/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/110708.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, July 8, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 134
Headlines
506 KINGS: Sued Over $447,275 in Unpaid Bills
ALON HOLDINGS: Unit Continues to Defend Suit Over 1994 Cartel
ALON HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Suit Over Dairy Products Sale
ALON HOLDINGS: Unit Faces Suit Over Sale of Cheese Products
ALON HOLDINGS: Unit Still Faces Class Suit Over "YOU" Loyalty Plan
ALON HOLDINGS: Awaits Approval of YOU-Related Suit Settlement
ALON HOLDINGS: Units Await Settlement Approval in "YOU" Suit
ALON HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Diesel Discount Suit
ALON HOLDINGS: Settles Rav and Praxel Cards-Related Suit
ALON HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Petrol Discounts Suit
ALON HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend SMS-Related Suit
ALON HOLDINGS: Case Accusing Unit of Misleading Customers Pending
ALON HOLDINGS: Unit Continues to Defend Fueling-Related Suit
ALON HOLDINGS: Overcharging Suit Against Unit Still Pending
ALON HOLDINGS: Unit Prepares Defense in Tenant Suit
ALON HOLDINGS: Unit Continues to Defend Water Contamination Suit
ALON HOLDINGS: Petrol Temperature Suit Against Unit Still Pending
ALON HOLDINGS: Dor Alon Defends LPG-Related Suit
ALON HOLDINGS: Unit Defends Suit Over Product Markings
ALON HOLDINGS: Suit Over Unconsumed Gas vs. Unit Still Pending
ALON HOLDINGS: Plaintiff in Suit vs. Unit to Strike Off Claim
ALON HOLDINGS: Unit Defends Suit vs. Series A Debenture Holders
ALON HOLDINGS: Sued Over Special Sales at Toy Stores
AT&T MOBILITY: Ruling to Impact Wis. Class Action Litigation
BELL CANADA: Faces Class Action for False Advertising on Prices
DOLLAR TREE: Recalls 117,000 Glass Votive Candle Holders
ISRAELI AUCTION WEB SITES: Tel Aviv Court Rejects Class Action
JD MARKETING: Accused of Making Usurious Loans in Illinois
KING AMERICA: Class Action Attorneys Await Residue Test Results
MALAYSIA: Class Action to Challenge Police Act Validity
NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Retired Players File Lockout Class Action
SAVEBIG.COM: Faces Class Action Over Unauthorized Charges
SYNGENTA CROP: Motion to Quash Subpoenas in Atrazine Suit Stayed
VODAFONE HUTCHISON: Funding Efforts for Class Action Ongoing
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Posts $874T Liabilities at May 28
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Orchard Supply Subject to Two Liability Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gulas Case v. 61 Firms Filed on May 20 in W.Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inquest Rules on Chellaston Ex-Engineer's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tawney Lawsuit v. 65 Firms Filed in Kanawha Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Clarion Judge Reduces Armstrong's Bond to $150T
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Davis Lawsuit v. 116 Firms Filed in Kanawha Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Famous Realty Fined $20.7T for Cleanup Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Vacates Judgment in Linster's Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Remand Bid OK'd in Mumfrey Case v. Anco, Others
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Vacates Ruling, Remands Babb Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Fin'l. Unit Party to A.P. Green Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Barton Case v. 65 Firms Filed in Kanawha County
ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.Y. Jury Acquits Foreman in Deutsche Bank Fire
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Robinson Police Faces Sanction Over Safety Breach
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln County CARD Clinic Receives $10MM Grant
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Interfaith Medical Fined for Safety Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Joe Belluck Calls for Worldwide Asbestos Ban
ASBESTOS UPDATE: McElhone Remand Bid Denied in Beazer East Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Junks GE Summary Judgment in Dinneen Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Appeals Court Affirms Ruling in Olsen Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kubota Corp. Still Subject to 10 Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kubota Expends JPY1.155-Bil. for Asbestos Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fitts Action v. Texaco, Chevron Filed in Texas
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Winscombe Shop Closed Due to Asbestos Materials
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard Causes Cleanup Delays at Abington Dairy
ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK Defence Ministry to Pay GBP1MM to 3 Families
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mount Hope, W.Va. Awarded $1MM Cleanup Grant
*********
506 KINGS: Sued Over $447,275 in Unpaid Bills
---------------------------------------------
Alcon Builders Group Inc., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. 506 Kings LLC, David Harari and Michael
Cayre, Case No. 651834/2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., July 5, 2011), accuses
506 Kings of unjustly enriching itself in the amount of $447,275.
The Plaintiff contends that it is entitled to recover from 506
Kings the sum of $447,275, plus applicable interest, for certain
work it did for 506 Kings.
The Plaintiff is a domestic corporation duly organized and
existing under the laws of the state of New York.
506 Kings is also a domestic company duly organized and existing
under the laws of New York. Messrs. Harari and Cayre are both
residents of New York, and are both officers of 506 Kings.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd R. Drummer, Esq.
CORNICELLO,TENDLER & BAUMEL-CORNICELLO, LLP
Two Wall Street, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 994-0260
ALON HOLDINGS: Unit Continues to Defend Suit Over 1994 Cartel
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd.'s subsidiary continues to
defend a purported class action lawsuit brought against gas
companies relating to a cartel they entered into beginning in
1994, according to the Company's June 30, 2011, Form 20-F filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2010.
On December 3, 2003, a claim was filed in the amount of NIS450
against the gas companies, including a subsidiary of Dor Alon
Energy in Israel (1988) Ltd., alleging that the defendants were
parties to a cartel, which they entered into beginning in 1994
(and even prior thereto) and up to 2003, in the course of which
the Restrictive Practices Authority gave notice of a
recommendation to file charges against the gas companies and their
managers in connection with the existence of a cartel, as stated.
Dor Alon is a Company subsidiary. The plaintiff contends that by
means of the alleged cartel, the gas companies collected unfair
and unreasonable prices. A request for certification of the claim
as a class action pursuant to the Restrictive Practices Law, the
Consumer Protection Law and Rule 29 of the Rules of Civic
Procedure (1984), was filed together with the claim. The amount
of the class action was set by the requesting party at an amount
of at least NIS1 billion, along with punitive damages. The
subsidiary of Dor Alon has submitted its response to the request
for certification of the claim as a class action. The parties
twice reached a compromise agreement that was submitted to Court's
approval. However, the Court rejected the two compromise
agreements and, therefore, the legal procedures continue. Based
on information received from Dor Alon's management, the Company
believes that the chances that the claim will be allowed are less
than 50% and, therefore, Dor Alon did not make a provision in its
financial statements.
ALON HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Suit Over Dairy Products Sale
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. continues to defend a
purported class action lawsuit commenced in connection with the
sale of various cheese and dairy products in its supermarket
chains, according to the Company's June 30, 2011, Form 20-F filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2010.
In December 2010, the Company was served with a claim and a
request for approval as a class action in connection with the sale
of various cheese and dairy products in its supermarket chains
operated by Mega Retail Ltd. The plaintiff has alleged that the
Company sells in its supermarkets various cheese and butter
substitute products while presenting them as cheese products and
butter and that the customers are mislead by its alleged
representations regarding such products. The plaintiffs have
requested to certify the claim as a class action representing all
the customers who bought such products in the seven years prior to
the filing of the claim. The plaintiff's personal claim is
estimated to be approximately NIS700, and if the claim is
certified as a class action, the approximate claim against the
Company is estimated by the plaintiff at approximately NIS456
million. In the opinion of the Company, based on the opinion of
its legal advisers, the chances that the claim will be rejected
exceed 50%. Accordingly, the Company did not make any provision
for this claim in its financial statements.
ALON HOLDINGS: Unit Faces Suit Over Sale of Cheese Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd.'s subsidiary, Eden Briut
Teva Market Ltd., is facing a purported class action lawsuit
arising from its sale of certain cheese products, according to the
Company's June 30, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.
In May 2011, the Company's 51% subsidiary, Eden Briut Teva Market
Ltd., was served with a claim and a request to recognize it as a
class action in which Eden is sued together with a cheese supplier
regarding the sale of certain cheese products. The plaintiff
claims that Eden sells in its supermarkets certain cheese
substitute products while presenting them as cheese products, and
that customers are misled by Eden's alleged representations
regarding such products. The plaintiff filed for the claim to be
approved as a class action representing all customers who bought
such products in the seven years prior to the filing of the claim.
The plaintiff's personal claim is estimated by her at
approximately NIS200, and if the claim is approved as a class
action, the approximate claim is estimated by the plaintiff at
approximately NIS84 million. The Company is currently reviewing
the claim and denying all allegations; however, at this time,
given this matter is preliminary in nature, the Company is unable
to assess the chances of success of the claim, including the
chances of its approval as a class action.
ALON HOLDINGS: Unit Still Faces Class Suit Over "YOU" Loyalty Plan
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mega Retail Ltd., an Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd.
subsidiary, is still facing a purported class action lawsuit in
connection with the Company's loyalty plan, known as the YOU Plan,
according to the Company's June 30, 2011, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2010.
On February 9, 2011, a claim was filed against the Company's
wholly owned subsidiary, Mega Retail Ltd., together with a request
to recognize the claim as a class action, relating to the omission
to grant discounts on certain products, which only applied to
members of the YOU -- the Company's loyalty plan -- customer club,
in contravention with the promotion price which was shown on the
signage next to those products. If the claim were to be accepted
as a class action, the claim was assessed by the claimant at
approximately NIS2.5 million. In the opinion of the Company,
based on the opinion of its legal advisers, the chances that the
claim will be rejected exceed 50%. Accordingly, the Company did
not make any provision for this claim in its financial statements.
ALON HOLDINGS: Awaits Approval of YOU-Related Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. is awaiting court approval
of its agreement to settle a purported class action lawsuit over
its YOU loyalty plan, according to the Company's June 30, 2011,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2010.
In February 2010, the Company was served with a claim and a
request for approval as a class action in which the Company is
being sued regarding the grant of discounts to "YOU" card holders.
The "YOU" Plan is the Company's loyalty plan for customers. The
plaintiffs have requested to certify the claim as a class action.
The claim alleges that during a period of time unknown to the
plaintiff, the Company held a special sale in which customers of
the Company's wholly owned subsidiary, Mega Retail Ltd., that are
members of the YOU club loyalty plan will receive an additional
discount of 10% on the sale price of certain products, and such
discount was not granted fully as advertised. The plaintiff's
personal claim is estimated at NIS3.10, and if the claim is
certified as a class action, the approximate claim is estimated by
the plaintiff to be at least NIS2 million. The Company and the
claimant settled the claim as a result of which the Company will
pay an immaterial amount to the claimant. The settlement is
subject to court approval.
ALON HOLDINGS: Units Await Settlement Approval in "YOU" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Two Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. subsidiaries are
awaiting Court approval of their settlement of a purported class
action lawsuit relating to the "YOU" loyalty plan, according to
the Company's June 30, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.
In March 2010, the Company's wholly owned subsidiary, Mega Retail
Ltd., and its "YOU" customer loyalty plan were served with a claim
and a request for approval as a class action, in which they are
sued together with Dor-Alon Energy In Israel (1988) LTD. (which
holds 25% of the customers club and which has been the Company's
subsidiary since October 3, 2010) regarding the grant of discounts
to "YOU" card holders in certain stores of the "Alonit" chain.
The Claim requests that the customer loyalty plan return discount
amounts that according to the Claim should have been granted to
"YOU" card holders who purchased in certain Alonit stores and did
not receive a discount, or received a discount of 5% instead of
the allegedly Claimed discount of 10%. The plaintiff's personal
Claim is estimated by him at approximately NIS130, and if the
Claim is approved as a class action, the approximate Claim is
estimated by the plaintiff at approximately NIS49.4 million. In
addition, the plaintiff requests a declaratory relief according to
which the customers club must grant a 10% discount in all Alonit
chain stores. The parties have reached an agreement, which has
not yet received the approval of the Court. In the opinion of the
Company, based on the opinion of its legal advisers, the chances
that the claim will be rejected exceed 50%. Accordingly, the
Company did not make any provision for this claim in its financial
statements.
ALON HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Diesel Discount Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. continues to defend itself
against a purported class action lawsuit relating to "YOU" loyalty
plan's discounts for filling a car with diesel at petrol stations
owned by the Company's subsidiary, according to the Company's
June 30, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.
In November 2010, a claim and a request to recognize it as a class
action was filed against the Company's "YOU" loyalty plan,
claiming that discounts for filling the car with diesel at petrol
stations of the Company's subsidiary, Dor Alon Energy in Israel
(1988) Ltd., which the club supposedly promised as well as wrongly
advertised were not given in reality. If the claim were to be
accepted as a class action, the claimant assesses his claim at
NIS54 million. In the opinion of the Company, based on the
opinion of its legal advisers, the chances that the claim will be
rejected exceed 50%; accordingly, the Company did not make any
provision for this claim in its financial statements.
ALON HOLDINGS: Settles Rav and Praxel Cards-Related Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. settled a purported class
action lawsuit over its "YOU" loyalty plan promotion for customers
paying with "Rav Card" or "Praxel" cards, according to the
Company's June 30, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.
In November 2010, a claim including a request to recognize it as a
class action was filed against the Company, claiming that the
Company did not grant discounts as part of the YOU loyalty plan
promotion for customers paying with the "Rav Card" or "Praxel"
cards and/or the impossibility of paying with a Praxel card in the
loyalty club promotion. If the claim were to be accepted as a
class action, the claim amount would be estimated by the claimant
at NIS7 million.
In June 2011, further to the crediting by the Company of customers
that did not receive discounts, the court accepted the plaintiff's
request to withdraw the claim, and approved settlement sums agreed
upon between the parties, in an amount immaterial to the Company,
as lawyer's fees and compensation to the plaintiff, to be paid to
the plaintiff by the Company.
ALON HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Petrol Discounts Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. continues to defend a
purported class action lawsuit over YOU loyalty plan discounts for
filling a car with petrol at stations owned by the Company's
subsidiary, according to the Company's June 30, 2011, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2010.
In December 2010, a claim and a request to recognize it as a class
action was filed against the YOU loyalty plan customer club,
claiming that discounts for filling the car with petrol at petrol
stations of the Company's subsidiary, Dor Alon Energy in Israel
(1988) Ltd., which the club supposedly promised were not given.
If the claim were to be accepted as a class action, the claimant
assesses his claim at NIS894 million. In the opinion of the
Company, based on the opinion of its legal advisers, the chances
that the claim will be rejected exceed 50%. Accordingly, the
Company did not make any provision for this claim in its financial
statements.
ALON HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend SMS-Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. continues to defend a
purported class action lawsuit alleging failure to remove
plaintiff from SMS distribution list, according to the Company's
June 30, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.
In August 2010, the Company was served with a claim and a request
for approval as a class action, in which it is being sued,
together with the YOU loyalty plan customer club, regarding the
alleged omission of a way to notify the request not to receive
commercial cellular messages (SMS) as required by law, and the
failure to remove the plaintiff from a distribution list of SMS
numbers of "YOU" card holders. The plaintiff's personal claim is
estimated by him at NIS1,250, and if the claim is certified as a
class action, the approximate claim is estimated by the plaintiff
at NIS390 million. The Company is currently reviewing the claim
and denying all allegations; however, at this time, given this
matter is preliminary in nature, the Company's financial
statements currently do not provide for any amount. The Company
will continue to assess this matter as the request for the class
action develops.
ALON HOLDINGS: Case Accusing Unit of Misleading Customers Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit accusing a subsidiary of Alon
Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. of misleading customers remains
pending, according to the Company's June 30, 2011, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2010.
In July 2010, a claim was filed against the Company's wholly owned
subsidiary, Mega Retail Ltd., including a request for it to be
approved as a class action, alleging that Mega Retail is
misleading the customer when it sells certain products in closed
packaging, for an amount per item rather than by weight, even
though there are differences in weight between the packages, and
without an indication of the weight of each package. The
plaintiff's personal claim is estimated by him at NIS14, and if
the claim is certified as a class action, the approximate claim is
estimated by the plaintiff at NIS 6million. In the opinion of the
Company, based on the opinion of its legal advisers, the chances
that the claim will be rejected exceed 50%. Accordingly, the
Company did not make any provision for this claim in its financial
statements.
ALON HOLDINGS: Unit Continues to Defend Fueling-Related Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
An Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. subsidiary continues to
defend a lawsuit alleging it charged more for fueling transactions
on Saturdays and on holidays, according to the Company's June 30,
2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2010.
A class action was lodged against the Company's subsidiary, Dor
Alon Energy in Israel (1988) Ltd., and other fuel companies in
December 2007. The total amount of the claim is NIS132 million
(the subsidiary's share in this amount is NIS8.8 million). The
claimant asserts that the defendants charged each customer NIS2
for fueling on Saturdays and on holidays. Based on the opinion of
its legal advisers, the subsidiary's management believes that the
chances of the claimant would prevail in the claim are lower than
50%, and therefore, did not include a provision in its accounts
for this matter.
ALON HOLDINGS: Overcharging Suit Against Unit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit against Alon Holdings Blue Square
- Israel Ltd.'s subsidiary and other fuel companies alleging they
overcharged customers remains pending, according to the Company's
June 30, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.
In October 2009, Dor Alon Energy in Israel (1988) Ltd., a Company
subsidiary, received a statement of claim and an application for
approval of the claim as a class action; the claim was lodged
against Dor Alon and other fuel companies. The claimant claims
payment of damages of NIS124 million (Dor Alon's share in the said
claim amount as per the statement of claim is NIS21.9 million).
According to the claimant, the defendants overcharged him for fuel
when filling up his car. According to the claimant, after passing
his debit card but before starting to fill up, the payment meter
started operating without the provision of fuel. The overcharge
has allegedly amounted at times to several Agorot and at times to
several NIS. Based on information received from Dor Alon's
management, the Company believes that the chances that the claim
will be allowed are less than 50%, and therefore, Dor Alon did not
make a provision in its financial statements.
ALON HOLDINGS: Unit Prepares Defense in Tenant Suit
---------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd., is
preparing its defense against a purported class action lawsuit
over alleged self-serving cooperation between gas companies and
apartment builders, according to the Company's June 30, 2011, Form
20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2010.
On November 3, 2010, a claim and a request to approve the claim as
a class action was issued against a subsidiary of the Company's
subsidiary, Dor Alon Energy in Israel (1988) Ltd., and other gas
companies (the share of Dor Alon's subsidiary was estimated at
NIS4 million). The issue in the claim is the alleged cooperation
between the gas companies and apartment builders which requires
tenants to enter into contracts with a certain gas supplier in a
way the tenant allegedly overpays the gas company. The subsidiary
of Dor Alon is currently learning the claim and is preparing its
defense. Based on information received from Dor Alon's
management, the Company believes that the chances that the claim
will be allowed are less than 50%, and therefore Dor Alon did not
make a provision in its financial statements.
ALON HOLDINGS: Unit Continues to Defend Water Contamination Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. continues
to defend itself from a purported class action lawsuit alleging
that liquid oil in pipes and petrol tanks caused the contamination
of ground water, according to the Company's June 30, 2011, Form
20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2010.
In December 2010, a claim and an application for approval of the
claim as a class action was filed with the District Court in Tel
Aviv against the Company's subsidiary, Dor Alon Energy in Israel
(1988) Ltd., a subsidiary of Dor Alon and the three largest fuel
companies in the total amount of approximately NIS200 million.
The claim was filed arguing that liquid oil in the pipes and
petrol tanks caused the contamination of ground water. According
to the claimants, the fuel companies did not adhere to the
guidelines of the Environment Ministry and did not check the
fueling installations were waterproof. Based on information
received from Dor Alon's management, the Company believes that the
chances that the claim will be allowed are less than 50%, and
therefore, Dor Alon did not make a provision in its financial
statements.
ALON HOLDINGS: Petrol Temperature Suit Against Unit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit relating to differences in
temperature of petrol filed against a subsidiary of Alon Holdings
Blue Square - Israel Ltd. is still pending, according to the
Company's June 30, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.
In December 2010, a claim and an application for approval of the
claim as a class action was filed with the District Court in Tel
Aviv against the Company's subsidiary, Dor Alon Energy in Israel
(1988) Ltd., and other fuel companies in the total amount of
approximately NIS197 million. The issue in the claim is
differences in temperature of the petrol between the moment it is
acquired by the fuel companies and the moment it is sold to the
customers, in a way that misstates the amount of energy sold to
the customers and this way, according to the claimant, the fuel
companies profit millions of NIS per annum. Dor Alon has not yet
filed its defense. Based on information received from Dor Alon's
management, the Company believes that the chances that the claim
will be allowed are less than 50%, and therefore, Dor Alon did not
make a provision in its financial statements.
ALON HOLDINGS: Dor Alon Defends LPG-Related Suit
------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. is
defending a purported class action lawsuit relating to differences
of temperature in liquefied petroleum gas, according to the
Company's June 30, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.
In March 2011, a claim and an application for approval of the
claim as a class action was filed against the Company's
subsidiary, Dor Alon Energy in Israel (1988) Ltd., and other fuel
companies. The issue in the claim is differences between the
temperature of the LPG and the energy it provides as a result of
burning. Based on information received from Dor Alon's
management, the Company believes that, the chances that the claim
will be certified as a class action are less than 50%, and
therefore, Dor Alon did not make a provision in its financial
statements.
ALON HOLDINGS: Unit Defends Suit Over Product Markings
------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd.'s subsidiary, Dor Alon
Energy in Israel (1988) Ltd., is defending itself from a class
action lawsuit relating to the marking of its products sold at the
AM:PM supermarket chain, according to the Company's June 30, 2011,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2010.
In April 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed in the amount of
NIS30 million, against Dor Alon Energy in Israel (1988) Ltd.'s
subsidiary. In the statement of claim, it is asserted that
accordant to Customer Protection Regulations (Price Per Unit), the
defendants must mark its products, which are being sold at the
AM:PM supermarket chain, by unit of measure and not only by
pricing the product as a whole. According to the plaintiff,
refraining from such way of marking, does not allow comparison
between products which are sold in containers of different size or
volume. Based on information received from Dor Alon's management,
the Company believes that the chances that the claim will be
allowed are less than 50%, and therefore, Dor Alon did not make a
provision in its financial statements.
ALON HOLDINGS: Suit Over Unconsumed Gas vs. Unit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel
Ltd.'s subsidiary, Dor Alon Energy in Israel (1988) Ltd., relating
to unconsumed gas in containers remains pending, according to the
Company's June 30, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.
On March 22, 2009, a class action was filed against a subsidiary
of Dor Alon and other gas companies; the amount of the claim is
NIS821 million (Dor Alon's subsidiary's share in the said amount
is NIS32 million). In the statement of claim, it is asserted that
when the defendants replace a gas container to the consumer, the
container still contains a certain volume of gas, which is later
used by the defendants. According to the claimants, the
defendants fully charge the claimants for the gas in the container
but the consumers do not use all of the gas they pay for, since
some of the gas is taken back by the defendants. Dor Alon filed a
statement of defense and an application for striking it out in
limine. Based on information received from Dor Alon's management,
the Company believes that the chances that the claim will be
allowed are less than 50%, and therefore, Dor Alon did not make a
provision in its financial statements.
ALON HOLDINGS: Plaintiff in Suit vs. Unit to Strike Off Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a purported class action lawsuit against Alon
Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd.'s subsidiary, Dor Alon Energy
in Israel (1988) Ltd., will ask the Court to strike off her claim
against Dor Alon, according to the Company's June 30, 2011, Form
20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2010.
On July 21, 2010, a statement of claim against a subsidiary of Dor
Alon, and a request to approve the claim as a class action were
received in Dor Alon's offices; the amount claimed is NIS100
million. According to the statement of claim, under Section 8(8)
of the Prices Stabilization in Commodities and Services Order
(Temporary Provision) Maximal Prices of Oil Products), 1996, the
amount specified in the gas bill paid through the bank also
includes the bank's commission in respect of the payment of the
bill. The plaintiff claims that she paid her gas bills through
the bank and, thereby, was charged for the bank commission for
such payments. The plaintiff notified that she intends to submit
a request to strike off the claim as the issue was discussed in
court and decided upon.
ALON HOLDINGS: Unit Defends Suit vs. Series A Debenture Holders
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd.'s subsidiary, Dor Alon
Energy in Israel (1988) Ltd., continues to defend itself from a
purported class action lawsuit commenced by holders of Dor Alon's
Series A debentures, according to the Company's June 30, 2011,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2010.
On June 27, 2010, a statement of claim and a request to approve
the claim as a class action and as a derivative claim was filed
against Alon Israel Oil Co. Ltd. ("Alon"), Dor Alon, and members
of the Board of Directors of Dor Alon. The claim was lodged by
holders of Series A debentures of Dor Alon that wish to represent
the holders of Series A Dor Alon debentures as of February 7,
2010, who did not convert the debentures into Dor Alon shares. In
their claim, the plaintiffs claim that the distribution (on
February 9, 2010) of the shares of Alon Natural Gas Exploration
Ltd. to Dor Alon's shareholders was an unlawful distribution. The
plaintiffs also claim that Dor Alon should have adjusted the
Series A debentures' conversion rate following the distribution of
shares. The plaintiffs request that the Court would oblige Alon
and the members of Dor Alon's Board of Directors to return to Dor
Alon the shares that were distributed; alternatively, the
plaintiffs request that Dor Alon will be required to adjust the
conversion rate of the debentures to the "Ex rate" subsequent to
the distribution; alternatively, the plaintiffs seek damages for
non adjustment of the conversion rate.
The Company has denied all the allegations, however, at this time,
given this matter is preliminary in nature, the Company's
financial statements currently do not provide for any amount. The
Company will continue to assess this matter as the request for the
class action develops. Based on information received from Dor
Alon's management, the Company believes that the chances that the
claim will be allowed are less than 50%, and therefore, Dor Alon
did not make a provision in its financial statements.
ALON HOLDINGS: Sued Over Special Sales at Toy Stores
----------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. is facing a purported
class action lawsuit regarding special sales held at "Kfar
Hasha'ashuim" brand toy stores, according to the Company's
June 30, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.
In May 2011, a claim and a request to recognize the claim as a
class action was filed against the Company regarding special sales
held at "Kfar Hasha'ashuim" brand toy stores operated by the
Company's 100% wholly owned subsidiary, Bee Group Retail Ltd.
According to the claimant, the toy stores misled their customers
by not presenting the prices charged for products prior to the
special sales, as required by law, in addition to the special
sales prices. The claimant estimates the damage to the group of
claimants for the purposes of the claim at NIS30 million. The
Company will continue to assess this matter as the request for the
class action develops.
AT&T MOBILITY: Ruling to Impact Wis. Class Action Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael D. Leffel at Foley & Lardner LLP reports that the U.S.
Supreme Court's recent decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion
will dramatically affect class action litigation in Wisconsin and
across the country. The Court resolved an important circuit split
and held that the Federal Arbitration Act, preempts certain state
laws and court rulings that have been used to invalidate class
action waivers in arbitration agreements.
Many companies include arbitration agreements in standard form
consumer contracts. Those agreements frequently waive the
consumer's right to pursue a class action. Courts in many
jurisdictions, however, have invalidated class action waivers
based on unconscionability principles and state public policy.
The FAA permits arbitration agreements to be challenged, based on
any grounds that "exist at law or in equity for the revocation of
any contract." Based on this language, the lower courts in
Concepcion refused to enforce the arbitration agreement following
the California Supreme Court's decision in Discover Bank v.
Superior Court. Discover Bank held that the generally applicable
state law of unconscionability could be the basis for invalidating
class action waivers in adhesion contracts with consumers.
Appellate court decisions in Wisconsin have similarly held that
arbitration agreements in standard form consumer contracts that
waive any right to a class action may be unconscionable, or
against public policy, and therefore unenforceable.
The Court's 5-4 decision in Concepcion changes the landscape. The
majority focused on the Court's long recognition that the FAA
reflects a "liberal federal policy favoring arbitration." The
Court also noted that arbitration agreements are to be enforced on
"equal footing with other contracts," and that the FAA should be
interpreted based on the "fundamental principle that arbitration
is a matter of contract."
In the majority's view, these concepts are at odds with the
Discover Bank rule. The Court, therefore, held that the rule is
"preempted by the FAA" because it "'stands as an obstacle to the
accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives
of Congress.'" In other words, going forward, throughout the
country, class action waiver provisions in most adhesion contracts
with consumers will be enforceable.
That said, Concepcion is not a death knell for class actions.
First, the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 requires the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau to conduct a study and report to Congress
regarding the use of arbitration agreements in connection with
consumer financial products and services. The Dodd-Frank Act
provides that the CFBP may issue regulations to prohibit or limit
the use of such arbitration agreements by covered entities if it
finds that it would be in the public interest to do so.
Second, even the majority opinion in Concepcion recognized that
"States remain free to take steps addressing the concerns that
attend contracts of adhesion -- for example, requiring class-
action-waiver provisions in adhesive arbitration agreements to be
highlighted." There also may be room to argue that arbitration
agreements with less favorable terms than AT&T's could still be
subject to limited unconscionability challenges.
Third, many consumer claims arise from transactions that do not
involve written agreements, and thus will not be covered by an
enforceable arbitration agreement. In other cases, privity
between the plaintiff and the defendant may be lacking, which
could make enforcement of some written arbitration agreements
problematic.
Fourth, U.S. Courts of Appeal are split over whether certain
federal statutes (as opposed to state laws in Concepcion) confer
an unwaivable right to sue in court, and are thus not subject to
FAA preemption. The U.S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari to
consider this issue.
Finally, there could be a legislative change to effectively roll
back Concepcion. There is proposed legislation that would do just
that.
In the meantime, class actions will continue, but lawyers and
consumers should expect a lot more potential class actions to be
shepherded into arbitrations, without class action procedures.
BELL CANADA: Faces Class Action for False Advertising on Prices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andi Balla, writing for Canadian Lawyer Legal Feeds, reports that
a Montreal law firm says a motion to institute a class action has
been filed against Bell Canada for false and misleading
advertising on the price of its services.
The motion, to be dealt with by the Superior Court in Montreal,
came shortly after Canada's Competition Bureau announced BCE
Inc.'s Bell Canada unit had agreed to pay a C$10-million fine and
to stop making what the watchdog called "misleading
representations" about its prices.
Law firm Paquette Gadler Inc. says the class action claims: "Bell
Canada engaged in false and misleading representations concerning
the price of services it offers, notably by inserting clauses
which provide for additional costs tied to services offered,
drafted in an manner difficult to read and placed in such a
position to be easily missed."
The Competition Bureau said last week, Bell had charged its
customers prices higher than those advertised across a range of
its services since December 2007, with additional mandatory fees,
such as those related to TouchTone phones and modem rental, hidden
in fine print.
Bell agreed to modify non-compliant advertisements within 60 days,
but said it stood by its practices.
"Bell's advertising has always complied with all applicable laws
and been comparable with common advertising practice past and
present in the communications marketplace and other industries in
Canada," the company said in a statement.
Bell said it "fundamentally disagrees" with the bureau's position
on its advertising but paid the penalty, the maximum allowed, to
resolve the issue.
DOLLAR TREE: Recalls 117,000 Glass Votive Candle Holders
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
retailer, Dollar Tree Stores Inc., and importer, Greenbrier
International Inc., both of Chesapeake, Virginia, announced a
voluntary recall of 117,000 glass votive candle holders.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.
The glass votive candle holders can shatter while in use, posing a
fire and laceration hazard to consumers.
The firm has received one report of the glass votive candle holder
shattering. No injuries have been reported.
This recall involves frosted or clear glass votive candle holders
with French vanilla scented candles. The votive candle holders
are 2 1/2 inches tall. Model number 976127 and date code 1010 are
printed on the bottom of the glass votive candle holder.
Picture of the recalled products is available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11270.html
The recalled products were manufactured in India and sold at
Dollar Tree, Dollar Bill$, Deal$ and Dollar Tree Deal$ stores
nationwide from December 2010 through April 2011 for about $1.
Consumers should immediately stop using the candle holders and
return them to the store where purchased for a full refund. For
additional information, contact Dollar Tree Stores Inc. at (800)
876-8077 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday
through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.dollartree.com/
ISRAELI AUCTION WEB SITES: Tel Aviv Court Rejects Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
International Law Office reports that a class action brought
before the Tel Aviv District Court in early June 2011 that claimed
most auction Web sites in Israel adopted fraudulent practices has
failed, leaving the plaintiffs to pay unprecedented sums as legal
fees to the defendants.
On June 1, 2011, the court rejected a request to file a class
action against the five leading e-commerce Web sites in Israel, on
the grounds that the request lacked cause. It was hoped that the
court's decision would bring an end to a heated and lengthy
procedure. However, the plaintiffs have already announced that
they will appeal the ruling. Considering the expenses and legal
fees that they were made to pay -- over $270,000 in total -- and
the harsh wording of the court's findings, they seem to have
nothing to lose by appealing.
The plaintiffs, Assaf Krako and Arthur Frank, brought the claim in
2007. They argued that the respondents had deliberately caused
products' prices to rise by creating fictitious participants to
bid on the products and thus raise the price, even though they had
no intention of purchasing such products. Subsequently, real
participants who had won the bid were forced to pay much higher
prices than would have been the case had the alleged foul play not
occurred. The companies that run the Web sites -- Allsale, Nana
shops, P1000, Walla Shops and Getit -- and 64 suppliers who
offered their products over the Web sites rejected the claims and
denied creating any such fictitious participants. They claimed
that had any such foul play existed, they had no knowledge or
involvement in it, and that it was despite their attempts to
prevent it.
Judge Yehuda Farago rejected the plaintiffs' premise that it was
in the Web sites' interest to intervene in the auction.
Conversely, he found in his decision that it was in the Web sites'
interest to prevent such prohibited involvement which could thwart
the auction and thus their share in its profits.
Judge Farago further stated that the plaintiffs had not managed to
prove that any such intervention had occurred with the endorsement
of the Web sites or the suppliers. He ruled that even in the rare
event of someone finding a way to outsmart the Web sites or the
suppliers, it should not be held against them. The judge further
found that despite the security measures taken by the Web site
owners -- including registration and the provision of bidders'
credit card details -- it was impossible to entirely prevent the
alleged interventions, if such existed, as the bidding was carried
out by real people, often thousands at a time. The court added
that such alleged rare events of foul play, which were not
prevented despite the Web site owners' attempts and security
measures, should be taken into account by participants when
participating in the auctions.
Finally, Judge Farago determined that the Web sites had employed
reasonable means in order to prevent the phenomenon by blocking
certain participants, cancelling automatic computer participation
and charging a participation fee. Additionally, he criticized the
plaintiffs, stating that while collecting evidence for their class
action request, they had themselves participated in numerous
auctions without actually intending to buy the products, and
therefore may have caused damage to other participants. The court
emphasized that the plaintiffs had copied data from the Web sites
without receiving professional assistance, and that the software
with which this was done was insufficiently accurate in order to
reach the required conclusions.
Contact: Haim Ravia, Esq.
Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer
Telephone: (+972 9 972 8000)
E-mail: haimr@pczlaw.com
JD MARKETING: Accused of Making Usurious Loans in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
Tyanna Qualls, on behalf of plaintiff and the class members v. JD
Marketing Group, and Dennis Burkhardt, Case No. 2011-CH-23692
(Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., July 05, 2011) is brought to secure
redress from illegal loans made to Illinois residents. The
Plaintiff alleges that JD Marketing offered and made illegal and
usurious loans over the Internet to Illinois residents, in
violation of the Illinois Interest Act, the Illinois Payday Loan
Reform Act, and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.
The Plaintiff is a resident of Cook County, Illinois.
JD Marketing, a Nevada corporation, is in the business of
soliciting and making allegedly high-interest loans to persons
residing in Illinois and elsewhere. Mr. Burkhardt is president,
secretary, treasurer and director of JD Marketing.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
James O. Latturner, Esq.
Zachary A. Jacobs, Esq.
EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 739-4200
Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com
ccombs@edcombs.com
jlatturner@edcombs.com
KING AMERICA: Class Action Attorneys Await Residue Test Results
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to bryancountynews.net, environmentalists are still
awaiting test results for sediment, fish tissue and residue
samples from the Ogeechee River after an enormous fish kill in
May, while attorneys who filed a class action suit last month, are
awaiting answers as well.
Marietta attorney, Edwin Hallman, Jr., sent a letter earlier this
month demanding answers from the Georgia Environmental Protection
Division regarding the state agency's response to the fish kill.
In the letter, Mr. Hallman accuses textiles treatment plant King
America Finishing of being responsible for the fish kill and
claims the state was irresponsible in its delayed response to the
situation.
Ogeechee Riverkeeper Dianne Wedincamp said she and others still
await samples of the sediment, of a silvery-white substance found
on trees and logs after the alleged chemical spill around May 20
and of tissue samples from dead fish found afterwards.
However, a new concern from Bulloch County residents who gathered
samples from the King America discharge pipe over the weekend of
June 18 and 19 will mean waiting on more test results, she said.
Residents in the river near the discharge pipe over that weekend
were disturbed to find dark blue/black liquid gushing from the
pipe, she said.
Photos taken by one of the residents, who asked not to be
identified, shows the dye-darkened water near the plant.
Although some test results are still pending, Mr. Hallman said the
results that have already come back prove the chemicals in the
water are harmful.
He said he feels the release of formaldehyde, ammonia and sodium
hydroxide caused not only the death of more than 33,000 fish, but
caused illness in people who swam in the river over the weekend of
May 20-22 as well.
In a letter to EPD official Jeff Larson, from the Watershed
Protection Branch, Mr. Hallman wrote:
"The evidence is clear that a release from King America . . .
caused a massive fish kill that destroyed at least 60 miles of the
aquatic life in the Ogeechee River downstream from the King
America outfall . . . also, many individuals have been physically
harmed from exposure to the toxins in the river during the days
following the release from the King America plant."
He said the EPD's response to the fish kill was inadequate.
"Through my over 30 years of practice of environmental law, I have
witnessed the shutdown of commercial facilities for minor
violations of environmental laws," he wrote. "Nevertheless, in
this situation, where there was an acute fish kill and a clear
threat to human health and welfare, no such actions have
occurred."
Aside from the massive numbers of dead fish of several types,
people lodged complaints with various health agencies including
having blisters, rashes, diarrhea and nausea after having swam in
the river the weekend after May 20.
One of three initial clients in the class action lawsuit,
Mr. Hallman filed reported severe breathing and other respiratory
issues after having swam in the river that weekend, he said.
"Beginning on May 20, 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the EPD were well aware of the point of impact on
the Ogeechee was directly downstream of the outfall from the King
America plant," he said in the letter.
He also stated that EPD officials should be concerned that
King America emergency contacts did not answer calls or respond to
messages for over 24 hours after the first attempt at contact was
made.
Another concern was that EPD officials were unable to enter the
King America plant until May 23, more than three days after the
fish kill was discovered.
"The circumstances as they developed, and the incredible extent of
damages to the river and its environs, demanded a shutdown of the
facility. The circumstances also demand a full investigation by
the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, the Georgia Attorney
General's Office, and the parallel federal agencies of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation and the United States Department of
Justice."
While a Florida newspaper reported this week that the EPD was
investigating the fish kill along with the Attorney General's
Office, EPD spokesman Kevin Chambers clarified when he said on
June 29 the EPD only sought legal advice from the Attorney
General's office regarding comments made about the investigation.
Details of the investigation cannot be released while the case
remains open, he said.
In Mr. Hallman's letter, he asks why King America Finishing
employees were not put under oath and questioned about incidents
and practices at the plant, including knowledge about releases.
He also asked why federal and state agencies have not conducted a
forensic audit of the plant, including deliveries of commodities
and records of processes that could divulge clues regarding the
alleged release of chemicals into the river.
He also asked, when chemicals found in test samples matched
chemicals used in the plant's textiles treatment process, why
there were not orders for King America to "disclose all cradle-to-
grave handling and use of all hazardous materials, including but
not limited to, ammonia, formaldehyde, sodium hydroxide and
sulfuric acid?"
There is a "concept in the law called 'res ipsa loquitur,' which
means 'the thing speaks for itself," he wrote.
"In this case, there is simply no logical or plausible source and
cause of the Ogeechee River fish kill than King America . . . The
Ogeechee River, once pristine waters, has now been reduced to a
cesspool of dead aquatic life and a dumping ground for King
America's discarded hazardous materials."
Mr. Hallman said many other people who claim to have been affected
by the river's pollutants that weekend, as well as land owners
along the river near the plant, feel there is a cover-up of some
sort.
"The failure of the federal and state agencies to engage in a real
investigation of King America creates the well-founded suspicion
of our multitudes of clients, who believe that there is a
government-endorsed effort to shield King America from
punishment," he wrote.
"This is an egregious violation of the public trust by the very
agencies that are mandated to hold King America responsible. It
is the duty of the EPD to protect the citizens and the environment
of the State of Georgia. In this case it appears the EPD has
failed its duty."
Mr. Chambers said the EPD would not comment on Mr. Hallman's
letter, citing the reason as the case remains under investigation.
While no violations have been yet reported, King America has yet
to be cleared of responsibility, he said in earlier interviews.
Congressman John Barrow, during a visit to the Statesboro Herald
on July 5, said "I am in no position to judge (the way EPD has
responded to the incident).
"What I do know is, if the job is being done right, they will not
be advertising or telegraphing their moves because this is a
serious case to bring against someone." He said he understood the
public's concern.
"I think it is atrocious what happened, and whoever did it should
be made to pay to the fullest extent of the law."
Phone calls to King America Finishing seeking comment were not
returned by press time.
MALAYSIA: Class Action to Challenge Police Act Validity
-------------------------------------------------------
Humayun Kabir, writing for Free Malaysia Today, reports that a
human rights lawyer has called for a class-action suit to
challenge the constitutional validity of Section 27 of the Police
Act.
The section sets conditions for the granting of permits for public
rallies.
"Section 27 of the Police Act has to be challenged in court as it
contradicts Articles 4(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution," said
Leong Cheok Keng, who gained prominence two years ago as counsel
for former Perak menteri besar Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin in his
suit against Barisan Nasional's takeover of the state government.
Article 4(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution provides for freedom
of speech and expression, and Article 4(1)(b) gives citizens the
right to peaceful assembly.
Under Section 27 of the Police Act, a group intending to hold a
public rally must apply for a permit 90 days before the event and
the district police chief will give his decision within three
days.
If the application is rejected, an appeal to the chief police
officer (CPO) of the state must be filed within 48 hours. The
CPO's decision is final. It cannot be challenged in court.
Mr. Leong contends that Section 27 is unconstitutional.
"The police must remember that the Federal Constitution reigns
supreme over the Police Act," he said.
He also criticized the police force for what he said was a bias
against opposition parties in its enforcement of the law.
Speaking to FMT, he called on the government to respect the
constitutional rights of all citizens and issue "proper
guidelines" to the police on the enforcement of Section 27.
Another human rights lawyer, Augustine Anthony, called on the
government to repeal the Emergency Ordinance of 1969, as
recommended by the Royal Police Commission in 2005.
The ordinance was enacted to combat violent acts of subversion.
Anthony noted that police had resorted to using it against
opposition parties instead of the notorious Internal Security Act
(ISA).
He believes the government fears that using the ISA will attract
world attention. The ordinance, like the ISA, enables the police
to hold suspects for 60 days and extend the period of detention
without trial to two years by order of the Home Minister.
NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Retired Players File Lockout Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dionne Cordell-Whitney at Courthouse News Service reports that
retired football players want discussions to stop between the NFL
and its active players, led by Tom Brady, claiming the Brady class
is selling out retirees as active players cut a deal with the NFL
and team owners over billions of dollars in TV revenue.
"(T)he NFLPA is sacrificing the rights and benefits earned by and
owed to NFL retired players in order to increase the revenues to
active NFL players," according to the 64-page amended federal
class action. "The settlement talks among the Brady plaintiffs,
the NFLPA and the NFL and its member clubs with respect to former
NFL players was intended to, and did, circumvent and harm retired
NFL players for the benefit of the NFLPA and the NFL and its
member clubs. Through the settlement they are forging, the Brady
plaintiffs, the NFLPA and the NFL defendants are conspiring to set
retiree benefit and pension levels at artificially low levels."
Led by Carl Eller and Franco Harris, the retired players sued the
NFL, the team owners and the class led by Tom Brady, in a Second
Amended Class Action Complaint and Crossclaims.
Mr. Eller claims the active players and the league are conspiring
against retirees, "by depriving them of the ability to receive the
level of retirement, health and medical benefits that they could
have obtained in a market free from the alleged restraint."
The Eller plaintiffs want to stop "discussions between the NFL and
the NFLPA [NFL Players Association] aimed at injuring retired NFL
players . . . and to preclude any agreement among defendants that
depresses or limits the benefits given to former NFL players from
being implemented."
The Eller plaintiffs also seek "a declaration of rights that the
NFLPA cannot represent the interests of retired NFL players in the
settlement or prosecution of this [Brady et al. v. NFL]
litigation."
The 64-page amended complaint is accompanied by a 6-page memo in
support of a motion for leave to file it.
The Eller plaintiffs say that when the NFLPA decertified their
union -- a move the team owners regard as a charade -- the
decertification meant that the active players and the NFL were no
longer protected by antitrust immunity.
The Eller plaintiffs claim that it became clear in June that the
Brady plaintiffs "were negotiating issues relating to retired NFL
players." They cite a June 22 "public tweet" from Nolan Harrison,
the NFLPA senior director of retired players, who wrote: "[at]
each session the interest of former players have been well
represented by Hall of Famer Cornelius Bennett and others." But,
the Eller plaintiffs say, "No one among the Eller plaintiffs
authorized the NFLPA or the Brady plaintiffs to assume that role."
The Eller plaintiffs add that during recent years the relationship
between the NFLPA and retired NFL players has become increasingly
adversarial.
When George Martin, president of NFL Alumni, tried to discuss the
NFL lockout and retiree benefits with the NFLPA in March this
year, he said the "atmosphere was very defiant, accusatory and
outright disrespectful," according to the complaint.
The Eller plaintiffs claim the NFLPA has been acting in "concert
with the NFL in keeping retiree benefits low for many years" and
"that practice was carried on in the period after its renunciation
of union status."
The Eller plaintiffs take particular exception to a statement
attributed to New Orleans quarterback Drew Brees, one of the Brady
plaintiffs. Claiming Mr. Brees "voiced his antipathy for NFL
retirees," the Eller plaintiffs quote Mr. Bress as saying:
"There's some guys out there that have made bad business
decisions. They took their pensions early because they never went
out and got a job. They've had a couple divorces and they're
making payments to this place and that place. And that's why they
don't have money. And they're coming to us to basically say,
'Please make up for my bad judgment."
Sam Huff, a retired Hall of Fame lineman, responded by saying:
"Drew Brees should keep his mouth shut. We [he and his Giants
teammates from the 1950s and 1960s] would put a target on his
back. I don't understand all this crap."
