/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/120803.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, August 3, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 153 Headlines AFFINION GROUP: Appeal From Calif. Suit Dismissal Remains Pending AFFINION GROUP: Awaits Dismissal Bid Ruling in N.Y. Suit AFFINION GROUP: Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Suit Due Aug. 17 AFFINION GROUP: Unit Still Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Suit AFFINION GROUP: Webloyalty Faces Class Action Suit in Calif. ALCOA INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of ERISA-Violation Suit APPLE INC: Jobs Biographer Refuses to Hand Over Source Material BURCH FARMS: Recalls Athena Cantaloupes Sold at Hannaford CARTER'S INC: Got Final OK of Securities Suit Settlement in June CLIF BAR: Recalls 6-Pack Coconut Chocolate Chip CLIF(R) Bars CMS ENERGY: Appeals in Gas Index Price Cases Remain Pending COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: In Discussions to Settle New York Class Suit COMMERCE BANCSHARES: Unit Signs Formal "Wolfgeher" Suit Accord COSTAR GROUP: Anticipates Paying LoopNet Suit Settlement by Dec. CREDO PETROLEUM: Being Sold to Forestar for Too Little ENSCO PLC: Remaining Suits Over Pride Acquisition Dismissed FANNIE MAE: Dougherty County May Join Transfer Fee Class Action FULL TILT: Poker Players Seek Payment of Damages in Class Suit G4 MEDIA: Faces Overtime Class Action in California GARDEN FRESH: Recalls Packages of Products Containing Onions GREEN DOT: Faces Securities Class Action in California GREEN TOYS: Recalls 52,500 Toy Cars Due To Choking Hazard HIGHER ONE: Sued Over Deceptive Student Financial Aid Bank Fees HINDS COUNTY, MI: Watson Firm Confirms Filing of Overtime Suit HUXTABLE'S KITCHEN: Recalls Salad Under Trader Joe's Brand HYUNDAI MOTOR: Recalls 200,000 SUVs Under Settlement Deal INTERNAP NETWORK: Two Claims in "Anastasio" Suit Remain Pending JON DAVLER: Faces Class Action Over "Vaginal Inspection" KEN'S FOODS: Recalls Dressings and Sauces Containing Onions LIBERTY MOUNTAIN: Recalls 400 VAUDE Kenta Child Carriers LINN ENERGY: Briefing in Suit Over Royalty Payments Deferred MICRONETICS INC: Agrees to Settle Mecury Merger Litigation NETFLIX INC: Agrees to Change Data Retention Practices NW MANAGEMENT: Faces Class Action in Wash. Over Labor Abuses OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Awaits Order on Plea to Dismiss "Hines" Suit OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Facebook Beacon-Related Suit Appeal Pending PIERCE COUNTY, WA: "Adult Entertainers" File Class Action PINNACLE FINANCIAL: Responds to "Higgins" Suit Discovery Requests PUBLIX SUPER: Recalls Custom Made Sub Sandwiches with Onions QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Sales Rep Suit QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Bid to Dismiss Suit vs. Celera Still Pending QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: NJLAD Violations Suit Still Pending in N.J. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: NID-Related Suit Dismissed With Prejudice RADIOSHACK CORP: Bernard M. Gross Files Securities Class Action SMITH MICRO: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Class Action SPARTAN STORES: Recalls Deli and Produce Products With Onions STOP & SHOP: Recalls Calico Bean Salad Sold at Salad Bars TOWN SPORTS: Pre-Trial Conference in "Labbe" Suit on August 17 TOWN SPORTS: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Cruz" Suits ULSTER BANK: Consumers' Association Launches Class Action * Russian Justice Ministry Publishes Draft Law on Class Actions Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Affirms Judgment on Worker's Claim v. Exxon ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rain Bird's Dismissal Bid Denied for Lack of Info ASBESTOS UPDATE: Taco Inc. Fails in Bid to Dismiss Exposure Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mine Safety Still Defends 2,567 Asbestos Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Has 25 Pending Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fairfax Financial Unit Reinsured Fibro Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: AK Steel Had 402 Pending Cases at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lorillard Continues to Defend 42 Filter Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Recorded $5MM Expense in 2nd Qtr. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Had $904.8MM Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial in Suit vs. Aqua-Chem Set for September ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Had 25,000 Active Claims at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco Plc Continues to Defend Asbestos Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Still Defending Suits & Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Had 16,000 Pending Claims at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Still Faces Drilling Mud Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: EMCOR Group Got Gaskets That May Have Asbestos ASBESTOS UPDATE: RPM Units' Ultimate Liability Still Unknown ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 57,559 Pending Claims at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. Had $19.6MM Liability for Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Companies Still Defends Exposure Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Estimates Up to $18MM Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Had 1,400 Claims at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reynolds American Units Still Party to "Parsons" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Celanese Corp. Still Defending Exposure Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement of Wilton Mill Site Begins ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bechtel Workers Speak Out on Asbestos Issues ASBESTOS UPDATE: Simmons Firm Wins $2.86 Million Verdict ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lake Zurich Dist. Argues Alleged IDPH Violations ASBESTOS UPDATE: Priestly, I&I on Four Seasons Hotel Project ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Attorney Indicts Old Chrysler Plant Supplier ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement at Texas U's Elliott Hall Ongoing ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK Sets Up GBP300MM to Help 3,000 ARC Victims ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADAO Welcomes The Safer Chemicals Act of 2012 ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace & Co. Net Income Drops 8.6% ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Settles Sunriver Owners Lawsuit, Pays $500,000 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup of Old River Center Site Initiated ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oran Vanich to Fight Thailand's Anti-Fibro Move ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Violator Gets 10 Years Plus $62,000 Fine ASBESTOS UPDATE: Barraba Residents Demand To Be In "The Loop" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defense Lawyers Ask For Review on Added Proposals ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asphalt Plant Near Grimesdale Worries Residents ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ombudsman Sees Holes In Police Property Managing ASBESTOS UPDATE: Low Airborne Fibro Saturations Found in WA Mines ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Sues Schlumberger Ltd. et al for $525,000 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dumped Fibro in Darwin Awaits Government Plan ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albemarle County to Abate its Six Schools ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK Reinsurance Coverage of US Liabilities Viewed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found at LNG Construction Site ASBESTOS UPDATE: HSE Cites Contractor For Exposing Worker to Fibro ASBESTOS UPDATE: RIL Product Eyes To Entirely Replace Asbestos ASBESTOS UPDATE: KASCON LLC Gets Rome Schools Abatement Contract ASBESTOS UPDATE: India's Ban Asbestos Network Member TWA Steps Up ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insulator's Union Vows to Fight ARD, Mesothelioma ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stover Theatre Abatement Eyes Aug. 8 Completion ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bill Modernizing Chemical Regulations Passed ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Taps Superfund to Clean Up Union Steel Plant ASBESTOS UPDATE: High Abatement Costs "Killing" Ohio Land Banks ASBESTOS UPDATE: ETU Wants Answers on Bechtel Asbestos Issues ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jeffrey Mine Proponents Unhindered By Critics ASBESTOS UPDATE: Proprietor, Contractor Fined for Negligence ********* AFFINION GROUP: Appeal From Calif. Suit Dismissal Remains Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- On June 25, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against a subsidiary of Affinion Group Holdings, Inc., Webloyalty Holdings, Inc., and one of its clients in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California alleging, among other things, violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Electronic Communications Privacy Act, unjust enrichment, fraud, civil theft, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, California Consumers Legal Remedies Act violations, false advertising and California Consumer Business Practice violations. This lawsuit relates to Webloyalty's alleged conduct occurring on and after October 1, 2008. On February 17, 2011, Webloyalty filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in this lawsuit. On April 12, 2011, the Court granted Webloyalty's motion and dismissed all claims against the defendants. On May 10, 2011, plaintiff filed a notice appealing the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiff filed his opening appeals brief with the Ninth Circuit on October 17, 2011, and defendants filed their respective answering briefs on December 23, 2011. Plaintiff filed its reply brief on January 23, 2012. No date for oral argument on plaintiff's appeal has been set. No further updates were reported in the Company's July 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. AFFINION GROUP: Awaits Dismissal Bid Ruling in N.Y. Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its objection to a motion filed by a plaintiff in a New York class action lawsuit, to dismiss it from the case without prejudice, according to the Company's July 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. On November 10, 2010, a class action complaint was filed against the Company, its subsidiary Trilegiant Corporation, 1-800- Flowers.com, and Chase Bank USA, N.A. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The complaint asserts various causes of action on behalf of several putative nationwide classes that largely overlap with one another. The claims asserted are in connection with the sale by Trilegiant of its membership programs, including claims under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, and New York's General Business Law. On April 6, 2011, the Company and Trilegiant filed a motion to compel individual (non- class) arbitration of the plaintiff's claims. The Company's co- defendant, 1-800-Flowers.com, joined in the motion to compel arbitration, and co-defendant Chase Bank filed a motion to stay the case against it pending arbitration, or alternatively to dismiss. The Company does not know when the court will issue a ruling on these motions. On December 23, 2011, the plaintiff sought to dismiss the Company, Trilegiant, and 1-800-Flowers without prejudice. On January 4, 2012, the Company and Trilegiant objected to that dismissal (and 1-800-Flowers joined in that objection), seeking among other things dismissal with prejudice. Plaintiff responded to that objection on January 13, 2012, and the Company does not know when the court will enter a decision. Also, on January 13, 2012, the plaintiff sought to dismiss Chase without prejudice. On January 17, 2012, Chase filed an objection to the plaintiff's dismissal request. That issue is currently being considered by the court. The Company does not know when the court will rule on that issue. AFFINION GROUP: Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Suit Due Aug. 17 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in a consolidated class action lawsuit in Connecticut have until August 17, 2012, to file their consolidated amended complaint, according to Affinion Group Holdings, Inc.'s July 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. On June 17, 2010, a class action complaint was filed against the Company and its subsidiary, Trilegiant Corporation ("Trilegiant"), in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The complaint asserts various causes of action on behalf of a putative nationwide class and a California-only subclass in connection with the sale by Trilegiant of its membership programs, including claims under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, the California False Advertising Law, and for unjust enrichment. On September 29, 2010, the Company filed a motion to compel arbitration of all of the claims asserted in this lawsuit. On February 24, 2011, the court denied the Company's motion. On March 28, 2011, the Company and Trilegiant filed a notice of appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, appealing the district court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration. The Company does not know when the appeal will be decided. While that issue is on appeal, the matter has proceeded in the district court. There has been written discovery and depositions. Previously, the court had set a briefing schedule on class certification that called for the completion of class certification briefing on May 18, 2012. However, on March 28, 2012, the court suspended the briefing schedule on the motion due to the filing of two other overlapping class actions in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The first of those cases was filed on March 6, 2012, against the Company, Trilegiant, Chase Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A., Capital One Financial Corp., Citigroup, Inc., Citibank, N.A., Apollo Global Management, LLC, 1-800-Flowers.Com, Inc., United Online, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc., Classmates Int'l, Inc., FTD Group, Inc., Days Inn Worldwide, Inc., Wyndham Worldwide Corp., People Finderspro, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Raukuten USA, Inc., IAC/InteractiveCorp., and Shoebuy.com, Inc. The second of those cases was filed on March 25, 2012, against the same defendants as well as Adaptive Marketing, LLC, Vertrue, Inc., Webloyalty.com, Inc., and Wells Fargo & Co. These two cases assert similar claims as the claims asserted in the earlier-filed lawsuit in connection with the sale by Trilegiant of its membership programs. On April 26, the court consolidated these three cases. The court also set an initial status conference for May 17, 2012. At that status conference, the court ordered that Plaintiffs file a consolidated amended complaint that will combine the claims in the three previously separate lawsuits. The court also struck the class certification briefing schedule that had been set previously. The Plaintiffs have until August 17, 2012, to file the consolidated amended complaint, and the Defendants will have 60 days to respond to the complaint. AFFINION GROUP: Unit Still Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- On August 27, 2010, a class action lawsuit , which is substantially similar to the one filed in California, was filed against a subsidiary of Affinion Group Holdings, Inc., Webloyalty Holdings, Inc., one of its former clients and one of the credit card associations in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut alleging, among other things, violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, Electronic Communications Privacy Act, unjust enrichment, civil theft, negligent misrepresentation, fraud and Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act violations. This lawsuit relates to Webloyalty's alleged conduct occurring on and after October 1, 2008. On December 23, 2010, Webloyalty filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit, which had since been amended in its entirety. The court has not yet scheduled a hearing or ruled on Webloyalty's motion. No further updates were reported in the Company's July 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. AFFINION GROUP: Webloyalty Faces Class Action Suit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------ Affinion Group Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary is facing a class action lawsuit in California, according to the Company's July 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. On June 7, 2012, a class action lawsuit was filed U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against the Company's subsidiary Webloyalty Holdings, Inc., which is factually similar to the actions filed in California and Connecticut. The action claims that Webloyalty engaged in unlawful business practices in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq. and in violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. Both claims are based on allegations that in connection with enrollment and billing of the plaintiff, Webloyalty charged plaintiff's credit or debit card using information obtained through a data pass process and without obtaining directly from plaintiff his full account number, name, address, and contact information, as purportedly required under Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act. Webloyalty's answer or other response to the complaint was due on July 27, 2012. ALCOA INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of ERISA-Violation Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit captioned Curtis v. Alcoa Inc. appealed an order dismissing their lawsuit in its entirety, according to the Company's July 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. In November 2006, in Curtis v. Alcoa Inc., Civil Action No. 3:06cv448 (E.D. Tenn.), a class action was filed by plaintiffs representing approximately 13,000 retired former employees of Alcoa or Reynolds Metals Company and spouses and dependents of such retirees alleging violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the Labor-Management Relations Act by requiring plaintiffs, beginning January 1, 2007, to pay health insurance premiums and increased co-payments and co-insurance for certain medical procedures and prescription drugs. Plaintiffs alleged these changes to their retiree health care plans violated their rights to vested health care benefits. Plaintiffs additionally alleged that Alcoa had breached its fiduciary duty to plaintiffs under ERISA by misrepresenting to them that their health benefits would never change. Plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief, back payment of benefits, and attorneys' fees. Alcoa had consented to treatment of plaintiffs' claims as a class action. During the fourth quarter of 2007, following briefing and argument, the court ordered consolidation of the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction with trial, certified a plaintiff class, bifurcated and stayed the plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty claims, struck the plaintiffs' jury demand, but indicated it would use an advisory jury, and set a trial date of September 17, 2008. In August 2008, the court set a new trial date of March 24, 2009 and, subsequently, the trial date was moved to September 22, 2009. In June 2009, the court indicated that it would not use an advisory jury at trial. Trial in the matter was held over eight days commencing September 22, 2009, and ending on October 1, 2009, in federal court in Knoxville, TN, before the Honorable Thomas Phillips, U.S. District Court Judge. At the conclusion of evidence, the court set a post- hearing briefing schedule for submission of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by the parties and for replies to the same. Post trial briefing was submitted on December 4, 2009. On March 9, 2011, the court issued a judgment order dismissing plaintiffs' lawsuit in its entirety with prejudice for the reasons stated in its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. On March 23, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for clarification and/or amendment of the judgment order, which seeks, among other things, a declaration that plaintiffs' retiree benefits are vested subject to an annual cap and an injunction preventing Alcoa, prior to 2017, from modifying the plan design to which plaintiffs are subject or changing the premiums and deductibles that plaintiffs must pay. Also on March 23, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for award of attorneys' fees and expenses. Alcoa filed its opposition to both motions on April 11, 2011. On June 11, 2012, the court issued its memorandum and order denying plaintiffs' motion for clarification and/or amendment to the original judgment order. On July 6, 2012, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the court's March 9, 2011 judgment. On July 12, 2012, the court stayed Alcoa's motion for assessment of costs pending resolution of plaintiffs' appeal. APPLE INC: Jobs Biographer Refuses to Hand Over Source Material --------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff John Roberts, writing for paidContent, reports that class action lawyers want Steve Jobs' biographer to hand over his source material to help them prove that Apple and publishers fixed e-book prices. But a judge has agreed that the author can refuse under a law that protects journalists and their sources. A federal judge ruled earlier this month that the laws of reporter privilege mean that Walter Isaacson, the author of a popular Steve Jobs biography, doesn't have to hand over his notes as evidence in a class action suit over alleged e-book price-fixing. The ruling came after plaintiffs issued a subpoena in May that required Mr. Isaacson to hand over his source materials. Their lawyers claim his notes and interview recordings with Mr. Jobs will help establish that the late Apple founder brokered a conspiracy with publishers. In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs have already jumped on passages in Mr. Isaacon's biography (such as Mr. Jobs saying consumers would "pay [] a little more") to support their case. Mr. Isaacson, a prominent historian and journalist, is willing to authenticate passages in the book. But he invoked the reporter's privilege and refused to hand over his source material or even a list of Jobs-related documents and recordings. His lawyers then asked U.S. District Judge Denise Cote to quash the subpoena. On July 20, Judge Cote agreed that Mr. Isaacson did not have to comply with the subpoena. She added, though, that the lawyers could try again if they can pass a legal test that allows the disclosure of journalists' non-confidential material in some circumstances. Mr. Isaacson's attorney, Elizabeth McNamara, said in a phone interview that the class-action lawyers faced a high bar to show the "notes are highly relevant and necessary to the case." She added that none of Mr. Isaacson's taped recordings with Mr. Jobs discuss e-book pricing. Plaintiffs' lawyer Steven Berman has argued that the reporter's privilege shouldn't apply because Mr. Jobs didn't ask Mr. Isaacson for confidentiality. He also claims that they can get Mr. Jobs' information on e-books from other sources. The dispute comes at a time when the reporter's privilege has been in the spotlight for the federal government's effort to knock it down in military cases. A Virginia appeals court, for instance, is preparing to rule on whether the Justice Department can compel a Wall Street Journal reporter to testify in a case against a former CIA officer. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which oversees New York courts, has affirmed the reporter's privilege numerous times. It recently warned: "wholesale exposure of press files . . . would burden the press with heavy costs of subpoena compliance, and could otherwise impair its ability to perform its duties . . . [it] would risk the symbolic harm of making journalists appear to be an investigative arm of the judicial system, the government, or private parties." The ruling was first reported by Publishers Weekly. BURCH FARMS: Recalls Athena Cantaloupes Sold at Hannaford --------------------------------------------------------- Burch Farms of North Carolina announced a recall of Athena cantaloupes because the product may contain listeria monocytogenes. No illnesses have been associated with this recall, according to Burch Farms. Hannaford is advising customers because its stores had carried Burch Farms Athena cantaloupes. The product has been removed. Athena cantaloupes, a variety grown in the Southeastern United States, are a whole cantaloupe produce item. If stickered, the label on the item will reference Burch Farm and read: "Cantaloupe PLU 4319." Customers should not consume these cantaloupes. Return the item to stores or dispose of the item and return the sticker for a full refund. Listeria has the potential to cause serious illness. No other products are affected by this recall. Hannaford Supermarkets, based in Scarborough, Maine, operates 181 stores and employs more than 26,000 associates in Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont. For additional information, visit http://www.hannaford.com/ CARTER'S INC: Got Final OK of Securities Suit Settlement in June ---------------------------------------------------------------- Carter's, Inc. received final approval of its settlement of a consolidated securities class action lawsuit in June 2012, according to the Company's July 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. A shareholder class action lawsuit asserting claims under the 1934 Securities Exchange Act was filed on September 19, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (the "Plymouth Action"). A separate shareholder class action lawsuit asserting additional claims under the 1934 Securities Exchange Act was filed on November 17, 2009, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (the "Mylroie Action"). The Court consolidated the Plymouth Action and the Mylroie Action on November 24, 2009 (the "Consolidated Action"). On December 21, 2011, the Company reached an agreement to settle the Consolidated Action for an amount which has been paid by the Company's insurance providers. The settlement agreement included no admission of liability or wrongdoing by the Company or by any other defendants and provided for a full and complete release of all related claims that were or could have been brought against the Company, its subsidiaries, and any and all current and former directors, officers, and employees of the Company and its subsidiaries. On June 1, 2012, the Court granted final approval of the settlement and entered a final judgment dismissing all claims against the Company with prejudice. The Company says it is subject to various other claims and pending or threatened lawsuits in the normal course of its business. The Company is not currently party to any other legal proceedings that it believes would have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows. CLIF BAR: Recalls 6-Pack Coconut Chocolate Chip CLIF(R) Bars ------------------------------------------------------------ Clif Bar & Company is initiating a voluntary recall of a small amount of 6-packs of Coconut Chocolate Chip CLIF(R) Bars that were distributed to limited Target and Walmart stores. These 6-packs may contain Coconut Chocolate Chip CLIF Bars that are mislabeled with White Chocolate Macadamia CLIF(R) Bar wrappers with a "Best By" date of 16MAY13G1 and do not list coconut in the ingredient statement. Clif is taking this precautionary safety step for people who are allergic to coconut. A small quantity of Coconut Chocolate Chip CLIF Bars were inadvertently placed in White Chocolate Macadamia CLIF Bar wrappers and these mislabeled bars were placed inside correctly labeled Coconut Chocolate Chip CLIF Bar 6-pack boxes. The White Chocolate Macadamia wrappers contain advisory allergen labeling which states that the product may contain traces of other tree nuts. Only the product meeting both the following criteria is affected: * 6-packs of Coconut Chocolate Chip CLIF Bars with "Best By" date 16MAY13G1 UPC: 7-22252-66030-5 * Coconut Chocolate Chip CLIF Bars mislabeled in White Chocolate Macadamia CLIF Bar individual wrappers found in the above Coconut Chocolate Chip CLIF Bar 6-pack box with the same "Best By" date 16MAY13G1 NO other CLIF Bar products, pack sizes, flavors or "Best By" date codes are affected. The Company is strongly advising consumers who have coconut allergies not to consume these mislabeled bars and discard them to avoid the possibility of an allergic reaction. People with an allergy to coconut run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction. No allergic reactions have been reported to date. Consumers with questions or who would like replacement coupons may contact 1-888-851-8456, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Pacific Daylight Time, Monday-Friday. Details can also be found at http://www.clifbar.com/coconut/ Clif Bar & Company cares deeply about the health and safety of consumers. The Company apologizes for this inadvertent labeling error. CMS ENERGY: Appeals in Gas Index Price Cases Remain Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Appeals in the Gas Index Price Reporting Litigation remain pending, according to CMS Energy Corporation's July 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. CMS Energy, along with CMS Marketing, Services and Trading Company (now known as CMS Energy Resource Management Company), CMS Field Services Inc., Cantera Natural Gas, Inc., and Cantera Gas Company, are named as defendants in various lawsuits arising as a result of alleged inaccurate natural gas price reporting to publications that report trade information. Allegations include manipulation of The New York Mercantile Exchange ("NYMEX") natural gas futures and options prices, price-fixing conspiracies, restraint of trade, and artificial inflation of natural gas retail prices in Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, and Wisconsin. * In 2005, CMS Energy, CMS MST, and CMS Field Services were named as defendants in a putative class action filed in Kansas state court, Learjet, Inc., et al. v. Oneok, Inc., et al. The complaint alleges that during the putative class period, January 1, 2000, through October 31, 2002, the defendants engaged in a scheme to violate the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act. The plaintiffs are seeking statutory full consideration damages consisting of the full consideration paid by plaintiffs for natural gas allegedly purchased from defendants. * In 2007, a class action complaint, Heartland Regional Medical Center, et al. v. Oneok, Inc. et al., was filed in Missouri state court alleging violations of Missouri antitrust laws. Defendants, including CMS Energy, CMS Field Services, and CMS MST, are alleged to have violated the Missouri antitrust law in connection with their natural gas reporting activities. * Breckenridge Brewery of Colorado, LLC and BBD Acquisition Co. v. Oneok, Inc., et al., a class action complaint brought on behalf of retail direct purchasers of natural gas in Colorado, was filed in Colorado state court in 2006. Defendants, including CMS Energy, CMS Field Services, and CMS MST, are alleged to have violated the Colorado Antitrust Act of 1992 in connection with their natural gas reporting activities. Plaintiffs are seeking full refund damages. * A class action complaint, Arandell Corp., et al. v. XCEL Energy Inc., et al., was filed in 2006 in Wisconsin state court on behalf of Wisconsin commercial entities that purchased natural gas between January 1, 2000, and October 31, 2002. The defendants, including CMS Energy, CMS ERM, and Cantera Gas Company, are alleged to have violated Wisconsin's antitrust statute. The plaintiffs are seeking full consideration damages, plus exemplary damages and attorneys' fees. After dismissal on jurisdictional grounds in 2009, plaintiffs filed a new complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. In 2010, the MDL judge issued an opinion and order granting the CMS Energy defendants' motion to dismiss the Michigan complaint on statute-of-limitations grounds and all CMS Energy defendants have been dismissed from the Arandell (Michigan) action. * Another class action complaint, Newpage Wisconsin System v. CMS ERM, et al., was filed in 2009 in circuit court in Wood County, Wisconsin, against CMS Energy, CMS ERM, Cantera Gas Company, and others. The plaintiff is seeking full consideration damages, treble damages, costs, interest, and attorneys' fees. * In 2005, J.P. Morgan Trust Company, in its capacity as Trustee of the FLI Liquidating Trust, filed an action in Kansas state court against CMS Energy, CMS MST, CMS Field Services, and others. The complaint alleges various claims under the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act. The plaintiff is seeking statutory full consideration damages for its purchases of natural gas in 2000 and 2001. After removal to federal court, all of the cases were transferred to the MDL. CMS Energy was dismissed from the Learjet, Heartland, and J.P. Morgan cases in 2009, but other CMS Energy defendants remained parties. All CMS Energy defendants were dismissed from the Breckenridge case in 2009. In 2010, CMS Energy and Cantera Gas Company were dismissed from the Newpage case and the Arandell (Wisconsin) case was reinstated against CMS ERM. In July 2011, all claims against remaining CMS Energy defendants in the MDL cases were dismissed based on FERC preemption. Plaintiffs have filed appeals in all of the cases. The issues on appeal are whether the district court erred in dismissing the cases based on FERC preemption and denying the plaintiffs' motions for leave to amend their complaints to add a federal Sherman Act antitrust claim. The plaintiffs did not appeal the dismissal of CMS Energy as a defendant in these cases, but other CMS Energy entities remain as defendants. These cases involve complex facts, a large number of similarly situated defendants with different factual positions, and multiple jurisdictions. Presently, any estimate of liability would be highly speculative; the amount of CMS Energy's possible loss would be based on widely varying models previously untested in this context. If the outcome after appeals is unfavorable, these cases could have a material adverse impact on CMS Energy's liquidity, financial condition, and results of operations. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: In Discussions to Settle New York Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Colgate-Palmolive Company is currently in discussions via non- binding mediation to determine whether a consolidated class action lawsuit pending in New York can be settled, according to the Company's July 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. In October 2007, a putative class action claiming that certain aspects of the cash balance portion of the Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan (the Plan) do not comply with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act was filed against the Plan and the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Specifically, Proesel, et al. v. Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan, et al. alleges improper calculation of lump sum distributions, age discrimination and failure to satisfy minimum accrual requirements, thereby resulting in the underpayment of benefits to Plan participants. Two other putative class actions filed earlier in 2007, Abelman, et al. v. Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan, et al., in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, and Caufield v. Colgate- Palmolive Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, both alleging improper calculation of lump sum distributions and, in the case of Abelman, claims for failure to satisfy minimum accrual requirements, were transferred to the Southern District of New York and consolidated with Proesel into one action, In re Colgate- Palmolive ERISA Litigation. The complaint in the consolidated action alleges improper calculation of lump sum distributions and failure to satisfy minimum accrual requirements, but does not include a claim for age discrimination. The relief sought includes recalculation of benefits in unspecified amounts, pre- and post-judgment interest, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. This action has not been certified as a class action as yet. The parties are in discussions via non-binding mediation to determine whether the action can be settled. The Company and the Plan intend to contest this action vigorously should the parties be unable to reach a settlement. COMMERCE BANCSHARES: Unit Signs Formal "Wolfgeher" Suit Accord -------------------------------------------------------------- Commerce Bancshares, Inc. disclosed in its July 26, 2012, Form 8- K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that its subsidiary signed the formal Settlement Agreement and Release related to the class action lawsuit captioned Wolfgeher v. Commerce Bank. On July 26, 2012, Commerce Bank, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, signed the formal Settlement Agreement and Release related to the class action lawsuit captioned Wolfgeher v. Commerce Bank, which was settled in December 2011, and which alleged unfair assessment and collection of overdraft fees based upon a high-to-low posting order utilized on debit card transactions. Commerce Bank, while admitting no wrongdoing, agreed to the settlement in order to resolve the litigation and avoid further expense. In accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and Release (which remains subject to final court approval), Commerce Bank agrees to post debit card transactions in chronological order, beginning no later than April 2013. As a result of this change in the posting order of debit card transactions, Commerce Bank currently estimates that overdraft income will be reduced on an annual basis by $6 to $8 million. COSTAR GROUP: Anticipates Paying LoopNet Suit Settlement by Dec. ---------------------------------------------------------------- CoStar Group, Inc. disclosed in its July 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012, that it anticipates payment will be made under the settlement of a consolidated merger-related class action lawsuit by December 31, 2012, upon the court's final approval of the settlement. In May 2011, LoopNet Inc., the Board of Directors of LoopNet ("the LoopNet Board") and/or the Company were named as defendants in three purported class action lawsuits brought by alleged LoopNet stockholders challenging LoopNet's proposed merger with the Company. The stockholder actions alleged, among other things, that (i) each member of the LoopNet Board breached his fiduciary duties to LoopNet and its stockholders in authorizing the sale of LoopNet to the Company, (ii) the merger does not maximize value to LoopNet stockholders, (iii) LoopNet and the Company have made incomplete or materially misleading disclosures about the proposed transaction and (iv) LoopNet and the Company aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty allegedly committed by the members of the LoopNet Board. The stockholder actions sought class action certification and equitable relief, including an injunction against consummation of the merger. The parties have stipulated to the consolidation of the actions, and to permit the filing of a consolidated complaint. In June 2011, counsel for the parties entered into a memorandum of understanding in which they agreed on the terms of a settlement of this litigation, which could result in a loss to the Company of approximately $200,000. The Company anticipates that the payment will be made by December 31, 2012, upon the court's final approval of the settlement. CoStar Group, Inc. -- http://www.costar.com/-- provides information/marketing services to the commercial real estate industry in the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. The Company was founded in 1987 and is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland. CREDO PETROLEUM: Being Sold to Forestar for Too Little ------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that directors of Credo Petroleum are selling the company too cheaply through an unfair process to Forestar Group, for $14.50 a share or $146 million, shareholders say in Denver County Court. A copy of the Complaint in Gavrilas v. Huffman, et al., Case No. 45601011 (Colo. Dist. Ct., Denver Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/31/ShareDeriv.