/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/121012.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, October 12, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 203 Headlines AGILYSYS INC: Faces Suit Alleging Wage and Hour Law Violations AUSTRALIA: Almost 60 Bushfire Victims Join Class Action v. DEC BELFONTE ICE: Recalls Ice Cream Due to Possible Health Risk BROCADE COMMS: Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Approval CHINA AGRITECH: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action CLEMMY'S ICE: Recalls Peanut Butter Chocolate Chip Ice Cream DIGITAL DOMAIN: Employees' Class Suit Hearing Postponed to Oct 23 GRACO CHILDREN'S: Recalls 89,400 Classic Wood Highchairs GROTON, CT: Property Owners File Class Action vs. Town HARRY AND DAVID: Recalls Peanut Butters and Peanut Spreads HAWAII: Seeks Members of AMHD Mental Health Services Class Action LIVE NATION: Faces Class Action Over Anticompetitive Conduct JPMORGAN CHASE: $150-MM Deal in Securities Lending Suit Approved JPMORGAN CHASE: Appeal From ARS-Related Suit Dismissal Pending JPMORGAN CHASE: Appeal in Madoff-Related Class Suit Pending JPMORGAN CHASE: Appeal in N.Y. Securities Suit vs. Unit Pending JPMORGAN CHASE: Awaits OK of $10-Mil. Settlement of ERISA Suit JPMORGAN CHASE: Awaits OK of Municipal Derivatives Suits' Deal JPMORGAN CHASE: Awaits Final OK of $275MM Bear Stearns Suit Deal JPMORGAN CHASE: Bid to Transfer MF Global-Related Suits Pending LOCKHEED MARTIN: Robbins Geller Investigator Credible, Judge Says MERCK & CO: Jan. 31 Coppertone Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set MIDSOUTH BANCORP: Bank Seeks Dismissal of "Hunter" Class Suit MIDSOUTH BANCORP: Unit Faces "Harding" Class Action Suit in La. MGM RESORTS: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit Pending NBT BANCORP: Bank Defends Suit Over Collection of Overdraft Fees NMI RETIREMENT: To Seek Dismissal of "Johnson" Class Action PFIZER INC: Appeal in Neurontin Off-Label Promotion Suit Pending PFIZER INC: Awaits Approval of King Acquisition Suit Settlement PFIZER INC: Consolidated Antitrust Suit Over Effexor XR Pending PFIZER INC: Consolidated Securities Suit Remains Pending in N.J. PFIZER INC: Securities Law and ERISA Violations Suits Pending PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend Lipitor-Related MDL in N.J. PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend Suit Over Off-Label Promotion PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend Suit Over Safety of Pristiq PIERCE COUNTY: Settles Taxpayers' Class Action for $2 Million POPULAR INC: Awaits Okay of "Almeyda-Santiago" Suit Settlement POPULAR INC: Court Asks for Additional Briefs in "Lamadrid" Suit POPULAR INC: Remaining Securities Suit Dismissed in July PROGRESSIVE GOURMET: Laid-Off Employees File Class Action QUESTCOR PHARMACEUTICAL: Holzer Holzer & Fistel Files Class Action RICHMOND, VA: Police Officers File Overtime Class Action SCBT FINANCIAL: Awaits Approval of Merger-Related Suit Settlement SMITH DAIRY: Recalls Peanut Butter Crunch/Twist Ice Cream SUFFOLK BANCORP: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Remains Pending TIGER BRANDS: Nov. 7 Hearing Set for Class Certification Appeal UNITED STATES: Court May Reinstate Jacoby & Meyers Class Action VALHI INC: Continues to Defend Lead Pigment Suits vs. Unit WAL-MART STORES: Seeks Gender Bias Class Action Dismissal in Texas WATTS WATER: Defends Suit Over Faulty Toilet Connectors Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Still Defending Fibro Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Still Involved in Exposure Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thermon Group Continues to Defend Exposure Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Katy Industries Still Has Pending Fibro Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Continues to Defend Exposure Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Industries Still Defending 287 Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: CCOM Group's Universal Unit Still Defends Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hickok Expects Dismissal From N.Y. & Mich. Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Andrea Electronics Still Defends "Edwards" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Locker Still Has Unresolved Fibro Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Target Corp. Obtained EPA Deal Approval in May ASBESTOS UPDATE: Joy Global Still Involved in Unresolved Matters ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toro Company Still Subject to Asbestos Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Met-Pro Corp. Had 143 Pending Cases at July 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar Int'l. Still Subject to Fibro Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair Ltd. Had 1,600 Pending Suits at June 29 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Town of Century Council Passes Cleanup Job to CoC ASBESTOS UPDATE: Repair of Heritage Area Visitors Center Underway ASBESTOS UPDATE: Groton Council Moves Funds for School Cleanup ASBESTOS UPDATE: Emergency Funds Move Up Abatement at ILCS ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Cancer Treatment Costs to Rise by 2020 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bad Boiler Plant Job Stopped by DEP Inspectors ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Files Lawsuit Against Chevron USA, 7 Others ASBESTOS UPDATE: Holiday Fence Job Shocks Sydneysiders ASBESTOS UPDATE: Delayed Street Cleanup Worries Sheffielders ASBESTOS UPDATE: Study Shows Possibility of Early Meso Detection ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Find Lengthens Parks Library Project ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup Closes Terre Haute School Auditorium ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eight Fibro Dumpings Reported on Gwent Levels ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Apologizes for Oaktree Initial Approval ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rantoul's 2nd Round of Cleanup to Cost More ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADAO Announces March 2013 Conference ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thailand's Swine Industry Opposes Fibro Ban ASBESTOS UPDATE: UGL to Set Up $11.75 Million Asbestos Trust ASBESTOS UPDATE: Castle Acquires BWH's Meso Testing Technology ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestosis Contributed to Ex-Royal Marine's Death ASBESTOS UPDATE: Robertsbridge Fly-tipping Under Investigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Unqualified Staff Ran NSW Schools Asbestos Audits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbiana's Search for Abatement Firm Underway ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Workers Irate Over Brown's Attack on Warren ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup of Old Norwich Train Station Underway ASBESTOS UPDATE: Talks On Future of Odeon Building Continues ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Campaign AD Invalidates Sen. Brown's Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: First National Abatement Reimbursement Questioned ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Storage Building at Manatee High ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wokingham Firm Fined for Exposing Staff to Fibro ASBESTOS UPDATE: Builder Fined AU$1500 for Illegally Dumping Fibro ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chinese Paper Conducts Survey on Vehicle Recall ASBESTOS UPDATE: Residents Talk About Life in Wittenoom Town ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive's Bid for Separate Trial Junked ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wrongful-Death Suit v. Georgia-Pacific Remanded ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Allows Insurance Suit to Proceed to Trial ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Court Bars Amendment to Martinez Complaint ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maryland Court Affirms Verdict in Farrar Case ********* AGILYSYS INC: Faces Suit Alleging Wage and Hour Law Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- Agilysys, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit alleging violations of wage and hour laws, according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. On July 9, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging violations of federal and state wage and hour laws, rules and regulations pertaining primarily to pay for missed meals and rest periods and failure to reimburse business expenses. The lawsuit purports to be a class action and seeks substantial damages. At this time, the Company says it is not able to predict the outcome of this lawsuit, or any possible monetary exposure associated with the lawsuit. The Company's management believes, however, that the plaintiffs' allegations are without merit and that their claims are not appropriate for class action treatment. The Company is vigorously defending these claims. AUSTRALIA: Almost 60 Bushfire Victims Join Class Action v. DEC -------------------------------------------------------------- Ninemsn reports that almost 60 victims of the 2011 Margaret River bushfire have joined a class action against Western Australia's Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC). The bushfire on November 23-24 last year spread from a prescribed burn by the DEC that got out of control, destroying more than 40 properties in the southwest tourism and wine-growing region. Law firm Slater and Gordon last month said it had received sufficient interest from bushfire victims to launch a class action and urged others to get in touch before October 5. General manager for commercial and project litigation James Higgins on Oct. 8 said nearly 60 people had signed up. "Home and business owners were devastated by the prescribed blaze which burned out of control in the state's southwest and it's important that we fight for adequate compensation," Mr. Higgins said. Oct. 5 was the deadline to sign up, but the firm said it still expected a last-minute rush of clients. BELFONTE ICE: Recalls Ice Cream Due to Possible Health Risk ----------------------------------------------------------- Belfonte Ice Cream and Dairy Foods Company, due to Sunland, Inc's expanded voluntary recall of Almond Butter, Peanut Butter, Cashew Butter, Tahini and Roasted Blanched Peanut Products, has initiated a recall of a peanut butter containing ice cream produced at the Company's Kansas City, Missouri plant because it has the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e. infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis. The products included in this recall are: Best Used ITEM UPC By Date: -------------------------- ----------- --------- Belfonte 56oz Rectangular Carton, 83057-91023 04/08/2011 Home Run Sundae, 05/07/2011 Look for Best Used By Date on 06/03/2011 Container Sidewall 06/08/2012 03/13/2014 04/26/2014 06/21/2014 07/27/2014 Belfonte 56 oz Rounded Square 83057-17033 07/15/2011 Container, Mama's Choice Reverse 10/02/2011 Peanut Butter Pie, 12/02/2011 Look for Best Used By Date on 02/09/2012 Container Lid 04/06/2012 06/02/2012 This ice cream is sold between April 2010 and October 2012 in retail and convenience stores in Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma and Arkansas. There have been no reported illnesses related to the Company's products to date. Sunland, Inc. notified the Company's peanut butter blend supplier, that the products they had received have the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella. This peanut butter blend has been used to manufacture ice cream by Belfonte Ice Cream and Dairy Foods Company. Belfonte Ice Cream and Dairy Foods Company has switched to a different peanut butter blend supplier on October 09, 2012, and any lots not listed above are not under recall. Belfonte Ice Cream and Dairy Foods Company uses dedicated production lines and has a long history of making safe and delicious products. The Company says it will work closely with the FDA in their on-going investigation of the potentially contaminated peanuts and peanut products. Belfonte Ice Cream and Dairy Foods Company is notifying direct customers by phone and/or in writing of the recalled products that contains Sunland, Inc.'s peanut butters. Consumers with recalled products may either discard them or return them to the store of purchase for a refund. Consumers with questions may contact Belfonte Ice Cream and Dairy Foods at 816-231-2000, Monday through Friday 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Consumers may also visit the FDA Web site with the following link for an updated list of recalled products at http://is.gd/Zv5HT7 BROCADE COMMS: Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Approval --------------------------------------------------------- Brocade disclosed that on Sept. 28, 2012, the California Superior Court, County of Santa Clara, issued an order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement between Brocade and the named plaintiff in the matter captioned Stephen Knee vs. Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. (Case No.: 1-12-CV-220249). A hearing to determine whether the Court should issue an order of final approval of the settlement has been scheduled for Dec. 14, 2012, at 9:00 a.m. at the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, Civil Division, located at 191 N. First Street, San Jose, California. Pursuant to the Court's order, any objections to the settlement must be filed in writing with the Court by no later than ten (10) calendar days prior to that final settlement hearing scheduled for December 14, 2012. The details of the proposed settlement, the Sept. 28, 2012 hearing, and the requirements for objections can be found in the Notice of Settlement. In addition, the Stipulation of Settlement can be found on our Investor Relations page at http://www.brcd.com under "Latest Information." The settlement relates to a proposal in Brocade's proxy statement for its 2012 Annual Meeting to increase the number of shares available for grant under Brocade's 2009 Stock Plan. Brocade's proxy statement for the 2012 Annual Meeting was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2012 and supplemental disclosures regarding the proposal were filed on April 12, 2012. Brocade's annual meeting of stockholders was held on April 12, 2012 and was adjourned until April 20, 2012 with respect to the vote on Brocade's proposal to increase the number of shares available for grant under the 2009 Stock Plan. At the reconvened session of the Annual Meeting, Brocade's stockholders approved the proposal. CHINA AGRITECH: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on Oct. 8 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the securities of China Agritech, Inc. between November 12, 2009 and March 11, 2011, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against certain of the Company's officers. The case is entitled Smyth v. Chang, Case No. 12-cv-1262 (D. Del.). If you purchased shares of China Agritech during the Class Period, and wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Peter Allocco of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300, Garden City, NY at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail to info@rigrodskylong.com or at: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/news/china-agritech-inc-cagc The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business operations, financial condition and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company overstated its revenues and omitted to disclose significant related-party transactions. On November 12, 2009, the Company filed a Form 10-Q with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") reporting its third quarter results. The 10-Q was false because it materially misstated the Company's revenue and net income for the quarter. The Company's Form 10-K, filed with the SEC on April 1, 2010, contained similar misstatements about the Company's revenue and net income, in addition to concealing related-party transactions involving China Agritech's Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"), Yu Chang ("Chang"). The 10-K indicated that the Company purchased 15% and 12% of its raw materials from Shenzhen Hongchou Technology Company Ltd. ("Shenzehn Hongchou") in fiscal 2009 and 2008, respectively. However, it failed to disclose that during that time, Defendant Chang owned 90% of Shenzhen Hongchou. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, State of Financial Accounting Standards and SEC regulations all require the Company to disclose all material related-party transactions, which it failed to do. However, the truth started to reveal itself regarding the accuracy of China Agritech's financial statements. On February 3, 2011, the research firm LM Research published a report asserting that China Agritech was engaged in fraud. The report concluded that the Company's financial statements were fraudulent, its purported revenue was overstated and that its plants were idle. As a result of the LM Research report, shares in China Agritech declined from a close of $10.78 on February 2, 2011 to $9.85 on February 3, 2011, on unusually high volume of over 2.6 million shares. Then, on February 15, 2011, Bronte Capital issued a scathing report presenting additional facts indicating that China Agritech was engaged in fraud and could not possibly have produced the revenue it claimed in its financial statements. As a result of the Bronte Capital report, shares in China Agritech declined from a close of $9.21 on February 15, 2011 to $7.44 on February 16, 2011, again on unusually high volume of over 2.8 million shares. On March 13, 2011, China Agritech announced the formation of a Special Committee of its Board of Directors to investigate the allegations of fraud that the Company maintained had been made by third parties. The next day, China Agritech announced in a Form 8-K filed with the SEC that Ernst & Young Hua Ming ("E&Y") had been dismissed as the Company's independent auditor. In explaining its reasons for the dismissal, the Company revealed that it had, in essence, concealed that E&Y had identified serious problems with its financial statements as early as December 15, 2010 and had informed the Company's board that an internal investigation was necessary. Yet, the Company failed to correct the problems with the financial statements and failed to provide verification for certain transactions -- prompting "E&Y [to] orally advise[] the Audit Committee that it may not be able to rely on management's representations based on the issues identified." Additionally, on March 14, 2011, the NASDAQ halted trading in China Agritech stock with its share price at $6.88 per share and initiated delisting proceedings. On May 20, 2011, after being delisted by the NASDAQ, China Agritech shares opened for trading on the pink sheets. That day, shares in China Agritech closed at $3.80 per share, a decline of $3.08 per share, or almost 45%. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December 7, 2012. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the proposed class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York, regularly litigates securities class, derivative and direct actions, shareholder rights litigation and corporate governance litigation, including claims for breach of fiduciary duty and proxy violations in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in state and federal courts throughout the United States. CLEMMY'S ICE: Recalls Peanut Butter Chocolate Chip Ice Cream ------------------------------------------------------------ Clemmy's Ice Cream of Rancho Mirage, California, is initiating a voluntary recall of Peanut Butter Chocolate Chip 16 ounce containers of ice cream that contains peanut butter associated with the Sunland, Inc., recall. The peanut butter used in this product has the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella. Salmonella is an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis. Clemmy's Ice Cream recalls this product which began with distribution in March 2011 nationwide and is available thru grocery stores. A list of the recalled production lots is identified in the table below. The Clemmy's brand product is packaged in a standard pint container with prominent label identification. The five-digit production code date is printed onto the bottom of the container. No other Clemmy's flavors are affected by this recall. Recalled Products and Production Code Dates Pack Brand Description Size UPC Code Date Range ----- ----------- --- -------- ---------- Clemmy's Peanut Butter Pint 8 94509 00231 9 11038 - 12215 Chocolate Chip The first production date of 11038 corresponds to 02/07/2011 and the most recent production date of 12215 corresponds to 08/02/2012. The product carries a 2-year best by print requirement, in the MM/YY format, so expiration date range to list would be: BB 02/13 through BB 08/14 A picture of the recalled products is available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm323147.htm There have been no reported illnesses attributed to this recall. Clemmy's is issuing this voluntary recall linked to the supplier's Peanut Butter recall to minimize the risk to the public health. Anyone who has the recalled product in their possession should not consume it and should destroy or discard the product. Consumers with questions may contact the Company at 877.253.6698 Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Pacific Time). This recall is being made with the knowledge of the Food and Drug Administration. The Company thanks its consumers for their understanding and cooperation in this regard. Please feel free to contact the Company should additional information or assistance is required. DIGITAL DOMAIN: Employees' Class Suit Hearing Postponed to Oct 23 ----------------------------------------------------------------- TCPalm reports that a hearing in the Digital Domain Media Group bankruptcy case scheduled for Oct. 3 in a federal court in Wilmington, Del., has been postponed until Oct. 23 under an Oct. 5 order from U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Brendan Linehan Shannon. The hearing is scheduled to address numerous matters involving Digital Domain, which laid off 346 employees and shuttered its Tradition Studios on Sept. 7 before filing for bankruptcy Sept. 11. Local issues before Judge Shannon include: A class-action lawsuit filed by some of the laid-off employees seeking 60 days' pay and other benefits employees say they're owed under the federal Worker Adjustment and Retaining Notification Act because they weren't given advance notice the studio would be shut down. A motion by St. Lucie County Tax Collector Bob Davis to make sure the county's tax lien against Digital Domain is a "permitted lien." The county claims Digital Domain owes $773,564.67 in personal property and real property taxes for 2012. Port St. Lucie's claim against Digital Domain for $441,067 for construction cost overruns and insurance on the 150,000-square- foot animation studio the city built for the company through a $39.9 million construction bond. The company also received $7.8 million in cash out of a promised $10 million economic development grant from Port St. Lucie and $20 million from the state's Quick Action Closing Fund in exchange for a promise to create 500 jobs by 2014. In all, the company's government-backed incentives totaled $135 million. John Textor, the Jupiter Island resident who brought Digital Domain to Florida, resigned as the company CEO on Sept. 6, the day before the Port St. Lucie facility closed. GRACO CHILDREN'S: Recalls 89,400 Classic Wood Highchairs -------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in cooperation with Graco Children's Products Inc., of Atlanta, Georgia, announced a voluntary recall of about 86,000 Graco Classic Wood Highchairs in the United States of America and 3,400 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 high chair's seat can loosen or detach from the base, posing a fall hazard to the child. Graco has received 58 reports of the high chairs' seats loosening or detaching from the base. There have been nine reports of children falling as the seat detached from the base, resulting in reports of bumps, bruises and scratches. Graco has received one report of a concussion in Canada. This recall involves all Graco brand Classic Wood Highchairs sold in three wood finishes. The high chair has a top seat, bottom leg assembly and removable tray. The high chair is sold with a beige fabric seat cover. Model number 3C00BPN, 3C00BPN TC, 3C00CHY, 3C00CHY TC, 3C00CPO or 3C00CPO TC is printed on a label on the underside of the seat assembly. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13006.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Babies R Us, Burlington Coat Factory and other retail stores nationwide and at Target.com and Walmart.com and other online retailers between September 2007 and December 2010 for about $130. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled high chairs and contact Graco for a free repair kit. For additional information, contact Graco at (800) 345-4109 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday and, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.gracobaby.com/ GROTON, CT: Property Owners File Class Action vs. Town ------------------------------------------------------ Deborah Straszheim, writing for GrotonPatch, reports that ten homeowners with property in Groton Long Point have filed a class action lawsuit against the Town of Groton and town assessor, saying the town unfairly drove their property assessments over the market value, violating state law and potentially causing them to overpay taxes. The lawsuit, filed Sept. 11 in New London Superior Court, contends the assessments during the most recent revaluation "were not the true and actual values as of the assessment date, but rather were arbitrary, grossly excessive, disproportionate, and unlawful in that they failed to properly reflect the true market value of said properties." It contends the town used an adjustment factor in Groton Long Point that it did not use elsewhere, that this drove values up 35 percent in the subdivision and that it added to the grand list in Groton. The lawsuit seeks a court injunction declaring the 35 percent increase void, reducing the assessments to their proper value and reimbursing the homeowners for overpaid taxes. The Town Council was expected to receive a briefing on the lawsuit in executive session during its meeting at 7:00 p.m. on Oct. 9 in the Town Hall Annex. The suit said land values fell in every part of Groton except in Groton Long Point, where they went up 5.1 percent. The suit was filed by the following homeowners: John P. and Mary B. Tuohy, of 60 East Shore Drive in Groton; Robert and Yola Feery, of 71 Kingswood Drive in South Glastonbury; David W. Nickolenko, Sr. and Charlene J. Nickolenko, of 14 Burrows St., in Groton; James J. and Linda A. Falcone, of East Longmeadow, Mass.; Louise H. Fisher of Norwich; and Betsey F. Amador of Rancho Palos, Verdes, Calif. Three own property on East Shore Drive. Others own property on Beach Road or Burrows Street. The homeowners are suing on behalf of all who own residential property in the subdivision; it could apply to 620 properties with residential buildings. Groton hired the firm Tyler Technologies, Inc. last year to handle the revaluation for the assessment year starting Oct. 1, 2011. The lawsuit said the assessor, Mary Gardner, based on a recommendation from Tyler, excluded certain sales in Groton Long Point when determining property values -- including estate sales, foreclosures, 'short sales' -- but did not exclude them when looking at other parts of town. The suit also contends that the assessor applied a "1.35 adjustment factor" in Groton Long Point, which it did not apply elsewhere, increasing their value. Residential building values in the subdivision went up 14.6 percent after the revaluation. By comparison, the suit listed these changes in building values elsewhere: a 3.8 percent increase in Old Mystic-River Road, a 1.6 percent increase in Center Groton, a .3 percent increase in Mystic Village and Old Mystic, and a .8 percent increase in Mumford Cove. Values in Noank Village fell 1.1 percent, the suit said. The suit said the "adjustment factor" in Groton Long Point added $32 million to the grand list, or $700,000 in additional property taxes for the town. HARRY AND DAVID: Recalls Peanut Butters and Peanut Spreads ---------------------------------------------------------- In response to an expansion of Sunland, Inc.'s voluntary recall of products manufactured in its Peanut Butter Plant after March 1, 2010, due to possible Salmonella contamination, Harry and David, LLC of Medford, Oregon, is taking the precautionary measure of expanding its September 27, 2012 voluntary recall of peanut butters, peanut spreads and related products. Specifically, the affected products in Harry and David's expanded recall are its 12 oz. jars of Harry & David(R) Crunchy Almond and Peanut Butter, Harry & David(R) Creamy Banana Peanut Spread, Harry & David(R) Creamy Caramel Peanut Spread and Harry & David(R) Creamy Raspberry Peanut Spread with "Best By" dates of 01MARCH11 through 24SEPT13, as well as the following multi-component food items which included the above-named peanut butter products as components: * Harry & David(R) Apple Snack Box * Wolferman's(R) Bee Sweet Gift Basket * Wolferman's(R) Hearty Snack Gift Basket * Wolferman's(R) All-Day Assortment Gift Basket * Wolferman's(R) Father's Day Basket The "Best By" date is located on the upper part of the peanut butter product jar near the lid. The recalled peanut butter products were produced by Sunland, Inc. Salmonella is an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis, and arthritis. Consumers who believe they have contracted a Salmonella infection should contact a healthcare provider. Products subject to this recall were sold nationwide through Harry & David and Wolferman's catalogs and Web sites, as well as through Harry & David stores, between May 26, 2010, and September 25, 2012. Individual jars of the recalled peanut butter products sold through Harry & David stores have UPC numbers of 780994738713 (Creamy Banana Peanut Spread), 780994738720 (Creamy Raspberry Peanut Spread), 780994757868 (Creamy Caramel Peanut Spread), or 780994738737 (Crunchy Almond and Peanut Butter) printed on the Bar Code. The recalled multi-component food items have lot code numbers of 0092M through 2372M or 0092H through 2372H. Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm323011.htm This recall is being conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). To date, there have been no confirmed illnesses or injuries reported in connection with the Harry & David brand recalled products, and no other Harry & David products are being recalled at this time. Consumers with recalled product are urged not to eat the product, and to dispose of it or return it to any Harry & David retail store for a full refund. Consumers with questions about the recalled products may phone the Harry & David Customer Service division at 800-233-1101, 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time, 7 days a week. HAWAII: Seeks Members of AMHD Mental Health Services Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Denise Laitinen, writing for Big Island Now, reports that the Hawaii State Department of Health is actively seeking individuals who were denied eligibility for state mental health services between July 1, 2009, and December 16, 2010, because of state policy and procedural changes that became effective on July 1, 2009. These individuals are now eligible for a reassessment of eligibility for services as part of the recently approved settlement. Members of the plaintiff class are urged to contact the DOH Adult Mental Health Division (AMHD) from the neighbor islands toll-free at 1-800-753-6879. The AMHD is mailing approximately 280 notification letters statewide this week to identified members of the plaintiff class in an effort to reach individuals who are eligible to receive a reassessment for state mental health services based on the 2004 AMHD eligibility criteria. These individuals may now qualify for mental health services that were denied earlier. Individuals currently receiving psychiatric care or other services from another source may still qualify to receive mental health services the AMHD can offer. The agreement settles all claims for a class action lawsuit filed June 22, 2010, against the AMHD by the Hawaii Disability Rights Center and Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing. The recently approved settlement requires AMHD to allow all members of the plaintiff class to be reassessed under the eligibility criteria that were in effect on June 30, 2009. The complaint, settlement and release agreement, motion for preliminary approval of settlement, and other relevant documents are available at http://www.hawaiidisabilityrights.org/ Members of the class action suite may contact class counsel Louis Erteschik, Esq., Hawaii Disability Rights Center, (808) 949-2922 or contact Paul Alston or J. Blaine Rodgers, at the law firm of Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing, (808) 524-1800. LIVE NATION: Faces Class Action Over Anticompetitive Conduct ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that through anticompetitive conduct such as mergers and acquisitions, Live Nation has a monopoly and unfair competitive advantage that it exploits to charge supracompetitive prices and "unfair fees," a class claims. The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California - Santa Ana Division, is Brendon Holub v. Live Nation Entertainment. JPMORGAN CHASE: $150-MM Deal in Securities Lending Suit Approved ---------------------------------------------------------------- JPMorgan Chase & Co. received in June 2012 final approval of its $150 million settlement of a consolidated class action lawsuit over its securities lending business, according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. has been named as a defendant in four putative class actions asserting claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") and other claims pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York brought by participants in the Firm's securities lending business. A fifth lawsuit was filed in New York state court by an individual participant in the program. Three of the purported class actions, which have been consolidated, relate to investments of approximately $500 million in medium-term notes of Sigma Finance Inc. ("Sigma"). In August 2010, the Court certified a plaintiff class consisting of all securities lending participants that held Sigma medium-term notes on September 30, 2008, including those that held the notes by virtue of participation in the investment of cash collateral through a collective fund, as well as those that held the notes by virtue of the investment of cash collateral through individual accounts. The Court granted JPMorgan Chase's motion for partial summary judgment as to plaintiffs' duty of loyalty claim, finding that the Firm did not have a conflict of interest when it provided repurchase financing to Sigma while also holding Sigma medium-term notes in securities lending accounts. The parties reached an agreement to settle this action for $150 million. The Court granted final approval to the settlement in June 2012. The fourth putative class action concerns investments of approximately $500 million in Lehman Brothers medium-term notes. The Court granted the Firm's motion to dismiss all claims in April 2012. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which JPMorgan Chase moved to dismiss. The New York state court action, which is not a class action, concerns the plaintiff's alleged loss of money in both Sigma and Lehman Brothers medium-term notes. The Firm has answered the complaint. Discovery is proceeding. New York-based JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a financial holding company. The Company is a global financial services firm and a banking institution in the United States, with global operations. The Company is engaged in investment banking, financial services for consumers and small businesses, commercial banking, financial transaction processing, asset management and private equity. JPMORGAN CHASE: Appeal From ARS-Related Suit Dismissal Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal from the dismissal of two antitrust class action lawsuits related to auction-rate securities remains pending, according to JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. JPMorgan Chase & Co. (the "Firm") faces a number of civil actions before courts and arbitration panels relating to the Firm's sale and underwriting of auction-rate securities ("ARS"). The actions generally allege that the Firm and other firms manipulated the market for ARS by placing bids at auctions that affected these securities' clearing rates or otherwise supported the auctions without properly disclosing these activities. The Firm's motion to dismiss a putative class action that had been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of ARS was granted in March 2012. Additionally, the Firm was named in two putative antitrust class actions. The actions allege that the Firm, along with numerous other financial institution defendants, colluded to maintain and stabilize the ARS market and then to withdraw their support for the ARS market. In January 2010, the District Court dismissed both actions. An appeal is pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. New York-based JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a financial holding company. The Company is a global financial services firm and a banking institution in the United States, with global operations. The Company is engaged in investment banking, financial services for consumers and small businesses, commercial banking, financial transaction processing, asset management and private equity. JPMORGAN CHASE: Appeal in Madoff-Related Class Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase & Co. relating to Bernard L. Madoff's downfall remains pending, according to JPMorgan's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. JPMorgan Chase & Co. (the "Firm"), JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, and J.P. Morgan Securities plc have been named as defendants in a lawsuit brought by the trustee (the "Trustee") for the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC ("Madoff"). Separately, J.P. Morgan Trust Company (Cayman) Limited, JPMorgan (Suisse) SA, J.P. Morgan Securities plc, Bear Stearns Alternative Assets International Ltd., J.P. Morgan Clearing Corp., J.P. Morgan Bank Luxembourg SA, and J.P. Morgan Markets Limited (formerly Bear Stearns International Limited) have been named as defendants in lawsuits presently pending in Bankruptcy Court in New York arising out of the liquidation proceedings of Fairfield Sentry Limited and Fairfield Sigma Limited (together, "Fairfield"), so-called Madoff feeder funds. These actions are based on theories of mistake and restitution, among other theories, and seek to recover payments made to defendants by the funds totaling approximately $155 million. Pursuant to an agreement with the Trustee, the liquidators of Fairfield have voluntarily dismissed their action against J.P. Morgan Securities plc without prejudice to refiling. The other actions remain outstanding. In addition, a purported class action was brought by investors in certain feeder funds against JPMorgan Chase in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, as was a motion by separate potential class plaintiffs to add claims against JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC and J.P. Morgan Securities plc to an already-pending purported class action in the same court. The allegations in these complaints largely track those raised by the Trustee. The Court dismissed these complaints and plaintiffs have appealed. New York-based JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a financial holding company. The Company is a global financial services firm and a banking institution in the United States, with global operations. The Company is engaged in investment banking, financial services for consumers and small businesses, commercial banking, financial transaction processing, asset management and private equity. JPMORGAN CHASE: Appeal in N.Y. Securities Suit vs. Unit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal from the dismissal of a securities class action lawsuit against a subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase & Co. remains pending, according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. The Bear Stearns Companies LLC, formerly known as The Bear Stearns Companies Inc., former members of Bear Stearns' Board of Directors and certain of Bear Stearns' former executive officers have also been named as defendants in a shareholder derivative and class action lawsuit, which is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty, violations of federal securities laws, waste of corporate assets and gross mismanagement, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, and indemnification and contribution in connection with the losses sustained by Bear Stearns as a result of its purchases of subprime loans and certain repurchases of its own common stock. Certain individual defendants are also alleged to have sold their holdings of Bear Stearns common stock while in possession of material nonpublic information. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages in an unspecified amount. The District Court dismissed the action, and plaintiffs have appealed. New York-based JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a financial holding company. The Company is a global financial services firm and a banking institution in the United States, with global operations. The Company is engaged in investment banking, financial services for consumers and small businesses, commercial banking, financial transaction processing, asset management and private equity. JPMORGAN CHASE: Awaits OK of $10-Mil. Settlement of ERISA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- JPMorgan Chase & Co. is awaiting court approval of a $10 million settlement of a class action lawsuit involving its subsidiary, according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. An agreement has been reached to resolve a class action brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") against The Bear Stearns Companies LLC, formerly known as The Bear Stearns Companies Inc., and certain of its former officers and/or directors on behalf of participants in the Bear Stearns Employee Stock Ownership Plan for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the management of that Plan. Under the settlement, which remains subject to final court approval, the class will receive $10 million. The Court has preliminarily approved the settlement, and scheduled a hearing to consider final approval in September 2012. New York-based JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a financial holding company. The Company is a global financial services firm and a banking institution in the United States, with global operations. The Company is engaged in investment banking, financial services for consumers and small businesses, commercial banking, financial transaction processing, asset management and private equity. JPMORGAN CHASE: Awaits OK of Municipal Derivatives Suits' Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- JPMorgan Chase & Co. is awaiting court approval of its $45 million settlement of class action lawsuits over municipal derivatives, according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. Purported class action lawsuits and individual actions have been filed against JPMorgan Chase & Co. (the "Firm") and its subsidiary, The Bear Stearns Companies LLC, formerly known as The Bear Stearns Companies Inc., as well as numerous other providers and brokers, alleging antitrust violations in the market for financial instruments related to municipal bond offerings referred to collectively as "municipal derivatives." In July 2011, the Firm settled with federal and state governmental agencies to resolve their investigations into similar alleged conduct. The municipal derivatives actions have been consolidated and/or coordinated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In April 2012, JPMorgan and Bear Stearns reached an agreement to settle the municipal derivatives actions for $45 million. The settlement is subject to court approval. New York-based JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a financial holding company. The Company is a global financial services firm and a banking institution in the United States, with global operations. The Company is engaged in investment banking, financial services for consumers and small businesses, commercial banking, financial transaction processing, asset management and private equity. JPMORGAN CHASE: Awaits Final OK of $275MM Bear Stearns Suit Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- JPMorgan Chase & Co. is awaiting court approval of its $275 million settlement of a consolidated class action lawsuit brought by Bear Stearns shareholders, according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. Various shareholders of The Bear Stearns Companies LLC, formerly known as The Bear Stearns Companies Inc., have commenced purported class actions against Bear Stearns and certain of its former officers and/or directors on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of Bear Stearns between December 14, 2006, and March 14, 2008 (the "Class Period"). During the Class Period, Bear Stearns had between 115 million and 120 million common shares outstanding, and the price per share of those securities declined from a high of $172.61 to a low of $30 at the end of the period. The actions, originally commenced in several federal courts and thereafter consolidated before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, allege that the defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding Bear Stearns' business and financial results and that, as a result of those false statements, Bear Stearns' common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. An agreement has been reached to settle the consolidated class actions for $275 million. The settlement, which remains subject to the final court approval, has been preliminarily approved by the Court and a hearing to consider final approval was scheduled for September 2012. In addition, several individual shareholders of Bear Stearns have also commenced or threatened to commence their own arbitration proceedings and lawsuits asserting claims similar to those in the consolidated class actions. Certain of these matters have been dismissed or settled. New York-based JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a financial holding company. The Company is a global financial services firm and a banking institution in the United States, with global operations. The Company is engaged in investment banking, financial services for consumers and small businesses, commercial banking, financial transaction processing, asset management and private equity. JPMORGAN CHASE: Bid to Transfer MF Global-Related Suits Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- A motion to transfer class action lawsuits, filed against J.P. Morgan Securities LLC on behalf of purchasers of MF Global Holdings Ltd.'s publicly traded securities, to a single forum for consolidated or coordinated pretrial proceedings is currently pending, JPMorgan Chase & Co. disclosed in its August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. JPMorgan Chase & Co. (the "Firm") has been named as one of several defendants in a number of putative class action lawsuits brought by customers of MF Global in federal District Courts in New York, Illinois and Montana. The lawsuits have now all been consolidated before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The actions allege, among other things, that the Firm aided and abetted MF Global's alleged misuse of customer money and breaches of fiduciary duty and was unjustly enriched by the transfer of certain customer segregated funds by MF Global. J.P. Morgan Securities LLC has been named as one of several defendants in a putative class action filed in federal District Court in New York on behalf of purchasers of MF Global's publicly traded securities, including the securities issued pursuant to MF Global's February 2011 and August 2011 convertible note offerings. The lawsuits have now been consolidated before the federal District Court in New York. The complaint, which asserts violations of the Securities Act of 1933 against the underwriter defendants, alleges that the offering documents contained materially false and misleading statements and omissions regarding MF Global's financial position, including its exposure to European sovereign debt. A motion to transfer all of these putative class actions to a single forum for consolidated or coordinated pretrial proceedings is currently pending before the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. New York-based JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a financial holding company. The Company is a global financial services firm and a banking institution in the United States, with global operations. The Company is engaged in investment banking, financial services for consumers and small businesses, commercial banking, financial transaction processing, asset management and private equity. LOCKHEED MARTIN: Robbins Geller Investigator Credible, Judge Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nate Raymond, writing for Thomson Reuters, reports that by the end of a seven-hour hearing on Oct. 5, Senior U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff in Manhattan had much more insight into how four confidential witnesses ended up in an amended securities class action complaint against Lockheed Martin, despite the witnesses' subsequent sworn affidavits disclaiming making many of the statements attributed to them in the complaint. But what the judge didn't have was an answer to a question that affects a broad swath of securities class actions: Even when judges are confident that plaintiffs' investigators spoke with the confidential witnesses cited in complaints, how much faith should courts place in that unconfirmed evidence? Judge Rakoff, giving his non-final impressions at the end of the hearing, said that he found the Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd investigator in this case to be credible when he testified about contacting and interviewing former Lockheed employees. But the investigator conceded that he does not always try to determine whether the witnesses who provide him with information are passing along their direct knowledge. That led Judge Rakoff to ask whether he should rely on allegations that Robbins Geller hasn't verified. What if confidential informants are repeating hearsay gossip, Judge Rakoff asked. Or what if the former employee turned informant was a conspiracy theorist? "I have a real question in my mind what weight that should be given for the sufficiency of the complaint," the judge said. Those questions were left unresolved at the end of the all-day hearing, which was prompted by Lockheed's assertions in a summary judgment motion that the plaintiffs had misrepresented (to put it kindly) the testimony of four former Lockheed employees who denied the alleged facts attributed to them in the amended complaint. Judge Rakoff ordered the recanting witnesses to appear before him at a hearing that offered rare insight into the mechanics of the modern securities class action. Allegations attributed to anonymous former employees of publicly traded companies have become a routine fixture of such cases, thanks to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act's bar on discovery until after shareholders have survived the defense's motion to dismiss. But, as we've reported, in the last few years confidential witnesses have become increasingly likely to deny making the statements attributed to them once the veil of confidentiality is lifted. Defendants assert that's because plaintiffs' lawyers are misrepresenting what confidential informants tell them; plaintiffs' lawyers counter that defendants threaten and intimidate former employees who are worried about losing severance deals. Those were the cross-accusations in the Lockheed case, in which four former Lockheed employees quoted anonymously in Robbins Geller's complaint subsequently recanted once their identities were revealed to the company and its lawyers at DLA Piper. Judge Rakoff ordered the Oct. 1 hearing to find out whether Robbins Geller had a good faith basis for including those witnesses in its October 2011 complaint. At the end of the day, the judge did not rule on Lockheed's summary judgment motion. But he did offer what he called "very tentative initial impressions easily subject to change." Among the judge's impressions: Three of the confidential witnesses weren't credible when they denied speaking to Robbins Geller's investigator. For example, Pamela Hawn, a retired 30-plus-year business area manager at Lockheed, repeatedly denied making various statements attributed to her in the lawsuit. She said her call with the interviewer, Kenneth Keatly of L.R. Hodges & Associates, lasted four minutes at the most. But phone records presented by Robbins Geller showed that she was on the phone with Mr. Keatly for over an hour. Another confidential witness, Kenneth Asbury, testified that he agreed to discuss non-confidential information about Lockheed with Mr. Keatly but did not make the statements about Lockheed's internal financial projections that were attributed to him in the complaint. Mr. Asbury, a high-ranking former Lockheed executive who is now chief executive officer of ASRC Federal Holding Co, had also testified during a deposition that one of his calls with the Robbins Geller investigator lasted just five minutes, but phone records tripped him up as well. They showed he was on the phone with Mr. Keatly for 50 minutes. Judge Rakoff said he had "serious questions" about the credibility of Asbury and Hawn. Judge Rakoff similarly questioned the credibility of Victor Morrison, a one-time senior program manager at Lockheed. A DLA Piper memo in May presented during the hearing reported that Morrison said he would answer "I don't know" or say nothing if he were forced to testify in the class action. In another consequence of the confidential witness furor, the three former Lockheed employees all had their own counsel at the hearing. Neither Morrison's lawyer, Washington solo David Laufman, nor Asbury's counsel, Michael Levy of Bingham McCutchen, responded to requests for comment. Hawn counsel Francis Karam, a New York solo, declined comment. Robbins Geller's investigator fared much better with Judge Rakoff, who found Mr. Kealty's testimony credible. (It was supported by phone logs and contemporaneous interview notes.) But the judge was clearly troubled by Mr. Kealty's testimony that he doesn't always know the extent of a witness's first-hand knowledge. That prompted Judge Rakoff to ask to what extent he should rely on information from confidential witnesses in securities class action complaints. The judge acknowledged the necessity of plaintiffs' lawyers seeking information from former employees of the defendants. "In 30 to 40 years, I've seen a shift in the plaintiffs having to allege very little and the plaintiffs having to allege a lot" to survive a motion to dismiss, he said. He noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has heightened the pleading standards for a complaint significantly. Judge Rakoff also said he did not think Robbins Geller has an obligation to ascertain the truth of the witnesses' statements, but he had to determine if any of the allegations amount to unreliable "double, triple hearsay, or worse." Follow up briefing on the Oct. 1 hearing is due Oct. 15. Keatly counsel Charles Hoge of Kirby Noonan Lance & Hoge did not respond to a request for comment. Plaintiffs' counsel Samuel Rudman of Robbins Geller declined comment. A spokeswoman for Lockheed Martin declined comment, and its lawyer John Hillebrecht of DLA did not respond to requests for comment. MERCK & CO: Jan. 31 Coppertone Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set -------------------------------------------------------------- The Garden City Group, Inc. in its capacity as the Court-appointed Notice and Settlement Administrator on Oct. 9 issued a statement regarding the Coppertone Sunscreen Products Proposed Class Action Settlement. Legal Notice A settlement has been proposed in a class action lawsuit regarding Eligible Coppertone Sunscreen Products sold by Merck as described below. The Court in Steven Brody, et al. vs. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-4774-PGS-DEA will hold a Final Approval Hearing. ARE YOU AFFECTED? You are a Settlement Class Member if you are a natural person and you purchased any Eligible Coppertone Sunscreen Products up to and including October 5, 2012 with limited exclusions, such as for resale. If you are a Settlement Class Member, you may be eligible to receive a payment if you purchased any Eligible Coppertone Sunscreen Product between July 31, 2006 up to October 5, 2012. WHAT IS THIS CASE ABOUT? The lawsuit alleges that Merck violated certain state laws regarding the labeling and advertising of certain sunscreen products. Merck denies all wrongdoing. The Court did not decide which side was right. Instead, the Parties have decided to settle. The Parties believe the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and it will provide substantial benefit to the Settlement Class. WHAT DOES THIS SETTLEMENT PROVIDE? The Settlement provides a fund of between $3 to $10 million to pay Claims to eligible Settlement Class Members relating to the purchase of Eligible Coppertone Sunscreen Products; claims and administration costs; Named Plaintiffs' incentive awards; and at least $1 million divided among three legal services organizations. Merck shall separately pay up to $2 million in attorneys' fees and costs, as awarded by the Court, as well as notice costs. Eligible Coppertone Sunscreen Products include any and all sunscreen products sold in the United States, its territories and possessions, under the brand name "Coppertone," which were labeled and/or advertised to provide protection against the sun's UVA and/or UVB rays. Merck has also agreed to make certain label and advertising changes. HOW DO YOU ASK FOR A PAYMENT? To be eligible for a payment, Settlement Class Members must send in a completed Claim Form electronically submitted or postmarked by March 4, 2013 declaring that they purchased Eligible Coppertone Sunscreen Products between July 31, 2006 up to and including October 5, 2012 and satisfy other requirements, as applicable. Payment amounts to eligible Settlement Class Members will vary depending upon, among other factors, the number of product(s) purchased by each Claimant, the number of products claimed by all Settlement Class Members, other payments as discussed above, and other adjustments and deductions. The amount could be the same or less than $1.50 for each individual Eligible Coppertone Sunscreen Product purchased. WHAT ARE YOUR OPTIONS? If you are a Settlement Class Member, you may (1) do nothing; (2) exclude yourself from the Settlement Class; (3) send in a Claim Form; and/or (4) object to the Settlement. If you don't want to be bound by the Settlement, you must exclude yourself by letter postmarked by January 31, 2013. If you exclude yourself, you can't get a payment from this Settlement, but you can sue Merck for these claims. If you stay in the Settlement Class, you may submit a Claim Form and/or object to the Settlement. Claim Forms must be submitted to the Notice and Settlement Administrator by March 4, 2013. Objections must be filed with the Court by January 31, 2013. The Court will hold a hearing on February 20, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time in Courtroom 4E, Clarkson S. Fisher Building & U.S. Courthouse, 402 East State Street, Trenton, NJ 08608, to consider final approval of the Settlement, payment of attorneys' fees and expenses of up to $2 million and payments of up to $2,500 for each of the three Named Plaintiffs, and related issues. You may appear at the hearing, but you don't have to. Claims for injunctive and other non-monetary relief were settled in a corresponding proceeding in the State of California making similar allegations. The claims for monetary relief made in the California action may be affected by this proposed class action Settlement. HOW CAN YOU FILE A CLAIM OR GET MORE INFORMATION? To obtain a detailed notice and Claim Form, file a Claim or review other Settlement documents, visit http://www.sunscreensettlement.com You can also call toll-free 1 (877) 302-3668, or write to the Notice and Settlement Administrator, Sunscreen Settlement, c/o GCG, P.O. Box 35018, Seattle, WA 98124-1018. MIDSOUTH BANCORP: Bank Seeks Dismissal of "Hunter" Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- MidSouth Bancorp, Inc.'s subsidiary seeks dismissal of a class action lawsuit commenced by Elena Hunter in Texas, according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. In June 2012, the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary bank, MidSouth Bank, N.A. (the "Bank"), was joined in a class action lawsuit filed by Elena Hunter, individually and behalf of herself and others similarly situated, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The lawsuit alleges violations of Title III of the American with Disabilities Act and several other acts against the Bank for failure to design, construct, and/or own or operate banking facilities that are accessible to, and independently usable by, blind people and is seeking unspecified monetary damages and other relief from the Bank. On July 27, 2012, the Bank filed a motion to dismiss this matter. MIDSOUTH BANCORP: Unit Faces "Harding" Class Action Suit in La. --------------------------------------------------------------- MidSouth Bancorp, Inc.'s subsidiary is facing a class action lawsuit initiated by Umeki Harding in Louisiana, according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. In early June 2012, the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary bank, MidSouth Bank, N.A. (the "Bank"), was joined in a class action lawsuit filed by Umeki Harding, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. Mr. Harding alleges he was a customer and individually and on behalf of a class seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief from the Bank relating to the collection of overdraft fees on customer accounts. The Bank intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit. MGM RESORTS: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- A motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class action lawsuit in Nevada remains pending, according to MGM Resorts International's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. In November 2009, the U.S. District Court for Nevada consolidated the Robert Lowinger v. MGM MIRAGE, et al. (Case No. 2:09-cv-01558- RCL-LRL, filed August 19, 2009) and Khachatur Hovhannisyan v. MGM MIRAGE, et al. (Case No. 2:09-cv-02011-LRH-RJJ, filed October 19, 2009) putative class actions under the caption "In re MGM MIRAGE Securities Litigation." On March 27, 2012, the court issued an order which granted the defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' consolidated complaint without prejudice, and allowed plaintiffs an opportunity to file an amended complaint. On April 17, 2012, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which substantially repeats but reorganizes their substantive allegations and asserts the same claims as raised in the original complaint. On May 30, 2012, defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint. The motion is pending. Defendants will continue to vigorously defend against plaintiffs' claims and intend to file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. NBT BANCORP: Bank Defends Suit Over Collection of Overdraft Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- NBT Bancorp Inc.'s subsidiary is defending a class action lawsuit arising from its assessment and collection of overdraft fees, according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. NBT Bank, N.A. (the "Bank"), has been named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit arising from its assessment and collection of overdraft fees on its checking account customers. The complaint was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Delaware, on September 12, 2011, and alleges that the Bank engaged in certain unfair practices and failed to make adequate disclosure to customers concerning its overdraft fee assessment practices. The complaint seeks certification of a class of national checking account holders who have incurred overdraft fees and a subclass of such customers who reside in New York. In addition, the complaint seeks actual and punitive damages, disgorgement, interest and costs including attorneys' fees. The Company believes the claims to be without merit and intends to defend the action vigorously. NMI RETIREMENT: To Seek Dismissal of "Johnson" Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Ferdie de la Torre, writing for Saipan Tribune, reports that NMI Retirement Fund's trustee ad litem Joseph C. Razzano on Oct. 2 disclosed that he intended either to file a joinder to the CNMI government's motion to dismiss retiree Betty Johnson's class action or a separate motion to dismiss. Mr. Razzano revealed such plan during a status conference in which he discussed the Fund's status report before U.S. District Court for the NMI designated judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood. Mr. Razzano did not elaborate about his plan on the motion to dismiss. Mr. Razzano's announcement prompted Judge Tydingco-Gatewood to amend the scheduling order in order to give the parties in the case and the court adequate time to prepare. The judge gave the trustee ad litem until Oct. 30, 2012, to file his joinder or motion to dismiss. Judge Tydingco-Gatewood said any opposition to the government's motion to dismiss and to Mr. Razzano's motion shall be filed by Nov. 30, 2012. Replies shall be filed by Dec. 14, 2012, said the judge, adding that after review of the pleadings, she will thereafter schedule the matters for hearing. Attorney Stephen Woodruff, local counsel for Ms. Johnson, in an interview after the hearing, said it's interesting to hear directly from Mr. Razzano about such plan although he (Woodruff) does not know what the position the Fund is going to take. Mr. Woodruff said they, however, have to wait until the end of October to know what Mr. Razzano's position is. On Oct. 5, Judge Tydingco-Gatewood decided that she wants to first address Gov. Benigno R. Fitial's and co-defendants' motion to dismiss Ms. Johnson's class action before hearing other motions. Judge Tydingco-Gatewood vacated her previous order that set a hearing on the preliminary injunction for Oct. 2. At the Oct. 2 status conference, Mr. Razzano underscored the need for the Fund to hire an in-house counsel considering the many problems plus daily issues that come up. Judge Tydingco-Gatewood suggested to have an assistant attorney general who never participated in the lawsuits involving Fund to serve as in-house counsel. Attorney Margery Bronster, counsel for Ms. Johnson, said having an assistant attorney general as in-house counsel for the Fund will have a conflict of interest. Mr. Razzano in an interview said he does not know who will be the in-house counsel until they determine whether Gov. Fitial is going to give the concurrence. Mr. Razzano said if Gov. Fitial will not concur, he will advertise the position in the newspaper and interview attorneys qualified for the position. Meanwhile, Judge Tydingco-Gatewood issued an order on Oct. 1 with respect to payment to Mr. Razzano's services as trustee ad litem. Judge Tydingco-Gatewood said the remuneration for services rendered by the Civille and Tang law firm, where Mr. Razzano is a member, shall be paid by the CNMI government in accordance with the letter of engagement. Mr. Razzano wrote a letter of engagement to Judge Tydingco- Gatewood on Sept. 14, 2012. The letter of engagement explains the fees that the law firm and Mr. Razzano will be charging as trustee ad litem. In the letter, Mr. Razzano disclosed that his hourly rate is $250. He also revealed that in addition to fees, costs, which are expenditures required for various purposes in connection with the handling of a particular matter, will be incurred. Mr. Razzano said costs are entirely separate from professional fees and include such items as filing and recording fees, fees for services of process, travel expenses, hotel accommodations, photocopying costs, long distance telephone and facsimile costs, computer research costs, special messenger costs, and similar items. Mr. Razzano said from time to time, other attorneys and staff from their law firm will be utilized as may be needed to support and assist him in his duties. With respect to attorney Braddock Huesman's role at the Fund, Mr. Razzano said on Oct. 2 that Mr. Huesman is counsel for the Fund in the pending Johnson lawsuit as well as in the Superior Court case. "I'm glad that Huesman agreed to come on board. We need