The Eller plaintiffs claim the NFL and the Brady plaintiffs
violated the Sherman Act and the NFLPA and Brady plaintiffs
breached fiduciary duty.
A copy of the Complaint in Eller, et al. v. National Football
League, et al., Case No. 11-cv-00639 (D. Minn.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/06/EllerAmended.pdf
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark J. Feinberg, Esq.
Michael E. Jacobs, Esq.
Shawn D. Stuckey, Esq.
ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON LLP
500 Washington Avenue, South, Suite 4000
Minneapolis, MN 55415
Telephone: (612) 339-2020
E-mail: mfeinberg@zelle.com
mjacobs@zelle.com
sstuckey@zelle.com
- and -
Daniel S. Mason, Esq.
ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON LLP
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 633-0700
E-mail: damson@zelle.com
- and -
Samuel D. Heins, Esq.
Vince J. Esades, Esq.
HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
310 Clifton Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55403
Telephone: (612) 338-4605
E-mail: sheins@heinsmills.com
vesades@heinsmills.com
- and -
Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
1700 K Street, NW, Suite 650
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 540-7200
E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com
hscherrer@hausfeldllp.com
- and -
Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
Jon T. King, Esq.
Arthur N. Bailey, Jr., Esq.
Bruce Wecker, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
44 Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 633-1908
E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com
jking@hausfeldllp.com
abailey@hausfeldllp.com
bwecker@hausfeldllp.com
SAVEBIG.COM: Faces Class Action Over Unauthorized Charges
---------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service reports that though it
claims to be free, the SaveBig.com online auction site charges $99
"without any authorization whatsoever," suckering consumers who
believe they are "simply 'registering' for a free trial offer," a
class action claims in Superior Court.
Irate customers claim that "in addition to the deceptive 'free
bids,' promotional 'pop-up' and 'teaser' ads, SaveBig.com also
utilizes at least two phony news reports that are made to appear
to be legitimate news editorial stories from official news
channels."
Three named plaintiffs from three states claim SaveBig.com
immediately charges its suckers $99 when they click on an ad,
though not a single registration step on its Web site "indicates
that there is any type of registration fee or other initial fee."
Also sued is Kool House, a Delaware LLC based in Culver City,
Calif.
The "phony news reports are carefully placed by defendants in
order to lure consumers to SaveBig.com," according to the 31-page
complaint. "The headline of the news stories is: 'SaveBig Saves
Consumers 95% Off Retail,' and the stories indicate that the story
is either: (1) 'part of a new series: "Ways to Save Money During
the Recession" We examine tips for getting what they need for much
less!'; or (2) 'part of a new series: "How to Save Big Bucks When
Shopping Online."'
"The news stories also deceptively include the statement 'As Seen
On,' followed by numerous logos for legitimate news sources,
including ABC, Fox News, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and USA Today. However,
no link is provided to any stories on SaveBig.com that are
conducted by any of those news sources, and there do not appear to
be any such stories on or in those news outlets."
And in a nice, or perhaps wretched, touch, according to the
complaint: "(B)oth 'news stories' include the first name (no last
name) of a supposed news reporter named 'Johanna,' followed by a
statement indicating that she 'investigates new shopping trends on
the Internet.' Interestingly, the photos provided of the reporter
'Johanna' in the stories are of two different women (one blonde
and one brunette)."
In its phony "news stories," SaveBig.com claims it can offer low
prices because it gets its items 'from warehouse closeouts,
surplus auctions, and liquidation clearance auctions,'" according
to the complaint.
SaveBig.com does not disclose that the real reason it can offer
"such low prices in comparison to retail outlets is because it
charges $.60 per penny bid, and receives $6,000 per $100 that is
bid on each item," the complaint states.
The customers who read the purported news stories and click on the
promotional offer for SaveBig.com at the end of the stories are
directed through the same registration process as the customers
who registered after clicking on the free bid ads "and also are
automatically charged $99 for a bid package in excess of the
promotional 'free bids,' without any clear authorization to do
so," according to the complaint.
The class claims that a close review of the "news reports" reveals
fine print at the bottom of the page that states: "The story
depicted on this site and the person depicted in the story are not
real, rather this story is based on the results that some people
who have used these products have achieved. The results portrayed
in the story and in the comments are illustrative and may not be
the results that you achieve with these products. This page
receives compensation for clicks on or purchase of products
featured on this site."
The class claims that "the auctions appear to be rigged in a
manner that make them nearly impossible to win." The auction
items start at $0, and each bid increases the sale price by 1
cent, though SaveBig.com charges consumers $.60 per bid, the class
claims.
SaveBig.com stiff-armed suckers who asked for a refund of their
$99, telling them "that the Web site was 'down';" "that the refund
request is under review;" or directed them to "a third party call
center with limited authorization to do anything," the class
claims.
The class seeks an injunction, and restitution and compensatory
and punitive damages for fraud, unfair competition, and negligent
misrepresentation.
It is represented by Edwin McPherson with McPherson Rane.
SYNGENTA CROP: Motion to Quash Subpoenas in Atrazine Suit Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for LegalNewsline, reports that U.S.
Magistrate Judge Byron Cudmore won't open records of private
groups to class action lawyer Stephen Tillery unless the Illinois
Supreme Court does.
Judge Cudmore, who serves at the Central District of Illinois,
stayed motions to quash subpoenas Mr. Tillery served on Illinois
Farm Bureau and Illinois Fertilizer Chemical Association on
June 27.
"The Court is now keenly aware that the primary issues raised
herein are subject to a pending petition for leave to appeal to
the Supreme Court of Illinois," Judge Cudmore wrote.
He wrote that a stay on the motions pending a Supreme Court
decision was "the correct and logical course of action."
Mr. Tillery claims he needs the records for two lawsuits of public
water providers alleging that Syngenta Crop Protection pollutes
their supplies with weed killer atrazine.
He aims to prove a conspiracy to hide the hazards of atrazine.
Madison County Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder ordered the groups to
produce documents, but they took her decision to the Supreme
Court.
Mr. Tillery, unwilling to wait for a decision, obtained three
subpoenas for similar information in federal court at Springfield
and another at federal court in Chicago.
He claimed federal jurisdiction because he pursues a case in the
Southern District of Illinois almost identical to the one in
Madison County.
All four federal subpoenas fizzled.
In April, Judge Cudmore stayed a motion to quash a subpoena on the
Chemical Industry Council of Illinois, pending Supreme Court
action.
In May, in Chicago, District Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan quashed a
subpoena on the Heartland Institute, a research group.
In June, in Springfield, Chief District Judge Michael McCuskey
reassigned the Farm Bureau and the fertilizer group from
Magistrate Judge John Gorman to Judge Cudmore.
Judge Cudmore stayed both motions to quash, pending Supreme Court
action.
Farm Bureau and the fertilizer group meanwhile alerted
Judge Cudmore to Judge Der-Yeghiayan's decision, which Mr. Tillery
urged Judge Cudmore to ignore.
On June 27, Mr. Tillery wrote that Judge Der-Yeghiayan's order
"does not contain reasoning meriting its consideration."
"The Northern District's ruling on the motion to quash is
erroneous in numerous ways as it fails to follow, and in fact
directly conflicts with, binding authority on the issues
presented," he wrote.
He wrote that Judge Der-Yeghiayan allocated the burden of
justifying discovery to his clients, contrary to Seventh Circuit
and U.S. Supreme Court authority.
He wrote that Judge Der-Yeghiayan "completely discounted trial
counsel's affidavit as to what the requested discovery would
reveal."
He wrote that documents from a public relations firm show that
Syngenta sought assistance from the groups in protecting and
promoting atrazine.
"Syngenta's use of Heartland to manipulate the public debate
concerning atrazine is not hypothetical, it is provable fact,"
Mr. Tillery wrote.
"Syngenta has effectively firewalled the information necessary to
prove the scope of that manipulation except through the third
party discovery sought here."
Mr. Tillery and Syngenta have jointly reported to Judge Cudmore
that they expect no Supreme Court action until late September.
He asked for another report on Oct. 1.
VODAFONE HUTCHISON: Funding Efforts for Class Action Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Colley, writing for Australian IT, reports that a bid to
bring a consumer class action suit against Vodafone Hutchison
Australia over the performance of its mobile network has proceeded
apace with more litigants joining the proposed action.
Law firm Piper Alderman, which is preparing a proposal for the
suit, confirmed that the number of claimants had grown by a
thousand to 23,000 since April and that efforts to raise money to
fund the litigation had progressed.
The law firm said it was continuing its investigation of
complaints by litigants which includes a mix of individual
consumers, small businesses and companies. Piper Alderman
litigation partner Sasha Ivanstoff said that once the
investigation was complete and funding arrangements were secured,
the company would prepare a statement of claim to be lodged in the
Federal Court under trade practice and consumer protection laws.
Mr. Ivanstoff said he was not at liberty to discuss the details of
the funding proposal.
The suit would contain allegations that VHA subsidiary Vodafone
Australia Pty Ltd. has made false claims about the capacity and
coverage of its 3G network over a period stretching as far back as
2007.
Its parent company, VHA, may also be directly named as a
respondent in the claim if Piper Alderman investigators assembled
sufficient evidence it also misled customers, Mr. Ivanstoff said.
The claim may eventually extend to associated telecommunications
services such as voicemail, data and e-mail.
Vodafone was hesitant to comment on the lawsuit in detail on
July 4.
"We are aware of a law firm that is seeking litigation funding
however we have not received any official word or approach from
this firm. Our priority has always been to work to resolve any
issues with our customers directly," a Vodafone spokeswoman said.
Mr. Ivanstoff told The Australian that the law firm was yet to
fully quantify the extent of the damages claim. Larger claims
could come from small businesses claiming direct business losses
due to problems with Vodafone's mobile service.
"A lot of the businesses that are coming to us are saying that
they missed work because of calls that weren't received or
voicemails that weren't received. So there is that additional
category of losses flowing from the service not functioning
properly," he said.
Around a third of the claimants were small businesses but
Piper Alderman was unable to provide details on their size.
Reported problems with VHA's network include constant call drop-
outs and reception problems.
Damage to the company's brand due to the service problem was
believed to have contributed to a disastrous subscriber growth
performance result for the mobile provider for the second-half of
2010. VHA's subscriber growth for the half to December 31 was
142,000 compared with new customer additions of 539,000 in the
previous corresponding half.
As the extent of Vodafone's network problems were becoming
apparent last October, VHA announced a major network upgrade
program to boost its 900MHz and 2100MHz network and add a new 3G
850MHz network layer to ease pressure on it network resources.
It said it would add 1400 new sites to its 900Mhz and 2100MHz
networks in metro and regional areas, and build its new 850MHz
network across 1500 sites.
Around 900 of the new metro 2100MHz sites would come from a pool
of around 1350 sites it expected to retrieve from the gradual
termination of its 2004 joint-venture with Telstra.
Last December VHA chief executive Nigel Dews issued an apology to
the carrier's customers and pledged to fix the problems.
Last week, the company announced its network roll-out was
proceeding on schedule.
It said it had turned on 775 new 850MHz sites and that a further
810 sites had been upgraded, including 330 in high-congestion
areas.
By the end of the year, it aimed to upgrade a further 520 sites
and establish a further 500 850MHz sites, the company said.
Last October, VHA said that it had spent AU$550 million on its
business consolidation program to consolidate Hutchison 3 and
Vodafone into a single business since they merged in 2009.
It may all be too little too late, however, to hold off the class
action suit and further brand damage.
Mr. Ivanstoff said that the number of litigants was expected to
grow if the company could secure firm funding arrangements for the
class action.
"If we get funding in place and we can communicate that with
people, if and when that happens, we'd hope to get more,"
Mr. Ivanstoff said.
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Posts $874T Liabilities at May 28
--------------------------------------------------------------
H.B. Fuller Company says that, as of May 28, 2011, its probable
liabilities related to asbestos claims were US$874,000 and the
corresponding insurance recoveries were US$616,000.