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles W. Lilley, Esq. Karen Cody-Hopkins, Esq. CHARLES LILLEY & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1600 Stout Street, 11th Floor Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 293-9800 E-mail: clilley@lilleylaw.com karen@codyhopkinslaw.com ENSCO PLC: Remaining Suits Over Pride Acquisition Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------- Ensco plc said in its July 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012, that the remaining cases filed in connection with its acquisition of Pride International, Inc. were dismissed. On May 31, 2011, Ensco plc completed a merger transaction with Pride International, Inc., a Delaware corporation, ENSCO International Incorporated, a Delaware corporation and an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary and predecessor of Ensco plc ("Ensco Delaware"), and ENSCO Ventures LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of Ensco plc ("Merger Sub"). Pursuant to the merger agreement, Merger Sub merged with and into Pride, with Pride as the surviving entity and an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of Ensco plc. In April 2010, two purported shareholders of Pride filed separate derivative actions against all of Pride's then-current directors and against Pride, as nominal defendant. The lawsuits, filed in state court in Texas, were consolidated and alleged that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in regards to certain matters involving Pride's previously disclosed investigation under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA"). Among other remedies, the lawsuit sought damages in an unspecified amount and equitable relief against the individual defendants, along with an award of attorney fees and other costs and expenses to the plaintiff. After the conclusion of Pride's investigation, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended petition in January 2011, raising allegations substantially similar to those made in the prior lawsuits. Following the announcement of the Merger, a number of putative shareholder class action complaints or petitions were filed against various combinations of Pride, Pride's directors, Ensco and certain of our subsidiaries. These lawsuits, filed in the Delaware Chancery Court and in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, challenged the proposed Merger and generally alleged, among other matters, that the individual members of the Pride board of directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the proposed Merger, failing to take steps to maximize value to Pride's shareholders and failing to disclose material information concerning the proposed Merger in the registration statement on Form S-4; that Pride, Ensco and certain of our subsidiaries aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties; and that the Merger improperly favored Ensco and unduly restricted Pride's ability to negotiate with other bidders. These lawsuits generally sought, among other remedies, compensatory damages, declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the alleged fiduciary breaches, and injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants from consummating the Merger. In addition, the plaintiffs in the derivative class action lawsuits related to Pride's previously disclosed FCPA investigation amended their petition to add claims related to the Merger. In 2011, the Company entered into a stipulation of settlement with the plaintiffs in the Delaware cases, under which Pride or its successor agreed not to oppose any application by attorneys for the class for fees and expenses not exceeding $1.1 million. In 2012, the remaining cases were dismissed. Ensco plc -- http://www.enscoplc.com-- provides offshore contract drilling services to the oil and gas industry worldwide. It owns and operates an offshore drilling rig fleet of approximately 77 rigs, including 7 drill ships, 13 dynamically positioned semisubmersible rigs, 7 moored semisubmersible rigs, 49 jack up rigs, and 1 barge rig used to drill and complete oil and natural gas wells. The Company's s drilling rigs are located in Brazil, Europe and Mediterranean region, the Middle East and Africa region, and the Asia Pacific rim region. It serves government owned, and independent oil and gas companies, as well as various independent operators. Ensco plc was founded in 1975 and is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom. FANNIE MAE: Dougherty County May Join Transfer Fee Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Ashley Knight, writing for Fox31 news, reports that attorney, and former Dougherty County DA, Ken Hodges spoke to the county commission on July 30 about participating in the filing of a class action lawsuit against Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Mr. Hodges says the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation have not been paying transfer fees in transactions with certain counties -- Dougherty being one of them. He wants the county's permission to represent at the hearing in Michigan this coming September. "This is a tough time for counties, we're all in a recession, we need to find money and we certainly don't need people that are owing taxes to not be paying them," says Mr. Hodges. County Attorney Spencer Lee says he will look into the matter more before giving Mr. Hodges an answer. FULL TILT: Poker Players Seek Payment of Damages in Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that Full Tilt Poker companies took more than $443.8 million from players' accounts from April 2007 to April 2011, a class action claims in St. Clair County Court. Lead plaintiff Judy Fahrner claims the defendants required Illinois residents who wanted to play to maintain player accounts with Full Tilt. Players deposited money in their player accounts through a variety of methods, including credit and debit card transactions and wire transfers. "The deposited funds were fraudulently commingled with Full Tilt's operational funds and dispersed to individual defendants," the complaint states. "Upon information and belief, Full Tilt's Board of Directors distributed approximately $443,860,529.89 to themselves and other owners between April, 2007 and April, 2011." The U.S. Department of Justice shut down Full Tilt on April 15, 2011 and filed criminal charges, including wire fraud, bank fraud, and money laundering. In doing so, the DOJ seized and has sought the forfeiture of Full Tilt's assets, but has not sought the forfeiture of player's money, according to the complaint. Ms. Fahrner seeks class damages for all Illinois residents who lost money in Full Tilt's illegal gambling operation. Named as defendants are Full Tilt Poker Ltd., Tiltware LLC, Vantage Ltd., Filco Ltd., Kolyma Corp., A.V.V., Pocket Kings Ltd., Pocket Kings Consulting Ltd., Ranston Ltd., Mail Media Ltd. and 16 people. A copy of the Complaint in Fahrner v. Bitar, et al., Case No. 12L354 (Ill. Cir. Ct., St. Clair Cty.), is available at; http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/31/FullTilt.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Lloyds M. Cueto, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF LLOYD M. CUETO 7110 West Main Street Belleville, IL 62223 Telephone: (618) 277-1554 G4 MEDIA: Faces Overtime Class Action in California --------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that G4 Media and NBC Universal Media stiffed "segment, line and field producers" on the TV program "Attack of the Show" for overtime, a class action claims in Los Angeles Superior Court. GARDEN FRESH: Recalls Packages of Products Containing Onions ------------------------------------------------------------ * Possible Health Risk Due To Gills Onions Expanded Recall Cited Garden Fresh Foods, Inc. is initiating a voluntary recall of various ready-to-eat salads, slaw, salsa, bean and dip products sold under various brands and code dates. The products may contain onions from Gills Onions, which may be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism that can cause serious and sometimes-fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. Products are sold in various size containers (8oz to 8 pound packages). The product were distributed in the following states: WI, MN, IA, IL, OH, IN, TX, FL, MA, MO, MI, PA, AZ, CA, and distributed to retail stores and food services. Consumers who have purchased any of the suspect products are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. Currently there has been no illness reported related to this recall. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-800-645-3367 Monday through Friday between the hours 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. GREEN DOT: Faces Securities Class Action in California ------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that in a class action, the plaintiffs, purchasers of securities in Green Dot, claim the low- cost banking platform made misleading and false statements that hid adverse information about its operations and prospects. The case is Bryan Zee v. Green Dot Corporation; Steven Streit; John Keatley filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. GREEN TOYS: Recalls 52,500 Toy Cars Due To Choking Hazard --------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in cooperation with Green Toys Inc., of Mill Valley, California, announced a voluntary recall of about 50,000 Green Toys(TM) Mini Vehicles in the United States of America and 2,500 in Canada. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The wheels and hubcaps on the toy cars can detach, posing a choking hazard to young children. Green Toys has received 10 reports of wheels and hubcaps detaching or loosening from the vehicles. There have been no reports of injuries. This recall involves Green Toys(TM) Mini Vehicles. All cars are made of plastic and available in yellow, green, red, white and blue. Model names and numbers for the seven recalled vehicles or sets are listed in the table below. For Mini Vehicle (MVHA - 1014) and Fastback (MVFA-1022) sets, the model numbers can be found on the bottom of the toys' packaging. For all other cars, a label with the model number can be found on the bottom of the car itself. Model Number Product ------------ ------- MVHA-1014 Mini Vehicle Set MAMW-1015 Mini Ambulance MVSA-1016 Mini Vehicle Assortment MFBR-1018 Mini Red Fastback MPCB-1020 Mini Police Car MTXY-1021 Mini Taxi MVFA-1022 Mini Fastback Set The recalled Mini Vehicles were manufactured from March 2012 through June 2012. The manufacturing date is represented by a circle with an arrow in the middle that can be found imprinted on the underside of the front of the car. To the left and right of the arrow are numbers that represent the year, and the arrow itself points to the number that represents the month. Cars with an "I" etched into the underside of the car next to the date stamp are not part of the recall. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12238.html The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of America and sold to mass merchandisers, grocery stores and independent toy and specialty stores nationwide and by online retailers from April 2012 to June 2012. The cars cost about $5 each or $18 for the set. Consumers should take the product away from children immediately and contact Green Toys Inc. to receive a full refund. For additional information, contact Green Toys toll-free at (888) 973- 3421 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.greentoys.com/recall/ HIGHER ONE: Sued Over Deceptive Student Financial Aid Bank Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- Christine Stuart at Courthouse News Service reports that college students sued Higher One Holdings and Bancorp Bank in a federal class action, claiming they automatically create bank accounts for students' financial aid and then charge them "numerous unconscionable and unusual bank fees." Seven named plaintiffs claim New Haven-based Higher One has such arrangements with hundreds of colleges and universities around the country. Essentially, Higher One acts as a middleman between a college business office and a student's financial aid account, according to the complaint. Named as defendants are Higher One Holdings Inc., The Bancorp Bank, the Urban Trust Bank, and Wright Express Financial Services Corp. "Financial-aid refunds -- the money left over after the school deducts its tuition and fees, which students are to use for things like books and living expenses -- are automatically deposited into a Higher One bank account linked to a Higher One debit card," the complaint states. The students say the financial aid is put into such accounts by default, and Higher One makes it difficult to opt out. The company "uses three tactics to make sure that students do not opt out of this default: first, it bombards students with unsolicited and deceptive marketing materials second, it intentionally delays access to financial aid funds for students who choose to use other banking providers; third, it conceals the true costs of the Higher One accounts," according to the complaint. Students who need their financial aid money immediately are unable to opt out, the class claims. "Because, almost by definition, financial aid recipients are dependent on their financial aid money to survive, Higher One coerces students to remain in the default option and use Higher One accounts in order to have immediate access to their funds," the complaint states. Higher One, the brainchild of Yale undergraduates, makes sure that students don't opt out of the accounts it creates for them, the class claims. "Higher One has stated that approximately 80 percent of students remain in the 'default' option. Higher One then proceeds to assess and collect deceptive, unusual, unconscionable, and in many cases unavoidable bank fees on these 'captive' banking accounts," according to the complaint. The students charged these fees are often "students who can afford them the least," the class claims. "Many students pay Higher One's unconscionable bank fees with borrowed money, often at 7 percent interest or higher. Other students receiving grant aid are low-income with a high level of need." The class seeks more than $5 million in damages, and restitution of all PIN-based transaction fees and non-Higher One ATM fees. They also want Higher One to admit it engaged in deceptive practices. The class claims defendants Bancorp Bank, Urban Trust Bank, and Wright Express Financial Services partner with Higher One to provide the checking services. A copy of the Complaint in Price, et al. v. Higher One Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-01093 (D. Conn.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/31/HigherOne.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Karen M. Leser-Grenon, Esq. James E. Miller, Esq. Karen M. Leser-Grenon, Esq. SHEPHERD FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH LLP 65 Main Street Chester, CT 06412 Telephone: (860) 526-1100 E-mail: jmiller@sfmslaw.com klesser@sfmslaw.com - and - Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI, LLP 2000 L Street NW, Suite 808 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com jkaliel@tzlegal.com HINDS COUNTY, MI: Watson Firm Confirms Filing of Overtime Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Louis H. Watson, Jr., P.A. confirms that a overtime class action lawsuit has been filed against the Hinds County, Mississippi Sheriff's Department. The lawsuit that was filed on July 27, 2012, alleges that non-supervisory employees of the sheriff's department were not properly paid all of the overtime wages they were owed. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges the sheriff's department (1) paid compensatory time on an hour for hour basis instead of the required hour and a half of compensatory time for each hour of overtime worked, (2) did not properly pay employees overtime wages for all the compensatory time they earned upon separation from employment, (3) did not have a limit of 480 hours of compensatory time that could be earned, and (4) did not accurately keep records regarding compensatory time. The case is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. The case is Derius Harris, et al v. Hinds County Sheriff's Department, Civil Action No. 3:12-CV-542-CWR-LRA HUXTABLE'S KITCHEN: Recalls Salad Under Trader Joe's Brand ---------------------------------------------------------- Huxtable's Kitchen is initiating a voluntary recall of Trader Joe's Roasted Butternut Squash, Red Quinoa and Wheatberry Salad because the onions used as an ingredient have the potential to be contaminated by Listeria monocytogenes. Listeria monocytogenes is an organism that can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea. Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. Trader Joe's Roasted Butternut Squash, Red Quinoa & Wheatberry Salad with "use by date" of 7/28/2012 and 7/30/2012 comes in a 9.5 oz clear plastic container. The "use by date" is marked on a sticker on the front of the package. The recalled product was distributed from 7/23/12 to 7/26/12 to Trader Joe's stores in Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington. No other Trader Joe's stores are affected by this recall. The onions are a product of Gill Onions, Oxnard, California, which initiated a recall of the onions on July 18, 2012, and were supplied to Huxtable's Kitchen, Inc. Immediately following notification from Huxtable's Kitchen, Inc., Trader Joe's removed affected product from store shelves and destroyed them. No illnesses have been linked to this recall. Anyone who has the recalled product in their possession should not consume it and should destroy or discard it. Consumers with questions may contact Huxtable's Kitchen: at 323-923-2885, M-F, 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m./ Pacific Daylight Time. HYUNDAI MOTOR: Recalls 200,000 SUVs Under Settlement Deal --------------------------------------------------------- Megan Stride, writing for Law360, reports that Hyundai Motor Co. is recalling nearly 200,000 model year 2007 through 2009 Santa Fe SUVs in connection with an anticipated settlement of a putative class action, as well as some model year 2012 to 2013 Sonata cars in a separate voluntary action, both over potential air bag problems, according to documents available through regulators on July 30. The automaker is recalling 199,118 Santa Fe vehicles made from April 19, 2006, through July 7, 2008, because the occupant classification system may need to be recalibrated. INTERNAP NETWORK: Two Claims in "Anastasio" Suit Remain Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- On November 12, 2008, a putative securities fraud class action lawsuit was filed against Internap Network Services Corporation and its former chief executive officer in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, captioned Catherine Anastasio and Stephen Anastasio v. Internap Network Services Corp. and James P. DeBlasio, Civil Action No. 1:08-CV- 3462-JOF. The complaint alleges that the Company and the individual defendant violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and that the individual defendant also violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as a "control person" of Internap. Plaintiffs purport to bring these claims on behalf of a class of the Company's investors who purchased its common stock between March 28, 2007, and March 18, 2008. Plaintiffs allege generally that, during the putative class period, the Company made misleading statements and omitted material information regarding (a) integration of VitalStream, which the Company acquired in 2007, (b) customer issues and related credits due to services outages and (c) the Company's previously reported 2007 revenue that it subsequently reduced in 2008 as announced on March 18, 2008. Plaintiffs assert that the Company and the individual defendant made these misstatements and omissions to maintain its share price. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief. On August 12, 2009, the Court granted plaintiffs leave to file an Amended Class Action Complaint ("Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint added a claim for violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act based on alleged misrepresentations in the Company's proxy statement in connection with its acquisition of VitalStream. The Amended Complaint also added the Company's former chief financial officer as a defendant and lengthened the putative class period. On September 11, 2009, the Company and the individual defendants filed motions to dismiss. On November 6, 2009, plaintiffs filed a Corrected Amended Class Action Complaint. On December 7, 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint to add allegations regarding, inter alia, an alleged failure to conduct due diligence in connection with the VitalStream acquisition and additional statements from purported confidential witnesses. On September 15, 2010, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss and denied the individual defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act. With respect to plaintiffs' claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, the Court held that the Amended Complaint failed to satisfy the pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, but allowed plaintiffs' one final opportunity to amend the complaint. On October 26, 2010, plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Class Action Complaint. On December 10, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss this complaint. On September 30, 2011, the Court granted in large part the motion to dismiss. The two remaining claims involve certain alleged misstatements concerning the progress of the integration of VitalStream and the stability of the Company's content delivery network ("CDN") platform. No further updates were reported in the Company's July 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. Headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, Internap Network Services Corporation -- http://www.internap.com-- provides information technology (IT) infrastructure services. The Company operates through two segments, Data Center Services and Internet Protocol (IP) Services. JON DAVLER: Faces Class Action Over "Vaginal Inspection" -------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a class action in Los Angeles Superior Court claims that Christina Yang, and co-defendant Jon Davler Inc., subjected workers to "vaginal inspection" to see "who was on their period" after someone left a used sanitary napkin in a restroom. KEN'S FOODS: Recalls Dressings and Sauces Containing Onions ----------------------------------------------------------- Ken's Foods, Inc. issues voluntary recall of a limited number of branded food service dressings and sauces containing onions because of possible health risk due to Gills Onions recall. The Company is the manufacturer of Golden Corral Tartar Sauce, Dickey's BBQ Bean Sauce, Lee's Cole Slaw Dressing, Fatz Tartar Sauce, Ken's Tartar Sauce. These items contain onions from Gills Onions, which may have been contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism that can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and still births among pregnant women. This recall comes as a result of a July 25, 2012 recall issued by Gills Onions, of Oxnard, California, a supplier to Fresh Point, Atlanta. Fresh Point further processes the onions for Ken's Foods, Inc. The products included in this recall are listed below. No other Ken's products are affected by this recall. As of this date, there have been no illnesses reported relating to this recall. KE0666-Ken's Tartar Sauce 4/1-gallon containers MFG: 09/07/12 KE0666A5-Ken's Tartar Sauce 100/1.5 oz cups EXP: 01/13/13 DI2063-Dickey's BBQ Bean 10/48 oz pouches USE BY: 11/03/13 GD2517-Golden Corral Tartar 4/1-gallon containers MFG: 17/07/12 FQ2103-Lee's Cole Slaw 14/40 oz pouches MFG: 23/07/12 FD0666-Fatz Tartar Sauce 4/1-gallon containers MFG: 23/07/12 On Friday, July 27, 2012, Ken's Foods, Inc. notified all distribution centers, private label customers and brokers to request immediate withdrawal of the potentially affected items listed above. The items were distributed to the states of AL, FL, GA, IL, KY, MS, NC, NE, NM, NV, OH, OK, SC, TN, TX and WI. If there are any questions pertaining to this notice, please call Ken's Foods, Inc., Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, at 1-508-229-1100, ask for extension 4727 or 1190. LIBERTY MOUNTAIN: Recalls 400 VAUDE Kenta Child Carriers -------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in cooperation with importer, Liberty Mountain, of Salt Lake City, Utah, and manufacturer, VAUDE Sport GmbH & Company KG, of Germany, announced a voluntary recall of about 300 Kenta and Kenta Plus child carriers in the United States of America and 100 in Canada. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The side strap's seam can unravel and cause the strap to separate, posing a fall hazard to the child in the carrier. VAUDE has received two reports of the side strap separating. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves backpack-style child carriers sold under the Kenta and Kenta Plus model name. "VAUDE" is printed on the back and between the shoulder straps of the carrier. "Kenta" or "Kenta Plus" is printed on the lower back or hip belt of the carrier. The carriers were sold in black, red and brown and were designed for children up to 31 pounds. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12237.html The recalled products were manufactured in Germany and sold at outdoor camping and climbing stores nationwide from January 2010 through May 2012 for about $150 for the Kenta and $170 for the Kenta Plus models. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled child carriers and return the product to an authorized VAUDE dealer for a replacement. Consumers can contact Liberty Mountain to locate an authorized VAUDE dealer. For additional information, contact Liberty Mountain at (800) 366-2666 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Mountain Time Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web sites at http://www.vaude.com/or http://www.libertymountain.com/ LINN ENERGY: Briefing in Suit Over Royalty Payments Deferred ------------------------------------------------------------ The briefing and hearing on class certification in a statewide class action royalty payment dispute have been deferred, Linn Energy, LLC disclosed in its July 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. The Company has been named as a defendant in a number of lawsuits, including claims from royalty owners related to disputed royalty payments and royalty valuations. The Company has established reserves that management currently believes are adequate to provide for potential liabilities based upon its evaluation of these matters. For a certain statewide class action royalty payment dispute where a reserve has not yet been established, the Company has denied that it has any liability on the claims and has raised arguments and defenses that, if accepted by the court, will result in no loss to the Company. Discovery related to class certification has concluded. Briefing and the hearing on class certification have been deferred by court order pending the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals' resolution of interlocutory appeals of two unrelated class certification orders. As a result, the Company is unable to estimate a possible loss, or range of possible loss, if any. In addition, the Company is involved in various other disputes arising in the ordinary course of business. The Company is not currently a party to any litigation or pending claims that it believes would have a material adverse effect on its overall business, financial position, results of operations or liquidity; however, cash flow could be significantly impacted in the reporting periods in which such matters are resolved. MICRONETICS INC: Agrees to Settle Mecury Merger Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------- Micronetics, Inc. on July 30 disclosed that it has signed a memorandum of understanding to settle the previously disclosed class action lawsuit captioned In re Micronetics, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 7626-VCP pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery and the lawsuit in the New Hampshire Superior Court entitled Constantinescu v. Micronetics, et al., No. 226-2012-CV- 490 and the newly-filed action in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire entitled Joshi v. Micronetics, Inc., et al., No. 1:12-CV-00285 (collectively, the "Merger Litigation"). The Merger Litigation relates to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of June 8, 2012, by and among Mercury Computer Systems, Inc., a new Mercury subsidiary, and Micronetics. Micronetics agreed to the settlement solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing. The settlement provides, among other things, that the parties will seek to enter into a stipulation of settlement which provides for the conditional certification of the Merger Litigation as a non opt-out class action pursuant to Court of Chancery Rule 23 on behalf of a class consisting of all record and beneficial owners of Micronetics common stock during the period beginning on June 10, 2012, through the date of the consummation of the proposed merger, including any and all of their respective successors in interest, predecessors, representatives, and the release of all asserted claims. The asserted claims will not be released until such stipulation of settlement is approved by the court. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve such settlement even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. The settlement will not affect the merger consideration to be received by Micronetics stockholders or the timing of the special meeting of Micronetics stockholders scheduled for August 8, 2012. Micronetics -- http://www.micronetics.com-- manufactures microwave and radio frequency (RF) components and integrated subassemblies used in a variety of defense, aerospace and commercial applications. Micronetics also manufactures and designs test equipment and components that test the strength, durability and integrity of communication signals in communication equipment. Micronetics serves a diverse customer base, including BAE Systems, Boeing, Cobham, EADS, General Dynamics, ITT Exelis, L-3 Communications, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Rockwell, Tecom Industries, Teradyne, and Thales NETFLIX INC: Agrees to Change Data Retention Practices ------------------------------------------------------ Michael Lewis, writing for The Toronto Star, reports that Netflix Inc. has agreed to change its data retention practices so rental histories of customers who haven't subscribed to the service for at least a year will no longer be identifiable. Netflix notified customers of the policy shift in an e-mail on July 30. The change is part of a proposed settlement to a privacy lawsuit filed against Netflix last year by Virginians Jeff Milans, Peter Comstock and four other plaintiffs. The lawsuit was granted status as a class action to represent tens of millions of Netflix costumers and led to a mediated settlement announced in February. The suit alleges that the video streaming service retained customers' movie and TV show rental data longer than permitted under the U.S. Video Privacy Protection Act and disclosed information on viewing histories to unnamed third parties. Netflix has not admitted wrongdoing, but did agree as part of the settlement to "de-couple" information about rentals from basic identification profiles of former customers within the prescribed timeframe. The company also agreed to pay $9 million (U.S.), with proceeds earmarked for privacy advocacy groups and to settle lawyers' fees. Members of the class, including Canadians who signed on when the service was launched in September 2010, will receive no payment or any other consideration. "Named plaintiffs" are to each receive an award of $5,000. "That doesn't seem fair at all," said a blogger on videoprivacyclass.com. "I'd rather be a named plaintiff or see no one be a named plaintiff." The case alleges that "Netflix's ongoing maintenance of 'digital dossiers' on its subscribers -- after canceling their subscriptions and beyond the point where Netflix still needs the information -- constitutes a failure to 'destroy as soon as practicable,' in violation of the VPPA." Netflix declined comment, but has confirmed the settlement in regulatory filings that described the penalty as "immaterial" to its financial performance. The company said it will pay $6.75 million to non-profit privacy organizations, while $2.25 million will go to the lawyers who filed the case. Money will also be used to educate consumers and regulators on privacy protection. The settlement was granted preliminary approval in early July by a district judge who said the accord "compares favorably" to recent settlements of other consumer privacy cases, including with Google Inc. and Facebook Inc. The suit alleges that Netflix used and disclosed data for marketing and advertising without consent. The complaint says most Netflix users would feel "extremely uncomfortable" that the Los Gatos, California-based company could keep their viewing histories and credit card data for so long. A hearing to consider any objections to the settlement and whether it should be approved by the court is set for December 5 in San Jose. Those who do not respond to Netflix's e-mail will be deemed to have agreed to the change and will surrender the legal right to take further action against Netflix for breach of data privacy under the class action. Customers who want to retain the right to sue Netflix over the claims must exclude themselves by writing the Netflix Privacy Settlement Administrator by Nov. 14. They can pursue claims separate from the class action but they will have to do so at their own expense. Netflix customers can also file written objections to the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, and San Jose Division. Netflix shares plunged 25 per cent last week after the company reported better-than-expected earnings but issued a weak outlook for the rest of the year. The company lost more than 800,000 customers in one quarter of 2011 after it hiked prices and said it would split streaming and DVD rental into separate businesses. NW MANAGEMENT: Faces Class Action in Wash. Over Labor Abuses ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that in a federal class action, 100 or more workers accuse NW Management and Realty Services and Farmland Management Services of labor abuses, including hiring a supervisor who threatened workers with gunshots. A copy of the Complaint in Saucedo, et al. v. NW Management and Realty Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-00478 (E.D. Wash.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/31/ApplePickers.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lori Jordan Isley, Esq. COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES Yakima, WA 98901 Telephone: (509) 575-5593, x 217 E-mail: lori.isley@columbialegal.org OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Awaits Order on Plea to Dismiss "Hines" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Overstock.com, Inc. is still awaiting a court decision on its motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit initiated by Cynthia Hines, according to the Company's July 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. On March 10, 2009, the Company was sued in a class action filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York. Cynthia Hines, the nominative plaintiff on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, seeks damages under claims for breach of contract, common law fraud and New York consumer fraud laws. The Plaintiff alleges the Company failed to properly disclose its returns policy to her and that it improperly imposed a "restocking" charge on her return of a vacuum cleaner. The Company filed a motion to dismiss based upon assertions that its agreement with its customers requires all such actions to be arbitrated in Salt Lake City, Utah. Alternatively, the Company asked that the case be transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Utah, so that arbitration may be compelled in that district. On September 8, 2009, the motion to dismiss or transfer was denied, the court stating that the Company's browsewrap agreement was insufficient under New York law to establish an agreement with the customer to arbitrate disputes in Utah. On October 8, 2009, the Company filed a Notice of Appeal of the court's ruling. The appeal was denied. On December 31, 2010, Ms. Hines filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint eliminated common law fraud claims and breach of contract claims and added claims for breach of Utah's consumer protection statute and various other state consumer protection statutes. The amended complaint also asks for an injunction. The lawsuit is in final discovery stages. The Company filed motions to dismiss and to decertify the class. The court has not ruled on these motions. No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC filing. The nature of the loss contingencies relating to claims that have been asserted against the Company is described in the lawsuit. However, no estimate of the loss or range of loss can be made. The Company intends to vigorously defend this action. OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Facebook Beacon-Related Suit Appeal Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- On August 12, 2008, Overstock.com, Inc. along with seven other defendants, were sued in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, by Sean Lane, and seventeen other individuals, on their own behalf and for others similarly in a class action lawsuit, alleging violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Video Privacy Protection Act, and California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Computer Crime Law. The complaint relates to the Company's use of a product known as Facebook Beacon, created and provided to the Company by Facebook, Inc. Facebook Beacon provided the means for Facebook users to share purchasing data among their Facebook friends. The parties extended by agreement the time for defendants' answer, including the Company's answer, and thereafter, the Plaintiff and Facebook proposed a stipulated settlement to the court for approval, which would resolve the case without requirement of financial contribution from the Company. On March 17, 2010, over objections lodged by some parties, the court accepted the proposed settlement. Various parties objecting to the settlement have appealed and their appeal is now pending. The nature of the loss contingencies relating to claims that have been asserted against the Company is described in the lawsuit. However, no estimate of the loss or range of loss can be made. No further updates were reported in the Company's July 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. PIERCE COUNTY, WA: "Adult Entertainers" File Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- June Williams at Courthouse News Service reports that more than 100 "adult entertainers" filed a class action against Pierce County, to keep their Adult Entertainer License Applications from being released to an inmate who requested the documents, which contain extensive personal information. Jane Doe sued the county and its Auditor's Office on her own behalf and for 107 other women, and also sued the inmate who requested her application through a public records request. Pierce County requires all adult performers, including strippers and topless dancers, to complete a license application containing their home address, telephone number, age, date of birth, height, race, eye color, hair color, complexion, criminal history, place of birth, location of tattoos, performer name and location of work. The application is considered a public document and subject to public disclosure laws. The prisoner, Robert Hill, previously requested photographs for all people who applied for an adult entertainer license and asked for the lead Jane Doe plaintiff's full application, according to the complaint. "Mr. Hill did not know petitioner's identity, but made a Public Records Request based on her photograph alone," the complaint states. "Petitioner immediately contacted the Auditor's Office to object to Mr. Hill's Public Records Request and sought additional information. Petitioner later learned that prior to requesting information about her, Mr. Hill made a Public Records Request for all photographs for all individuals that applied for Adult Entertainment Licenses in Pierce County. The Auditor's Office provided Mr. Hill with 108 photographs," according to the complaint. Ms. Doe says that if the auditor releases the applications, "personal and private information will be disclosed that substantially and irreparably damages petitioners in violation of their privacy rights." She adds: "Jane Doe has a fear that if her personal and private information is disclosed to Mr. Hill, her right to privacy will be violated and Mr. Hill will use that information for an improper purpose that is not related to a legitimate public concern." The class wanted Pierce County enjoined from disclosing their personal information, and Mr. Hill enjoined from making any more requests for this information. A copy of the Complaint in Doe v. County of Pierce, et al., Case No. 12-2-10650-4 (Wash. Super. Ct., Pierce Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/31/Privacy.