/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/110624.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, June 24, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 124 Headlines AETNA INC: ERISA Overpayment Class Action Allowed to Proceed ANTHEM BLUE: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Okay BEST BUY: Removes "Milton" Suit From Alameda Cty. to N.D. Calif. CHRISTMAS TREE: Recalls 35,000 Animated Safari and Aquarium Lamps COMCAST CORP: Accused of Deceiving Customers in Calif. and Wash. DUCOMMUN INC: LaBarge Merger-Related Class Suits Pending EDEBITPAY LLC: Accused of Forgery and Operating an Internet Scam FLORIDA: State Workers File Class Action Over Retirement Fund FOCUS MEDIA: Appeal From N.Y. Suit Dismissal Remains Pending FUSHI COPPERWELD: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears LONGTOP FINANCIAL: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action M&F WORLDWIDE: Sued Over Proposed Sale to MacAndrews & Forbes MOUNT VERNON, WA: Sued Over Inadequate Representation MTD PRODUCTS: Recalls 14,500 TrimmerPlus Edger Attachments MULTI-CHEM GROUP: Faces Class Action Suits Over Explosions NORDSTROM INC: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime PHILIP MORRIS: Florida Court Dismisses Medical Monitoring Claims RED ROBIN: Accused of Violating Labor Code in California SAFEWAY INC: Faces Class Action Over Grocery Delivery Charge SHELL OIL: Roxana Residents File Class Action Over Benzene Spill SINO-FOREST CORP: Two Canadian Law Firms File Class Action TRANSATLANTIC HOLDINGS: Sued Over Proposed Sale to Allied World TRANSATLANTIC HOLDINGS: Faces 2nd Suit Over Planned Allied Merger TRANSATLANTIC HOLDINGS: Faces 3rd Suit Over Planned Allied Merger UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Green Card Glitch WEIRTON WATER: Faces Class Action Over Water Outage Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS ALERT: Andrea Electronics Facing Edwards Claim in R.I. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hawaiian Electric Posts $48.7MM ARO at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Facing 83 Exposure Actions at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Applica Consumer Still Facing 3 Exposure Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Ongoing v. CenterPoint Resources ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali, D/C Still Named in Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Momentive Specialty Still Facing Exposure Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harbinger Still Has Cases in Miss., La. Courts ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS Global Records $65MM Reserves at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS' Stearns Unit Still Faces 1,435 Open Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS' Prager Unit Still Party to 2 Injury Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS' Falk Unit Still Facing 200 Exposure Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS' Zurn Unit Still Faces 7T Suits at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: ABI Long-Term Liability at $17.7MM at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Open Claims v. American Biltrite Rise to 1,280 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane US et al. Win Dismissal of Kiser Action ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Denies Remand Motion in Barnes Action ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ind. Court Affirms Board Ruling in Freels Claim ASBESTOS UPDATE: Philomath Firms Fined $10T for Safety Breaches ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.K. Operator's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: Skelton's 2nd Action Filed v. 24 Firms in Texas ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Developer Sentenced to 4 Years in Prison ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Soldier's Death Linked to Exposure to Hazard ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bridgwater Worker's Death Related to Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos at Henderson Hall Prompts TOSHA Action ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Mitchell Courthouse to Costs $12,950 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mason v. Foster Wheeler et al. Filed on June 1 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Power Named Defendant in Injury Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: SonomaWest Holdings Settles Box's Calif. Claim ASBESTOS UPDATE: Md. Court Issues Split Ruling in Scapa Action ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Court Denied Mandamus Writ in Roger Action ASBESTOS UPDATE: New York City Wins Dismissal of Purdie Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meade Case v. 47 Firms Filed on May 9 in W.Va. ASBESTOS UPDATE: McCommack Case v. 72 Firms Filed in Kanawha Co. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reed Case v. Norfolk Southern Filed in Kanawha ASBESTOS UPDATE: Barron Case v. 87 Firms Filed on May 5 in W.Va. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reed Claim v. 135 Firms Filed on May 9 in W.Va. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pneumo Summary Judgment OK'd in Smalley Action ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Court Issues Split Ruling in Newman Claim ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court OKs Ferrara Bid to Expedite Claim ASBESTOS UPDATE: Katy Industries Faces 11 Injury Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Katy Ind. Cites 2,860 Tendered Sterling Actions ASBESTOS UPDATE: 90 LaBour Exposure Lawsuits Pending at April 1 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quigley Co. Files Revised Bankruptcy-Exit Plan ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colonial Involved in 5 Hilco Claims at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Universal Supply Group Has One Case at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pacific Office Has $600T Liability at March 31 ********* AETNA INC: ERISA Overpayment Class Action Allowed to Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------ On June 20, 2011, the federal District Court in New Jersey allowed a provider ERISA overpayment class action lawsuit against Aetna, Inc. to proceed under ERISA (ASSOCIATION OF NEW JERSEY CHIROPRACTORS et al v. AETNA, INC. Et al, Case 3:09-cv-03761-JAP- TJB, Document 90, Filed 06/20/11). The court dismissed provider's RICO claims and granted Aetna's motion to enforce a settlement agreement and release from one provider and motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss two provider's claims. The federal court ERISA class-action ruling is timely significant for July 1, 2011, the official enforcement date for new federal health reform laws, health-care claims and appeals regulations. ERISAclaim.com provided the ERISA compliance assistance for many provider class representatives in this case, and it will provide free webinars to examine the legal and market impacts of the court ERISA ruling in connection with new PPACA (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) & ERISA claim regulations. "This court ruling underscores the importance of providers' ERISA claims & appeals practice for both unpaid claims and the alleged overpayment refund disputes, especially before the July 1, 2011, the official enforcement date of PPACA claims regulations," says Dr. Jin Zhou, president of ERISAclaim.com, a national expert on PPACA and ERISA appeals and compliance. According to the court paper, with respect to provider's ERISA claims, the court states in part: "The plaintiffs in this case are licensed medical providers or chiropractic professional associations. Defendant Aetna is an insurer that offers, underwrites and administers commercial health plans through which healthcare expenses incurred by Plan participants for services covered by the Plans are reimbursed by Aetna pursuant to the terms of the Plan." "Overall, Plaintiffs are challenging Aetna's practice of demanding the repayment of healthcare benefits that Aetna later determines had been improperly paid to the provider. Plaintiffs allege that Aetna is required to and failed to comply with certain procedural protections provided by ERISA in demanding such repayment from providers. For example, Plaintiffs assert that Aetna, prior to requesting repayment from a provider, must issue a revised Explanation of Benefits to the insured. Plaintiffs also challenge Aetna's "prepayment review" process as to the individual providers, under which Aetna reviews records before it pays a claim submitted by a provider from whom Aetna has requested repayment." In deciding on Aetna's overpayment recoupment and "antifraud efforts", the court states: "Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' claims do nothing more than seek to use ERISA to absolve providers from the consequences of fraudulent billing practices and to bring insurer anti-fraud efforts to a standstill. They contend that there exist a number of reasons that dismissal of Plaintiffs' ERISA claims is warranted." "Having carefully reviewed the FAC and accompanying affidavit, the Court is not persuaded that dismissal of Plaintiffs' ERISA claims is warranted at this time. While Aetna has raised questions as to the viability of Plaintiffs' ERISA claims, the Court concludes that a more complete factual picture regarding Aetna's "recoupment"/anti-fraud efforts is necessary to ultimately resolve the issue. Thus, resolution of the issue is not appropriate on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6). The Court denies Aetna's motion without prejudice to the filing of an appropriate summary judgment motion in the future." In deciding on Aetna's motion to dismiss the standing of Association of plaintiffs, the court states: "The Court finds that dismissal of the Association Plaintiffs is not warranted at this time. Construing the FAC in favor of Plaintiffs as the Court must on a 12(b)(6) motion, the Court finds Plaintiffs' allegations that the Association Plaintiffs' members had received payments directly from Aetna sufficient to withstand Defendants' 12(b)(6) challenge under the first prong of Hunt." For a copy of the court opinion: http://ERISAclaim.com/ANJC_v_Aetna.pdf On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Health Reform Bill, PPACA. PPACA claims and appeals regulations went into effect on September 23, 2010. PPACA adopts ERISA claim regulation in its entirety, for group health plans and health insurance coverage in the group and individual markets, for almost all non-Medicare and/or non-Medicaid claims. http://webapps.dol.gov/FederalRegister/PdfDisplay.aspx?DocId=24056 Effective on July 1, 2011, the PPACA claims and appeals regulation enforcement date, the DOL, HHS & IRS will start the official enforcement for the new federal Provider's Bill Of Rights, because now PPACA claims regulation defines a health care provider, with a valid designation of authorized representative, as a claimant, regardless of network participation. This new federal law will make the new federal Patient's Bill of Rights as same as the new federal Provider's Bill of Rights in U.S. healthcare history, said Dr. Zhou. http://www.healthreform.gov/newsroom/new_patients_bill_of_rights.html Complete PPACA Regulations and Guidance can be found on DOL Web site: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/healthreform/ To find out more about the Total PPACA Claims and Appeals Compliance Services from ERISAclaim.com: http://www.erisaclaim.com/Press_Releases.htm Located in a Chicago suburb in Illinois, ERISAclaim.com is the only ERISA & PPACA consulting, publishing and website resource for healthcare providers in the country. ERISAclaim.com offers free webinars, basic and advanced educational seminars and on-site claims specialist certification programs for doctors, hospitals and commercial companies, as well as litigation support. Dr. Jin Zhou is regarded as the industry "Godfather of ERISA claims" for healthcare providers. For any questions, please contact Dr. Jin Zhou, president of ERISAclaim.com, at 630-808-7237. ANTHEM BLUE: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Okay ---------------------------------------------------------- A California Superior Court judge has preliminarily approved the settlement of a class action lawsuit alleging that Anthem Blue Cross, the California subsidiary of the nation's largest health insurer, WellPoint Inc., used enormous rate hikes to force patients into lower-benefit and higher-deductible health coverage in violation of state law. Under the settlement, California class members will be allowed to move to any new coverage they want or have their rates capped if they chose to stay in their existing policies. Consumer Watchdog praised Blue Cross for giving patients the rights they were due under the law. "My husband and I got a letter in the mail from Blue Cross telling us they were closing our policy," said Mary Feller of San Rafael, one of the plaintiffs representing the class action. "We could either stay with our old coverage or switch to a new policy with substantially reduced benefits. What Blue Cross did not tell us was that staying with our better policy would result in bigger and bigger rate increases over time. This settlement provides patients with the choice of a comparable policy that they should have had under the law." The lawsuit, filed on March 1, 2010, by the nonprofit organization Consumer Watchdog, and the law firms of Whatley, Drake & Kallas, the Consumer Law Group, and the Stuart Law Firm, sought to stop Blue Cross from shoving its policyholders into what is known as a "Death Spiral" -- the industry term for what happens when a health insurer "closes" certain health coverage policies to new customers, and later raises rates to those remaining in the closed policy until those enrollees can no longer afford coverage. Since older patients or those with preexisting conditions often cannot switch to a comparable or better policy under existing law, they are trapped in the closed policy and subject to bigger and bigger premium increases until they are forced to accept greatly inferior coverage or drop coverage altogether. "The settlement with Blue Cross is very positive news for consumers like my husband and myself who have been trapped in policies with spiraling rate increases. Now we will have the option to move to another policy without underwriting," said Donna Freed, another plaintiff also representing the class action. Under California law, health insurers that close a policy must either offer consumers new comparable coverage, or "pool" rates in order to minimize premium increases on the now-closed policies. The settlement requires Anthem Blue Cross to provide consumers both the option to move to a new policy and to limit rate increases -- thus providing benefits in excess of what is required by law. All transfers to new policies will be allowed without medical underwriting writing -- i.e. regardless of medical condition or health history. The key terms of the settlement include: Blue Cross consumers who remained enrolled in closed health policies -- PPO Share 500, PPO Share 1000, PPO Share 1500, and PPO Share 2500 -- will benefit from a cap on their rate increases. Consumers' rates in these plans will be limited to the lower of the rate attributable to their own closed plan, or the average rate of all closed plans, whichever is lower, minus an additional 2%. All consumers who were enrolled in any of the four closed plans, including those that transferred to other Blue Cross coverage, will have the opportunity to switch coverage, without medical underwriting, to any open policy regulated by the California Department of Managed Health Care. In addition, class members may switch to 12 additional policies regulated by the Department of Insurance. Consumers will be given the option to switch later this year, in 2012 and 2013. Download the settlement agreement here: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/executedsettlementagreem ent5-26-11.pdf Download the lawsuit here: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/DeathSpiralLawsuit.pdf The benefits provided under the class action settlement announced on June 21 will be in place through December 31, 2013, after which the "guaranteed issue" provisions of the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act are expected to be fully implemented. Under those provisions, beginning in 2014, a person's health condition or health history cannot be used as a basis for denying health coverage. As a result, any consumer enrolled in a policy that is subsequently closed will be able to transfer to any open policy. A final approval hearing on the settlement will occur on August 26, 2011. Consumer Watchdog -- http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org-- is a nonprofit consumer organization with offices in Washington, D.C. and Santa Monica, CA. Whatley Drake & Kallas -- http://www.wdklaw.com-- is one of the largest plaintiffs' law firms in the country. It regularly brings its resources to bear to remedy corporate abuses. In recent years the revolutionary settlements that Edith Kallas and Joe Whatley negotiated with most of the managed care companies in the country, with extensive injunctive relief allowing doctors to practice medicine with protections from the abuses of managed care provide the most noted examples of the firm using litigation to achieve meaningful change. Alan Mansfield, of the Consumer Law Group, has specialized in the area of national consumer class action and public interest litigation since 1991, focusing on telecommunications and consumer privacy issues. He has been involved over the years in numerous significant matters, including the Joe Camel teen smoking case, Mangini v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 1057, and the DMV motor vehicle Smog Impact Fee refund case (Jordan v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1999) 75 Cal. App. 4th 449). Mr. Mansfield was previously responsible for several years for the consumer law group in the San Diego office of the largest class action firm in the United States, Coughlin Stoia Robbins Geller & Rudman. At the forefront of its consumer practice, Stuart Law Firm -- http://www.stuartlaw.us-- brings justice to people who have been harmed by fraudulent health insurance marketing practices. Stuart Law Firm is a national leader in this quickly evolving area of litigation. Sham insurers have convinced hundreds of thousands of American policyholders -- who believe they have purchased peace of mind -- to buy policies that leave all their personal assets exposed in the event of a serious illness. BEST BUY: Removes "Milton" Suit From Alameda Cty. to N.