The Company has been named as a defendant in lawsuits in which
plaintiffs have alleged injury due to products containing asbestos
manufactured more than 25 years ago. The plaintiffs generally
bring these lawsuits against multiple defendants and seek damages
(both actual and punitive) in very large amounts.
During the 26 weeks ended May 28, 2011, the Company recorded three
lawsuits and claims settled, settlement amounts of US$265,000 and
US$206,000 as insurance payments received or expected to be
received.
During the 26 weeks ended May 29, 2010, the Company recorded three
lawsuits and claims settled, settlement amounts of US$448,000 and
US$359,000 as insurance payments received or expected to be
received.
The Company settled two asbestos lawsuits and claims during the 13
weeks ended Feb. 26, 2011 and the 13 weeks ended Feb. 28, 2010.
(Class Action Reporter, April 15, 2011)
H.B. Fuller Company is a worldwide formulator, manufacturer and
marketer of adhesives, sealants, paints and other specialty
chemical products. Sales operations span 39 countries in North
America, Europe, Latin America, the Asia Pacific region, India,
the Middle East, and Africa. The Company is headquartered in St.
Paul, Minn.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Orchard Supply Subject to Two Liability Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Orchard Supply Hardware Stores Corporation is currently a party in
two product liability cases, both pertaining to asbestos,
according to a Company report, on Form S-1, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 23, 2011.
These asbestos cases are early in the proceedings and it is not
currently possible to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable
outcome and not, therefore, possible to estimate with any degree
of certainty any range of possible loss.
However, in similar litigations the Company has been routinely
dismissed and in those cases that the Company has settled, the
settlement has not been material.
Orchard Supply Hardware Stores Corporation is a specialty retailer
primarily focused on the consumer segment of the home improvement
market. As of April 30, 2011, the Company operated 89 full-
service hardware stores in California. The Company is
headquartered in San Jose, Calif.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gulas Case v. 61 Firms Filed on May 20 in W.Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph J. and Betty Gulas, a couple from Clarksburg, W.Va., filed
an asbestos lawsuit against 61 defendant corporations on May 20,
2011 in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record
reports.
According to the complaint, on Sept. 8, 2010, Mr. Gulas was
diagnosed with lung cancer. He claims he was exposed to asbestos
during his employment from 1966 until 1980.
The Gulas couple seeks a jury trial to resolve all issues
involved. They are being represented by Bronwyn I. Rinehart,
Esq., Victoria L. Antion, Esq., Scott A. McGee, Esq., and John D.
Hurst, Esq.
Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 11-C-831 has been assigned to a
visiting judge.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inquest Rules on Chellaston Ex-Engineer's Death
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at Derby and South Derbyshire Coroner's Court heard
that the death of Michael Keily, a retired engineer from
Chellaston, Derby, England, was related to workplace exposure to
asbestos, the Derby Telegraph reports.
An apprentice at Derby Locomotive Works in the 1950s, Mr. Keily
died at the age of 78 at Royal Derby Hospital in April 2011. A
coroner has now ruled that Mr. Keily died from an industrial
disease.
In a statement, John Selby, who had worked at Derby Locomotive
Works with Mr. Keily, said, "Many of the jobs involved working
with white and blue asbestos. The workplace was an open factory
environment and there was always dust in the air. We were not
issued with protective clothing or apparatus or given any health
and safety advice."
Recording a verdict of industrial disease, coroner Dr. Robert
Hunter said, "Mr. Keily died from malignant mesothelioma due to
asbestos exposure during the course of his employment."
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tawney Lawsuit v. 65 Firms Filed in Kanawha Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Landis Tawney and Frances E. Tawney, a couple from Belmont,
W.Va., filed an asbestos lawsuit against 65 defendant corporations
last May 23, 2011 in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West
Virginia Record reports.
On June 16, 2009, Mr. Tawney was diagnosed with asbestosis,
according to the complaint. He claims he was exposed to asbestos
and/or asbestos-containing products during his employment with
Union Carbide Corporation from 1952 until 1985.
The Tawneys seeks a jury trial to resolve all issues. They are
being represented by Bronwyn I. Rinehart, Esq.
Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 11-C-846 has been assigned to a
visiting judge.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Clarion Judge Reduces Armstrong's Bond to $150T
----------------------------------------------------------------
Visiting Clarion County Judge James Arner, on June 23, 2011,
ordered that plaintiffs in an asbestos case filed against the
Armstrong School District in Kittanning, Pa., and other defendants
must post a US$150,000 bond instead of the proposed US$650,000,
the Leader Times reports.
The change was decided by Judge Arner after a conference call with
attorneys for both parties. Judge Arner said that the amount owed
to three contractors doing asbestos abatement at four district
schools is not known, but could be estimated at US$200,000 based
on contracts.
Judge Arner granted the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction
following a hearing because the abatement project will "have a
bearing on decisions the future board will make." The temporary
hold is contingent upon the payment of the bond which Attorney
Charles Pascal said his clients are working to secure.
The plaintiffs had sought to stop the project because the
abatement would limit the future board's options and the current
board does not have a plan to restore the buildings.
Pascal represented current directors Chris Choncek, James Rearic
and Joseph Close, along with four people nominated during the May
2011 primary election to serve on the board: Paul Lobby, Larry
Robb, Amy Lhote and Stanley Berdell. Barring any changes in the
November general election, the new board members will take office
in December.
Listed as defendants are ASD and its Directors James Solak, Rose
Stitt, John Monroe, D. Royce Smeltzer and Sara Yassem, along with
companies contracted to do the abatement -- Environmental
Assurance Company, Inc. of Indianapolis, Dore & Associates
Contracting of Michigan and Abmech, Inc. of West Homestead.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Davis Lawsuit v. 116 Firms Filed in Kanawha Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Francis "Pete" and Doris Davis, of Waverly, W.Va., on May 19,
2011, filed an asbestos lawsuit against 116 defendant corporations
in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.
According to the complaint, on March 3, 2011, Mr. Davis was
diagnosed with mesothelioma. He claims he was exposed to asbestos
during his career as a production operator and mechanic from 1959
until 1996.
The Davises seek compensatory and punitive damages. They are
being represented by Bronwyn I. Rinehart, Esq., and Patrick J.
Timmins, Esq.
Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 11-C-823 is assigned to a visiting
judge.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Famous Realty Fined $20.7T for Cleanup Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency ordered Cleveland-based
Famous Realty, the owners of the former Apex Manufacturing site,
to pay US$20,700 in civil fees for improperly destroying buildings
that still had asbestos inside them, the Sandusky Register
reports.
Famous Realty hired a contractor in 2007 to remove asbestos from
three bays in one of the buildings, while another contractor was
then hired to take down the bays, said Heather Lauer, an Ohio EPA
spokeswoman. She added that when the bays were taken down in 2008,
a boiler house that still had asbestos inside was also destroyed.
According to EPA documents, about 560 square feet of boiler and
tank insulation and about 1,000 feet of pipe insulation were never
properly removed.
The EPA found Famous Realty failed to meet four regulations:
-- The Company did not notify the EPA the boiler house was
included in the demolition;
-- The contractor did not remove all the asbestos before
destroying the building;
-- No trained representative was on site during demolition;
-- Asbestos waste material was not kept adequately wet after
demolition, because it was not removed beforehand.
After the demolition, an Ohio EPA inspector found dry, crumbling
material containing asbestos at the site, according to EPA
documents. The documents also state that Famous Realty and the
contractor that destroyed the front of the building -- Selvey's
Dirt Works, of Clyde -- got quotes on the cost to remove asbestos
from the bays and boiler areas.
City officials agreed on June 2011 to help Famous Realty apply for
additional funds to clean up the 15 acres of brownfield property.
The City plans to provide US$45,000 from its federal brownfield
assessment grant to pay for research that needs to be done before
applying for the funding in July 2011.
With demolition and cleanup of the buildings, located at 1643
First St., the project could cost upwards of US$150,000.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Vacates Judgment in Linster's Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated the judgment of the
Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Civil Division, in a
case involving asbestos filed by Patricia Linster on behalf of her
late husband, Matthew Linster.
Judges Stevens, Freedberg, and Platt entered judgment in Case No.
2575 EDA 2008 on April 21, 2011.
On Feb. 17, 2006, the Linsters filed a civil complaint against
numerous companies, including Crane Company, alleging Mr. Linster
developed malignant mesothelioma as a result of his occupational
exposure to asbestos products over the course of his employment at
the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard (hereinafter Naval Shipyard) from
1966 to 1979.
On May 11, 2006, Mr. Linster died from malignant pleural
mesothelioma, and Mrs. Linster was appointed the Executrix of Mr.
Linster's estate. She filed a suggestion of death and praecipe to
substitute party, as a result of which, by court order filed on
June 28, 2006, she was substituted as a party-plaintiff in the
matter and advanced wrongful death and survival claims.
Following the completion of discovery, on Jan. 9, 2008, Crane Co.
filed a motion for summary judgment averring that there was no
evidence of record establishing that Mr. Linster was exposed to
any asbestos-containing product manufactured or supplied by Crane
during Mr. Linster's employment at the Naval Shipyard.
The Linsters filed a motion in opposition to summary judgment as
it related to Crane Company averring that they met their burden of
establishing that Mr. Linster's injuries were caused by Crane's
asbestos containing products, i.e., packing and pumps.
Crane filed a reply to the Linsters' motion in opposition to
summary judgment. The Linsters filed a reply, to which Crane
filed a sur-reply.
On July 7, 2008, the trial court granted Crane's motion for
summary judgment and dismissed with prejudice all claims and
cross-claims against Crane. On July 15, 2008, the trial court
placed on the docket an entry indicating that the remaining
defendants had settled prior to trial, and on Aug. 7, 2008, the
Linsters filed a notice of appeal indicating that they were
appealing the grant of summary judgment as to Allied Signal, Inc.,
Bayer Cropscience, Inc., Buffalo Pump Company, Crane Co., Durabla,
and CBS Corporation.
On Aug. 26, 2008, the trial court directed the Linsters to file a
statement, the Linsters filed a timely statement, and the trial
court filed a responsive Opinion.
The judgment was vacated. The order entered on July 7, 2008
granting summary judgment in favor of Crane Co. was reversed and
the case was remanded.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Remand Bid OK'd in Mumfrey Case v. Anco, Others
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, granted a
motion to remand filed by Frank Mumfrey in an asbestos case filed
against Anco Insulations, Inc. and other defendants.
The case is styled Frank Mumfrey v. Anco Insulations, Inc., et al.
District Judge Stanwood R. Duval, Jr. entered judgment in Civil
Action No. 11-711 on April 20, 2011.
This case was set for trial in the Civil District Court for the
Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, on Sept. 12, 2011. Mr.
Mumfrey moved for an expedited hearing on the remand motion,
because he is dying from malignant mesothelioma and wishes to
preserve that trial setting. The Court granted an expedited
hearing on the papers.
The instant petition was filed on or about Dec. 2, 2010, alleging
claims for negligence and product liability against the
manufacturers, suppliers, and installers of the asbestos products
to which Mr. Mumfrey contended that he was exposed.
Twenty defendants were originally named, with three being
Louisiana defendants. Those three are Anco, Carruth Brothers
Lumber Company, Inc. and Taylor Seidenbach, Inc.; the rest are
diverse from this Louisiana plaintiff.
On March 2, 2011, Mr. Mumfrey's deposition was taken at which time
counsel for diverse defendant Sherwin-Williams Company contended
that he determined that the three original Louisiana defendants
were improperly joined because there is no possibility of recovery
by Mr. Mumfrey against these defendants based on plaintiffs'
deposition testimony.
Another Louisiana defendant was added two days after the
deposition by a First Supplemental and Amending Petition in which
retailer Reilly-Benton Company, Inc., a Louisiana Corporation, was
named as an additional defendant. Likewise, Sherwin-Williams
contended no cause of action exists against that defendant as well
and should be disregarded for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.
On April 1, 2011, the 30th day after the deposition, a Notice of
Removal was filed by Sherwin-Williams.
It was ordered that the Motion to Remand was granted and this case
was remanded to the Civil District Court for the Parish of
Orleans, State of Louisiana.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Vacates Ruling, Remands Babb Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims vacated a Sept. 25,
2009 ruling of the Board of Veterans Appeals, which denied James
E. Babb's claim for connection to asbestos exposure.
The case is James E. Babb, Appellant v. Eric K. Shinseki,
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.
Judge Holdaway entered judgment in Case No. 10-0256 on April 25,
2011.
Mr. Babb served on active duty in the U.S. Navy from 1958 to 1963.
In September 2005, he filed a claim for service connection for
asbestos exposure. The regional office denied Mr. Babb's claim in
September 2006, and he perfected an appeal.
On Sept. 25, 2009, the Board denied Mr. Babb's claim because there
was no evidence of an asbestos related disability. This appeal
followed.
That part of the Board's Sept. 25, 2009, decision that denied
service connection for asbestos exposure was vacated and the
matter was remanded to the Board for further proceedings
consistent with this decision.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Fin'l. Unit Party to A.P. Green Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Financial Group, Inc.'s Great American Insurance Company
subsidiary is party to asbestos-related litigation involving A.P.
Green.
Great American Insurance Company entered into an agreement in
2003, which was approved by the Bankruptcy Court, for the
settlement of coverage litigation related to A.P. Green asbestos
claims. The settlement of US$123.5 million -- Great American has
the option to pay in cash or over time with 5.25% interest -- has
been fully accrued and allows up to 10% of the settlement to be
paid in AFG Common Stock.
The settlement agreement is conditioned upon confirmation of a
plan of reorganization that includes an injunction prohibiting the
assertion against Great American of any present or future asbestos
personal injury claims under policies issued to A.P. Green and
related companies.
On May 3, 2011, in connection with the appeal of the 2007
bankruptcy court confirmation, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals
issued an opinion holding that two non-settling insurers had
standing to challenge the trust established to administer silica
claims, which had been approved as part of the plan of bankruptcy
along with the trust established to administer asbestos claims.
The court also vacated the order confirming the Plan of
Reorganization and remanded the Plan to the bankruptcy court for
further proceedings on this limited issue.
While the bankruptcy court had previously concluded that the trust
to administer silica claims was a valid and legitimate trust, the
Third Circuit held that a fuller evidentiary hearing is required
on remand.
American Financial Group, Inc., through the Great American
Insurance Group of companies and its flagship Great American
Insurance Company, offers commercial property/casualty insurance
focused on specialties such as workers' compensation, professional
liability, ocean and inland marine, and multi-peril crop
insurance. The Company is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Barton Case v. 65 Firms Filed in Kanawha County
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joan W. Barton, on May 25, 2011, filed an asbestos lawsuit on
behalf of Howard William Barton against 65 defendant corporations
in Kanawha County Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record
reports.
According to the complaint, on May 12, 2010, Mr. Barton was
diagnosed with asbestosis bilateral, of which he died from on
June 10, 2010.
Mrs. Barton claims he husband, who was employed by Union Carbide
Corporation from 1944 until 1978, was exposed to asbestos and/or
asbestos-containing products during his employment.
Mrs. Barton seeks a jury trial to resolve all issues involved.
She is being represented by Bronwyn I. Rinehart, Esq. Kanawha
Circuit Court Case No. 11-C-859 has been assigned to a visiting
judge.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.Y. Jury Acquits Foreman in Deutsche Bank Fire
----------------------------------------------------------------
On June 28, 2011, a jury in a Manhattan court acquitted foreman
Salvatore DePaola of charges that he should have known a crucial
water pipe was damaged in the former Deutsche Bank building at
Ground Zero which caught fire in August 2007, Reuters reports.
The jury was still deliberating the case of Jeffrey Melofchik, the
building site safety manager who, like Mr. DePaola, was charged
with manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide in the blaze.
Also charged are the building's toxin cleanup director Mitchell
Alvo and the Galt Corp., the subcontractor that employed Mr. Alvo
and Mr. DePaola. They have chosen to have Judge Rena Uviller, not
the jury, rule on their cases and the judge has not yet ruled.
The jury found Mr. DePaola not guilty of all charges. It began
deliberating on June 16, 2011.
Prosecutors at the trial, which began on March 21, 2011 in the
Supreme Court in Manhattan, argued that the supervisors knew that
the water pipe was damaged but did nothing to fix it.
The former bank building had been damaged and contaminated by the
attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and was being dismantled in August 2007
when fire broke out on the 17th floor.
Firefighters Robert Beddia, 53, and Joseph Graffagnino, 33, died
of smoke inhalation and carbon monoxide poisoning when they became
trapped in the nine-floor fire.
The prosecution, which called 70 witnesses, argued the two
firefighters could have survived had water been able to reach the
upper floors, where black smoke became so thick that visibility
dropped to zero. More than 100 other firefighters sustained
injuries in the blaze.
The defense argued that the construction managers removing
asbestos could not have anticipated the circumstances that led to
the firefighters' deaths. They had argued that if government
inspectors had repeatedly failed to identify a damaged water pipe
in the basement, it was unreasonable to expect construction
supervisors with less expertise to recognize the potential danger.
The defense argued that the conditions were caused not by a lack
of water but by a fan system that pulled smoke downward, leaving
firefighters blind and disoriented.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Robinson Police Faces Sanction Over Safety Breach
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Texas Department of Health Services may penalize Robinson
Police with US$10,000 for an asbestos problem at police
headquarters on Lyndale Street, Robinson, Tex., Channel News 25
reports.
The two violations were part of a May 26, 2011 letter the agency
sent to Police Chief Rusty Smith.
One alleged violation from the April 27, 2011 inspection was for
"Failure to properly remove asbestos-containing materials (ACM)
from public building."
The second was for "Failure to prevent public entry to potentially
contaminated areas." The proposed fine for each violation is
US$5,000.
Chief Smith told News Channel 25 the problem stemmed from pulling
up a piece of wet carpet and a couple of tiles in a room at the
police building.
The state agency offered Robinson police three options to address
the proposed penalty: pay the fines, request an informal
conference within 30 days of the receipt of the notice, or request
a formal hearing to contest the action.
Chief Smith said Robinson has requested a hearing, and he was told
after repairs were made "there was not going to be a US$10,000
fine."
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln County CARD Clinic Receives $10MM Grant
----------------------------------------------------------------
Democratic senator Max Baucus (Montana), on June 27, 2011, lauded
the Lincoln County CARD Clinic on securing a US$10 million grant
to provide screening for asbestos-related diseases as part of a
grant program Senator Baucus created in the new health care law,
the Chronicle reports.
Senator Baucus said, "We can never right the outrageous wrong that
took place in Libby, but we do have a responsibility to make sure
the community has the tools it needs to heal. Early screening is
one of our strongest weapons in the fight to treat asbestos
victims and prevent this terrible tragedy from taking any more of
our family members and neighbors.
"The folks at the CARD clinic do amazing work supporting asbestos
victims, and this grant will give them security and support to
continue providing great screening and health care to folks in
Lincoln County for years to come."
CARD is a community based non-profit organization in Lincoln
County committed to providing asbestos screening and healthcare
related to the Libby asbestos exposure. CARD was awarded the
grant -- worth US$10 million over the next four years -- from the
Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on June 28, 2011 after applying
through a competitive process Senator Baucus announced in March
2011.
The grant program is part of three steps Senator Baucus included
in the Affordable care Act to secure health care coverage for
Libby victims:
-- In Spring 2010, as part of Senator Baucus' provisions,
victims of asbestos exposure in Lincoln County began getting
care under Medicare.
-- In March 2011, Senator Baucus announced the application
process was open for the screening-grant awarded to CARD on
June 28, 2011.
-- In June 2011, Senator Baucus announced additional benefits
for Libby asbestos victims, such as home care services and
special medical equipment not normally covered under
Medicare.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Interfaith Medical Fined for Safety Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health
Administration has cited Interfaith Medical Center, 1545 Atlantic
Ave. in Brooklyn, N.Y., for 14 violations of workplace health and
safety standards following an OSHA inspection, according to an
OSHA press release dated June 28, 2011.
The hospital faces a total US$48,000 in proposed fines.
Kay Gee, OSHA's area director for Brooklyn, Manhattan and Queens,
said, "OSHA standards require that employees whose duties bring
them in contact or close proximity to asbestos or potential
asbestos-containing material be informed and trained about the
hazards and safeguards associated with that material. That
knowledge is vital since ongoing exposure to asbestos can result
in asbestosis, mesothelioma and cancer of the lung."
OSHA's inspection found that the hospital failed to provide
adequate asbestos training for environmental staff and employees
in the engineering department who perform demolition and
renovation. Nor did it inform outside contractors of the presence
of potentially asbestos-containing material in and around their
work area.
The hospital also failed to properly label asbestos-containing
insulation and floor tile, and allowed disposal of asbestos-
containing material in the hospital dumpster.
Additionally, the hospital failed to train trade employees on the
hazards; provide them with material data safety sheets; and
develop a written hazard communication program for cleaners,
lubricants, acetylene, naptha and other hazardous chemicals.
Furthermore, the inspection found improper storage of compressed
gas cylinders and electric shock hazards from exposed and
improperly spliced wiring. These conditions resulted in the
issuance of citations for 10 serious violations with US$44,000 in
proposed fines. Four other-than-serious violations with US$4,000
in fines were cited for incomplete OSHA 300 illness and injury
logs for 2007 through 2010.
Robert Kulick, OSHA's regional administrator in New York, said,
"One means of addressing hazards such as these is by establishing
and maintaining an illness and injury prevention program in which
employers and employees work jointly to identify and eliminate
hazards."
Interfaith Medical Center has 15 business days from receipt of its
citations and proposed penalties to comply, meet with OSHA or
contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety
and Health Review Commission.
The inspection was conducted by OSHA's Manhattan Area Office;
telephone 212-620-3200.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Joe Belluck Calls for Worldwide Asbestos Ban
-------------------------------------------------------------
New York mesothelioma lawyer Joseph W. Belluck, Esq., said the
predicted surge in mesothelioma deaths in Asia underscores the
need for a worldwide ban on asbestos, according to a Belluck &
Fox, LLP press release dated July 1, 2011.
Mr. Belluck said, "It's no coincidence that an increase in
mesothelioma in Asia is anticipated, following the greater imports
of asbestos in Asian countries in recent decades. We know from
experience that mesothelioma deaths will soon follow the increase
in asbestos use. In the U.S., asbestos use peaked in the mid-20th
century, and we are still dealing with new cases of mesothelioma
diagnosed every week as a consequence."
According to the new study in Respirology, the journal of the
Asian Pacific Society of Respirology, the increase in asbestos use
in Asian countries since 1970 is likely to trigger a surge in
asbestos-related diseases, including mesothelioma and lung cancer,
in the next 20 years.
Asia's share of worldwide asbestos use has steadily increased from
14% in the decades before 1970s to 64% from 2001 to 2007, the
study said.
Asbestos is widely used in building materials, roofing, cement and
power plants in Asia. Yet many Asian countries that import
asbestos have weak or non-existent workplace safety laws to
protect workers from inhaling the toxic asbestos dust.
The portion of mesothelioma deaths recorded in Asian countries is
far less than the percentage of asbestos used in Asia, suggesting
mesothelioma deaths will rise significantly in the next 20 years.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: McElhone Remand Bid Denied in Beazer East Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, denied
Glenna McElhone's Motion to Remand in an asbestos lawsuit filed
against Beazer East, Inc.
The case is styled Glenna McElhone, as Executrix of the Estate of
Albert F. McElhone, Jr., deceased; and Glenna A. McElhone, in her
own right, Plaintiffs v. Beazer East, Inc., Defendant.
