/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/120330.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, March 30, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 64 Headlines APPLICA CONSUMER: Faces Class Action Over Defective Coffeemakers BROADWAY CAPITAL: Being Sold to Nuance for Too Little, Suit Says CARRIER IQ: Sued Over Secret Cell Phone Tracking Software CASH AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over Excessive Interest Charges CENTRO: Former Chairman Shocked by Accounting Error CHINA AUTOMOTIVE: Class Period in Securities Suit Amended CITIBANK NA: Not Liable for Damages for Freezing Accounts COMMERCIAL BARGE: Still Awaits Dismissal of Suits in Louisiana COMPUCREDIT CORP: Arbitration Bid Sent to California Court DEUTSCHE BANK: Forcibly Removed Tenants From Homes, Suit Says DEVRY INC: Dewey & LeBoeuf Obtains Dismissal of Shareholder Suit FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Awaits Approval of Settlement in Blackwell Case GMX RESOURCES: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Appoint Lead Plaintiff GREAT AMERICAN: Recalls 14,050 Arena Lamps Due to Shock Hazard GREENBERG TRAURIG: Judge Certifies Fraud Class Action GOV'T OF CANADA: Court Dismisses Pathology Class Action GOV'T OF CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Halibut Allocation HSBC USA: Mediation Ongoing in Antitrust Suit Pending in New York HSBC USA: Continues to Defend in Madoff-Related Class Suits INT'L DEVELOPMENT: Sued Over Deceptive Business Practices JAMBA INC: Made Payments Pursuant to Suit Settlement Last Month LAKESHORE LEARNING: Recalls 4,300 Baby Dolls Due to Choking Risk MORGAN STANLEY: ERISA Class Suit Remains Pending in New York MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend "Coulter" Suit MORGAN STANLEY: "Stratte-McClure" Suit Remains Pending in NY MORGAN STANLEY: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend Cheyne-Related Class Suit MORGAN STANLEY: Rhinebridge-Related Suit Remains Pending in N.Y. OCMAC LLC: Accused of Unlicensed Debt Collection in Illinois PFIZER INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Action PSE&G CO: Continues to Defend Action Pending in New Jersey BPU PUBLIC SERVICE: Parent Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk "Comer" Suit R.J. REYNOLDS: High Court Won't Hear Appeal in Tobacco Suit SNC-LAVALIN: CEO Steps Down Amid Shareholder Class Action STATE OF FLORIDA: Child Care Class Action Nears Conclusion TOBACCO COMPANIES: High Court Rejects Appeals in Smokers' Suit TRANSATLANTIC HOLDINGS: Inked MoU to Resolve Merger-Related Suits UNITED EGG: Majority of Egg Price-Fixing Claims Can Proceed UPONOR INC: July 19 Hearing Set for Class Action Settlement XL GROUP: Awaits Approval of New Jersey Class Action Settlement Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Moreland Council Expects More Work for Abaters ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Pleas to Ex-workers at Ambrose Shardlow ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Contaminated" Dearborn Towers Sold for $6.25MM ASBESTOS UPDATE: $7.7MM Renovation of Hammondsport Bldg Discussed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Benton Sand & Gravel Gets Waterloo Abatement Job ASBESTOS UPDATE: Non-Profit Pony Club Devastated and Contaminated ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Junks Kraft Power's First-to-File Argument ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Dismisses Suit v. Georgia-Pacific ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Fails to Dismiss Contento Tort Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Ct. Rules in Suit v. Air & Liquid et al. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Had $1.6MM Liability at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace's Recorded Liability Was $1.7 Billion ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace's Libby-Related Liability Was $67.2MM ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pepco Had 180 Cases Pending in Maryland in Dec. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pepco's Unit Continues to Defend New Jersey Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Had $528.4MM Net Loss Reserves at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: OfficeMax Remains Defendant in Exposure Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Selective Insurance Has $6.5MM Asbestos Reserves ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Faces 177 Pending Exposure Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: GATX Corp. Had 190 Pending Cases at Jan. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco plc Still a Defendant in Exposure Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Electric Remains Subject to Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Has Claims by 16,781 Plaintiffs ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. Continues to Defend Exposure Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Xcel Energy's ARO for Asbestos Total $55.4MM ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alleghany Unit Reserves $11 Million at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Corp. Remains a Defendant in PI Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roper Industries Still a Defendant in Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Financial Had $1.9BB Net Reserves ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ace Ltd. Had 1,060 Open Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: PartnerRe Ltd. Had Net Reserves of $195MM ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Industries Had $42.4M Liability at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wabtec Still Defends Personal Injury Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Miscommunication Hound St. Mary's Villa Abatement ASBESTOS UPDATE: Renovation at St. Peter's School Exposes Fibro ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardeners' 3 Yr-Old Complaint Continues ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADFA Head Calls Attorney-General Smith "Evil" ASBESTOS UPDATE: French Study Signifies Age Factor During Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: Charges Filed vs. 2 Violators of Clean Air Act ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victims Cry Injustice Over UK Pay Out Scheme ASBESTOS UPDATE: GEI Gets Old Resto Abatement Job on $12,500 Bid ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inquest Rules COD Was Partly Due to Asbestosis ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claim Filed in Kanawha vs. Ford Motor, 48 Others ASBESTOS UPDATE: Full Abatement Required at Flora Stevenson School ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazards Add $11K to Franklin City Project Cost ASBESTOS UPDATE: Changes to Tortfeasor Contribution Statute Sought ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gene Therapy Shows Encouraging Results ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calgary Univ Students Seek Info on Asbestos Issue ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coroner Asserts Tobacco on Ex-Builders COD ASBESTOS UPDATE: Advocacy Group Sues WMS Solution Over Hazard ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quebec Institute Affirms Chrysotile Is NOT Safe ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Judge Calls Fee-Referral Issue a Demagoguery ASBESTOS UPDATE: ESG Sets Assessment and Remediation Standards ASBESTOS UPDATE: Regional School Exposed 9 Students to Carcinogens ASBESTOS UPDATE: Participant Climbs for Parents Taken by Cancer ********* APPLICA CONSUMER: Faces Class Action Over Defective Coffeemakers ---------------------------------------------------------------- Applica Consumer Products Inc. is being sued in a class action product liability lawsuit claiming its coffeemakers are defective and pose safety risks to consumers. According to Law360, lead plaintiff Faith Messick claims that the handle on the Spacemaker 12-Cup Programmable Under-The-Cabinet Coffeemaker breaks away from the glass carafe. The product liability lawsuit states, "after approximately four months of use, plaintiff made a pot of coffee and when she tried to pour it, as a result of the design defect, the handle broke away from the glass carafe, causing the carafe to break and hot coffee to spill all over. Plaintiff tried to repair the carafe herself, but it does not function as represented." Ms. Messick alleges that Applica actively concealed the defect and refused to honor its two-year warranty to fix the problem or provide a full refund to consumers who purchased the coffeemaker. She further alleges that the company violated the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act, and asserts unjust enrichment, and breach of implied warranty. BROADWAY CAPITAL: Being Sold to Nuance for Too Little, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders claim Broadway Capital is selling itself too cheaply through an unfair process to Nuance Communications, a medical transcription company, for $29.50 a share, in Fulton County Superior Court. A copy of the Complaint in Broadway Capital v. Gerdes, et al., Case No. 2012CV213119 (Ga. Super. Ct., Fulton Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/27/SCA.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse A. Davis, III, Esq. DAVIS ADAMS, LLC 125 Clairemont Avenue, Suite 525 Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: (404) 373-8466 E-mail: jad@davis-adams.com - and - Richard B. Brualdi, Esq. THE BRUALDI LAW FIRM, P.C. 29 Broadway, 24th Floor New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 952-0602 E-mail: rbrualdi@brualdilawfirm.com CARRIER IQ: Sued Over Secret Cell Phone Tracking Software --------------------------------------------------------- Shawn Grisham and Bobby Cline, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. Carrier, IQ, Inc.; LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.; Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC; and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Case No. 5:12-cv-01400 (N.D. Calif., March 20, 2012) complain of the Defendants' violations of federal privacy laws by secretly installing and using software on Plaintiffs and class members' cellular telephones. The Plaintiffs contend that the class action arises out of the Defendants' surreptitious use of cell phone tracking software. They add that the lawsuit is brought on behalf of persons who used at least one cell phone manufactured and distributed by LG or Samsung, which contained "rootkit" software designed and sold by Carrier IQ, and whose privacy was violated through the installation and use of this software without Plaintiffs' and the Class' knowledge. Shawn Grisham is a resident of Mississippi and uses a Samsung phone. Bobby Cline is a resident of Michigan and has used five LG cellular phones since May of 2011. Carrier IQ is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Mountain View, California. Carrier IQ designs and markets software to cellular phone manufacturers, like Samsung and LG, and phone service carriers to help them identify and rectify service and quality-related problems like dropped calls and battery drain. LG Electronics is a Delaware corporation based in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Samsung Telecommunications is a Delaware limited liability company based in Richardson, Texas. Samsung Electronics is a New York corporation based in Ridgefield Park, New Jersey. LG and Samsung design, manufacture and distribute cellular telephones. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael A. Caddell, Esq. Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq. Craig C. Marchiando, Esq. CADDELL & CHAPMAN 1331 Lamar, Suite 1070 Houston, TX 77010-3027 Telephone: (713) 751-0400 Facsimile: (713) 751-0906 E-mail: mac@caddellchapman.com cbc@caddellchapman.com ccm@caddellchapman.com CASH AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over Excessive Interest Charges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims Cash America of Missouri dba Cash America Pawn of Kansas City charges unconscionable interest rates of up to 469 percent, in Jackson County Court. A copy of the Complaint in Hamilton v. Cash America of Missouri, Inc. d/b/a Cash America Pawn of Kansas City, Case No. _____ (Mo. Cir. Ct., Jackson Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/27/Payday.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dirk Hubbard, Esq. Amir Ardebili, Esq. HUBBARD & ARDEBILI, L.L.C. 256 NE Tudor Rd. Lee's Summit, MO 64086 Telephone: (816) 600-2614 E-mail: dhubbard@halawllc.com CENTRO: Former Chairman Shocked by Accounting Error --------------------------------------------------- Sarah Danckert, writing for The Australian, reports that former Centro chairman Paul Cooper says the company's auditor PricewaterhouseCoopers assured the board the company's 2007 accounts were complete and "robust" just days before statements that included a AUD3.1 billion error were released to the market. Mr. Cooper took to the witness stand in the class action case against Centro to face a grilling over his role in the shopping centre owner's 2007 near-collapse. Under cross examination, Mr. Cooper, also a former board member of AXA Asia Pacific, said he was not made aware of the mistake until late December 2007. Mr. Cooper told the court that it was former chief executive Andrew Scott who told the board in December there was an error in the company's accounts. He said he was "shocked" and "surprised" when he found out on or around December 21 that the accounts contained an error. The two firms bringing the class action against Centro and former auditor PwC allege the company's senior management were aware in August there were multiple errors in the accounts, an allegation Mr. Scott has denied. "My view is that I should have been told (of the mistake) as quickly as practicable," Mr. Cooper said. "I would have expected to have been told shortly after (the mistake was discovered), before the accounts were approved." The accounts were approved by the board in August that year. The court heard that the first of many mistakes in the company's accounts, the omission of AUD1.1 billion in short-term guarantees to JPMorgan, was revealed in late December. Mr. Cooper was asked if he could remember when he was told there was a chance there were more mistakes in the company's accounts. "It was shortly after these events (in December). It happened rapidly," Mr. Cooper said. Mr. Cooper agreed that it wasn't until January 15 that the company told the market for the first time there was a possibility of further mistakes in the company's accounts relating to the misclassification of short-term debts. Following an investigation by the company, the full amount of short-term debt expiring in December 2007, not included in the accounts, was found to be AUD3.1 billion. Hundreds of shareholders have joined two concurrent class actions against the company and auditors PwC. The shareholders claim they were only made aware of the accounting error in December 2007 and were given no warning that the company might face refinancing difficulties. PwC is counter-claiming against Centro, alleging Centro withheld key documents. Mr. Cooper also told the court the board had requested Mr. Scott note in the company's 2007 accounts the company's confidence in securing refinancing arrangements on the billions of debt falling due in 2007. Last week, the court heard there were two versions of Centro's accounts prepared in 2007. One version included a reference to the company's refinancing plans; the other set of accounts, released to ASIC, omitted any mention of refinancing. Mr. Scott has alleged senior Centro staff member Paul Belcher removed the reference unbeknown to him. Mr. Belcher is due to testify this week. The case continues. CHINA AUTOMOTIVE: Class Period in Securities Suit Amended --------------------------------------------------------- In an amended complaint, plaintiffs a purported securities class action changed the purported class period of their securities class action lawsuit from May 12, 2010, through March 17, 2011, according to China Automotive Systems, Inc.'s March 9, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On October 25, 2011, a purported securities class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's securities between March 25, 2010, and March 17, 2011. On February 24, 2012, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, changing the purported class period from May 12, 2010, through March 17, 2011. The amended complaint alleges that the Company, certain of its present officers and directors and the Company's former auditor violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the rules promulgated thereunder, and seeks unspecified damages. The Company says it has not yet responded to the amended complaint, but believes the allegations in the complaint are without merit. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously against the claims. Based in Hubei Province, People's Republic of China, China Automotive Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: CAAS) is a supplier of power steering systems and components to China automotive industry, operating through nine subsidiaries. Its product offering encompasses a full range of auto parts incorporated into steering systems for both passenger automobiles and commercial vehicles. CITIBANK NA: Not Liable for Damages for Freezing Accounts --------------------------------------------------------- Lucile Scott at Courthouse News Service reports that two New Yorkers cannot get money damages from Citibank for freezing their bank accounts and charging them approximately $100 in fees for putting the restraint on their accounts, a federal judged ruled in a class action suit. Plaintiffs Celinda Acevado and Jacqueline Lopez each received a notice from Citibank stating that their bank account had been frozen because of a restraining notice and/or levy served on Citibank by judgment creditors. Ms. Acevado had approximately $2,000 in her account and Ms. Lopez approximately $3,000. Both claim that they could not access any of the funds in their account and did not receive a disclosure that a portion of their money is exempt from restraint, as required by Exempt Income Protection Act. The plaintiffs sought to bring the action on behalf of all Citibank account owners who had their accounts restrained and/or were charged a restraining fee since January 1, 2009. The purpose of the EIPA, enacted in New York in 2008, is to "create a procedure for the execution of money judgments on bank accounts containing exempt funds to ensure that debtors can continue to access those funds." It stipulates that any restraining order placed on an account not apply to the first $1740 in the account. U.S. District Judge Paul G. Gardephe wrote that while EIPA gives debtors the right to sue creditors and recover costs, there is "no express or implied private right of action under the EIPA permitting an account holder to sue his or her bank for money damages related to alleged EIPA violations." However, he denied Citibank's request for dismissal on non-monetary grounds and writes that the plaintiffs and all account holders can seek injunctive relief for EIPA violations against their banks. While Citibank argued that the damages alleged by Ms. Acevado and Ms. Lopez, do not add up to $5 million minimum required by the Class Action Fairness Act for a class action suit, Judge Gardephe found that "the Court cannot say to a 'legal certainty' that the amount in controversy is less than $5,000,000," and denied Citibank's motion to dismiss. He granted the dismissal on all other counts brought by the plaintiffs, including conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, negligence, and breach of contract. A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order in Acevado, et al. v. Citibank, N.A., Case No. 10-cv-08030 (S.D.N.Y.), is available at: http://is.gd/erGqJj COMMERCIAL BARGE: Still Awaits Dismissal of Suits in Louisiana -------------------------------------------------------------- Commercial Barge Line Company is still awaiting final dismissal of class action lawsuits arising from a collision incident in Mississippi River involving its subsidiary, according to the Company's March 9, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. American Commercial Lines Inc. ("ACL"), the parent of Commercial Barge Line Company ("CBL"), and American Commercial Lines LLC ("ACLLLC"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of CBL, have been named as defendants in putative class action lawsuits, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (collectively the "Class Action Lawsuits"): Austin Sicard et al on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated vs. Laurin Maritime (America) Inc., Whitefin Shipping Co. Limited, D.R.D. Towing Company, LLC, American Commercial Lines, Inc. and the New Orleans-Baton Rouge Steamship Pilots Association, Case No. 08- 4012, filed on July 24, 2008; Stephen Marshall Gabarick and Bernard Attridge, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated vs. Laurin Maritime (America) Inc., Whitefin Shipping Co. Limited, D.R.D. Towing Company, LLC, American Commercial Lines, Inc. and the New Orleans-Baton Rouge Steamship Pilots Association, Case No. 08-4007, filed on July 24, 2008; and Alvin McBride, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Laurin Maritime (America) Inc.; Whitefin Shipping Co. Ltd.; D.R.D. Towing Co. LLC; American Commercial Lines Inc.; The New Orleans-Baton Rouge Steamship Pilots Association, Case No. 09-cv-04494 B, filed on July 24, 2009. The McBride v. Laurin Maritime, et al. action has been dismissed with prejudice because it was not filed prior to the deadline set by the Court. The claims in the Class Action Lawsuits stem from the incident on July 23, 2008, involving one of ACL LLC's tank barges that was being towed by DRD Towing Company L.L.C. ("DRD"), an independent towing contractor. The tank barge was involved in a collision with the motor vessel Tintomara, operated by Laurin Maritime, at Mile Marker 97 of the Mississippi River in the New Orleans area. The tank barge was carrying approximately 9,900 barrels of #6 oil, of which approximately two-thirds was released. The tank barge was damaged in the collision and partially sunk. There was no damage to the towboat. The Tintomara incurred minor damage. The Class Action Lawsuits include various allegations of adverse health and psychological damages, disruption of business operations, destruction and loss of use of natural resources, and seek unspecified economic, compensatory and punitive damages for claims of negligence, trespass and nuisance. The Class Action Lawsuits were stayed pending the outcome of the two actions filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana seeking exoneration from, or limitation of, liability related to the incident. All claims in the class actions have been settled with payment to be made from funds on deposit with the court in the IINA and IINA and Houston Casualty Company interpleader. IINA is DRD's primary insurer and IINA and Houston Casualty Company are DRD's excess insurers. The settlement has final approval from the court. Settlement funds were provided to claimants' counsel and the Company expects final dismissal of all lawsuits against all parties will be entered, including the Company, with prejudice once all the releases are signed. Claims under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 ("OPA 90") were dismissed without prejudice. There is a separate administrative process for making a claim under OPA 90 that must be followed prior to litigation. The Company is processing OPA 90 claims properly presented, documented and recoverable. The Company has also received numerous claims for personal injury, property damage and various economic damages loss related to the oil spill, including notification by the National Pollution Funds Center of claims it has received. Additional lawsuits may be filed and claims submitted, however OPA 90 has a three year prescriptive period and any new claim filed after three years would be subject to dismissal. The Company is in early discussions with the Natural Resource Damage Assessment Group, consisting of various State and Federal agencies, regarding the scope of environmental damage that may have been caused by the incident. Recently Buras Marina filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District of Louisiana in Case No. 09-4464 against the Company seeking payment for "rental cost" of its marina for cleanup operations. ACL and ACL LLC have also been named as defendants in the following interpleader action brought by DRD's primary insurer IINA seeking court approval as to the disbursement of the funds: Indemnity Insurance Company of North America v. DRD Towing Company, LLC; DRD Towing Group, LLC; American Commercial Lines, LLC; American Commercial Lines, Inc.; Waits Emmet & Popp, LLC, Daigle, Fisse & Kessenich; Stephen Marshall Gabarick; Bernard Attridge; Austin Sicard; Lamont L. Murphy, individually and on behalf of Murphy Dredging; Deep Delta Distributors, Inc.; David Cvitanovich; Kelly Clark; Timothy Clark, individually and on behalf of Taylor Clark, Bradley Barrosse; Tricia Barrosse; Lynn M. Alfonso, Sr.; George C. McGee; Sherral Irvin; Jefferson Magee; and Acy J. Cooper, Jr., United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, Civil Action 08- 4156, Section "I-5," filed on August 11, 2008. DRD's excess insurers, IINA and Houston Casualty Company intervened into this action and deposited $9 million into the Court's registry. ACL LLC has filed two actions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana seeking exoneration from or limitation of liability relating to the foregoing incident as provided for in Rule F of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims and in 46 U.S.C. sections 30501, 30505 and 30511. Tintomara interests and DRD also filed limitation actions. ACL made a claim for its damages against Tintomara interests and DRD in their respective limitation actions. The Company has also filed a declaratory judgment action against DRD seeking to have the contracts between them declared "void ab initio". This action has been consolidated with the limitation actions and stayed pending the outcome of the limitation actions. A trial on the ACL, Tintomara interests and DRD limitation actions has been concluded and the Company is awaiting the judge's decision on liability of the parties and apportionment of ACL and Tintomara's damages. On August 22, 2011 an action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana captioned United States of America v. American Commercial Lines LLC and D.R.D. Towing, LLC, Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-2076. The action seeks damages of approximately $25 million, including certain repayment to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for sums it paid related to the cleanup of the oil spill and to certain claimants for damages cognizable under OPA 90, a civil penalty under the Clean Water Act in an amount to be determined at trial as well as a claim for natural resources damages. On July 25, 2011 an action was filed in the 25th Judicial District for the Parish of Plaquemines State of Louisiana captioned Chuc Nguyen, et al. v. American Commercial Lines, Inc. and its Insurers, ABC Insurance Company and Indemnity Insurance Company of North America, No. 58936. The action filed by numerous commercial fishermen seeks damages for real or personal property, loss of subsistence use of natural resources associated with loss of profits or impairment of earning capacity. The Company participated in the U.S. Coast Guard investigation of the matter and participated in the hearings which have concluded. A finding has not yet been announced. Although the Company has made demand on DRD (including its insurers) and Tintomara interests for reimbursement of cleanup costs, indemnification and other damages sustained by the Company, there is no assurance that any other party that may be found responsible for the accident will have the insurance or financial resources available to provide such defense and indemnification. The Company has various insurance policies covering pollution, property, marine and general liability. While the cost of cleanup operations and other potential liabilities are significant, the Company believes it has satisfactory insurance coverage and other legal remedies to cover substantially all of the cost. COMPUCREDIT CORP: Arbitration Bid Sent to California Court ---------------------------------------------------------- Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated its interpretation of a federal credit-repair law on March 27, ordering a class to arbitrate claims of misleading subprime credit cards. An apparently chastened three-judge panel changed course after a January clarification by the Supreme Court. The lawsuit involves Aspire Visa credit cardholders who say that Compucredit and Columbus Bank and Trust advertised an unfeasible credit limit and the idea that the credit card could rebuild poor credit. Synovus Bank now owns the original credit card issuer, Columbus Bank and Trust. Though the companies invoked the arbitration agreement, the consumers said that contract became void when the companies did not properly notify them of monthly maintenance fees and other charges. Originally, the trial and appeals courts had said that violations of the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA) preclude the enforcement of an arbitration agreement. But the majority in Washington, D.C., said that CROA disclosure clause did not cancel an arbitration agreement and give consumers the right to sue. "The flaw in this argument is its premise: that the disclo-sure provision provides consumers with a right to bring an action in a court of law," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority. "It does not. Rather, it imposes an obligation on credit repair organizations to supply con-sumers with a specific statement set forth (in quotation marks) in the statute. The only consumer right it creates is the right to receive the statement, which is meant to describe the consumer protections that the law elsewhere provides." In a brief order on March 27, the San Francisco-based appellate panel vacated its previous opinion and sent the motion to compel arbitration back to California's Northern District. A copy of the Order in Greenwood, et al. v. CompuCredit Corporation, et al., No. 09-15906 (9th Cir.), is available at: http://is.gd/avQp7V DEUTSCHE BANK: Forcibly Removed Tenants From Homes, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Jimmie Cain, Carolyn Savage and Carolyn E. Cain, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft a/k/a Deutsche Bank AG a/k/a Deutsche Bank USA a/k/a Deutsche Bank NA; Deutsche Bank Florida, National Association; Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas; Deutsche Bank Trust Company Delaware; Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Individually and as Trustee, in Trust for the Registered Holders of Argent Securities, Inc., Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-W4; Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft New York Branch; Deutsche Bank Trust Company National Association, and Deutsche Bank Trust Company New Jersey; Great Street Properties, Inc.; Kluever & Platt, LLC; Vince Iturralde; and Randy E. Weinstein, Case No. 2012-CH-10272 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., March 21, 2012) seeks redress for alleged unlawful practices by the German-based Deutsche Bank AG. The Plaintiffs contend that unable to prove which of its legally distinct subsidiaries owned a particular mortgage, Deutsche Bank AG and its subsidiaries fraudulently presented themselves as one combined fictitious entity, "Deutsche Bank N.A." They assert that this leads inevitably to the second unlawful practice -- forcibly removing tenants from their homes, without legal right or authority of court order. The Plaintiffs are residents of the state of Illinois. From October 2005 until August 25, 2010, Plaintiffs lived in an apartment located at 358 N. Hamlin, 1st Floor, in Chicago, Illinois, in the county of Cook, pursuant to a valid and enforceable oral lease agreement. Deutsche Bank is an international bank and financial services with its principal offices located in Germany. When doing business in the United States, Deutsche Bank is engaged in, inter alia, the purchase, servicing, issuance, and sale of mortgages and mortgage- backed securities. All of Deutsche Bank Florida Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Delaware, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Deutsche Bank Trust Company, NA, Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft New York Branch and Deutsche Bank Trust Company New Jersey are subsidiaries wholly owned and controlled by Deutsche Bank. Some or all of the Deutsche Defendants, as well as Deutsche Bank, own or owned real estate in Illinois, including the subject matter property. Some of the Deutsche Defendants, including Deutsche Bank, used Illinois courts to foreclose on mortgages within the State of Illinois. Great Street, an Illinois corporation, is the management company for Deutsche Bank. K&P, an Illinois law firm, represented Deutsche Bank in eviction and foreclosure lawsuits against tenants and owners of mortgaged and foreclosed homes in Illinois. Messrs. Weinstein and Iturralde are licensed attorneys employed by K&P. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Berton N. Ring, Esq. BERTON N. RING, P.C. 123 W. Madison Street, 15th Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 781-0290 E-mail: bring@bnrpc.com DEVRY INC: Dewey & LeBoeuf Obtains Dismissal of Shareholder Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dewey LeBoeuf announced on March 28 that it succeeded in obtaining the dismissal of a putative shareholder class action complaint filed against DeVry Inc. and two of its key executives. DeVry is a Fortune 500 company and leader in the private-education sector. It was sued in the fall of 2010 for alleged securities fraud after its stock price suffered a series of declines following announcements by the Department of Education regarding stricter proposed industry regulations and by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (the "HELP Committee") regarding alleged abuses in the industry. The plaintiff alleged that DeVry failed to disclose a myriad of purported problems with its operations, including that it allegedly used "high-pressure" or "predatory" recruiting practices to lure unqualified students into enrolling so that DeVry could reap profits from the students' financial aid dollars. The plaintiff also alleged that DeVry lied about its compliance with recruiter compensation laws and the employment rates of its graduates, among other things. In a thorough, 50-paged opinion, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois adopted all three of DeVry's substantive arguments, holding that the plaintiff had failed to allege adequately: (1) a false statement or material omission; (2) scienter; or (3) loss causation. Although the Court gave plaintiff leave to replead, it expressed grave doubts that the plaintiff would be able to correct the deficiencies in the complaint: "Given our conclusions about [plaintiff's] loss-causation allegations, the [plaintiff] faces an uphill battle [in amending]. Indeed, the [plaintiff] has not identified any disclosures even touching upon recruiter compensation, the complaint's strongest (although still deficient) allegations. But we cannot say with certainty that it cannot correct the problems we have identified in the complaint. We will give the [plaintiff] a second (and likely final) opportunity to amend it." Partner Alan Salpeter led the Dewey team, which included partner Elizabeth Bradshaw, counsel Therese King Nohos, and associates Michael Wanser, Ross Neihaus, and paralegal Jill Friedman. FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Awaits Approval of Settlement in Blackwell Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. is awaiting final approval of a settlement in a purported class action lawsuit relating to Blackwell Zinc Company, Inc., according to the Company's February 27, 2012 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On April 14, 2008, a purported class action was filed against Freeport-McMoRan and several of its direct and indirect subsidiaries, including Blackwell Zinc Company, Inc., entitled Coffey, et al., v. Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold, Inc., et al., Kay County, Oklahoma District Court, Case No. CJ-2008-68. The suit alleges that the operations of BZC's zinc smelter in Blackwell, Oklahoma, from 1918 to 1974 resulted in contamination of soils and groundwater in Blackwell. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory and injunctive relief and punitive damages on behalf of current property owners as of December 19, 2011, for alleged environmental contamination and other damages to real property. On December 19, 2011, the parties submitted a proposed class settlement to the court for approval, and the court entered a preliminary approval order. Because this is a class action, the settlement requires public notice, opportunity for class members to object or opt out, and a judicial fairness hearing, which was scheduled for March 22, 2012. There is some community opposition to the settlement, so it is possible that it will not be completed as agreed. If the settlement is approved, Freeport-McMoRan will pay approximately $70 million (of which the relevant amount is included in environmental obligations and the remaining portion in accounts payable and accrued liabilities) for monetary payments to class members, additional environmental remediation of certain properties in the class area, class counsel's attorneys' fees and settlement administration expenses. GMX RESOURCES: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Appoint Lead Plaintiff ------------------------------------------------------------- GMX Resources Inc. is awaiting a court decision on a motion to appointed a lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuit pending in Oklahoma, according to the Company's March 9, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. A putative class action lawsuit was filed by the Northumberland County Retirement System and Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System in the District Court in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, purportedly on March 10, 2011, against the Company and certain of its officers along with certain underwriters of the Company's July 2008, May 2009 and October 2009 public offerings. Discovery requests and summons were filed and issued, respectively, in late April 2011. The complaint alleges that the registration statement and the prospectus for the offering contained material misstatements and omissions and seek damages under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 of an unspecified equitable relief. Defendants removed the case to federal court on May 12, 2011, and filed motions to dismiss on June 20, 2011. Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to state court on June 10, 2011, and Defendants filed an opposition to that motion. By order dated November 16, 2011, the court denied Plaintiffs' motion to remand. On February 3, 2012, Plaintiffs moved to be appointed lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. After the appointment of lead plaintiff, Plaintiffs are expected to file an amended complaint, with Defendants' responses thereto expected to be filed in early June 2012. The Company says it is currently unable to assess the probability of loss or estimate a range of potential loss, if any, associated with the securities class action case, which is at an early stage. GMX Resources Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is an independent oil and natural gas exploration and production company historically focused on the development of the Cotton Valley group of formations, specifically the Cotton Valley Sands layer in the Schuler formation and the Upper Bossier, Middle Bossier and Haynesville/Lower Bossier layers of the Bossier formation, in the Sabine Uplift of the Carthage, North Field of Harrison and Panola counties of East Texas. The Company is based in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. GREAT AMERICAN: Recalls 14,050 Arena Lamps Due to Shock Hazard -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Great American Opportunities of Nashville, Tennessee, announced a voluntary recall of about 14,050 units of Great American Opportunities Arena Lamps. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The electrical design and construction of the lamps poses the risk of an electric shock to consumers. Great American Opportunities has received one report of a lamp power cord detaching inside the lamp housing. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves Arena Lamps (also called Disco Lights, Disco Light Projectors and Arena Light Kaleidoscopes) with the model number 3007952. The model number only appears on the original packaging. The lamp is used to project circular colored lights on a ceiling or wall for lighting effect and comes in a silver, rectangular box shape measuring 9"x5"x5". Light from the lamp is projected from a single circular cut out at one end of the box. A silver handle wraps half-way around the lamp and is affixed with large black thumb screws on either side of the lamp, and there are two rows of ventilation slots along the top. Underneath the lamp is a circular fan vent. On the back of the lamp, an on/off switch, power cord and a knob with the word "FUSE" written in white are in a row along the top. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12139.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at warehouse sales (in temporarily rented space) in Chattanooga and Nashville, Tenn.; Conyers, Ga.; and Bloomington, Ill. from April 2008 through December 2011 for between $5 and $10. The lamps were also given to schools and civic organizations in conjunction with fundraising activities during the same period. Consumers should stop using the lamps immediately and contact Great American Opportunities for instructions on returning the lamps for a full refund. For additional information, contact Great American Opportunities toll-free at (866) 292-9756 between 8:00 a.m. through 4:30 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.arenalamprecall.com/ GREENBERG TRAURIG: Judge Certifies Fraud Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- South Florida Business Journal, citing the Daily Business Review, reports that a federal judge in Phoenix has certified a class action against Miami-based Greenberg Traurig and another law firm after investors lost $900 million in what was allegedly a Ponzi scheme. Both Greenberg Traurig and the Quarles & Brady law firm said they were disappointed with the ruling. Greenberg Traurig and Quarles & Brady both said their attorneys acted appropriately. The lawsuit accuses the firms of aiding an alleged fraud by Mortgages Ltd. of Phoenix, which made high-interest loans to real estate developers. The founder of the company committed suicide in 2008. Radical Bunny is another company targeted in the litigation. The SEC in 2009 charged Radical Bunny and four of its promoters in a $197 million scheme that allegedly involved pooling investor funds to Mortgages Ltd. Greenberg Traurig, which is based in Miami, is ranked by the Business Journal as the region's largest law firm. GOV'T OF CANADA: Court Dismisses Pathology Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Julius Melnitzer, writing for Law Times, reports that in a ruling that's getting the attention of the class action bar, Justice Jean-Paul Ouellette of the Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick has refused to certify a matter involving 15,000 patients affected by a hospital's pathology review that found roughly 100 cases in which a pathologist's diagnosis of benign later changed to malignant. "This is a very important case that the court needs to examine carefully on appeal," says Joel Rochon. "This is an important decision for public health authorities who are balancing the best interests of the public and patients when determining parameters for care look-backs and reviews," says Barry Glaspell of Borden Ladner Gervais LLP. "Class action litigation, potential or actual, has the potential to skew health-care decisions and spending priorities." Justice Ouellette's key finding in Gay v. Regional Health Authority 7 was that the question of whether there had been a breach of a standard of care was an individual issue. As such, a common-issues trial was unmanageable. Besides the health authority, the case also named Dr. Rajgopal Menon as a defendant. "Similar cases exist throughout Canada, but Gay v. Menon is the first to reach an opposed certification hearing," says Mr. Glaspell, whose practice is on the defense side of class actions. But plaintiff-side lawyer Joel Rochon of Toronto's Rochon Genova LLP says the decision is problematic. "At the end of the day, the judge lost sight of some fundamental questions that underlie certification and misconstrued some other questions as well as the facts," he says. The case arose after a hospital in Miramichi, N.B., dismissed Dr. Menon. Dr. Menon ran its pathology laboratory. The hospital subsequently complained to the College of Physicians & Surgeons of New Brunswick about him over allegations of clinical error, bad turnaround time, and lack of quality assurance and control in the lab. The hospital also conducted an external peer review of Dr. Menon's work from 1995 to 2007. The hospital informed the plaintiffs and other patients of the review and told them it would communicate the findings to them. The review embraced some 23,080 specimens involving about 15,700 patients. Of these specimens, 5,267 had some changes to the original pathology report. At the same time, 370 cases had a complete change in findings. Of these, 101 were cancer-related diagnoses that changed from benign to malignant. Another 10 of them changed from malignant to benign. The representative plaintiffs pleaded negligence against Dr. Menon and the hospital. They also pleaded vicarious liability, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty against the hospital. In addition, they claimed damages for stress as a result of learning their biopsy specimens were under review. None of the allegations have been proven in court. Two of the representative plaintiffs had no changes in their pathology reports. The third initially tested negative. He saw another pathologist who concluded the test was positive and began treatments that ended before the hospital informed him of the review. None of the representative plaintiffs were diagnosed with depression, treated by a health-care professional or took medication as a result of the review. Justice Ouellette found that causes of action existed against both the hospital and Dr. Menon. But "proof of these allegations inevitably breaks down into individual claims," he concluded. "Each claimant must . . . make proof of Dr. Menon's misinterpretation of their initial tissue sample, i.e. that Dr. Menon fell below the standard of care expected of a reasonable and prudent pathologist in the circumstances; his failure to meet the standard of care expected of him resulted in injury suffered by the individual claimant and that the injury suffered is one that is compensable in law," Justice Ouellette wrote. It followed, Judge Ouellette reasoned, that a class action wasn't the preferable procedure for resolving the matter. "A great deal of work at a common issue trial will be of no utility for an individual claimant and will offer little in the way of judicial economy," he wrote. But Mr. Rochon says it's "quite evident" that there was a serious in the pathology processes undertaken by Dr. Menon for which the hospital was vicariously liable. "The facts of this case approach the high-water mark for systemic negligence in medical settings in Canada and in these circumstances, the standard of care cannot properly be characterized as an individual issue," he says. "As for the reasoning that causation is an individual issue, the reality is that there are always individual causation issues when product liability or other actions in negligence engage personal injury." The plaintiffs intended to seek leave to appeal at a hearing on March 29. "This is a very important case that the court needs to examine carefully on appeal," Mr. Rochon says. GOV'T OF CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Halibut Allocation ----------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a commercial fisherman claims in a class action that Canada allocated 85% of the annual Pacific halibut catch to commercial fishermen and 15% to recreational ones, "without using a market-based mechanism," in Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Malcolm v. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Case No. T-57712 (B.C. Fed. Ct.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/27/Halibut.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph J. Arvay, Q.C., Esq. Alison Latimer, Esq. ARVAY FINLAY 1350-355 Burrard Street Vancouver BC V6C 2G8 Telephone: (604) 689-4421 HSBC USA: Mediation Ongoing in Antitrust Suit Pending in New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mediation is ongoing in the consolidated class action lawsuit filed against banks, including, HSBC USA Inc., and Visa Inc. and MasterCard Incorporated in connection with supracompetitive levels of merchant discount fees paid by retailers remains pending in a New York federal court, according to HSBC's February 27, 2012 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. Since June 2005, HSBC Bank USA, HSBC Finance Corporation, HSBC North America and HSBC, as well as other banks and Visa Inc. and MasterCard Incorporated, have been named as defendants in four class actions filed in Connecticut and the Eastern District of New York: Photos Etc. Corp. et al v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., et al.(D. Conn. No. 3:05-CV-01007 (WWE)); National Association of Convenience Stores, et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., et al.(E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV 4520 (JG)); Jethro Holdings, Inc., et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al. (E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV-4521(JG)); and American Booksellers Asps' v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al. (E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV- 5391 (JG)). Numerous other complaints containing similar allegations (in which no HSBC entity is named) were filed across the country against Visa Inc., MasterCard Incorporated and other banks. These actions principally allege that the imposition of a no-surcharge rule by the associations and/or the establishment of the interchange fee charged for credit card transactions causes the merchant discount fee paid by retailers to be set at supracompetitive levels in violation of the Federal antitrust laws. These suits have been consolidated and transferred to the Eastern District of New York. The consolidated case is: In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1720, E.D.N.Y. ("MDL 1720"). A consolidated, amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs on April 24, 2006 and a second consolidated amended complaint was filed on January 29, 2009. On February 7, 2011, MasterCard Incorporated, Visa Inc., the other defendants, including HSBC Bank USA, and certain affiliates of the defendants entered into settlement and judgment sharing agreements (the "Agreements") that provide for the apportionment of certain defined costs and liabilities that the defendants, including HSBC Bank USA and the Company's affiliates, may incur, jointly and/or severally, in the event of an adverse judgment or global settlement of one or all of these actions. The Agreements also cover any other potential or future actions that are transferred for coordinated pre-trial proceedings with MDL 1720. While the Company continues to believe that it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims in this action, the parties are engaged in a mediation process at the direction of the District Court. Based on progress to date in mediation, the Company increased its litigation reserves in the fourth quarter of 2011 to an amount equal to its estimated portion of a potential settlement of this matter. HSBC USA: Continues to Defend in Madoff-Related Class Suits ----------------------------------------------------------- HSBC USA Inc. continues to defend itself from several lawsuits, which include purported class action lawsuits, relating to Bernard L. Madoff's Ponzi scheme, according to the Company's February 27, 2012 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. In December 2008, Madoff was arrested for running a Ponzi scheme and a trustee was appointed for the liquidation of his firm, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC ("Madoff Securities"), an SEC-registered broker-dealer and investment adviser. Various non-U.S. HSBC companies provided custodial, administration and similar services to a number of funds incorporated outside the United States whose assets were invested with Madoff Securities. Plaintiffs (including funds, funds investors and the Madoff Securities trustee) have commenced Madoff-related proceedings against numerous defendants in a multitude of jurisdictions. Various HSBC companies have been named as defendants in suits in the United States, Ireland, Luxembourg and other jurisdictions. Certain suits (which included four U.S. putative class actions) allege that the HSBC defendants knew or should have known of Madoff's fraud and breached various duties to the funds and fund investors. In November 2011, the District Court judge overseeing three putative class actions in the Southern District of New York, captioned In re Herald, Primeo and Thema Funds Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y. Nos. 09-CV-0289 (RMB), 09-CV-2558 (RMB)), dismissed all claims against the HSBC defendants on forum non conveniens grounds, but temporarily stayed this ruling as to one of the actions against the HSBC defendants -- the claims of investors in Thema International Fund plc -- in light of a proposed amended settlement agreement between the lead plaintiff in that action and the relevant HSBC defendants (including, subject to the granting of leave to effect a proposed pleading amendment, HSBC Bank USA). In December 2011, the District Court lifted this temporary stay and dismissed all remaining claims against the HSBC defendants, and declined to consider preliminary approval of the settlement. In light of the District Court's decision, HSBC has terminated the settlement agreement. The Thema plaintiff contests HSBC's right to terminate. Plaintiffs in all three actions have filed notices of appeal to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. INT'L DEVELOPMENT: Sued Over Deceptive Business Practices --------------------------------------------------------- Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that a for-profit school offering counterterrorism programs is "preying on the hopes and dreams of vulnerable students" by lying about post-graduation job prospects, leaving graduates jobless and unable to pay off student loans, a graduate claims in a Los Angeles Superior Court class action. Brian Wilhelm says he was in a state of "economic despair" when he enrolled at defendant International Development Center's campus in Hollywood, seeking its "Homeland Security and Investigation Fast- Track Diploma." He paid $15,000 in tuition and was an A student, Mr. Wilhelm says, but he ended up jobless in a government-assisted shelter, saddled with student loans. "This lawsuit arises out of the fraudulent and deceptive business practices of defendant International Career Development College, Inc. This for-profit corporation has churned out graduates from the Homeland Security and Investigation Fast-Track Diploma program and/or Homeland Security Associate's Degree program, many of whom have little or no hope of working at the United States Homeland Security Department at any point in their careers or find similar employment. This for-profit college has misled students into enrolling into its educational programs by adopting misleading/deceptive names for its educational programs, adopting a practice of misrepresenting its post-graduation employment statistics, and by making other misleading and false representations," the complaint states. ICDC College offers diploma and associate's degree programs through four schools in California, according to the complaint. Mr. Wilhelm says both programs advertise hands-on training, though the associate program, which ICDC markets as helping students "'protect, defend and respond to terrorist attacks,'" is offered only online. "Indeed, this online program provides little to no hands-on training and the online-classes can be completed by a student without the student actually reading the material. For example, a student need only click a button on the screen for ICDC to consider that class completed 'successfully' (i.e. there is no quality control of the education)," the complaint states. (24) Mr. Wilhelm says that ICDC touts "some of its security guard programs as 'Homeland Security' in order to mislead prospective students," and boasts of a post-graduation employment rate of 95 percent, though the school factors in part-time work and jobs unrelated to its programs. "At the end of the day, ICDC is more concerned with raking in millions of dollars in tuition and fees than educating and training its students. The disservice ICDC is doing to its students and society generally is readily apparent. Many ICDC Homeland Security Program graduates will never be offered work in the United States Homeland Security Department or otherwise be in a position to profit from their enrollment in ICDC's Homeland Security Programs. And they will be forced to repay hundreds of thousands of dollars in school loans that are nearly impossible to discharge, even in bankruptcy," according to the complaint. Mr. Wilhelm says the average debt for a student graduating from the 2011 programs was $10,000 to $14,000. He claims that many ICDC graduates end up insolvent, homeless or working as security guards, "a position which generally does not require an education beyond high school." "ICDC attracts students by making glamorous representations of what jobs students will obtain from the Homeland Security Programs[;] these representations include images of individuals fighting for their country, wearing war type of clothing, carrying war type weapons and informing prospective students that they will take classes on 'weapons of mass destruction' and 'terrorism and crime.' These representations are made despite the fact that most graduates of these programs will not work for the United States Homeland Security Department or be close to any weapons of mass destruction and if they are close to any weapons of mass destruction they will not have the adequate training to protect themselves from it," the lawsuit states. Mr. Wilhelm is represented by Rosa Vigil-Gallenberg of Beverly Hills. He seeks an injunction, $15 million in compensatory and punitive damages, and restitution of more than $15 million, for unfair business practices, false advertising, intentional fraud, negligent misrepresentation, violation of The Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and unjust enrichment. Neither the law firm nor ICDC immediately responded to requests for comment. JAMBA INC: Made Payments Pursuant to Suit Settlement Last Month --------------------------------------------------------------- Jamba, Inc. paid in February 2012 claims in connection with its settlement of a class action lawsuit in California, according to the Company's March 9, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended January 3, 2012. Two putative class action lawsuits, brought on behalf of former employees against the Company, were granted final Court approval during August and December of 2011. These lawsuits, brought in 2009 and 2010, respectively, alleged the Company failed to comply with various California labor laws. In August 2010, after engaging in settlement negotiations, the Company reached settlements for two of the lawsuits, each on a California statewide basis. The settlements were memorialized into definitive settlement agreements during 2011. One lawsuit was settled in November 2011 and a designated claims administrator was charged with managing the claims. The other lawsuit gave class members the opportunity to participate or to opt-out, and to submit claims no later than November 2011. The Company paid these claims in February 2012. The settlements for these two lawsuits, which totaled $1.9 million, $0.5 million of which was paid in fiscal 2011, did not include any admission of wrongdoing by the Company. As of January 3, 2012, the Company has an accrual of $1.4 million for the payout, based on the claims submitted by the class members. LAKESHORE LEARNING: Recalls 4,300 Baby Dolls Due to Choking Risk ---------------------------------------------------------------- About 3,900 Feels Real Baby Dolls in the United States of America and 400 in Canada were voluntarily recalled by importer, Lakeshore Learning Materials of Carson, California, and manufacturer, Yan Hong Toys, Dongguan, China, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Consumers should stop using the product immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The fingers and toes of the dolls can detach, posing a choking hazard to young children. No incidents or injuries have been reported. Feels Real Baby Dolls are 14-inch high plastic dolls with movable arms, legs, and head. The dolls are Hispanic, Caucasian, Asian and Black and are dressed in diapers with a colored hearts, stars and swirl print. Two labels are sewn inside the back of the diaper. "Lakeshore" is written on the larger label. The number "550200" is written on the smaller label. A picture of the recalled products is available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12728.