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Sean V. Small, Esq. LASHER HOLZAPFEL, SPERRY & EBBERSON, P.L.L.C. 601 Union St., Suite 2600 Seattle, WA 98101-4000 Telephone: (206) 654-5613 E-mail: small@lasher.com PINNACLE FINANCIAL: Responds to "Higgins" Suit Discovery Requests ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc. said in its July 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012, that it is currently responding to discovery requests from John Higgins, et al. During the fourth quarter of 2011, a customer of Pinnacle National's filed a putative class action lawsuit (styled John Higgins, et al. v. Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc., d/b/a Pinnacle National Bank) in Davidson County, Tennessee Circuit Court against Pinnacle National and Pinnacle Financial, on his own behalf, as well as on behalf of a purported class of Pinnacle National's customers within the State of Tennessee alleging that Pinnacle National's method of ordering debit card transactions had caused customers of Pinnacle National to incur higher overdraft charges than had a different method been used. In support of his claims, the plaintiff asserts theories of breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment of unconscionability. The plaintiff is seeking, among other remedies, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, pre- judgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees. Pinnacle Financial and Pinnacle National are vigorously contesting this matter. On January 17, 2012, Pinnacle Financial and Pinnacle National filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The motion to dismiss was denied on April 13, 2012, and Pinnacle Financial and Pinnacle National filed an answer on May 30, 2012. Pinnacle Financial and Pinnacle National are currently responding to discovery requests from the plaintiff. The Company says that based on its current knowledge, it currently does not believe that any liability arising from this legal matter will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial condition, operating results or cash flows. Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc. -- http://www.mypinnacle.com/-- operates as the bank holding company for Pinnacle National Bank that provides various commercial banking services to individuals, small-to medium-sized businesses, and professional entities primarily in Tennessee. The company was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee. PUBLIX SUPER: Recalls Custom Made Sub Sandwiches with Onions ------------------------------------------------------------ Publix Super Markets is issuing a voluntary recall for custom sub sandwiches that contain onions because they may be adulterated with Listeria monocytogenes. Publix received notification from their supplier, who receives sliced onions from Gills Onions LLC. This recall involves any custom made sub sandwich with onions sold from the Publix Deli department between July 7, 2012, through July 26, 2012, in Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, and South Carolina. Publix stores in Florida are not involved with this recall. Consumption of products containing Listeria monocytogenes can cause serious and sometimes fatal infection in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with the sliced onions. "As part of our commitment to food safety, potentially impacted product has been removed from all store shelves," said Maria Brous, Publix media and community relations director. "Consumers who have purchased the products in question may return the product to their local store for a full refund. Publix customers with additional questions may call our Customer Care Center at 1-800- 242-1227 or by visiting the Company's Web site at http://www.publix.com/. Customers can also contact the US Food and Drug Administration at 1-888-SAFEFOOD (1-888-723-3366)." Publix is privately owned and operated by its 152,500 employees, with 2011 sales of $27.0 billion. Currently Publix has 1,055 stores in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama and Tennessee. The company has been named one of FORTUNE's "100 Best Companies to Work For in America" for 15 consecutive years. In addition, Publix's dedication to superior quality and customer service is recognized as tops in the grocery business, most recently by an American Customer Satisfaction Index survey. For more information, visit the Company's Web site, http://www.publix.com/ QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Sales Rep Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Quest Diagnostics Incorporated is awaiting court decisions on its motions to dismiss a class action lawsuit brought by female sales representatives, and to compel arbitration, according to the Company's July 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. In January 2012, a putative class action entitled Beery v. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and a subsidiary, on behalf of all female sales representatives employed by the defendants from February 17, 2010, to the present. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants discriminate against these female sales representatives on account of their gender, in violation of the federal civil rights and equal pay acts, and seeks, among other things, injunctive relief and monetary damages. The Company has filed motions to dismiss the complaint, to strike the class allegations and to compel arbitration with the named plaintiffs. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Bid to Dismiss Suit vs. Celera Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- In 2010, a purported class action entitled In re Celera Corp. Securities Litigation was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Quest Diagnostics Incorporated's subsidiary, Celera Corporation, and certain of its directors and current and former officers. An amended complaint filed in October 2010 alleges that from April 2008 through July 22, 2009, the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding Celera's business and financial results with an intent to defraud investors. The complaint was further amended in 2011 to add allegations regarding a financial restatement. The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of Celera's stock during the period in which the alleged misrepresentations were made. The Company's motion to dismiss is pending. No further updates were reported in the Company's July 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: NJLAD Violations Suit Still Pending in N.J. -------------------------------------------------------------- Quest Diagnostics Incorporated continues to defend a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, according to the Company's July 26, 2012, Form 10- Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. In November 2010, a putative class action entitled Seibert v. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, et al. was filed against the Company and certain former officers of the Company in New Jersey state court, on behalf of the Company's sales people nationwide who were over forty years old and who either resigned or were terminated after being placed on a performance improvement plan. The complaint alleges that the defendants' conduct violates the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("NJLAD"), and seeks, among other things, unspecified damages. The defendants removed the complaint to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that adds claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). The Company filed a motion seeking to limit the application of the NJLAD to only those members of the purported class who worked in New Jersey and to dismiss the individual defendants. The motion was granted. The only remaining NJLAD claim is that of the named plaintiff; the ERISA claim remains in the case. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: NID-Related Suit Dismissed With Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit involving a Quest Diagnostics Incorporated subsidiary has been dismissed with prejudice, according to the Company's July 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. In April 2010, a putative class action was filed against the Company and NID, a test kit manufacturing subsidiary which was closed in 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of entities that allegedly purchased or paid for certain of NID's test kits. The complaint alleges that certain of NID's test kits were defective and that defendants, among other things, violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") and state consumer protection laws. The complaint alleges an unspecified amount of damages. The Company filed a motion to dismiss this complaint. In April 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation recommending that the court dismiss the complaint. Following the Magistrate Judge's report, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss their case with prejudice. RADIOSHACK CORP: Bernard M. Gross Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 12-cv-5825 on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of RadioShack Corporation, during the period July 26, 2011 through July 24, 2012 against RadioShack Corporation and James F. Gooch for violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that RadioShack and Gooch each had a duty to timely, fully and truthfully disclose all material facts and information concerning RadioShack and they did not. Specifically, the complaint alleges that in the beginning of the Class Period, defendants allegedly claimed they were well on their way to executing their strategy to transform RadioShack from its historical roots as a seller of consumer electronics and accessories into a reseller of wireless products. Defendants had begun opening kiosks in Target stores to sell wireless products and had entered into a relationship with Verizon Wireless, the largest wireless provider, to sell Verizon wireless products. In an attempt to cover-up the true financial realities facing the company, Defendants repeatedly emphasized returning value to the shareholders by funding the stock repurchase program and the solid dividends. However, on July 25, 2012, defendants surprised the market and reported RadioShack's second quarter earnings which were a net loss of $21 million resulting from weakened mobility sales and margin erosion and that the dividends of 25 years were "suspended". As a result of this announcement, the stock dropped precipitously, from a closing of $3.65 on July 24 to $2.60 on July 25, 2012. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 1, 2012. Any member of the purported class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of its choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. To discuss this action or any questions concerning this notice, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Deborah R. Gross or Susan R. Gross at 866-561-3600 or via e-mail at debbie@bernardmgross.com or susang@bernardmgross.com A copy of the complaint can be viewed at http://www.bernardmgross.com Plaintiffs are represented by Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. The firm has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. CONTACT: Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. Susan R. Gross, Esquire Deborah R. Gross, Esquire Telephone: (866) 561-3600 E-mail: susang@bernardmgross.com debbie@bernardmgross.com Web site: http://www.bernardmgross.com SMITH MICRO: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Smith Micro Software, Inc. on July 31 disclosed that on May 21, 2012, the court granted Smith Micro's motion to dismiss the federal securities fraud class action that had been filed against the company shortly after the Q1 2011 guidance. The plaintiffs subsequently agreed to voluntarily dismiss the case with prejudice rather than amend their complaint. Also plaintiffs in the state and federal derivative actions have agreed to voluntarily dismiss their cases. No payments were made to any plaintiffs in connection with any of these dismissals. "Smith Micro is pleased that all the shareholder litigation related to the guidance retracted in Q1 2011 is now over," said William W. Smith, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of Smith Micro Software. "With this resolution, we can turn our attention and resources toward the business of developing and delivering critical wireless solutions to market." SPARTAN STORES: Recalls Deli and Produce Products With Onions ------------------------------------------------------------- Spartan Stores Inc. is announcing the voluntary recall of two (2) products processed between the dates of July 13 through July 26, 2012, that contain onions produced by Gills Onions of Oxnard, California. The recall is in connection with an expanded voluntary recall announced by Gills Onions, LLC, of their Peeled Whole Yellow Onions due to possible contamination with Listeria Monocytogenes. The products being voluntarily recalled are: * Deli - Three Bean Salad * Produce - 10 oz. Broccoli Stir Fry Spartan Stores has received no confirmation of illness associated with the consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an illness should contact their healthcare provider immediately. All of the products involved in the recall should be discarded or returned for a full refund or replacement. Consumers with questions about the recall may contact Spartan Stores' Consumer Affairs at 1-800-451-8500 or contact Gills Onions Customer Service at 888-220-0436. About Spartan Stores Grand Rapids, Michigan-based Spartan Stores, Inc. (Nasdaq: SPTN) is the nation's tenth largest grocery distributor with 1.4 million square feet of warehouse, distribution, and office space located in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The Company distributes more than 40,000 private and national brand products to approximately 375 independent grocery locations in Michigan, Indiana and Ohio, and to its 97 corporate owned stores located in Michigan, including Family Fare Supermarkets, Glen's Markets, D&W Fresh Markets, VG's Food and Pharmacy, and Valu Land. STOP & SHOP: Recalls Calico Bean Salad Sold at Salad Bars --------------------------------------------------------- The Stop & Shop Supermarket Company LLC, following a recall by Costa Fruit & Produce, announced it removed from sale Calico Bean Salad, sold on the salad bar, due to a possible health risk of listeria monocytogenes. No illnesses have been reported to date. Customers who have purchased the product between July 18, 2012, and July 26, 2012, should discard any unused portions and bring their purchase receipt to Stop & Shop for a full refund. Listeria is a common organism found in nature. Consumption of food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes can cause listeriosis, an uncommon but potentially fatal disease. Healthy people rarely contract listeriosis. However, listeriosis can cause high fever, severe headache, neck stiffness and nausea. Listeriosis can also cause miscarriages and stillbirths, as well as serious and sometimes fatal infections in those with weakened immune systems, such as infants, the elderly and persons with HIV infection or undergoing chemotherapy. Consumers in Massachusetts looking for additional information on the recall may call Costa Fruit & Produce at 1-800-322-1374. All other consumers may call 1-800-343-0836 or visit Costa Fruit & Produce's Web site at http://www.freshideas.com/ Customers may also call Stop & Shop customer service at 1-800-767-7772 or visit the Stop & Shop Web site at http://www.stopandshop.com/ About Stop & Shop The Stop & Shop Supermarket Company employs approximately 62,000 associates and operates more than 400 stores throughout Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, New York, and New Jersey. The Company helps support local communities fight hunger, combat childhood cancer and promote general health and wellness -- with emphasis on children's educational and support programs. In its commitment to be a sustainable company, Stop & Shop is a member of the U.S. Green Building Council and EPA's Smart Way program; has been awarded LEED (EB) certifications for 50 of its existing stores; and has been recognized by the EPA for the superior energy management of its stores. Stop & Shop is an Ahold company. To learn more about Stop & Shop, visit http://www.stopandshop.com/ TOWN SPORTS: Pre-Trial Conference in "Labbe" Suit on August 17 -------------------------------------------------------------- An initial pre-trial conference is scheduled for August 17, 2012, in the class action lawsuit against Town Sports International Holdings, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary, Town Sports International, LLC ("TSI, LLC"), according to the Company's July 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. On or about May 30, 2012, in an action styled James Labbe, et al. v. Town Sports International, LLC, plaintiff commenced a purported class action under the New York State labor law on behalf of personal trainers employed in New York State, and a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA") on behalf of all personal trainers, in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York. The action is largely duplicative of the action styled Sarah Cruz, et al. v. Town Sports International, d/b/a New York Sports Club. Labbe seeks to represent a smaller subset of the same class of New York personal trainers who would be represented by Cruz if a class action were certified in that matter. TSI, LLC could not be held liable to pay the same New York personal trainers for the same damages in both cases. Labbe seeks unpaid wages and damages from TSI, LLC and alleges violations of various provisions of the New York State labor law and the FLSA with respect to payment of wages and TSI, LLC's notification and record-keeping obligations. TSI, LLC has not yet responded to this complaint. The court has scheduled an initial pre-trial conference for August 17, 2012. While it is not possible to estimate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or a range of loss in the case of an unfavorable outcome to TSI, LLC at this time, the Company intends to contest this case vigorously. Depending upon the ultimate outcome, this matter may have a material adverse effect on TSI, LLC's and the Company's consolidated results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. TOWN SPORTS: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Cruz" Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- On or about March 1, 2005, in an action styled Sarah Cruz, et al. v. Town Sports International, d/b/a New York Sports Club, plaintiffs commenced a purported class action against Town Sports International Holdings, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary, Town Sports International, LLC ("TSI, LLC") in the Supreme Court, New York County, seeking unpaid wages and alleging that TSI, LLC violated various overtime provisions of the New York State Labor Law with respect to the payment of wages to certain trainers and assistant fitness managers. On or about June 18, 2007, the same plaintiffs commenced a second purported class action against TSI, LLC in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, seeking unpaid wages and alleging that TSI, LLC violated various wage payment and overtime provisions of the New York State Labor Law with respect to the payment of wages to all New York purported hourly employees. On September 17, 2010, TSI, LLC made motions to dismiss the class action allegations of both lawsuits for plaintiffs' failure to timely file motions to certify the class actions. Oral argument on the motions occurred on November 10, 2010. A decision is still pending. No further updates were reported in the Company's July 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. While it is not possible to estimate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or a range of loss in the case of an unfavorable outcome to TSI, LLC at this time, the Company intends to contest these cases vigorously. Depending upon the ultimate outcome, these matters may have a material adverse effect on TSI, LLC's and the Company's consolidated results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. ULSTER BANK: Consumers' Association Launches Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- The Journal.ie reports that Consumers' Association of Ireland is launching a class action-style initiative against Ulster Bank to help consumers recoup money lost during recent major technical problems. The CAI is calling on anyone who was affected by the Ulster Bank problems -- whether they were customers of the bank or not -- to provide details of how they were affected and the compensation they have been offered. Class action law suits do not exist under Irish law, but the organization says it will give the details to the Department of Finance, the Central Bank, the National Consumer Agency, the Irish Bankers Federation and Ulster Bank, so that "full transparent and definitive understanding of the losses and response to those losses can be determined for further consideration and, where deemed necessary, further action". The bank is already involved in working out exactly how much compensation will be paid to customers and has eight weeks to respond to any customers who have already been in contact to complain or ask about compensation. CEO Jim Brown has said he expects that the bank will pay out tens of millions of euro in compensation. The bank has told customers that any fees or charges that were incurred because of the technical problems will be automatically refunded. Ulster Bank says that the majority of customer accounts are back to normal but that some outstanding transactions will be processed this week. * Russian Justice Ministry Publishes Draft Law on Class Actions --------------------------------------------------------------- RAPSI, citing Rossiiskaya Gazeta, reports that the Russian Justice Ministry has put together and published draft law on class actions. This is aimed at protecting individuals in litigation with government authorities or major organizations. In its notes to the bill, the ministry proposed setting up a presidential council for the development and codification of administrative laws. One of its tasks could be to prepare a restated Code of Administrative Violations. The bill would supplement the Civil Procedure Code with regulations on how the courts should handle class actions. The right to file a class action would be granted to individuals and entities, including NGOs. The group should be made up of multiple claimants with or without a definite number. The subject in the claim should be the same, as should the defendant. Class actions would be accepted by the courts only if the claimants represent no fewer than 20 individuals. The bill proposes to set the conditions for contesting statutory regulations. The regulation in question must directly affect an individual or organization. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Affirms Judgment on Worker's Claim v. Exxon ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed the final administrative decision of the Division of Workers' Compensation awarding benefits to Retha Johnson against her former employer, Exxon-Mobile Chemical Co. Ms. Johnson filed workers' compensation claim against Exxon alleging occupational injuries resulting from exposure to various substances, including asbestos, during her employment. The Court concluded that although the record in this case reflects that scientific and medical research has not conclusively determined whether the chemicals Ms. Johnson was exposed to cause renal cell carcinoma, there was sufficient credible evidence for the judge of compensation to find that Ms. Johnson established, by a preponderance of evidence, that the chemicals she was exposed to caused her renal cell carcinoma. The case is RETHA JOHNSON, Petitioner-Respondent, v. EXXON-MOBILE CHEMICAL CO., Respondent-Appellant, No. A-0665-10T2 (N.J.). A copy of the Court's July 30, 2012 Decision is available at http://is.gd/ED7zAZfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rain Bird's Dismissal Bid Denied for Lack of Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, denied defendant Rain Bird Corporation's motion to dismiss the asbestos-related personal injury action Robert N. Wexler and his wife filed against the Company on the ground that it has a defense founded upon documentary evidence. The Wexlers filed the action to recover for personal injuries caused by Mr. Wexler's alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products. Mr. Wexler testified that he worked as a plumber at various commercial construction sites throughout New York and New Jersey and that he was regularly exposed to asbestos associated with valves sold by the Hammond Valve Corporation. All of Hammond's outstanding stock was sold in 1984 to a unit created by Rain Bird. The asset purchase agreement listed that certain of Hammond's property, plant and equipment were sold to Rain Bird. Rain Bird asserted that it did not contractually assume any liability for personal injury claims stemming from a product manufactured, distributed or sold by Hammond. In her decision dated July 2, 2012, Judge Heitler held that while there is no continuity of ownership, at this stage of the case there is also no information upon which the court may determine whether and to what extent Hammond continued to operate after it had sold what may have been all of its assets and intangibles to Rain Bird. Without more information, the defendant has not equivocally demonstrated that plaintiffs' de facto merger argument is without merit. The case is ROBERT N. WEXLER and BETSY WEXLER, Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., et al., Defendants, No. 190223/11, Motion Seq. No. 001 (N.Y.). A copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is available at http://is.gd/HvY3abfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Taco Inc. Fails in Bid to Dismiss Exposure Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, denied defendant Taco, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing the asbestos personal injury action asserted by Roberto Roman and Trudy Roman against it holding that evidence presented does not sufficient establish that all Taco products sent to the USS Lawrence where Mr. Roman worked and where he was allegedly exposed to asbestos were asbestos-free. Under the circumstances of the case, a jury should be given the opportunity to determine whether or not plaintiff was exposed to asbestos from Taco products, Judge Heitler ruled. The case is ROBERTO ROMAN and TRUDY ROMAN, Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP., et. al, Defendants, No. 190262/11, Motion Seq. No. 002 (N.Y.). A copy of Judge Heitler's July 12, 2012 Decision is available at http://is.gd/KGAFRbfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mine Safety Still Defends 2,567 Asbestos Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Mine Safety Appliances Company continues to face asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. The Company states: "We categorize the product liability losses that we experience into two main categories, single incident and cumulative trauma. Single incident product liability claims are discrete incidents that are typically known to us when they occur and involve observable injuries and, therefore, more quantifiable damages. Therefore, we maintain a reserve for single incident product liability claims based on expected settlement costs for pending claims and an estimate of costs for unreported claims derived from experience, sales volumes and other relevant information. Our reserve for single incident product liability claims was $4.6 million at June 30, 2012 and $4.7 million at December 31, 2011. Single incident product liability expense during the six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 was $0.6 million and $0.7 million, respectively. We evaluate our single incident product liability exposures on an ongoing basis and make adjustments to the reserve as new information becomes available. "Cumulative trauma product liability claims involve exposures to harmful substances (e.g., silica, asbestos and coal dust) that occurred many years ago and may have developed over long periods of time into diseases such as silicosis, asbestosis or coal worker's pneumoconiosis. We are presently named as a defendant in 2,567 lawsuits in which plaintiffs allege to have contracted certain cumulative trauma diseases related to exposure to silica, asbestos, and/or coal dust. These lawsuits mainly involve respiratory protection products allegedly manufactured and sold by us. We are unable to estimate total damages sought in these lawsuits as they generally do not specify the injuries alleged or the amount of damages sought, and potentially involve multiple defendants. "Cumulative trauma product liability litigation is difficult to predict. In our experience, until late in a lawsuit, we cannot reasonably determine whether it is probable that any given cumulative trauma lawsuit will ultimately result in a liability. This uncertainty is caused by many factors, including the following: cumulative trauma complaints generally do not provide information sufficient to determine if a loss is probable; cumulative trauma litigation is inherently unpredictable and information is often insufficient to determine if a lawsuit will develop into an actively litigated case; and even when a case is actively litigated, it is often difficult to determine if the lawsuit will be dismissed or otherwise resolved until late in the lawsuit. Moreover, even once it is probable that such a lawsuit will result in a loss, it is difficult to reasonably estimate the amount of actual loss that will be incurred. These amounts are highly variable and turn on a case-by-case analysis of the relevant facts, which are often not learned until late in the lawsuit. "Because of these factors, we cannot reliably determine our potential liability for such claims until late in the lawsuit. We, therefore, do not record cumulative trauma product liability losses when a lawsuit is filed, but rather, when we learn sufficient information to determine that it is probable that we will incur a loss and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. We record expenses for defense costs associated with open cumulative trauma product liability lawsuits as incurred. We cannot estimate any amount or range of possible losses related to resolving pending and future cumulative trauma product liability claims that we may face. As new information about cumulative trauma product liability cases and future developments becomes available, we reassess our potential exposures. "A summary of cumulative trauma product liability claims activity follows: Six Months Ended Year Ended June 30, 2012 Dec. 31, 2011 ---------------- ------------- Open claims, beginning of period 2,321 1,900 New claims 337 479 Settled and dismissed claims (91) (58) Open claims, end of period 2,567 2,321 "With some common contract exclusions, we maintain insurance for cumulative trauma product liability claims. We have purchased insurance policies from over 20 different insurance carriers that provide coverage for cumulative trauma product liability losses and related defense costs. In the normal course of business, we make payments to settle product liability claims and for related defense costs. We record receivables for the amounts that are covered by insurance. The available limits of these policies are many times our recorded insurance receivable balance. "Various factors could affect the timing and amount of recovery of our insurance receivables, including the outcome of negotiations with insurers, legal proceedings with respect to product liability insurance coverage and the extent to which insurers may become insolvent in the future. "Our insurance receivables at June 30, 2012 totaled $116.0 million, of which $2.0 million is reported in other current assets and $114.0 million in other non-current assets. Our insurance receivables at December 31, 2011 totaled $112.1 million, all of which is reported in other non-current assets." Mine Safety Appliances Company engages in the development, manufacture, and supply of products that protect people's health and safety in the fire service, homeland security, oil and gas, construction, and other industries, as well as military worldwide. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Has 25 Pending Cases ----------------------------------------------------------- Minerals Technologies Inc. currently has 25 pending asbestos cases, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 1, 2012. The Company states: "Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are among numerous defendants in a number of cases seeking damages for exposure to silica or to asbestos containing materials. The Company currently has 77 pending silica cases and 25 pending asbestos cases. To date, 1,389 silica cases and 10 asbestos cases have been dismissed. One asbestos case was dismissed in the second quarter of 2012. Most of these claims do not provide adequate information to assess their merits, the likelihood that the Company will be found liable, or the magnitude of such liability, if any. Additional claims of this nature may be made against the Company or its subsidiaries. At this time management anticipates that the amount of the Company's liability, if any, and the cost of defending such claims, will not have a material effect on its financial position or results of operations. "The Company has not settled any silica or asbestos lawsuits to date. We are unable to state an amount or range of amounts claimed in any of the lawsuits because state court pleading practices do not require identifying the amount of the claimed damage. The aggregate cost to the Company for the legal defense of these cases since inception was approximately $0.2 million, the majority of which has been reimbursed by Pfizer Inc pursuant to the terms of certain agreements entered into in connection with the Company's initial public offering in 1992. Of the 25 pending asbestos cases, at least 22 allege liability based solely on products sold prior to the initial public offering, and for which the Company is entitled to full indemnification pursuant to such agreements. Our experience has been that the Company is not liable to plaintiffs in any of these lawsuits and the Company does not expect to pay any settlements or jury verdicts in these lawsuits." Minerals Technologies Inc. is a resource- and technology-based company that develops, produces and markets worldwide a range of specialty mineral, mineral-based and synthetic mineral products and supporting systems and services. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fairfax Financial Unit Reinsured Fibro Exposure ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited's Interim Report for the six months ended June 30, 2012, disclosed that on December 31, 2011, Crum & Forster effectively reinsured 100% of its net latent exposures through the cession to Runoff (Clearwater Insurance) of substantially all of its liabilities for asbestos, environmental and other latent claims arising from policies with effective dates on or prior to December 31, 1998, exclusive of workers' compensation and surety related liabilities. Pursuant to this transaction, Crum & Forster transferred net insurance liabilities of $334.5 million to Runoff and Runoff received $334.5 million of cash and investments as consideration from Crum & Forster for assuming those liabilities. The transfer of these latent claims to Runoff is expected to significantly reduce the volatility of the operating income of Crum & Forster in future periods and may reduce interest and dividend income earned as a result of the transfer of cash and investments to Runoff. Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited is a financial services holding company which, through its subsidiaries, is principally engaged in property and casualty insurance and reinsurance and the associated investment management. The holding company is federally incorporated and domiciled in Ontario, Canada. ASBESTOS UPDATE: AK Steel Had 402 Pending Cases at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------- AK Steel Holding Corporation had 402 pending asbestos cases at December 31, 2011, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2012. The Company states: "Since 1990, AK Steel (or its predecessor, Armco Inc.) has been named as a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. The great majority of these lawsuits have been filed on behalf of people who claim to have been exposed to asbestos while visiting the premises of a current or former AK Steel facility. The majority of asbestos cases pending in which AK Steel is a defendant do not include a specific dollar claim for damages. In the cases that do include specific dollar claims for damages, the complaint typically includes a monetary claim for compensatory damages and a separate monetary claim in an equal amount for punitive damages, and does not attempt to allocate the total monetary claim among the various defendants. "It usually is not possible at the outset of a case to determine the specific dollar amount of a claim against AK Steel. In fact, it usually is not even possible at the outset to determine which of the plaintiffs actually will pursue a claim against AK Steel. Typically, that can only be determined through written interrogatories or other discovery after a case has been filed. Thus, in a case involving multiple plaintiffs and multiple defendants, AK Steel initially only accounts for the lawsuit as one claim against it. After AK Steel has determined through discovery whether a particular plaintiff will pursue a claim against it, it makes an appropriate adjustment to statistically account for that specific claim. It has been AK Steel's experience to date that only a small percentage of asbestos plaintiffs ultimately identify AK Steel as a target defendant from whom they actually seek damages and most of these claims ultimately are either dismissed or settled for a small fraction of the damages initially claimed. Year Ended December 31, 2011 2010 ----------------------- New Claims Filed 31 122 Pending Claims Disposed Of 44 179 Total Amount Paid in Settlements $0.7 million $0.8 million "Since the onset of asbestos claims against AK Steel in 1990, five asbestos claims against it have proceeded to trial in four separate cases. All five concluded with a verdict in favor of AK Steel. AK Steel intends to continue to vigorously defend the asbestos claims asserted against it. Based upon its present knowledge, the Company believes it is unlikely that the resolution in the aggregate of the asbestos claims against AK Steel will have a materially adverse effect on the Company's consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. However, predictions as to the outcome of pending litigation, particularly claims alleging asbestos exposure, are subject to substantial uncertainties. These uncertainties include (1) the significantly variable rate at which new claims may be filed, (2) the effect of bankruptcies of other companies currently or historically defending asbestos claims, (3) the uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, (4) the type and severity of the disease alleged to be suffered by each claimant, and (5) the potential for enactment of legislation affecting asbestos litigation." AK Steel Holding Corporation is an integrated producer of flat- rolled carbon, stainless and electrical steels and tubular products through its wholly owned subsidiary, AK Steel Corporation. The Company's operations consist of seven steelmaking and finishing plants located in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio and Pennsylvania that produce flat-rolled carbon steels, including coated, cold-rolled and hot-rolled products, and specialty stainless and electrical steels that are sold in sheet and strip form. In addition, the Company's operations include European trading companies that buy and sell steel and steel products and other materials. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lorillard Continues to Defend 42 Filter Cases -------------------------------------------------------------- Lorillard Tobacco and Lorillard, Inc., continue to defend an aggregate of 42 filter cases as of July 23, 2012, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2012. Claims have been brought against Lorillard Tobacco and Lorillard, Inc., by individuals who seek damages resulting from their alleged exposure to asbestos fibers that were incorporated into filter material used in one brand of cigarettes manufactured by a predecessor to Lorillard Tobacco for a limited period of time ending more than 50 years ago. As of July 23, 2012, Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant in 38 Filter Cases. Lorillard, Inc., was a defendant in eight Filter Cases, including four that also name Lorillard Tobacco. Since January 1, 2010, Lorillard Tobacco has paid, or has reached agreement to pay, a total of approximately $24.2 million in settlements to finally resolve 102 claims, including the Lenney case. The related expense was recorded in selling, general and administrative expenses on the consolidated statements of income. Since January 1, 2010, verdicts have been returned in the following two Filter Cases: Lenney v. Armstrong International, Inc., et al., tried in the Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, and McGuire v. Lorillard Tobacco Company and Hollingsworth & Vose Company, tried in the Circuit Court, Division Four, of Jefferson County, Kentucky. In the Lenney trial, the jury found in favor of the plaintiffs as to their claims for compensatory damages and damages for loss of consortium, but it determined that plaintiffs were not entitled to an award of punitive damages from Lorillard Tobacco or Hollingsworth & Vose. Pursuant to the terms of a 1952 agreement between P. Lorillard Company and H&V Specialties Co., Inc. (the manufacturer of the filter material), Lorillard Tobacco is required to indemnify Hollingsworth & Vose for legal fees, expenses, judgments and resolutions in cases and claims alleging injury from finished products sold by P. Lorillard Company that contained the filter material. The final judgment entered by the trial court awarded plaintiffs a total of approximately $1.1 million in compensatory damages, damages for loss of consortium and costs from Lorillard Tobacco and Hollingsworth & Vose. Lorillard Tobacco and Hollingsworth & Vose noticed an appeal to the California Court of Appeals. In 2012, Lorillard Tobacco reached agreement with the plaintiffs to resolve plaintiffs' pending claims, and any claims they might assert in the future, for an amount that is included in the total for settlements reached since January 1, 2010. The jury in the McGuire case returned a verdict for Lorillard Tobacco and Hollingsworth & Vose, and the Court entered final judgment in May 2012. Plaintiff has noticed an appeal to the Kentucky Court of Appeals. As of July 23, 2012, eight Filter Cases were scheduled for trial or have been placed on courts' trial calendars. Trial dates are subject to change. Lorillard, Inc., through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes. Its principal products are marketed under the brand names of Newport, Kent, True, Maverick and Old Gold with substantially all of its sales in the United States of America. Lorillard recently acquired blu ecigs, the leading electronic cigarette company in the U.S. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Recorded $5MM Expense in 2nd Qtr. --------------------------------------------------------------- Corning Incorporated recorded asbestos litigation expense of $5 million in the three months ended June 30, 2012, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2012. Corning Incorporated and PPG Industries, Inc. (PPG) each own 50% of the capital stock of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (PCC). Over a period of more than two decades, PCC and several other defendants have been named in numerous lawsuits involving claims alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos. On April 16, 2000, PCC filed for Chapter 11 reorganization in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Corning, with other relevant parties, has been involved in ongoing efforts to develop a Plan of Reorganization that would resolve the concerns and objections of the relevant parties. A proposed PCC plan of reorganization (Amended PCC Plan) filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania was not confirmed by the Court. Further changes to the Amended PCC Plan are expected to be filed by August 20, 2012. Corning also has an equity interest in Pittsburgh Corning Europe N.V. (PCE), a Belgian Corporation that is a component of the Company's proposed resolution of the PCC asbestos litigation. At June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the fair value of PCE significantly exceeded its carrying value of $136 million and $138 million, respectively. The Amended PCC Plan does not include certain non-PCC asbestos claims that may be or have been raised against Corning. Corning has recorded in its estimated asbestos litigation liability an additional $150 million for the approximately 9,900 current non- PCC cases alleging injuries from asbestos, and for any future non- PCC cases. The liability for the Amended PCC Plan and the non-PCC asbestos claims was estimated to be $663 million at June 30, 2012, compared with an estimate of the liability of $657 million at December 31, 2011. In the three and six months ended June 30, 2012, Corning recorded asbestos litigation expense of $5 million and $6 million, respectively. In the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, Corning recorded asbestos litigation expense of $5 million and $10 million, respectively. The entire obligation is classified as a non-current liability as installment payments for the cash portion of the obligation are not planned to commence until more than 12 months after the Amended PCC Plan becomes effective and the PCE portion of the obligation will be fulfilled through the direct contribution of Corning's investment in PCE (currently recorded as a non-current other equity method investment). Corning Incorporated is a manufacturer of glass, ceramics, and related materials, primarily for industrial and scientific applications. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Had $904.8MM Liabilities -------------------------------------------------------- Ingersoll-Rand Public Limited Company's total asbestos-related liabilities at June 30, 2012, were $904.8 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2012. The Company states: "Certain wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company are named as defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits in state and federal courts. In virtually all of the suits, a large number of other companies have also been named as defendants. The vast majority of those claims have been filed against either Ingersoll-Rand Company (IR-New Jersey) or Trane Inc. (Trane) and generally allege injury caused by exposure to asbestos contained in certain historical products sold by IR-New Jersey or Trane, primarily pumps, boilers and railroad brake shoes. Neither IR-New Jersey nor Trane was a producer or manufacturer of asbestos, however, some formerly manufactured products utilized asbestos- containing components such as gaskets and packings purchased from third-party suppliers. "The Company engages an outside expert to assist in calculating an estimate of the Company's total liability for pending and unasserted future asbestos-related claims and annually performs a detailed analysis with the assistance of an outside expert to update its estimated asbestos-related assets and liabilities. The methodology used to project the Company's total liability for pending and unasserted potential future asbestos-related claims relied upon and included the following factors, among others: * the outside expert's interpretation of a widely accepted forecast of the population likely to have been occupationally exposed to asbestos; * epidemiological studies estimating the number of people likely to develop asbestos-related diseases such as mesothelioma and lung cancer; * the Company's historical experience with the filing of non-malignancy claims against it and the historical ratio between the numbers of non-malignancy and lung cancer claims filed against the Company; * the outside expert's analysis of the number of people likely to file an asbestos-related personal injury claim against the Company based on such epidemiological and historical data and the Company's most recent three-year claims history; * an analysis of the Company's pending cases, by type of disease claimed; * an analysis of the Company's most recent three-year history to determine the average settlement and resolution value of claims, by type of disease claimed; * an adjustment for inflation in the future average settlement value of claims, at a 2.5% annual inflation rate, adjusted downward to 1.5% to take account of the declining value of claims resulting from the aging of the claimant population; and * an analysis of the period over which the Company has and is likely to resolve asbestos-related claims against it in the future. "At June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, over 90 percent of the open claims against the Company are non-malignancy claims, many of which have been placed on inactive or deferral dockets and the vast majority of which have little or no settlement value against the Company, particularly in light of recent changes in the legal and judicial treatment of such claims. "The Company's asbestos insurance receivable related to IR-New Jersey and Trane was $125.2 million and $193.2 million at June 30, 2012, and $126.9 million and $195.5 million, at December 31, 2011, respectively. "IR-New Jersey records income and expenses associated with its asbestos liabilities and corresponding insurance recoveries within discontinued operations, as they relate to previously divested businesses, primarily Ingersoll-Dresser Pump, which was sold in 2000. Income and expenses associated with Trane's asbestos liabilities and corresponding insurance recoveries are recorded within continuing operations. "Trane has now settled claims regarding asbestos coverage with most of its insurers. The settlements collectively account for approximately 95% of its recorded asbestos-related insurance receivable as of June 30, 2012. Most of Trane's settlement agreements constitute "coverage-in-place" arrangements, in which the insurer signatories agree to reimburse Trane for specified portions of its costs for asbestos bodily injury claims and Trane agrees to certain claims-handling protocols and grants to the insurer signatories certain releases and indemnifications. Trane remains in litigation in an action that Trane filed in November 2010 in the Circuit Court for La Crosse County, Wisconsin, relating to claims for insurance coverage for a subset of Trane's historical asbestos-related liabilities. "On January 12, 2012, IR-New Jersey filed an action in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, seeking a declaratory judgment and other relief regarding the Company's rights to defense and indemnity for asbestos claims. The defendants are several dozen solvent insurance companies, including companies that have been paying a portion of IR-New Jersey's asbestos claim defense and indemnity costs. The action involves IR-New Jersey's unexhausted insurance policies applicable to the asbestos claims that are not subject to any settlement agreement. The responding defendants generally challenged the Company's right to recovery, and raised various coverage defenses. "The Company continually monitors the status of pending litigation that could impact the allocation of asbestos claims against the Company's various insurance policies. The Company has concluded that its IR-New Jersey insurance receivable is probable of recovery because of these factors: * a review of other companies in circumstances comparable to IR-New Jersey, including Trane, and the success of other companies in recovering under their insurance policies, including Trane's favorable settlement discussed; * the Company's confidence in its right to recovery under the terms of its policies and pursuant to applicable law; and * the Company's history of receiving payments under the IR-New Jersey insurance program, including under policies that had been the subject of prior litigation. "The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on currently available information. The Company's actual liabilities or insurance recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than those recorded if assumptions used in the calculations vary significantly from actual results. Key variables in these assumptions include the number and type of new claims to be filed each year, the average cost of resolution of each such new claim, the resolution of coverage issues with insurance carriers, and the solvency risk with respect to the Company's insurance carriers. Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables are subject to greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens. Other factors that may affect the Company's liability include uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms that may be made by state and federal courts, and the passage of state or federal tort reform legislation. The aggregate amount of the stated limits in insurance policies available to the Company for asbestos-related claims acquired over many years and from many different carriers, is substantial. However, limitations in that coverage are expected to result in the projected total liability to claimants substantially exceeding the probable insurance recovery." Ingersoll-Rand plc (IR-Ireland) is a diversified, global company that provides products, services and solutions to enhance the comfort of air in homes and buildings, transport and protect food and perishables, secure homes and commercial properties. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial in Suit vs. Aqua-Chem Set for September -------------------------------------------------------------- Trial on remaining issues in a lawsuit filed by The Coca-Cola Company against its former subsidiary, Aqua-Chem, Inc., is set for September 2012, according to Coca-Cola's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 29, 2012. The Company states: "During the period from 1970 to 1981, our Company owned Aqua-Chem, Inc., now known as Cleaver-Brooks, Inc. During that time, the Company purchased over $400 million of insurance coverage, which also insures Aqua-Chem for some of its prior and future costs for certain product liability and other claims. A division of Aqua-Chem manufactured certain boilers that contained gaskets that Aqua-Chem purchased from outside suppliers. Several years after our Company sold this entity, Aqua-Chem received its first lawsuit relating to asbestos, a component of some of the gaskets. Aqua-Chem was first named as a defendant in asbestos lawsuits in or around 1985 and currently has approximately 40,000 active claims pending against it. "In September 2002, Aqua-Chem notified our Company that it believed we were obligated for certain costs and expenses associated with its asbestos litigations. Aqua-Chem demanded that our Company reimburse it for approximately $10 million for out-of- pocket litigation-related expenses. Aqua-Chem also demanded that the Company acknowledge a continuing obligation to Aqua-Chem for any future liabilities and expenses that are excluded from coverage under the applicable insurance or for which there is no insurance. Our Company disputes Aqua-Chem's claims, and we believe we have no obligation to Aqua-Chem for any of its past, present or future liabilities, costs or expenses. Furthermore, we believe we have substantial legal and factual defenses to Aqua-Chem's claims. The parties entered into litigation in Georgia to resolve this dispute, which was stayed by agreement of the parties pending the outcome of litigation filed in Wisconsin by certain insurers of Aqua-Chem. In that case, five plaintiff insurance companies filed a declaratory judgment action against Aqua-Chem, the Company and 16 defendant insurance companies seeking a determination of the parties' rights and liabilities under policies issued by the insurers and reimbursement for amounts paid by plaintiffs in excess of their obligations. "During the course of the Wisconsin insurance coverage litigation, Aqua-Chem and the Company reached settlements with several of the insurers, including plaintiffs, who have or will pay funds into an escrow account for payment of costs arising from the asbestos claims against Aqua-Chem. On July 24, 2007, the Wisconsin trial court entered a final declaratory judgment regarding the rights and obligations of the parties under the insurance policies issued by the remaining defendant insurers, which judgment was not appealed. The judgment directs, among other things, that each insurer whose policy is triggered is jointly and severally liable for 100 percent of Aqua-Chem's losses up to policy limits. The court's judgment concluded the Wisconsin insurance coverage litigation. The Georgia litigation remains subject to the stay agreement. The Company and Aqua-Chem continued to negotiate with various insurers that were defendants in the Wisconsin insurance coverage litigation over those insurers' obligations to defend and indemnify Aqua-Chem for the asbestos-related claims. The Company agreed on a term sheet with three of those insurers in 2010 and anticipated that a settlement agreement would be effective in May 2011, but such insurers repudiated their settlement commitments and, as a result, Aqua-Chem and the Company filed suit in Wisconsin state court to enforce the settlement agreement and the 2010 term sheet and to obtain a declaratory judgment validating Aqua-Chem and the Company's interpretation of the court's judgment in the 2004 Wisconsin insurance coverage litigation. "In February 2012, the parties argued a number of cross-motions for summary judgment related to the issues of the enforceability of the settlement agreement and the term sheet and exhaustion of policies underlying those issued by the defendant insurers. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment that the 2011 settlement agreement is not enforceable, but held over for trial several of the plaintiffs' claims for enforcement of the term sheet agreed to by the parties in 2010. The parties to this case have also resolved several substantive coverage issues that were once in the case. This should ensure coverage of Aqua-Chem asbestos claims without any gap in insurance coverage for approximately the next 10 years. The remaining issues in the case are set for trial in September 2012. Whether or not Aqua-Chem and the Company prevail in the coverage-in-place settlement litigation, these three insurance companies will remain subject to the court's judgment in the 2004 Wisconsin insurance coverage litigation. "The Company is unable to estimate at this time the amount or range of reasonably possible loss it may ultimately incur as a result of asbestos-related claims against Aqua-Chem. The Company believes that assuming that (a) the defense and indemnity costs for the asbestos-related claims against Aqua-Chem in the future are in the same range as during the past five years, and (b) the various insurers that cover the asbestos-related claims against Aqua-Chem remain solvent, regardless of the outcome of the coverage-in-place settlement litigation but taking into account the issues resolved to date, there will likely be little of Aqua-Chem's defense or indemnity costs that are not covered by insurance over the next 10 years." The Coca-Cola Company is a beverage company. The Company owns or licenses and markets more than 500 nonalcoholic beverage brands, primarily sparkling beverages but also a variety of still beverages, such as waters, enhanced waters, juices and juice drinks, ready-to-drink teas and coffees, and energy and sports drinks. It owns and markets a range of nonalcoholic sparkling beverage brands, which includes Coca-Cola, Diet Coke, Fanta and Sprite. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Had 25,000 Active Claims at June 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dana Holding Corporation had approximately 25,000 active pending asbestos personal injury liability claims at June 30, 2012, down slightly from the 26,000 claims at December 31, 2011, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2012. The Company states: "In addition, approximately 1,000 mostly inactive claims have been settled and are awaiting final documentation and dismissal, with or without payment. We have accrued $83 million for indemnity and defense costs for settled, pending and future claims at June 30, 2012, compared to $89 million at December 31, 2011. We use a fifteen-year time horizon for our estimate of this liability. "At June 30, 2012, we had recorded $52 million as an asset for probable recovery from our insurers for the pending and projected asbestos personal injury liability claims, compared to $53 million recorded at December 31, 2011. The recorded asset represents our assessment of the capacity of our current insurance agreements to provide for the payment of anticipated defense and indemnity costs for pending claims and projected future demands. The recognition of these recoveries is based on our assessment of our right to recover under the respective contracts and on the financial strength of the insurers. We have coverage agreements in place with our insurers confirming substantially all of the related coverage and payments are being received on a timely basis. The financial strength of these insurers is reviewed at least annually with the assistance of a third party. The recorded asset does not represent the limits of our insurance coverage, but rather the amount we would expect to recover if we paid the accrued indemnity and defense costs. "During the second quarter of 2011, we reached an agreement with an insurer to settle a long-standing claim pending in the liquidation proceedings of the insurer and recorded the estimated fair value of the recovery. As a result, other income includes a $6 million credit for this recovery of past outlays related to asbestos claims. "We had accrued $1 million for non-asbestos product liability costs at June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, with no recovery expected from third parties at either date. We estimate these liabilities based on assumptions about the value of the claims and about the likelihood of recoveries against us derived from our historical experience and current information." Dana Holding Corporation is headquartered in Maumee, Ohio and was incorporated in Delaware in 2007. As a supplier of driveline products (axles, driveshafts and transmissions), power technologies (sealing and thermal management products) and genuine service parts for vehicle manufacturers, its customer base includes virtually every major vehicle manufacturer in the global light vehicle, medium/heavy vehicle and off-highway markets. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco Plc Continues to Defend Asbestos Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ensco plc continues to defend various asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2012. The Company states: "We and certain subsidiaries have been named as defendants, along with numerous third-party companies as co-defendants, in multi-party lawsuits filed in Mississippi and Louisiana by approximately 100 plaintiffs. The lawsuits seek 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 1960s through the 1980s. "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 and Louisiana, 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 these 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 provider of offshore contract drilling services to the international oil and gas industry. As of December 31, 2011, the Company owned and operated an offshore drilling rig fleet of 77 rigs, including rigs under construction. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Still Defending Suits & Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Owens-Illinois, Inc., and Owens-Illinois Group, Inc., continue to defend asbestos lawsuits and claims involving approximately 4,700 plaintiffs and claimants, according to the Companies' Form 10-Q filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2012. The Company states: "The Company is a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging bodily injury and death as a result of exposure to asbestos dust. From 1948 to 1958, one of the Company's former business units commercially produced and sold approximately $40 million of a high-temperature, calcium-silicate based pipe and block insulation material containing asbestos. The Company exited the pipe and block insulation business in April 1958. The typical asbestos personal injury lawsuit alleges various theories of liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability and seek compensatory and in some cases, punitive damages in various amounts (herein referred to as "asbestos claims"). "As of June 30, 2012, the Company has determined that it is a named defendant in asbestos lawsuits and claims involving approximately 4,700 plaintiffs and claimants. Based on an analysis of the lawsuits pending as of December 31, 2011, approximately 71% of plaintiffs either do not specify the monetary damages sought, or in the case of court filings, claim an amount sufficient to invoke the jurisdictional minimum of the trial court. Approximately 27% of plaintiffs specifically plead damages of $15 million or less, and 2% of plaintiffs specifically plead damages greater than $15 million but less than $100 million. Fewer than 1% of plaintiffs specifically plead damages $100 million or greater but less than $122 million. "Current pleading practice permits considerable variation in the assertion of monetary damages. The Company's experience resolving hundreds of thousands of asbestos claims and lawsuits over an extended period demonstrates that the monetary relief that may be alleged in a complaint bears little relevance to a claim's merits or disposition value. Rather, the amount potentially recoverable is determined by such factors as the severity of the plaintiff's asbestos disease, the product identification evidence against the Company and other defendants, the defenses available to the Company and other defendants, the specific jurisdiction in which the claim is made, and the plaintiff's medical history and exposure to other disease-causing agents. "In addition to the pending claims, the Company has claims- handling agreements in place with many plaintiffs' counsel throughout the country. These agreements require evaluation and negotiation regarding whether particular claimants qualify under the criteria established by such agreements. The criteria for such claims include verification of a compensable illness and a reasonable probability of exposure to a product manufactured by the Company's former business unit during its manufacturing period ending in 1958. Some plaintiffs' counsel have historically withheld claims under these agreements for later presentation while focusing their attention on active litigation in the tort system. The Company believes that as of June 30, 2012 there are approximately 350 claims against other defendants which are likely to be asserted some time in the future against the Company. "The Company is also a defendant in other asbestos-related lawsuits or claims involving maritime workers, medical monitoring claimants, co-defendants and property damage claimants. Based upon its past experience, the Company believes that these categories of lawsuits and claims will not involve any material liability and they are not included in the description of pending matters or in the description of disposed matters. "Since receiving its first asbestos claim, the Company as of June 30, 2012, has disposed of the asbestos claims of approximately 388,000 plaintiffs and claimants at an average indemnity payment per claim of approximately $8,200. Certain of these dispositions have included deferred amounts payable over a number of years. Deferred amounts payable totaled approximately $34 million at June 30, 2012 ($18 million at December 31, 2011) and are included in the foregoing average indemnity payment per claim. The Company's asbestos indemnity payments have varied on a per claim basis, and are expected to continue to vary considerably over time. A part of the Company's objective is to achieve, where possible, resolution of asbestos claims pursuant to claims-handling agreements. Failure of claimants to meet certain medical and product exposure criteria in the Company's administrative claims handling agreements has generally reduced the number of marginal or suspect claims that would otherwise have been received. In addition, certain courts and legislatures have reduced or eliminated the number of marginal or suspect claims that the Company otherwise would have received. These developments generally have had the effect of increasing the Company's per- claim average indemnity payment. "The Company believes that its ultimate asbestos-related liability (i.e., its indemnity payments or other claim disposition costs plus related legal fees) cannot reasonably be estimated. Beginning with the initial liability of $975 million established in 1993, the Company has accrued a total of approximately $4.0 billion through 2011, before insurance recoveries, for its asbestos- related liability. The Company's ability to reasonably estimate its liability has been significantly affected by, among other factors, the volatility of asbestos-related litigation in the United States, the significant number of co-defendants that have filed for bankruptcy, the magnitude and timing of co-defendant bankruptcy trust payments, the inherent uncertainty of future disease incidence and claiming patterns, the expanding list of non-traditional defendants that have been sued in this litigation, and the use of mass litigation screenings to generate large numbers of claims by parties who allege exposure to asbestos dust but have no present physical asbestos impairment. "The Company has continued to monitor trends that may affect its ultimate liability and has continued to analyze the developments and variables affecting or likely to affect the resolution of pending and future asbestos claims against the Company. The material components of the Company's accrued liability are based on amounts determined by the Company in connection with its annual comprehensive review and consist of the following estimates, to the extent it is probable that such liabilities have been incurred and can be reasonably estimated: (i) the liability for asbestos claims already asserted against the Company; (ii) the liability for preexisting but unasserted asbestos claims for prior periods arising under its administrative claims-handling agreements with various plaintiffs' counsel; (iii) the liability for asbestos claims not yet asserted against the Company, but which the Company believes will be asserted in the next several years; and (iv) the legal defense costs likely to be incurred in connection with the foregoing types of claims. "The Company conducts a comprehensive review of its asbestos- related liabilities and costs annually in connection with finalizing and reporting its annual results of operations, unless significant changes in trends or new developments warrant an earlier review. If the results of an annual comprehensive review indicate that the existing amount of the accrued liability is insufficient to cover its estimated future asbestos-related costs, then the Company will record an appropriate charge to increase the accrued liability. The Company believes that a reasonable estimation of the probable amount of the liability for claims not yet asserted against the Company is not possible beyond a period of several years. Therefore, while the results of future annual comprehensive reviews cannot be determined, the Company expects the addition of one year to the estimation period will result in an annual charge. "On March 11, 2011, the Company received a verdict in an asbestos case in which conspiracy claims had been asserted against the Company. Of the total nearly $90 million awarded by the jury against the four defendants in the case, almost $10 million in compensatory damages were assessed against all four defendants, and $40 million in punitive damages were assessed against the Company. "The Company continues to deny the conspiracy allegations in this case and will vigorously challenge this verdict, if necessary, in the appellate courts, and, therefore, has made no change to its asbestos-related liability as of June 30, 2012. While the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit, the Company and other conspiracy defendants have successfully challenged jury verdicts in similar cases. "The Company's reported results of operations for 2011 were materially affected by the $165 million fourth quarter charge for asbestos-related costs and asbestos-related payments continue to be substantial. Any future additional charge would likewise materially affect the Company's results of operations for the period in which it is recorded. Also, the continued use of significant amounts of cash for asbestos-related costs has affected and may continue to affect the Company's cost of borrowing and its ability to pursue global or domestic acquisitions. However, the Company believes that its operating cash flows and other sources of liquidity will be sufficient to pay its obligations for asbestos-related costs and to fund its working capital and capital expenditure requirements on a short- term and long-term basis." Owens-Illinois, Inc., is a manufacturer of glass containers with 81 glass manufacturing plants in 21 countries. It produces glass containers for beer, ready-to-drink low alcohol refreshers, spirits, wine, food, tea, juice and pharmaceuticals. The Company also produces glass containers for soft drinks and other non- alcoholic beverages outside the United States. It manufactures these products in a range of sizes, shapes and colors. Owens- Illinois Group, Inc., is a subsidiary of Owens-Illinois, Inc. ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Had 16,000 Pending Claims at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- BorgWarner Inc. had 16,000 pending asbestos-related product liability claims at June 30, 2012, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2012. The Company states: "Like many other industrial companies who have historically operated in the U.S., the Company (or parties the Company is obligated to indemnify) continues to be named as one of many defendants in asbestos-related personal injury actions. We believe that the Company's involvement is limited because, in general, these claims relate to a few types of automotive friction products that were manufactured many years ago and contained encapsulated asbestos. The nature of the fibers, the encapsulation and the manner of use lead the Company to believe that these products are highly unlikely to cause harm. As of both June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the Company had approximately 16,000 pending asbestos-related product liability claims. Of the approximately 16,000 outstanding claims at June 30, 2012, approximately half were pending in jurisdictions that have undergone significant tort and judicial reform activities subsequent to the filing of these claims. "The Company's policy is to vigorously defend against these lawsuits and the Company has been successful in obtaining dismissal of many claims without any payment. The Company expects that the vast majority of the pending asbestos-related product liability claims where it is a defendant (or has an obligation to indemnify a defendant) will result in no payment being made by the Company or its insurers. In 2012, of the approximately 1,400 claims resolved, 161 (12%) resulted in payment being made to a claimant by or on behalf of the Company. In the full year of 2011, of the approximately 1,800 claims resolved, 288 (16%) resulted in any payment being made to a claimant by or on behalf of the Company. "Prior to June 2004, the settlement and defense costs associated with all claims were paid by the Company's primary layer insurance carriers under a series of funding arrangements. In addition to the primary insurance available for asbestos-related claims, the Company has substantial excess insurance coverage available for potential future asbestos-related product claims. In June 2004, primary layer insurance carriers notified the Company of the alleged exhaustion of their policy limits. "A declaratory judgment action was filed in January 2004 in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois by Continental Casualty Company and related companies against the Company and certain of its other historical general liability insurers. The court has issued a number of interim rulings and discovery is continuing. CNA and the Company have entered into a settlement agreement resolving their coverage disputes, pursuant to which CNA will pay amounts over a four year period from 2011 through 2015 to the Company. The Company is vigorously pursuing the litigation against the remaining insurers. "Although it is impossible to predict the outcome of pending or future claims or the impact of tort reform legislation that may be enacted at the state or federal levels, due to the encapsulated nature of the products, the Company's experience in vigorously defending and resolving claims in the past, and the Company's significant insurance coverage with solvent carriers as of the date of this filing, management does not believe that asbestos- related product liability claims are likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, financial position or cash flows. "To date, the Company has paid and accrued $213.4 million in defense and indemnity in advance of insurers' reimbursement and has received $81.1 million in cash and notes from insurers, including CNA. The net balance of $132.3 million, is expected to be fully recovered, of which approximately $38.1 million is expected to be recovered within one year. Timing of recovery is dependent on final resolution of the declaratory judgment action or additional negotiated settlements. At December 31, 2011, insurers owed $109.8 million in association with these claims. "In addition to the $132.3 million net balance relating to past settlements and defense costs, the Company has estimated a liability of $67.4 million for claims asserted, but not yet resolved and their related defense costs at June 30, 2012. The Company also has a related asset of $67.4 million to recognize proceeds from the insurance carriers. Insurance carrier reimbursement of 100% is expected based on the Company's experience, its insurance contracts and decisions received to date in the declaratory judgment action. At December 31, 2011, the comparable value of the insurance asset and accrued liability was $61.7 million." BorgWarner Inc. manufactures and sells engineered automotive systems and components primarily for powertrain applications worldwide. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Still Faces Drilling Mud Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., is one of several unrelated defendants in lawsuits filed in state courts alleging that defendants manufactured, distributed or utilized drilling mud containing asbestos and, in Diamond Offshore's case, allowed such drilling mud to have been utilized aboard its offshore drilling rigs, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2012. The Company states: "The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an award of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. The manufacture and use of asbestos-containing drilling mud had already ceased before we acquired any of the drilling rigs addressed in these lawsuits. We believe that we are not liable for the damages asserted and we expect to receive complete defense and indemnity with respect to a majority of the lawsuits from Murphy Exploration & Production Company pursuant to the terms of our 1992 asset purchase agreement with them. We also believe that we are not liable for the damages asserted in the remaining lawsuits pursuant to the terms of our 1989 asset purchase agreement with Diamond M Corporation, and we filed a declaratory judgment action in Texas state court against NuStar Energy LP, or NuStar, the successor to Diamond M Corporation, seeking a judicial determination that we did not assume liability for these claims. We obtained summary judgment on our claims in the declaratory judgment action, but NuStar has appealed the court's decision. We are unable to estimate our potential exposure, if any, to these lawsuits at this time but do not believe that ultimate liability, if any, resulting from this litigation will have a material effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations and cash flows." Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., is an offshore oil and gas drilling contractor. Its fleet includes 49 offshore rigs, consisting of 32 semisubmersibles, 13 jack-ups and four positioned drillships, three of which are under construction. Its diverse fleet offers a range of services worldwide in both the floater market (ultra-deepwater, deepwater and mid-water) and the non- floater, or jack-up, market. ASBESTOS UPDATE: EMCOR Group Got Gaskets That May Have Asbestos --------------------------------------------------------------- EMCOR Group, Inc., in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2012, disclosed: "In December 2011, we received a letter from a gasket supplier that it had supplied us with gaskets from a Canadian manufacturer that, contrary to our supplier's product specifications and purchase orders, may contain asbestos material. Additionally, the supplier has informed us that one of its customers had found that certain gaskets manufactured by the Canadian company tested positive for asbestos during a routine audit. However, our supplier also informed us that industry experts have advised it no action is necessary to remove or replace any of these gaskets manufactured by the Canadian company that may have been installed by us inasmuch as any asbestos material in the gaskets is fully encapsulated in the gasket binding and enclosed within piping systems. No reasonable estimate of our ultimate liability is possible at this time, and based on our current knowledge, we do not expect that any amounts that we may incur as a consequence of our installation of these gaskets will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or liquidity. To the extent we incur any expenditures related to this matter, we intend to seek reimbursement from the supplier." EMCOR Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides electrical and mechanical construction, and facilities services to commercial, industrial, utility, and institutional customers in the United States, the United Kingdom, and internationally. ASBESTOS UPDATE: RPM Units' Ultimate Liability Still Unknown ------------------------------------------------------------ RPM International Inc.'s subsidiaries' ultimate asbestos liability is still to be determined, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2012. The Company states: "On May 31, 2010, Bondex International, Inc. ("Bondex") and its parent, Specialty Products Holding Corp. ("SPHC"), filed voluntary petitions in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Bankruptcy Court") to reorganize under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (the "Bankruptcy Code"). SPHC is the parent company of Bondex and also serves as the parent company for various operating companies that are not part of the reorganization filing, including Chemical Specialties Manufacturing Corp., Day-Glo Color Corp., Dryvit Systems, Inc. through Dryvit Holdings, Inc., Guardian Protection Products Inc., Kop-Coat Inc., TCI, Inc. and RPM Wood Finishes Group, Inc. (collectively with SPHC and Bondex, the "Deconsolidated Group"). SPHC and Bondex (the "filing entities") took this action as a means to permanently and comprehensively resolve all pending and future asbestos-related liability claims associated with Bondex and SPHC. As a result of the filing, all litigation related to Bondex and SPHC asbestos personal injury claims has been stayed, with the exception of certain cases with respect to which the stay was lifted. The Chapter 11 proceedings will enable the filing entities to establish a section 524(g) trust accompanied by a court order that will direct all existing and future SPHC-related and Bondex-related claims to such trust, which will then compensate only meritorious claims at appropriate values. "There are a number of issues and matters to be resolved in connection with the SPHC and Bondex Chapter 11 proceedings, including, among others: * the ultimate asbestos liability of the filing entities; * the outcome of negotiations with a committee of asbestos personal injury claimants and other participants in the Chapter 11 proceedings, concerning, among other things, the size and structure of a trust to satisfy the asbestos liability and the means for funding that trust; and * the Bankruptcy Court's decisions relating to numerous substantive and procedural aspects of the Chapter 11 proceedings, including with regard to the length of time the existing preliminary injunction that prohibits derivative asbestos liability lawsuits and other actions from being brought against RPM International and other non-filing affiliates of the filing entities remains in effect, any shaping litigation regarding asbestos claims, and estimation of the aggregate asbestos liability of the filing entities. "The ability of the filing entities to successfully reorganize will depend on their ability to both reach an acceptable agreement with the asbestos claimants that satisfies all applicable legal requirements and obtain the requisite court approvals, and we cannot ensure that these entities can successfully reorganize nor can we give any assurances as to the impact of any such reorganization on the financial condition, results of operations or future prospects of the filing entities and their subsidiary businesses. We are also unable to predict the timing of any of the foregoing matters or the Chapter 11 proceedings themselves. "As a result of the Chapter 11 filing, the filing entities are precluded from paying dividends to shareholders and making payments on any pre-bankruptcy filing accounts or notes payable that are due and owing to any other entity within the RPM group of companies (the "Pre-Petition Intercompany Payables") and other pre-petition creditors during the pendency of the Chapter 11 proceedings, without the Bankruptcy Court's approval. Moreover, no assurances can be given that any of the Pre-Petition Intercompany Payables will be paid or otherwise satisfied in connection with the confirmation of a SPHC plan of reorganization. As of May 30, 2010, the day prior to the Chapter 11 filing, SPHC and its subsidiaries had Pre-Petition Intercompany Payables of approximately $209.6 million and pre-petition intercompany receivables from other entities within the RPM group of companies (other than subsidiaries of SPHC) of approximately $87.3 million. "We also expect that in the Chapter 11 proceedings, various claims may be asserted against RPM International, including allegations that we are liable for the asbestos-related liabilities of the filing entities. Although we believe we have no responsibility for liabilities of the filing entities, we cannot assure you that the resolution of such claims, or the perception that RPM International may have a risk of exposure to liability for the asbestos-related liabilities of the filing entities, will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or the market price of our securities. Moreover it is uncertain whether, and to what extent, we may have to contribute to an asbestos trust or whether any channeling injunction entered in connection with a plan of reorganization will extend to all non-filing affiliates of the filing entities, including RPM International." RPM International Inc. manufactures and sells specialty chemical products to industrial and consumer markets in the United States and internationally. SPHC is a subsidiary of RPM International. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 57,559 Pending Claims at June 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co. in a Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2012, disclosed its results of operations for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. It also disclosed that as of June 30, 2012, the Company was a defendant in cases filed in numerous state and federal courts alleging injury or death as a result of exposure to asbestos and the pending claims total 57,559. The Company states: "Of the 57,559 pending claims as of June 30, 2012, approximately 19,300 claims were pending in New York, approximately 9,900 claims were pending in Texas, approximately 5,500 claims were pending in Mississippi, and approximately 5,500 claims were pending in Ohio, all jurisdictions in which legislation or judicial orders restrict the types of claims that can proceed to trial on the merits. "Substantially all of the claims the Company resolves are either dismissed or concluded through settlements. To date, the Company has paid two judgments arising from adverse jury verdicts in asbestos matters. The first payment, in the amount of $2.54 million, was made on July 14, 2008, approximately two years after the adverse verdict in the Joseph Norris matter in California, after the Company had exhausted all post-trial and appellate remedies. The second payment, in the amount of $0.02 million, was made in June 2009 after an adverse verdict in the Earl Haupt case in Los Angeles, California on April 21, 2009. "The Company has tried several cases resulting in defense verdicts by the jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the court, one of which, the Patrick O'Neil claim in Los Angeles, was reversed on appeal. In an opinion dated January 12, 2012, the California Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal and instructed the trial court to enter a judgment of nonsuit in favor of the defendants. "On March 14, 2008, the Company received an adverse verdict in the James Baccus claim in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, with compensatory damages of $2.45 million and additional damages of $11.9 million. The Company's post-trial motions were denied by order dated January 5, 2009. The case was concluded by settlement in the fourth quarter of 2010 during the pendency of the Company's appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. "On May 16, 2008, the Company received an adverse verdict in the Chief Brewer claim in Los Angeles, California. The amount of the judgment entered was $0.68 million plus interest and costs. The Company is pursuing an appeal in this matter. "On February 2, 2009, the Company received an adverse verdict in the Dennis Woodard claim in Los Angeles, California. The jury found that the Company was responsible for one-half of one percent (0.5%) of plaintiffs' damages of $16.93 million; however, based on California court rules regarding allocation of damages, judgment was entered against the Company in the amount of $1.65 million, plus costs. Following entry of judgment, the Company filed a motion with the trial court requesting judgment in the Company's favor notwithstanding the jury's verdict, and on June 30, 2009, the court advised that the Company's motion was granted and judgment was entered in favor of the Company. The trial court's ruling was affirmed on appeal by order dated August 25, 2011. The plaintiffs appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court of California, which dismissed the appeal on February 29, 2012; the matter is now finally determined in the Company's favor. "On March 23, 2010, a Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, state court jury found the Company responsible for a 1/11th share of a $14.5 million verdict in the James Nelson claim, and for a 1/20th share of a $3.5 million verdict in the Larry Bell claim. On February 23, 2011, the court entered judgment on the verdicts in the amount of $0.2 million against the Company, only, in Bell, and in the amount of $4.0 million, jointly, against the Company and two other defendants in Nelson, with additional interest in the amount of $0.01 million being assessed against the Company, only, in Nelson. All defendants, including the Company, and the plaintiffs took timely appeals of certain aspects of those judgments. The Nelson appeal is pending. The Company resolved the Bell appeal by settlement, which is reflected in the settled claims for 2012. "On August 17, 2011, a New York City state court jury found the Company responsible for a 99% share of a $32 million verdict on the Ronald Dummitt claim. The Company has filed post-trial motions seeking to overturn the verdict, to grant a new trial, or to reduce the damages, which the Company argues are excessive under New York appellate case law governing awards for non-economic losses. The Court held oral argument on these motions on October 18, 2011, and a written decision is expected to be issued. The Company anticipates that it will likely appeal any judgment that may be entered on the verdict. "On March 9, 2012, a Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, state court jury found the Company responsible for a 1/8th share of a $123,000 verdict in the Frank Paasch claim. The Company and plaintiffs filed post-trial motions. On May 31, 2012, on plaintiffs' motion, the Court entered an order dismissing the claim against the Company, with prejudice, and without any payment. "Such judgment amounts are not included in the Company's incurred costs until all available appeals are exhausted and the final payment amount is determined. "The gross settlement and defense costs incurred (before insurance recoveries and tax effects) for the Company for the six-month periods ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 totaled $49.7 million and $56.2 million, respectively. The Company's total pre-tax payments for settlement and defense costs, net of funds received from insurers, for the six-month periods ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 totaled a $39.2 million net payment and $35.6 million net payment, respectively. "Cumulatively through June 30, 2012, the Company has resolved (by settlement or dismissal) approximately 87,500 claims. The related settlement cost incurred by the Company and its insurance carriers is approximately $350 million, for an average settlement cost per resolved claim of approximately $4,000. The average settlement cost per claim resolved during the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 was $4,123, $7,036 and $4,781 respectively. "The Company has retained the firm of Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Associates, Inc., a nationally recognized expert in the field, to assist management in estimating the Company's asbestos liability in the tort system. "The Company recorded an additional liability of $285 million as of December 31, 2011. "A liability of $894 million was recorded as of December 31, 2011 to cover the estimated cost of asbestos claims now pending or subsequently asserted through 2021, of which approximately 80% is attributable to settlement and defense costs for future claims projected to be filed through 2021. The liability is reduced when cash payments are made in respect of settled claims and defense costs. The liability was $848 million as of June 30, 2012." Crane Co. manufactures and sells engineered industrial products in the United States and internationally. The company operates in five segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems, Fluid Handling, and Controls. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. Had $19.6MM Liability for Lawsuits -------------------------------------------------------------- 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. As of June 30, 2012, December 31, 2011 and June 30, 2011, its condensed balance sheets included liabilities for these legal actions of $19.6 million, $16.4 million and $17.0 million, respectively. These liabilities do not include costs associated with legal representation. Based on the Company's analysis, and considering the inherent uncertainties associated with litigation, it does not believe that it is reasonably possible that these legal actions will materially adversely affect its financial position or results of operations in the near term, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2012. Olin Corporation is a manufacturer concentrated in two business segments: Chlor Alkali Products and Winchester. Chlor Alkali Products, with nine U.S. manufacturing facilities and one Canadian manufacturing facility, produces chlorine and caustic soda, hydrochloric acid, hydrogen, bleach products and potassium hydroxide. Winchester, with its principal manufacturing facilities in East Alton, IL and Oxford, MS, produces and distributes sporting ammunition, reloading components, small caliber military ammunition and components, and industrial cartridges. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Companies Still Defends Exposure Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Carlisle Companies Incorporated continues to defend asbestos- related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2012. Over the years, the Company has been named as a defendant, along with numerous other defendants, in lawsuits in various state courts in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to exposure to asbestos-containing brakes, which Carlisle manufactured in limited amounts between the late-1940's and the mid-1980's. In addition to compensatory awards, these lawsuits may also seek punitive damages. To date, the Company has obtained dismissals or settlements of its asbestos-related lawsuits with no material effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The Company maintains insurance coverage that applies to the Company's defense costs and payments of settlements or judgments in connection with asbestos-related lawsuits. On December 22, 2010, the Company settled a case involving alleged asbestos-related injury. The total amount of the award and related loss, inclusive of insurance recoveries, was approximately $5.8 million, which was recorded in discontinued operations in the fourth quarter of 2010, as the related alleged asbestos-containing product was manufactured by the Company's former on-highway brake business. Based on an ongoing evaluation, the Company believes that the resolution of its remaining pending asbestos claims will not have a material impact on the Company's financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows, although these matters could result in the Company being subject to monetary damages, costs or expenses, and charges against earnings in particular periods. Carlisle Companies Incorporated is a holding company for Carlisle Corporation, and its wholly owned subsidiaries. Carlisle is a diversified manufacturing company consisting of five segments, which manufacture and distribute a range of products. Its segments include Carlisle Construction Materials (CCM), Carlisle Transportation Products (CTP), Carlisle Brake & Friction (CBF) and Carlisle Interconnect Technologies (CIT). ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Estimates Up to $18MM Liability ------------------------------------------------------------------ Columbus McKinnon Corporation has estimated its asbestos-related aggregate liability to range between $7,000,000 and $18,000,000 for a period of 18 to 30 years from June 30, 2012, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2012. The Company states: "Like many industrial manufacturers, the Company is involved in asbestos-related litigation. In continually evaluating costs relating to its estimated asbestos- related liability, the Company reviews, among other things, the incidence of past and recent claims, the historical case dismissal rate, the mix of the claimed illnesses and occupations of the plaintiffs, its recent and historical resolution of the cases, the number of cases pending against it, the status and results of broad-based settlement discussions, and the number of years such activity might continue. Based on this review, the Company has estimated its share of liability to defend and resolve probable asbestos-related personal injury claims. This estimate is highly uncertain due to the limitations of the available data and the difficulty of forecasting with any certainty the numerous variables that can affect the range of the liability. The Company will continue to study the variables in light of additional information in order to identify trends that may become evident and to assess their impact on the range of liability that is probable and estimable. "Based on actuarial information, the Company has estimated its asbestos-related aggregate liability including related legal costs to range between $7,000,000 and $18,000,000 using actuarial parameters of continued claims for a period of 18 to 30 years from June 30, 2012. The Company's estimation of its asbestos-related aggregate liability that is probable and estimable, in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles approximates $12,900,000, which has been reflected as a liability in the consolidated financial statements as of June 30, 2012. The recorded liability does not consider the impact of any potential favorable federal legislation. This liability will fluctuate based on the uncertainty in the number of future claims that will be filed and the cost to resolve those claims, which may be influenced by a number of factors, including the outcome of the ongoing broad-based settlement negotiations, defensive strategies, and the cost to resolve claims outside the broad-based settlement program. Of this amount, management expects to incur asbestos liability payments of approximately $1,500,000 over the next 12 months. Because payment of the liability is likely to extend over many years, management believes that the potential additional costs for claims will not have a material effect on the financial condition of the Company or its liquidity, although the effect of any future liabilities recorded could be material to earnings in a future period." Columbus McKinnon Corporation is a designer, marketer and manufacturer of material handling products and services which efficiently and safely move, lift, position and secure material. Key products include hoists, rigging tools, cranes, and actuators. The Company's material handling products are sold globally, principally to third party distributors through diverse distribution channels, and to a lesser extent directly to end- users. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Had 1,400 Claims at June 30 ----------------------------------------------------------- Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. had 1,400 pending asbestos claims at June 30, 2012, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2012. 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 June 30, 2012, 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 June 30, 2012, 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 June 30, 2012, we had approximately $1.8 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." Chicago Bridge and Iron Company N.V. is a Netherlands-based integrated engineering, procurement and construction services provider and process technology licensor, delivering solutions to customers primarily in the energy and natural resources industries. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reynolds American Units Still Party to "Parsons" ----------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc.'s subsidiaries still a party to the asbestos-related lawsuit captioned, Parsons v. A C & S, Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2012. In Parsons v. A C & S, Inc., a case filed in February 1998 in Circuit Court, Ohio County, West Virginia, the plaintiff sued asbestos manufacturers, U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and of Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., and parent companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, seeking to recover $1 million in compensatory and punitive damages individually and an unspecified amount for the class in both compensatory and punitive damages. The class was brought on behalf of persons who allegedly have personal injury claims arising from their exposure to respirable asbestos fibers and cigarette smoke. The plaintiffs allege that Mrs. Parsons' use of tobacco products and exposure to asbestos products caused her to develop lung cancer and to become addicted to tobacco. In December 2000, three defendants, Nitral Liquidators, Inc., Desseaux Corporation of North American and Armstrong World Industries, filed bankruptcy petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, In re Armstrong World Industries, Inc. Pursuant to section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, Parsons is automatically stayed with respect to all defendants. Reynolds American Inc., referred to as RAI, is a holding company that was created to facilitate the business combination of the U.S. business of Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., referred to as B&W, an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of British American Tobacco p.l.c., referred to as BAT, with R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company on July 30, 2004. Reynolds American Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells cigarette and other tobacco products in the United States. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Celanese Corp. Still Defending Exposure Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Celanese Corporation continues to defend asbestos-related cases, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2012. The Company states: "The Company is involved in legal and regulatory proceedings, lawsuits and claims incidental to the normal conduct of business, relating to such matters as product liability, land disputes, contracts, antitrust, intellectual property, workers' compensation, chemical exposure, asbestos exposure, prior acquisitions and divestitures, past waste disposal practices and release of chemicals into the environment. The Company is actively defending those matters where the Company is named as a defendant. Due to the inherent subjectivity of assessments and unpredictability of outcomes of legal proceedings, the Company's litigation accruals and estimates of possible loss or range of possible loss may not represent the ultimate loss to the Company from legal proceedings. For reasonably possible loss contingencies that may be material and when determinable, the Company estimates its Possible Loss, considering that the Company could incur no loss in certain matters. Thus, the Company's exposure and ultimate losses may be higher or lower, and possibly materially so, than the Company's litigation accruals and estimates of Possible Loss. "For some matters, the Company is unable, at this time, to estimate its Possible Loss that is reasonably possible of occurring. Generally, the less progress that has been made in the proceedings or the broader the range of potential results, the more difficult for the Company to estimate the Possible Loss that it is reasonably possible the Company could incur. The Company may disclose certain information related to a plaintiff's claim against the Company alleged in the plaintiff's pleadings or otherwise publicly available. While information of this type may provide insight into the potential magnitude of a matter, it does not necessarily represent the Company's estimate of reasonably possible or probable loss. Some of the Company's exposure in legal matters may be offset by applicable insurance coverage. The Company does not consider the possible availability of insurance coverage in determining the amounts of any accruals or any estimates of Possible Loss." Celanese Corporation and its subsidiaries is a global technology and specialty materials company. The Company's business involves processing chemical raw materials, such as methanol, carbon monoxide and ethylene, and natural products, including wood pulp, into value-added chemicals, thermoplastic polymers and other chemical-based products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement of Wilton Mill Site Begins ----------------------------------------------------- Matt Hongoltz-Hetling for the Kennebec Journal reports that the man who is working to remove asbestos from a former mill on Depot Street called it the worst asbestos site he's experienced in more than 30 years on the job. "I've done over 10,000 projects. This is the worst that's ever been seen," Bob Rickett, owner of Abatement Professionals, said Tuesday, July 31. "This is the absolute worst." Rickett signed a six-figure contract with the property's owner, Adam Mack, of Wilton Recycling, after a year of efforts by state and federal officials to bring the site into compliance. Rickett began abatement efforts last August, but stopped, claiming that he was owed $75,000 by Mack for work that he had completed. "We're pleased that we're now in our second week of concerted cleanup," said Samantha Depoy-Warren, spokeswoman for the Department of Environmental Protection. "Given the long history of this site, we certainly won't be celebrating until the cleanup is complete, but it does look like they're on track to finally make this right." Mack said he has wanted to clean up the site since he was first alerted about the presence of asbestos, but said it has been a difficult road. "I always intended to get the site cleaned up," Mack said. "Just to get the work funded and all the pieces in place took a little while." The site has been a health hazard since last year, when contractor Ryan Blyther, of Scarborough, was hired by Mack to perform demolition work. Blyther's employees called the Occupational Health and Safety Office and alerted that agency to the lack of proper procedure in handling the asbestos. Rickett said Blyther endangered human health by ripping asbestos- laden insulation sheaths from pipes and casting them aside. Inside the building, discarded asbestos was strewn about the floor; much of the material had crumbled into a fine, chalky powder that poses an additional health risk. Asbestos fibers are known to cause cancer when they are inhaled and lodge themselves in the lungs. "It's the smaller fibers that you can't see that are the problem," Rickett said. Rickett's company began working on the site again late July. Work crews in specially designed suits with respirators have been picking up the larger pieces of material and using vacuum cleaners to clean the entire inside. "Blyther was more concerned about the value of what was underneath this material, which was the steel for the piping. Where it landed was where it sat. It was dragged around everywhere," Rickett said. The steel piping, which Blyther recovered and sold, was worth an estimated quarter of a million dollars. Blyther faces $154,200 in fines from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration for workplace safety violations, and was sentenced to six months in prison for stealing money in an unrelated building project. He and Mack are also likely to be fined by the state DEP, which has been working with the federal Environmental Protection Agency for a year to compel Mack and Blyther to make the site safe. Depoy-Warren said that once the site has been made safe, the department will continue enforcement actions by entering into consent agreements that establish the fine amounts. Drafts of the agreements have been distributed to the two men. The penalty proposed for Mack is "considerably less" than the one Blyther faces. "He was the one that started dismantling things, which caused the asbestos to become a problem," Depoy-Warren said. Depoy-Warren said Mack's proposed penalty was based partly on his failure to correct the problem. If the cleanup is completed on the current schedule, she said, "the penalty may be decreased." Mack said he is consulting with a lawyer about the fines and could not comment on them. He said the project was the first time he worked with Blyther, although the two had been acquaintances for years. "We had spoken about doing something at the mill. He came to me with a proposal that looked good," Mack said. Now, he said, Blyther is gone, and Mack has been left to pick up the pieces. "Ryan left me a mess, and I'm cleaning it up," he said. Rickett said that he hopes to finish the work ahead of the schedule outlined in the remediation plan, which extends to the end of August. "Work is progressing as we speak up at the facility," he said. "I'm expecting by week's end to probably be 85 to 90 percent complete with my work at the facility." Before he clears the site, Rickett said, the work will be reviewed by the federal agency. "The EPA will come in and test the air quality, inspect it, clear it, and then we'll be out of there," he said. After the work is completed, Mack plans to demolish the building. Depoy-Warren said he has an incentive to try to complete the project quickly -- the fact that it will allow for the sale of valuable salvage materials. "The faster they can get this cleaned up, the faster they can begin doing the demolition, which means they can start making money on this project instead of spending money," she said. Mack said that the sale of the salvageable materials will pay for the entire remediation project. Depoy-Warren said the cleanup is a major success for the department, which has been working continually for 12 months to make headway. "From the beginning, we've been promising the public and the community that the site would be cleaned up," she said. "It seems like we're almost there." Rickett said that Central Maine Power Co. and the Wilton Water Co. were helpful in temporarily restoring utility services to the building to facilitate the project. "It's been a community effort to get this thing cleaned up," Rickett said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bechtel Workers Speak Out on Asbestos Issues ------------------------------------------------------------- William Rollo of ABC News reports that a row has broken out over white asbestos contained in prefab buildings brought in from overseas to build a liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility in Queensland. The union representing electrical workers says almost 100 of its members have been exposed to asbestos. They say when members refused to work on the site the US company involved, Bechtel, cut their pay. The company says employees were offered alternative work and it took measures to quarantine the contaminated area. Bechtel is one of the largest private construction firms in the world and is contracted to build several LNG plants on Curtis Island just north of Gladstone in Central Queensland. When finished, the multi-billion dollar plants will convert coal seam gas from the Surat and Bowen Basins into a liquid form for export. But tests have shown some of the building material on the sites contains asbestos. Peter Ong from the Electrical Trades Union says workers are extremely concerned. "They've been exposed, they've breathed it in, they've taken it home on their clothes," he said. Mr. Ong says up to 90 workers at Bechtel's Curtis Island plants have been exposed to the carcinogen chrysotile, or white asbestos. It was found in imported pre-fabricated switch rooms built in Indonesia by the company Metito. Mr. Ong says workers exposed themselves by drilling holes in the switch rooms for electrical cabling. "We've had members that have been drilling and hole sawing and cutting basically asbestos flooring in these switch rooms. "So obviously they're concerned they've been exposed to asbestos. "Unfortunately on the GLNG project they'd already done all the cutting, hole saw and terminating in, these so these guys have been covered in the dust," he said. The tests were released. But Mr. Ong says alarm bells started ringing several weeks ago. He says Bechtel allowed workers to continue at the contaminated sites during the investigation and staff that refused had their wages docked. But Kevin Berg from Bechtel says employees were offered alternative work. "What we ask is for our workforce to remain available to perform alternate, safe work or work in other areas that aren't affected by the concern," he said. "And in this instance it's my understanding that alternative work was available. "They were asked to perform that work but would not avail themselves to perform work." Speaking anonymously to avoid repercussions, one employee said alternative work was only offered well after suspicions were raised. "It was a long time afterwards. It was virtually only after we kicked up a stink about it, when we initially stopped work. "We were then told that if we were sitting in the sheds and not go back out to work that we wouldn't be paid for it," he said. "And we put issues to them like cross-contamination, like the airborne particle getting in the dirt around the place . . . but they seemed pretty adamant they just wanted these little areas cordoned off. He says the incident has left an emotional toll. "It is an airborne particle we're told. I suppose, you know, you don't really know whether we did [inhale it] or not. "We were all over the area when the drilling was happening through the material and that. So there we just don't know," he said. Bechtel says it did not anticipate the imported materials would contain asbestos, and it is unlikely to use Metito products in the future. Australian businesses are banned from importing the material. Customs will not comment on how the material was allowed in to Australia, other than to say that officials are aware of the matter. The Electrical Trades Unions wants a register of those who had contact with it. Bechtel says it has made a record of employees working in the contaminated area. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Simmons Firm Wins $2.86 Million Verdict -------------------------------------------------------- A Delaware jury awarded a $2.86 million verdict July 31 to the family of Michael Galliher, who died from mesothelioma, a rare and aggressive cancer caused by exposure to asbestos fibers. Simmons Firm attorneys Randy Cohn -- rcohn@simmonsfirm.com -- Conard Metcalf -- jmetcalf@simmonsfirm.com -- and Bill Kohlburn represented Galliher's family, including his wife, sons and four grandchildren, against RT Vanderbilt In re Asbestos Litigation Michael Galliher, No. 10C-10-315 (Del. Super. Ct., New Castle City.). It is the largest asbestos verdict against a single defendant in Delaware in over a decade. Michael Galliher, of Mansfield, Ohio, was diagnosed with pleural mesothelioma in August 2010. He died months later on Feb. 3, 2011 at the age of 62. While working at Crane Plumbing Fixtures Factory for nearly 40 years, Galliher used a talc powder contaminated with asbestos fibers to dust large molds of sinks, bathtubs and other ceramic fixtures. The asbestos fibers came from a mine in Gouverneur, N.Y., owned and operated by RT Vanderbilt Company, Inc. Expert testimony during the trial linked Galliher's exposure to talc dust containing asbestos fibers. RT Vanderbilt did not list the proper safety warning on the talc powder, Simmons Firm attorney Randy Cohn said. "The magnitude of Mr. Galliher's exposure is immeasurable," said Cohn. "Like many Americans, he worked hard his entire life so he could enjoy retirement with his grandchildren. Instead, it caused him to be exposed to asbestos and develop a deadly cancer." Six years before his death, Galliher retired to spend more time with his grandchildren, family members said. His three local grandchildren would visit him and his wife almost daily. He taught them how to garden and play baseball. He would also take them on regular trips to a local lake or mushroom hunting. He passed away just two weeks shy of his 33rd wedding anniversary. "This outcome is not about the money," said Galliher's wife, Darcel. "This is about the fact that a jury has held RT Vanderbilt responsible for its actions. We just hope no other family has to go through the pain and loss we have experienced." Founded in 1916, RT Vanderbilt is a mining and manufacturing company that sells more than sixty categories of minerals and chemicals used in over 800 products in industries including the rubber, plastic, petroleum, ceramic, cosmetic, and household products industries. The verdict applies 100% liability to the company. Cohn said the decision reinforces that companies will be held responsible for knowingly using substances containing carcinogens like asbestos fibers without adequate safety warnings. "No amount of money can replace these kids' grandfather. However, his family can rest assured that the ones responsible have been held accountable," he said. About Simmons Browder Gianaris Angelides & Barnerd LLC: The Simmons Firm, headquartered in Alton, Ill., is one of the country's leading asbestos and mesothelioma litigation firms. With additional offices in St. Louis, Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco, the firm has represented thousands of patients and families affected by mesothelioma throughout the country. The Simmons Firm has pledged nearly $20 million to cancer research and proudly supports mesothelioma research. For more information about the Simmons Firm, visit http://www.simmonsfirm.com/ ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lake Zurich Dist. Argues Alleged IDPH Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Earl of The Daily Herald reports that Lake Zurich Unit District 95 is disputing state allegations that May Whitney Elementary School had violations in its asbestos management plan. The district received notice of an $18,000 fine issued by the Illinois Department of Public Health for alleged violations in the asbestos plan at the school at 100 Church St., spokeswoman Jean Malek confirmed. "We have responded to their notice and also requested a hearing," Malek said. "We are awaiting a prehearing conference and any other response." According to a certified letter from IDPH obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, the penalty includes 18 counts of violations. The district plans to challenge the alleged violations, which include: failure to maintain asbestos records, failure to notify the department before an asbestos tile removal project in February 2011, and not ensuring the 1990 building addition was inspected. "Anytime you do renovation or demolition, you have to have a contractor come in and assess if there's asbestos and develop a plan to abate it," said Melaney Arnold, IDPH communications manager. Asbestos has been a longtime concern for school officials. In 2007, May Whitney was closed for the academic year because of mold, forcing 436 registered students and 45 teachers to relocate. The mold appeared after a storm caused flooding in the hallway and cafeteria. Cleaning crews saw asbestos underneath carpeting and floor tiles. District officials said they have always made asbestos abatement a priority at the school. Since the district received notice of a penalty in late May, steps have been taken to remodel asbestos- concerning areas, officials said. Lyle Erstad, District 95's director of facilities, said officials authorized Colfax Corporation, a Chicago environmental remediation company, to remove carpeting in May and abate asbestos-containing tile under the carpet by Monday. After the asbestos abatement, new tile and wall base will be installed the next day. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Priestly, I&I on Four Seasons Hotel Project ------------------------------------------------------------ Dan O'Reilly of Reed Construction Data relates that even in the physically demanding construction industry, asbestos abatement workers stand apart for their ability to work nine to 10-hour days in often confined spaces, wearing respiratory equipment and full layer of protective clothing. "They have to be motivated and prepared to work as the conditions are hot and dirty," says Ron Amaral, an estimator and project manager with I & I Construction Services Limited. Asbestos abatement is often considered an entry-level job into construction and many workers often move on, he says. "They go to a job where conditions are better and once they leave they don't come back." Richmond Hill-based I & I is the abatement subcontractor at one of the largest demolition and remediation projects currently underway in Toronto. The former Four Seasons Hotel in the city's trendy Yorkville district is being converted into a condominium. Priestly Demolition is the demolition contractor overseeing the gutting of the units on the building which is comprised of 30 residential floors and two mechanical ones. The project started in early July and is expected to continue to Christmas. Material deemed non-hazardous is being removed by the demolition crews, followed by the physical removal and disposal of the drywall which tests have confirmed contains asbestos. The removal is being conducted as Type 2 abatement under the Occupational Health & Safety Act, although the mechanical floors are a Type 3 operation, he says. "Ninety percent of asbestos abatement is the preparation work," says Amaral, in describing the elaborate precautions needed to protect the workers. The crews are comprised of both Priestly and I & I employees. At each storey, polyethylene is placed over the floors to catch falling debris, negative air pressure is created and a decontamination chamber is installed at each elevator opening before the remediation can begin, he says. Constructed by the abatement crews, the chamber is equipped with both a "clean" a "dirty" room, and a shower stall. At the beginning of the day, the workers enter the clean room, remove their street clothes and put on boots, masks, respiratory equipment, gloves, and Tye suits. When they leave the decommissioned zone, however, they have to remove their safety equipment in the dirty room and then shower. As no food or drinks can be consumed in the work space, it's a procedure that is repeated many times in one day, says Amaral. "We can work no more than five hours (straight)," says Priestly Demolition supervisor Juan Storino. Usually coffee and washroom breaks are staggered, so there is no slowdown in the schedule. But there have been occasions, when it's very hot and uncomfortable, that he has ordered everyone out, Storing says. "The first thing we do is wash our masks." An asbestos abatement worker for 11 years, Storino was one of a group of Priestly employees -- most of whom are new Canadians -- who took time during their one-hour lunch to speak to DCN. The focus of the conversation was how they cope with the grueling conditions. "You get used to it. But not everyone can do it," says Andres Amezquita. Citing examples such as constructing the decontamination chamber and strictly following safety procedures, the work actually requires a certain skills set, he says. "This is a great job with a good pay" -- and at least in the case of Priestly Demolition -- "they treat you like a human being," says Amezquita. The workers at the Four Seasons Hotel, as with all Priestly Demolition projects, have to be up to speed with such items as WHMIS (Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System), asbestos awareness, and fall protection, says project manager Brian Druery. Although Priestly has its own abatement workers, it will contact union halls when additional manpower is needed, he says. On this project the workforce is comprised of an equal number of demolition and remediation crews. Both will have to push hard to meet project deadlines, says Druery. "We will be doing two floors a week. We're not there yet, but that's the aim." ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Attorney Indicts Old Chrysler Plant Supplier ------------------------------------------------------------------ David Shepardson of the Detroit News reports the U.S. Attorney's Office charged a project manager overseeing removal of asbestos from a former Chrysler factory in Detroit with a felony for failing to remove the material safely. Hubert J. Bell, a project manager at One Accord Environmental Services, Inc., in Detroit, was charged in a criminal complaint with failing to properly remove asbestos, a hazardous material, from a shuttered plant in late 2010 that was part of Chrysler's American Motors Corp. subsidiary at 14250 Plymouth Road. The complaint was filed Tuesday, July 24, in U.S. District Court in Detroit. An affidavit filed by Environmental Protection Agency Special Agent Michael Pemberton said Bell directed employees to push potentially contaminated water down drains and didn't use proper procedures to remove asbestos. A cooperating witness told the EPA that asbestos wasn't being removed properly. Asbestos was used in factories, shipyards and homes as insulation, especially around steam pipes, boilers and furnace ducts in the 1930s through 1950s and can lead to an increased risk of lung cancer. Improper removal can put workers at risk. Bell could not immediately be reached for comment, and the U.S. Attorney's Office didn't immediately respond to a message. In early 2010, the property and three other properties in Michigan and New York were sold for $2.3 million -- a fraction of what Chrysler once sought for the Detroit property that made helicopters in World War II and turned out millions of appliances. The properties were sold to Mount Clemens-based Manchester Plymouth LLC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement at Texas U's Elliott Hall Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------ Jordan Gass-Poore of The University Star in Texas reports that vinyl composition tile that tested positive for asbestos is being removed from Elliott Hall Building A. The renovation was ongoing as of press time. In an effort to maintain the health and safety of students, faculty and staff, the university works to identify, inspect and test all university buildings that have or may have asbestos-containing materials. Buildings constructed prior to 1980 may have asbestos-containing materials. These buildings include Hornsby, Burleson, Arnold and Laurel halls, among others. Don Compton, Facilities Planning, Design and Construction associate director, said the fact that on-campus buildings have been made with asbestos-containing materials is not merely a rumor. "While we are well aware of asbestos, that does not mean people are being exposed," Compton said. In Elliott Hall's case, it is uncertain whether the building's tile had been physically damaged or if the tile's glue had become exposed. Kyle Estes, Housing and Residential Life associate director, said asbestos-containing materials have also been removed from Elliott Hall Building B in the past. The United States Environmental Protection Agency lists vinyl floor tile and sheet flooring among common asbestos-containing materials. Estes said initial campus-wide building asbestos testing began 10- 15 years ago, and has been continuously updated since then. Compton said there are testing reports for all on-campus buildings that have asbestos-containing materials. Katie Eskridge, Texas State alumna, said she lived in Elliott Hall as a freshman. "My parents moved me in and said something had to be wrong," Eskridge said. Eskridge said she was ill the entire time she lived in the dormitory, and was diagnosed with bronchitis for the first time. After spending time in and out of the doctor's office, she said she was prescribed an inhaler to alleviate symptoms of bronchitis. Eskridge said it was only after she moved from Elliott Hall to College Inn, where only minor health problems were experienced, did she begin to make a correlation between her previous illnesses and place of residence. Eskridge said even though symptoms persisted for a month, she did not inform a hall staff member. Compton said concerned residents should report any problems they believe have to do with the building to their hall staff. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, long- term asbestos exposure will increase a person's risk of lung cancer and mesothelioma, among other respiratory disorders. People are more likely to experience asbestos-related disorders when they are exposed to high concentrations of asbestos and/or are exposed for long periods of time. Compton said asbestos-containing materials are only problematic when they are exposed or friable, meaning the substance can be broken into smaller particles with little effort, enabling them to easily enter a person's lungs. Compton said environmental factors have caused many asbestos- containing materials to deteriorate over time, making them friable. Residence hall directors and assistants are supposed to report problems with asbestos-containing materials or presumed asbestos- containing materials, Compton said. Louis Obdyke, labor and employment attorney, said in an email that annual asbestos inspections of dormitories are not required by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. "The only time asbestos abatement and/or inspections are required is when there is construction, demolition or remodeling that may cause the asbestos to become friable or airborne," Obdyke said. Compton said asbestos abatement has already been completed by the time building demolitions have begun. He said an air quality sample is tested and public notices are placed around the demolition site by the regulatory agency the university hires. "It costs more to demolish a building with asbestos-containing materials than to remove the materials first," Compton said. Estes said this was the situation when Falls Hall was demolished last year. He said asbestos-containing materials, such as ceiling grids, were safely removed prior to demolition. Residents of any hall are asked to refrain from disturbing the ceiling, walls, floor spaces or tiles within hallways, common areas and rooms, and insulation on pipes. Those who believe asbestos-containing materials have become damaged are asked to contact the Texas State Department of Housing and Residential Life or the Physical Plant. ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK Sets Up GBP300MM to Help 3,000 ARC Victims -------------------------------------------------------------- The UK Press Association reports a move to make it easier for victims of asbestos-related cancer to claim compensation has been announced by the Government. Newly diagnosed victims of mesothelioma who developed the disease after being exposed at work will receive help through the new support scheme, Welfare Minister Lord Freud said. It is estimated that the GBP300 million scheme, funded by insurers, will help 3,000 victims over the next 10 years who are not able to claim compensation. Many sufferers are unable to claim compensation from employers because the disease takes many years to develop and the companies they worked for may no longer exist. Lord Freud said: "We have worked tirelessly, together with the insurance industry, to agree this package of measures on behalf of those who face this terrible disease. "The new scheme will mean that, for the first time, sufferers of diffuse mesothelioma, who cannot trace either a liable employer or employers' liability insurer, will have access to extra payments." Association of British Insurers director general Otto Thoresen said: "Mesothelioma is a particularly aggressive cancer and the insurance industry, working with Government, is determined to do all it can to ensure that sufferers get the support they need as soon as possible. We appreciate the urgency of this disease, and while implementation depends on legislation being put in place, we hope that the scheme will be up and running and the first payments made by July 2014." But asbestos law experts at the firm Irwin Mitchell said the scheme is "limited" and many people will miss out as it applies only to people suffering from the asbestos-related cancer, not other asbestos-related diseases. Adrian Budgen, head of the asbestos-related disease team at the law firm, said: "While this is good news for some and a positive step forward, it could be devastating news for others and we are extremely disappointed that this scheme only covers one form of illness related to asbestos, and only those that are diagnosed with mesothelioma from today." TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said: "This new system will at least help provide some financial security to mesothelioma victims and the families of those who develop this devastating disease, but it falls well short of the scheme proposed by ministers a few years ago. Compensation should be available to all those who cannot get justice because, through no fault of their own, their insurer cannot be traced." ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADAO Welcomes The Safer Chemicals Act of 2012 -------------------------------------------------------------- The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) applauds Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), and Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) for their commitment and leadership on the Safer Chemicals Act of 2012 (S.847). The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 needed a comprehensive reform, as it is grossly outdated and fails to protect many Americans from 85,000 toxic chemicals. Asbestos claims the lives of nearly 10,000 Americans every year and has not been banned in the United States. For more than nine years, ADAO has been working to advance legislation that prevents consumer, environmental, and occupational asbestos-caused diseases. "We are extremely pleased with the adoption of the Lautenberg Amendment which designates asbestos as a substance of 'very high concern,' for which EPA must quickly require exposure reduction measures." "The facts are irrefutable, asbestos is a known human carcinogen and there is no safe level of exposure. ADAO looks forward to working with both sides of the isle to pass the Safer Chemicals Act of 2012 (S.847) and start saving lives." About Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) was founded by asbestos victims and their families in 2004. ADAO seeks to give asbestos victims and concerned citizens a united voice to raise public awareness about the dangers of asbestos exposure. ADAO is an independent global organization dedicated to preventing asbestos-related diseases through education, advocacy, and community. For more information, visit http://www.asbestosdiseaseawareness.org/ ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace & Co. Net Income Drops 8.6% ------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that W.R. Grace & Co. said Wednesday, July 24, its second-quarter net income fell 8.6%, pulled down by costs related to an asbestos settlement and its ongoing restructuring under bankruptcy protection. But Grace's adjusted profit beat Wall Street predictions and its shares jumped 11% in morning trading. The Columbia, Md.-based chemical maker earned $69.3 million, or 90 cents per share, down from $75.8 million, or $1 per share, in the same quarter last year. Excluding one-time charges related to its bankruptcy protection proceedings and restructuring, including a $19.5 million payment to residents of a small Montana town sickened by asbestos from one of its plants, the company said it posted an adjusted profit of $1.14 per share for the recent quarter. Analysts, on average, expected a profit of $1.08 per share, according to a FactSet poll. Net sales were essentially flat at $826.7 million compared with $826.4 million a year ago. The company said pricing improvements and higher sales volumes were offset by unfavorable currency exchange rates and lower rare-earth surcharges. Grace said it expects its 2012 sales to total between $3.1 billion and $3.2 billion, also boosted by better volumes and pricing, but hurt by lower rare-earth surcharges and unfavorable exchange rates. Analysts polled by FactSet expect $3.27 billion in revenue. Grace filed to reorganize under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2001. A bankruptcy court reaffirmed its reorganization plan in June, but several parties filed to appeal the decision. Last month, the court approved agreements between Grace, several insurance companies and the residents of Libby, Mont. who were sickened by asbestos dust from a Grace plant. In connection with the settlement, the company agreed to pay $19.5 million to help cover medical expenses in order to get the residents to drop their appeals. An estimated 400 people have been killed and 1,750 sickened by asbestos in and around the town. It's unclear when Grace will emerge from bankruptcy protection, or if it will be allowed to before the other appeals are resolved. Grace shares rose $6.03, or 12%, to $56.53 in morning trading of July 24. Over the past 52 weeks, the company's shares have traded between $30.25 and $61.08. ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Settles Sunriver Owners Lawsuit, Pays $500,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Pat Guth for the Mesothelioma Cancer Alliance reports that a non- profit organization known as the Sunriver Owners Association filed a lawsuit against the federal government in July 2010, claiming there was asbestos left on the site where their housing development was built in 1968. Just recently, the government agreed to pay $500,000 to settle the lawsuit. According to an article in the Portland Business Journal, the organization provides road maintenance and other services to 4,000 member homes in the Sunriver development near Bend, Oregon. The homes sit on land that was once occupied by Camp Abbott, formerly a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers training camp. Most of the buildings in Camp Abbott were demolished around 1944. However, the Army abandoned some asbestos-laden materials at the site. Though the houses in Sunriver were built beginning in 1968, the association didn't discover the asbestos debris until 2002. Now, the money paid by the federal government will help recover the costs of asbestos removal at the site. The asbestos remediation would have cost $3.2 million dollars, noted the article, but the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality agreed to put a "cap" on the contaminated soil by building the Sunriver Homeowners Aquatic & Recreation Center on the 22-acre site. Now, homeowners can breathe a sigh of relief and will be less concerned about the dangers of asbestos exposure, which can result in the development of lung diseases, including mesothelioma cancer. "We are pleased this dispute has been resolved fairly and that the United States accepted responsibility," said Bill Peck, general manager of the association. "Our homeowners were able to recoup almost all of the costs of dealing with the asbestos contamination. Sunriver developed a beautiful new recreation facility, the environmental hazards of the site were remediated, and the cleanup cost was reduced by more than $2.5 million." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup of Old River Center Site Initiated ----------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Leonard of The Farmington Independent relates it's been nearly four years since Farmington's Rambling River Center relocated to its current site on Oak Street. Since the move, very little has happened with the former location on Spruce and Third streets. The building was up for sale, and the city had an offer to purchase it, but the offer was low and council members turned it down. That leaves the building still vacant, but now work has to be done on it, anyway. And that work could cost nearly $53,000. Recently, Farmington parks and recreation director Randy Distad received a limited asbestos survey report from Davis Environmental. The report detailed where asbestos is located in the 6,000-square-foot building, which was built in 1923. According to Distad, the city received two proposals for removal of the asbestos. The lower bid of $42,998 to abate the asbestos if the building was renovated came from Mavo Systems. The company cited a bid of about $7,000 less to take care of the asbestos if the building were to be demolished. In addition, the roof on the south side of the building has been damaged by recent storms. The shingles there have curled from the heat. Shingles on the north side are intact, but old. Facility maintenance staff looked into the cost of materials to replace the roof, Distad said, and came up with an estimate of $10,000. That does not include the labor. Council members have mixed emotions about the repairs. "I hate sticking any money into it," mayor Todd Larson said. "We're going to stick $60,000 into it and it's going to sit." One way or another, the asbestos has to be cleaned up, city administrator David McKnight told council members during Monday's (July 23) workshop. The bigger question, though, was whether or not to put the building back up for sale, or to tear it down. Council member Julie May wants to see the work done and the building placed back on the market. "I think there would be interest in it," May said, adding that she would like to see a retail business of some sort in that location. At this time, according to Distad, there is no funding approved for the repairs. Council would have to allocate funds from the economic development authority fund or the city's general fund in order to pay for the work. The city could recoup the funding if the building is sold, Distad said. Council directed staff to initiate the cleanup and repairs, but to seek out grants to aid in the funding of the asbestos abatement. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oran Vanich to Fight Thailand's Anti-Fibro Move ---------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Nardi of The National Post relates, ever wonder what it feels like to loan $58-million to an industry whose biggest clients don't even want your product and are actively working to ban it? If so, then look no further than Jean Charest for a prime example of an ill-advised investment. Last June, the Quebec Liberals announced a $58-million loan to Mineral Fiber, the company that owns Jeffrey Mine, in order to resuscitate the (rightfully) dead asbestos industry. Nearly all the mine's clients are developing countries, with Thailand, India and China representing the core of its business, and the core of its funding. Apart from Quebec's loan, $11 million was invested by Baljit Chadha, leader of the Sikh community in Canada and co-owner of the mine, and $14-million was invested by a Thai company, Ulan Marketing. Ulan Marketing is part of a family of companies in Thailand known as Oran Vanich Co., which is the largest producer of construction products using asbestos in Thailand, with five plants and over 1,000 employees. Surprisingly, La Presse is now reporting that Thai authorities are actively trying to ban chrysotile asbestos imports within the next few months. In January 2011, Thailand's National Economic and Social Advisory Council recommended banning imports and sales of asbestos in Thailand due to its link to health problems, including cancer. A month later, Thai authorities adopted a resolution to ban the material from the country. The resolution was proposed by the National Health Commission of Thailand, chaired by the Prime Minister. The package of measures will be presented this September, according to the commission's website. Of course, with such a significant investment in Jeffrey Mine, Ulan Marketing won't allow the ban without a fight. The organization has publicly questioned the danger of asbestos, such as in August 2011, when Oran Vanich's CEO, Kriewsakul Uran said that the roof tiles being manufactured with asbestos in Thailand "pose no health risk." During a public forum on the subject, he added: "Only 55 of 194 member states of the World Health Organization have stopped the use and so far it has not been proved that asbestos causes death. If Thailand ends it, that will be tantamount to executing the innocent." Despite the grisly warning, Thai authorities seem adamant on getting a ban. And why shouldn't they? Asbestos use has met opposition from key health associations, such as the World Health Organization, the World Federation of Public Health Associations, the International Commission on Occupational Health and the World Bank. Thus, if Thailand, a country that has struggled mightily with human rights issues, is now at the forefront of the anti-asbestos movement, how can the Charest government defend its decision to "export cancer?" With dozens of organizations objecting to the loan on both economic and health reasons, the Liberals are coming under increasing fire for helping to revive and industry many were happy to see expire. Between 2006 and 2009, Canadian asbestos accounted for nearly 11% of Thailand's annual consumption, or just under 11,000 tons a year. The owners of Jeffrey Mine no doubt hoped that, with Thailand's growing housing market and Oran Vanich's ties to the country, their sales would increase exponentially. To make things worse, Chantal Corbeil, spokesperson for Investments Quebec, the institution that manages the government's $58-million loan, acknowledged that they weren't aware of the efforts to ban asbestos until very recently. She said the association isn't worried because the mine "has many clients concentrated in many different countries," but the fact the government was in the dark about a key client raises significant red flags. The longer the story of Quebec's investment in Jeffrey Mine goes on, the more problems emerge. Unfortunately for Quebecers, the government is now so deeply involved in the industry that when it finally falls apart, not just the Liberals but all Quebecers will have to answer to one simple question: Why was it allowed to go on? ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Violator Gets 10 Years Plus $62,000 Fine ------------------------------------------------------------- Environment News Service reports that a 10-year prison sentence was imposed July 26 on an Illinois man who was convicted of illegally removing asbestos insulation and exposing workers to dangerous asbestos-laden dust. Duane "Butch" O'Malley, 59, of Bourbonnais, Illinois was convicted by a federal jury on Sept. 26, 2011, for the illegal removal, handling and disposal of asbestos from a Kankakee building in August 2009. Today Federal District Court Judge Michael McCuskey sentenced him to 10 years in prison. The judge also ordered O'Malley to pay restitution of $47,086 to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for cleanup of the illegally disposed asbestos and to pay a fine of $15,000. Asbestos, a hazardous air pollutant, is a mineral fiber used in building construction materials. When asbestos-containing materials are damaged or disturbed by repair, remodeling or demolition activities, microscopic fibers become airborne and can be inhaled into the lungs, where they can cause serious health problems, including lung cancer and mesothelioma. "To increase his profits, a jury found that O'Malley knowingly disregarded federal environmental laws that require asbestos- containing materials be safely removed and properly disposed," said U.S. Attorney Jim Lewis, Central District of Illinois. "This sentence is a consequence of the defendant's flagrant disregard for his workers, the public, and the environment in exposing them to dangerous airborne asbestos fibers," Lewis said. During O'Malley's trial, the government presented evidence that O'Malley, owner and operator of Origin Fire Protection, was hired by Michael Pinski in August 2009 to remove asbestos-containing insulation from pipes in a five-story building in Kankakee that was owned by Pinski through his company, Dearborn Management, Inc. Evidence was presented that neither O'Malley nor his company was trained to perform the asbestos removal work and that O'Malley agreed to remove the asbestos insulation for an amount that was much less than a trained asbestos abatement contractor would have charged to perform the same work. Further, O'Malley arranged for James Mikrut to recruit and oversee workers to remove the asbestos. O'Malley was charged in June 2010 with five felony violations of the Clean Air Act, including: -- failure to properly notify the EPA -- failure to have trained on-site representatives present -- failure to ensure the asbestos insulation was adequately wetted while it was being stripped and removed -- failure to mark vehicles used to transport the asbestos containing waste material -- failure to deposit the asbestos in a waste disposal site for asbestos Instead, the asbestos insulation was stripped from the pipes while dry, and placed in more than 100 large, unlabeled plastic garbage bags. The bags were then dumped in an open field in Hopkins Park, a small town in Kankakee County, resulting in soil contamination and exposing the workers and nearby residents to asbestos-laden dust. Under the Clean Air Act there are requirements to control the removal, handling and disposal of asbestos. "Asbestos must be removed in a safe and legal way in order to protect people's health and reduce the risk of exposure," said Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for the EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. "The defendant's actions endangered the health of his workers and the surrounding community and the sentence shows that those who violate critical environmental safeguards will be prosecuted." Pinski and Mikrut, who were also charged, have both pleaded guilty and will be sentenced later. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Barraba Residents Demand To Be In "The Loop" ------------------------------------------------------------- Catherine Clifford of ABC News reports that people in Barraba, in the New England region of northern New South Wales, have demanded to know why they were never invited to sit on the taskforce implementing a remediation plan at the derelict Woodsreef Asbestos mine. About 90 people packed the amphitheatre of The Playhouse Hotel on the night of July 26, in Barraba for a progress report on the Woodsreef mine, which was abandoned in 1983 and never cleaned up. Taskforce chairman Brad Mullard told the gathering a Health Risk Assessment is imminent. "(They will be) installing monitoring, looking at what is the air quality, whether there's asbestos in the air and measuring that around the mine site as well as in the township," he said. The meeting also heard the closure of the road that passes through the mine is probably not negotiable. Landholder Ben Burgess tabled a motion demanding the taskforce approach the government to include people from Barraba in decision-making. "It's about getting community representation and making sure there's an evidence-based outcome for the local community to make sure that all facets of the risks, as well as the costs, to the Barraba community are taken into account," he said. "I think it would be unwise to reach a conclusion that people in the community have no expertise and nothing to offer." Meanwhile, leading public health physician told the briefing there is no safe level of exposure to chrysotile, or 'white', asbestos. Dr. David Durrheim says anyone who believes white asbestos is safe should read the latest data coming out of the International Agency for Research on Cancer. "When they categorize a cancer as a Category One it means there's definitive evidence," he said. "It's like smoking and lung cancer, that's the sort of category. They've established that white asbestos exposure in the occupational setting causes lung cancer, mesothelioma, larynx cancer and ovarian cancer." It is estimated about 40,000 Australians will have some kind of asbestos-related disease by the year 2020. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defense Lawyers Ask For Review on Added Proposals ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bethany Krajelis of The Madison/St. Clair Record reports that when attorneys for more than three dozen asbestos defendant companies asked Madison County Associate Clarence Harris to eliminate the advanced setting of asbestos trial weeks earlier this year, they included a few other recommendations in their request. In their opposition to the since-overturned order setting the 2013 asbestos docket, these defense attorneys suggested limiting the number of asbestos trials next year to 250 and the number of cases per docket to 10. They also recommended a 12-month preparation period between the setting of a trial and the approval of a plaintiff's motion to set a case for trial and pushed for these settings to be based on the oldest case filed with priority to Illinois plaintiffs, as well as a scheduling order that would provide "a meaningful opportunity" to make non conveniens forum challenges. And now, about four months after Harrison put an end to the advanced trial setting practice, some of the attorneys for these asbestos defendant companies said they are more than pleased with Harrison's decision, but would like him to take another look at some of their other suggestions. "I think with respect to all of the defendants that signed on to these proposals, we are all in agreement that the other aspects of the request are critical to managing the overall docket," said Lisa LaConte -- llaconte@heylroyster.com -- a partner at Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen in Edwardsville. "We would really like to see those additional issues considered." LaConte and her colleague, Kent Plotner -- kplotner@heylroyster.com -- are two of a handful of attorneys who threw their support behind the proposed trial calendar included in the previously filed motion opposing former asbestos Judge Barbara Crowder's preliminary order that set the 2013 asbestos docket. Besides LaConte's firm, attorneys at Armstrong Teasdale; Schlafly & Davis, Foley & Mansfield; and Segal, McCambridge, Singer & Mahoney signed on to the motion on behalf of dozens of asbestos defendant companies. These attorneys argued that the court's trial reservation system was no longer being used for its original purpose of resolving local asbestos suits. In response to defense arguments made over forum at a March hearing that was held on the matter, plaintiffs' attorneys told Harrison that the trial reservation system was working fine. Elizabeth Heller -- elizabeth@ghalaw.com -- an attorney at Goldenberg Heller Antognoli & Rowland, said at the March hearing that, "The sky is not falling. Cases without merit are getting dismissed or sent elsewhere." Heller, as well as a few other plaintiffs' attorneys, did not immediately return messages seeking comment. LaConte said some of the other aspects of the defendant's motion, such as proposals to limit the number of trials per year and to better address forum issues, could help "make sure Madison County isn't such a magnet for out-of-state cases to be filed here." The defense motion that laid out the recommendations earlier this year stated that, "Without reform, Madison County will unfortunately continue as the destination for asbestos cases rising from coast to coast." In addition to the since-approved request to abolish the advanced setting of asbestos trial weeks, the defense motion contended that its proposed trial calendar could "help restore order and fairness to Madison County asbestos litigation." "Limiting the number of cases on a given trial calendar for the year would obviously alleviate some of the problems," Plotner of Heyl, Royster said. "But we also need to continue to look at these cases from a perspective of whether there is an Illinois connection and a Madison County connection." In regards to forum and venue issues, Plotner said that based on his observation, it appears more of these motions have been presented to the court in the past two months. He attributes that to Harrison's order this past spring, which along with eliminating the advanced trial setting practice, noted that he would consider forum and venue issues on a case-by-case basis when requested. Harrison agreed with Plotner's observation. He said he's heard arguments in at least half of dozens motions over forum in the past 30 days. "It happens on a case-by-case basis," Harrison said. "It's something that needs to be addressed by a motion. It's not something I can do in an order that addresses all of the cases." Raymond Fournie -- rfournie@armstrongteasdale.com -- an attorney at Armstrong Teasdale in St. Louis who signed the previously filed motion, said that he believes many of the proposals included in the defense motion, such as limiting the number of trials per year, could be resolved "if we were able to effectively address the forum issue." "The number of cases filed would probably take care of itself if the cases that don't belong in Illinois weren't filed here," he said. Fournie, however, acknowledged the difficulty in addressing the issue. Coming up with an effective and constitutional solution to forum challenges, he said, is "a very difficult thing for the court and even the parties to do" since they are made on a case-by-case basis. Nevertheless, Fournie said it's important and contends that "a lot of the other things would fall by the waste side if the forum issue could be addressed." Saying that issues over venue and forum have long been discussed in Madison County given its reputation as a go-to destination for asbestos lawsuits, Plotner said there is a case currently before the Illinois Supreme Court that "could give us more insight as to where we are going to go with this issue." The case Plotner is referring to is Walter Fennell v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., which came to the state high court on appeal following a split decision from Fifth District Appellate Court. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, which originated in St. Clair County, but has not yet set a date for oral arguments. "If a mandate comes from the Supreme Court, then perhaps, that will give some more teeth to the proposals we've made," Plotner said. Both Plotner and Fournie said they would also like to see a 12- month period between when a case is set for trial and the approval of a plaintiff's motion for a case to be set for trial. Right now, Plotner said, this time frame generally falls between six to nine months. Providing a 12-month period, Plotner said, would allow defense attorneys more time to prepare. Fournie acknowledged that certain circumstances wouldn't always make their proposed time frame possible. In regards to the defense motion's proposal dealing with the 12- month period and limiting the number of asbestos trials per year to 250, Harrison said he believes he has addressed the issues in "the practical way trials take place rather than the numerical way." "The effort I have been trying to make since the order is to limit the number of firms that are set on any given trial week," he said. "The goal is to have no more than two firms on any given trial week. That way the defendants only have one or two plaintiffs' law firms to deal with in their preparation." Like many of the attorneys who handle Madison County asbestos litigation, Harrison said it's still too early to see how his order will play out. He said "the system is not perfect" and that "we're constantly looking at things" in an effort to make the process more efficient. For instance, Harrison said that he's been working to implement a program to address the amount of paperwork getting filed in the cases he hears. He said several attorneys brought the idea to him. "We want to reduce some of the paperwork so attorneys don't have to duplicate documents and file 200 pages when they really need to just file three," Harrison said. "There is stuff we are working on all the time. I consider all of the dockets a work in progress." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asphalt Plant Near Grimesdale Worries Residents ---------------------------------------------------------------- BlueRidgeNow.com relates that state air quality regulators should do more to reassure neighbors of the asphalt plant near Grimesdale that cancer-causing asbestos won't enter the plant's new process of recycling roof shingles. Grimesdale residents fought and lost their battle to keep a local paving company from building the plant next to their neighborhood back in 2001. The plant has changed hands, and the new owners have applied for a permit to recycle shingles as part of asphalt production. Residents have long complained that they are plagued by smoke, dust, obnoxious smells and late-night noise generated by the plant. The plant was built next to the neighborhood at a time before Henderson County had comprehensive countywide zoning. In a letter to state and local leaders, Grimesdale Homeowners Association President Chuck Mason spelled out residents' fears about potential health risks from the release of asbestos and other hazardous materials. The neighbors called on the Division of Air Quality to require that the Rogers Group, owner of the plant, adhere to the federal Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, with suggestions ranging from enclosing the entire asphalt plant to submitting "effective and complete plans" for controlling dust, odors and water runoff. "We just want it done in a way that doesn't create hazards either in the water or in the air for the people that are around there, and that includes the homes as well as the people in (Berkeley) Park," Mason said. State air and water quality regulators say there's no reason for neighbors to worry that adding shingles to the asphalt mix will increase pollution from the plant. But neighbors make a good point in questioning the testing planned to assure that shingles won't contain asbestos. The permit requires that shingles recycled at the plant be asbestos-free with documentation to prove they have been tested, said Harold Brady, an inspector with the DAQ regional office in Asheville. The permit requires one sample per 100 tons. Neighbors are concerned this is not enough testing to assure that shingles containing asbestos are kept out of the process. "A roof might generate one, two, maybe three tons of shingles, so if you only sample one out of every hundred (tons), you might get 20 or 30 different roofs going into your process before you hit the next batch that you sample," Mason said. The use of asbestos in roofing materials was phased out in the 1980s, but many homes, commercial buildings and schools still have older roofs that contain the substance. The Rogers Group says it modified its air quality permit to allow the plant to recycle asbestos-free shingles in order to increase the use of recycled materials and reduce the need for raw materials, company spokesman Tom Kenley said. The N.C. Department of Transportation and the Department of Environmental and Natural Resources have approved this process as a safe alternative to dumping shingles in landfills. Kenley says the Rogers Group's environmental team and DAQ will monitor air quality around the plant. A 2007 study by the EPA "suggests that the occurrence of asbestos in tear-off shingles from residential re-roofing projects will be minimal, but that the recycling facility operator should expect to encounter asbestos-containing material on occasion and thus should be adequately prepared to monitor and manage such debris." Given the proximity of the local asphalt plant to homes, the state should do more to assure neighbors that no shingles containing asbestos enter the plant. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ombudsman Sees Holes In Police Property Managing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alicia Wood of The Daily Telegraph reports that police were exposed to asbestos in homes and workplaces because of systemic failures in how the state government and the police force managed property, an Ombudsman's report has found. Ombudsman Bruce Barbour has recommended the State Property Authority review all property owned by the state to make sure public servants are not exposed to asbestos, lead paint or other hazards. Police Minister Michael Gallacher said he could not answer for other government departments but would refer the Ombudsman's recommendations to the government. "If the Ombudsman's assessments are correct then a whole-of- government approach is needed for the identification and governance of the risk," Mr. Gallacher said. The report recommended increased funding to maintain or remediate older properties that contain asbestos. However, the $61 million allocated by the government over four years is not new money, but a reallocation of existing police funding. The Ombudsman noted this was not enough and that "a special allocation of funds from NSW Treasury or internally from (the police force)" was needed to keep police safe at work and at home. The report said there was no evidence of a cover-up by senior police about asbestos in properties owned by the force. One of the most high-risk properties -- Surry Hills Police Centre -- was found in 2008 to have a build-up of lead dust in its firing range. A review of this in July 2011, found lead dust levels had risen above the "appropriate standards" and there was "no program of regular clean-ups to manage ongoing build-up." The report also highlighted the case of an officer who moved into a police residence in southwest NSW in 2010 with his wife and four children. He wasn't told that a report had been prepared about the property in 2008 and that a "low to very low risk" of asbestos and lead paint were found there. In September 2011, he was told he had to move out because of the "unacceptable" lead levels in his children's blood. Mr. Barbour said the government needed to change the way police properties were managed to stop this happening again: "The failure to properly manage hazardous materials in police properties is just one outcome of the poorly functioning property management model." Police Association president Scott Weber said the government and the police force had to come to an agreement "immediately". "Nothing excuses the gross mismanagement of this problem over so many years," Mr. Weber said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Low Airborne Fibro Saturations Found in WA Mines ----------------------------------------------------------------- ScienceNetwork Western Australia reports that airborne monitoring for fibrous materials in northern Western Australian mines have recently found airborne concentrations is below legal workplace limits. The results, conducted by the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) and released in late June, say expert analysis of the test results have indicated there is a low risk of individual exposure. According to the reports, actinolite asbestos was found at Rio Tinto's West Angelas and Marandoo mines, as well as BHP Billiton's Jimblebar mine. "The materials are linked to products exported from a Pilbara quarry operated by Holcim," says DMP State Mining Engineer Simon Ridge. "Preliminary testing conducted at the quarry has also confirmed airborne levels below the occupational exposure limit." Holcim Australia, who operate hard rock, sand and gravel quarries, have released information to their clients advising them that products have the potential to contain actinolite fibers. These recent findings of exposure have alarmed The Asbestos Diseases Society of Australia (ADS), who are concerned about the mine and construction workers who may have been exposed to the fibers. "The contamination of these three sites is a stark reminder of the prevalence of asbestos at worksites," says ADS Australia President, Robert Vojakovic. Slater & Gordon Senior Asbestos Lawyer, Simon Millman has echoed the concerns. "The presence of asbestos at these sites may present an imminent risk to the health and safety of these workers," he says. "While it is certainly not the case that everyone who has been exposed to asbestos develops an asbestos-related illness, it only takes the briefest of exposure to asbestos to develop into a deadly asbestos-related disease." According to leading asbestos researcher and respiratory physician, Professor Bill Musk, there is no indication for there being a level of contact to asbestos which is entirely safe. "There is no evidence for there being a level of exposure below which there is no risk of disease developing," he says. "Therefore the risks for people exposed occupationally tend to be greater than those exposed non-occupationally, but the numbers of people with non occupational exposure are greater." "Asbestosis tends to progress after exposure has ceased and benign pleural diseases, such as plaques, diffuse pleural thickening and round atelectasis, may occur and progress after exposure," says Prof Musk. According to the DMP, precautionary measures have been taken, with these mines and construction sites having invoked fibrous mineral management protocols, while additional evaluation of the potential for the release of fibers continues. Holcim Australia is in the process of finalizing operational management plans with input from external advisors and the DMP. All workers at these sites will be kept informed by their employers, particularly in relation to workplace safety and ongoing test results from the companies that have used the products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Sues Schlumberger Ltd. et al for $525,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bethany Krajelis of The Madison/St. Clair Record reports that the widow of a man who died after developing mesothelioma has sued her late husband's former employers under the Jones Act, claiming that they failed to provide him with a safe place to work. The Jones Act allows injured seamen to seek compensation for injuries that resulted from the negligence of their employers or co-workers during the course of their work on a vessel. Johnnie Ault, the administrator of the estate for her late husband, Bryan, filed a seven-count complaint earlier this week in federal court in East St. Louis against Schlumberger Ltd. and its subsidiaries, as well as a few other companies. The complaint states that Bryan Ault was employed by Schlumberger from 1965 to 1970 and again from 1973 to 1988 as an electrician aboard various offshore mobile rigs owned, chartered or controlled by the defendant companies. Based on the time he spent on these rigs over the course of his employment, the complaint asserts that he was a seaman, a distinction that must be proved in order to make claims under the Jones Act. Ault contends that her late husband was exposed to and inhaled asbestos fibers from asbestos and asbestos-containing products that he worked around while employed by Schlumberger. She argues that the defendants breached their duties under the Jones Act to provide her husband with a safe place to work by requiring him to work with or in the vicinity of asbestos. Ault also contends that the defendants failed to warn Bryan that he was being exposed to asbestos or the associated risks, and failed to replace asbestos-containing products with non-asbestos substitutes, which they should have known were available. As a result of the defendants' alleged failures contained in the complaint, Ault asserts her late husband developed mesothelioma, which ultimately led to his death. Prior to his death, the complaint states, Bryan Ault experienced physical pain and mental anguish, had to pay for medical treatment and lost "large sums" of money as a result of not being able to work. In addition to the three counts of negligence contained in the complaint, Ault brought four counts of "unseaworthiness" under General Maritime Law. In those counts, Ault claims that the defendants breached their warranty of seaworthiness because their vessels contained asbestos and lacked appropriate procedures and equipment to deal with asbestos and asbestos-containing products. Ault seeks $75,000 in damages on each count of her seven-count complaint. Ault, a Texas resident, is represented by D. Todd Matthews and Randy Gori of Gori, Julian & Associates in Edwardsville. The citation for the lawsuit is 3:12-cv-833-JPG-PMF ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dumped Fibro in Darwin Awaits Government Plan -------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Coggan of ABC News reports that the Northern Territory Government is developing a management plan to deal with the removal of asbestos uncovered in Darwin's George Brown Botanic Gardens. A Department of Natural Resources and Environment spokesman says asbestos was discovered in the gardens more than a month ago. It is believed to be among rubble dumped in the gardens area in the wake of Cyclone Tracy. The Department says it is not clear how much asbestos there is, but it is considered safe in its current form. Despite that assurance, workers are refusing to mow lawns in the gardens because they are worried about disturbing the asbestos. NT WorkSafe has confirmed its inspectors have visited the Gardens and it is now up to the government to develop a management plan to remove the asbestos. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albemarle County to Abate its Six Schools ---------------------------------------------------------- Natalie Wilson at NBC29 News reports that Albemarle County is dealing with asbestos in six of its schools this summer, in addition to some major construction at one of their elementary schools. Henley Middle School, Jack Jouett Middle School, Walton Middle School, Albemarle and Western Albemarle high schools, and Scottsville Elementary School are on the list for asbestos removal. In 1986, Congress passed the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act requiring schools to inspect and manage the asbestos in their buildings. The big risk is when asbestos gets airborne or friable. Two common sources are the insulation around pipes and old floor tiles, and they can either be sealed or removed. The asbestos removal is one portion of a series of maintenance improvements taking place at several schools, with the most significant changes happening at Greer Elementary School. Albemarle County is adding new classrooms, including an outdoor one, as well as a courtyard at Greer. In terms of maintenance, the school system wants to reassure the reason its removing the asbestos is not because it's harmful. Building engineer Joe Letteri says they are removing it because funds are available and they want to reduce their Asbestos Management Plan. Letteri said, "The flooring itself is a non-friable asbestos we are doing it not because we are mandated to do it but because we are trying to eliminate it from the schools to reduce our asbestos management plan." Other initiatives include a water conservation audit to identify areas to reduce costs. The school system says the construction and maintenance projects are on-budget and on-time. ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK Reinsurance Coverage of US Liabilities Viewed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In his article, "English Law Reinsurance Contracts May Not Cover Asbestos or Other U.S. Liabilities," Raymond L. Sweigart, Esq., partner at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, wrote: In the words of the Court of Appeal in Faraday Reinsurance Co Ltd v Howden North America Inc & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 980 (20 July 2012), "it would be idle to pretend that the English courts and the American (including the Pennsylvania) courts see eye to eye on the question of the liability of insurers to respond to asbestos claims. The Faraday court continued: "In Wasa v Lexington Co, [[2009] UKHL [2010] A.C. 180], the House of Lords held, for example, that a reinsurance contract, if it is governed by English law, does not respond to an American insurer which is required to pay in response to American notions of insurer-liability, unless it can be shown that the insurer's liability arose during the currency of the English policy. In these circumstances it is inevitable that differing conclusions may be arrived at by courts in England from those that would be arrived at in (at any rate some) states in America." In Faraday, an excess insurer brought proceedings in England for a declaration that an excess layer policy provided no liability cover to the named insured for asbestos claims. More specifically, Faraday sought declarations that (a) the policy that insured Howden is governed by English law and subject to the jurisdiction of the English courts; (b) as a matter of English law, effect must be given to the periods under each policy; (c) under each policy, Faraday would be liable to indemnify Howden only insofar as the personal injury or property damage happened (or occurred) during (and not before or after) the relevant policy period; and (d) Faraday is liable to indemnify Howden in respect of legal liability only insofar as (i) claims were made against Howden during the relevant policy period or (ii) claims have subsequently been made against Howden which arise out of any circumstances which could reasonably have been expected to give rise to a claim under the policy, and as to which Howden became aware during the relevant policy period. The insured, Howden, had been involved in coverage litigation against lower-layer insurers on asbestos claims in Pennsylvania since 2003 and related mass tort proceedings by victims of asbestos had been underway against Howden since 1999. Until very recently, however, Faraday and its predecessor in interest had not been involved. Upon receiving notice from Howden that claims would be made under a 1998 policy, Faraday commenced proceedings. The ultimate underlying substantial issue between the parties arose because of the differences of approach by the Pennsylvania courts and the English courts to the insurance of asbestos-related claims. The first difference is whether exposure to a hazardous condition is itself an injury. Under English law (see Bolton MBC v Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd [2006] 1 WLR 1492 not overruled in Durham v BAI [2012] 1 WLR 867) it is not. Under the laws of a number of U.S. jurisdictions including Pennsylvania, a theory of multiple triggers of periods of insurance cover, running from and including exposure to manifestation, has been followed: see e.g., Keene Corporation v Insurance Corporation of North America 667 F.2d 1034 (1981), and in Pennsylvania, J.H. France Refractories v All State Insurance Co 626 A.2d 502 (PA 1993). The second difference is that, under English law but not in many U.S. jurisdictions, the period clause of an insurance policy is considered a fundamental, material provision: see Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd v Sea Insurance Company Ltd and others [1998] Lloyd's Rep. IR 421 at 435-6 -- "the stated period of time is fundamental and must be given effect to" -- and Wasa International Insurance Co v Lexington Insurance Co [2009] UKHL [2010] A.C. 180 at [3], [39], [74] and [77]. A third difference between English and Pennsylvania law involves applicable principles of conflict of laws. The English approach to determining the applicable law is concerned only with the circumstances at the time of contracting, whereas the approach in the United States may permit consideration of factors applicable or arising at the time of the dispute. Ultimately, Faraday is only an appellate decision not to review the High Court's allowance of service and acceptance of jurisdiction over the proceedings and may not be additional substantive precedent on the actual grounds of dispute noted. Nevertheless, it is important for U.S. insureds who have excess cover placed in the English market under English law contracts to be aware of the quite significant differences in approach and competing "notions of insurer-liability" and the potential implications for both resolution of coverage disputes as well as the forum in which those disputes may ultimately be addressed. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found at LNG Construction Site ----------------------------------------------------- The Gladstone Observer reports that asbestos has been found on an LNG construction site on Curtis Island. Bechtel Gladstone general manager Kevin Berg on July 27 confirmed traces of asbestos were detected within the bonded building structure of two containerized switch rooms. Mr. Berg said affected areas had been secured and workers were not allowed access to those areas until Bechtel was satisfied the issue was resolved. "Our top priority at all times is the safety of our workforce on Curtis Island," Mr. Berg said. "We are taking this very seriously and have been working on this issue for a number of weeks with our workforce and safety people." Mr. Berg said the company had also brought in two independent industry experts to advise on dealing with the situation and also to speak directly to the workforce. "The bottom line is that this is a serious issue which we are determined to manage with the assistance of the workforce and the independent industry experts we have brought in," Mr. Berg said. The affected containers were brought in by foreign contractor Metito. ASBESTOS UPDATE: HSE Cites Contractor For Exposing Worker to Fibro ------------------------------------------------------------------ A Cheltenham contractor and a retailer have been prosecuted after a construction worker was exposed to asbestos during a refurbishment project. Simon Cooper was engaged by Hutchinson HiFi and Vision Ltd in February 2010 to refurbish an empty shop unit in Cheltenham High Street, which involved replacing a suspended ceiling. In a prosecution brought by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), Cheltenham Magistrates' Court heard on July 27 that contractor Simon Cooper failed to ensure a proper asbestos survey was available before work began. As a result, workers on site, including Matthew Thompson 28, from Cheltenham, removed up to 85m of asbestos insulating board over two days on 16 and 17 February without the necessary controls or adequate protection. The Court was also told that Hutchinson HiFi and Vision Ltd failed to provide any client information regarding the presence of asbestos within the building. They should have ensured a demolition and refurbishment survey was carried out and the results made available to Mr. Cooper. Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Simon Chilcott, said: "As a result of the failings of Simon Cooper and Hutchinson HiFi and Vision, people were unnecessarily exposed to asbestos. This incident could have been avoided if the retailer had provided information on the presence of asbestos in the building and Mr. Cooper had ensured he had seen a demolition and refurbishment survey before commencing the renovation work. "The risks of asbestos are well known in the construction industry as are the controls required in dealing with it. Exposure to asbestos can have fatal or serious long term health consequences and, as such, every precaution must be taken to minimize any risks when working on buildings." Hutchinson HiFi & Vision Ltd, of High Street, Cheltenham, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 10 (1) (b) of the Construction (Design & Management) Regulations 2007 and was fined GBP3,500 and ordered to pay GBP1,836 in costs. Simon Cooper, of Leckhampton, Cheltenham, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 5 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and was fined GBP600 and ordered to pay GBP800 in costs. Asbestos-related illnesses are responsible for around 4,000 deaths every year. Further information on working with asbestos can be found at www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos ASBESTOS UPDATE: RIL Product Eyes To Entirely Replace Asbestos -------------------------------------------------------------- Kalpana Pathak of the Business Standard - Mumbai reports that the late Dhirubahi Ambani, the founder of Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL), was labelled as the 'polyster prince' much before the group's mainstay became petroleum at the end of the 1990s. Now, the company's invention of a polyester short cut fiber is covering the sheds that need asbestos and are dependent on imports. RIL's research and development (R&D) wing has developed a polyester fiber coated with a special chemical, which would substitute asbestos used by the construction industry in roofing applications, siliconized fibers for soil stabilization and other applications. One per cent of polyester fiber can be used to replace 4% of asbestos fiber. While asbestos needs to be milled before use, the new-generation fiber can be straight away added in the mix tank. "In the near future, asbestos availability will become a concern. Of the five major producers, two are already closed," said an RIL official who did not want to be named. "RIL's new-generation fiber has successfully replaced 10-15 per cent of asbestos, we are continuously working on research and developments along with leading asbestos cement sheet roofing companies to achieve a higher percentage replacement of asbestos," the official added. Asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral found in underground rock formations. For commercial purposes, it is recovered by mining and rock crushing. Of the two varieties of asbestos -- Chrysotile and Amphibole -- only Chrysotile is used for commercial purposes. Manufacturers of asbestos cement (AC) sheet and pipe manufacturers in India import all their requirements of chrysotile fibers from Canada, Brazil, Russia, Zimbabwe and Kazakhstan for production of AC sheets and pipes. AC sheets have been in use in India for over 70 years. Their weather-proof and corrosion-resistant qualities help them score over metal sheets. AC sheets are also cost-effective and strong and durable. Other than India, Russia, China, Thailand and Brazil are among the largest users of AC sheets. Mining of asbestos is banned in India, but its usage is not. Thus, the industry depends on 100% imports. However, with most shipping lines not accepting asbestos, container companies have to maintain around four months' inventory of asbestos to maintain production. "Chrysotile asbestos fiber, (composed mainly of magnesium and silica), is a great reinforcing agent. While its tensile strength is greater than steel, it has other rare and highly valued fire- retardant, chemical-resistant and heat-insulating qualities," says the Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers' Association, New Delhi, on its Web site. Hyderabad Industries Ltd (HIL), a flagship company of the CK Birla Group of companies to which RIL is currently supplying the fiber, says use of the fiber has led to a 5% cent increase in productivity and reduced cost by 7%. "We have been using RIL's fiber for some time now, and are happy with the results. Last year, we replaced 10 per cent of asbestos and monitored the product's performance. This year, we have decided to replace 20 per cent asbestos," said S Jagadesh, general manager, R&D, HIL. Jagadesh added this fiber would help reduce its dependence on asbestos. HIL manufactured around 800,000 tonnes of roofing sheets per annum. Other companies using RIL's product include Sahyadri Industries and Ramco Industries, both producers of fiber cement sheets. Industrial trails, said RIL, are already on at Everest Industries, UAL Inudstries and Visaka Industries, another set of fiber cement sheets manufacturing companies. So far, RIL has sold about 1,000 tons of polyester fiber. The company said sampling has also begun in Thailand, adding it was continuously working on further R&D along with leading asbestos cement sheet manufacturing companies to achieve 100% replacement of asbestos. ASBESTOS UPDATE: KASCON LLC Gets Rome Schools Abatement Contract ---------------------------------------------------------------- RomeSentinel.com reports that some isolated areas at Strough, Staley and Joy schools will undergo minor asbestos removals this month, and ongoing programs there will not be affected, a Rome school district official said. The work includes replacing insulation around some piping at Strough, plus a valve gasket at Staley, said Superintendent of Buildings and Grounds Paul Rabbia. At Joy, some loose floor tiles in one spot will be replaced, he added. Among summer activities hosted by the sites are academic summer school at Strough and an enrichment program with an accelerated curriculum at Staley. Asked if asbestos removals would affect such programs, Rabbia said "absolutely not;" the locations involved will temporarily be "off-limits," with air tests before and after the brief one- and two-day projects, he noted. The work includes "isolated little areas," he told the Board of Education's buildings and grounds committee on July 25. The projects' total cost was estimated at about $2,500 by Rabbia. The work will be handled by KASCON LLC of Marcy, whose contract for asbestos removals as needed was approved by the board last month. ASBESTOS UPDATE: India's Ban Asbestos Network Member TWA Steps Up ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ameya Charnalia of The Hindu News reports that after the only two remaining asbestos mines in Canada's Quebec province wrapped up operations in 2011, the country became asbestos-mining free for the first time in 130 years. But, in a recent move that has stunned several environmental, health, labor and human rights organizations, the government of Quebec has sanctioned a $58 million loan to revive the inoperative 'Jeffrey Mine' to resume asbestos mining. With an estimated 90% of Canada's asbestos being exported to developing countries like India, advocacy campaigns in both India and Canada have strongly condemned this turn of events, renewing calls for a ban on the mining. Toxics Watch Alliance (TWA), an Indian advocacy initiative and one of two members of the Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI) movement, has stepped up its lobbying with the Central government to stop asbestos usage by banning imports. In a statement, TWA said: "India has taken a position which considers white asbestos a hazardous substance. Mining of asbestos is technically banned in India. Trade in asbestos waste (dust and fibers) is also banned. The government should take the next logical step and phase out asbestos use." Despite calls for bans, India remains particularly infamous as the one of the largest importers of asbestos. On the proliferation of asbestos usage in India, TWA's convener Gopal Krishna said: "Artificial pricing through governmental patronage has made asbestos cheaply available." Chrysotile, the most common form of asbestos used in India, is a fibrous substance often mixed with cement to create a fire- retardant mixture applied to corrugated steel sheets and pipes. Called "the poor man's material", it is often used in roofing structures by the poor in India because of its high resistivity and low-cost. On the availability of alternatives to asbestos, Mr. Krishna said: "There are multiple alternatives to the multiple uses of asbestos." He stressed that industries and countries that have banned asbestos have managed to do without it because of the availability of substitutes. Commonly cited alternatives to asbestos are cellulose and agricultural fibers. Affordability nevertheless can come at the cost of contracting lethal lung diseases, caused by inhalation of chrysolite dust -- a common occurrence in asbestos plants, where safety regulations are minimal and often not enforced. An investigation by Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) reporter Melissa Fung in June 2009 revealed how Indian workers were shockingly ill-equipped when handling asbestos. "Many workers were found to be working wearing little more than bandanas, sometimes no protective gear at all," revealed the investigation. The World Health Organization (WHO) classifies asbestos as a known carcinogen, estimating that over 1,07,000 people die each year from asbestos-related lung cancer, mesothelioma and asbestosis. It remains banned in over 50 countries. Canada exported 1,00,000 tons of asbestos in 2010, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. Maude Barlow, National Chairperson, Council of Canadians -- Canada's largest social justice organization -- said: "Canada has repeatedly blocked asbestos from being listed as a hazardous chemical by the United Nations, even while governments spend large amounts of money back at home helping remove asbestos from Canadian homes and offices." While Indian delegates distanced themselves from Canada's position on asbestos trade at the U.N.'s Rotterdam Convention in 2011 by favoring listing asbestos as a restricted chemical, the Supreme Court of India refused to ban the substance in January 2011, instead directing state governments to regulate its use and manufacture. In Canada, the asbestos issue is subject to frequent politicization, with the official Opposition party -- The New Democratic Party (NPD), holding 58 of 75 federal seats in Quebec, noted as opposing asbestos mining and exports. Ms. Barlow added: "The Indian government must not listen to the handful of investors and big business operators in their demand for Canadian asbestos. The health and safety of the people is paramount and we join the people of India in their opposition to Canadian asbestos imports." In the midst of demonstrations by villagers against asbestos plants in Bihar, Himachal Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and Odisha among others recently, TWA has urged the government to begin a compensation fund for the victims of asbestos related diseases, in addition to phasing out all use of the substance. "The only way to prevent deadly diseases is to prevent mining, trade, manufacturing and use of all forms of asbestos and asbestos-based products," said the release. The figure of asbestos' victims in India remains elusive as no official estimate has been collected. For victims and campaigners, however, the struggle against asbestos continues. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insulator's Union Vows to Fight ARD, Mesothelioma ------------------------------------------------------------------ General President James A. Grogan described the Insulator's Union 30th national convention as "inspiring and life-changing," lauding the organization's wide-ranging achievements of the July 15-18 gathering in Las Vegas. President Grogan, who was unanimously re-elected for another five- year term, said emphatically "we now have a comprehensive and well-funded plan of attack against mesothelioma and asbestos- related diseases that emphasizes prevention and early diagnosis, better treatment and longer, quality lives for our members and their families." He spoke passionately, asking convention delegates and guests, "If we don't do this, who will?" Distinguished labor leaders who spoke at the convention included Richard Trumka, President of the AFL-CIO; Sean McGarvey, President, Building and Construction Trades Department (BCTD); Edwin D. Hill, General President, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW); and James A. Williams, General President, International Union of Painters and Allied Trades (IUPAT). The War on Asbestos-related Diseases President Grogan has made it his mission to address all facets of this "orphan" health issue, and the convention delegates and his leadership voted to put in place and fund a comprehensive plan for its members, including a dedicated health fund, The Insulators Tissue Bank, to find a cure or optimal treatment options for asbestos-induced cancers, including mesothelioma and lung cancer. Insulators have long suffered far higher than normal incidences of mesothelioma, lung cancer and other related diseases, resulting in disability and death. Terry Johnson, Esq., along with two attorneys from the national asbestos firm of Cooney and Conway (John Cooney and Kevin Conway), announced a multi-million donation to the Insulators Tissue Bank. The firms will contribute current legal fees totaling one million dollars, and add to that two-percent of all future collected legal fees involving cases where workers suffer from mesothelioma and related asbestos-causing diseases. Convention delegates voted for every insulator in the U.S. and Canada to contribute four cents for every hour that they work to the new Insulators Tissue Bank, starting January 1, 2013. This money will be used for research in finding a cure for mesothelioma and other asbestos-induced diseases. This is in addition to the two cents per hour that is currently contributed to the Insulators Health Hazard Fund, as well as what individual Local Unions do on their own. President Grogan, Secretary-Treasurer McCourt and the General Executive Board froze their wages for 2013 and for years 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 their wages will mirror the CPI, not to exceed 4%. In addition, the International Officers will contribute $100 per month from their salaries to the tissue bank. It was announced by Andrew Todd, Ph.D., of Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York City, that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has formally approved the tissue bank, which will be located and administered by Mt. Sinai. Dr. Todd said that only 0.01% of the general population die from mesothelioma. In Insulators, the current percentage (as of 2008 statistics) is about 1,000-fold higher at 9%. He noted that the problem is not going away, because the death rate was also 9% in 1989. Researchers and surgeons at Mt. Sinai Medical Center in New York, have been long-standing partners in this effort. Dr. Raja Flores, who is a thoracic surgeon and currently the Chief of the Division of Thoracic Surgery at Mt. Sinai Hospital and Ames Professor of Cardiothoracic Surgery at the Mt. Sinai School of Medicine, also addressed the delegates. Dr. Flores told the insulators of the positive inroads that are being made in the field of lung surgery, and he also provided graphic video of an actual lung surgery in his presentation. President Grogan stressed that CAT scans are now needed to accurately detect problems; therefore, the union may employ mobile screening and blood testing that can pull right up to union headquarters or job sites. "We leaped light years ahead at this convention in building the infrastructure and funding necessary to significantly improve our workers' health," said President Grogan. "But it is also is a shift in culture as our members become smarter and more aggressive in caring for themselves as well as their brothers and sisters." Approximately three thousand U.S. citizens die of mesothelioma each year. The Canadian Medical Association recently reported that more than 300 Canadian men receive a diagnosis of mesothelioma each year. The asbestos medical problem is not limited to just insulators. Mesothelioma and other asbestos - induced diseases have decimated workers from every other craft in the Building Trades as well. The World Health Organization reports that over a five-year period there were 85,512 mesothelioma deaths reported from 46 countries -- that's 17,000- plus mesothelioma deaths per year from these countries, mainly western developed countries. It may continue to grow as asbestos is still being mined in some countries. The World Health Organization says mesothelioma is on the rise globally. The British Broadcasting Company recently reported that more than two million tons of asbestos were mined worldwide in 2009. Mining countries included Russia, China and Khazikstan. Leaders from Canada attest from their attempts to ban asbestos from being mined in Canada that it remains an uphill battle. Asbestos is being exported to poor and undeveloped countries such as India and Bangladesh where unsuspecting and untrained workers are, once again, needlessly exposed. The Insulators Tissue Bank will benefit those afflicted worldwide. Labor Leaders Weigh in at Insulators Convention All of the Labor leaders commended President Grogan on his leadership, dedication and commitment to the labor movement. They also all stressed the importance of re-electing President Barack Obama this November. President Hill spoke in great detail about the upcoming "Workers Stand for America Rally" to be held in Philadelphia on August 11. He encouraged delegates to support the rally and encouraged them to participate in this nonpartisan event that will feature the signing of the second Bill of Rights for both union and open shop workers. President McGarvey articulated how important it is for insulators to support the Republican Members of Congress who have stood with the insulators and all of the building trades crafts on Davis-Bacon protections and Project Labor Agreements (PLAs). Additionally, President Trumka encouraged Congress to pass the Mechanical Insulation Installation Incentive Act. President Grogan said the convention speakers also "united our membership and readied us for the "Workers Stand for America Rally" on August 11 and the General Election on November 6. Labor leaders Trumka, McGarvey, Hill, and Williams all gave impassioned remarks about supporting Members of Congress and state and local officials who share values of the workers and their families. A moment of silence was held in memory of Mark H. Ayers, AFL-CIO BCTD President who died April 8. President Hill said August 11 is a Labor Summit on Workers to be held in Philadelphia that will take place prior to the Republican National Convention in Tampa, August 27 to 30, and the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, September 3 to 6. He added that the workers attending the summit will create a new "bill of rights' that may be carried to both of those conventions. President Grogan said it will be essential for Philadelphia area insulators to attend the labor summit, and he encouraged all others interested and able to participate to be at this historic summit. "There is no question we will be working tirelessly to re-elect President Obama and those Members of Congress, Governors and legislators who share our common-sense values and desire for economic recovery." The delegates also voted to fund a new "soft money" Political Education Fund to which members will contribute one cent per every hour that they work. Promoting the Mechanical Insulation Industry Progress on specific initiatives under way to promote the mechanical insulation industry was highlighted, and union leaders were encouraged to get involved in advocating at the local, state and federal levels to maintain momentum. Members of Congress, via video messages, along with AFL-CIO President Trumka, stressed the need for S. 1526 and H.R. 2866, the Mechanical Insulation Installation Incentive Act. Mike Fulton, president of the Arnold Agency's Washington office gave a presentation on the Union and National Insulation Association's (NIA) federal relations initiative. Fulton, who has worked with the Union and NIA promoting the increased use of mechanical insulation, stated that there is bipartisan support for these pending bills which includes three U.S. Senators and 69 members of the U.S. House of Representatives. This proposed federal tax deduction for building and manufacturing facility owners to capture energy savings in commercial/government buildings and the industrial sector has the potential to create as many as 89,000 jobs annually in all 50 states. Successes of an education and awareness campaign, conducted in partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy and the NIA, were outlined as well as the pursuit for additional funding to achieve more awareness. Insulators Leadership Team Intact In addition to President Grogan, other international officers re-elected for a five-year term include: - James P. "Buddy" McCourt, General Secretary-Treasurer - William P. Mahoney, International Vice President, Southeast States Conference - Kenneth J, Schneider, International Vice President, Southwest States Conference - Frederick A. DeMartino, International Vice President, New York New England States Conference - Terry Lynch, International Vice President At Large - Douglas N. Gamble, International Vice President, Western States Conference - Terrence M. Larkin, International Vice President, Middle Atlantic States Conference - Gregory T. Revard, International Vice President, Central States Conference - Frederick W. Clare, Jr., International Vice President, Eastern Canada - Mark P. Selby, International Vice President, Midwest States Conference - Vince Engel, International Vice President, Western Canada International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Allied Workers Affiliated with the AFL-CIO Building Trades Department and the Canadian Labour Congress The object of the International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Allied Workers shall be to assist its membership in securing employment, to defend their rights and advance their interests as working men and women, and by education and co- operation, raise them to that position in society to which they are justly entitled. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stover Theatre Abatement Eyes Aug. 8 Completion ---------------------------------------------------------------- Valerie Whitney of The Daytona Beach News-Journal reports that work crews are busy preparing Stetson University's Stover Theatre for demolition this month. Al Allen, Stetson's vice president for facilities management, said all of the salvage work has been completed and crews now are working on removing asbestos in the building, as required by the state Department of Environmental Protection. The state's goal is to keep asbestos fibers from escaping into the air when the building is torn down, said Matt Adair, chief building official for the city. Allen said crews should be finished with this phase in the next week or so. Tentative plans call for installing a construction fence around the building on Aug. 8 -- the same day that officials want to begin tearing down the old building. Stetson hopes to have the site cleared and landscaped by Aug. 24, according to Allen. Meanwhile, he said, the college has donated a number of items from the building including curtains, lights, seats and cabinetry to several groups, including the Shoestring Theatre Company in Lake Helen, the Orlando Ballet and Osceola Elementary School. "We didn't want to throw things out," Allen said. Officials with the Athens Theater are evaluating whether the fly system that raised and lowered curtains and backdrops at Stover is something their organization can use, he said. "We have a number of flies that do work and a number that don't," said Alexa Baldwin, marketing director for the Athens. "The Stover is the one of the only other theaters that had this system." Stetson petitioned the city a couple of months ago for permission to demolish the building, which was constructed in 1930. It housed the college's theater arts program until about three months ago when officials signed a lease to take over vacant space in the Museum of Florida Art across the street from the university. "The paintings in the building's lobby and anything else that our faculty and students thought was sentimental was taken over there," Allen said, referring to the new location, which formerly housed the Sands Theater Company. He noted that the 82-year-old Stover was never meant to be a theater. "It was an assembly hall, " he said, and one that was built as cheaply as possible. It doesn't have many of the amenities a theater requires, he said, such as space for building sets, a green room and even classroom space. "It wasn't designed by an architect," he said, adding the lack of visual appeal and amenities have hampered the college's effort to recruit students for its theater arts program. "We have had as few as three to four kids in our program. The highest (so far) has been 14, " he said, adding the college has lost potential theater students to Rollins College and even the University of Florida. The university conducted a study in 2005 and determined Stetson's theater arts program needed more than twice the space, including dedicated classroom space. A recent review showed Stover had only 27% of the theater space of peer institutions. The City Commission's decision to approve the demolition request set off a mild controversy in the community. The chairman of the city's Historic Preservation Board, which recommended against approving the request, resigned the day after the commission vote. Also, another board member resigned, effective in October. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bill Modernizing Chemical Regulations Passed ------------------------------------------------------------- Patricia Williams at PoliticalNews.me reports that Montana's senior U.S. Senator Max Baucus secured key provisions for Montana as the "Safe Chemicals Act" cleared a major hurdle in the Senate. Specifically, he worked to speed up the EPA's response to asbestos contamination while also encouraging innovation in developing new, more environmentally friendly chemicals. The Safe Chemicals Act co-sponsored by Baucus passed in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee by a vote of 10 to 8 and will now head to the full Senate for a vote. Senator Jon Tester also co-sponsored the bill. "It's important to me that Montana families and communities around the country do not have to live through the environmental injustice that Libby experienced. This is a common sense bill that modernizes chemical regulations while making sure innovative companies have the tools they need to develop more environmentally friendly products," said Baucus, who was given the Tribute of Hope Award, The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization's top distinction. Baucus, a senior member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, fought for provisions in the bill that will require asbestos, including the type of asbestos mined in Libby, to enter into immediate risk management rather than undergoing further study. Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) applauds Senator Baucus for supporting the Safer Chemicals Act of 2012 and empowering the EPA's work to strengthen regulatory and enforcement efforts to protect Americans for deadly, but preventable asbestos- caused diseases such as Mesothelioma, Asbestosis and Lung Cancer," said Linda Reinstein, co-founder of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization. Baucus also secured a provision to encourage innovation in the green chemical technology sector and support new jobs in the emerging field. "We thank Senator Baucus for his sponsorship and support of the Safe Chemicals Act which aligns with our goal of increasing the safety of consumer products and protecting our natural environment through chemicals made from renewable sources," said Jason Kiely, Vice President of Marketing at Missoula-based Rivertop Renewables. "Consumers are increasingly demanding that the products that touch our families, children and the world around us become safer and more sustainable. This Act will compel transparency of the safety and health impacts of all chemicals, balancing fair regulation with the public's call for protection." Rivertop Renewables is at the cutting edge of a new category of science -- Progressive Chemistry. Merging proven science with renewable resources, Rivertop Renewables is creating an abundant and economical supply of sustainable, biodegradable and non-toxic chemicals and bioproducts derived from renewable plant sugars. Whitefish nurse, Kelli Barber, RN,MN co-chairs the Nurses Work Group for Health Care Without Harm and is a member of the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments. Barber hails the news as important step toward protecting patients while lowering health care costs. "I'm proud to see Senator Baucus championing a bill that would protect us from exposures to chemicals which are proven to not only cause cancer but a host of other chronic diseases," said Kelli Barber, RN, MN. "The Safe Chemicals Act would significantly reduce health care costs by reducing the risk of developing diseases that are caused by toxic chemical exposure." "All Montanans deserve homes and places of work free from dangerous and life-threatening chemicals," said James Steele Jr., board member of Montana Conservation Voters and former chairman of the Salish and Kootenai Tribes. "Today, Senator Baucus answered Montana's call for safer chemicals." Baucus provisions in the Safe Chemicals Act: -- Immediate Action on Asbestos. Asbestos is identified as a substance of very high concern, for which EPA must quickly require exposure reduction measures. -- Encourages Innovation by Improving the New Chemicals Process: Promote innovation and development of safe chemical alternatives, and bring some new chemicals onto the market using an expedited review process. About The Safe Chemicals Act: The bill modernizes the "Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976" (TSCA) and gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the tools it needs to require health and safety testing of toxic chemicals and places the burden on industry to prove that chemicals are safe. Under current law, the EPA can call for safety testing only after evidence surfaces demonstrating a chemical is dangerous. As a result, EPA has been able to require testing for just 200 of the more than 80,000 chemicals currently registered in the United States, and has been able to ban only five dangerous substances. The Safe Chemicals Act would: -- Require manufacturers to develop and submit safety data for each chemical they produce, while avoiding duplicative or unnecessary testing. -- Prioritize chemicals based on risk, so that EPA can focus resources on evaluating those most likely to cause harm while working through the backlog of untested existing chemicals. -- Place the burden of proof on chemical manufacturers to demonstrate the safety of their chemicals. -- Restrict uses of chemicals that cannot be proven safe. -- Establish a public database to catalog the information submitted by chemical manufacturers and the EPA's safety determinations. -- Promote innovation and development of safe chemical alternatives, and bring some new chemicals onto the market using an expedited review process. ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Taps Superfund to Clean Up Union Steel Plant ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sara Wiseman for the BattleCreekEnquirer.com relates that Ramona Saldana was working in her sunny yard Monday afternoon (July 30). She took a few steps, put her hands on her hips and looked at the former Union Steel plant just down the street. She was worried, but she's not the only one. Inside the building, behind the broken windows and crumbling brick, a crew of nine men total worked in paper suits with respirators to contain a dangerous material: asbestos. "If I ever get sick, it'll be because of this," Saldana said, her laugh tinged with concern. "I'm concerned about the health and other safety risks that could come of this." After working to clean the Kalamazoo River in Albion in April, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is back at 501 N. Berrien St. Previously, officials said, someone had emptied hazardous liquids into drains that led to the river. This time, the EPA is tackling an asbestos problem. EPA official say the crew will spend three weeks and as much as $288,000 to make things safe. "There was asbestos in the plant and it was secure but it was the scrappers with no concern for it . . . began tearing it apart, that's when it became a threat," EPA project manager Jeff Lippert said. Lippert said he believes metal pipes containing asbestos were carelessly removed, causing asbestos to escape into the air. The Union Steel plant was foreclosed and auctioned by Calhoun County in September 2011. Sold for $550, the plant may have been mined for valuable scrap metal. Officials in the Calhoun County Treasurer's office declined to identify the current property owners Monday, July 30. After it was determined that the building owners would not be able take financial responsibility for the cleanup, the EPA tapped into its Superfund. "Any time there's no responsible party to take care of the concern, that's what the superfunds are used for," Lippert said. The Superfund is a federal environmental program created in the 1970s for uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites. Sitting on his porch just down the street from the old plant, James Wyrick said he knew the site had gotten out of control. "I think they should be prosecuted," Wyrick said. "If you're responsible, you should try to help clean up your actions." To contain the present asbestos threat, EPA officials have been using wet methods, saturating the material and eliminating the potential for an airborne threat. Air samples in and outside of the Union Steel site are being tested but have not shown high levels of asbestos. The EPA crew in the area plans to distribute fact sheets to residents explaining their presence, the situation and what neighbors can expect. Lippert said that the residential areas near the former Union Steel plant are not in any danger. As Toni Simpson walked past the plant, shattered and boarded up, she looked at the signs plastered along the walls. "Danger: Asbestos: Cancer and Lung Disease Hazard," the signs read. Simpson watched the cleanup workers entering the building, pleased something was being done. "They shouldn't have bought it if they can't fix it up," Simpson said of the owners. "They've really caused problems for the community." ASBESTOS UPDATE: High Abatement Costs "Killing" Ohio Land Banks --------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Ferenchik of The Columbus Dispatch reports that federal interpretations of regulations on asbestos removal are hampering efforts by cities to tear down scores of vacant and abandoned homes in Ohio, land-bank officials say. The cost of demolitions has risen 40% in Cuyahoga County, said Cheryl Stephens, the acquisition director for the land bank there. And delays have stretched as long as 90 days, said Jim Rokakis, the director of Cleveland's Thriving Communities Institute, which helps communities set up land banks to acquire and deal with abandoned and vacant properties. As a result, land banks "are getting killed," Rokakis said. "Where a surgeon's scalpel makes sense, (federal officials are) using a meat cleaver." Staff members for both of Ohio's senators, Republican Rob Portman and Democrat Sherrod Brown, said they are working with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to address the high costs without jeopardizing residents' health. In July, officials from Ohio land banks spoke via conference call to U.S. EPA representatives, trying to find a compromise. The problem is that federal officials are interpreting the rules in such a way that land banks must assess every house for asbestos if it is part of a larger urban-renewal project, said Franklin County Treasurer Ed Leonard, who oversees the county's new land bank. It doesn't make sense to spend precious dollars on asbestos assessments when officials already know that a house doesn't have any because of when it was built, he said. Linda Oros, an Ohio EPA spokeswoman, said the rules are in place to protect workers and neighbors from asbestos hazards, which include lung cancer and mesothelioma. The U.S. EPA is working with federal, state and local officials to address concerns, spokesman Dale Kemery wrote in an email. Ohio has an estimated 100,000 vacant and abandoned houses in cities large and small because of decades of urban flight, deindustrialization and the recent foreclosure crisis. Columbus has more than 6,200 such houses, and Mayor Michael B. Coleman has pledged to demolish 900 over the next four years, using $11.5 million in city funds. Franklin County's land bank, run by the Central Ohio Community Improvement Corp., recently received $8.2 million from Attorney General Mike DeWine's office, part of the $75 million the state received in a national settlement with mortgage companies. About 35% to 50% of home-demolition costs in Columbus go toward asbestos assessment and removal, said Nichole Brandon, the deputy development director. That limits the number of homes the city can tear down, she said. One way to compromise would be to exempt one- to four-family homes from asbestos assessments, Rokakis said. In Cuyahoga County, for example, only 4% of those houses were "hot" with asbestos. Too much money is being used for unnecessary testing, agreed Michael Beazley, the president of the land bank in Lucas County, home to Toledo. "We're looking to have the EPA identify some ways to lower costs for the community," Beazley said. In Lima in northwestern Ohio, the price to demolish one home rose from $5,000 to $23,000 because of the asbestos regulations, said Howard Elstro, that city's director of public works. That limits Lima's ability to tear down more homes, especially as federal neighborhood-stabilization dollars have run out, Elstro said. If federal officials agree to a compromise, the Franklin County land bank will still address environmental hazards when necessary, Leonard said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: ETU Wants Answers on Bechtel Asbestos Issues ------------------------------------------------------------- The Australian Associated Press reports that workers on an island at the heart of Australia's gas boom have been exposed to asbestos by their American employer, a union says. The Electrical Trades Union (ETU) is demanding an investigation into US engineering giant Bechtel after workers were allegedly exposed to asbestos on Curtis Island, Queensland's planned LNG hub. ETU state secretary Peter Simpson says he has evidence that 90 of the union's 200 members on the island came into contact with the carcinogenic substance while working with building materials produced by Indonesian company Metito. "Our investigations show Bechtel as the primary contractor has failed the most basic duty of care; white asbestos is hazardous, illegal and dangerous," Mr. Simpson said in a statement. "We are demanding that Bechtel reveal the location and extent of their dealings with Metito. We want to know what they knew before, during and after the exposures." The ETU says the US firm is also withholding wages from its members, who stopped work last week and are seeking answers about the asbestos. Bechtel later denied the allegations, saying that when traces of asbestos were detected at sites on the island they had been immediately quarantined. Gladstone manager Kevin Berg maintained that the health and safety of Bechtel's workers was the number one issue. "Until we are satisfied that the equipment is safe, affected plant supplied by this contractor across the projects has been secured and no workers will be able to access it," he told AAP. "The bottom line is that this is a serious issue which we are determined to manage with the assistance of the workforce and the independent industry experts we have brought in." The company said preliminary testing showed the risk associated with exposure was similar to that people would expect to experience living in any city or larger regional centre. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jeffrey Mine Proponents Unhindered By Critics -------------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Lalonde of The Montreal Gazette relates that if the Charest government was hoping to avoid criticism by quietly announcing the relaunch of Quebec's controversial asbestos industry on the Friday before a holiday weekend, it might have miscalculated. In the month following the June 29 announcement that Quebec would loan $58 million to help reopen and expand the Jeffrey Mine in the town of Asbestos, newspapers across Quebec and Canada have run editorials and columns condemning the decision. The wisdom of staking public money on this project has come under question, and last month an international scientific organization of epidemiologists joined the call for a global ban on asbestos. In April 2011, the Liberal government had promised to provide a guarantee on a $58-million loan to the project's proponents -- Westmount businessman Baljit Chadha and Jeffrey Mine president Bernard Coulombe -- if and when they could come up with $25 million in private investments to enable the reopening of the mine. The government is now providing a direct loan rather than a guarantee, and critics charge that's because no financial institution would loan the money, even with a government guarantee. Asked why the government decided to provide a direct loan, an aide to Economic Development Minister Sam Hamad said only that it was done to speed up the relaunch. "The Quebec government has done this in order to accelerate the process of the relaunching the Jeffrey Mine," Economic Development Ministry spokesperson Jean-Pierre D'Auteuil wrote in an email, days after the question was posed in an interview. Finding investors proved to be no easy task. Although, Chadha and Coulombe had earlier indicated they had an international consortium of interested investors behind them, in the end they seem to have found only one: Ulan Marketing Co. Ltd. of Thailand. That company has put down $14 million, and the remaining $11 million in private investment has been scraped together by Chadha and Coulombe themselves, Guy Versailles, a spokesperson for the Jeffrey Mine, confirmed in an interview with The Gazette. Chadha and Coulombe are now co-owners of a new company called Mineral Fibre Inc. which owns the Jeffrey Mine. "Mr. Coulombe and Mr. Chadha have already put their money into an account at the mine, and Ulan of Thailand has put in $14 million. The $25 million is there. That money is there. It is in the bank account of the mine," Versailles said. Asked about reports that Chadha and Coulombe have had to remortgage their assets to get the money together, Versailles warned against reading this as a sign of desperation. "You have to be careful when you start talking about remortgaging and such. What we know is that businessmen like Mr. Chadha, who have all kinds of different investments, they mortgage their homes and leverage their assets left and right. It's normal." The provincial land registry indicates that Chadha took out a new $1.7-million mortgage on his Westmount home on April 2 of this year. Proponents of Quebec's exportation of chrysotile asbestos to developing countries say the substance is a low-cost construction material that can be used safely to fulfill a growing demand in the developing world. The Thailand investor, Ulan Marketing, is part of a chain of companies that make roofing tiles out of asbestos-reinforced cement, and the company is predicting brisk sales next year, according to news reports from Thailand. The trouble is, the government of Thailand seems to be seriously considering a ban on asbestos imports, following in the footsteps of more than 50 countries worldwide. A resolution calling for a ban from Thailand's National Health Assembly was submitted to Thailand's National Health Commission, which is chaired by the Prime Minister, in February of 2011. Some reports indicate the government will be voting on a ban as early as September. But Versailles is optimistic. "The ban-asbestos movement exists in every country where there is a market, and there is talk in Thailand about banning it, but so far it hasn't happened. Even if they succeed and asbestos is banned in Thailand, then we will sell it elsewhere." He stressed that the reopening of the mine, which he said will begin production by summer of 2013, will benefit the region and the province in a number of ways. The loan bears a 10% interest rate. Over its expected 20-year lifetime, the mine will pay $124 million in mining duties, $176 million in corporate income taxes, and $25 million in municipal taxes. The mine will also support 425 direct jobs and 1,000 indirect jobs. The company will also pay the province $1.5 million every year; the first $7.5 million to be used to create a fund dedicated to economic diversification of the mining region. The mine is expected to produce 250,000 tons of chrysotile asbestos per year for a total of 5 million tons over the next 20 years. While creating jobs in one region may help the Liberal government's chances in the expected September election -- at least in that region -- the asbestos file continues to bruise Quebec's international reputation. A damning position statement released in July by the Joint Policy Committee of the Societies of Epidemiology called for a global ban on mining, use, and export of all forms of asbestos. The committee, which includes epidemiologists from around the world, completed a thorough review of epidemiologic evidence and concluded that all types of asbestos cause diseases and premature death and that continued use of asbestos in developing countries will lead to "a public health disaster of asbestos-related illness and premature death for decades to come in those countries." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Proprietor, Contractor Fined for Negligence ------------------------------------------------------------ The Gloucestershire Echo reports that a High Street TV store and a property company have been fined after a builder was exposed to asbestos. Matthew Thompson, 28, was brought in to help refurbish a Cheltenham store. But the construction worker did not realize he was pulling out asbestos insulating boards. His then-boss Simon Cooper, who runs Montpellier Property Maintenance, has now been fined for not carrying out the necessary checks beforehand. And both men have been told by doctors that there is no way of knowing if their contact with the substance will kill them. The impact of asbestos usually takes between 15-40 years to become apparent. Asbestos fibers can cause serious diseases, including mesothelioma and lung cancer, if inhaled. They are responsible for an estimated 4,500 deaths each year. Matthew, who is married to Joanne, said: "There is nothing the doctors can do until something happens later in life. "I am hoping there is nothing wrong with me but, if there is, I will have to deal with it as and when it happens." Simon, aged 39, was asked by Hutchinson HiFi and Vision in February 2010 to replace a suspended ceiling. He claimed he was told checks had already been made for asbestos. But prosecutors from the Health and Safety Executive said he should have ensured he had received written evidence that the substance was not at the site before starting the work himself. Hutchinson HiFi and Vision should have ensured a demolition and refurbishment survey was carried out and the results made available to him, magistrates in Cheltenham were told. Hutchinson HiFi & Vision Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 10 (1) (b) of the Construction (Design & Management) Regulations 2007 and was fined GBP3,500 and ordered to pay GBP1,836 in costs. Nobody from the store was available for comment. Cooper, of Merlin Way, Leckhampton, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 5 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and was fined GBP600 and ordered to pay GBP800 in costs. He said: "I hold my hands up and accept I should not have just trusted what someone was telling me without getting it in writing. "It was shocking when I found out. I now have to face the fact that it might cause us health problems in the future. It could be up to 40 years before any of us find out." HSE inspector Simon Chilcott, said: "Exposure to asbestos can have fatal or serious long term health consequences and, as such, every precaution must be taken to minimize any risks when working on buildings." ********* 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 * * *