Judge Gary L. Lancaster entered judgment in Civil Action No.
06-1111 on April 27, 2011.
Mrs. McElhone alleged that Beazer caused Albert F. McElhone, Jr.
to contract mesothelioma due to his exposure to and inhalation of
asbestos fibers from products sold, supplied and distributed on
the premises of Beazer.
Mrs. McElhone moved for remand on the ground that Beazer
improperly removed this action to federal court. On July 6, 2006,
Mrs. McElhone filed this case as a civil action in the Court of
Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pa. On or about
Aug. 21, 2006, Beazer removed the state action to the U.S.
District for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
On Aug. 31, 2006, Mrs. McElhone filed her first motion to remand
the case. Prior to any ruling on that motion, the case was
transferred from the Western District of Pennsylvania to the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania's U.S. Judicial Panel in In Re:
Asbestos Products Liability Litigation, MDL 875, a multidistrict
asbestos litigation.
On Jan. 24, 2011, the MDL court transferred the case back to the
Western District of Pennsylvania. This matter is now before the
court on Mrs. McElhone's second motion to remand.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Junks GE Summary Judgment in Dinneen Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Connecticut denied General Electric Co.'s
(GE) motion for summary judgment in an asbestos case filed by
William Dinneen and Donna Anderson.
The case is styled William Dinneen et al. v. A.O. Smith Corp. et
al.
Judge Barbara N. Bellis entered judgment in Case No. CV085018435S
on April 7, 2011.
On June 4, 2009, Mr. Dinneen and Ms. Anderson filed their second
amended complaint in this action, alleging that Mr. Dinneen was
exposed to asbestos from products associated with multiple
defendants, including GE, and as a result the plaintiffs suffered
various damages.
Each of the defendants or their predecessors in interest conducted
business in the state of Connecticut and produced, manufactured or
distributed asbestos or products containing asbestos. Mr. Dinneen
was exposed to asbestos-containing products with some connection
to the defendants while working in Connecticut as an insulator in
1966-1967 and was secondarily exposed due to his father's work as
an insulator from 1949-1970.
This exposure contributed to Mr. Dinneen's contraction of
asbestos-related mesothelioma and other asbestos related
pathologies. As a result of the defendants' activities, Mr.
Dinneen has sustained permanent injuries and suffered from
asbestos-related ailments.
On Sept. 8, 2008, the plaintiffs filed their original complaint in
this action, which named GE in three counts. In count one, Mr.
Dinneen claimed damages for products liability. In count three,
Ms. Anderson alleged loss of consortium. Count four alleged
grossly negligent, willful, wanton, malicious and/or outrageous
conduct for which Mr. Dinneen requested punitive damages.
On Jan. 15, 2010, GE filed a motion for summary judgment on the
plaintiffs' complaint along with a supporting memorandum of law
and various exhibits. The plaintiffs filed a memorandum in
opposition to the motion for summary judgment with supporting
exhibits on March 2, 2010. The defendants filed a memorandum in
reply on April 22, 2010. The court heard oral argument at short
calendar on Feb. 14, 2011.
When GE filed its motion for summary judgment on Jan. 15, 2010,
the operative complaint was the plaintiffs' second amended
complaint, filed on June 4, 2009. The plaintiffs subsequently
filed a third amended complaint on March 17, 2010, followed by a
fourth amended complaint on April 6, 2010. The second amended
complaint remained the operative pleading with respect to this
motion.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Appeals Court Affirms Ruling in Olsen Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 3, affirmed the
decision of the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals, which
entered summary judgment in foavor of the Department of Labor and
Industries, in an asbestos case filed by Elizabeth A. Olsen.
The case is styled Elizabeth A. Olsen, Appellant v. Washington
State Department of Labor and Industries, Respondent.
Judges Brown, Korsmo, and Siddoway entered judgment in Case No.
29125-1-III on April 26, 2011.
Robert E. Olsen worked as a pipefitter in Washington State from
1955 to 1990. This employment repeatedly exposed him to asbestos
from insulation around the pipes. His asbestos exposure occurred
while working for the Navy, other maritime employers, and non-
maritime employers.
Mr. Olsen's physician, Dr. Samuel P. Hammar, diagnosed asbestos-
induced visceral pleural fibrosis, parietal pleural fibrosis, and
subpleural interstitial fibrosis. Dr. Hammar opined the
concentration of asbestos fibers in Mr. Olsen's lungs showed his
lung condition was caused by asbestos exposure.
Mr. Olsen's prolonged asbestos exposure occurred while employed
with employers covered under the Industrial Insurance Act (IIA)
and the Longshore and Harbor Worker's Compensation Act (LHWCA).
His last injurious exposure occurred while employed with an IIA-
covered employer.
In April 2007, Mr. Olsen passed away. Mrs. Olsen filed a claim
under the LHWCA and IIA for surviving spouse benefits. On Nov. 6,
2008, the Department issued an order granting Mrs. Olsen temporary
reimbursable death benefits.
Mrs. Olsen appealed the Department's ruling to the Board. The
Board on cross motions granted summary judgment for the
Department, affirming the Department's Nov. 6, 2008 order and
denied her petition for review. She then appealed to the Yakima
County Superior Court. The court on cross motions summarily
affirmed the Board's decision. Mrs. Olsen appealed.
Because the Board's decision has not been reversed or modified,
Mrs. Olsen's request was denied.
William D. Hochberg, Esq., Amie Christine Peters, Esq., Law Office
of Bill Hochberg in Edmonds, Wash., represented Mrs. Olsen.
Steve Vinyard, Esq., of Olympia, Wash., represented Respondent.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kubota Corp. Still Subject to 10 Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kubota Corporation, since May 2007, has been subject to 10
asbestos-related lawsuits in Japan, which were filed against the
Company or defendant party consisting of the Japanese Government
and asbestos-related companies including the Company, according to
the Company's annual report, on Form 20-F, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 30, 2011.
The claims for compensation totaling JPY16.274 billion consisted
mostly of six lawsuits, which concerned a total of 416
construction workers who suffered from asbestos-related diseases,
and were filed against the Japanese Government and 46 asbestos-
related companies including the Company.
The Company does not have any cost-sharing arrangements with other
potentially responsible parties for these 10 lawsuits.
Kubota Corporation makes tractors and farm equipment, from rice
transplanters to combine harvesters. It also produces iron
ductile pipe for water supply systems. The Company is
headquartered in Osaka, Japan.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kubota Expends JPY1.155-Bil. for Asbestos Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kubota Corporation's recorded asbestos expenses totaled JPY1.155
billion for the year ended March 31, 2011, compared with JPY503
million for the year ended March 31, 2010, according to the
Company's annual report, on Form 20-F, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 30, 2011.
The Company expenses the consolation payments, the relief
payments, and the compensation for employees, based on its
accounting policies and procedures. The Company accrues in those
cases where the conditions of loss contingencies are met.
The Company has accrued balances for the asbestos-related expenses
of JPY390 million at March 31, 2011, JPY352 million at March 31,
2010, and JPY721 million at March 31, 2009.
Though the Company said it believes that this amount appears to be
a better estimate than any other amount within a reasonably
estimable range of amounts, the additional exposure to loss in
excess of this accrued amount of JPY840 million exists.
Kubota Corporation makes tractors and farm equipment, from rice
transplanters to combine harvesters. It also produces iron
ductile pipe for water supply systems. The Company is
headquartered in Osaka, Japan.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fitts Action v. Texaco, Chevron Filed in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
On behalf of Homer Fitts, Eunice Fitts filed an asbestos lawsuit
against Texaco and Chevron USA last June 23, 2011 in Jefferson
County District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports.
According to the lawsuit, Mr. Fitts was employed by Texaco at its
Port Arthur refinery, working as a pipefitter and painter -
occupations which exposed him to asbestos dust and fibers.
The suit states, "As a result of such exposure, Homer Fitts
developed an asbestos-related disease, asbestosis and lung cancer,
for which he died a painful and terrible death on March 10, 2010."
Mrs. Fitts is suing for exemplary damages. Beaumont attorney
Keith Hyde, Esq., of Provost Umphrey represents her.
Judge Gary Sanderson, 6oth District Court, has been assigned to
Case No. B190-403.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Winscombe Shop Closed Due to Asbestos Materials
----------------------------------------------------------------
The presence of asbestos has has been blamed for the prolonged
closure of the Co-Operative Society supermarket in Winscombe,
North Somerset, England, Mercury 24 reports.
The Co-Operative Society supermarket has been shut since an
electrical fire on April 25, 2011 and residents and shop owners
are growing increasingly angry at the lack of activity in the
store.
The firm originally said the store was shut due to extensive
damage; however, the Avon Fire and Rescue Service has since said
that there was no structural damage to the shop, with the
necessary removal of asbestos now blamed for the delay.
A spokesman for the company said, "We take the issue of asbestos
very seriously and while we are dealing with the situation at our
Winscombe store as efficiently as possible, safety is always our
prime concern.
"We have undertaken a comprehensive survey of the site and will be
engaging a specialist contractor to carry out the removal work."
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard Causes Cleanup Delays at Abington Dairy
---------------------------------------------------------------
The possible presence of asbestos has halted the removal of debris
from Griffin's Dairy at Abington, Mass., the Patriot Ledger
reports.
Plans to cart away the remains of three small wooden buildings at
Griffin's Dairy are stopped after a resident notified the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection that the
debris may contain asbestos.
Selectmen Chairman Christopher Aiello said he was notified that
the removal project would be put on hold until the town hires an
engineer to test for asbestos.
Both the town's fire chief and building inspector issued order to
remove the buildings as a potential safety hazard. On June 27,
2011, the selectmen voted to proceed with the removal. The
anticipated cost to the town is US$15,000.
However, an anonymous resident filed a complaint with the DEP that
the collapsed structures may contain asbestos. Mr. Aiello said,
"We have no reason to believe there is asbestos in there. We feel
the chances are slim to none."
ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK Defence Ministry to Pay GBP1MM to 3 Families
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United Kingdom's Ministry of Defence must pay GBP1 million in
total as compensation for families of three people who died after
breathing in asbestos as children living on military bases, the
Mirror reports.
Career soldier Richard Rouse died at the age of 53 because of the
games of hide and seek he played as a boy. He lived on a Royal
Air Force base at Debden in Essex from 1956 to 1959 where he used
to hide in a cupboard that contained asbestos-insulated pipes.
While at the base -- between the ages of two and five -- Mr. Rouse
slept every night next to a radiator covered with asbestos.
Decades later the retired colonel, who had two sons, was diagnosed
with mesothelioma.
Mr. Rouse, of Winchester, Hampshire, England, who is the only one
of the three victims to be named, died in 2008 but the MoD denied
liability. However, the High Court recently ruled in favor of the
families and Mr. Rouse's widow, 60-year-old Sally Rouse, has now
received a six-figure sum in compensation.
Before he left the Army in 2005 after 33 years' service, Mr. Rouse
was exposed to asbestos dust again at a military building at
Worthy Down, Hampshire.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mount Hope, W.Va. Awarded $1MM Cleanup Grant
-------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Mount Hope, W.Va., was awarded a US$1.5 million grant
to fund the removal of its dilapidated structures, the Register-
Herald reports.
On June 30, 2011, acting Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin recommended Mount
Hope to receive the money via a Neighborhood Stabilization Program
3 Grant. The grant was one of just two of its kind recommended by
Gov. Tomblin.
Mount Hope Mayor Michael Martin said the money will go a long way
toward alleviating the financial burden from the town for tearing
down such structures.
Mayor Martin said, "Without the dollars to go into a project like
this, knowing you're going to be eventually responsible for
tearing that property down, hauling it to a dump -- and that's
after you've had it examined by an asbestos inspector, and you
have mitigated all the asbestos problems it might have had --
you're into some dollars."
Mayor Martin said he has a list of 34 dilapidated properties
identified and will work immediately to prepare letters to send to
the respective property owners.
*********
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 * * *