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Versil Milton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Best Buy Co., Inc., a corporation, and Does 1-250, Case No. RG11563108 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., February 25, 2011), accuses Best Buy of engaging in intentional, systematic violations of the California Civil Code by requiring customers to provide, at minimum, both their names and ZIP codes, by recording that information, by obtaining additional private information, including customers' addresses, by pairing ZIP codes with customers' names, by creating and maintaining a database containing this private customer information, and by improperly using and disseminating this improperly obtained and maintained information. The Plaintiff is a customer of Best Buy's retail store operations in California, and was subjected to its practices. Best Buy is incorporated in Minnesota, licensed to do business and doing substantial business in California and the County of Alameda. Best Buy removed the lawsuit on June 20, 2011, from the Superior Court of California in and for Alameda County to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Company asserts that the removal is proper because diversity jurisdiction is established. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:11-cv-03029 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Randall B. Aiman-Smith, Esq. Reed W.L. Marcy, Esq. Hallie Von Rock, Esq. AIMAN-SMITH & MARCY 7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1020 Oakland, CA 94621 Telephone: (510) 562-6800 Facsimile: (510) 562-6830 E-mail: ras@asmlawyers.com rwlm@asmlawyers.com hvr@asmlawyers.com - and - Jared E. Peterson, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JARED E. PETERSON 2017 Lincoln Street Berkeley, CA 94709 Telephone: (510) 841-4462 Facsimile: (510) 841-4464 The Defendants are represented by: Michael A. Geibelson, Esq. Elizabeth D. Le, Esq. ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P. 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3400 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3208 Telephone: (310) 552-0130 Facsimile: (310) 229-5800 E-mail: MAGeibelson@rkmc.com EDLe@rkmc.com CHRISTMAS TREE: Recalls 35,000 Animated Safari and Aquarium Lamps ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with importer, Nantucket Distributing Co. Inc., of Middleboro, Massachusetts, and retailer, Christmas Tree Shops, of Union, New Jersey, announced a voluntary recall of about 35,000 animated safari and aquarium lamps. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. Defective wiring in the lamps can cause an electrical short, posing fire and shock hazards to consumers. Christmas Tree Shops has received three reports of sparking. No injuries or property damage have been reported. This recall involves Safari and Aquarium themed lamps with UPC numbers 000015556905, 000015618955, 000015821591 and 000015821607 printed on the price label on the cardboard packaging. The decorative lamps are silver and feature rotating films with aquatic and safari scenes. While there are no brand markings directly on the product, "Made in China" is printed on the bottom of the lamp. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11253.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Christmas Tree Shops stores primarily in the New England, Mid- Atlantic and Midwest regions from December 2009 through May 2011 for between $7 and $8. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled lamps and return them to Christmas Tree Shops store for a full refund. For additional information, contact Christmas Tree Shops toll-free at (888) 287-3232 anytime, or visit their Web site at http://www.christmastreeshops.com/ COMCAST CORP: Accused of Deceiving Customers in Calif. and Wash. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Athanassios Diacakis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Comcast Corporation and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. CGC-11-510979 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., May 13, 2011), is brought on behalf of all persons and entities in the states of California and Washington, who purchased a bundled package, including the Triple Play package consisting of Internet, cable television and telephone service from the Defendants, and who were subsequently charged additional rental or lease fees for equipment outside of and in addition to the bundle rate. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have violated, among other laws, Section 1770(a) of the California Civil Code by engaging in unfair and deceptive acts and practices, including informing consumers that they will receive a bundled package at one monthly price, without informing the consumers that there would be additional rental or lease fees that would materially increase the quoted monthly price. Mr. Diacakis is a resident of San Francisco, California, who purchased a Triple Play package from Comcast and was subsequently charged additional equipment rental and lease fees outside of and in addition to the advertised package fee. Comcast is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business at 1701 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and conducts business in San Francisco. Mr. Diacakis said in his complaint that the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to him, but he asserts that each of them is legally responsible for the unlawful acts alleged in the lawsuit. Comcast removed the lawsuit on June 17, 2011, from the Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Comcast argues that the removal is proper because there is minimal diversity between Comcast, which is based in Pennsylvania, and the Plaintiff and other members of the putative class, who are California and Washington citizens. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. CV-11-3002 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian R. Strange, Esq. Gretchen Carpenter, Esq. John P. Kristensen, Esq. STRANGE & CARPENTER 12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 207-5055 Facsimile: (310) 826-3210 E-mail: lacounsel@earthlink.net gcarpenter@strangeandcarpenter.com jkristensen@strangeandcarpenter.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael J. Stortz, Esq. DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 50 Fremont Street, 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-2235 Telephone: (415) 591-7500 Facsimile: (415) 591-7510 E-mail: michael.stortz@dbr.com - and - Seamus C. Duffy, Esq. Michael W. McTigue Jr., Esq. Michael P. Daly, Esq. Tara S. Sarosiek, Esq. DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP One Logan Square, Ste. 2000 Philadelphia, PA 19103-6996 Telephone: (215) 988-2700 Facsimile: (215) 988-2757 E-mail: seamus.duffy@dbr.com michael.mctigue@dbr.com michael.daly@dbr.com tara.sarosiek@dbr.com DUCOMMUN INC: LaBarge Merger-Related Class Suits Pending -------------------------------------------------------- The consolidated Delaware and Missouri putative class action lawsuits filed against Ducommun Incorporated over its proposed merger with LaBarge Inc., are pending, according to the Company's June 20, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Ducommun and its wholly owned subsidiary, DLBMS, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with LaBarge, Inc. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, at the effective time of the Merger, Merger Sub will be merged with and into LaBarge with LaBarge continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Ducommun. Ducommun has been named as a defendant in five putative class actions filed in April 2011, by purported stockholders of LaBarge against LaBarge, its Board of Directors and Ducommun in connection with the LaBarge Acquisition. Some of these actions also name DLBMS, which was formed for the purpose of effecting the LaBarge Acquisition. Two of the stockholder actions (filed by purported class representatives Barry P. Borodkin and Insulators and Asbestos Workers Local No. 14) were filed in the Delaware Chancery Court, and the court consolidated those two actions. The other three stockholder actions (filed by purported class representatives J. M. Foley, Jr., William Wheeler and Doris A. Gastineau) were filed in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, and that court consolidated those three actions. The consolidated Delaware and Missouri putative class actions generally allege that the individual members of the Board of Directors of LaBarge breached their fiduciary duties to LaBarge stockholders with respect to the proposed merger transaction announced on April 4, 2011. These actions also allege that Ducommun, Merger Sub and LaBarge aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary duties. They seek injunctive relief to prevent the closing of the LaBarge Acquisition, judicial declarations that the Merger Agreement was entered into in breach of the LaBarge directors' fiduciary duties, rescission of the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, and the award of attorneys' fees and expenses for the plaintiffs. In the Delaware consolidated actions, the parties engaged in expedited discovery in connection with a preliminary injunction hearing scheduled for June 17, 2011. After document discovery and depositions, and before the plaintiffs filed their motion for preliminary injunction, the parties negotiated and signed a memorandum of understanding to settle plaintiffs' claims. The preliminary settlement is subject to a definitive agreement and final approval of the Delaware Chancery Court. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the Chancery Court will approve the settlement even if the parties do enter into such stipulation. In the Missouri consolidated actions, the defendants sought a stay of the Missouri actions from the Missouri court, the plaintiffs opposed that request, and the Missouri court stayed the actions. At a hearing on June 16, 2011, plaintiffs sought reconsideration of the court's stay, and the defendants opposed that request. The Missouri court stated that it would issue an order shortly thereafter. Ducommun believes these lawsuits are without merit, and in the event that settlement of these claims is not finalized, intends to defend them vigorously. EDEBITPAY LLC: Accused of Forgery and Operating an Internet Scam ---------------------------------------------------------------- Deborah Deffenbaugh and Allan Wyatt, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. EDebitPay, L.L.C., a Nevada Limited Liability Company, Platinum Online Group, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 3:11-cv-03024 (N.D. Calif. June 20, 2011), accuse the Defendants of operating a scam where they lure people into applying for payday loans on Internet Web sites, and taking the information they gather from the payday loan applications, including the applicants' banking information, and using the information to forge checks on behalf of the applicants. The Plaintiffs assert that the idea that a cash-strapped, payday loan applicant would spend money on the Defendants' coupon service, the purpose of which is to encourage a person to spend additional money with the Defendants' coupons, is absurd. Ms. Deffenbaugh is a resident of San Francisco, California, while Mr. Wyatt is a resident of Malibu, California. EDebitPay is a Nevada limited liability company with its principal office in Sherman Oaks, California. Platinum Online is a California limited liability company with its principal office in Sherman Oaks, California. The Plaintiffs are uncertain of the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants, who also are responsible and liable for the injuries alleged in the complaint and who proximately caused damages to the Plaintiffs and the members of the Class. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Karl S. Kronenberger, Esq. Henry M. Burgoyne, III, Esq. Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld, Esq. KRONENBERGER BURGOYNE, LLP 150 Post Street, Suite 520 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415)955-1155 Facsimile: (415) 955-1158 E-mail: hank@KBInternetLaw.com karl@KBInternetLaw.com jeff@KBInternetLaw.com FLORIDA: State Workers File Class Action Over Retirement Fund ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that state workers filed a class action challenging Florida's demand that they start paying 3% of their paychecks into their retirement fund beginning July 1. They call it "taking of private property without full compensation." A copy of the Complaint in Williams, et al. v. Scott, et al., Case No. 2011CA1584 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Leon Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/21/Fla.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ronald G. Meyer, Esq. Jennifer S. Blohm, Esq. Lynn C. Hearn, Esq. MEYER, BROOKS, DEMMA AND BLOHM, P.A. 131 North Gadsden Street Post Office Box 1547 (32302) Tallahasse, FL 32301 Telephone: (850) 878-5212 E-mail: rmeyer@meyerbrookslaw.com jblohm@meyerbrookslaw.com lhearn@meyerbrookslaw.com - and - Pamela L. Cooper, Esq. FLORIDA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION 300 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, FL 32301 Telephone: (850) 224-7818 E-mail: pam.cooper@floridaea.org - and - Alice O'Brien, Esq. NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION 1201 16th Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 822-7035 E-mail: aobrien@nea.org FOCUS MEDIA: Appeal From N.Y. Suit Dismissal Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs' appeal from a judgment dismissing their consolidated class action lawsuit against Focus Media Holding Limited remains pending, according to the Company's June 20, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. On November 27, 2007, Eastriver Partners, Inc., filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and the underwriters of its follow-on offering of November 2007. On December 21, 2007, Scott Bauer filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of its follow-on offering of November 2007. Both complaints allege that the Company's registration statement on Form F-1 on November 1, 2007, as amended, and the related prospectus contained inaccurate statements of material fact. On April 24, 2008, the court consolidated the Eastriver Partners, Inc. and Scott Bauer actions into an action captioned In re Focus Media Holding Limited Litigation and named Iron Workers Local No. 25 Pension Fund as lead plaintiff in the consolidated action. On June 23, 2008, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. Specifically, the complaints allege that the Company failed to disclose reduced gross margins in the Company's Internet advertising business division due to acquisitions the Company made. The complaint filed by Scott Bauer also alleges that the Company issued a press release concerning its second quarter 2007 financial results that contained inaccurate statements of material fact. On September 5, 2008, the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On November 5, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion to dismiss. A reply brief was filed on December 5, 2008. On March 29, 2010, the court issued an opinion granting the Company's motion to dismiss. On March 30, 2010, the court entered a judgment dismissing the case. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on April 29, 2010, appealing the judgment granting the Company's motion to dismiss. The Company says it intends to continue to defend against these lawsuits vigorously as the Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims alleged. However, there can be no assurance that the Company will prevail in the suit on appeal and any adverse outcome of these cases could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business or results of operations. No further updates were provided the Company's latest SEC filing. FUSHI COPPERWELD: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears ------------------------------------------------------------ Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP reminds investors that July 5, 2011, is the deadline to file a motion for appointment as lead plaintiff in the securities class action suit against Fushi Copperweld, Inc. for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The action is brought on behalf of purchasers of Fushi Copperweld common stock during the period August 14, 2007, through March 29, 2011, inclusive. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. A copy of the complaint may be obtained from Kaplan Fox or the Court. The Complaint alleges that on March 11, 2011, after the close of trading, Fushi Copperweld shocked the market when it disclosed a press release that stated, among other things, that "[t]he Company . . . is currently reevaluating the application of generally accepted accounting principles in certain accounting treatments applied to its 2007, 2008, and 2009 financial results as well as its previously filed quarterly financial statements for the first three quarters of 2010. These accounting treatments are related to the ability to realize deferred income tax assets, qualification of cash flow hedge for cross-currency interest swap, and bargain purchase gains recognized in 2010 acquisitions." The Complaint further alleges that on March 14, 2011, the first trading day following these disclosures, the price of Fushi Copperweld's common stock declined by $0.74 per share, nearly 8%, to close at $8.68 per share on heavier than usual volume. The Company's common stock price declined by an additional $0.94 per share, or 10.8%, over the next two days to close at $7.74 per share on March 16, 2011. Then, on March 29, 2011, after the market closed, Fushi Copperweld further disclosed that "the Company's previously issued financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, and its unaudited interim financial statements for the quarters ended March 31, 2010, June 30, 2010 and September 30, 2010, should no longer be relied upon and should be restated, due to two errors in the application of U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles regarding (1) the accounting for cross-currency interest swap derivative and (2) the acquisitions of Dalian Jinchuan Electric Cable Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Hongtai Industrial Co., Ltd." The Complaint further alleges that on March 30, 2011, as a result of the further disclosures on March 29, 2011, Fushi Copperweld's common stock declined by $0.19 per share, 2.3%, to close at $8.12 per share, on heavier than usual volume. You need not seek to become a lead plaintiff in order to share in any possible recovery. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class and is represented by Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP. Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP -- http://www.kaplanfox.com-- prosecutes investor class actions and actions involving financial fraud. The firm has offices in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago and New Jersey, has many years of experience in prosecuting investor class actions and actions involving financial fraud. If you have any questions about this Notice, the action, your rights, or your interests, please contact: Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (800) 290-1952(212) E-mail: jcampisi@kaplanfox.com Laurence D. King, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP350 Sansome Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 772-4700 E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com LONGTOP FINANCIAL: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased the securities of Longtop Financial Technologies Limited, between May 15, 2009, and May 17, 2011, inclusive. A copy of the Complaint is available from the court or from Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP. Please contact us by phone to discuss this action or to obtain a copy of the Complaint at (310) 201-9150 or Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, by e-mail at shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our Web site at http://www.glancylaw.com The Complaint charges Longtop and certain of the Company's executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Longtop, together with its subsidiaries, designs, develops, and delivers software solutions and information technology services to the financial services industry in the People's Republic of China. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose, among other things: (1) certain related party transactions relating to the Company's purported major staffing company; (2) that the Company had vastly overstated its operating margins; (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On April 26, 2011, Citron Research issued a report on Longtop alleging that the Company's financial statements were fraudulent. The report raised serious issues concerning the quality of Longtop's earnings reports and operations and called into question the integrity of the Company's key management, specifically pointing to unfair business practices. On this news, the Company's shares declined $3.30 per share, or nearly 33%, to close on April 26, 2011, at $22.24 per share, and further declined another $4.51 per share, or more than 20%, to close on April 27, 2011, at $17.73 per share. On May 9, 2011, Citron Research issued an additional report calling into question the Company's financial statements. On this news, the Company's shares declined $1.67 per share, or 8.2% to close on May 9, 2011, at $18.54 per share. Then, on May 17, 2011, trading in Longtop stock was halted. Finally, on May 19, 2011, Longtop announced that it would not release its fourth quarter and fiscal year 2011 results on May 23, 2011, as previously scheduled. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and is represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, a law firm with significant experience in prosecuting class actions, and substantial expertise in actions involving corporate fraud. If you are a member of the class described, you may move the Court, no later than July 22, 2011, to serve as lead plaintiff; however, you must meet certain legal requirements. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact: Michael Goldberg, Esq. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Toll Free: (888) 773-9224 E-mail: http://www.glancylaw.com Web site: shareholders@glancylaw.com M&F WORLDWIDE: Sued Over Proposed Sale to MacAndrews & Forbes ------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Wright, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. M&F Worldwide Corp., Ronald O. Perelman, Philip E. Beekman, William C. Bevins, Martha L. Byorum, Charles T. Dawson, Viet D. Dinh, Theo W. Folz, John M. Keane, Paul M. Meister, Barry F. Schwartz, Bruce Slovin, Stephen G. Taub, Carl B. Webb, and MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc., Case No. 651707/2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 17, 2011), is a shareholder class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of holders of MFW common stock to enjoin the acquisition of the publicly owned shares of MFW common stock by MacAndrews and its affiliates. Mr. Wright contends that MacAndrews' proposed purchase of MFW stock for $24 in cash is grossly unfair to shareholders because as recently as May 2, 2011, MFW's stock was trading at $25.17. He asserts that MacAndrews is attempting to use its power as a controlling MFW shareholder to cash out MFW shareholders at an unfair price. The Plaintiff is an MFW shareholder. MFW is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters located at 35 East 62nd Street, in New York. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of MFW. MacAndrews is a private diversified holding company with interests in biotechnology, check printing and check related products and services, consumer products, defense, education, entertainment, financial services, gaming and other industries. The Plaintiff is represented by: David A.P. Brower, Esq. Brian C. Kerr, Esq. BROWER PIVEN, A Professional Corporation 488 Madison Avenue, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 501-9000 Facsimile: (212) 501-0300 E-mail: brower@browerpiven.com kerr@browerpiven.com MOUNT VERNON, WA: Sued Over Inadequate Representation ----------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Martin, writing for The Seattle Times, reports that approximately 1,000 misdemeanor cases cross the desk each year of public defender Richard Sybrandy, a volume that is more than double what the state bar says is a reasonable amount. But as staggering as that caseload is, it is only about half of Mr. Sybrandy's total workload. In addition to being a contracted public defender for Mount Vernon and Burlington, he maintains a private practice of criminal cases. His workload is so large, in fact, that an unusual class-action lawsuit filed last week in Skagit County accuses Mount Vernon and Burlington of violating defendants' constitutionally protected right to counsel. If successful, the lawsuit could have broad implications for the state's jampacked municipal and district courts, and potentially force cities to boost public-defense spending just as they are squeezed by the slow economic recovery. Mr. Sybrandy, an attorney for 15 years, admits his caseload is "too high." "I've been frustrated to the point of tears" when faced with five trials in a single week, he said. But he vigorously disputed the lawsuit's allegations that he hasn't returned clients' phone calls or investigated their cases. "I've worked really hard for an outstanding reputation," he said. Jaretta Osborne disagrees. Her son Ryan, 23, was charged in November with assaulting a police officer who responded to a fight at Ryan's apartment. Although Ryan is schizophrenic and has the developmental level of a 5-year-old, Mr. Sybrandy, who was assigned the case, did not tell the judge about Ryan's problems, Jaretta Osborne said. Nor did Mr. Sybrandy speak up when Ryan was reprimanded by a judge for laughing inappropriately during a hearing, she said. "At no time did Mr. Sybrandy stand up and say, 'Ryan doesn't understand this.' I just felt Ryan wasn't being helped." Mr. Sybrandy said in an e-mail that he "obtained an extraordinarily good result" for Ryan -- dismissal if he stays out of trouble for a year. And, he says, he later told the judge privately about Ryan's developmental disability. "I did right by this guy," he said. What is reasonable? Nearly 300,000 misdemeanor cases were filed statewide in 2010, from drunken-driving and domestic-violence complaints to the simple driving-with-license-suspended citations that constitute about one-third of the total caseload. The Washington State Bar Association has recommended that public defenders handle no more than 400 such cases a year, to ensure defendants receive the full attention of their assigned lawyers. Those levels, however, are only recommendations. In June, the bar's governing board declined to set hard limits for misdemeanor caseloads when it asked the Supreme Court to set binding standards for public defense. Seattle attorney Marc Boman, Esq. -- MBoman@perkinscoie.com -- who led the effort for the bar association, said cities objected in part because of the "financial implications" for caseload limits. The bar association planned to revisit caseloads in misdemeanor cases, he said. Seattle's municipal court limits public defenders to 380 cases, but most other cities don't. The caseload limits make sense, said Bob Boruchowitz, a Seattle University law professor and former director of a King County public-defense organization. "There are 1,600 to 1,800 billable hours a year, so if you are doing 900 cases, you've got 2 hours per case. If you are doing 900 cases part time, you've got one hour" or less, he said. "When the bulk of your cases are resolved in a half-hour or hour you are not being able to do the work that needs to be done to represent someone." Inadequate representation also can result in a case being overturned. The state Supreme Court last year allowed a 12-year- old in Moses Lake to withdraw a guilty plea in a child-molestation case because his public defender did such a poor job. Among factors cited by the court were "statistically impossible caseloads on public defenders" in some parts of the state. Caseload limits in municipal courts, however, ignore the fact that many of those cases, such as suspended-license infractions, are simple and can be handled expeditiously, said Andrew Cooley, a Seattle attorney representing Mount Vernon and Burlington in the lawsuit. "If this approach works with Mount Vernon and Burlington, I fear it will be replicated around the state in high-volume courts," said Mr. Cooley, who represents an insurance risk pool for cities. Because of that, the risk pool will challenge the suit vigorously, he said. Big increase proposed Toby Marshall, a Seattle lawyer whose firm filed the lawsuit, said based on the volume of criminal cases, Mount Vernon and Burlington need five attorneys, not two, and need to spend about $300,000, not the current $180,000. "The Constitution does not say you get an attorney if the city can afford it. The Constitution says you have a right to counsel, period," he said. Based on documents from the two cities, submitted with the lawsuit, Mr. Sybrandy and the other contracted public defender, Morgan Witt, document spending 30 minutes to one hour per case. Defendants have complained to the cities that the attorneys do not return phone calls, and Messrs. Sybrandy and Witt combined visited the Skagit County jail only six times in 2010, seeing seven clients. The county's public-defense referral office, which vets clients' ability to pay, has complained that a lack of communication with defendants is a "major complaint." Mount Vernon police also have complained they couldn't reach the public defenders during a drunken-driving case. "This is not an isolated case," a detective wrote. Mr. Witt did not respond to a call, but Mr. Sybrandy said during an interview this week that he rarely visits the jail because his clients are rarely there. He said he has not hired an investigator to look into the facts of a case for at least two years but accused Mr. Marshall, the attorney pressing the class- action lawsuit, of being ignorant of criminal law. "The question is, who is Richard Sybrandy," Mr. Sybrandy said. "Why don't we call 5,000 of Richard Sybrandy's past clients and see how many say, gosh, Richard Sybrandy saved my butt. . . . For someone who doesn't know what he's talking about to say otherwise is really disgusting." MTD PRODUCTS: Recalls 14,500 TrimmerPlus Edger Attachments ---------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with MTD Products Inc, of Cleveland, Ohio, announced a voluntary recall of about 14,500 TrimmerPlus(TM) Edger Attachments. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The steel shaft that drives the edger blade can break during use causing the edger blade to detach. If the blade detaches, it can hit the user or bystanders, posing a laceration hazard. No incidents or injuries have been reported. This recall involves MTD TrimmerPlus(TM) Edger Attachment Model 41AJLE-C092 LE720. The edger is sold separately as an attachment and can be attached to most major brand attachment-capable trimmers. The edger is used to cut grass along an edge such as a driveway or sidewalk. "TrimmerPlus" and "LE720" are printed on the blade's housing. Only certain serial numbers "1C##1DR####" through "1D##1DR####" are included in the recall. The serial number and "MTD" are printed on white labels on the edger's pole. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11252.html The recalled products were manufactured in Mexico and sold at Lowe's and other hardware and home improvement stores nationwide and on the Web between March 2011 and April 2011 for about $70. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled MTD TrimmerPlus(TM) Edgers and contact MTD to receive a free replacement. For additional information, contact the firm toll- free at (888) 848-6038 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.mtdproducts.com/ MULTI-CHEM GROUP: Faces Class Action Suits Over Explosions ---------------------------------------------------------- Claire Taylor, writing for The Advertiser, reports that two individuals and two businesses have filed lawsuits against Multi-Chem Group LLC claiming explosions and fires at the New Iberia plant last week exposed them to hazardous chemicals and cost their businesses money. Both lawsuits are seeking the class action certification that would include under one umbrella everyone seeking legal action against the company in the wake of the explosions and fire. Robert J. Broussard and Robert J. Broussard General Contractors Inc. on June 16 filed a petition for damages, a petition for certification of a class action lawsuit and a request to inspect the explosion site. They are represented by New Iberia attorney: Theodore "Trey" Haik III, Esq. Haik, Minvielle & Grubbs 1017 East Dale Street New Iberia, LA 70562-1040 Telephone: (337)365-5486 E-mail: treyhaik@hmg-law.com K&J Supply and Jordan Fleming filed lawsuits on June 17 seeking to establish a class action lawsuit. They are represented by: Clayton Burgess, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF L. CLAYTON BURGESS 605 W. Congress St. Lafayette, LA 70501 Telephone: (337) 234-7573 - and - Edward Landry, Esq. MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT LLP One Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 629-7657 E-mail: e.landry@mpglaw.com Both companies operate within two miles of the Multi-Chem plant on West Admiral Doyle Drive. The first lawsuit alleges the explosions at Multi-Chem emitted "a toxic mixture of hazardous fumes and smoke for several miles." "Robert J. Broussard was directly exposed to the hazardous fumes at issue herein and suffered from the absorption of these hazardous substances, causing him to become ill and suffer with heachaches, nausea, disorientation, etc.," the lawsuit claims. The company lost business because of a mandatory evacuation and Multi-Chem was negligent in handling chemicals at the facility, the lawsuit alleges. In addition, Mr. Haik seeks permission from the courts to have air samples taken at Multi-Chem and to inspect the site of the explosion and fire. The second lawsuit speculates that the potential number affected by the Multi-Chem incident physically, emotionally/mentally and economically are in the hundreds. Proceeding as one in a class action lawsuit may be the best legal path to take, it claims. K&J Supply and Fleming allege in the lawsuit that they suffered mental anguish and anxiety, lost income, incurred expenses as a result of the evacuation, lost business and inhaled toxic chemicals. Meanwhile, Michelle Keahey of The