an attorney. We need somebody to go to hearings. He has institutional knowledge of the case," Mr. Razzano said. PFIZER INC: Appeal in Neurontin Off-Label Promotion Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer Inc.'s appeal from a judgment against it in a lawsuit relating to the off-label promotion and sale of Neurontin remains pending, according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 1, 2012. A number of lawsuits, including purported class actions, have been filed against the Company in various federal and state courts alleging claims arising from the promotion and sale of Neurontin. The plaintiffs in the purported class actions seek to represent nationwide and certain statewide classes consisting of persons, including individuals, health insurers, employee benefit plans and other third-party payers, who purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Neurontin that allegedly was used for indications other than those included in the product labeling approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In 2004, many of the lawsuits pending in federal courts, including individual actions as well as purported class actions, were transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In re Neurontin Marketing, Sales Practices and Product Liability Litigation MDL-1629) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. In the Multi-District Litigation, in 2009, the court denied the plaintiffs' renewed motion for certification of a nationwide class of all consumers and third-party payers who allegedly purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Neurontin for off-label uses from 1994 through 2004. In May 2011, the court denied a motion to reconsider its class certification ruling. In 2010, the Multi-District Litigation court partially granted the Company's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the claims of all of the proposed class representatives for third-party payers and four of the six proposed class representatives for individual consumers. In June 2011, three third-party payer proposed class representatives appealed both the dismissal and the denial of class certification to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Also in the Multi-District Litigation, in February 2011, a third- party payer who was not included in the proposed class action appealed a dismissal order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Plaintiffs are seeking certification of statewide classes of Neurontin purchasers in actions pending in California, Illinois and Oklahoma. State courts in New York, Pennsylvania, Missouri and New Mexico have declined to certify statewide classes of Neurontin purchasers. An appeal of the denial of class certification filed in November 2011 by the plaintiff in the Missouri action and a proposed intervenor has been dismissed. In January 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts entered an order trebling a jury verdict against the Company in an action by a third-party payer seeking damages for the alleged off-label promotion of Neurontin in violation of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The verdict was for approximately $47.4 million, which was subject to automatic trebling to $142.1 million under the RICO Act. In November 2010, the court had entered a separate verdict against the Company in the amount of $65.4 million, together with prejudgment interest, under California's Unfair Trade Practices law relating to the same alleged conduct, which amount is included within and is not additional to the $142.1 million trebled amount of the jury verdict. In August 2011, the Company appealed the District Court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. New York-based Pfizer Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company that discovers, develops, manufactures and delivers quality, safe and effective prescription medicines to treat and help prevent disease for both people and animals. The Company also partners with healthcare providers, governments and local communities around the world to expand access to its medicines and to provide better quality health care and health system support. PFIZER INC: Awaits Approval of King Acquisition Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer Inc. is awaiting court approval of its settlement of a consolidated class action lawsuit arising from its acquisition of King Pharmaceuticals, Inc., according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 1, 2012. In October 2010, several purported class action complaints were filed in state court in Tennessee by shareholders of King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (King) challenging Pfizer's acquisition of King. King and the individuals who served as the members of King's Board of Directors at the time of the execution of the merger agreement are named as defendants in all of these actions. Pfizer and Parker Tennessee Corp., a subsidiary of Pfizer, also are named as defendants in most of these actions. In November 2010, all of these actions were consolidated in the Chancery Court for Sullivan County, Tennessee Second Judicial District, at Bristol. The parties to the consolidated action have reached an agreement-in-principle to resolve that action as a result of certain disclosures regarding the transaction made by King in its amended Schedule 14D-9 recommendation statement for the tender offer dated January 21, 2011. The proposed settlement is subject to, among other things, court approval. New York-based Pfizer Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company that discovers, develops, manufactures and delivers quality, safe and effective prescription medicines to treat and help prevent disease for both people and animals. The Company also partners with healthcare providers, governments and local communities around the world to expand access to its medicines and to provide better quality health care and health system support. PFIZER INC: Consolidated Antitrust Suit Over Effexor XR Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- A consolidated antitrust lawsuit relating to Pfizer Inc.'s Effexor XR product remains pending in New Jersey, according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 1, 2012. Beginning in May 2011, actions, including purported class actions, were filed in various federal courts against Wyeth and, in certain of the actions, affiliates of Wyeth and certain other defendants relating to Effexor XR, which is the extended-release formulation of Effexor. The plaintiffs in each of the class actions seek to represent a class consisting of all persons in the U.S. and its territories who directly purchased, indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR from any of the defendants from June 14, 2008, until the time the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct ceased. The plaintiffs in all of the actions allege delay in the launch of generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories, in violation of federal antitrust laws and, in certain of the actions, the antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws of certain states, as the result of Wyeth fraudulently obtaining and improperly listing certain patents for Effexor XR, enforcing certain patents for Effexor XR, and entering into a litigation settlement agreement with a generic manufacturer with respect to Effexor XR. Each of the plaintiffs seeks treble damages (for itself in the individual actions or on behalf of the putative class in the purported class actions) for alleged price overcharges for Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories since June 14, 2008. All of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. New York-based Pfizer Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company that discovers, develops, manufactures and delivers quality, safe and effective prescription medicines to treat and help prevent disease for both people and animals. The Company also partners with healthcare providers, governments and local communities around the world to expand access to its medicines and to provide better quality health care and health system support. PFIZER INC: Consolidated Securities Suit Remains Pending in N.J. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A consolidated securities class action lawsuit remains pending in New Jersey, according to Pfizer Inc.'s August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 1, 2012. In 2003, several purported class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Pharmacia Corporation, Pfizer and certain former officers of Pharmacia. The plaintiffs seek damages, alleging that the defendants violated federal securities laws by misrepresenting the data from a study concerning the gastrointestinal effects of Celebrex. These cases were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the District of New Jersey (Alaska Electrical Pension Fund et al. v. Pharmacia Corporation et al.). In January 2007, the court certified a class consisting of all persons who purchased Pharmacia securities from April 17, 2000, through February 6, 2001, and were damaged as a result of the decline in the price of Pharmacia's securities allegedly attributable to the misrepresentations. In October 2007, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims. In November 2007, the plaintiffs appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In January 2009, the Third Circuit vacated the District Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. The Third Circuit also held that the District Court erred in determining that the class period ended on February 6, 2001, and directed that the class period end on August 5, 2001. In June 2009, the District Court stayed proceedings in the case pending a determination by the U.S. Supreme Court with regard to the defendants' petition for certiorari seeking reversal of the Third Circuit's decision. In May 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the defendants' petition for certiorari, and the case was remanded to the District Court for further proceedings. New York-based Pfizer Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company that discovers, develops, manufactures and delivers quality, safe and effective prescription medicines to treat and help prevent disease for both people and animals. The Company also partners with healthcare providers, governments and local communities around the world to expand access to its medicines and to provide better quality health care and health system support. PFIZER INC: Securities Law and ERISA Violations Suits Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer Inc. continues to defend itself and a subsidiary against class action lawsuits alleging violations of Federal Securities Laws and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 1, 2012. Beginning in late 2004, actions, including purported class actions, were filed in various federal and state courts against Pfizer, Pharmacia Corporation (Pharmacia) and certain current and former officers, directors and employees of Pfizer and Pharmacia. These actions include (i) purported class actions alleging that Pfizer and certain current and former officers of Pfizer violated federal securities laws by misrepresenting the safety of Celebrex and Bextra, and (ii) purported class actions filed by persons who claim to be participants in the Pfizer or Pharmacia Savings Plan alleging that Pfizer and certain current and former officers, directors and employees of Pfizer or, where applicable, Pharmacia and certain former officers, directors and employees of Pharmacia, violated certain provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) by selecting and maintaining Pfizer stock or Pharmacia stock as an investment alternative when it allegedly no longer was a suitable or prudent investment option. In June 2005, the federal securities and ERISA actions were transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi- District Litigation (In re Pfizer Inc. Securities, Derivative and "ERISA" Litigation MDL-1688) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In the federal securities actions in the Multi-District Litigation, the court in March 2012 certified a class consisting of all persons who purchased or acquired Pfizer stock between October 31, 2000, and October 19, 2005. New York-based Pfizer Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company that discovers, develops, manufactures and delivers quality, safe and effective prescription medicines to treat and help prevent disease for both people and animals. The Company also partners with healthcare providers, governments and local communities around the world to expand access to its medicines and to provide better quality health care and health system support. PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend Lipitor-Related MDL in N.J. ----------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer Inc. continues to defend itself against various actions brought by purchasers of Lipitor, which actions are consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in a Multi-District Litigation in New Jersey, according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 1, 2012. Beginning in November 2011, purported class actions relating to Lipitor were filed in various federal and state courts against Pfizer, certain affiliates of Pfizer, and, in most of the actions, Ranbaxy, among others; the state court action subsequently was removed to federal court. The plaintiffs in these various actions seek to represent nationwide, multi-state or statewide classes consisting of persons or entities who directly purchased, indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Lipitor (or, in certain of the actions, generic Lipitor) from any of the defendants from March 2010 until the cessation of the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct (the Class Period). The plaintiffs allege delay in the launch of generic Lipitor, in violation of federal antitrust laws and/or state antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws, resulting from (i) the 2008 agreement pursuant to which Pfizer and Ranbaxy settled certain patent litigation involving Lipitor, and Pfizer granted Ranbaxy a license to sell a generic version of Lipitor in various markets beginning on varying dates, and (ii) in certain of the actions, the procurement and/or enforcement of certain patents for Lipitor. Each of the actions seeks, among other things, treble damages on behalf of the putative class for alleged price overcharges for Lipitor (or, in certain of the actions, generic Lipitor) during the Class Period. In addition, individual actions have been filed against Pfizer, Ranbaxy and certain of their affiliates, among others, that assert claims and seek relief for the plaintiffs that are substantially similar to the claims asserted and the relief sought in the purported class actions. These various actions have been consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in a Multi-District Litigation (In re Lipitor Antitrust Litigation MDL-2332) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. New York-based Pfizer Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company that discovers, develops, manufactures and delivers quality, safe and effective prescription medicines to treat and help prevent disease for both people and animals. The Company also partners with healthcare providers, governments and local communities around the world to expand access to its medicines and to provide better quality health care and health system support. PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend Suit Over Off-Label Promotion ------------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer Inc. continues to defend itself against a class action lawsuit related to off-label promotion of certain pharmaceutical products, according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 1, 2012. In May 2010, a purported class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Pfizer and several of its current and former officers. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making or causing Pfizer to make false statements, and by failing to disclose or causing Pfizer to fail to disclose material information, concerning the alleged off-label promotion of certain pharmaceutical products, alleged payments to physicians to promote the sale of those products and government investigations related thereto. Plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount. In March 2012, the court certified a class consisting of all persons who purchased Pfizer common stock in the U.S. or on U.S. stock exchanges between January 19, 2006, and January 23, 2009, and were damaged as a result of the decline in the price of Pfizer common stock allegedly attributable to the claimed violations. New York-based Pfizer Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company that discovers, develops, manufactures and delivers quality, safe and effective prescription medicines to treat and help prevent disease for both people and animals. The Company also partners with healthcare providers, governments and local communities around the world to expand access to its medicines and to provide better quality health care and health system support. PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend Suit Over Safety of Pristiq ----------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer Inc. continues to defend its subsidiary from a class action lawsuit alleging misrepresentation of the safety of Pristiq, according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 1, 2012. In November 2007, a purported class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Wyeth and certain former officers of Wyeth. An amended complaint was filed in April 2008 naming certain additional former officers and certain employees of Wyeth as defendants. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by misrepresenting the safety of Pristiq during the period before the FDA's issuance in July 2007 of an "approvable letter" for Pristiq for the treatment of vasomotor symptoms. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of all persons who purchased Wyeth common stock from June 26, 2006, to July 24, 2007, and seeks unspecified damages on behalf of the putative class. New York-based Pfizer Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company that discovers, develops, manufactures and delivers quality, safe and effective prescription medicines to treat and help prevent disease for both people and animals. The Company also partners with healthcare providers, governments and local communities around the world to expand access to its medicines and to provide better quality health care and health system support. PIERCE COUNTY: Settles Taxpayers' Class Action for $2 Million ------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Maynard, writing for The News Tribune, reports that a more than $2 million settlement of a class-action lawsuit against taxing districts in Pierce and King counties means property owners will receive credits on their bills for the next five years. Some will also see their tax rate go down. But the returns for affected taxpayers in the Pierce Conservation District and King Conservation District will amount to pocket change. Pierce County property owners are expected to receive an annual 20- to 25-cent credit per tax parcel as a condition of the settlement, said Ryan Mello, executive director of the Pierce Conservation District. The costs will be covered by the district's customer base, which is made up of unincorporated Pierce County and 11 participating cities or towns: Buckley, DuPont, Fircrest, Gig Harbor, Lakewood, Milton, Puyallup, Steilacoom, Sumner, Tacoma and University Place. In the wake of the lawsuit and the settlement reached this summer, most members of the Pierce County Council support a new tiered rate structure to continue the work of the conservation district. The district's work includes agricultural assistance, soil conservation and improving water quality and salmon habitats. Its budget -- separate from the county's -- is set at about $2.1 million for 2013. The new rates and credits to be awarded by the district would start next year and continue through 2017. Under the new system, the annual rates would vary by the type of parcel: $3.95 for open space, $4.14 for agricultural, $4.98 for commercial, and $5 for residential. Under the old system, owners of all types of parcels have been charged the same $5 annual assessment since 2004. At least one County Council member favors doing away with the annual conservation charge altogether, which would eliminate the district's work. Councilmember Dan Roach, R-Bonney Lake, said the costs of the settlement plus the risk of another lawsuit are too great to justify continuing to fund the district. "I just find it really, really hard to say yes to this," said Mr. Roach, who nonetheless praised the district for doing good work. His opposition sparked two other councilmembers to speak up in support of the district and the new variable rate structure. Councilmember Rick Talbert, D-Tacoma, said the new rates are "more equitable and defensible." And Councilmember Tim Farrell, D- Tacoma, said without the district, the county would have to pay for the work to get done at a higher cost. By a 3-1 vote, the council's Community Development Committee on Oct. 1 forwarded the rate structure to the full council with a "do pass" recommendation. Council Chairwoman Joyce McDonald, R-Puyallup, voted yes along with Messrs. Talbert and Farrell. Mr. Roach cast the lone no vote. The full, seven-member council is scheduled to vote Oct. 23. Several landowners and building groups sued King and Pierce counties and the two conservation districts in 2010, alleging the districts violated state law by charging a flat-rate, per parcel assessment but not a per-acre fee, Mr. Mello said. In July, King County Superior Court Judge LeRoy McCullough approved a settlement. The new rate system for the Pierce district, adopted by its board of supervisors, is based on the cost of programs and the benefits to categories of landowners. The Legislature changed state law earlier this year allowing for a new rate structure. The plaintiffs agreed not to take further legal action as long as Pierce Conservation District's charge does not exceed $5 per parcel and the charge for the district in King County is not greater than $10 per parcel. State law limits the maximum charges to those amounts. Mr. Mello said the Pierce district must pay legal fees of about $75,000 for the plaintiffs from its portion of the settlement. In addition, the district already has paid $150,000 in legal costs to defend itself and Pierce County. The total settlement was $2.4 million. The costs break down to $1,992,480 for King Conservation District and $407,520 for Pierce Conservation District. Of the Pierce district settlement, $332,520 will go toward rate credits it awards over the next five years. The King district settlement was larger because it has more parcels and charges the higher $10 per-parcel rate, which is allowed for counties with a population of more than 1.5 million. POPULAR INC: Awaits Okay of "Almeyda-Santiago" Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Popular, Inc. is awaiting court approval of its $0.4 million settlement of a class action lawsuit captioned Almeyda-Santiago v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. The Company's subsidiary, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, is a defendant in two class action lawsuits arising from its consumer banking and trust-related activities. On October 7, 2010, a putative class action for breach of contract and damages captioned Almeyda-Santiago v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, was filed in the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance against Banco Popular. The complaint essentially asserts that plaintiff and others similarly situated who plaintiff purports to represent have suffered damages because of Banco Popular's allegedly fraudulent overdraft fee practices in connection with debit card transactions. Such practices allegedly consist of: (a) the reorganization of electronic debit transactions in high-to-low order so as to multiply the number of overdraft fees assessed on its customers; (b) the assessment of overdraft fees even when clients have not overdrawn their accounts; (c) the failure to disclose, or to adequately disclose, its overdraft policy to its customers; and (d) the provision of false and fraudulent information regarding its clients' account balances at point of sale transactions and on its Web site. Plaintiff seeks damages, restitution and provisional remedies against Banco Popular for breach of contract, abuse of trust, illegal conversion and unjust enrichment. On January 13, 2011, Banco Popular submitted a motion to dismiss the complaint. In January 2012, the parties to the Almeyda action entered into a memorandum of understanding. Under the terms of this memorandum of understanding, subject to certain customary conditions, including court approval of a final settlement agreement, and in consideration for the full and final settlement and release of all defendants, the parties agreed that the amount of $0.4 million will be paid by defendants, which amount, net of attorneys' fees, shall be donated to one or more non-profit consumer financial counseling services organizations based in Puerto Rico. A settlement stipulation and a joint motion for preliminary approval of such settlement were filed with the Court on July 3, 2012, and are pending Court approval. POPULAR INC: Court Asks for Additional Briefs in "Lamadrid" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Popular, Inc. disclosed in its August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012, that the court requested supplemental briefs on the matters at issue in the class action lawsuit styled Garcia Lamadrid, et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al. On December 13, 2010, Popular was served with a class action complaint captioned Garcia Lamadrid, et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al., filed in the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance. The complaint generally seeks damages against Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, other defendants and their respective insurance companies for their alleged breach of certain fiduciary duties, breach of contract, and alleged violations of local tort law. Plaintiffs seek in excess of $600 million in damages, plus costs and attorneys fees. More specifically, plaintiffs -- Guillermo Garcia Lamadrid and Benito del Cueto Figueras -- are suing Defendant BPPR for the losses they (and others) experienced through their investment in the RG Financial Corporation-backed Conservation Trust Fund securities. Plaintiffs essentially claim that Banco Popular allegedly breached its purported fiduciary duty to keep all relevant parties informed of any developments that could affect the Conservation Trust notes or that could become an event of default under the relevant trust agreements; and that in so doing, it acted imprudently, unreasonably and with gross negligence. Popular and the other defendants submitted separate motions to dismiss on or about February 28, 2011. Plaintiffs submitted a consolidated opposition thereto on April 15, 2011. The parties were allowed to submit replies and surreplies to such motions and the motions have now been deemed submitted by the Court and are pending resolution. An argumentative hearing on this motion was held on July 3, 2012. At the hearing, the Court requested supplemental briefs on the matters at issue. POPULAR INC: Remaining Securities Suit Dismissed in July -------------------------------------------------------- The remaining lawsuit captioned Montilla-Rojo et al. v. Popular, Inc., et al., was dismissed in July 2012, according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. Between May 14, 2009, and September 9, 2009, five putative class actions and two derivative claims were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico and the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance, San Juan Part, against Popular, Inc., and certain of its directors and officers, among others. The five class actions were consolidated into two separate actions: a securities class action captioned Hoff v. Popular, Inc., et al. (consolidated with Otero v. Popular, Inc., et al.) and an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) class action entitled In re Popular, Inc. ERISA Litigation (comprised of the consolidated cases of Walsh v. Popular, Inc., et al.; Montanez v. Popular, Inc., et al.; and Dougan v. Popular, Inc., et al.). Hoff Action On October 19, 2009, plaintiffs in the Hoff case filed a consolidated class action complaint which included as defendants the underwriters in the May 2008 offering of Series B Preferred Stock, among others. The consolidated action purported to be on behalf of purchasers of Popular's securities between January 24, 2008 and February 19, 2009 and alleged that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by issuing a series of allegedly false and/or misleading statements and/or omitting to disclose material facts necessary to make statements made by the Corporation not false and misleading. The consolidated action also alleged that the defendants violated Section 11, Section 12(a)(2) and Section 15 of the Securities Act by making allegedly untrue statements and/or omitting to disclose material facts necessary to make statements made by the Corporation not false and misleading in connection with the May 2008 offering of Series B Preferred Stock. The consolidated securities class action complaint sought class certification, an award of compensatory damages and reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel fees. On January 11, 2010, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated securities class action complaint. On August 2, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico granted the motion to dismiss filed by the underwriter defendants on statute of limitations grounds. The Court also dismissed the Section 11 claim brought against Popular's directors on statute of limitations grounds and the Section 12(a)(2) claim brought against Popular because plaintiffs lacked standing. The Court declined to dismiss the claims brought against Popular and certain of its officers under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder), Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, holding that plaintiffs had adequately alleged that defendants made materially false and misleading statements with the requisite state of mind. ERISA Action On November 30, 2009, plaintiffs in the ERISA case filed a consolidated class action complaint. The consolidated complaint purported to be on behalf of employees participating in the Popular, Inc. U.S.A. 401(k) Savings and Investment Plan and the Popular, Inc. Puerto Rico Savings and Investment Plan from January 24, 2008, to the date of the Complaint to recover losses pursuant to Sections 409 and 502(a)(2) of ERISA against Popular, certain directors, officers and members of plan committees, each of whom was alleged to be a plan fiduciary. The consolidated complaint alleged that defendants breached their alleged fiduciary obligations by, among other things, failing to eliminate Popular stock as an investment alternative in the plans. The complaint sought to recover alleged losses to the plans and equitable relief, including injunctive relief and a constructive trust, along with costs and attorneys' fees. On December 21, 2009, and in compliance with a scheduling order issued by the Court, Popular and the individual defendants submitted an answer to the amended complaint. Shortly thereafter, on December 31, 2009, Popular and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint or, in the alternative, for judgment on the pleadings. On May 5, 2010, a magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation in which he recommended that the motion to dismiss be denied except with respect to Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, as to which he recommended that the motion be granted. On May 19, 2010, Popular filed objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. On September 30, 2010, the Court issued an order without opinion granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss and providing that the Court would issue an opinion and order explaining its decision. No opinion was, however, issued prior to the settlement. Derivative Suits The derivative actions (Garcia v. Carrion, et al. and Diaz v. Carrion, et al.) were brought purportedly for the benefit of nominal defendant Popular, Inc. against certain executive officers and directors and alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, waste of assets and abuse of control in connection with Popular's issuance of allegedly false and misleading financial statements and financial reports and the offering of the Series B Preferred Stock. The derivative complaints sought a judgment that the action was a proper derivative action, an award of damages, restitution, costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses. On October 9, 2009, the Court coordinated for purposes of discovery the Garcia action and the consolidated securities class action. On October 15, 2009, Popular and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the Garcia complaint for failure to make a demand on the Board of Directors prior to initiating litigation. On November 20, 2009, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and on December 21, 2009, Popular and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the Garcia amended complaint. At a scheduling conference held on January 14, 2010, the Court stayed discovery in both the Hoff and Garcia matters pending resolution of their respective motions to dismiss. On August 11, 2010, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss the Garcia action. The Court dismissed the gross mismanagement and corporate waste claims, but declined to dismiss the breach of fiduciary duty claim. The Diaz case, filed in the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance, San Juan, was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. On October 13, 2009, Popular and the individual defendants moved to consolidate the Garcia and Diaz actions. On October 26, 2009, plaintiff moved to remand the Diaz case to the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance and to stay defendants' consolidation motion pending the outcome of the remand proceedings. On September 30, 2010, the Court issued an order without opinion remanding the Diaz case to the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance. On October 13, 2010, the Court issued a Statement