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Lakeshore Learning Materials catalogs and online at http://www.lakeshorelearning.com/from May 2011 through January 2012 for about $20. Consumers should immediately take these dolls away from children and contact the Company for a free replacement doll. For additional information, please contact Lakeshore Learning Materials at (800) 428-4414 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time Monday through Friday, or visit the Company's Web site at http://www.lakeshorelearning.com/. Lakeshore Learning Materials is contacting its customers directly. MORGAN STANLEY: ERISA Class Suit Remains Pending in New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A consolidated purported class action proceeding against Morgan Stanley alleging Employee Retiree Income Security Act claims remain pending in a New York federal court, according to the Company's February 27, 2012 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. Beginning in December 2007, several purported class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "SDNY") asserting claims on behalf of participants in the Company's 401(k) plan and employee stock ownership plan against the Company and other parties, including certain present and former directors and officers, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). In February 2008, these actions were consolidated in a single proceeding, which is styled In re Morgan Stanley ERISA Litigation. The consolidated complaint relates in large part to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses, but also includes allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's common stock was not a prudent investment and that risks associated with its common stock and its financial condition were not adequately disclosed. Plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, costs, interest and fees. On December 9, 2009, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. No further updates were disclosed in the Form 10-K. MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend "Coulter" Suit -------------------------------------------------- Morgan Stanley continues to defend itself from a purported class action lawsuit styled Coulter v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated et al., according to the Company's February 27, 2012 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On March 16, 2011, a purported class action, styled Coulter v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting claims on behalf of participants in the Company's 401(k) plan and employee stock ownership plan against the Company and certain current and former officers and directors for breach of fiduciary duties under ERISA. The complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants knew or should have known that from January 2, 2008 to December 31, 2008, the plans' investment in Company stock was imprudent given the extraordinary risks faced by the Company and its common stock during that period. Plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, costs, interest and fees. On July 20, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and on October 28, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. MORGAN STANLEY: "Stratte-McClure" Suit Remains Pending in NY ------------------------------------------------------------ A purported class action lawsuit filed by Joel Stratee-McClure against Morgan Stanley remains pending in a New York federal court, according to the Company's February 27, 2012 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On February 12, 2008, a plaintiff filed a purported class action, which was amended on November 24, 2008, naming the Company and certain present and former senior executives as defendants and asserting claims for violations of the securities laws. The amended complaint, which is styled Joel Stratte-McClure, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al., is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Subject to certain exclusions, the amended complaint asserts claims on behalf of a purported class of persons and entities who purchased shares of the Company's common stock during the period June 20, 2007 to December 19, 2007 and who suffered damages as a result of such purchases. The allegations in the amended complaint relate in large part to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses, but also include allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. Plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, costs, interest and fees. On April 27, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On April 4, 2011, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss and granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint with respect to certain of their allegations. On June 9, 2011, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in response to the court's order of April 4, 2011. On August 8, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. No further updates were disclosed in the Form 10-K. MORGAN STANLEY: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Morgan Stanley is awaiting a court ruling on its motion to dismiss a purported third amended class action complaint filed in relation to its offerings of mortgage pass through certificates in 2006, according to the Company's February 27, 2012 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On May 7, 2009, the Company was named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit brought under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), alleging, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents related to the offerings of approximately $17 billion of mortgage pass through certificates in 2006 and 2007 contained false and misleading information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations. The plaintiffs sought, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. This case, which was consolidated with an earlier lawsuit and is currently styled In re Morgan Stanley Mortgage Pass-Through Certificate Litigation, is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On August 17, 2010, the court dismissed the claims brought by the lead plaintiff, but gave a different plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint. On September 10, 2010, that plaintiff, together with several new plaintiffs, filed a second amended complaint which purported to assert claims against the Company and others on behalf of a class of investors who purchased approximately $4.7 billion of mortgage pass through certificates issued in 2006 by seven trusts collectively containing residential mortgage loans. The second amended complaint asserted claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act, and alleged, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents related to the offerings contained false and misleading information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations. The plaintiffs sought, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. On September 15, 2011, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss and granted the plaintiffs' request to file another amended complaint. On September 29, 2011, the defendants moved for reconsideration of a portion of the court's decision partially denying the motion to dismiss. On September 30, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint purporting to bring claims on behalf of a class of investors who purchased approximately $2.7 billion of mortgage pass through certificates issued in 2006 by five trusts. The defendants moved to dismiss the third amended complaint on October 17, 2011. Beginning in 2007, the Company was named as a defendant in several putative class action lawsuits brought under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act, related to its role as a member of the syndicates that underwrote offerings of securities and mortgage pass through certificates for certain non-Morgan Stanley related entities that have been exposed to subprime and other mortgage- related losses. The plaintiffs in these actions allege, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents for the offerings at issue contained material misstatements or omissions related to the extent to which the issuers were exposed to subprime and other mortgage-related risks and other matters and seek various forms of relief including class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. The Company's exposure to potential losses in these cases may be impacted by various factors including, among other things, the financial condition of the entities that issued or sponsored the securities and mortgage pass through certificates at issue, the principal amount of the offerings underwritten by the Company, the financial condition of co-defendants and the willingness and ability of the issuers (or their affiliates) to indemnify the underwriter defendants. Some of these cases, including In Re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation, In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation and In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation, relate to issuers or sponsors (or their affiliates) that have filed for bankruptcy or have been placed into receivership. MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend Cheyne-Related Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Morgan Stanley continues to defend itself from a purported class action lawsuit related to securities issued by Cheyne Finance, according to the Company's February 27, 2012 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On August 25, 2008, the Company and two ratings agencies were named as defendants in a purported class action related to securities issued by a structured investment vehicle called Cheyne Finance (the "Cheyne SIV"). The case is styled Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, et al. v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. and is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the ratings assigned to the securities issued by the SIV were false and misleading because the ratings did not accurately reflect the risks associated with the subprime RMBS held by the SIV. On September 2, 2009, the court dismissed all of the claims against the Company except for plaintiffs' claims for common law fraud. On June 15, 2010, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On July 20, 2010, the court granted plaintiffs leave to replead their aiding and abetting common law fraud claims against the Company, and those claims were added in an amended complaint filed on August 5, 2010. On December 27, 2011, the court permitted plaintiffs to reinstate their causes of action for negligent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty against the Company. The Company moved to dismiss these claims on January 10, 2012. On January 5, 2012, the court permitted plaintiffs to amend their complaint and assert a negligence claim against the Company. The amended complaint was filed on January 9, 2012 and the Company moved to dismiss the negligence claim on January 17, 2012. On January 23, 2012, the Company moved for summary judgment with respect to the fraud and aiding and abetting fraud claims. Plaintiffs have not alleged the amount of their alleged investments, and are seeking, among other relief, unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. There are 15 plaintiffs in this action asserting claims related to approximately $983 million of securities issued by the SIV. MORGAN STANLEY: Rhinebridge-Related Suit Remains Pending in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A purported class action lawsuit filed against Morgan Stanley in connection with securities issued by Rhinebridge plc remains pending in New York, according to the Company's February 27, 2012 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On June 10, 2010, the Company was named as a new defendant in a pre-existing purported class action related to securities issued by a structured investment vehicle called Rhinebridge plc ("Rhinebridge SIV"). The case is styled King County, Washington, et al. v. IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG, et al. and is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint asserts claims for common law fraud and aiding and abetting common law fraud and alleges, among other things, that the ratings assigned to the securities issued by the SIV were false and misleading, including because the ratings did not accurately reflect the risks associated with the subprime RMBS held by the SIV. On July 15, 2010, the Company moved to dismiss the complaint. That motion was denied on October 29, 2010. On December 27, 2011, the court permitted plaintiffs to amend their complaint and assert causes of action for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty against the Company. The amended complaint was filed on January 10, 2012 and the Company moved to dismiss the negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty claims on January 31, 2012. The case is pending before the same judge presiding over the litigation concerning the Cheyne SIV. While reserving their ability to act otherwise, plaintiffs have indicated that they do not currently plan to file a motion for class certification. Plaintiffs have not alleged the amount of their alleged investments, and are seeking, among other relief, unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. OCMAC LLC: Accused of Unlicensed Debt Collection in Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------ Wayne Washington, individually and on behalf of the class defined herein, and People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Wayne Washington v. OCMAC, LLC, Case No. 2012-CH-10256 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., March 21, 2012) seeks redress for the conduct of the Defendant in taking collection actions prohibited by the Illinois Collection Agency Act. Although required to be licensed on January 1, 2008, OCMAC did not obtain a license until April 24, 2009, the Plaintiff said. The Plaintiff contends that OCMAC, although still unlicensed during the intervening period, collected debts from debtors located in Illinois by means of interstate communication, including telephone, mail, or facsimile transmission from a location in another state. Wayne Washington is a resident of Cook County, Illinois. OCMAC is a limited liability company chartered under Missouri law, which does business in Illinois. OCMAC purchases or claims to purchase charged-off consumer debts and enforces the debts against the consumers by filing collection lawsuits and otherwise. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Cathleen M. Combs, Esq. James O. Latturner, Esq. Francis R. Greene, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 739-4200 Facsimile: (312) 419-0379 E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com ccombs@edcombs.com jlatturner@edcombs.com PFIZER INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Cheryl Armstrong at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge refused to dismiss Pfizer and five of its executives from a securities class action that accuses them of concealing the results of studies of Celebrex and Bextra. Lead plaintiff Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana claimed that Pfizer and its top executives "violated federal securities laws by concealing the results of medical studies concerning two Pfizer drugs, Celebrex and Bextra, and by making misstatements and omissions in their public filings and statements concerning the company," according to the 9-page Memorandum Opinion and Order from U.A. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain. The defendant corporate officers are Henry McKinnell, John LaMattina, Karen Katen, Joseph Feczko and Gail Cawkwell. "In July 2008, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint ('CCAC'). Relying on statements in the CCAC allegedly made by four former Pharmacia employees (the 'Quoted Former Employees'), the Court found that plaintiffs had adequately pleaded scienter, and sustained plaintiffs' claims . . . . Defendants' now move for reconsideration . . . contending that the statements attributed to the quoted former employees were taken out of context and misrepresented, and that the CCAC should be dismissed," Jude Swain wrote. Pfizer claimed that the "quoted former employees" were surprised to learn about the lawsuit, had no knowledge that the class action relied on their statements for claims of wrongdoing, that they were not employees of Pfizer and therefore had no knowledge of what Pfizer or its employees were privy to, believed their statements were delivered to the court in a deceptive fashion, and never told anyone or believed that Pfizer concealed evidence that Bextra and Celebrex were unsafe. But Judge Swain wrote: "Here, the CCAC represented that plaintiffs' counsel had been involved in communications to which they were not directly party, and took -- at a minimum -- an aggressive approach to inferences, in combination with selective quotations from identified individuals. These individuals -- some five years after the fact -- disagree vehemently with the inferences by the plaintiffs and are equivocal as to whether they made the statements attributed to them in the CCAC. Plaintiffs, in turn, proffer that there is evidence that the witnesses were not as removed from the events and reporting lines in question as they now claim, particularly in light of the witness involvement in co-promotion activities between Pharmacia and Pfizer with respect to the drugs in question. The situation, thus, is quite different from that in Boeing, [City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System b. The Boeing Co., N.D. Ill. March 7, 2011] where the court was persuaded that counsel had made fundamental factual misrepresentations, and where there was no evidence connecting the corroborating details proferred in the complaint to the individual to whom the confidential statements were attributed. "The record now before the court is insufficient to warrant reconsideration of the decision denying the motion to dismiss the CCAC. Nor does it demonstrate clearly the level of bad faith conduct that might warrant the imposition of a terminal sanction dismissing the plaintiffs' claims. Accordingly, defendants' motion for reconsideration and their request for dismissal of the CCAC are denied, without prejudice to future summary judgment or other sanctions-related motion practice." Bextra was pulled from the market in 2005, due to concerns about increased risk of heart attack and stroke. Celebrex, also a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, suffered adverse publicity when it was linked in the public mind to Bextra and another NSAID drug that was pulled from the shelves, Vioxx. Celebrex has not been pulled from the market. The plaintiffs in the securities class action claim Pfizer made misrepresentations and omissions in public filings and statements between Oct. 31, 2000 and Oct. 19, 2005. A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order in In Re Pfizer Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-cv-09866 (S.D.N.Y.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/27/PfizerOrder.pdf PSE&G CO: Continues to Defend Action Pending in New Jersey BPU -------------------------------------------------------------- Public Service Electric and Gas Company continues to defend itself from an action filed in the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities over stranded cost charges, according to the Company's February 27, 2012 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. In 2007, PSE&G and Transition Funding were served with a purported class action complaint (Complaint) in New Jersey Superior Court challenging the constitutional validity of certain stranded cost recovery provisions of the Competition Act, seeking injunctive relief against continued collection from PSE&G's electric customers of the Transition Bond Charge (TBC) of Transition Funding, as well as recovery of TBC amounts previously collected. Under New Jersey law, the Competition Act, enacted in 1999, is presumed constitutional. Also in 2007, the plaintiff filed an amended Complaint to also seek injunctive relief from continued collection of related taxes as well as recovery of such taxes previously collected. In October 2007, the Court granted PSE&G's motion to dismiss the amended Complaint and in November 2007, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court (Appellate Division). In February 2009, the Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the lower court dismissing the case. In May 2009, the New Jersey Supreme Court denied a request from the plaintiff to review the Appellate Division's decision. In July 2007, the same plaintiff also filed a petition with the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities requesting review and adjustment to PSE&G's recovery of the same stranded cost charges. In September 2007, PSE&G filed a motion with the BPU to dismiss the petition. In June 2010, the BPU granted PSE&G's motion to dismiss. In April 2011, the BPU issued a written order memorializing this decision. In June 2011, the plaintiff/petitioner filed a notice of appeal of the BPU action with the Appellate Division. PSE&G is currently in the briefing stage of this appeal. No further updates were disclosed in the Form 10-K. PUBLIC SERVICE: Parent Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk "Comer" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Xcel Energy Inc., the parent of Public Service Company of Colorado, is awaiting a court ruling on its motion to dismiss a purported class action lawsuit styled Comer vs. Xcel Energy Inc., et al., according to the Company's February 27, 2012 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On May 27, 2011, less than a year after their initial lawsuit was dismissed, plaintiffs in the purported class action lawsuit styled Comer vs. Xcel Energy Inc. et al. filed a second lawsuit against more than 85 utility, oil, chemical and coal companies in U.S. District Court in Mississippi. The complaint alleges defendants' CO2 emissions intensified the strength of Hurricane Katrina and increased the damage plaintiffs purportedly sustained to their property. Plaintiffs base their claims on public and private nuisance, trespass and negligence. Among the defendants named in the complaint are Xcel Energy Inc., Southwestern Public Service Company, Northern States Power Company, a Wisconsin corporation, and Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation. The amount of damages claimed by plaintiffs is unknown. The defendants, including Xcel Energy Inc., believe this lawsuit is without merit and have filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. It is uncertain when the court will rule on this motion. While Xcel Energy Inc. believes the likelihood of loss is remote, given the nature of this case and any surrounding uncertainty, it may have a material impact on PSCo's consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position. No accrual has been recorded for this matter. R.J. REYNOLDS: High Court Won't Hear Appeal in Tobacco Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- James Vicini, writing for Reuters, reports that the U.S. Supreme Court said on March 26 it will not hear an appeal by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co in a Florida case in which it was ordered to pay $28.3 million to a woman whose husband died of lung cancer after decades of smoking its cigarettes. The justices refused an appeal by the Reynolds American Inc unit, which argued that its constitutional due process rights had been violated and that the issue could affect thousands of pending cases in Florida against tobacco companies. In 2009, a state trial court in Pensacola, Florida, ordered Reynolds to pay more than $3.3 million in compensatory damages and $25 million in punitive damages to Mathilde Martin. Her husband, Benny Martin, died in 1995 of lung cancer that she blamed on his long-time smoking of Reynolds' Lucky Strike cigarettes. The jury found that Reynolds was 66 percent responsible for his death and that Mr. Martin, who started smoking in the 1940s before cigarette packages had health warnings, was 34 percent responsible. The lawsuit stemmed from the so-called "Engle progeny" cases filed against tobacco companies by sick Florida smokers or their relatives. A class--action lawsuit filed in 1994 by a pediatrician, the late Dr. Howard Engle, produced a $145 billion judgment against cigarette makers six years later. The Florida Supreme Court overturned the Engle award in 2006 and ruled that the state's smokers could not sue as a class. But it allowed them to sue individually and upheld the trial jury's findings that smoking causes disease, that nicotine is addictive, that cigarettes are defective and dangerous, and that tobacco companies concealed the health effects of smoking. In its appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, R.J. Reynolds argued the state court in the Martin case precluded litigation of issues that had not been necessarily decided during the Engle proceedings, violating its due process rights. The tobacco companies have been ordered to pay more than $375 million in 60 of the cases arising from the Engle litigation, Reynolds said. Trial dates have been set for 75 more suits for this year. The Supreme Court case is R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co v. Mathilde Martin, No. 11-754. SNC-LAVALIN: CEO Steps Down Amid Shareholder Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Madhavi Acharya-Tom Yew, writing for Toronto Star, reports that a $56 million missing payment mystery toppled SNC-Lavalin's CEO as the company handed the results of a month-long internal investigation over to legal authorities. Chief executive officer Pierre Duhaime is the third executive to exit the embattled engineering giant since last month. Mr. Duhaime resigned on March 26, following revelations he breached the company's code of ethics for approving the payments without authorization after the CFO had rejected them. That's about the only straightforward part of the report into the questionable payments, which raises more questions than it answers. It reveals payments to contracts that didn't exist, mysterious agents whose identity "is without substance," and staffers using e-mails and password-protected devices that the company couldn't access. Gwyn Morgan, chair of SNC's board of directors, insisted the payments did not go to operations in Libya. But by the company's own admission, the report is inconclusive. "They state there's no evidence to suggest it was related to their projects in Libya. Later they state they can't determine who actually received the money because the recipients appear to be fictitious," said Richard Powers, business law and ethics professor at the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management. "It's hard to know how they can say that." Yet investors bet that the worst was over for the firm, sending the company's stock 5 per cent higher in trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange. SNC-Lavalin is one of Canada's most international companies, with construction, infrastructure and engineering projects in 100 countries around the world. Mr. Morgan acknowledged that the incident tarnishes the company's reputation, but he urged perspective given the overall size of the company, which had more than $7 billion (U.S.) in revenue last year. The company earned $76 million in its latest quarter. SNC also assured investors and analysts on a conference call that it has called in the authorities. "The company is in the process of contacting and will be passing on any information we have with regards to the payments -- basically the inconclusive results of our investigation -- to the relevant authorities," Mr. Morgan said. Based on the results of the investigation, Mr. Morgan said the board doesn't believe the money was used for bribes or wound up in Libya. But he acknowledged it wasn't "able to really determine the use of those payments." "We did our best to find out everything we could about the course of those payments and haven't been able to do so. At this point, there is no further action we can take," he said. The company said improper payments are a result of "management override, flawed design or ineffective enforcement of controls" in relation to hiring agents for two of its projects. SNC said the company's CFO refused to approve the payments, but Mr. Duhaime stepped in to allow the payments to be made. "The CEO's authorization of these payments did not comply with the Agents Policy and therefore was in breach of the Code (of Ethics)," the company's internal review found. Using agents is a normal part of doing business by construction firms, especially in foreign countries. They are contracted to arrange permits and help execute projects. But, Mr. Morgan said the size of these payments was unusual. He said the three-year average payments to the agents was around $700,000. The company did not disclose which projects were involved in the investigation -- referring to them only as "Projects A and B." The internal document shows that payments on Project B were made via Tunisia. Past company filings show that Mr. Duhaime, who spent 23 years with SNC, earned a base salary of $800,000 in 2010, along with a bonus of $1.3 million. He also has shares and stock options worth about $1.46 million. Among the findings of the report: * Third parties have been unresponsive or reluctant to provide information regarding their operations or their clients' affairs. * Some former employees have conducted company affairs using non-corporate e-mail addresses or had password protected devices to which the company does not have access. * The interpretation of improper documentation cannot be definitive . . . because it is known to be inaccurate. Last month, the company's board launched an investigation over the circumstances surrounding $35 million in payments, which had previously been thought to possibly relate to its involvement in Libya. The ties sparked criticism that it was excessively cosy with the former Gadhafi regime. Around that time it also parted ways with executive vice-president of construction, Riadh Ben Aissa and vice-president finance Stephane Roy, saying that the conduct of its employees had recently been questioned. In a press release on March 26, the company said Mr. Aissa -- who is apparently not co-operating with the investigation -- authorized the signing of agreements for the projects, which were improperly documented. It said Mr. Aissa "is believed to have significant knowledge about most of the investigated transactions, but has not been met despite a request to his counsel." It added that Mr. Roy may also have knowledge, but he has not been interviewed since prior to his dismissal in February. "The independent review has found not direct and conclusive evidence establishing the nature of the services or actions undertaken by, or the true identity of, the presumed agent," the report reads. "From the business intelligence gathered, the named counterparty appears to be without substance, and the true principal involved in the transaction does not appear to be an individual named on the public registers of the counterparty." From what has come to light so far, observers say the company is handling the situation as well as it can. Mr. Morgan "has a stellar reputation in the business community. I would expect nothing less than him being as transparent as possible," Mr. Powers said. "These are the types of things that really test a company's mettle. At this stage, it's a bit early to pronounce a verdict but coming out, taking full responsibility and taking action is all they can do at this stage until they know further information." The company said that vice chair Ian Bourne will also assume the function of interim CEO until a new chief executive is hired to replace Mr. Duhaime. Earlier this month, a class-action lawsuit was filed on behalf of shareholders who acquired its securities between March 2009 and February 2012. The suit is seeking $250 million in damages from the Montreal- based company in relation to the millions in mysterious payments. SNC denies all liability in respect of the claims alleged in the proposed class-action. STATE OF FLORIDA: Child Care Class Action Nears Conclusion ---------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that a long-running lawsuit claiming Florida's Medicaid program provided inadequate care to poor children is nearing an end after more than seven years. Closing arguments were set for March 26 and March 27 before a Miami federal judge following a trial that spanned two years. The lawsuit was filed in 2004 by Florida pediatricians and pediatric dentists as a class-action case representing some 1.7 million children. The health providers say the state is violating federal law by not providing adequate medical and dental care to the youngest Medicaid recipients. State officials have testified that children do in fact have adequate access to care and that the program's problems have been exaggerated. After the closing arguments it will be up to the judge to decide. There's no timetable for a ruling. TOBACCO COMPANIES: High Court Rejects Appeals in Smokers' Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Brent Kendall, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports that the U.S. Supreme Court on March 26 rejected tobacco industry appeals that sought to challenge the manner in which Florida courts are handling thousands of individual personal injury lawsuits brought by smokers and their families. The tobacco industry argued that Florida courts have not required plaintiffs to prove key elements of their claims. Tobacco companies said the Florida legal procedures robbed them of constitutional protections. The thousands of individual smoking cases arose after the Florida Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that smokers couldn't continue to proceed with one large class-action lawsuit against tobacco companies. The state high court, however, said certain jury findings in early stages of the class action should apply in the subsequent individual lawsuits. Those include findings that the tobacco industry sold defective products and concealed the dangers of smoking. Lawyers for smokers and their families said their clients still have to prove several key parts of their individual cases and won't be entitled to collect large monetary awards merely by walking into court. Plaintiffs also accused the industry of changing its legal arguments throughout the cases. Tobacco companies said in court documents that more than 50 cases have been tried to verdict, resulting in judgments against the industry totaling more than $375 million. The companies appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court include R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a subsidiary of Reynolds American Inc. (RAI); Philip Morris USA, a subsidiary of Altria Group Inc. (MO); and Liggett Group LLC, a subsidiary of Vector Group Ltd. (VGR). The high court rejected their appeals without comment. TRANSATLANTIC HOLDINGS: Inked MoU to Resolve Merger-Related Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Transatlantic Holdings, Inc., entered into a memorandum of understanding to resolve putative class action lawsuits challenging the Company's separate merger agreements with Allied World Assurance Company Holdings, AG, and Alleghany Corporation, according to the Company's February 27, 2012 