Louisiana Record reports that an Iberia couple has also filed a class action lawsuit against Multi- Chem Group. McKinnis Armstrong, for himself and on behalf of his judicially placed granddaughter, Keandria Augustine and Cynthia Armstrong, wife of McKinnis Armstrong, individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, filed suit against Multi-Chem Group and XYZ Insurance Co. on June 15 in federal court in New Orleans. The defendants are accused of negligence for failing to design, implement or adhere to adequate safety policy and preventative measures, failing to adhere to reasonably safe practices, failing to control chemical processes, failing to adequately inspect, detect hazards or defects, maintain, repair, replace and remedy so as to prevent explosion and fire and failing to warn. The defendants are also accused of negligence for failing to act in a reasonable manner, failing to comply with regulations, laws, statutes and ordinances, failing to meet applicable standards of care and failing to contain explosion and fire. The lawsuit is seeking damages for loss of property, loss of use of property, diminution of property, stigmatization of and displacement from property, medical disease, fear of disease, lost chance of survival, lost life expectancy, physical and mental pain, suffering and anguish, medical expenses, aggravation of preexisting diseases, physical disfigurement and impairment, interest and court costs. Mr. Armstrong, et al. are represented by: Brian A. Gilbert, Esq. Law Offices of Brian A. Gilbert, P.L.C. 821 Baronne Street New Orleans, LA 70113 Telephone: (504) 581-6180 (504) 885-7700 E-mail: bgilbert@briangilbertlaw.com A jury trial is requested. U.S. District Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle is assigned to the Armstrong case, Case No. 2:11-cv-01410. No Contamination, Says LDEQ The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality claims there was no contamination beyond the Multi-Chem plant. The LDEQ "did continuous monitoring" during the Multi-Chem incident last week, spokesperson Jean Kelly said on June 20. The only incident of off-site contamination was a "culvert where a little water ran off" the Multi-Chem property, she said. "As far as any impact off the site, we had no air impact at all" detected through the DEQ monitoring, Ms. Kelly said. But Wilma Subra, a New Iberia chemist and environmental advocate, said residents downwind of the Multi-Chem plant are reporting respiratory problems from exposure to the smoke and air emissions. Subra has not done air testing herself, she said. Multi-Chem blends chemicals to create products for use in the oil and gas industry. The three main chemicals reportedly involved in the June 14 incident were toluene, methanol and xylene, Ms. Kelly said. Toluene, which occurs naturally in crude oil, can affect the nervous system, with low- to moderate levels of exposure possibly causing tiredness, confusion, weakness, memory loss, nausea, loss of appetite and hearing and vision problems, according to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Tests in animals and humans "generally indicate that toluene does not cause cancer," the ATSDR Web site states. Xylene, which occurs naturally in petroleum and coal tar, catches on fire easily, the ATSDR states. Those who inhale high levels may experience dizziness, confusion and a loss of balance. There is insufficient information to determine whether it is cancer-causing. Methanol, used in gasoline, can result in blurred vision, headaches, dizziness and nausea. No information is available on whether it causes cancer in humans, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Subra said health concerns extend beyond exposure to those three products. New products can be created and released as a result of fire and incomplete combustion. Multi-Chem, per company policy, had no comment on June 20 on the lawsuits, Katie Dupuis, technical marketing manager, said in an e-mail. Louisiana State Police investigators continued to look into the cause of the explosion, Troop I spokesman Trooper Stephen Hammons on June 20 said. No information, including the origin of the explosion, can be released at this time, he said. Cleanup continues at Multi-Chem and the road in front of the facility will remain closed until that is finished, Mr. Hammons said. A claims center for those affected by the incident and evacuation has been moved to the Ramada Inn, 2915 La. 14/Center Street in New Iberia, just east of U.S. Route 90. The claims center will be open from 7:00 a.m. until 7: p.m. until further notice. NORDSTROM INC: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that a Superior Court class action claims Nordstrom stiffs workers for overtime and violates seven other sections of the Labor Code. A copy of the Complaint in Nguyen v. Nordstrom, Inc., et al., Case No. 30-2011-00484903 (Calif. Super. Ct., Orange Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/21/Nordstrom.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Miriam L. Schimmel, Esq. Andrew J. Sokolowski, Esq. David Cheng, Esq. Katherine Den Bleyker, Esq. INITIATIVE LEGAL GROUP APC 1800 Century Park East, 2nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-5637 E-mail: mschimmel@initiativelegal.com asokolowski@initiativelegal.com dcheng@initiativelegal.com kdenbleyker@initiativelegal.com PHILIP MORRIS: Florida Court Dismisses Medical Monitoring Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Philip Morris USA said that a federal judge in Florida on June 20 dismissed a medical monitoring class action case because plaintiffs failed to allege a legally proper claim for medical monitoring. "This is the third federal court this year to correctly reject smokers' medical monitoring claims," said Murray Garnick, Altria Client Services senior vice president and associate general counsel, speaking on behalf of PM USA. "Federal and state judges across the country have rejected medical monitoring claims on a variety of grounds, and we are pleased with the judge's sound reasoning [Mon]day." While the court allowed plaintiffs to re-file the complaint, it said, "This may prove to be a difficult task. Absent allegations that individuals who have smoked non-defective Marlboro cigarettes for twenty-pack years would not have suffered the same injury as Gargano, the Second Amended Complaint will fare no better than the First." The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida joins federal courts in New York and California in rejecting medical monitoring claims this year. In addition to the decision, 16 federal and state courts have rejected class certification in medical monitoring cases. At trial, tobacco companies have won the medical monitoring claims in the two cases that have been certified as class actions. This case is Gargano v. Philip Morris USA, 10-24042-CIV. RED ROBIN: Accused of Violating Labor Code in California -------------------------------------------------------- Kevin McConnell, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated, and the general public, v. Red Robin International, Inc., Case No. 3:11-cv-03026 (N.D. Calif., June 20, 2011), is brought on behalf of all non-exempt hourly employees of Red Robin, who worked as servers in California from June 20, 2007, to June 20, 2011. The complaint alleges, among other things, that Red Robin failed to provide meal and rest periods in violation of the California Labor Code, to properly compensate employees for all hours worked, to furnish wage and hour statements and to maintain employee time records. Mr. McConnell is a resident of California and was a server employed by Red Robin from June 2009 to June 2011 at the Brentwood, California location. He alleges that he was deprived of pay for all the hours he worked and was denied proper overtime pay. Red Robin is a corporation organized under Colorado law and has been doing business as Red Robin Burger and Spirits Emporiums in California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Hoffman, Esq. Alec Seganch, Esq. HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1550 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415)362-1111 Facsimile: (415)362-1112 E-mail: mhoffman@employment-lawyers.com asegarich@sfemployment-lawyers.com SAFEWAY INC: Faces Class Action Over Grocery Delivery Charge ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims Safeway promises to deliver groceries for $7 to $13 a trip and charge in-store prices for it, but tacks on 10% to the cost of most of the stuff it sells that way. A copy of the Complaint in Rodman v. Safeway, Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-03003 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/21/Safeway.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Lesley E. Weaver, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH LLP 199 Fremont Street, 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 92101 Telephone: (415) 992-7282 E-mail: lweaver@sfmslaw.com - and - James C. Shah, Esq. Scott R. Shepherd, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH LLP 35 E. State Street Media, PA 19063 Telephone: (610) 891-9880 E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com sshepherd@sfmslaw.com - and - Steven A. Schwartz, Esq. Timothy N. Matthews, Esq. CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS, LLP 361 West Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Telephone: (610) 642-8500 E-mail: steveschwartz@chimicles.com timothymatthews@chimicles.com SHELL OIL: Roxana Residents File Class Action Over Benzene Spill ---------------------------------------------------------------- AboutLawsuits.com reports that residents of Roxana, Illinois have filed a toxic tort lawsuit against Shell Oil Company and BP Products North America over chemical spills that they say have lowered property values and exposed residents to the side effects of benzene exposure. The groundwater contamination class action lawsuit was filed earlier this month in Madison County Circuit Court by six plaintiffs from an Illinois town of about 1,500 people. The complaint names Shell, BP and several "John Doe" defendants as being responsible for groundwater contamination that lowered property values in Roxana. Plaintiffs allege that Shell released at least 8,400 gallons of benzene from an underground pipeline that went from the Wood River Refinery in Roxana to a barge loading facility on the Mississippi River. The spill created a plume under the village that contaminated groundwater supplies, the lawsuit claims. Similar leaks occurred from a BP facility in Wood River as well, according to the lawsuit. The facilities have been cited a number of times by the EPA for violating environmental protection laws. In May 2008, Shell was cited for excessive releases of benzene and other chemicals into Roxana's groundwater. Last month, during a heat wave that hit the Midwest and East Coast, Illinois environmental officials sent a letter urging Roxana residents not to sleep in their basements due to the risk of benzene exposure after testing indicated there could be a danger to residents' health. The lawsuit claims that the spills and groundwater contamination have damaged the property value of homeowners in Roxana, who may be hard-pressed to sell their homes if people know they are living on top of a contaminated groundwater supply that may expose them to benzene health risks and other chemicals, including Hexane, Toulene and Xylene. Illinois environmental officials have come down hard on Shell in the past because it has attempted to downplay the health effects of its chemical spills in communications to its employees and local residents on a number of occasions, the lawsuit claims. Shell posted a report on its Roxana Investigation Web site that told residents there was no risk from soil vapors containing benzene and other chemicals. Benzene is an industrial chemical that has been associated with the development of several fatal forms of cancer, leukemia and other conditions, such as Acute Myelogenous Leukemia, Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia, Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia, Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia, Hairy Cell Leukemia, Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma, Multiple Myeloma, Myelodysplastic Syndrome, Myelofibrosis and Myeloid Metaplasia, Aplastic Anemia and Thrombocytopenic Purpura. SINO-FOREST CORP: Two Canadian Law Firms File Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Andi Balla, writing for canadianlawyermag.com, reports that two Canadian law firms representing a pension fund have filed a C$6.5-billion class action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against Sino-Forest Corp., a Hong Kong-based forestry company traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange. Sino's senior officers and directors are also named in the proposed class action. Koskie Minsky LLP and Siskinds LLP on June 20 said the proposed class action was filed on behalf of the Labourers' Pension Fund of Central and Eastern Canada, which is seeking to be the representative plaintiff on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased Sino-Forest securities from May 14, 2007 to June 2, 2011. Sino-Forest has had a pretty rough ride since June 2, losing about 90% of its value on the Toronto Stock Exchange following allegations about the company's governance and business model. The stock's fall started following the release of a report by Muddy Waters Research, which accused the company of fraud and exaggerating the size of its forestry assets. The lawsuit alleges that during that period the company "materially misstated Sino's assets and results of operations, and thereby misrepresented that Sino's financial statements had been compiled in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles." In a statement following the filing, Dimitri Lascaris, a partner at Siskinds who co-represents the pension fund, said the case "raises some hard and troubling questions about the quality of diligence being performed by some well-compensated fiduciaries upon whom Sino's shareholders relied, and we look forward to establishing in a court of law whether those fiduciaries fell woefully short of the standards that the investing public rightly demands of them." On June 21, 2011, Sino-Forest lost half of its already-decimated value, plunging to an eight-year low after billionaire hedge fund manager John Paulson dumped his entire stake in the company. Mr. Paulson had been Sino-Forest's largest shareholder, with a 14.1% stake. It was the latest in a series of set backs. Credit rating agency Fitch also cut its debt rating on the firm to junk status and Canadian brokerage RBC Capital Markets suspended its coverage, pending the outcome of an internal company review. An in-depth report in The Globe and Mail on June 18 reinforced some of the Muddy Water charges, raising more questions about a Sino-Forest business model that the company says centers on buying and selling trees in China. Sino-Forest said on June 20 the Globe report was an "incorrect portrayal" of its business. It has set up an internal committee to look into the charges and report back, probably within three months. Sino-Forest has shed nearly C$4.5 billion in market capitalization since the June 2 Muddy Waters report. TRANSATLANTIC HOLDINGS: Sued Over Proposed Sale to Allied World --------------------------------------------------------------- Alfred C. Ivers, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Transatlantic Holdings, Inc., Robert F. Orlich, Michael C. Sapnar, Stephen P. Bradley, Ian H. Chippendale, John G. Foos, John L. Mccarthy, Richard S. Press, Allied World Assurance Company Holdings, AG and Go Sub, LLC, Case No. 6574- (Del. Chancery Ct., June 17, 2011), is a shareholder class action lawsuit brought against the Company and those involved in its proposed sale to Allied World in an all-stock transaction valued at approximately $3.2 billion or $5.10 a share. The Plaintiff alleges that members of the Company's Board of Directors failed to adequately discharge their fiduciary duties by favoring a deal that undervalues the Company and ensures that nearly all of them could remain in office with the combined company after the close of the Proposed Transaction and that one of them, Mr. Sapnar, will retain a high-level executive position. Mr. Ivers is a shareholder of Transatlantic. Transatlantic, a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York, offers reinsurance capacity for a range of property and casualty products, directly and through brokers, to insurance and reinsurance companies, in domestic and international markets. The Individual Defendants are Transatlantic's directors and officers. Allied World, a Switzerland corporation, operates as a specialty insurance and reinsurance company. Merger Sub, a Delaware corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Allied World, was formed solely to effectuate the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carmella P. Keener, Esq. ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A. 919 N. Market Street, Suite 1401 P.O. Box 1070 Wilmington, DE 19899 Telephone: (302) 656-4433 E-mail: CKeener@rmgglaw.com - and - Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. Mark S. Reich, Esq. Joseph Russello, Esq. Carolina C. Fitzgerald, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 E-mail: SRudman@rgrdlaw.com DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com mreich@rgrdlaw.com jrussello@rgrdlaw.com - and - Hamilton Lindley, Esq. GOLDFARB BRANHAM LLP Saint Ann Court 2501 N. Harwood St., Suite 1801 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 583-2233 E-mail: hlindley@goldfarbbranham.com TRANSATLANTIC HOLDINGS: Faces 2nd Suit Over Planned Allied Merger ----------------------------------------------------------------- Edward Sutton, On Behalf of Himself and all Others Similarly Situated v. Transatlantic Holdings, Inc., Richard Press, Michael C. Sapnar, Robert F. Orlich, Stephen P. Bradley, Ian H. Chippendale, John G. Foos, John L. McCarthy, Thomas R. Tizzio, Allied World Assurance Company Holdings, AG, and GO Sub, LLC, Case No. 651705/2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 17, 2011), is a shareholder class action lawsuit arising out of the proposed merger of Transatlantic with Allied World that will create the combined entity of TransAllied Group Holdings, AG. The Plaintiff alleges that the Proposed Merger is the result of a manifestly unfair and inadequate bidding process driven by certain Individual Defendants' intent to benefit themselves to the detriment of shareholders. He contends that offer price of $51.10 per share to holders of Transatlantic common stock is a mere 16% premium over the closing price of the Company's stock the day before the Proposed Merger was announced, and hence, the transaction materially undervalues the Company and is unfair to its shareholders. Mr. Sutton is a Transatlantic shareholder. Transatlantic is a holding company for Transatlantic Reinsurance Company, Trans Re Zurich Reinsurance Company Ltd., and Putnam Reinsurance Company, and through those subsidiaries, the Company offers reinsurance capacity for a full range of property and casualty products to insurance and reinsurance companies, in both the domestic and international markets. The Individual Defendants are Transatlantic's directors and officers. Allied World is a Swiss holding company, and provides property and casualty insurance and reinsurance on a worldwide basis. GO Sub LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company and a wholly owned subsidiary of Allied World. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian P. Murray, Esq. Gregory B. Linkh, Esq. Bridget V. Hamill, Esq. MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER LLP 275 Madison Avenue, Suite 801 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 682-1818 Facsimile: (212) 682-1892 E-mail: bmurray@murrayfrank.com glinkh@murrayfrank.com bhamill@murrayfrank.com - and - James M. Orman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JAMES M. ORMAN 1600 Market Street, Suite 3305 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 523-7800 Facsimile: (215) 523-9290 TRANSATLANTIC HOLDINGS: Faces 3rd Suit Over Planned Allied Merger ----------------------------------------------------------------- Marilyn Clark, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Transatlantic Holdings, Inc., Robert F. Orlich, Michael C. Sapnar, Richard Press, John G. Foos, Ian H. Chippendale, John L. McCarthy, Stephen P. Bradley, Allied World Assurance Company Holdings, AG, and GO Sub, LLC, Docket No. 651706/2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 17, 2011), is a stockholder class action lawsuit that arises out of the Board of Directors' efforts to sell Transatlantic to Allied in an all-stock acquisition valued at approximately $3.2 billion. The lawsuit says the sale process was "unfair". Ms. Clark contends that her lawsuit seeks to enjoin the Defendants from further breaching their fiduciary duties in their pursuit of a sale of the Company at an unfair price through an unfair and self- serving process to Allied. She points out that the failure to maximize the Company's value in the proposed acquisition is the result of the Board's failure to shop Transatlantic. The Plaintiff is a Transatlantic shareholder. Transatlantic is a Delaware corporation and a leading global reinsurance provider that offers a full range of casualty and property insurance products on both a treaty and facultative basis to insurance and reinsurance companies worldwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian P. Murray, Esq. Gregory B. Linkh, Esq. MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER LLP 275 Madison Avenue, Suite 801 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 682-1818 Facsimile: (212) 682-1892 E-mail: bmurray@murrayfrank.com glinkh@murrayfrank.com - and - Brian J. Robbins, Esq. Stephen J. Oddo, Esq. ROBBINS UMEDA LLP 600 B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 525-3990 Facsimile: (619) 525-3991 E-mail: soddo@robbinsumeda.com brobbins@robbinsumeda.com UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Green Card Glitch -------------------------------------------------------- Jamie Smyth, writing for The Irish Times, reports that a lawsuit has been filed against the US government alleging it unfairly denied 22,000 would-be legal immigrants with the right to a "green card" due to a computer blunder. The class action legal case is being taken against the State department by applicants from more than 30 countries, including Ireland. The lawsuit alleges the State Department informed some 22,000 people that they were "winners" in an annual lottery for diversity visas, granting permanent resident status. It subsequently informed the "winners" that in fact they had to be disqualified because a computer glitch meant they had not been randomly selected, which was one of the key conditions for awarding the "green cards". In a statement, White & Associates, which has agreed to take the class action case on a pro bono basis, said the basis of the case was rooted in the simple and enduring value that "our word is our bond". "In this case our Government has let these individuals down. They have broken a public and written commitment to 22,000 friends of America," said attorney Kenneth White. "Real people have had their dreams unfairly shattered, and as a result, the public image of the United States as a fair and honorable country has been damaged around the world," he said. State Department officials were not immediately available for comment. WEIRTON WATER: Faces Class Action Over Water Outage --------------------------------------------------- WTOV9.com reports that Weirton's water woes continue well after water was restored to thousands of residents who lost water service for several days after a waterline break outside the city's water plant. A class action lawsuit has been filed by a Weirton resident against the city of Weirton, the Weirton Water Board and the construction company that was working on the line when it broke. Ronald Gable filed the lawsuit in Brooke County. The documents indicate that Mr. Gable is representing anyone who lost water on or after June 10. Mr. Gable was not available for comment, but NEWS9 obtained a copy of the lawsuit. It claims, "The James White Construction Company and/or Weirton Area Water Board and/or City of Weirton, negligently, carelessly and/or recklessly ruptured the water transmission line." On page five, it says, "Plaintiff brings this lawsuit to recover compensation for damages, including financial injury, if any, he and the other members of the class have suffered. . ." "I think it was uncalled for. He has no right representing the rest of the city," said Weirton resident Tony Majoris, "If I want to have a lawsuit against someone I can do it myself." "I don't think everyone was damaged. I mean the city has a big loss to them and I think it needs to be looked at that they have a loss more than anyone or anything," said Dave Lengyel. The lawsuit also says, "As a result of service interruption, Defendant(s) have failed to meet the level of service and reliability promised to Plaintiffs." The lawsuit seeks "compensatory damages" and "reasonable attorney fees," among other costs. The Fitzsimmons Law Office is representing Mr. Gable and any other plaintiff who takes part in the class action lawsuit. The law office said they could not discuss the lawsuit at this time. City officials with Weirton also had no comment. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS ALERT: Andrea Electronics Facing Edwards Claim in R.I. --------------------------------------------------------------- Andrea Electronics Corporation is a defendant in an asbestos lawsuit filed by Audrey Edwards, Executrix of the Estate of Leon Leroy Edwards. In December 2010, Ms. Edwards filed the lawsuit in the Superior Court of Providence County, R.I., against 3M Company and over 90 other defendants, including the Company, alleging that the Company processed, manufactured, designed, tested, packaged, distributed, marketed or sold asbestos containing products that contributed to the death of Mr. Edwards. The Company received service of process in April 2011. The Company has retained legal counsel and has filed a response to the compliant. COMPANY PROFILE: Andrea Electronics Corporation 65 Orville Drive Bohemia, N.Y. 11716 Phone No.: 631-719-1800 Description: The Company aims to provide the emerging "voice interface" markets with state-of-the-art communications products that facilitate natural language, human/machine interfaces. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hawaiian Electric Posts $48.7MM ARO at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc.'s Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. (HECO) subsidiary recorded asset retirement obligations of US$48,714,000 as of March 31, 2011, compared with US$23,985,000 as of March 31, 2010. AROs recognized by HECO and its subsidiaries relate to obligations to retire plant and equipment, including removal of asbestos and other hazardous materials. In September 2009, HECO recorded an estimated ARO of US$23 million related to removing retired generating units at its Honolulu power plant, including abating asbestos and lead-based paint. The obligation was subsequently increased in June 2010, due to an increase in the estimated costs of the removal project. In August 2010, HECO recorded a similar estimated ARO of US$12 million related to removing retired generating units at HECO's Waiau power plant. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. is the holding company for Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO) and some non-utility businesses. HECO (along with its utility subsidiaries Maui Electric and Hawaii Electric Light) serves more than 444,850 customers as the sole public electricity provider on the islands of Hawaii, Lanai, Maui, Molokai, and Oahu. The Company is headquartered in Honolulu. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Facing 83 Exposure Actions at March 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- Ameren Corporation and its subsidiaries faced 83 asbestos-related lawsuits as of March 31, 2011, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2011. The Company, Ameren Missouri, Ameren Illinois Company and EEI have been named, along with numerous other parties, in a number of lawsuits filed by plaintiffs claiming varying degrees of injury from asbestos exposure. Most have been filed in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Ill. The total number of defendants named in each case varies, with as many as 212 parties named in some pending cases and as few as two in others. However, in the cases that were pending as of March 31, 2011, the average number of parties was 78. At March 31, 2011, the Company, Ameren Missouri, AIC and Genco had liabilities of US$16 million, US$6 million, US$10 million, and US$- million, respectively, recorded to represent their best estimate of their obligations related to asbestos claims. Ameren Corporation distributes electricity to 2.4 million customers and natural gas to almost one million customers in Missouri and Illinois through utility subsidiaries. The Company is headquartered in St. Louis, Mo. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Applica Consumer Still Facing 3 Exposure Cases --------------------------------------------------------------- Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc.'s Applica Consumer Products, Inc. subsidiary is a defendant in three asbestos lawsuits in which the plaintiffs have alleged injury as the result of exposure to asbestos in hair dryers distributed by that subsidiary over 20 years ago. Although Applica never manufactured such products, asbestos was used in certain hair dryers distributed by it prior to 1979. Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. is a global branded consumer products company and was created in connection with the combination of Spectrum Brands, Inc. and Russell Hobbs, Inc., a global branded small appliance company, to form a new combined company. The Company is headquartered in Madison, Wis. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Ongoing v. CenterPoint Resources ---------------------------------------------------------------- CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. or its predecessor companies is still named, along with numerous others, as defendant in lawsuits filed by certain individuals who claim injury due to exposure to asbestos during work at such formerly owned facilities. Some facilities formerly owned by the Company's predecessors have contained asbestos insulation and other asbestos-containing materials. The Company anticipates that additional claims like those received may be asserted in the future. CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. owns and operates natural gas distribution systems in six states. The Company's reportable business segments are Natural Gas Distribution, Competitive Natural Gas Sales and Services, Interstate Pipelines, Field Services and Other Operations. The Company is based in Houston. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali, D/C Still Named in Exposure Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kaanapali Land, LLC and its D/C Distribution Corporation subsidiary have been named as defendants in personal injury actions allegedly based on exposure to asbestos. While there are only a few such cases that name the Company, there are a substantial number of cases that are pending against D/C on the U.S. mainland (primarily in California). Cases against the Company are allegedly based on its prior business operations in Hawaii and cases against D/C are allegedly based on the sale of asbestos-containing products by D/C's prior distribution business operations primarily in California. On Feb. 15, 2005, D/C was served with a lawsuit entitled American & Foreign Insurance Company v. D/C Distribution and Amfac Corporation, Case No. 04433669 filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco, Central Justice Center. In the eight-count complaint for declaratory relief, reimbursement and recoupment of unspecified amounts, costs and for such other relief as the court might grant, plaintiff alleged that it is an insurance company to whom D/C tendered for defense and indemnity various personal injury lawsuits allegedly based on exposure to asbestos containing products. Plaintiff alleged that because none of the parties have been able to produce a copy of the policy or policies in question, a judicial determination of the material terms of the missing policy or policies is needed. Plaintiff sought a declaration: of the material terms, rights, and obligations of the parties under the terms of the policy or policies; that the policies were exhausted; that plaintiff is not obligated to reimburse D/C for its attorneys' fees in that the amounts of attorneys' fees incurred by D/C have been incurred unreasonably; that plaintiff was entitled to recoupment and reimbursement of some or all of the amounts it has paid for defense and/or indemnity; and that D/C breached its obligation of cooperation with plaintiff. D/C filed an answer and an amended cross-claim. In order to fund such action and its other ongoing obligations while such lawsuit continued, D/C entered into a Loan Agreement and Security Agreement with the Company, in August 2006, whereby the Company provided certain advances against a promissory note delivered by D/C in return for a security interest in any D/C insurance policy at issue in this lawsuit. In June 2007, the parties settled this lawsuit with payment by plaintiffs in the amount of US$1.6 million. Such settlement amount was paid to the Company in partial satisfaction of the secured indebtedness. Because D/C was substantially without assets and was unable to obtain additional sources of capital to satisfy its liabilities, D/C filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Illinois, its voluntary petition for liquidation under Chapter 7 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code during July 2007, Case No. 07-12776. The deadline for filing proofs of claim against D/C with the bankruptcy court passed in October 2008. Prior to the deadline, the Company Land filed claims that aggregated about US$26.8 million, relating to both secured and unsecured intercompany debts owed by D/C to the Company. In addition, a personal injury law firm based in San Francisco that represents clients with asbestos-related claims, filed proofs of claim on behalf of about 700 claimants. Kaanapali Land, LLC operates in two primary business segments: Property and Agriculture. The Company operates through a number of subsidiaries. The Company is headquartered in Chicago. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Momentive Specialty Still Facing Exposure Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- Momentive Specialty Chemicals Inc. continues to be involved in actions that allege harm caused by products it has allegedly made or used, containing silica, vinyl chloride monomer and asbestos. Plaintiffs' attorneys are focusing on alleged harm caused by other products the Company has made or used, including silica-containing resin coated sands and discontinued products, some of which may have contained some asbestos fines. Momentive Specialty Chemicals produces thermosetting resins, or thermosets, and produces adhesive and structural resins and coatings. The Company is headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harbinger Still Has Cases in Miss., La. Courts --------------------------------------------------------------- Harbinger Group Inc. is involved in multiple complaints in Mississippi and Louisiana state courts and in a federal multi- district litigation alleging injury from exposure to asbestos on offshore drilling rigs and shipping vessels. These vessels were formerly owned or operated by the Company's offshore drilling and bulk-shipping affiliates, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2011. Harbinger Group Inc. obtains controlling equity stakes in subsidiaries that operate across a diversified set of industries. The Company has identified the following six sectors in which it intends to pursue investment opportunities: consumer products, insurance and financial products, telecommunications, agriculture, power generation and water and natural resources. The Company is headquartered in New York. ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS Global Records $65MM Reserves at March 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- RBS Global, Inc.'s long-term reserve for asbestos claims was US$65 million as of March 31, 2011, compared with US$86 million as of March 31, 2010. The Company's long-term insurance for asbestos claims was US$65 million as of March 31, 2011, compared with US$86 million as of March 31, 2010. RBS Global, Inc. is a multi-platform industrial company strategically positioned within the markets and industries it serves. Currently, the business is comprised of two strategic platforms: Process & Motion Control and Water Management. The Company is headquartered in Milwaukee. ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS' Stearns Unit Still Faces 1,435 Open Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Multiple lawsuits (with about 1,435 claimants) are pending in state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in certain brakes and clutches previously manufactured by RBS Global, Inc.'s Stearns division and/or its predecessor owners. Invensys plc and FMC, prior owners of the Stearns business, have paid 100 percent of the costs to date related to the Stearns lawsuits. RBS Global, Inc. is a multi-platform industrial company strategically positioned within the markets and industries it serves. Currently, the business is comprised of two strategic platforms: Process & Motion Control and Water Management. The Company is headquartered in Milwaukee. ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS' Prager Unit Still Party to 2 Injury Cases --------------------------------------------------------------- RBS Global, Inc.'s Prager subsidiary is a defendant in two pending multi-defendant lawsuits relating to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in a product allegedly manufactured by Prager. Additionally, there are about 3,700 individuals who have filed asbestos related claims against Prager; however, these claims are currently on the Texas Multi-district Litigation inactive docket. The ultimate outcome of these asbestos matters cannot presently be determined. To date, the Company's insurance providers have paid 100 percent of the costs related to the Prager asbestos matters. The Company said it believes that the combination of its insurance coverage and the Invensys plc indemnity obligations will cover any future costs of these matters. RBS Global, Inc. is a multi-platform industrial company strategically positioned within the markets and industries it serves. Currently, the business is comprised of two strategic platforms: Process & Motion Control and Water Management. The Company is headquartered in Milwaukee. ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS' Falk Unit Still Facing 200 Exposure Cases --------------------------------------------------------------- RBS Global, Inc.'s Falk subsidiary, through its successor entity, is a defendant in about 200 lawsuits pending in state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in certain clutches and drives previously manufactured by Falk. There are about 570 claimants in these suits. The ultimate outcome of these lawsuits cannot presently be determined. Hamilton Sundstrand is defending the Company in these lawsuits under its indemnity obligations and has paid 100 percent of the costs to date. RBS Global, Inc. is a multi-platform industrial company strategically positioned within the markets and industries it serves. Currently, the business is comprised of two strategic platforms: Process & Motion Control and Water Management. The Company is headquartered in Milwaukee. ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS' Zurn Unit Still Faces 7T Suits at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- RBS Global, Inc.'s Zurn subsidiary and an average of about 80 other unrelated companies, as of March 31, 2011, were defendants in about 7,000 asbestos related lawsuits representing about 28,500 claims. Plaintiffs' claims allege personal injuries caused by exposure to asbestos used primarily in industrial boilers formerly manufactured by a segment of Zurn. Zurn did not manufacture asbestos or asbestos components. Instead, Zurn purchased them from suppliers. These claims are being handled under a defense strategy funded by insurers. As of March 31, 2011, the Company estimates the potential liability for asbestos-related claims pending against Zurn as well as the claims expected to be filed in the next 10 years to be about US$65 million of which Zurn expects to pay about US$53 million in the next 10 years on such claims, with the balance of the estimated liability being paid in subsequent years. Management estimates that its available insurance to cover its potential asbestos liability as of March 31, 2011, is about US$266.3 million, and believes that all current claims are covered by this insurance. RBS Global, Inc. is a multi-platform industrial company strategically positioned within the markets and industries it serves. Currently, the business is comprised of two strategic platforms: Process & Motion Control and Water Management. The Company is headquartered in Milwaukee. ASBESTOS UPDATE: ABI Long-Term Liability at $17.7MM at March 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- American Biltrite Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related liabilities amounted to US$17,700,000 as of both March 31, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010. The Company's long-term insurance for asbestos-related liabilities amounted to US$17,646,000 as of both March 31, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010. American Biltrite Inc.'s major operations include its Tape Division, its jewelry division K&M Associates L.P., and its Canadian division, which consists of American Biltrite (Canada). The Company is headquartered in Wellesley Hills, Mass. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Open Claims v. American Biltrite Rise to 1,280 --------------------------------------------------------------- American Biltrite Inc. is a co-defendant with many other manufacturers and distributors of asbestos containing products in about 1,280 pending claims involving about 1,826 individuals as of March 31, 2011. The Company faced 1,261 asbestos-related claims at Dec. 31, 2010, compared with 1,193 claims at Dec. 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, April 15, 2011) These claims relate to products of the Company's former Tile division, which the Company contributed to Congoleum in 1993. The claimants allege personal injury or death from exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products. During the three months ended March 31, 2011, the Company recorded 89 new claims, 11 settlements, and 59 dismissals. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, the Company recorded 304 new claims, 29 settlements, and 207 dismissals. The Company has multiple excess layers of insurance coverage for asbestos claims. The total indemnity costs incurred to settle claims during the three months ended March 31, 2011 and the year ended Dec. 31, 2010 were US$1.8 million and US$5.7 million, respectively, all of which were paid by the Company's first-layer excess umbrella insurance carriers, as were the related defense costs. American Biltrite Inc.'s major operations include its Tape Division, its jewelry division K&M Associates L.P., and its Canadian division, which consists of American Biltrite (Canada). The Company is headquartered in Wellesley Hills, Mass. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane US et al. Win Dismissal of Kiser Action -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted several defendants' dismissal motions in an asbestos- related lawsuit styled Phyllis Kiser, Plaintiff v. A.W. Chesterton Co., et al., Defendants. Judge Eduardo C. Robreno entered judgment in Civil Action No. 11-60039 on March 16, 2011. In 1988, Orvin Kiser, Sr. was diagnosed with nonmalignant pleural thickening and asbestosis. In April 1990, he filed an action against 18 defendants for his asbestosis claim. Those defendants are not parties to the instant case. This prior action remained pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia for 20 years before it was dismissed in July 2010. Mr. Kiser was diagnosed with mesothelioma on Nov. 7, 2009. He passed away on March 30, 2010. Plaintiff Phyllis Kiser, as Executor of the Estate of Mr. Kiser, brought this wrongful death suit on Oct. 26, 2010, alleging that various defendants' asbestos- containing products caused Mr. Kiser's development of mesothelioma. The motions to dismiss were filed by Trane U.S., Inc., SEPCO, Inc., CBS Corp., Georgia-Pacific Corp., Foster Wheeler Corp., Riley Power, Inc., Goulds Pumps, Inc., Ingersoll-Rand Co., John Crane, Inc., Rapid American Corp., General Electric Co., Warren Pumps, and Harsco Industrial Patterson Kelley. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Denies Remand Motion in Barnes Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, denied plaintiffs' motion to remand in an asbestos lawsuit styled Gail and James Wayne Barnes, et al., Plaintiffs v. Various Defendants. Judge Eduardo C. Robreno entered judgment in Case No. 2:10-CV- 67141 on March 15, 2011. Plaintiffs, Gail and James Wayne Barnes (deceased) commenced the instant action on April 21, 2009, in California state court, alleging that Mr. Barnes' lung cancer was caused by exposure to the asbestos-containing products of multiple defendants. Defendant General Electric filed a notice of removal on Feb. 24, 2010. On May 4, 2010, the case was transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for consolidated pre-trial proceedings as part of In Re: Asbestos, Multidistrict Litigation No. 875. It was hereby ordered that Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand the case to California Superior Court filed on July 27, 2010 was denied. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ind. Court Affirms Board Ruling in Freels Claim ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed the ruling of the Indiana Worker's Compensation Board in a case involving asbestos styled James Freels, Appellant-Plaintiff v. Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Appellee-Defendant. Judges Vaidik, Baker, and Barnes entered judgment in Case No. 93A02-1007-EX-761 on March 17, 2011. Mr. Freels contended that the Indiana Worker's Compensation Board erred in dismissing his Occupational Disease Act claim against his employer Bethlehem Steel Corporation. In May 2006, Mr. Freels was diagnosed with lung cancer allegedly contracted as a result of asbestos exposure while employed by Bethlehem Steel. In December 2006, he filed an Application for Adjustment of Claim with the Worker's Compensation Board under the Occupational Disease Act alleging that exposure to asbestos contributed to his lung cancer. To date, no Occupational Disease Act benefits have been paid to Mr. Freels or on behalf of Mr. Freels, as this claim has been disputed from the beginning. Mr. Freels also filed a complaint in Marion Superior Court against about 78 third-party defendants that manufactured, sold, or used the asbestos products that allegedly caused his cancer. In addition, he filed claims with trusts established by order of U.S. Bankruptcy courts on behalf of bankrupt companies that manufactured, sold, or used the asbestos products that allegedly caused his cancer. Mr. Freels received gross settlement proceeds in the amount of US$93,551.14 from some of the third parties, including those that entered into bankruptcy proceedings. He did not notify Bethlehem Steel before settling with any of these third parties. Mr. Freels still has claims pending against over 15 third parties. In December 2009, Hearing Member A. James Sarkisian dismissed Mr. Freels' claim because Mr. Freels failed to notify Bethlehem Steel before settling with the third parties. In June 2010, the full Board adopted Hearing Member Sarkisian's decision. Mr. Freels appealed the dismissal of his claim. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Philomath Firms Fined $10T for Safety Breaches --------------------------------------------------------------- Oregon's Department of Environmental Quality has issued civil penalties totaling more than US$10,000 to parties involved in the improper removal of asbestos from the Philomath Fire and Rescue building at 1035 Main St. in Philomath, Ore., last fall, according to an Oregon DEQ press release dated June 9, 2011. DEQ penalized T.W. Flooring Inc. of Corvallis US$4,200 for conducting an asbestos removal project without the required license. The unlicensed asbestos abatement project took place between Oct. 11 and 22, 2010, when a worker mishandled sheet vinyl flooring that contained asbestos. T.W. Flooring is not licensed to perform asbestos abatement projects in Oregon. DEQ also noted that T.W. Flooring failed to properly package and label the removed flooring waste and cited the company for accumulating asbestos-containing waste material. A penalty was not issued for this violation. In a related action, DEQ penalized the Philomath Volunteer Fire Department US$6,018 for allowing the unlicensed contractor to perform an asbestos removal project from its facility. As owner of the building, the fire department is responsible for ensuring all asbestos is properly handled and disposed of. Both the company and the fire department have appealed their penalties. ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.K. Operator's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure ---------------------------------------------------------------- A recent Cannock Coroner's Court inquest heard that the death of 72-year-old Irene Jenkins, a former telephone exchange operator for the General Post Office, was related to workplace exposure to asbestos, the Cannock Chase Post reports. Mrs. Jenkins died on May 14, 2010, at Katharine House Hospice, Stafford, just a week after being diagnosed with mesothelioma. The court heard Mrs. Jenkins could have been exposed to asbestos while working for the GPO in the 1950s. Mrs. Jenkins may have also been exposed to asbestos dust carried on the clothing of her husband -- who worked as a joiner in the building trade -- or her son, who was an apprentice plumber. Giving evidence at the hearing, Dr. Emma Sheldon, consultant histopathologist at Stafford Hospital, said a post mortem revealed both lungs were encased in mesothelioma. Dr. Sheldon said a small amount of asbestos fibers were found in Mrs. Jenkins' lungs. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Skelton's 2nd Action Filed v. 24 Firms in Texas ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Skelton and his wife, Ann Skelton, on June 2, 2011, filed an asbestos lawsuit against A. W. Chesterton Company and 23 other defendant corporations in Jefferson County District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports. Although Mr. Skelton already received a claim for his non- malignant asbestos illness, he now claims he suffers from a different asbestos illness, which entitles him to sue again. From 1964 to 1979, Mr. Skelton worked as a laborer, shipfitter and mechanic, which required him to work with and around asbestos products. The suit claims the industrial asbestos dust he inhaled caused him to contract an asbestos-related illness. The suit does not define Mr. Skelton's illnesses but does say he's entitled to sue again under Putejovsky vs. Rapid-American Corp. The plaintiffs are suing for exemplary damages. Provost Umphrey attorney Bryan Blevins Jr., Esq., represents the Skeltons. Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd District Court, has been assigned to Case No. E190-200. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Developer Sentenced to 4 Years in Prison ---------------------------------------------------------------- A Los Angeles federal judge, on June 6, 2011, sentenced developer Charles Yi to four years in prison for violating asbestos handling laws during the renovation of an apartment complex in the San Fernando Valley, The Associated Press reports. Mr. Yi, whose company owned the Forest Glen apartment complex in Winnetka, Calif., was convicted on March 29, 2011 of five felony counts including conspiracy to violate the Clean Air Act and failing to provide proper notifications to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the South Coast Air Quality Management District about a renovation involving asbestos. Mr. Yi also was convicted of failing to provide properly trained personnel, to properly remove the asbestos and dispose of the material. Air regulators received complaints about the renovation in 2006 and shut it down. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Soldier's Death Linked to Exposure to Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- A June 2, 2011 inquest at the Windsor Guildhall in Windsor, England, heard that the death of 95-year-old Stanley Ball, a former soldier, was related to workplace exposure to asbestos, getwokingham reports. Mr. Ball died from symptoms "overwhelmingly linked" to the industrial disease mesothelioma on Feb. 26, 2011. The inquest heard how Mr. Ball, who spent the latter years of his life living at Glebelands House in Glebelands Road, had been coping with mesothelioma since 2003. Once diagnosed with the condition, Mr. Ball immediately had a biopsy and a procedure to help the removal of fluid on his lungs, and further X-rays in 2006 and 2007 showed no obvious aggression from the disease. However, in 2009, shortly before his transfer to the care home, Mr. Ball was said to be staying in bed for longer periods of the day and was becoming more and more breathless. Berkshire coroner Peter Bedford explained how Mr. Ball began his working career as an apprentice printer before moving on to become a milkman. He then joined the Army and served during the Second World War before returning to his job at the dairy yard. He then changed careers and began working with his brother on building sites, where asbestos was present. A post mortem examination carried out by Dr. Mufeed Ali at Wexham Park Hospital following Mr. Ball's death discovered he had suffered both bronchitis and bronchopneumonia, which he concluded was "consistent with mesothelioma." Before coming to a verdict, Mr. Bedford said it was "extraordinary" for someone to cope with the condition for so long after initial diagnosis. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bridgwater Worker's Death Related to Exposure -------------------------------------------------------------- An inquest at Bridgwater town hall heard that the death of 67-year-old Mark Horsman, of Bridgwater, Somerset, England, was related to workplace exposure to asbestos, thisisthewestcountry.co.uk reports. The inquest heard that Mr. Horsman died from mesothelioma on Nov. 22, 2010. West Somerset Coroner Michael Rose said he believed Mr. Horsman was exposed to most, if not all of the asbestos, while working at the former British Cellophane factory more than 40 years ago, before safety procedures changed in the 1970s. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos at Henderson Hall Prompts TOSHA Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The presence of asbestos at the Henderson Hall in Tennessee Tech in Cookeville, Tenn., has prompted a complaint with the Tennessee Occupation Safety and Health Administration, the Herald-Citizen reports. The Henderson Hall is undergoing some renovations this summer, and the presence of asbestos-containing materials has raised concerns among those working in the building. Environmental Health and Safety Coordinator Kent Clawson said, "We have a lot of asbestos on our campus." Within Henderson Hall, there are areas where asbestos containing tile lies under non-asbestos tile. As part of the construction process, contractors were drilling through layers of tile in the building. But that dust, Mr. Clawson said, is just dust that has built up over the years that is being disturbed. The complaint prompted Mr. Clawson and the campus safety office to test air and dust samples within the building on June 7, 2011. Air test results were presented to faculty in a meeting held to address their concerns on June 8, 2011. The results showed asbestos levels in the building's air to be within regulatory levels. Lab results from dust samples collected in the work areas in question were released on June 9, 2011. In the two samples submitted, lab tests found no detectable amount of asbestos. Both the air and dust samples were tested by EMLab P&K, an independent laboratory registered with the American Industrial Hygiene Association. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Mitchell Courthouse to Costs $12,950 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Board of Supervisors of Mitchell County, Iowa, has approved US$12,950 for the asbestos abatement at its courthouse, which dates back to 1858, globegazette.com reports. More than 250 feet of pipe insulation containing asbestos was discovered in the basement. Asbestrol Inc., of Austin, Minn., will do the work. The US$12,950 includes all air monitoring and decontamination of the crawl space as well as removal in the boiler room and veterans' office using a wrap and cut method. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mason v. Foster Wheeler et al. Filed on June 1 --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Grant Mason, on behalf of Milan Arthur Barackman, on June 1, 2011, filed suit against Foster Wheeler, General Electric Co., Owens-Illinois Inc., Rapid American Corp., Uniroyal Inc., Viacom Inc. and Riley Power Inc. in New Orleans federal court, The Louisiana Record reports. The alleged asbestos exposure occurred while Mr. Barackman was aboard U.S. Navy vessels from 1966 until the late 1970s. The exposure was a result of asbestos dust emanating throughout the USS Rehoboth, the USNS Albert J. Meyer, the USNS Flyer, the USNS Wyman, the USNS Kingsport and the Sgt. Alfred Schoup, the suit states. Mr. Barackman was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2010. Mr. Mason is represented by Scott R. Bickford, Esq., Lawrence J. Centola, Esq., and Roshawn H. Donahue, Esq., of Martzell & Bickford in New Orleans. U.S. District Judge Jay C. Zainey is assigned to Case No. 2:11-cv- 01309. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Power Named Defendant in Injury Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Global Power Equipment Group Inc. has been named as a defendant in a limited number of asbestos personal injury lawsuits, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 16, 2011. Neither the Company nor its predecessors ever mined, manufactured, produced or distributed asbestos fiber, the material that allegedly caused the injury underlying these actions. The bankruptcy court's discharge order issued upon emergence from bankruptcy extinguished the claims made by all plaintiffs who had filed asbestos claims against the Company before that time. The Company also said it believes the bankruptcy court's discharge order should serve as a bar against any later claim filed against it, including any of its subsidiaries, based on alleged injury from asbestos at any time before emergence from bankruptcy. In any event, in all of the asbestos cases finalized post- bankruptcy, the Company has been successful in having such cases dismissed without liability. Global Power Equipment Group Inc. is a comprehensive provider of power generation equipment and maintenance services for customers in the domestic and international energy, power infrastructure and service industries. The Company is headquartered in Tulsa, Okla. ASBESTOS UPDATE: SonomaWest Holdings Settles Box's Calif. Claim --------------------------------------------------------------- SonomaWest Holdings, Inc., subsequent to March 31, 2011, settled an asbestos lawsuit filed by Eugene Box and Shirley Box for an amount of US$10,000, which amount the Company expects to be paid by the Company's insurance provider. In October 2010, the Company was named as a defendant in a lawsuit as the successor of Appletime and Vacu-Dry, filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda, by the Box couple, seeking damages for personal injuries related to alleged exposure to asbestos during the 1974-1982 timeframe. SonomaWest Holdings, Inc.'s business consists of its real estate management and rental operations. Its rental operations include industrial/agricultural property, some of which was formerly used in its discontinued fruit processing businesses. This commercial property is now being rented to third parties. The Company is headquartered in Sebastopol, Calif. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Md. Court Issues Split Ruling in Scapa Action -------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Maryland issued split rulings in a case involving asbestos styled Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc. v. Carl L. Saville. Judges Bell, Harrell, Battaglia, Greene, Murphy, Adkins and Barbera entered judgment in the case on March 23, 2011. On June 14, 2002, Carl and Sharon Saville sued about 30 companies claiming negligence, strict liability, loss of consortium, conspiracy and fraud relating to Mr. Saville's asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma. A judgment against Scapa was entered on Oct. 15, 2003 in the amount of US$3 million. In an unreported opinion, the Court of Special Appeals vacated that judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. Prior to commencement of the new trial, Mr. Saville settled with three defendants, against whom Scapa unsuccessfully asserted cross- claims for joint tort-feasor liability and contribution, namely Viacom, Inc. f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corp., AstenJohnson, Inc., and Albany International Corp. The new trial began on Jan. 8, 2008 and concluded on Jan. 25, 2008. The jury found Scapa and co-defendant Wallace and Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust (W & G) to be jointly and severally liable and returned a verdict in the amount of US$1,718,000. The trial judge subsequently reduced the verdict to account for settlement payments that Mr. Saville had received from certain bankrupt asbestos-containing product manufacturers, namely Celotex Trust, the Johns Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust, and the H.K. Porter, Inc. Asbestos Trust, resulting in a final verdict of US$1,684,415. Scapa moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict as to Mr. Saville's claims and as to its cross-claims. Both motions were denied, as was Scapa's request, in the alternative, for a new trial, and for a reduction in the verdict to account for any and all bankruptcy trust payments received by Mr. Saville. Final judgment was entered on April 30, 2008 and appeals were timely noted. The judgment of the Court of Special Appeals was affirmed in part and reversed in part. The case was remanded to the Court of Special Appeals with direction to remand the case to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City for further proceedings. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Court Denied Mandamus Writ in Roger Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District, Franklin County, denied a writ for mandamus filed by Roger Bacon High School in an asbestos case styled State ex rel. Roger Bacon High School, Relator v. Industrial Commission of Ohio and Patrick J. Mullaney, Deceased, Maria C. Carlevale-Mullaney, Spouse, Respondents. Judges French, Brown, and Dorrian entered judgment in Case No. 10AP-277 on March 24, 2011. Roger Bacon filed an original action in mandamus requesting this court to issue a writ of mandamus ordering Industrial Commission of Ohio to vacate its order awarding death benefits to Maria C. Carlevale-Mullaney, spouse of respondent Patrick J. Mullaney, now deceased, because the evidence demonstrates that Mullaney was exposed to asbestos after his employment at Roger Bacon, and a subsequent employer is responsible for Mullaney's last injurious exposure. This court referred this matter to a magistrate of the Tenth District Court of Appeals. The magistrate issued a decision, which included findings of fact and conclusions of law and is appended to this opinion, recommending that this court deny the requested writ. Mullaney had an extensive work history that included multiple potential exposures to asbestos. From 1947 until 1953, Mullaney performed construction and renovation work. From 1953 to 1955, he worked on cars as a hobby. In the summer of 1954, he worked for about one month as a maintenance worker at Roger Bacon. In the summer of 1955, Mullaney worked as a painter at Carlisle Chemical. He received his medical degree in 1963 and practiced medicine thereafter. From 1964 until 1966, he served as a Marine combat physician and, during that time, served for about five weeks aboard a Navy vessel. From 1967 to 1982, he worked at numerous hospitals. From 1976 to 1977, he performed home remodeling. John W. Cunningham, M.D., M.S., concluded that Mullaney's exposure while working at Roger Bacon caused his eventual mesothelioma and that his subsequent exposures were not significant factors in its development. Joseph E. Thorpe, M.D., concluded that Mullaney's exposure while serving aboard a Navy vessel was his last injurious exposure. Roger Bacon appealed BWC's allowance of a death claim. After a hearing, a district hearing officer (DHO) affirmed the BWC order. On further appeal, a staff hearing officer (SHO) affirmed the DHO order. The SHO addressed Mullaney's exposure while working at Roger Bacon in 1954 and found that claimant was exposed to asbestos dust during that time. The SHO awarded death benefits to Mullaney's widow. Roger Bacon filed a mandamus action and asked this court to vacate the commission's order. The magistrate concluded that the commission did not abuse its discretion by finding that Mullaney's last injurious exposure was during his employment at Roger Bacon in 1954. The writ of mandamus request was denied. ASBESTOS UPDATE: New York City Wins Dismissal of Purdie Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted defendants' dismissal motion in a case involving asbestos styled, Sidney E. Purdie, Plaintiff v. The City of New York; P. Feeney, Assistant Commissioner, Dept. of Correction George Motchan Detention; Warden F. Gonzalez, E.H.U., F.A .R.D.C.; R. Cripps, Deputy Warden, Security, A.R.D.C.; G. Isaacs, Asbestos Supervisor, E.H.U.; E. Knight, Deputy Warden, Administrative A.R.D.C.; and R. Olivo, Deputy Warden, Programs, A.R.D.C., Defendants. District Judge P. Kevin Castel entered judgment in Case No. 10 Civ. 5802(PKC) on March 15, 2011. Mr. Purdie, who is pro se, brought this action, alleging that the defendants were liable for skin rashes that he suffered as a consequence of asbestos exposure and chemicals used in an assignment to strip, buff and wax a floor. In April 2006, Mr. Purdie was part of a group of inmates directed "to buff and strip the floor" in the basement of the Robert N. Davoren Complex at Riker's Island. A chemical solution was used to loosen floor tiles and remove wax. While Mr. Purdie was removing tiles, his clothing absorbed the chemical solution and his "private area got soaked." Mr. Purdie filed his complaint on Aug. 2, 2010. The defendants filed their motion to dismiss on Nov. 15, 2010. Mr. Purdie submitted opposition materials dated Dec. 22, 2010 and postmarked on Dec. 27, 2010. The defendants' motion to dismiss was granted. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meade Case v. 47 Firms Filed on May 9 in W.Va. --------------------------------------------------------------- Kathy Lee Frasure, on behalf of relative Anna Lee Meade, filed an asbestos lawsuit against 47 defendant corporations in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports. According to the complaint, on May 12, 2010, Anna Lee Meade was diagnosed with lung cancer on which she died June 24, 2010. Kathy Lee Frasure claims Anna Lee Meade smoked until 1985, but then quit. She claims Anna Lee Meade was exposed to asbestos because of her husband, who was employed by the defendants from 1947 until 1982. Kathy Lee Frasure seeks a jury trial to resolve all issues involved. She is being represented by Victoria L. Antion, Esq., Scott A. McGee, Esq., John D. Hurst, Esq., and Bronwyn I. Rinehart, Esq. Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 11-C-750 has been assigned to a visiting judge. ASBESTOS UPDATE: McCommack Case v. 72 Firms Filed in Kanawha Co. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Larry Macon McCommack, of Boomer, W.Va., filed an asbestos lawsuit against 72 defendant corporations in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., on May 9, 2011, The West Virginia Record reports. On Feb. 14, 2011, Mr. McCommack was diagnosed with lung cancer, according to the complaint. He claims the defendants are responsible for his lung cancer because they caused him to be exposed to asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products. Mr. McCommack claims he was exposed to the products from 1964 until 1995. He seeks a jury trial to resolve all issues involved. He is being represented by Victoria Antion, Esq., and Bronwyn I. Rinehart, Esq. Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 11-C-749 has been assigned to a visiting judge. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reed Case v. Norfolk Southern Filed in Kanawha --------------------------------------------------------------- Edward A. Reed, on May 9, 2011, filed an asbestos lawsuit against Norfolk Southern Railway Company in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports. According to the suit, Mr. Reed was employed by the defendant from 1956 until 1959 as a fireman in its Williamson, W.Va., facility. He claims he was exposed to toxic substances, including asbestos, which caused his mesothelioma diagnosis on March 11, 2011. Mr. Reed seeks judgment against the defendant in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limitation. He is being represented by Victoria L. Antion, Esq., Scott A. McGee, Esq., John E. Guerry III, Esq., and Joseph Satterly, Esq. Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 11-C-748 has been assigned to a visiting judge. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Barron Case v. 87 Firms Filed on May 5 in W.Va. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Barbara Barron, on behalf of Junior E. Barron, filed an asbestos lawsuit on May 5, 2011 against 87 defendant corporations in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports. According to the complaint, Mr. Barron was diagnosed with asbestosis and died on June 4, 2010. Mrs. Barron claims the defendants exposed her husband to asbestos and caused his diagnosis. Mrs. Barron seeks compensatory and punitive damages. She is being represented by William K. Schwartz, Esq. Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 11-C-729 has been assigned to a visiting judge. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reed Claim v. 135 Firms Filed on May 9 in W.Va. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Edward A. Reed and wife Helen P. Reed, of Flat Gap, Ky., filed an asbestos lawsuit against 135 defendant corporations in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., on May 9, 2011, The West Virginia Record reports. On March 25, 2011, Mr. Reed was diagnosed with mesothelioma, according to the complaint. He claims he smoked cigarettes from the 1950s until the 1970s, but then quit. The defendants failed to warn Mr. Reed of the danger of asbestos, according to the suit. He claims he was exposed to the asbestos from 1956 until 1992. The Reeds seeks a jury trial to resolve all issues involved. They are being represented by Victoria L. Antion, Esq., Scott A. McGee, Esq., John D. Hurst, Esq., and Joseph Satterley, Esq. Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 11-C-747 has been assigned to a visiting judge. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pneumo Summary Judgment OK'd in Smalley Action --------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California, affirmed the ruling of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, which upheld Pneumo Abex LLC's summary judgment in an asbestos case filed on behalf of Donald Smalley. The case is styled Norma Smalley et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants v. Pneumo Abex LLC, Defendant and Respondent. On March 24, 2011, Judges Boren, Doi Todd, and Chavez, entered judgment in Case No. B223233. Mr. Smalley died of mesothelioma in September 2007. Following his death, his family members filed a first amended complaint for wrongful death. The complaint alleged that Mr. Smalley was exposed to asbestos-containing products, including through his work as an electrician, and that this exposure caused his mesothelioma. Abex, a manufacturer of automotive brake pads and other brake-related "friction" products, was one of about 30 named defendants. Abex manufactured and sold asbestos-containing brake products until 1987. Abex brought a motion for summary judgment. In support of this motion, Abex presented plaintiffs' responses to interrogatories, requests for admissions, and requests for production, as well as plaintiffs' case report. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion for summary judgment but, strangely, did not address any of Abex's hearsay and admissibility arguments. The court took the matter under submission, and later that day issued an order granting summary judgment in favor of Abex and against plaintiffs. Judgment was later entered and plaintiffs appealed. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Court Issues Split Ruling in Newman Claim --------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County, issued split rulings in an asbestos case filed by Aaron and Nancy Newman against Avocet Enterprise, Inc. Judge Peggy L. Ableman entered judgment in Civil Action No. 10C-03-173 ASB on March 15, 2011. The Newmans brought this personal injury action against various manufacturers and suppliers of allegedly asbestos-containing products, claiming that the defendants' products caused Mr. Newman to contract mesothelioma. Avocet had moved for summary judgment. The Court concluded that summary judgment in Avocet's favor would be inappropriate based upon Mr. Newman's deposition testimony regarding his use of Avocet's Ventbestos product. His testimony that he worked directly with Ventbestos "all the time" and "[a]ll through the years" from the time he was 17 until the early 1980s, that he recalled the Ventbestos product as asbestos-containing, and that he used Ventbestos in applications for which he considered asbestos appropriate, sufficed to create a genuine factual dispute as to causation. Because Plaintiffs had withdrawn their claim of conspiracy against Avocet, the motion for summary judgment was moot in part as to the conspiracy allegation. For the foregoing reasons, summary judgment was denied in part as to the Newmans' remaining claims. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court OKs Ferrara Bid to Expedite Claim ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims granted Arthur F. Ferrara's motion to expedite asbestos-related proceedings. The case is styled Arthur F. Ferrara, Appellant v. Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee. Judge Davis entered judgment in Case No. 09-3990 on March 31, 2011. U.S. Navy veteran Arthur F. Ferrara appealed through counsel from a Sept. 14, 2009 Board of Veterans' Appeals decision that denied entitlement to service connection for a chronic respiratory disorder, to include asbestosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and/or emphysema. Mr. Ferrara, who served on active duty from May 1945 to July 1946, was a cook onboard a ship during World War II. He stated that he was exposed to asbestos-covered pipes while on board and that this is the cause of his respiratory disability. Mr. Ferrara filed a motion to expedite proceedings on March 28, 2011. Because he had satisfied the requirements of Rule 47 of the Court's Rules of Practice and Procedure by demonstrating good cause for expediting proceedings, the Court granted the motion. The Court set aside the Board's Sept. 14, 2009, decision and remanded the case for readjudication. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Katy Industries Faces 11 Injury Cases ------------------------------------------------------ Katy Industries, Inc. has been named as defendant in 11 asbestos lawsuits filed in state court in Alabama by a total of about 325 individual plaintiffs, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 16, 2011. There are over 100 defendants named in each case. In all 11 cases, the Plaintiffs claim that they were exposed to asbestos in the course of their employment at a former U.S. Steel plant in Alabama and, as a result, contracted mesothelioma, asbestosis, lung cancer or other illness. They claim that while in the plant they were exposed to asbestos in products which were manufactured by each defendant. In nine of the cases, Plaintiffs also assert wrongful death claims. Katy Industries, Inc. is a manufacturer, importer and distributor of commercial cleaning and storage products. The Company is headquartered in Bridgeton, Mo. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Katy Ind. Cites 2,860 Tendered Sterling Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Katy Industries, Inc. says that Sterling Fluid Systems (USA) has tendered about 2,860 asbestos cases pending in Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Illinois, Nevada, Mississippi, Wyoming, Louisiana, Georgia, Massachusetts, Missouri, Kentucky, California, South Carolina and Canada to the Company for defense and indemnification. With respect to one case, Sterling has demanded that the Company indemnify it for a US$200,000 settlement. Sterling bases its tender of the complaints on the provisions contained in a 1993 Purchase Agreement between the parties whereby Sterling purchased the LaBour Pump business and other assets from the Company. Sterling has not filed a lawsuit against the Company in connection with these matters. The tendered complaints all purport to state claims against Sterling and its subsidiaries. The Company and its current subsidiaries are not named as defendants. The plaintiffs in the cases also allege that they were exposed to asbestos and products containing asbestos in the course of their employment. Each complaint names as defendants many manufacturers of products containing asbestos, apparently because plaintiffs came into contact with a variety of different products in the course of their employment. Plaintiffs claim that LaBour Pump Company, a former division of an inactive subsidiary of the Company, and/or Sterling may have manufactured some of those products. With respect to many of the tendered complaints, including the one settled by Sterling for US$200,000, the Company has taken the position that Sterling has waived its right to indemnity by failing to timely request it as required under the 1993 Purchase Agreement. With respect to the balance of the tendered complaints, the Company has elected not to assume the defense of Sterling in these matters. Katy Industries, Inc. is a manufacturer, importer and distributor of commercial cleaning and storage products. The Company is headquartered in Bridgeton, Mo. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 90 LaBour Exposure Lawsuits Pending at April 1 --------------------------------------------------------------- Katy Industries, Inc. says there are about 90 asbestos cases, which remain active as of April 1, 2011 against its former LaBour Pump Company subsidiary. LaBour Pump has been named as a defendant in about 430 of the New Jersey cases tendered by Sterling Fluid Systems (USA). The Company has elected to defend these cases, the majority of which have been dismissed or settled for nominal sums. Katy Industries, Inc. is a manufacturer, importer and distributor of commercial cleaning and storage products. The Company is headquartered in Bridgeton, Mo. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quigley Co. Files Revised Bankruptcy-Exit Plan --------------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer Inc.'s Quigley Company, Inc. subsidiary, on April 6, 2011, filed a revised plan of reorganization and accompanying disclosure statement with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on May 12, 2011 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In September 2004, Quigley filed a petition in the Bankruptcy Court seeking reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The Bankruptcy Court held a confirmation hearing with respect to Quigley's amended plan of reorganization that concluded in December 2009. In September 2010, the Bankruptcy Court declined to confirm the amended reorganization plan. The Company recorded additional pre-tax charges for this matter of about US$1.3 billion in 2010. In March 2011, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with a committee (the Ad Hoc Committee) representing about 40,000 claimants in the Quigley bankruptcy proceeding (the Ad Hoc Committee claimants). The principal provisions of the settlement agreement provide for a settlement payment in two installments and other consideration, as follows: -- The payment to the Ad Hoc Committee, for the benefit of the Ad Hoc Committee claimants, of a first installment of US$500 million upon receipt by the Company of releases of all asbestos-related claims against the Company from Ad Hoc Committee claimants holding US$500 million in the aggregate of claims; -- The payment to the Ad Hoc Committee, for the benefit of the Ad Hoc Committee claimants, of a second installment of US$300 million upon the Company's receipt of releases of all asbestos-related claims against the Company from Ad Hoc Committee claimants holding an additional US$300 million in the aggregate of claims following the earlier of the effective date of a revised plan of reorganization and April 6, 2013; -- The payment of the Ad Hoc Committee's legal fees and expenses incurred in this matter up to a maximum of US$19 million; and -- The procurement by the Company of insurance for the benefit of certain Ad Hoc Committee claimants to the extent such claimants with non-malignant diseases have a future disease progression to a malignant disease. Under the revised plan, the Company expects to contribute an additional amount to the Trust provided for in the plan (the Trust), if and when the Bankruptcy Court confirms the plan, of cash and non-cash assets with a value in excess of US$550 million. The Bankruptcy Court must find that the revised plan meets the requisite standards of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code before it confirms the plan. There is no assurance that the plan will be confirmed by the court. If approved by claimants, confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court and upheld upon any appeal, the revised reorganization plan will result in a permanent injunction directing all remaining pending claims as well as any future claims alleging personal injury from exposure to Quigley products to the Trust. Pfizer Inc. is a research-based, global biopharmaceutical company. The Company's diversified global healthcare portfolio includes human and animal biologic and small molecule medicines and vaccines, as well as nutritional products and many of the world's best-known consumer healthcare products. The Company is headquartered in New York. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colonial Involved in 5 Hilco Claims at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Colonial Commercial Corp. says that, as of March 31, 2011, there existed five plaintiffs in lawsuits relating to alleged sales of asbestos products, or products containing asbestos, by subsidiary Universal Supply Group, Inc.'s Hilco, Inc. predecessor. The Company understands that Hilco and many other companies have been sued in the Superior Court of New Jersey (Middlesex County) by plaintiffs filing lawsuits alleging injury due to asbestos. Subsequent to March 31, 2011, one plaintiff had their action dismissed and one plaintiff filed an action, which results in five remaining plaintiffs in these lawsuits. The Company never sold any asbestos related products. Of the existing plaintiffs as of March 31, 2011, four filed actions in 2010 and one filed an action in 2009. There are 208 other plaintiffs that have had their actions dismissed and 16 other plaintiffs that have settled as of March 31, 2011 for a total of US$3,361,500. There has been no judgment against Hilco. Colonial Commercial Corp. distributes heating, ventilating and air conditioning equipment (HVAC), parts and accessories, climate control systems, appliances, and plumbing and electrical fixtures and supplies, primarily in New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts and portions of eastern Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Vermont. The Company is headquartered in Hawthorne, N.J. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Universal Supply Group Has One Case at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Colonial Commercial Corp. says that, following dismissed and settled asbestos actions, there exists one plaintiff that named subsidiary Universal Supply Group, Inc., as defendant as of March 31, 2011. Universal was named by 37 plaintiffs; of these, one filed an action in 2010, 11 filed actions in 2007, six filed actions in 2006, 11 filed actions in 2005, five filed actions in 2001, one filed an action in 2000, and two filed actions in 1999. Thirty-three plaintiffs naming Universal have had their actions dismissed and, of the total US$3,361,500 of settled actions, three plaintiffs naming Universal have settled for US$27,500. No money was paid by Universal in connection with any settlement. Based on advice of counsel, the Company said it believes that none of the litigation that was brought against the Company's Universal subsidiary through March 31, 2011 is material, and that the only material litigation that was brought against Hilco, Inc. through that date was Rhodes v. A.O. Smith Corporation, filed on April 26, 2004 in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket Number MID-L-2979-04AS. The Company was advised that the Rhodes case was settled for US$3,250,000 under an agreement reached in connection with a US$10 million jury verdict that was rendered on Aug. 5, 2005. The Company was not a defendant in the Rhodes case. Colonial Commercial Corp. distributes heating, ventilating and air conditioning equipment (HVAC), parts and accessories, climate control systems, appliances, and plumbing and electrical fixtures and supplies, primarily in New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts and portions of eastern Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Vermont. The Company is headquartered in Hawthorne, N.J. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pacific Office Has $600T Liability at March 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Pacific Offshore Properties Trust, Inc.'s liability in its consolidated balance sheets for asbestos-related conditional asset retirement obligations was US$600,000 as of March 31, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010. The Company records a liability for a conditional asset retirement obligation, defined as a legal obligation to perform an asset retirement activity in which the timing and/or method of settlement is conditional on a future event that may or may not be within a company's control, when the fair value of the obligation can be reasonably estimated. Depending on the age of the construction, certain properties in the Company's portfolio may contain non-friable asbestos. If these properties undergo major renovations or are demolished, certain environmental regulations are in place, which specify the manner in which the asbestos, if present, must be handled and disposed. Based on its evaluation of the physical condition and attributes of certain of its properties, the Company recorded conditional asset retirement obligations related to asbestos removal. The accretion expense for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010 was not significant. Pacific Office Properties Trust, Inc., through its controlling interest in Pacific Office Properties, L.P., owns and operates primarily institutional-quality office properties principally in selected long-term growth markets in southern California and Hawaii. The Company is headquartered in San Diego, Calif. ********* 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, Joy A. Agravante, 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 * * *