/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140606.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, June 6, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 112 Headlines AMERICAN SAVINGS: Pursues Bid to Dismiss Overdraft Fees Lawsuit APPLE INC: Judge Tosses Argument in Bag Check Class Action BUMBLE BEE: Removed "Garrett" Suit to N.D. Calif. CHARLES SCHWAB: Nixing of Total Bond Market Fund Claims Appealed ENTERPRISE OPERATING: Did Not Pay Exotic Entertainers, Suit Says FMC CORP: Faces Antitrust Suits in Canada, Europe Over Peroxygens GOYA FOODS: "Park" Suit Moved to Southern District of California GOYA FOODS: "Perez" Class Suit Transferred to S.D. California IDS PROPERTY: Removed "Achziger" Class Suit to W.D. Washington IEC ELECTRONICS: Faces Shareholder Suit; Under SEC Investigation IM SOLUTIONS: Accused of Trademark Infringement in E.D. Oklahoma IMMUNOMEDICS INC: "Nasyrova" Plaintiffs Compete for Lead Status INTERNATIONAL GAME: No Ruling Yet in VLT Gaming Suit in Canada INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Faces Antitrust Lawsuit Over Containerboard INTERNATIONAL PAPER: U.S. Lawsuit Over Gypsum Board in Discovery INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Dismissal of Guaranty-Related Suit Appealed JACO OIL: Sued for Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act in Cal. KEY OIL: Removed "Cumpston" Suit to N.D. W.Va. KIRBY CORP: Faces Suit for Business Interruption, Loss of Profit LEAR CORP: Inks Agreement to Settle Antitrust Suit for $8.75MM LEAR CORP: Still Faces Canadian Auto Wire Harness Antitrust Suits LEGGETT & PLATT: Appeal Hearing Set in Ohio Antitrust Lawsuit LEGGETT & PLATT: Still Faces Canadian Suit Over Polyurethane Foam LEGGETT & PLATT: Court Hears Motion to Certify Mo. Antitrust Suit LEWIS ENERGY: Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA MATTONE RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Suit Says MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Files Motion to Junk Tex. Stock Lawsuit MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA: Removed "Taylor" Suit to N.D. Oklahoma OLD REPUBLIC: ORNTIC Contests Certification in "Markocki" Lawsuit OLD REPUBLIC: No Class Yet in RESPA Violations Suits v. RMIC OVERSTOCK.COM INSURANCE: Sued Over Phone Calls' Illegal Recording PFIZER INC: Seeks to Quash Depositions of High-Ranking Executives PUBLIX SUPER: Class Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay and Damages RONAN CITY, MT: Accused of Violating Class Members' Civil Rights RSI ENTERPRISES: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES: "Vega" Labor Litigation Settled, Concluded SOTHEBY'S INC: U.S. Artists Appeal Dismissal of Suit in Calif. SOTHEBY'S INC: No Injunction Granted in Suit Over "Proxy Puts" SOTHEBY'S INC: No Injunction Granted in Suit by La. Retirees SUNTRUST BANKS: Bares Effect of Credit Card Antitrust Suit Accord SUNTRUST BANKS: Suits v. STRH Remain After Lehman Accord SUNTRUST BANKS: Colonial BancGroup Stock Suit Partly Dismissed SUNTRUST BANKS: "Bickerstaff" Plaintiffs Pursue Class Status SUNTRUST BANKS: ERISA Suit Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Claims SUNTRUST BANKS: Dismissal of Claims in Mutual Funds Suit Appealed SUNTRUST BANKS: "Mahdavieh" Suit Sent to S.D. Florida SUNTRUST BANKS: Updates on Mortgage Reinsurance Lawsuits v. STM THORATEC CORP: Shareholders Have Until June to File Amended Suit TIBET PHARMACEUTICALS: "Yang" Suit Transferred to New Jersey TOTAL FRAC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under WARN Act UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Securities Suit v. PSI Continues in Tenn. Court US BANK: Calif. Supreme Court Tosses $15-Mil. Overtime Award VISION ONE: "Reverie" Suit Moved From Washington to Minnesota VOSS LAW: Settles Paralegals' FLSA Overtime Lawsuit WALGREENS CO: Enters Into Conditional Settlement in Labeling Suit WELLS FARGO: Settles Securities Action by Minn. Retirement System * Number of TCPA Class Action Filings in N.Y. Likely to Increase Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graybar Electric Had 3,200 Fibro Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bel Fuse Settles Becker v. Adience Lawsuit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pacific Office Records ARO for Fibro Removal ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Indemnity Has $50MM Reserves for A&E Loss ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECO Had 173 Fibro Cases Pending at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Had 269 Fibro Cases at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Power Continues to Defend Fibro Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Inc. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: International Shipholding Had $299MM Reserves ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valhi Inc. Subsidiary Has 1,130 Pending PI Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Had 8,319 Pending Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: GenCorp Had 132 Pending Cases as of February 28 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit v. GenCorp Unit Remains Pending in La. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific Had $129MM Liability at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Continues to Fund NARCO Trust ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had 12,884 Unresolved Bendix Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Reports $200,000 Litigation Expenses ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair Ltd. Records $254.1-Mil. Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Cos. Has $2.31-Bil. Net Reserves ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Records $829.5-Mil Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Continues to Defend PI Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Industries Continues to Defend Fibro Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: CB&I Had 1,500 Fibro Claims Pending at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had 22,548 Unresolved Claims at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: 24 Filter Cases v. Lorillard Scheduled for Trial ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coca-Cola Awaits Ruling in Insurance Suit Appeal ASBESTOS UPDATE: PC Plan Confirmation Appeals Remain Pending ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACMI OK'd to Amend Indemnification Suit v. FFIC ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Says Ex-Stimson Worker Has Fibro Illness ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order Denying Ex-Workers' Award Upheld ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inmate's Suit Denied for Failure to State Claim ASBESTOS UPDATE: Atty Admission Bids OK'd in Ford v. Garlock Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: R&Q May File More Docs in Reinsurance Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Insurance Suit Headed for Arbitration ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Insurers' Bid for Reargument Denied ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fluor Corp. Dropped as Defendant in "Ricco" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Denies Bid to Remand "Vedros" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Freeman" Suit Remanded to Louisiana State Court ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Denies Bid to Remand "Fulwider" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: 10th Cir. Upholds Disability Benefits Suit Order ASBESTOS UPDATE: Late Filing Leads to "Gensler" Suit Dismissal ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Judge Recommends Remand of "Genusa" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Ruling in "Groover" Suit Upheld ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Dropped as Defendant in "Gurnett" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Denies Bid to Remand "Hasenberg" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Affirms Ruling in "Hellam" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Morse Diesel Awarded Summary Judgment in PI Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goulds' Summary Judgment Award in PI Suit Upheld ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Dismisses Inmate's Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Conalco Dropped as Defendant in "Moseley" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bill of Costs in "Kinser" Suit Partially Granted ASBESTOS UPDATE: North Carolina Court Dismisses "Lee" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2nd Cir. Affirms Ruling in "McCormick" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Affirms Ruling in "Kestenbaum" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Affirms Ruling in Suits v. Jenkins Bros. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bids to Dismiss "McKim" Suit Conditionally OK'd ASBESTOS UPDATE: Miss. High Court Reverses Ruling in PI Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Abatement Resumes at Middle School ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Combs Site Where Fibro was Illegally Handled ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Led to Death of Former Resort Welder ASBESTOS UPDATE: Worcester Firm Fined $16,137 Over Removal ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Dumpers Sought by Authorities ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Chamber Commends Introduction of Fibro Bill ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suspected Fibro Found Illegally Dumped in Park ASBESTOS UPDATE: Holroyd Helps Residents Solve Fibro Disposal ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Risk Closes NZ School for Another Week ASBESTOS UPDATE: Demolition Company Fined for Dumping Fibro Waste ASBESTOS UPDATE: Group's Fury Over Lawyers' 25% Cut of Claim ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scare Shuts Down Blacktown Hospital Upgrade ASBESTOS UPDATE: PennDOT to Remove Asphalt Containing Fibro ASBESTOS UPDATE: Collegiate Governors Fined for Fibro Discovery ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fire, Fibro Close University Biology Building ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Extends Work on Route 42 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bags of Fibro Dumped in Stockholds Lane ASBESTOS UPDATE: Charleston Airport Wants to Recoup Fibro Losses ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Begins Demolition Before Fibro Check ASBESTOS UPDATE: "300 Week" Standard Not Applicable in Meso Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order Giving Access to Garlock Filings Stayed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suffolk DA Eyes Possible Illegal Dumping at Park ASBESTOS UPDATE: Salvage Owner Guilty of Fibro-Related Charges ASBESTOS UPDATE: Children Could be Exposed to Fibro at School ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found on LE Aoife Should Have Been Removed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Row Erupts Over GBP4.5-Mil. Flat Demolition ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Receives No Compensation in Legal Bid ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jamaica Plain Contractor Fined for Violations ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal at Lincoln Center to Start ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Exposed to Toxic Dust at Wokingham Site ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alex Neil Blamed Over Hospital Wards' Fibro ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSPs Clash on Fibro Parliament Debate "Snub" ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACT Decides Not to Identify Fibro-Filled Homes ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meeting Held on Hospital's Future ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Doncaster Men Jailed in Illegal Waste Case ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Agency Not "Window Dressing" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inquest Blames Fibro for Speldhurst Man's Death ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow of Former Shipyard Worker Files Fibro Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Making Roadwork on Pa. Street More Tedious ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Compensation for Widow for Husband's Death ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claimants Want to Limit Garlock Docs Access ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock FCR Supports Deadline for Fibro Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mr. Fluffy Found in Bags Under House ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gov't Adds to Registry to Better Protect Workers ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ed Lauter Fibro Lawsuit Casts Wide Net ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found at Chichester's County Hall ASBESTOS UPDATE: Supervisor Strips Fibro Without Face Mask ASBESTOS UPDATE: Delays Add to Fibro Risk ASBESTOS UPDATE: Red Rock Elementary School Fibro-Free ASBESTOS UPDATE: Disposal Costs Blamed for Illegal Fibro Dumping ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow of Fibro Exposure Victim Launches Appeal ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG & Resolute OK'd to Join in Access Info Bid ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenn. High Court Flips Ruling in "Blackmon" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: OSG PI Claimants Allowed to Proceed with Appeals ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Flips Ruling in Take-Home Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ga. Court Affirms Judgment in "Fields" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4th Cir. Affirms Order in Colgate Exposure Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleaver-Brooks Bid to Vacate NOI in Suits Denied ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Reverses Ruling in "Fields" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling Denying Dependent Benefits Claim Affirmed ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6th Cir. Keeps Ruling in Legal Malpractice Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appleton Denied Summary Judgment in NY PI Suit ********* AMERICAN SAVINGS: Pursues Bid to Dismiss Overdraft Fees Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The appeal of American Savings Bank, F.S.B. from an order denying dismissal of a suit over overdraft fees on debit card transactions is currently pending before the Hawaii Supreme Court, according to Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc.'s May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. In March 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the First Circuit Court of the state of Hawaii by a customer who claimed that ASB had improperly charged overdraft fees on debit card transactions. The lawsuit is still in its preliminary stage. ASB filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on the basis that as a bank chartered under federal law, ASB believes its business practices are governed by federal regulations established for federal savings banks and not by state law. In July 2011, the Circuit Court denied ASB's motion and ASB appealed that decision. ASB's appeal is currently pending before the Hawaii Supreme Court. APPLE INC: Judge Tosses Argument in Bag Check Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that U.S. District Judge William Alsup isn't ready to accept Apple's argument that its employees choose to submit to the company's security screenings and therefore can't demand wages for time spent waiting in line and undergoing searches. "The summary judgment record is at best ambiguous about whether the security screenings were mandatory for at least some locations and circumstances," Judge Alsup wrote in an order on May 30 denying Apple's motion for summary judgment in Frlekin v. Apple, 13-3451. Judge Alsup also decided to stay the Northern District case pending the Supreme Court's ruling in Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk, a similar case in which employees were not compensated for time spent waiting to pass through metal detectors. In arguments, McLaughlin & Stern partner Lee Shalov -- lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com -- told Judge Alsup Apple's bag checks are mandatory and are performed for the benefit of Apple, which means employees are entitled to compensation under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. But Apple lawyer Julie Dunne, cochairwoman of Littler Mendelson's retail practice group, argued the checks are in fact optional because employees are only screened if they choose to bring bags or personal Apple products to work. Attorneys from both sides did not return phone messages Friday seeking comment. In his order, Judge Alsup took issue with Apple's position. "Apple employees may need to bring a bag to work for reasons they cannot control, such as the need for medication, feminine hygiene products, or disability accommodations," he wrote. He distinguished two cases cited by Apple in which courts held employees were not entitled to compensation for time spent taking an employer-provided bus or van to work. Opting to take the provided transportation rather than finding another way to get to work would be a choice based on personal convenience, not the "necessities of life" that could require Apple employees to bring a bag to work, Judge Alsup wrote. The judge also expressed concern with many lingering questions of fact in the case. Even something as simple as the interpretation of the word "bag" is up for debate, as one plaintiff testified she was not checked if she brought only a wallet to work, but another testified he was checked if he wore a jacket with pockets. There is also the question of whether employees without bags must still wait in line, or whether they are waved through, Judge Alsup wrote. "The record in this action . . . involves many varying fact patterns and lends itself to a myriad of different interpretations of Apple's policy and practice regarding when an employee is required to undergo a security screening," he wrote. "To be of more assistance to our court of appeals, it would be better to hold a trial (or at least produce a more comprehensive record) and then decide the fact issues." But that trial may be postponed until the spring of 2015, when Judge Alsup expects the Supreme Court to rule in Integrity Staffing. That ruling could control the outcome of the federal claims in the Apple case. But Judge Alsup instructed both sides to continue with discovery on the state law claims, which might survive even if the federal claims are rendered moot. BUMBLE BEE: Removed "Garrett" Suit to N.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------- The purported class action lawsuit titled Garrett, et al. v. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-264322, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-02546- HRL to the proceeding. The case is a putative statewide class action challenging statements on the labels of certain Bumble Bee products. According to Plaintiffs Patrick Garrett, Jeff Mains and Linda Eustice, Bumble Bee's products violated federal and state labeling laws and regulations governing Omega-3 claims and American Heart Association seals on food product labels. The Defendant is represented by: Forrest A. Hainline III, Esq. Patrick S. Thompson, Esq. Robert B. Bader, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP Three Embarcadero Center, 24th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 733-6000 Facsimile: (415) 677-9041 E-mail: fhainline@goodwinprocter.com pthompson@goodwinprocter.com rbader@goodwinprocter.com CHARLES SCHWAB: Nixing of Total Bond Market Fund Claims Appealed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in a suit by investors in the Schwab Total Bond Market Fund have again appealed the dismissal of their claims to the Ninth Circuit Court, where the case is currently pending, according to The Charles Schwab Corporation's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On August 28, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of investors in the Schwab Total Bond Market Fund (Northstar lawsuit). The lawsuit, which alleges violations of state law and federal securities law in connection with the fund's investment policy, names Schwab Investments (registrant and issuer of the fund's shares) and CSIM as defendants. Allegations include that the fund improperly deviated from its stated investment objectives by investing in collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) and investing more than 25% of fund assets in CMOs and mortgage-backed securities without obtaining a shareholder vote. Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and rescission damages, unspecified equitable and injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs' federal securities law claim and certain of plaintiffs' state law claims were dismissed in proceedings before the court and following a successful petition by defendants to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On August 8, 2011, the court dismissed plaintiffs' remaining claims with prejudice. Plaintiffs have again appealed to the Ninth Circuit, where the case is currently pending. ENTERPRISE OPERATING: Did Not Pay Exotic Entertainers, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Stephanie Toporcer, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Enterprise Operating Company d/b/a St. James Restaurant & Cabaret and Pete Garland, Case No. 3:14-cv-00167 (S.D. Tex., May 16, 2014) implicates the Defendants' alleged longstanding policy of misclassifying their employees as independent contractors. Ms. Toporcer alleges that the Defendants required and permitted her to work as an entertainer at their adult entertainment club, but refused to compensate her at the applicable minimum wage and overtime rate. In fact, she notes, the Defendants refused to compensate her at all for the hours she worked, and her only compensation was in the form of tips from club patrons. Enterprise Operating Company, doing business as St. James Restaurant & Cabaret is a domestic corporation doing business in Texas. Pete Garland is the owner and manager of St. James. The Defendants operate an adult entertainment club in Houston, Texas, under the name of St. James Restaurant & Cabaret. They employ exotic entertainers at St. James. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Assaad, Esq. Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P. 711 West Alabama Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: gassaad@kennedyhodges.com gkennedy@KennedyHodges.com FMC CORP: Faces Antitrust Suits in Canada, Europe Over Peroxygens ----------------------------------------------------------------- FMC Corp. is subject to actions brought by private plaintiffs over alleged violations of European and Canadian competition and antitrust laws related to its discontinued FMC Peroxygens business, according to the company's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. Multiple European purchasers of hydrogen peroxide who claim to have been harmed as a result of alleged violations of European competition law by hydrogen peroxide producers assigned their legal claims to a single entity formed by a law firm. The single entity then filed a lawsuit in Germany in March 2009 against European producers, including the company's wholly-owned Spanish subsidiary, Foret. Initial defense briefs were filed in April 2010, and an initial hearing was held during the first quarter of 2011, at which time case management issues were discussed. At a subsequent hearing in October 2011, the Court indicated that it was considering seeking guidance from the European Court of Justice ("ECJ") as to whether the German courts have jurisdiction over these claims. After submission of written comments on this issue by the parties, on March 1, 2012, the judge announced that she would refer the jurisdictional issues to the ECJ. The court issued its formal reference to the ECJ on April 29, 2013. Such a reference to the ECJ normally takes 12-18 months, from the date of formal reference, for completion. Since the case is in the preliminary stages and is based on a novel procedure -- namely the attempt to create a cross-border "class action" which is not a recognized proceeding under EU or German law -- the company is unable to develop a reasonable estimate of the company's potential exposure of loss at this time. The company intends to vigorously defend this matter. In 2005, after public disclosures of the U.S. federal grand jury investigation into the hydrogen peroxide industry (which resulted in no charges brought against the Company) and the filing of various class actions in U.S. federal and state courts, which have all been settled, putative class actions against the company and five other major hydrogen peroxide producers were filed in provincial courts in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia under the laws of Canada. The other five defendants have settled these claims for a total of approximately $20.6 million. On September 28, 2009, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified a class of direct and indirect purchasers of hydrogen peroxide from 1994 to 2005. The company's motion for leave to appeal the class certification decision was denied in June 2010. The case was largely dormant while the Canadian Supreme Court considered, in different litigation, whether indirect purchasers may recover overcharges in antitrust actions. In October 2013 the Court ruled that such recovery is permissible. Despite this ruling, the plaintiffs have now moved to dismiss certain downstream purchasers from the case and to reduce the class period to November 1, 1998 through December 31, 2003 -- thereby eliminating six of the eleven years of the originally certified class period. GOYA FOODS: "Park" Suit Moved to Southern District of California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The purported class action lawsuit titled Andrew J. Park v. Goya Foods, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-01789, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego). The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14- cv-01356-JAH-DHB to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought as a consumer class action on behalf of the Plaintiff himself and those who purchased Malta Goya, which is manufactured and sold by the Company. The Plaintiff contends that he and the Class have been harmed by Goya's mislabeling and improper marketing of Malta Goya. In particular, he asserts, while Goya touts Malta Goya as a rich, non-alcoholic nutritious soft drink, brewed from the finest barley and hops, the Company has failed to disclose that the Product contains the carcinogen 4- methylimidazole ("4-MeI"), which has been on California's Proposition 65 list of "Chemicals Known to the State to Cause Cancer or Reproductive Toxicity" since January 7, 2011. Headquartered in Secaucus, New Jersey, Goya Foods is the largest, Hispanic-owned food company in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Marc L. Godino, Esq. Michael M. Goldberg, 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 mgodino@glancylaw.com mmgoldberg@glancylaw.com - and - Vahn Alexander, Esq. THE ALEXANDER FIRM P.C.-A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 1875 Century Park East, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 407-5335 Facsimile: (310) 407-5338 E-mail: info@alexanderfirmpc.com The Defendant is represented by: Naoki S. Kaneko, Esq. SHOOK HARDY AND BACON L.L.P. Jamboree Center 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1600 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 475-1500 Facsimile: (949) 475-0016 E-mail: nkaneko@shb.com GOYA FOODS: "Perez" Class Suit Transferred to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The purported class action lawsuit captioned Julliann Perez v. Goya Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-02001, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego). The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-01358-JLS-JMA to the proceeding. The case alleges product liability claims. The Plaintiff is represented by: Amir David Benakote, Esq. Behram V. Parekh, Esq. Heather M. Baker, Esq. Michael L. Kelly, Esq. KIRTLAND & PACKARD LLP 2041 Rosecrans Avenue, Third Floor El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 536-1000 Facsimile: (310) 536-1001 E-mail: adb@kirtlandpackard.com bvp@kirtlandpackard.com hmb@kirtlandpackard.com mlk@kirtlandpackard.com IDS PROPERTY: Removed "Achziger" Class Suit to W.D. Washington -------------------------------------------------------------- The purported class action lawsuit styled Achziger v. IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 14-2-07594-0, was removed from the Pierce County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (Tacoma). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-05445 to the proceeding. The case asserts insurance-related claims. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen M. Hansen, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN M. HANSEN 1703a Dock Street Tacoma, WA 98402 Telephone: (253) 302-5955 E-mail: steve@stephenmhansenlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Sally Kim, Esq. Shannon Wodnik, Esq. Donald J. Verfurth, Esq. GORDON & REES (WA) 701 Fifth Ave., Suite 2100 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-0494 E-mail: sallykim@gordonrees.com swodnik@gordonrees.com dverfurth@gordonrees.com IEC ELECTRONICS: Faces Shareholder Suit; Under SEC Investigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- IEC Electronics Corp. is responding to a formal investigation by the staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission relating to a restatement of financial statement and an amended complaint in a consolidated shareholder class action, according to the company's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 28, 2014. In connection with the Company's Restatement of Consolidated Financial Statements, the Audit Committee conducted an independent review of the underlying facts and circumstances, and the Company is responding to a formal investigation by the staff of the SEC relating to the restatement and other matters and an amended complaint in a consolidated shareholder class action originally filed June 28, 2013 in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Company and its CEO and CFO seeking unspecified compensatory damages. While the Company believes the complaint is without merit, it is too early to determine the potential outcome. IM SOLUTIONS: Accused of Trademark Infringement in E.D. Oklahoma ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anthony L. Allen, individually; Allen & Wisner, LLC; James E. Blount, IV, individually; and Blount Law Firm, PLLC, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IM Solutions, LLC, LeadingResponse, LLC, Reed Elsevier Inc., and Internet Brands, Inc., Case No. 6:14-cv-00213-KEW (E.D. Okla., June 3, 2014) accuses the Defendants of trademark infringement. The Plaintiffs are represented by: David A. Stampley, Esq. Scott A. Kamber, Esq. KAMBERLAW, LLC 100 Wall St, 23rd Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 920-3072 Facsimile: (212) 202-6364 E-mail: dstampley@kamberlaw.com skamber@kamberlaw.com - and - Lawrence R. Murphy, Jr., Esq. RICHARDS & CONNOR 525 S Main St., 12th Floor Tulsa, OK 74103 Telephone: (918) 585-2394 Facsimile: (918) 585-1449 E-mail: lmurphy@richardsconnor.com - and - Michael Burrage, Esq. WHITTEN BURRAGE 1215 Classen Dr. Oklahoma City, OK 73103 Telephone: (405) 516-7800 Facsimile: (405) 516-7859 E-mail: mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com IMMUNOMEDICS INC: "Nasyrova" Plaintiffs Compete for Lead Status --------------------------------------------------------------- Competing motions were filed for the appointment of lead plaintiff in the securities suit Nasyrova v. Immunomedics, Inc., according to the company's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. A putative class action lawsuit, styled Nasyrova v. Immunomedics, Inc., was filed on February 27, 2014 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The lawsuit alleges that the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors failed to disclose and/or made material misstatements in the Company's public filings relating to the termination of the Nycomed Agreement. In particular, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to make timely disclosure concerning a dispute concerning a delay in the development of veltuzumab. On October 9, 2013, the Company announced that the Nycomed Agreement was terminated. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On April 28, 2014, competing motions were filed for the appointment of lead plaintiff and approval of each proposed lead plaintiff's selection of counsel. INTERNATIONAL GAME: No Ruling Yet in VLT Gaming Suit in Canada -------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador has yet to rule on whether the plaintiff in a suit by persons allegedly harmed by VLT gaming have pleaded a cause of action, according to International Game Technology's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On April 26, 2012, representatives of a purported class of persons allegedly harmed by VLT gaming filed an action in the Supreme Court of New Foundland and Labrador. Atlantic Lottery Corporation has impleaded VLC, Inc., IGT-Canada, Inc., International Game Technology and other third party defendants seeking indemnification for any judgment recovered against Atlantic Lottery Corporation in the main action. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class action certification on September 17, 2012. The Court has decided to address the motion for certification in two phases. Under Phase 1, the Court will determine whether the Plaintiffs have pleaded a cause of action. Hearings on Phase 1 were held on June 6 and 7, 2013. The Court has not yet issued a decision. Should the Court conclude that Plaintiffs have pleaded a cause of action, then, under Phase 2, the Court would determine the appropriateness of certification of the putative class. INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Faces Antitrust Lawsuit Over Containerboard ---------------------------------------------------------------- International Paper Company faces a consolidated lawsuit in the Northern District of Illinois alleging it conspired to limit the supply and thereby increase prices of containerboard products, according to the company's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. In September 2010, eight containerboard producers, including International Paper and Temple-Inland, were named as defendants in a purported class action complaint that alleged a civil violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The suit is captioned Kleen Products LLC v. Packaging Corp. of America (N.D. Ill.). The complaint alleges that the defendants, beginning in August 2005 through November 2010, conspired to limit the supply and thereby increase prices of containerboard products. The alleged class is all persons who purchased containerboard products directly from any defendant for use or delivery in the United States during the period August 2005 to the present. The complaint seeks to recover an unspecified amount of treble actual damages and attorney's fees on behalf of the purported class. Four similar complaints were filed and have been consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois. Moreover, in January 2011, International Paper was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in state court in Cocke County, Tennessee alleging that International Paper violated Tennessee law by conspiring to limit the supply and fix the prices of containerboard from mid-2005 to the present. Plaintiffs in the state court action seek certification of a class of Tennessee indirect purchasers of containerboard products, damages and costs, including attorneys' fees. INTERNATIONAL PAPER: U.S. Lawsuit Over Gypsum Board in Discovery ---------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. antitrust cases against Temple-Inland Inc. over gypsum board are in discovery phase and the Canadian cases are in the preliminary stage, according to International Paper Company's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. Beginning in late December 2012, certain purchasers of gypsum board filed a number of purported class action complaints alleging civil violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act against Temple- Inland and a number of other gypsum manufacturers. The complaints were similar and alleged that the gypsum manufacturers conspired or otherwise reached agreements to: (1) raise prices of gypsum board either from 2008 or 2011 through the present; (2) avoid price erosion by ceasing the practice of issuing job quotes; and (3) restrict supply through downtime and limit order fulfillment. The alleged classes are all persons who purchased gypsum board and/or gypsum finishing products directly or indirectly from any defendant. The complainants seek to recover unspecified treble actual damages and attorneys' fees on behalf of the purported classes. On April 8, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered transfer of all pending cases to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings, and the direct purchaser plaintiffs and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed their respective amended consolidated complaints in June 2013. The amended consolidated complaints allege a conspiracy or agreement beginning in or before September 2011. The Company disputes the allegations made and intends to vigorously defend the consolidated actions. In addition, in September 2013, purported class actions were filed in courts in Quebec, Canada and Ontario, Canada, with each suit alleging violations of the Canadian Competition Act and seeking damages and injunctive relief. The Company intends to dispute the allegations made and to vigorously defend the litigation. Because the U.S. cases are in the discovery phase and the Canadian cases are in a preliminary stage, the company is unable to predict an outcome or estimate the company's maximum reasonably possible loss. However, the company does not believe that any material loss is probable. INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Dismissal of Guaranty-Related Suit Appealed ---------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiff in the suit North Port Firefighters' Pension v. Temple-Inland Inc. has appealed the district court's ruling dismissing the claims against the individual defendants, but it did not appeal the dismissal of the claims against Temple-Inland, according to International Paper Company's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. Temple-Inland was named as a defendant in a lawsuit captioned North Port Firefighters' Pension v. Temple-Inland Inc., filed in November 2011 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas and subsequently amended. The lawsuit alleged a class action against Temple-Inland and certain individual defendants contending that Temple-Inland misrepresented the financial condition of Guaranty Financial Group during the period December 12, 2007 through August 24, 2009. On March 28, 2013, the district court granted Temple-Inland's and the individual defendants' motions to dismiss without prejudice. On April 26, 2013, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint that asserted claims against the individual defendants, but did not assert any claims against Temple-Inland. On July 30, 2013, the district court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint filed against the individual defendants with prejudice, also noting that since the plaintiff did not seek the court's leave to amend its complaint with respect to the claims against Temple-Inland, all claims against Temple-Inland were dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff has appealed the district court's ruling dismissing the claims against the individual defendants, but it did not appeal the dismissal of the claims against Temple-Inland. Certain of the individual defendants in the North Port litigation have requested advancement of their costs of defense from Temple- Inland and have asserted a right to indemnification by Temple- Inland. The company believes that all or part of these defense costs would be covered losses under Temple-Inland's directors and officers insurance. The carriers under the applicable policies have been notified of the claims and each has responded with a reservations of rights letter. JACO OIL: Sued for Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act in Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- Linda De Santos, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Jaco Oil Company, a California corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-00738-AWI-GSA (E.D. Cal., May 16, 2014) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shane Carson Stafford, Esq. SHANBERG, STAFFORD AND BARTZ LLP 19200 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 400 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 622-5444 Facsimile: (949) 622-5448 E-mail: sstafford@ssbfirm.com KEY OIL: Removed "Cumpston" Suit to N.D. W.Va. ---------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Cumpston, et al. v. Key Oil Company, Case No. 14-C-16, was removed from the Doddridge County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia (Clarksburg). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-00093-IMK to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marvin W. Masters, Esq. THE MASTERS LAW FIRM, LC 181 Summers St. Peoples Bldg., 4th Floor Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 342-3106 Facsimile: (304) 342-3189 E-mail: mwm@themasterslawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Amy M. Smith, Esq. W. Henry Lawrence, Esq. STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC - BRIDGEPORT 400 White Oaks Blvd. Bridgeport, WV 26330 Telephone: (304) 933-8000 Facsimile: (304) 933-8183 E-mail: Amy.Smith@steptoe-johnson.com hank.lawrence@steptoe-johnson.com KIRBY CORP: Faces Suit for Business Interruption, Loss of Profit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kirby Corporation faces lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Southern District Court-Galveston Division for alleged business interruption, loss of profit, loss of use of natural resources, according to the company's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. The Company has been named as a defendant in class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District Court-Galveston Division against it and Sea Galaxy Ltd/Summer Wind. The actions include allegation of business interruption, loss of profit, loss of use of natural resources and seek unspecified economic and compensatory damages. In addition, the Company has received claims from numerous parties claiming property damage and various economic damages. The Company has also been named as a defendant in a civil action by a crewmember of the M/V Miss Susan, alleging damages under the general maritime law and the Jones Act. The Company expects that additional lawsuits may be filed and claims submitted. LEAR CORP: Inks Agreement to Settle Antitrust Suit for $8.75MM -------------------------------------------------------------- Lear Corporation reached an agreement to settle for $8.75 million a lawsuit alleging antitrust law violations in the automotive wire harness business, according to the company's May 7, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Lear was named as a defendant in a number of class action complaints in the United States that were consolidated into one proceeding in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against the Company and several other global suppliers of automotive wire harnesses, alleging violations of federal and state antitrust and related laws (the "Consolidated Cases"). The class plaintiffs, who purport to be direct and indirect purchasers of automotive wire harnesses supplied by the Company and/or the other defendants during the relevant period, allege that the defendants conspired to fix prices at which automotive wire harnesses were sold. The class plaintiffs in these proceedings seek injunctive relief and recovery of an unspecified amount of damages. In order to avoid the costs and distraction of continuing to litigate the Consolidated Cases, on May 6, 2014, the Company, entered into settlement agreements under which the class plaintiffs will release the Company from all claims, demands, actions, suits and causes of action in the Consolidated Cases. The Settlement Agreements contain no admission by the Company of any wrongdoing, and the Company maintains that it violated no laws in connection with this matter. Because the conduct alleged by the class plaintiffs overwhelmingly relates to periods prior to the Company's emergence from bankruptcy in 2009, the Settlement Agreements provide that the aggregate settlement amount of $8.75 million will consist of $370,263 in cash contributed by the Company with the remainder paid in outstanding common stock and warrants of the Company held in the bankruptcy reserve established under the Company's plan of reorganization. The settlement remains subject to approval by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. LEAR CORP: Still Faces Canadian Auto Wire Harness Antitrust Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lear Corp. remains a defendant in putative class actions filed in the Superior Courts of Justice in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia, alleging violations of Canadian laws related to competition in the automotive wire harnesses business, according to the company's May 7, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company also remains a defendant in a putative class action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan by the City of Richmond, California on behalf of itself and other so-called "Public Entities" comprising states, state subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities, and local government subdivisions and agencies (the "Public Entities Complaint"). The allegations in the Canadian Complaints and Public Entities Complaint are substantially similar to those alleged in the Consolidated Cases. The Company believes the plaintiffs' allegations against it in the Canadian Complaints and Public Entities Complaint are without merit and intends to continue to vigorously defend itself in these proceedings. LEGGETT & PLATT: Appeal Hearing Set in Ohio Antitrust Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio has held dates in October 2014 for the first trials to hear defendants' Petition for Permission to Appeal from Class Certification Order in the suit In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MD-2196, according to Leggett & Platt, Incorporated's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. Beginning in August 2010, a series of civil lawsuits was initiated in several U.S. federal courts and in Canada against over 20 defendants alleging that competitors of the company's carpet underlay business unit and other manufacturers of polyurethane foam products had engaged in price fixing in violation of U.S. and Canadian antitrust laws. A number of these lawsuits have been voluntarily dismissed, most without prejudice. Of the U.S. cases remaining, the company has been named as a defendant in (a) three direct purchaser class action cases (the first on November 15, 2010) and a consolidated amended class action complaint filed on February 28, 2011 on behalf of a class of all direct purchasers of polyurethane foam products; (b) an indirect purchaser class consolidated amended complaint filed on March 21, 2011; and an indirect purchaser class action case filed on May 23, 2011; (c) 38 individual direct purchaser cases filed between March 22, 2011 and October 16, 2013; and (d) two individual cases alleging direct and indirect purchaser claims under the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act, one filed on November 29, 2012 and the other on April 11, 2013. All of the pending U.S. federal cases in which the company has been named as a defendant, have been filed in or have been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio under the name In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10- MD-2196. In the U.S. actions, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a class of purchasers, seek three times the amount of unspecified damages allegedly suffered as a result of alleged overcharges in the price of polyurethane foam products from at least 1999 to the present. Each plaintiff also seeks attorney fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, court costs, and injunctive relief against future violations. On April 15 and May 6, 2011, the company filed motions to dismiss the U.S. direct purchaser and indirect purchaser class actions in the consolidated case in Ohio, for failure to state a legally valid claim. On July 19, 2011, the Ohio Court denied the motions to dismiss. Discovery is underway in the U.S. actions. Motions for class certification have been filed on behalf of both direct and indirect purchasers. A hearing on the motions was held January 15, 2014. On April 9, 2014, the Court certified the direct and indirect purchaser classes. The company filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal from Class Certification Order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on April 23, 2014. The Court has held dates in October 2014 for the first trials, and will confer with the parties' counsel in June to determine which will be the first tried case. LEGGETT & PLATT: Still Faces Canadian Suit Over Polyurethane Foam ----------------------------------------------------------------- Leggett & Platt, Incorporated continues to face Canadian class action cases for direct and indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam products, according to the company's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. The company has been named in two Canadian class action cases (for direct and indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam products), both under the name Hi Neighbor Floor Covering Co. Limited and Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company, et.al. in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Windsor), Court File Nos. CV-10-15164 (amended November 2, 2011) and CV-11-17279 (issued December 30, 2011). In each of the Canadian cases, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a class of purchasers, seek from over 13 defendants restitution of the amount allegedly overcharged, general and special damages in the amount of $100, punitive damages of $10, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and the costs of the investigation and the action. The first issued class action is on behalf of a class of purchasers of polyurethane foam. The second issued class action is on behalf of purchasers of carpet underlay. The company is not yet required to file the company's defenses in the Canadian actions. In addition, on July 10, 2012, plaintiff in a class action case (for direct and indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam products) styled Option Consommateurs and Karine Robillard v. Produits Vitafoam Canada Limitee, et. al. in the Quebec Superior Court of Justice (Montreal), Court File No. 500-6-524-104, filed an amended motion for authorization seeking to add the company and other manufacturers of polyurethane foam products as defendants in this case, which was granted. LEGGETT & PLATT: Court Hears Motion to Certify Mo. Antitrust Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam products in the State of Missouri are awaiting a ruling on their motion to certify a class in a suit against Leggett & Platt, Incorporated, according to the company's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On June 22, 2012, the company was also made party to a lawsuit brought in the 16th Judicial Circuit Court, Jackson County, Missouri, Case Number 1216-CV15179 under the caption "Dennis Baker, on Behalf of Himself and all Others Similarly Situated vs. Leggett & Platt, Incorporated." The plaintiff, on behalf of himself and/or a class of indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam products in the State of Missouri, alleged that the company violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act based upon the company's alleged illegal price inflation of flexible polyurethane foam products. The plaintiff seeks unspecified actual damages, punitive damages and the recovery of reasonable attorney fees. The company filed a motion to dismiss this action, which was denied on November 5, 2012. Discovery has commenced and plaintiff has filed a motion for class certification. The parties' briefing is completed, and a hearing on the motion was held on February 20, 2014. LEWIS ENERGY: Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Aslin, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Lewis Energy Group, L.P., Case No. 5:14-cv-00067 (S.D. Tex., May 16, 2014) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages from Lewis Energy under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Lewis Energy is a Delaware limited partnership. Lewis Energy is "a vertically-integrated oil and gas company." Lewis Energy employed the Plaintiff as a mudlogger from approximately September 2009 through the present. The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Center 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net curt@mooreandassociates.net MATTONE RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bernardo Calderon, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons, known and unknown v. Mattone Restaurant and Bar, and Jason Korinek, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-03631 (N.D. Ill., May 16, 2014) alleges that the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees earned minimum wage and overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. Mattone Restaurant and Bar is an entity doing business in Illinois. Jason Korinek is the owner and executive chef of Mattone Restaurant and Bar. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raisa Alicea, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 878-1302 Facsimile: (888) 270-8983 E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Files Motion to Junk Tex. Stock Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- McDermott International, Inc. and other defendants in a securities suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, filed a motion to dismiss the case, which motion is still pending before the court, according to the company's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On August 15, 2013 and August 20, 2013, two separate alleged purchasers of the company's common stock filed purported class action complaints against the company, Stephen M. Johnson and Perry L. Elders in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Both of the complaints sought to represent a class of purchasers of the company's stock between November 6, 2012 and August 5, 2013, and alleged, among other things, that the defendants violated federal securities laws by disseminating materially false and misleading information and failing to disclose material information relating to weaknesses in project bidding and execution, poor risk evaluation, poor project management and losses in each of the company's reporting segments. Each complaint sought relief, including unspecified compensatory damages and an award for attorneys' fees and other costs. By order dated December 5, 2013, the District Court consolidated the two cases and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on February 6, 2014. The consolidated amended complaint asserts substantially the same claims as were made in the two original complaints, with some additional factual allegations, and purports to extend the class period to August 6, 2013. It also seeks relief, including unspecified compensatory damages and an award for attorneys' fees and other costs. On April 7, 2014, MII and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case, which motion is still pending before the court. MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA: Removed "Taylor" Suit to N.D. Oklahoma -------------------------------------------------------------- The purported class action lawsuit titled Taylor, et al. v. Michelin North America, Inc., Case No. CJ-14-00042, was removed from the Ottawa County District Court to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (Tulsa). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-00293-JED-TLW to the proceeding. The case asserts claims for property damage. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin L. Barnes, Esq. Centennial Plaza 2575 Kelley Pointe Pkwy., Suite 100 Edmond, OK 73013 Telephone: (405) 330-9860 Facsimile: (405) 231-4701 - and - R. Chris Cowan, Esq. THE COWAN LAW FIRM 209 Henry St. Dallas, TX Telephone: (214) 826-1900 Facsimile: (214) 826-8900 The Defendant is represented by: Christopher J. Schmidt, Esq. Peter W. Herzog, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LLP (ST LOUIS) 211 N Broadway, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63102-2750 Telephone: (314) 259-2000 Facsimile: (314) 259-2020 E-mail: cjschmidt@bryancave.com pwherzog@bryancave.com - and - Connie Mae Bryan, Esq. MCCORMICK & BRYAN PLLC 3500 S Blvd., Suite 10B Edmond, OK 73013 Telephone: (405) 562-6800 Facsimile: (405) 216-3602 E-mail: cbryan@mccormickbryan.com OLD REPUBLIC: ORNTIC Contests Certification in "Markocki" Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Old Republic National Title Insurance Company is challenging the certification of the suit Markocki et al. v. ORNTIC pending in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District, Pennsylvania, according to Old Republic International Corporation's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. A purported class action lawsuit is pending against the Company's principal title insurance subsidiary, Old Republic National Title Insurance Company ("ORNTIC"), in a federal district court in Pennsylvania (Markocki et al. v. ORNTIC, U.S. District Court, Eastern District, Pennsylvania, filed June 8, 2006). The plaintiffs allege that ORNTIC failed to give consumers reissue and/or refinance credits on the premiums charged for title insurance covering mortgage refinancing transactions, as required by filed rate schedules. The suit also alleges violations of the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"). A class has been certified in the suit. ORNTIC is challenging the certification based on more recent case precedents. OLD REPUBLIC: No Class Yet in RESPA Violations Suits v. RMIC ------------------------------------------------------------ A class has not been certified in suits alleging violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act by Republic Mortgage Insurance Company and RMIC has filed motions to dismiss the cases, according to Old Republic International Corporation's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On December 30, 2011 and on January 4, 2013, purported class action suits alleging RESPA violations were filed in the Federal District Court, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania targeting RMIC, other mortgage guaranty insurance companies, PNC Financial Services Group (as successor to National City Bank) and HSBC Bank USA, N.A., and their wholly-owned captive insurance subsidiaries. (White, Hightower, et al. v. PNC Financial Services Group (as successor to National City Bank) et al.), (Ba, Chip, et al. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al.). The lawsuits are two of twelve against various lenders, their captive reinsurers and the mortgage insurers, filed by the same law firms, all of which were substantially identical in alleging that the mortgage guaranty insurers had reinsurance arrangements with the defendant banks' captive insurance subsidiaries under which payments were made in violation of the anti-kickback and fee splitting prohibitions of Sections 8(a) and 8(b) of RESPA. Ten of the twelve suits have been dismissed. The remaining suits seek unspecified damages, costs, fees and the return of the allegedly improper payments. A class has not been certified in either suit and RMIC has filed motions to dismiss the cases. OVERSTOCK.COM INSURANCE: Sued Over Phone Calls' Illegal Recording ----------------------------------------------------------------- Justin Maghen; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Overstock.com Insurance Agency, Case No. 2:14-cv- 03818-PA-MAN (C.D. Cal., May 16, 2014) is brought for damages and other relief resulting from the Company's alleged illegal actions in employing certain recording equipment to record the telephone conversations of the Plaintiff and others similarly situated without their knowledge or consent. Overstock.com Insurance Agency is a professional corporation headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Matthew M. Loker, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com ml@kazlg.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com - and - Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 369 S. Doheny Dr., #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@AttorneysForConsumers.com PFIZER INC: Seeks to Quash Depositions of High-Ranking Executives ----------------------------------------------------------------- Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that after drugmaker Pfizer Inc. moved to quash the depositions of two high-ranking executives in litigation over antidepressant Zoloft, the plaintiffs said that it is unlikely that those executives wouldn't have relevant knowledge about the large mass tort litigation. Pfizer is seeking to quash the depositions of Dr. Joseph Feczko, who was Pfizer's chief medical officer until his retirement five years ago, and Dr. Patrizia Cavazzoni, Pfizer's senior vice president of safety, established pharma & generic regulatory. Among other arguments, Pfizer sought to apply the "apex doctrine," which protects executives at the top of the hierarchy of large companies from having to give depositions if the plaintiffs don't have good cause for deposing them. The apex doctrine only applies if executives lack any knowledge of the relevant facts, the plaintiffs said. "Other [multidistrict litigation] MDL courts have rejected attempts just like this to stop depositions of executives, recognizing that where large numbers of products liability claims are involved, it is unlikely that top executives will not have relevant knowledge, and that the efficiencies of consolidated discovery in multidistrict litigation obviate concerns about harassment and abuse that might be present in individual actions," the lead lawyers on the plaintiffs steering committee -- Mark P. Robinson Jr. and Kevin F. Calcagnie, of Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis in Newport Beach, Calif. and Dianne M. Nast, of Nastlaw LLC in Philadelphia -- wrote in court papers. Pfizer also has not made "even a minimal showing" that the depositions would cause annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, undue burden or expense, the plaintiffs also argued. The reasons the plaintiffs give for Dr. Cavazzoni's and Dr. Feczo's relevance are partially redacted in the court filing. The MDL is pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. PUBLIX SUPER: Class Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay and Damages ------------------------------------------------------------- April White and Bruce Bogach, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-01189 (M.D. Tenn., May 16, 2014) seeks to recover overtime pay, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs, and attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Publix Super Markets, Inc., is a Florida corporation registered to do business in the state of Tennessee. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Charles Yezbak, III, Esq. Melody Fowler-Green, Esq. YEZBAK LAW OFFICES 2002 Richard Jones Road, Suite B-200 Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (615) 250-2000 Facsimile: (615) 240-2020 E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com mel@yezbaklaw.com - and - C. Andrew Head, Esq. Jerilyn Gardner, Esq. FRIED & BONDER, LLC White Provision, Suite 305 1170 Howell Mill Road, N.W. Atlanta, GA 30318 Telephone: (404) 995-8808 Facsimile: (404) 995-8899 E-mail: ahead@friedbonder.com jgardner@friedbonder.com - and - David Hughes, Esq. HARDIN & HUGHES, LLP 2121 14th Street Tuscaloosa, AL 35401 Telephone: (205) 344-6690 Facsimile: (205) 344-6188 E-mail: dhughes@hugheshardin.com - and - Christine E. Webber, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave., NW, suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: cwebber@cohenmilstein.com RONAN CITY, MT: Accused of Violating Class Members' Civil Rights ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Chaney, on behalf of himself and a class of persons similarly situated v. Daniel Wadsworth, individually and as Ronan Police Chief; Trevor Wadsworth; Kim Aipperspach, individually and as City of Ronan Mayor; City of Ronan; City of Ronan Police Department; and Does 1-10, Case No. 9:14-cv-00177-DLC (D. Mont., June 3, 2014) alleges violations of the Civil Rights Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ann Sherwood, Esq. CONFEDERATED SALISH & KOOTENAI TRIBES P.O. Box 278 Pablo, MT 59855 Telephone: (406) 675-2700 Facsimile: (406) 675-2700 - and - Rebecca Kay Smith, Esq. PUBLIC INTEREST DEFENSE CENTER PO Box 7584 317 East Spruce Street Missoula, MT 59807 Telephone: (406) 531-8133 Facsimile: (406) 830-3085 E-mail: publicdefense@gmail.com - and - Timothy M. Bechtold, Esq. BECHTOLD LAW FIRM PO Box 7051 Missoula, MT 59807-7051 Telephone: (406) 721-1435 E-mail: tim@bechtoldlaw.net RSI ENTERPRISES: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Joanna F. Mavris, On Behalf of Herself and Others Similarly Situated v. RSI Enterprises Incorporated, an Arizona Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-01058-NVW (D. Ariz., May 16, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Greenwald, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON PLLC 5550 Glades Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 826-5477 Facsimile: (561) 961-5684 E-mail: mgreenwald@mgjdlaw.com SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES: "Vega" Labor Litigation Settled, Concluded ----------------------------------------------------------------- The labor suit Vega v. Sensient Dehydrated Flavors LLC is now concluded after an agreed settlement, according to Sensient Technologies Corporation's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On January 3, 2013, Thomas Vega, a now former employee, filed (but did not serve) a Class Action Complaint in San Francisco County Superior Court against Sensient Dehydrated Flavors LLC. On February 11, 2013, Vega filed and served a First Amended Complaint ("Complaint") against the Company and a Company supervisor. Vega alleged that the Company failed to provide alleged class members with meal periods, compensation for the alleged absence of meal periods, and accurate wage statements, in violation of the California labor code. The alleged class included all employees paid on an hourly basis and forklift operators. The Complaint sought damages, back wages, injunctive relief, penalties, interest, and attorneys' fees for the members of the alleged class. The Complaint alleged that the total damages and costs "do not exceed a[n] aggregate of $4,999,999.99." The Complaint alleged two causes of action. The first cause of action was for "Unfair Competition." The second cause of action was for alleged substantive violations of the California labor code provisions governing wages, hours, and meal periods. On March 13, 2013, the parties filed a joint stipulation and proposed order to remove the case from San Francisco County Superior Court to Stanislaus County Superior Court. On April 18, 2013, the Court granted that request. On October 7, 2013, following a private mediation, the parties signed a Memorandum of Understanding in which they agreed to resolve the action for a maximum of $275,000 on a claims made basis. On December 5, 2013, the settlement was presented to the Stanislaus County Superior Court. On March 14, 2014, the Court granted final approval of the settlement. On April 11, 2014, Sensient made a final payment of $205,297 in full satisfaction of the Final Funding Amount (as defined in the settlement agreement). This matter has now concluded. SOTHEBY'S INC: U.S. Artists Appeal Dismissal of Suit in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in Estate of Robert Graham, et al. v. Sotheby's, Inc. have appealed a ruling that dismissed the action on the ground that the Resale Royalties Act violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, according to Sotheby's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. Estate of Robert Graham, et al. v. Sotheby's, Inc. is a purported class action commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in October 2011 on behalf of U.S. artists (and their estates) whose artworks were sold by Sotheby's in the State of California or at auction by California sellers and for which a royalty was allegedly due under the California Resale Royalties Act (the "Resale Royalties Act"). Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, punitive damages and injunctive relief for alleged violations of the Resale Royalties Act and the California Unfair Competition Law. In January 2012, Sotheby's filed a motion to dismiss the action on the grounds, among others, that the Resale Royalties Act violates the U.S. Constitution and is preempted by the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976. In February 2012, the plaintiffs filed their response to Sotheby's motion to dismiss. The court heard oral arguments on the motion to dismiss on March 12, 2012. On May 17, 2012, the court issued an order dismissing the action on the ground that the Resale Royalties Act violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs have appealed this ruling. SOTHEBY'S INC: No Injunction Granted in Suit Over "Proxy Puts" -------------------------------------------------------------- The court handling the coordinated lawsuits by The Employees Retirement System of the City of St. Louis (versus Ruprecht, et al., Civil Action No. 9497-VCP, Del. Ch. 2014) and the Louisiana Municipal Employees Retirement System denied plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctions, according to Sotheby's Inc.'s May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On April 1, 2014, the Employees Retirement System of the City of St. Louis, the plaintiff, on behalf of a putative class of Sotheby's stockholders, filed a verified class action complaint against the Directors and nominal defendant Sotheby's. The plaintiff alleges in two counts that the Directors breached their fiduciary duties in adopting the Rights Plan and by including so- called "proxy puts" in certain Sotheby's credit agreements. The plaintiff alleges that the Rights Plan is discriminatory, is designed to entrench current board members, and undermines the proxy contest being conducted by Third Point. In addition, the plaintiff alleges that the Directors endorsed credit agreements containing "proxy put" provisions that were unnecessary, preemptive defensive measures designed to insulate Directors from proxy contests. The plaintiff seeks judgment preliminarily and permanently enjoining the Rights Plan, judgment preliminarily enjoining the Directors from using any proxies solicited before they "approve" the Third Point nominees for directorships, and a declaration that the Rights Plan is unenforceable and that the Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the putative class. On April 10, 2014, the Court ordered partial coordination of this action and Louisiana Municipal Employees Retirement System v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil Action No. --9508-VCP with the prior pending action in Third Point LLC v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil Action No. 9469-VCP. On May 2, 2014, following briefing and argument on plaintiffs' motions for preliminary injunctions in the coordinated actions, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion denying the motion. Specifically, the Court found that plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims. SOTHEBY'S INC: No Injunction Granted in Suit by La. Retirees ------------------------------------------------------------ The court handling the coordinated lawsuits by the Louisiana Municipal Employees Retirement System (versus Ruprecht, et al., Civil Action No. 9508-VCP, Del. Ch. 2014) and The Employees Retirement System of the City of St. Louis denied plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctions, according to Sotheby's Inc.'s May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On April 3, 2014, Louisiana Municipal Employees Retirement System, the plaintiff, on behalf of a putative class of Sotheby's stockholders, filed a verified class action complaint against the Directors and nominal defendant Sotheby's. The plaintiff alleges in two counts that the Directors breached their fiduciary duties in adopting the Rights Plan and by including so-called "proxy puts" in certain Sotheby's credit agreements. The plaintiff alleges that the Rights Plan is discriminatory, is designed to entrench current board members, and undermines the proxy contest being conducted by Third Point. In addition, the plaintiff alleges that the Directors endorsed credit agreements containing "proxy put" provisions that were unnecessary, preemptive defensive measures designed to insulate Directors from proxy contests. The plaintiff seeks judgment preliminarily and permanently enjoining the Rights Plan, judgment preliminarily enjoining the Directors from using any proxies solicited before they "approve" the Third Point nominees for directorships, and a declaration that the Rights Plan is unenforceable and that the Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the putative class. On April 10, 2014, the Court ordered partial coordination of this action and The Employees Retirement System of the City of St. Louis v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil Action No. 9497-VCP with the prior pending action in Third Point LLC v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil Action No. 9469-VCP. On May 2, 2014, following briefing and argument on plaintiffs' motions for preliminary injunctions in the coordinated actions, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion denying the motion. Specifically, the Court found that plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims. SUNTRUST BANKS: Bares Effect of Credit Card Antitrust Suit Accord ----------------------------------------------------------------- In its May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014, Suntrust Banks, Inc. detailed the effect on its finances of the settlement entered in a consolidated antitrust suit against the Card Associations. The Company issues credit and debit transactions through Visa and MasterCard International. The Company is a defendant, along with Visa and MasterCard International (the "Card Associations"), as well as several other banks, in one of several antitrust lawsuits challenging the practices of the Card Associations (the "Litigation"). The Company entered into judgment and loss sharing agreements with Visa and certain other banks in order to apportion financial responsibilities arising from any potential adverse judgment or negotiated settlements related to the Litigation. Additionally, in connection with Visa's restructuring in 2007, a provision of the original Visa By-Laws, Section 2.05j, was restated in Visa's certificate of incorporation. Section 2.05j contains a general indemnification provision between a Visa member and Visa, and explicitly provides that after the closing of the restructuring, each member's indemnification obligation is limited to losses arising from its own conduct and the specifically defined Litigation. Agreements associated with Visa's IPO have provisions that Visa will fund a litigation escrow account, established for the purpose of funding judgments in, or settlements of, the Litigation. Since inception of the escrow account, Visa has funded over $8.5 billion into the escrow account, approximately $4.1 billion of which has been paid out in Litigation settlements and another $4.4 billion which was paid into a settlement fund during 2012. If the escrow account is insufficient to cover the Litigation losses, then Visa will issue additional Class A shares ("loss shares"). The proceeds from the sale of the loss shares would then be deposited in the escrow account. The issuance of the loss shares will cause a dilution of Visa's Class B shares as a result of an adjustment to lower the conversion factor of the Class B shares to Class A shares. Visa U.S.A.'s members are responsible for any portion of the settlement or loss on the Litigation after the escrow account is depleted and the value of the Class B shares is fully-diluted. In May 2009, the Company sold its 3.2 million Class B shares to the Visa Counterparty and entered into a derivative with the Visa Counterparty. The Company received $112 million and recognized a gain of $112 million in connection with these transactions. Under the derivative, the Visa Counterparty is compensated by the Company for any decline in the conversion factor as a result of the outcome of the Litigation. Conversely, the Company is compensated by the Visa Counterparty for any increase in the conversion factor. The amount of payments made or received under the derivative is a function of the 3.2 million shares sold to the Visa Counterparty, the change in conversion rate, and Visa's share price. The Visa Counterparty, as a result of its ownership of the Class B shares, is impacted by dilutive adjustments to the conversion factor of the Class B shares caused by the Litigation losses. The conversion factor at the inception of the derivative in May 2009 was 0.6296 and at March 31, 2014 the conversion factor was 0.4206 due to Visa's funding of the litigation escrow account since 2009. There were no changes to the conversion factor during the three months ended March 31, 2014 and 2013; therefore, no payments were made by the Company to the Visa Counterparty, other than certain fixed payment charges which were less than $1 million for both the three months ended March 31, 2014 and 2013. During 2012, the Card Associations and defendants signed a memorandum of understanding to enter into a settlement agreement to resolve the plaintiffs' claims in the Litigation. Visa's share of the claims represents approximately $4.4 billion, which was paid from the escrow account into a settlement fund during 2012. During 2013, various members of the putative class elected to opt out of the settlement. This will result in a proportional decrease in the amount of the settlement. While the estimated fair value of the derivative liability was immaterial at March 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013, the ultimate impact to the Company could be significantly different if the settlement is not approved and/or based on the ultimate resolution with the plaintiffs that opted out of the settlement. SUNTRUST BANKS: Suits v. STRH Remain After Lehman Accord -------------------------------------------------------- A number of individual lawsuits and smaller putative class actions remained following the class settlement of In re Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to Suntrust Banks, Inc.'s May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. Beginning in October 2008, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc., along with other underwriters and individuals, were named as defendants in several individual and putative class action complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and state and federal courts in Arkansas, California, Texas, and Washington. Plaintiffs alleged violations of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 and/or state law for allegedly false and misleading disclosures in connection with various debt and preferred stock offerings of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. ("Lehman Brothers") and sought unspecified damages. All cases were transferred for coordination to the multi-district litigation captioned In re Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims asserted in the class action. On July 27, 2011, the District Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss the claims against STRH and the other underwriter defendants in the class action. A settlement with the class plaintiffs was approved by the Court and the class settlement approval process was completed. A number of individual lawsuits and smaller putative class actions remained following the class settlement. STRH settled two such individual actions. The other individual lawsuits were dismissed. The appeal period for two of the individual actions will not expire until the plaintiffs' claims against a third party have been resolved. SUNTRUST BANKS: Colonial BancGroup Stock Suit Partly Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss In re Colonial BancGroup, Inc. Securities Litigation, according to Suntrust Banks, Inc.'s May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. Beginning in July 2009, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc., certain other underwriters, the Colonial BancGroup, Inc. ("Colonial BancGroup") and certain officers and directors of Colonial BancGroup were named as defendants in a putative class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama entitled In re Colonial BancGroup, Inc. Securities Litigation. The complaint was brought by purchasers of certain debt and equity securities of Colonial BancGroup and seeks unspecified damages. Plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 due to allegedly false and misleading disclosures in the relevant registration statement and prospectus relating to Colonial BancGroup's goodwill impairment, mortgage underwriting standards, and credit quality. On August 28, 2009, the Colonial BancGroup filed for bankruptcy. The defendants' motion to dismiss was denied in May 2010, but the Court subsequently ordered Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. This amended complaint was filed and the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. In October 2013, the Court granted in part and denied in part this motion. SUNTRUST BANKS: "Bickerstaff" Plaintiffs Pursue Class Status ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff in Bickerstaff v. SunTrust Bank is appealing the denial of class certification in the suit, according to Suntrust Banks, Inc.'s May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. This case was filed in the Fulton County State Court on July 12, 2010, and an amended complaint was filed on August 9, 2010. Plaintiff asserts that all overdraft fees charged to his account which related to debit card and ATM transactions are actually interest charges and therefore subject to the usury laws of Georgia. Plaintiff has brought claims for violations of civil and criminal usury laws, conversion, and money had and received, and purports to bring the action on behalf of all Georgia citizens who have incurred such overdraft fees within the last four years where the overdraft fee resulted in an interest rate being charged in excess of the usury rate. SunTrust filed a motion to compel arbitration and on March 16, 2012, the Court entered an order holding that SunTrust's arbitration provision is enforceable but that the named plaintiff in the case had opted out of that provision pursuant to its terms. The Court explicitly stated that it was not ruling at that time on the question of whether the named plaintiff could have opted out for the putative class members. SunTrust filed an appeal of this decision, but this appeal was dismissed based on a finding that the appeal was prematurely granted. On April 8, 2013, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification and that motion was denied on February 19, 2014. Plaintiff appealed the denial of class certification on February 26, 2014. SUNTRUST BANKS: ERISA Suit Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in a suit alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Security Act against Suntrust Banks, Inc. are appealing the dismissal of their claims in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, according to the company's May 7, 2014, Form 10- Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. Beginning in July 2008, the Company and certain officers, directors, and employees of the Company were named in a putative class action alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by offering the Company's common stock as an investment option in the SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the "Plan"). The plaintiffs purport to represent all current and former Plan participants who held the Company stock in their Plan accounts from May 2007 to the present and seek to recover alleged losses these participants supposedly incurred as a result of their investment in Company stock. The Company Stock Class Action was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida but was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, (the "District Court") in November 2008. On October 26, 2009, an amended complaint was filed. On December 9, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On October 25, 2010, the District Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Defendants and plaintiffs filed separate motions for the District Court to certify its October 25, 2010 order for immediate interlocutory appeal. On January 3, 2011, the District Court granted both motions. On January 13, 2011, defendants and plaintiffs filed separate petitions seeking permission to pursue interlocutory appeals with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ("the Circuit Court"). On April 14, 2011, the Circuit Court granted defendants and plaintiffs permission to pursue interlocutory review in separate appeals. The Circuit Court subsequently stayed these appeals pending decision of a separate appeal involving The Home Depot in which substantially similar issues are presented. On May 8, 2012, the Circuit Court decided this appeal in favor of The Home Depot. On March 5, 2013, the Circuit Court issued an order remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings in light of its decision in The Home Depot case. On September 26, 2013, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs have filed an appeal of this decision in the Circuit Court. SUNTRUST BANKS: Dismissal of Claims in Mutual Funds Suit Appealed ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff's counsel in a suit alleging Suntrust Banks, Inc. Violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by offering certain STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options, filed a motion to reconsider the dismissal of the case, according to the company's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On March 11, 2011, the Company and certain officers, directors, and employees of the Company were named in a putative class action alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by offering certain STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in the Plan. The plaintiff purports to represent all current and former Plan participants who held the STI Classic Mutual Funds in their Plan accounts from April 2002 through December 2010 and seeks to recover alleged losses these Plan participants supposedly incurred as a result of their investment in the STI Classic Mutual Funds. This action was pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division (the "District Court"). On June 6, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and, on June 20, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 12, 2012, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. The Company filed a subsequent motion to dismiss the remainder of the case on the ground that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining claims. On October 30, 2012, the Court dismissed all claims in this action. Immediately thereafter, plaintiffs' counsel initiated a substantially similar lawsuit against the Company substituting two new plaintiffs and also filed an appeal of the dismissal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. SunTrust filed a motion to dismiss in the new action and this motion was granted. On February 26, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the District Court's dismissal. On March 18, 2014, the Plaintiff's counsel filed a motion for reconsideration with the Eleventh Circuit. SUNTRUST BANKS: "Mahdavieh" Suit Sent to S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted a motion to transfer the case Yaghoub Mahdavieh et al. v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. et al. to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, according to Suntrust Banks, Inc.'s May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. STM has been named in three putative class actions similar to those that other financial institutions are facing which allege that the Company acted improperly in connection with the practice of force placing homeowners' insurance in certain instances. Generally, the plaintiffs in these actions allege that STM violated various duties by failing to properly negotiate pricing for force placed insurance and by receiving kickbacks or other improper benefits from the providers of such insurance. The first case, Timothy Smith v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. et al., is pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. STM filed a motion to dismiss this case and this motion was granted in part and denied in part. The second case, Carina Hamilton v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. et al., is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The third case, Yaghoub Mahdavieh et al. v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. STM has filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to transfer the case. The Court granted the motion to transfer this case to the Southern District of Florida. SUNTRUST BANKS: Updates on Mortgage Reinsurance Lawsuits v. STM --------------------------------------------------------------- In its May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014, Suntrust Banks, Inc. provided updates on suits alleging violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act by SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. and Twin Rivers Insurance Company. STM and Twin Rivers Insurance Company ("Twin Rivers") have been named as defendants in two putative class actions alleging that the companies entered into illegal "captive reinsurance" arrangements with private mortgage insurers. More specifically, plaintiffs allege that SunTrust's selection of private mortgage insurers who agree to reinsure loans referred to them by SunTrust with Twin Rivers results in illegal "kickbacks" in the form of the insurance premiums paid to Twin Rivers. Plaintiffs contend that this arrangement violates the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA") and results in unjust enrichment to the detriment of borrowers. The first of these cases, Thurmond, Christopher, et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc. et al., was filed in February 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This case was stayed by the Court pending the outcome of Edwards v. First American Financial Corporation, a captive reinsurance case that was pending before the U.S. Supreme Court at the time. The second of these cases, Acosta, Lemuel & Maria Ventrella et al. v. SunTrust Bank, SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in December 2011. This case was stayed pending a decision in the Edwards case also. In June 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court withdrew its grant of certiorari in Edwards and, as a result, the stays in these cases were lifted. The plaintiffs in Acosta voluntarily dismissed this case. A motion to dismiss is pending in the Thurmond case. THORATEC CORP: Shareholders Have Until June to File Amended Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in Cooper v. Thoratec Corp., Case No. 4:14-cv-00360 will have until June 20, 2014 to file a consolidated amended class action complaint, according to the company's May 7, 2014, Form 10- Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2014. On January 24, 2014, the company and three of the company's present and former officers were named as defendants in a complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The action, entitled Cooper v. Thoratec Corp., Case No. 4:14-cv-00360, is a putative class action brought on behalf of purchasers of the company's securities between April 29, 2010, and November 27, 2013, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the Company made false or misleading statements in the company's financial reports, SEC filings and press releases regarding the company's business and outlook, focusing primarily on the Company's alleged failure to disclose that the HeartMate II Left Ventricular Assist Device had a purported significant risk of pump thrombosis. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, among other relief. On April 21, 2014, the Court appointed Bradley Cooper as Lead Plaintiff. Plaintiffs will have until June 20, 2014 to file a consolidated amended class action complaint. TIBET PHARMACEUTICALS: "Yang" Suit Transferred to New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit styled Yang v. Tibet Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-00054, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Virgin Islands to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark). The New Jersey District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-03538-FSH- MAH to the proceeding. The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons, other than the Defendants, who purchased the common stock of Tibet pursuant and traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering. Tibet Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a British Virgin Islands corporation, through its operating subsidiaries, purports to engage in the research, development, manufacture, marketing, and sale of traditional Tibetan medicines in China. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel H. Holt, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOEL HOLT 2132 Company Street, Suite 2 St. Croix, VI 00820 Telephone: (340) 773-8709 Facsimile: (340) 773-8677 E-mail: holtvi@aol.com - and - Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (272) 202-3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com Defendant Hayden Zou is represented by: Israel Dahan, Esq. CADWALDER WICKERSHAM & TAFT LLP One World Financial Center New York, NY 10281 Telephone: (212) 504-6000 E-mail: israel.dahan@cwt.com TOTAL FRAC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under WARN Act ------------------------------------------------------------- Rene Moreno, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Total Frac Logistics, LLC, Sundance Services, and Sundance Flow Back and Well Testing Company, Case No. 3:14-cv- 00166 (S.D. Tex., May 16, 2014) is a civil action for the collection of unpaid wages and benefits for 60 calendar days pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988. The proposed class members are those individuals that were terminated without notice as the Plaintiff as part of the same mass layoff. Total Frac Logistics, LLC is a Texas Limited Liability Company. Sundance Services is a Texas business operating for profit. Sundance Flow Back and Well Testing Company is a Texas business operating for profit. The Plaintiff is represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P. 711 W. Alabama St. Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: Dfoty@kennedyhodges.com UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Securities Suit v. PSI Continues in Tenn. Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- The suit Garden City Employees' Retirement System v. Psychiatric Solutions, Inc. continues in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, according to Universal Health Services, Inc.'s May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2014. This is a purported shareholder class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against PSI and the former directors in 2009 alleging violations of federal securities laws. The company intends to defend the case vigorously. Should the company be deemed liable in this matter, it believes it would be entitled to commercial insurance recoveries for amounts paid by the company, subject to certain limitations and deductibles. Included in the company's consolidated balance sheets as of March 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013, is an estimated reserve (current liability) and corresponding commercial insurance recovery (current asset) which did not have a material impact on the company's financial statements. US BANK: Calif. Supreme Court Tosses $15-Mil. Overtime Award ------------------------------------------------------------ Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that the California Supreme Court tossed a $15 million overtime award to bank employees on May 29 because of a faulty statistical sample, but justices were careful not to toss at-large reliance on statistics in wage-and-hour class actions. Business interests had hoped the court would use Duran v. U.S. Bank National Association to limit plaintiffs attorneys' use of statistical samples to generalize damages and liability over an entire class. Plaintiffs employment attorneys worried such limits could destroy their cases. Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Carol Corrigan cautiously upheld reliance on statistical evidence and provided some guidelines for its proper use. She explicitly shied away from making a "sweeping conclusion" that would remove sampling and statistics as tools in class actions. "Statistical sampling may provide an appropriate means of proving liability and damages in some wage and hour class actions," Justice Corrigan wrote. But "after a class has been certified, the court's obligation to manage individual issues does not disappear" and each plaintiff must still give some proof of his or her claim. Justice Goodwin Liu wrote a concurring opinion. Employment lawyers on both sides seemed ready to claim the ruling as a victory. Kimberly Kralowec, who filed an amicus brief in the case on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association, said the court shot down U.S. Bank's claim that it should have a right to call every class member individually to the stand. "Essentially they were arguing you never get to have a class action," she said. Jones Day partner George Howard -- grhoward@jonesday.com -- an employment defense lawyer, said the opinion would make it more challenging to certify a class. The court called on judges to consider whether a class is manageable and can withstand trial, not just whether all class members share a common issue. It also invited trial judges to decertify classes if individual issues prove unmanageable. "I just think this is going to inject some much-needed rigor into this whole process," said Mr. Howard, who is not involved in the case. "It's no longer 'see if I can find a common issue and hope that I get my case settled.'" The 2001 suit alleged U.S. Bank had misclassified a group of business banking officers as outside sales staff exempt from overtime pay. A central issue before the lower court was whether the employees universally met the definition of outside sales staff, which requires spending more than half of the workday outside the office. Both the majority and concurring opinions condemned the particular statistical sample employed in Duran to resolve that question. Judge Robert Freedman of Alameda County Superior Court used a sample of 20 workers to determine that the entire 260-member class had been improperly denied overtime and was entitled to $57,000 per person. Judge Freedman developed his own sampling plan without expert advice on minimizing the margin of error and "improperly extrapolated liability findings from a small, skewed sample group to the entire class," Justice Corrigan wrote. The sample was not random, she concluded, as it included the two named plaintiffs handpicked by lawyers and allowed some class members originally selected for the sample to opt out. Furthermore, Judge Freedman refused to consider declarations submitted by U.S. Bank from 75 class members who said they spent more than half their time working outside the office. "This evidence suggested that work habits among [business banking officers] were not uniform and that nearly one-third of the class may have been properly classified as exempt and lacking any valid claim against [U.S. Bank]," Justice Corrigan wrote. Edward Wynne -- EWynne@wynnelawfirm.com -- of the Wynne Law Firm in Greenbrae argued the case on behalf of the class in March; Timothy Freudenberger -- tfreud@cdflaborlaw.com -- of Carothers DiSante & Freudenberger argued for U.S. Bank. Mr. Freudenberger did not respond to a phone message or email requesting comment. Mr. Wynne called the May 29 opinion more favorable than the original court of appeal decision, which had dismissed the case permanently. Corrigan's opinion instead remands the case for fresh class certification proceedings and a new trial. "We're really pleased," Mr. Wynne said. "While it's regrettable that the judgment wasn't upheld and the case was decertified, the court has given us valuable guidance for getting the case recertified." Mr. Wynne hasn't ruled out using a statistical model in round two of litigation. "We're going to get the case certified again," he said. "I see no reason not to use statistical modeling again." VISION ONE: "Reverie" Suit Moved From Washington to Minnesota ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Reverie at Marcato Owners Association v. Vision One LLC, et al., Case No. 3:12-cv-06035, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The Minnesota District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:14-cv-01544-DSD-TNL to the proceeding. The case asserts product liability claims. VOSS LAW: Settles Paralegals' FLSA Overtime Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------- Miriam Rozen, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that four paralegals and their former employer, The Voss Law Firm in the Woodlands, have settled Naomi Valdez v. The Voss Law Firm, a Fair Labor Standards Act lawsuit that the women filed against the firm, alleging that it hadn't paid them overtime. The firm and the four women filed a joint motion to dismiss all claims on May 19. Alex Mabry -- amabry@mabrylaw.com -- a partner in The Mabry Law Firm in Houston, represents the plaintiffs. He confirmed that there was a settlement, saying, "My position is that paralegals are entitled to overtime." He declined to comment further. Scott Hunziker, the managing partner in The Voss Law Firm who represents his firm in the litigation, confirmed the settlement and said, "We were happy with the resolution of the case. However, it is unfortunate that the current state of the law allows disgruntled ex-employees to sue for allegedly working overtime with literally no supporting evidence. At day's end, the deck is clearly stacked in favor of biting the hand that feeds you." In an Oct. 4, 2013, amended complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that the firm "required and/or permitted plaintiffs to work in excess of 40 hours per week, but refused to compensate them for such overtime hours at the rate required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq. ('FLSA'). Defendant's conduct violated the FLSA, which requires non-exempt employees to be compensated for overtime work at a rate not less than one-and-one- half times their regular rate." In an answer filed Oct. 17, 2013, the defendant denied the allegations and asserted as an affirmative defense that the plaintiffs were not entitled to overtime pay under the FLSA. WALGREENS CO: Enters Into Conditional Settlement in Labeling Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that Walgreens, Wal-Mart and nutritional supplement maker Perrigo have reached a conditional settlement with consumers who filed a class action alleging the companies misled them on the joint-healing power of glucosamine and chondroitin. Terms of the proposed settlement include $15 rebates for each bottle purchased for those with receipts, $3 a bottle for those without receipts, and up to $2 million for four plaintiffs' law firms. South Carolina-based Perrigo also agreed to stop, for at least 24 months, labeling the supplements as good for "rebuilding," "renewing," "regrowing," "growing," "adding," or "regenerating," cartilage, as they had been described in marketing and advertising for the products. The defendants deny any wrongdoing, according to the tentative settlement of Rosemary Quinn v. Walgreen Co., Wal-Mart Stores, and Perrigo Co., filed May 19 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Nine other similar putative class actions around the country have been put on hold until the Quinn case is resolved. If it is, those cases will be closed. All had alleged violations of consumer protection and business statutes. The suits argued that a dozen scientific studies have failed to show the supplements could repair or regrow degenerated cartilage which causes the joint pain and crippling effects of arthritis. The also contends that the only studies that detected anything more than a placebo effect were conducted more than a decade ago and were sponsored by the supplements' manufacturers. But a clause in the proposed settlement would allow Perrigo, if new evidence is found to substantiate the claims of cartilage regrowth or renewal, to seek agreement from the settlement class counsel to modify the labeling. The plaintiffs are represented by Greg Blankinship, of Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber LLP; Elaine Ryan -- eryan@bffb.com -- of Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, PC; and Stewart Weltman, of Stewart M. Weltman, LLP. WELLS FARGO: Settles Securities Action by Minn. Retirement System ----------------------------------------------------------------- A settlement was reached in the suit City of Farmington Hills Employees Retirement System v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., according to Wells Fargo & Company's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is involved in five separate pending actions brought by securities lending customers of Wells Fargo and Wachovia Bank in various courts. In general, each of the cases alleges that Wells Fargo violated fiduciary and contractual duties by investing collateral for loaned securities in investments that suffered losses. One of the cases, filed on March 27, 2012, is composed of a class of Wells Fargo securities lending customers in a case captioned City of Farmington Hills Employees Retirement System v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. The class action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. On April 12, 2014, the parties reached a settlement in principle of the class action case. The settlement in principle is subject to Court approval. * Number of TCPA Class Action Filings in N.Y. Likely to Increase ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Leichtman and Shane St. Hill of Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, in an article for New York Law Journal, report that as a result of recent U.S. Supreme Court and Second Circuit decisions, New York practitioners can expect increasing numbers of Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class actions to be filed in New York, following the national trend. The article will address those recent decisions and describe issue-spotting for practitioners litigating TCPA cases. Introduction New York federal courts have long held that because New York CPLR Sec. 901(b) prohibits class actions for statutory damages, claims brought under the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227, could not be brought in New York federal courts as class actions. Because the TCPA included a statement that private parties can enforce it only "if otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court of a State," (47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(b)(3)), the Second Circuit had held that CPLR class action rules applied rather than FRCP 23. Thus, until recently, CPLR Sec. 901's prohibition on class treatment of statutory damages claims applied to TCPA claims brought in New York federal courts. After the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, 132 S. Ct. 140 (2012), however, a pair of Second Circuit decisions in the second half of 2013 reversed course. As a result, from mid-2013 to present, at least 14 TCPA class actions have already been filed in New York federal courts. The TCPA is a federal statute that was passed in the early 1990s aimed at prohibiting telemarketing calls, faxes, and text messages without prior consent. The TCPA specifically provides for a private right of action that, if successful, can result in awards between $500 and $1,500 per violation. Obviously, because statutory damages can become very large when aggregated, large scale electronic marketing campaigns, engaged in by both local and national marketers, have made TCPA cases a popular class action vehicle for the plaintiff's bar. For example, in 2013 TCPA cases in California and Washington state against Bank of America and Papa John's, respectively, settled for $32 and $16.5 million. But there was potentially billions in exposure in these cases. Until now, such class actions could not be brought in New York. What changed and why? 'Mims' and The Second Circuit Response In 2012, the Supreme Court got involved in a growing circuit split over whether federal subject matter jurisdiction existed for TCPA claims. While the Second Circuit had held that there was no federal subject matter jurisdiction, other circuit and district courts had found such jurisdiction existed. In Mims, the Supreme Court ruled that the "permissive grant of jurisdiction to state courts" in the TCPA did not preclude "federal courts' exercise of the general federal question jurisdiction they have possessed since 1875." 132 S. Ct. at 745. The court also found that federal law provides the rules of decision in TCPA cases. Before Mims, the Second Circuit's view was that state law provided the rules of decision in TCPA cases, and it thus had held that state statutes of limitations rather than the federal four-year catch-all statute of limitations applied to TCPA claims. At the time Mims was decided, a petition for certiorari was pending from a Second Circuit decision applying Connecticut's two-year statute of limitations in a TCPA case. Giovanniello v. ALM Media, 660 F.3d 587 (2d. Cir. 2011), vacated and remanded, 133 S. Ct. 159 (2012), reversed in part, 726 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2013). In light of Mims, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded to the Second Circuit, which found its prior jurisprudence on this issue was incorrect holding that the federal four-year statute of limitations applied instead of the shorter state law limitations period. Since Giovanniello was a Connecticut case, the question of the permissibility of class actions in New York was not at issue. However, a few months later, the Second Circuit had the opportunity to review the New York class action question in light of Mims. In Bank v. Independence Energy Group, 736 F.3d 660 (2d Cir. 2013), the Second Circuit decided whether a plaintiff's TCPA class action was properly dismissed by the E.D.N.Y. in reliance on the CPLR The Second Circuit noted that "[t]he Supreme Court's decision in Mims . . . uprooted much of our TCPA jurisprudence," and held that New York State's procedural rule prohibiting class action claims for statutory damages no longer prohibits class actions for damages being brought under the TCPA in New York federal courts. Id. at 661. Open the floodgates. Issues Frequently Arising in TCPA Cases Now that the New York courts are open to TCPA class actions, New York practitioners litigating TCPA cases need to be aware of a host of issues that have come up in other jurisdictions. The following outlines some of the most important ones to watch for -- and while not intended to be a comprehensive discussion of each issue (each of which could fill tomes on their own) -- aims to provides an "issue spotting" checklist for litigating TCPA class actions. FCC regulations and guidance: Binding or not? While the TCPA is statutory, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has a statutory mandate to enact regulations and to provide guidance on interpreting those regulations and the statute. See 47 C.F.R. 64.1200. Some have been the subject of the formal federal rulemaking process and therefore have the force of law, but some are merely persuasive authority, although some courts have held FCC enforcement guidelines should not be taken into account. The practice point here is not to take for granted that a given regulation or policy statement deserves deference by the court -- each piece of guidance from the FCC should be carefully vetted before relying on it, whether for the plaintiff or defense. Unsolicited advertising, existing business relationships, scope of consent, the recent changes to Federal regulations, and the impact on class certification. Without attempting to parse all of the statutory text and regulations that may apply in a given case here, the bulk of TCPA cases turn on several key issues. First, often the defendant will allege that a given communication is not an advertisement, but is merely an "informational communication," which is not subject to the TCPA at all. Courts take a broad view of what constitutes an advertisement, however, including any information that promotes a company's goods and services, even if they are offered for free or the communication is simply meant to induce the recipient to take some action like coming into the defendant's business. Next, cases involving communications made before October 2013 often turned on whether the "existing business relationship" exception applied. That exception permitted certain types of communications to be sent, even without express permission of the recipient, if the parties had a pre-existing business relationship. This exception is not in the statute itself, but was contained within one of the binding FCC regulations. The FCC, however, removed this exception in a regulation change that became effective on Oct. 16, 2013. The focus of the new regulations is on what constitutes "consent." This is probably the most litigated issue in TCPA cases. While it would seem that whether someone consented to receiving a communication ought to be a simple issue, all kinds of circumstances can give rise to arguments about whether a particular act is sufficient to provide consent. The new FCC regulations have tried to clarify, and make stricter, what constitutes "consent" for post-October 2013 communications. Under the new rules, consent means "prior express written consent" that has not been withdrawn, which means that inferential consent wrought from the voluntary provision of contact information can no longer be argued. The disclosure must be clear and conspicuous, and consent cannot be a condition for making a purchase. The recipient's signature is required (although it can be an electronic signature). For example, if a customer signs up for a store credit card or loyalty program, and the program guidelines inform the customer they may receive solicitations as a result of signing up for the program, that has been held to be sufficient consent by some courts. In a given case, however, a customer may claim that she did not intend to sign up for the program at issue. Other issues that can arise include whether the communications sent exceed the scope of the consent. For instance, in a recently settled case against the Buffalo Bills in Florida, the plaintiff argued that when class members signed up for the messaging service at issue, the terms and conditions of the service at sign up said the messages would be limited to three to five per week. Plaintiff alleged he received more than five messages per week "routinely." A motion to dismiss was pending when the case settled. Similarly, in a case brought against the Los Angeles Lakers, the issue was whether, after a consumer opted out, a confirmatory message that acknowledged the request for the opt out violated the TCPA. A motion to dismiss was granted but appealed to the Ninth Circuit, where the case was settled prior to an appellate decision. The question of consent can often dictate whether a class action is certified. Whether individualized inquiries are necessary into whether each class member consented can often predominate over other common issues, so this has become a frequently litigated issue. What technology counts as an "automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS)? The reach of the TCPA under 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(b)(1)(A) is meant to cover communications that intrude on the privacy of people's lives and harm them with unanticipated bills. When passed in 1991, we lived in a very different communications era, when home or cell phone bills contained charges for each call made or received. Smartphones, which many people now use exclusively, did not exist. Many TCPA cases thus involve the question of what constitutes an ATDS under the statute. There is no dispute that calling systems that generate random numbers of people in the general citizenry who are not already customers of a business for marketing purposes falls within the statutory definition. But in the Lakers case, for example, one issue was whether the text messages at issue constituted use of an ATDS because the numbers were not randomly generated and were only sent to people who gave the Lakers their number. In another recent decision, Yahoo! was dismissed from TCPA liability by a district court where it sent individualized messages via its opt-in texting service, even though the recipient had unsuccessfully tried to opt out of the program. Courts are thus increasingly reviewing TCPA claims to determine whether the context of the communications at issue fall within what the statute truly intended to cover, requiring more than bare pleading. Insurance coverage. It is important for practitioners to work with their clients to determine if there is any insurance coverage available to cover defense and liability costs for TCPA claims. Complex coverage issues are beyond the scope of this note, but coverage can turn on whether the damages at issue are deemed to be punitive (usually not insurable) or remedial (usually insurable). Some recent Illinois state court decisions have found TCPA damage claims to be insurable remedial remedies, but one federal court in New York recently denied coverage in a TCPA case for a variety of reasons pertaining to the specific policy clauses at issue in that case. Conclusion New York practitioners can expect the New York dockets to grow as a result of the recent appellate rulings permitting TCPA class action claims in our courts. The above provides some issues to consider as the body of law grows in our circuit. David Leichtman -- dleichtman@rkmc.com -- is a partner at Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi in New York, where he practices in the intellectual property litigation and business litigation groups. Shane St. Hill -- ssthill@rkmc.com -- is an associate at the firm. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graybar Electric Had 3,200 Fibro Cases ------------------------------------------------------- Approximately 3,200 cases that alleged asbestos-related injuries were pending against Graybar Electric Company, Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013. The Company states: "With respect to asbestos litigation, as of December 31, 2013, approximately 3,200 individual cases and 67 multiple-plaintiff cases are pending that allege actual or potential asbestos-related injuries resulting from the use of or exposure to products allegedly sold by us. Additional claims will likely be filed against us in the future. Our insurance carriers have historically borne virtually all costs and liability with respect to this litigation and are continuing to do so. Accordingly, our future liability with respect to pending and unasserted claims is dependent on the continued solvency of our insurance carriers. Other factors that could impact this liability are: the number of future claims filed against us; the defense and settlement costs associated with these claims; changes in the litigation environment, including changes in federal or state law governing the compensation of asbestos claimants; adverse jury verdicts in excess of historic settlement amounts; and bankruptcies of other asbestos defendants. Because any of these factors may change, our future exposure is unpredictable and it is possible that we may incur costs that would have a material adverse impact on our liquidity, financial position, or results of operations in future periods." Graybar Electric Company, Inc., is a distributor of electrical products in the US. The employee-owned company distributes more than 1 million electrical, communications, and data networking products through a network of around 240 distribution facilities. Its diversified lineup includes a myriad of wire, cable, and lighting products from thousands of manufacturers and suppliers. It also offers supply chain management and logistics services. Affiliate Graybar Financial Services provides equipment leasing and financing. Graybar Electric sells to construction contractors, industrial plants, power utilities, and telecommunications providers, primarily in the US. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bel Fuse Settles Becker v. Adience Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Bel Fuse Inc. said the asbestos lawsuit captioned Richard G. Becker vs. Adience Inc., et al, was settled, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013. The Company, through its subsidiary Cinch Connectors Inc., is a defendant in an asbestos lawsuit captioned Richard G. Becker vs. Adience Inc., et al. The lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court for the County of Wayne in the State of Michigan. The complaint was amended to include Cinch Connectors Inc. and other defendants on August 13, 2012. The Company filed its answer to the complaint on October 19, 2012. This case was settled for a de minimis amount on September 25, 2013. Bel Fuse Inc. (Bel) is a producer of electronic products. The Company designs, manufactures and markets an array of magnetics, modules, circuit protection devices and interconnect products. These products are designed to protect, regulate, connect, isolate or manage a variety of electronic circuits. Bel's products are primarily used in the networking, telecommunications, computing, military, aerospace and transportation industries. Bel's portfolio of products also finds application in the automotive, medical and consumer electronics markets. Its magnetic products include MagJack integrated connector modules, power transformers and discrete components. Its modules products include power conversion modules and integrated modules. Its circuit protection products include miniature, subminiature and micro fuses, and positive temperature coefficient (PTC) devices. In August 2013, Bel Fuse Inc. acquired privately-held Array Connector Corporation. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pacific Office Records ARO for Fibro Removal ------------------------------------------------------------- Pacific Office Properties Trust, Inc., says it recorded conditional asset retirement obligations related to asbestos removal, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013. The Company states: "We record a liability for a conditional asset retirement obligation, defined as a legal obligation to perform an asset retirement activity in which the timing and/or method of settlement is conditional on a future event that may or may not be within a company's control, when the fair value of the obligation can be reasonably estimated. Depending on the age of the construction, certain properties in our portfolio may contain non- friable asbestos. If these properties undergo major renovations or are demolished, certain environmental regulations are in place, which specify the manner in which the asbestos, if present, must be handled and disposed. Based on our evaluation of the physical condition and attributes of certain of our properties, we recorded conditional asset retirement obligations related to asbestos removal. As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, the liability in our consolidated balance sheets for conditional asset retirement obligations was $0.7 million and $0.6 million, respectively. The accretion expense related to asbestos removal was $0.05 million and $0.04 million for the years ended December, 2013 and 2012, respectively." Pacific Office Properties Trust, Inc. is a real estate investment trust (REIT). The Company owns and operates primarily institutional-quality office properties principally in Hawaii and southern California. As of December 31, 2011, the Company owned six office properties consisting of approximately 1.5 million rentable square feet and interests (ranging from 5% to approximately 32%) in 17 joint venture properties (including a sports club associated with its City Square property in Phoenix, Arizona), of which the Company has managing ownership interests in 13, consisting of approximately 2.9 million rentable square feet. The Company owns and operates office properties in the western United States. The Company focuses on the markets in Honolulu and the western United States mainland (in particular, southern California and the greater Phoenix metropolitan area). The Company operates in two segments: (Honolulu and the Western United States mainland. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Indemnity Has $50MM Reserves for A&E Loss ----------------------------------------------------------------- Global Indemnity plc's gross reserves for asbestos and environmental loss was $50,155,000, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013. The Company has exposure to asbestos & environmental ("A&E") claims. The asbestos exposure primarily arises from the sale of product liability insurance, and the environmental exposure arises from the sale of general liability and commercial multi-peril insurance. In establishing the liability for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses related to A&E exposures, management considers facts currently known and the current state of the law and coverage litigation. Liabilities are recognized for known claims (including the cost of related litigation) when sufficient information has been developed to indicate the involvement of a specific insurance policy, and management can reasonably estimate its liability. In addition, liabilities have been established to cover additional exposures on both known and unasserted claims. Estimates of the liabilities are reviewed and updated regularly. Case law continues to evolve for such claims, and significant uncertainty exists about the outcome of coverage litigation and whether past claim experience will be representative of future claim experience. Included in net unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses as of December 31, 2013, 2012, and 2011 were IBNR reserves of $18.2 million, $14.6 million, and $26.2 million, respectively, and case reserves of approximately $4.8 million, $5.5 million, and $3.6 million, respectively, for known A&E- related claims. For the year ended December 31, 2013, the Company's gross reserves for A&E loss was $50,155,000. Establishing reserves for A&E and other mass tort claims involves more judgment than other types of claims due to, among other things, inconsistent court decisions, an increase in bankruptcy filings as a result of asbestos-related liabilities, and judicial interpretations that often expand theories of recovery and broaden the scope of coverage. The insurance industry continues to receive a substantial number of asbestos-related bodily injury claims, with an increasing focus being directed toward other parties, including installers of products containing asbestos rather than against asbestos manufacturers. This shift has resulted in significant insurance coverage litigation implicating applicable coverage defenses or determinations, if any, including but not limited to, determinations as to whether or not an asbestos- related bodily injury claim is subject to aggregate limits of liability found in most comprehensive general liability policies. In 2009, one of the Company's insurance companies was dismissed from a lawsuit seeking coverage from it and other unrelated insurance companies. The suit involved issues related to approximately 3,900 existing asbestos-related bodily injury claims and future claims. The dismissal was the result of a settlement of a disputed claim related to accident year 1984. The settlement is conditioned upon certain legal events occurring which may trigger financial obligations by the insurance company. One such event is the confirmation of a Plan involving an asbestos trust established under the bankruptcy code and funded in part by settlement proceeds. On February 24, 2014, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California (District Court) issued a Memorandum Re Confirmation of a Revised Plan following a remand from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The confirmation of the Revised Plan includes an injunction under 11 U.S.C. Section 524(g) (US bankruptcy code) related to the suit. The injunction, also called a "channeling injunction," precludes, among other things, non-settling insurers from asserting claims against one of the Company's insurance companies and asbestos related claims by third parties against one of the Company's insurance companies that are related to the named insured. The most recent ruling may be subject to an appeal by the non-settling insurer group. Management will continue to monitor the developments of the litigation to determine if any additional financial exposure is present. As of December 31, 2013, 2012, and 2011, the survival ratio on a gross basis for the Company's open A&E claims was 11.3 years, 11.3 years, and 8.9 years, respectively. As of December 31, 2013, 2012, and 2011, the survival ratio on a net basis for the Company's open A&E claims was 6.7 years, 7.0 years, and 6.4 years, respectively. The survival ratio, which is the ratio of gross or net reserves to the 3-year average of annual paid claims, is a financial measure that indicates how long the current amount of gross or net reserves are expected to last based on the current rate of paid claims. Global Indemnity plc (Global Indemnity) is a holding company. Global Indemnity is a property and casualty insurers in the industry, provides its insurance products across a distribution network-binding authority, program, brokerage, and reinsurance. The Company manages the distribution of these products in two segments: Insurance Operations and Reinsurance Operations. The Company offers property and casualty insurance products in the excess and surplus lines marketplace through its Insurance Operations and provides third party treaty reinsurance for writers of excess and surplus and specialty lines of property and casualty insurance through its Reinsurance Operations. The Company's subsidiaries include United National Insurance Company, Penn- America Insurance Company and Penn-Star Insurance Company; Diamond State Insurance Company and United National Casualty Insurance Company; United National Specialty Insurance Company and Penn- Patriot Insurance Company. ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECO Had 173 Fibro Cases Pending at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------ There were 173 asbestos-related cases pending against CECO Environmental Corp., according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013. The Company states: "Our subsidiary, Met-Pro, beginning in 2002 began to be named in asbestos-related lawsuits filed against a large number of industrial companies including, in particular, those in the pump and fluid handling industries. In management's opinion, the complaints typically have been vague, general and speculative, alleging that Met-Pro, along with the numerous other defendants, sold unidentified asbestos-containing products and engaged in other related actions which caused injuries (including death) and loss to the plaintiffs. Counsel has advised that more recent cases typically allege more serious claims of mesothelioma. The Company's insurers have hired attorneys who, together with the Company, are vigorously defending these cases. Many cases have been dismissed after the plaintiff fails to produce evidence of exposure to Met-Pro's products. In those cases where evidence has been produced, the Company's experience has been that the exposure levels are low and the Company's position has been that its products were not a cause of death, injury or loss. The Company has been dismissed from or settled a large number of these cases. Cumulative settlement payments from 2002 through December 31, 2013 for cases involving asbestos-related claims were $0.7 million which together with all legal fees other than corporate counsel expenses, have been paid by the Company's insurers. The average cost per settled claim, excluding legal fees, was approximately $25,000. Based upon the most recent information available to the Company regarding such claims, there were a total of 173 cases pending against the Company as of December 31, 2013 (with Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia having the largest number of cases), as compared with 153 cases that were pending as of January 1, 2013. During the current fiscal year commencing January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013, 48 new cases were filed against the Company, and the Company was dismissed from 32 cases and settled zero cases. Most of the pending cases have not advanced beyond the early stages of discovery, although a number of cases are on schedules leading to, or are scheduled for trial. The Company believes that its insurance coverage is adequate for the cases currently pending against the Company and for the foreseeable future, assuming a continuation of the current volume, nature of cases and settlement amounts. However, the Company has no control over the number and nature of cases that are filed against it, nor as to the financial health of its insurers or their position as to coverage. The Company also presently believes that none of the pending cases will have a material adverse impact upon the Company's results of operations, liquidity or financial condition." CECO Environmental Corp. (CECO) is a provider of global, air pollution control technology. The Company operates as a provider of air pollution control technology, products and services through three principal product groups, including Engineered Equipment Technology and Parts Group, Contracting/Services Group and Component Parts Group. Its Engineered Equipment Technology and Parts Group produces various types of air pollution control technology and equipment. Its Contracting/Services Group, which produces air pollution control and engineered industrial ventilation systems and its Component Parts Group, which manufactures products used by the Company and other air pollution control companies and air system contractors. In March 2013, it announced the acquisition of Aarding Thermal Acoustics B.V. In August 2013, the Company announced that it has completed the acquisition of Met-Pro Corporation. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Had 269 Fibro Cases at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------- Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. was a co-defendant in approximately 269 cases asserting asbestos-related personal injury claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013. The Company states: "We were a co-defendant in approximately 269 cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 609 plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability, and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages. In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from $25,000 to $75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages sought. To the extent that any specific amount of damages is sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants. There are only seven asbestos cases, involving 25 plaintiffs, that plead specified damages. In each of the seven cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of action. In three cases, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the amount of $3.0 million for four separate causes of action and $1.0 million for another cause of action and punitive damages in the amount of $10.0 million. In the fourth case, the plaintiff has alleged against each named defendant, compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of $10.0 million, for seven separate causes of action. In the fifth case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the amount of $20.0 million for three separate causes of action and $5.0 million for another cause of action and punitive damages in the amount of $20.0 million. In the remaining two cases, the plaintiffs have each alleged against each named defendant, compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of $50.0 million, for four separate causes of action. Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos- containing product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries. We intend to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe we will continue to be successful in being dismissed from such cases. However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation. Despite this uncertainty, and although our results of operations and cash flows for a particular period could be adversely affected by asbestos- related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, liquidity or results of operations. Among the factors management considered in reaching this conclusion were: (a) our historical success in being dismissed from these types of lawsuits; (b) many cases have been improperly filed against one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the plaintiffs have been unable to establish any causal relationship to us or our products or premises; (d) in many cases, the plaintiffs have been unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable injury or compensable loss at all or that any injuries that they have incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to asbestos; and (e) the complaints assert claims against multiple defendants and, in most cases, the damages alleged are not attributed to individual defendants. Additionally, we do not believe that the amounts claimed in any of the asbestos cases are meaningful indicators of our potential exposure because the amounts claimed typically bear no relation to the extent of the plaintiff's injury, if any. Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to date and, based upon available information, our management does not expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity or financial position." Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. (Holdings) conducts its business primarily through the subsidiaries owned by its direct subsidiary, Park-Ohio Industries, Inc. (Park-Ohio). It is an industrial supply chain logistics and diversified manufacturing business operating in three segments: Supply Technologies, Aluminum Products and Manufactured Products. Supply Technologies provides the Company's customers with Total Supply Management services for a range of specialty production components. Its Aluminum Products business manufactures cast and machined aluminum components, and the Company's Manufactured Products business is a manufacturer of engineered industrial products. The Company's businesses serve industrial original equipment manufacturers in a variety of industrial sectors. On March 26, 2012, it acquired Fluid Routing Solutions Inc. In April 2013, the Company Fluid Routing Solutions (FRS) business acquired all of the assets of Bates Acquisition LLC and Bates Real Estate Acquisition, LLC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Power Continues to Defend Fibro Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- Global Power Equipment Group Inc. continues to defend itself against asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013. The Company states: "A former operating unit of Global Power has been named as a defendant in a limited number of asbestos personal injury lawsuits. Neither we nor our predecessors ever mined, manufactured, produced or distributed asbestos fiber, the material that allegedly caused the injury underlying these actions. The bankruptcy court's discharge order issued upon emergence from bankruptcy extinguished the claims made by all plaintiffs who had filed asbestos claims against us before that time. We also believe the bankruptcy court's discharge order should serve as a bar against any later claim filed against us, including any of our subsidiaries, based on alleged injury from asbestos at any time before emergence from bankruptcy. In any event in all of the asbestos cases finalized post-bankruptcy, we have been successful in having such cases dismissed without liability. Moreover, during 2012, we secured insurance coverage that will help to reimburse the defense costs and potential indemnity obligations of our former operating unit relating to these claims. We intend to vigorously defend all currently active actions, just as we defended the other actions that have since been dismissed, all without liability, and we do not anticipate that any of these actions will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or liquidity. However, the outcomes of any legal action cannot be predicted and, therefore, there can be no assurance that this will be the case." Global Power Equipment Group Inc. is a provider of power generation equipment and maintenance services for customers in the domestic and international energy, power infrastructure and service industries. The Company, along with its subsidiaries, designs, engineers and manufactures heat recovery and auxiliary power equipment primarily used in the operation of gas turbine power plants, as well as for other industrial and power-related applications. The Company operates in two segments. Its Products Division designs, engineers and manufactures products worldwide for the gas turbine power generation, energy and process industries. Its Services Division provides industrial services, focusing on specialty services, outage management and overhaul of nuclear power facilities and other heavy industrial plants. In May 2013, the Company acquired Hetsco, Inc. In July 2013, Global Power Equipment Group Inc. announced that it has acquired privately- owned IBI, LLC (IBI Power). ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Inc. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Magnetek, Inc., continues to defend itself against asbestos- related lawsuits associated with previously acquired business operations, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2013. The Company has been named, along with multiple other defendants, in asbestos-related lawsuits associated with business operations previously acquired by the Company, but which are no longer owned. During the Company's ownership, none of the businesses produced or sold asbestos-containing products. For such claims, the Company is either contractually indemnified against liability, or contractually obligated to defend and indemnify the purchaser of these former Magnetek business operations. With respect to these claims, the Company is uninsured, but management believes that it has no such liability and the Company aggressively seeks dismissal from these proceedings. Management does not believe the asbestos proceedings, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on its financial position or results of operations. Given the nature of the issues, uncertainty of the ultimate outcome, and inability to estimate the potential loss, no amounts have been reserved for these matters. Magnetek, Inc. (Magnetek) is a provider of digital power control systems that are used to control motion and power primarily in material handling, elevator, and mining applications. The Company's products are sold directly or through manufacturers' representatives to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) for incorporation into their products, to system integrators and value-added resellers for assembly and incorporation into end-user systems, to distributors for resale to OEMs and contractors, and to end users for repair and replacement purposes. The Company is an independent supplier of digital drives, radio controls, software, and accessories for industrial cranes and hoists, and it is also the supplier of digital direct current (DC) motion control systems for elevators. The Company's products consist primarily of programmable motion control and power conditioning systems used in the overhead cranes and hoists; elevators; and coal mining equipment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: International Shipholding Had $299MM Reserves -------------------------------------------------------------- International Shipholding Corporation had approximately $299 million in reserves for lawsuits primarily related to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013. The Company states: "We have been named as a defendant in numerous lawsuits claiming damages related to occupational diseases, primarily related to asbestos and hearing loss. We believe that most of these claims are without merit, and that insurance and the indemnification of a previous owner of one of our subsidiaries may mitigate our exposure. Based on consultation with outside legal counsel, we have estimated our current overall exposure to the lawsuits in question, after considering insurance coverage for these claims, to be approximately $299,000,000. We believe those estimates are reasonable and have established reserves accordingly. Our reserves for these lawsuits as of December 31, 2013 and 2012 were approximately $299,000,000 and $650,000,000 respectively. There is a reasonable possibility that there will be additional claims associated with occupational diseases asserted against us. However, we do not believe that it is reasonably possible that our exposure from those claims will be material because (1) the lawsuits filed since 1989 claiming damages related to occupational diseases in which we have been named as a defendant have primarily involved seamen that served on-board our vessels and the number of such persons still eligible to file a lawsuit against us is diminishing and (2) we believe such potential additional claims, if pursued, would be covered under either or both of (i) an indemnification agreement with a previous owner of one of our subsidiaries or (ii) one or more of our existing insurance policies with deductibles ranging from $1,500 to $25,000 per claim." International Shipholding Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates a diversified fleet of United States and international flag vessels that provide international and domestic maritime transportation services to commercial and governmental customers primarily under medium to long-term time charters or contracts of affreightment. As of March 2, 2012, the Company owned or operated 38 ocean-going vessels. The Company operates in five segments: Time Charter Contracts - U.S. Flag, Time Charter Contracts - International Flag, Contracts of Affreightment (COA), Rail-Ferry Service, and Other. In February 2012, the Company completed a sale and leaseback transaction for its 2007-built Pure Car Truck Carrier, Green Bay. In March 2012, the Company sold two of its International Flag Pure Car Truck Carriers, ASIAN KING and ASIAN EMPEROR, to Norwegian Car Carriers ASA. In October 2012, it purchased a Pure Car Truck Carrier (PCTC). In November 2012, it acquired United Ocean Services, LLC (UOS). ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valhi Inc. Subsidiary Has 1,130 Pending PI Cases ----------------------------------------------------------------- Approximately 1,130 asbestos-related lawsuits were pending against a subsidiary of Valhi, Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013. The Company states: "NL Industries, Inc., has been named as a defendant in various lawsuits in several jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as a result of occupational exposure primarily to products manufactured by NL's former operations containing asbestos, silica and/or mixed dust. In addition, some plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos from working in various facilities previously owned and/or operated by NL. There are 1,130 of these types of cases pending, involving a total of approximately 1,643 plaintiffs. In addition, the claims of approximately 8,298 plaintiffs have been administratively dismissed or placed on the inactive docket in Ohio, Indiana and Texas state courts. We do not expect these claims will be re-opened unless the plaintiffs meet the courts' medical criteria for asbestos-related claims. We have not accrued any amounts for this litigation because of the uncertainty of liability and inability to reasonably estimate the liability, if any. To date, we have not been adjudicated liable in any of these matters. Based on information available to us, including: * facts concerning historical operations, * the rate of new claims, * the number of claims from which we have been dismissed and * our prior experience in the defense of these matters. We believe that the range of reasonably possible outcomes of these matters will be consistent with our historical costs (which are not material). Furthermore, we do not expect any reasonably possible outcome would involve amounts material to our consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity. We have sought and will continue to vigorously seek, dismissal and/or a finding of no liability from each claim. In addition, from time to time, we have received notices regarding asbestos or silica claims purporting to be brought against former subsidiaries, including notices provided to insurers with which we have entered into settlements extinguishing certain insurance policies. These insurers may seek indemnification from us." Valhi, Inc. is a holding company. It operates in three segments: Chemicals, Component Products and Waste Management. The Company's chemicals segment is operated through Kronos Worldwide, Inc., which is a global producer and marketer of titanium dioxide pigment (TiO2). The Company operates in the component products industry through its majority control of CompX International Inc. Waste Control Specialists LLC is the Company's subsidiary, which operates a West Texas facility for the processing, treatment, storage and disposal of a range of low-level radioactive, hazardous, toxic and other wastes. The Company operates through its wholly owned and majority owned subsidiaries, including NL Industries, Inc., Kronos Worldwide, Inc., CompX International Inc. and Waste Control Specialists LLC (WCS). In July of 2011, CompX International Inc. acquired 100% of the stock of a Canadian ergonomic component products company. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Had 8,319 Pending Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation had 8,319 pending asbestos claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013. Claims have been asserted alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos-containing components historically used in some products of predecessors of the Corporation's Air & Liquid subsidiary ("Asbestos Liability") and of an inactive subsidiary in dissolution. During 2013, all pending claims against the inactive subsidiary in dissolution were settled, dismissed or barred and the dissolution court issued a final order thereby concluding the dissolution proceedings. Those subsidiaries, and in some cases the Corporation, are defendants (among a number of defendants, often in excess of 50) in cases filed in various state and federal courts. For the year ended December 31, 2013, the Company disclosed a $22,618,000 of gross settlement and defense costs and, 8,319 pending claims. A substantial majority of the settlement and defense costs was reported and paid by insurers. Because claims are often filed and can be settled or dismissed in large groups, the amount and timing of settlements, as well as the number of open claims, can fluctuate significantly from period to period. Asbestos Insurance The Corporation and its Air & Liquid subsidiary are parties to a series of settlement agreements ("Settlement Agreements") with insurers that have coverage obligations for Asbestos Liability (the "Settling Insurers"). Under the Settlement Agreements, the Settling Insurers accept financial responsibility, subject to the terms and conditions of the respective agreements, including overall coverage limits, for pending and future claims for Asbestos Liability. The Settlement Agreements encompass the substantial majority of insurance policies that provide coverage for claims for Asbestos Liability. The Settlement Agreements include acknowledgements that Howden North America, Inc. ("Howden") is entitled to coverage under policies covering Asbestos Liability for claims arising out of the historical products manufactured or distributed by Buffalo Forge, a former subsidiary of the Corporation (the "Products"). The Settlement Agreements do not provide for any prioritization on access to the applicable policies or any sublimits of liability as to Howden or the Corporation and Air & Liquid, and, accordingly, Howden may access the coverage afforded by the Settling Insurers for any covered claim arising out of a Product. In general, access by Howden to the coverage afforded by the Settling Insurers for the Products will erode coverage under the Settlement Agreements available to the Corporation and Air & Liquid for Asbestos Liability. On February 24, 2011, the Corporation and Air & Liquid filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against thirteen domestic insurance companies, certain underwriters at Lloyd's, London and certain London market insurance companies, and Howden. The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment regarding the respective rights and obligations of the parties under excess insurance policies that were issued to the Corporation from 1981 through 1984 as respects claims against the Corporation and its subsidiary for Asbestos Liability and as respects asbestos bodily-injury claims against Howden arising from the Products. The Corporation and Air & Liquid have reached Settlement Agreements with all but two of the defendant insurers in the coverage action. Those Settlement Agreements specify the terms and conditions upon which the insurer parties are to contribute to defense and indemnity costs for claims for Asbestos Liability. One of the Settlement Agreements entered into by the Corporation and Air & Liquid also provided for the dismissal of claims, without prejudice, regarding two upper- level excess policies issued by one of the insurers. The Court has entered Orders dismissing all claims in the action filed against each other by the Corporation and Air & Liquid, on the one hand, and by the settling insurers, on the other. Howden also reached an agreement with eight domestic insurers addressing asbestos-related bodily injury claims arising from the Products, and claims as to those insurers and Howden have been dismissed. Various counterclaims, cross claims and third party claims have been filed in the litigation and remain pending although only two domestic insurers and Howden remain in the litigation as to the Corporation and Air & Liquid. On September 27, 2013, the Court issued a memorandum opinion and order granting in part and denying in part cross motions for summary judgment filed by the Corporation and Air & Liquid, Howden, and the insurer parties still in the litigation. The September 27, 2013 ruling is not a final ruling for appellate purposes, but when final it could be appealed by the parties to the litigation. Asbestos Valuations In 2006, the Corporation retained Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Associates, Inc. ("HR&A"), a nationally recognized expert in the valuation of asbestos liabilities, to assist the Corporation in estimating the potential liability for pending and unasserted future claims for Asbestos Liability. HR&A was not requested to estimate asbestos claims against the inactive subsidiary in dissolution, which the Corporation believes are immaterial. Based on this analysis, the Corporation recorded a reserve for Asbestos Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted through 2013 as at December 31, 2006. HR&A's analysis has been periodically updated since that time. Most recently, the HR&A analysis was updated in 2012, and additional reserves were established by the Corporation as at December 31, 2012 for Asbestos Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted through 2022. The methodology used by HR&A in its projection in 2012 of the operating subsidiaries' liability for pending and unasserted potential future claims for Asbestos Liability, which is substantially the same as the methodology employed by HR&A in prior estimates, relied upon and included the following factors: * HR&A's interpretation of a widely accepted forecast of the population likely to have been exposed to asbestos; * epidemiological studies estimating the number of people likely to develop asbestos-related diseases; * HR&A's analysis of the number of people likely to file an asbestos-related injury claim against the subsidiaries and the Corporation based on such epidemiological data and relevant claims history from January 1, 2010 to December 20, 2012; * an analysis of pending cases, by type of injury claimed and jurisdiction where the claim is filed; * an analysis of claims resolution history from January 1, 2010 to December 20, 2012 to determine the average settlement value of claims, by type of injury claimed and jurisdiction of filing; and * an adjustment for inflation in the future average settlement value of claims, at an annual inflation rate based on the Congressional Budget Office's ten year forecast of inflation. Using this information, HR&A estimated in 2012 the number of future claims for Asbestos Liability that would be filed through the year 2022, as well as the settlement or indemnity costs that would be incurred to resolve both pending and future unasserted claims through 2022. This methodology has been accepted by numerous courts. In conjunction with developing the aggregate liability estimate, the Corporation also developed an estimate of probable insurance recoveries for its Asbestos Liabilities. In developing the estimate, the Corporation considered HR&A's projection for settlement or indemnity costs for Asbestos Liability and management's projection of associated defense costs (based on the current defense to indemnity cost ratio), as well as a number of additional factors. These additional factors included the Settlement Agreements then in effect, policy exclusions, policy limits, policy provisions regarding coverage for defense costs, attachment points, prior impairment of policies and gaps in the coverage, policy exhaustions, insolvencies among certain of the insurance carriers, and the nature of the underlying claims for Asbestos Liability asserted against the subsidiaries and the Corporation as reflected in the Corporation's asbestos claims database, as well as estimated erosion of insurance limits on account of claims against Howden arising out of the Products. In addition to consulting with the Corporation's outside legal counsel on these insurance matters, the Corporation consulted with a nationally-recognized insurance consulting firm it retained to assist the Corporation with certain policy allocation matters that also are among the several factors considered by the Corporation when analyzing potential recoveries from relevant historical insurance for Asbestos Liabilities. Based upon all of the factors considered by the Corporation, and taking into account the Corporation's analysis of publicly available information regarding the credit-worthiness of various insurers, the Corporation estimated the probable insurance recoveries for Asbestos Liability and defense costs through 2022. Although the Corporation believes that the assumptions employed in the insurance valuation were reasonable and previously consulted with its outside legal counsel and insurance consultant regarding those assumptions, there are other assumptions that could have been employed that would have resulted in materially lower insurance recovery projections. Based on the analyses, the Corporation's reserve at December 31, 2012 for the total costs, including defense costs, for Asbestos Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted through 2022 was $181,022, of which approximately 73% was attributable to settlement costs for unasserted claims projected to be filed through 2022 and future defense costs. The reserve at December 31, 2013 was $158,293. While it is reasonably possible that the Corporation will incur additional charges for Asbestos Liability and defense costs in excess of the amounts currently reserved, the Corporation believes that there is too much uncertainty to provide for reasonable estimation of the number of future claims, the nature of such claims and the cost to resolve them beyond 2022. Accordingly, no reserve has been recorded for any costs that may be incurred after 2022. The Corporation's receivable at December 31, 2012 for insurance recoveries attributable to the claims for which the Corporation's Asbestos Liability reserve has been established, including the portion of incurred defense costs covered by the Settlement Agreements in effect through December 31, 2012, and the probable payments and reimbursements relating to the estimated indemnity and defense costs for pending and unasserted future Asbestos Liability claims, was $118,115. The Corporation updated its receivable at September 30, 2013 to take into account the effect of the Settlement Agreements reached in August 2013. The effect of these Settlement Agreements was to increase the Corporation's receivable for insurance recoveries attributable to claims for which the Corporation's Asbestos Liability reserve has been established by $16,340. For the year ended December 31, 2013, the Company recorded $110,741 asbestos-related insurance receivables. The insurance receivable recorded by the Corporation does not assume any recovery from insolvent carriers or carriers not party to a Settlement Agreement, and a substantial majority of the insurance recoveries deemed probable was from insurance companies rated A - (excellent) or better by A.M. Best Corporation. There can be no assurance, however, that there will not be further insolvencies among the relevant insurance carriers, or that the assumed percentage recoveries for certain carriers will prove correct. The difference between insurance recoveries and projected costs is not due to exhaustion of all insurance coverage for Asbestos Liability. The Corporation and the subsidiaries have substantial additional insurance coverage which the Corporation expects to be available for Asbestos Liability claims and defense costs that the subsidiaries and it may incur after 2022. However, this insurance coverage also can be expected to have gaps creating significant shortfalls of insurance recoveries as against claims expense, which could be material in future years. The amounts recorded by the Corporation for Asbestos Liabilities and insurance receivables rely on assumptions that are based on currently known facts and strategy. The Corporation's actual expenses or insurance recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than those recorded if assumptions used in the Corporation's or HR&A's calculations vary significantly from actual results. Key variables in these assumptions are identified and include the number and type of new claims to be filed each year, the average cost of disposing of each such new claim, average annual defense costs, compliance by relevant parties with the terms of the Settlement Agreements, the resolution of remaining coverage issues with insurance carriers, and the solvency risk with respect to the relevant insurance carriers. Other factors that may affect the Corporation's Asbestos Liability and ability to recover under its insurance policies include uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms that may be made by state and federal courts, and the passage of state or federal tort reform legislation. The Corporation intends to evaluate its estimated Asbestos Liability and related insurance receivables as well as the underlying assumptions on a regular basis to determine whether any adjustments to the estimates are required. Due to the uncertainties surrounding asbestos litigation and insurance, these regular reviews may result in the Corporation incurring future charges; however, the Corporation is currently unable to estimate such future charges. Adjustments, if any, to the Corporation's estimate of its recorded Asbestos Liability and/or insurance receivables could be material to operating results for the periods in which the adjustments to the liability or receivable are recorded, and to the Corporation's liquidity and consolidated financial position. Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation operates in two segments: Forged and Cast Rolls, and Air and Liquid Processing. Forged and Cast Rolls segment is operated by Union Electric Steel Corporation and Union Electric Steel UK Limited. The Air and Liquid Processing segment includes Aerofin, Buffalo Air Handling and Buffalo Pumps, all divisions of Air & Liquid Systems Corporation. Aerofin produces highly-engineered heat-exchange coils for a variety of users, including electric utility, HVAC, power generation, industrial process and other manufacturing industries. Buffalo Air Handling makes custom-designed air handling systems for commercial, institutional and industrial building markets. Union Electric Steel Corporation produces forged hardened steel rolls used in cold rolling by producers of steel, aluminum and other metals throughout the world. ASBESTOS UPDATE: GenCorp Had 132 Pending Cases as of February 28 ---------------------------------------------------------------- There were 132 asbestos cases pending in Texas and Pennsylvania against GenCorp Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended February 28, 2014. The Company has been, and continues to be, named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury or death due to exposure to asbestos in building materials, products, or in manufacturing operations. The majority of cases are pending in Texas and Pennsylvania. There were 132 asbestos cases pending as of February 28, 2014. Given the lack of any significant consistency to claims (i.e., as to product, operational site, or other relevant assertions) filed against the Company, the Company is unable to make a reasonable estimate of the future costs of pending claims or unasserted claims. Accordingly, no estimate of future liability has been accrued. GenCorp Inc., incorporated in 1915, is a manufacturer of aerospace and defense products and systems with a real estate segment that includes activities related to the re-zoning, entitlement, sale, and leasing of its excess real estate assets. The Company develops and manufactures propulsion systems for defense and space applications, and armaments for precision tactical and long range weapon systems applications. The Company operates in two segments: Aerospace and Defense, and Real Estate. Its defense system products include liquid, solid, and air-breathing propulsion systems and components. Its space system products include liquid, solid, and electric propulsion systems and components. In June 2013, United Technologies Corp announced it has closed on the sale of substantially all operations of its Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne unit to GenCorp Inc. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit v. GenCorp Unit Remains Pending in La. ------------------------------------------------------------ A lawsuit against GenCorp Inc. remains pending in Louisiana, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended February 28, 2014. In 2011, Aerojet Rocketdyne, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, received a letter demand from AMEC, plc, the successor entity to the 1981 purchaser of the business assets of Barnard & Burk, Inc., a former Aerojet Rocketdyne subsidiary, for Aerojet Rocketdyne to assume the defense of sixteen asbestos cases, involving 271 plaintiffs, pending in Louisiana, and reimbursement of over $1.7 million in past legal fees and expenses. AMEC is asserting that Aerojet Rocketdyne retained those liabilities when it sold the Barnard & Burk assets and agreed to indemnify the purchaser therefor. Under the relevant purchase agreement, the purchaser assumed only certain, specified liabilities relating to the operation of Barnard & Burk before the sale, with Barnard & Burk retaining all unassumed pre-closing liabilities, and Aerojet Rocketdyne agreed to indemnify the purchaser against unassumed liabilities that are asserted against it. Based on the information provided, Aerojet Rocketdyne declined to accept the liability and requested additional information from AMEC pertaining to the basis of the demand. On April 3, 2013, AMEC filed a complaint for breach of contract against Aerojet Rocketdyne in Sacramento County Superior Court, AMEC Construction Management, Inc. v. Aerojet-General Corporation, Case No. 342013001424718. Although AMEC served the complaint on Aerojet Rocketdyne, Aerojet Rocketdyne was granted an open extension of time in which to file a response in order to facilitate additional sharing of information and potential settlement negotiations. No estimate of liability has been accrued for this matter as of February 28, 2014. GenCorp Inc., incorporated in 1915, is a manufacturer of aerospace and defense products and systems with a real estate segment that includes activities related to the re-zoning, entitlement, sale, and leasing of its excess real estate assets. The Company develops and manufactures propulsion systems for defense and space applications, and armaments for precision tactical and long range weapon systems applications. The Company operates in two segments: Aerospace and Defense, and Real Estate. Its defense system products include liquid, solid, and air-breathing propulsion systems and components. Its space system products include liquid, solid, and electric propulsion systems and components. In June 2013, United Technologies Corp announced it has closed on the sale of substantially all operations of its Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne unit to GenCorp Inc. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific Had $129MM Liability at March 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Union Pacific Corporation's asbestos-related liability was $129 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. The Company states: "We are a defendant in a number of lawsuits in which current and former employees and other parties allege exposure to asbestos. We assess our potential liability using a statistical analysis of resolution costs for asbestos-related claims. This liability is updated annually and excludes future defense and processing costs. The liability for resolving both asserted and unasserted claims was based on the following assumptions: * The ratio of future claims by alleged disease would be consistent with historical averages adjusted for inflation. * The number of claims filed against us will decline each year. * The average settlement values for asserted and unasserted claims will be equivalent to historical averages. * The percentage of claims dismissed in the future will be equivalent to historical averages. Our liability for asbestos-related claims is not discounted to present value due to the uncertainty surrounding the timing of future payments. Approximately 20% of the recorded liability related to asserted claims and approximately 80% related to unasserted claims at March 31, 2014. For the three months ended March 31, 2014, our asbestos-related liability was $129 million. We have insurance coverage for a portion of the costs incurred to resolve asbestos-related claims, and we have recognized an asset for estimated insurance recoveries at March 31, 2014, and December 31, 2013. We believe that our estimates of liability for asbestos-related claims and insurance recoveries are reasonable and probable. The amounts recorded for asbestos-related liabilities and related insurance recoveries were based on currently known facts. However, future events, such as the number of new claims filed each year, average settlement costs, and insurance coverage issues, could cause the actual costs and insurance recoveries to be higher or lower than the projected amounts. Estimates also may vary in the future if strategies, activities, and outcomes of asbestos litigation materially change; federal and state laws governing asbestos litigation increase or decrease the probability or amount of compensation of claimants; and there are material changes with respect to payments made to claimants by other defendants." Union Pacific Corporation (UPC) owns transportation companies. Its principal operating company, Union Pacific Railroad Company, links 23 states in the western 66% of the country. Union Pacific Railroad Company's business mix includes agricultural products, automotive, chemicals, energy, industrial products and intermodal. Union Pacific Railroad Company connects with Canada's rail systems and is the railroad serving six gateways to Mexico. Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR) is a Class I railroad operating in the United States. In June 2012, the Company's wholly owned subsidiary, PS Technology (PST), acquired the Yard Control Systems division of Ansaldo STS USA. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Continues to Fund NARCO Trust -------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International Inc. continues to be obligated to fund the trust created for asbestos-related claims against a company once owned by Honeywell's predecessors, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. On January 4, 2002, North American Refractories Company ("NARCO") filed a petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. In connection with the filing of NARCO's petition in 2002, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania issued an injunction staying the prosecution of NARCO-related asbestos claims against the Company, which stayed in place throughout NARCO's Chapter 11 case. In November 2007, the Bankruptcy Court confirmed NARCO's Third Amended Plan of Reorganization and it became fully effective on April 30, 2013. In connection with implementation of the NARCO Plan of Reorganization, a federally authorized 524(g) trust was established for the evaluation and resolution of all existing and future NARCO asbestos claims. Both Honeywell and NARCO are protected by a permanent channeling injunction barring all present and future individual actions in state or federal courts and requiring all asbestos related claims based on exposure to NARCO products to be made against the NARCO Trust. The NARCO Trust will review submitted claims and determine award amounts in accordance with established Trust Distribution Procedures approved by the Bankruptcy Court which set forth all criteria claimants must meet to qualify for compensation including, among other things, exposure and medical criteria that determine the award amount. In addition, Honeywell will continue to provide input to the detailed controls design of the NARCO Trust, and has on-going audit rights to review and monitor claims processor's adherence to the established requirements of the Trust Distribution Procedures and as a means of detecting and deterring irregularities in claims. In connection with NARCO's bankruptcy filing, Honeywell agreed to certain obligations which were triggered upon the effective date of the NARCO Plan of Reorganization. As agreed, during the second quarter of 2013, Honeywell provided NARCO with $17 million in financing and simultaneously forgave such indebtedness. Honeywell also paid $40 million to NARCO's former parent company and $16 million to certain asbestos claimants whose claims were fully resolved during the pendency of the NARCO bankruptcy proceedings. Honeywell is obligated to fund NARCO asbestos claims submitted to the trust which qualify for payment under the Trust Distribution Procedures, subject to annual caps of $140 million in the years 2014 through 2018 and $145 million for each year thereafter, provided, however, that the first $100 million of claims processed through the NARCO Trust (the "Initial Claims Amount") will not count against the first year annual cap and any unused portion of the Initial Claims Amount will roll over to subsequent years until fully utilized. Honeywell will also be responsible for the following funding obligations which are not subject to the annual cap: a) previously approved payments due to claimants pursuant to settlement agreements reached during the pendency of the NARCO bankruptcy proceedings which provide that a portion of these settlements is to be paid by the NARCO Trust, which amounts are estimated at $130 million and are expected to be paid during the first year of trust operations ($91 million of which was paid in 2013 and $6 million of which was paid in the first quarter of 2014 with an additional $10 million of which has been approved and will be paid in the second quarter of 2014) and, b) payments due to claimants pursuant to settlement agreements reached during the pendency of the NARCO bankruptcy proceedings that provide for the right to submit claims to the NARCO Trust subject to qualification under the terms of the settlement agreements and Trust Distribution Procedures criteria, which amounts are estimated at $150 million and are expected to be paid during the first two years of trust operations. The Company states: "Our consolidated financial statements reflect an estimated liability for the amounts, unsettled claims pending as of the time NARCO filed for bankruptcy protection and for the estimated value of future NARCO asbestos claims expected to be asserted against the NARCO Trust through 2018. In light of the uncertainties inherent in making long-term projections and in connection with the initial operation of a 524(g) trust, as well as the stay of all NARCO asbestos claims which remained in place throughout NARCO's Chapter 11 case, we do not believe that we have a reasonable basis for estimating NARCO asbestos claims beyond 2018. In the absence of actual trust experience on which to base the estimate, Honeywell projected the probable value, including trust claim handling costs, of asbestos related future liabilities based on Company specific and general asbestos claims filing rates, expected rates of disease and anticipated claim values. Specifically, the valuation methodology included an analysis of the population likely to have been exposed to asbestos containing products, epidemiological studies estimating the number of people likely to develop asbestos related diseases, NARCO asbestos claims filing history, general asbestos claims filing rates in the tort system and in certain operating asbestos trusts, and the claims experience in those forums, the pending inventory of NARCO asbestos claims, disease criteria and payment values contained in the Trust Distribution Procedures and an estimated approval rate of claims submitted to the NARCO Trust. This methodology used to estimate the liability for future claims has been commonly accepted by numerous bankruptcy courts addressing 524(g) trusts and resulted in a range of estimated liability of $743 million to $961 million. We believe that no amount within this range is a better estimate than any other amount and accordingly, we have recorded the minimum amount in the range. Our insurance receivable corresponding to the estimated liability for pending and future NARCO asbestos claims reflects coverage which reimburses Honeywell for portions of NARCO-related indemnity and defense costs and is provided by a large number of insurance policies written by dozens of insurance companies in both the domestic insurance market and the London excess market. We conduct analyses to determine the amount of insurance that we estimate is probable of recovery in relation to payment of current and estimated future claims. While the substantial majority of our insurance carriers are solvent, some of our individual carriers are insolvent, which has been considered in our analysis of probable recoveries. We made judgments concerning insurance coverage that we believe are reasonable and consistent with our historical dealings and our knowledge of any pertinent solvency issues surrounding insurers. Projecting future events is subject to many uncertainties that could cause the NARCO-related asbestos liabilities or assets to be higher or lower than those projected and recorded. There is no assurance that insurance recoveries will be timely or whether there will be any NARCO-related asbestos claims beyond 2018. Given the inherent uncertainty in predicting future events, we review our estimates periodically, and update them based on our experience and other relevant factors. Similarly, we will reevaluate our projections concerning our probable insurance recoveries in light of any changes to the projected liability or other developments that may impact insurance recoveries." Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) is a diversified technology and manufacturing company, serving customers worldwide with aerospace products and services, control, sensing and security technologies for buildings, homes and industry, turbochargers, automotive products, specialty chemicals, electronic and advanced materials, process technology for refining and petrochemicals, and energy efficient products and solutions for homes, business and transportation. Honeywell operates four business segments: Aerospace, Automation and Control Solutions, Performance Materials and Technologies, and Transportation Systems. In June 2013, the Company acquired RAE Systems, Inc. In September 2013, Honeywell International Inc announced that it has completed its acquisition of Intermec Inc, a provider of mobile computing, radio frequency identification solutions (RFID), voice- enabled workflow and data-collection solutions, and printing solutions. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had 12,884 Unresolved Bendix Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International Inc., had 12,884 unresolved Bendix-related asbestos claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. The Company's states: "Our consolidated financial statements reflect an estimated liability for resolution of pending (claims actually filed as of the financial statement date) and future Bendix-related asbestos claims. We have valued Bendix pending and future claims using average resolution values for the previous five years. We update the resolution values used to estimate the cost of Bendix pending and future claims during the fourth quarter each year. The liability for future claims represents the estimated value of future asbestos related bodily injury claims expected to be asserted against Bendix over the next five years. Such estimated cost of future Bendix-related asbestos claims is based on historic claims filing experience and dismissal rates, disease classifications, and resolution values in the tort system for the previous five years. In light of the uncertainties inherent in making long-term projections, as well as certain factors unique to friction product asbestos claims, we do not believe that we have a reasonable basis for estimating asbestos claims beyond the next five years. The methodology used to estimate the liability for future claims is similar to that used to estimate the future NARCO-related asbestos claims liability. Our insurance receivable corresponding to the liability for settlement of pending and future Bendix asbestos claims reflects coverage which is provided by a large number of insurance policies written by dozens of insurance companies in both the domestic insurance market and the London excess market. Based on our ongoing analysis of the probable insurance recovery, insurance receivables are recorded in the financial statements simultaneous with the recording of the estimated liability for the underlying asbestos claims. This determination is based on our analysis of the underlying insurance policies, our historical experience with our insurers, our ongoing review of the solvency of our insurers, judicial determinations relevant to our insurance programs, and our consideration of the impacts of any settlements reached with our insurers. On a cumulative historical basis, Honeywell has recorded insurance receivables equal to approximately 36 percent of the value of the underlying asbestos claims recorded. However, because there are gaps in our coverage due to insurance company insolvencies, certain uninsured periods, and insurance settlements, this rate is expected to decline for any future Bendix-related asbestos liabilities that may be recorded. Future recoverability rates may also be impacted by numerous other factors, such as future insurance settlements, insolvencies and judicial determinations relevant to our coverage program, which are difficult to predict. Assuming continued defense and indemnity spending at current levels, we estimate that the cumulative recoverability rate could decline over the next five years to approximately 30 percent. Honeywell believes it has sufficient insurance coverage and reserves to cover all pending Bendix-related asbestos claims and Bendix-related asbestos claims estimated to be filed within the next five years. Although it is impossible to predict the outcome of either pending or future Bendix-related asbestos claims, we do not believe that such claims would have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position in light of our insurance coverage and our prior experience in resolving such claims. If the rate and types of claims filed, the average resolution value of such claims and the period of time over which claim settlements are paid (collectively, the "Variable Claims Factors") do not substantially change, Honeywell would not expect future Bendix- related asbestos claims to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or operating cash flows in any fiscal year. No assurances can be given, however, that the Variable Claims Factors will not change." Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) is a diversified technology and manufacturing company, serving customers worldwide with aerospace products and services, control, sensing and security technologies for buildings, homes and industry, turbochargers, automotive products, specialty chemicals, electronic and advanced materials, process technology for refining and petrochemicals, and energy efficient products and solutions for homes, business and transportation. Honeywell operates four business segments: Aerospace, Automation and Control Solutions, Performance Materials and Technologies, and Transportation Systems. In June 2013, the Company acquired RAE Systems, Inc. In September 2013, Honeywell International Inc announced that it has completed its acquisition of Intermec Inc, a provider of mobile computing, radio frequency identification solutions (RFID), voice- enabled workflow and data-collection solutions, and printing solutions. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Reports $200,000 Litigation Expenses ------------------------------------------------------------ Lennox International Inc. said its expenses for asbestos-related litigation was $200,000, net of insurance recoveries, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. The Company states: "We are involved in a number of claims and lawsuits incident to the operation of our businesses. Insurance coverages are maintained and estimated costs are recorded for such claims and lawsuits, including costs to settle claims and lawsuits, based on experience involving similar matters and specific facts known. Costs related to such matters were not material to the periods presented. Some of these claims and lawsuits allege personal injury or health problems resulting from exposure to asbestos that was integrated into certain of our products. We have never manufactured asbestos and have not incorporated asbestos-containing components into our products for several decades. A substantial majority of asbestos- related claims have been covered by insurance or other forms of indemnity or have been dismissed without payment. The remainder of our closed cases have been resolved for amounts that are not material, individually or in the aggregate. Our defense costs for asbestos-related claims are generally covered by insurance; however, our insurance coverage for settlements and judgments for asbestos-related claims vary depending on several factors and are subject to policy limits. As a result, we may have greater financial exposure for future settlements and judgments. For the three months ended March 31, 2014, and 2013, expenses for asbestos-related litigation were $0.2 million and $0.6 million, net of insurance recoveries, respectively. It is management's opinion that none of these claims or lawsuits or any threatened litigation will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Claims and lawsuits, however, involve uncertainties and it is possible that their eventual outcome could adversely affect our results of operations for a particular period." Lennox International Inc. (LII) is a provider of climate control solutions. The Company designs, manufactures and markets a range of products for the heating, ventilation, air conditioning and refrigeration (HVACR) markets. Its products and services are sold through multiple distribution channels under brand names, including Lennox, Armstrong Air, Ducane, Bohn, Larkin, Advanced Distributor Products, Service Experts and others. The Company operates in four segments: Residential Heating & Cooling, Commercial Heating & Cooling, Service Experts, and Refrigeration. On January 14, 2011, the Company acquired Kysor/Warren business from The Manitowoc Company. Kysor/Warren is a manufacturer of refrigerated systems and display cases for supermarkets throughout North America and is included in its Refrigeration Segment. In April 2012, it sold its Lennox Hearth Products business to Comvest Investment Partners IV. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair Ltd. Records $254.1-Mil. Liability ----------------------------------------------------------- Pentair Ltd.'s estimated liability for asbestos-related claims was $254.1 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2014. The Company states: "Our subsidiaries and numerous other companies are named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials. These cases typically involve product liability claims based primarily on allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial products that either contained asbestos or were attached to or used with asbestos-containing components manufactured by third- parties. Each case typically names between dozens to hundreds of corporate defendants. While we have observed an increase in the number of these lawsuits over the past several years, including lawsuits by plaintiffs with mesothelioma-related claims, a large percentage of these suits have not presented viable legal claims and, as a result, have been dismissed by the courts. Our historical strategy has been to mount a vigorous defense aimed at having unsubstantiated suits dismissed, and, where appropriate, settling suits before trial. Although a large percentage of litigated suits have been dismissed, we cannot predict the extent to which we will be successful in resolving lawsuits in the future. As of March 29, 2014, there were approximately 2,100 lawsuits pending against our subsidiaries. A lawsuit might include several claims, and we have approximately 2,300 claims outstanding as of March 29, 2014. This amount is not adjusted for claims that are not actively being prosecuted, identified incorrect defendants, or duplicated other actions, which would ultimately reflect our current estimate of the number of viable claims made against us, our affiliates or entities for which we assumed responsibility in connection with acquisitions or divestitures. In addition, the amount does not include certain claims pending against third parties for which we have been provided an indemnification. Periodically, we perform an analysis with the assistance of outside counsel and other experts to update our estimated asbestos-related assets and liabilities. Our estimate of the liability and corresponding insurance recovery for pending and future claims and defense costs is based on our historical claim experience and estimates of the number and resolution cost of potential future claims that may be filed. Our legal strategy for resolving claims also impacts these estimates. Our estimate of asbestos-related insurance recoveries represents estimated amounts due to us for previously paid and settled claims and the probable reimbursements relating to our estimated liability for pending and future claims. In determining the amount of insurance recoverable, we consider a number of factors, including available insurance, allocation methodologies and the solvency and creditworthiness of insurers. Our estimated liability for asbestos-related claims was $254.1 million and $254.7 million as of March 29, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively, and was recorded in Other non-current liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for pending and future claims and related defense costs. Our estimated receivable for insurance recoveries was $119.3 million and $119.6 million as of March 29, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively, and was recorded in Other non-current assets in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. The amounts recorded by us for asbestos-related liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on our strategies for resolving our asbestos claims and currently available information as well as estimates and assumptions. Key variables and assumptions include the number and type of new claims filed each year, the average cost of resolution of claims, the resolution of coverage issues with insurance carriers, the amounts of insurance and the related solvency risk with respect to our insurance carriers, and the indemnifications we have provided to and received from third parties. Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables are subject to greater uncertainty in the latter portion of the projection period. Other factors that may affect our liability and cash payments for asbestos-related matters include uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms of state or federal tort legislation and the applicability of insurance policies among subsidiaries. As a result, actual liabilities or insurance recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than those recorded if assumptions used in our calculations vary significantly from actual results." Pentair Ltd., formerly Tyco Flow Control International Ltd is global water, fluid, thermal management, and equipment protection partner. The Company operates in three segments: Water & Fluid Solutions, Valves & Controls, and Equipment Protection & Thermal. Water & Fluid Solutions is a provider of water management and fluid processing products and solutions. Valves & Controls is the manufacturers of valves, actuators and controls. Valves & Controls segment's products, services and solutions address applications in the general process, oil and gas, power generation and mining industries. Equipment Protection & Thermal is a provider of products focused on electronics and electronic equipment, and is a provider of electric heat management solutions. In December 2013, The Sterling Group, announced that Safe Fleet, has completed the acquisition of FoamPro from Pentair Ltd. In January 2014, PGG Wrightson Ltd acquired Water Dynamics and Aquaspec Ltd from Pentair Ltd. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Cos. Has $2.31-Bil. Net Reserves ----------------------------------------------------------- The Travelers Companies, Inc., had $2.31 billion net asbestos reserves, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. The Company believes that the property and casualty insurance industry has suffered from court decisions and other trends that have expanded insurance coverage for asbestos claims far beyond the original intent of insurers and policyholders. The Company has received and continues to receive a significant number of asbestos claims from the Company's policyholders (which includes others seeking coverage under a policy). Factors underlying these claim filings include continued intensive advertising by lawyers seeking asbestos claimants and the continued focus by plaintiffs on defendants who were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos litigation. The focus on these defendants is primarily the result of the number of traditional asbestos defendants who have sought bankruptcy protection in previous years. In addition to contributing to the overall number of claims, bankruptcy proceedings may increase the volatility of asbestos-related losses by initially delaying the reporting of claims and later by significantly accelerating and increasing loss payments by insurers, including the Company. The bankruptcy of many traditional defendants has also caused increased settlement demands against those policyholders who are not in bankruptcy but remain in the tort system. Currently, in many jurisdictions, those who allege very serious injury and who can present credible medical evidence of their injuries are receiving priority trial settings in the courts, while those who have not shown any credible disease manifestation are having their hearing dates delayed or placed on an inactive docket. Prioritizing claims involving credible evidence of injuries, along with the focus on defendants who were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos litigation, contributes to the claims and claim adjustment expense payment patterns experienced by the Company. The Company's asbestos-related claims and claim adjustment expense experience also has been impacted by the unavailability of other insurance sources potentially available to policyholders, whether through exhaustion of policy limits or through the insolvency of other participating insurers. The Company continues to be involved in coverage litigation concerning a number of policyholders, some of whom have filed for bankruptcy, who in some instances have asserted that all or a portion of their asbestos-related claims are not subject to aggregate limits on coverage. In these instances, policyholders also may assert that each individual bodily injury claim should be treated as a separate occurrence under the policy. It is difficult to predict whether these policyholders will be successful on both issues. To the extent both issues are resolved in a policyholder's favor and other Company defenses are not successful, the Company's coverage obligations under the policies at issue would be materially increased and bounded only by the applicable per- occurrence limits and the number of asbestos bodily injury claims against the policyholders. Although the Company has seen a moderation in the overall risk associated with these lawsuits, it remains difficult to predict the ultimate cost of these claims. Many coverage disputes with policyholders are only resolved through settlement agreements. Because many policyholders make exaggerated demands, it is difficult to predict the outcome of settlement negotiations. Settlements involving bankrupt policyholders may include extensive releases which are favorable to the Company but which could result in settlements for larger amounts than originally anticipated. There also may be instances where a court may not approve a proposed settlement, which may result in additional litigation and potentially less beneficial outcomes for the Company. As in the past, the Company will continue to pursue settlement opportunities. In addition to claims against policyholders, proceedings have been launched directly against insurers, including the Company, by individuals challenging insurers' conduct with respect to the handling of past asbestos claims and by individuals seeking damages arising from alleged asbestos-related bodily injuries. It is possible that the filing of other direct actions against insurers, including the Company, could be made in the future. It is difficult to predict the outcome of these proceedings, including whether the plaintiffs will be able to sustain these actions against insurers based on novel legal theories of liability. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to these claims and has received favorable rulings in certain jurisdictions. TPC had entered into settlement agreements, which are subject to a number of contingencies, in connection with a number of these direct action claims (Direct Action Settlements). The Company's quarterly asbestos reserve reviews include an analysis of exposure and claim payment patterns by policyholder category, as well as recent settlements, policyholder bankruptcies, judicial rulings and legislative actions. The Company also analyzes developing payment patterns among policyholders in the Home Office, Field Office and Assumed Reinsurance and Other categories as well as projected reinsurance billings and recoveries. In addition, the Company reviews its historical gross and net loss and expense paid experience, year- by-year, to assess any emerging trends, fluctuations, or characteristics suggested by the aggregate paid activity. Conventional actuarial methods are not utilized to establish asbestos reserves nor have the Company's evaluations resulted in any way of determining a meaningful average asbestos defense or indemnity payment. Because each policyholder presents different liability and coverage issues, the Company generally reviews the exposure presented by each policyholder at least annually. Among the factors which the Company may consider in the course of this review are: available insurance coverage, including the role of any umbrella or excess insurance the Company has issued to the policyholder; limits and deductibles; an analysis of the policyholder's potential liability; the jurisdictions involved; past and anticipated future claim activity and loss development on pending claims; past settlement values of similar claims; allocated claim adjustment expense; potential role of other insurance; the role, if any, of non-asbestos claims or potential non-asbestos claims in any resolution process; and applicable coverage defenses or determinations, if any, including the determination as to whether or not an asbestos claim is a products/completed operation claim subject to an aggregate limit and the available coverage, if any, for that claim. Net asbestos paid loss and loss expenses in the first quarter of 2014 were $45 million, compared with $43 million in the same period of 2013. Net asbestos reserves were $2.31 billion at March 31, 2014, compared with $2.33 billion at March 31, 2013. The Travelers Companies, Inc. (TRV) is a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, is engaged in providing a range of commercial and personal property and casualty insurance products and services to businesses, Government units, associations and individuals. The Company is organized into three business segments: Business Insurance; Financial, Professional and International Insurance, and Personal Insurance. The Business Insurance segment offers an array of property and casualty insurance and insurance-related services to its clients primarily in the United States. The Financial, Professional and International Insurance segment includes surety and financial liability coverage's, which primarily use credit-based underwriting processes, as well as property and casualty products that are marketed on a domestic basis. In November 2013, the Company completed the sale of its wholly owned subsidiary The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company to The Travelers Companies, Inc. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Records $829.5-Mil Liability ------------------------------------------------------------ Ingersoll-Rand plc's liability for asbestos-related matters was $829.5 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. Certain wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company are named as defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits in state and federal courts. In virtually all of the suits, a large number of other companies have also been named as defendants. The vast majority of those claims have been filed against either IR-New Jersey or Trane U.S. Inc. (Trane) and generally allege injury caused by exposure to asbestos contained in certain historical products sold by IR- New Jersey or Trane, primarily pumps, boilers and railroad brake shoes. Neither IR-New Jersey nor Trane was a producer or manufacturer of asbestos, however, some formerly manufactured products utilized asbestos-containing components such as gaskets and packings purchased from third-party suppliers. The Company engages an outside expert to assist in calculating an estimate of the Company's total liability for pending and unasserted future asbestos-related claims and annually performs a detailed analysis with the assistance of an outside expert to update its estimated asbestos-related assets and liabilities. The methodology used to project the Company's total liability for pending and unasserted potential future asbestos-related claims relied upon and included the following factors, among others: * the outside expert's interpretation of a widely accepted forecast of the population likely to have been occupationally exposed to asbestos; * epidemiological studies estimating the number of people likely to develop asbestos-related diseases such as mesothelioma and lung cancer; * the Company's historical experience with the filing of non- malignancy claims and claims alleging other types of malignant diseases filed against the Company relative to the number of lung cancer claims filed against the Company; * the outside expert's analysis of the number of people likely to file an asbestos-related personal injury claim against the Company based on such epidemiological and historical data and the Company's most recent three-year claims history; * an analysis of the Company's pending cases, by type of disease claimed and by year filed; * an analysis of the Company's most recent three-year history to determine the average settlement and resolution value of claims, by type of disease claimed; * an adjustment for inflation in the future average settlement value of claims, at a 2.5% annual inflation rate, adjusted downward to 1.5% to take account of the declining value of claims resulting from the aging of the claimant population; and * an analysis of the period over which the Company has and is likely to resolve asbestos-related claims against it in the future. At March 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013, over 80 percent of the open claims against the Company are non-malignancy claims, many of which have been placed on inactive or deferral dockets and the vast majority of which have little or no settlement value against the Company, particularly in light of recent changes in the legal and judicial treatment of such claims. As of March 31, 2014, the Company's liability for asbestos-related matters was $829.5 million and the asset for probable asbestos- related insurance recoveries was $316.9 million. The Company's asbestos insurance receivable related to IR-New Jersey and Trane was $135.0 million and $181.9 million at March 31, 2014, and $137.6 million and $184.2 million at December 31, 2013, respectively. The cost associated with the settlement and defense of asbestos- related claims after insurance recoveries for the three months ended March 31, 2014, was $3.1 million. IR-New Jersey records income and expenses associated with its asbestos liabilities and corresponding insurance recoveries within discontinued operations, as they relate to previously divested businesses, primarily Ingersoll-Dresser Pump, which was sold in 2000. Income and expenses associated with Trane's asbestos liabilities and corresponding insurance recoveries are recorded within continuing operations. Trane has now settled claims regarding asbestos coverage with most of its insurers. The settlements collectively account for approximately 95% of its recorded asbestos-related insurance receivable as of March 31, 2014. Most of Trane's settlement agreements constitute "coverage-in-place" arrangements, in which the insurer signatories agree to reimburse Trane for specified portions of its costs for asbestos bodily injury claims and Trane agrees to certain claims-handling protocols and grants to the insurer signatories certain releases and indemnifications. Trane remains in litigation in an action that Trane filed in November 2010 in the Circuit Court for La Crosse County, Wisconsin, relating to claims for insurance coverage for a subset of Trane's historical asbestos-related liabilities. In January 2012, IR-New Jersey filed an action in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, seeking a declaratory judgment and other relief regarding the Company's rights to defense and indemnity for asbestos claims. The defendants are several dozen solvent insurance companies, including companies that had been paying a portion of IR-New Jersey's asbestos claim defense and indemnity costs. The action involves IR-New Jersey's unexhausted insurance policies applicable to the asbestos claims that are not subject to any settlement agreement. The responding defendants generally challenged the Company's right to recovery, and raised various coverage defenses. In December 2013, IR-New Jersey filed a similar action in the same court against an insurer that was not a party to the 2012 action. The Company continually monitors the status of pending litigation that could impact the allocation of asbestos claims against the Company's various insurance policies. The Company has concluded that its IR-New Jersey insurance receivable is probable of recovery because of the following factors: * a review of other companies in circumstances comparable to IR- New Jersey, including Trane, and the success of other companies in recovering under their insurance policies, including Trane's favorable settlement; * the Company's confidence in its right to recovery under the terms of its policies and pursuant to applicable law; and * the Company's history of receiving payments under the IR-New Jersey insurance program, including under policies that had been the subject of prior litigation. The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on currently available information. The Company's actual liabilities or insurance recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than those recorded if assumptions used in the calculations vary significantly from actual results. Key variables in these assumptions include the number and type of new claims to be filed each year, the average cost of resolution of each such new claim, the resolution of coverage issues with insurance carriers, and the solvency risk with respect to the Company's insurance carriers. Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables are subject to greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens. Other factors that may affect the Company's liability include uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms that may be made by state and federal courts, and the passage of state or federal tort reform legislation. The aggregate amount of the stated limits in insurance policies available to the Company for asbestos-related claims acquired over many years and from many different carriers, is substantial. However, limitations in that coverage, primarily due to the considerations, are expected to result in the projected total liability to claimants substantially exceeding the probable insurance recovery. Ingersoll-Rand plc (IR-Ireland) is a diversified, global company that provides products, services and solutions to enhance the comfort of air in homes and buildings, transport and protect food and perishables, secure homes and commercial properties. IR- Ireland operates in four business segments: Climate Solutions, Residential Solutions, Industrial Technologies and Security Technologies. It generates revenue and cash primarily through the design, manufacture, sale and service of a diverse portfolio of industrial and commercial products that include Club Car, Ingersoll-Rand, Schlage, Thermo King and Trane. On September 30, 2011, IR-Ireland completed the transaction to sell 60% in the Hussmann business. In December 2013, the Company announced that it has completed the spinoff of the Company's commercial and residential security businesses named Allegion. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Continues to Defend PI Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Flowserve Corporation continues to defend itself against a substantial number of lawsuits alleging personal injury due to asbestos exposure, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. The Company states: "We are a defendant in a substantial number of lawsuits that seek to recover damages for personal injury allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured and/or distributed by our heritage companies in the past. While the overall number of asbestos-related claims has generally declined in recent years, there can be no assurance that this trend will continue, or that the average cost per claim will not further increase. Asbestos-containing materials incorporated into any such products were primarily encapsulated and used as internal components of process equipment, and we do not believe that any significant emission of asbestos fibers occurred during the use of this equipment. Our practice is to vigorously contest and resolve these claims, and we have been successful in resolving a majority of claims with little or no payment. Historically, a high percentage of resolved claims have been covered by applicable insurance or indemnities from other companies, and we believe that a substantial majority of existing claims should continue to be covered by insurance or indemnities. Accordingly, we have recorded a liability for our estimate of the most likely settlement of asserted claims and a related receivable from insurers or other companies for our estimated recovery, to the extent we believe that the amounts of recovery are probable and not otherwise in dispute. While unfavorable rulings, judgments or settlement terms regarding these claims could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows, we currently believe the likelihood is remote. Additionally, we have claims pending against certain insurers that, if resolved more favorably than reflected in the recorded receivables, would result in discrete gains in the applicable quarter. We are currently unable to estimate the impact, if any, of unasserted asbestos- related claims, although future claims would also be subject to then existing indemnities and insurance coverage." Flowserve Corporation is a manufacturer and aftermarket service provider of flow control systems. The Company develops and manufacture precision-engineered flows control equipment integral to the movement, control and protection of the flow of materials in its customers' critical processes. The Company operates in three segments: Engineered Product Division (EPD), which includes long leads time, custom and other engineered pumps and pump systems, mechanical seals, auxiliary systems and replacement parts and related services, Industrial Product Division (IPD), which includes pre-configured engineered pumps and pump systems and related products and services, and Flow Control Division (FCD), which includes engineered and industrial valves, control valves, actuators and controls and related services. Effective December 10, 2013, Flowserve Corp acquired Innovative Mag-Drive LLC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Industries Continues to Defend Fibro Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cytec Industries Inc. continues to defend itself against asbestos- related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. The Company states: "As of March 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013, the aggregate self-insured and insured contingent liability was $46.1 and $46.9, respectively, and the related insurance recovery receivable for the liability as well as claims for past payments was $20.0 million at both March 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013. The asbestos liability at March 31, 2014, and December 31, 2013, was $37.8 million and $37.9 million, respectively, and the insurance receivable related to the liability as well as claims for past payments was $19.6 million for both periods. We anticipate receiving a net tax benefit for payment of those claims for which full insurance recovery is not realized. We, like many other industrial companies, have been named as one of hundreds of defendants in a number of lawsuits filed in the U.S. by persons alleging bodily injury from asbestos. The claimants allege exposure to asbestos at facilities that we own or formerly owned, or from products that we formerly manufactured for specialized applications. Most of these cases involve numerous defendants, sometimes as many as several hundred. Historically, most of the closed asbestos claims against us have been dismissed without any indemnity payment by us; however, we can make no assurances that this pattern will continue. For the three months ended March 31, 2014, there were 8,100 asbestos claimants. The number is rounded to the nearest hundred and is based on information as received by us which may lag actual court filing dates by several months or more. Claims are recorded as closed when a claimant is dismissed or severed from a case. Claims are opened whenever a new claim is brought, including from a claimant previously dismissed or severed from another case. Our asbestos related contingent liabilities and related insurance receivables are based on an actuarial study performed by a third party, which is updated every three years. During the third quarter of 2012, we completed an actuarial study of our asbestos related contingent liabilities and related insurance receivables, which will be updated again in the third quarter of 2015. The study is based on, among other things, the incidence and nature of historical claims data through June 30, 2012, the incidence of malignancy claims, the severity of indemnity payments for malignancy and non-malignancy claims, dismissal rates by claim type, estimated future claim frequency, settlement values and reserves, and expected average insurance recovery rates by claim type. The study assumes liabilities through 2049. In 2012, as a result of our findings, we recorded a decrease of $2.1 to our self-insured and insured contingent liabilities for indemnity costs for pending and anticipated probable future claims and recorded a decrease of $1.0 related to receivables for probable insurance recoveries for these pending and future claims. The reserve decrease was attributable to lower projected claim filings offset by more severe malignancy rates and settlement value projections. The decrease in the receivable was a result of the lower gross liability and a shift in the types of future claims expected. Overall, we expect to recover approximately 48% of our future indemnity costs. We have completed Coverage-In- Place-Agreements with most of our larger insurance carriers. The ultimate liability and related insurance recovery for all pending and anticipated future claims cannot be determined with certainty due to the difficulty of forecasting the numerous variables that can affect the amount of the liability and insurance recovery. These variables include but are not limited to: (i) significant changes in the number of future claims; (ii) significant changes in the average cost of resolving claims; (iii) changes in the nature of claims received; (iv) changes in the laws applicable to these claims; and (v) financial viability of co- defendants and insurers." Cytec Industries Inc. is a global specialty materials and Chemicals Company focused on developing, manufacturing and selling value-added products. The Company's products serve a diverse range of end markets, including aerospace and industrial materials, mining and plastics. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace Materials, Industrial Materials, In Process Separation and Additive Technologies. Its Aerospace Materials segment is a global provider of technologically advanced materials for aerospace markets. Its Industrial Materials product line includes Structural materials and Process materials. The Company's In Process Separation segment product line includes Mining chemicals and Phosphines. Its Additive Technologies include Polymer additives, Specialty additives and Formulated resins. ASBESTOS UPDATE: CB&I Had 1,500 Fibro Claims Pending at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- There were 1,500 asbestos-related claims pending against Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. The Company states: "We are a defendant in lawsuits wherein plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos due to work we may have performed at various locations. We have never been a manufacturer, distributor or supplier of asbestos products. Over the past several decades and through March 31, 2014, we have been named a defendant in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos involving approximately 5,400 plaintiffs and, of those claims, approximately 1,500 claims were pending and 3,900 have been closed through dismissals or settlements. Over the past several decades and through March 31, 2014, the claims alleging exposure to asbestos that have been resolved have been dismissed or settled for an average settlement amount of approximately two thousand dollars per claim. We review each case on its own merits and make accruals based upon the probability of loss and our estimates of the amount of liability and related expenses, if any. We do not believe that any unresolved asserted claims will have a material adverse effect on our future results of operations, financial position or cash flow, and at March 31, 2014, we had approximately $4,200,000 accrued for liability and related expenses. With respect to unasserted asbestos claims, we cannot identify a population of potential claimants with sufficient certainty to determine the probability of a loss and to make a reasonable estimate of liability, if any. While we continue to pursue recovery for recognized and unrecognized contingent losses through insurance, indemnification arrangements or other sources, we are unable to quantify the amount, if any, that we may expect to recover because of the variability in coverage amounts, limitations and deductibles, or the viability of carriers, with respect to our insurance policies for the years in question." Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. is an energy infrastructure focused company and provider of government services. The Company operates in four segments: Engineering, Construction and Maintenance, which offers engineering, procurement, and construction for energy infrastructure facilities; Fabrication Services, which provides fabrication of piping systems, process and nuclear modules, fabrication and erection of steel plate storage tanks and pressure vessels for oil and gas and power generation industries; Technology, which offers licensed process technologies, specialized equipment, and engineered products for use in petrochemical facilities, oil refineries, and gas processing plants and provides process planning and project development services, and Government Solutions, which undertakes programs and projects, including design-build infrastructure projects for federal, state and local governments, as well as offers environmental services for government and private sector customers. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had 22,548 Unresolved Claims at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Colfax Corporation had 22,548 unresolved asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 28, 2014. The Company recorded $51,374,000 accrued asbestos liability as of March 28, 2014. Management's analyses are based on currently known facts and a number of assumptions. However, projecting future events, such as new claims to be filed each year, the average cost of resolving each claim, coverage issues among layers of insurers, the method in which losses will be allocated to the various insurance policies, interpretation of the effect on coverage of various policy terms and limits and their interrelationships, the continuing solvency of various insurance companies, the amount of remaining insurance available, as well as the numerous uncertainties inherent in asbestos litigation could cause the actual liabilities and insurance recoveries to be higher or lower than those projected or recorded which could materially affect the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flow. Colfax Corporation (Colfax) is a global industrial manufacturing and engineering company. The Company provides gas- and fluid- handling and fabrication technology products and services to commercial and governmental customers worldwide under the Howden and ESAB brand names and by Colfax Fluid Handling. Colfax's products are marketed principally under the brand names Allweiler, Baric, Fairmount Automation, Houttuin, Imo, LSC, COT-Puritech, Portland Valve, Tushaco, Warren and Zenith. The Company has production facilities in Europe, North America and Asia. It offers customized fluid handling solutions to meet individual customer needs. In February 2011, the Company acquired Rosscor Holding B.V. In December 2011, it acquired COT-PURITECH. On January 13, 2012, Colfax acquired Charter International plc. In May 2012, the Company acquired 91% interest in Soldex S.A. In April 2014, Colfax Corporation completed the acquisition of Victor Technologies Holdings Inc from Irving Place Capital. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 24 Filter Cases v. Lorillard Scheduled for Trial ----------------------------------------------------------------- There are 24 filter cases against Lorillard Inc. that are scheduled for trial or have been placed on courts' trial calendars as of April 24, 2014, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. Claims have been brought against Lorillard Tobacco and Lorillard, Inc., by individuals who seek damages resulting from their alleged exposure to asbestos fibers that were incorporated into filter material used in one brand of cigarettes manufactured by a predecessor to Lorillard Tobacco for a limited period of time ending more than 50 years ago. As of April 21, 2014, Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant in 63 Filter Cases. Lorillard, Inc. was a defendant in two Filter Cases, including one that also names Lorillard Tobacco. Since January 1, 2011, Lorillard Tobacco has paid, or has reached agreement to pay, a total of approximately $36.6 million in settlements to finally resolve 147 claims, including the Lenney case. The related expense was recorded in selling, general and administrative expenses on the consolidated statements of income. Since January 1, 2011, verdicts have been returned in the following four Filter Cases: Lenney v. Armstrong International, Inc., et al. trial, tried in the Superior Court of California, San Francisco County; McGuire v. Lorillard Tobacco Company and Hollingsworth & Vose Company, tried in the Circuit Court, Division Four, of Jefferson County, Kentucky; Couscouris v. Hatch Grinding Wheels, et al., tried in the Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles; and DeLisle v. A.W. Chesterton Company, et al., tried in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida. Pursuant to the terms of a 1952 agreement between P. Lorillard Company and H&V Specialties Co., Inc. (the manufacturer of the filter material), Lorillard Tobacco is required to indemnify Hollingsworth & Vose for legal fees, expenses, judgments and resolutions in cases and claims alleging injury from finished products sold by P. Lorillard Company that contained the filter material. In the Lenney trial, the jury found in favor of the plaintiffs as to their claims, and the final judgment entered by the trial court in 2011 awarded plaintiffs a total of approximately $1.1 million in compensatory damages, damages for loss of consortium and costs from Lorillard Tobacco and Hollingsworth & Vose. Lorillard Tobacco and Hollingsworth & Vose noticed an appeal to the California Court of Appeals. In 2012, Lorillard Tobacco reached agreement with the plaintiffs to resolve plaintiffs' pending claims, and any claims they might assert in the future, for an amount that is included in the total for settlements reached since January 1, 2011. The jury in the McGuire case returned a verdict for Lorillard Tobacco and Hollingsworth & Vose, and the Court entered final judgment in May 2012. On February 14, 2014, the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the final judgment in favor of Lorillard Tobacco and Hollingsworth & Vose and on April 3, 2014, the Court of Appeals denied plaintiff's petition for rehearing. On October 4, 2012, the jury in the Couscouris case returned a verdict for Lorillard Tobacco and Hollingsworth & Vose, and the court entered final judgment on November 1, 2012. On June 17, 2013, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District entered an order dismissing the appeal of the final judgment pursuant to plaintiffs' request, but plaintiffs' appeal of the cost judgment remains pending. On September 13, 2013, the jury in the DeLisle case found in favor of the plaintiffs as to their claims for negligence and strict liability, and awarded $8 million. Lorillard Tobacco Company is responsible for 44%, or $3.52 million. Judgment was entered on November 6, 2013. Lorillard Tobacco Company filed its notice of appeal on November 18, 2013. As of April 21, 2014, 24 Filter Cases were scheduled for trial or have been placed on courts' trial calendars. Trial dates are subject to change. Lorillard, Inc. (Lorillard) is the manufacturer of cigarettes in the United States. Its Newport is a menthol flavored premium cigarette brand. During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Newport brand accounted for approximately 88.4% of its sales revenue. In addition to the Newport brand, its product line has four additional brand families marketed under the Kent, True, Maverick and Old Gold brand names. These five brands include 43 different product offerings. During 2011, it shipped 40.7 billion cigarettes, all of which were sold in the United States and certain the United States possessions and territories. Lorillard produces cigarettes for both the premium and discount segments of the domestic cigarette market. It sells its products primarily to wholesale distributors, who in turn service retail outlets, chain store organizations, and government agencies, including the United States Armed Forces. In April 2012, it acquired all of the assets of blu ecigs. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coca-Cola Awaits Ruling in Insurance Suit Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Coca-Cola Company is awaiting a ruling in an appeal filed in its insurance coverage lawsuit, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 28, 2014. During the period from 1970 to 1981, our Company owned Aqua-Chem, Inc., now known as Cleaver-Brooks, Inc. ("Aqua-Chem"). During that time, the Company purchased over $400 million of insurance coverage, which also insures Aqua-Chem for some of its prior and future costs for certain product liability and other claims. A division of Aqua-Chem manufactured certain boilers that contained gaskets that Aqua-Chem purchased from outside suppliers. Several years after our Company sold this entity, Aqua-Chem received its first lawsuit relating to asbestos, a component of some of the gaskets. Aqua-Chem was first named as a defendant in asbestos lawsuits in or around 1985 and currently has approximately 40,000 active claims pending against it. In September 2002, Aqua-Chem notified our Company that it believed we were obligated for certain costs and expenses associated with its asbestos litigations. Aqua-Chem demanded that our Company reimburse it for approximately $10 million for out-of-pocket litigation-related expenses. Aqua-Chem also demanded that the Company acknowledge a continuing obligation to Aqua-Chem for any future liabilities and expenses that are excluded from coverage under the applicable insurance or for which there is no insurance. Our Company disputes Aqua-Chem's claims, and we believe we have no obligation to Aqua- Chem for any of its past, present or future liabilities, costs or expenses. Furthermore, we believe we have substantial legal and factual defenses to Aqua-Chem's claims. The parties entered into litigation in Georgia to resolve this dispute, which was stayed by agreement of the parties pending the outcome of litigation filed in Wisconsin by certain insurers of Aqua-Chem. In that case, five plaintiff insurance companies filed a declaratory judgment action against Aqua-Chem, the Company and 16 defendant insurance companies seeking a determination of the parties' rights and liabilities under policies issued by the insurers and reimbursement for amounts paid by plaintiffs in excess of their obligations. During the course of the Wisconsin insurance coverage litigation, Aqua-Chem and the Company reached settlements with several of the insurers, including plaintiffs, who have or will pay funds into an escrow account for payment of costs arising from the asbestos claims against Aqua-Chem. On July 24, 2007, the Wisconsin trial court entered a final declaratory judgment regarding the rights and obligations of the parties under the insurance policies issued by the remaining defendant insurers, which judgment was not appealed. The judgment directs, among other things, that each insurer whose policy is triggered is jointly and severally liable for 100 percent of Aqua-Chem's losses up to policy limits. The court's judgment concluded the Wisconsin insurance coverage litigation. The Georgia litigation remains subject to the stay agreement. The Company and Aqua-Chem continued to negotiate with various insurers that were defendants in the Wisconsin insurance coverage litigation over those insurers' obligations to defend and indemnify Aqua-Chem for the asbestos- related claims. The Company anticipated that a final settlement with three of those insurers (the "Chartis insurers") would be finalized in May 2011, but such insurers repudiated their settlement commitments and, as a result, Aqua-Chem and the Company filed suit against them in Wisconsin state court to enforce the coverage-in-place settlement or, in the alternative, to obtain a declaratory judgment validating Aqua-Chem and the Company's interpretation of the court's judgment in the Wisconsin insurance coverage litigation. In February 2012, the parties filed and argued a number of cross-motions for summary judgment related to the issues of the enforceability of the settlement agreement and the exhaustion of policies underlying those of the Chartis insurers. The court granted defendants' motions for summary judgment that the 2011 Settlement Agreement and 2010 Term Sheet were not binding contracts, but denied their similar motions related to the plaintiffs' claims for promissory and/or equitable estoppel. On or about May 15, 2012, the parties entered into a mutually agreeable settlement/stipulation resolving two major issues: exhaustion of underlying coverage and control of defense. On or about January 10, 2013, the parties reached a settlement of the estoppel claims and all of the remaining coverage issues, with the exception of one disputed issue relating to the scope of the Chartis insurers' defense obligations in two policy years. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Company and Aqua-Chem on that one open issue and entered a final appealable judgment to that effect following the parties' settlement. On January 23, 2013, the Chartis insurers filed a notice of appeal of the trial court's summary judgment ruling. On October 29, 2013, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the Company and Aqua-Chem. On November 27, 2013, the Chartis insurers filed a petition for review in the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, and on December 11, 2013, the Company filed its opposition to that petition. Whatever the outcome of the Chartis insurers' appeal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the Chartis insurers will remain subject to the court's judgment in the Wisconsin insurance coverage litigation. The Company is unable to estimate at this time the amount or range of reasonably possible loss it may ultimately incur as a result of asbestos-related claims against Aqua-Chem. The Company believes that assuming (1) the defense and indemnity costs for the asbestos-related claims against Aqua-Chem in the future are in the same range as during the past five years, and (2) the various insurers that cover the asbestos-related claims against Aqua-Chem remain solvent, regardless of the outcome of the coverage-in-place settlement litigation but taking into account the issues resolved to date, insurance coverage for substantially all defense and indemnity costs would be available for the next 10 to 15 years. The Coca-Cola Company is a beverage company. The Company owns or licenses and markets more than 500 nonalcoholic beverage brands, primarily sparkling beverages but also a variety of still beverages, such as waters, enhanced waters, juices and juice drinks, ready-to-drink teas and coffees, and energy and sports drinks. It owns and markets a range of nonalcoholic sparkling beverage brands, which includes Coca-Cola, Diet Coke, Fanta and Sprite. The Company's segments include Eurasia and Africa, Europe, Latin America, North America, Pacific, Bottling Investments and Corporate. In January 2013, Sacramento Coca-Cola Bottling Company announced that it had been acquired by the Company. Effective February 22, 2013, Coca-Cola Co acquired interest in Fresh Trading Ltd. In November 2013, Coca-Cola Company and ZICO Beverages LLC announced that Coca-Cola has acquired the ownership interest in ZICO. ASBESTOS UPDATE: PC Plan Confirmation Appeals Remain Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Appeals from the memorandum opinion and final order confirming the modified third amended plan of reorganization filed by PPG Industries, Inc.'s subsidiary remain pending, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. To address the issues raised by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in its December 2006 ruling in the Chapter 11 case of Pittsburg Corning Corporation, interested parties engaged in extensive negotiations regarding the terms of a third amended plan of reorganization, including modifications to the settlement arrangement dated May 14, 2002, between PPG and several other parties relating to certain asbestos claims. A modified third amended PC plan of reorganization, including a modified PPG settlement arrangement, was filed with the Bankruptcy Court on January 29, 2009. The parties also filed a disclosure statement describing the third amended PC plan of reorganization with the court. The third amended PC plan of reorganization also includes a modified settlement arrangement of Corning Incorporated. Several creditors and other interested parties filed objections to the disclosure statement. Those objections were overruled by the Bankruptcy Court by order dated July 6, 2009 approving the disclosure statement. The third amended PC plan of reorganization and disclosure statement were then sent to creditors, including asbestos claimants, for voting. The report of the voting agent, filed on February 18, 2010, revealed that all voting classes, including asbestos claimants, voted overwhelmingly in favor of the third amended PC plan of reorganization, which included the 2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement. In light of the favorable vote on the third amended PC plan of reorganization, the Bankruptcy Court conducted a hearing regarding the fairness of the proposed plan, including whether (i) the plan would be fair with respect to present and future claimants, (ii) such claimants would be treated in substantially the same manner, and (iii) the protection provided to PPG and its participating insurers would be fair in view of the assets they would convey to the Trust to be established as part of the third amended PC plan of reorganization. The hearing was held in June of 2010. The remaining objecting parties (a number of objections were resolved through plan amendments and stipulations filed before the hearing) appeared at the hearing and presented their cases. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Bankruptcy Court established a briefing schedule for its consideration of confirmation of the plan and the objections to confirmation. That briefing was completed and final oral arguments held in October 2010. On June 16, 2011 the Bankruptcy Court issued a decision denying confirmation of the third amended PC plan of reorganization. Following the June 16, 2011 ruling, the third amended PC plan of reorganization was the subject of negotiations among the parties in interest, amendments, proposed amendments and hearings. PC then filed an amended PC plan of reorganization on August 17, 2012. Objections to the plan, as amended, were filed by three entities. One set of objections was resolved by PC, and another set merely restated for appellate purposes objections filed by a party that the Bankruptcy Court previously overruled. The Bankruptcy Court heard oral argument on the one remaining set of objections filed by the remaining affiliated insurer objectors on October 10, 2012. At the conclusion of that argument, the Bankruptcy Court set forth a schedule for negotiating and filing language that would resolve some, but not all, of the objections to confirmation advanced by the insurer objectors. On October 25, 2012, PC filed a notice regarding proposed confirmation order language that resolved those specific objections. Following additional hearings and status conferences, technical amendments to the PC plan of reorganization were filed on May 15, 2013. On May 16, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court issued a memorandum opinion and interim order confirming the PC plan of reorganization, as amended, and setting forth a schedule for motions for reconsideration. Following the filing of motions for reconsideration, the Bankruptcy Court, on May 24, 2013, issued a revised memorandum opinion and final order confirming the modified third amended plan of reorganization and issuing the asbestos permanent channeling injunction. The remaining insurer objectors filed a motion for reconsideration on June 6, 2013. On November 12, 2013 the Bankruptcy Court issued an order granting in part (by clarifying the scope of the channeling injunction in accordance with the agreement of the parties as expressed at the time of final argument on the motion for reconsideration) and otherwise denying the motion for reconsideration. Notices of appeal to the U. S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania were filed by the remaining objecting parties. On March 17, 2014, the appeal of the remaining non-insurer objecting party was dismissed voluntarily, leaving only two affiliated insurance companies as appellants. Assuming that the District Court ultimately affirms the confirmation order, the remaining objectors could appeal the order to the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals and subsequently could seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court. The 2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement will not become effective until certain conditions precedent are satisfied or waived and the amended PC plan of reorganization is finally approved by an appropriate court order that is no longer subject to appellate review, and PPG's initial contributions will not be due until 30 business days thereafter (the "Funding Effective Date"). Of the total obligation of $1,018 million under the 2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement at March 31, 2014, $769 million is reported as a current liability and $249 million is reported as a non- current liability in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet. The future accretion of the noncurrent portion of the liability will total $91 million and be reported as expense in the condensed consolidated statement of income over the period through 2023. For the three months ended March 31, 2014, resulting from the 2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement including the change in fair value of the stock to be transferred to the Trust and the equity forward instrument and the increase in the net present value of the future payments to be made to the Trust, the Company disclosed a $3 million net expense for asbestos settlement. The fair value of the equity forward instrument is included as an "Other" current asset as of March 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013 in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet. Payments under the fixed payment schedule require annual payments that are due each June. The current portion of the asbestos settlement liability included in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2014 consists of all such payments required through June 2014, the fair value of PPG's common stock and the value of PPG's investment in Pittsburgh Corning Europe. The net present value of the remaining payments is included in the long-term asbestos settlement liability in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2014. PPG Industries, Inc. (PPG) is a global supplier of protective and decorative coatings. PPG operates in six business segments: Performance Coatings, Industrial Coatings and Architectural Coatings- EMEA segments supply protective and decorative finishes for customers in a range of end use markets, including industrial equipment, appliances and packaging; factory-finished aluminum extrusions and steel and aluminum coils; marine and aircraft equipment; automotive original equipment; and other industrial and consumer products. The Optical and Specialty Materials segment consist of the optical products and silicas businesses. The Glass business segment consists of the flat glass and fiber glass businesses. In March 2014, the Company acquired all the assets of Hi-Temp Coatings Technology Co., Inc. In April 2014, the Company announced the completion of its 51% ownership interest in its Transitions Optical joint venture and PPG's wholly-owned sunlens business to Essilor International. ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACMI OK'd to Amend Indemnification Suit v. FFIC ---------------------------------------------------------------- In August 2003, Barnard and Burk, Inc., and Amec Construction Management, Inc., as successor-in-interest to B&B, along with others, were named as defendants in almost 50 asbestos-exposure lawsuits in Louisiana consisting of over 300 plaintiffs. Thereafter, between 2003 and 2007, additional lawsuits were filed against B&B and ACMI as successor-in-interest to B&B. All the lawsuits allege liability on the part of B&B and ACMI as successor-in-interest to B&B. ACMI has paid for all of the litigation costs associated with the Original and Additional Lawsuits out of its own funds. ACMI sought reimbursement of its expenses from Fireman's Fund Insurance Company. Because of FFIC's failure to reimburse the litigation costs, ACMI filed a lawsuit seeking: (1) a declaration that Fireman's Fund Insurance Company has a duty to defend and duty to indemnify; (2) damages for breach of an insurance contract; (3) damages for a breach of the duty of good faith; and (4) damages for unjust enrichment. FFIC filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the complaint is insufficiently pled because it fails to identify specific policy provisions that have been breached. While Judge James Brady of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana acknowledged that the failure to point to specific contracts or contractual provisions is fatal to ACMI's claims, he denied FFIC's motion to dismiss and granted ACMI leave to amend its complaint as ACI has identified at least one specific policy and policy provions that FFIC has allegedly breached. The case is AMEC CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, INC. v. FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-718-JJB-SCR (M.D. La.). A full-text copy of Judge Brady's ruling dated May 9, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/Rd625efrom Leagle.com. AMEC Construction Management, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Dominic J. Ovella, Esq. -- novella@hmhlp.com -- Anne Elizabeth Medo, Esq., and Sean Patrick Mount, Esq. -- smount@hmhlp.com -- at Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Julia Ann Dietz, Esq. -- jdietz@degan.com -- Keith Alex Kornman, Esq. -- kkornman@degan.com -- Mary K. Cryar, Esq. -- mcryar@degan.com -- and Sidney W. Degan, III, Esq. -- sdegan@degan.com -- at Degan, Blanchard & Nash. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Says Ex-Stimson Worker Has Fibro Illness --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge James Jeremiah Shea of the Workers' Compensation Court of Montana, in a finding of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment dated May 5, 2014, ruled that petitioner Judy Baeth suffered an occupational disease, asbestos-related lung disease, as a result of her employment with Stimson Lumber Company and she is not barred from maintaining a claim for OD benefits. The Petitioner, the judge said, has a 45% impairment rating. Since the Petitioner voluntarily retired, she is presently only entitled to her impairment award and to medical benefits as a result of her OD, the judge further ruled. The case is JUDY BAETH, Petitioner, v. LIBERTY NW INS. CORP. Respondent/Insurer, WCC NO. 2013-3183 (MTWCC). A full-text copy of Judge Shea's Decision is available at http://is.gd/Yzjapgfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order Denying Ex-Workers' Award Upheld ------------------------------------------------------- Petitioner William L. Boyce appeals the decision of the West Virginia Workers' Compensation Board of Review. The appeal arises from the Board of Review's Final Order dated July 13, 2012, in which the Board affirmed a February 21, 2012, Order of the Workers' Compensation Office of Judges. In its Order, the Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator's February 22, 2008, decision which denied a permanent partial disability award. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia in a May 7, 2014, memorandum decision affirmed the Board of Review's decision, holding that the medical reports indicate that Mr. Boyce suffered from asbestos-related pleural disease but that he did not contract asbestosis in the course of his employment. The Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board determined that his lung cancer developed as the result of his 36-year history of smoking two packs of cigarettes a day and Board's opinion is reinforced by Dr. Crouch's pathology findings, the Supreme Court said. The case is WILLIAM L. BOYCE, Claimant Below, Petitioner, v. WEST VIRGINIA OFFICE OF INSURANCE COMMISSIONER, Commissioner Below, Respondent, and WOOD COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Employer Below, Respondent, No. 12-0904 (W. Va.). A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's Decision is available at http://is.gd/a32FcDfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inmate's Suit Denied for Failure to State Claim ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge David G. Campbell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona dismissed a pro se civil rights complaint filed by Kenneth Harvey Braatz, who is confined in the Maricopa County Durango Jail, for failure to state a claim. The Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that there is asbestos in the ceiling and, as a result, he has become sick. The case is Kenneth Harvey Braatz, Plaintiff, v. Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., Defendants, No. CV 14-0689-PHX-DGC (JFM)(D. Ariz.). A full-text copy of Judge Campbell's Decision is available at http://is.gd/dHHHIIfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Atty Admission Bids OK'd in Ford v. Garlock Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. GARLOCK SEALING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, et al., Defendants, Docket No. 3:14-cv- 00171-MOC (W.D.N.C.)., Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr., of the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, issued orders allowing granting the motion for special admission filed by Alice S. Johnston and the motion for admission pro hac vice filed by Nava Hazan. Full-text copies of the Orders dated May 9, 2014, are available at http://is.gd/gk56wg and http://is.gd/T0A39gfrom Leagle.com. Ford Motor filed a motion unseal records in the Garlock bankruptcy case, hoping to obtain evidence it needs to derail asbestos lawsuits against itself. Ford, like many manufacturers, has been named in thousands of lawsuits as plaintiff lawyers mount an aggressive search for solvent defendants to sue, after most of the companies that made and sold dangerous asbestos products like pipe insulation have filed for bankruptcy protection to settle claims. Judge George Hodges, the bankruptcy judge overseeing Garlock's case, has issued an order saying Ford can ask a federal district court to decide on its request. Ford Motor Company, Plaintiff, represented by E. Duncan Getchell, Jr., Esq., Karen Elizabeth Sieg, Esq., Kirk Gibson Warner, Esq., and Michael H. Brady, Esq., at McGuireWoods, LLP. Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC, Defendant, represented by Garland Stuart Cassada, Esq., Jonathan C. Krisko, Esq., and Richard Charles Worf, Jr., Esq., at Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A.. Resolute Management, Inc., Movant, represented by Henry T. M. LeFevre-Snee, Esq., and John S. Favate, Esq., at Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto, P.A., and Jodi Danielle Hildebran, Esq., and George Dudley Humphrey, III, Esq., at Allman Spry Davis Leggett & Crumpler, PA. AIU Insurance Company, Movant, represented by Henry T. M. LeFevre- Snee, Esq., at Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto, P.A., Jodi Danielle Hildebran, Esq., at Allman Spry Leggett & Crumpler, PA, John S. Favate, Esq., at Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto P.A., and George Dudley Humphrey, III, Esq., at Allman Spry Davis Leggett & Crumpler, PA. American Home Assurance Company, Movant, represented by Henry T. M. LeFevre-Snee, Esq., at Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto, P.A., Jodi Danielle Hildebran, Esq., at Allman Spry Leggett & Crumpler, PA, John S. Favate, Esq., at Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto P.A., and George Dudley Humphrey, III, Esq., at Allman Spry Davis Leggett & Crumpler, PA. Birmingham Fire Insurance Company of Pennsylvania, Movant, represented by Henry T. M. LeFevre-Snee, Esq., at Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto, P.A., Jodi Danielle Hildebran, Esq., at Allman Spry Leggett & Crumpler, PA, John S. Favate, Esq., at Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto P.A., and George Dudley Humphrey, III, Esq., at Allman Spry Davis Leggett & Crumpler, PA. Granite State Insurance Company, Movant, represented by Henry T. M. LeFevre-Snee, Esq., at Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto, P.A., Jodi Danielle Hildebran, Esq., at Allman Spry Leggett & Crumpler, PA, John S. Favate, Esq., at Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto P.A., and George Dudley Humphrey, III, Esq., at Allman Spry Davis Leggett & Crumpler, PA. Lexington Insurance Company, Movant, represented by Henry T. M. LeFevre-Snee, Esq., at Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto, P.A., Jodi Danielle Hildebran, Esq., at Allman Spry Leggett & Crumpler, PA, John S. Favate, Esq., at Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto P.A., and George Dudley Humphrey, III, Esq., at Allman Spry Davis Leggett & Crumpler, PA. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., Movant, represented by Henry T. M. LeFevre-Snee, Esq., at Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto, P.A., Jodi Danielle Hildebran, Esq., at Allman Spry Leggett & Crumpler, PA, John S. Favate, Esq., at Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto P.A., and George Dudley Humphrey, III, Esq., at Allman Spry Davis Leggett & Crumpler, PA. Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants, Movant, represented by Travis Waterbury Moon, Esq., at Moon Wright & Houston, PLLC, and Trevor W. Swett, III, Esq., at Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered. Honeywell International, Inc., Movant, represented by H. Lee Davis, Jr., Esq., at Davis & Hamrick, L.L.P., and Nava Hazan, Esq., at Squire & Sanders LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: R&Q May File More Docs in Reinsurance Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- At an unspecified time, plaintiff Employers Insurance Company of Wausau issued two umbrella liability insurance policies to the Marley Company under the numbers 0722-50-024941 and 0724-50- 024941. After Marley was sued by individuals for injuries covered by the policies related to asbestos exposure, Marley sued the plaintiff for a determination of its rights under those policies. In July 2010, the plaintiff began billing defendant R&Q Reinsurance Company for the defendant's share of payments the plaintiff has made under the settlement agreement with Marley. The plaintiff sued the defendant and filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the defendant owes it approximately $694,000 under the reinsurance agreements and approximately $37,000 in prejudgment interest. Judge Barbara B. Crabb of the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, in an opinion and order dated May 16, 2014, conditionally granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment with respect to certain issues, but allowed the defendant to submit supplemental materials on the questions whether the plaintiff has proven the extent to which it has exceeded the retention amounts and whether the plaintiff has calculated prejudgment interest correctly. The case is EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF WAUSAU, Plaintiff, v. R&Q REINSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, No. 13-cv-709-bbc (W.D. Wis.). A full-text copy of Judge Crabb's Decision is available at http://is.gd/wgj3Jwfrom Leagle.com. Employers Insurance Company of Wausau, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Charles Kareken, Esq. R&Q Reinsurance Company, Defendant, represented by Brian Michael Reid, Esq. -- reid@litchfieldcavo.com -- and Joseph B. Royster, Esq. -- royster@litchfieldcavo.com -- at Litchfield Cavo LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Insurance Suit Headed for Arbitration ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant United States Fire Insurance Company moved to compel arbitration and dismiss the complaint filed by The Flowserve Corporation, which complaint sought defense and indemnification under insurance policies for thousands of asbestos claims filed against Flowserve. Judge William H. Walls of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, in an opinion dated May 7, 2014, granted US Fire's motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss the complaint, holding that the current dispute between Flowserve and US Fire falls within the scope of the arbitration clause found in a Settlement and Cost Sharing Agreement entered into in November 2000 between Flowserve and US Fire, as well as all of the other insurers in the lawsuit. The case is THE FLOWSERVE CORPORATION f/k/a THE DURAMETALLIC CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, No. 2:14-cv-00676 (WHW)(D.N.J.). A full-text copy of Judge Halls' Decision is available at http://is.gd/ias2Wqfrom Leagle.com. THE FLOWSERVE CORPORATION, Plaintiff, represented by REBECCA BRAZZANO, Esq. -- Rebecca.Brazzano@ThompsonHine.com -- at THOMPSON HINE LLP. U.S. FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a New York Corporation, Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER R. CARROLL, Esq. -- ccarroll@cmk.com -- at CARROLL, MCNULTY & KULL, LLC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Insurers' Bid for Reargument Denied -------------------------------------------------------- Defendants The Continental Insurance Company and Centre Insurance Company, as successors-in-interest to some or all of the relevant insurance obligations of London Guarantee and Accident Company, Ltd., and American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania, (the "CNA Defendants"), have moved for reargument of a January 6, 2014 opinion issued by the Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County, which granted the plaintiff's, CNH America, LLC, Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding the Duty to Defend. The CNA Defendants move for reargument on the question of whether a "loss" occurred prior to 1994 for purposes of determining whether the anti-assignment clause precluded transfer of rights under CNA Defendants' policies to Plaintiff. The Superior Court, in an order dated April 29, 2014, held that the word "losses" in the finding refers to occurrences of alleged exposure to asbestos during the policy years. The assignment of the policies in the 1994 reorganization assigned the right to a defense against claims arising from such occurrences, even though the claims were not asserted until the three year period preceding the filing of the action, the Superior Court said. The Superior Court added that is former decision was not based on the analysis described by the CNA Defendants. Since the standard for granting a motion for reargument has not been satisfied, the Superior Court denied the motion. The cases are CNH AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware Limited liability company f/k/a Case Corporation Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA, a Pennsylvania corporation, et al Defendants; and AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA, a Pennsylvania corporation; and The CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Pennsylvania corporation, Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. EPEC EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Third-Party Defendant, C.A. No. N12C-07-108 JTV (Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/Na49eGfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fluor Corp. Dropped as Defendant in "Ricco" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jufgr Charles R. Bryer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, in an order dated April 24, 2014, dismissed with prejudice all allegations, if any, related to exposure to asbestos on or after December 5, 1980, as to Fluor Corporation in the case captioned FRANK RICCO, Plaintiff, v. ADVANCE MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:10-cv-04713-CRB (N.D. Calif.). A full-text copy of Judge Bryer's Decision is available at http://is.gd/iALohbfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Denies Bid to Remand "Vedros" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Carl J. Barbier of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied a motion to remand filed in the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit captioned VEDROS, ET AL v. NORTHROP GRUMMAN SHIPBUILDING, INC., ET AL., Section: J, Civil Action No. 11-1198 (E.D. La.)., holding that the case is similar to other cases where district courts in the circuit have properly exercised supplemental jurisdiction where the matters have been pending in federal court for several years, extensive discovery has occurred and numerous documents have been filed, discovery is closed, the case is ripe for trial, there are no novel or overly complex issues of state law, and the district court has already expended significant judicial resources and decided multiple dispositive motions. A full-text copy of Judge Barbier's April 24, 2014, order and reasons is available at http://is.gd/6gio8Ufrom Leagle.com. Sally Gros Vedros, Lori Vedros Kravet, Valerie Vedros White, and Gerald Vedros, Plaintiffs, are represented by: Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Esq. Jonathan Brett Clement, Esq. Lauren Roussel Clement, Esq. Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Esq. ROUSSEL & CLEMENT Attorneys at Law 1714 Cannes Drive La Place, LA 70068-2407 Tel: (985) 651-6591 Fax: (985) 651-6592 Albert Bossier, Jr., Defendant, Cross Claimant, and Third Party Plaintiff, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Esq., Anita Ann Cates, Esq., Gordon Peter Wilson, Esq., and Richard Marshall Perles, Esq., at Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. American Employers Insurance Company, Defendant, and Cross Defendant, represented by Samuel Milton Rosamond, III, Esq., and Adam Devlin deMahy, Esq., at Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC. American Motorists Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Brian C. Bossier, Esq., at Blue Williams, LLP, Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Esq., at Futrell & Perles, LLP, Anita Ann Cates, Esq., at Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Christopher Thomas Grace, III, Esq., at Blue Williams, LLP, Edwin A. Ellinghausen, III, Esq., at Blue Williams, LLP, Erin Helen Boyd, Esq., at Blue Williams, LLP, and Gordon Peter Wilson, Esq., at Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. Bayer CropScience, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Deborah DeRoche Kuchler, Esq., Alexandra Lamothe, Esq., Ernest G. Foundas, Esq., Francis Xavier deBlanc, III, Esq., Lee Blanton Ziffer, Esq., McGready Lewis Richeson, Esq., Michael H. Abraham, Esq., Robert Edward Guidry, Esq., and Sophia L. Lauricella, Esq., at Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC. CBS Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Esq., Angela M. Bowlin, Esq., James H. Brown, Jr., Esq., Meredith K. Keenan, Esq., and Peter R. Tafaro, Esq., at Frilot L.L.C.. Continental Insurance Co, Defendant, represented by Glenn Gill Goodier, Esq., and William P. Wynne, Esq., Jones Walker. Eagle, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Esq., Douglas Kinler, Esq., James R. Guidry, Esq., and Michael David Harold, Esq., at Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP. Foster Wheeler, LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Esq., Angela M. Bowlin, Esq., James H. Brown, Jr., Esq., Meredith K. Keenan, Esq., and Peter R. Tafaro, Esq., at Frilot L.L.C.. General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Esq., Angela M. Bowlin, Esq., James H. Brown, Jr., Esq., Meredith K. Keenan, Esq., and Peter R. Tafaro, Esq., at Frilot L.L.C.. Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Kaye N. Courington, Esq., Blaine Augusta Moore, Esq., Jennifer H. McLaughlin, Esq., and Louis Oliver Oubre, Esq., at Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Third Party Plaintiff and Cross Claimant, represented by Brian C. Bossier, Esq., Gary Allen Lee, Esq., at Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Anita Ann Cates, Esq., at Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Christopher Thomas Grace, III, Esq., at Blue Williams, LLP, and David Leroy Hoskins, Esq., at Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. J Melton Garrett, Third Party Plaintiff and Cross Claimant, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Esq., Anita Ann Cates, Esq., David Leroy Hoskins, Esq., and Richard Marshall Perles, Esq., at Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Third Party Defendant, represented by Kaye N. Courington, Esq., Blaine Augusta Moore, Esq., Jennifer H. McLaughlin, Esq., Jonathan Paul Hilbun, Esq., and Louis Oliver Oubre, Esq., at Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP. Maryland Casualty Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Edward T. Hayes, Esq. -- ehayes@leakeandersson.com -- and Marc E. Devenport, Esq. -- mdevenport@leakeandersson.com -- Leake & Andersson, LLP, and Jeffrey Matthew Burg, Esq., at Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC. McCarty Corporation, Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Esq., Douglas Kinler, Esq., James R. Guidry, Esq., and Michael David Harold, Esq., at Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP. OneBeacon America Insurance Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Samuel Milton Rosamond, III, Esq., and Adam Devlin deMahy, Esq., at Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC. Reilly-Benton, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Thomas L. Cougill, Esq., Jeanette Seraile-Riggins, Esq., Jennifer D. Zajac, Esq., and Kenneth R. Royer, Esq., at Willingham, Fultz & Cougill, LLP; and Diane Sweezer Davis, Esq. -- DDavis@ffllp.com -- at Funderburk Finderburk Courtois, LLP. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Christopher Kelly Lightfoot, Esq., and Richard J. Garvey, Jr., Esq., at Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale. ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Freeman" Suit Remanded to Louisiana State Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana issued and order and reasons dated April 4, 2014, granting a motion to remand to the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit captioned DAN FREEMAN, v. PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY, ET AL., SECTION "N" (4)(E.D. La.). A full-text copy of Judge Engelhardt's Decision is available at http://is.gd/m0WvuJfrom Leagle.com. Dan Freeman, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy J. Young, Esq., Tammy D. Harris, Esq., Vallie Schwartz Dugas, Esq., at Young Firm; Jason C. MacFetters, Esq., at Law Office of Maria B. de Gracia; and Rebecca Ann Rena Coman, Esq., at Rebecca A. Coman, Attorney at Law. Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Ernest G. Foundas, Esq., at Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC. Montello, Inc., Defendant, represented by David C. L. Gibbons, Jr., Esq., at Al M. Thompson, Jr., LLC. Coastal Chemical Co., LLC, Defendant, represented by Campbell Edington Wallace, Esq., Allen Joseph Krouse, III, Esq., Caroline C. Boling, Esq., and Krystle Ferbos, Esq., at Frilot L.L.C.. J.J.R. Land, LLC, Defendant, represented by Norman Charles Sullivan, Jr., Esq. -- nsullivan@frfirm.com -- and George J. Fowler, III, Esq. -- nsullivan@frfirm.com -- at Fowler Rodriguez. Murphy Exploration & Production Co., USA, Defendant, represented by Robert S. Emmett, Esq. -- remmett@bakerdonelson.com -- Christopher Matthew Hannan, Esq. -- channan@bakerdonelson.com -- and James Harold Daigle, Esq. -- jdaigle@bakerdonelson.com -- at Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz. Murphy Exploration & Production Company, Defendant, represented by Robert S. Emmett, Esq., Christopher Matthew Hannan, Esq., and James Harold Daigle, Esq., at Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz. Chevron Phillips Chemical Company, LP, Defendant, represented by Charles A. Cerise, Jr., Esq. -- charles.cerise@arlaw.com -- Alex E. Cosculluela, Esq. -- aec@arlaw.com -- Gerard J. Gaudet, Esq. -- gerard.gaudet@arlaw.com -- and Kathleen F. Drew, Esq. -- kathleen.drew@arlaw.com -- at Adams & Reese, LLP. Travelers Indemnity Company, Defendant, represented by Randall C. Mulcahy, Esq. -- rmulcahy@garrisonyount.com -- and Robert T. Vorhoff, Esq. -- rvorhoff@garrisonyount.com -- at Garrison, Yount, Forte, Mulcahy & Lehner, LLC. Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Randall C. Mulcahy, Esq., and and Robert T. Vorhoff, Esq., at Garrison, Yount, Forte, Mulcahy & Lehner, LLC. North River Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Jay M. Lonero, Esq. -- jlonero@lpwsl.com -- Christopher Raymond Pennison, Esq. -- cpennison@lpwsl.com -- and Jennifer R. Kretschmann, Esq. -- jkretschmann@lpwsl.com -- at Larzelere, Picou, Wells, Simpson, Lonero, LLC. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Defendant, represented by Randall C. Mulcahy, Esq., and Robert T. Vorhoff, Esq., at Garrison, Yount, Forte, Mulcahy & Lehner, LLC. Gray Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Edward Joseph Koehl, Jr., Esq., at Jones Walker. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, Defendant, represented by Michelle L. Maraist, Esq., and Paula Marcello Wellons, Esq., at Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC. Phillips 66 Company, Defendant, represented by Charles A. Cerise, Jr., Esq., Gerard J. Gaudet, Esq., and Kathleen F. Drew, Esq., at Adams & Reese, LLP. Coastal of Abbeville, L.L.C., Defendant, represented by Jay M. Lonero, Esq., and Christopher Raymond Pennison, Esq., at Larzelere, Picou, Wells, Simpson, Lonero, LLC. Charter Oaks Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Randall C. Mulcahy, Esq., and Robert T. Vorhoff, Esq., at Garrison, Yount, Forte, Mulcahy & Lehner, LLC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Denies Bid to Remand "Fulwider" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois denied a motion to remand the personal injury lawsuit styled RALPH LEWIS FULWIDER, Plaintiff, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:13-cv-01220-SCW (S.D. Ill.), after determining that defendant Crane Co. has presented a "colorable federal defense." A full-text copy of the magistrate judge's April 11, 2014, order is available at http://is.gd/cUtrjOfrom Leagle.com. Ralph Lewis Fulwider, Plaintiff, represented by: Allyson Michelle Romani, Esq. SHRADER & ASSOCIATES LLP 3900 Essex Lane, Suite 390 Houston, Texas 77027 Tel: 713-782-0000 Fax: 713-571-9605 E-mail: info@shraderlaw.com Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, as successor-by-merger to Buffalo Pumps, Inc, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq. -- khill@heylroyster.com -- at Heyl, Royster et al.. Ajax Magnethermic Corp., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Raymond R. Fournie, Esq. -- rfournie@armstrongteasdale.com -- and Anita M. Kidd, Esq. -- akidd@armstrongteasdale.com -- at Armstrong Teasdale LLP; and Melanie R. King, Esq., at Gallop, Johnson et al.. All Acquisitions, LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et al. Ameron International Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Lawrence S. Denk, Esq. -- ldenk@foleymansfield.com -- at Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. AO Smith Corporation, Defendant, represented by: CRIVELLO CARLSON LLC 710 N. Plankinton Ave. Suite 500 Milwaukee, WI 53203 Phone: (414) 271-7722 Fax: (414) 271-4438 API Heat Transfer, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Stephanie F. Jones, Esq. -- sfjones@gordonrees.com -- at Gordon & Rees LLP. Armstrong International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Carla C. Storm, Esq. -- cstorm@foleymansfield.com -- at Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. Arvinmeritor, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Dayna L. Johnson, Esq., at Greensfelder, Hemker et al.. Aurora Pump Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et al.. Baltimore Aircoil Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler, Esq. -- mchessler@heplerbroom.com -- at HeplerBroom LLC. Beazer East Inc, Cross Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Esq., at Kurowski Shultz LLC. Bechtel Construction Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et al. Bechtel Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et al. Bird Incorporated, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Raymond R. Fournie, Esq., and Anita M. Kidd, Esq., at Armstrong Teasdale LLP; and Melanie R. King, Esq., at Gallop, Johnson et al. Bonney Forge Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Kathleen Ann Hardee, Esq. -- khardee@polsinelli.com -- and Kirra N. Jones, Esq. -- knjones@polsinelli.com -- at Polsinelli PC. Borgwarner Morse Tec., Inc., successor-by-merger Borg Warner Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Gary L. Smith, Esq. -- gls@herzogcrebs.com -- Herzog Crebs LLP. Brand Insulations, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Kenneth M. Nussbaumer, Esq. -- knussbaumer@wvslaw.com -- and Mary D. Rychnovsky, Esq. -- mrychnovsky@wvslaw.com -- at Williams Venker & Sanders LLC. Buffalo Air Handling, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et al. BW/IP, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et al. Carboline Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et al. Caterpillar, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler, Esq., at HeplerBroom LLC. Certainteed Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et al. Chicago Bridge & Iron Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Raymond R. Fournie, Esq., and Anita M. Kidd, Esq., at Armstrong Teasdale LLP; and Melanie R. King, Esq., at Gallop, Johnson et al. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Company, LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Donald J. Dahlmann, Esq., and Leslie G. Offergeld, Esq., at Walker & Williams. Clark Equipment Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et al. Cleaver-Brooks, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Meredith S Hudgens, Esq., at O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C.. Clow Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler, Esq., at HeplerBroom LLC. Columbia Boiler Company, Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Esq., at Kurowski Shultz LLC. Compudyne Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et al. Crane Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Noel L. Smith, Jr., Esq. -- nsmith@heplerbroom.com -- at HeplerBroom LLC. Cummins, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et al. Dana Companies, LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et al. Dewitt Products Co., Defendant, represented by Michael W. Newport, Esq. -- mnewport@foleymansfield.com -- at Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. Dezurik, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et al.. Domco Products Texas, Inc., Defendant, represented by Beth Kamp Veath, Esq., at Brown & James. Dravo Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et al.. Eaton Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Christopher J. Lang, Esq. -- lang@pspclaw.com -- at Pitzer, Snodgrass, P.C. Flowserve Corporation, as successor-in-interest to Durametallic Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et al. Flowserve U.S., Inc, as successor to Rockwell Manufacturing Co,. and Edward Valve Co., and Nordstrom Valve, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et al. Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by David W. Ybarra, Esq., at Greensfelder, Hemker et al. Foseco, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler, Esq., at HeplerBroom LLC. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et al. Gardner Denver, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et al. General Electric Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Raymond R. Fournie, Esq., and Anita M. Kidd, Esq., at Armstrong Teasdale LLP; and Melanie R. King, Esq., at Gallop, Johnson et al. Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler, Esq., at HeplerBroom LLC. Goodrich Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et al. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Esq., at Kurowski Shultz LLC. Graybar Electric Company, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Matthew J. Morris, Esq. -- Matthew.Morris@lewisbrisbois.com -- at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP. Greene Tweed & Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et al. Hennessy Industries, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Stephanie F. Jones, Esq., at Gordon & Rees LLP. Hollingsworth & Vose Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler, Esq., at HeplerBroom LLC. Homasote Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Matthew J. Morris, Esq., at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP. Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Kathleen Ann Hardee, Esq., and Kirra N. Jones, Esq., at Polsinelli PC. Honeywell, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey T. Bash, Esq. -- J.Bash@lewisbrisbois.com -- at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP. Hyster Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Christopher J. Lang, Esq., and Derek Ruzicka, Esq. -- ruzicka@pspclaw.com -- at Pitzer, Snodgrass, P.C. Illinois Tool Works, Inc., individually and as Successor-in- Interest to Devcon Corp., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler, Esq., at HeplerBroom LLC. Imo Industries, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et al.. Industrial Holdings Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler, Esq., at HeplerBroom LLC. Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler, Esq., at HeplerBroom LLC. Invensys Systems, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Gary L. Smith, Esq., at Herzog Crebs LLP. ITT Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Jeffrey E. Rogers, Esq., and Undray Wilks, Esq., at McGuire Woods LLP. J.A. Sexauer, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary L. Smith, Esq., Justin Andrew Welply, Esq., and Mary Ann Hatch, Esq., at Herzog, Crebs et al. J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Esq., at Kurowski Shultz LLC. John Crane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Sean P. Fergus, Esq., at O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C.. Johnson Controls, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Gary L. Smith, Esq., at Herzog Crebs LLP. Johnson Controls, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Gary L. Smith, Esq., and Mary Ann Hatch, Esq., at Herzog, Crebs et al. Johnston Boiler Company, Defendant, represented by Michael W. Newport, Esq., at Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. Joy Technologies, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et al. Kvaerner U.S., Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Kathleen Ann Hardee, Esq., and Kirra N. Jones, Esq., at Polsinelli PC. Lattner Boiler Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et al. Lear Siegler Diversified Holdings Corp., Defendant, represented by Michael J Chessler, Esq., at HeplerBroom LLC. Lennox Industries, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et al. Lindberg, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et al.. McMaster-Carr Supply Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Melanie E. Riley, Esq., at Sandberg, Phoenix et al. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Charles L. Joley, Esq. -- cjoley@ilmoattorneys.com -- at Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. Milwaukee Valve Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Lawrence S. Denk, Esq., at Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. MW Custom Papers, LLC., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler, Esq., at HeplerBroom LLC. Navistar International, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Dobbels, Esq. -- ddobbels@polsinelli.com -- and Kirra N. Jones, Esq., at Polsinelli PC. Parker Hannifin Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et al.. Plastics Engineering Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et al. Pneumo Abex, LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Ross S. Titzer, Esq. -- rtitzer@wvslaw.com -- at Williams Venker & Sanders LLC. RIC-WIL, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et al. Riley Stoker Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et al. Rockwell Automations, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Esq., at Kurowski Shultz LLC. Saint-Gobain Abrasives, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et al. Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Dobbels, Esq., and Kirra N. Jones, Esq., at Polsinelli PC. Seco Warwick Corporation, as succesor-In-interest to Sunbeam Furnaces, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. Simpson Timber Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Michael W. Newport, Esq., at Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. SPX Cooling Technologies, Inc., as successor-in-interest to Marley Cooling Tower, Cross Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Esq., at Kurowski Shultz LLC. Superior Boiler Works, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Lawrence S. Denk, Esq., at Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. The Dow Chemical Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Jeffrey T. Bash, Esq., at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP. The Fairbanks Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et al. Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Michael D. Hultquist, Esq. -- michael.hultquist@dentons.com -- and Roger K. Heidenreich, Esq. -- roger.heidenreich@dentons.com -- at Dentons US LLP. Thermwell Products Co., Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Nicholas B Bunnell, Esq. -- nbunnell@foleymansfield.com -- at Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. Trane US, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler, Esq., at HeplerBroom LLC. Tuthill Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Donald W. Ward, Esq., and Mary Ann Hatch, Esq., at Herzog, Crebs et al. Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Jeffrey T. Bash, Esq., at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP. Universal Refractories, Inc., Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Esq., at Kurowski Shultz LLC. Velan Valve Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler, Esq., at HeplerBroom LLC. Viking Pump, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et al.. Warren Pumps, LLC., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et al.. Weil McLain, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et al. Weir Valves & Controls USA, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Michael W. Newport, Esq., at Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. Welco Manufacturing Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Gary L. Smith, Esq., at Herzog Crebs LLP. Whiting Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler, Esq., at HeplerBroom LLC. XEF, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Michael W. Newport, Esq., at Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. York International Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Gary L. Smith, Esq., at Herzog Crebs LLP. Young Group, Ltd., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et al. Young Insulation Group of St. Louis, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et al.. Zurn Industries, LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et al. Zy-Tech Global Industries, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Lise A. Newton, Esq. -- anewton@foleymansfield.com -- at Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 10th Cir. Upholds Disability Benefits Suit Order ----------------------------------------------------------------- A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, in an order and judgment dated April 24, 2014, affirmed a district court's order affirming the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration to deny David Garrison's applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The Tenth Circuit also refused to consider the evidence pertaining to Mr. Garrison's asbestos-related disease that was submitted for the first time on appeal. The case is DAVID GARRISON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee, No. 13-8057 (10th Cir.). A full-text copy of the Opinion is available at http://is.gd/O46ojrfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Late Filing Leads to "Gensler" Suit Dismissal -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Michael A. Shipp of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed the action styled ROSILYND HILLARY GENSLER, Plaintiff, v. UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Defendant, Civil Action No. 13-5244 (MAS) (DEA)(D.N.J.), after finding that the suit, which asserts that Joel I. Gensler perished as a result of the defendant's negligent manufacturing and distribution of floor tiles containing asbestos, was filed out of time. A full-text copy of Judge Shipp's memorandum order dated April 30, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/Qnxvf7from Leagle.com. ROSILYND HILLARY GENSLER, Plaintiff, represented by: Robert Michael Silverman, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG 200 Lake Drive East, Suite 205 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Telephone: (856) 755-1115 Fax: (856) 755-1995 UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by RICHARD DOMINICK PICINI, Esq. -- rpicini@carusosmith.com -- at CARUSO SMITH EDELL PICINI, PC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Judge Recommends Remand of "Genusa" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana recommended that the motion to remand the action styled LOUIS GENUSA v. ASBESTOS CORPORATION LIMITED, ET AL., Civil Action No. 13-794-JJB-RLB (M.D. La.), to th 18th Judicial District Court, West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana. The magistrate judge also recommended that plaintiff Louis Genusa's claims against the defendants, and Baton Rouge Marine Contractors, Inc.'s third-party claims against McKoin Trucking, should be severed from BRMC's third-party claims against the International Longshoreman's Association, AFL-CIO, South Atlantic & Gulf Coast District, ILA, AFL-CIO, and Local 3033, ILA, AFL-CIO. The complaint relates that Genusa worked as a longshoreman, truck loader, warehouse worker, and in other positions from 1963 to 1998 for various transportation companies at the Port of Baton Rogue in Port Allen, Louisiana. He allegedly contracted malignant mesothelioma from asbestos exposure while conducting such work. A full-text copy of the magistrate judge's report and recommendation dated April 22, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/jDS6vnfrom Leagle.com. Louis Genusa, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Frank J. Swarr, Esq. -- fswarr@landryswarr.com -- Mickey P. Landry, Esq. -- mlandry@landryswarr.com -- and Philip Charles Hoffman, Esq. -- phoffman@landryswarr.com -- at Landry, Swarr & Cannella, LLC; and John F. Dillon, Esq. -- jdillon1@johndillon.com -- at John F. Dillon, PLC. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Kay Barnes Baxter, Esq. -- kbaxter@sbm-legal.com -- at Swetman Baxter Massenburg. Baton Rouge Marine Contractors, Defendant, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Patrick E. Costello, Esq. -- pcostello@mblb.com -- Mark E. Hanna, mhanna@mblb.com -- Trevor M. Cutaiar, tcutaiar@mblb.com -- and Wilton Ellwood Bland, III, Esq. -- wblandiv@mblb.com -- at Mouledoux, Bland, Legrand & Brackett. SSA Gulf, Inc., Defendant, represented by: Richard P. Sulzer, Esq. Christina Leigh Falco, Esq. Robert E. Williams, IV, Esq. Sulzer & Williams, L.L.C. 201 Holiday Blvd., Ste. 335 Covington, LA 70433 Ramsay Scarlett & Company, Defendant, represented by Kaye N. Courington, Esq., Jeffrey M. Burg, Esq., and William J. Sommers, Jr., Esq., at Courington, Kiefer & Sommers LLC. Ernest Levering, III, Executive Officer of Ramsay Scarlett, Defendant, represented by Kaye N. Courington, Esq., Jeffrey M. Burg, Esq., and William J. Sommers, Jr., Esq., at Courington, Kiefer & Sommers LLC. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by H. Minor Pipes, III, Esq., and Susan M. Rogge, Esq., at Barrasso Usdin Kupperman Freeman & Sarver LLC. Port of Greater Baton Rouge, Defendant, represented by Stephen W. Glusman, Esq., at Glusman, Broyles & Glusman; and Andrew L. Plauche, Jr., Esq., Kenan S. Rand, Jr, Esq., and Lacey Elizabeth Sarver, Esq., at Plauche Maselli Parkerson LLP. Louisiana Insurance Guarantee Association, Defendant, represented by: E. Scott Hackenberg, Esq. Brenda H. Verbois, Esq. HENCHY, VERBOIS & HACKENBERG, LLC 7904 Wrenwood Boulevard Suite C Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Phone: 225-928-4444 Fax: 225-923-1234 International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Christina L. Carroll, Esq. -- Robein, Urann & Lurye; and John P. Sheridan, Esq. -- jsheridan@mmmpc.com - - and Kevin Marrinan, Esq. -- kmarrinan@mmmpc.com -- at Marrinan & Mazzola Mardon, PC. South Atlantic and Gulf Coast District, ILA, AFL-CIO, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Christina L. Carroll, Esq., at Robein, Urann & Lurye; and John P. Sheridan, Esq., and Kevin Marrinan, Esq., at Marrinan & Mazzola Mardon, PC. Local 3033, ILA, AFL-CIO, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Christina L. Carroll, Esq., at Robein, Urann & Lurye. McKoin Trucking Company, LLC, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Amy Collier Lambert, Esq. -- amy.lambert@taylorporter.com -- and Kathryn Colvin Goodson, Esq. -- katie.goodson@taylorporter.com -- at Taylor, Porter, Brooks & Phillips. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Ruling in "Groover" Suit Upheld ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of Pennsylvania issued a memorandum dated April 24, 2014, affirming a lower court's decision granting the motions for summary judgment filed by defendants CBS Corporation and Spirax Sarco, Inc., in the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit captioned ALLEN GROOVER, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF CHERYL GROOVER AND IN HIS OWN RIGHT, Appellant, v. CBS CORPORATION, WEIL-McCLAIN, SPIRAX SARCO, INC., RILEY STOKER CORPORATION, JOHN ZINK COMPANY, JOHN CRANE HOUDAILLE, INC., INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY, GOULD PUMPS, INC., GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, FOSTER WHEELER, CONOCO PHILLIPS COMPANY, CLEAVER-BROOKS, INC., BP AMERICA, INC., ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, AMERICAN STANDARD, INC., ARCO CHEMICAL, No. 680 EDA 2013 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/RNwfjrfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Dropped as Defendant in "Gurnett" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Stephen C. Williams of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois issued a memorandum and order dated April 2, 2014, granting a motion to dismiss an asbestos- related personal injury lawsuit with respect to Crane Co. and remand the motion to the Third Judicial Circuit state court, Madison County Illinois, Case No. 13-L-1740. The case is JAMES A. GURNETT and MARY ANN KRUGER, Plaintiffs, v. AO SMITH CORP., et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-1206-SCW (S.D. Ill.). A full-text copy of Judge Williams' Decision is available at http://is.gd/gKwCYefrom Leagle.com. James A. Gurnett, Plaintiff, Mary Ann Kruger, his wife, Plaintiff, represented by Randy L. Gori, Esq. -- randy@gorijulianlaw.com -- and Gail G. Renshaw, Esq. -- grenshaw@gorijulianlaw.com -- at Gori Julian and Associates P.C. AO Smith Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Crivello Carlson Picou & Andrekanic LLC. Armstrong International, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Carla C. Storm, Esq., at Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. Aurora Pump Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et al.. CBS Corporation, on f/k/a WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel G. Donahue, Esq. -- ddonahue@foleymansfield.com -- at Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. Champlain Cable Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Raymond R. Fournie, Esq., and Anita M. Kidd, Esq., at Armstrong Teasdale LLP; and Melanie R. King, Esq., at Gallop, Johnson et al. Cleaver Brooks, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Meredith S Hudgens, Esq., at O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C.. Dap, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et al.. Gardner Denver, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et al.. General Electric Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Raymond R. Fournie, Esq., and Anita M. Kidd, Esq., at Armstrong Teasdale LLP; and Melanie R. King, Esq., at Gallop, Johnson et al. Georgia Pacific LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler, Esq., at HeplerBroom LLC. Honeywell International, Inc., f/k/a ALLIEDSIGNAL, INC., Successor in Interest to THE BENDIX CORPORATION, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Kathleen Ann Hardee, Esq., and Kirra N. Jones, Esq., at Polsinelli PC. Imo Industries, Inc., Individually and as Successor in Interest to DELAVAL TURBINE INC., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et al.. ITT Corporation, Inc, f/k/a ITT INDUSTRIES INC., Individually and as Successor in Interest to BELL & GOSSETT, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Jeffrey E. Rogers, Esq., and Undray Wilks, Esq., at McGuire Woods LLP. John Crane, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Sean P. Fergus, Esq., at O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C.. Pneumo Abex Corporation, Individually and as Successor in Interest to ABEX CORPORATION and AMERICAN BRAKE-BLOCK, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Ross S. Titzer, Esq., at Williams Venker & Sanders LLC. Pneumo Abex LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Ross S. Titzer, Esq., at Williams Venker & Sanders LLC. Riley Power, Inc., f/k/a BABCOCK BORSIG POWERS, INC., RILEY STOKER CORPORATION F/K/A DB RILEY, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et al.. Trane US, Inc., f/k/a AMERICAN STANDARD, INC., Individually and as Successor in Interest to KEWANEE BOILER CORPORATION, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler, Esq., at HeplerBroom LLC. Wilsonart International, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by HeplerBroom et al.. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Denies Bid to Remand "Hasenberg" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Michael J. Reagan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois issued a memorandum and order dated April 9, 2014, denying a motion to remand the asbestos- related personal injury lawsuit styled WILLIAM HASENBERG, JR., and LINDA HASENBERG, Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP., et al. Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-1325-MJR-SCW (S.D. Ill.), after concluding that the federal officer removal of the lawsuit was proper. A full-text copy of Judge Reagan's Decision is available at http://is.gd/CcuXOtfrom Leagle.com. William Hasenberg, Jr., and Linda Hasenberg, Plaintiff, represented by Eric D. Jackstadt, Esq., Steven M. Aroesty, Esq., and Stephanie L. Gold, Esq., at Napoli Bern, et al.. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et al.. Brand Insulations, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Thomas L. Orris, Esq. -- torris@wvslaw.com -- Kenneth M. Nussbaumer, Esq., and Mary D. Rychnovsky, Esq., at Williams Venker & Sanders LLC. Certainteed Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et al.. Continental Teves, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et al.. Crane Co., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Noel L. Smith, Jr., Esq., at HeplerBroom LLC. Cummins Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et al.. Flowserve Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et al. Ford Motor Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by David W. Ybarra, Esq., at Greensfelder, Hemker et al.. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et al.. Gardner Denver, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et al. Georgia Pacific, LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC. Hennessy Industries, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Todd Nelson, Esq. -- tnelson@gordonrees.com -- at Gordon & Rees LLP. Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Kathleen Ann Hardee, Esq., at Polsinelli PC. Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler, Esq., at HeplerBroom LLC. John Crane, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Sean P. Fergus, Esq., at O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C. Linda Hasenberg, Cross Defendant, represented by Eric D. Jackstadt, Napoli Bern, et al., Steven M. Aroesty, Napoli Bern, et al. & Stephanie L. Gold, Napoli Bern, et al.. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Maureen A. McGlynn, Esq. -- mo@kmblaw1.com -- Kortenhof McGlynn & Burns LLC. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Charles L. Joley, Esq., at Joley, Nussbaumer, et al.. Pneumo Abex LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Ross S. Titzer, Esq., at Williams Venker & Sanders LLC. Trane US, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler, Esq., at HeplerBroom LLC. Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Jeffrey T. Bash, Esq., at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP. Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et al.. Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et al. William Hasenberg, Jr., Cross Defendant, represented by Eric D. Jackstadt, Napoli Bern, et al., Steven M. Aroesty, Napoli Bern, et al. & Stephanie L. Gold, Napoli Bern, et al.. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Affirms Ruling in "Hellam" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff James Hellam developed mesothelioma decades after he was exposed to products of Crane Co. that contained asbestos. A jury found Crane strictly liable for Hellam's injury. In consolidated appeals, Crane contends: (1) insufficient evidence was presented that its products had a design defect; (2) insufficient evidence was presented that its products were a "substantial factor" in causing Hellam's mesothelioma; (3) the judgment improperly failed to apply settlement credits and was not final; and (4) Hellam was improperly awarded certain costs in a postjudgment order. The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Four, in an opinion dated April 16, 2014, concluded that the issues involving settlement credits are moot and affirmed the judgment. The Court of Appeals also affirmed the order awarding costs, and remanded to the trial court the limited issue whether costs for pretrial transcripts should be taxed. The case is JAMES HELLAM, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CRANE CO., Defendant and Appellant, No. A138013, A139141 (Cal. App.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/esatFx from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Morse Diesel Awarded Summary Judgment in PI Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, issued a decision and order on April 9, 2014, granting defendant Morse Diesel, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' Labor Law Section 200 and all other claims asserted in the asbestos-related personal injury action styled THOMAS HOUSTON and ELLEN HOUSTON, Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Docket No. 190119/2012, Motion Seq. 006 (N.Y. Sup.). A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is available at http://is.gd/cdbDk4from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goulds' Summary Judgment Award in PI Suit Upheld ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, in an opinion dated April 23, 2014, a full-text copy of which is available at http://is.gd/iAkydVfrom Leagle.com, affirmed a lower court's decision granting summary judgment to Goulds Pumps, Inc., dismissing plaintiffs' claims alleging that they contracted asbestos-related diseases as a result of their exposure to asbestos contained in component parts of pumps manufactured by Goulds. The Superior Court held that summary judgment was properly granted because the plaintiffs failed to make a prima facie showing of causation. The cases are ELBERT HUGHES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A.W. CHESTERTON CO.; BRAND INSULATIONS, INC; FOSTER WHEELER CORP.; GARLOCK, INC.; METROPOLITAN LIFE; WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP.; DURAMETALLIC CORP.; GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., and MELRATH GASKET & SUPPLY, Defendants, and GOULDS PUMPS, INC., Defendant-Respondent; MICHAEL GREEVER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A.W. CHESTERTON CO.; BRAND INSULATIONS, INC; FOSTER WHEELER CORP.; GARLOCK, INC.; METROPOLITAN LIFE; HOPEMAN BROTHERS, INC.; INGERSOLL-RAND CO. LTD.; MADSEN & HOWELL, INC.; DURAMETALLIC CORP.; WOOLSULATE CORP.; GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.; and MELRATH GASKET & SUPPLY, Defendants, and GOULDS PUMPS, INC., Defendant-Respondent; GREGORY FAYER, Executor of the Estate of THOMAS FAYER, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A.W. CHESTERTON CO.; BRAND INSULATIONS, INC; DURAMETALLIC CORP.; FOSTER WHEELER CORP.; GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.; METROPOLITAN LIFE; OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC.; HOPEMAN BROTHERS, INC.; MADSEN & HOWELL, INC.; WOOLSULATE CORP.; and INGERSOLL-RAND CO. LTD., Defendants, and GOULDS PUMPS, INC., Defendant-Respondent; and ANGELO MYSTRENA and KATHLEEN MYSTRENA, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. A.W. CHESTERTON CO.; BRAND INSULATIONS, INC; DURAMETALLIC CORP.; FOSTER WHEELER CORP.; METROPOLITAN LIFE; HOPEMAN BROTHERS, INC.; MADSEN & HOWELL, INC.; WOOLSULATE CORP.; and INGERSOLL-RAND CO. LTD., Defendants, and GOULDS PUMPS, INC., Defendant-Respondent; Docket Nos. A-0778- 11T2, A-0779-11T2, A-4912-11T2, A-4913-11T2 (Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division). Franklin P. Solomon argued the cause for appellants (Locks Law Firm, LLC, attorneys; Mr. Solomon and James J. Pettit, on the briefs). The attorneys may be reached at: Franklin P. Solomon, Esq. James J. Pettit, Esq. LOCKS LAW FIRM, LLC 800 Third Ave 11th Floor New York, NY 10022 Richard J. Mirra, Esq. -- rmirra@hoaglandlongo.com -- and Steven F. Satz, Esq. -- ssatz@hoaglandlongo.com -- argued the cause for respondent (Hoagland, Longo, Moran, Dunst & Doukas, LLP, attorneys; Mr. Mirra and Mr. Satz, of counsel and on the briefs). ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Dismisses Inmate's Suit ------------------------------------------------- Judge Sandra L. Townes of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued an order on April 17, 2014, closing the case styled WILLIAM JOHNAKIN, Plaintiff, v. NYC DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants, No. 11-CV-4807 (SLT) (LB) (E.D.N.Y.), after failing to file an amended complaint. The plaintiff, a former inmate of the Anna M. Kross Center on Rikers Island, was allowed by the Court in a prior order to file an amended complaint with respect to his claim that Department of Correction personnel were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in allowing him to be exposed to friable asbestos. A full-text copy of Judge Townes' Decision is available at http://is.gd/HCnndDfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Conalco Dropped as Defendant in "Moseley" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Stephen C. Williams issued an order on April 23, 2014, dismissing without prejudice defendant Consolidated Aluminum Corporation from the asbestos-related wrongful death lawsuit styled DELORIS KIEFFER-MOSELEY, Plaintiff, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEM CORP., et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-1313-MJR-DGW (S.D. Ill.), and remanded the case back to the Circuit Court, Third Judicial Circuit, in Madison County, Illinois. A full-text copy of Judge Williams' Decision is available at http://is.gd/krhqfq from Leagle.com. Delores J Kiefer-Moseley, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq. -- elizabeth@ghalaw.com -- at Goldenberg Heller et al.. Air & Liquid System Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et al.. Armstrong International Inc, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Carla C. Storm, Esq., at Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. CBS Corporation, a Deleware Corp., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel G. Donahue, Esq., and Michael R. Dauphin, Esq. -- mdauphin@foleymansfield.com -- at Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. Certainteed Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et al.. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Company, LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Leslie G. Offergeld, Esq., at Walker & Williams. Corrigan Company Mechanical Contractors Inc, Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Paul P. Waller, III, Esq., at Walker & Williams. Crane Co., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson, Esq. -- bwilson@heplerbroom.com -- at HeplerBroom LLC. Dap, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et al.. Freeport-McMoran Copper & Gold Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et al.. Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC. Imo Industries, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et al. Industrial Holding Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Jennifer J. Scheibal, Esq. -- jscheibal@heplerbroom.com -- and Michael J Chessler, Esq., at HeplerBroom LLC. Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Jennifer J. Scheibal, Esq., and Michael J Chessler, Esq., at HeplerBroom LLC. ITT Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Jeffrey E. Rogers, Esq., and Undray Wilks, Esq., at McGuire Woods LLP. Riley Power, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et al. Saint-Gobain Abrasives, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et al. Sunbeam Products, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Trane US, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Jennifer J. Scheibal, Esq., and Michael J Chessler, Esq., at HeplerBroom LLC. Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et al.. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bill of Costs in "Kinser" Suit Partially Granted ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit captioned LARRY A. KINSER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CBS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 94-2282 (C.D. Ill.)., Judge Harold A. Baker of the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois issued an order dated April 16, 2014, granted in part and denied in part the motion for a bill of costs filed by defendant CBS/Westinghouse. The defendant's bill of costs is reduced by the sum of $6,197. The court allowed clerk fees of $226; transcription fees of $12,558.35; printing, exemplification, and copying costs of $25,537.46; and witness fees of $4,111.18. Costs under 28 U.S.C. Section 1920 are awarded to the defendant and taxed against the plaintiffs in the amount of $42,432.93 as part of the judgment in the case. A full-text copy of Judge Baker's Decision is available at http://is.gd/51daNdfrom Leagle.com. Larry A Kinser, Donna M Kinser, Paul W Gehrt, and Betty McSweeny, Individually and as Special Administrator for the Estate of Frankie D Pray Sr. From consolidated case 96-4025., Plaintiffs, represented by Michael P Cascino, Esq., Adam Martin Mergenthaler, Esq., and Robert G McCoy, Esq., at CASCINO VAUGHAN LAW OFFICES LTD. CBS Corp, Defendant, represented by Daniel G Donahue, Esq., and Jacob Daniel Sawyer, Esq. -- jsawyer@foleymansfield.com -- at FOLEY & MANSFIELD PLLP; Paula Miles Burlison, BOWMAN & BROOKE LLP, Rebecca Sayrd Herbig, BOWMAN & BROOKE LLP & Sandra Giannone Ezell, BOWMAN & BROOKE LLP. CBS Corp, successor by merger to CBS Corporation. From consolidated case 96-2071., Defendant, represented by Daniel G Donahue, Esq., and Jacob Daniel Sawyer, Esq., at FOLEY & MANSFIELD PLLP; and Paula Miles Burlison, BOWMAN & BROOKE LLP & Rebecca Sayrd Herbig, BOWMAN & BROOKE LLP. General Refractories Co, Defendant, represented by Gary B Cutler, Esq. -- gcutler@offitkurman.com -- at OFFIT KURMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW & Jamie P Yadgaroff, Esq., at LAW OFFICES OF JAMIE P YADGAROFF. CBS Corp, Defendant, represented by Jacob Daniel Sawyer, Esq., at FOLEY & MANSFIELD PLLP; and Paula Miles Burlison, Esq. -- paula.burlison@bowmanandbrooke.com -- at BOWMAN & BROOKE LLP, R Delacy Peters, Jr., Esq. -- R_Peters@gshllc.com -- at GONZALEZ SAGGIO AND HARLAN LLC & Rebecca Sayrd Herbig, Esq. -- rebecca.herbig@bowmanandbrooke.com -- at BOWMAN & BROOKE LLP. General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Timothy Edward Kapshandy, Esq. -- tkapshandy@sidley.com -- at SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: North Carolina Court Dismisses "Lee" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Judge Louise W. Flanagan of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division, issued an order dated April 11, 2014, granting the motions to dismiss filed by defendants Ford Motor Company and Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A., in the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit styled LARRY WINSLOWE LEE and SUSAN PROVOST LEE, Plaintiffs, v. CERTAINTEED CORPORATION; DANA COMPANIES LLC, sued individually and as successor-in-interest to Victor Gasket Manufacturing Company; DEERE & COMPANY, d/b/a John Deere; FORD MOTOR COMPANY; FORMOSA PLASTICS CORPORATION U.S.A., sued individually and as parent, alter ego and successor-in-interest to J-M Manufacturing Company and to J-M A/C Pipe Corporation; GENUINE PARTS COMPANY, d/b/a National Automotive Parts Association (a.k.a. NAPA); GRINNEL LLC, d/b/a Grinnell Corporation; HAJOCA CORPORATION, sued individually and as successor-in-interest to Hughes Supply; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., sued individually and as successor-in- interest to Bendix Corporation f/k/a Allied-Signal, Inc.; J-M MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., sued individually and as parent and alter ego to J-M A/C Pipe Corporation; KAWASAKI MOTORS CORP., U.S.A.; METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; PFIZER INC.; PNEUMO ABEX LLC, sued individually and as successor-in-interest to Abex Corporation and as succesor-in-interest to American Brakeblok; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; and YAMAHA MOTOR CORPORATION, U.S.A.; Defendants, No. 5:13-cv-826-FL (E.D.N.C.). A full-text copy of Judge Flanagan's Decision is available at http://is.gd/ucFVKZfrom Leagle.com. Larry Winslowe Lee, and Susan Provost Lee, Plaintiffs, represented by Kevin W. Paul, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C. & Janet Ward Black, Ward Black Law. Certainteed Corporation, Defendant, represented by Charles M. Sprinkle, III, Esq. -- csprinkle@hsblawfirm.com -- Moffatt G. McDonald, Esq. -- mmcdonald@hsblawfirm.com -- Scott E. Frick, Esq. -- sfrick@hsblawfirm.com -- and William David Conner, Esq. -- dconner@hsblawfirm.com -- at Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A.. Dana Companies LLC, sued individually and as successor-in-interest to Victor Gasket Manufacturing Company, Defendant, represented by Charles M. Sprinkle, III, Esq., Moffatt G. McDonald, Esq., Scott E. Frick, Esq., and William David Conner, Esq., at Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A. Deere & Company, Defendant, represented by Tracy E. Tomlin, Esq., at Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP. Formosa Plastics Corporation U.S.A., sued individually and as parent, alter ego and successor-in-interest to J-M Manufacturing Company and to J-M A/C Pipe Corporation, Defendant, represented by Daniel B. White, Esq., Sarah M. Bowman, Esq., and Stephanie G. Flynn, Esq., at Gallivan, White & Boyd, P.A.. Genuine Parts Company, Defendant, represented by Heather Bell Adams, Esq. -- heather.adams@alston.com -- and Matthew Patrick McGuire, Esq. -- matt.mcguire@alston.com -- at Alston & Bird LLP. Genuine Parts Company, doing business as National Automotive Parts Association (aka NAPA), Defendant, represented by Ryan P. Ethridge, Esq. -- ryan.ethridge@alston.com -- at Alston & Bird LLP. Grinnell LLC, Defendant, represented by Tracy E. Tomlin, Esq., at Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP. Hajoca Corporation, sued individually and as successor-in-interest to Hughes Supply, Defendant, represented by Tracy E. Tomlin, Esq., at Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP. Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, represented by H. Lee Davis, Jr., Esq. -- ldavis@davisandhamrick.com -- at Davis & Hamrick, LLP. J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc., sued individually and as parent and alter ego to J-M A/C Pipe Corporation, Defendant, represented by Daniel B. White, Esq., Sarah M. Bowman, Esq., and Stephanie G. Flynn, Esq., at Gallivan, White & Boyd, P.A.. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Keith E. Coltrain, Esq. -- Keith.Coltrain@WallTempleton.com -- at Wall Templeton & Haldrup, P.A.. Pfizer Inc., Defendant, represented by Tracy E. Tomlin, Esq., at Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP. Pneumo Abex LLC, sued individually and as successor-in-interest to Abex Corporation and as successor-in-interest to American Brakeblok, Defendant, represented by: Timothy W. Bouch, Esq. LEATH, BOUCH & SEEKINGS, LLP 92 Broad Street Charleston, SC 29401 Tel: (843) 937-8811 Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Charles M. Sprinkle, III, Esq., Moffatt G. McDonald, Esq., Scott E. Frick, Esq., and William David Conner, Esq., at Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A.. Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A., Defendant, represented by Timothy W. Bouch, Esq., at Leath Bouch & Seekings. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2nd Cir. Affirms Ruling in "McCormick" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a summary order on April 10, 2014, affirming the ruling of a lower court awarding a plaintiff in an asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit $980,000 and that court's order denying a defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or, in the alternative, a new trial. The case is KELLY McCORMICK, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of KIT L. McCORMICK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CLEAVER BROOKS CO., INC., Defendant-Appellant, No. 13-704 (2nd Cir.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/aDzSc2from Leagle.com. KYLE A. SHAMBERG, Esq., (Samuel M. Meirowitz, Esq., on the brief), at Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., New York, New York, for Plaintiff- Appellee. SUZANNE M. HALBARDIER, Esq., (David Schultz, Esq., on the brief), at Barry, McTiernan & Moore, LLC, New York, New York, for Defendant-Appellant. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Affirms Ruling in "Kestenbaum" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, issued an opinion dated April 15, 2014, affirming the Supreme Court, New York County's order entered Jan. 6, 2014, denying defendant Union Carbide Corporation's motion for summary judgment in the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit captioned IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to ALICE KESTENBAUM, ETC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DUREZ CORP., ET AL., Defendants, UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant, 12223, 190421/11(N.Y. App. Div.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/6AFyPjfrom Leagle.com. Mayer Brown LLP, New York (Scott A. Chesin, Esq. -- sachesin@mayerbrown.com -- of counsel), for appellant. Levy Konigsebrg, LLP, New York (Brendan J. Tully, Esq., of counsel), for respondent. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Affirms Ruling in Suits v. Jenkins Bros. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, issued an opinion on April 17, 2014, affirmed the Oct. 29, 2013, ruling by the Supreme Court, New York County, denying Liberty Mutual Insurance Company's motion to dismiss the complaints against Jenkins Bros. in the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits styled ROBERT GERMAIN, SR., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., ET AL., Defendants; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant; DANIEL E. VALENSI, ETC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, AS SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO BUFFALO PUMPS, INC., ET AL, Defendants, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant; VASHTEE ANTLE, ETC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., ET AL., Defendants, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant; JANEED KHAN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. 3M COMPANY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR TO MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant; LAURENCE CUNNINGHAM, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. 3M COMPANY, ETC., ET AL., Defendants, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant; 12249, 190281/12, 190340/12, 190360/12, 190512/12, 190129/13(N.Y. App. Div.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/55fCtQfrom Leagle.com. Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass, New York (Lloyd A. Gura, Esq., of counsel), for appellant. Belluck & Fox, LLP, New York (Seth A. Dymond, Esq., of counsel), for respondents. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bids to Dismiss "McKim" Suit Conditionally OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, issued a decision and order on April 16, 2014, in the asbestos- related personal injury lawsuit styled BRUCE McKIM, as Executor for the Estate of ROBERT McKIM, and DONNA McKIM, Individually, Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., et al., Defendants, Docket No. 190225/12, Motion Seq. No. 002 (N.Y. Sup.), conditionally granting the motion to dismiss the complaint filed by defendants Williams & Davis Boiler, Inc., Columbia Boiler Company of Pottstown, and Paker Boiler Company. The Order was conditioned on the entry of a stipulation of all of the defendants to the action waiving any jurisdictional and statute of limitations defenses in any action commenced by the plaintiffs in a different more suitable forum other than New York. A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is available at http://is.gd/ZOQBkpfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Miss. High Court Reverses Ruling in PI Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Robert B. Reeves, a career employee of Illinois Central Railroad, sued Mississippi Valley Silica, Inc., for lung injuries that allegedly were caused by his inhalation of silica (a component of sand) while employed with Illinois Central. R.B. also alleged that he inhaled both asbestos and silica, which caused his injuries. The case was dismissed without prejudice in 2006, and the present suit was filed against 32 named defendants in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial District of Jones County in 2007. Robert Reeves died in 2010, before the litigation was concluded, and the case then was pursued by his wrongful death beneficiaries. After trial in May 2012 against the sole remaining defendant, Valley, the jury found economic damages in the amount of $149,464.40 and noneconomic damages of $1.5 million, with Valley 15% at fault. The jury also awarded punitive damages of $50,000, and the trial court awarded attorney fees of $257,701.50. Although Valley was found only 15% at fault, the trial court determined that the law in place in 2002, when the original complaint was filed, should apply. Accordingly, the statutory caps on punitive and noneconomic damages enacted in 2004 were inapplicable and Valley was jointly and severally liable for 50% of the judgment. Ultimately, the court determined that Valley owed the Reeves beneficiaries $824,732.20, plus $50,000 in punitive damages, and $257,701.50 in attorney fees, for a total of $1,132,433.70. Valley appealed. In an April 17, 2014, decision, the Supreme Court of Mississippi held that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to identify Valley's sand as the proximate cause of Robert Reeves's injuries as a matter of law. Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court and rendered judgment in favor of Mississippi Valley Silica. The case is MISSISSIPPI VALLEY SILICA COMPANY, INC., v. GWENDOLYN M. REEVES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARY OF ROBERT B. REEVES, DECEASED, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES OF ROBERT B. REEVES, DECEASED, No. 2012-CA-01702-SCT (Miss.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/SJ3hAjfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Abatement Resumes at Middle School --------------------------------------------------------- Casey Conley, writing for Foster's Daily Democrat, reported that SAU 56 officials say all remaining asbestos in Somersworth Middle School, in New Hampshhire, will be gone by next fall. Crews will begin removing floor tiles and adhesive material containing the cancer-causing fiber from the 52-year-old middle school shortly after the school year ends, Superintendent Jeni Mosca said. Workers also will continue similar abatement efforts this summer at the high school, which was built in 1956. "That means coming in, getting the abatement done, getting the air quality testing done, getting all the tiles down and getting all the pieces back in place," Mosca said of the project. The work is projected to cost at least $53,000. The City Council allocated the money as part of the 2014-15 capital improvement plan. The asbestos-laden floor tiles at Somersworth Middle School are covered by carpet, which eliminates any risk of exposure, SAU 56 facilities director Andy Lucier said. At the high school, the tiles are covered with a second later of asbestos-free tiles. "Basically, if it's encapsulated, it's considered safe," he said. The district has been replacing sections of carpet at the middle school for at least a decade. While that work was under way, crews also removed the toxic tiles and adhesive material as well as the failing carpet, Lucier said. This summer's abatement at the high school will be confined to one classroom. Workers will rip up both layers of tile and put now another layer. "We have been doing asbestos removal for many summers," Mosca said. "We've just been doing little portions at a time because it's an expensive process." ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Combs Site Where Fibro was Illegally Handled ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robert E. Kessler, writing for Newsday, reported that federal agents raided an abandoned aviation factory in Port Jefferson Station, in New York, for signs of unlawful asbestos handling, months after a Suffolk construction firm was cited there for stripping the cancer-causing material from metal pipes. The raid by Environmental Protection Administration agents involves looking into the treatment of hazardous materials from the long-shuttered Lawrence Aviation factory by DFF Farms Corp., owned by Thomas Datre Jr., sources said. Robert Nardoza, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office for the Eastern District of New York, declined to comment beyond saying that the EPA's probe of the site is ongoing. It also comes as Suffolk District Attorney Thomas Spota expands his separate probe into asbestos dumping in the county. Spota said that 32,000 tons of the toxic material had been dumped illegally at Roberto Clemente Park in the Town of Islip. Spota said "at least one unscrupulous contractor" was involved in dumping debris at the park. Spota said Datre Jr.'s company as well as that of his father, Thomas Datre, have been searched by investigators looking into illegal dumping there. Lawrence Aviation was shut in 2003 after solvents, oils and other waste had been dumped there for decades. The 126-acre parcel was declared a federal Superfund site in 2000 after officials determined the waste had created a hazardous underground plume that contaminated the area. Sources said EPA criminal division agents were trying to determine whether asbestos had been illegally released there or in the surrounding area in recent months. They also want to know if asbestos was illegally removed from the factory and dumped elsewhere in violation of federal law. In December, Thomas Datre Jr. and his company were cited by a state inspector -- while salvaging metal at the Lawrence Aviation site -- for failure to have both a valid asbestos handling license and valid asbestos certification and training, according to state records. EPA civil officials at the time noticed clouds of white powder at the Datre worksite and called in inspectors from the New York State Department of Labor, which supervises asbestos removal at state work sites, sources said. Nearly six months later, EPA agents are focused on how much asbestos at the site has been removed from pipes and other metal fixtures and placed in containers on the grounds. Outside one of the buildings sat a large blue garbage bin, partly filled with discarded building materials. The bin was labeled with a sticker from a company that transports asbestos. Signs on walls of surrounding buildings warned, "Danger Asbestos Cancer And Respiratory Disease Hazard. Respiration Protection Required Beyond This Point." Contractors spent part of the day building a small frame tent-like structure, covered in plastic, where materials could be tested for the presence of asbestos. Datre Jr.'s attorney, Kevin Kearon of Garden City, said his client had a permit to dump "permissible" amounts of fill last summer at Roberto Clemente Park. Kearon said Datre Jr. had engaged in no wrongdoing at either the Lawrence Aviation site or the park. In November, a park ranger wrote in an incident report to Islip officials and obtained by Newsday that material dumped at Roberto Clemente Park -- ostensibly for new soccer fields -- contained large boulders and was not suitable as an athletic surface. The ranger also stated in the report that a driver of a truck hauling the materials said he was from "Datre." Thomas Datre Jr.'s father, Thomas Datre, owns Ronkonkoma-based Datre/Daytree, which includes several debris-hauling and construction companies. A spokesman for the state labor department, Chris White, said that the investigations into Datre Jr. and Gerald Cohen, the owner of Lawrence Aviation, and the person who hired DFF Farms Corps. for the job, have been completed, but he could not comment further. An attorney for Cohen could not be reached for comment. State inspectors cited both Datre and Cohen, and their businesses, for violating state asbestos control laws in December, according to state records. "While operating an excavator during metal salvage operations, Mr. Datre broke and removed asbestos insulation that covered pipes," a state inspector noted in the records. "Mr. Datre does not possess NY State certification to handle or disturb asbestos." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Led to Death of Former Resort Welder ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Gazette reported that a Blackpool, England, man died as a result of years of exposure to asbestos, an inquest heard. Coroner Alan Wilson was told 70-year-old Roy Garnham's death was caused by decades as a metal welder, where he often worked with the fatal material. An inquest was opened in March after Mr Garnham, of Ascot Road, Layton, died in February, with Dr Mark Sissons, a pathologist at Blackpool Victoria Hospital, saying a post mortem examination showed traits relating to asbestos illness. He added: "Having examined the lungs and taken samples I was able to confirm this was asbestosis. He clearly had this. "I think what led to his death was a chest infection. He was being treated for this. "He died as a result of bronchial pneumonia due to asbestosis." Dr Sissons added the walls of the lungs are normally thin to allow oxygen to enter the bloodstream, but Mr Garnham's lungs had begun to calcify and form plaques -- a common sign of exposure to asbestos. Coroner Alan Wilson added: "He (Mr Garner) worked with asbestos on a daily basis. "For 10 years from 1958 he worked with a welding company in Nuneaton. "He then held another position working with asbestos for two years, before in 1970 starting work with a third welding company." The court was told in 1976 Mr Garnham became a bus driver, which he continued until 2010. But it was also revealed in recent years Mr Garnham had started to visit hospital with chest complaints. Delivering a verdict of death by industrial disease, Mr Wilson said: "Mr Garnham worked with the asbestos from the age of 16. "He didn't begin to feel breathless until his 50s, when he began to be treated for it. "He was exposed to asbestos during the course of his working life." Mr Garnham is survived by his wife Patricia and their children Jane and Dean. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Worcester Firm Fined $16,137 Over Removal ---------------------------------------------------------- Sam Bonacci, writing for MassLive.com, reported that a company in Worcester, Massachusetts, has been penalized $16,137.50 by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection for failing to follow asbestos removal regulations during the replacement of windows at a Southbridge Street condominium tower. "Companies conducting renovation projects must first determine if any asbestos-containing materials will be involved," said Lee Dillard Adams, director of MassDEP's Central Regional Office in Worcester, in a press release. During a 2013 inspection, MassDEP employees found that window caulking and glazing containing asbestos was being improperly removed at the residential building, according to MassDEP. The company was replacing windows at the site, but had not notified MassDEP and was not properly handling and storing the asbestos- containing material. Regulations require asbestos-containing materials to be removed wet and be sealed into leak-tight containers with asbestos warning labels. These measures are designed to keep the asbestos fibers from being released into the air and keep nearby areas from becoming contaminated, according to MassDEP. "Asbestos is a known carcinogen, and following prescribed regulatory work practices is imperative to protect workers as well as the general public. Failure to do so will result in penalties, as well as escalated cleanup, decontamination and monitoring costs," said Adams. Under the terms of the settlement, the company will pay $10,000 of the penalty and have the remaining $6,137.50 be suspended as long as the company does not have another violation within one year. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Dumpers Sought by Authorities ---------------------------------------------------- Bianca Perez, writing for Fairfield City Champion, reported that investigations are under way after asbestos was illegally dumped in Carramar and Smithfield -- the second time in three weeks the deadly substance has been found dumped in the area. The material was found at the entrance of Carrawood Park, off Quest Avenue, Carramar, and at Rosford Reserve, Smithfield. A Fairfield Council spokesman said both sites had been secured, with Fire and Rescue NSW (HAZMAT) called to clean it up. "Fairfield Council contractors will carry out testing to confirm the presence of any hazardous substances," she said. "The council takes appropriate action to address all reported incidents of any and all dumped materials." The carcinogenic material will be taken to the SITA site at Eastern Creek, where it is broken down and disposed of. Asbestos was also found illegally dumped in Springfield Street, Old Guildford, and the entrance to Knight Park in Donald Street, Fairfield, on April 20. The spokesman said the council was determined to catch those responsible. The council has put cameras in parks across its local government area. The maximum penalty for an individual caught disposing of waste deemed harmful to the environment is $1 million and/or seven years' jail. A corporation found guilty of dumping environmentally harmful waste is liable for a maximum penalty of $5 million. ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Chamber Commends Introduction of Fibro Bill ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa A. Rickard, president of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform (ILR), made the following statement regarding the introduction of the "Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency (FACT) Act of 2014" (S. 2319) in the U.S. Senate. The legislation would require asbestos personal injury settlement trusts, which currently operate with little oversight and transparency, to report on their claims. "We applaud Senator Flake's effort to shed light on the growing number of bankruptcy trusts that play a significant role in today's asbestos compensation system. Fraud and abuse in the system drain the funds available to deserving claimants and force solvent companies, as well as their shareholders and employees, to pay more than their fair share when claimants 'double dip' in court and in the trust systems. The FACT Act would diminish the damaging economic ripple effect of these abuses. "The Senate should act to ensure that the asbestos compensation system is working as intended -- especially in light of a federal court opinion last January in the Garlock asbestos bankruptcy that revealed manipulation and withholding evidence are a 'regular practice by many plaintiffs' firms.' The FACT Act's simple disclosure requirement will deter such fraud without impacting legitimate asbestos claims." ILR seeks to promote civil justice reform through legislative, political, judicial, and educational activities at the national, state, and local levels. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world's largest business federation representing the interests of more than 3 million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as well as state and local chambers and industry associations. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suspected Fibro Found Illegally Dumped in Park --------------------------------------------------------------- Bay Post reported that Eurobodalla Shire Council, in Australia, is calling for help from the community to identify the person or people responsible for illegally dumping waste, which might contain asbestos, in the Eurobodalla National Park. The council is working with the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) and the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) to investigate the incident at Pedros Point Road, Moruya Heads, which was reported to the council. Mayor Lindsay Brown said NPWS would clean up the dumped material and that council was seeking help from the public to identify those responsible so they could pay for the costs. Cr Brown said the cost of illegal dumping could add up to millions of dollars every year and it looked like the problem was not going away, with the EPA reporting an increase in illegally dumped waste. "Illegal dumping is an enormous problem in our region and unless we identify the people responsible, the costs of the clean-up are met by the ratepayers of Southern Councils Group members, Bega, Eurobodalla, Kiama, Shellharbour, Shoalhaven, Wingecarribee and Wollongong councils," he said. "The Southern Councils Group is working to target illegal dumping in local bushland and natural areas by conducting regular blitzes and issuing offenders with on-the-spot fines." On-the-spot fines for illegal dumping are issued by rangers and can cost between $750 and $1500 for individuals and $1500 and $5000 for corporations. More substantial fines can also be issued if court action is taken. Cr Brown urged residents to make use of the waste services and facilities that council provided, including annual kerbside and chemical collections, rather than resort to dumping. Taking your rubbish to council's waste facilities can be much cheaper than fines issued by the Land and Environment Court," he said. If you have any information that will help the investigation, phone the EPA hotline on 131 555 or the council on 4474 1000. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Holroyd Helps Residents Solve Fibro Disposal ------------------------------------------------------------- Harvey Grennan, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reported that getting rid of old asbestos building materials is so expensive that many renovators and builders resort to illegal dumping of the highly toxic material. Apart from the cost of employing specialist demolition trades, the local tip charges hundreds, often thousands, of dollars to take it. Holroyd Council, in the heart of Sydney's western "fibro belt" and with some of the strictest rules on renovating fibro houses, has taken the initiative to alleviate both the financial and environmental pain of removing asbestos. It has picked up two awards in the process. Last year the council trialled a free collection of up to 10 square metres of non-friable, or bonded, asbestos waste at residential properties to minimise its disposal in garbage bins and public places -- possibly the first such service in Australia. According to Brooke Littman, the council's environmental health and waste education officer, demand for the service has been overwhelming, with 8.92 tonnes of asbestos collected from 136 households over nine collection days since last June. Three more collection days will be held by the end of next month and there is a waiting list. "The council would like to continue the service beyond its trial phase as our community both wants and needs it. However, continuation in its current form will be dependent on further funding," Ms Littman said. By "carpooling" asbestos on each collection day, the council was able to reduce costs significantly compared with the costs if each resident opted to transport the material individually to Eastern Creek, where the minimum charge is $250. The 136 households saved $34,000 in disposal charges. The tip costs to the council were $3177 excluding transport. The initiative has won an asbestos management award from Local Government NSW and an award from Local Government Professionals Australia NSW. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Risk Closes NZ School for Another Week ------------------------------------------------------------- Sophie Ryan, writing for The New Zealand Herald, reported that the potential for asbestos contamination at a primary school will keep students away. Bayfield School in Auckland's Herne Bay closed after tests showed the possibility that asbestos dust had drifted outside a contained worksite on the school grounds. Students were kept home from school and they had been attending nearby Ponsonby Primary School, where they were being taught in the school hall and additional classrooms. Bayfield Board of Trustees' chairman David McPherson said in a statement that the school would be closed until all demolition work was completed. The school was demolishing classrooms on site due to leaky building problems, and the school swimming pool was also being removed. "The safety of our students and teaching staff is paramount, so we won't re-open the school until we are assured, through the Board's independent review process, that the site is safe," Mr McPherson said. Once the school is re-opened, building would not go ahead until the board could verify the work would be undertaken safely, he said. Two investigations were underway into the process of the asbestos removal. "We will await the results of these investigations, which will also be shared with the community," Mr McPherson said. "In fairness to the various parties involved in those investigations it is important that we don't jump to conclusions about the process that was undertaken." An asbestos-contaminated building was demolished during the school holidays, however the demolished material was not removed from the school site. There was concern that during that time asbestos dust had travelled from the work site to the rest of the school grounds. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Demolition Company Fined for Dumping Fibro Waste ----------------------------------------------------------------- ONENews reported that a demolition and digger hire company has been fined $67,687 for illegally disposing of asbestos- contaminated demolition waste and clearing native vegetation. The charges relate to illegal activities at the defendant's property, including disposing of demolition waste containing asbestos in April last year, clearing native vegetation in a special ecological area and illegal filling between August 2010 and April last year. The prosecution was brought jointly by Tauranga City Council and Bay of Plenty Regional Council and the affected site is now listed with both councils as contaminated. In 2013 the two councils both received complaints about demolition material containing asbestos being taken from a church demolition site in Fraser Street to the Grange Road site bordering the reserve. The demolition work was being carried out by C Side Services, a company owned by Stephen Craig Walling. Samples dug up at the Grange Road site owned by 'C' Side Services tested positive for white, brown and blue asbestos, and Mr Walling was issued an abatement notice to stop work. He said he was putting clean-fill, dirt and concrete onto the property to form a driveway to a house site and to create a grassed garden area with exotic palms. He said he had taken 15 truckloads of demolition waste from the church to the Grange Road site and had also allowed two other contractors to deposit concrete and dirt there. A total of 372 square metres of the Special Ecological Area and its five metre buffer zone had been cleared of vegetation and a concluded that material containing asbestos at the site posed an immediate and long-term risk to human health if no management controls were put in place. The fines include $22,687 for asbestos disposal, $22,000 for clearing the special ecological area and $23,000 for illegal filling. The defendant is also required to re-vegetate the area and remediate the contaminated land. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Group's Fury Over Lawyers' 25% Cut of Claim ------------------------------------------------------------ Rob Merrick, writing for Southern Daily Echo, reported that, "Severely will people are going to suffer because of this." That is the view of a Hampshire, England, asbestos support group on Government changes to the compensation system for people who are diagnosed with terminal mesothelioma. Hampshire Asbestos Support and Awareness Group has condemned a new deal that could allow lawyers to swipe up to 25 per cent of damages payments to people diagnosed with the disease. And the illness is common in Hampshire as the substance was used frequently at the docks in Southampton and railway works in Eastleigh. Lynne Squibb, of Hampshire Asbestos Support and Awareness Group, said it was "turning a terminal illness into a competitive market". Lynne lost her father Dave Salisbury to the disease in 2005 aged 72 and set up the group with sister Diane to help others going through similar traumatic experiences. She said: "We are incredibly disappointed that the Government has gone down this path. They wanted to do this because they believed it would make claims quicker and more efficient but I beg to differ. "As someone who has lost a family member to mesothelioma I couldn't think of anything worse than having to shop around for the best deal. "The Government has missed the point with this and in trying to improve the claims system have made it much more difficult. If it isn't broken, don't fix it." Solicitors said the threatened introduction of fixed costs would allow insurers to drag out legal cases, piling pressure on the terminally ill to agree lower settlements. In evidence to a committee of MPs, they said the changes would leave sufferers "significantly worse off". And they accused ministers of allowing insurance companies to call the shots, striking an "agreement behind closed doors". Ian McFall, of Thompsons Solicitors, which has offices across the UK, said: "This will leave claimants significantly worse off. "Some firms struggling for survival will look to take the maximum 'success fee', which will be to the disadvantage of claimants." Nearly 2,400 people, mostly men, die from mesothelioma every year, usually within nine months of diagnosis. A 'standardised mortality ratio' (SMR) is used to identify blackspots, where a figure of 100 would be the expected number of deaths, given the age of the population. The figures are far, far higher in Southampton (282), Eastleigh (253), Gosport (240) and Fareham (208) -- and even in Winchester (139), New Forest (133) and Test Valley (130). The controversy follows the end of "no win no fee" agreements, which guaranteed full compensation to successful claimants -- and insured them against the cost of losing. They were restricted in the 2012 Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Act, which has now been extended to mesothelioma cases. The move was blocked in the Lords, but overturned by the Government, after a "review" widely attacked as a sham -- prompting the inquiry by the justice select committee. Ministers have insisted there is no "specific justification" for treating mesothelioma differently from other personal injury cases. Giving evidence later, Derek Adamson, of insurers DWF, denied firms deliberately delayed cases, insisting that increased their own costs. And the Association of British Insurers argued there were support groups to help mesothelioma victims find lawyers and negotiate. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scare Shuts Down Blacktown Hospital Upgrade ------------------------------------------------------------ News.com reported that more than 100 workers and members of the public have potentially been exposed to asbestos after it was found at Blacktown Hospital, in New South Wales, Australia. CFMEU spokesman Rebel Hanlon said construction on the hospital's $320 million upgrade would be shut down "indefinitely" until the harmful material was completely removed from the site. Mr Hanlon said contaminated soil had been found near the main entrance at Blacktown Hospital, in a nearby carpark and the childcare centre, potentially putting the general public and young children at risk. The potential of asbestos exposure for the 130 workers at the site was "quite significant" Mr Hanlon said. "Workers who have put their hard hats on contaminated soil or to have rubbed (the soil) on his work clothes and brought it home -- there's a potential of exposure for (their families) as well," he said. "We're not trying to scare people but we have a duty to notify people." Contractors were hired to remove the asbestos from the site completely six months ago before it was handed over to construction company Laing O'Rouke. "My concern is that someone was paid with taxpayer funded money to remove (the asbestos)," he said. "This (process) was with the state government's money." A NSW Health Infastructure spokeswoman said the construction site would be temporarily closed until results on the recylced material were received. NSW Health Infrastructure said public and the patients were not at risk of the asbestos. But she said none of the areas were designated public pedestrian pathways and the public and patients were not at risk. "There is no impact on the operations of the existing Blacktown Hospital or the childcare centre located adjacent to the constructon site. "Health Infrastructure has been advised the contractor has required certification to use the recycled material on site." ASBESTOS UPDATE: PennDOT to Remove Asphalt Containing Fibro ----------------------------------------------------------- P.J. Reilly and Tim Stuhldreher, writing for Lancaster Online, reported that a busy stretch of New Holland Avenue, in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, is scheduled to be closed during daytime hours. Crews will be milling the street during the day, proceeding east to west, and repaving it at night. And they will be wearing haz- mat suits and taking steps to minimize dust, because some of the asphalt contains low levels of asbestos. The work area extends from East Walnut Street to East Ross Street. The activity is part of an ongoing resurfacing project that began in 2012 and includes Orange Street and part of Route 23 east of Route 30. This is the only section where asbestos-treated pavement was found, PennDOT spokesman Greg Penny said. It wasn't unusual for asphalt used in the 1960s and early 1970s to contain asbestos. It helped reinforce paving materials and slow deterioration from road salt, according to the Mesothelioma Cancer Alliance. The concentrations found on New Holland Avenue are small, ranging from 1 percent to 3 percent, and 19 of 24 core samples taken from the road showed no asbestos at all, