison case number 04-L-710. The atrazine suits are case numbers 04-L-708 to 04-L-713. TJX COMPANIES: Removes "Nelson" Song-Beverly Suit to N.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robin Nelson, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. The TJX Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. CGC-11-508954 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty.), was filed on March 4, 2011. The plaintiff accuses defendants' cashiers of requesting and recording personal identification information, in the form of zip codes, and credit card numbers from customers using credit cards at the point-of-sale in defendants' retail establishments, a practice that is prohibited under California Civil Code section 1747.08 (Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971). According to the plaintiff, The TJX Companies, Inc., and Marshalls of CA, LLC, operate retail stores under the names Marshalls, T.J. Maxx and HomeGoods throughout California. Mr. Nelson is a resident of California, and entered into a retail transaction with defendants at one of defendants' California stores. On the basis of diversity jurisdiction, the defendants, on May 12, 2011, removed the lawsuit to the Northern District of California, and the Clerk assigned Case No. 11-cv-02358 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq. Richard D. Lambert, Esq. STONEBARGER LAW A Professional Corporation 75 Iron Point Circle, Suite 145 Folsom, CA 95630 Telephone: (916) 235-7140 E-mail: gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com rlambert@stonebargerlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Michelle C. Doolin, Esq. Leo P. Norton, Esq. COOLEY LLP 4401 Eastgate Mall San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (858) 550-6000 E-mail: doolinmc@cooley.com lnorton@cooley.com VERISK ANALYTICS: "Mornay" Suit Remains Administratively Closed --------------------------------------------------------------- A putative class action lawsuit captioned Mornay v. Travelers Ins. Co., et al., remains administratively closed pending completion of the appraisal process, according to Verisk Analytics, Inc.'s May 3, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. Mornay v. Travelers Ins. Co., et al. is a putative class action pending against the Company and Travelers Insurance Company filed in November 2007 in the Eastern District of Louisiana. The complaint alleged antitrust violations, breach of contract, negligence, bad faith, and fraud. The court dismissed the antitrust claim as to both defendants and dismissed all claims against the Company other than fraud. Judge Duval stayed all proceedings in the case pending an appraisal of the lead plaintiff's insurance claim. The matter was re-assigned to Judge Barbier, who on September 11, 2009, issued an order administratively closing the matter pending completion of the appraisal process. At this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate resolution of or estimate the liability related to this matter. Verisk Analytics, Inc. -- http://www.verisk.com/-- provides information about risk to professionals in insurance, healthcare, mortgage, government, and risk management. Using advanced technologies to collect and analyze billions of records, Verisk Analytics draws on vast industry expertise and unique proprietary data sets to provide predictive analytics and decision-support solutions in fraud prevention, actuarial science, insurance coverages, fire protection, catastrophe and weather risk, data management, and many other fields. In the United States and around the world, Verisk Analytics helps customers protect people, property, and financial assets. VERISK ANALYTICS: Appeal in "Cook" Suit Still Pending ----------------------------------------------------- An appeal from a ruling dismissing a class action captioned Janice Cook, et al. v. ACS State & Local Solutions, et al. remains pending, according to Verisk Analytics, Inc.'s May 3, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. In April 2010, Insurance Information Exchange, or iiX, the Company's subsidiary, as well as other information providers in the State of Missouri were served with a summons and class action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri alleging violations of the Driver Privacy Protection Act, or the DPPA, entitled Janice Cook, et al. v. ACS State & Local Solutions, et al. Plaintiffs brought the action on their own behalf and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals whose personal information is contained in any motor vehicle record maintained by the State of Missouri and who have not provided express consent to the State of Missouri for the distribution of their personal information for purposes not enumerated by the DPPA and whose personal information has been knowingly obtained and used by the defendants. The class complaint alleges that the defendants knowingly obtained personal information for a purpose not authorized by the DPPA and seeks liquidated damages in the amount of two thousand five hundred dollars for each instance of a violation of the DDPA, punitive damages and the destruction of any illegally obtained personal information. The court granted iiX's motion to dismiss the complaint based on a failure to state a claim on November 19, 2010. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on December 17, 2010. At this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate resolution of, or estimate the liability related to, this matter. Verisk Analytics, Inc. -- http://www.verisk.com/-- provides information about risk to professionals in insurance, healthcare, mortgage, government, and risk management. Using advanced technologies to collect and analyze billions of records, Verisk Analytics draws on vast industry expertise and unique proprietary data sets to provide predictive analytics and decision-support solutions in fraud prevention, actuarial science, insurance coverages, fire protection, catastrophe and weather risk, data management, and many other fields. In the United States and around the world, Verisk Analytics helps customers protect people, property, and financial assets. VERISK ANALYTICS: "Gluzman" Suit Settlement Gets Final Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- A settlement in the class action lawsuit filed against Verisk Analytics, Inc.'s subsidiary, Interthinx, Inc., received final approval in February 2011, according to the Company's May 3, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. In September 2009, the Company's subsidiary, Interthinx, Inc., was served with a putative class action entitled Renata Gluzman v. Interthinx, Inc. The plaintiff, a former Interthinx employee, filed the class action on August 13, 2009, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles on behalf of all Interthinx information technology employees for unpaid overtime and missed meals and rest breaks, as well as various related claims claiming that the information technology employees were misclassified as exempt employees and, as a result, were denied certain wages and benefits that would have been received if they were properly classified as non-exempt employees. The pleadings included, among other things, a violation of Business and Professions Code 17200 for unfair business practices, which allowed plaintiffs to include as class members all information technology employees employed at Interthinx for four years prior to the date of filing the complaint. The complaint sought compensatory damages, penalties that are associated with the various statutes, restitution, interest costs, and attorney fees. On June 2, 2010, plaintiffs agreed to settle their claims with Interthinx and the court granted final approval to the settlement on February 23, 2011. Verisk Analytics, Inc. -- http://www.verisk.com/-- provides information about risk to professionals in insurance, healthcare, mortgage, government, and risk management. Using advanced technologies to collect and analyze billions of records, Verisk Analytics draws on vast industry expertise and unique proprietary data sets to provide predictive analytics and decision-support solutions in fraud prevention, actuarial science, insurance coverages, fire protection, catastrophe and weather risk, data management, and many other fields. In the United States and around the world, Verisk Analytics helps customers protect people, property, and financial assets. VONAGE HOLDINGS: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Okay -------------------------------------------------------------- Law firms Seeger Weiss LLP and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC on May 16 disclosed that the U.S. District Court of New Jersey has granted final approval to a proposed settlement of a consumer class action against telecom provider Vonage Holdings Corp. challenging the company's sales and marketing practices. The final settlement of In re Vonage Marketing and Sales Practice Litigation follows a fairness hearing on May 12, 2011. The settlement will likely provide dollar-for-dollar recovery to most settlement class members. This multi-district litigation involved Vonage's promotional "one month free" and "money back guarantee" offers and application of certain charges (including disconnect, cancellation and termination fees), and subscription fees despite requests for cancellation, which allegedly violated the law. Seeger Weiss partner, Jonathan Shub, Esq., and associate, Scott George, Esq., served as co-lead counsel in this case, along with Andrew Friedman, Esq., and Victoria Nugent, Esq., of Cohen, Milstein. Vonage agreed to pay $4.75 million to fund the settlement, which offers eligible class members reimbursements for certain payments made by Vonage subscribers. Class members includes anyone in the United States who subscribed to Vonage services on or before January 3, 2011, with certain exclusions, and who was unable to receive a full month of free service; did not receive a full money back guarantee under certain circumstances; was charged disconnection fees after cancellation; or paid for monthly service after requesting cancellation. For more details regarding the class and also the benefits available to class members, visit http://www.settlementvonage.com The settlement's claims administrator can be reached by calling toll free (877) 810-7292. Eligible class members must fill out a claim form before July 11, 2011, to qualify for reimbursement. Seeger Weiss LLP -- http://www.settlementvonage.com-- is trial law firm handling complex individual, mass and class action litigation on behalf of consumers, investors and injured persons. The firm, with offices in New York, Philadelphia, Newark and Los Angeles, represents plaintiffs in a variety of practice areas, including pharmaceutical injury, securities and investment fraud, consumer protection, environmental and asbestos exposures, personal injury and medical malpractice, product defect, antitrust, and commercial disputes. Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC -- http://www.cmht.com-- has been a pioneer in plaintiff class action lawsuits on behalf of victims of such abuses. The firm handles major complex class actions. Cohen Milstein, with more than 60 attorneys and offices in Washington, D.C., New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago, is a firm that specializes in cases concerning antitrust, securities fraud and investor protection, civil rights, human rights, consumer protection and unsafe products, employee benefits and public client. WAFFLE HOUSE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wage --------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action asserts that Waffle House failed to pay its employees a minimum wage. A copy of the Complaint in Spears v. Mid-America Waffles, Inc., Case No. 11-cv-02273 (D. Kan.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/17/waffle.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick G. Reavey, Esq. Kevin Koc, Esq. REAVEY LAW LLC Livestock Exchange Building 1600 Genessee, Suite 303 Kansas City, MO 64102 Telephone: (816) 474-6300 E-mail: patrick@reaveylaw.com kkoc@reaveylaw.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Has $25.48MM March 31 Liability --------------------------------------------------------------- Standard Motor Products, Inc.'s accrued asbestos liabilities amounted to US$25,480,000 as of March 31, 2011, compared with US$24,792,000 as of Dec. 31, 2010, according to a Company press release dated May 4, 2011. Standard Motor Products, Inc. manufactures and distributes engine management and air conditioning replacement parts for auto aftermarkets. The Company is headquartered in Long Island City, N.Y. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leslie Records $79.80MM Liabilities at April 3 --------------------------------------------------------------- CIRCOR International, Inc. says that subsidiary Leslie Controls, Inc. recorded asbestos- and bankruptcy-related liabilities of US$79,801,000 as of April 3, 2011, compared with US$79,831,000 as of Dec. 31, 2010, according to a Company press release dated May 5, 2011. During the three months ended April 3, 2011, Leslie's asbestos and bankruptcy charges were US$1.001 million. During the three months ended April 4, 2010, Leslie's asbestos and bankruptcy recoveries were US$648,000. CIRCOR International, Inc. designs, manufactures and markets valves and other highly engineered products for the industrial, aerospace and energy markets. With more than 7,000 customers in over 100 countries, the Company has a diversified product portfolio with recognized, market-leading brands. The Company is headquartered in Burlington, Mass. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coca-Cola Sees May 2011 Settlement in Aqua-Chem ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Coca-Cola Company anticipates that a final settlement with certain of those insurers in litigation involving Aqua-Chem, Inc. (n/k/a Cleaver-Brooks, Inc.) will be finalized in May 2011. During the period from 1970 to 1981, the Company owned Aqua-Chem. A division of Aqua-Chem manufactured certain boilers that contained gaskets that Aqua-Chem purchased from outside suppliers. Several years after the Company sold this entity, Aqua-Chem received its first lawsuit relating to asbestos, a component of some of the gaskets. In September 2002, Aqua-Chem notified the Company that it believed the Company was obligated for certain costs and expenses associated with its asbestos litigations. Aqua-Chem demanded that the Company reimburse it for about US$10 million for out-of-pocket litigation-related expenses. Aqua-Chem also demanded that the Company acknowledge a continuing obligation to Aqua-Chem for any future liabilities and expenses that are excluded from coverage under the applicable insurance or for which there is no insurance. The Company disputes Aqua-Chem's claims. The parties entered into litigation in Georgia to resolve this dispute, which was stayed by agreement of the parties pending the outcome of litigation filed in Wisconsin by certain insurers of Aqua-Chem. In that case, five plaintiff insurance companies filed a declaratory judgment action against Aqua-Chem, the Company and 16 defendant insurance companies seeking a determination of the parties' rights and liabilities under policies issued by the insurers and reimbursement for amounts paid by plaintiffs in excess of their obligations. During the course of the Wisconsin coverage litigation, Aqua-Chem and the Company reached settlements with several of the insurers, including plaintiffs, who have or will pay funds into an escrow account for payment of costs arising from the asbestos claims against Aqua-Chem. On July 24, 2007, the Wisconsin trial court entered a final declaratory judgment regarding the rights and obligations of the parties under the insurance policies issued by the remaining defendant insurers, which judgment was not appealed. The judgment directs that each insurer whose policy is triggered is jointly and severally liable for 100% of Aqua-Chem's losses up to policy limits. The court's judgment concluded the Wisconsin insurance coverage litigation. The Georgia litigation remains subject to the stay agreement. The Company and Aqua-Chem have continued to negotiate with various insurers that were defendants in the Wisconsin coverage litigation over those insurers' obligations to defend and indemnify Aqua-Chem for the asbestos-related claims. The Coca-Cola Company owns or licenses and markets more than 500 non-alcoholic beverage brands, primarily sparkling beverages but also a variety of still beverages such as waters, enhanced waters, juices and juice drinks, ready-to-drink teas and coffees, and energy and sports drinks. The Company is headquartered in Atlanta. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers' March 31 Current Liabilities at $8.56MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rogers Corporation's current asbestos-related liabilities were US$8,563,000 as of both March 31, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010, according to a Company press release dated May 2, 2011. The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities were US$21,159,000 as of both March 31, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010. Current asbestos-related insurance receivables were US$8,563,000 as of both March 31, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010. Long-term asbestos- related insurance receivables were US$20,733,000 as of both March 31, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010. Rogers Corporation's products include advanced circuit materials for wireless infrastructure, power amplifiers, radar systems, high speed digital; power electronics for high-voltage rail traction, hybrid-electric vehicles, wind and solar power conversion; and high performance foams for sealing and energy management in smartphones, aircraft and rail interiors, automobiles and apparel; and other advanced materials for diverse markets including defense and consumer products. The Company is headquartered in Rogers, Conn. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Estimates $638MM Liability at March 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Corning Incorporated says the liability for Amended Pittsburgh Corning Corporation Plan and non-PCC asbestos claims was estimated to be US$638 million at March 31, 2011, compared with an estimate of the liability of US$633 million at December 31, 2010. The Company and PPG Industries, Inc. each own 50% of the capital stock of PCC. Over a period of more than two decades, PCC and several other defendants have been named in numerous lawsuits involving claims alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos. On April 16, 2000, PCC filed for Chapter 11 reorganization in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. At the time PCC filed for bankruptcy protection, there were about 11,800 claims pending against the Company in state court lawsuits alleging various theories of liability based on exposure to PCC's asbestos products and typically requesting monetary damages in excess of US$1 million per claim. The Company is also currently involved in about 10,300 other cases (about 38,700 claims) alleging injuries from asbestos and similar amounts of monetary damages per case. Those cases have been covered by insurance without material impact to the Company to date. Corning Incorporated creates and makes keystone components that enable high-technology systems for consumer electronics, mobile emissions control, telecommunications and life sciences. Its products include glass substrates; ceramic substrates and filters; optical fiber, cable, hardware and equipment; optical biosensors; and other advanced optics and specialty glass solutions. The Company is headquartered in Corning, N.Y. ASBESTOS UPDATE: PREIT Posts $10MM-$20MM Coverage for A&E Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust has insurance coverage for certain asbestos and environmental claims up to US$10 million per occurrence and up to US$20 million in the aggregate. The Company is aware of certain environmental matters at some of its properties, including ground water contamination and the presence of asbestos containing materials. The Company has in the past performed remediation of such environmental matters, and it is not aware of any significant remaining potential liability relating to these environmental matters. The Company may be required in the future to perform testing relating to these matters. Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust (PREIT) has a primary investment focus on retail shopping malls located in the eastern half of the United States, primarily in the Mid-Atlantic region. As of March 31, 2011, the Company's portfolio consisted of a total of 49 properties in 13 states. The Company is headquartered in Philadelphia. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 28 Exposure Cases Open v. Minerals Technologies ---------------------------------------------------------------- Minerals Technologies Inc. currently has 305 pending silica cases and 28 pending asbestos cases, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2011. Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are among numerous defendants in a number of cases seeking damages for exposure to silica or to asbestos containing materials. One new asbestos case was filed in the first quarter of 2011. To date, 1,160 silica cases and five asbestos cases have been dismissed. The Company has not settled any silica or asbestos lawsuits to date. The aggregate cost to the Company for the legal defense of these cases since inception was about US$200,000, the majority of which has been reimbursed by Pfizer Inc. under the terms of certain agreements entered into in connection with the Company's initial public offering in 1992. Minerals Technologies Inc. is a resource- and technology-based company that develops, produces and markets worldwide a broad range of specialty mineral, mineral-based and synthetic mineral products and supporting systems and services. The Company has two reportable segments: Specialty Minerals and Refractories. The Company is based in New York. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Has 16,841 Claims at March 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., at March 31, 2011, was a co- defendant in cases alleging asbestos induced illness involving claims by about 16,841 plaintiffs, which is a net decrease of 24 claims from those previously reported. At Dec. 31, 2010, the Company faced cases alleging asbestos induced illness involving claims by about 16,865 plaintiffs, which is a net increase of 23 claims from those previously reported. (Class Action Reporter, April 1, 2011) In each instance, the Company is one of a large number of defendants. The asbestos claimants seek compensatory and punitive damages, in most cases for unspecified sums. Since Jan. 1, 1995, the Company has been a co-defendant in other similar cases that have been resolved as follows: 39,014 of those claims were dismissed, 17 were tried to defense verdicts, seven were tried to plaintiff verdicts (two of which are being appealed), one was resolved by agreement for an immaterial amount and 578 were decided in favor of the Company following summary judgment motions. Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc.'s primary business is the design and manufacture of arc welding and cutting products, manufacturing a broad line of arc welding equipment, consumable welding products and other welding and cutting products. The Company is headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio. ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Still Involved in Exposure Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- For over 30 years, PPG Industries, Inc. has been a defendant in lawsuits involving claims alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2011. Most of the Company's potential exposure relates to allegations by plaintiffs that PPG should be liable for injuries involving asbestos-containing thermal insulation products, known as Unibestos, manufactured and distributed by Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (PC). The Company and Corning Incorporated are each 50% shareholders of PC. The Company has denied responsibility for, and has defended, all claims for any injuries caused by PC products. As of the April 16, 2000 order which stayed and enjoined asbestos claims against the Company, the Company was one of many defendants in numerous asbestos-related lawsuits involving about 114,000 claims served on the Company. During the period of the stay, the Company generally has not been aware of the dispositions, if any, of these asbestos claims. PPG Industries, Inc. produces coatings and specialty products company. It serves customers in industrial, transportation, consumer products, and construction markets and aftermarkets. With headquarters in Pittsburgh, the Company operates in more than 60 countries around the globe. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Midwest Generation Facing 228 Cases at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- There were about 228 asbestos cases for which Midwest Generation, LLC was potentially liable and that had not been settled and dismissed at March 31, 2011, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2011. There were about 223 asbestos cases for which the Company was potentially liable and that had not been settled and dismissed at Dec. 31, 2010. (Class Action Reporter, April 1, 2011) The Company entered into a supplemental agreement with Commonwealth Edison and Exelon Generation Company LLC on Feb. 20, 2003, to resolve a dispute regarding interpretation of its reimbursement obligation for asbestos claims under the environmental indemnities set forth in the Asset Sale Agreement. Under this supplemental agreement, the Company agreed to reimburse Commonwealth Edison and Exelon Generation for 50% of specific asbestos claims pending as of February 2003 and related expenses less recovery of insurance costs, and agreed to a sharing arrangement for liabilities and expenses associated with future asbestos-related claims as specified in the agreement. As a general matter, Commonwealth Edison and the Company apportion responsibility for future asbestos-related claims based upon the number of exposure sites that are Commonwealth Edison locations or Midwest Generation locations. The obligations under this agreement are not subject to a maximum liability. The supplemental agreement had an initial five-year term with an automatic renewal provision for subsequent one-year terms (subject to the right of either party to terminate); under the automatic renewal provision, it has been extended until February 2012. The Company had recorded a liability of US$56 million at March 31, 2011 related to this contract indemnity, included in benefit plans and other long-term liabilities on its consolidated balance sheets. Midwest Generation, LLC sells wholesale electricity to markets in the Midwest. The independent power producer has a generating capacity of more than 5,770 MW, primarily from its six coal-fired power plants in Illinois (5,740 MW); it also oversees the operation of the Fisk and Waukegan on-site generating plants which have 305 MW of capacity. The Company is headquartered in Bolingbrook, Ill. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 103,678 Claims Pending v. ITT Corp. at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ITT Corporation faced 103,678 pending asbestos claims as of March 31, 2011, compared with 103,575 pending claims as of Dec. 31, 2010, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2011. The Company, including its subsidiary Goulds Pumps, Inc., has been joined as a defendant with numerous other companies in product liability lawsuits alleging personal injury due to asbestos exposure. These claims allege that certain products sold by the Company or its subsidiaries prior to 1985 contained a part manufactured by a third party (e.g., a gasket) which contained asbestos. To the extent these third-party parts may have contained asbestos, it was encapsulated in the gasket (or other) material and was non- friable. In certain other cases, it is alleged that former ITT companies were distributors for other manufacturers' products that may have contained asbestos. Between Dec. 31, 2010 and March 31, 2011, the Company recorded 1,339 new claims; 475 settlements; and 761 dismissals. Frequently, plaintiffs are unable to identify any ITT or Goulds product as a source of asbestos exposure. In addition, in a large majority of the 103,678 pending claims against the Company, the plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate any injury. Many of those claims have been placed on inactive dockets (including 39,680 claims in Mississippi). The Company's experience to date is that a substantial portion of resolved claims have been dismissed without payment by the Company. As a result, management believes that a large majority of the 103,678 open claims has little or no settlement value. ITT Corporation is a high-technology engineering and manufacturing company operating in three vital markets: water and fluids management, global defense and security, and motion and flow control. The Company is headquartered in White Plains, N.Y. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial in Cannon Electric Slated for August 2011 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ITT Corporation says a trial on several insurers coverage obligations for Goulds Pumps, Inc., is scheduled for August 2011. On Feb. 13, 2003, the Company commenced an action, Cannon Electric, Inc. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., Sup. Ct., Los Angeles County, seeking recovery of costs related to asbestos product liability losses. During this coverage litigation, the Company entered into coverage-in-place settlement agreements with ACE, Wausau and Utica Mutual dated April 2004, September 2004, and February 2007, respectively. These agreements provide specific coverage for the Company's legacy asbestos liabilities. The Company continues to negotiate coverage in place agreements with other insurers. Where those negotiations are not productive, the Company will request that a trial be scheduled. ITT Corporation is a high-technology engineering and manufacturing company operating in three vital markets: water and fluids management, global defense and security, and motion and flow control. The Company is headquartered in White Plains, N.Y. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Pending v. Anadarko Petroleum ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anadarko Petroleum Corporation continues to be a defendant in various personal injury claims, including claims by employees of third-party contractors alleging exposure to asbestos, silica, and benzene while working at refineries previously owned by acquired companies. No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2011. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation explores for, develops, produces, and markets natural gas, crude oil, condensate, and natural gas liquids (NGLs). The Company also engages in the gathering, processing, and treating of natural gas, and the transporting of natural gas, crude oil, and NGLs. The Company is headquartered in The Woodlands, Tex. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eastman Chemical Subject to Exposure Lawsuits -------------------------------------------------------------- From time to time, Eastman Chemical Company and its operations are parties to lawsuits and claims including asbestos matters, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2011. Eastman Chemical Company produces chemicals, fibers, and plastics. Among the Company's operating segments are its CASPI (coatings, adhesives, specialty polymers, and inks), Specialty Plastics (engineering polymers), and Fibers (acetate tow and textile fibers) units. The largest segment manufactures Performance Chemicals and Intermediates (PCI). The Company is headquartered in Kingsport, Tenn. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fairmont Facing 22,500 Claims in 8 U.S. States --------------------------------------------------------------- CONSOL Energy Inc.'s subsidiary, Fairmont Supply Company (which distributes industrial supplies) is named as a defendant in about 22,500 asbestos-related claims in state courts in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, Texas and Illinois. Because a very small percentage of products manufactured by third parties and supplied by Fairmont in the past may have contained asbestos and many of the pending claims are part of mass complaints filed by hundreds of plaintiffs against a hundred or more defendants, it has been difficult for Fairmont to determine how many of the cases actually involve valid claims or plaintiffs who were actually exposed to asbestos-containing products supplied by Fairmont. In addition, while Fairmont may be entitled to indemnity or contribution in certain jurisdictions from manufacturers of identified products, the availability of such indemnity or contribution is unclear at this time, and in recent years, some of the manufacturers named as defendants in these actions have sought protection from these claims under bankruptcy laws. Fairmont has no insurance coverage with respect to these asbestos cases. CONSOL Energy Inc. is a coal mining company with some 4.5 billion tons of proved reserves, mainly in northern and central Appalachia and the Illinois Basin, and produces about 59 million tons of coal annually. The Company is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pa. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims v. Rogers Corp. Surge to 214 at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- There were about 214 asbestos claims pending against Rogers Corporation as of March 31, 2011, compared with about 194 pending claims at Dec. 31, 2010, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2011. A significant number of asbestos-related product liability claims have been brought against numerous United States industrial companies where the third-party plaintiffs allege personal injury from exposure to asbestos-containing products. The Company did not mine, mill, manufacture or market asbestos; rather it made a limited number of products, which contained encapsulated asbestos. Such products were provided to industrial users. The Company stopped manufacturing these products in the late 1980s. The Company has been named in asbestos litigation primarily in Illinois, Pennsylvania and Mississippi. Of the 214 claims pending as of March 31, 2011, 60 claims do not specify the amount of damages sought, 151 claims cite jurisdictional amounts, and three claims (less than 2% of the total pending claims) specify the amount of damages sought not based on jurisdictional requirements. Of these three claims, one claim alleges compensatory and punitive damages of US$20,000,000 each; one claim alleges compensatory damages of US$65,000,000 and punitive damages of US$60,000,000 and one claim alleges compensatory and punitive damages of US$1,000,000 each. These three claims name between 10 and 109 defendants. Cases involving the Company typically name 50-300 defendants, although some cases have had as few as one and as many as 833 defendants. The Company has obtained dismissals of many of these claims. For the three months ended March 31, 2011, the Company was able to have 30 claims dismissed and settled one claim. For the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, about 163 claims were dismissed and 20 were settled. The majority of costs have been paid by the Company's insurance carriers, including the costs associated with the small number of cases that have been settled. Those settlements totaled about US$5.5 million for 2010, and US$400,000 for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. Rogers Corporation's products include advanced circuit materials for wireless infrastructure, power amplifiers, radar systems, high speed digital; power electronics for high-voltage rail traction, hybrid-electric vehicles, wind and solar power conversion; and high performance foams for sealing and energy management in smartphones, aircraft and rail interiors, automobiles and apparel; and other advanced materials for diverse markets including defense and consumer products. The Company is headquartered in Rogers, Conn. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Skilled Healthcare Group's Liability at $3.91MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc.'s asbestos abatement liability amounted to US$3,908,000 as of March 31, 2011, compared with US$3,871,000 as of Dec. 31, 2010, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2011. Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc. is a holding company that owns subsidiaries that operate skilled nursing facilities, assisted living facilities, hospices, home health providers and a rehabilitation therapy business. The Company is headquartered in Foothill Ranch, Calif. ASBESTOS UPDATE: UIL Holdings Corp. Posts $18MM ARO at March 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- UIL Holdings Corporation's asset retirement obligations, as of March 31, 2011, including estimated conditional AROs, were US$18 million and consisted primarily of obligations related to removal or retirement of asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contaminated equipment, gas pipeline and cast iron gas mains. The long-lived assets associated with the AROs are gas storage property, distribution property and other property. As of Dec. 31, 2010, the Company's ARO was US$200,000. UIL Holdings Corporation's primary business is ownership of its operating regulated utilities. The Company is headquartered in New Haven, Conn. ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Dynamics Subject to Potential Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- Various claims and other legal proceedings incidental to the normal course of business are pending or threatened against General Dynamics Corporation and relate to such issues like asbestos-related claims and employee-related matters. No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2011. General Dynamics Corporation operates in four business groups: Aerospace, Combat Systems, Marine Systems and Information Systems and Technology. The Company is headquartered in Falls Church, Va. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 11.2T Cases Pending v. Mallinckrodt at March 25 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Covidien Public Limited Company says that, as of March 25, 2011, there were about 11,200 asbestos liability cases pending against subsidiary Mallinckrodt Inc., according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2011. As of Dec. 24, 2010, there were about 11,300 asbestos liability cases pending against Mallinckrodt. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 11, 2011) Mallinckrodt is named as a defendant in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials. A majority of the cases involve product liability claims, based principally on allegations of past distribution of products incorporating asbestos. A limited number of the cases allege premises liability, based on claims that individuals were exposed to asbestos while on Mallinckrodt's property. Each case typically names dozens of corporate defendants in addition to Mallinckrodt. The complaints generally seek monetary damages for personal injury or bodily injury resulting from alleged exposure to products containing asbestos. The Company's involvement in asbestos cases has been limited because Mallinckrodt did not mine or produce asbestos. Furthermore, in the Company's experience, a large percentage of these claims have never been substantiated and have been dismissed by the courts. The Company has not suffered an adverse verdict in a trial court proceeding related to asbestos claims. When appropriate, the Company settles claims. Covidien Public Limited Company develops, manufactures and sells healthcare products for use in clinical and home settings. The Company manages and operates its business through three segments: Medical Devices, Pharmaceuticals, and Medical Supplies. The Company is based in Dublin, Ireland. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Posts $2.1MM April 1 Litigation Expense --------------------------------------------------------------- Colfax Corporation's asbestos coverage litigation expense amounted to US$2,066,000 during the three months ended April 1, 2011, compared with $3,881,000 during the three months ended April 2, 2010. Asbestos coverage litigation expenses were US$2,433,000 during the three months ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$2,904,000 during the three months ended Dec. 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 25, 2011) Asbestos liability and defense costs were US$1,333,000 during the three months ended April 1, 2011, compared with 1,435,000 during the three months ended April 2, 2010. Colfax Corporation supplies fluid-handling products, including pumps, fluid-handling systems and controls, and specialty valves. The Company has a global manufacturing footprint, with production facilities in Europe, North America and Asia, as well as worldwide sales and distribution channels. The Company is headquartered in Fulton, Md. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Accrues $37.49MM Liabilities at April 1 --------------------------------------------------------------- Colfax Corporation's accrued asbestos liability was US$37,487,000 as of April 1, 2011, compared with US$37,875,000 as of Dec. 31, 2010, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2011. The Company's long-term asbestos liability was US$388,314,000 as of April 1, 2011, compared with US$391,776,000 as of Dec. 31, 2010. Current asbestos insurance asset was US$33,678,000 as of April 1, 2011, compared with US$34,117,000 as of Dec. 31, 2010. Current asbestos insurance receivable was US$44,677,000 as of April 1, 2011, compared with US$46,108,000 as of Dec. 31, 2010. Long-term asbestos insurance asset was US$336,671,000 as of April 1, 2011, compared with US$340,234,000 as of Dec. 31, 2010. Long-term asbestos insurance receivable was US$5,736,000 as of April 1, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010. Colfax Corporation supplies fluid-handling products, including pumps, fluid-handling systems and controls, and specialty valves. The Company has a global manufacturing footprint, with production facilities in Europe, North America and Asia, as well as worldwide sales and distribution channels. The Company is headquartered in Fulton, Md. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Facing to 21,774 Claims at April 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Colfax Corporation faced 21,774 unresolved asbestos claims during the three months ended April 1, 2011, compared with 25,306 claims during the three months ended April 2, 2010, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2011. During the three months ended April 1, 2011, the Company recorded 926 claims filed and 3,916 claims resolved. During the three months ended April 2, 2010, the Company recorded 1,330 claims filed and 1,319 claims resolved. Two of the Company's subsidiaries are each one of many defendants in a large number of lawsuits that claim personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos from products manufactured with components that are alleged to have contained asbestos. Of the 21,774 pending claims as of April 1, 2011, about 3,400 of such claims have been brought in the Supreme Court of New York County, New York; about 900 of such claims have been brought in and the U.S. District Court, Eastern and Western Districts of Michigan; about 200 of such claims have been brought in the Superior Court, Middlesex County, N.J.; and about 100 claims have been brought in various federal and state courts in Mississippi. The remaining pending claims have been filed in state and federal courts in Alabama, California, Kentucky, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Virginia, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Washington. For one of the subsidiaries, the Delaware Court of Chancery ruled on Oct. 14, 2009, that asbestos-related costs should be allocated among excess insurers using an "all sums" allocation (which allows an insured to collect all sums paid in connection with a claim from any insurer whose policy is triggered, up to the policy's applicable limits) and that the subsidiary has rights to excess insurance policies purchased by a former owner of the business. The subsidiary was notified in 2010 by the primary and umbrella carrier who had been fully defending and indemnifying the subsidiary for 20 that the limits of liability of its primary and umbrella layer policies had been exhausted. Since then, the subsidiary has sought coverage from certain excess layer insurers whose terms and conditions follow form to the umbrella carrier. Certain first-layer excess insurers have defended and/or indemnified the subsidiary and/or agreed to defend and/or indemnify the subsidiary, subject to their reservations of rights and their applicable policy limits. Litigation between this subsidiary and its excess insurers is continuing and it is anticipated that the trial phase will be completed in 2011. The subsidiary continues to work with its excess insurers to obtain defense and indemnity payments while the litigation is proceeding. In 2003, the other subsidiary filed a lawsuit against a large number of its insurers and its former parent to resolve a variety of disputes concerning insurance for asbestos-related bodily injury claims asserted against it. For this subsidiary it was determined by court ruling in 2007, that the allocation methodology mandated by the New Jersey courts will apply. Further court rulings in December 2009 clarified the allocation calculation related to amounts currently due from insurers as well as amounts the Company expects to be reimbursed for asbestos-related costs incurred in future periods. In connection with this litigation, the court engaged a special master to review the appropriate information and recommend an allocation formula in accordance with applicable law and the facts of the case. During 2010, the court-appointed special allocation master made its recommendation which has not yet been accepted by the court. The Company currently anticipates that the trial phase in this litigation will be complete during the remainder of 2011. Colfax Corporation supplies fluid-handling products, including pumps, fluid-handling systems and controls, and specialty valves. The Company has a global manufacturing footprint, with production facilities in Europe, North America and Asia, as well as worldwide sales and distribution channels. The Company is headquartered in Fulton, Md. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Reserves $425.8MM for Claims at April 1 --------------------------------------------------------------- Colfax Corporation has established reserves of US$425.8 million as of April 1, 2011 and US$429.7 million as of Dec. 31, 2010 for the probable and reasonably estimable asbestos-related liability cost it believes its subsidiaries will pay through the next 15 years. The Company has also established recoverables of US$370.4 million as of April 1, 2011 and US$374.4 million as of Dec. 31, 2010 for the insurance recoveries that are deemed probable during the same time period. Net of these recoverables, the expected cash outlay on a non- discounted basis for asbestos-related bodily injury claims over the next 15 years was US$55.4 million as of April 1, 2011 and US$55.3 million as of Dec. 31, 2010. Colfax Corporation supplies fluid-handling products, including pumps, fluid-handling systems and controls, and specialty valves. The Company has a global manufacturing footprint, with production facilities in Europe, North America and Asia, as well as worldwide sales and distribution channels. The Company is headquartered in Fulton, Md. ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Corp., 8 Units Subject to Exposure Lawsuits ----------------------------------------------------------------- IDEX Corporation and eight of its subsidiaries are presently named as defendants in a number of lawsuits claiming various asbestos- related personal injuries, allegedly as a result of exposure to products manufactured with components that contained asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2011. Such components were acquired from third party suppliers, and were not manufactured by any of the subsidiaries. To date, the majority of the Company's settlements and legal costs, except for costs of coordination, administration, insurance investigation and a portion of defense costs, have been covered in full by insurance subject to applicable deductibles. Claims have been filed in jurisdictions throughout the United States. Most of the claims resolved to date have been dismissed without payment. The balance has been settled for various insignificant amounts. One case has been tried, resulting in a verdict for the Company's business unit. IDEX Corporation has four reportable business segments: Fluid & Metering Technologies, Health & Science Technologies, Dispensing Equipment and Fire & Safety/Diversified Products. The Company is headquartered in Lake Forest, Ill. ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Subject to 52,230 Claims at March 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- CBS Corporation had about 52,230 pending asbestos claims as of March 31, 2011, as compared with about 52,220 as of Dec. 31, 2010 and 62,340 as of March 31, 2010, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2011. The Company is a defendant in lawsuits claiming various personal injuries related to asbestos and other materials, which allegedly occurred principally as a result of exposure caused by various products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor, generally prior to the early 1970s. Westinghouse was neither a producer nor a manufacturer of asbestos. The Company is typically named as one of a large number of defendants in both state and federal cases. In the majority of asbestos lawsuits, the plaintiffs have not identified which of the Company's products is the basis of a claim. Claims against the Company in which a product has been identified principally relate to exposures allegedly caused by asbestos- containing insulating material in turbines sold for power- generation, industrial and marine use, or by asbestos-containing grades of decorative micarta, a laminate used in commercial ships. During the first quarter of 2011, the Company received about 1,440 new claims and closed or moved to an inactive docket about 1,430 claims. CBS Corporation is comprised of these segments: Entertainment, Cable Networks, Publishing, Local Broadcasting and Outdoor. The Company is headquartered in New York. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. Posts $16.2MM Liability at March 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Olin Corporation's liabilities for asbestos legal actions amounted to US$16.2 million at March 31, 2011 and US$18.1 million at Dec. 31, 2010. These liabilities do not include costs associated with legal representation. The Company and its subsidiaries are defendants in various legal actions (including proceedings based on alleged exposures to asbestos) incidental to its past and current business activities. Olin Corporation is a manufacturer concentrated in two business segments: Chlor Alkali Products and Winchester. Chlor Alkali produces chlorine and caustic soda, sodium hydrosulfite, hydrochloric acid, hydrogen, bleach products and potassium hydroxide. Winchester produces and distributes sporting ammunition, reloading components, small caliber military ammunition and components, and industrial cartridges. The Company is headquartered in Clayton, Mo. ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Issues Split Ruling in Lucas Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, issued split rulings in a case involving asbestos styled Charlotte Lucas, Ron Lucas, Gilbert Lucas and Adam Lucas, individually and on behalf of their Deceased Husband and Father, Respectively, Lois Gilbert Lucas v. Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Uniroyal, Inc., Foster Wheeler Corporation, Crown Cork and Seal Company, Inc., Viacom, Inc., Eagle, Inc., Reilly Benton Company, Inc., Charles Johnson, General Electric Corporation, and Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company. Judges Charles R. Jones, Terri F. Love, and Max N. Tobias, Jr. entered judgment in Case No. 2010-CA-1037 on Feb. 16, 2011. This was an appeal from Civil District Court, Orleans Parish. The plaintiffs, Charlotte Lucas, Ron Lucas, Gilbert Lucas, and Adam Lucas, in this matter are, respectively, the spouse and adult children of the deceased, Lois G. Lucas. The Lucases filed this suit in January 2004 alleging that the decedent contracted asbestosis from his occupational exposure to asbestos-containing materials from various contractors, product manufacturers, and product suppliers during his employment at Avondale Shipyards, Inc. as a pipefitter helper from 1966 to 1975, and subsequently died from the disease in January 2003. Discovery in this matter ended on Dec. 25, 2009. Defendants, Hopeman Brothers, Westinghouse/CBS, Foster Wheeler, and Reilly Benton, separately filed motions for summary judgment seeking dismissal from the case. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of each of the defendants finding there was insufficient evidence to overcome the plaintiffs' burden of proof at trial. The Lucases have appealed that ruling. Additionally, the Lucases averred that the trial court erred by failing to infer the decedent's proximity to asbestos-containing products during his years at Avondale as supported by circumstantial evidence contained in the record. They request that this court reverse the trial court judgment and remand the case for a trial on the merits. The Appeals Court concluded the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Hopeman Brothers. The Appeals Court reversed the trial court's judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' claims against Hopeman Brothers and remanded this case to the trial court for further proceedings. The Appeals Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of Westinghouse/CBS, Foster Wheeler, and Reilly Benton. ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.D. Court Upholds Ruling in Vicknair's Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the ruling of the District Court, South Central Judicial District, in an asbestos case involving Joseph Vicknair and 12 other plaintiffs. Chief Justice Gerald W. VandeWalle, Dale V. Sandstrom, William F. Hodny, Allan L. Schmalenberger, and Lawrence A. Leclerc entered judgment in Case No. 20100029 on Feb. 18, 2011. Joseph Vicknair and 12 other plaintiffs appealed from a district court summary judgment dismissing their asbestos-related product liability actions against Phelps Dodge Industries, Inc. and numerous other companies on the grounds that the applicable statutes of limitations had run on their claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not err in ruling North Dakota's six-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions did not apply to the plaintiffs' claims and in refusing to allow additional time for discovery before ruling on the summary judgment motion. In December 2002, the plaintiffs were part of a group of individuals who brought actions in district court against manufacturers, sellers, and distributors of asbestos-containing products, claiming they were injured by exposure to those products. All of the plaintiffs involved in this appeal are residents of states other than North Dakota and did not claim that their exposure to asbestos-containing products occurred in North Dakota. The numerous corporate defendants are residents of various states, including North Dakota. The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims, arguing North Dakota was an inconvenient forum to conduct the litigation. The district court granted the motions and dismissed the claims without prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing the court erred in dismissing the claims based upon forum non conveniens because the statutes of limitations had run in all other jurisdictions except North Dakota. The Court reversed the judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' claims and remanded for further proceedings, concluding the availability of an alternate forum is a prerequisite to application of forum non conveniens and "an adequate alternative forum does not exist if the statute of limitations has expired in the proposed alternative forum." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mich. Appeals Court OKs Ruling In Falk Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Michigan affirmed the ruling of the Calhoun Circuit Court, which granted summary judgment in favor of various defendants, in an asbestos lawsuit filed on behalf of Earl Falk. Judges Servitto, Gleicher and Shapiro entered judgment in Case No. 296012 on Feb. 17, 2011. In this products liability action involving asbestos exposure, plaintiffs appealed as of right the trial court's order granting summary disposition in defendants' favor based upon the applicable statute of limitations and dismissing, with prejudice, plaintiffs' claims. Because plaintiffs' claims were time barred by the applicable statute of limitations, the Appeals Court affirmed Plaintiff was a pipefitter and steamfitter and was exposed to asbestos-containing products supplied by the defendants from 1954 to 1992. Plaintiff first became aware of the dangers associated with asbestos in the 1980s at a union meeting. At that time, plaintiff was told that asbestos could settle in one's lungs and that "[t]hey thought it might [cause cancer] at that time and then we find out later that yes, it would." Plaintiff testified that he was first informed that he had a disease caused by asbestos in 1993, but to his knowledge, he was not diagnosed with asbestosis. Plaintiff was diagnosed with cancer in his right lung in 1999, but he did not file a lawsuit related to this injury. In 1999, plaintiff's oncologist noted that plaintiff "had previous asbestos exposure." In March 2006, plaintiff's oncologist diagnosed cancer in plaintiff's left lung and noted that plaintiff's history included "1999 right lung cancer, 'related to asbestos'." Plaintiff's expert witness opined that the cancers were each "primary cancers of the lung." Plaintiff filed the underlying action against the named defendants in May 2006, alleging negligence. In October and November 2009, various defendants moved for summary disposition based on the three-year statute of limitations arguing that plaintiff did not file suit within three years of being diagnosed with lung cancer in 1999. Plaintiff opposed the motions, arguing that he had a new cause of action based on the 2006 lung cancer diagnosis. The circuit court denied summary disposition, holding that there were questions of fact concerning whether plaintiff knew in 1999 that his lung cancer was related to asbestos exposure. Defendant Honeywell International, Inc. moved for reconsideration (in which other defendants joined), citing plaintiff's deposition testimony which indicated that he was aware, in 1999, that his first lung cancer was possibly related to asbestos exposure. The circuit court concluded that plaintiff's claims were time-barred, and summary disposition was proper. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plymouth Shipwright's Death Linked to Exposure --------------------------------------------------------------- Gloucestershire Deputy Coroner David Dooley heard that the death of Keith Hoskins, a former shipwright from Plymouth, England, was due to workplace exposure to asbestos, The Herald reports. Mr. Dooley was told that Mr. Hoskins had a very high level of asbestos fibers in his lungs. Mr. Dooley recorded a verdict of industrial disease on Mr. Hoskins, who died from mesothelioma. The inquest was told that Mr. Hoskins, who was 82 and from Gloucestershire, originally came from Plymouth and first worked as an apprentice shipwright at the Royal Naval Dockyard there. His wife Barbara said he had started working in the dockyard in 1944 and worked on both steel and wooden-hulled ships. Mr. Hoskins was discharged from the Navy in 1962 and then went to work in Bermuda because he could not find a job in Britain. After he took early retirement as manager of a factory he and his wife moved to live in Churchdown. Mrs Hoskins said he had been generally well until 2010 when he started suffering shortness of breath and loss of appetite. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartlepool Supervisor's Death Related to Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- An inquest heard that the death of 88-year-old Thomas Allison, a retired gas board mains supervisor, was related to workplace exposure to asbestos, Peterlee Mail reports. Mr. Allison died from diffuse malignant mesothelioma. Hartlepool coroner Malcolm Donnelly gave the verdict at a hearing at Hartlepool Coroner's Court after receiving the results of a post mortem examination carried out by consultant pathologist Dr. Catherine Hobday. Mr. Allison?s daughter, Janice Royal, provided Mr. Donnelly with details of her father's work history. This included time as an apprentice joiner with a company called Prouds, serving as an aircraftsman with the RAF during the Second World War and working on American ships at Haverton Hill. The inquest heard the ships had to be fire-proofed with asbestos and the wood Mr. Allison used was fire-proofed. He had also worked at the steelworks in Greatham in the late 1950s before going to work for the water board. Mr. Donnelly said the fiber count in Mr. Allison's lungs was 207,000 per gram of tissue. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brown Awarded $322MM in Lawsuit v. Chevron, UCC ---------------------------------------------------------------- On May 4, 2011, a jury at Smith County District Court has awarded US$322 million to Thomas C. Brown who sued Chevron Phillips Chemical and Union Carbide Corp., claiming he inhaled asbestos dust while mixing drilling mud sold and manufactured by the companies, Forbes.com reports. Allen Hossley, Esq., a Dallas attorney who represented Thomas C. Brown of Brookhaven, said he believes it is the largest single plaintiff's asbestos verdict in the U.S. Mr. Hossley says Mr. Brown mixed asbestos drilling additive in oilfields from 1979 to the mid-80s and now has a lung condition. The suit claims the companies defectively designed the product and failed to provide adequate warnings to workers. Alex Cosculluela, Esq., of Houston says CP Chem will appeal. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Clark Action v. 9 Firms Filed April 27 in Texas ---------------------------------------------------------------- Walter and Sharon Clark, on April 27, 2011, filed an asbestos lawsuit against nine defendant corporations in Jefferson County District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports. The nine defending companies named in the complaint are: Chevron, Exxon Mobil Corp., Gulf Oil Corporation., Huntsman Petrochemical Corporation, Mobil Chemical, Mobil Oil Refining Corp., Temple- Inland Forest Products Corporation, Texaco and Union Oil Company of California. The Clarks seek actual and exemplary damages, plus costs, pre- and post-judgment interest and other relief to which they may be entitled. Bryan O. Blevins Jr., Esq., of Provost and Umphrey Law Firm in Beaumont is representing them. Case No. D189-896 has been assigned to Judge Milton Shuffield, 136th District Court. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Casey Injury Action V. Kaiser Settled on May 11 ---------------------------------------------------------------- After a three-week trial and a half day of deliberations, a jury in San Francisco, on May 11, 2011, found Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., a manufacturer of joint compounds and wallboard materials, guilty of acting with oppression or malice by clear and convincing evidence in an asbestos case filed by John Casey, the San Francisco Chronicle reports. The jury levied a US$20,000,000 punitive damages verdict against Kaiser Gypsum. This followed a previous verdict on Marcy 17, 2011 after a fourteen-week trial and two and a half weeks of deliberations, when a San Francisco jury ruled against Kaiser Gypsum and FDCC California, Inc. (formerly known as Dinwiddie Construction Company), a general contractor, in a negligence and products liability trial. The jury found that both FDCC and Kaiser Gypsum were negligent, in addition to determining that Kaiser Gypsum's asbestos-containing joint compounds and wallboards were defectively designed and contained a failure to warn product defect. The jury assessed US$1,273,421 in economic damages, US$15,000,000 in non-economic damages, and US$5,000,000 in loss of consortium damages. The jury assigned 7% of the liability to defendant FDCC and 3.5% of the liability to Kaiser Gypsum. Mr. Casey has been battling mesothelioma since his diagnosis on Jan. 24, 2010. He worked as a plumber at numerous high-rise commercial buildings throughout San Francisco between 1961 and 2001 when he retired from working at the University of California San Francisco. Mr. Casey worked directly with asbestos-containing products and near other workers who used and disturbed asbestos-containing products. (John Casey, et al. v. Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., et al., San Francisco Superior Court No. CGC-10-275517) ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trimble Case v. 41 Firms Filed April 6 in Ill. --------------------------------------------------------------- Debra L. Trimble, on April 6, 2011, filed an asbestos lawsuit against 41 defendant corporations in St. Clair County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison/St. Clair Record reports. Ms. Trimble is represented by Randy L. Gori, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville. Erik Karst, Esq., and Matthew T. Wright, Esq., of Karst and von Oiste in Houston will serve of counsel. In her complaint, Ms. Trimble alleges the defendants caused her to develop lung cancer after her exposure to asbestos-containing products throughout her career. She worked as a foundry worker for General Motors from 1976 until 1999. In her five-count complaint, Ms. Trimble is seeking a judgment of more than US$100,000, plus punitive and exemplary damages of more than US$100,000 and compensatory damages of more than US$50,000. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hemphill Case v. 10 Firms Filed May 4 in Texas --------------------------------------------------------------- Edgar and Mary Hemphill, on May 4, 2011, filed an asbestos lawsuit against 10 defendant corporations in Jefferson County District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports. Aside from Chevron USA, the other defendants include Citgo, DuPont, ExxonMobil, Huntsman Petrochemical, Neches Butane, Mobil Chemical, Mobil Oil, Oxy USA, Texaco and Total Petrochemicals. According to the lawsuit, Mr. Hemphill was exposed to asbestos dust and fibers while working as a carpenter on the defendants' premises. He now allegedly suffers from an unspecified asbestos illness. Judge Milton Shuffield, 136th District Court, has been assigned to Case No. D189-944. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abbott and Mason Penalized for Safety Breaches --------------------------------------------------------------- Abbott and Mason Building and Joinery Contractors Ltd, a building firm from Nottinghamshire, England, contaminated an elderly resident's possessions with asbestos during bathroom renovation work at sheltered housing in West Bridgford, according to a Health and Safety Executive press release dated May 9, 2011. Abbott and Mason also left asbestos-containing materials outside the building in the open air, putting the public at risk. The HSE prosecuted the firm after it carried out work at the home of 96- year-old Mrs. Ann Jenkins in Musters Road on Feb. 4, 2010. The Company was removing asbestos insulation board (AIB) which had been used to box in pipework behind the bath but many of Mrs. Jenkins' possessions, including clothing and furniture was contaminated with asbestos fibers and had to be destroyed. The dangerous work was spotted by the warden at the complex, who stopped the activity immediately and took Mrs. Jenkins - who had been sitting very close to the bathroom - to a safe place. After staying with her family, Mrs. Jenkins was relocated to another flat. HSE told Nottingham Magistrates' Court the firm knew it was dealing with asbestos-containing material and though both partners had asbestos awareness training they failed to manage it appropriately, exposing employees; Mrs. Jenkins; and members of the public to asbestos fibers. After the hearing, HSE inspector Frances Bailey said, "This company showed a willful disregard for the health and safety of its employees and the public. Abbott and Mason knew the panels contained asbestos and should have dealt with it safely. Their actions caused a great deal of worry and stress for Mrs. Jenkins, who has since passed away. "The distress caused to her and the risks to the health of the public and the company's employees could have been easily avoided had the company taken sensible steps to ensure the right procedures were followed and the spread of potentially dangerous material was prevented." In a victim impact statement given to the court, Mrs. Jenkins' daughter, Mary Chivers, said, "My family are appalled that this incident had such devastating consequences for my mother. It was entirely preventable had proper measures been taken. "She was very shocked and angry and found it difficult to come to terms with her situation. As time went on, she began missing the things she had lost and expressed grief. She was clearly distressed." Abbott and Mason Building and Joinery Contractors Ltd, of Carter Lane, Mansfield, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 7, 8, 11(1), 16 and 24(1) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and was fined a total of GBP20,000. The Company was also ordered to pay full costs of GBP5,741. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Briggs & Stratton Subject to Liability Actions --------------------------------------------------------------- Briggs & Stratton Corporation is subject to various unresolved legal actions related to product liability (including asbestos- related liability). No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2011. Briggs & Stratton Corporation manufactures air-cooled gas engines. Its engine customers are lawn and garden OEMs Husqvarna Consumer Outdoor Products, MTD, and Deere, and, to a lesser degree, generator, pressure washer, and pump makers. The Company is headquartered in Wauwatosa, Wis. ASBESTOS UPDATE: FirstEnergy Still Subject to Exposure Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- There are various lawsuits, claims (including claims for asbestos exposure) and proceedings related to FirstEnergy Corp.'s normal business operations pending against the Company and its subsidiaries. No other significant asbestos matters were discussed in the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2011. FirstEnergy Corp.'s utilities provide electricity to 4.5 million customers in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. The Company's domestic power plants have a total generating capacity of more than 14,170 MW, most generated by coal-fired plants. The Company is based in Akron, Ohio. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 14 Lorillard Cases Set for Trial as of April 27 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lorillard, Inc. says that, as of April 27, 2011, about 14 Filter Cases were scheduled for trial or have been placed on courts' trial calendars. Trial dates are subject to change. Claims have been brought against the Company and its subsidiary, Lorillard Tobacco Company, by individuals who seek damages resulting from their alleged exposure to asbestos fibers that were incorporated into filter material used in one brand of cigarettes manufactured by Lorillard Tobacco for a limited period of time ending more than 50 years ago. Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in 35 Filter Cases. The Company is a defendant in three Filter Cases, including two that also name Lorillard Tobacco. Since Jan. 1, 2009, Lorillard Tobacco has paid, or has reached agreement to pay, a total of about US$17.9 million in settlements to finally resolve 49 claims. Since Jan. 1, 2009, verdicts have been returned in two Filter Cases, Cox v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd., et al, which was tried in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, and Lenney v. Armstrong International, Inc., et al., tried in the Superior Court of California, San Francisco County. The jury in the Cox case returned a verdict for Lorillard Tobacco. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Lorillard Tobacco from their appeal to the California Court of Appeals and the Cox case is concluded. The jury in the Lenney trial awarded plaintiffs US$1.4 million in compensatory damages and damages for loss of consortium from Lorillard Tobacco and Hollingsworth & Vose. The jury in the Lenney trial determined that plaintiffs were not entitled to an award of punitive damages from Lorillard Tobacco or Hollingsworth & Vose. As of April 27, 2011, the deadline for Lorillard Tobacco to seek review of the verdict in Lenney had not expired. Lorillard, Inc. is engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes. Its principal products are marketed under the brand names of Newport, Kent, True, Maverick and Old Gold with substantially all of its sales in the United States of America. The Company is headquartered in Greensboro, N.C. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Has $400T Net Claims Provisions --------------------------------------------------------------- Foster Wheeler AG's net asbestos-related provision amounted to US$400,000 during the fiscal three months ended March 31, 2011, according to a Company press release dated May 3, 2011. Net asbestos-related gain amounted to US$747,000 during the fiscal three months ended March 31, 2010. The Company's long-term asbestos-related insurance recovery receivable amounted to US$186,776,000 as of March 31, 2011, compared with US$194,570,000 as of Dec. 31, 2010. The Company's long-term asbestos-related liability amounted to US$300,032,000 as of March 31, 2011, compared with US$307,619,000 as of Dec. 31, 2010. Foster Wheeler AG is an engineering and construction contractor and power equipment supplier delivering technically advanced, reliable facilities and equipment. The Company employs about 12,000 professionals with specialized expertise dedicated to serving its clients through one of its two primary business groups. The Company is headquartered in Zug, Switzerland. ASBESTOS UPDATE: TRW Automotive Still Party to Exposure Actions --------------------------------------------------------------- TRW Automotive Holdings Corp.'s subsidiaries are still subject to asbestos-related claims, in which these claims seek damages for illnesses alleged to have resulted from exposure to asbestos used in certain components sold in the past by the subsidiaries. Management said it believes that most of the claimants were vehicle mechanics. The vast majority of these claims name as defendants numerous manufacturers and suppliers of a variety of products allegedly containing asbestos. Neither settlement costs in connection with asbestos claims nor annual legal fees to defend these claims have been material in the past. Many of these cases have been dismissed without any payment whatsoever. TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. supplies automotive systems, modules and components to global automotive original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and related aftermarkets. The Company is headquartered in Livonia, Mich. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Issues Split Ruling in Greenspoon Action --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, issued split rulings in an asbestos case styled John Greenspoon, Plaintiff v. Sarasota County Area Transit and County of Sarasota, Defendants. District Judge James S. Moody, Jr. entered judgment in Case No. 8:10-cv-2512-T-30AEP on Feb. 8, 2011. This case came before the Court upon Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint and Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition. The Court concluded that the motion should be granted. It was therefore ordered: that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint was granted and Plaintiff's claims under Title VII were dismissed with prejudice. ASBESTOS UPDATE: District Court Dismisses Garner, Palermo Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, Western District of New York, dismissed an asbestos action styled Gail Garner and the Estate of Angelo Palermo, Plaintiffs v. DII Industries, LLC, Asbestos PI, Mark Gleason and Marcellene Malouf, Defendants. District Judge Charles J. Siragusa entered judgment in Case No. 10-CV-6345-CJS on Feb. 15, 2011. Plaintiff filed her original complaint in this Court pro se in civil action No. 08-CV6191 on April 25, 2008, alleging that Defendants were liable to her father's estate for his death caused by exposure to asbestos. On Nov. 14, 2008, the Court, interpreting Plaintiff's response to Defendants' first motion to dismiss as a request to proceed pro se as the representative of her father's estate, denied the request. Plaintiff subsequently hired counsel, and on March 27, 2009, filed an amended complaint. On April 17, 2009, Defendants again moved to dismiss, primarily on the ground that Plaintiff's claim against them was barred by the statute of limitations. The Court entered a Decision and Order dismissing the 2008 civil action for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiffs commenced the present action in New York State Supreme Court (Index No. 10-4342), Monroe County, on April 5, 2010. Defendants removed the action to this Court on June 28, 2010, and moved to dismiss the original complaint on July 2, 2010. Plaintiffs filed what they captioned as a First Amended Complaint on July 22, 2010, and Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on Aug. 4, 2010. Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their First Amended Complaint on Sept. 24, 2010. The decedent, Angelo Palermo, was a union insulation mason for 29 years from 1937 through 1966 in the construction asbestos industry. He spray-coated and handled asbestos-containing products while working for one or more of the Haliburton or Harbison-Walker entities or their predecessors at work sites in New York State. Mr. Palermo died on April 23, 1966, at the age of 51 years. In February 2000, Gail Garner, Mr. Palermo's daughter, filed a claim with the Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust. She requested that Dr. William Beckett, a local occupational doctor, who specialized in pulmonary and toxic substance disease, evaluate Mr. Palermo's medical and work history and pictures of his digital clubbing. On Feb. 14, 2002, Harbison-Walker, which had been acquired by DII Industries, LLC, in 1967, then spun off in July 1992, filed for bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy Court issued a temporary restraining order staying asbestos claims. On June 6, 2003, Plaintiffs allege that, a tribunal of asbestos experts of the Extraordinary Claims Panel of the Manville Trust diagnosed Angelo Palermo posthumously, with mesothelioma. On April 4, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a pro se asbestos personal injury liability claim with DII Industries, LLC PI Trust. Defendants' motions were granted and Plaintiffs' motion was denied and this case is dismissed. ********* 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, Julie Anne Lopez, 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 * * *