of Reasons In Support of Remand Order. On October 28, 2010, Popular and the individual defendants moved for reconsideration of the remand order. The court denied Popular's request for reconsideration shortly thereafter. On April 13, 2010, the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance in San Juan granted summary judgment dismissing a separate complaint brought by plaintiff in the Garcia action that sought to enforce an alleged right to inspect the books and records of the Corporation in support of the pending derivative action. The Court held that plaintiff had not propounded a "proper purpose" under Puerto Rico law for such inspection. On April 28, 2010, plaintiff in that action moved for reconsideration of the Court's dismissal. On May 4, 2010, the Court denied plaintiff's request for reconsideration. On June 7, 2010, plaintiff filed an appeal before the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals. On June 11, 2010, Popular and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the appeal. On June 22, 2010, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. On July 6, 2010, plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the Court's dismissal. On July 16, 2010, the Court of Appeals denied plaintiff's request for reconsideration. Class Action Settlements At the Court's request, the parties to the Hoff and Garcia cases discussed the prospect of mediation and agreed to nonbinding mediation in an attempt to determine whether the cases could be settled. On January 18 and 19, 2011, the parties to the Hoff and Garcia cases engaged in nonbinding mediation before the Honorable Nicholas Politan. As a result of the mediation, the Corporation and the other named defendants to the Hoff matter entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle this matter. Under the terms of the memorandum of understanding, subject to certain customary conditions including court approval of a final settlement agreement in consideration for the full settlement and release of all defendants, the parties agreed that the amount of $37.5 million would be paid by or on behalf of defendants. On June 17, 2011, the parties filed a stipulation of settlement and a joint motion for preliminary approval of such settlement, which the Court granted on June 20, 2011. On or about July 5, 2011, the amount of $37.5 million was paid to the settlement fund by or on behalf of defendants. Specifically, the amount of $26 million was paid by insurers and the amount of $11.5 million was paid by Popular (after which approximately $4.7 million was reimbursed by insurers per the terms of the relevant insurance agreement). On November 2, 2011, the Court in the Hoff securities class action announced at a hearing on the proposed settlement that it would deny certain individual shareholders' requests to opt out (see the Montilla-Rojo subsection below), overrule the objection to the settlement and grant final approval in a written order to follow, which order and final judgment were issued on the same date. On November 29, 2011, the individual shareholders whose requests to opt-out were rejected and the objectors to the settlement appealed from the final judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. On December 21, 2011, the lead plaintiffs in the Hoff action filed a motion for an order requiring the objectors to post a bond to cover the costs associated with the objectors' appeal, which the Court granted on January 9, 2012. On January 17, 2012, the objectors moved for reconsideration of the order requiring them to post a bond. On January 24, 2012, the Court denied the objectors' motion for reconsideration. On January 27, 2012, the objectors filed a motion informing the Court that they would voluntarily dismiss the appeal with prejudice, which the Court noted on January 30, 2012. In April 2011, the parties to the Garcia and Diaz actions entered into a separate memorandum of understanding. Under the terms of this memorandum of understanding, subject to certain customary conditions, including court approval of a final settlement agreement, and in consideration for the full and final settlement and release of all defendants, Popular agreed, for a period of three years, to maintain or implement certain corporate governance practices, measures and policies, as set forth in the memorandum of understanding. Aside from the payment by or on behalf of Popular of approximately $2.1 million of attorneys' fees and expenses of counsel for the plaintiffs, all of which were covered by insurance), the settlement did not require any cash payments by or on behalf of Popular or the defendants. On June 14, 2011, a motion for preliminary approval of settlement was filed. On July 8, 2011, the Court granted preliminary approval of such settlement and set the final approval hearing date for September 12, 2011. On that same date, the Court granted final approval of the settlement. On September 23, 2011, the court in Diaz entered a separate judgment approving the final settlement as well. Prior to the Hoff and derivative action mediation, the parties to the ERISA class action entered into a separate memorandum of understanding to settle that action. Under the terms of the ERISA memorandum of understanding, subject to certain customary conditions including court approval of a final settlement agreement and in consideration for the full settlement and release of all defendants, the parties agreed that the amount of $8.2 million would be paid by or on behalf of the defendants. The parties filed a joint request to approve the settlement on April 13, 2011. On June 8, 2011, the Court held a preliminary approval hearing, and on June 23, 2011, the Court preliminarily approved such settlement. On June 30, 2011, the amount of $8.2 million was transferred to the settlement fund by insurers on behalf of the defendants. A final fairness hearing was set for August 26, 2011. On that date, the Court stated that it would approve the settlement but requested that plaintiffs' counsel submit certain supporting documentation prior to issuing its final approval. On March 12, 2012, the Court granted final approval of the settlement. Montilla-Rojo Claim Filed by the Hoff Opt-Outs On January 18, 2011, certain individual shareholders filed a lawsuit captioned Montilla-Rojo et al. v. Popular, Inc., et al., against the Corporation and certain officers asserting claims under the federal securities laws similar or identical to those in the Hoff action. On February 25, 2011, those shareholders filed an amended complaint asserting additional legal theories. On June 19, 2011, certain of those shareholders sought leave to intervene in the securities class action. On June 28, 2011, the Court denied their motion to intervene as untimely. On or about October 11, 2011, certain individual shareholders, including shareholders represented by counsel in the Montilla-Rojo action, filed requests to opt-out of the proposed settlement in the Hoff securities class action. Other purported shareholders represented by the same counsel, filed an objection to the settlement. On November 22, 2011, the plaintiffs in the Montilla-Rojo action filed a second amended complaint asserting additional legal theories. On December 2, 2011, the parties to the Montilla-Rojo action filed a joint motion to stay the proceedings in light of the pending appeal in the related Hoff securities class action. The Court granted the motion to stay on December 13, 2011. With the January 27, 2012 voluntary dismissal of the appeal, the stay was lifted. On March 13, 2012, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Montilla-Rojo second amended complaint. On July 10, 2012, the parties to the Montilla-Rojo action reached an agreement to settle all outstanding claims. Under the terms of the agreement, in consideration for the full settlement and release of all defendants, the parties agreed that the amount of $0.75 million would be paid by or on behalf of defendants. On July 18, 2012, and in accordance with the settlement, the Court dismissed the Montilla-Rojo action with prejudice. On July 31, 2012, the amount of $0.6 million was paid by insurers on behalf of defendants and the amount of $0.15 million was paid by defendants directly. PROGRESSIVE GOURMET: Laid-Off Employees File Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Katie Johnston, writing for Boston Globe, reports that on the morning of July 16, workers at Progressive Gourmet were told they had to reapply for their jobs through a temporary employment agency that would not provide health insurance and other benefits they received as employees of the Wilmington specialty food- distribution company. Those who refused to agree by 9:00 a.m. the next day were let go. In all, more than 70 -- about one-third of the company's workforce -- lost their jobs. These claims are part of a class-action lawsuit filed last week in US District Court in Boston, alleging that Progressive Gourmet violated the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act by not giving employees 60 days' notice of the layoff. The workers also filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board saying that Progressive Gourmet's move was aimed at thwarting employees' efforts to form a union. Progressive Gourmet's president, Christian Collias, did not return several phone calls seeking comment. The claims in the lawsuit, employment law specialists said, are representative of a decade-long trend in which companies have increasingly used outside contractors to shed costs and shield themselves from the responsibility of meeting wage law requirements and providing benefits. Kevin Merritt, a lawyer at Segal Roitman LLP in Boston, said he has seen plenty of companies outsource their staffing, but never one that forced its existing employees to reapply as temps. "The company did not consider us as human beings." The trend of using contractors to handle work once done by employees accelerated in recent years as the economy faltered, labor specialists say. Last summer, Texas A&M University announced that it was outsourcing its landscaping, maintenance, and dining services staff, requiring more than 1,600 employees to reapply to a North Carolina-based contractor -- although the workers were guaranteed a job for at least two years, with comparable salary and benefits. In 2009, three Hyatt hotels in Boston fired nearly 100 staff housekeepers and replaced them with lower-paid workers from a Georgia-based staffing agency. The general manager of the temporary staffing firm contracted by Progressive Gourmet said that the food distributor did not pay his agency to provide health insurance or vacation and sick pay for the employees, although the workers would be making the same wages. Jose Avila, general manager of the Employment on Demand Agency Inc. in Chelsea, said the Progressive Gourmet situation was a "bad experience" because the workers were angry about losing their benefits. Mr. Avila said he was not aware the company was issuing an ultimatum to workers. "They have a right to be upset," he said, adding that he would avoid similar situations in the future. "I don't like to hurt people." Progressive Gourmet started in 1992 and has more than 3,300 customers, according to the company Web site, including the Sheraton Boston Hotel, the Waldorf Astoria in New York, and other hotels and restaurants across the country. It has a 38,000- square-foot warehouse and distribution center in Wilmington, and warehouses in five other states. Shannon Liss-Riordan, the lawyer representing the Progressive Gourmet workers, said the company turned to the temp agency in part to keep employees from organizing a union. At a meeting in early July, according to the lawsuit, Collias, the company president, told employees that Progressive Gourmet was growing and sales were rising. But after learning that employees were considering forming a union, court records said, the company called another meeting a few weeks later. Officials told workers that a large portion of them would no longer be Progressive Gourmet employees, and they would have to reapply for their jobs through the temp firm. "Instead of rewarding them for their hard work that led to the company's success," Mr. Liss-Riordan said, "Progressive Gourmet has tossed them onto the street." Karla Bonilla and Arquinia Rodriguez, two of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, worked for more than six years at the Wilmington plant, cooking meat and vegetables to be made into appetizers. Both have been applying for jobs for the past few months, they said in Spanish through a translator, but have not found anything. "We are not making ends meet," said Ms Bonilla, 30, who came to the United States from El Salvador as a teenager and has two children. Ms. Rodriguez, who has a 12-year-old daughter and owns a triple- decker in Lawrence, is also struggling to pay the bills. Ms. Rodriguez, 31, said she has worked since she was 17 years old and had never been unemployed. "The company did not consider us as human beings," said Rodriguez, who is from the Dominican Republic. The women said the ideal outcome of the lawsuit would be for the workers to get their old jobs and benefits back and form a union. QUESTCOR PHARMACEUTICAL: Holzer Holzer & Fistel Files Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. common stock who purchased shares between April 26, 2011 and September 21, 2012, inclusive. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that Questcor knew but failed to adequately disclose: a) the Company lacked clinical evidence to support the use of Acthar for indications other than infantile spasms; b) that Questcor engaged in questionable tactics to promote the sales and use of Acthar in the treatment of MS and nephrotic syndrome; and c) as a result, the Company lacked a reasonable basis to make positive statements about the Company or its outlook, including statements about the effectiveness of and potential market growth for Acthar. If you purchased QCOR common stock during the Class Period, you have the legal right to petition the Court to be appointed a "lead plaintiff." A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Any such request must satisfy certain criteria and be made no later than November 26, 2012. Any member of the purported class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you are a Questcor investor and would like to discuss a potential lead plaintiff appointment, or your rights and interests with respect to the lawsuit, you may contact Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq., or Marshall P. Dees, Esq. via email at mfistel@holzerlaw.com or mdees@holzerlaw.com or via toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832. Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC -- http://www.holzerlaw.com-- is an Atlanta, Georgia law firm that dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. RICHMOND, VA: Police Officers File Overtime Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Richmond stiffs its police officers for overtime, 77 officers and former officers say in a federal class action. SCBT FINANCIAL: Awaits Approval of Merger-Related Suit Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- SCBT Financial Corporation is awaiting court approval of a agreement settling a merger-related class action lawsuit, according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. On April 24, 2012, SBCT completed the previously announced merger with Peoples Bancorporation, Inc. (Peoples), of Easley, South Carolina, the bank holding company for The Peoples National Bank (PNB), Bank of Anderson (BOA), and Seneca National Bank (SNB). As of June 30, 2012, and August 9, 2012, the Company believes that it is not a party to, nor is any of the Company's property the subject of, any pending material proceeding other than those that may occur in the ordinary course of its business, except that on January 18, 2012, two purported shareholders of Peoples filed a class action lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas for the Thirteenth Judicial District, State of South Carolina, County of Pickens, captioned F. Davis Arnette and Mary F. Arnette v. Peoples Bancorporation, Inc., Case No. 2012-CP-39-0064 (the "Arnette Lawsuit"). The Complaint names as defendants Peoples, the members of Peoples' board of directors immediately prior to the completion of the merger between SCBT and Peoples (the "Director Defendants") and SCBT. The Complaint is brought on behalf of a putative class of shareholders of Peoples common stock and seeks a declaration that it is properly maintainable as a class action. The Complaint alleges that Peoples' directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize shareholder value in connection with the merger between SCBT and Peoples, and also alleges that SCBT aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty. The Complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the completion of the merger, an accounting to determine damages sustained by the putative class, and costs including plaintiffs' attorneys' and experts' fees. SCBT believes that the claims asserted in the Complaint are without merit and that the proceeding will not have any material adverse effect on the financial condition or operations of SCBT. On April 17, 2012, SCBT entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") with plaintiffs and other named defendants regarding the settlement of the Complaint. Under the terms of the MOU, SCBT, Peoples, the Director Defendants and the plaintiffs have agreed to settle the Arnette Lawsuit and release the defendants from all claims relating to the Merger, subject to approval by the Court. If the Court approves the settlement contemplated by the MOU, the Arnette Lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice. Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, SCBT and Peoples have made available additional information to Peoples shareholders in the Current Report on Form 8-K filed April 18, 2012. In return, the plaintiffs have agreed to the dismissal of the Arnette Lawsuit with prejudice and to withdraw all motions filed in connection with the Arnette Lawsuit. If the MOU is finally approved by the Court, it is anticipated that the MOU will resolve and release all claims in all actions that were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the Merger, the Merger Agreement and any disclosures made in connection therewith. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the Court will approve the settlement, even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the MOU may be terminated. Headquartered in Columbia, South Carolina, SCBT Financial Corporation -- http://www.scbtonline.com-- operates as the holding company for SCBT, N.A. that provides retail and commercial banking services in the Carolinas. Its deposit products include checking accounts; savings and time deposits; and certificates of deposit, as well as interest-bearing transaction accounts, including NOW, HSA, IOLTA, and market rate checking accounts. The Company also offers loans for businesses, agriculture, real estate, personal use, home improvement, and automobiles, as well as provides credit cards, letters of credit, and home equity lines of credit. The Company was formerly known as First National Corporation and changed its name to SCBT Financial Corporation in February 2004. It was founded in 1933. SMITH DAIRY: Recalls Peanut Butter Crunch/Twist Ice Cream --------------------------------------------------------- Smith Dairy Products Company announced a voluntary recall on SMITH'S Peanut Butter Crunch ice cream, Acme Peanut Butter Twist ice cream, and Ruggles Peanut Butter Crunch and Peanut Butter Crunch Brownie ice cream. The recall notification was initiated by Pecan Deluxe, the company that manufactures the peanut butter candy pieces in the products. * Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis. The products in question are: Description UPC Lots ----------- ----------- ---- SMITH'S Peanut Butter 70424 08139 060-10 through Crunch Ice Cream (1.75 Qt) 155-12 SMITH'S Peanut Butter 70424 08139 060-10 through Crunch Ice Cream (Half Gal) 155-12 Acme Peanut Butter Twist 29313 46110 03/01/10 through Ice Cream (Half Gal) 06/03/12 Ruggles Peanut Butter 70424 08607 060-10 through Crunch Ice Cream (3 Gal) 155-12 Ruggles Peanut Butter 70424 08639 060-10 through Brownie Crunch (3 Gal) 155-12 All lots and codes are being recalled. Product was distributed in Ohio, Indiana, West Virginia, and Michigan. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm323132.htm The voluntary recall is a result of the Food and Drug Administration's expanded investigation concerning Salmonella contamination in peanut butter products produced by Sunland, Inc. The Company's supplier of the peanut butter candy pieces used in these flavors, Pecan Deluxe, sources their peanut butter from Sunland, Inc. There have been no reported illnesses related to the SMITH'S, Ruggles or Acme products. Smith Dairy has a comprehensive food safety program in place to provide the highest quality products available and will continue to monitor the situation. Smith Dairy is notifying customers by phone and in writing of the recall. Consumers with product listed above should return the package to place of purchase for a refund. Consumers with questions may contact the Company at 1-800-776-7076. Hours of Operation Monday - Friday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. SUFFOLK BANCORP: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Remains Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Suffolk Bancorp's motion to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit remains pending, according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. On October 20, 2011, a putative shareholder class action, James E. Fisher v. Suffolk Bancorp, et al., No. 11 Civ. 5114 (SJ), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Company, its former chief executive officer, and a former chief financial officer of the Company. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by knowingly or recklessly making false statements about, or failing to disclose accurate information about, the Company's financial results and condition, loan loss reserves, impaired assets, internal and disclosure controls, and banking practices. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between March 12, 2010, and August 10, 2011. On July 2, 2012, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The motion to dismiss remains pending. The Company says the matter is in its preliminary phase and it is not possible to ascertain whether there is a reasonable possibility of a loss from the matter. Therefore, the Company has concluded that an amount for a loss contingency is not to be accrued or disclosed at this time. The Company believes that it has substantial defenses to the claims filed against it in the lawsuit and, to the extent that the action proceeds, the Company intends to defend itself vigorously. TIGER BRANDS: Nov. 7 Hearing Set for Class Certification Appeal --------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Visser, writing for Business Day Live, reports that class action suits by South African consumers against companies found guilty of anticompetitive behavior remain hard to launch even after large food producers were found guilty of fixing bread prices in the scandal of 2007. It is almost a year since a group consisting of the Children's Resource Centre, the Black Sash Trust, the Congress of South African Trade Unions and others brought an application for a class certification order before the Western Cape High Court. The group had asked the court to accept it as a class representative of consumers prejudicially affected by the anticompetitive conduct of bread producers. The application was dismissed. The group then petitioned the Supreme Court of Appeal, which granted it leave to appeal against the high court's decision. The registrar of the court has informed the parties that the court will hear the appeal on the certification application on November 7. At the time when the application for a class certification order was made, the group also filed an application for damages against Tiger Brands, one of the companies involved in the price-fixing scandal. The amount in that claim, apparently hundreds of millions of rand, has created the belief that claims against each of the other bread producers involved in the scandal will be similar. The Competition Tribunal found bread producers Tiger Brands, Pioneer Foods and Foodcorp guilty of cartel conduct, paving the way for civil claims by those harmed. Premier Foods was granted corporate leniency by the Competition Commission for co-operating with the authorities during investigations into the cartel conduct, but that does not give the company immunity from damage claims. Foodcorp, though, has not been included in the damage claim. Nick Altini, head of Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr's competition practice, says defining the class is a major issue. "It is a major point of contention," Mr. Altini is representing Pioneer Foods. It will also be difficult to determine the quantum of the claim. "They will try and perform a calculation to determine what the price of bread was at the time of the transgressions, and what it could have been if the bread producers had not colluded." If the action is successful, it appears that the money received will be used as a benevolent fund for feeding schemes. That in itself poses some serious challenges, Mr. Altini remarks. The question is who will be in charge of the fund, which communities will benefit and what amount of the money will be allocated to the administration of the fund. There is, however, still no general provision for class action in SA's law. "It was introduced in the constitution for the enforcement of constitutional rights. This is why they (the consumer group) try to hang their case on the constitution." But the parties argue, even if they do not win on constitutional grounds, they should still be able to sue as a class for damages based on the infringement of the Competition Act. However, there is no act in SA that allows damage actions through class action. "We do not have that legislation. In fact, the South African Law Commission has twice suggested to Parliament to pass this legislation and Parliament has chosen not to do so," Mr. Altini says. The Competition Act does provide for civil damage claims in the event of a guilty finding, yet only one company has so far taken the step. The defunct airline Nationwide took South African Airways (SAA) to court after it was found guilty of abusing its market dominance by the Competition Tribunal, but settled out of court for an undisclosed amount. It has recently joined Comair for another claim against SAA, this time for around R155 million. However, no individual consumer has taken up the baton to sue for damages suffered due to cartel activities or anticompetitive behavior under the Competition Act. UNITED STATES: Court May Reinstate Jacoby & Meyers Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Basil Katz, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal appeals court judge on Oct. 5 appeared to extend a lifeline to personal- injury law firm Jacoby & Meyers to reinstate its case against an ethics rule barring non-lawyers from having ownership of law firms. Judge Lewis Kaplan in March tossed out the firm's putative class action, finding that Jacoby & Meyers lacked standing to bring the case because it had not proved it had been harmed by the New York state ethics rule. But at oral argument on Oct. 4 at the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, Judge John Walker seemed to indicate that the firm could get a second shot at bringing the lawsuit. "What if we were to remand it to Judge Kaplan, agreeing that there is no standing, but instructing him to allow you to amend the complaint to include these issues?" Judge Walker asked. "That would be more than acceptable, your honor," replied James Denlea, who argued for Jacoby & Meyers. Jacoby's lawsuit, filed in May 2011, asserts that New York Rule of Professional Conduct 5.4 -- which bars non-lawyers from sharing in the ownership of a law firm -- is unconstitutional because it violates the firm's federal First Amendment rights. The firm also says the rule unfairly cuts it off from private-equity funding and other sources of capital and that the rule is too vague. The defendants in the suit are the presiding justices from the state's appellate division, in the First, Second, Third and Fourth Departments, who adopt and oversee rules governing the conduct of lawyers. Won Shin, of the New York State Attorney General's Office, argued on Oct. 5 that Jacoby had no standing because, aside from Rule 5.4, a host of other statutes prevent outside investment from non- lawyers. The state argued that Jacoby & Meyers cannot show that the New York state rule alone caused them injury when many other statutes exist that independently bar what they are seeking to do. "The Judiciary Law and the LLC Law prohibit what they are trying to do," Mr. Shin said, referring to New York's Partnership Law. "Those other statutes are absolutely crystal clear." In addition to Judge Walker, the Oct. 4 appeal was heard by Circuit Judge Gerard Lynch and John Gleeson of Brooklyn federal court, sitting by designation. The panel did not issue an immediate decision. New York, like the 49 other states, prohibits non-lawyers from holding a stake in law firms. Washington began allowing the practice under certain conditions more than 20 years ago, and many European and other foreign countries, including Australia, permit non-lawyer ownership of law firms. The case is Jacoby & Meyers Law Offices v. The Presiding Justices of the First, U.S. Court for the 2nd Circuit, No. 12-1377. For Jacoby: James Denlea of Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz. For the justices: Won Shin, assistant solicitor general, New York State Office of the Attorney General. VALHI INC: Continues to Defend Lead Pigment Suits vs. Unit ---------------------------------------------------------- Valhi, Inc. continues to defend its subsidiary from lawsuits relating to the manufacture of lead pigments, according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. NL Industries, Inc.'s former operations included the manufacture of lead pigments for use in paint and lead-based paint. NL, other former manufacturers of lead pigments for use in paint and lead- based paint, and the Lead Industries Association (which discontinued business operations in 2002), have been named as defendants in various legal proceedings seeking damages for personal injury, property damage and governmental expenditures allegedly caused by the use of lead-based paints. Certain of these actions have been filed by or on behalf of states, counties, cities or their public housing authorities and school districts, and certain others have been asserted as class actions. These lawsuits seek recovery under a variety of theories, including public and private nuisance, negligent product design, negligent failure to warn, strict liability, breach of warranty, conspiracy/concert of action, aiding and abetting, enterprise liability, market share or risk contribution liability, intentional tort, fraud and misrepresentation, violations of state consumer protection statutes, supplier negligence and similar claims. The plaintiffs in these actions generally seek to impose on the defendants responsibility for lead paint abatement and health concerns associated with the use of lead-based paints, including damages for personal injury, contribution and/or indemnification for medical expenses, medical monitoring expenses and costs for educational programs. To the extent the plaintiffs seek compensatory or punitive damages in these actions, such damages are generally unspecified. In some cases, the damages are unspecified pursuant to the requirements of applicable state law. A number of cases are inactive or have been dismissed or withdrawn. Most of the remaining cases are in various pre-trial stages. Some are on appeal following dismissal or summary judgment rulings in favor of either the defendants or the plaintiffs. In addition, various other cases (in which the Company is not a defendant) are pending that seek recovery for injury allegedly caused by lead pigment and lead-based paint. Although NL is not a defendant in these other cases, the outcome of these cases may have an impact on cases that might be filed against NL in the future. The Company believes that these actions are without merit, and it intends to continue to deny all allegations of wrongdoing and liability and to defend against all actions vigorously. The Company does not believe it is probable that it has incurred any liability with respect to all of the lead pigment litigation cases to which the Company is a party, and liability to the Company that may result, if any, in this regard cannot be reasonably estimated, because: * NL has never settled any of the market share, risk contribution, intentional tort, fraud, nuisance, supplier negligence, breach of warranty, conspiracy, misrepresentation, aiding and abetting, enterprise liability, or statutory cases; * no final, non-appealable adverse verdicts have ever been entered against NL; and * NL has never ultimately been found liable with respect to any such litigation matters, including over 100 cases over a more than twenty-year period for which NL was previously a party and for which NL has been dismissed without any finding of liability. Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any amounts for any of the pending lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation cases. In addition, the Company has determined that liability to it which may result, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated because there is no prior history of a loss of this nature on which an estimate could be made, and there is no substantive information available upon which an estimate could be based. Valhi, Inc. is a holding company and operates through its wholly- owned and majority-owned subsidiaries, including NL Industries, Inc., Kronos Worldwide, Inc., CompX International Inc., Tremont LLC and Waste Control Specialists LLC. WAL-MART STORES: Seeks Gender Bias Class Action Dismissal in Texas ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kevin Manning, writing for Stocks and Shares, reports that the retailer Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has asked the US District judge Reed O'Conner to reject a class action lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed by a woman plaintiff alleging that the company discriminated female employees in Texas by paying and promoting them less than men. The case was filed in October 2011 after the US Supreme Court rejected a nationwide class in June 2011. Theodore Boutrous, a lawyer for Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (NYSE:WMT), said, "This is a copycat rerun. This is a process the court should not go through". WATTS WATER: Defends Suit Over Faulty Toilet Connectors ------------------------------------------------------- Watts Water Technologies, Inc. is defending a class action lawsuit alleging failure of toilet connectors, according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 1, 2012. On March 8, 2012, Watts Water Technologies, Inc., Watts Regulator Co., and Watts Plumbing Technologies, Inc. were named as defendants in a putative nationwide class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California seeking to recover damages and other relief based on the alleged failure of toilet connectors. The complaint seeks among other items, damages in an unspecified amount, replacement costs, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Company says it is unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss for the matter in which damages have not been specified because: (i) the proceedings are in the early stages; (ii) there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class being certified or the ultimate size of the class; (iii) there is uncertainty as to pending motions; (iv) there are significant factual issues to be resolved; and (v) there are novel legal issues presented. However, based on information currently known to the Company, it does not believe that these proceedings will have a material effect on its financial position, results of operations, cash flows or liquidity. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Still Defending Fibro Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. continues to defend asbestos- related claims, 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. Some facilities owned by CERC's predecessors contain or have contained asbestos insulation and other asbestos-containing materials. CERC or its predecessor companies have been named, along with numerous others, as a defendant in lawsuits filed by a number of individuals who claim injury due to exposure to asbestos. Some of the claimants have worked at locations owned by CERC, but most existing claims relate to facilities previously owned by CERC's subsidiaries. CERC anticipates that additional claims like those received may be asserted in the future. Although their ultimate outcome cannot be predicted at this time, CERC intends to continue vigorously contesting claims that it does not consider to have merit and does not expect, based on its experience to date, these matters, either individually or in the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. and its subsidiaries own and operate natural gas distribution systems. Subsidiaries of CERC Corp. own interstate natural gas pipelines and gas gathering systems and provide various ancillary services. A wholly owned subsidiary of CERC Corp. offers variable and fixed-price physical natural gas supplies primarily to commercial and industrial customers and electric and gas utilities. CERC Corp. is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of CenterPoint Energy, Inc., a public utility holding company. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Still Involved in Exposure Suits ----------------------------------------------------------- Kaanapali Land, LLC, continues to be involved in 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. Kaanapali Land, as successor by merger to other entities, and D/C have been named as defendants in personal injury actions allegedly based on exposure to asbestos. While there have been only a few such cases that name Kaanapali Land, there are a substantial number of cases that are pending against D/C on the U.S. mainland (primarily in California). Cases against Kaanapali Land are allegedly based on its prior business operations in Hawaii and cases against D/C are allegedly based on sale of asbestos- containing products by D/C's prior distribution business operations primarily in California. Each entity defending these cases believes that it has meritorious defenses against these actions, but can give no assurances as to the ultimate outcome of these cases. The defense of these cases has had a material adverse effect on the financial condition of D/C as it has been forced to file a voluntary petition for liquidation. Kaanapali Land does not believe that it has liability, directly or indirectly, for D/C's obligations in those cases. Kaanapali Land does not presently believe that the cases in which it is named will result in any material liability to Kaanapali Land; however, there can be no assurance in this regard. On February 15, 2005, D/C was served with a lawsuit entitled American & Foreign Insurance Company v. D/C Distribution and Amfac Corporation, Case No. 04433669 filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco, Central Justice Center. No other purported party was served. In the eight- count complaint for declaratory relief, reimbursement and recoupment of unspecified amounts, costs and for such other relief as the court might grant, plaintiff alleged that it is an insurance company to whom D/C tendered for defense and indemnity various personal injury lawsuits allegedly based on exposure to asbestos containing products. Plaintiff alleged that because none of the parties have been able to produce a copy of the policy or policies in question, a judicial determination of the material terms of the missing policy or policies is needed. Plaintiff sought, among other things, a declaration: of the material terms, rights, and obligations of the parties under the terms of the policy or policies; that the policies were exhausted; that plaintiff is not obligated to reimburse D/C for its attorneys' fees in that the amounts of attorneys' fees incurred by D/C have been incurred unreasonably; that plaintiff was entitled to recoupment and reimbursement of some or all of the amounts it has paid for defense and/or indemnity; and that D/C breached its obligation of cooperation with plaintiff. D/C filed an answer and an amended cross-claim. D/C believed that it had meritorious defenses and positions, and intended to vigorously defend. In addition, D/C believed that it was entitled to amounts from plaintiffs for reimbursement and recoupment of amounts expended by D/C on the lawsuits previously tendered. In order to fund such action and its other ongoing obligations while such lawsuit continued, D/C entered into a Loan Agreement and Security Agreement with Kaanapali Land, in August 2006, whereby Kaanapali Land provided certain advances against a promissory note delivered by D/C in return for a security interest in any D/C insurance policy at issue in this lawsuit. In June 2007, the parties settled this lawsuit with payment by plaintiffs in the amount of $1,618,000. Such settlement amount was paid to Kaanapali Land in partial satisfaction of the secured indebtedness. Because D/C was substantially without assets and was unable to obtain additional sources of capital to satisfy its liabilities, D/C filed with the United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Illinois, its voluntary petition for liquidation under Chapter 7 of Title 11, United States Bankruptcy Code during July 2007, Case No. 07-12776. Such filing is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company as D/C was substantially without assets at the time of the filing. The deadline for filing proofs of claim against D/C with the bankruptcy court passed in October 2008. Prior to the deadline, Kaanapali Land filed claims that aggregated approximately $26,800,000 relating to both secured and unsecured intercompany debts owed by D/C to Kaanapali Land. In addition, a personal injury law firm based in San Francisco that represents clients with asbestos-related claims, filed proofs of claim on behalf of approximately 700 claimants. While it is not likely that a significant number of these claimants have a claim against D/C that could withstand a vigorous defense, it is unknown how the trustee will deal with these claims. It is not expected, however, that the Company will receive any material additional amounts in the liquidation of D/C. Kaanapali Land, LLC, engages in the agriculture and property businesses in Hawaii. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thermon Group Continues to Defend Exposure Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Since 1999, Thermon Group Holdings, Inc., and Thermon Holding Corp. have been named as one of many defendants in 16 personal injury suits alleging exposure to asbestos from their products. None of the cases alleges or has alleged premises liability. Two cases are currently pending. Insurers are defending them in one of the two lawsuits, and they expect that an insurer will defend them in the remaining matter. Of the concluded suits, there were seven cost of defense settlements and the remainder were dismissed without payment. There are no claims unrelated to asbestos exposure for which coverage has been sought under the policies that are providing coverage. No further updates were reported in the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2012. Thermon Group Holdings, Inc., provides thermal engineered solutions for process industries worldwide. Its products include various electric heat tracing cables, steam tracing components, tubing bundles, and instrument and control products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Katy Industries Still Has Pending Fibro Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- There are a number of product liability, asbestos and workers' compensation claims pending against Katy Industries, Inc., and its subsidiaries. Many of these claims are proceeding through the litigation process and the final outcome will not be known until a settlement is reached with the claimant or the case is adjudicated. The Company estimates that it can take up to ten years from the date of the injury to reach a final outcome on certain claims. With respect to the product liability and workers' compensation claims, the Company has provided for its share of expected losses beyond the applicable insurance coverage, including those incurred but not reported to the Company or its insurance providers, which are developed using actuarial techniques. Such accruals are developed using currently available claim information, and represent management's best estimates, including estimated legal fees, on an undiscounted basis. The ultimate cost of any individual claim can vary based upon, among other factors, the nature of the injury, the duration of the disability period, the length of the claim period, the jurisdiction of the claim and the nature of the final outcome. No further updates were reported in the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 29, 2012. Katy Industries, Inc., engages in the manufacture, import, and distribution of commercial cleaning and storage products for the commercial janitorial/sanitary maintenance, industrial, food service, mass merchant retail, and home improvement markets in the United States, Canada, and Europe. ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Continues to Defend Exposure Suits ------------------------------------------------------------ IntriCon Corporation is a defendant along with a number of other parties in lawsuits alleging that the plaintiffs have or may have contracted asbestos-related diseases as a result of exposure to asbestos products or equipment containing asbestos sold by one or more named defendants. Due to the non-informative nature of the complaints, the Company does not know whether any of the complaints state valid claims against it. Certain insurance carriers have informed the Company that the primary policies for the period August 1, 1970-1973, have been exhausted and that the carriers will no longer provide a defense under those policies. The Company states: "We have requested that the carriers substantiate this situation. The Company believes it has additional policies available for other years which have been ignored by the carriers. Because settlement payments are applied to all years a litigant was deemed to have been exposed to asbestos, the Company believes when settlement payments are applied to these additional policies, it will have availability under the years deemed exhausted. The Company does not believe that the asserted exhaustion of the primary insurance coverage for this period will have a material adverse effect on the financial condition, liquidity, or results of operations. Management believes that the number of insurance carriers involved in the defense of the suits and the significant number of policy years and policy limits, to which these insurance carriers are insuring us, make the ultimate disposition of these lawsuits not material to our consolidated financial position or results of operations." No further updates were reported in the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2012. IntriCon Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, designs, develops, engineers, and manufactures body-worn devices primarily in the United States, Europe, and the Asian Pacific. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Industries Still Defending 287 Cases --------------------------------------------------------------- Park-Ohio Industries, Inc., is a co-defendant in approximately 287 cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 722 plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability, and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages. The Company states: "In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from $25,000 to $75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages sought. To the extent that any specific amount of damages is sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants. "There are only seven asbestos cases, involving 25 plaintiffs that plead specified damages. In each of the seven cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of action. In three cases, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the amount of $3.0 million for four separate causes of action and $1.0 million for another cause of action and punitive damages in the amount of $10.0 million. In the fourth case, the plaintiff has alleged against each named defendant, compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of $10.0 million, for seven separate causes of action. In the fifth case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the amount of $20.0 million for three separate causes of action and $5.0 million for another cause of action and punitive damages in the amount of $20.0 million. In the remaining two cases, the plaintiffs have each alleged against each named defendant compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of $50.0 million, for four separate causes of action. "Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos- containing product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries. We intend to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe we will continue to be successful in being dismissed from such cases. However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation. Despite this uncertainty, and although our results of operations and cash flows for a particular period could be adversely affected by asbestos- related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, liquidity or results of operations. Among the factors management considered in reaching this conclusion were: (a) our historical success in being dismissed from these types of lawsuits; (b) many cases have been improperly filed against one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the plaintiffs have been unable to establish any causal relationship to us or our products or premises; (d) in many cases, the plaintiffs have been unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable injury or compensable loss at all or that any injuries that they have incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to asbestos; and (e) the complaints assert claims against multiple defendants and, in most cases, the damages alleged are not attributed to individual defendants. Additionally, we do not believe that the amounts claimed in any of the asbestos cases are meaningful indicators of our potential exposure because the amounts claimed typically bear no relation to the extent of the plaintiff's injury, if any. "Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to date and, based upon available information, our management does not expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity or financial position." No further updates were reported in the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2012. Park-Ohio Industries, Inc., engages in industrial supply chain logistics and diversified manufacturing businesses. ASBESTOS UPDATE: CCOM Group's Universal Unit Still Defends Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- CCOM Group, Inc.'s subsidiary continues to be involved in 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. Universal Supply Group, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, is a New York corporation ("Universal"). On June 25, 1999, Universal acquired substantially all of the assets of Universal Supply Group, Inc., a New Jersey corporation, including its name, pursuant to the terms of a purchase agreement. Subsequent to the acquisition, Universal Supply Group, Inc. (the selling corporation) formerly known as Universal Engineering Co., Inc., changed its name to Hilco, Inc. Hilco, Inc. acquired the assets of Amber Supply Co., Inc., formerly known as Amber Oil Burner Supply Co., Inc., in 1998, prior to Hilco's sale of assets to Universal. Hilco, Inc. is hereinafter referred to as the "Universal Predecessor." The majority shareholders of Hilco, Inc. were John A. Hildebrandt and Paul Hildebrandt. The Company understands that the Universal Predecessor and many other companies have been sued in the Superior Court of New Jersey (Middlesex County) by plaintiffs filing lawsuits alleging injury due to asbestos. As of June 30, 2012, there existed 6 plaintiffs in these lawsuits relating to alleged sales of asbestos products, or products containing asbestos, by the Universal Predecessor. Subsequent to June 30, 2012, an additional plaintiff filed an action, which results in 7 remaining plaintiffs in these lawsuits. The Company never sold any asbestos related products. Of the existing plaintiffs as of June 30, 2012, 1 filed an action in 2012, 3 filed actions in 2011 and 2 filed actions in 2010. There are 210 other plaintiffs that have had their actions dismissed and 17 other plaintiffs that have settled as of June 30, 2012 for a total of $3,364,500 paid by defendants other than Universal. There has been no judgment against the Universal Predecessor. The Company's Universal subsidiary was named by 38 plaintiffs; of these, 1 filed an action in 2012, 1 filed an action in 2010, 11 filed actions in 2007, 6 filed actions in 2006, 11 filed actions in 2005, 5 filed actions in 2001, 1 filed an action in 2000, and 2 filed actions in 1999. Thirty-four plaintiffs naming Universal have had their actions dismissed and, of the total $3,364,500 of settled actions, 3 plaintiffs naming Universal have settled for $27,500. No money was paid by Universal in connection with any settlement. Following these dismissed and settled actions there exists 1 plaintiff that named Universal as of June 30, 2012. The Company has been indemnified against asbestos-based claims, and insurance companies are defending the interests of the Universal Predecessor and the Company in these cases. Based on advice of counsel, the Company believes that none of the litigation that was brought against the Company's Universal subsidiary through June 30, 2012 is material, and that the only material litigation that was brought against the Universal Predecessor through that date was Rhodes v. A.O. Smith Corporation, filed on April 26, 2004 in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket Number MID-L-2979- 04AS. The Company was advised that the Rhodes case was settled for $3,250,000 ("Settlement") under an agreement reached in connection with a $10,000,000 jury verdict that was rendered on August 5, 2005. The Company was not a defendant in the Rhodes case. The Company believes that Rhodes differed from the other lawsuits in that plaintiff established that he contracted mesothelioma as a result of his occupational exposure to asbestos dust and fibers and that a predecessor of the Company was a major supplier of the asbestos containing products that allegedly caused his disease. CCOM Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, distributes heating, ventilating, and air conditioning equipment (HVAC), climate control systems, appliances, and plumbing and electrical fixtures and supplies. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hickok Expects Dismissal From N.Y. & Mich. Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hickok Incorporated is a named defendant along with numerous other companies in a suit in the State of New York regarding asbestos harm to the plaintiff. The Company has been informed by the plaintiff's attorney that it will be dismissed from the suit. The Company is also a named defendant along with numerous other companies in a suit in the State of Michigan regarding asbestos harm to the plaintiff. The Company has engaged a Michigan attorney to provide representation for it. The Company believes the suit is without merit and expects it will be able to obtain a dismissal for similar reasons a dismissal is imminent in the New York action. No further updates were reported in the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2012. Hickok Incorporated develops and manufactures products used by companies in the transportation industry. The Company's products include electronic and non-electronic automotive diagnostic, repair, and nut-running control equipment used in manufacturing processes. The Company also develops and manufactures indicating instruments for aircraft, locomotive, and other applications. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Andrea Electronics Still Defends "Edwards" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In December 2010, Audrey Edwards, Executrix of the Estate of Leon Leroy Edwards, filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of Providence County, Rhode Island, against 3M Company and over 90 other defendants, including Andrea Electronics Corporation, alleging that the Company processed, manufactured, designed, tested, packaged, distributed, marketed or sold asbestos containing products that contributed to the death of Leon Leroy Edwards. The Company received service of process in April 2011. The Company has retained legal counsel and has filed a response to the compliant. The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit. Accordingly, the Company does not believe the lawsuit will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or results of operations. No further updates were reported in Andrea Electronics Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2012. Andrea Electronics Corporation designs, develops, and manufactures microphone technologies and products for enhancing speech-based applications software and communications primarily in computer and business enterprise markets. ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Locker Still Has Unresolved Fibro Cases ----------------------------------------------------------------- American Locker Group 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. Beginning in September 1998 and continuing to date, the Company has been named as an additional defendant in approximately 191 cases pending in state court in Massachusetts and 1 in the state of Washington. The plaintiffs in each case assert that a division of the Company manufactured and furnished components containing asbestos to a shipyard during the period from 1948 to 1972 and that injury resulted from exposure to such products. The assets of this division were sold by the Company in 1973. During the process of discovery in certain of these actions, documents from sources outside the Company have been produced which indicate that the Company appears to have been included in the chain of title for certain wall panels which contained asbestos and which were delivered to the Massachusetts shipyards. Defense of these cases has been assumed by the Company's insurance carrier, subject to a reservation of rights. Settlement agreements have been entered in approximately 33 cases with funds authorized and provided by the Company's insurance carrier. Further, over 120 cases have been terminated as to the Company without liability to the Company under Massachusetts procedural rules. Therefore, the balance of unresolved cases against the Company as of March 8, 2012, the most recent date information is available, is approximately 38 cases. While the Company cannot estimate potential damages or predict what the ultimate resolution of these asbestos cases may be because the discovery proceedings on the cases are not complete, based upon the Company's experience to date with similar cases, as well as the assumption that insurance coverage will continue to be provided with respect to these cases, at the present time, the Company does not believe that the outcome of these cases will have a significant adverse impact on the Company's operations or financial condition. American Locker Group Incorporated engages in the manufacture and sale of lockers, locks, and keys for various industries in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Europe, Asia, and South America. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Target Corp. Obtained EPA Deal Approval in May --------------------------------------------------------------- On May 17, 2012 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Environmental Appeals Board issued a final order approving Target Corporation's $400,000 settlement with the EPA regarding the previously disclosed Finding of Violation (FOV) issued in March 2009 related to alleged violations of the Clean Air Act (CAA), specifically the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) promulgated by the EPA for asbestos. The settlement and FOV pertained to the remodeling of certain Target stores between January 1, 2003 and October 28, 2007. No further updates were reported in Target Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 28, 2012. Target Corporation operates general merchandise stores in the United States. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Joy Global Still Involved in Unresolved Matters ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joy Global Inc. continues to be involved in unresolved asbestos- related matters, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 27, 2012. The Company states: "We and our subsidiaries are involved in various unresolved legal matters that arise in the normal course of operations, the most prevalent of which relate to product liability (including over 1,000 asbestos and silica-related cases), employment, and commercial matters. Also, as a normal part of operations, our subsidiaries undertake contractual obligations, warranties, and guarantees in connection with the sale of products or services. Although the outcome of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty and favorable or unfavorable resolutions may affect the results of operations on a quarter-to-quarter basis, we believe that the outcome of such legal and other matters will not have a materially adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, or liquidity." Joy Global Inc. engages in the manufacture and servicing of mining equipment for the extraction of coal, copper, iron ore, oil sands, and other minerals. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toro Company Still Subject to Asbestos Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- The Toro Company is subject to litigation and administrative and judicial proceedings with respect to claims involving asbestos and the discharge of hazardous substances into the environment. Some of these claims assert damages and liability for personal injury, remedial investigations or clean up and other costs and damages, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended August 3, 2012. The Toro Company (Toro) designs, manufactures, and markets professional turf maintenance equipment and services, turf irrigation systems, agricultural micro-irrigation systems, landscaping equipment and lighting, and residential yard and snow removal products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Met-Pro Corp. Had 143 Pending Cases at July 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Met-Pro Corporation had a total of 143 asbestos-related cases pending against it as of July 31, 2012, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2012. Beginning in 2002, the Company began to be named in asbestos- related lawsuits filed against a large number of industrial companies including, in particular, those in the pump and fluid handling industries. In management's opinion, the complaints typically have been vague, general and speculative, alleging that the Company, along with the numerous other defendants, sold unidentified asbestos-containing products and engaged in other related actions which caused injuries (including death) and loss to the plaintiffs. Counsel has advised that more recent cases typically allege more serious claims of mesothelioma. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the cases which have been filed and that none of its products were a cause of any injury or loss to any of the plaintiffs. The Company's insurers have hired attorneys who, together with the Company, are vigorously defending these cases. The Company has been dismissed from or settled a large number of these cases. The sum total of all payments through July 31, 2012 to settle cases involving asbestos-related claims was $695,000, all of which has been paid by the Company's insurers including legal expenses, except for corporate counsel expenses, with an average cost per settled claim, excluding legal fees, of approximately $25,000. Based upon the most recent information available to the Company regarding such claims, there were a total of 143 cases pending against the Company as of July 31, 2012 (with Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia having the largest number of cases), as compared with approximately 130 cases that were pending as of March 22, 2012. Subsequent to January 31, 2012, 25 new cases were filed against the Company, and the Company was dismissed from 15 cases and settled two cases. Most of the pending cases have not advanced beyond the early stages of discovery, although a number of cases are on schedules leading to, or are scheduled for trial. The Company believes that its insurance coverage is adequate for the cases currently pending against the Company and for the foreseeable future, assuming a continuation of the current volume, nature of cases and settlement amounts; however, the Company has no control over the number and nature of cases that are filed against it, nor as to the financial health of its insurers or their position as to coverage. The Company also presently believes that none of the pending cases will have a material adverse impact upon the Company's results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. At any given time, the Company is typically also party to a small number of other legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. Although the ultimate outcome of any legal matter cannot be predicted with certainty, based upon the present information, including the Company's assessment of the facts of each particular claim as well as accruals, the Company believes that no pending proceeding will have a material adverse impact upon the Company's results of operations, liquidity, or financial condition. Met-Pro Corporation manufactures and sells product recovery and pollution control equipment for purification of air and liquids, fluid handling equipment for corrosive, abrasive and high temperature liquids, and filtration and purification products. The Company markets and sells its products through its own personnel, distributors, representatives and agents. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar Int'l. Still Subject to Fibro Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Navistar International Corporation states: "Along with other vehicle manufacturers, we have been subject to an increased number of asbestos-related claims in recent years. In general, these claims relate to illnesses alleged to have resulted from asbestos exposure from component parts found in older vehicles, although some cases relate to the alleged presence of asbestos in our facilities. In these claims, we are not the sole defendant, and the claims name as defendants numerous manufacturers and suppliers of a wide variety of products allegedly containing asbestos. We have strongly disputed these claims, and it has been our policy to defend against them vigorously. Historically, the actual damages paid out to claimants have not been material in any year to our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. It is possible that the number of these claims will continue to grow, and that the costs for resolving asbestos related claims could become significant in the future." No further updates were reported in the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2012. Navistar International Corporation is a holding company, whose principal operating subsidiaries are Navistar, Inc. and Navistar Financial Corporation (NFC). The Company is a manufacturer of International brand commercial and military trucks, IC Bus (IC) brand buses, MaxxForce brand diesel engines, Workhorse Custom Chassis (WCC) brand chassis for motor homes and step vans, and Monaco RV (Monaco) recreational vehicles (RV), as well as a provider of service parts for all makes of trucks and trailers. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair Ltd. Had 1,600 Pending Suits at June 29 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pentair Ltd., as of June 29, 2012, had approximately 1,600 asbestos-related lawsuits pending against it, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 29, 2012. The Company and certain of its subsidiaries along with numerous other companies are named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials. These cases typically involve product liability claims based primarily on allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial products that either contained asbestos or were attached to or used with asbestos-containing components manufactured by third-parties. Each case typically names between dozens to hundreds of corporate defendants. While the Company has observed an increase in the number of these lawsuits over the past several years, including lawsuits by plaintiffs with mesothelioma- related claims, a large percentage of these suits have not presented viable legal claims and, as a result, have been dismissed by the courts. The Company's strategy has been to mount a vigorous defense aimed at having unsubstantiated suits dismissed, and, where appropriate, settling suits before trial. Although a large percentage of litigated suits have been dismissed, the Company cannot predict the extent to which it will be successful in resolving lawsuits in the future. As of June 29, 2012, there were approximately 1,600 lawsuits pending against the Company, its subsidiaries or entities for which the Company had assumed responsibility. Each lawsuit typically includes several claims, and the Company has approximately 2,200 claims outstanding as of June 29, 2012. This amount is not adjusted for claims that are not actively being prosecuted, identified incorrect defendants, or duplicated other actions, which would ultimately reflect the Company's current estimate of the number of viable claims made against it, its affiliates, or entities for which it has assumed responsibility in connection with acquisitions or divestitures. Annually, during the Company's third quarter, the Company performs an analysis with the assistance of outside counsel and other experts to update its estimated asbestos-related assets and liabilities. In addition, on a quarterly basis, the Company re- evaluates the assumptions used to perform the annual analysis and records an expense as necessary to reflect changes in its estimated liability and related insurance asset. The Company's estimate of the liability and corresponding insurance recovery for pending and future claims and defense costs is based on the Company's historical claim experience, and estimates of the number and resolution cost of potential future claims that may be filed. The Company's legal strategy for resolving claims also impacts these estimates. The Company considers various trends and developments in evaluating the period of time (the look-back period) over which historical claim and settlement experience is used to estimate and value claims reasonably projected to be made in the future during a defined period of time (the look-forward period). As part of the Company's annual valuation process in the third quarter of fiscal year 2012, the Company determined that a look-back period of three years was more appropriate than a five- year period because the Company has experienced a higher and more consistent level of claims activity and settlement costs in the past three years. As a result, the Company believes a three year look-back period is more representative of future claim and settlement activity than the five year period it previously used. The Company also revised its look-forward period from seven years to fifteen years. The Company's decision to revise its look- forward period was primarily based on improvements in the consistency of observable data and the Company's more extensive experience with asbestos claims since the look-forward period was originally established in 2005. The Company believes it can make a more reliable estimate of pending and future claims beyond seven years. The Company believes valuation of pending claims and future claims to be filed over the next fifteen years produces a reasonable estimate of its asbestos liability, which it records in the combined financial statements on an undiscounted basis. The Company's estimate of asbestos-related insurance recoveries represents estimated amounts due to the Company for previously paid and settled claims and the probable reimbursements relating to its estimated liability for pending and future claims. In determining the amount of insurance recoverable, the Company considers a number of factors, including available insurance, allocation methodologies, and the solvency and creditworthiness of insurers. As a result, the Company recorded a net charge of $13 million during the quarter ended June 29, 2012. As of June 29, 2012, the Company's estimated net liability of $12 million was recorded within the Company's Combined Balance Sheet as a liability for pending and future claims and related defense costs of $76 million, and separately as an asset for insurance recoveries of $64 million. Similarly, as of September 30, 2011, the Company's estimated net liability of $3 million was recorded within the Company's Combined Balance Sheet as a liability for pending and future claims and related defense costs of $27 million, and separately as an asset for insurance recoveries of $24 million. The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on the Company's strategies for resolving its asbestos claims and currently available information as well as estimates and assumptions. Key variables and assumptions include the number and type of new claims that are filed each year, the average cost of resolution of claims, the resolution of coverage issues with insurance carriers, amount of insurance and the solvency risk with respect to the Company's insurance carriers. Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables are subject to greater uncertainty in the later portion of the projection period. Other factors that may affect the Company's liability and cash payments for asbestos-related matters include uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms of state or federal tort legislation and the applicability of insurance policies among subsidiaries. As a result, actual liabilities or insurance recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than those recorded if assumptions used in the Company's calculations vary significantly from actual results. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Town of Century Council Passes Cleanup Job to CoC ------------------------------------------------------------------ NorthEscambia.com reports that the Town of Century will give a dilapidated asbestos-containing building to the Century Chamber of Commerce, allowing the chamber to demolish the building. The town council had voted to demolish the building at 7601 Mayo Street back in 2011, but asbestos concerns put those plans on hold. A study found asbestos in the older 6,400 square foot two story portion of the building, as well as in the newer single story portion of the structure, according to Century Mayor Freddie McCall. The town found a grant from the Regional Planning Council to abate the asbestos and demolish the structure. Because the town is not eligible to receive the grant, the building will be deeded to the chamber of commerce, which is eligible for the assistance. Once the building is demolished, the chamber will have up to 10 years to lure development to the property or it will revert back to the town. The town will approve or deny any lease or purchase of the property. The white, mostly brick building at 7601 Mayo Street (across from the old hospital) housed doctors' offices and even a pharmacy and soda fountain years ago. It has been abandoned for several years and is in an obvious state of disrepair with roof and structural problems. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Repair of Heritage Area Visitors Center Underway ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jennie Grey of The Saratogian reports that after more than 95 years of wear, the slate roof of the Heritage Area Visitors Center at 297 Broadway in Saratoga Springs is being repaired. The Visitors Center was scheduled for repairs in 1991. However, grant funds were redirected to interior work instead of the roof restoration. Now, 20 years later, Eastern Building & Restoration is addressing leaks and deterioration overhead. As repairs got under way, asbestos from the building's 1915 construction was discovered. In May, in accordance with state regulations to protect the building's occupants, scaffolding was installed around the entire perimeter to allow asbestos removal and roof restoration to proceed with minimal disturbance to Visitors Center staff, volunteers and patrons. The city is requiring that the asbestos removal be done at night to ensure safe air quality around the center while it is open during the day. Workers are cordoning off sections with plastic and testing the air consistently as they complete each portion of the roof. The project is scheduled to be completed by late November. Meanwhile, visitors can still pick up guides and local maps and see exhibits and information kiosks at the center. Originally built as a trolley station for Hudson Valley Railway Co., the building was designed by Ludlow and Peabody of New York City, an architectural firm that worked on prominent colleges, chapels and skyscrapers. The center's Beaux-Arts design incorporates a symmetrical fa‡ade with pediment doorways framed by Doric columns, as well as a barrel-vaulted interior ceiling. The city-owned center is on the National Register of Historic Places and is a city landmark. In 1941, the trolley route was abandoned, but some of its history remains at the Visitors Center. The chestnut benches, brass chandeliers, ticket booth and rear trolley platform area are reminders of the time when the building served as the most elegant station on the eastern seaboard. New York state bought the building and by 1941 had converted it into a "drink hall," where after entering through a turnstile, visitors could buy bottled, state-owned mineral waters. Different waters were recommended at various times of the day. Closed in 1965, the building was deeded to the city. The wall murals depicting the springs, the "romance map" of the city and a large electric icebox that stood behind the bar are artifacts from the drink hall days. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Groton Council Moves Funds for School Cleanup -------------------------------------------------------------- Greg Smith at The Day reports that the Groton Town Council in Connecticut, on Tuesday, Oct. 2 voted to shift $110,000 of the $130,000 left over from a boiler replacement project at S.B. Butler Elementary School to finish the replacement of the asbestos floor tile at Mary Morrisson Elementary School. There was $265,000 in this year's budget to replace the floor tile, but the project exceeded budgeted costs by $101,975, according to Wes Greenleaf, the school district's director of buildings and grounds. State grant funds cover 65% of the project, he said. The town had budgeted $270,000 in the capital improvement expenses to replace the boilers at S.B. Butler. That project cost far less than expected. With approval of the council, the measure next goes for approval with the Representative Town Meeting. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Emergency Funds Move Up Abatement at ILCS ---------------------------------------------------------- Bill Quinlivan of DenPubs reports that in a meeting dominated by updates on the ongoing construction project at the Indian Lake Central School (ILCS), board members Tuesday, Sept. 18 were faced with spending up to $100,000 more than expected to clean up asbestos from the school. Mari Cecil, of the Bernier Carr Group, the engineering firm on the project, presented the board with estimated costs to mitigate and clean up the surprise asbestos discoveries in a number of areas of the school. She said it would cost about $200,000. A number of scenarios for funding the asbestos mitigation and removal had been suggested by the district's counsel and fiscal advisor. Cecil presented these alternatives to the board. The $200,000 figure represented three-quarters or more of the amount currently in the district's general fund. After considering their options -- and citing the threat to the health and safety of students, staff, occupants and visitors to the school -- board members passed an emergency resolution for funding not to exceed $100,000 to mitigate and clean up two areas key to school operations: the records room and the area beneath the science room. The remaining areas of asbestos discovery would be safely sealed until the final cost of the initial mitigation is known and funding can be identified for cleanup. Upon questions from Mr. Harrington, Board Vice President, Ms. Cecil informed the board that administrative time costs incurred by her firm and associated with the surprise discoveries were being absorbed in an effort to contribute to cost containment on this project and out of a sense of partnership with the district and the local taxpayers. In a post-meeting discussion, Mark Brand, School Superintendent, made the point that everyone involved is doing their best to deal with this surprise issue within the realities of available funding and the complications of the 2% tax cap. Brand and the rest of the board see the emergency resolution as a means to get the most critical areas mitigated while the project continues, allowing true overall project costs to become better defined. He pointed out that this is a means of serving the best interest of the students, staff and taxpayer while moving the project to completion. During the meeting, after the emergency resolution was passed, discussion ensued about the fact that the surprise asbestos discoveries and the cost to mitigate them are seriously jeopardizing funding for a much-wanted generator. In 2009, $1,720,000 of bond was approved by voters for the construction project. This was to include engineering, construction, plumbing, electrical and legal costs. In addition, in May of 2012, voters approved a Capital Reserve Fund of up to $147,000 to acquire a generator that would allow the school to be designated as an emergency shelter and permit classes continuing during power outages. The need to mitigate the surprise asbestos discoveries would override the need for a generator to be installed this year. Cost pressures are making this more of a reality. The next meeting of the board will be Oct. 16 at 7 p.m. ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Cancer Treatment Costs to Rise by 2020 ------------------------------------------------------------ Tim Povtak at The Mesothelioma Center reports that cancer-related medical costs are expected to soar in the coming decade, making it more important than ever for mesothelioma victims to seek compensation for their asbestos-related disease. According to an extensive study done by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and RTI International, cancer treatment costs will rise in every state -- some by more than double -- by 2020. The expected rise in state-level cancer costs will range from a 115% increase in Arizona to a more modest 34% increase in Washington D.C. "Over the past 20 years, the cost of treating cancer has nearly doubled," wrote lead author Justin Trogdon, PhD, of RTI International. "Effective prevention and early detection strategies are needed to limit the growing burden of cancer." Results of the study were published in the September issue of The American Journal of Managed Care, which included a state-by-state breakdown of cancer costs. The study was designed to help states make evidence-based decisions about the allocation of resources for cancer prevention and treatment. California ($28.3 billion), Florida ($24.9 billion) Texas ($19.6 billion) and New York ($17.4 billion) -- four high-population states -- are expected to have the highest cancer-care costs by 2020. The lowest will be Alaska ($508 million) and Wyoming ($539 million). Most often cited for the rising costs are an aging population and more expensive cancer treatments, which constitute a large percentage of the crippling national health-care costs in the United States. Mesothelioma is an aggressive but relatively rare cancer and represents only a small portion of overall cancer costs. An estimated 3,000 Americans are diagnosed each year. By comparison, more than 200,000 are diagnosed with lung cancer. Unlike other cancers, though, mesothelioma should be completely preventable. It is caused almost exclusively by an exposure to asbestos. And because asbestos manufacturers knew it was causing cancer and still using it, people who suffer from mesothelioma often can seek compensation through the legal process. Mesothelioma also has a lengthy latency period, taking up to 50 years after exposure to be diagnosed, and many of the people who contract it do so because they were exposed to asbestos at work. Mesothelioma patients often are forced to pay significant medical expenses because many treatments are not covered by health- insurance policies, making it critical to explore other options. Medical spending estimates on cancer for this study included payment by insurers and out-of-pocket payments by patients like deductibles, co-payments and other non-covered services. Researchers in the study based their findings upon cancer prevalence data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey that was used from 2004 to 2008. It also used projected U.S. Census Bureau population forecasts. States with the highest expected increase in residents over 65 also were the states with the highest-forecast increases, a direct reflection of a demographic shift. That shift in demographics varied widely. It resulted in a 7% drop in expected cancer cases for Washington D.C., and an increase in Arizona of 45%. Florida (353,000) California (351,000) and Texas (249,000) were expected to have the greatest number of cancer cases by 2020. The median increase in cancer care costs among all states was 72%. Authors of the study explained that the declining cancer incidence rates in recent years, along with the longer survival periods had little effect on their projections. They used a base-model assumption of 3.6% increase in medical costs. "The number of people treated for cancer, and the costs of their cancer-related medical care are projected to increase substantially," wrote the authors in the conclusion, while urging more emphasis on prevention and early detection. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bad Boiler Plant Job Stopped by DEP Inspectors --------------------------------------------------------------- The Herald News reports that a tank removal company working on a demolition project at University of Massachusetts Dartmouth in 2010 has been penalized $10,887 by the Department of Environmental Protection for asbestos violations. Commonwealth Tank of Wakefield was working on a boiler plant demolition project at 285 Old Westport Road on June 24, when DEP conducted an unannounced inspection at the facility where the company was demolishing an oil-tank piping tunnel, according to a DEP press release. An inspector observed broken sections of heavy concrete had fallen onto asbestos-containing pipe insulation, and that workers had attempted to wet down the damaged area with a garden hose. Lab samples taken that day by DEP confirmed the presence of asbestos material in the broken insulation and caulking. "Anyone who works on or around oil tanks, particularly the thermal-system insulation, has got to be aware of the prospect of asbestos-containing materials," said Philip Weinberg, director of DEP's Southeast Regional Office in Lakeville. "Commonwealth Tank workers must ensure that proper procedures are in place and carried out without exception, or else their own health and safety and anyone nearby is at risk from exposure to asbestos fibers." Following the inspection, work was halted and Commonwealth Tank was required to retain the services of a licensed and certified asbestos contractor to submit for approval a plan to complete the work. On July 13, 2010, the cleanup work was completed in compliance with all applicable regulations. Property owners or contractors with questions about asbestos- containing materials, notification requirements, proper removal, handling, packaging, storage and disposal procedures, or the asbestos regulations are encouraged to contact the appropriate DEP Regional Office for assistance. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Files Lawsuit Against Chevron USA, 7 Others ------------------------------------------------------------------ David Yates of The Southeast Texas Record reports that on behalf of the late Kenneth Gatlin, Carol Gatlin has filed an asbestos suit against eight companies, blaming the defendants for the man's death. The suit was filed Sept. 27 in Jefferson County District Court. The defendants named in the suit include Cameron Iron Works, Cooper Industries, Chevron USA, Air Liquide America, Guard-Line, Triplex, Yarway Corp. and Santa Fe Braun Inc. According to the lawsuit, as a result of Kenneth Gatlin's exposure to asbestos-containing products over his career, he contracted a serious and debilitating disease that took his life. The suit does not state where, when or how Kenneth Gatlin was allegedly exposed to asbestos, only that his exposure lead to esophageal cancer. The suit accuses the defendants of negligently selling and using asbestos products despite actual knowledge of the extreme risk of harm inherent to asbestos exposure. The defendants also negligently failed to provide Kenneth Gatlin with a safe place to work, the suit alleges. The plaintiff is suing for exemplary and punitive damages. Houston attorney Samantha Flores of Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas represents the plaintiff. Judge Bob Wortham, 58th District Court, is assigned to the case. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Holiday Fence Job Shocks Sydneysiders ------------------------------------------------------ The Northern Star reports that onlookers were horrified when a worker fitted out in full protective gear and a face mask dismantled a fence containing asbestos in the main street of Lennox Head as lots of people milled about during Monday's (Oct. 1) public holiday. The fence, in front of an old house at 86 Ballina St, was just off a public footpath and next to a cafe. A Ballina Shire Council representative said the incident had been referred to WorkCover NSW for review despite there being a very low risk to the public. Sydneysiders Helen Magner and John Fowler said they and other onlookers were shocked by the worker's activity. "It should not have been done on a public holiday," Ms. Magner said. "You just get a fleck (of asbestos) in your lungs and you're dead." Council's health and environment manager Graham Plumb said while the timing of the fence removal was unfortunate, it presented a very low risk to the public as the asbestos fibers -- which comprised less than 25% of the corrugated sheeting fence -- were contained. Mr. Plumb attended the site at 10.30am on Monday following a tip- off from the public and found the fence already removed. He said the home owner had hired a licensed asbestos remover and had been carrying out the work at the request of the council as it was deemed the fence had reached its use-by date. "The work could have been better timed," Mr. Plumb said. "We are referring the matter initially to WorkCover NSW for review." Graham Lancaster, the director of Southern Cross University's Environmental Research Laboratory, agreed the risk to the public was "absolutely negligible". Like many towns across Australia, Lennox Head has a lot of older homes containing asbestos. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Delayed Street Cleanup Worries Sheffielders ------------------------------------------------------------ The Star reports that waste containing asbestos sparked safety fears after it was left lying in a Sheffield street for almost two weeks. Contractors demolishing Wincobank Working Men's Club raised the alarm after building debris was dumped next to the site. Workers were forced to call Sheffield Council to have it removed after realizing it contained the banned substance -- but the council took 13 days to clear up the mess in Dara Street. Joyce Townsend, aged 75, of nearby Standon Road, said: "I naively thought they'd come and take it away that day because it is so dangerous. The builders couldn't do anything about it. It is a potential danger to children who play near there. "The council told me there was a delay because they had to get a specialist company to come and remove it. If they need to do that just to take it away, how can they just leave it lying there? "I feel so angry. It was an eyesore, but also a danger. Why didn't they pull their finger out? "At first I was told Street Force were dealing with it but that changed to Streets Ahead -- it should be called Streets Behind." The delays were put down to weather conditions, availability of the specialist team and a row over the source of the discarded rubbish. Coun Peter Price, said: "There was confusion over where the waste had come from as it was near a building site. The officers had to come out and make sure it was asbestos first, then we had to arrange for them to take it away. "The council acted as quickly as it could in the circumstances. "We need to try to catch the people who dump this in the act. We have an issue and history with people dumping stuff in that area." Chris Morris, for Streets Ahead, said: "We are reviewing our asbestos removal procedures as a result of this incident to speed up this process in future." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Study Shows Possibility of Early Meso Detection ---------------------------------------------------------------- Medical Xpress reports that researchers have discovered a panel of 13 blood proteins that may be effective biomarkers to detect malignant mesothelioma, according to a study published Oct. 3 in the open access journal PLOS ONE by Rachel Ostroff from the company SomaLogic, which developed the new test, and colleagues at other institutions. Malignant mesothelioma is a rare, aggressive form of lung cancer that can develop after prolonged exposure to asbestos. Because early diagnosis is difficult, most patients face a poor prognosis and have few options for treatment. In the study, authors compared proteins in the blood of asbestos-exposed individuals without the disease to blood proteins in asbestos-exposed mesothelioma patients to identify 13 proteins that are linked to the disease, including in the early stages. According to the researchers, the discovery of the new blood-based proteins linked to the disease could help to develop better, less invasive diagnostic tests to detect the disease at earlier stages. "By measuring changes in blood concentration of a series of proteins we can potentially catch mesothelioma at an earlier stage," said Ostroff, Clinical Research Director at SomaLogic. "Our efforts are now focused on further development of this approach, and how best to get it rapidly into clinical use for the sake of individuals who can benefit from earlier detection of this devastating disease." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Find Lengthens Parks Library Project ----------------------------------------------------------- Liz Zabel of The Iowa State Daily reports that renovations on the third floor of Parks Library began as a simple project to recarpet and revamp study spaces. This all changed when asbestos was discovered beneath the carpet. Asbestos, according to the U.S. Department of Labor, is a naturally occurring mineral resistant to heat and corrosion used in materials for insulation, tile and building materials. The mineral is infamously linked to negative health effects, such as lung cancer and mesothelioma, which result from breathing in the hazardous fibers. Occupational Safety and Health Administration highly regulates the now well-known dangerous material. Although scary and inconvenient to discover, Olivia Madison, dean of the library, has handled the situation with confidence. She said as they began recarpeting in the summer, they had discovered far more asbestos than they thought they would. After taking samples around the third floor, they discovered some areas with asbestos, but this was far worse than they had imagined, slowing the project dramatically and making it much more costly. In order to deal with the dislodged asbestos, they needed to remove all the carpeting, even under the stacks, which, Madison said, is not a simple task. They had to lift and move each stack with a hydraulic lift. Afterwards, they were able to chemically remove the asbestos. The areas in which the asbestos abatement was occurring were sectioned off from unpermitted tenants to make sure everyone was kept safe. In addition to these barriers, the Facilities Planning and Management employees were making sure to follow all proper health codes, Madison said. "There's no way anything is getting out," Madison said, adding they are following the strictest standards for removal. "Technology for asbestos removal is much more advanced than in the past . . . [and] it's not in the heating ducts or airborne, which makes a huge difference." Madison found it a mystery that asbestos appeared in only some areas of the floor. When they renovated the fourth floor, which was built in the same time period, they didn't find any asbestos. When they went to recarpet the lower level over the summer, they also discovered asbestos, but because it hadn't been dislodged, it was safe to install "carpet on carpet" -- a way to recarpet without removing the existing carpet by adding a second layer -- which Madison said is becoming more and more common, especially when dealing with older buildings. "As long as you don't destroy the carpet and therefore cause problems with asbestos getting dislodged, you don't have to go through what we're doing on 3rd floor," Madison said. Although asbestos became an issue and elongated the renovation at Parks library, Madison said the addition was about much more: evaluating how students really use the building and accommodating for those needs. Madison said the third floor is seen as the "noisy floor," where students go to work in collaboration. "When you tape record what's going on on this floor, it sounds like people are just talking," said Sarah Passonneau, assistant professor at Parks Library. "If you listen afterwards, you can hear the low hum of what's called 'learning sound.'" She explained that this sound is actually what teachers try to achieve: the sound of the process of learning. Madison agreed: "Students created this environment . . . We didn't want to change that dynamic." Passonneau said they received strong negative feedback about the older part of the building, north of the glass wall, where the study carrel desks were located, especially from graduate students. "Graduate students said the carrels had got to go," Passonneau said. "[They were] dirty, too small and didn't fit their needs." To accommodate the needs of these students, not only graduate but also undergraduate, Madison decided to take on the challenge of removing them. Madison said the carrels must have been built to last 100 years, if not more, because when they went to remove them, they had to rip them out, basically destroying the wall. In place of the cramped carrels, there will be one study space for every two former cubicles: easily able to seat one person comfortably, but able to accommodate two or three people at the same time. In addition to these carrels, chairs, tables and lighting will be replaced, improving not only the aesthetics of the study area but also energy efficiency. This renovation, Madison said, is only Phase One of the transformation. She said she hopes to plan for Phase Two: a much more resource-intensive design, emerging technology and learning. Passonneau said, "It's really meeting the needs of 21st-century students." Madison said students have been amazingly patient, and she hopes the renovations will provide them with a much more appealing learning environment: a space which students are really proud to use. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup Closes Terre Haute School Auditorium ------------------------------------------------------------- Sue Loughlin of The Tribune-Star reports that the Terre Haute South Vigo High School auditorium has been closed for about 1-1/2 weeks and will remain closed until after asbestos-containing acoustical ceiling is removed over fall break, Superintendent Dan Tanoos confirmed Oct. 4. Late last month, a small piece of the original acoustical ceiling in the auditorium fell in the seating area and the auditorium was closed off. The piece that fell was sent away for testing and it did contain asbestos. Parents were contacted last week by automated telephone message and Principal Chris Mauk notified leaders of booster clubs and parent groups. Tanoos had air quality tested at South, North Vigo and West Vigo high schools; testing showed no asbestos in the air. "At no time has there been any risk with anyone's health," Tanoos said Oct. 4. Over fall break, which is Oct. 12-15, Terre Haute South will be closed and a company will remove the auditorium acoustical ceiling; it will not immediately be replaced. The South Vigo football game scheduled for Oct. 12, which is senior night, will remain at South, but no one will be allowed inside the high school building, Tanoos said. "I don't want anyone to feel any possible exposure could take place," he said. Because North Vigo was built at the same time and the two high school buildings are similar, the district anticipates removing the acoustical ceiling from that auditorium, as well. That work would likely be done next summer. He anticipates the ceilings at both the high schools will be replaced at that time. Because public school buildings are involved, the district must adhere to strict environmental regulations, Tanoos said. While many older buildings, in general, may have been built with asbestos-containing materials, asbestos "doesn't become an issue until it is exposed," he said. Tanoos estimated the cost to remove the auditorium ceiling at South will run about $80,000, to be funded out of the capital projects budget. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eight Fibro Dumpings Reported on Gwent Levels -------------------------------------------------------------- Gwent News reports that asbestos was found dumped on Gwent Levels, according to the Environment Agency Wales. In the past three months there have been up to eight separate incidents of dumped asbestos reported. The asbestos appears to be coming from the same source, as each dumped load is similar in shape and color. Illegal deposits of asbestos have been found within sight of local houses in Marshfield, St. Brides and Peterstone. All three areas fall within the environmentally sensitive area of the Gwent Levels. Raynor Lewis, Environment Agency Wales, said: "The amount of asbestos being dumped on the Gwent Levels is a real concern, and we are asking people for their help. If anyone has any information about the asbestos, such as where it came from, or who is responsible for this illegal dumping, please call our incident hotline on 0800-80-70-60. Lines are open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and all calls are confidential." Environment Agency Wales is appealing for information after asbestos was found fly-tipped in a number of locations on the Gwent Levels. Fly-tipping asbestos is an illegal and dangerous activity that can harm humans and the environment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Apologizes for Oaktree Initial Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Somerset Guardian at Thisissomerset.co.uk reports that Bath and North East Somerset Council has refused to grant planning permission to dump deadly asbestos and other hazardous waste at a Chew Valley quarry. The application by Oaktree Environmental to store up to 645,000 tons of stable non-reactive hazardous waste in Stowey quarry over the next 10 years was unanimously turned down by councillors sitting on B&NES development control committee -- just 14 months after they initially gave the green light for the controversial application to go ahead. Councillors sitting on the committee apologized for initially passing the application, blaming the Environment Agency for not making the dangers clear enough in reports. Councillor Les Kew (Con, High Littleton) said the council had been "badly informed" by the Environment Agency. He added that councillors had been under the impression that the agency, which gives a permit and controls the disposal of waste once permission has been granted, had no problem with the quarry being used for this purpose. He was sorry that residents had suffered and blamed the Environment Agency for not giving the correct information. The planning permission granted in July 2011 was quashed in the High Court after B&NES admitted local residents had not been informed of the nature of the plans. The applicant resubmitted the planning application and council officers then recommended refusal after reading a report by the Environment Agency, which stated they had concerns about the danger posed to surface and ground water. The packed meeting was filled with campaigners from Stop Stowey Quarry Action Group who had already handed B&NES a 4,000 name petition and a dossier of reasons why they felt the application should be tuned down -- including the risk to drinking water at Chew Valley Lake, the health threat posed by transporting the waste along the narrow rural roads and even the impact on native crayfish. Chartered geologist Gareth Thomas spoke against the application on behalf of the group. He told the meeting he had 40 years industry experience and said he felt that the stability of the land in the fractured limestone quarry and the fact the waste would only be kept enclosed by a liner posed too great a threat of leachate generation. Television presenter Dr. Phil Hammond, who lives in the Bishop Sutton, also spoke against the application, pointing out the negative health effects of asbestos. Councillor Tim Warren (Con, Mendip) encouraged committee members to think of the welfare of residents and visitors to the Chew Valley "for many years, even decades, to come." He said: "This is not just about an eyesore of a building, but a huge tip for hazardous waste. If this tip was a hole in the ground, it would put a different slant on it. But it isn't. It is on the very top of a hill, overlooking the valley, about two kilometers away from a lake which is Bristol Water's major reservoir." John Williams, from Oaktree Environmental, spoke in favor of the application. He said that the company already had consent for lorry deliveries to dump general waste that does not expire until 2028, and permission for mineral extraction from the quarry if it wishes. He added that the proposed waste dumped in the quarry would be stable and "non-reactive" and encouraged councillors to defer a decision so further discussions could be made to resolve issues to avoid "engaging in appeal and resubmission scenario." Councillors rejected the application on the grounds that it had not been demonstrated that the quarry was an appropriate location for the disposal of asbestos waste, and that there was not sufficient information provided to show the waste would not have an adverse effect on the water supply. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rantoul's 2nd Round of Cleanup to Cost More ------------------------------------------------------------ Dave Hinton of The Rantoul Press reports that the Rantoul Village Board is expected to take another step toward demolition of more buildings at the closed Autumn Glen apartment complex. At its monthly meeting Tuesday night (Oct. 9), the board will be asked to approve the low bid of $127,150 submitted by Midway Contracting Group to remove asbestos from seven more buildings. Midway is the same company that removed asbestos from the first five apartment buildings. Those buildings were then used for firefighter training by area departments. They will be burned to the ground later this fall once nearby crops are harvested, Rantoul Fire Chief Ken Waters said. The buildings will be burned to the ground as part of a training scenario with the Illinois Fire Service Institute and other area departments. That burning was delayed this year due to the summer drought. Fire Chief Ken Waters on Friday, Oct. 5 said the apartment buildings will be burned Saturday, Oct. 27. He said at least five fire departments will take part in the project. The asbestos removal process will be more costly for the village this time. "The cost this year and last year went up a little bit," Village Inspector Dan Culkin said at the village board's study session. "There are funds available." Asbestos from the first five buildings was removed for $75,650 -- an average of $15,128 per building. The cost for the seven additional buildings will average $18,164 per building. "This will take care of all the buildings on Maplewood (Drive) as well as the northeast corner," Culkin said. The complex, which is now the property of the village of Rantoul, at one time included 16 apartment buildings. One of those buildings accidently burned to the ground when a fire from a training exercise rekindled. Bond refinancing: Village attorney Ken Beth told the board that three of the village's four outstanding bond issues could be eligible for refinancing. The oldest bond issue dates to 2003. He said it would be worth the village's while to refinance the bonds to "take advantage of these lower interest rates." "We're thinking we can cut our interest rates in half," Beth said. Easton-Bell work progresses: Village Inspector Dan Culkin said the site preparation, including earth moving, is about 90% completed for the mammoth Easton-Bell building that will be built west of Rantoul. "We reviewed the plans for the footings, the concrete tip-up walls and the steel structure, and those have been approved," Culkin said. "That's about a $7 million phase." The 815,000-square-foot facility will be constructed just west of Interstate 57. Culkin said the inspection department also reviewed building drawings for new Dollar Tree and O'Reilly's auto parts stores that will be built near County Market. The village has also met with representatives from Miller- Valentine Residential Construction, Cincinnati, which intends to build 42 senior citizen villas north of Brookstone Estates. Amended Chanute re-use plan recommended: The board will be asked to approve an amended re-use plan for the former Chanute Air Force Base to support the final transfer of the remaining Air Force property to the village. Village Administrator Bruce Sandahl said the original 1990 reuse plan included provisions for a United Airlines facility, which never came to Rantoul, and is no longer valid. Once the plan is approved by the village, it will be included into an economic development conveyance for 406 of the remaining 588 acres. Sandahl said based on discussions and public meetings with the Center for Community Adaptation, the following items were recommended for consideration for the former base -- agriculture, alternative energy, recreation and tourism, transportation, education and training and research. Electric materials purchase recommended: The board will be asked to approve the purchase of 28 items to be placed in the public works warehouse inventory that will be primarily used for installation of electric facilities at the Easton-Bell plant. Director of Public Works Greg Hazel recommended approval of the bid submitted by Brownstown Electric Supply Inc. for $15,370 worth of items and HD Supply for $34,455 worth of items. Substation regulator to be refurbished: Hazel will also ask the board to approve the refurbishment of an electric substation transformer regulator on South Century Boulevard for $53,500. The regulator was damaged when a motorist ran off the road and crashed through the substation fence, striking the regulator. In total the replacement will cost about $70,000. Hazel said the village anticipates that the motorist's auto insurance will pay for the cost. Sewer line slip-line project: The board will be asked to approve a contract not to exceed $100,000 to Insituform Technologies, Lemont, to slip-line 4,227 feet of sanitary sewer mains in the village. Hazel said the slip-lining will line existing sewer lines that have been damaged by tree root invasion or otherwise damaged. Insituform's bid was for $113,000. Hazel said the village will either try to do some of the work itself to make up the $13,000 balance or scale back the size of the project. He said a similar project was done on certain village sewer lines five years ago, and those lines are holding up well. Electronic message board regulations: The board will be asked to amend the zoning ordinance relating to electronic message board signs. The amended language will create a new institutional use sign requirement that would provide stronger regulations in residential districts and allow message board signs to change more frequently -- every four seconds. Previously, the signs could not change more frequently than every three minutes. The changes also include modifications to the current sign requirements in commercial and industrial districts to be consistent in all districts where message board signs are permitted. The changes stemmed from American Lutheran Church erecting an electronic message board on its property. Mobile home zoning change sought: The board will be asked to approve a zoning change requested by Rantoul Mobile Home Park LLC, owner of Heritage Estates mobile home park, to M-1 (mobile home district), to allow the park to be sold. The mobile home park's current classification is R-4 (residential) and agricultural and is considered legal non-conforming under the Rantoul zoning code. Contract negotiations: The board met in executive session to discuss contract negotiations with village electrical workers and police sergeants. Board members will be asked to approve a contract with the electrical workers at the meeting. The board was asked for direction regarding demands submitted by the Fraternal Order of Police on behalf of the police sergeants. Trick-or-treat hours: Police Chief Paul Farber said trick-or- treat hours in Rantoul will be 6-8 p.m. Wednesday, Oct. 31. ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADAO Announces March 2013 Conference ----------------------------------------------------- Mesothelioma News reports that the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) has announced the dates of the 2013 ADAO Conference. The conference, titled "The Asbestos Crisis: New Trends in Prevention and Treatment" will be held March 22 -24, 2013 in Washington, D.C. The conference is open to the public and a discounted price is offered to patients, families, caregivers and students. Registration begins later this month. This year ADAO will offer several need-based scholarships to patients and families to cover the costs of registration. This is the first time in the conference's nine-year history that the organization has been able to make this generous offer. The 2013 conference will create an open forum for renowned medical experts, leading mesothelioma advocates and asbestos victims to speak on the importance of awareness, thus providing critical information about new developments in treatment and the search for a cure. ADAO is an independent, non-profit organization that was co-founded in 2004 by Linda Reinstein after her husband was diagnosed with mesothelioma. Reinstein, along with Doug Larkin, created ADAO to give those affected by asbestos a united and powerful voice in both the political and medical spectrums. The organization works year-round to raise public awareness about asbestos exposure, provide support for mesothelioma victims and fight for an asbestos ban. Reinstein's work reaches beyond the United States. She recently attended the 2012 International Mesothelioma Interest Group (IMIG) conference, where she met with leading international mesothelioma experts and connected with others who have been affected by asbestos-related diseases. Most recently, ADAO was invited to join delegates from over 20 different countries at the French National Association of Asbestos Victims (ANDEVA) conference, entitled "International Day for Asbestos Victims" on October 12 in Paris. Reinstein will present a session called "Asbestos: Still Legal and Lethal In the U.S," which will focus on how the asbestos industry uses the lack of a ban in the U.S. and Canada to sell the idea that asbestos is safe to other countries. Reinstein will be joined by scientists, doctors, NGO activists, and individuals who have been impacted by asbestos disease and will also be presenting on topics such as asbestos regulations, disease prevention and victim compensation. As the largest non-profit organization focused on asbestos awareness and mesothelioma, ADAO is a leader in online social messaging. Reinstein's supporters are able to follow her wherever she goes, as she has a Facebook and Twitter following that rivals even some of the top celebrities. ADAO also allows asbestos victims and their loved ones to share their stories through ADAO's website. Reinstein believes that one of the best ways to spread awareness and advocate for change is through the words and experiences of those have been affected by the deadly substance. Baron and Budd is a 2012 platinum level sponsor of ADAO and supports the organization in its efforts to raise public awareness about the dangers of asbestos exposure. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thailand's Swine Industry Opposes Fibro Ban ------------------------------------------------------------ The Bangkok Post reports that a ban on asbestos by the government would cost the swine industry 125 billion baht if implemented, says the Swine Raisers Association of Thailand. Repercussions would be most felt across the country by livestock raisers, farmers and the poor who would have to shoulder total costs of more than 500 billion baht in total, said the association's president Surachai Sutthitham. "We ask the government to seriously reconsider this decision, as it will severely affect the livestock industry and general public. There is no solid proof that the mineral causes illness and death," he said. Chrysotile or white asbestos is a type of mineral found in cement roofing tiles used nationwide in livestock sheds, households, temples and government buildings. Up to 2 million Thais use such tiles each year, and a ban would mean having to change to new ones with asbestos-free materials. The proposal to ban asbestos was initiated by the Public Health Ministry and non-governmental organisations. Proponents of the ban say contact with the mineral leads to cancer, yet opponents including medical experts argue there is no tangible proof of illnesses or deaths due to asbestos in the country. The decision is subject to approval by the cabinet before being passed to parliament for final endorsement. A university in Thailand commissioned to study steps towards the ban has proposed it be implemented in five years time. "If the ban goes ahead, will the government step in to help those who will be affected. We [the swine industry] will not chip in to change our roofs, if the government wants us to do it, they will have to do it for us," he said. Mr. Surachai also called on the government to inform the public about details of the ban. "The people who will be affected by the ban don't know anything about it. When decisions were taken to initiate the ban, there was no public participation at all," he said. Srichant Uthayopas, a former director of the Industry Ministry's Hazardous Substances Control Bureau, said most tile manufacturers have switched to using substitute materials such as paper fiber, polyvinyl chloride and polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), which make tiles brittle and perishable. Tiles containing asbestos can last for half a decade, while those made of substitute materials last a lot less. She said substances such as PVA are being used, and there is no scientific proof that these are not harmful to the human body. Asbestos was banned in the UK in 1999, but its repercussions were felt by that country's swine industry very recently. Changing the roofs and structures of livestock sheds and finding new ways of rearing livestock cost the industry as much as 6 billion (297 billion baht). ASBESTOS UPDATE: UGL to Set Up $11.75 Million Asbestos Trust ------------------------------------------------------------ James Haggerty for The Citizens' Voice reports that United Gilsonite Laboratories would contribute $11.75 million to a trust fund to settle asbestos-related claims, according to the company's bankruptcy reorganization plan. The Dunmore-based manufacturer would provide $2 million and pledge $8 million more for a settlement fund, and the company's shareholders would add $1.75 million, papers filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania show. UGL, which produces coatings, sealants and paints, cited the financial burden of asbestos-linked litigation when it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in March 2011. UGL wants the court to establish a trust fund with cash from the company and its insurers. Claimants would petition a court-appointed committee for payments. The company used asbestos, a toxic mineral fiber linked to respiratory ailments, in cement-type construction sealant from 1954 to 1975, according to court papers. UGL is a defendant in more than 950 asbestos-related lawsuits in at least 14 states, including more than 350 cases in New York, court documents show. Michelle Margotta Neary, spokeswoman for UGL, declined to comment on the reorganization plan. The company sought court protection after UGL and its insurers paid more than $25 million in asbestos-related claims, including $2 million in the three months before it filed for bankruptcy, according to court filings. UGL reported it recorded $49 million in sales in 2010 and claimed assets of $21 million and liabilities of $3 million at the time of the bankruptcy filing. Under the reorganization plan, filed last month, potential claimants would be required to file for damages within a year of the plan's approval and their petitions would undergo third-party evaluation to determine whether they qualify. Creditors and potential claimants will review the plan before the court takes action. Insurance contributions to the trust will not be disclosed until about five days before the deadline for objections to the proposal, according to the reorganization plan. Bankruptcy Judge Robert N. Opell II, who is handling the case, has not set a time limit yet for objections. UGL employs about 150 people, including about 80 at its plant on Jefferson Avenue in Dunmore. The company manufactures dozens of products and is best known for Drylok, a leak-prevention and waterproofing compound, and Zar wood finish. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Castle Acquires BWH's Meso Testing Technology -------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Hall of The Mesothelioma Center reports that cancer-related biotechnology company Castle Biosciences will acquire the mesothelioma testing technology for Brigham and Women's Hospital, one of the world's foremost treatment centers for the rare cancer. The acquisition gives Castle Biosciences exclusive worldwide license to all intellectual property related to the hospital's gene expression test for mesothelioma, known as DecisionDx- Mesothelioma. "We now have a molecular test that alone as well as in conjunction with other simple clinical parameters can help identify patients who most likely to benefit from aggressive surgery as well as assist with fundamental treatment planning," said Dr. Raphael Bueno, Brigham and Women's Hospital's associate chief of thoracic surgery. Mesothelioma is a cancer caused almost exclusively by asbestos exposure, and it is typically diagnosed in later stages. Texas- based Castle Biosciences has hopes that its newly acquired technology will enable earlier diagnoses, leading to long life expectancy for patients. The company intends to make the diagnostic test available within the next few months. From Acquisition to Market The DecisionDx-Mesothelioma test was developed by researchers at Brigham and Women's Hospital, a facility whose specialization in was driven by Dr. David Sugarbaker. People suspected of having mesothelioma will have their genetic makeup analyzed for specific gene expressions. Doctors can then piece together these expressions to determine if mesothelioma is the present. According to the company's news release, the test enables researchers to verify the presence of mesothelioma indicators while also predicting survival likelihoods in patients who receive specific surgical procedures. Experts describe the test as "technically robust" after it was clinically tested through various studies. As described by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network's guidelines, the DecisionDx-Mesothelioma earned the highest marks. By providing this diagnostic technology to a company with established distribution channels, BWH will allow mesothelioma patients across the country -- possibly across the world -- to receive earlier diagnoses and, subsequently, more effective treatment procedures. Nearly 3,000 people are diagnosed with mesothelioma each year in the United States. Most of these cancer cases are attributed to asbestos exposure within the workplace or during military service because asbestos was widely used throughout much of the 1900s. According to Castle Biosciences' website, the company long has served cancer patients through advanced diagnostic testing methods. BWH's technology adds an important arsenal to the company's existing developmental pipeline. Regulatory standards, designated by the federal government and industry associations, require that Castle undergo certain validation processes to complete the acquisition. Upon completion, the company states that it strives to have the technology available to doctors and clinics by the end of 2012. Specific terms of the deal were not disclosed. Importance of Early Diagnoses for Mesothelioma Modern diagnostic testing methods include biopsies, which are the most definitive ways to detect cancer, along with CT scans, MRIs, PET scans and X-rays. Too often, these screening procedures catch the cancer after it has progressed. The DecisionDx-Mesothelioma test, through the work of Sugarbaker and all of the BWH researchers, could prove important to advancements in mesothelioma treatment and improved survival rates. The current one-year and four-year survival rates for mesothelioma are about 40% and 10%, respectively. Many experts attribute these disappointing survival figures to late diagnoses that are all-too-common with mesothelioma. Because of the latent nature of this cancer's symptoms, patients are rarely diagnosed in early stages. The problem arises from the reality that mesothelioma symptoms often don't present themselves until the cancer has manifested. The later the cancer is detected, the more likely it is to have spread to other organs, making it even more difficult to treat or eliminate. Despite the low survival rates, beating mesothelioma is not impossible. Upon receiving a proper diagnosis, it is common that a mesothelioma patient will undergo treatment via surgery, chemotherapy or radiation therapy. Experimental treatments are also an option through various clinical trials that are hosted at some hospitals and cancer centers. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestosis Contributed to Ex-Royal Marine's Death ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bradford Telegraph and Argus reports that a former Royal Marine who worked in submarines in the 1940s has died from being exposed to asbestos, an inquest has heard on Oct. 5. Married Bradford man Terence Mangan, 81, had spent seven years from 1947 in the Royal Navy working in its submarines which were lagged with the deadly sustance -- he was based on HMS Ceylon. Mr. Mangan died on Jan. 24 this year at Ashcroft Nursing Home, in Kelvin Way, Holme Wood. He was diagnosed in May 2011 with a lung disease which showed up asbestos fibers. A Bradford inquest heard how Mr. Mangan, who also had a history of stomach cancer, heart disease and osteoporosis, had gone on to work at other jobs after he left the Navy. In 1954 he got a job removing fireplaces and chimneys which would also have contained asbestos and then in 1956 he went to work for English Electric, spending most of his time removing boilers and pipes lagged with the lethal fibers. When he retired it was as a Royal Mail manager. A post mortem said the cause of his death was broncho pneumonia but asbestosis and emphysema were contributory factors. Bradford coroner Peter Straker said: "The only verdict to consider is industrial disease -- a disease caused by work. "It's not necessary to conclude which one caused it, as long as I'm satisfied it was one of them." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Robertsbridge Fly-tipping Under Investigation -------------------------------------------------------------- The Rye and Battle Observer reports that hazardous asbestos sheeting was dumped just meters away from a village primary school. Fly-tippers abandoned the substantial pile of waste in George Hill, Robertsbridge, overnight on September 23/24. The asbestos had been left at the edge of the road, blocking access to a field. The dangerous material had been dumped just down the road from Salehurst Primary School. When asbestos fibers are inhaled, they can cause serious, and even fatal, diseases. Because it is classed as hazardous waste, asbestos must be disposed of at a licensed waste disposal site and not in normal household waste. Police were alerted to the fly-tipping in Robertsbridge just after 9am on September 24 by a concerned member of the public. The police in turn contacted Rother District Council, which confirmed the material was asbestos. Specialists from the council's Environmental Health team removed the waste from the scene. Both Sussex Police and Rother District Council have launched investigations in a bid to find out who was responsible for the fly-tipping. Anyone caught fly-tipping hazardous material, including asbestos, could face up to five years in prison and unlimited fines. Just 24 hours later, police received another report of serious fly-tipping in the rural Rother area. A large amount of household waste was discovered dumped in a lane in Hooe. Beds, chairs, cabinets and wardrobes were amongst the items found fly-tipped in the lane off the A259, close to the Lamb pub. A member of the public reported the incident to police at 7am on September 25. Police inspected the rubbish, but no hazardous material was found. The rubbish was removed and Wealden District Council is investigating. As the fly-tipped rubbish contained no hazardous material, Sussex Police has not launched a criminal investigation. Police have said they are not linking the fly-tipping to the incident in Robertsbridge. Anyone who may have information about who dumped the asbestos in Robertsbridge is asked to call Sussex Police on the non-emergency number 101, quoting serial number 0270 of September 24. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Unqualified Staff Ran NSW Schools Asbestos Audits ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jennifer Sexton for The Sunday Telegraph reports that a waiter, printer and retail sales manager, who had no qualifications in identifying hazardous materials, conducted asbestos audits in hundreds of NSW schools under a AU$2.5 million government contract. In a damning report questioning the accuracy of the schools' asbestos registry, the NSW Ombudsman has found the Department of Finance and Services was motivated by saving money instead of protecting public safety when it selected a cheap tender to do asbestos audits in 2335 schools four years ago. Deputy Ombudsman Chris Wheeler wrote in his report -- a copy of which has been obtained by The Sunday Telegraph -- that unrealistic timeframes in the contract meant surveyors would audit 4.5 school rooms every 10 minutes. Mr. Wheeler questioned whether the contract was "value for money", given that audits had to be redone. The Ombudsman was unable to establish how reliable the register was, or what the additional cost of re-doing the work had been. "It remains unclear to what extent the asbestos registers in NSW schools accurately depict the location of ACM (asbestos containing materials)," Mr. Wheeler said in the report. "We remain concerned that all asbestos has yet to be identified and consider it reasonable to expect that the registers in schools show where all ACM is located. It is also unacceptable for workers carrying out tasks in schools in NSW to be unable to fully rely on the asbestos registers before commencing work." Mr. Wheeler listed eight examples of employees of the contractor who, with no relevant qualifications, conducted audits on 696 schools. Mr. Wheeler noted the contractor was still conducting surveys in schools. Concerned contractor employees told Mr. Wheeler a lack of training might have exposed them to hazardous substances while on the project. A spokesman for the Education Department said since the Ombudsman raised concerns, it has conducted a survey of 25 schools and found those records to be accurate: "The department will continue to work with WorkCover NSW to ensure the continued safety of students, staff and contractors." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbiana's Search for Abatement Firm Underway ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Giambroni of The Review reports that the first dilapidated and abandoned homes to be demolished with state fundings could be less than two months away if everything works out. Columbiana County Commissioner John Payne reported that they are currently looking for a firm to perform asbestos inspections and elimination of the homes, which must occur before they are razed. If a firm is hired within the next several weeks to do the asbestos work, a legal advertisement seeking bids from contractors wanting to demolish the houses could be published by the end of month. The county received $500,000 from the Ohio Attorney General to do this. The money represents a portion of what Ohio received from a nationwide settlement with five mortgage companies that were sued by states for fraudulent and deceptive lending practices. Payne, who was put in charge of the program for commissioners, invited communities to submit a prioritized list of dilapidated homes they want demolished, with the promise that the first five homes would be demolished within each community, regardless of size. How many homes get razed ultimately depends on the costs of asbestos elimination and demolition. Payne said asbestos inspections and elimination can cost between $700 to $1,200 per house, and the demolition cost will be known once bids are received. "We'll have to see what the bids are. You may be able to do only four per community instead of five," Payne said. "Everyone who applies will get something done." A total of 197 homes were submitted for demolition, with half submitted by Salem (46) and East Liverpool (53). ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Workers Irate Over Brown's Attack on Warren ------------------------------------------------------------------ Noah Bierman and Michael Levenson of The Boston Globe report that former governor William F. Weld praised Senator Scott Brown Friday, Oct. 5, as the rare political figure willing to work across the aisle, shortly before Caroline Kennedy said that Elizabeth Warren would fight for the issues championed by her late uncle, Senator Edward M. Kennedy. The dueling endorsements were unsurprising -- Weld is a Republican, Kennedy a Democrat -- but were symbolically important. Although Weld and Caroline Kennedy both live in New York, they can have an influence in Massachusetts, Weld through his political legacy and Kennedy through her family name. Brown replaced Edward Kennedy in the Senate after winning a January 2010 special election. He is now seeking a full six-year Senate term. Caroline Kennedy (left) joined Elizabeth Warren at Zelma Lacey House in Charlestown to give her support to a Democrat she said would carry on her uncle's legacy. "Our state and our country need more people like Scott who actually think about the issues, not just the political party or political dogma," Weld said, with Brown at his side, at the senator's campaign headquarters in South Boston. Weld, who was governor from 1991 through 1997, said Brown has followed his model of social moderation combined with fiscal conservatism. He pointed to Brown's attendance at three White House signing ceremonies during his relatively brief time in office. A half-hour later, Warren stood with Kennedy and Mayor Thomas M. Menino of Boston before an audience of seniors at an assisted- living-facility in Charlestown. "I know that in the United States Senate, Elizabeth will fight for seniors and for middle-class families, just like my uncle Teddy did," Kennedy said. Both candidates responded to the latest jobs figures, which showed the national unemployment rate dipping to 7.8%. Brown responded with some caution, noting that many workers have dropped out of the workforce and that more jobs were created in the previous month. "While they're obviously a good start, we need to do more," Brown said. Warren called the numbers "a step in the right direction." "Of course I'm encouraged," Warren said. "I'd be more encouraged if the Republicans would work with the Democrats to put more people to work and get the economy restarted." Weld said the current numbers are less important than the plan to move forward and said that Brown would do a better job than Warren because he promises predictability in taxes and regulation, while she would attempt to raise taxes and add regulation. Brown was less effusive than Weld in his praise for the performance delivered by Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney during his debate Wednesday against President Obama. While Brown shares political advisers with Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, he has kept his distance from his fellow Republican as he seeks reelection in what remains a heavily Democratic state. "I think he drew a very clear distinction as to where he wants to go with his administration if it comes to that, on jobs and the economy, and the economic issues facing our economy," Brown said. "I thought he did well . . . but I'm focusing on my debate Wednesday." Weld then said, "I thought he did pretty great." Many political observers have compared Brown's race against Warren with Weld's unsuccessful 1996 challenge to Senator John F. Kerry. Both Weld and Brown said the difference now is that moderate voices are more urgently needed. Also Friday, Oct. 5, asbestos union workers stood outside Brown's press conference and said they were irate over Brown's latest television advertisement that attacks Warren for representing Travelers Insurance as part of a lawsuit related to asbestos poisoning. The event was coordinated by Democrats, who are backed strongly by the unions. The new Brown ad quotes Warren saying, "I've been out there working for people who have been injured by big corporations." A narrator then says: "Warren helped Travelers Insurance restrict payments to victims of asbestos poisoning. The results were disastrous for victims. The insurance company saved millions, and Elizabeth Warren got paid 40 times what they paid victims. Elizabeth Warren is just not who she says she is." "He's flat out misrepresenting the facts," said Francis C. Boudrow, business manager for the International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers Union, Local No. 6. "It's offensive to all these people who've lost lives" to asbestos-related illness, he said. Boudrow said Brown has refused to meet with him and his members, who showed up previously to protest outside his campaign headquarters. The advertisement does paint a somewhat misleading picture of Warren's work for Travelers. She was paid $212,000 from 2008 through 2010 to help the company in a Supreme Court case in which it wanted to secure immunity from lawsuits in exchange for releasing a $500 million trust to pay asbestos victims. In that case, most asbestos victims were on Travelers' side. But in a separate case, in which Warren was not involved, the company won an order that allowed it to retain its immunity without paying out the settlement. Brown's campaign argues she should have foreseen that result. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup of Old Norwich Train Station Underway -------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Bristow at EDP24.co.uk reports that volunteers began excavating the City Station at the start of Marriott's Way in 2010, but stopped earlier this year when Norfolk County Council, which owns the land, found cyanide, asbestos and toxins at the site. Workmen have now sealed off the area around the former engine shed, between the Marriott's Way and the river Wensum. The inspection pits by the engine shed which contain the asbestos will be filled in and capped. Yesterday, Oct. 5, workmen were removing shrubs to clear the site. The work at the station, which closed to passengers in 1959, will involve digging up the contaminated soil, which will be put into skips and taken away, leaving the old stone floor of the engine shed exposed. Jon Batley, who excavated the area with a group of volunteers called the Friends of Norwich City Station (FONSC), said: "It is good that it is being done. "When we started we thought there were some dangers within the engine shed. "We looked in the old pits there and there was a lot of rubbish so we left them alone. "It is a wise precaution." The public will still be able to use the Marriott's Way and a spokeswoman for Norfolk County Council said disruption would be "minimal". The work, which is expected to last about 10 days, will see around 350mm of contaminated soil being removed. Plans for the site, once work has been complete, are yet to be revealed. At one time Norwich had three thriving stations, but two were closed and have been demolished. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Talks On Future of Odeon Building Continues ------------------------------------------------------------ Jo Winrow at The Bradford Telegraph and Argus reports that Photographs of the interior of Bradford's Odeon building have been released by rescue group campaigners. The images show the contrasting interiors of two of the rooms that were used for screening films when it was a cinema -- one following the removal of the cinema wall drapes with seating intact and another following the removal of asbestos, the seats and carpet. Bradford Odeon Rescue Group (BORG) spokesman Mark Nicholson said: "The inside of the Odeon is certainly not as bad as many had been told. "We are optimistic that a developer could, indeed, make use of the main structure of the building as it is. Some work had to be done to rid the building of asbestos, and it's true to say that some carpets and seats had to go as they had been contaminated. "However, Artez, the contractors, have been sympathetic to the majority of the building and I can report that BORG are much more confident today than we were a few weeks ago." He added the group's thanks to the HCA for making the visit possible. BORG is to launch a new website next week and will then publish more photographs of the visit. It's now two weeks since the HCA, which inherited the building a year ago, terminated a legal agreement with developer Langtree, which had wanted to demolish the 1930s building and build a GBP40 million New Victoria Place development of offices, a hotel and apartments. The HCA took action after Langtree called for more time to market its scheme to potential occupants, and had delayed the signing of a vital Section 106 agreement, which would have triggered an eight-month period in the development agreement. This failed to comply with the terms of the agreement, said the HCA, so it took the decision to terminate it. Members of BORG have also been back in contact with a local developer who is still interested in restoring the Odeon. The proposal is expected to be unveiled shortly. A spokesman for the HCA said: "We were happy to honor our offer to take members of BORG inside the former Odeon once we had removed the asbestos and made it safe. During the visit, we explained that we had been preventing further deterioration to the structure and fabric of the building, such as repairing the roof and replacing damaged sections of the steelwork. We will continue to protect and maintain the building while we resolve its future. "We are currently talking to Bradford Council about the potential transfer of the site and how we might involve the community in examining viable options for the building." ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Campaign AD Invalidates Sen. Brown's Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Luke Johnson of The Huffington Post reports that Democratic Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren's campaign released two new ads Monday, Oct. 8, rebutting Sen. Scott Brown's (R-Mass.) charge that she shortchanged asbestos victims while representing Travelers Insurance. The ads feature people affected by mesothelioma -- a rare cancer usually caused by asbestos exposure -- telling Brown to back off. "Elizabeth Warren went all the way to the Supreme Court to try to get more money for asbestos victims and families," says Ginny Jackson, whose husband died of the disease after being exposed to asbestos while working at a shipyard. "Now Scott Brown is attacking Elizabeth Warren about her work. Scott Brown is not telling the truth. He's trying to use our suffering to help himself. He outta be ashamed." Brown attacked Warren over the case in a recent debate. "You chose to side with one of the biggest corporations in the United States: Travelers Insurance," Brown said on Sept. 20. "When you worked to prohibit people who got asbestos poisoning, and I hope all the asbestos union workers are watching right now. She denied, she helped Travelers deny those benefits for asbestos poisoning, made over $250,000 in an effort to protect big corporations. There is only one person in this debate, right now Jon, who is protecting corporations. She has a history of it." The Boston Globe did an exhaustive investigation into Warren's work with Travelers Insurance, which lasted from 2008 to 2010 and for which she was compensated $212,000. Warren, a professor at Harvard Law School, was working for Travelers to establish a $500 million trust for victims in exchange for immunity from other lawsuits. Warren, a bankruptcy law expert, was trying to preserve an element of bankruptcy code to help victims of corporate wrongdoing get compensation. She was mostly successful, but after she left the case, another court let Travelers out of its payment obligations to victims. ASBESTOS UPDATE: First National Abatement Reimbursement Questioned ------------------------------------------------------------------ Steve Lackmeyer of NewsOK reports that First National Center owner Aaron Yashouafar, already awaiting sentencing for embezzlement in Las Vegas, is under federal investigation in connection with questioned reimbursement forms submitted to Oklahoma City officials for asbestos removal funds, sources have told The Oklahoman. Yashouafar declined to comment Monday, Oct. 8. A spokesman with the Oklahoma City FBI office could not confirm or deny the investigation. Assistant City Attorney Wiley Williams, however, confirmed that the city contacted the U.S. attorney's office after the city received what were presented as copies of canceled checks written to asbestos removal subcontractors. "We got some calls from a couple of the subcontractors who said they had not been paid," Williams said. "We started snooping around into that and saw documentation they (Yashouafar's company, Milbank Real Estate) had produced to us that on the surface looked like they (the subcontractors) had been paid. We only reimbursed Milbank after they submitted copies of paid invoices and checks to the subcontractors." Williams said that after the documentation was examined by the city auditor's office, the auditors grew concerned that the check copies from 2009 were questionable. "What we think they were doing was sending us a copy of the front of a check, and then sending us a copy of the back of another check," he said. Williams said he was not aware of whether the allegations, first submitted to the U.S. attorney's office in 2010, were still under investigation. But sources say the allegations are part of an ongoing federal investigation. Documents provided by the city to The Oklahoman show that during the inquiry, Yashouafar's office submitted new check copies and the subcontractors released their liens on the property. Yashouafar led investment groups in buying First National Center in 2006 for $21 million. A foreclosure action by lender Capmark Bank was followed by a bankruptcy filing that ended with an agreement by both sides that Yashouafar would pay $12 million to close the $21 million mortgage. That agreement came with a May 26 deadline that if not met would have resulted in the building going to a receiver who would dispose of the property. That deadline was extended three times with additional payments submitted by Yashouafar toward the $12 million. Sources have told The Oklahoman the latest deadline is this week. Yashouafar, meanwhile, is at odds with the homeowners association at the Paradise Spa condominiums in Las Vegas. Homeowners association members told The Oklahoman they fear Yashouafar is trying to refinance the complex to raise money to retain control of First National Center. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Storage Building at Manatee High ---------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher O'Donnell of The Herald-Tribune reports that asbestos has been discovered in a school storage building at Manatee High School in Bradenton, Fla., that is slated to be demolished. A February study of a track-and-field storage building believed to be at least 40 years old found asbestos in the interior walls of the building located on the south side of the campus. District officials said there is no risk to students and plan to pay $3,000 to a specialist company to remove the hazardous material before the building is demolished. "As long as it's in a contained state, as long as it's not disturbed, it is not a problem," said Todd Henson, district director of maintenance and operations. Asbestos was widely used in construction in the 1960s and early '70s, its fire-retardant qualities making it ideal as building insulation. But health concerns including the risk of lung cancer, mesothelioma and asbestosis led to it being outlawed by many countries in the late 1980s. Demolishing the building without first removing the interior walls could cause asbestos powder to become airborne, the study states. To comply with federal regulations that limit the emission of hazardous air pollutants, OHC Environmental Engineering workers in protective suits will seal off the building with plastic tarpaulins while they remove the walls. The Tampa-based company will also set up air-monitoring stations around the building to ensure there is no release of asbestos particles. The techniques are similar to ones used by Lockheed Martin to prevent the release of beryllium dust when it demolished buildings at a former beryllium plant on Tallevast Road. The total cost for demolishing the 800-square-foot building, the exterior of which was damaged by fire in July, is $7,800. School Board members are expected to approve the contracts at a meeting Monday night, Oct. 8. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wokingham Firm Fined for Exposing Staff to Fibro ----------------------------------------------------------------- BBC News Berkshire reports that a business has been fined for safety breaches after two workers were exposed to asbestos at Reading University in Berkshire. Wokingham firm Gardner Mechanical Services (GMS) failed to tell the men the substance was present where they were carrying out mechanical work. GMS admitted breaching safety regulations at Reading Magistrates' Court. It was fined GBP28,000 and ordered to pay GBP22,631 in costs. The company was prosecuted after a Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation found that it knew asbestos was on the site while the work was taking place in September 2009. As principal contractors they failed in their duty to remove the dangerous substance and tell the workers, the court heard. HSE inspector Adam Wycherley said: "As a result of poor planning on the part of GMS two men were exposed to high levels of asbestos fibers, leaving them at risk of contracting serious diseases such as lung cancer, mesothelioma and asbestosis of the lungs. "GMS had a clear duty of care to relay important information to its subcontractors in order to prevent their exposure to asbestos, but this simply did not happen." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Builder Fined AU$1500 for Illegally Dumping Fibro ------------------------------------------------------------------ ABC News reports that a Lismore builder faces a fine of AU$1500 after dumping asbestos near a children's play area. A family walking its dog found 12 sheets of asbestos fencing in Kadina Park in late August. The Lismore City Council's environmental compliance officer says co-operation from the media and the public led to the culprit being identified. Stuart Thompson says asbestos dumping is a serious offence which puts the health of the community at risk. "The location (was) Kadina Park, right across the road from Kadina High School, also in the children's play area," he said. "So at any time kids could have come across and as soon as they start breaking up the product the fibers start floating around in the air and that's when the trouble starts. "People have the perception that asbestos is a rather expensive item to take to the waste facility, when in fact it's not. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chinese Paper Conducts Survey on Vehicle Recall ---------------------------------------------------------------- Carmen Lee at Gasgoo.com (Shanghai) reports that the warnings issued by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission regarding potential asbestos in the engines and exhaust gaskets of imported Chery and Great Wall vehicles have once again highlighted the discrepancies between Chinese own brand manufacturers and multinational enterprises on the global stage. Despite the fact that the ACCC did not directly order recalls of the vehicles, both manufacturers actively issued their own recalls. The problem affected nearly 26,000 vehicles in the country. It is the first large scale recall of Chinese vehicles in an overseas market. In order to better understand the scope of the issue, Gasgoo.com (Chinese) conducted a brief survey on the issue, collecting opinions from 1,810 experts and analysts from all across the industry. In the first question, participants were asked what they believed was the fundamental cause behind the Australian asbestos problem. 41% of respondents answered that it was linked to the lack of thorough automobile technology standards in China. 34% said that Chinese manufacturers did not understand regulations in overseas markets well enough, while 20% maintain that the vehicles' technological standards were simply too low. The remaining 5% cited other reasons. In its official comments on the issue, Great Wall cited its unintentional negligence of local regulations in Australia, which completely forbid the use of asbestos in manufacturing vehicles and other products. Chery, meanwhile, attributed the problem to a misunderstanding with its auto part suppliers. However, there is debate on how reasonable these explanations are. Western nations began regulating the use of asbestos as early as the 1970s, with several countries, including Australia, having fully forbidden its use by the end of the century. Therefore, for Great Wall to export vehicles containing substances that have been outlawed for decades is very serious. Several analysts attribute this sort of oversight to the lack of importance Chinese manufacturers place on manufacturing regulations. They attribute the root of this mindset to the fact that China itself does not have very strict industry standards. Chery's excuse further backs up this viewpoint. Although the supposed misunderstanding between the manufacturer and its suppliers seems to be a managerial problem, it also demonstrates the lack of importance placed on industry regulations by Chinese companies. Although China forbids the use of asbestos in vehicle engines, their use is not outlawed in the manufacture of other auto parts. Many note this discrepancy in manufacturing standards between the automotive industries in China and in overseas markets. At the same time, this lack of standards is what allows Chinese manufacturers to maintain low production costs, something which they need to ensure their traditional competitive advantage of cheap pricing in foreign markets. At the same time, there are those who have voiced their doubts in Australian authorities' actions on the issue. They point out that Great Wall and Chery have been active in the country for several years, yet claims of dangerous substances have only been announced now. There are even suspicions that the warnings were put out on behalf of local companies to put more pressure on Chinese manufacturers. Despite the amount of attention given to the issue, the majority of survey participants believe that it will not excessively harm the image of Chinese manufacturers in overseas markets. 54% of respondents said that Great Wall and Chery handled the matter appropriately, and the problem's influence will be very limited. By comparison, 32% answered that the issue would negatively affect perceptions of Chinese vehicles overseas. 14% were undecided. Following the ACCC warning, Great Wall immediately issued a written response on the issue, which was sent to the media late the same night. Simultaneously, the manufacturer sent a notice to its Australian dealerships regarding the issue, directing them to contact all affected owners to schedule times for maintenance of their vehicles. Chery also announced a recall of its Tiggo SUVs and A3 sedans. The recall covered a total of 2,445 vehicles in Australia. The fact that both manufacturers responded to the matter promptly and accordingly should help them maintain their reputations in the country. That said, the perception of Chinese vehicles overseas is still very negative. The common consensus of Chinese vehicles being of low quality has yet to be changed, and the asbestos case has not helped improve that image in any way. In the final question, participants were asked whether or not China should also fully outlaw the use of asbestos in manufacturing products. The overwhelming majority, 80% of respondents, agreed that the country should forbid use of asbestos. Only 7% opposed the notion, while 13% were undecided. China is the largest user of asbestos and its third largest producer. According to the GB12676-1999 regulations, which went into effect in October 2003, gaskets in automobile engines are not allowed to contain asbestos. However, there have been made no attempts to prohibit asbestos use in the manufacture of any other auto parts. Long-term inhalation of asbestos fibers is linked with the development of cancer and other diseases. While the existence of the substances in internal auto parts is not especially threatening to drivers, it is particularly dangerous to mechanics and other workers. Several figures in the industry have voiced their desires to see the country take notice of the recent news and fully prohibit the use of asbestos. They point out that certain materials can be replaced with asbestos-free ones, such as stainless steel for exhaust pipes and glass fiber composites for sound and heat insulation materials. Great Wall and Chery have already begun taking these steps. Representatives from Great Wall announced that they will stop using asbestos auto parts for their vehicles both inside and outside of China. Chery has made similar pledges. If other manufacturers follow suit, it will be a great step forward for Chinese automotive industry as a whole. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Residents Talk About Life in Wittenoom Town ------------------------------------------------------------ Aleisha Orr of The Sydney Morning Herald reports that Lorraine Thomas is one of six residents left in a town that does not exist. Her home, sung about in Midnight Oil's Blue Sky Mine, is well known to West Australians for its association with asbestos. Ms. Thomas has stayed on in Wittenoom in the years since it was deemed a risk to human health, while most of the other residents took government payments to leave, since the power was cut off and the name of the town removed from roads signs. In the 1950s and 1960s blue asbestos was mined in the town and at its peak in the 1950s the town had a population of about 500 people. The risk of deadly disease from airborne asbestos to those in the town was eventually made public. Hundreds of former Wittenoom mine workers and residents have since died from mesothelioma, lung cancer and asbestosis. In 1978 the state government began a "winding down" of the town, which is now degazetted. This means it is no longer a recognized town, no longer receives government services and no longer included on maps when they are made. Ms. Thomas moved to Wittenoom 28 years ago to open a souvenir shop and at one stage operated six holiday homes in the town. These days, Ms. Thomas, a pensioner, opens her shop only by request and still has hopes of selling the holiday houses. She and her three daughters moved to the Pilbara for the weather, they came from Dandenong in Victoria. Ms. Thomas is not convinced that living in Wittenoom is as big a health risk as the state government says it is and has not had any medical check-ups to see whether her health is being affected by asbestos in the air. There are challenges living in what is almost a ghost town. The electricity was cut off in 2005 so residents use generators to power their homes. Ms. Thomas travels 120 kilometres and 90 of that on gravel to get to Tom Price to do her grocery shopping. She said she considered moving in 2008 when her husband passed away. But she said the AU$43,000 the government offered for her four- bedroom house was not enough. Despite the tiny population, Ms. Thomas admitted that not everyone in the town got along. "I don't really socialize and the others mostly keep to themselves," she said. Ms. Thomas spends most of her time gardening; she grows her own vegetables and also tends to the gardens at the four houses she still owns in the town. She is also a councillor for the Shire of Ashburton and has been for the past 17 years. Ms. Thomas travels for the monthly shire meetings, which rotate between Tom Price, Pannawonica, Paraburdoo and the longest of the drives, Onslow, which is 500 kilometers away. One of the downsides of living in a town that does not officially exist is that people do not think anyone lives there, either that, or they think they can get away with stealing things from the buildings in the town. "The truckies think it's abandoned," she said. Ms. Thomas' souvenir shop was recently broken into and items were stolen. While signs pointing to Wittenoom were removed years ago, many mine workers still travel through the town en route to their work camps. "It's still the best route for them to take," she said. Ms. Thomas said people drove through town every day. With many abandoned houses, squatters are also a concern in Wittenoom. Ms. Thomas said she was currently having to deal with a squatter in one of her properties. While Ms. Thomas said money was a factor in living in Wittenoom, she said she also stayed there because she enjoyed the lifestyle and the wide-open spaces. "It's a small country town, I like that," she said. "With the Hamersley Ranges nearby it's just beautiful country." The state government website warns people not to visit Wittenoom: "Travelling to Wittenoom presents a public health risk from exposure to asbestos fibers, which may result in contracting a fatal disease, such as mesothelioma, asbestosis or lung cancer. "Mesothelioma and lung cancer can develop after even brief exposure to asbestos. The time between exposure to asbestos and the occurrence of cancer can be 20 to 40 years, or even longer. "Blue asbestos, the type once mined in Wittenoom, is the most deadly of all types of asbestos. Remnants of blue asbestos are still present in Wittenoom, presenting a serious risk to your health. "There are many destinations in the Pilbara that are beautiful to visit, and do not pose a risk to your health." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive's Bid for Separate Trial Junked ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, rejected Colgate-Palmolive Company's contention that separate trials are required for the cases captioned LAWRENCE BERNARD, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES CORP., ET AL., Defendants, COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY, Defendant- Appellant; LORI KONOPKA-SAUER, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant; and ARLENE FEINBERG, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. COLGATE PALMOLIVE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant and UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Defendant, 7991N, 107211/08, 190078/08, 190070/11 (N.Y.). The cases arise from Plaintiffs' allegation that defendants, including Colgate-Palmolive, are liable for the alleged presence of mesothelioma-causing asbestos in the consumer cosmetic talcum powder product called "Cashmere Bouquet." The Appellate Court ruled that the IAS court providently exercised its discretion in consolidating these actions for joint trial, as they involve common questions of law and fact. A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's October 2, 2012, Decision is available at http://is.gd/ou4Z0Kfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wrongful-Death Suit v. Georgia-Pacific Remanded ---------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Mark L. Hornsby of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport Division, granted the motion of plaintiffs Tina, Kathryn and Kristen Davidson to remand an survival and wrongful-death lawsuit filed against numerous defendants, including Georgia-Pacific, LLC. The lawsuit stems from another lawsuit filed in the Orleans Parish alleging work-related exposure to asbestos-containing products by William Cleve Davidson, the Plaintiffs' father, which resulted to him suffering from mesothelioma. Mr. Davidson died in Oct. 2011. The Plaintiffs then filed the survival and wrongful death action. Georgia-Pacific argued on the basis of diversity of citizenship. Georgia-Pacific alleged that two of the defendants, the J. Graves Insulation Company, f/k/a Graves-Aber Insulation Company, Inc., and Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., were improperly joined in the lawsuit to defeat diversity jurisdiction. Both Graves and Taylor, like the Plaintiffs, are Louisiana citizens. In support of its argument, Georgia-Pacific invoked Smallwood v. Illinois Central R.R. Co., 385 F.3d 568 n. 1 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc). Judge Hornsby held that the factual dispute reflected in the record of the case is not appropriate for piercing the pleadings under Smallwood, leaving the Court with the Rule 12(b)-type analysis: Whether there is a reasonable basis to predict that Plaintiffs might be able to recover against the non-diverse defendants. Judge Hornby ruled that Georiga-Pacific has not pressed that argument. Nevertheless, the Court found that Plaintiffs' allegations are sufficient to state a claim and overcome an exception of no cause of action in state court. The case is TINA DAVIDSON, ET AL v. GEORGIA PACIFIC, LLC, ET AL., Civil Action No. 12-cv-1463 (W.D. La.). A copy of Judge Hornby's Decision dated September 24, 2012, is available at http://is.gd/5p097afrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Allows Insurance Suit to Proceed to Trial ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hon. Wiley E. Daniel, Chief District Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed the summary judgment motions filed by both plaintiffs and defendant in the case captioned MARIA AND JERRY WILLIAMS, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTRY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Civil Action No. 11-cv-00651-WYD-KMT (D. Colo.), after determining that genuine issues of material fact exist with regard to the challenged affirmative defenses and the claims in the case. The lawsuit is a breach of contract suit arising from Country's issuance of a $10,390 check to the Williams in payment of the "actual cash value of personal property losses under the Williams' homeowners policy. The Williams' property was damaged when several pipes froze and burst in their home resulting to nearly 180,000 gallons of water flooding the home and causing attendant asbestos release. The Williams' assert that under their policy they are entitled to $294,450. County contends that damages sustained by Plaintiffs were the proximate result of the negligence of some third persons over whom Country had no control. A copy of Judge Daniel's Decision dated September 21, 2012, is available at http://is.gd/xgf9Iafrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Court Bars Amendment to Martinez Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Peggy L. Ableman of the Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County, denied Plaintiff Maria Elena Martinez's motion for leave to amend her complaint against E.I. DuPont de Nemours alleging that her husband died as a result of exposure to asbestos while working for a DuPont subsidiary in Argentina. DuPont filed a motion to dismiss the suit. While the Motion to Dismiss was pending, Plaintiff filed the motion for leave to add causes of action for conspiracy and violation of an Argentine statute. Judge Ableman, in a decision dated Sept. 21, 2012, ruled that although Superior Court Civil Rule 15 requires that leave be freely given to amend pleadings, it does not require DuPont and the Court to suffer the unfair, unjust, and prejudicial effects caused by Plaintiff's counsel's inexcusable delay in filing the Motion to Amend. Judge Ableman pointed out that Plaintiff alleges no new facts giving rise to the claim for conspiracy and concluded that Plaintiff should have brought that claim and her claim on a violation of an Act far earlier in this litigation. The case is MARIA ELENA MARTINEZ, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of SANTOS ROQUE ROCHA, Plaintiff, v. E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND CO., INC., Defendant, C.A. No. N10C-04- 209 ASB (Del. Super. Ct.). A copy of Judge Ableman's Decision is available at http://is.gd/lYbrAHfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maryland Court Affirms Verdict in Farrar Case -------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed a jury trial's verdict finding that Jocelyn Farrar's exposure to asbestos fibers were from a Georgia-Pacific LLC's asbestos-containing product, which were found in the clothing of her grandfather who worked at a construction site near Georgia-Pacific's asbestos-containing products. The jury verdict included an award of $4,995,018 to Ms. Farrar. Georgia-Pacific appealed. In denying Georgia-Pacific's appeal, the Court of Appeals ruled that the actual harm inflicted on Ms. Farrar fell within a general field of danger which should have been anticipated, and Georgia- Pacific owed her a duty to warn of the latent dangers associated with its asbestos product. The Court of Appeals also held that Ms. Farrar presented sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Georgia-Pacific's asbestos product was a substantial factor in causing her mesothelioma. The case is GEORGIA-PACIFIC, LLC F/K/A GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION, v. JOCELYN ANNE FARRAR, No. 751 (Md. App. Ct.). A copy of the Decision dated September 26, 2012, is available at http://is.gd/9bLebvfrom Leagle.com. ********* 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 * * *