/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140110.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, January 10, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 7 Headlines AARP INC: Accused of Defrauding Senior Citizens & Disabled Texans AETNA LIFE: Coverage-Related Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice AIG GROUP: Accused of Violating Racketeering Act in Missouri AIG GROUP: Systematically Ducked Insurance Premiums, Suit Says AMAZON.COM LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime Compensation, Suit Claims AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE: Cheats Workers of Wages & Expenses, Suit Says AMERICAN HONDA: Sued Over Flawed Door Locking Systems on Accords APPLE INC: Misrepresents Warranty Program, "Adkins" Class Says BL VACATION: Suit Seeks to Stop Massive Telemarketing Campaign BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Sued for Scheme to Delay Aggrenox Generic CITICOACH INC: Shaved Off Hours From Drivers' Pay, Class Alleges COMMUNICATIONS UNLIMITED: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Class Says CREDIT BUREAU: "Schwartz" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations CRYSTAL CLEAR: "Morrow" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Back Wages CVS PHARMACY: Pushes "Coenzyme Q10" With Bogus Claims, Suit Says DAIMLER AG: Faces Class Action in New Jersey Over Used Vehicles EAST COAST FORENSIC: Sued Over Illegal Patient Strip Searches ELITE SPECIALTY: Painters Seek to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages FACEBOOK INC: Must Face Minors' Credit Purchases Class Action FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Car Speed Control Issues FORJAS TAURUS: Pistols Have Defective Safety Devices, Suit Says FUSION-IO INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in California GOLDEN SECURITY: Sued by Security Guards Over Unpaid Overtime HULU LLC: Court Refused to Issue Summary Judgment in Privacy Suit IMPACT FUNDING: Faces "Giedt" Suit Over Lending Act Violations JOHNS HOPKINS: 2 More Patients Sue Over Secret Video JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces "Blake" Suit Over Captive Reinsurance L'OREAL USA: Court Won't Dismiss Suit Over Anti-Wrinkle Products LACERTE BUILDERS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Claims LOUISVILLE GAS: Sued Over Cane Run Power Plant Coal Pollution MARTINREA INTERNATIONAL: Faces Securities Class Action in Ontario MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Plan Trustees Accused of Unjust Enrichment MEMPHIS, TN: City Spoiled 15,000 Rape Evidence Kits, Class Says MONSANTO CO: "Wishon" Suit Transferred to Kansas District Court NEW HAMPSHIRE: Settles Mental Health Class Action for $30 Million NINE ZERO WINGS: Violates FLSA by Not Paying Overtime, Suit Says OLIO RESTAURANTS: Ex-Waiters and Others Sue Over Unpaid OT Wages ONLINE EDUCATION ADVANTAGE: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Suit Claims PINNFUND USA: "Navarro" Suit Alleges Lending Act Violations RICK HENDRICK: Faces Class Action Over Car Dealership Scheme SMITHKLINE BEECHAM: Dismissal of "D'Apuzzo" Class Suit Appealed SOLTA MEDICAL: Being Sold for Too Little to Valeant, Suit Claims T.C.C.D. INT'L: Accused of Falsely Advertising Buckpower Product TARGET CORP: Faces "Kirk" Suit Over Data Breach of 40-Mil. Cards TARGET CORP: Faces "Fratelli" Suit Over Security Breach TARGET CORP: Faces "Dickson" Suit Over Security Breach TARGET CORP: Judge Tosses Age-Discrimination Class Action TECK METALS: Toxic Discharge Alleged to Have Caused Breast Cancer TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces "Edison" Securities Suit in New York VICAL INC: Faces Securities Class Suit Over Allovectin Product WAUKESHA MEMORIAL: Fails to Pay Housekeepers' OT Wages, Suit Says WE-R-WIRELESS: Faces "Yorker" Suit Alleging FLSA Violations WOODMAN LABS: Faces "Horton" Suit Over Defective Hero3 Camera Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurers' Exhaustion Defense Tanks In Porter Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Appeals Ct. Flips Ruling in "Montaney" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gov't. Granted Summary Judgment in "Botts" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6th Cir. Affirms Conviction of Tennessee Men ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurer Fails to Get Injunction From Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurers Obtain Summary Judgment in Montello Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order Denying Bid to Junk "Herlihy" Suit Affirmed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal in "German" Suit Consolidated ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Grants Inmate's Reconsideration Bid ASBESTOS UPDATE: Arizona Court Dismisses Inmate's Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Third Circuit Affirms Ruling in "Anderson" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Repairs Won't Postpone Kingston Veterans' House ASBESTOS UPDATE: Half of Bradford Schools Still Contain Fibro ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-Related Disease Claims 396 in Devon ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Closes Gloucester Furniture Recycling Biz ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Linked to Pensioner's Death ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tex. Laborer Files Lung Cancer Suit v. 113 Firms ASBESTOS UPDATE: Teesside Fibro Legacy Exposed as Payment Looms ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wis. Court Reverses Summary Judgment Award ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial Courts Can Allow Extra Time for Deposition ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Exclusion Precludes Insurance Coverage ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Killed 120 in Plymouth in Five Years ASBESTOS UPDATE: Large Payout for Former Shoebury MOD Site Worker ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Court Won't Reconsider Take-Home Ruling ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial Court Declines to Modify Denial Order ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pilbara Fibro Fears Follow Cyclone Christine ASBESTOS UPDATE: Consolidated Aluminum Declares Bankruptcy ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bradken Trains Breach Fibro Ban ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has Until Jan. 27 to Seek Rehearing ASBESTOS UPDATE: Care Home Worker Angered at Fibro Risks ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. High School Renovation to Remove Fibro ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Says Fibro Case to Remain in Federal Court ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rescuers Decontaminate Man From Fibro ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wis. High Ct. Enforces Exclusion in Property Row ASBESTOS UPDATE: Beaton Park Club to Close for Re-roofing ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Impact Growing Among Firefighters ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Teacher Seeks Colleagues in Exposure Battle ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Reveals Presence of Fibro in Schools ASBESTOS UPDATE: Glasgow Health Board Fined for Fibro Failings ASBESTOS UPDATE: MPS Urged to Amend Mesothelioma Bill ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former East Lancashire Teacher in Cancer Claim ASBESTOS UPDATE: Monticello Demolition Leads to Lawsuit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Admin. Proceeding v. Ecology Unit is Pending ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt plc Has 11,500 Pending Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Creditors Can Sue RPM Int'l.'s Bankrupt Unit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Had $463-Mil. Reserves at September 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Subsidiary Had $342-Mil. Total Reserves ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Corp. Continues to Defend PI Claims ********* AARP INC: Accused of Defrauding Senior Citizens & Disabled Texans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Writing for Courthouse News Service, Cameron Langford reports that AARP defrauded senior citizens of millions of dollars by adding illegal commissions to their health insurance bills, a federal class action claims. Lead plaintiff John Milton Peacock sued AARP, a nonprofit, and the nation's largest health insurer, UnitedHealthCare Insurance Co. The American Association of Retired Person, AARP, claims to have 40 million members, half of them older than 65. It had operating revenues of more than $1.3 billion in 2012, according to the complaint. Peacock claims AARP made $704 million in 2012 on "royalties" from its sale of AARP-branded Medicare supplement insurance. He claims that UnitedHealth and AARP "have orchestrated an elaborate scheme" whereby AARP makes an illegal 4.95 percent commission from each new Medigap policy it sells or gets renewed for UnitedHealth. AARP also administers the AARP-branded policies it sells for UnitedHealth, Peacock says. "While defendants disclose the existence of a payment in general that goes from UnitedHealth to AARP, which they call a 'royalty' . . . defendants hide the fact that the payment to AARP is actually a percentage of premium commission that is charged to unsuspecting seniors and the disabled in addition to their insurance premium paid to UnitedHealth for coverage," the complaint states. "Defendants' motive to term a commission payment a 'royalty' is twofold: it allows AARP to avoid oversight by insurance regulators, and it allows AARP to avoid paying taxes on the income it generates through insurance sales." The setup is illegal in Texas, Peacock says, because AARP is not licensed as an insurance agent there, though it "regularly acts as the de facto agent for UnitedHealth by helping market, solicit and sell AARP Medigap policies." Medigap plans supplement Medicare insurance and include coverage for hospital stays and to reduce seniors' out-of-pocket medical costs. Medigap insurance has been lucrative for AARP, Peacock says. "AARP Medigap is the dominant player in the Medigap market," the complaint states. "Nationwide, AARP has over three times as many Medigap enrollees as its closest competitor, Mutual of Omaha. As of December 2012, 32 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in a Medigap insurance plan were enrolled in AARP Medigap." UnitedHealth customers have no choice but to buy Medigap insurance through AARP, Peacock says. "Any consumer who wants to purchase Medigap coverage from UnitedHealth must purchase the AARP Medigap plan, and thereby unknowingly fund the 4.95 percent illegal commission to AARP," he claims. Peacock says he bought an AARP Medigap policy in 2007, but allowed it to lapse in 2012 when the premium increased. He wants the lawsuit certified as a class action and damages for deceptive trade and Texas Insurance Code violations. If the allegations are not resolved in 31 days, he wants AARP and UnitedHealth ordered to disgorge "all sums taken from consumers by means of deceptive trade practices." The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq. Michael Patrick Doyle, Esq. DOYLE RAIZNER LLP 1221 McKinney, Suite 4100 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 571-1146 Facsimile: (713) 571-1148 E-mail: jraizner@doyleraizner.com mdoyle@doyleraizner.com - and - Frank J. Janecek, Jr., Esq. Christopher Collins, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: frankj@rgrdlaw.com chrisc@rgrdlaw.com - and - Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. Mark Dearman, Esq. Christopher C. Martins, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Facsimile: (561) 750-3364 E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com mdearman@rgrdlaw.com cmartins@rgrdlaw.com - and - Sean K. Collins, Esq. SEAN K. COLLINS, ATTORNEY AT LAW 184 High Street, Suite 503 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 939-9731 Facsimile: (617) 227-2843 E-mail: sean@neinsurancelaw.com The case is Peacock, et al. v. AARP, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13- cv-00459, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Galveston). AETNA LIFE: Coverage-Related Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------- Families who failed to show that Aetna Life Insurance denied coverage for mentally ill teens have a month to amend their claims, reports Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling. The class action filed in June said Aetna refused to cover patients admitted into mental health care facilities that did not provide a licensed health care professional on-site, 24/7. The lead plaintiffs, whose names are abbreviated in the court record, called this reasoning a bogus technicality in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. "Under the [Aetna] plan language, if the residential treatment facility is licensed under the law of the state in which it is located to provide inpatient treatment, it qualifies as a facility that is eligible for coverage by Aetna regardless of whether a licensed healthcare professional is on site 24/7," the complaint stated. Aetna sought dismissal based on its contention that the plan clearly describes two distinct requirements that facilities must fulfill for patients to be covered. "The central issue is whether coverage under defendant's policies requires a licensed 'Behavioral Health Provider/Practitioner' [BHP] to be on-site 24/7 at the residential treatment facility, in addition to the facility being licensed to provide on-site mental health services," U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti explained December 17, 2013. Conti noted that there would be no reason to mention the 24/7 provision within the language of the plan if the only requirement for coverage is that the facility itself be licensed by the state where it operates. "If the licensed residential treatment facility is itself the on- site licensed organization per the definition of BHP, as plaintiffs submit, then there would be no reason for the plan's language to include the 24/7 exclusion because satisfaction of the plan's licensing would always satisfy the 24/7 BHP requirements," Conti wrote. "Plaintiff's reading would render the plan's distinct requirement nugatory and incomprehensible, since it would not account for defendant's having clearly set out two different provisions and defined terms in the requirements." The plan language is therefore "not ambiguous," Conti wrote, finding the plaintiffs' arguments based on "far-fetched and illogical readings of the plans in relation to the law." Conti dismissed the action without prejudice, giving the plaintiffs 30 days to amend their complaint. The plaintiffs in the San Francisco case are Elizabeth and James L., their daughter Olivia; and L.M. and N.M. as guardians of M.M. Both Olivia and M.M. were about 16 at the treatment for which Aetna denied coverage. The Plaintiffs are represented by: David M. Lilienstein, Esq. DL LAW GROUP 345 Franklin Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 392-2289 Facsimile: (415) 358-8484 E-mail: david@dllawgroup.com - and - Brian S. King, Esq. BRIAN S. KING, ATTORNEY AT LAW 336 South 300 East, Suite 200 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 532-1739 Facsimile: (801) 532-1936 E-mail: brian@briansking.com - and - Colin P. King, Esq. Jessica A. Andrew, Esq. DEWSNUP KING AND OLSEN 36 S. State Street, Suite 2400 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 533-0400 Facsimile: (801) 363-4218 E-mail: cking@dkolaw.com jandrew@dkolaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Geoffrey M. Sigler, Esq. GIBSON DUNN CRUTCHER LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 955-8500 E-mail: GSigler@gibsondunn.com - and - Heather Lynn Richardson, Esq. Richard Joseph Doren, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN AND CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: (213) 229-7409 Facsimile: (213) 229-6409 E-mail: HRichardson@gibsondunn.com rdoren@gibsondunn.com The case is L., et al. v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, Case No. 3:13-cv-02554-SC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). AIG GROUP: Accused of Violating Racketeering Act in Missouri ------------------------------------------------------------ Mesa Cycles, Inc., individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. American International Group, Inc.; American Home Assurance Company; AIU Insurance Company; American Fuji Fire and Marine Insurance Company; Chartis Property Casualty Company; Commerce and Industry Insurance Company; Granite State Insurance Company; Illinois National Insurance Company; The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania; National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; New Hampshire Insurance Company; AIG Risk Management Inc.; Maurice R. Greenberg; and Does 1 through 10 inclusive, Case No. 4:13-cv-02546-RWS (E.D. Mo., December 20, 2013) alleges violations of the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: John R. Phillips, Esq. SIMMONS AND BROWDER, LLC One Court Street Alton, IL 62002 Telephone: (618) 259-6377 Facsimile: (314) 259-2251 E-mail: jphillips@simmonsfirm.com AIG GROUP: Systematically Ducked Insurance Premiums, Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Hopson Seal-A-Lot, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. American International Group, Inc.; American Home Assurance Company; AIU Insurance Company; Chartis Property Casualty Company; Commerce and Industry Insurance Company; Granite State Insurance Company; Illinois National Insurance Company; Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania; National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; New Hampshire Insurance Company; AIG Risk Management, Inc.; Maurice R. Greenberg; and Does 1 through 10 inclusive, Case No. 2:13-cv- 07545-LS (E.D. Pa., December 20, 2013) is brought by Pennsylvania employers seeking restitution and injunctive relief arising from the Defendants' alleged long-term, unlawful and fraudulent underreporting of workers' compensation insurance premium. American International Group, Inc., is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York. AIG is a publicly-traded holding company which, through its subsidiaries and affiliates, engages in a broad range of financial and insurance-related activities in the United States of America and throughout the world. AIG is the largest underwriter of commercial and industrial insurance in the U.S. The other Defendants are subsidiaries and affiliates of AIG, which directs and controls their activities. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Walter DeBruin, Esq. THE DEBRUIN FIRM LLC 405 North King Street, Suite 440 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 660-2582 Facsimile: (302) 660-2529 E-mail: ddebruin@thedebruinfirm.com - and - Deborah R. Rosenthal, Esq. SIMMONS BROWDER GIANARIS ANGELIDES & BARNERD LLC 455 Market Street, Suite 1150 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 536-3986 Facsimile: (415) 537-4120 E-mail: drosenthal@simmonsfirm.com - and - Derek Y. Brandt, Esq. Emily J. Kirk, Esq. John R. Phillips, Esq. Deborah Rosenthal, Esq. SIMMONS BROWDER GIANARIS ANGELIDES & BARNERD LLC One Court Street Alton, IL 62002 Telephone: (618) 259-2222 Facsimile: (618) 259-2251 E-mail: dbrandt@simmonsfirm.com ekirk@simmonsfirm.com jphillips@simmonsfirm.com drosenthal@simmonsfirm.com - and - Drew E. Pomerance, Esq. Nicholas P. Roxborough, Esq. ROXBOROUGH POMERANCE NYE & ADREANI 5820 Canoga Ave., Suite 250 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 992-9999 Facsimile: (818) 992-9991 E-mail: dep@rpnalaw.com npr@rpnalaw.com - and - Paul J. Hanly, Jr., Esq. Andrea Bierstein, Esq. Thomas I. Sheridan, III, Esq. HANLY CONROY BIERSTEIN SHERIDAN FISHER & HAYES LLP 112 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016-7416 Telephone: (212) 784-6400 Facsimile: (212) 213-5949 E-mail: phanly@hanlyconroy.com abierstein@hanlyconroy.com tsheridan@hanlyconroy.com AMAZON.COM LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime Compensation, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- David C. Saldana, Ladaisja Brewster, and Monica Carlin, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Amazon.com, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; SMX, LLC, an Illinois Limited Liability Company; Staff Management, LLC, an Illinois Limited Liability Company and, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. BC531096 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., December 19, 2013) arises from the Defendants' alleged collective failure to pay employees all compensable wages for time worked and subject to employer control and the failure to pay the requisite amount of straight-time, alternatively minimum wage, overtime and double- time wages for all time worked. Amazon.com, LLC, is a Delaware Liability Corporation headquartered in Seattle, Washington. Amazon operates one of the most well- known online marketplaces in the country. Amazon.Com owns and operates over 50 warehouse distribution centers across the United States, including the states of Arizona. SMX, LLC, is an Illinois Limited Liability Company. Staff Management, LLC is an Illinois Limited Liability Company. Both do business in the state of California. Both are headquartered in the state of Illinois, and hold active status in California. The true names of the Doe Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark R. Thierman, Esq. THIERMAN LAW FIRM 7287 Lakeside Drive Reno, NV 89511 Telephone: (775) 284-1500 Facsimile: (775) 703-5027 E-mail: laborlawyer@pacbell.net - and - David R. Markham, Esq. THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM 750 B Street, Suite 1950 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 399-3995 Facsimile: (619) 615-2067 E-mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com - and - Michael D. Singer, Esq. J. Jason Hill, Esq. COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER 605 C Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 595-3001 Facsimile: (619) 595-3000 E-mail: msinger@ckslaw.com jhill@ckslaw.com - and - Christopher J. Hamner, Esq. Walter L. Haines, Esq. HAMNER LAW OFFICES, LP 15760 Ventura Blvd., Suite 860 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 386-0444 Facsimile: (818) 386-0050 E-mail: chamner@hamnerlaw.com - and - UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, P.C. 65 Pine Ave., Suite 725 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 256-1047 Facsimile: (562) 256-1006 AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE: Cheats Workers of Wages & Expenses, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that the American Automobile Association of Northern California, Nevada & Utah misclassifies roadside assistance workers as independent contractors to cheat them of wages and expenses, a class action claims in Contra Costa County Court, California. AMERICAN HONDA: Sued Over Flawed Door Locking Systems on Accords ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael E. Fisher, Individually, And On Behalf Of Others Similarly Situated v. Honda North America, Inc.; American Honda Motor Co., Inc.; and Honda Motor Company, Ltd., Case No. 2:13-cv-09285-JAK- PLA (C.D. Cal., December 18, 2013) is brought on behalf of all current and former owners and lessees of model year 2003-2012 Honda Accord vehicles that contain alleged defective door locking mechanisms. All Class Vehicles come equipped with a power door locking system. The Plaintiff contends that the action arises from a uniform defect in the door mechanisms of the Class Vehicles. The Defect causes the Locking Mechanism to prematurely fail, which in turn causes the Locking System to malfunction. As a result, the locks will not lock or unlock using the driver or front-passenger door switches, or using the key fob from the vehicle's exterior. North America, American Honda, and Honda Motor Company are automobile design, manufacturing, distribution, and servicing corporations doing business within the United States. The Defendants design, manufacture, distribute, market, service, repair, sell and lease passenger vehicles, including the Class Vehicles. Honda Motor Company, Ltd. is an automobile design, manufacturing, sale, leasing, distribution, and servicing corporation organized under the laws of Japan, and has its principal place business in Tokyo. Honda Motor Company is the Japanese parent corporation of United States subsidiaries, Honda North America and American Honda. Honda North America, Inc. and American Honda Motor Co., Inc. are California corporations headquartered in Torrance, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan L. Clobes, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 1101 Market St., Suite 2650 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 864-2800 Facsimile: (215) 864-2810 E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com - and - Anthony F. Fata, Esq. Daniel O. Herrera, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 30 N. LaSalle, Suite 3200 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 782-4880 Facsimile: (312) 782-4485 E-mail: afata@caffertyclobes.com dherrera@caffertyclobes.com - and - Raymond P. Boucher, Esq. Shehnaz M. Bhujwala, Esq. KHORRAMI BOUCHER SUMNER SANGUINETTI, LLP 444 S. Flower St. - 33rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 596-6000 Facsimile: (213) 596-6010 E-mail: rboucher@kbsslaw.com sbhujwala@kbsslaw.com APPLE INC: Misrepresents Warranty Program, "Adkins" Class Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Patricia Sue Adkins, Jennifer Galindo and Fabrienne English v. Apple Inc., Applecare Service Company Inc., and Apple CSC Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-00402 (S.D. Tex., November 4, 2013) alleges that Apple fraudulently misrepresented its AppleCare warranty program. Ms. Adkins, et al., alleged Apple did not disclose that it used reconditioned parts or devices to repair or replace malfunctioning devices under the warranty. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Renee Kennedy, Esq. 1620 S. Friendswood Dr., Suite Apple Friendswood, TX 77546 Telephone: (832) 428-1552 E-mail: apple.reneekennedy@gmail.com The Defendants are represented by: Thomas Christopher Trent, Esq. Benjamin Witten Allen, Esq. JOHNSON, TRENT, WEST & TAYLOR, L.L.P. 919 Milam Street, Ste 1700 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 222-2323 Facsimile: (713) 222-2226 E-mail: ctrent@johnsontrent.com ballen@johnsontrent.com - and - Penelope A. Preovolos, Esq. Sai Jahann, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 E-mail: ppreovolos@mofo.com sjahann@mofo.com - and - Purvi G. Patel, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 6000 Los Angeles, CA 90017-3543 Telephone: (213) 892-5296 E-mail: ppatel@mofo.com BL VACATION: Suit Seeks to Stop Massive Telemarketing Campaign -------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin McCabe, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. B.L. Vacation Ownership, Inc., Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., Celebration Cruise Line, LLC, Celebration Cruise Line Management, LLC, Celebration Cruise Operator, Inc., Celebration Cruises International, Ltd. Corp., National Travel Services, Inc., Nationwide Reservations, Inc., Plaza Resorts, Inc., Berkley Group, Inc., and Vacation Ownership Marketing Tours, Inc., Case No. 1:13- cv-06131-JG-RML (E.D.N.Y., November 4, 2013) seeks to stop the Defendants' alleged massive illegal telemarketing campaign. The Defendants have been responsible for making millions of unsolicited telemarketing calls to cellular telephones and residential telephone lines, the Plaintiff alleges. The Defendants are vacation cruise operators and marketers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd C. Bank, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF TODD C. BANK 119-40 Union Turnpike, Fourth Floor Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 520-7125 E-mail: TBLaw101@aol.com BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Sued for Scheme to Delay Aggrenox Generic --------------------------------------------------------------- Minnesota and North Dakota Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG; Ingelheim International GmbH; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.; Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Duramed Pharmaceuticals Inc.; and Duramed Pharmaceuticals Sales Corp., Case No. 0:13-cv-03588-JRT- TNL (D. Minn., December 20, 2013) is a civil antitrust and consumer protection action seeking damages arising out of the Defendants' alleged unlawful exclusion of generic competition from the market for capsules that combine 200 mg extended release dipyridamole and 25 mg acetylsalicylic acid, a product sold by Boehringer under the brand-name Aggrenox. Aggrenox is prescribed to reduce the risk of stroke in patients, who have had transient ischemia of the brain or completed ischemic stroke due to thrombosis. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG is a German limited partnership headquartered in Ingelheim, Germany. Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH is a German private limited liability company headquartered in Ingelheim, Germany. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Ridgefield, Connecticut. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in North Wales, Pennsylvania. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., is an Israeli corporation headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel. Teva is a leading manufacturer of generic drugs, and it is one of the largest sellers of generic drugs in the United States. Teva purchased Barr in 2008, and Barr is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Teva. Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey. Prior to 2004, Barr was known as Barr Laboratories, Inc. In 2008, Barr became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Teva. Duramed Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey. Until 2008, Duramed was a subsidiary of Barr. In 2008, when Teva purchased Barr, Duramed became a subsidiary of Teva. Duramed is now known as Teva Women's Health Inc. Duramed Pharmaceuticals Sales Corp. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey. Until 2008, DPSC was a subsidiary of Barr. In 2008, when Teva purchased Barr, DPSC became a subsidiary of Teva. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Woodward, Esq. Renae D. Steiner, Esq. HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C. 310 Clifton Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55403 Telephone: (612) 338-4605 Facsimile: (612) 338-4692 E-mail: dwoodward@heinmills.com rsteiner@heinsmills.com - and - Anne T. Regan, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED PLLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Facsimile: (612) 341-0844 E-mail: anne.regan@zimmreed.com CITICOACH INC: Shaved Off Hours From Drivers' Pay, Class Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Aleksandr Y. Nikoghosyan, Muzaffar Gulyamov, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons v. Citicoach, Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-06115-WFK-JO (E.D.N.Y., November 4, 2013) seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiffs, who were employed as are drivers of the Defendant's ambulettes, allege that the Defendant often shaved hours from their pay, and did not pay them and the proposed class for all the hours they worked. Citicoach, Inc., is a New York state domestic business corporation headquartered in Brooklyn, New York. The Company operates an ambulette company based in Brooklyn for the purpose of transporting people to and from medical appointments. The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Harrison, Esq. HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 110 Highway 35, 2nd Floor Red Bank, NJ 07701 Telephone: (718) 799-9111 Facsimile: (718) 799-9171 E-mail: nycotlaw@gmail.com COMMUNICATIONS UNLIMITED: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Class Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shannon Justice and Brett Antoline, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Communications Unlimited Contracting Services, Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-00964-LY (W.D. Tex., November 5, 2013) alleges that the Company does not pay the Plaintiffs overtime pay for hours worked above 40 in a workweek at the overtime rate required under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Communications Unlimited Contracting Services, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Hoover, Alabama. The Company provides telephone and cable equipment installation services to homes in Texas and the United States. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq. Don J. Foty, Esq. KENNEDYHODGES, L.L.P. 711 W. Alabama St. Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: Gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com dfoty@kennedyhodges.com The Defendant is represented by: Justin K. Markel, Esq. ROBERTS MARKEL WEINBERG PC 5307 E. Mockingbird Lane - Suite 450 Dallas, TX 75206 Telephone: (214) 365-9290 Facsimile: (713) 840-9404 E-mail: jmarkel@robertsmarkel.com - and - Laura M. Alaniz, Esq. ROBERTS MARKEL WEINBERG PC 2800 Post Oak Blvd., 57th Floor Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 840-1666 Facsimile: (713) 840-9404 E-mail: lalaniz@robertsmarkel.com CREDIT BUREAU: "Schwartz" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations ------------------------------------------------------- Joel Schwartz, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Credit Bureau of Napa County, Inc., d/b/a Chase Receivables, Case No. 1:13-cv-06117-NGG-RER (E.D.N.Y., November 4, 2013) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com CRYSTAL CLEAR: "Morrow" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Back Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Kyle Morrow, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. Crystal Clear Pools of Florida, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, and John Dower, individually, Case No. 5:13-cv-00543-ACC- PRL (M.D. Fla., November 4, 2013) seeks to recover unpaid back wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages and reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Crystal Clear Pools of Florida, LLC is a Florida Limited Liability Company headquartered in Lake County, Florida. John Dower is a resident of the state of Florida and is the operator of the Company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Amanda E. Kayfus, Esq. Andrew Ross Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 600 N Pine Island Rd., Suite 400 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318-0268 Facsimile: (954) 333-3515 E-mail: akayfus@forthepeople.com afrisch@forthepeople.com The Defendants are represented by: Lillian Chaves Moon, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. - ORLANDO 390 N Orange Ave., Suite 1285 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 246-8452 Facsimile: (407) 246-8441 E-mail: MoonL@jacksonlewis.com CVS PHARMACY: Pushes "Coenzyme Q10" With Bogus Claims, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that CVS Pharmacy pushes its "Coenzyme Q10" with bogus claims that its version has "over 600% better absorption" than others, a class action claims in California Federal Court. The Plaintiff is represented by: Aidan C. McGlaze, Esq. Michael D. Seplow, Esq. Vincent James DeSimone, Esq. SCHONBRUN DESIMONE SEPLOW HARRIS HOFFMAN AND HARRISON LLP 723 Ocean Front Walk Venice, CA 90291 Telephone: (310) 396-0731 Facsimile: (310) 399-7040 E-mail: amcglaze.sdshhh@gmail.com mseplow@gmail.com vjdesimone@gmail.com - and - Alireza Alivandivafa, Esq. Azadeh C. Dadgostar, Esq. Hirad D. Dadgostar, Esq. DADGOSTAR LAW LLP 12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Fourth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 820-1022 Facsimile: (310) 820-1088 E-mail: aalivandi@gmail.com azadeh@dadgostarlaw.com hirad@dadgostarlaw.com - and - Jon D. Henderson, Esq. Michael Hagop Boyamian, Esq. Thomas Walker Falvey, Esq. THOMAS W. FALVEY LAW OFFICE 301 North Lake Avenue Suite 800 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (626) 795-0205 Facsimile: (626) 795-3096 E-mail: hendersonj2004@gmail.com mike.falveylaw@gmail.com thomaswfalvey@gmail.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael D. Weil, Esq. ORRICK HERRINGTON AND SUTCLIFFE LLP Orrick Building 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2669 Telephone: (415) 773-5700 Facsimile: (415) 773-5759 E-mail: mweil@orrick.com - and - Timothy J. Long, Esq. Byron Robert Lau, Esq. ORRICK HERRINGTON AND SUTCLIFFE LLP 777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 629-2020 Facsimile: (213) 612-2499 E-mail: tjlong@orrick.com blau@orrick.com The case is Timothy J. Connell v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-09410-GHK-FFM, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles). DAIMLER AG: Faces Class Action in New Jersey Over Used Vehicles --------------------------------------------------------------- Martin Bricketto, writing for Law360, reports that Daimler AG and Mercedes Benz Cars have been hit with a putative class action in New Jersey state court alleging they misled consumers about the safety and collision histories of their pre-owned vehicles. Maryland resident James Dey contends in the Dec. 13 complaint in Bergen County Superior Court that the companies have misrepresented the true condition of vehicles in the Mercedes Benz Certified Preowned program. According to Mr. Dey, he unknowingly bought a model year 1999 C-230 from a Manhattan dealership that was involved in a serious rear-end collision, which compromised the automobile's rear suspension. Through marketing and advertising, Mercedes duped customers like Mr. Dey into thinking that vehicles in the program were safe for the road, but that's not the case, according to the suit. Mr. Dey claims the companies knew that the vehicles were dangerous. "Plaintiff was caused to suffer inconvenience needlessly, and to expend monies to repair his vehicle on several occasions, and was put in mortal danger, and lost use of the vehicle on several occasions, and took time off work, and . . . was caused to pay an insurance deductible for collision repairs to his vehicle and to pay for rental cars, all because of the Mercedes defendants' unconscionable conduct," the complaint said. The suit accuses Daimler and Mercedes Benz of violating the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, among other claims. "The Mercedes defendants' deceptive, unconscionable or fraudulent representations and material omissions to consumers and motorists, including plaintiff, constituted unfair and deceptive acts and trade practices in violation of the CFA," the complaint said. Mr. Dey's headaches with his vehicle began when he was driving the car home from New York in 2007, according to the complaint. The vehicle shook at highway speeds, and the problem worsened over time to include a persistent rattle when the car was idling, the complaint says. He repeatedly had the vehicle repaired at Mercedes Benz dealerships, including a trip back to Manhattan, but what technicians described as alignment or wheel problems continued, according to the suit. During that time, Mr. Dey was allegedly never told about the car's collision history. However, an almost fatal car accident in 2009 prompted Mr. Dey to dig into the history of the vehicle, which revealed the rear-end collision in 2006, the complaint says. Mr. Dey blames the accident on rear suspension issues. The companies have refused to settle the matter outside of court, according to the complaint. "Mercedes defendants have used the plaintiff's good faith and reasonable entreaties to resolve this matter with various degrees of ridicule, incredulity and insults, and also with feigned ignorance," the suit said. A Mercedes Benz representative and an attorney for Mr. Dey did not immediately return requests for comment late on Dec. 20. Counsel information for the defendants was not immediately available. Mr. Dey is represented by Andrew K. de Heer of Deheer Bureau Advocato LLC. The case is Dey v. Daimler AG, case number L-9735-13, in the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey, County of Bergen. EAST COAST FORENSIC: Sued Over Illegal Patient Strip Searches ------------------------------------------------------------- Eva Hoare, writing for The Chronicle Herald, reports that up to 60 patients at the East Coast Forensic Hospital claim they were forced to undergo invasive and illegal strip searches ordered by a manager last year, a move that violated their rights and affected their mental well-being. The allegations, which place the Dartmouth facility in the eye of a potential legal storm, were contained in a proposed class action filed on Dec. 20 in Nova Scotia Supreme Court. The lawsuit targets the Capital district health authority, alleging the hospital's rehabilitation manager Brenda Mate "abused her position of power" by ordering every patient in the hospital to be "subjected to an invasive strip search." The health authority operates the forensic facility. The patients allege a search for "contraband" on Oct. 16, 2012, also breached their charter rights. They contend in court documents that they had been subjected to numerous such searches ordered by Ms. Mate. "Patients of the East Coast Forensic Hospital are vulnerable members of society, at the mercy of the defendant's employees' exercise of power," states the lawsuit, filed by the Wagners law firm in Halifax. "An unreasonable, unlawful strip search amounts to tortious battery," the suit says. The lead plaintiff in the action, who is identified in the documents only as R.A., claims the searches, which were allegedly conducted on every patient in October 2012, included a "cavity search." The actions resulted after Mate ordered the facility locked down for 61/2 hours, the plaintiff said in court papers. "The plaintiff and every class member were ordered by the defendant's employees to strip naked and submit to a body search . . . which included a cavity check in every case," the action states. "As part of the cavity checks, the plaintiff and each male class member had their testicles touched by the defendant's employees." Capital Health spokesman John Gillis said on Dec. 20 that the health authority could not comment on the legal action because it is before the courts. The allegations have not been proven in court, and a date for a proposed class action hearing has yet to be set. Mike Dull, the lawyer who filed the action, said basic human rights are guaranteed, and the patients should not be treated any differently. "All Canadian citizens have a right of privacy," Mr. Dull said in an interview on Dec. 20. "This includes a right not to be strip-searched. Every patient of the forensic hospital shares this right. They're not required to give it up the moment they enter the facility." Mr. Dull said he believes that 50 to 60 people were subjected to searches on the day in question. The plaintiff is representing every patient in the unit that day, the lawsuit states. He was not available for comment on Dec. 20. No drugs were discovered during the searches, which also included scouring patients' rooms and public areas, it's alleged. R.A. alleges that he and the other patients suffered "injury, loss and damage" as a result of the incident. While strip searches may be done for "reasonable and probable grounds" at the hospital, R.A. alleges that wasn't the case last year. "Brenda Mate's belief that 'drugs may be in Rehab' does not amount to reasonable and probable grounds to order a class-wide search of every patient," he alleges in the suit. Mr. Dull said the practice is unacceptable. "Stripping everyone naked and forcing them into an invasive cavity check, simply because one person had a subjective and ultimately unfounded belief that there were drugs somewhere in the hospital, is a total invasion of privacy. Where this happens on a regular basis, it needs to stop." Therefore, the plaintiffs allege the searches broke the law. "They committed an unlawful and illegal strip search," the documents state. The plaintiffs also allege the defendants "disproportionately interfered with the plaintiff and class members' freedom of their person" and "inadequately appraised themselves of the effects their application of force, (an) invasive search, would have on the plaintiff and class members." It's also alleged that no one took the patients' "mental infirmities" into account before carrying out the searches. The forensic hospital's website says it is operated by both the provincial Health and Justice departments, containing a total of 84 beds. Two rehabilitation units have 30 beds apiece, while there is another 24-bed section that houses those who are there under court-ordered assessments, the site said. It isn't clear which unit the lead plaintiff was in on the day of the alleged searches. It also isn't clear if all the patients represented in the legal action are still at the hospital. "Sometimes the only way for powerless victims to get their point across is through the courts, and that is what they seek to do with this class action," said Mr. Dull. ELITE SPECIALTY: Painters Seek to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Edison Calle and Gonzalo Carvacho, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Elite Specialty Coatings Plus, Inc., and John Vazquez, Case No. 1:13-cv-06126-NGG-VMS (E.D.N.Y., November 5, 2013) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages for the Plaintiffs and his similarly situated co-workers -- painters and similar hourly, non-exempt employees -- who have been employed by the Defendants. The Defendants own and operate Elite Specialty Coatings Plus, Inc., a painting contractor located in Long Island City, New York. Elite is a New York domestic business corporation. John Vazquez is a resident of the state of New York. He is the owner, Chief Executive Officer, and President of Elite from January 2003 to present. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq. Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 Facsimile: (212) 481-1333 E-mail: akimble@fslawfirm.com FACEBOOK INC: Must Face Minors' Credit Purchases Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360, reports that Facebook Inc. will have to face a putative class action by a group of minors who spent money via Facebook Credit purchases without their parents' permission on the social networking site, but the parents' bids in the suit have been grounded, a California federal judge ruled on Dec. 20. U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken granted Facebook's motion to eliminate the parents' claims under California's Unfair Competition Law, but kept the children in the suit, finding the kids had standing to bring suit under the California Family Code, according to the decision. The parents were given the boot from the suit because they couldn't allege they suffered economic harm that wouldn't already be cured by the claims of their children, the judge found. "While the minor plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that Facebook violated their statutory right to disaffirm their Facebook Credit purchases, they have not alleged that they suffered economic harm as a result," Judge Wilken wrote. "The losses [the parents] suffered derive, at bottom, from the unauthorized use of their credit cards by the minor plaintiffs." It was a partial win for Facebook in the class action, originally lodged in California federal court in April 2012. The social networking site was unsuccessful in its bid to ditch the minors in the suit because it couldn't prove the kids weren't able to disaffirm their agreements to pay for credits on the site, Judge Wilken found. The decision matched an earlier ruling on a similar matter in the same suit, the judge noted. "Facebook has not acknowledged, let alone refuted, the court's prior ruling in this case. Nor has it shown that the minor plaintiffs' claim that it violated their statutory right of disaffirmance is insufficient to plead a cognizable injury-in- fact," Judge Wilken wrote in the Dec. 20 ruling. In an earlier motion to dismiss, Facebook said that "the children's sole attempt at stating any form of injury is the statement that they experienced 'shame, punishment, allowance reduction and other consequences' in connection with their purchases of Credits." But the court rejected this argument, finding that minors have the right to negate their Facebook Credits purchases. "Facebook's latest argument -- that the minor plaintiffs lack standing -- fails for the same reasons its earlier arguments failed. As this court explained in its prior order, the minor plaintiffs have 'present[ed] an actual controversy over the rights of minors to disaffirm their purchases of Facebook Credits,'" Judge Wilken wrote. The minors and their parents argued that several sections of the California Family Code protect them. First, they argued, a portion of that law voids any contract entered into by a minor using personal property not in his or her possession, namely, parents' debit cards. And in the alternative, the families argued, a separate portion of the same law allows minors to disaffirm contracts in a certain period of time. The Dec. 20 ruling knocks the parents out of the action, but leaves in the minor children who spent money unintentionally (or against their parents' will) on the social networking site. Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Dec. 20. The plaintiffs are represented by John R. Parker Jr. and C. Brooks Cutter of Kershaw Cutter & Ratinoff LLP, by Daniel B. Edelman -- edelman@bmklegal.com -- of Katz Marshall & Banks LLP and by Benjamin Edelman. Facebook is represented by Michael G. Rhodes -- rhodesmg@cooley.com -- Whitty Somvichian -- wsomvichian@cooley.com -- and Kristine Anne Van Hamersveld -- kvanhamersveld@cooley.com -- of Cooley LLP. The case is Bohannon v. Facebook Inc., case number 4:12-cv-01894, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Car Speed Control Issues ------------------------------------------------------------ WSB-TV reports that a federal audit shows Ford Motor Company has had more complaints in the last decade about cars speeding up by themselves than Toyota. The report, obtained by Channel 2 Action News consumer investigator Jim Strickland, is cited in a class action lawsuit filed by a Georgia man who went to court after saying his Mercury Montego allegedly without warning and crashed into a garage. "I'm driving a big vehicle, and I can't stop it. I don't know what to do to stop it. It has a mind of its own. It takes over and takes control," said car owner Samuel Hairston, of Roswell. Mr. Hairston said the car has accelerated on its own eight times -- four times, it occurred for several seconds. "I don't think anybody would buy it if they knew what it did. It's basically a big safety hazard," he said. Hairston joins consumers in 30 states filing suit. They are seeking damages for diminished value and demand Ford fix the problem. Court documents said there are 35 different models of Ford and Ford sister brands involved. Model years vary from 2002 to 2010. That's 11 million vehicles. "We want Ford to get involved now and stop it from being a serious body count," said attorney Adam Levitt. A federal audit said from 2003 to 2009, 29 deaths and 345 injuries are blamed on Ford speed control issues, including unintended acceleration. The figure represents the most deaths of any manufacturer during that time. "It's sad because it puts everybody on the road in jeopardy," said Hairston. With a lawsuit pending, Ford refused to comment. FORJAS TAURUS: Pistols Have Defective Safety Devices, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Chris P. Carter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Forjas Taurus, S.A., Taurus International Manufacturing Inc., and Taurus Holdings Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv- 24583-PAS (S.D. Fla., December 20, 2013) alleges that certain Taurus pistols that have defective safety devices can fire when dropped. The Plaintiff is represented by: Angelo Marino, Jr., Esq. 645 SE 5th Terrace Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-3160 Telephone: (954) 765-0537 Facsimile: (954) 765-0545 E-mail: amjrpamail@aol.com FUSION-IO INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in California ------------------------------------------------------------------ Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Dec. 20 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Fusion-io, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Northern District of California, and docketed under 13-cv-05474, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Fusion-IO between August 10, 2012 and October 23, 2013 both dates inclusive. This class action seeks to recover damages against the Company and certain of its officers and directors as a result of alleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. If you are a shareholder who purchased Fusion-io securities during the Class Period, you have until January 21, 2014 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Fusion-io is a computer hardware and software systems company that designs and manufactures memory storage solutions using flash memory technology. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: Defendants misrepresented to investors that the Company was a market leader in large-scale flash memory applications and was not facing any competitive pressure or risk from the commoditization of flash memory products. Defendants also issued unrealistic positive revenue guidance and misrepresented that the Company was able to anticipate the demand from its strategic customers based on its years of experience as their flash memory supplier. As a result of these misrepresentations, Fusion-io stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. On October 23, 2013, Fusion-io announced financial results from its first quarter of fiscal year 2014. The Company, in a statement, revoked its prior revenue guidance and announced that its expected gross margin in 2014 would fall significantly. The Company also announced that Chief Financial Officer ("CFO") Dennis Wolf and Chief Sales Officer James Dawson were leaving the Company. On this news, the share price of Fusion-io stock declined from $12.98 per share to $9.82 per share, or 24%, on October 23, 2013. With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. GOLDEN SECURITY: Sued by Security Guards Over Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Jose A. Mestre Dorticos and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(B) v. Golden Security Guards, Inc. and Pedro Mora, Case No. 1:13-cv-24010-KMM (S.D. Fla., November 5, 2013) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay his and other similarly situated security guards' overtime wages as required by the FLSA and recklessly failed to investigate whether their payroll practices were in accordance with the FLSAct, the Plaintiff contends. Golden Security Guards, Inc. is a corporation that regularly transacts business within Dade County. Pedro Mora is a corporate officer, owner or manager of the Company. The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. Joseph Perea, Esq. K. David Kelly, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: (305) 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM perealaw@gmail.com david.kelly38@rocketmail.com HULU LLC: Court Refused to Issue Summary Judgment in Privacy Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that Hulu must face claims that it illegally disclosed viewer data to Facebook and a business-analytics service, a federal judge ruled, finding users can recover damages by merely showing that the disclosure occurred. Joseph Garvey is the lead plaintiff in putative class action that says Hulu "repurposed" its browser cache to let marketing-analysis services store the private data of users. While U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler gutted the case last June, she deferred ruling on the alleged violation of the federal Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), enacted in 1988 after a Washington, D.C., newspaper published the video-rental history of Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork. Hulu had said the class could not prove injury to establish standing, since that would require a recitation of watched videos, and how third parties received this information. The media-streaming service also argued that the plaintiffs needed to prove an additional injury besides violating the VPPA, and moved for a judgment on that issue. Judge Beeler unraveled Hulu's argument Friday, December 20, 2013, finding that the act "requires only injury in the form of a wrongful disclosure." "Hulu's main argument -- that the word 'aggrieved' in the statute requires an additional injury -- does not change the outcome," Beeler wrote. Illegally disclosing personal information is an "actual injury" in this case, and the plaintiffs could recover damages if the court finds Hulu violated the VPPA, according to the 18-page order. In depositions earlier this year, several plaintiffs said they felt their privacy was violated by Hulu's disclosure of their personal data. "I'm paying for a service, and I thought that I understood what was involved in that transaction," plaintiff Paul Torre said in his deposition. "But now I understand more, and it's disturbing." A summary judgment hearing is scheduled for Feb. 6 in Beeler's courtroom. The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Christopher Parisi, Esq. Suzanne L. Havens Beckman, Esq. PARISI & HAVENS LLP 15233 Valleyheart Drive Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 990-1299 Facsimile: (818) 501-7852 E-mail: dcparisi@parisihavens.com shavens@parisihavens.com - and - David A. Stampley, Esq. Grace E. Tersigni, Esq. Scott A. Kamber, Esq. KAMBERLAW, LLC 100 Wall Street, 23rd Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 920-3072 Facsimile: (212) 920-3081 E-mail: dstampley@kamberlaw.com gtersigni@kamberlaw.com skamber@kamberlaw.com - and - Scott A. Kamber, Esq. David A. Stampley, Esq. KAMBERLAW, LLC 11 Broadway, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 920-3072 Facsimile: (212) 920-3081 E-mail: skamber@kamberlaw.com dstampley@kamberlaw.com - and - Deborah Kravitz, Esq. KAMBERLAW LLP 141 North Street Healdsburg, CA 95448 Telephone: (202) 285-2560 E-mail: dkravitz@kamberlaw.com - and - Gretchen Arlene Carpenter, Esq. Brian Russell Strange, Esq. STRANGE & CARPENTER 12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 207-5055 Facsimile: (310) 826-3210 E-mail: gcarpenter@strangeandcarpenter.com lacounsel@earthlink.net - and - Joseph H. Malley, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH H. MALLEY, PC 1045 North Zang Boulevard Dallas, TX 75208 Telephone: (214) 943-6100 E-mail: malleylaw@gmail.com The Defendant is represented by: Randall W. Edwards, Esq. Katherine Robison, Esq. Matthew David Powers, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 984-8700 Facsimile: (415) 984-8701 E-mail: REdwards@omm.com krobison@omm.com mpowers@omm.com - and - Robert Michael Schwartz, Esq. Brian J. Finkelstein, Esq. Steven Matthew Dunst, Esq. Victor Jih, Esq. O'MELVENY MYERS LLP 1999 Ave of the Stars, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6035 Telephone: (310) 246-6835 E-mail: rschwartz@omm.com brianfinkelstein@omm.com sdunst@omm.com vjih@omm.com The case is In Re Hulu Privacy Litigation, Case No. 3:11-cv-03764- LB, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). IMPACT FUNDING: Faces "Giedt" Suit Over Lending Act Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- Lawrence Vega Giedt, Jr., and Vivan Castillo Giedt, individuals, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Impact Funding Corporation d/b/a Impac Lending Group, as the Original Lender; Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for the Issuing Trust, Impac Secured Assets Trust 2006-5; Impac Funding Corporation, d/b/a Impac Lending Group, as the Mortgage Servicer and all persons unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the property described in the complaint adverse to Plaintiff' title, or any cloud on Plaintiff' title thereto; and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 1:13-cv-00594-KSC-NONE (D. Haw., November 4, 2013) alleges violations of the Truth in Lending Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roger Y. Dewa, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF ROGER Y. DEWA 1164 Bishop Street, Suite 1409 Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (510) 301-6101 E-mail: rogerdewaattorneyatlaw@gmail.com JOHNS HOPKINS: 2 More Patients Sue Over Secret Video ---------------------------------------------------- Iulia Filip reports that two more patients claim in court that a Johns Hopkins gynecologist secretly videotaped their pelvic exams, then killed himself when he was found out. The women filed nearly identical complaints against The Johns Hopkins Hospital and Johns Hopkins Community Physicians, in Baltimore City Court. The late Nikita Levy was an obstetrician and gynecologist at Johns Hopkins for almost 25 years. The hospital fired him in February, and told police he had secretly recorded or photographed patients during exams. Three women sued Hopkins in March, in a class action. In the new lawsuits, "It is alleged that on or about Feb. 4, 2013, the defendant, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, reported to Baltimore City Police that Dr. Levy had been secretly videotaping and/or photographing his patients and possibly others, and storing those images electronically. It is alleged that the defendant was also guilty of boundary violations during his treatment of the plaintiff. "It is alleged that a subsequent investigation by the Baltimore City Police Department and a search of Dr. Levy's home in Towson, Maryland, revealed an 'extraordinary amount' of evidence, including, but not limited to, multiple servers for storage of electronic and digital data." Levy is called a defendant in the body of the complaints, but not in the headers. Baltimore County Police found him dead in his home on Feb. 18. The Baltimore Sun reported that Levy, 54, used a pen camera and other devices to secretly record patients, citing a colleague who reported him to Johns Hopkins. The new plaintiffs claim the hospital knew or should have known about Levy's misconduct, but failed to supervise, stop and report him to authorities, and to ensure patients' safety and privacy. They say they suffered severe emotional distress, pain and anxiety. They seek compensatory and punitive damages for negligence, negligent hiring and supervision, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, battery, negligent entrustment and lack of informed consent. While Johns Hopkins said it could not comment directly on the case, spokeswoman Kim Hoppe emphasized "that one individual does not define Johns Hopkins." "Johns Hopkins is defined by the tens of thousands of employees who come to work determined to provide world-class care for our patients and their families," Hoppe said in an email. "We remain stunned that a member of our ranks would violate doctor-patient trust in this manner." The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan L. Burke, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF RYAN L. BURKE 1818 Eastern Avenue Baltimore, MD 21231 Telephone: (410) 235-6868 JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces "Blake" Suit Over Captive Reinsurance ----------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Blake and James Orkis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Chase Bank USA, N.A., JPMorgan Chase & Co., and Cross Country Insurance Company, Case No. 5:13-cv-06433-PD (E.D. Pa., November 4, 2013) is a proposed nationwide class action brought on behalf of similarly situated persons, who obtained residential mortgage loans originated, funded or originated through correspondent lending by the Defendants, their successors or assigns, or any of their subsidiaries and affiliates, between January 1, 2004, and the present and who, in connection therewith, purchased private mortgage insurance that was reinsured with JPMorgan's captive reinsurance affiliate, Cross Country. In this action, the Plaintiffs challenge the Defendants' alleged violations of the strict prohibition against kickbacks, referral payments and unearned fee splits codified in the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974. In particular, the Plaintiffs argue, JPMorgan and Cross Country, under an agreement or understanding with several private mortgage insurance providers, violated RESPA in two ways: (i) in exchange for JPMorgan's referral of its mortgage borrowers' business, Cross Country (and, therefore, JPMorgan) received illegal referral payments in the form of purported reinsurance premiums from the Private Mortgage Insurers; and (ii) Cross Country (and, therefore, JPMorgan) received an unlawful split of private mortgage insurance premiums paid by the borrowers that JPMorgan referred to the Private Mortgage Insurers. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., a subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase & Co., is a national banking association that conducts business in Pennsylvania and other states throughout the United States. Chase Bank USA, N.A., also a subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase & Co., is a national banking association that conducts business in Pennsylvania and other states throughout the United States. JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a financial holding company incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in New York. Cross Country Insurance Company is a Vermont corporation. Cross Country is a subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., and JPMorgan Chase & Co. and an affiliate of Chase Bank USA, N.A. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq. Edward W. Ciolko, Esq. Terence S. Ziegler, Esq. Matthew T. Stone, Esq. MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com eciolko@ktmc.com tziegler@ktmc.com mstone@ktmc.com - and - Ronald J. Berke, Esq. BERKE, BERKE & BERKE 420 Frazier Avenue Chattanooga, TN 37402 Telephone: (423) 266-5171 Facsimile: (423) 265-5307 - and - Alan R. Plutzik, Esq. BRAMSON, PLUTZIK, MAHLER & BIRKHAEUSER LLP 2125 Oak Grove Blvd., Suite 120 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Telephone: (925) 945-0770 Facsimile: (925) 945-8792 E-mail: aplutzik@bramsonplutzik.com The Defendants are represented by: Samantha L. Southall, Esq. BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC 50 S. 16th St., Suite 3200 Two Liberty Place Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 665-3884 E-mail: samantha.southall@bipc.com L'OREAL USA: Court Won't Dismiss Suit Over Anti-Wrinkle Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- L'Oreal and Lancome must face claims that they lied to consumers about the age-defying properties of purportedly scientifically proven anti-wrinkle products, reports Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling. Twelve consumers sued L'Oreal USA and its luxury brands, Lancome and Lancome Luxury Products, alleging that 30 of their anti- wrinkle products "do not, and cannot, provide the results promised." L'Oreal cites on a decade of research to support its claims that one collection "acts biologically on the 12 key targets of aging," and that products can stimulate genes and youth proteins. The customers have meanwhile argued that L'Oreal's collections can neither "fortify skin to make it visibly plumper," nor refill wrinkles within an hour, as advertised. One collection falsely proclaims a "'decisive breakthrough in stem cells' such that within seven days skin recovers the visible signs of younger skin," the complaint states. The plaintiffs said L'Oreal advertised that the purportedly patented, age-defying creams resulted from "vigorous scientific research" using "in-vitro" testing. But such results "are based on cells in a test tube or petri dish, which means that the ingredients' ability to penetrate actual human skin cannot be assessed," the complaint states. Plus, L'Oreal's tests and studies allegedly relied on either biased samples or too few participants to derive statistically significant results. And while the company Photoshops images to give a false impression of the efficacy of its creams, it uses footnotes and asterisks to "deceptively disclaim the promised results," according to the lawsuit. The 26-count complaint asserts claims for false advertising under various state laws; unjust enrichment; and breach of express warranty. U.S. District Judge William Martini declined last week to dismiss certain claims that he found had been pleaded with sufficient particularity. "The plaintiffs who purchased Genefique products (Schwartz, Bauer, Murphy, Simmons, and Nino) did so based on L'Oreal's representation that Genefique can 'boost the activity of genes and stimulate the production of youth proteins,'" Martini wrote. "The plaintiffs who purchased Youth Code products (Goldrick, Gordon, and Luu) did so based on L'Oreal's representation that Youth Code can 'increase skin's power of regeneration so it regains the qualities of young skin.' The plaintiff who purchased Visionnaire (Nino) did so based on a before and after photo of a woman's face that 'purported to demonstrate the dramatic results that would be achieved from using Lancome products.' These allegations satisfy the 'what' element for purposes of Rule 9(b)." (Parentheses in original.) Though other plaintiffs were not so specific, and failed to "pinpoint the statements they relied on," the judge refused to dismiss the fraud claims, holding that discovery will reveal the details. Because "the basis of plaintiffs' claims is the same with respect to all 30 products," the court deferred the standing inquiry until the class-certification stage. The court agreed with L'Oreal that the plaintiffs cannot recover in unjust enrichment under New Jersey law because they made their purchases from third parties. The other unjust enrichment claims and breach of warranty claims survived, however. L'Oreal Group, the French parent of the defendants, reported more than $30.6 billion in sales in 2012. The Plaintiffs are represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. Caroline F. Bartlett, Esq. Donald A. Ecklund, Esq. Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com cbartlett@carellabyrne.com decklund@carellabyrne.com ltaylor@carellabyrne.com - and - Judith S. Scolnick, Esq. SCOTT & SCOTT LLP 405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10174 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 E-mail: jscolnick@scott-scott.com - and - Erin Green Comite, Esq. SCOTT + SCOTT LLP 156 South Main Street P.O. Box 192 Colchester, CT 06415 Telephone: (860) 537-5537 Facsimile: (860) 537-4432 E-mail: ecomite@scott-scott.com - and - Scott A. George, Esq. SEEGER WEISS, LLP 550 Broad Street, Suite 920 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 639-9100 E-mail: sgeorge@seegerweiss.com - and - Jonathan Shub, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 1515 Market Street, Suite 1380 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 564-2300 E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com - and - Benjamin Michael Lopatin, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN PA One Embarcadero Center, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (888) 560-4480 Facsimile: (415) 692-6607 E-mail: lopatin@hwrlawoffice.com - and - Maxwell M. Blecher, Esq. Donald R. Pepperman, Esq. BLECHER AND COLLINS PC 515 South Figueroa Street Suite 1750 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3334 Telephone: (213) 622-4222 Facsimile: (213) 622-1656 E-mail: mblecher@blechercollins.com - and - Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq. GARDY & NOTIS, LLP 560 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632 Telephone: (201) 567-7377 Facsimile: (201) 567-7337 E-mail: jsarnelli@GARDYLAW.com - and - Mark C. Gardy, Esq. GARDY & NOTIS, LLP 440 Sylvan Avenue, Suite 110 Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632 Telephone: (201) 567-7377 E-mail: mgardy@gardylaw.com - and - Martin S. Bakst, Esq. MARTIN S. BAKST LAW OFFICES 15760 Ventura Blvd., 16th Floor Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 981-1400 - and - Reginald Von Terrell, Esq. THE TERRELL LAW GROUP 223 25th Street Richmond, CA 94591 Telephone: (510) 237-9700 E-mail: reggiet2@aol.com - and - Mark P. Pifko, Esq. Roland K. Tellis, Esq. BARON & BUDD PC 15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 839-2333 Facsimile: (818) 986-9698 E-mail: mpifko@baronbudd.com rtellis@baronbudd.com - and - Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Thomas E. Soule, Esq. Cathleen M. Combs, Esq. James O. Latturner, Esq. EDELMAN COMBS LATTURNER & GOODWIN LLC 120 S. Lasalle Street, 18th Floor Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 739-4200 E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com tsoule@edcombs.com ccombs@edcombs.com jlatturner@edcombs.com - and - Aaron Samuel Podhurst, Esq. PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. City National Bank Building 25 W Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130-1780 Telephone: (305) 358-2800 Facsimile: (305) 358-2382 E-mail: apodhurst@podhurst.com - and - Jeremy William Alters, Esq. Matthew T. Moore, Esq. ALTERS LAW FIRM, P.A. 4141 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Suite 201 Miami, FL 33137 Telephone: (305) 571-8550 Facsimile: (305) 571-8558 E-mail: jeremy@alterslaw.com - and - Jamie E. Weiss, Esq. COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP LLC 513 Central Avenue, Suite 300 Highland Park, IL 60035 Telephone: (847) 433-4500 Facsimile: (847) 433-2500 E-mail: jamie@complexlitgroup.com - and - Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq. WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS LLC 380 Madison Avenue, 23rd Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 447-7070 Facsimile: (212) 447-7077 E-mail: Wjwhatley@wdklaw.com - and - Casey Edwards Sadler, Esq. Lionel Zevi Glancy, Esq. Marc L. Godino, Esq. GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: csadler@glancylaw.com lglancy@glancylaw.com L'Oreal USA, Inc. is represented by: Jeffrey Samuel Jacobson, Esq. DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP 919 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 909-6000 E-mail: jsjacobson@debevoise.com The case is In Re L'Oreal Wrinkle Cream Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2415, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark). LACERTE BUILDERS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Roberson Lainez Salgado v. Lacerte Builders, Inc., Case No. 0:13- cv-62413-RNS (S.D. Fla., November 4, 2013) alleges that the Plaintiff earned but did not receive from the Defendant overtime wages calculated at time and one-half times his regular rate of pay for time spent working over 40 hours per week. Lacerte Builders, Inc., is a Florida for-profit business headquartered in Broward County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian H. Pollock, Esq. FAIRLAW FIRM 9130 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 230-4884 Facsimile: (305) 230-4844 E-mail: brian@fairlawattorney.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael James Gore, Esq. CASEY CIKLIN LUBITZ MARTENS O'CONNELL 515 North Flagler Drive, 20th Floor West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 832-5900 E-mail: mgore@caseyciklin.com LOUISVILLE GAS: Sued Over Cane Run Power Plant Coal Pollution ------------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, a national environmental and personal injury law firm, filed a class-action lawsuit on December 16, 2013, against Louisville Gas and Electric Company, a regulated utility and wholly-owned subsidiary of PPL Corporation, alleging it has illegally dumped waste from a coal-fired power plant onto neighboring property and homes. According to the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Louisville Gas and Electric Company's Cane Run Power Plant (the "Cane Run Site" or "Cane Run") is fueled by the burning of coal, which also produces coal combustion byproducts -- primarily fly ash and bottom ash -- that contain significant quantities of toxic materials, including arsenic, chromium and lead. The Cane Run Site is located just east of the Ohio River, near several Kentucky neighborhoods that are home to thousands of residents, attorneys claim. The lawsuit further alleges that, despite receiving several Notices of Violation from the Louisville Air Pollution Control District, the Cane Run Site continues to spew coal dust, ash and other pollutants onto neighboring residences. According to HBSS, these byproducts include known carcinogens and pose significant health hazards to area residents. HBSS alleges that in failing to properly handle and dispose of byproducts from the Cane Run Site, Louisville Gas and Electric Company violated the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as well as the federal Clean Air Act. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of area homeowners, and seeks monetary and statutory damages, as well as injunctive relief that orders Louisville Gas and Electric Company to cease activities that allow coal combustion byproducts to escape from the Cane Run Site. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Ari Y. Brown, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 8th Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com ari@hbsslaw.com - and - Charles L. Williams, Esq. WILLIAMS & SKILLING, P.C. 4801 Redford Avenue, Suite A Richmond, VA 23230 Telephone: (804) 447-0307 Facsimile: (804) 447-0367 - and - Jeffrey M. Sanders, Esq. JEFFREY M. SANDERS PLLC 1009 Russell Street Covington, KY 41011 Telephone: (859) 781-4556 Facsimile: (859) 781-4558 E-mail: jms@jsanderslaw.com - and - Michael D. Donovan, Esq. Noah Axler, Esq. DONOVAN AXLER, LLC 1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 732-6067 Facsimile: (215) 732-8060 The case is Little, et al. v. Louisville Gas and Electric Company, et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-01214-JHM-JDM, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky (Louisville). About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP, is a plaintiff-focused law firm with offices in nine cities. The firm has been named to the National Law Journal's Plaintiffs' Hot List seven times. More about the law firm and its successes can be found at http://www.hbsslaw.com/. The firm's class-action law blog is located at http://www.classactionlawtoday.com/ MARTINREA INTERNATIONAL: Faces Securities Class Action in Ontario ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sutts, Strosberg LLP on Dec. 20 disclosed that a proposed class action has been commenced in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against Martinrea International Inc. and some of its officers and directors. The plaintiff has retained Sutts, Strosberg LLP, a law firm that represents investors in securities class actions, to prosecute the action. The proposed class action concerns the circumstances surrounding Martinrea International Inc.'s December 18, 2013 announcement that the company had overstated its net income from 2005 to 2012. Since the announcement, the company's share price has declined significantly. Shareholders who wish to discuss the matter should contact Jay Strosberg, lead counsel for the proposed class, at 519-561-6296 or by e-mail at jay@strosbergco.com Sutts, Strosberg LLP is one of Canada's leading class action law firms and has recovered more than $1.5 billion for its clients. MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Plan Trustees Accused of Unjust Enrichment ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dennis Gordan, John Hine, Donna Flieger, Patricia Hurley, Ronald Lindner, Janice Reynolds, and Sharon Jewell, individually and as Representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the MassMutual Thrift Plan v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co, Roger Crandall, Stuart H. Reese; Robert O'Connell; Investment Fiduciary Committee; Plan Administrative Committee; Isadore Jermyn; Michael Fanning; MaryWilson Kibbe; Debra Palermino; Michael Rollings; Elaine Sarsynski; Richard Goldstein; Christine Fini; and John Does 1-20, Case No. 3:13-cv-30184-MAP (D. Mass., November 5, 2013) is brought based upon alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. Rather than fulfilling their fiduciary duties by offering the Plaintiffs and the other participants in the MassMutual Thrift Plan only prudent investment options and services at reasonable cost, the Defendants selected for the Plan and repeatedly failed to remove or replace proprietary separate accounts managed and offered by MassMutual, the Plaintiffs allege. These funds, the Plaintiffs accuse, were not selected and retained as the result of an impartial or prudent process, but were instead selected and retained by the Defendants as investment options in the Plan because the Defendants benefited financially from the inclusion of these investment options. By choosing and then retaining these imprudent proprietary investment options, the Defendants enriched themselves at the expense of the Plan, the Plaintiffs add. MassMutual Thrift Plan is a unitary trust corpus in which each Plaintiff, and each Plan participant or beneficiary, has an interest. Plan participants' and beneficiaries' retirement savings are accounting entries until a withdrawal is made. The Plan has over 14,000 participants and over $1 billion in assets. The Plan owns an undivided interest in the underlying assets of MassMutual's general account and separate accounts. The Defendants occupy the position of a common law trustee in connection with the Plan, its assets, and its participants and beneficiaries. MassMutual markets and sells employee-benefits insurance products and employee retirement investment products in all 50 states. MassMutual is primarily run through its unincorporated operating divisions, including its Retirement Services Division. The Plan Administrative Committee is a named fiduciary to the Plan. The Plan Administrative Committee is comprised of executives of MassMutual or its subsidiaries or affiliates. Christine Fini and Richard Goldstein serve as members or delegates of this committee. There are several additional members and delegates not yet known by the Plaintiffs and are referred to as John Doe Defendants 1-10. Investment Fiduciary Committee is also a named fiduciary to the Plan. The Investment Fiduciary is comprised of executives of MassMutual or its subsidiaries or affiliates. Isadore Jermyn, Michael Fanning, Mary Wilson Kibbe, Debra Palermino, Michael Rollings, and other individuals not yet known to the Plaintiffs served as a member or a delegate of the Investment Fiduciary Committee and are referred to as John Doe Defendants 11-20. Elaine Sarsynski is a fiduciary to the Plan in that she has, among other things, discretionary authority and responsibility over the administration of the Plan as the head of the MassMutual department responsible for the Plan's recordkeeping and administrative services. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq. Michael Wolff, Esq. Troy A. Doles, Esq. Heather Lea, Esq. Mark Boyko, Esq. SCHLICHTER, BOGARD & DENTON, LLP 100 S. Fourth St., Suite 900 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 621-6115 Facsimile: (314) 621-7151 E-mail: jschlichter@uselaws.com mwolff@uselaws.com tdoles@uselaws.com hlea@uselaws.com mboyko@uselaws.com - and - Stephen Churchill, Esq. Hillary Schwab, Esq. FAIR WORK, P.C. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 607-3260 Facsimile: (617) 488-2261 E-mail: steve@fairworklaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Ai Tajima, Esq. Alison V. Douglass, Esq. James O. Fleckner, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP Exchange Place 53 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 570-1921 Facsimile: (617) 523-1231 E-mail: atajima@goodwinprocter.com adouglass@goodwinprocter.com jfleckner@goodwinprocter.com MEMPHIS, TN: City Spoiled 15,000 Rape Evidence Kits, Class Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Lessmiller at Courthouse News Service reports that Memphis did not bother to submit 15,000 rape evidence kits for testing, but merely threw them away or "caused the spoliation of the sexual assault kits," Jane Doe claims in a federal class action. Doe is an adult victim of rape and a resident of Memphis, she says in the lawsuit against the city. "Plaintiff and the putative class members are female individuals who reported sexual assaults to third parties, had bodily fluid samples removed from their bodies and placed within sexual assault evidence kits, and whose sexual assault kits were subsequently transported to the Memphis Police Department for testing, evidentiary and custodial purposes," the complaint states. "The City of Memphis failed to submit over 15,000 such sexual assault kits for further testing and caused the spoliation of the sexual assault kits, all of which resulted in damages to the plaintiff and the putative class, which constitutes a violation of the equal protection clauses of the Tennessee and United States Constitutions." Doe says she was raped at around 2 a.m. on March 30, 2001, by an intruder who kicked in a window of her home. She reported the rape to Memphis police that day, and was taken to a Rape Crisis Center for treatment and collection of evidence. "While at the Rape Crisis Center medical personnel took body fluid samples from Jane Doe and placed them into a Memphis Police Department Sexual Assault Evidence Kit," she says in the complaint. It continues: "An officer from the Memphis Police Department transported the Sexual Assault Evidence Kit to the Memphis Police Department ostensibly for testing and to be used as evidence against the intruder. "Over the next thirteen (13) years defendant City of Memphis never submitted plaintiff Doe's Sexual Assault Evidence Kit for testing. "Unknown to plaintiff Doe, the City of Memphis had a policy, practice and/or custom of discarding sexual assault evidence kits. "Unknown to Plaintiff Doe, the City of Memphis had a policy, practice and/or custom of failing to submit sexual assault evidence kits for testing: "Over fifteen thousand (15,000) Sexual Assault Evidence Kits went untested over a period of several decades." It goes without saying, though Doe says it, that a "disproportionate number" of the people whose rape tests were spoiled or trashed were women. She claims that the policy of discarding rape evidence kits "was ratified by multiple policymakers within the City of Memphis Police Department." She claims Memphis police failed to "affect an arrest of" Doe's home intruder and failed to "prevent future rapes by the intruder." She claims that the "defendant has a history of discriminating against females" and that the "defendant's conduct was motivated by gender." She seeks an injunction "restraining and prohibiting defendants from continuing its policy and/or custom of failing to test sexual assault evidence kits," declaratory judgment that city policy on handling of sexual assault evidence is unconstitutional, damages for civil rights violations, plus costs and attorney's fees. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L.J. Spence, Jr., Esq. SPENCEWALK, PLLC One Commerce Square, Suite 2200 Memphis, TN 38103 Telephone: (901) 312-9160 Facsimile: (901) 521-9550 E-mail: rspence@spencewalk.com The case is Doe v. City Of Memphis, Tennessee, Case No. 2:13-cv- 03002, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee (Memphis). MONSANTO CO: "Wishon" Suit Transferred to Kansas District Court --------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit captioned Wishon, et al. v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 5:13-cv-00770, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas on November 5, 2013. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:13-cv-02573-KHV-KMH to the proceeding. The "Wishon" case is one of several lawsuits arising from the discovery of genetically-modified wheat in an Oregon wheat field in early 2013. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin L. Barnes, Esq. Centennial Plaza 2575 Kelley Pointe Parkway, Suite 100 Edmond, OK 73013 - and - James B. Buxton, II, Esq. BUXTON CARSON PLLC 3535 NW 58th Street, Suite 950 Oklahoma City, OK 73112 Telephone: (405) 604-5577 Facsimile: (405) 604-5578 - and - Patrick W. Pendley, Esq. PENDLEY BAUDIN & COFFIN PO Box 71 Plaquemine, LA 70765-0071 Telephone: (225) 687-6396 Facsimile: (225) 687-6398 E-mail: pwpendley@pbclawfirm.com Monsanto Company is represented by: Christopher M. Staine, Esq. Gary W. Davis, Esq. CROWE & DUNLEVY-OKC 20 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 1800 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 234-3241 Facsimile: (405) 272-5294 E-mail: christopher.staine@crowedunlevy.com davisg@crowedunlevy.com - and - John R. Musgrave, Esq. Christopher M. Hohn, Esq. THOMPSON COBURN LLP - ST. LOUIS One US Bank Plaza St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 552-6086 Facsimile: (314) 552-7086 E-mail: jmusgrave@thompsoncoburn.com chohn@thompsoncoburn.com NEW HAMPSHIRE: Settles Mental Health Class Action for $30 Million ----------------------------------------------------------------- Todd Bookman and Brady Carlson, writing for New Hampshire Public Radio, report that the state of New Hampshire has agreed to settle a major class-action lawsuit over its treatment of residents with serious mental illness. Under the terms of the agreement announced Dec. 19 the state will spend an additional $30 million on expanding services for the strained mental health system over the next 4 years. "The first priority in this case for the New Hampshire Department of Justice has been to ensure that the State of New Hampshire is able to develop its own plan for community mental health services that best meets the needs of its residents," Attorney General Foster wrote in a statement. "This settlement agreement, developed in conjunction with the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services, enhances the State's mental health services to address the concerns of the plaintiffs." The state agrees to spend an additional $6 million in the current budget, plus an additional $23.7 million in the next two-year spending plan. The resources will support more round-the-clock care for people in crisis, as well as more community housing and employment opportunities. Governor Hassan says the settlement builds on the additional money she pushed for in the current budget for mental health services. "Reaching this settlement ensures that we can continue addressing our mental health challenges in a fiscally responsible way that protects the state's budget and that ensures that New Hampshire citizens are driving improvements in our mental health system -- not federal judges," she wrote in a statement. "Continuing the lawsuit would undoubtedly have cost the state millions of dollars in legal fees and untold millions more per year if the state had not prevailed in its case." Under the terms of the settlement, if the state legislature doesn't agree to the funding levels, the plaintiffs in the case retain the right to resume their legal battle. The state also agrees to pay the $2.4 million in legal fees accrued by the plaintiffs. The Disabilities Rights Center brought the suit in February, 2012 citing violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. It was joined by six residents with psychiatric disabilities who were allegedly subjected to prolonged or needless stays in state institutions due to a lack of community-based mental health services. The U.S. Department of Justice joined the case in March, 2012, citing the same failures. Ken Norton with the National Alliance on Mental Illness of New Hampshire applauded the agreement. He says it will reduce the need for hospitalizations and provide critical services to residents in need. "This negotiated settlement is a major step forward for New Hampshire," says Mr. Norton. "It reflects the bipartisan recognition that services to adults with severe mental illness and children with serious emotional disorders must be improved immediately." NINE ZERO WINGS: Violates FLSA by Not Paying Overtime, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Valente Ramiro Martinez Contreras and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(B) v. Nine Zero Wings, LLC d/b/a Wing Stop, Kindle-Ellis Investments, Inc. d/b/a Wing Stop, and Carol Ellis, Case No. 3:13-cv-04430-N (N.D. Tex., November 4, 2013) arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay his overtime wages as required by the FLSA as the Defendants knew of the overtime requirements of the FLSA and recklessly failed to investigate whether their payroll practices were in accordance with the FLSA, Mr. Contreras alleges. Nine Zero Wings, LLC, d/b/a Wing Stop, Kindle-Ellis Investments, Inc., d/b/a Wing Stop, are corporations that regularly transact business within Dallas County. Carol Ellis is a corporate officer and owner of both companies. The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 6310 LBJ Freeway, Suite 112 Dallas, TX 75240 Telephone: (972) 233-2264 Facsimile: (972) 386-7610 E-mail: zabogado@aol.com The Defendants are represented by: Jay M. Rosenberg, Esq. Kelly E. Kleist, Esq. Michelle A. Mendez, Esq. Phillip J. Conley, Esq. CONLEY ROSENBERG & BRENNEISE 5080 Spectrum Dr., Suite 850E Addison, TX 75001 Telephone: (972) 364-9700 Facsimile: (972) 713-6480 E-mail: jmr@crb-law.com kek@crb-law.com mmendez@crb-law.com pjc@crb-law.com OLIO RESTAURANTS: Ex-Waiters and Others Sue Over Unpaid OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Negron and Steven Lynch, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Olio Restaurants LLC d/b/a Olio Pizza E Piu, Whynot My Way LLC d/b/a Whynot Coffee & Wine, Emil Stefkov and Dragan Ristovski, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:13-cv-07844-GBD (S.D.N.Y., November 4, 2013) is brought on behalf of waiters, dishwashers and porters at the Defendants' Italian restaurant and cafe, both located in the West Village neighborhood of Manhattan, New York. The lawsuit seeks to recover unpaid wages, minimum wages and overtime premium pay owed to the Plaintiffs and the class pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Olio Restaurants LLC, d/b/a Olio Pizza E Piu, and Whynot My Way LLC, d/b/a Whynot Coffee & Wine, are New York corporations also headquartered in New York. The Individual Defendants are owners, operators or general managers of the Corporate Defendants. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brent Edward Pelton, Esq. Taylor Bell Graham, Esq. PELTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10000 Telephone: (212) 385-9700 Facsimile: (212) 385-0800 E-mail: pelton@peltonlaw.com graham@peltonlaw.com ONLINE EDUCATION ADVANTAGE: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Priscila Foletto, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. Online Education Advantage, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Jason Argall, individually, Matthew Argall, individually, Christopher Reinhold, individually, Matthew Little, individually, and Susan Brown, individually, Case No. 8:13-cv- 02822-JSM-MAP (M.D. Fla., November 4, 2013) alleges that from December 13, 2011, and continuing through June 18, 2013, the Defendants failed to compensate the Plaintiff at the statutorily required minimum wage, and failed to compensate the Plaintiff at a rate of one and one-half times her regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single work week. Online Education Advantage, LLC is a Florida limited liability company with a place of business in Hillsborough County, Florida. The Individual Defendants are Florida residents, who owned and operated OEA. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ana C. Francolin, Esq. CALANDRINO LAW FIRM, P.A. 301 East Pine Street, Suite 950 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 601-4905 Facsimile: (407) 601-4910 E-mail: ana@floridabusinesslaw.com PINNFUND USA: "Navarro" Suit Alleges Lending Act Violations ----------------------------------------------------------- Natividad Lucero Navarro, individuals, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated v. PinnFund USA, as the Original Lender, Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), PinnFund USA, as the Mortgage Servicer and all persons unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the property described in the complaint adverse to Plaintiff' title, or any cloud on Plaintiff' title thereto and, Does 1 Through 100, inclusive, Case No. 1:13-cv-00592-BMK-NONE (D. Haw., November 4, 2013) alleges violations of the Truth in Lending Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Roger Y. Dewa, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF ROGER Y. DEWA 1164 Bishop Street, Suite 1409 Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (510) 301-6101 E-mail: rogerdewaattorneyatlaw@gmail.com RICK HENDRICK: Faces Class Action Over Car Dealership Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------ WCSC reports that two local car dealerships have been named in a class action lawsuit by customers who claim they were scammed into buying cars they couldn't afford. The suit was filed on Dec. 20 in Charleston County. It names Rick Hendrick Jeep Chrysler Dodge Ram on Savannah Highway in West Ashley, the Hendrick Corporation and Northwoods Automotive on Dorchester Road. The suit claims Rick Hendrick worked out a scheme to boost its sales. According to the lawsuit, the dealership bought titles, but no cars, from Northwoods Automotive. Customers were allegedly asked to sign the title, to make it look like they had a car to trade in for a new one. The dealership is also accused of falsifying paperwork to make it look as though the buyers could afford cars they couldn't. The customers who are suing also claim their car payments were much higher than promised, and in one case, double the amount they expected. The customers are suing for damages, and want a jury trial. SMITHKLINE BEECHAM: Dismissal of "D'Apuzzo" Class Suit Appealed --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard V. D'Apuzzo appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from an order dismissing the third amended complaint of his purported class action lawsuit against SmithKline Beecham Corporation, doing business as GlaxoSmithKline. The original case is Richard V. D'Apuzzo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline, Case No. 2-07-cv-04963, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The "D'Apuzzo" case was subsequently consolidated with the multidistrict litigation known as In Re: Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2-07-md- 01871, still in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Mr. D'Apuzzo is a former user of the prescription diabetes drug Avandia. He did not allege that he has been physically injured as a result of taking Avandia; instead he sought a refund of any amount he paid for Avandia, including insurance co-pays. He sought to proceed on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, but no class has been certified. In his third amended complaint, Mr. D'Apuzzo alleged that GSK concealed the risks of Avandia use while promoting the drug's safety, efficacy, and effectiveness through a fraudulent and deceptive marketing program. He contended that this resulted in his and others purchasing Avandia instead of seeking alternative treatments for diabetes. He also asserted that he is a resident of New Jersey and that his physician "would have prescribed insulin or alternative treatments had he known about Avandia's risks" and that he has now been prescribed insulin. He further argued that he paid a higher purchase price for Avandia, including higher amounts in co-payments. The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by: Kimberly A. Aponte, Esq. Brian J. McCormick, Jr., Esq. SHELLER, P.C. 1528 Walnut Street, 4th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 790-7300 E-mail: kaponte@sheller.com bjmccormick@sheller.com - and - Gary M. Meyers, Esq. MEYERS AND GOLDTHWAITE 35 West Main Street Denville, NJ 07834-0000 Telephone: (973) 625-0838 E-mail: gmm@gmeyerslaw.com - and - Tracy D. Rezvani, Esq. REZVANI VOLIN & ROTBERT 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 350-4270 E-mail: trezvani@rvrlegal.com The Defendant-Appellee is represented by: Sean P. Fahey, Esq. Nina M. Gussack, Esq. Yvonne M. McKenzie, Esq. Anthony C. Vale, Esq. PEPPER HAMILTON 18th & Arch Streets 3000 Two Logan Square Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 981-4296 E-mail: faheys@pepperlaw.com gussackn@pepperlaw.com mckenziy@pepperlaw.com valea@pepperlaw.com The appellate case is In Re: Avandia Marketing, Case No. 13-04323, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. SOLTA MEDICAL: Being Sold for Too Little to Valeant, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hope Walker, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Solta Medical, Inc., Linda Graebner, David B. Holthe, Cathy L. McCarthy, Mark M. Sieczkarek, Eric B. Stang, Harold L. Covert, Sapphire Subsidiary Corp., Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, and Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., Case No. RG13707659 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., December 20, 2013) arises from the announcement of Solta's entry into a merger agreement with Valeant on December 17, 2013. The approximate value of the proposed transaction is $236 million. The value to Salta stockholders contemplated in the Proposed Transaction is fundamentally unfair to her and all other public stockholders of the Company, Ms. Walker contends. Solta Medical, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Alameda County, California. Salta designs, develops, manufactures, and markets energy-based medical device systems for aesthetic applications. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Sapphire Subsidiary Corp. is a Delaware corporation and a wholly- owned subsidiary of Valeant. Valeant is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Quebec, Canada. Valeant International is a multinational specialty pharmaceutical company that develops and markets prescription and non-prescription pharmaceutical products. The Plaintiff is represented by: David E. Bower, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (424) 256-2884 Facsimile: (424) 256-2885 E-mail: dbower@faruqilaw.com - and - Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. David M. Sborz, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 369 Lexington Avenue, Tenth Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com dsborz@faruqilaw.com T.C.C.D. INT'L: Accused of Falsely Advertising Buckpower Product ---------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy Clark, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. T.C.C.D. International, Inc., a Florida Corporation, and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:13-cv-08140-GW-FFM (C.D. Cal., November 4, 2013) alleges violations of false advertising laws. The Defendant claims on the labels of its Buckpower Antler Velvet product that the Product will "increase muscle strength & recovery," "promote healthy joint function," "improves energy & endurance," and "boosts libido." In reality, Mr. Clark contends, the Product is nothing of the sort and has no capabilities. This false and deceptive marketing enables the Defendant to unfairly capture sales that it would not make but for its deception, and also charges consumers a premium based thereon, he adds. T.C.C.D. International, Inc. is a Florida corporation headquartered in Pompano Beach, Florida. The Company manufactures, markets, distributes andsells Buckpower, a deer antler velvet dietary supplement. The Plaintiff does not know the true names or capacities of the Doe Defendants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Louis Kelly, Esq. Behiam V. Parekh, Esq. Heather M. Baker, Esq. KIRTAND & PACKARD LLP 2041 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 300 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 536-1000 Facsimile: (310) 536-1001 E-mail: mlk@kirtlandpackard.com bvp@kirtlandpackard.com hmb@kirtlandpackard.com TARGET CORP: Faces "Kirk" Suit Over Data Breach of 40-Mil. Cards ---------------------------------------------------------------- The first class action was filed December 19, 2013, against Target, hours after the company announced that security may have been breached on as many as 40 million credit and debit cards swiped from Nov. 27 until Dec. 15. The stolen data includes names, credit card numbers, expiration dates and the three-digit security codes on the backs of cards, but did not affect online purchases, Target said. The possible ID thefts affected all swiped cards, not just Target cards. Lead plaintiff Jennifer Kirk, represented by Robert Ahdoot with Ahdoot & Wolfson, of Los Angeles, sued Target in San Francisco Federal Court, in a complaint date-stamped at 1:37 p.m. Kirk claims in the lawsuit that the data breach was announced by a blogger, Brian Krebs, on December 18, 2013, "before Target made any attempt whatsoever to notify affected customers." The data breach is believed to have come from software installed on the machines that customers use to swipe their credit and debit cards. Kirk seeks class certification, damages and punitive damages for unfair competition, privacy invasion, negligence, conversion and other charges. Minneapolis-based Target told customers to check their bank statements carefully. Suspicious charges can be reported to Target at (866) 852-8680. Suspected identity theft should be reported to police or to the Federal Trade Commission. With nearly 1,800 stores in the United States, Target is the nation's second-largest discount retailer, after Wal-Mart. The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Theodore W. Maya, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C. 10850 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 370 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com The case is Kirk v. Target Corporation, Case No. 3:13-cv-05885-SC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). TARGET CORP: Faces "Fratelli" Suit Over Security Breach ------------------------------------------------------- Elena Ferrarin, writing for Daily Herald, reports that the owners of a Batavia restaurant are suing the retail giant Target on behalf of themselves and 40 million customers who recently were affected by debit and credit card security breach. Chicago attorney Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr. said he filed a lawsuit seeking class-action status on Dec. 20 in Cook County on behalf of Due Fratelli Inc., which owns Aliano's Ristorante in Batavia, claiming breach of contract, unjust enrichment and more. Minnesota-based Target acknowledged on Dec. 19 that information connected to about 40 million credit and debit card accounts was stolen as part of a security breach between Nov. 27 and Dec. 15. Target said the breach affected customers who made in-store purchases across the country. The stolen data include customer names along with card numbers, expiration dates and three-digit security codes. The restaurant's owner declined to comment, directing all questions to his lawyer. Mr. Zimmerman said his clients made several in-store purchases at Target in early December, then noticed a suspicious $1,300 charge for an Amazon purchase around Dec. 10. A percentage of each purchase made at Target goes to fund the company's technology and security departments, Mr. Zimmerman said. He expects to find out during the lawsuit's discovery process exactly what that percentage is, he added. "If they didn't protect (customers' information), you're not getting what you paid for, and that would constitute breach of contract," he said. Also, anyone among the 40 million customers whose identity was used fraudulently can claim additional damages, he said. The lawsuit also claims unjust enrichment, because Target profited from charging customers to fund its security department but failed to safeguard their information, Zimmerman said. "Due Fratelli is seeking to recover the unjust enrichment damages for the overpaying on behalf of everybody, as well as actual damages that anyone may have sustained as a result of any actual identity theft that has occurred," he said. A judge will have to rule on Mr. Zimmerman's motion to certify the lawsuit's class-action status. No court date has been set yet, Mr. Zimmerman said. Previous similar class-action lawsuit claims connected to retail security breaches have been upheld by courts, resulting in settlements across the country, Mr. Zimmerman said. TARGET CORP: Faces "Dickson" Suit Over Security Breach ------------------------------------------------------ WSFA reports that a Montgomery law firm has filed a class action lawsuit for Target customers whose credit and debit card information was compromised in a security breach. Beasley Allen filed the lawsuit on behalf of Kathryn V. Dickson against the Target Corporation. Customers whose accounts suffered losses as a result of the breach are potential class members. Target says the issue has been resolved and the company is putting full resources behind investigating the breach and finding ways to prevent similar breaches in the future. The company is encouraging customers to review their account statements and monitor free credit reports. The breach happened just before Black Friday and continued through Dec. 15. "A breach of this nature indicates Target did not abide by the best practices and industry standards concerning the security of its Information Technology systems," said Beasley Allen lawyer Larry Golston -- larry.golston@beasleyallen.com -- in a news release. TARGET CORP: Judge Tosses Age-Discrimination Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Siegal and Jonathan Randles, writing for Law360, report that an Arizona federal judge on Dec. 20 threw out a putative class action accusing Target Corp. of pushing out older workers in violation of federal age-discrimination law, saying plaintiff Katy Rodriguez hadn't provided evidence that the retailer had forced her to retire. U.S. District Judge Jennifer Zipps granted Target's motion for summary judgment on Dec. 19, ruling Rodriguez couldn't pursue a class action against the retailer because she had failed to show that she herself had suffered an adverse employment action. Judge Zipps found that while Ms. Rodriguez had made claims of a pattern of age discrimination at the retailer, she failed to show that her own retirement had been anything but voluntary. "No reasonable juror could consider the facts presented by Rodriguez and conclude that Rodriguez was 'forced out' of her position because of her age," the ruling said. "Instead, the material facts . . . compel the conclusion that Rodriguez retired because of her subjective dislike of changing expectations at Target." The Dec. 19 ruling marked a victory for Target, which dodged Ms. Rodriguez's allegation that it forced older workers out of the company throughout the 2000s in a concerted effort to project a more youthful image to customers. The case stems from Ms. Rodriguez's retirement from her position as one of a Tucson, Ariz., Target's "team lead" supervisors in June 2011, after 25 years with the company, according to the ruling. Ms. Rodriguez claimed that starting in 2011, she was subject to unwarranted disciplinary actions, and that one of her supervisors and a human resources employee had begun asking her when she was planning to retire. She filed a class action against Target in November 2012, alleging she had been forced out of the company because of her age, which was 58 when she retired. Suing on behalf of herself and all Target employees over 40 who had suffered an adverse employment action, Ms. Rodriguez alleged that the retailer had committed age discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. In October, Target filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing Rodriguez could prove neither that she had suffered an adverse employment action nor that she had engaged in protected activity, a necessary requirement of her retaliation claim. On Dec. 19, Judge Zipps agreed with Target, ruling Ms. Rodriguez had failed to show her working conditions were "intolerable," a necessary condition for a claim of forced resignation or retirement. "Rodriguez continued to work for Target for two weeks after her resignation, she told co-workers she was considering returning for part-time work after she retired and she attended a retirement party in her honor at Target while she was exhausting her vacation time," the ruling said. The Dec. 19 ruling denied as moot Ms. Rodriguez's motion to conditionally certify the prospective class. Representatives for Ms. Rodriguez and Target did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Dec. 20. Ms. Rodriguez is represented by Jana B. Leonard and Shannon Haupt of Leonard & Associates PLLC. Target is represented by Patrick F. Hulla -- patrick.hulla@ogletreedeakins.com -- Chris R. Pace -- chris.pace@ogletreedeakins.com -- and Tibor Nagy Jr. -- tibor.nagy@ogletreedeakins.com -- of Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC. The case is Katy Rodriguez v. Target Corp., case number 4:12-cv- 00874, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. TECK METALS: Toxic Discharge Alleged to Have Caused Breast Cancer ----------------------------------------------------------------- June Williams at Courthouse News Service reports that toxic discharge from a British Columbian smelter becomes trapped in the Columbia River Valley, creating a "public nuisance and an abnormally dangerous activity" that gave a woman breast cancer and bowel disease, she says in a federal class action. The Teck Metals smelter is in Trail, B.C., just over the border from where Barbara Anderson lives in Northport, Wash. Anderson sued Teck Resources and its subsidiary Teck Metals, for personal injuries and public nuisance. "The Trail Smelter is a metal and fertilizer production facility on the Columbia River, which Teck and its predecessors have owned and operated since 1896. Northport, Washington, also on the Columbia River, lies approximately 20 miles downstream from the smelter. The air pollution from Trail that travels south remains trapped in the Columbia River Valley, where Northport is located," the complaint states. Anderson says she was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2012 and diverticulitis, an inflammatory bowel disease, in 2010. "Plaintiff Anderson has lived in Northport since 1975. She was recently diagnosed with diverticulitis and with breast cancer. Five of thirteen toxins released from the smelter in substantial volume are toxins associated with her diseases, and it is more probable than not that her exposure to these toxins caused her injuries," she says in the lawsuit. Residents of Northport and the Upper Columbia River have "borne the brunt of the toxic discharges and emissions from the Trail Smelter," the complaint states. Residents have complained of inflammatory bowel disease, thyroid disorders, sinus irritation, eye irritation, chronic nosebleeds, respiratory problems and cancer, according to the complaint. The 30-page lawsuit details a long history of environmental problems at the smelter, including emissions of lead, arsenic and sulfur dioxide, discharges of slag and mercury into the Columbia River and groundwater contamination. The proposed class includes current and former residents of the Upper Columbia River, excluding Canadian citizens, who suffered injuries as a result of Teck's environmental contamination. "Teck negligently, carelessly and recklessly generated, handled, stored, treated, disposed of, and failed to control and contain the metals and other toxic substances at the Trail Smelter, resulting in the release of toxic substances and exposure of plaintiff and the proposed class," Anderson claims. "Teck also negligently failed to warn plaintiff and class members of the release of the metals and other toxic substances into the environment and community surrounding the Trail Smelter and of the reasonably foreseeable effects of such releases. Greg Belland, general manager of Teck Trail Operations said in a statement to the Rossland Telegraph newspaper: "We are supportive of the efforts of residents of Northport, Washington, a community south of Trail, to determine what is causing any unusual rates of illness in their community. It is important to note that we have not seen similar rates of illness in Trail. Further, a 2004 human health study relating to inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) by the United States Department of Health found no link between the rate of IBD in Northport and in other counties in northeast Washington and Trail Operations. And, a recent study by the BC Centre for Disease Control found rates of IBD in Trail were far lower and not comparable to those reported in Northport." Anderson seeks class certification, declaratory judgment that operation of the smelter is a public nuisance, and class damages for negligence and personal injuries. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 8th Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com barbaram@hbsslaw.com The case is Anderson v. Teck Metals Ltd., et al., Case No. 2:13- cv-00420-TOR, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington (Spokane). * * * Dene Moore, writing for The Canadian Press, reports Ms. Anderson filed the claim on Dec. 19. The allegations have not been proven. The smelter has been in operation under various ownership since 1896. In 2012, Vancouver-based Teck Metals admitted in another lawsuit brought by the Colville Confederated Tribes that effluent from the smelter polluted the Columbia River in Washington for more than a century. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency eventually joined that lawsuit and wants Teck to pay the estimated $1-billion cost of cleaning up the contamination. The latest lawsuit claims that between 1930 and 1995, the smelter discharged into the Columbia River at least nine million tonnes of slag containing zinc, lead, copper, arsenic cadmium, barium, antimony, chromium, cobalt, manganese, nickel, selenium and titanium. Teck has spent more than a billion dollars on improvements to the Trail operation. Today, the company says, metals from the smelter are lower than levels that occur naturally in the river. The company has also spent millions of dollars remediating the area in and around Trail following decades of industry, but the company said the international border complicates the issues. Teck has yet to be served with the lawsuit and file a response with the court. TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces "Edison" Securities Suit in New York --------------------------------------------------------------- Jill Edison, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, Phillip Frost, Eyal Desheh and Jeremy Levin, Case No. 1:13-cv-08963-GBD (S.D.N.Y., December 18, 2013) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons, other than the Defendants, who purchased Teva securities between January 1, 2012, and October 29, 2013, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' alleged violations of securities laws. Teva, an Israeli corporation, is a leading global pharmaceutical company that develops, produces and markets generic drugs as well as specialty pharmaceuticals and active pharmaceutical ingredients. Headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel, Teva is the world's leading generic drug maker, with a global product portfolio of more than 1,000 molecules and a direct presence in about 60 countries. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth David Rigrodsky, Esq. Timothy John MacFall, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 683-3516 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: sdr@rigrodskylong.com tjm@rigrodskylong.com - and - J. Elazar Fruchter, Esq. Ethan D. Wohl, Esq. WOHL & FRUCHTER LLP 570 Lexington Avenue, 16th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 758-4000 Facsimile: (212) 758-4004 E-mail: jfruchter@wohlfruchter.com ewohl@wohlfruchter.com VICAL INC: Faces Securities Class Suit Over Allovectin Product -------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Thomson, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Vical Incorporated, Vijay B. Samant, Jill M. Broadfoot, and Anthony A. Ramos, Case No. 3:13-cv-02653-DMS-RBB (S.D. Cal., November 4, 2013) is brought on behalf of a class of persons, who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Vical Incorporated between February 8, 2012, and August 9, 2013. Mr. Thomson alleges claims against Vical and certain of its officers and directors for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including materially false and misleading statements made by the Defendants to investors and the public regarding Vical's ability to obtain federal approval for one of its primary products, Allovectin-7(R) ("Allovectin"). Vical is incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in San Diego, California. Vical is a biopharmaceutical company that researches and develops products based on patented DNA delivery technologies for the prevention and treatment of serious and life-threatening illnesses, including cancer. All of Vical's potential products are in the research and development phases, and no revenues have yet been generated from the sale of any products. Vical's strongest candidate to receive approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for eventual sale and marketing to consumers was Allovectin, an immunotherapy vaccine that targets cancer. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of Vical. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Michael Goldberg, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com mmgoldberg@glancylaw.com rprongay@glancylaw.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com lfportnoy@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com WAUKESHA MEMORIAL: Fails to Pay Housekeepers' OT Wages, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Evangelina Aguilera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Waukesha Memorial Hospital, Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-01245-LA (E.D. Wis., November 5, 2013) is a collective and class action brought on behalf of proposed class members, who are or were employed as housekeepers by Waukesha Memorial and were denied minimum and overtime wages under its alleged illegal pay policies and practices. Under these policies and practices, Ms. Aguilera alleges, Waukesha Memorial failed to compensate housekeepers for all hours worked by denying housekeepers uninterrupted, unpaid meal breaks and prohibiting housekeepers from leaving the premises for unpaid meal breaks. Waukesha Memorial Hospital, Inc. is a Wisconsin Corporation with a principal place of business in Waukesha, Wisconsin. The Plaintiff is represented by: Summer H. Murshid, Esq. Larry Johnson, Esq. Timothy P. Maynard, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C. PO Box 442 Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442 Telephone: (414) 271-8650 Facsimile: (414) 271-8442 E-mail: smurshid@hq-law.com ljohnson@hq-law.com.com tmaynard@hq-law.com The Defendant is represented by: Jeffrey G. Sorenson, Esq. Michael R. Lied, Esq. HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PC 211 Fulton St., Suite 600 Peoria, IL 61602 Telephone: (309) 672-1483 Facsimile: (309) 672-1568 E-mail: jgs@h2law.com mlied@howardandhoward.com WE-R-WIRELESS: Faces "Yorker" Suit Alleging FLSA Violations ----------------------------------------------------------- Eric Yorker, On behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. We-R-Wireless; and John Does 1-5 and 6-10, Case No. 1:13-cv-06712- JHR-AMD (D.N.J., November 4, 2013) is brought by the Plaintiff to remedy violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees. Throughout his employment, he regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week, the Mr. Yorker says. However, he contends, he did not receive overtime compensation for any hours worked in excess of 40 per week. He adds that despite being classified as an exempt manager, his primary duty was, in fact, that of a sales associate. Headquartered in Mt. Laurel, New Jersey, We-R-Wireless is a business entity engaged in the business of selling cellular telephones and related equipment. The Doe Defendants are currently unidentified. The Plaintiff is represented by: Deborah L. Mains, Esq. COSTELLO & MAINS, P.C. 18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Telephone: (856) 727-9700 Facsimile: (856) 727-9797 E-mail: dmains@costellomains.com The Defendants are represented by: Gregory S. Hyman, Esq. KAUFMAN DOLOWICH VOLUCK & GONZO LLP 1777 Sentry Park West Gwynedd Hall, Suite 301 Blue Bell, PA 19422 Telephone: (215) 461-1100 Facsimile: (215) 461-1300 E-mail: ghyman@kdvglaw.com WOODMAN LABS: Faces "Horton" Suit Over Defective Hero3 Camera ------------------------------------------------------------- Ronald Horton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Woodman Labs, Inc., doing business as: GoPro, Case No. 8:13-cv-03176-JSM-MAP (M.D. Fla., December 18, 2013) is a consumer class action lawsuit alleging that the Company's Hero3 video camera is defective and that it randomly shuts off. The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Michael Campbell, Esq. CAMPBELL LAW 1861 N Crystal Lake Dr. Lakeland, FL 33801 Telephone: (863) 292-9929 Facsimile: (863) 292-9949 E-mail: dmcampbell@campbelllaw.com - and - Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. Scott A. Moriarity, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Avenue S, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401-2197 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com samoriarity@locklaw.com - and - Seth Leventhal, Esq. LEVENTHAL PLLC 527 Marquette Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 234-7349 Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurers' Exhaustion Defense Tanks In Porter Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Law360 reported that a Maryland federal judge ruled that defunct insulation purveyor Porter Hayden Co. could tap excess policies issued by a pair of American International Group Inc. insurers for indemnification of underlying asbestos injury suits even if its primary policies had not been completely exhausted. According to the report, U.S. District Judge Catherine Blake rejected arguments from National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh Pa. and American Home Assurance Co. that three excess policies they issued in the 1970s above their own primary policies were off-limits to Porter Hayden. The case is National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA et al v. Porter Hayden Company, Case No. 1:03-cv-03408 (Md.). The case is before Judge Catherine C. Blake. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Appeals Ct. Flips Ruling in "Montaney" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One, reversed a trial court's order granting summary judgment dismissing Thomas and Marjorie Montaney's claim against J-M Manufacturing arising from Thomas's exposure to asbestos from pipe JMM sold. The Court of Appeals found that at the summary judgment hearing, evidence was presented that (1) Thomas was repeatedly exposed to asbestos dust while working with asbestos concrete pipe between 1972 and 1990; (2) he purchased A/C pipe from a single distributor, Pacific Water Works into the 1980s; and (3) Pacific carried NC pipe sold by JMM in 1983 and 1984. This evidence, according to the Court of Appeals, is sufficient for a jury to reasonably infer that Montaney was exposed to A/C pipe sold by JMM. The case is THOMAS G. MONTANEY and MARJORIE E. MONTANEY, husband and wife, Appellants, v. J-M MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., Respondent, CERTAINTEED CORPORATION; CBS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, f/k/a Viacom, Inc., successor by merger to CBS Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation, f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation; H.D. FOWLER CO., INC.; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., successor-in-interest to Allied Signal, Inc., successor-in-interest to Bendix Corp., METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; WATER APPLICATIONS DISTRIBUTION GROUP, INC., formerly known as U.S. Filter Distribution Group, Inc., as successor-by-merger to Pacific Waterworks Supply Co., Inc.; and WUSCO.INC, doing business as Western Utilities Supply Co., Defendants, NO. 69364-6-I (Wash. App.). A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' opinion dated Dec. 23, 2013, is available at http://is.gd/cvBR9jfrom Leagle.com. Matthew Phineas Bergman, Esq. -- matt@bergmanlegal.com -- Glenn S. Draper, Esq. -- glenn@bergmanlegal.com -- Chandler H. Udo, Esq. -- chandler@bergmanlegal.com -- and Kaitlin Tess Cherf, Esq., at Bergman Draper Ladenburg, PLLC, in Seattle, Washington, Counsel for Appellant(s). David Albert Shaw, Esq. -- dshaw@williamskastner.com -- and Tami Becker Gomez, Esq. -- tbeckergomez@williamskastner.com -- at Williams Kastner, in Seattle, Washington, Counsel for Respondent(s). ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gov't. Granted Summary Judgment in "Botts" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States of America filed a motion for summary judgment under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure seeking dismissal of the complaint filed by Plaintiffs Roget Botts and Carol Botts. The Plaintiffs brought claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act relating to Mr. Botts' alleged exposure to asbestos products at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. In an order dated Dec. 20, 2013, Judge James L. Robart of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, granted the Government's motion, finding that because the Plaintiffs fail to raise specific facts demonstrating that Mr. Botts' deliveries to the Shipyard were a substantial factor in causing his mesothelioma, and because the inference necessary to reach such a conclusion are so many and so great that they can more appropriately be called speculation, summary judgment is appropriate. The case is ROGER BOTTS AND CAROL BOTTS, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant, CASE NO. C12-1943JLR (W.D. Wash.). A full-text copy of Judge Robart's Decision is available at http://is.gd/W9hCPSfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6th Cir. Affirms Conviction of Tennessee Men ------------------------------------------------------------- A three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a district court's order denying Donald Fillers' motion to suppress and James Mathis's and Filler's motions for a judgment of acquittal. Messrs. Mathis and Fillers were convicted of conspiracy and violations of the Clean Air Act, which, required them to, among other things, adhere to standards required in the removal of asbestos before any demolition that would dislodge the toxic materials. The appeals cases are UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff- Appellee, v. JAMES MATHIS (12-6256) and DONALD FILLERS (12-6354), Defendants-Appellants, NOS. 12-6256/6354 (6th Cir.). A full-text copy of the Sixth Circuit's decision dated Dec. 23, 2013, is available at http://is.gd/HBO9bDfrom Leagle.com. Robin R. Flores, Esq., in Chattanooga, Tennessee, argues for Appellant in 12-6256. Leslie A. Cory, Esq., in Chattanooga, Tennessee, argued for Appellant in 12-6354. Matthew T. Morris, Esq., UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, in Knoxville, Tennessee, argued for Appellee. Robin R. Flores, Esq., in Chattanooga, Tennessee, filed the brief for Appellant in 12-6256. Leslie A. Cory, Esq., in Chattanooga, Tennessee, filed the brief for Appellant in 12-6354. Matthew T. Morris, Esq., UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, in Knoxville, Tennessee, and Allen M. Brabender, Esq., UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, in Washington, D.C., filed the brief for Appellee. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurer Fails to Get Injunction From Suits ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff The North River Insurance Co. asked the Court of Chancery of Delaware to enter a permanent injunction preventing Defendant Mine Safety Appliances Co. from prosecuting its later- filed claims in West Virginia, as well as from settling with tort plaintiffs by transferring rights to them under North River's insurance policies; assisting any claimants, absent court order, who are litigating against North River; or prosecuting any claims for coverage other than those actions pending in Pennsylvania and Delaware. MSA, a Pennsylvania corporation, "manufactures a variety of safety products." Many users of MSA safety products have brought bodily injury claims against the company, claiming they are "suffering various respiratory diseases such as asbestosis, silicoses and coal worker's pneumoconiosis ("CWP" or "Black Lung Disease") due to MSA's respiratory protection products." North River avers that, absent injunctive relief, it faces the irreparable harm of inconsistent judgments. Because the Court of Chancery lacks jurisdiction over the tort plaintiffs in the pending West Virginia actions who may, under West Virginia law, continue to litigate the trigger issue in their declaratory judgment actions against North River, North River is seeking a remedy that would be inevitably ineffective at protecting it from the risk of inconsistent judgments, the Court of Chancery, through Vice Chancellor Glasscock said in a Dec. 20, 2013 memorandum opinion. Because North River has asked the Court of Chancery for a remedy that will not achieve its desired result, and because "[e]quity will not do a useless thing," North River has failed to demonstrate its entitlement to injunctive relief, the Court said. In addition, it would be inequitable for the Court to grant an injunction, which would result in North River continuing to litigate issues that will define MSA's rights as an insured, without MSA being able to vigorously defend itself, the Court added. Because the Court found that the relief requested would not prevent the irreparable harm alleged, and because, in the particular circumstances here, the relief would itself create serious equitable concerns, MSA's Motion is granted, and that of North River is denied, the Court concluded. The case is THE NORTH RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 8456-VCG (Del. Ch.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/YKGA2Jfrom Leagle.com. Peter B. Ladig, Esq. -- pladig@morrisjames.com -- Jason C. Jowers, Esq. -- jjowers@morrisjames.com -- and David J. Soldo, Esq. -- dsoldo@morrisjames.com -- of MORRIS JAMES LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; OF COUNSEL: Alan S. Miller, Esq. -- amiller@psmn.com -- and Bridget M. Gillespie, Esq. -- bgillespie@psmn.com -- of PICADIO SNEATH MILLER & NORTON, P.C., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Attorneys for Plaintiff. Brian C. Ralston, Esq. -- bralston@potteranderson.com -- Jennifer C. Wasson, Esq. -- jwasson@potteranderson.com -- and Michael B. Rush, Esq. -- mrush@potteranderson.com -- of POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; OF COUNSEL: Mark A. Packman, Esq. -- packmanm@gotofirm.com -- Gabriel Le Chevallier, Esq. -- lechevallierg@gotofirm.com -- Jenna A. Hudson, Esq. -- hudsonj@gotofirm.com -- and Katrina F. Johnson, Esq. -- johnsonk@gotofirm.com -- of GILBERT LLP, Washington, DC, Attorneys for Defendant. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurers Obtain Summary Judgment in Montello Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Montello, Inc., was a distributor of products used in the oil- drilling industry, one of which was a drilling mud viscosifier that contained asbestos. In subsequent years, Montello has been sued by many individuals who were allegedly exposed to asbestos through products distributed by Montello. The underlying litigation has prompted Montello to seek liability insurance coverage from the group of excess insurers, most of which provided excess and/or umbrella insurance coverage over Montello's now- insolvent primary insurer, The Home Insurance Company. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma is now "asked to declare a winner in a game of grammatical tug-of- war" between excess insurers and an insured regarding whether excess insurance policies 'drop down' in place of a policy issued by a now-insolvent primary insurer." The primary issue is whether any of these excess insurers have a present duty to "drop down" in place of the insolvent primary insurer and defend or indemnify Montello in the underlying asbestos litigation. The District Court, through Judge James H. Payne, found that the majority of courts that have confronted the same issue hold that when a primary insurer becomes insolvent, the excess insurer is not required to "drop down" to assume the primary insurer's coverage obligations. Judge Payne further found that, if confronted with the issue of an excess insurer's obligation when the underlying primary insurer becomes insolvent, the Oklahoma Supreme Court would not impose an obligation on the excess insurer to drop down and provide insurance coverage in the absence of language indicating the insurers intent to do so. Indeed, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has explained that excess insurers' obligations are not triggered "until after the primary coverage limits have been exhausted." Judge Payne, however, stated that the principles must be applied in light of principles of insurance contract interpretation. Indeed, courts considering the so-called "drop-down" issue adopt a case-by-case approach, analyzing the particular policy terms to determine the excess insurer's liability under the policy. In this case, Judge Payne granted the motion for summary judgment filed by Canal Insurance Company, Houston General Insurance Company, Scottsdale Insurance Company, and Twin City Fire Insurance Company. With respect to the insurance policies issued by Canal, Judge Payne found that when read as a whole, the Canal Policies unambiguously state that Canal is only responsible for the payment of the ultimate net loss that results from an occurrence that exceeds the underlying limit; all clearly defined terms that belie any intention to drop down to cover the primary insurer's default of its obligation to provide first-dollar defense and indemnity coverage. Moreover, the Court found that the Home Policies have not been exhausted by payment of loss because Home has never paid any claims in connection with the underlying asbestos litigation. The Court noted that the Houston Policies and the Canal Policies contain, in relevant part, similar provisions. With respect to Scottsdale, the Court found that Scottsdale is not required to "drop down" to assume any of the obligations of the insolvent primary insurers. With respect to Twin City, the Court found that the "products endorsement" in its policy bars coverage under that same policy. The case is CANAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. MONTELLO, INC., Defendant, THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC.; CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY; HOUSTON GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY; NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY; SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY; and TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY Third-Party Defendants, CASE NO. 10- CV-411-JHP-TLW (N.D. Okla.). A full-text copy of Judge Payne's opinion and order dated Dec. 19, 2013, is available at http://is.gd/F1sMUcfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order Denying Bid to Junk "Herlihy" Suit Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, affirmed the order entered by the Supreme Court, New York County, which denied defendant Munaco Packing & Rubber Co., Inc., of South Carolina's motion to dismiss the complaint and all cross-claims against it for lack of personal jurisdiction, and granted Plaintiff Gail Herlihy's request for jurisdictional discovery. The Plaintiff's decedent allegedly was injured during his employment in New York by his exposure to asbestos materials produced by a New York corporation that was the predecessor in interest to defendant Munaco, a South Carolina corporation. The Appellate Division ruled that the record contains sufficient evidence to support a finding that Munaco SC may be subject to successor jurisdiction. Further, the Appellate Division found that jurisdictional discovery is not necessary given its decision. The case is GAIL HERLIHY, ETC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. A.F. SUPPLY CORP., ET AL., Defendants, MUNACO PACKING & RUBBER CO., INC., OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Defendant-Appellant, 11198, 190149/11 (N.Y. App. Div.). A full-text copy of the decision dated Dec. 24, 2013, is available at http://is.gd/BTddzHfrom Leagle.com. Steven L. Keats, Esq., for appellant, and Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A., for respondent. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal in "German" Suit Consolidated ----------------------------------------------------- The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, issued an order consolidating the appeal and enlarging the time to perfect the appeal to the May 2014 term in the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit captioned IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION -- GERMAN, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO. -- LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, MOTION NO. M-5946. A full-text copy of the decision dated Dec. 24, 2013, is available at http://is.gd/vbwACPfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Grants Inmate's Reconsideration Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Evert Spells, an inmate incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action. On October 11, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. The Court advised the Plaintiff that if he failed to file an amended complaint within 21 days from the date the order was filed -- no later than November 1, 2013 -- his action would be dismissed without prejudice. On November 27, 2013, the Plaintiff had not filed an amended complaint and, therefore, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice and issued a judgment. However, also on November 27, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC), which was not filed because the case had been dismissed. On December 11, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. In his FAC, the Plaintiff alleges that from May 9, 2012 through June 6, 2012, Defendant Joe Dobie, CAL-PIA Factory Supervisor, instructed the Plaintiff to remove lead-based paint without providing the Plaintiff with personal protective equipment. The Plaintiffs further alleges that Dobie also assigned the Plaintiff work in a dangerous environment where inmate employees were using a high pressure washer to clean pipes encased with asbestos and that Dobie failed to give the Plaintiff proper training or protective clothing to work with asbestos. The Plaintiff said he suffers from acute and chronic eye problems, chest pains, coughing and headaches as a result of working in an asbestos environment without the proper protection or training. In the interests of justice, Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore granted the motion for reconsideration, vacated its Order of Dismissal and the judgment, and ordered the Clerk to reopen the case and file the Plaintiff's FAC. The case is EVERT SPELLS, Plaintiff, v. BRAD SMITH, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. C 13-4102 KAW (PR)(N.D. Calif.). A full-text copy of the order dated Dec. 27, 2013, is available at http://is.gd/zXRtbNfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Arizona Court Dismisses Inmate's Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Judge David G. Campbell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona dismissed for failure to state a claim the complaint filed by Plaintiff Jesus Garcia, who is confined in the Maricopa County Towers Jail. The Plaintiff, among other things, alleges that he is currently being detained in condemned buildings that are contaminated with cancer-causing, lead-based paint, asbestos, and black mold. Judge Campbell, however, gave the Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint. The case is Jesus Garcia, Plaintiff, v. Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., Defendants, NO. CV 13-2485-PHX-DGC (SPL)(D. Ariz.). A full-text copy of Judge Campbell's order dated Dec. 30, 2013, is available at http://is.gd/dJUzvDfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Third Circuit Affirms Ruling in "Anderson" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Barbara Anderson appeals from a district court order finding that her proposed amended complaint did not relate back to her original pleading. On August 16, 2006, Anderson was diagnosed with mesothelioma. She filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond, alleging that her mesothelioma was caused by exposure to "asbestos dust and fibers from her father's asbestos-laden workclothes." Anderson's father worked as a pipe cover insulator at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. In an opinion dated Jan. 7, 2014 -- a full-text copy of which is available at http://is.gd/ZiYErzfrom Leagle.com -- the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit agreed with the District Court that the original and amended pleadings did not arise out of the same "conduct, transaction, or occurrence," as required by Section 15(c)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Third Circuit rejected Anderson's contention that her original complaint put the Appellees on notice of her amended claim. The original complaint made no mention of workplace exposure during the 1960s and '70s, and in fact explicitly disclaimed any cause of action related to her employment within federal enclaves, the Third Circuit pointed out. Accordingly, the Third Circuit agreed with the District Court that Anderson was required to provide fair notice in her original pleading of asbestos exposure in the workplace, and that she failed to do so. Thus, the Third Circuit concluded that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Anderson's motion for leave to amend her pleadings. The case is BARBARA ANNE ANDERSON, Appellant, v. BONDEX INTERNATIONAL, INC. An Ohio Corporation; CBS CORPORATION, A Delaware Corporation (Successor By Merger With CBS Corporation F/K/A Westinghouse Electric Corporation)Formerly Known As Viacom Inc.; GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION, A Georgia Corporation (Sued Individually And As Successor-In-Interest To Bestwall Gypsum Company); IMO INDUSTRIES, A Delaware Corporation (Sued Individually And As Successor-In-Interest To Delaval Stream Turbine Co.); INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY, A New Jersey Corporation (Sued Individually And As Successor-In-Interest Terry Steam Turbine Company); OWENS-ILLINOIS INC, A Delaware Corporation (Sued Individually And As Successor-In-Interest To Successor Owens- Illinois Glass Company); PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, A Delaware Corporation (Sued Individually And As Successor-In-Interest To And As Alter-Ego To Thompson-Hayward Chemical Co.); PRM, INC, A Delaware Corporation (Sued Individually And As Successor-In-Interest To Bondex International, Inc); T H AGRICULTURE & NUTRITION, LLC, A Delaware Corporation (Sued Individually And As Successor-In-Interest To Thompson-Hayward Chemical Co.); TYCO INTERNATIONAL (US), INC., A Massachusetts Corporation (Sued Individually And As Successor-In-Interest To Yarway Corporation); TYCO VALVES & CONTROLS INC., A Texas Corporation (Sued Individually And As Successor-In-Interest To Yarway Corporation); UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, A New York Corporation; YARWAY CORPORATION, A Delaware Corporation (Sued Individually And As Successor-In-Interest To Yarnall Warning Co.)*, NO. 10-2306 (3d. Cir.). ASBESTOS UPDATE: Repairs Won't Postpone Kingston Veterans' House ---------------------------------------------------------------- James Nani, writing for Times Herald-Record, reported that mold and asbestos found inside the building being converted to transitional housing for homeless and disabled veterans in Ulster County, New York, won't delay the project, county representatives say. Ulster County Executive Mike Hein's "Patriots Project" received an exception this month from state Department of Labor rules regarding asbestos removal. The county is renovating the historic 1896 house located at 67 Wurts St. in a residential neighborhood in Kingston's Rondout district. The house, which has been vacant for several years, was inspected before the county bought it from the state for $1, and the renovations were anticipated, Deputy Executive Ken Crannell said. The exceptions are mostly technical, allowing the county to remove asbestos in spots that are absolutely necessary and follow a two- phase plan that also deals with mold found in the basement. The county was granted the exception to asbestos rules, because adhering to them would have strained the budget and jeopardized the renovation deadline, according to the Labor Department's decision and the county's application to the state. Two types of mold were found throughout the basement. Those have been approved to be removed, as well. When the project was announced back in July, it was expected to cost $330,000, with $150,000 coming from the sale of the SUNY Ulster president's home and other expenses covered by gifts and donations. The county Legislature budgeted costs a bit higher, at $400,000, though. That's meant to be fully covered with $154,000 coming from the sale of the president's home and $246,000 coming from gifts and donations. Hein originally included the project in his 2013-2018 Capital Improvement plan at $60,000. The federal Veterans Administration estimates there are 20-40 homeless veterans in Ulster County, and that at least two a month seek help from the county Veteran Services, according to the county. Scheduled to be complete in June 2014, the transitional home will have eight bedrooms for single adult men. Two of the rooms will be wheelchair accessible. The third floor isn't being renovated. Money from the federal VA Homeless Veteran fund will cover program expenses in the future, while the county will pay for upkeep of the home, estimated at $20,000 to $25,000 a year. Volunteers have been coming forward to make the project a reality. Members of Ironworkers Local 417 and community veterans braved snow and frigid temperatures to help install the foundation for a wheelchair ramp. Work on the roof has been donated by volunteers. A local bus driver even stopped by to donate a few extra dollars he had for the project, Crannell said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Half of Bradford Schools Still Contain Fibro ------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Young, writing for Bradford Telegraph & Argus, reported that almost half of Bradford Council schools still contain potentially- deadly asbestos, new figures reveal. And a teaching union fears that with more schools moving out of local authority control to become academies, efforts to prevent staff and pupils from possible harm could be diluted. The Council has stressed that it keeps a close watch on the management of asbestos in its school buildings but the National Union of Teachers has warned that when schools become academies, there is a risk of losing track of that vital information. The UK Asbestos Training Association has also stressed that it is essential that both school staff and any builders carrying out work on them make sure they know where asbestos is located. The association claims that 75 per cent of schools in the country still contain asbestos, although in Bradford that figure is lower, with 96 out of 205 Council schools still containing the material. Asbestos is commonly found in ceiling tiles, heating systems and wall coverings and can become dangerous when it is damaged as potentially deadly fibres are then exposed. A spokesman for UKATA said: "More than 140 teachers have died from mesothelioma (a cancer caused by asbestos exposure) in the last ten years, plus an unknown number of cleaners, dinner ladies and in some cases workers who have unwittingly taken on the job of removal without adequate training. "Teachers need to think twice before fixing work to walls in such a way that would disturb asbestos and builders need to ensure they have the training and skills necessary to remove and dispose of the material safely." Ian Murch, Bradford national executive member for the National Union of Teachers, said: "Teachers in Bradford have died of mesothelioma, and families have been compensated on the basis that the exposure happened in the schools they worked in. "It is not just an issue for teachers, it is an issue for pupils, because they are far more vulnerable when they are young. "As with anything these days, there is the issue of having the money to remove it, but it needs to be managed. It can just mean keeping good records of where it is and making sure you don't disturb it. "With the number of academies that are no longer under council control, it is going to be harder to keep track of where asbestos is. "Teachers, staff and pupils need to know where asbestos is -- it is absolutely vital a record is kept." Councillor Ralph Berry, the executive member for education on Bradford Council, said that many schools containing asbestos had been closed or replaced, and that others were being closely monitored. He said: "It can be kept safe if it is properly dealt with if we keep a close watch on it. It is a responsibility we as a Council take very carefully." On the NUT's fear that academy schools are out of Council control, he added: "That is a very good point. That is one of the problems when you fragment the system, it makes it harder to maintain levels of security. I can understand the point the union is making and I agree with it." In recent years two former teachers in Bradford have died due to their exposure to asbestos while teaching. Graham Butterfield, who taught at the former Hutton Middle and Tong schools between 1967 and 1996, died aged 64 in early 2011, and an inquest into his death found that exposure to the fibres had led to him developing mesothelioma. Following the inquest his widow, Marilyn, of Idle, Bradford, said: "I cannot believe that he was exposed to this dust in a teaching environment which should be a safe place for our children to learn." Graham Webber, of Heaton, Bradford, a former teacher at Daisy Hill Middle School, died aged 57 in 2010 and a subsequent inquest also ruled that his death was by industrial disease caused by asbestos. l Tong School in Westgate Hill has since been demolished and rebuilt. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-Related Disease Claims 396 in Devon ---------------------------------------------------------- Plymouth Herald reported that almost 400 people in the Westcountry, in the United Kingdom, have died in the last five years from asbestos exposure, figures have revealed. Legislation is currently going through Parliament to provide a compensation package for sufferers of the fatal lung disease mesothelioma, which is caused by inhaling asbestos. The number of sufferers is particularly high in cities such as Plymouth because of asbestos-related activities in the past at Devonport Dockyard. An exposure of as little as one or two months can result in the onset of mesothelioma between 15 and 60 years later. Figures placed in the House of Commons library show mesothelioma was the underlying cause of 2,139 deaths last year. Some 396 deaths were recorded in Devon and Cornwall, with around 120 in the four constituencies covering Plymouth, between 2008 and 2012. There were 34 mesothelioma-related deaths in Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, 31 in South West Devon, 28 in Plymouth Moor View and 27 in South East Cornwall. The Tiverton and Honiton and Torridge and West Devon constituencies both recorded 27 deaths. Other parts of the country with large dockyards witnessed a high number of deaths, including Barrow-in-Furness in Cumbria, where 60 deaths were recorded over the period. The legislation is designed to compensate victims of mesothelioma who have been unable to trace the employer who exposed them to the deadly asbestos dust. Alison Seabeck, Labour MP for Plymouth Moor View, has welcomed the news GBP350 million deal, but warned the level of compensation is set far lower than that attainable when a claimant can trace their insurer. She also has concerns that the decision to set a cut-off date two years from the launch of Labour's consultation in 2010 has denied compensatory justice to the more than 700 people who have died in this time. She said: "It is a ghastly disease and there are many families in Plymouth we are trying to help. "It has been decades trying to get some justice for those affected who have not been able to trace the insurers of the companies they worked for. "There is progress, but there is more to do to secure justice for sufferers and their families." Asbestos was used in shipbuilding, construction and the automotive industry. Carpenters, joiners, plumbers and heating engineers are at particular risk. Asbestos was in widespread use before being banned completely in 1999. Victims and their families have, up to now, been able to claim damages under two pieces of legislation but the sums paid have not generally exceeded GBP20,000. Under the proposed new fund, which must receive parliamentary approval, claimants will be entitled to 75% of the average settlement paid out in civil actions relating to mesothelioma, expected to be about GBP115,000. Claimants will have to demonstrate that they were negligently exposed to asbestos at work and are unable to claim compensation because they cannot track down a liable employer or insurer. It will be paid for by a levy on insurance companies which provide employers' liability and is expected to cost the insurance industry GBP300m over the next ten years while helping more than 300 sufferers a year. But campaigners say the scheme does not go far enough in compensating victims, and thousands who suffer from other asbestos related diseases, such as asbestosis and pleural thickening, will not receive anything. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Closes Gloucester Furniture Recycling Biz ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Gibbon, writing for The Gloucester Citizen, reported that not letting people down is the primary concern for workers at Furniture Recycling Project shop in Gloucester, England, which has been forced to close for at least a week. It initially shut on December 22 when high winds caused problems with tiles on the underside of the walkway beneath which its entrance sits. Now the shop, at Gloucester Bus Station, has to undergo an enforced, prolonged closure after asbestos was discovered in the walkway. It needs specialist contractors to assess it before it can be declared safe, a process likely to see the shop closed into the new year. Three years ago, it wouldn't have been a problem because the charitable outlet never used to open over Christmas. However, chief executive Ian Ellis noticed an increasing need for the service and decided he would start trading over the festive break from 2010. He said: "We tried to open using the loading bay as the entrance but it just wasn't practical. It's our only fire exit and it just didn't make sense. "They've got asbestos contractors coming out to do some work on it. The licence for them normally takes 14 days, but because it's a public building they think they can get it in four. "It will mean we're shut for at least seven days though. We are trying to find some new premises on a short-term basis but, it being Christmas, it isn't easy. "The worry is that people will need us at this time of year. Sometimes, it's people who don't usually cater for lots of others and they need a table and chairs, or sometimes it's a washing machine that's broken down. "You also get people who have had a bit of money for a piece of furniture they couldn't otherwise afford, and they come to us too. "It's a shame, but it's one of those things." Ian said the Cheltenham shop is still open, and people should be calling or visiting that branch if they need the project's services. It can be reached on 01242 220296. The walkway is operated by King's Walk shopping centre, which could not comment. It is owned by Aviva, which did not respond to enquiries from the Citizen. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Linked to Pensioner's Death -------------------------------------------------------- Southern Daily Echo reported that a Hampshire man died due to a combination of heart disease and asbestos exposure, an inquest heard. Bert Wells, 81, was exposed to the substance during a four-year stint at Marchwood Power Station, starting in 1957. A post-mortem found Mr Wells, of Haltons Close, Totton, had asbestos fibres in his lungs but also suffered from heart disease. Dr Adrian Bateman, pathologist at University Hospital Southampton, said the asbestos was not the primary cause of death but would have increased the strain on his heart. Mr Wells died at Southampton General Hospital in October. Coroner Keith Wiseman recorded a verdict of death due to natural causes contributed to by asbestos exposure. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tex. Laborer Files Lung Cancer Suit v. 113 Firms ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Holleran, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record, reported that another asbestos lawsuit has been added to St. Clair County's asbestos docket. James L. Hays and Carol Hays filed an asbestos lawsuit Dec. 5 in St. Clair County Circuit Court against 113 defendant corporations. The Hayses do not specify where they reside. They are represented by Randy L. Gori and Barry Julian of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville. In their complaint, the Hayses allege the defendant companies caused James L. Hays to develop lung cancer after his exposure to asbestos-containing products throughout his career. James L. Hays worked as a laborer at a pipeline company in Texas, as an apprentice at Ross School and Tool Company from 1961 until 1966 and as a tool inspector at Abco Corp. from 1966 until 1968, the suit states. The defendants should have known of the harmful effects of asbestos, but failed to exercise reasonable care and caution for the plaintiff's safety, the suit states. As a result of his asbestos-related diseases, James L. Hays became disabled and disfigured, incurred medical costs and suffered great physical pain and mental anguish, the complaint says. In addition, he was prevented from pursuing his normal course of employment and, as a result, lost large sums of money that would have accrued to him, the plaintiff claims. In their complaint, the Hays are seeking a judgment of more than $100,000, economic damages of more than $150,000, compensatory damages of more than $100,000, punitive and exemplary damages of more than $150,000 and other relief the court deems just. St. Clair County Circuit Court case number: 13-L-606. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Teesside Fibro Legacy Exposed as Payment Looms --------------------------------------------------------------- Alan Selby, writing for Evening Gazette, reported that the ongoing asbestos legacy of Teesside, United Kingdom, has been exposed after it emerged councils have set aside millions to compensate workers. The extent of the impact being felt years after council workers were exposed to asbestos was revealed after the local authorities were forced to put aside funds worth nearly GBP3m for claims this year. A solicitor who helps asbestosis sufferers said the number of people coming forward is expected to keep rising over the next few years. Roger Maddox, of Irwin Mitchell solicitors, added: "It starkly illustrates the continuing legacy of asbestos liabilities, which are a direct consequence of employers who negligently exposed employees to asbestos dust." Redcar and Cleveland Council has earmarked GBP2.5m to deal with industrial claims this year, while Middlesbrough Council's fund totals GBP252,600. Stockton Council has similar arrangements in place, but could not provide an accurate total for asbestos-related funds. The councils were told they must make cash available after the High Court confirmed employers who exposed workers to asbestos were liable for damages, not whoever was employing them when their cancer later developed, as insurance companies had argued should be the case. But because the Municipal Mutual Insurance company (MMI), which covered industrial claims against councils, had gone into administration, local authorities must now pay for legal action out of their own reserves. Some 17 former employees are currently pursuing Redcar and Cleveland Council after contracting mesothelioma, the cancer that can develop up to 60 years after contact with asbestos dust. Norman Pickthall, cabinet member for corporate resources at Redcar and Cleveland Council, said: "Because of the complex nature of asbestos-related illnesses and the significant sums involved, the council has allocated GBP2.5m to deal with any future compensation claims, although we expect the final cost to the council to be lower. The council's situation is not unique and like many other local authorities we have been planning for this issue for a number of years." The funds only relate to council employees, with the full extent of compensation in the private sector unknown, but one support group has secured more than GBP1.5m worth of funding for compensation in the past year alone. Since September 2012 the Northern TUC Asbestos Support and Campaign Group has assisted at least 128 people suffering with asbestos-related cancers, providing support to them and their families. They say 2,500 new cases develop in the UK every year, and this could become nearly 3,000 each year by 2015 -- at the moment about 300 people in the North become ill. Northern TUC regional secretary Beth Farhat said they were working with Macmillan Cancer Support to offer free and impartial advice and support to anybody in the North-east who had been affected by an asbestos-related disease. She said: "Unfortunately, the need for groups like ours and support for asbestos victims will only continue to grow over the next 10-15 years at least, as the full-scale of asbestos exposure comes to light. "However, we aim to provide at least a little comfort -- and a lot of practical support to those who find themselves affected by such debilitating illnesses. "While money won't buy back sufferers' health, it is only right that they are provided with the means to have some quality of life, without having to worry about who will care for them or if they can afford to pay vital bills." To speak to the support group, contact Maggie Bailey on 07983 883274 or email Maggie.Bailey@tadea-uk.com It's workers like Alan who pay the ultimate price Alan Dean was exposed over years of loading the material on to ships. He died aged 81. A devastated widow has paid tribute to her husband who died from asbestos-related cancer while his compensation battle was ongoing. Sheila Dean's husband Alan succumbed to mesothelioma in April -- 23 years after he retired from a career as a labourer on Middlesbrough's docks that exposed him to the hazardous material. At 15 he left school in Whinney Banks, Middlesbrough, to start work that would see him travel across Teesside's docks as a stevedore responsible for loading and unloading cargo. His work on Tees Dock saw him carry sacks of asbestos from a Middlesbrough factory on to ships that exported the hazardous material around the world. And Alan's death -- five days before his 81st birthday -- came as legal action against the National Dock Labour Board that was responsible for exposing him to asbestos dust dragged on. Despite clear health risks linked to asbestos having been discovered as early as 1898, Alan was not given any protective equipment against the plumes of dust that surrounded him while he worked. And today his family is still fighting for financial security after the huge impact Alan's disease had upon them. Sheila, 69, said it had been extremely hard to watch him suffer from the incurable condition. She said: "Mesothelioma is a cruel disease, lying dormant in the body with no telling symptoms, striking as if from nowhere years later. "Alan's unexpected death has impacted enormously on us as a family. Alan was a fit and healthy man with no medical conditions and taking no medication." And Sheila added that it was years before any sign of the disease became apparent in Alan. She said: "We are grateful that Alan got to enjoy 23 happy and healthy years of retirement with his family, spending our winters in sunny Spain and our summers enjoying the garden and playing bowls, which he enjoyed so much." Ian Toft, an asbestos claim expert at Irwin Mitchell solicitors, said Alan's condition showed how employers who had negligently exposed workers to asbestos were ruining lives decades later. He said: "I have been working with victims of asbestos exposure now for over 10 years, yet I am still stunned by the conditions so many of my clients were working in at a time when their employers should have known of the risks presented by asbestos and taken the necessary steps to protect their workers. "Now we have the tragic scenario of honest working men like Alan suffering the consequences of their employers' inaction." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wis. Court Reverses Summary Judgment Award ----------------------------------------------------------- HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a Wisconsin appellate court has reversed an award of summary judgment to asbestos defendant Wisconsin Electric, finding that the plaintiffs had properly alleged a claim under the state Safe Place statute. In the Dec. 27 decision, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District I, pointed to other decisions from courts in the state that have held that the release of asbestos dust created an unsafe condition associated with the structure. Ultimately, the appellate court found that the plaintiffs had presented enough evidence that Wisconsin Electric knew or should have known that individuals working in its buildings were exposed to asbestos. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial Courts Can Allow Extra Time for Deposition ----------------------------------------------------------------- HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a trial court is not only authorized to allow defense counsel additional time to depose an asbestos plaintiff, but is required to do so in certain circumstances, a California appellate court recently opined. In a Dec. 27 order, the California 2nd District Court of Appeal said that it was considering the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order denying defense requests for additional deposition time. In its order, the trial court had expressed concern over ambiguity in statutes governing time limits on depositions. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Exclusion Precludes Insurance Coverage ------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Forward, writing for State Bar of Wisconsin, reported that the buyer in a real estate deal claims the seller unlawfully failed to disclose the presence of asbestos in the building, causing damages. Recently, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled the seller is not covered under an insurance policy. Specifically, in Phillips v. Parmelee, 2013 WI 105 (Dec. 27, 2013), the court ruled (6-0) that an asbestos exclusion clause precludes liability coverage for the buyer's claims. Michael Phillips and Perry Petta, affiliated with Walker's Point Marble Arcade Inc., alleged that Daniel Parmelee, owner of Aquila Group LLC, knew the building contained asbestos but did not disclose that information in a real estate condition report. Walker's Point bought the building, and their rehab contractor, not knowing asbestos was there, dispersed it throughout the building. Eventually, the plaintiff-buyers were ordered to vacate the building, could not do business there, and lost it in foreclosure. Phillips and Petta sued claiming breach of contract and warranty as well as negligence in failing to disclose the presence of asbestos. The claims triggered interpretation of Parmelee's business owner's insurance policy with American Family. The circuit and appeals courts ruled the policy precluded coverage. The supreme court affirmed, concluding that "a reasonable insured would interpret the asbestos exclusion in American Family's policy to preclude the loss alleged by the plaintiff-buyers." The policy did not cover property damage with respect to any loss "arising out of, resulting from, caused by, or contributed in whole or in part from asbestos." Phillips and Petta, who wanted the option of recovering from Parmelee's insurer, argued that the exclusion clause was ambiguous and thus did not bar coverage. It said asbestos takes many forms and the policy does not define the word "asbestos." The plaintiffs also said the exclusion clause should be limited to losses caused by exposure to or use of asbestos, not losses sustained by accidental dispersal. In addition, they said the policy does not exclude losses sustained from Parmelee's failure to disclose the presence of asbestos. But the supreme court was not persuaded. "[T]he scope of the asbestos exclusion does not depend on the type of tort from which the loss arose," Chief Justice Abrahamson wrote for the unanimous court. "Our analysis focuses on whether the loss suffered by the plaintiff-buyers is within the text of the asbestos exclusion and thus reasonably contemplated by the parties." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Killed 120 in Plymouth in Five Years ---------------------------------------------------------------- Graeme Demianyk, writing for Plymouth Herald, reported that more than 100 people from the Plymouth, United Kingdom, area have died in the last five years from asbestos exposure, figures have revealed. Legislation is currently going through Parliament to provide a compensation package for sufferers of the fatal lung disease mesothelioma, which is caused by inhaling asbestos. The number of sufferers is particularly high in cities such as Plymouth because of asbestos-related activities in the past at Devonport Dockyard. An exposure of as little as one or two months can result in the onset of mesothelioma between 15 and 60 years later. Figures placed in the House of Commons library show mesothelioma was the underlying cause of 2,139 deaths last year. Some 396 deaths were recorded in Devon and Cornwall, with around 120 in the four constituencies covering Plymouth, between 2008 and 2012. There were 34 mesothelioma-related deaths in Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, 31 in South West Devon, 28 in Plymouth Moor View and 27 in South East Cornwall. The Tiverton and Honiton and Torridge and West Devon constituencies both recorded 27 deaths. Other parts of the country with large dockyards witnessed a high number of deaths, including Barrow-in-Furness in Cumbria, where 60 deaths were recorded over the period. The legislation is designed to compensate victims of mesothelioma who have been unable to trace the employer who exposed them to the deadly asbestos dust. Alison Seabeck, Labour MP for Plymouth Moor View, has welcomed news of the GBP350million deal, but warned the level of compensation is set far lower than that attainable when a claimant can trace their insurer. She also has concerns that the decision to set a cut-off date two years from the launch of Labour's consultation in 2010 has denied compensatory justice to the more than 700 people who have died in this time. She said: "It is a ghastly disease and there are many families in Plymouth we are trying to help. "It has been decades trying to get some justice for those affected who have not been able to trace the insurers of the companies they worked for." "There is progress, but there is more to do to secure justice for sufferers and their families." Asbestos was used in shipbuilding, construction and the automotive industry. Carpenters, joiners, plumbers and heating engineers are at particular risk. Asbestos was in widespread use before being banned completely in 1999. Victims and their families have, up to now, been able to claim damages under two pieces of legislation but the sums paid have not generally exceeded GBP20,000. Under the proposed new fund, which must receive parliamentary approval, claimants will be entitled to 75 per cent of the average settlement paid out in civil actions relating to mesothelioma, expected to be about GBP115,000. Claimants will have to demonstrate that they were negligently exposed to asbestos at work and are unable to claim compensation because they cannot track down a liable employer or insurer. It will be paid for by a levy on insurance companies which provide employers' liability and is expected to cost the insurance industry GBP300million over the next ten years while helping more than 300 sufferers a year. But campaigners say the scheme does not go far enough in compensating victims, and thousands who suffer from other asbestos related diseases, such as asbestosis and pleural thickening, will not receive anything. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Large Payout for Former Shoebury MOD Site Worker ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Archard, writing for Echo, reported that an electrician suffering from terminal cancer has won a six-figure payout after being exposed to deadly asbestos during his work at the military base in Shoebury, in Essex, England. The 64-year old from Hockley, who does not want to be named, was diagnosed with mesothelioma in April 2012 after suffering from pain in his ribs, a persistent cough and breathlessness. He underwent treatment at St Bartholomew's Hospital in London, but has since been given the devastating news the cancer has spread to his brain. The father-of-two was exposed to asbestos while working at the Ministry of Defence's Shoebury munitions testing site, for his employer the Ministry of Public Buildings and Works, now the Department for Communities and Local Government, between 1965 and 1970. Lawyers at Irwin Mitchell in London negotiated an undisclosed six- figure sum for him which will help cover the cost of care when his condition deteriorates and further limits his independence. He says it feels "like some justice has been done". His job involved drilling holes in walls and ceilings which were clad with asbestos in workshops and research units. He said: "After drilling holes in walls and ceilings, I had to sweep up the dust and debris the work had created. I was an apprentice. "We didn't really think anything of breathing in the dust as we worked because we were never told of the dangers or given any safety gear to wear. "During my apprenticeship, I worked in various buildings on the Shoebury site. I did electrical work as part of the refurbishment of buildings. When we were doing refurbishments all of the trades were working together and I believe I was exposed to asbestos dust from colleagues lagging pipes near me." The man began feeling unwell in February 2012 and was diagnosed with mesothelioma two months later following tests and scans. He added: "It was devastating to find out that asbestos exposure had given me cancer and that my symptoms will get worse. "My illness is terminal so it's heartbreaking for my family, and now it has spread to my brain. "We are all anxious about what the future holds, but I amgrateful to have the support around me from my loved ones. "The settlement will be a big help financially when it comes to my care and will help support my family to look after me and help me to battle on against this incurable disease. "It feels like justice has been done as my former employer should have done something to protect me and my colleagues." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Court Won't Reconsider Take-Home Ruling -------------------------------------------------------------- HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a Washington federal court has maintained its position that asbestos plaintiffs will be permitted to bring take-home asbestos exposure claims to trial, opining that the plaintiffs have presented enough evidence to support a finding that the dangers of take-home exposure were known, or should have been known, to the defendants as early as the 1950s. In its Dec. 30 order denying Owens-Illinois and Crown Cork & Seal Co. Inc.'s motion for reconsideration, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington said that the case was distinguishable from a recent decision that reached the opposite conclusion. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial Court Declines to Modify Denial Order ------------------------------------------------------------ HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a trial court that was recently directed by an appellate court to authorize additional deposition time for defendants in an asbestos case has declined to do so, opining that a "published opinion will provide helpful guidance to the legal community." In a Dec. 30 order, Judge Emilie H. Elias of the California Superior Court for Los Angeles County said that he respectfully declined to modify his original order in which he had expressed concern over ambiguity in statutes governing time limits on depositions. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pilbara Fibro Fears Follow Cyclone Christine ------------------------------------------------------------- Leanne Nicholson, writing for WAToday, reported that the cyclonic winds and pelting rain may have passed by Western Australia's Pilbara and Kimberley regions, however, ex-tropical cyclone Christine has exposed a fresh yet familiar danger for residents to contend with. Asbestos in buildings, fencing and other building products dislodged or damaged during the wild weather now pose an additional health risk to Pilbara residents if they are exposed to the cancer-causing material. Slater and Gordon asbestos lawyer Laine McDonald issued the warning to residents of the risks of asbestos exposure during the cleaning up of properties, homes and businesses battered by Christine. "Once asbestos is disturbed, it can pose a real danger to health," Ms McDonald said. "Residents who are returning to their homes and businesses could be at risk of exposure, especially if they start cleaning up without the right protection. "While it's difficult to tell if a structure contains asbestos, if it was built in the mid-1980s -- the time when this common building product was phased out -- you assume there's a risk." It's believe about 600 Australian are diagnosed with mesothelioma each year. Asbestos was commonly used as a construction material throughout the Pilbara. It was mined in Wittenoom, 1100 kilometres north- east of Perth in the Pilbara, before the town was evacuated and essentially wiped off the map by authorities. "Asbestos products damaged by severe storms like cyclone Christine can release a very dangerous dust which, once breathed in, can cause mesothelioma, lung cancer and other serious illnesses," Ms McDonald said. "Each year around 250 Western Australians die from asbestos- related diseases, with a lag of about 30-40 years between exposure and diagnosis of an illness. "Asbestos products are still in our homes, businesses and communities more than 40 years after the Wittenoom mine closed, so it's a hazard that continues to confront us all." Despite the category three cyclone coming within about 100 kilometres of the Town of Port Hedland, mayor Kelly Howlett said the district had escaped with minor damage, mostly to the area's natural landscape. "We've got a lot of cleaning up to do but we were very fortunate," Cr Howlett said. "We've not seen any bad structural damage, just a few trees down, a lot of sand swept up from the beach and a bit of flooding." Cr Howlett said new and updated property development in the region had reduced the number of buildings containing asbestos. "It's generally been replaced in the past decade ... but there's still quite a bit." She said the town's asbestos handling and removal safety procedures were "well known" to residents. "Residents need to get relevant council approval [to remove asbestos material], but they're quite well versed in that." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Consolidated Aluminum Declares Bankruptcy ---------------------------------------------------------- John O'Brien, writing for The West Virginia Record, reported that a New Jersey-based aluminum company has declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which has led to it removing an asbestos lawsuit filed against it in Kanawha County Circuit Court to federal court. Consolidated Aluminum Corp., which ceased operations in 1994, declared bankruptcy on Dec. 15. The company still exists to manage litigation against it. According to its bankruptcy petition, the company has between 100- 199 creditors but only between $500,001 and $1 million in assets. Its largest creditor is Lonza America, to which it owes more than $72 million for an inter-company loan. Consolidated Aluminum, which did business as Conalco, was named as one of 53 defendants in John and Gloria Davis' lawsuit, filed May 14, 2010, in Kanawha Circuit Court. The couple are represented by James A. McKowen of James F. Humphreys & Associates and Victoria Antion of Motley Rice's Morgantown office. The complaint says John Davis, of Parkersburg, suffers from lung cancer. He worked for Consolidated Aluminum in Hannibal, Ohio, from 1958-79. Conalco's removal notice says the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia has jurisdiction over the case because of the federal bankruptcy proceeding. "Under the 'conceivable effect' test, 'the proceeding need not necessarily be against the debtor or against the debtor's property.' An action is 'related to' bankruptcy if the outcome could alter the debtor's rights, liabilities, options, or freedom of action (either positively or negatively) and which in any way impacts upon the handling of the bankrupt estate," the removal notice says. "'Related to' jurisdiction exists here because the claims asserted in the State Court Action seek monetary damages from the Debtor." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bradken Trains Breach Fibro Ban ------------------------------------------------ Donna Page, writing for Newcastle Herald, reported that Newcastle, Australia-based engineering giant Bradken is under fire for importing heavy-rail locomotives containing deadly asbestos from China. The locos are quarantined at Rutherford, as Australian Customs and Border Protection officials investigate the breach of a 10-year ban on the import of products containing asbestos. It is the first time Bradken has purchased locomotives from China and a company spokesman said the breach would not deter it from dealing with Chinese manufacturers in future. Unions described the Chinese imports as a "disgrace" and said Bradken should be held accountable for not ensuring the safety of its supply chain. The two locos were certified in China as asbestos-free and arrived in Australia in November 2012. Bradken learnt about the asbestos in October. ACTU assistant secretary Michael Borowick said asbestos-free certificates issued by Chinese manufacturers were "not worth the paper they were printed on". "The ban was put in place almost 10 years ago for good public policy reasons because one fibre can kill," he said. "There have only been two prosecutions since the ban was implemented and the message that sends is you can import with impunity." A Customs and Border Protection spokesman said Bradken could face a fine of up to $850,000 or three times the value of the locos, whichever is greatest. "Importers are responsible for ensuring goods they import are free from asbestos and must declare this on import documentation," he said, declining to comment further. Bradken's spokesman would not reveal the cost of the locos and said independent testing revealed the white asbestos was contained. He said there was no risk ''of any exposure to personnel''. ''Our specifications to the supplier was they be asbestos free,'' he said. ''The reality is they have not spent very much time on track at all.'' The diesel locos were made by China Southern Rail and were undergoing registration and commissioning work in the Hunter. Freight carrier SCT Logistics imported 10 of the same locos and asbestos was detected in October following complaints by Adelaide maintenance workers about white dust around the engines. Tests revealed there were carcinogenic fibres in the cooling pipe, exhaust and brake insulation. Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency chief executive Peter Tighe said the situation highlighted "serious problems" with Australian compliance. "As far as the Chinese are concerned there is no problem with asbestos," Mr Tighe said. "It is far too easy for these things to slip through the cracks when all you need to import something is a certificate from the manufacturer to say it's asbestos free." Australian Manufacturing Workers Union NSW secretary Tim Ayres said if a local manufacturer used asbestos it would be shut down. ''These companies are getting a cheap deal, by setting up a supply chain they can't guarantee,'' he said. ''It's pretty simple, trains made in Australia don't contain asbestos and they keep workers in jobs." Bradken's spokesman said the company acted immediately to quarantine the locos and was co-operating with investigators. He said the asbestos would be removed and the locos put into service with an Australian operator. A spokesman for Qube Logistics confirmed it ordered six of the same locos, but said it would not accept them with asbestos. ''We have our inspectors working with the manufacturers on site to ensure that no asbestos is used,'' he said. This is not the first time China has broken the Australian ban on asbestos. In 2012 more than 25,000 Chinese-made Great Wall, Chery and Geely cars were recalled after asbestos was discovered in engine gaskets and brakes. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has Until Jan. 27 to Seek Rehearing ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jack Elliott Jr., writing for Insurance Journal, reported that Union Carbide Corporation has until Jan. 27 to file a motion asking the Mississippi Supreme Court to review an unfavorable ruling in an asbestos case. The Supreme Court on Dec. 12 overruled a Smith County judge who threw out a $3.85 million judgment for the family of Larry Smith. Smith died of lung cancer in 2002. His wife argued in a lawsuit that her husband was exposed to drilling additives made by Union Carbide that contained asbestos. The Smith County judge said the plaintiffs failed to show Larry Smith had been exposed to a specific product on a regular basis in proximity to his work. The Supreme Court, in a 4-3 vote, said the trial judge's ruling was flawed and sent the case back to Smith County. Union Carbide said it wants to file briefs replying to the Supreme Court's decision. Smith worked on petroleum drilling rigs from the 1960s until the early 1990s. At the time, it commonplace in the industry to use chemical drilling additives containing asbestos. He was diagnosed with lung cancer in August 2002 and died three months later. Court records also show that Smith was a heavy smoker. The family filed suit in March 2006. In May 2009 after a 3-week trial, a jury in Smith County returned a verdict in favor of the Smith family and assessed damages of $3.85 million. But in January 2010, the trial judge threw out the verdict. The Supreme Court said the "frequency, regularity, and proximity of exposure" test used by the trial judge in overturning the verdict is limited to motions for summary judgment -- directed verdicts -- before a case goes to a jury. "At the jury-consideration stage, the `frequency, regularity, and proximity' test falls away, and a plaintiff must demonstrate the elements of a design defect product liability claim," Justice Josiah Coleman said in the ruling. "Instead, the trial court should have matched the plaintiffs' proof against the statutory elements of a design defect products liability claim, just as would be required in any non-asbestos negligent design litigation," Coleman said. Union Carbide attorneys said in the motion to the Supreme Court that the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" standard was not presented in the appeal. "The parties have not had the opportunity to fully brief this issue before the court," the company wrote in a filing. "Due to the latent nature of asbestos-related disease, the `frequency, regularity, and proximity' test is used by courts across the country for establishing proximate causation in products liability actions involving asbestos-related injuries. The company said the Supreme Court's December opinion will affect other asbestos cases pending in Mississippi and possible future filings. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Care Home Worker Angered at Fibro Risks -------------------------------------------------------- Cambrian News Online reported that a mother from Llithfaen, in Gwynedd, Wales, has hit out after safety experts ruled she may have been exposed to dangerous asbestos. Nia Hughes, 37, was a care assistant at the Plas-y-Don care home in Pwllheli for 12 years. According to the mother-of-two, on 28 February, 2011 work to replace floor tiles in a corridor exposed staff and care home residents to "unacceptable" health risks. A risk assessment carried out by Gwynedd Council said that she may have possible exposure to a level of asbestos which may develop into disease over time. Following the incident, Nia approached the Health and Safety Executive, which investigated and found failings. However, Nia says despite the findings by HSE, she still wants further action to be taken against Gwynedd Council. She said: "When I went into work that day, I just remember there being dust everywhere. When I got home that evening I remember feeling my throat burning and developed a bad cough. "I didn't think much of it at that point, but it wasn't until a co-worker had a look at the plans and we found that the old tiles contained asbestos material. "I was horrified. I had gone home that night covered in dust and I was in very close contact to my husband and children."Gwynedd Council have since implemented several procedures to minimise future risks following the incident. The HSE report states: "When the contract was awarded to Ross Hughes Flooring in early February 2011, a meeting was held with Arthur Williams, the care home manager, and Nick Millington, a director of Ross Hughes Flooring. "Nick Millington was made aware that there was asbestos in the floor tiles that were to be removed. "The subsequent investigation by Gwynedd Council found that the work had not been carried out in the way that had been discussed during the meetings between Arthur Williams and Nick Millington." In the report, the HSE states that there were also broken tiles left in a laundry trolley, later transported through the home, and the tiles were not dampened down before hand. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. High School Renovation to Remove Fibro ----------------------------------------------------------- CBS Pittsburgh reported that school officials say the construction being done on Mt. Lebanon High School, in Pennsylvania, will require asbestos removal. Parents of one of the largest high schools in Allegheny County received the information in a letter from the principal. Officials say construction and on-going renovation of the high school now requires some asbestos removal from the floor tile and wallboards in the auditorium. The work has not yet started, but will take approximately four- weeks to complete. Principal Brian McFeeley sent a letter to parents describing the process, saying in part: "The Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) will be the local governing agency having jurisdiction over asbestos abatement. The ACHD is responsible for permitting the abatement process and, when completed, giving the final approval to occupy the area if the air quality levels meet all applicable federal, state, and county requirements. The abatement process for the areas listed above is scheduled to occur during second shift, beginning at 4:00pm. All entrances to this area will be fully sealed so that no students or staff will have access to this area." "The high school needs renovated. It comes with the territory, with the age of that school," parent Stacey Franklin said. School officials say they had abated other asbestos in the elementary school over the summer, and had no problems. There are more than 18-hundred students at Mt. Lebanon High School, and school officials say only two parents registered concern over the process. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Says Fibro Case to Remain in Federal Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a magistrate judge in Delaware has recommended that an asbestos case remain in federal court, concluding that Crane Co. had established a federal defense. In the Dec. 13 report and recommendation, Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke suggested that the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware deny the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case since the defendant had established federal officer removal jurisdiction. Marguerite MacQueen filed the underlying lawsuit on behalf of David MacQueen, who was allegedly exposed to asbestos-containing products while serving in the U.S. Navy as a welder/machinist and, later, as a salesman. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rescuers Decontaminate Man From Fibro ------------------------------------------------------ ABC News reported that a man in his 60s has been taken to hospital after falling through scaffolding at a home in Cottesloe, in Perth, Australia. He was removing asbestos from the ceiling of the house in Andrews Place about 8:30am when the accident happened. Fire rescue crews had to decontaminate the man as well as ambulance crews who came into contact with the asbestos. The man is in Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital with head and arm injuries. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wis. High Ct. Enforces Exclusion in Property Row ----------------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reported that Wisconsin's Supreme Court recently freed American Family Mutual Insurance Co. from covering a lawsuit claiming the sellers of an apartment building hid the presence of asbestos on the property, giving force to a broadly worded asbestos exclusion. The high court upheld a lower court's decision, and an appeals court's affirmation, in favor of American Family in a coverage battle over claims that the apartment building's sellers did not disclose to property buyers that the apartment building likely had asbestos-wrapped ducts. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Beaton Park Club to Close for Re-roofing --------------------------------------------------------- Illawarra Mercury reported that the ageing asbestos roof on the Beaton Park Tennis Club, in Gwynneville, New South Wales, is reaching the end of its life and will be replaced, with work starting next week. Wollongong City Council said contractors had performed a survey on the roof and decided it needed to be replaced. The building is about 50 years old, and its interior was refurbished eight years ago. The Wollongong Tennis Club will be closed while the work takes place and is expected to reopen by January 30. The council's director of infrastructure and works, Mike Hyde, said the replacement work was essential to maintain an ageing building and help extend the life of the tennis facilities. "Council has more than 155 sports buildings throughout the city," he said. "Many of these are ageing and require essential and expensive maintenance." The project is expected to cost about $150,000. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Impact Growing Among Firefighters -------------------------------------------------------- Perry J. Browder, writing for Lawyers.com, reported that firefighters put their lives at risk every day. They are constantly saving other people in dangerous situations. This is certainly the case when they enter flaming, crumbling buildings. And while the fires and deteriorating structures are hazardous, other dangers can be found in the harmful toxins that fill the air -- asbestos. Not only do firefighters work in situations where building fires occur, they can also be a major part of cleanup crews during natural disasters or unfortunate events. For instance, many firefighters assisted with the cleanup efforts after the 9/11 attacks. When the World Trade Center was built, asbestos products were used in its construction. As the twin towers collapsed, they sent a massive cloud of asbestos-filled dust, smoke and debris through the city streets. Firefighters, police officers, emergency personnel and other volunteers worked for hours sorting through the toxic, asbestos-filled rubble. In addition, fire and asbestos fibers are a dangerous mix. High temperatures increase the exposure risk by breaking down asbestos fibers into even smaller fibers and shooting them into the air faster, which increases the chances of inhalation. The combination of a crumbling, high temperature building and tiny asbestos fibers floating through the air puts firefighters in life-threatening situations often. A new study conducted by NIOSH in collaboration with the National Cancer Institute and the Department of Public Health Sciences in the University of California at Davis focused on the effects of asbestos exposure and firefighters. This study, funded in part by the United States Fire Administration, identified an higher risk of mesothelioma in U.S. firefighters. Specifically, researchers analyzed 30,000 firefighters living in the Chicago, Philadelphia and San Francisco areas through 2009. All of the study participants had been firefighting since 1950. Results showed that cancers of the respiratory, digestive and urinary systems, including mesothelioma, accounted for higher cancer rates among firefighter study participants. Firefighters in these three major cities had a rate two times greater than the general population for these types of cancers. The study did not take into account certain factors that can increase cancer risk such as alcohol consumption or diet. Learn more about asbestos exposure and mesothelioma from the Simmons Firm today. Perry J. Browder may be reached at: Perry J. Browder, Esq. SIMMONS FIRM One Court Street Alton, Illinois 62002 Tel: 618-259-2222 Fax: 618-259-2251 Email: info@simmonsfirm.com ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Teacher Seeks Colleagues in Exposure Battle --------------------------------------------------------------- Burnley Express reported that lawyers acting for a former teacher at schools in Burnley and Pendle, in the United Kingdom, who has been diagnosed with mesothelioma are launching an urgent appeal to trace her former co-workers. Janet Gent, who worked for Lancashire County Council at Walton High School, Nelson, from 1973 until 1981 as a home economics teacher, has been diagnosed with the fatal asbestos-related cancer. She believes she was exposed to asbestos dust and fibres while working at the school but Thompsons Solicitors, who are acting on her behalf, understand neither she nor her colleagues were made aware by Lancashire County Council of the dangers they faced in their working environment. Between 1983 and 1995, Janet was also employed by Lancashire County Council as a supply teacher at various schools in the two boroughs, including Gawthorpe, Barden, Walshaw, Ivy Bank, Habergham and St Theodore's High Schools in Burnley and Primet High and Park High, Colne, Mansfield High, Brierfield, Gibfield Special School, Colne and Hendon Brook and Townhouse Schools in Nelson. Janet is calling on her former colleagues to get in contact with Thompsons to provide vital evidence about her working environment. Joanne Candlish, Head of the Liverpool Asbestos Team from Thompsons Solicitors, which specialises in asbestos related diseases said: "Asbestos-related diseases will cause 3,000 deaths a year and will be the biggest industrial killer of all time. "We are seeing more and more schoolteachers, support staff and even former pupils diagnosed with devastating asbestos-related conditions caused by being exposed in our schools. "It is vital that we trace Janet Gent's co-workers to enable a full investigation to be carried out into her history of asbestos exposure. "Mrs Gent needs and deserves to see justice done and we are committed to helping her achieve this." If anybody can provide assistance regarding working conditions at either Walton High School or any of the schools where Mrs Gent worked, they are asked to contact Joanne Candlish as a matter of urgency on 0151 224 1644. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Reveals Presence of Fibro in Schools ------------------------------------------------------------- Fiona Dryden, writing for Leicester Mercury, reported that a woman whose husband died of a cancer linked to asbestos exposure has called for companies and public bodies to remove the material from all buildings. Christine Glover believes her husband, David, was exposed to asbestos while working as a painter and decorator in schools, businesses, and homes across Leicestershire, in England. She spoke out as the city council revealed asbestos is present at 77 school sites in Leicester. It is not dangerous unless the material is damaged, when it could release asbestos fibres and become a health hazard. Christine, of Blaby, said: "David's death was so painful. Not even morphine could ease it. I wouldn't want anyone else to go through what David went through. "We'll never know exactly when he was exposed to asbestos. "It could have been in a school or any of the homes and businesses he worked in. "I have grandchildren at school in Leicester and I want to make sure they're safe. "If I can stop one person from dying from this terrible disease, it will be worth it." David died in April, aged 77, six weeks after he was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a form of cancer that affects the lungs. Since his death, Christine has learned that five more of his former colleagues have also died from the disease. She is now taking legal action against his former employer, who she did not wish to name. A Freedom of Information request to the city council has revealed there are 77 school sites containing asbestos in Leicester. A council spokesman said: "Our policy follows Health and Safety Executive guidance. "Where asbestos-containing materials are assessed as being in good condition and not in a position where they're likely to be damaged, they should be left in place and monitored. "Were asbestos is in poor condition or is likely to be damaged during the normal use of the building, it should be sealed, enclosed or removed." However, Andrew Haynes, health and safety adviser for Leicester's branch of the National Union of Teachers, is concerned about the council's asbestos management policy. He said there were worries including how easily asbestos could be damaged, the impossibility of monitoring its condition at all times and the danger of asbestos being released because of deteriorating structures. He said: "All asbestos should be removed from schools, whenever it is found and whatever its form, unless this is completely impractical. "Much of the asbestos in Leicester schools could be removed without major disruption. This might be an expensive exercise but we believe people's lives are more important than money." Leicestershire County Council has yet to respond to a request for information about asbestos in schools. Christine and her family are organising a 1960s disco in memory of David at Leicester's Hilton Hotel, Braunstone, on February 21, in aid of the Mesothelioma UK Charitable Trust. Tickets are GBP15 and are available by e-mailing: emma58@btinternet.com Donations can be made at: www.justgiving.com/Fighting ForDavidGlover School sites where asbestos exists in Leicester: * Abbey Primary, Belgrave * Alderman Richard Hallam Primary, Beaumont Leys * Ash Field, Evington * Avenue Primary, Clarendon Park * Babington Community College, Beaumont Leys * Barleycroft Primary, Beaumont Leys * Braunstone Frith Infants * Braunstone Frith Juniors * Bridge Junior School, Spinney Hills * Buswells Lodge Primary, Beaumont Leys * Caldecote Community Primary, Braunstone * Carisbrooke Specialist Learning Centre, Knighton * Catherine Infants, Belgrave * Catherine Juniors, Belgrave * Coleman Primary, Spinney Hill * Dovelands Primary, West End * Ellesmere College, Braunstone * Folville Junior, Braunstone * Forest Lodge Primary, New Parks * Fosse Primary, Woodgate * Glebelands Primary, Beaumont Leys * Granby Primary, Aylestone * Greenlane Infants, Spinney Hill * Hamilton Community College * Hazel Primary, off Aylestone Road * Heatherbrook Primary, Beaumont Leys * Herrick Primary, Rushey Mead * Humberstone Infants, Humberstone * Humberstone Juniors, Humberstone * Imperial Avenue Infants, Braunstone * Inglehurst Juniors, Newfoundpool * Inglehurst Infants, Newfoundpool * Keyham Lodge School, Hamilton * King Richard III Infants, West End * Knighton Fields Primary, Knighton * Linden Primary, Evington * Marriott Primary, Aylestone * Mayflower Primary, Evington * Medway Community Primary, Stoneygate * Merrydale Infants, Humberstone * Merrydale Juniors, Humberstone * Millgate School, Knighton Fields * Moat Community College, Highfields * Mowmacre Hill Primary, Tedworth Green * Netherhall Special School, Netherhall * New College Leicester, New Parks * Newry Juniors, Saffron Lane * Northfield House Primary, Northfield * Overdale Infants, Knighton * Overdale Juniors, Knighton * Parks Primary School, New Parks * Rolleston Primary, Glen Parva * Rowlatts Hill Primary, Balderstone Close * Rushey Mead Primary * Sandfield Close Primary, Rushey Mead * Scraptoft Valley Primary, Netherhall * Shaftesbury Junior School, Westcotes * Shenton Primary, Spinney Hills * Sir Jonathan North Community College, Knighton * Slater Primary, Frog Island * Sparkenhoe Primary annexe, Highfields * Sparkenhoe Primary, Highfields * Spinney Hill Primary school * St Barnabas C of E Primary, Spinney Hill * St Mary's Fields Infants, off Narborough Road * Stokes Wood Primary, New Parks * The Lancaster School, Knighton * Thurnby Lodge Primary * Uplands Infants, Highfields * Western Park Special School, off Hinckley Road * Westgate Lower School, New Parks * Westgate Upper School, New Parks * Whitehall Primary, Evington * Willowbrook Primary, Thurnby Lodge * Wolsey House Primary, Beaumont Leys * Woodstock Primary, Beaumont Leys ASBESTOS UPDATE: Glasgow Health Board Fined for Fibro Failings -------------------------------------------------------------- H&V News reported that a Scottish health board has been fined for a safety failing that led to several workers being exposed to potentially deadly asbestos fibres during a seven-year period. Glasgow Sheriff Court heard that Greater Glasgow Health Board, known as NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde, had failed to properly manage the risks of asbestos in a ground floor neurology plant and switch room of Southern General Hospital. The court heard that three surveys, used to identify and manage asbestos containing materials (ACMs) in premises, had been carried out in the room. In all three the same ACM in the ceiling of the room was identified as "high risk" and the recommended action was "removal and environmental cleaning". The health board was advised of this on each occasion, but no action was taken. In March 2011, following plans to run electrical installations into the plant room, a specialist company carried out a further survey which found several highly damaged ACMs, debris from the original ACM in the ceiling, that posed a "high risk". The room was sealed and background monitoring tests showed a high level of air contamination and the matter was reported to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). The HSE investigation found the health board had taken no action in relation to the ACM in the ceiling since the original 2004 survey, nor had it acted following the later surveys. The area had then become extensively contaminated with unsealed asbestos debris as a result of the health board's failure to remove the ACMs and environmentally clean the area. The monitoring of the ACM in the room was insufficient. Had monitoring been carried out more regularly, it would have been clear that the ACM was still present and still posing a high risk to anyone entering. As a result, employees of the health board and outside contractors had been exposed to the harmful asbestos fibres in the plant room during the seven year period. The court was told the ACMs had since been removed and the area environmentally cleaned. The health board has also carried out a review of its asbestos management policy, including new training for staff and a new post had been created to deal solely with asbestos management across all hospitals in the health board's area. Greater Glasgow Health Board, of JB Russell House, Gartnavel Royal Hospital, Great Western Road, Glasgow, was fined GBP10,000 after pleading guilty to a breach of Regulation 4(10)(b) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006. ASBESTOS UPDATE: MPS Urged to Amend Mesothelioma Bill ----------------------------------------------------- Rochdale Online reported that specialist lawyers from Irwin Mitchell are urging MPs to amend the Mesothelioma Bill currently going through the U.K. Parliament to ensure sufferers of the terminal asbestos-related cancer receive 'fairer' settlements. The Mesothelioma Bill, is undergoing a final revision process and is set to be debated once again in the House of Commons on January 7, 2014. However, current proposals set out in the Bill would provide those sufferers from the asbestos-related disease who cannot trace a relevant employers' liability insurance policy with just 75 per cent of an average civil compensation payout -- something lawyers and victims believe is unfair. Now campaigners, including the Forum of Asbestos Victims Support Groups-UK, law firm Irwin Mitchell and MPs across all parties are urging the Government to agree a last minute amendment raising this payment to 80 per cent. Irwin Mitchell's research shows that if payouts are capped at 75 per cent of average compensation, mesothelioma victims may miss out on around GBP43,000 based on a typical settlement. Expert lawyers at the firm, who have written to MPs of all parties about the Bill, say victims are very disappointed that settlements, which would be paid out under the new scheme, are to be limited to victims of mesothelioma only, and are intended to be 25 per cent lower than the current average compensation for people suffering from the asbestos-related cancer. These funds provide some financial security for loved ones as well as paying for care, aids and equipment during the final stages of the illness. Geraldine Coombs, a specialist asbestos lawyer at Irwin Mitchell in Manchester who has represented many victims, said: "It takes decades from the initial exposure to asbestos for symptoms of a related illness to appear, but once they do the consequences are devastating for those families affected. "In some situations it is impossible to find evidence of victims' employers' insurance records where firms have ceased to exist many years ago. While the Government has tried to address this issue with the promise of a scheme to help those who cannot trace a relevant employers' liability insurance policy, many asbestos victims will be left high and dry by the technicalities in the proposals." It is understood that the 75 per cent figure is to prevent the insurers passing on the costs to businesses in the form of higher premiums for employers' liability insurance, but over the long term, a payment of 80 per cent of average compensation would keep the payments below a threshold identified by the insurance industry and should prevent them passing on costs to businesses. Coombs added: "Obviously, receiving 75 per cent of the average compensation is better than nothing but by only providing victims and their families with a fraction of the typical amount means mesothelioma victims will miss out on tens of thousands of pounds. "This also doesn't take into account that no two cases are alike and the individual circumstances of each person and their family are completely different. It is particularly hard to understand when the Financial Services Compensation Scheme provides 90 per cent compensation. "Mesothelioma cases by their very nature are complex, often going back 40-50 years and involving very detailed investigations. Mesothelioma victims have faced many legal challenges in recent years. This is yet another one. What they really deserve is full and fair financial security for their families." It is estimated that more than 300 mesothelioma sufferers a year miss out on compensation solely because their former employer's insurers cannot be traced as a result of serial failures by the insurance industry to keep proper records. From January 1972 it was compulsory for employers to have Employers' Liability insurance cover and the evidence is that the overwhelming majority of businesses had it before then. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former East Lancashire Teacher in Cancer Claim --------------------------------------------------------------- Tyrone Marshall, writing for Lancashire Telegraph, reported that a former teacher believes the life-threatening cancer she is suffering from may have been caused by exposure to asbestos during a 22-year career at schools in East Lancashire. According to the report, Janet Gent, a victim of the lung condition mesothelioma, is now appealing to her former colleagues to come forward as her lawyers prepare a claim for compensation. Mrs Gent worked for eight years until as a home economics teacher at Walton High in Nelson and is convinced she was exposed to asbestos fibres or dust at the former Oxford Road school. Her legal representatives, Thompsons Solicitors, understand that neither her, nor her colleagues, were made aware of the potential dangers in their working environment. Four years ago the Lancashire Telegraph reported that 213 schools in Burnley, Pendle, Hyndburn, Rossendale and Ribble Valley were found to have asbestos in their structures. But education officials then insisted that the material, which comes in a variety of forms, was not dangerous unless it was disturbed. Refurbishment programmes at a number of local schools have included work to remove asbestos from walls or other partitions. Mrs Gent, who still lives in the Nelson area, also worked as a supply teacher at 15 high schools or special schools in East Lancashire, and one in South Yorkshire, from 1983 to 1995. These include the former Barden, Ivy Bank, Habergham, Gawthorpe and St Theodore's high schools and a special school in Burnley, Walshaw and Mansfield high schools, and Town House and Hendon Brook special schools in Nelson, Park and Primet High, along with Gibfield special school, all in Colne, Tullyann School in Darwen, and Valley special school in Rossendale. Joanne Candlish, Thompsons' asbestos team head, said: "It is vital that we trace Janet Gent's co-workers to enable a full investigation to be carried out into her history of asbestos exposure "Mrs Gent needs and deserves to see justice done and we are committed to helping her achieve this." Potential witnesses are being asked to call Mrs Candlish on 0151 224 1644. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Monticello Demolition Leads to Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------- Leonard Sparks, writing for Times Herald-Record, reported that the wreckage from Mayor Gordon Jenkins' ill-fated decision to demolish the old village court in Monticello, New York, continues to grow. First, the state Department of Environmental Conservation arrested six people for illegal dumping, and then the state Department of Labor halted removal of the debris because of asbestos. Now the demolition contractor company's owner, who was arrested along with five other people for dumping debris on Fairground Road, is suing the village because his company, Sams Property Management, has not received its $5,000 fee. In a handwritten complaint filed in village court, Sam Kearney claims Jenkins told him the court building was free of asbestos prior to the demolition. Kearney also says the village failed to pay bills he submitted for heavy equipment he rented. Daily charges for the equipment, including an excavator, accumulated while the DOL prohibited anything from leaving the site. Kearney is seeking $196,333 plus interest, although the case will likely have to be moved to Supreme Court because of the amounts involved. "The board never approved this contract," village trustee Carmen Rue said. Department of Environmental Conservation police arrested Kearney and five other workers on Oct. 3 as they were hauling debris from the demolished village court on Pleasant Street. Each was charged with unlawful disposal of solid waste in excess of 70 yards, while Kearney and another defendant, Mike Soto, were separately charged with two counts of operating a solid waste management facility without a permit. State DOL officials ordered work halted at the demolition site because the court building contained asbestos. Kearney said he agreed to demolish the building on the condition that it was asbestos-free, but Rue said Monticello officials have long known the building contained asbestos. "All along, the engineers have been saying there was asbestos, and we discussed this for years -- how we were going to take it out," Rue said. Jenkins did not respond to a message left at his office. He and the village face mounting costs and legal troubles related to the demolition. Two companies responded to a second round of bidding to remove the remaining pile, which must be done by a company with an asbestos license. One offered to do the job for $186,000 and the other for $96,000. And Pine Bush Equipment Co., which owns the heavy machines, is seeking to recover the rental costs from the village. The company has sent the village more than $12,000 in invoices. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Admin. Proceeding v. Ecology Unit is Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- An administrative proceeding against Ecology and Environment, Inc.'s subsidiary remains pending, according to to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2012. On September 21, 2012, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (the "Department") issued a proposed Compliance Order on Consent (the "Proposed Consent Order") to the City and County of Denver ("Denver") and to Walsh Environmental Scientists and Engineers, LLC ("Walsh"). Walsh is a majority-owned subsidiary of Ecology and Environment, Inc. The Proposed Consent Order concerns construction improvement activities of certain property owned by Denver which was the subject of asbestos remediation. Denver had entered into a contract with Walsh for Walsh to provide certain environmental consulting services (asbestos monitoring services) in connection with the asbestos containment and/or removal performed by other contractors at Denver's real property. Without admitting liability or the Department's version of the underlying facts, Walsh on February 13, 2013 entered into a Compliance Order on Consent with the Department and paid a penalty of less than $0.1 million and paid for a Supplemental Environmental Project to benefit the public at large in an amount less than $0.1 million. Denver was served with a final Compliance Order and Assessment of Administrative Penalty against Denver alone for approximately $0.2 million. Under Walsh's environmental consulting contract with Denver, Walsh has agreed to indemnify Denver for certain liabilities where Walsh could potentially be held responsible for a portion of the penalty imposed upon Denver. Walsh has put its professional liability and general liability carriers on notice of this indemnification claim by Denver. The Company believes that this administrative proceeding involving Walsh will not have an adverse material effect upon the operations of the Company. Ecology and Environment, Inc. (E&E) is an environmental consulting firm. E&E has completed more than 50,000 projects for a range of clients in 113 countries, providing environmental solutions. The Company has rendered consulting services to commercial and government clients in a range of service sectors, such as energy, natural resource management/restoration, green programs, planning, emergency planning and management, hazardous material services, international and health sciences. Its revenues originate from federal, state and local governments, domestic private clients, and private and governmental international clients. On March 18, 2011 the Company acquired another 5.5% of its majority owned subsidiary Walsh Environmental Scientists & Engineers, LLC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt plc Has 11,500 Pending Cases ---------------------------------------------------------- There were approximately 11,500 asbestos-related cases pending against Mallinckrodt public limited company, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 27, 2013. The Company states: "Beginning with lawsuits brought in July 1976, we are also named as a defendant in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials. A majority of the cases involve product liability claims based principally on allegations of past distribution of products containing asbestos. A limited number of the cases allege premises liability based on claims that individuals were exposed to asbestos while on our property. Each case typically names dozens of corporate defendants in addition to us. The complaints generally seek monetary damages for personal injury or bodily injury resulting from alleged exposure to products containing asbestos. Our involvement in asbestos cases has been limited because we did not mine or produce asbestos. Furthermore, in our experience, a large percentage of these claims have never been substantiated and have been dismissed by the courts. We have not suffered an adverse verdict in a trial court proceeding related to asbestos claims and intend to continue to defend these lawsuits. When appropriate, we settle claims; however, amounts paid to settle and defend all asbestos claims have been immaterial. As of September 27, 2013, there were approximately 11,500 asbestos-related cases pending against us. We estimate pending asbestos claims and claims that were incurred but not reported and related insurance recoveries. We estimate our liability for pending and future claims based on claims experience over the past five years and covers claims either currently filed or expected to be filed over the next seven years. We believe that we have adequate amounts recorded related to these matters. While it is not possible at this time to determine with certainty the ultimate outcome of these asbestos- related proceedings, we believe that the final outcome of all known and anticipated future claims, after taking into account amounts already accrued, along with recoveries from insurance, will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows." Mallinckrodt public limited company (Mallinckrodt) is a global specialty pharmaceuticals company. The Company develops, manufactures, markets and distributes both branded and generic specialty pharmaceuticals, active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) and diagnostic imaging agents. The Company uses its API products in the manufacture of its generic pharmaceuticals and also sells them to other pharmaceutical companies. The Company operates through two segments. The Specialty Pharmaceuticals segment develops, manufactures and sells, through its Brands business, drugs, including EXALGO (hydromorphone HCl) Extended-Release Tablets and GABLOFEN (baclofen injection). The Global Medical Imaging segment develops, manufactures and markets contrast media and delivery systems (CMDS). On June 28, 2013, Covidien plc completed the separation of its Pharmaceuticals business and transferred the Pharmaceuticals business to Mallinckrodt. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Creditors Can Sue RPM Int'l.'s Bankrupt Unit ------------------------------------------------------------- A bankruptcy court gave an official committee of creditors appointed in the Chapter 11 case of Special Products Holdings Corp. standing to pursue claims against RPM International Inc., according to the Company's Form 8-K dated November 1, 2013, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 26, 2013. As previously disclosed by RPM International Inc., on May 31, 2010, two subsidiaries of the Company -- Bondex International, Inc. and its parent, Specialty Products Holding Corp. -- filed voluntary petitions in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware to reorganize under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. SPHC and Bondex took this action in an effort to permanently and comprehensively resolve all pending and future asbestos-related liability claims associated with Bondex and SPHC. As a result of the filing, all litigation related to Bondex and SPHC asbestos personal injury claims has been stayed. The objective of the bankruptcy proceedings is to enable the filing entities to establish a section 524(g) trust accompanied by a court order that will direct all existing and future SPHC-related and Bondex-related claims to such trust, which will then compensate asbestos claimants based upon factors set forth in an approved plan of reorganization. Since the date of the filing, and in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, the financial results of SPHC and Bondex have been deconsolidated from those of the Company. At a hearing held on November 13, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court granted the motion of the Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants and the Future Claimants' Representative for standing to pursue SPHC estate claims against the Company, certain of its current and former directors and executive officers, and third party advisors. The Company anticipated that the ACC/FCR might be permitted to pursue claims on behalf of the SPHC and Bondex estates against the Company. The Company believes that the alleged SPHC estate claims are without merit and, if such claims are made, intends to contest them vigorously. As a further update to the bankruptcy proceedings, both the Debtors and the ACC/FCR have filed proposed plans of reorganization with the Bankruptcy Court. The Debtors' proposed plan, which is supported by the Company, would establish an asbestos trust to compensate legitimate asbestos claimants of the Debtors. The asbestos trust would be funded by two notes (one issued by SPHC and the Company as co- obligors, the other issued by Bondex and the Company as co- obligors). The notes would provide for an initial payment of $125 million to the trust. Additional payments under the notes would be determined by the final outcome (whether by court order or settlement) of the pending litigation of the estimated value of the Debtors' asbestos claims and the anticipated litigation of the SPHC estate claims against the Company and other parties and possibly Bondex estate claims against the Company and other parties. The note payments would be made in cash or shares of the Company's common stock. Upon consummation of the plan, SPHC and Bondex would continue to be wholly owned direct and indirect subsidiaries, respectively, of the Company and have no further liability with respect to asbestos claims. The Company and its affiliates would likewise have no liability for such claims under the proposed plan, except as may be determined in the litigation of the SPHC and Bondex estate claims described above. The proposed ACC/FCR plan, which is opposed by the Debtors and the Company, is an SPHC-only plan. It likewise provides for the creation of an asbestos trust, but only for SPHC asbestos claims. Pursuant to the ACC/FCR plan, the Company's equity interest in SPHC would be cancelled, and 100% of the new stock in SPHC would be issued to the asbestos trust. Although the ACC/FCR plan would permanently protect SPHC against current and future asbestos claims, it would provide no protection to the Company and its affiliates and would contemplate that the Company would again be subject to suit in the tort system by current and future asbestos claimants of SPHC and Bondex. In addition, the plan would provide that the asbestos trust could sue the Company and its affiliates with respect to any claims that SPHC holds against them. The Bankruptcy Court scheduled a hearing with respect to the two plans for December 17, 2013. At or subsequent to that hearing, the Bankruptcy Court may take a variety of actions, including ordering one or both of the plans to be submitted to creditors for a vote, or determining not to authorize the submission of either of the plans to a vote. A vote of the creditors is an interim step toward the ultimate confirmation of a plan, which would remain subject to further proceedings before the Bankruptcy Court and the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the "District Court"), and potential appeals of actions taken by those courts. The Debtors contend that the ACC/FCR plan is not confirmable, and the ACC/FCR have made similar contentions with respect to the Debtors' plan. The Company has no basis to make a determination as to whether either of the proposed plans of reorganization will be confirmed or otherwise move forward, or as to when, or whether, a consensual resolution of the bankruptcy proceedings will be reached, or as to the terms and conditions that may be set forth in any plan of reorganization that may ultimately be confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court, whether by agreement or otherwise. As previously disclosed, the Bankruptcy Court issued an opinion in May 2013 estimating the current and future asbestos claims associated with Bondex and SPHC at approximately $1.17 billion, which represented one step in the legal process in helping to determine the amount of potential funding for a 524(g) asbestos trust. The Debtors firmly believe that the opinion substantially overstates the amount of their liability and is not supported by the facts or the law, and the Debtors and the Company have appealed the ruling. Since the Company's most recent disclosures, those appeals have since been consolidated by the District Court and are pending in that court. The ACC/FCR have filed a motion to dismiss the appeals and the Debtors and the Company have filed a motion seeking certification of the estimation order for direct review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Both motions are opposed and both remain pending. Briefing of the appeal has been stayed pending the disposition of the motions. Unless the motions to dismiss and for certification pending in the District Court are ruled on in the near term, the Company currently expects that the appeal process could take an additional two to three years. RPM International Inc. (RPM), through its subsidiaries manufactures, markets and sells various specialty chemical product lines, including specialty paints, protective coatings, roofing systems, sealants and adhesives. The Company's family of products includes those marketed under brand names, such as Carboline, DAP, EUCO, Fibergrate, Flecto, Flowcrete, Hummervoll, Universal Sealants, illbruck, Rust-Oleum, Stonhard, Tremco, Watco and Zinsser. RPM's business is divided into two reportable segments: the industrial reportable segment (industrial segment) and the consumer reportable segment (consumer segment). The industrial segment (RPM Building Solutions Group, Performance Coatings Group and RPM2 Group), which comprises approximately 65% of its total net sales, includes maintenance and protection products for roofing and waterproofing systems, flooring, corrosion control and other specialty applications. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Had $463-Mil. Reserves at September 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- Ashland Inc. had $463 million total reserves for asbestos claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2013. Ashland and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Hercules, have liabilities from claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos. To assist in developing and annually updating independent reserve estimates for future asbestos claims and related costs given various assumptions, Ashland retained Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Associates, Inc. The methodology used by HR&A to project future asbestos costs is based largely on recent experience, including claim-filing and settlement rates, disease mix, enacted legislation, open claims and litigation defense. The claim experience of Ashland and Hercules are separately compared to the results of previously conducted third party epidemiological studies estimating the number of people likely to develop asbestos-related diseases. Those studies were undertaken in connection with national analyses of the population expected to have been exposed to asbestos. Using that information, HR&A estimates a range of the number of future claims that may be filed, as well as the related costs that may be incurred in resolving those claims. Changes in asbestos-related liabilities and receivables are recorded on an after-tax basis within the discontinued operations caption in the Statements of Consolidated Comprehensive Income. The claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos asserted against Ashland result primarily from indemnification obligations undertaken in 1990 in connection with the sale of Riley Stoker Corporation, a former subsidiary. The amount and timing of settlements and number of open claims can fluctuate significantly from period to period. From the range of estimates, Ashland records the amount it believes to be the best estimate of future payments for litigation defense and claim settlement costs, which generally approximates the mid-point of the estimated range of exposure from model results. Ashland reviews this estimate and related assumptions quarterly and annually updates the results of a non-inflated, non- discounted approximate 50-year model developed with the assistance of HR&A. During the most recent update, completed during 2013, it was determined that the liability for Ashland asbestos claims should be decreased by $28 million. Total reserves for asbestos claims were $463 million at September 30, 2013 compared to $522 million at September 30, 2012. Ashland has insurance coverage for most of the litigation defense and claim settlement costs incurred in connection with its asbestos claims, and coverage-in-place agreements exist with the insurance companies that provide most of the coverage currently being accessed. As a result, any increases in the asbestos reserve have been largely offset by probable insurance recoveries. The amounts not recoverable generally are due from insurers that are insolvent, rather than as a result of uninsured claims or the exhaustion of Ashland's insurance coverage. For the Ashland asbestos-related obligations, Ashland has estimated the value of probable insurance recoveries associated with its asbestos reserve based on management's interpretations and estimates surrounding the available or applicable insurance coverage, including an assumption that all solvent insurance carriers remain solvent. Approximately 65% of the estimated receivables from insurance companies are expected to be due from domestic insurers, all of which have a credit rating of B+ or higher by A. M. Best, as of September 30, 2013. The remainder of the insurance receivable is due from London insurance companies, which generally have lower credit quality ratings, and from Underwriters at Lloyd's, whose insurance policy obligations have been transferred to a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway. Ashland discounts this portion of the receivable based upon the projected timing of the receipt of cash from those insurers unless likely settlement amounts can be determined. During 2012, Ashland received $7 million in cash after reaching a settlement with certain insolvent London market insurance companies. The cash received from this settlement during the current period was recognized as an after-tax gain of $6 million within discontinued operations of the Statement of Consolidated Comprehensive Income since Ashland's policy is to not record asbestos receivables for any carriers that are insolvent until cash is received. In October 2012, Ashland initiated arbitration proceedings against Underwriters at Lloyd's and certain Chartis (AIG member) companies seeking to enforce these insurers' contractual obligations to provide indemnity for asbestos liabilities and defense costs under existing coverage-in-place agreements. In addition, Ashland has initiated a lawsuit in Kentucky state court against certain Berkshire Hathaway entities (National Indemnity Company and Resolute Management Inc.) on grounds that these Berkshire entities have wrongfully interfered with Underwriters' and Chartis' performance of their respective contractual obligations to provide asbestos coverage by directing the insurers to reduce and delay certain claim payments. While Ashland anticipates its position will be supported by the proceedings, an adverse resolution of these proceedings could have a significant effect on the timing of loss reimbursement and the amount of Ashland's recorded insurance receivables from these insurers. At September 30, 2013, Ashland's receivable for recoveries of litigation defense and claim settlement costs from insurers amounted to $408 million (excluding the Hercules receivable for asbestos claims), of which $88 million relates to costs previously paid. Receivables from insurers amounted to $423 million at September 30, 2012. During 2013, the model used for purposes of valuing the asbestos reserve described above, and its impact on valuation of future recoveries from insurers, was updated. This model update resulted in a $3 million decrease in the receivable for probable insurance recoveries. Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a global specialty chemical company that provides products, services and solutions throughout a variety of industries. Ashland's business operates in four segments: Ashland Specialty Ingredients; Ashland Water Technologies; Ashland Performance Materials and Ashland Consumer Markets. On March 31, 2011, Ashland completed the sale of substantially all of the assets of its global distribution business to Nexeo Solutions, LLC. On August 23, 2011, Ashland completed the acquisition of International Specialty Products Inc. (ISP). In January 2012, Celanese Corporation acquired certain assets from Ashland, which include two product lines, Vinac and Flexbond. In October 2012, the Company had set up a specialties technical research and development centre in Mumbai to support producers of personal and home care products in India and southeast Asia. In April 2013, JANA Partners LLC acquired a 7.361% stake in Ashland Inc. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Subsidiary Had $342-Mil. Total Reserves ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ashland Inc.'s subsidiary, Hercules, reported reserves for asbestos-related claims totaling $342 million at September 30, 2013, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2013. Hercules, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ashland, acquired during 2009, has liabilities from claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos. Such claims typically arise from alleged exposure to asbestos fibers from resin encapsulated pipe and tank products which were sold by one of Hercules' former subsidiaries to a limited industrial market. The amount and timing of settlements and number of open claims can fluctuate significantly from period to period. From the range of estimates, Ashland records the amount it believes to be the best estimate of future payments for litigation defense and claim settlement costs, which generally approximates the mid-point of the estimated range of exposure from model results. Ashland reviews this estimate and related assumptions quarterly and annually updates the results of a non-inflated, non- discounted approximate 50-year model developed with the assistance of HR&A. During the most recent annual update of this estimate, completed during 2013, it was determined that the liability for Hercules asbestos-related claims should be increased by $46 million. Total reserves for asbestos claims were $342 million at September 30, 2013 compared to $320 million at September 30, 2012. For the Hercules asbestos-related obligations, certain coverage- in-place agreements with insurance carriers exist. As a result, any increases in the asbestos reserve have been partially offset by probable insurance recoveries. Ashland has estimated the value of probable insurance recoveries associated with its asbestos reserve based on management's interpretations and estimates surrounding the available or applicable insurance coverage, including an assumption that all solvent insurance carriers remain solvent. As of September 30, 2013, this estimated receivable consists exclusively of domestic insurers, all of which have a credit rating of B+ or higher by A. M. Best. As of September 30, 2013 and 2012, the receivables from insurers amounted to $75 million and $56 million, respectively. During 2013, the model used for purposes of valuing the asbestos reserve and its impact on valuation of future recoveries from insurers was updated. This model update caused a $19 million increase in the receivable for probable insurance recoveries. Projecting future asbestos costs is subject to numerous variables that are extremely difficult to predict. In addition to the significant uncertainties surrounding the number of claims that might be received, other variables include the type and severity of the disease alleged by each claimant, the long latency period associated with asbestos exposure, dismissal rates, costs of medical treatment, the impact of bankruptcies of other companies that are co-defendants in claims, uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, and the impact of potential changes in legislative or judicial standards. Furthermore, any predictions with respect to these variables are subject to even greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens. In light of these inherent uncertainties, Ashland believes that the asbestos reserves for Ashland and Hercules represent the best estimate within a range of possible outcomes. As a part of the process to develop these estimates of future asbestos costs, a range of long-term cost models was developed. These models are based on national studies that predict the number of people likely to develop asbestos- related diseases and are heavily influenced by assumptions regarding long-term inflation rates for indemnity payments and legal defense costs, as well as other variables mentioned previously. Ashland has currently estimated in various models ranging from approximately 40 to 50 year periods that it is reasonably possible that total future litigation defense and claim settlement costs on an inflated and undiscounted basis could range as high as approximately $740 million for the Ashland asbestos- related litigation and approximately $640 million for the Hercules asbestos-related litigation (or approximately $1.4 billion in the aggregate), depending on the combination of assumptions selected in the various models. If actual experience is worse than projected relative to the number of claims filed, the severity of alleged disease associated with those claims or costs incurred to resolve those claims, Ashland may need to increase further the estimates of the costs associated with asbestos claims and these increases could potentially be material over time. Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a global specialty chemical company that provides products, services and solutions throughout a variety of industries. Ashland's business operates in four segments: Ashland Specialty Ingredients; Ashland Water Technologies; Ashland Performance Materials and Ashland Consumer Markets. On March 31, 2011, Ashland completed the sale of substantially all of the assets of its global distribution business to Nexeo Solutions, LLC. On August 23, 2011, Ashland completed the acquisition of International Specialty Products Inc. (ISP). In January 2012, Celanese Corporation acquired certain assets from Ashland, which include two product lines, Vinac and Flexbond. In October 2012, the Company had set up a specialties technical research and development centre in Mumbai to support producers of personal and home care products in India and southeast Asia. In April 2013, JANA Partners LLC acquired a 7.361% stake in Ashland Inc. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Corp. Continues to Defend PI Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Cabot Corporation continues to defend itself against personal injury claims, including asbestosis, arising from its respiratory products, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2013. The Company states: "We have exposure in connection with a safety respiratory products business that a subsidiary acquired from American Optical Corporation ("AO") in an April 1990 asset purchase transaction. The subsidiary manufactured respirators under the AO brand and disposed of that business in July 1995. In connection with its acquisition of the business, the subsidiary agreed, in certain circumstances, to assume a portion of AO's liabilities, including costs of legal fees together with amounts paid in settlements and judgments, allocable to AO respiratory products used prior to the 1990 purchase by the Cabot subsidiary. In exchange for the subsidiary's assumption of certain of AO's respirator liabilities, AO agreed to provide to the subsidiary the benefits of: (i) AO's insurance coverage for the period prior to the 1990 acquisition and (ii) a former owner's indemnity of AO holding it harmless from any liability allocable to AO respiratory products used prior to May 1982. Generally, these respirator liabilities involve claims for personal injury, including asbestosis, silicosis and coal worker's pneumoconiosis, allegedly resulting from the use of respirators that are claimed to have been negligently designed or labeled. Neither Cabot, nor its past or present subsidiaries, at any time manufactured asbestos or asbestos-containing products. At no time did this respiratory product line represent a significant portion of the respirator market. The subsidiary transferred the business to Aearo Corporation ("Aearo") in July 1995. Cabot agreed to have the subsidiary retain certain liabilities associated with exposure to asbestos and silica while using respirators prior to the 1995 transaction so long as Aearo paid, and continues to pay, Cabot an annual fee of $400,000. Aearo can discontinue payment of the fee at any time, in which case it will assume the responsibility for and indemnify Cabot against those liabilities which Cabot's subsidiary had agreed to retain. We anticipate that we will continue to receive payment of the $400,000 fee from Aearo and thereby retain these liabilities for the foreseeable future. We have no liability in connection with any products manufactured by Aearo after 1995. In addition to Cabot's subsidiary, other parties are responsible for significant portions of the costs of respirator liabilities, leaving Cabot's subsidiary with a portion of the liability in only some of the pending cases. These parties include Aearo, AO, AO's insurers, and another former owner and its insurers (collectively, with Cabot's subsidiary, the "Payor Group"). As of both September 30, 2013 and 2012, there were approximately 42,000 claimants in pending cases asserting claims against AO in connection with respiratory products. Cabot has contributed to the Payor Group's defense and settlement costs with respect to a percentage of pending claims depending on several factors, including the period of alleged product use. In order to quantify our estimated share of liability for pending and future respirator liability claims, we have engaged, through counsel, the assistance of Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. ("HR&A"), a leading consulting firm in the field of tort liability valuation. The methodology used by HR&A addresses the complexities surrounding our potential liability by making assumptions about future claimants with respect to periods of asbestos, silica and coal mine dust exposure and respirator use. Using those and other assumptions, HR&A estimates the number of future asbestos, silica and coal mine dust claims that will be filed and the related costs that would be incurred in resolving both currently pending and future claims. On this basis, HR&A then estimates the net present value of the share of these liabilities that reflect our period of direct manufacture and our contractual obligations. Based on the HR&A estimates, we have recorded on a discounted basis an $11 million reserve ($15 million on an undiscounted basis) to cover our estimated share of liability for pending and future respirator claims. We made payments related to our respirator liability of $2 million in fiscal 2013, $2 million in fiscal 2012 and $5 million in fiscal 2011. Our current estimate of the cost of our share of existing and future respirator liability claims is based on facts and circumstances existing at this time. Developments that could affect our estimate include, but are not limited to, (i) significant changes in the number of future claims, (ii) changes in the rate of dismissals without payment of pending silica and non-malignant asbestos claims, (iii) significant changes in the average cost of resolving claims, (iv) significant changes in the legal costs of defending these claims, (v) changes in the nature of claims received, (vi) changes in the law and procedure applicable to these claims, (vii) the financial viability of members of the Payor Group, (viii) a change in the availability of AO's insurance coverage or the indemnity provided by AO's former owner, (ix) changes in the allocation of costs among the Payor Group, and (x) a determination that the assumptions that were used to estimate our share of liability are no longer reasonable. We cannot determine the impact of these potential developments on our current estimate of our share of liability for these existing and future claims. Accordingly, the actual amount of these liabilities for existing and future claims could be different than the reserved amount. Further, if the timing of our actual payments made for respirator claims differs significantly from our estimated payment schedule, and we determine that we can no longer reasonably predict the timing of such payments, we could then be required to record the reserve amount on an undiscounted basis on our Consolidated Balance Sheets, causing an immediate impact to earnings." Cabot Corporation is a global specialty chemicals and performance materials company headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Our principal products are rubber and specialty grade carbon blacks, fumed metal oxides, inkjet colorants, aerogel, cesium formate drilling fluids and activated carbon. Cabot and its affiliates have manufacturing facilities and operations in the United States and over 20 other countries. Cabot's business was founded in 1882 and incorporated in the State of Delaware in 1960. ********* 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., Washington, D.C., USA. Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2014. 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 $775 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 A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200. * * * End of Transmission * * *