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. In connection with the since-terminated Allied-merger agreement, five putative stockholder class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and the members of the Board challenging the merger contemplated by the Allied World Merger Agreement: Ivers v. Transatlantic Holdings, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 6574-VCP (Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware), Clark v. Transatlantic Holdings, Inc., et al., Index No. 651706/2011 (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York), Sutton v. Transatlantic Holdings, Inc., et al., Index No. 651705/2011 (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York), Jaroslawicz v. Transatlantic Holdings, Inc., et al., Index No. 651718/2011 (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York), and Kramer v. Transatlantic Holdings, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 6626-VCP (Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware). Each lawsuit named the Company, the members of the Board, and Allied World as defendants. Four of the lawsuits also named GO Sub LLC as a defendant, and the Sutton lawsuit named a former director of the Company as a defendant. Each of the lawsuits asserted that the members of the Board breached a fiduciary duty in connection with the approval of the merger of GO Sub with and into the Company pursuant to the terms of the Allied World Merger Agreement (the "Allied World Merger"), and that Allied World and its subsidiaries aided and abetted the alleged breaches of a fiduciary duty. The Clark action also alleged that the Company aided and abetted its directors' alleged breach of a fiduciary duty. The lawsuits sought to enjoin the Allied World Merger, among other relief. On June 29, 2011, defendants moved to dismiss or stay the three New York actions in favor of the virtually identical proceedings pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery. On July 25, 2011, the plaintiffs in the three New York actions moved to consolidate those actions into a single action. On October 18, 2011, the parties stipulated that each of these actions would be discontinued without prejudice. The Court entered the parties' stipulation the following day. On July 21, 2011, Vice Chancellor Parsons of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware entered an order consolidating the two Delaware actions. Under that order, the Delaware plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on August 1, 2011 alleging that the Board breached a fiduciary duty by approving certain deal measures that purportedly privileged the Allied World Merger over other potential proposals, including a proposal from Validus Holdings, Ltd. ("Validus"), and by allegedly failing to include material information in the Company's proxy materials, and that Allied World and GO Sub aided and abetted such breaches. Additionally, on August 1, 2011, the Delaware plaintiffs filed a motion to expedite proceedings and a motion for a preliminary injunction, both of which the Company opposed. At a conference held on August 22, 2011, the court declined to set a hearing date on the Delaware plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and, except for a very narrow issue, denied the Delaware plaintiffs' motion for expedited discovery. On October 10, 2011, the Delaware plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint alleging that the Board breached a fiduciary duty (and that Allied World and GO Sub aided and abetted such breach) by, among other things, adopting and refusing to rescind a shareholder rights plan, approving certain payments to Allied World in conjunction with the termination agreement, dated September 15, 2011, among the Company, Allied World and GO Sub (the "Termination Agreement") and approving a share repurchase program. The second amended complaint also asserted derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the Board, Allied World and GO Sub, a claim for unjust enrichment against Allied World and GO Sub, and a derivative claim for declaratory relief that the Termination Agreement is null and void. The lawsuit sought the return of any payments from the Company to Allied World pursuant to the Termination Agreement, among other relief. On October 24, 2011, defendants moved to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint. On December 21, 2011, the Delaware plaintiffs filed their third consolidated amended complaint. This third consolidated amended complaint added Alleghany Corporation and Shoreline Merger Sub, Inc. as defendants, and alleged that the members of the Board breached a fiduciary duty in connection with the approval of the Alleghany Merger and that Alleghany and Shoreline aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. In addition, this third consolidated amended complaint retained its allegations against Allied World and its subsidiaries. On January 6, 2012, defendants moved to dismiss the third consolidated amended complaint. In connection with the Alleghany Merger Agreement, two additional putative stockholder class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and the members of the Board challenging the merger contemplated by the Alleghany Merger Agreement: Clark v. Transatlantic Holdings, et al., Index No. 653256/2011 (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York) and Sutton v. Transatlantic Holdings, et al., Index No 653532/2011 (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York). These lawsuits asserted that the members of the Board breached a fiduciary duty in connection with the approval of the Alleghany Merger and that the Company, Alleghany and Shoreline aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. On January 4, 2012, the Company and the Board filed a motion to dismiss or stay the Clark action. On January 30, 2012, the Company entered into a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs regarding the settlement of these putative stockholder class actions against the Company and its directors, Alleghany, Shoreline, Allied World, and GO Sub. The Company agreed, pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement, to make certain supplemental disclosures related to the Alleghany Merger. The memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including court approval following notice to the Company's stockholders. In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release all claims in all actions that were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the Alleghany Merger, the Alleghany Merger Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith (but excluding claims for appraisal under Section 262 of the Delaware General Corporation Law), among other claims, pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to stockholders prior to final approval of the settlement. In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will file a petition in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by the Company or its successor, which the defendants may oppose. The Company or its successor will pay or cause to be paid any attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated. UNITED EGG: Majority of Egg Price-Fixing Claims Can Proceed ----------------------------------------------------------- David Bario, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that the U.S. District Court Judge Gene E. K. Pratter of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania allowed to move forward the majority of indirect purchaser claims in a multidistrict class action suit over alleged price fixing for eggs and egg products. The ruling marks another setback for the dozen or so defendants, among them a Gettysburg egg supplier represented by Pittsburgh- based Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney. The class of plaintiffs has been joined by some of the nation's largest supermarket retailers and cafeteria contractors. Judge Pratter refused to dismiss most of the plaintiffs' state law consumer protection and unjust enrichment claims, and she rejected the defendants' arguments that the 26 named plaintiffs have no standing to bring antitrust claims under the laws of four states. As with the "direct" purchaser plaintiffs, the indirect purchasers allege that the egg producers and three industry groups conspired to fix prices over a decade by instituting mandatory cage space and "molt and kill" programs to reduce hen populations, and by agreeing to export eggs to low-cost foreign markets at a loss in order to deplete U.S. inventories. Collectively, these actions were known as the United Egg Producers Certification Program. If a producer complied with the program, it could use the program's official stamp on its products. Soon, major retailers were on board, saying they'd purchase only UEP- certified eggs. The defendants argue that the certification program was a response to consumer demand for eggs produced from chickens raised in better living conditions. Food service giant Sodexo Inc. and others argue that the egg prices were artificially inflated when the hens were killed off under the guise of more humane treatment. As a result, according to the suit, wholesale egg prices had skyrocketed by 2008. In September, Judge Pratter also refused to dismiss the direct purchasers' claims against all but two of the defendants. In their joint motion to dismiss the indirect purchaser claims, the egg producers argued that none of the named plaintiffs resided or purchased eggs in Iowa, Mississippi, North Dakota and South Dakota, and therefore they lacked standing to assert antitrust claims under the laws of those states. Judge Pratter disagreed, finding that "on their faces, the four states' statutory provisions can plainly be construed to not require in-state residency or an in-state purchase, but rather only that some of the defendants' conduct occurred, or the effects of which were felt, within the state." She also found the plaintiffs' consumer protection and unjust enrichment claims met state law guidelines in all but four states. In all, the plaintiffs allege a federal Sherman Act claim for injunctive relief, 20 state antitrust claims, nine state consumer protection claims and 21 state unjust enrichment claims. UPONOR INC: July 19 Hearing Set for Class Action Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- A settlement has been reached in a national Canadian class action commenced in Saskatchewan. The settlement is subject to the approval of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench. The class action deals with whether Uponor, Inc. or Uponor Ltd. or their predecessor Plasco Manufacturing Ltd. sold F1807 "Plumb-PEX" plumbing systems with brass insert fittings that may leak and cause property damage. The national Canadian Class Action was certified by the Honourable Justice Laing of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench on February 27, 2012. Uponor denies all claims but has agreed to settle to avoid the cost and uncertainty of a trial. Who's included? The "Class", or "Class members", comprises anyone who owns or owned a property in Canada containing a Plasco Plumb-PEX plumbing system with standard F1807 brass insert fittings. Owners of systems that have: (a) had a leak in one or more of the system's components, or (b) a water flow differential of 50% between the hot and cold lines that supply one or more fixtures could get benefits. A picture of the Plasco Plumb-PEX Plumbing System components can be found at: http://www.CanadianPlumbPexSettlement.ca What does the settlement provide? Uponor will reimburse Class members for property damage caused by a qualifying leak and pay reasonable costs associated with repair or replacement of affected components. They will also pay reasonable costs to repair or replace affected components or possibly the entire system in structures that have had two or more qualifying leaks. Persons and entities that have paid claims for qualifying leaks related to a Plasco Plumb-PEX Plumbing System component are also eligible to file a claim for reimbursement. How do you apply for benefits? To request (a) a payment for past property damage or repairs, or (b) have repairs performed on an eligible system, you must complete and submit a claim form. The claim form is available at: http://www.CanadianPlumbPexSettlement.ca The claims filing deadline will vary based on when the system's warranty expires. The earliest claims filing deadline is 18 months from the effective date of the settlement (even if that time period is after the expiry of the warranty). Once known, the effective date will be posted online at http://www.CanadianPlumbPexSettlement.ca Staying in the class or opting out? You have a choice to stay in the Class Action or not. If you submit a claim form or do nothing, you are choosing to stay in the Class Action. This means you will be legally bound by all orders and judgments of the Court, and will not be permitted to sue Uponor for legal claims resolved by this settlement. If you don't want to stay in the Class Action, you must submit a request to opt out postmarked no later than May 23, 2012. If you opt out, you cannot get benefits from this settlement, but you will keep any rights to sue Uponor for the same claims in a different lawsuit. The detailed notice explains how to submit a request to opt out. The court's settlement approval hearing. The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon will hold a hearing in this case (Jeffrey Allen v. Uponor Ltd. (fka Uponor Canada Inc. and Uponor Canada Ltd.) and Uponor Inc. (successor to Uponor North America, Inc.), Q.B. No. 1247 of 2011), on July 19, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. to consider whether to approve: the settlement, lawyers' fees, disbursements, and expenses of up to $250,000, and $5,000 in payments to the Representative Plaintiff. These fees, costs, expenses, and payments will be paid separately by Uponor and will not reduce the amount of benefits available to the Class. If approved, the settlement will release Uponor from all claims listed in the Settlement Agreement. Class members may, but are not required to, attend and make submissions at the settlement approval hearing. If you wish to make submissions regarding the settlement (whether in person or in writing), you must submit written submissions postmarked no later than May 23, 2012. The detailed notice explains how to submit written submissions or request to appear and speak at the hearing. How do you get more information? View the detailed notice, Settlement Agreement and claim form at http://www.CanadianPlumbPexSettlement.caor call toll-free 1-877- 688-9314. XL GROUP: Awaits Approval of New Jersey Class Action Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- XL Group is awaiting final court approval of a settlement resolving a class action lawsuit pending in a New Jersey court, according to the Company's February 27, 2012 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. In August 2005, plaintiffs in a proposed class action (the "Class Action") that was consolidated into a multidistrict litigation in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned In re Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1663, Civil Action No. 04-5184 (the "MDL"), filed a consolidated amended complaint (the "Amended Complaint"), which named as new defendants approximately 30 entities, including Greenwich Insurance Company, Indian Harbor Insurance Company and XL-Cayman (the "XL Defendants"). In the MDL, the Class Action plaintiffs asserted various claims purportedly on behalf of a class of commercial insureds against approximately 113 insurance companies and insurance brokers through which the named plaintiffs allegedly purchased insurance. The Amended Complaint alleged that the defendant insurance companies and insurance brokers conspired to manipulate bidding practices for insurance policies in certain insurance lines and failed to disclose certain commission arrangements and asserted statutory claims under the Sherman Act, various state antitrust laws and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), as well as common law claims alleging breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. By Opinion and Order dated August 31, 2007, the District Court dismissed the Sherman Act claims with prejudice and, by Opinion and Order dated September 28, 2007, the District Court dismissed the RICO claims with prejudice. The plaintiffs then appealed both Orders to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On August 16, 2010, the Third Circuit affirmed in large part the District Court's dismissal. The Third Circuit reversed the dismissal of certain Sherman Act and RICO claims alleged against several defendants including the XL Defendants but remanded those claims to the District Court for further consideration of their adequacy. In light of its reversal and remand of certain of the federal claims, the Third Circuit also reversed the District Court's dismissal (based on the District Court's declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction) of the state-law claims against all defendants. On October 1, 2010, the remaining defendants, including the XL Defendants, filed motions to dismiss the remanded federal claims and the state-law claims. The motions were fully briefed in November 2010. In May 2011, a majority of the remaining defendants, including the XL Defendants, executed a formal Settlement Agreement with the Class Action plaintiffs to settle the Class Action and dismiss all claims with prejudice. The settlement was preliminarily approved by the District Court in June 2011 and a final fairness hearing was held on September 14, 2011; the District Court has not yet decided the Class Action plaintiffs' motion for approval of the settlement. The XL Defendants' portion of the defendants' aggregate settlement payment is $6.75 million. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Moreland Council Expects More Work for Abaters --------------------------------------------------------------- Tessa Hoffman of the Moreland Leader reports that up to two cases of illegal asbestos dumping are reported to Moreland Council every week. The council expects dumping to spike in the lead-up to annual hard rubbish collection. It comes after the council copped criticism for taking four days to remove corrugated roofing sheets containing asbestos near a playground in Mailer Reserve, Coburg. Haig Ave. resident Julie Page said she was shocked when council workers erected fencing and warning signs around the asbestos on Saturday, March 10, more than 24 hours after she reported the dumping. Specialists removed the asbestos on Tuesday, March 13. Ms. Page said young families used the playground just meters from the dumped material over the long weekend. "I would've expected someone to have dealt with this in half an hour," Ms. Page said. "We all know what asbestos does. They should have at least covered it." Director of city infrastructure Nerina Di Lorenzo said the council removed a small amount of asbestos on March 9 following a report, and discovered a second batch near the playground the next morning. "Council's contractor removed the asbestos at their first availability, which was after the long weekend, on Tuesday, March 13," she said. Ms. Di Lorenzo said although illegal asbestos dumping incurred a $240,000 fine, the council received an average of one or two reports each week. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Pleas to Ex-workers at Ambrose Shardlow -------------------------------------------------------------- The Star (Sheffield) reports that relatives of a former Sheffield steelworker who died from asbestos-related cancer are trying to trace colleagues who might be able to shed light on how he was exposed to the deadly substance. Roger Headley worked for 40 years as a driller on crankshafts at the Tinsley site of Ambrose Shardlow, later known as GKN Shardlow and now Bifrangi UK Ltd. Roger, a father of four and grandfather of five, was diagnosed with asbestos-related mesothelioma in July 2010 and died just five months later, aged 65, on Boxing Day. His widow Jackie Headley, 67, of Beaver Hill Road, Woodhouse, is appealing for anyone who worked with Roger to get in touch if they know how he was exposed to asbestos. Mrs. Headley said: "He suffered a great deal due to his illness before he eventually passed away. "His breathing deteriorated and he became less active and mobile. It was heartbreaking to watch him suffer. "Nothing can bring him back to us but we want to get to the bottom of where he was exposed to asbestos." Roger's daughter Joanne, 34, said: "My dad was a true Sheffielder -- a real working man. He got up at 5am every day, made his packed lunch and went to work. "He never complained in all those years. He just got on with it, working to put food on the table for his family." Roger, who grew up on Skye Edge and moved to Woodhouse after marrying Jackie, was diagnosed with mesothelioma a year after retiring. He underwent chemotherapy at Weston Park Hospital but, on Dec. 22, 2010, doctors said they could do nothing more for him. Joanne said: "We brought him home and we had Christmas dinner -- all 17 of us. Then he passed away the next day." Paul Chilton, general manager at Bifrangi, said: "We are terribly sad to hear of Mr. Headley's demise. "We have an asbestos-clear certificate and as far as I know we have not had any reports of asbestos-related disease." Keith Hague, of Irwin Mitchell solicitors, said: "Because it can take up to 30 or 40 years to develop, it can sometimes be difficult to assess where somebody was exposed to asbestos. "We want to talk to Roger's former colleagues to find out more about the working conditions." ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Contaminated" Dearborn Towers Sold for $6.25MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- J. Patrick Pepper of The Press & Guide Newspapers reports that City Council on March 13 approved a $6.25 million purchase offer for the Dearborn Towers apartment complex. The agreement, first reported by Dearborn Patch, brings to an end the uncertainty that has surrounded the senior-living facility since Dearborn voters approved its sale in a 2007 ballot question. The building, which sits on waterfront property in Clearwater Beach, Fla., has been on the market since 2010. Last year, the city received a $6 million purchase offer that was rescinded when the would-be buyer balked after discovering asbestos during the due diligence period. The city subsequently contracted with remediation firms to determine the likely cost of removal. As recently as January, there was concern that the hazardous building material would be so widespread that it could potentially quash any sales, or make them so low in price that it wouldn't be worth it. "With the asbestos, buyers are saying take that $5.9 million offer and make it $2.9 million," city attorney Laurie Ellerbrake said at a City Council study session in January. The remediation study found the asbestos to be minimal and the city received three purchase offers, all of them above the $5.975 million appraised value. The winning bid, from Alchemy Management LLC, was the highest of the three and the company has posted a 10% nonrefundable deposit. It is expected the towers will be converted to high-end condominiums. The proceeds from the sale were figured into the city's current fiscal year budget and will be used to help close a structural budget deficit. "This will allow us to get the Towers off the books and move the money back to Dearborn where it can be utilized by all citizens," said Council President Tom Tafelski. "It was a nice thing for us to have, but its time has passed." Constructed in 1960, the apartment building has 40, one-bedroom and 48 two-bedroom units, with scenic views, screened terraces, electric kitchens and individually controlled air-conditioning, according to city marketing materials. ASBESTOS UPDATE: $7.7MM Renovation of Hammondsport Bldg Discussed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Perham of The Bath Courier reports that consultants for the proposed $7.7 million renovation to the Hammondsport Central School building are coming back to present one plan to the school board. The consultants met with the school board to discuss issues arising from an unexpected delay in sending construction bids out for the project. The bids could be late going out due to the state's slow response on required paperwork. The problem on the night of March 14 was the consultants could not agree on the solution. And board members weren't overjoyed by what they saw as a lack of teamwork by their paid professionals. "Here's the thing," school board member Dennis Carlson told representatives of William Taylor and Associates and a three-man team from Campus Construction Management. "I won't know any more about roofing in a week than I do now. You need to get together and come back with a plan." Mark Voorhees, the project manager from Campus, a Rochester-based firm told the board the delay in bidding would reduce the time workers have to complete asbestos removal. Taking asbestos out was expected to take the better part of the two summers set aside for the 14-month project. Voorhees warned starting the project this summer also could add to the project's costs and work would also be stretched out to prevent disrupting instruction. Given the late date bids would go out this year, it is likely the project would be overbid, since most contractors have work lined up, Voorhees said. Getting materials in during the height of the construction season also could draw out work on the project, he said. Campus consultants recommended waiting to start the project until next summer. Holding off would mean bids could go out at the beginning of the year when contractors would be lining up work. But the project's designer, William Taylor, insisted the project did not need wait. Taylor said construction companies are still looking for work, with a large workforce still available. "(Campus') plan is a bad plan," he said. Taylor said six weeks in the summer would allow most of the planned asbestos abatement to be completed before school opened. Other abatement could take place during long school holidays, he said. Waiting until January to bid the project could also mean higher costs in fuel and material, Taylor said. He said data upgrades could be scheduled after school hours, and done by a second shift, which is already in the plans. Taylor also was critical of Campus' effort to locate workers -- something Voorhees vigorously denied. School Superintendent Kyle Bower told the board the delaying the project should have no sizeable impact on funding, since State Ed. has approved the project. Last May, district voters approved the project, which is needed to bring the 54-year-old building into compliance with the state Education Department's recommendations, according to Bower. Essential repairs include fixing most of the roof, replacing parts of the original water and electrical systems and paving. Other projects include making public restrooms accessible to handicapped people, removing asbestos tiles, replacing unsafe windows and doors, and upgrading technology infrastructure. The district will use $1 million from its building reserve fund for the work, and expects to get 57% state building aid from the state. The 16-year-bond would be floated when construction begins, Bower told the board March 14. Board President Jim Zimar said he understand the appeal of starting work as soon as possible. "But let's not paint ourselves into a corner," Zimar said. The only immovable object in any plan is simple, Bower said. "Whatever is done, school is ready to open Sept. 1," he said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Benton Sand & Gravel Gets Waterloo Abatement Job ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Jamison at WCFCourier.com (Waterloo) reports that the city of Waterloo is moving quickly to remove a former rental duplex that started to collapse. City Council members voted 6-0 during an emergency meeting on March 15 to approve a demolition contract for the property at 626-628 W. Ninth St. "We'd been working to demolish this building and put it out of its misery," said Community Planning and Development Director Noel Anderson. "It decided to commit suicide." The duplex on the corner of West Ninth and Randolph streets was surrounded by a red fence after the rear corner of the structure collapsed. The adjacent duplex at 620-622 W. Ninth St. was evacuated and the tenants will be relocated at the city's expense during the demolition process. City officials acquired the dilapidated duplex through a court order about three months ago. Council members had just approved a contract to begin an asbestos survey in preparation for the demolition. Because the asbestos can no longer be removed safely, the demolition process must follow special, costly regulations which consider all of the material to contain the cancer-causing material. The project must be kept wet during the demolition, and debris must be wrapped in the trucks before being hauled to a disposal site. Benton Sand and Gravel Inc. of Cedar Falls received the $56,100 contract. It submitted the lowest of two quotes received on the project. The city is using general obligation bond funds earmarked for nuisance abatement to cover the cost. Council members also authorized up to $1,000 to temporarily relocate tenants from the adjacent building, which is just several feet from the collapsing structure. The house next door will be without power during the demolition, and officials also are using caution in case debris strikes the adjacent property. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Non-Profit Pony Club Devastated and Contaminated ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kree Nash of The Daily Advertiser reports that the members of Wagga and Bidgee District Pony Club will ride again, but it will take the community to help them get back on their feet. Their North Wagga clubhouse was completely destroyed in the flooding with two sections of the building left bare to the foundations. A further blow has been dealt to the club with the discovery of asbestos in the building, adding to the cost and time of cleaning up. Club president Jeremy Riethmuller said the club will rebuild, but needs community support to get back up. "The biggest problem is that since the site has asbestos in it, we can't have a working bee to get our club started again," Mr. Riethmuller said. "We didn't have flood insurance and it will cost thousands to clear up. "We're a not-for-profit organization; we can't afford this." The flood came at the worst time with the club just starting to rebuild its membership following the 2010 flood event. "We only had registration day in February with plenty of new members joining; it had a buzz about it," he said. Mr. Riethmuller is hoping the community can assist in the location of jumping equipment which may have ended up in backyards or downstream. "If anyone finds any jumping poles or barrel we would be happy to pick them up," he said. When the grounds dry out and the asbestos is cleared, the club is also hopeful of obtaining a temporary portable clubhouse to use during the rebuild. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Junks Kraft Power's First-to-File Argument ------------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Harold Baer, Jr., denied Kraft Power Corporation's motion to dismiss a complaint filed by The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for declaratory judgment regarding its rights and Kraft's obligations under the parties' contracts. Kraft argues that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, where the complaint was filed, is the wrong forum because a related personal injury lawsuit relating to asbestos exposure was filed first in New Jersey state court. In a March 13, 2012 opinion and order, Judge Baer held that the first-to-file rule applies where there is concurrent federal litigation, not where a federal court contends with concurrent state litigation, like the Port Authority's lawsuit. Judge Baer, however, stays the case pending resolution of the lawsuit pending in the New Jersey state court. The case is, THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff, v. KRAFT POWER CORPORATION, f/k/a W.A. KRAFT CORP., AMERICAN EMPLOYERS' INSURANCE COMPANY, COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY n/k/a ONEBEACON AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY. CRUM & FORSTER. UNITED ST ATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, EGERTON-WALLACE ASSOCIATES, INC. f/k/a CHILD SAVORY-HAWARD, INC. f/k/a SAVORY- HAWARD INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., WILLIAM GALLAGHER ASSOCIATES INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Defendants, No. 11 CV 5624 (HB)(S.D.N.Y.). A copy of Judge Baer's Decision is available at http://is.gd/umdtQ6from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Dismisses Suit v. Georgia-Pacific ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court for the New York County, in a March 13, 2012 decision and order, granted Georgia- Pacific, LLC's renewed motion for summary judgment dismissing the asbestos personal injury complaint and all other claims and cross- claims asserted against it after finding that Philip J. Miceli and Rose Marie Miceli have not met their burden of proof. The Court, last year, denied Georgia-Pacific's motion without prejudice to renew because its expert's report was unsworn and therefore prima facie insufficient to serve as the basis for its motion. Georgia-Pacific renewed its motion for summary judgment on the same grounds, and in accordance with the Court's prior order, submitted a sworn affidavit to accompany its expert's report. The case is PHILIP J. MICELI and ROSE MARIE MICELI, Plaintiff, v. ANCHOR PACKING COMPANY, et al., Defendants, No. 190234/09, Motion Seq. 002., (N.Y. Sup. Ct.). A copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is available at http://is.gd/22NhbXfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Fails to Dismiss Contento Tort Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, in a March 13, 2012 decision and order, denied Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss a personal injury asbestos exposure lawsuit filed by Albert Contento noting that it has been previously adjudged that Crane Co. had a duty to warn consumers against the hazards associated with asbestos because the evidence demonstrated that Crane Co. recommended the use of asbestos-containing insulation and packing in conjunction with its products. The case is ALBERT CONTENTO, Plaintiff, v. A.C. & S., Inc., et al., Defendants, No. 121539/01, Motion Seq. No. 001 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.). A copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is available at http://is.gd/UhiXCZfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Ct. Rules in Suit v. Air & Liquid et al. ------------------------------------------------------------- Objections were filed to U.S. Magistrate Judge Strawbridge's orders denying defendant Pennsylvania Electric Company's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denying defendant Crane Company's motion in limine. On review, Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in a March 13, 2012 memorandum overruled the objections holding that Pennsylvania Electric waived any defense of insufficient process and Crane Co.'s objections are fodder to challenge the Plaintiffs' experts' testimony during trial wherein the Court will provide Crane ample opportunity for cross- examination. The case is VALENT RABOVSKY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP., et al., Defendants, No. 875, Civil Action. No. 10-3202 (E.D. Pa.). A copy of Judge Robreno's Decision is available at http://is.gd/TE4Hmbfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Had $1.6MM Liability at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Chicago Bridge & Iron N.V., at December 31, 2011, had approximately $1.6 million accrued for asbestos liability and related expenses, according to the Company's February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. The Company states: "We are a defendant in lawsuits wherein plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos due to work we may have performed at various locations. We have never been a manufacturer, distributor or supplier of asbestos products. Over the past several decades and through December 31, 2011, we have been named a defendant in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos involving approximately 5,200 plaintiffs and, of those claims, approximately 1,400 claims were pending and 3,800 have been closed through dismissals or settlements. Over the past several decades and through December 31, 2011, the claims alleging exposure to asbestos that have been resolved have been dismissed or settled for an average settlement amount of approximately one thousand dollars per claim. We review each case on its own merits and make accruals based upon the probability of loss and our estimates of the amount of liability and related expenses, if any. We do not believe that any unresolved asserted claims will have a material adverse effect on our future results of operations, financial position or cash flow, and, at December 31, 2011, we had approximately $1.6 million accrued for liability and related expenses. "With respect to unasserted asbestos claims, we cannot identify a population of potential claimants with sufficient certainty to determine the probability of a loss and to make a reasonable estimate of liability, if any. While we continue to pursue recovery for recognized and unrecognized contingent losses through insurance, indemnification arrangements or other sources, we are unable to quantify the amount, if any, that we may expect to recover because of the variability in coverage amounts, limitations and deductibles, or the viability of carriers, with respect to our insurance policies for the years in question." Founded in 1889, Chicago Bridge & Iron N.V., a Netherlands company, is one of the world's leading integrated engineering, procurement and construction services providers and major process technology licensors, delivering comprehensive solutions to customers primarily in the energy and natural resource industries. ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace's Recorded Liability Was $1.7 Billion ----------------------------------------------------------------- W.R. Grace & Co.'s total recorded asbestos-related liability as of December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010, was $1,700.0 million, according to the Company's February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. The Company states: "On January 31, 2012, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware issued an order confirming [Grace's Joint Plan of Reorganization]. The Joint Plan is designed to address all pending and future asbestos-related claims and all other pre-petition claims as outlined therein. The Joint Plan provides for the issuance to the asbestos personal injury trust of a warrant to purchase 10 million shares of Grace common stock at a price of $17 per share. If the Joint Plan becomes effective and this warrant is exercised, it will dilute the ownership interests of holders of currently outstanding Grace common stock and may adversely affect the value of such common stock. "We have insurance coverage for a portion of the asbestos-related claims against us. We estimate that, assuming an ultimate payout of asbestos-related claims equal to the $1,700 million of asbestos-related liabilities recorded on our balance sheet, our insurance policies should provide approximately $500 million of insurance recovery. Under the Joint Plan, these insurance policies would be assigned to the asbestos personal injury trust established under the Joint Plan. However, if the Joint Plan does not become effective, these policies would remain with us unless assigned to creditors under the terms of another plan of reorganization. The estimated recovery of $500 million pertains only to insurance carriers with which we have asbestos settlement agreements, and/or which are currently solvent and we cannot be sure that all these amounts will be collected. In addition, the timing and amount of future payments depends on the continued solvency of the insurers and the resolution of disputes regarding coverage as well as the nature and timing of actual claims paid. If the Joint Plan does not become effective, the receipt of timely and complete payments from the insurers would be important to the success of our reorganization." W.R. Grace & Co. produces and sells specialty chemicals and specialty materials on a global basis through its two operating segments, Grace Davison and Grace Construction Products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace's Libby-Related Liability Was $67.2MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- W.R. Grace & Co.'s total estimated liability for asbestos remediation studies and other estimable matters related to its former vermiculite operations in Libby, as well as the cost of remediation at vermiculite processing sites outside of Libby, at December 31, 2011, was $67.2 million, according to the Company's February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. The Company states: "Grace operated a vermiculite mine in Libby, Montana until 1990. Some of the vermiculite ore that was mined at the Libby mine contained naturally occurring asbestos. Grace is working in cooperation with EPA to investigate the Libby vermiculite mine and the surrounding bodies of water and forest lands. We do not have sufficient information to estimate the cost of any required remediation of the Libby mine. During 2010, EPA began reinvestigating up to 105 facilities where vermiculite concentrate from the Libby mine was processed. We are cooperating with EPA on this reinvestigation. In late 2011, EPA requested that we conduct additional remediation at seven of these facilities based on revised risk-based criteria developed by EPA. It is probable that EPA will request additional remediation at some other facilities. We do not have sufficient information to identify either the sites that might require additional remediation or estimate the cost of any additional remediation. We will evaluate our estimated remediation liability for other sites as we receive additional information from EPA. "Grace's total estimated liability for asbestos remediation studies and other estimable matters related to its former vermiculite operations in Libby, as well as the cost of remediation at vermiculite processing sites outside of Libby, at December 31, 2011 and 2010 was $67.2 million and $52.7 million, respectively, excluding interest where applicable. This estimated liability does not include the cost to remediate the Libby mine or costs related to any additional EPA claims, whether resulting from EPA's reinvestigation or otherwise, which may be material but are not currently estimable. It is probable that Grace's ultimate liability will exceed current estimates by material amounts. Grace's current recorded liability will be adjusted as Grace receives new information and amounts become reasonably estimable." W.R. Grace & Co. produces and sells specialty chemicals and specialty materials on a global basis through its two operating segments, Grace Davison and Grace Construction Products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pepco Had 180 Cases Pending in Maryland in Dec. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pepco Holdings, Inc., as of December 31, 2011, had approximately 180 cases alleging personal injury due to asbestos exposure still pending in the Maryland State Courts, according to the Company's February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. In 1993, Pepco was served with Amended Complaints filed in the state Circuit Courts of Prince George's County, Baltimore City and Baltimore County, Maryland in separate ongoing, consolidated proceedings known as "In re: Personal Injury Asbestos Case." Pepco and other corporate entities were brought into these cases on a theory of premises liability. Under this theory, the plaintiffs argued that Pepco was negligent in not providing a safe work environment for employees or its contractors, who allegedly were exposed to asbestos while working on Pepco's property. Initially, a total of approximately 448 individual plaintiffs added Pepco to their complaints. While the pleadings are not entirely clear, it appears that each plaintiff sought $2 million in compensatory damages and $4 million in punitive damages from each defendant. As of December 31, 2011, there are approximately 180 cases still pending against Pepco in the Maryland State Courts, of which approximately 90 cases were filed after December 19, 2000, and were tendered to Mirant Corp. for defense and indemnification in connection with the sale by Pepco of its generation assets to Mirant in 2000. While the aggregate amount of monetary damages sought in the remaining suits (excluding those tendered to Mirant) is approximately $360 million, PHI and Pepco believe the amounts claimed by the remaining plaintiffs are greatly exaggerated. The amount of total liability, if any, and any related insurance recovery cannot be determined at this time. If an unfavorable decision were rendered against Pepco, it could have a material adverse effect on Pepco's and PHI's financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Pepco Holdings is a holding company that, through the following regulated public utility subsidiaries, is engaged primarily in the transmission, distribution and default supply of electricity and, to a lesser extent, the distribution and supply of natural gas: Potomac Electric Power Company, Delmarva Power & Light Company, and Atlantic City Electric Company. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pepco's Unit Continues to Defend New Jersey Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pepco Holdings, Inc.'s Atlantic City Electric Company continues to defend an asbestos exposure lawsuit in New Jersey, according to the Company's February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. In September 2011, an asbestos complaint was filed in the New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division, against ACE (among other defendants) asserting claims under New Jersey's Wrongful Death and Survival statutes. The complaint, filed by the estate of a decedent who was the wife of a former employee of ACE, alleges that the decedent's mesothelioma was caused by exposure to asbestos brought home by her husband on his work clothes. Unlike the other jurisdictions to which PHI subsidiaries are subject, New Jersey courts have recognized a cause of action against a premise owner in a so-called "take home" case if it can be shown that the harm was foreseeable. In this case, the complaint seeks recovery of an unspecified amount of damages for the decedent's past medical expenses, loss of earnings, and pain and suffering between the time of injury and death, and asserts a punitive damage claim. At this time, ACE cannot estimate an amount or range of reasonably possible loss to which it may be exposed that may be associated with the claims raised in this complaint. Such an estimate of reasonably possible loss must await further internal investigation and discovery procedures. Pepco Holdings is a holding company that, through the following regulated public utility subsidiaries, is engaged primarily in the transmission, distribution and default supply of electricity and, to a lesser extent, the distribution and supply of natural gas: Potomac Electric Power Company, Delmarva Power & Light Company, and Atlantic City Electric Company. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Had $528.4MM Net Loss Reserves at Dec. 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Enstar Group Limited, as of December 31, 2011, had net loss reserves of $528.4 million for asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. The Company states: "A number of our subsidiaries wrote general liability policies and reinsurance prior to their acquisition by us under which policyholders continue to present asbestos-related injury claims and claims alleging injury, damage or clean-up costs arising from environmental pollution. These policies, and the associated claims, are referred to as [asbestos and environmental] A&E exposures. The vast majority of these claims are presented under policies written many years ago. "There is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding A&E claims. This uncertainty impacts the ability of insurers and reinsurers to estimate the ultimate amount of unpaid claims and related LAE. The majority of these claims differ from any other type of claim because there is inadequate loss development and there is significant uncertainty regarding what, if any, coverage exists, to which, if any, policy years claims are attributable and which, if any, insurers/reinsurers may be liable. These uncertainties are exacerbated by lack of clear judicial precedent and legislative interpretations of coverage that may be inconsistent with the intent of the parties to the insurance contracts and expand theories of liability. The insurance and reinsurance industry as a whole is engaged in extensive litigation over these coverage and liability issues and is, thus, confronted with continuing uncertainty in its efforts to quantify A&E exposures. "Our A&E exposure is administered out of our offices in the United Kingdom and Rhode Island and centrally administered from the United Kingdom. In light of the intensive claim settlement process for these claims, which involves comprehensive fact gathering and subject matter expertise, our management believes that it is prudent to have a centrally administered claim facility to handle A&E claims on behalf of all of our subsidiaries. Our A&E claims staff, working in conjunction with two U.S.-qualified attorneys experienced in A&E liabilities, proactively administers, on a cost-effective basis, the A&E claims submitted to our insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries. "As of December 31, 2011, we had 35 separate insurance and/or reinsurance subsidiaries whose reserves are categorized into approximately 328 reserve categories in total, including 39 distinct asbestos reserving categories and 25 distinct environmental reserving categories. "Asbestos continues to be the most significant and difficult mass tort for the insurance industry in terms of claims volume and expense. We believe that the insurance industry has been adversely affected by judicial interpretations that have had the effect of maximizing insurance recoveries for asbestos claims, from both a coverage and liability perspective. Generally, only policies underwritten prior to 1986 have potential asbestos exposure, since most policies underwritten after this date contain an absolute asbestos exclusion. "From 2001 through 2003 the industry experienced increasing numbers of asbestos claims, including claims from individuals who did not appear to be impaired by asbestos exposure. Since 2003, however, new claim filings have been fairly stable. It is possible that the increases observed in the early part of the decade were triggered by various state tort reforms (discussed immediately below). At this point, we cannot predict whether claim filings will return to pre-2004 levels, remain stable, or begin to decrease." Enstar Group Limited was formed in August 2001 under the laws of Bermuda to acquire and manage insurance and reinsurance companies in run-off and portfolios of insurance and reinsurance business in run-off, and to provide management, consulting and other services to the insurance and reinsurance industry. Since its formation, it has acquired 35 insurance and reinsurance companies and 17 portfolios of insurance and reinsurance business and are now administering those businesses in run-off. ASBESTOS UPDATE: OfficeMax Remains Defendant in Exposure Cases -------------------------------------------------------------- OfficeMax Incorporated remains a defendant in a number of cases alleging exposure to asbestos products, according to the Company's February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. The Company states: "Over the past several years and continuing in the current year, we have been named a defendant in a number of cases where the plaintiffs allege asbestos-related injuries from exposure to asbestos products or exposure to asbestos while working at job sites. The claims vary widely and often are not specific about the plaintiffs' contacts with the Company. None of the claimants seeks damages from us individually, and we are generally one of numerous defendants. Many of the cases filed against us have been voluntarily dismissed, although we have settled some cases. The settlements we have paid have been covered mostly by insurance, and we believe any future settlements or judgments in these cases would be similarly covered. To date, no asbestos case against us has gone to trial, and the nature of these cases makes any prediction as to the outcome of pending litigation inherently subjective. At this time, however, we believe our involvement in asbestos litigation is not material to either our financial position or our results of operations." OfficeMax is involved in both business-to-business and retail office products distribution. It provides office supplies and paper, print and document services, technology products and solutions and office furniture to large, medium and small businesses, government offices and consumers. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Selective Insurance Has $6.5MM Asbestos Reserves ----------------------------------------------------------------- Selective Insurance Group, Inc., had $6.5 million of its net environmental reserves related to asbestos claims, according to the Company's February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. The Company states: "Our general liability, excess liability, and homeowners reserves include exposure to environmental claims, which primarily include asbestos and non-asbestos claims. Our exposure to environmental liability is primarily due to: (i) policies written prior to the absolute pollution endorsement in the mid 1980s; and (ii) underground storage tank leaks mainly from New Jersey homeowners' policies. Our environmental claims stem primarily from insured exposures in municipal government, small non-manufacturing commercial risks, and homeowners policies. The emergence of these claims is slow and highly unpredictable. "'Asbestos claims' are claims for bodily injury alleged to have occurred from exposure to asbestos-containing products. In the past, we were the insurer of various distributors of asbestos- containing products, such as electrical and plumbing materials, and, in some cases, the manufacturers of these products. Over the last 20 years, a large number of asbestos claims have been made against the insurance industry. While most of our claims are the result of incidental exposure, we insure a former manufacturer of asbestos related products, which comprises more than half of our outstanding claims. These claims are associated with two policies, each written with a $1.0 million policy aggregate limit. At December 31, 2011, asbestos claims constituted 17% of our $38.4 million net environmental reserves [$6.5 million] compared to 21% of our $39.4 million net environmental reserves [$8.2 million] at December 31, 2010." Selective Insurance Group, Inc., is a New Jersey holding company, incorporated in 1977, that offers property and casualty insurance products and services through its insurance subsidiaries. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Faces 177 Pending Exposure Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Curtiss-Wright Corporation has been named in approximately 177 pending lawsuits that allege injury from exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. The Company states: "In addition, to date, we have secured dismissals with prejudice and without prejudice in approximately 163 and 220 lawsuits, respectively, and are currently in discussions for similar dismissal of several other lawsuits, and have not been found liable or paid any material sum of money in settlement in any case. We believe that the minimal use of asbestos in our past and current operations and the relatively non-friable condition of asbestos in our products makes it unlikely that we will face material liability in any asbestos litigation, whether individually or in the aggregate. We do maintain insurance coverage for these potential liabilities and we believe adequate coverage exists to cover any unanticipated asbestos liability." Curtiss-Wright Corporation is a diversified, multinational provider of highly engineered, technologically advanced products and services. The Company is the corporate descendants of the Wright brothers, the fathers of flight, and Mr. Glenn Curtiss, the father of naval aviation. Today, the Company designs and manufactures highly engineered, advanced technologies that perform critical functions in demanding conditions in the defense, power generation, oil and gas, commercial aerospace, and general industrial markets, where safety, performance, and reliability are essential. The Company is incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware. ASBESTOS UPDATE: GATX Corp. Had 190 Pending Cases at Jan. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------ GATX Corporation, as of January 31, 2012, had 190 asbestos-related cases pending against it and its subsidiaries, according to the Company's February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. Several of the Company's subsidiaries have been named as defendants or co-defendants in cases alleging injury caused by exposure to asbestos. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages based on common law, statutory or premises liability or, in the case of American Steamship Company, the Jones Act, which provides limited remedies to certain maritime employees. As of January 31, 2012, there were 190 asbestos-related cases pending against the Company and its subsidiaries. Of the total number of pending cases, 161 are Jones Act claims, most of which were filed against ASC before the year 2000. During 2011, 15 new cases were filed, and 685 cases were dismissed without payment or otherwise settled for an immaterial amount. In addition, demand has been made against the Company for asbestos-related claims under limited indemnities given in connection with the sale of certain former subsidiaries of the Company. It is possible that the number of these cases or claims for indemnity could begin to grow and that the cost of these cases, including costs to defend, could correspondingly increase in the future. GATX Corporation leases, operates, manages and remarkets long- lived, widely used assets primarily in the rail and marine markets. GATX also invests in joint ventures that complement existing business activities. Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, GATX has three financial reporting segments: Rail, American Steamship Company and Portfolio Management. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco plc Still a Defendant in Exposure Cases -------------------------------------------------------------- Ensco plc has been named as a defendant by 65 individual plaintiffs in lawsuits alleging personal injury resulting from asbestos exposure, according to the Company's February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. The Company states: "During 2004, we and certain current and former subsidiaries were named as defendants, along with numerous other third-party companies as co-defendants, in three multi-party lawsuits filed in the Circuit Courts of Jones County (Second Judicial District) and Jasper County (First Judicial District), Mississippi. The lawsuits sought an unspecified amount of monetary damages on behalf of individuals alleging personal injury or death, primarily under the Jones Act, purportedly resulting from exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities during the period 1965 through 1986. We have been named as a defendant by 65 individual plaintiffs. Of these claims, 62 claims or lawsuits are pending in Mississippi state courts and three are pending in the U.S. District Court as a result of their removal from state court. "We intend to vigorously defend against these claims and have filed responsive pleadings preserving all defenses and challenges to jurisdiction and venue. However, discovery is still ongoing and, therefore, available information regarding the nature of all pending claims is limited. At present, we cannot reasonably determine how many of the claimants may have valid claims under the Jones Act or estimate a range of potential liability exposure, if any. "In addition to the pending cases in Mississippi, we have other asbestos or lung injury claims pending against us in litigation in other jurisdictions. Although we do not expect the final disposition of the Mississippi and other asbestos or lung injury lawsuits to have a material adverse effect upon our financial position, operating results or cash flows, there can be no assurances as to the ultimate outcome of the lawsuits." Ensco plc is a global offshore contract drilling company. It is a provider of offshore contract drilling services to the international oil and gas industry. It owns and operates an offshore drilling rig fleet of 77 rigs, including rigs under construction, spanning most of the strategic, high-growth markets around the globe. ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Electric Remains Subject to Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- General Electric Company remains subject to asbestos claims, according to the Company's February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. The Company states: "We are involved in numerous remediation actions to clean up hazardous wastes as required by federal and state laws. Liabilities for remediation costs exclude possible insurance recoveries and, when dates and amounts of such costs are not known, are not discounted. When there appears to be a range of possible costs with equal likelihood, liabilities are based on the low end of such range. It is reasonably possible that our environmental remediation exposure will exceed amounts accrued. However, due to uncertainties about the status of laws, regulations, technology and information related to individual sites, such amounts are not reasonably estimable. Total reserves related to environmental remediation, including asbestos claims, were $3,361 million at December 31, 2011." General Electric Company is one of the largest and most diversified technology and financial services corporations in the world. With products and services ranging from aircraft engines, power generation, water processing, and household appliances to medical imaging, business and consumer financing and industrial products, the Company serves customers in more than 100 countries and employ approximately 301,000 people worldwide. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Has Claims by 16,781 Plaintiffs ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., at December 31, 2011, was a co-defendant in cases alleging manganese induced illness involving claims by approximately 806 plaintiffs and a co-defendant in cases alleging asbestos induced illness involving claims by approximately 16,781 plaintiffs, according to the Company's February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. The Company states: "In each instance, we are one of a large number of defendants. In the manganese cases, the claimants allege that exposure to manganese contained in welding consumables caused the plaintiffs to develop adverse neurological conditions, including a condition known as manganism. In the asbestos cases, the claimants allege that exposure to asbestos contained in welding consumables caused the plaintiffs to develop adverse pulmonary diseases, including mesothelioma and other lung cancers. "Since January 1, 1995, we have been a co-defendant in manganese cases that have been resolved as follows: 16,031 of those claims were dismissed, 23 were tried to defense verdicts in favor of us and five were tried to plaintiff verdicts (three of which were reversed on appeal and one of which has post-trial motions pending). In addition, 13 claims were resolved by agreement for immaterial amounts and one claim was decided in favor of the Company following a summary judgment motion. Since January 1, 1995, we have been a co-defendant in asbestos cases that have been resolved as follows: 39,199 of those claims were dismissed, 18 were tried to defense verdicts, seven were tried to plaintiff verdicts (two of which are being appealed), one was resolved by agreement for an immaterial amount and 585 were decided in favor of the Company following summary judgment motions. "Defense costs remain significant. The long-term impact of the manganese and asbestos loss contingencies, in each case in the aggregate, on operating results, operating cash flows and access to capital markets is difficult to assess, particularly since claims are in many different stages of development and we benefit significantly from cost-sharing with co-defendants and insurance carriers. While we intend to contest these lawsuits vigorously, and believe we have applicable insurance relating to these claims, there are several risks and uncertainties that may affect our liability for personal claims relating to exposure to manganese and asbestos, including the future impact of changing cost sharing arrangements or a change in our overall trial experience. In addition, in January 2012, the Company and 18 co-defendants entered into an agreement that provides for the dismissal with prejudice of substantially all of the pending manganese claims if certain conditions precedent are satisfied. Failure to satisfy those conditions could lead to the resumption of that litigation and increased defense costs. "Manganese is an essential element of steel and cannot be eliminated from welding consumables. Asbestos use in welding consumables in the U.S. ceased in 1981." Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., is one of only a few worldwide broad-line manufacturers of welding, cutting and brazing products. Welding products include arc welding power sources, wire feeding systems, robotic welding packages, fume extraction equipment, consumable electrodes and fluxes. The Company's product offering also includes computer numeric controlled plasma and oxy-fuel cutting systems and regulators and torches used in oxy-fuel welding, cutting and brazing. In addition, the Company has a leading global position in the brazing and soldering alloys market. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. Continues to Defend Exposure Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Olin Corporation and its subsidiaries are defendants in various legal actions (including proceedings based on alleged exposures to asbestos) incidental to its past and current business activities, according to the Company's February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. The Company states: "At December 31, 2011 and 2010, our consolidated balance sheets included liabilities for these legal actions of $16.4 million and $18.1 million, respectively. These liabilities do not include costs associated with legal representation. Based on our analysis, and considering the inherent uncertainties associated with litigation, we do not believe that it is reasonably possible that these legal actions will materially adversely affect our financial position or results of operations in the near term." Olin Corporation is a Virginia corporation, incorporated in 1892, having its principal executive offices in Clayton, Missouri. The Company is a manufacturer concentrated in two business segments: Chlor Alkali Products and Winchester. Chlor Alkali Products manufactures and sells chlorine and caustic soda, hydrochloric acid, hydrogen, bleach products and potassium hydroxide, which represent 71% of 2011 sales. Winchester products, which represent 29% of 2011 sales, include sporting ammunition, reloading components, small caliber military ammunition and components, and industrial cartridges. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Xcel Energy's ARO for Asbestos Total $55.4MM ------------------------------------------------------------- Xcel Energy Inc.'s asset retirement obligations relating to asbestos total $55.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2011, according to the Company's February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. Some of Xcel Energy's facilities contain asbestos. Most asbestos will remain undisturbed until the facilities that contain it are demolished or removed. Xcel Energy has recorded an estimate for final removal of the asbestos as an ARO. It may be necessary to remove some asbestos to perform maintenance or make improvements to other equipment. The cost of removing asbestos as part of other work is not expected to be material and is recorded as incurred as operating expenses for maintenance projects, capital expenditures for construction projects or removal costs for demolition projects. AROs have been recorded for plant related to nuclear production, steam production, wind production, electric transmission and distribution, natural gas transmission and distribution and office buildings. The steam production obligation includes asbestos, ash-containment facilities, radiation sources and decommissioning. The asbestos recognition associated with the steam production includes certain plants at Northern States Power Company (NSP- Minnesota), Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo) and Southwestern Public Service Co. (SPS). NSP-Minnesota also recorded asbestos recognition for its general office building. This asbestos abatement removal obligation originated in 1973 with the CAA, which applied to the demolition of buildings or removal of equipment containing asbestos that can become airborne on removal. AROs also have been recorded for NSP-Minnesota, PSCo and SPS steam production related to ash-containment facilities such as bottom ash ponds, evaporation ponds and solid waste landfills. The origination dates on the ARO recognition for ash-containment facilities at steam plants was the in-service dates of the various facilities. Additional AROs have been recorded for NSP-Minnesota and PSCo steam production plant related to radiation sources in equipment used to monitor the flow of coal, lime and other materials through feeders. Xcel Energy's AROs for the year ended Dec. 31, 2011, was $54.3 million for steam production asbestos and $1.1 million for common general plant asbestos. Xcel Energy Inc. is a holding company with subsidiaries engaged primarily in the utility business. In 2011, Xcel Energy Inc.'s continuing operations included the activity of four wholly owned utility subsidiaries that serve electric and natural gas customers in eight states. These utility subsidiaries are NSP-Minnesota, NSP-Wisconsin, PSCo and SPS, and serve customers in portions of Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas and Wisconsin. Along with WYCO, a joint venture formed with Colorado Interstate Gas Company (CIG) to develop and lease natural gas pipelines, storage, and compression facilities, and WGI, an interstate natural gas pipeline company, these companies comprise the continuing regulated utility operations. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alleghany Unit Reserves $11 Million at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- A subsidiary of Alleghany Corporation, as of December 31, 2011, had reserves totaling $11.0 million for asbestos liabilities, according to the Company's February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. The Company's insurance holding company subsidiary Alleghany Insurance Holdings LLC's reserves for loss and loss adjustment expense (LAE) include amounts for asbestos and environmental impairment claims that arose from reinsurance of certain general liability and commercial multiple peril coverages assumed by Capitol Indemnity between 1969 and 1976. Capitol Indemnity exited this business in 1976. As of December 31, 2011, reserves of AIHL's subsidiary -- Capitol Transamerica Corporation (CATA) -- totaled $11.0 million for asbestos liabilities and $2.7 million for environmental liabilities, resulting in aggregate asbestos and environmental reserves of $13.7 million. As of December 31, 2010, reserves of CATA totaled $11.3 million for asbestos liabilities and $2.8 million for environmental liabilities, resulting in aggregate asbestos and environmental reserves of $14.1 million. As of December 31, 2011, the reserves for asbestos liabilities were approximately 23 times the average paid claims for the prior three year period, compared with 13 times as of December 31, 2010. The reserves for environmental impairment liabilities were approximately five times the average paid claims for the prior three year period, compared with three times as of December 31, 2010. The significant changes in these metrics from December 31, 2010 to December 31, 2011 primarily reflect fluctuations in the amount and timing of commutations in recent years, which affect paid losses and loss exposure, as well as the impact of a reserve release in 2010. Alleghany Corporation is engaged, through its subsidiaries, in the property and casualty and surety insurance business. ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Corp. Remains a Defendant in PI Lawsuits -------------------------------------------------------------- IDEX Corporation and seven of its subsidiaries are presently named as defendants in a number of lawsuits claiming various asbestos- related personal injuries and seeking money damages, allegedly as a result of exposure to products manufactured with components that contained asbestos, according to the Company's February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2011. The Company states: "These components were acquired from third party suppliers, and were not manufactured by any of the subsidiaries. To date, the majority of the Company's settlements and legal costs, except for costs of coordination, administration, insurance investigation and a portion of defense costs, have been covered in full by insurance subject to applicable deductibles. However, the Company cannot predict whether and to what extent insurance will be available to continue to cover such settlements and legal costs, or how insurers may respond to claims that are tendered to them. Claims have been filed in jurisdictions throughout the United States. Most of the claims resolved to date have been dismissed without payment. The balance have been settled for various insignificant amounts. Only one case has been tried, resulting in a verdict for the affected business unit. No provision has been made in the financial statements of the Company for these asbestos-related claims, other than for insurance deductibles in the ordinary course, and the Company does not currently believe these claims will have a material adverse effect on it." IDEX Corporation is an applied solutions business that sells an extensive array of pumps, flow meters and other fluidics systems and components and engineered products to customers in a variety of markets around the world. All of the Company's business activities are carried out through wholly-owned subsidiaries. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roper Industries Still a Defendant in Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- Over recent years there has been a significant increase in certain U.S. states in asbestos-related litigation claims against numerous industrial companies. Roper Industries, Inc., or its subsidiaries have been named defendants in some such cases. No significant resources have been required by Roper to respond to these cases and Roper believes it has valid defenses to such claims and, if required, intends to defend them vigorously. Given the state of these claims it is not possible to determine the potential liability, if any. No further asbestos-related updates were reported in the Company's February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. Roper Industries, Inc., was incorporated on December 17, 1981 under the laws of the State of Delaware. It is a diversified growth company that designs, manufactures and distributes radio frequency products and services, industrial technology products, energy systems and controls and medical and scientific imaging products and software. The Company markets these products and services to selected segments of a broad range of markets including RF applications, medical, water, energy, research, education, software-as-a-service ("SaaS")-based information networks, security and other niche markets. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Financial Had $1.9BB Net Reserves ----------------------------------------------------------- The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., as of December 31, 2011, reported $1.9 billion of net asbestos reserves, according to the Company's February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. The Company continues to receive asbestos and environmental claims. Asbestos claims relate primarily to bodily injuries asserted by people who came in contact with asbestos or products containing asbestos. Environmental claims relate primarily to pollution and related clean-up costs. The Company wrote several different categories of insurance contracts that may cover asbestos and environmental claims. First, the Company wrote primary policies providing the first layer of coverage in an insured's liability program. Second, the Company wrote excess policies providing higher layers of coverage for losses that exhaust the limits of underlying coverage. Third, the Company acted as a reinsurer assuming a portion of those risks assumed by other insurers writing primary, excess and reinsurance coverages. Fourth, subsidiaries of the Company participated in the London Market, writing both direct insurance and assumed reinsurance business. Significant uncertainty limits the ability of insurers and reinsurers to estimate the ultimate reserves necessary for unpaid losses and expenses related to environmental and particularly asbestos claims. The degree of variability of reserve estimates for these exposures is significantly greater than for other more traditional exposures. In the case of the reserves for asbestos exposures, factors contributing to the high degree of uncertainty include inadequate loss development patterns, plaintiffs' expanding theories of liability, the risks inherent in major litigation, and inconsistent emerging legal doctrines. Furthermore, over time, insurers, including the Company, have experienced significant changes in the rate at which asbestos claims are brought, the claims experience of particular insureds, and the value of claims, making predictions of future exposure from past experience uncertain. Plaintiffs and insureds also have sought to use bankruptcy proceedings, including "pre-packaged" bankruptcies, to accelerate and increase loss payments by insurers. In addition, some policyholders have asserted new classes of claims for coverages to which an aggregate limit of liability may not apply. Further uncertainties include insolvencies of other carriers and unanticipated developments pertaining to the Company's ability to recover reinsurance for asbestos and environmental claims. Management believes these issues are not likely to be resolved in the near future. In the case of the reserves for environmental exposures, factors contributing to the high degree of uncertainty include expanding theories of liability and damages, the risks inherent in major litigation, inconsistent decisions concerning the existence and scope of coverage for environmental claims, and uncertainty as to the monetary amount being sought by the claimant from the insured. The reporting pattern for assumed reinsurance claims, including those related to asbestos and environmental claims, is much longer than for direct claims. In many instances, it takes months or years to determine that the policyholder's own obligations have been met and how the reinsurance in question may apply to such claims. The delay in reporting reinsurance claims and exposures adds to the uncertainty of estimating the related reserves. It is also not possible to predict changes in the legal and legislative environment and their effect on the future development of asbestos and environmental claims. The Company believes the actuarial tools and other techniques it employs to estimate the ultimate cost of claims for more traditional kinds of insurance exposure are less precise in estimating reserves for certain of its asbestos and environmental exposures. For this reason, the Company principally relies on exposure-based analysis to estimate the ultimate costs of these claims and regularly evaluates new account information in assessing its potential asbestos and environmental exposures. The Company supplements this exposure-based analysis with evaluations of the Company's historical direct net loss and expense paid and reported experience, and net loss and expense paid and reported experience by calendar and/or report year, to assess any emerging trends, fluctuations or characteristics suggested by the aggregate paid and reported activity. As of December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the Company reported $1.9 billion and $1.8 billion of net asbestos reserves and $328 million and $339 million of net environmental reserves, respectively. The Company believes that its current asbestos and environmental reserves are appropriate. However, analyses of future developments could cause The Hartford to change its estimates and ranges of its asbestos and environmental reserves, and the effect of these changes could be material to the Company's consolidated operating results, financial condition, and liquidity. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., is an insurance and financial services company. The Hartford, headquartered in Connecticut, is among the largest providers of investment products and life, property, and casualty insurance to both individual and business customers in the United States of America. Also, The Hartford continues to administer business previously sold in Japan and the United Kingdom. Hartford Fire Insurance Company, founded in 1810, is the oldest of The Hartford's subsidiaries. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ace Ltd. Had 1,060 Open Claims at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------- Ace Limited had 1,060 open asbestos claims at end of 2011, according to the Company's February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. There were 1,025 open asbestos claims at the beginning of 2011 and 65 new claims were reported during the year while 30 asbestos claims were closed or disposed in 2011. At December 31, 2011, the Company had net asbestos reserves of $1,019 million. The Company states: "Included in our liabilities for losses and loss expenses are amounts for A&E (A&E liabilities). The A&E liabilities principally relate to claims arising from bodily- injury claims related to asbestos products and remediation costs associated with hazardous waste sites. The estimation of our A&E liabilities is particularly sensitive to future changes in the legal, social, and economic environment. We have not assumed any such future changes in setting the value of our A&E reserves, which include provisions for both reported and IBNR claims. "During 2011, we conducted our annual internal, ground-up review of our consolidated A&E liabilities as of December 31, 2010. As a result of the internal review, we increased our net loss reserves for the Brandywine operations, including A&E, by $76 million, while the gross loss reserves increased by $241 million. In addition, we decreased gross loss reserves for Westchester Specialty's A&E and other liabilities by $29 million, and net loss reserves increased by $6 million. Our A&E reserves are not discounted for GAAP reporting and do not reflect any anticipated future changes in the legal, social or economic environment, or any benefit from future legislative reforms. "There are many complex variables that we consider when estimating the reserves for our inventory of asbestos accounts and these variables may directly impact the predicted outcome. We believe the most significant variables relating to our A&E reserves include the current legal environment; specific settlements that may be used as precedents to settle future claims; assumptions regarding trends with respect to claim severity and the frequency of higher severity claims; assumptions regarding the ability to allocate liability among defendants (including bankruptcy trusts) and other insurers; the ability of a claimant to bring a claim in a state in which they have no residency or exposure; the ability of a policyholder to claim the right to unaggregated coverage; whether high-level excess policies have the potential to be accessed given the policyholder's claim trends and liability situation; payments to unimpaired claimants; and, the potential liability of peripheral defendants. Based on the policies, the facts, the law, and a careful analysis of the impact that these factors will likely have on any given account, we estimate the potential liability for indemnity, policyholder defense costs, and coverage litigation expense. "The results in asbestos cases announced by other carriers or defendants may well have little or no relevance to us because coverage exposures are highly dependent upon the specific facts of individual coverage and resolution status of disputes among carriers, policyholders, and claimants." ACE Limited is the Swiss-incorporated holding company of the ACE Group of Companies. ACE opened its business office in Bermuda in 1985 and continues to maintain operations in Bermuda. ACE Limited, which is headquartered in Zurich, Switzerland, and its direct and indirect subsidiaries (collectively, the ACE Group of Companies, ACE, we, us, or our) is a global insurance and reinsurance organization, serving the needs of customers in more than 170 countries. We offer commercial insurance products and service offerings such as risk management programs, loss control and engineering and complex claims management. We also provide specialized insurance products ranging from Directors & Officers (D&O) and professional liability to various specialty-casualty and umbrella and excess casualty lines to niche areas such as aviation and energy. In addition, we supply personal accident, supplemental health, and life insurance to individuals in select countries. ASBESTOS UPDATE: PartnerRe Ltd. Had Net Reserves of $195MM ---------------------------------------------------------- PartnerRe Ltd.'s net reserves for unpaid losses and loss expenses at December 31, 2011, included $195 million in estimated net ultimate liability for asbestos and environmental claims, according to the Company's February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. Although the Company did not operate prior to 1993, it assumed certain asbestos and environmental exposures through its acquisitions. The Company's net reserves for unpaid losses and loss expenses at December 31, 2011 and 2010 included $195 million and $214 million, respectively, that represent estimates of its net ultimate liability for asbestos and environmental claims. The gross liability for such claims at December 31, 2011 and 2010 was $203 million and $222 million, respectively, which primarily relate to Paris Re's gross liability for asbestos and environmental claims for accident years 2005 and prior of $127 million and $144 million, respectively, with any favorable or adverse development being subject to the Reserve Agreement. Of the remaining $76 million and $78 million, respectively, in gross reserves, the majority relates to casualty exposures in the United States arising from business written by PartnerRe SA and PartnerRe U.S. Ultimate loss estimates for such claims cannot be estimated using traditional reserving techniques and there are significant uncertainties in estimating the amount of the Company's potential losses for these claims. In view of the legal and tort environment that affect the development of such claims, the uncertainties inherent in estimating asbestos and environmental claims are not likely to be resolved in the near future. There can be no assurance that the reserves established by the Company will not be adversely affected by development of other latent exposures, and further, there can be no assurance that the reserves established by the Company will be adequate. The Company does, however, actively evaluate potential exposure to asbestos and environmental claims and establishes additional reserves as appropriate. The Company believes that it has made a reasonable provision for these exposures and is unaware of any specific issues that would materially affect its unpaid losses and loss expense reserves related to this exposure. PartnerRe Ltd., incorporated in Bermuda in August 1993, is the ultimate holding company for its international reinsurance group. The Company provides reinsurance on a worldwide basis through its wholly owned subsidiaries, including Partner Reinsurance Company Ltd. (PartnerRe Bermuda), Partner Reinsurance Europe plc (PartnerRe Europe) and Partner Reinsurance Company of the U.S. (PartnerRe U.S.). ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Industries Had $42.4M Liability at Dec. 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cytec Industries Inc.'s asbestos liability at December 31, 2011, was $42.4 million, according to the Company's February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. The Company is the subject of numerous lawsuits and claims incidental to the conduct of its or certain of its predecessors' businesses, including lawsuits and claims relating to product liability and personal injury, including asbestos, environmental, contractual, employment and intellectual property matters. The Company states: "As of December 31, 2011 and 2010, the aggregate self-insured and insured contingent liability was $53.7 million and $57.4 million, respectively, and the related insurance recovery receivable was $22.1 million and $24.3 million, respectively. The asbestos liability included in those amounts at December 31, 2011 and 2010 was $42.4 million and $43.5 million, respectively, and the related insurance receivable was $21.8 million and $23.8 million, respectively. A net deferred tax benefit has been recognized for those claims for which full insurance recovery is not expected. "We, like many other industrial companies, have been named as one of hundreds of defendants in a number of lawsuits filed in the U.S. by persons alleging bodily injury from asbestos. The claimants allege exposure to asbestos at facilities that we own or formerly owned or from products that we formerly manufactured for specialized applications. Most of these cases involve numerous defendants, sometimes as many as several hundred. Historically, most of the closed asbestos claims against us have been dismissed without any indemnity payment by us; however, we can make no assurances that this pattern will continue." The table presents information about asbestos claims activity: Year Ended Year Ended Dec. 31, Dec. 31, 2011 2010 ---------- ---------- Number of claimants at beginning of period 8,000 8,000 Number of claimants associated with claims closed during period (100) (100) Number of claimants associated with claims opened during period 100 100 Number of claimants at end of period 8,000 8,000 Cytec Industries Inc. is a global specialty chemicals and materials company focused on developing, manufacturing and selling value-added products. Its products serve a diverse range of end markets including aerospace composites, structural adhesives, automotive and industrial coatings, electronics, inks, mining and plastics. It uses its technology and application development expertise to create chemical and material solutions that are formulated to perform specific and important functions for its customers. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wabtec Still Defends Personal Injury Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation continues to defend asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. The Company states: "Claims have been filed against the Company and certain of its affiliates in various jurisdictions across the United States by persons alleging bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products. Most of these claims have been made against our wholly owned subsidiary, Railroad Friction Products Corporation (RFPC), and are based on a product sold by RFPC prior to the time that the Company acquired any interest in RFPC. "Most of these claims, including all of the RFPC claims, are submitted to insurance carriers for defense and indemnity or to non-affiliated companies that retain the liabilities for the asbestos-containing products at issue. We cannot, however, assure that all these claims will be fully covered by insurance or that the indemnitors or insurers will remain financially viable. Our ultimate legal and financial liability with respect to these claims, as is the case with other pending litigation, cannot be estimated. "It is Management's belief that the potential range of loss for asbestos-related bodily injury cases is not reasonably determinable at present due to a variety of factors, including: (1) the asbestos case settlement history of the Company's wholly owned subsidiary, RFPC; (2) the unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation in general; and (3) the uncertainty of asbestos litigation in particular. Despite this uncertainty, and although the results of the Company's operations and cash flows for any given period could be adversely affected by asbestos-related lawsuits, Management believes that the final resolution of the Company's asbestos-related cases will not be material to the Company's overall financial position, results of operations and cash flows. In general, this belief is based upon: (1) Wabtec's and RFPC's history of settlements and dismissals of asbestos- related cases to date; (2) the inability of many plaintiffs to establish any exposure or causal relationship to RFPC's product; and (3) the inability of many plaintiffs to demonstrate any identifiable injury or compensable loss. "More specifically, as to RFPC, Management's belief that any losses due to asbestos-related cases would not be material is also based on the fact that RFPC owns insurance which provides coverage for asbestos-related bodily injury claims. To date, RFPC's insurers have provided RFPC with defense and indemnity in these actions. The overall number of new claims being filed against RFPC has dropped significantly in recent years; however, these new claims, and all previously filed claims, may take a significant period of time to resolve. As to Wabtec and its divisions, Management's belief that asbestos-related cases will not have a material impact is also based on its position that it has no legal liability for asbestos-related bodily injury claims, and that the former owners of Wabtec's assets retained asbestos liabilities for the products at issue. To date, Wabtec has been able to successfully defend itself on this basis, including two arbitration decisions and a judicial opinion, all of which confirmed Wabtec's position that it did not assume any asbestos liabilities from the former owners of certain Wabtec assets. Although Wabtec has incurred defense and administrative costs in connection with asbestos bodily injury actions, these costs have not been material, and the Company has no information that would suggest these costs would become material in the foreseeable future." Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation, doing business as Wabtec Corporation, is a Delaware corporation with headquarters at 1001 Air Brake Avenue in Wilmerding, Pennsylvania. Wabtec is one of the world's largest providers of value-added, technology-based equipment and services for the global rail industry. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Miscommunication Hound St. Mary's Villa Abatement ------------------------------------------------------------------ Joe Couture of The StarPhoenix reports that Doreen Reinhart was already unhappy with how her 98-year-old father was being evicted from St. Mary's Villa in Humboldt, but when she realized asbestos removal was going on at the same time, she became "really upset that they had no more consideration for those people than that." Reinhart's father, Joe Knafelc, was one of the tenants moved out of the facility to make room for special-care residents who were relocated within the building. When Reinhart arrived at the facility on Feb. 22, she noticed the entrance to the laundry room was covered in an orange material and there were signs indicating asbestos removal was occurring. The laundry room was located "right by all the rooms where these people lived" and she said it appeared air venting from the window of the laundry area was entering her father's open bedroom window. "There was definitely air coming out," Reinhart said. "We shut his window and there was white fuzz laying on the sill of the window outside." Reinhart was concerned, but there wasn't any danger, according to the company that did the work for the Saskatoon Health Region. Wes Berschiminsky, owner and president of Bersch and Associates Ltd., said the area was put under negative pressure using ventilation units. That means that no air could exit except that which was vented out through filters designed to remove any asbestos. He said air coming out was "cleaner than the air you're breathing" unless one's home or office has such air filters. Furthermore, the situation was "probably about as low of a risk as you're ever going to get when it comes to asbestos," said Berschiminsky, who explained that was because the asbestos was part of floor tiles made of a vinyl and quartz mixture, that makes fibers "almost impossible" to escape. Some demolitions of buildings with such tiles can even proceed without specific asbestos-related removal, he said. "We hired a third party to monitor air quality to ensure that everything was working the way it should," said Linda Walker, spokesperson for the Saskatoon Health Region, noting all proper processes were followed. "At no time were tenants, residents or staff exposed to asbestos." She acknowledged the issue could have "caused some angst," which is "not what we'd want to have." The work wasn't being done because there was a danger; it was because the room was being renovated to accommodate a whirlpool tub. But Reinhart says she is still "mad," even knowing she wasn't exposed. "They couldn't have waited one more day? The people were leaving the next day," she said, noting lack of communication was a problem on the asbestos issue like it was throughout evictions. "That's just the way they handled the whole situation. It was like these people didn't matter. They just wanted to get them the hell out of there." After the issue was raised by NDP health critic Cam Broten in question period on March 8, Health Minister Don McMorris told reporters he didn't know what had transpired. "I don't know if there was asbestos in there. We don't have a report on that," he said, noting he and the SHR have apologized for, and requested a review of, the situation around the evictions. "Timing is everything; that's why we want the ombudsman to look into this -- what we're hearing anecdotally is not what we want to hear." Later on March 8, the government said the asbestos issue would be part of the ombudsman's review. As for why the minister wasn't aware, Walker said the likely reason was "people figured they were doing things by the book and nobody was exposed, everybody was safe and there wasn't a need to send it further on." Broten said though there wasn't any danger, "the end result on the residents is the same -- and it's an increase of anxiety and concern. "It's additional mistreatment for these seniors who have been put in a very horrible situation," he told reporters. "It basically was just an additional stress and caused additional anxiety (after they were) given just day to pack up their belongings and find somewhere else to live." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Renovation at St. Peter's School Exposes Fibro --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hartlepool Mail reports that pupils have been turned away from a school until within the week beginning March 12, after asbestos was found inside a wall. But council bosses and staff at St. Peter's Elwick Church of England Primary School, in Elwick Village, have moved to reassure parents that there has been no risk to their children. The discovery was made around 4pm on Tuesday, March 6 by builders carrying out improvement works in one of the classrooms and it was identified as asbestos at 7:30 a.m. Wednesday, March 7. The school, which teaches 95 children aged from three to 11-years- old, will be closed for the rest of the week until the potentially-harmful material has been removed by a specialist firm. Headteacher Steve McDonnell said: "The 4ft x 4ft section of asbestos which had been encapsulated between wood, plasterboard and tiles inside two internal walls, was disturbed during improvement works. "A room formerly used as an IT suite was affected as a result. "The substance was found after all pupils had left the school on Tuesday and it was identified as asbestos before the start of the school day on Wednesday. "It is important to stress that no children were in school from the time the material was discovered and we want to reassure parents that no children were exposed to the asbestos at any time. "We immediately took the decision to close the school for three days on the advice of a specialist asbestos removal company, and this will enable the asbestos to be safely removed and the affected area to be cleaned. "I would also like to apologize for any inconvenience that the closure might cause to parents, but pupil safety is and always will be our paramount concern." Married mum Faye Robinson, 29, whose daughters Skye, five, and Star, three, attend St. Peter's school and nursery, praised the way in which the school handled the situation. Faye, an art student, originally of Greatham Village but who currently lives in Percy Street, Hartlepool, said: "The school have been brilliant and did the right thing in closing. "We were told about on Wednesday morning and then they sent a text later to confirm everything. "Parents will obviously have to sort childcare for their kids, but it's worth it until the problem has been sorted." Mr. McDonnell said the discovery was made during extensive works to improve the layout of the 50-year-old school and enhance teaching and learning areas. The asbestos had been installed as part of the original construction, and the school has been advised that it would have been virtually impossible to detect. The reconfiguration works are due to be completed by Easter. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardeners' 3 Yr-Old Complaint Continues -------------------------------------------------------- Leicester Mercury at Thisisleicestershire.co.uk reports that allotment holders are calling for asbestos sheets dumped near their plots to be removed. Gardeners of the Ellistown Allotment and Garden Society say they have been trying to get council bosses to remove the material for three years. They are appealing to North West Leicestershire District Council, which owns the Midland Road site, and the Ellistown and Battleflat Parish Council, which manages it, to take the sheets away. They believe the asbestos was dumped over the hedge from Midland Road in 2009, and has been allowed to deteriorate. Society member Rod Weston said: "I am amazed the parish council has allowed this hazard to remain on the site for almost three years when, in the past, asbestos found buried on the site was removed within weeks of it being reported." Mr. Weston said that last October the society had written to the parish council asking for the asbestos to be removed and was later told the district council would do it. Mr. Weston said: "The society e-mailed the district council on Feb. 6. It acknowledged receipt but still has not removed the asbestos. "The council claims, on its website, it is proactive in clearing fly-tips and customer reports of fly-tipping are dealt with as quickly as possible depending on the details given. "They claim they clear over 95 per cent of fly-tips within a week of notification. "The Health and Safety Executive advises where there are several asbestos cement sheets and other large items they should be placed in a lockable skip. Asbestos warning stickers should be attached. "Care should be taken to avoid crushing asbestos cement debris on the ground, yet the council seem prepared to leave asbestos unlabelled and unsealed in a public area where children may play." Parish council chairman and the village's district councilor Paul Hyde said: "We are trying to get everything removed. It is unfortunate it is taking longer than some people would like, but we are in the process of getting it removed." Mr. Hyde said it was understood a company had been approached to carry out the work. A spokesman for North West Leicestershire District Council said: "It is the responsibility of the parish council to remove the asbestos sheeting at Midland Road." ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADFA Head Calls Attorney-General Smith "Evil" -------------------------------------------------------------- Alicia Wood of The Daily Telegraph (Sydney) reports that Attorney- General Greg Smith has been slammed for playing politics with the entitlements of asbestos victims. The state government voted down an opposition bill that would have enabled families of asbestos victims who died before their day in court to claim damages within a year of their death. Asbestos Disease Foundation of Australia president Barry Robson called Mr. Smith "evil" for rejecting the bill. Mr. Robson said he had been trying to meet with Mr. Smith for a month but had not received a response. "This is just a political stunt because the opposition moved it," Mr. Robson said. The opposition's proposed amendments were off the back of the October 2011 Law Reform Commission Report into the compensation scheme. It stated that, because of the "rapid progression of the disease" and in the case where an asbestos disease is only found after death, the family should be able to claim for damages within a 12- month period. Asbestos campaigner Bernie Banton's widow Karen said Mr. Smith was going back on his promise of "bipartisan support" for asbestos victims. "I am speaking with a woman whose husband died last year, days after he was diagnosed. If this had gone through, she would have had a nine-month window (to lodge a claim). Now, she might miss out. With these diseases, time is of the essence," Mrs. Banton said. Law firm Turner Freeman represents families of asbestos victims. Partner Tanya Segelov said that without an amendment to the law NSW victims would lose out. The amendment has passed in South Australia, Western Australia and Victoria. "I understand the need for a cautious approach and I am grateful the Attorney-General said he was on the side of people suffering asbestos diseases," Ms. Segelov said. "This is a really important amendment and we hope it will not be delayed. There are a number of families in distress." In parliament, Mr. Smith said he would not support the changes until he received "legal and actuarial assessments", and he accused the opposition of putting together an "opportunistic" bill. "The government will not consider implementing the recommendations until the full ramifications are considered," Mr. Smith said. Opposition Leader John Robertson called Mr. Smith's actions "disgraceful". "Greg Smith has got his priorities all wrong -- he is going soft on crime and then saving his attacks for asbestos victims and their families." ASBESTOS UPDATE: French Study Signifies Age Factor During Exposure ------------------------------------------------------------------ A recent study by French researchers concludes persons exposed to asbestos at a young age are more likely to develop mesothelioma than those exposed to asbestos at an older age. An uncommon form of cancer, mesothelioma or pericardial mesothelioma generally attacks the lining of the internal organs in the abdomen and chest. Almost all cases of mesothelioma have been linked to exposure to asbestos, a material used frequently in thousands of commercial, automotive and residential industrial applications during the middle twentieth century. Unfortunately, most common treatment options, such as excision surgery and chemotherapy are rarely successful and the disease continues to spread rapidly. To date, there is not a known cure for mesothelioma. Further complicating recovery options is the detection of the disease, which can take 20 or more years to manifest. Early detection is key to any meaningful success. Even if the disease is detected early, it can easily be mistaken for less severe conditions because its symptoms are vague including restricted bowel movements, chest pain and shortness of breath. French Mesothelioma Study Offers Hope to Older Workers Though rare, mesothelioma currently affects between 2,000 and 3,000 people in the United States on an annual basis. The study published in the European Respiratory Journal revealed that controlled subjects consisting of 2,466 males over a twenty year period beginning in 1987, showed men under 20 years of age exposed to asbestos were far more likely to develop mesothelioma. The same study found risk levels continued to increase until approximately 30 years after the subject's asbestos exposure had ended. The study further concluded that the older in age the person subjected to asbestos exposures, the less likely they were to develop symptoms of mesothelioma. European researchers collected these data and other information from several health reports released by studies from the French National Mesothelioma Surveillance Program and the French Network of Cancer Registries. Treatment Options Because mesothelioma is so difficult to detect, there are few successful treatment options available upon diagnosis. Radiation is one preferred treatment, usually accompanied by chemotherapy. However, these treatments typically only slow the growth of the deadly disease, but do not eliminate it. Another form of treatment, known as the "fine needle aspiration" is a procedure in which excess fluid is drained from the pericardium. However, this procedure only helps to alleviate symptoms but is not a cure for mesothelioma. To learn more about early asbestos exposure, symptoms of mesothelioma, treatment and legal options or for assistance in filing a mesothelioma lawsuit, please visit the resource center at MesoAuthority.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Charges Filed vs. 2 Violators of Clean Air Act --------------------------------------------------------------- Abby Jordan of The Weston Patch reports that a property owner from Weston and a Plainville-based heating contractor have been arraigned in connection with the alleged improper removal of asbestos in a single-family rental property in Medway, Attorney General Martha Coakley announced March 13. David Einis, 58, and Nicholas Pasquantonio, 41, were each arraigned on two counts of violating the Massachusetts Clean Air Act for failure to file a notice of asbestos removal with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) and failure to prevent asbestos emissions. Pasquantonio was also arraigned on charges of witness intimidation. Einis and Pasquantonio were arraigned Monday, March 12 in Norfolk Superior Court where each pleaded not guilty and were released on personal recognizance. Pasquantonio was released with the condition that he not have contact with the victim of the alleged witness intimidation. Authorities allege the asbestos containing insulation was from heating pipes in an occupied Medway rental property owned by Einis, which was released when the boiler was being replaced by Pasquantonio. According to authorities, in December 2010, Einis hired Pasquantonio of Johnny's Oil Service, Inc., who is not a licensed asbestos contractor, to replace the boiler in the Medway property occupied by a family with several children. Pasquantonio allegedly did not seal off the basement while he worked to replace the boiler. After being notified by the Medway Board of Health a few days later, MassDEP inspected the site and allegedly found the improper removal and release of asbestos. Authorities allege that Einis and Pasquantonio failed to notify MassDEP that they would be disturbing asbestos when replacing the boiler and did not follow the appropriate procedures to prevent asbestos emissions. The Department of Labor Standards requires that the removal of asbestos be performed by a licensed contractor, and pursuant to MassDEP regulations, contractors must provide notification of when the removal will occur and follow certain methods and standards for the safe removal, storage, and disposal of the asbestos throughout the abatement process. Authorities also allege that when Pasquantonio became aware he might be charged criminally, he went to the property where the illegal asbestos removal had occurred and threatened one of the tenants not to testify against him. The charges are the result of an investigation by the Massachusetts Environmental Strike Force, an interagency unit which is overseen by AG Coakley, MassDEP Commissioner Kenneth L. Kimmell, and Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Richard K. Sullivan, Jr. The Strike Force consists of prosecutors from the Attorney General's Office, Environmental Police Officers assigned to the Attorney General's Office, and investigators and engineers from the MassDEP who investigate and prosecute crimes that harm or threaten the state's water, air, or land and that pose a significant threat to human health. A Norfolk County Grand Jury returned indictments against Einis and Pasquantonio on Jan. 19, 2012. The defendants are due back in court on May 1 for a pre-trial conference. Members of the public who have information regarding a potential environmental crime are encouraged to contact the MassDEP Environmental Strike Force Hotline at 1-888-VIOLATE (846-5283) or the Attorney General's Office at 617-727-2200. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant Attorney General Andrew Rainer of AG Coakley's Environmental Crimes Strike Force, with assistance from officers of the Massachusetts Environmental Police and Gregory Levins of the Central Regional Office of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victims Cry Injustice Over UK Pay Out Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------- The Yorkshire Evening Post reports that victims of asbestos- related diseases face losing a quarter of their compensation to pay towards legal costs. The Government's Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, which is before Parliament, is aimed at reducing Government spending on the legal system. It proposes to allocate 25% of injury victims' damages towards their legal costs. It includes victims of asbestos-related diseases. Kimberley Stubbs, daughter of Armley asbestos victim June Hancock, slammed the move as "outrageous." Leeds West MP Rachel Reeves, whose constituency covers Armley where JW Roberts' factory spewed deadly asbestos dust over the community, is campaigning with Leeds lawyer Jamie Hanley against the legislation. A cross-party group in the House of Lords also opposes the proposal. June Hancock and her mother died of the incurable, asbestos- related lung cancer mesothelioma after living near the JW Roberts factory. Mrs. Hancock won compensation from factory owner Turner-Newall, setting a precedent for others. Claimants lost much of their compensation when Turner-Newall went into protective administration, securing its assets. Now successful claimants face further losses. Ms. Reeves said: "I have met with local constituents whose lives have been tragically affected by exposure to asbestos, and seen firsthand its impact on families. I find it unbelievable that the Government would seek to take money away from people who through no fault of their own were exposed to deadly asbestos fibers." Mrs. Hancock's daughter Kimberley said: "I am outraged and sickened by the injustice of these proposals. It is categorically wrong for innocent victims of this lethal dust to be expected to give up part of their compensation as well as their life. "My mum was dead at only 61. Her life was taken from her in the most horrendous way. She never saw her grandchildren, or her son Russell get married. "My mum spent the last three years of her life whilst gravely ill battling for justice in the courts. She succeeded against all the odds. Justice was secured for the many future innocent victims of exposure to asbestos. What my mum did took enormous courage. Now they propose to take away 25% of the compensation. There is no justice in that." Ms. Reeves and Mr. Hanley have written a letter urging the Government to rethink. ASBESTOS UPDATE: GEI Gets Old Resto Abatement Job on $12,500 Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Schmidt of The Missourian reports that it will cost Wright City $12,500 to have asbestos removed from the former Big Boy's restaurant. Aldermen on March 8 awarded an asbestos abatement contract to GEI, which submitted the lowest of three bids, to allow the demolition project to proceed. The project has sat idle since the Missouri Department of Natural Resources inspected the city-owned property, located at 13200 Veterans Memorial Parkway, and issued a notice of violation two days later. According to DNR officials, it was discovered that the city failed to have an asbestos survey performed and did not inform the state agency at least 10 days prior to the start of the demolition project. The former restaurant building had been partially razed when a DNR official inspected the property Jan. 24. The city received two other asbestos abatement proposals from Midwest Service Group ($14,232) and U.S. Environmental Solutions LLC ($16,900). Aldermen had postponed awarding a contract at their last meeting on Feb. 23 to give them more time to review the bids. It has yet to be determined when GEI will begin removing the asbestos, though the delay will continue for at least a minimum of 10 business days as required by DNR. That period will allow the winning contractor to file paperwork with the stage agency, according to city officials and give it time to hire a third-party company to handle monitoring the removal process. After receiving the DNR violation notice, the city was required to immediately stop all demolition work, have an asbestos survey conducted of the building and two dumpsters that contain demolition waste, and develop a new demolition plan incorporating any special conditions identified from the asbestos survey. According to the DNR letter, the inspection was conducted to assess compliance with state and federal air pollution laws and regulations. The violations were forwarded to the agency's air pollution control program enforcement section where a fine may be assessed. Once a popular stop for local residents and highway travelers, Big Boy's was closed by the Missouri Department of Revenue in April 2005 because the owners failed to pay state sales taxes. Since then, the building sat vacant and fell into disrepair. Last year, the city paid $170,000 for the 2.5-acre parcel. City officials have discussed constructing a new city hall and police department facility on the property, though a time frame has yet to be determined on how soon that could occur. Another possibility is to sell the property, officials said. In July, Wright City officials decided to postpone hiring a company to raze the former Big Boy's restaurant due to budgetary constraints after reviewing project bids ranging from $22,600 to $32,120. City crews continued to clean up the property until beginning to raze the former restaurant building in January. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inquest Rules COD Was Partly Due to Asbestosis --------------------------------------------------------------- North West Evening Mail reports that a former Barrow shipyard worker died following exposure to asbestos, an inquest heard. Robert Garnet died at his home in Worcester Street, Barrow, on December 1. The inquest into the 82-year-old's death heard from a pathologist's report, which said the cause of death was a blood clot caused by the underlying conditions of asbestosis and heart disease. Mr. Ian Smith, coroner for South and East Cumbria, said he was satisfied Mr. Garnet was exposed to asbestos in the shipyard and in another job working as a fireman on the railways. He recorded a verdict of industrial disease combined with natural disease. Mr. Garnet's daughter Elaine Garnet told the Evening Mail following the hearing at Barrow Town Hall on Monday: "I'm glad they found out what the cause was. "He was really ill at the time and I'm glad he didn't suffer any longer. He was very well known around the street he lived in. Everybody knew him and he was very well liked." Mr. Garnet's son, David Robert Garnet, of Telford Street, Barrow, told the inquest: "About a year before he died, he just seemed to get worse. He couldn't walk and he had to use a wheelchair." Mr. Garnet, Jr., said his dad started work as an office boy in the shipyard, but then joined the army and later worked on the railways as a fireman. He later went back to the shipyard to work as a crane driver. Mr. Garnet, Jr., said: "He said if the crane stopped suddenly and it shook, there was dust flying about off the insulation of the pipes." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claim Filed in Kanawha vs. Ford Motor, 48 Others ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kyla Asbury of The West Virginia Record reports that a Salyersville, Ky., man and his wife are suing 49 companies they claim are responsible for his lung cancer diagnosis. On March 6, 2011, Will Press Conley was diagnosed with lung cancer, according to a complaint filed Feb. 29 in Kanawha Circuit Court. Conley and his wife, Dorothy G. Conley, claim the 49 defendants exposed him to asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products during his career as a laborer from 1944 until 1995. The defendants knew or should have known about the dangers of asbestos exposure, according to the suit. The Conleys claim the defendants are being sued based on theories of negligence, contaminated buildings, breach of expressed/implied warranty, strict liability, intentional tort, conspiracy, misrepresentation and post-sale duty to warn. The Conleys are seeking a jury trial to resolve all issues involved. They are being represented by Victoria L. Antion -- vantion@motleyrice.com -- Scott A. McGee -- smcgee@motleyrice.com -- and Bronwyn I. Rinehart -- brinehart@jfhumphreys.com. The case has been assigned to a visiting judge. The 49 companies named as defendants are 3M Company; A.W. Chesterton Company, Inc.; AGCO Corporation; AK Steel Corporation; Beazer East, Inc.; Borg-Warner Automotive, Inc.; Certainteed Corporation; Cleaver Brooks Company, Inc.; Crane Co.; Dravo Corporation; Eaton Electrical, Inc.; Flowserve FSD Corporation; Flowserve US, Inc.; FMC Corporation; Ford Motor Company; Foseco, Inc.; Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation; General Electric Company; Genuine Paris Company; George V. Hamilton, Inc.; Georgia Pacific Corporation; Goulds Pumps, Inc.; Hercules, Inc.; Honeywell International; I.U. North America, Inc.; IMO Industries, Inc.; Industrial Holdings Corporation; Ingersoll-Rand Company; Insul Company, Inc.; ITT Corporation; John Deere Company; Kelsey-Hayes Company; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; Nagle Pumps, Inc.; Nitro Industrial Coverings, Inc.; Oglebay Norton Company; Owens- Illinois, Inc.; Pneumo Abex Corporation; Premier Refractories, Inc.; Rapid American Corporation; Rust Constructors, Inc.; Rust Engineering & Construction, Inc.; Rust International, Inc.; Schneider Electric USA, Inc.; Sterling Fluid Systems (USA); Tasco Insulations, Inc.; Uniroyal, Inc.; Viacom, Inc.; and Vimasco Corporation. Kanawha Circuit Court case number: 12-C-382 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Full Abatement Required at Flora Stevenson School ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Press Association (UK) reports that a primary school which was evacuated after asbestos was found in the building aimed to reopen on Monday, March 19, the council has said. The substance was discovered during routine work at Flora Stevenson Primary School in Edinburgh. The city council said an independent inspection has indicated that the building is safe and will now be thoroughly cleaned. The 447 pupils were taken to Broughton High school, where they waited until their parents could collect them. The primary school will remain closed to pupils on Friday March 16, with staff reporting to Broughton High School. Edinburgh City Council said Flora Stephenson's nursery school has not been affected. Mike Rosendale, the council's head of schools, said: "Pupils at Flora Stevenson's primary school were relocated to a local high school this morning as a precaution, after a small amount of asbestos was disturbed. "An independent inspection was carried out this afternoon and has indicated that the building is safe. A full clean will now take place with the aim of reopening the school on Monday. "We would like to thank all parents and staff for their co- operation and assistance." The council said a final decision on when the school will be opened will be made on March 16 and parents will be informed as soon as possible. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazards Add $11K to Franklin City Project Cost --------------------------------------------------------------- Public Opinion Online reports that Franklin County commissioners on March 15 approved a change order to the $1.5 million general contract to improve the courthouse complex. Asbestos was found in the adhesives used on the marble facade on the front of the former Harmon's Furniture building and the membrane roofing, according to county Administrator John Hart. Asbestos removal will cost an additional $11,551. The contractor is to begin demolishing the Harmon building on North Main Street and the former Rauhauser law offices on Lincoln Way East before April 15. The entire project is estimated to cost $1.9 million and will include improvements to the courthouse and courthouse annex as well as renovations for the former Junior Fire Co. building on South Second street. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Changes to Tortfeasor Contribution Statute Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------ Michael P. Tremoglie of The Madison / St. Clair Record relates that whether non-settling defendants in Madison County asbestos cases are entitled to know set-offs prior to trial is subject to interpretation -- with plaintiff and defense bars trading barbs that their opponents want to "game" the system. Illinois Trial Lawyers Association President Jerry Latherow said that defendants in Madison County asbestos cases are not deprived of their right to show comparative fault in accordance with the Illinois Joint Tortfeasors Contribution Act. He said that defendants get settlement monies from other defendants if there is a verdict against them. Latherow responded to comments made by former Madison County Circuit Judge Don Weber (and current candidate for state representative) who would like to amend the tortfeasor contribution statute so that regardless of local rules or interpretations, a defendant has the right to show comparative fault before trial. Weber said recently that local asbestos rules effectively deprive defendants that right as outlined in the Illinois Joint Tortfeasors Contribution Act. Weber is seeking the Republican nomination for state representative in the newly redrawn 108th House District that includes part of the Metro-East. He served as circuit judge, by appointment, from November 2005 through the end of 2006, after Circuit Judge George Moran, Jr. resigned. Weber ran for the circuit seat in 2006, but lost the election to Dave Hylla. Latherow disagreed with Weber's assessment. "I just see this as an attempt to try to make political hay out of the issue," Latherow said. Latherow said that defense counsels are trying to manipulate the system. For example, he said, "If the defense in a million dollar case knows in advance that there was a prior award of $700,000, they will argue to the jury in their case that an amount that is $700,000 is reasonable." "In such cases the jury will say they are being fair," he added. "Then after the case is settled the defendant will get a credit for the $700,000 in the prior case. The defense counsel's client in the tort case will have to pay nothing -- which is exactly what the defendant wants." A frequent critic of the Madison County asbestos docket, Mark Behrens -- mbehrens@shb.com -- of the law firm of Shook, Hardy & Bacon in Washington D.C., has a different opinion. He believes that plaintiffs' attorneys are those who "are gaming the system." "Defense counsels at trial want to be able to put on the full story of the plaintiff's exposure history either for the purpose of showing someone else was entirely at fault for the plaintiff's harm or for the jury to make a fair evaluation of the limits of the defendant's culpability," he said. Behrens provided an example of a defendant company that makes brakes shoes. The plaintiff had a job as an insulator, yet on one occasion changed his own brakes. The brake shoe company's attorney wants the evidence of all the exposure of the plaintiff so the jury can determine if the one time task of changing the brake shoes was responsible for the injury. The defense counsel wants the jury to have a full picture of the plaintiff's history, Behrens said. Another "set-off" issue currently being debated is whether information about plaintiffs who file claims with asbestos trusts established by bankrupt companies should be available to companies being sued in the tort system. Behrens said plaintiffs' attorneys also "game" the system by delaying the filing of claim forms with bankruptcy trusts until after a civil lawsuit has gone to jury. But companies being sued in court would like to know the limit of the exposure by the plaintiff to their product, he said. "The (bankruptcy trust) claim form is one tool to get that evidence," Behrens said. "The plaintiff's counsel has evidence as to what products the plaintiff have been exposed. But the plaintiff's counsel does not want to share this information with the jury." Behrens pointed out that plaintiff firms advertise how quick and easy it is to file asbestos claims, yet balk at sharing. "The distribution procedures were set up by trial lawyers. They did not make difficult," Behrens said. "Yet this is what the plaintiff's attorneys say when requested to file the claim in advance of the trial." Behrens said that two states have legislation pending that would provide a mechanism for asbestos trust claim forms to be filed before a case goes to trial. The jury would be able to make an informed decision about a defendant's liability if these bills become law, he said. Ohio has a bill pending -- H.B. 380 -- that passed out of the House in January. The bill was heard by the Ohio Senate Judiciary Committee on March 13. Behrens testified before the committee about the proposed legislation. Oklahoma has a similar bill, which recently passed its Senate by a 28-10 vote. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gene Therapy Shows Encouraging Results ------------------------------------------------------- AboutMesothelioma.net reports that geneticists and medical researchers at the University of Pennsylvania are using the new tools of gene therapy to treat mesothelioma patient with encouraging results, said Dr. Dan Sterman, a physician and associate professor at the University of Pennsylvania. "Where we are now is incredibly exciting," Dr. Sterman said at a recent teleconference sponsored by the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation, a national non-profit group that funds research, provides education and offers support for mesothelioma patients and their families. Mesothelioma is a cancer of the lining of the chest and abdomen caused by inhaling asbestos fibers. Gene therapy is a relatively new field of medicine. The recognition that genetic abnormalities lead to disease including certain cancers stems in part from a 1989 discovery. Researchers in Canada and at the University of Michigan identified a gene that was abnormal and caused the disease cystic fibrosis. "This really was a breakthrough in all of medicine," Dr. Sterman said. "For the first time, we knew an abnormality in a specific part of a specific chromosome led to disease. This led to a revolution in the concept of medicine." The discovery gave rise to the concept that doctors could treat a patient's disease by identifying an abnormal gene mutation, replacing the abnormal gene with a normal gene and fixing the disease. Realizing that vision in a clinical setting has been slow since the initial discovery, Dr. Sterman said. While gene therapy is still in the experimental stage, progress is being made. Now, the University of Pennsylvania has an ongoing gene therapy clinical trial for patients who are newly diagnosed with mesothelioma and patients who have not responded to previous treatments. The early results of the ongoing gene therapy trial which has been running one year are quite promising, Sterman said. "I can tell you the crude data that I hope to present in a few months at the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation conference show about an 80% response rate," Dr. Sterman said. "It's very, very impressive, though very preliminary." Mesothelioma patients in the trial receive the standard chemotherapy treatment in combination with a new type of gene therapy called immuno-gene therapy. Immuno-gene therapy treatment uses a modified common cold virus to trigger a patient's own immune to destroy mesothelioma cancer cells. "It's the immune cells from the patient that travels around the body and hunts down other mesothelioma cells and start to destroy them," Dr. Sterman said. "That is what makes this unique. We can deliver the gene into a space the size of a quarter or a half dollar, but affect the entire chest cavity or literally the patient's entire body." With gene therapy, University of Pennsylvania researchers hope to transform incurable diseases such as a mesothelioma into chronic conditions that patients can manage while living normal lives. Patients' immune systems may need periodic boosters to continue to fight off the cancer cells. That is a question the Penn researchers are seeking to answer Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania have been focused on treatment of mesothelioma because of the prevalence of asbestos-related disease around Philadelphia. Philadelphia was a major shipping building and ship re-fitting center during after World War II. A lot of asbestos was used in ship building process and came through the port at Philadelphia. Approximately 3,000 people are diagnosed with mesothelioma in the U.S. each year. Most are older workers, retired workers and veterans who were exposed to asbestos in a workplace. Family members of people who worked around asbestos also are at risk of developing the disease. Symptoms of mesothelioma typically appear 30 years to 50 years after exposure. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calgary Univ Students Seek Info on Asbestos Issue ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jen Gerson of The Calgary Herald reports that students at the University of Calgary expressed fears about the state of their classrooms after the school said it received complaints related to asbestos removal. The university conducted air quality testing in Craigie Hall after the CBC reported on the death of Amelia Labbe, an employee with the Spanish centre who died of pulmonary fibrosis in November. The results of the tests may take weeks, the university said. Most of the fears surround a particularly dusty renovation of the Craigie Hall in 2003. But students who study in the almost 50-year-old hall said other renovations were completed there more recently. "I'm here every night until 10:30 p.m.," said Lindsay Phillips, a first year music student. "I'm in this building for hours." She and her friend Chandra Baeuchle, a fellow freshman, said they were worried about the safety of the building, and wanted the school to release more information about the state of asbestos removal on campus. "I definitely think they shouldn't lie about it or keep it hush- hush," Phillips said. The university created an asbestos management program in 2006 which was tasked with monitoring and removing the mineral. Asbestos was widely used in buildings prior to the mid-70s. Grady Semmens, a U of C spokesman, said it had not released a full list of buildings that may be affected. "It's just not something that's generally been publicly available," Semmens said. But that doesn't sit well with Kate Gruber, a second-year biology student. "If we know we're being exposed to it, that gives us a choice to avoid buildings with it, if we so desire." Craigie Hall is not the only building facing asbestos removal: the Science A building is also partially closed due to renovations. A sign posted on the door states that asbestos was due for removal between Oct. 4, 2011, and Sept. 15, 2012. Semmens said most of the carcinogen had already been extracted from Science A, which was built in 1960. The ongoing construction work is part of a much-needed makeover for the departments. "The entire renovation area is contained because it falls under the asbestos management program," he said. Workers are still "demolishing old walls and possibly coming across asbestos." Otherwise, most of the work there is now focusing on upgrading stairwells, washrooms, elevators and classrooms. Meanwhile, Stephanie, a third-year chemistry student, said she doesn't have the luxury of concern. "All my labs are still here, so I don't have much of a choice." Asbestos in older buildings is generally considered safe unless renovations or repairs knock mineral dust into the air. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coroner Asserts Tobacco on Ex-Builders COD ----------------------------------------------------------- Gloucestershire Echo at thisisgloucestershire.co.uk reports that the lung cancer that killed a 64-year-old man who was exposed to asbestos from the age of 15 was not caused by the hazardous material, an inquest heard. The tumour that killed Allan Lane, who had smoked for many years, was not asbestos-related, they heard. Mr. Lane, of Beddome Way, Bourton-on-the-Water, died in Cheltenham General Hospital on November 25 last year. Instead, Gloucestershire deputy coroner David Dooley said his smoking habit had been a likely trigger to Mr. Lane's illness. In a statement to the inquest, his son Michael said Mr. Lane had worked as a builder from the age of 15. Mr. Lane worked at Little Rissington airfield and on demolishing garages with asbestos roofs. He often used a circular saw to cut asbestos sheets and was exposed to asbestos dust. Later, Mr. Lane became a painter and decorator and worked on building sites where he would have had more asbestos exposure. He had been a smoker, using two ounces of rolling tobacco a week. Mr. Lane was diagnosed with lung cancer during January 2011. The inquest was told that Mr. Lane complained of chest pains in July 2010. Chest X-rays revealed suspicious changes. He was referred to specialists in Birmingham following the x-rays and he was diagnosed with lung cancer. He underwent chemotherapy and radiotherapy treatment. He was admitted to hospital with a chest infection on November 24 last year, and died the following day, on Nov. 25. Pathologist Dr. John McCarthy, who carried out a post mortem examination, said Mr. Lane had a small cell carcinoma in his right lung and the cancer had spread to other organs. There was evidence of asbestos exposure but he tested negative for asbestos fibers and there was no sign of asbestosis or mesothelioma, the cancer invariably associated with asbestos. Dr. McCarthy said smoking was a major provoking cause of lung cancer. He gave the cause of death as due to cancer of Mr. Lane's right lung. Mr. Dooley said every builder over the last 50 years had been exposed to asbestos in some form, but not all of them died from an asbestos-related disease. He said there was no evidence to link Mr. Lane's death to asbestos. Mr. Lane died, he said, from a natural-occurring disease process, probably provoked by a long history of smoking, that ran its full course. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Advocacy Group Sues WMS Solution Over Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------- Yvonne Wenger of The Baltimore Sun reports that an advocacy group filed a complaint Friday, March 16, with the federal government alleging that a Baltimore-based company put hundreds of employees at risk by failing to protect them against asbestos. Alexandra Rosenblatt -- rosenblatta@publicjustice.org -- and Jonathan F. Harris -- harrisj@publicjustice.org -- staff lawyers with the Public Justice Center, said WMS Solutions LLC required its employees, who typically earn from $11 to $14 an hour, to pay for medical exams, training and protective equipment such as gloves, goggles and respirators. If workers didn't pay upfront, the costs were deducted from their paychecks, according to the complaint. The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration requires an employer to provide those protections, Rosenblatt and Harris said. The Public Justice Center wants the agency to investigate and reimburse the workers, who had to pay hundreds of dollars apiece each year, according to the complaint. An OSHA spokeswoman declined to comment on the complaint. Messages left at WMS Solutions seeking comment were not immediately returned. An executive assistant said on March 16 that the company's owner was out of the country. The asbestos issue is also being addressed in the General Assembly. Bills pending in the state House and Senate -- supported by the Public Justice Center -- would add protections for workers who handle the material, which is linked to causing cancer. The proposed legislation would also increase the penalties for companies that violate environmental laws. Rosenblatt said WMS is a staffing company that works with contractors and subcontractors in Maryland, Washington, Virginia and Pennsylvania. The company employs about 200 to 300 workers, although the number fluctuates with the seasons, Harris said. More than a dozen current and former employees have signed on to the complaint on behalf of all current and former workers. Rosenblatt said turnover at the company is high and that the number of people affected could reach into the thousands. Gordon J. Raymond of Laurel is one of the workers involved in the complaint. Raymond, who has an outstanding workers' compensation claim against WMS, worked for the company for about two years, and said he signed on to the complaint to push for change. "If nobody takes a closer look at this to make sure that safety precautions are being met, things are not going to get better," Raymond said. About 10 contractors and subcontractors are named in the complaint. Calls to several of them were not returned. Among other matters, the complaint alleges that at two work sites, where subcontractors are using WMS employees, some workers are being forced to wash respirator filters and reuse them while others are given new filters as often as twice a week. The complaint also accuses WMS and the subcontractors of not establishing proper decontamination areas with shower facilities and, on some occasions, misleading government inspectors by providing showers that were not connected to a water source. Ernesto Torres of Baltimore said in an interview that he worked for WMS for six years before being fired in July. Torres lost his job when he complained to OSHA about working conditions, the Public Justice Center's filing states. "I am trying to bring this to the light where everybody can see it, so we can stop them, one way or another, from violating people's rights," Torres said. The bills before the House and Senate are aimed at adding additional protections for workers who remove asbestos. Asbestos is substance used to insulate pipes, floor tiles and other materials. Contact with asbestos can cause cancer and other diseases. The legislation, which the Senate could vote on the week beginning March 19, would increase the maximum penalty for violating environmental regulations to $25,000 and establish an Asbestos Worker Protection Fund for the state Department of the Environment to enforce the laws. The bills also would set a minimum penalty of $2,000 for violations. Del. Tom Hucker, a Montgomery County Democrat who co-sponsored the proposed legislation, said the current fines, which are capped at $5,000, are an insufficient deterrent. The Department of the Environment does not have the resources it needs to enforce the laws, Hucker said. Hucker said lawmakers need to pass the legislation to even the competition among asbestos abatement companies. Those that follow the rules consistently lose business to "bottom-feeding" companies that offer lower rates by cutting corners, he said. Sen. Victor Ramirez, a Prince George's County Democrat who also co-sponsored the proposed legislation, said some companies are exploiting a vulnerable part of the state's population. "We're talking about multimillion-dollar contracts in a lot of cases, and we have employers who are taking shortcuts to profit more," said Ramirez, who was speaking about the legislation and not referring to the WMS complaint. "People are afraid to come out and say what is wrong. They are afraid to lose their job." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quebec Institute Affirms Chrysotile Is NOT Safe ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Lalonde of The Postmedia News reports that the head of Quebec's public health institute says its recent recommendations to improve public safety regarding exposure to asbestos are based on science, and its scientists are not biased against chrysotile asbestos as an industry representative claims. "The Institut national de sante publique du Quebec is not an activist organization," director Luc Boileau told The Gazette March 16. "This is a governmental organization connected to the health system which has as its only goal to bring science into (government) decision-making and to the attention of the public . . . . To try to destabilize the credibility of the institute by questioning the objectivity of the organization is an error. It is wrong." Earlier, the institute released a document listing 35 recommendations to improve public health based on studies completed between 2003 and 2009 of asbestos-related illnesses in workers and the public. The top three recommendations are that Quebec lower the maximum allowable exposure levels of asbestos in workplaces (Quebec allows 10 times the level allowed in other provinces), that buildings containing asbestos be registered publicly so construction workers can be protected and that air quality in asbestos mining towns be more carefully monitored. On March 14, owners and workers at the currently inoperative Jeffrey Mine in Asbestos, Que., issued a statement questioning the institute's objectivity. "Certainly the risk exists, but considering the many public health problems that need to be addressed, but does the level of risk associated with the presence of chrysotile in the air justify making it such a big priority?" asked mine spokesman Guy Versailles. Boileau said since asbestos is the No. 1 cause of workplace illness in Quebec, it does merit priority attention by government and public health authorities. The provincial government's official policy on asbestos is that it can be used safely and that its use in Quebec should increase. The government favors reopening the Jeffrey Mine, and will guarantee a $58-million loan to project backers if they can raise $25 million in private investments. While Boileau said it is not the institute's role to tell the government its policy is wrong, its position after years of scientific study is that it is difficult, if not impossible, to use asbestos safely. The institute published a study comparing the different sizes and shapes of asbestos fibers found in the lungs of 123 workers who died of asbestos-related diseases. Among the conclusions was that chrysotile asbestos was found in the lungs of 85% of the workers, and that asbestos fibers remained in the lungs 30 years after exposure in some of the workers. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Judge Calls Fee-Referral Issue a Demagoguery ---------------------------------------------------------------- Beth Hundsdorfer at BND.com reports that there's no doubt that plaintiff's lawyers didn't want then-judge Don Weber to hear their asbestos cases, but the reasons why are a matter of debate. Weber, the Republican candidate for state representative, contends the lawyers didn't want a fair trial, which is why they asked their cases to be moved to more plaintiff-friendly judges. But his political rival in Tuesday's (March 13) Republican primary, State Rep. Paul Evans, R-O'Fallon, said it's because Weber was taking a referral fees from the largest asbestos plaintiff litigator, SimmonsCooper. "(Evans) is being such an inconsistent hypocrite on this," Weber said. "He ought to make up his mind. Simmons is the one who wanted me off those cases. If I was in their back pocket, why would they want me off?" Evans contends its Weber who wants it both ways. "Weber says that the plaintiffs' attorneys were so afraid of him that they asked him to be taken off their cases," Evans said. "In truth, you were taking money from them and that's why you couldn't hear their cases." Evans, Weber and a third candidate, Charlie Meier, are seeking the GOP nomination for state representative in the 108th District. Weber referred an asbestos case in 2003 to SimmonsCooper. He received referral payments in the case through 2009 -- three years after he was appointed to fill a vacancy as a circuit judge in Madison County. Weber said he stopped cashing the checks in 2009. Weber said that his referral of the case was proper. "These clients were very dear friends of mine. They were born in Madison County, grew up in Madison County, went to school in Madison County, served on the Arts Council in Madison County and lived in Madison County," Weber said. "I believe that he should have the right of access in Madison County courts. He's dead wrong on this. What he's saying is that Madison County residents should not have access to Madison County courts when they are injured." Weber removed himself from 14 of SimmonsCooper's asbestos cases in 2006, but he delayed on one case for six weeks, until he received another referral payment from the East Alton law firm, according to court documents. "When Don Weber became aware of the ethical conflict, he should have immediately voluntarily recused himself, instead he accepted another fee payment from his referral of an asbestos case," Evans said. "It is clear that in this case, it was the plaintiff's attorney who brought fairness and integrity to the asbestos litigation process, not Don Weber. " The issue was raised when Weber unsuccessfully ran for the circuit judge's spot against Dave Hylla in late 2006. Weber maintains that he's been for tort reform on the asbestos docket for years, fighting venue and judge shopping. He called the fee-referral issue "a Hail Mary, over-the-top, negative attack" by Evans. "If he believed this was an issue, he should have raised it at some appropriate point so we could have discussed it," Weber said. "This is demagoguery at its worst." ASBESTOS UPDATE: ESG Sets Assessment and Remediation Standards -------------------------------------------------------------- Toronto's premier mold testing company and inspection service experts, Environmental Services Group, have succeeded in building their reputation as the leading experts in Toronto and the GTA. The cutting-edge professionals work closely with clients to assess and remediate environmental hazards commonly found in both commercial and residential properties such as mold, asbestos and lead that can lead to health and safety hazards. Their accuracy and professionalism has made them the trusted source and resource for certified environmental assessment in Toronto, the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) and Southwest Ontario. In a recent episode called "Home making you sick?" on CP24's Wylde On Health, Tara Valley, Senior Environmental Consultant and Indoor Air Quality Specialist for the Environmental Services Group shared some common issues that affect residential properties. Some of the bigger concerns were identified as attics, basements, inside walls and bathrooms. A few surprising culprits made it on to the list as well such as car-mats and ceilings. These areas turned up toxins and molds in ESG's professional mold inspection services of several residential and commercial properties. "Mold and toxins can cause very serious health issues," says Valley. "This is especially predominant among the young, elderly and individuals with respiratory problems," Valley adds. Companies like Environmental Services Group in particular execute mold testing. "It's important to contact a professional when you find mold in your home," explains Valley. "It's not just important to have the hazard removed and cleaned up, it is critical to have a final mold test to verify that the source of the mold has been properly removed to ensure it doesn't return to harmful levels," Valley says. One of the major issues affecting families and companies who are trying to eradicate the deadly substance is the increasing number of unlicensed and unqualified people looking to take advantage of homeowners. "It's very important to do your research to ensure that the mold testing company you hire is certified and fully licensed," stresses Valley. Further demonstration of the expertise of ESG was seen a few months ago on an episode of one of HGTV's popular property renovation programs, "Income Properties". The team at ESG was called in to assess the mold removal job performed on an old home that was being modernized for an episode. ESG is not limited to doing inspections for mold, but has expertise in detecting asbestos containing materials, asbestos air sampling, and indoor air quality assessments. To book an environmental assessment in Toronto or the GTA, call 416-575-6111 or visit us at http://www.environmentalservicesgroup.ca/ About Environmental Services Group Environmental Services Group is the trusted leader for mold-free homes and breathable indoor air spaces in Toronto, the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), and Southwest Ontario. Providing certified mold testing and inspections since 2005, we service homeowners, real-estate agents, landlords, property managers, insurance companies and businesses. Featured on CP24, CTV, Global TV, HGTV and Holmes on Homes Magazine, we are contractor recommended and regularly serve as expert witnesses in court proceedings relating to Mold and Indoor Air Quality issues. Call us today for a consultation at (416) 575-6111. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Regional School Exposed 9 Students to Carcinogens ------------------------------------------------------------------ K.C. Myers of Cape Cod Online reports that the state Department of Labor Standards has fined Cape Cod Regional Technical High School $3,300 after nine students were exposed to asbestos while they were renovating a building on school property in January. The students, who were predominantly from the carpentry shop, joined a teacher in renovating the detached building, which had been used by a school bus company in 2010. It was being converted for future use by the school, Superintendent Bob Sanborn said. At the same time as the renovation, the entire campus was being inspected for asbestos to comply with the federal Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act, Sanborn said. The act -- which applies to schools containing asbestos -- was passed in the 1980s. But the school either never had the required management plan or the plan had been lost over the years, Sanborn said. In August, the state asked the school officials for their latest inspection report on existing asbestos, according to a report by Brian T. Wong, chief of the investigations and enforcement unit at the state Department of Labor Standards. School officials could not find any reports, and so the school hired Vertex, an asbestos consulting company in Weymouth, to test and come up with a management plan. The asbestos act requires an original plan, with three-year re-inspections. The school and Vertex concentrated on the main school building, Sanborn said, then started on the outbuildings. That's when Vertex tested tiles that the students had just ripped out of the former bus company administration building, Sanborn said. The Department of Labor Standards cited and fined the school for several violations, including not having an updated management plan for asbestos and not properly removing and containing construction debris material containing asbestos. Vertex will clean up the site Before March 23, and then renovation of the building will continue, Sanborn said. The cleanup is expected to cost between $40,000 and $50,000, Sanborn said. Asbestos, a common building material, has been proven to increase the chance of lung cancer when it is airborne. The onset of cancer can happen years, even decades, after the exposure, and the chances of getting sick increase with the amount of exposure to asbestos, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Most schools and other buildings contain asbestos, according to the EPA's Asbestos In Schools fact sheet. The EPA recommends that schools leave it alone because asbestos particles only become airborne and can be breathed into the lungs when broken. The worst materials are known as "friable," or breakable with the human hand, Sanborn said. The tiles at Cape Tech were not the most dangerous kind of asbestos products, but they were cracked and broken. Students were exposed for about four hours, Sanborn said. "Students were allowed to remove these floor tiles using shovels to scrape up the tiles and brooms to sweep up the debris," Wong stated. Students were not wearing appropriate masks to protect their lungs from asbestos, the report noted. "This has been a learning process for everyone," Sanborn said. "We're doing all we can to comply and correct this. We self- reported to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection . . . and now it is being cleaned up." The school sent letters home to the nine students' families. None of the parents have reacted dramatically or threatened legal action, Sanborn said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Participant Climbs for Parents Taken by Cancer --------------------------------------------------------------- Gina Barton of the Journal Sentinel relates Kay Wolferstetter's father died of asbestos-related lung cancer on Feb. 27. As she participated in the American Lung Association's Fight for Air Climb Saturday, March 17, walking up 1,034 stairs in the U.S. Bank building downtown, Wolferstetter heard her father's voice in her head, encouraging her to go on. "I sat in the hospice with my dad, just talking to him, and it was out of my control," said Wolferstetter, whose mother also died of lung cancer. "This was a way to do something positive with a crappy situation." Wolferstetter, who raised $2,400, climbed to the 47th floor four times in an hour as part of the event's Ultimate Challenge. The event raised about $386,000 for research, education and advocacy, about $26,000 above the organization's goal, according to Dona Wininsky, director of public policy and communication. Most of the approximately 1,900 participants in the fundraiser opted for just one trip to the top. The fastest reached the summit in about 6 minutes. Others took more than 45 minutes. Most wore shorts or sweats and T-shirts imprinted with their team names or slogans ("You say elevator, we say stairs"; "We climb for beer"). More than 100 firefighters from area departments were exceptions to that rule, making the climb in full protective gear, including helmet, mask, boots and oxygen tanks. John Wood of the Mequon Fire Department practiced on a flight of about 20 steps at the fire station in a town without skyscrapers. "It's just a test to see how fit I really am," said Wood, 50, who climbed with six fellow firefighters - all in their 20s. He also persuaded his wife, Kristin Wood, 37, to make the climb. "It was really humid and hot," she said afterward. "I can't even imagine doing it in all that gear." For Milwaukee, Saturday marked the fourth annual climb. For Harish Kandoth, Saturday's uphill trek was his seventh this year. Kandoth, 42, who lives in suburban Chicago, climbed three skyscrapers in Illinois, as well as one each in Indianapolis, Des Moines and Minneapolis before coming to Milwaukee. During the last weekend, he climbed One Indiana Square in Indianapolis on March 10 and Chicago's Presidential Towers on March 11. "That was the only one that was tough," he said of the back-to- back events. Kandoth climbed for the first time last year, after a close family friend, Vellore "Sethu" Menon, was diagnosed with lung cancer. As Menon fought the disease, Kandoth completed five climbs to inspire his friend. This year, Kandoth climbed in honor of Menon, who died in June. "Now my primary goal is air quality, especially for children," said Kandoth, who raised $1,500. Wolferstetter's focus is on preventing the cancers that claimed her parents, both by preventing kids from becoming addicted to cigarettes and by encouraging people to wear protective masks when working on home improvement projects such as installing insulation. "They live through me," she said of her parents. "They always will." ********* 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. Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2012. 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 Peter Chapman at 240/629-3300. * * * End of Transmission * * *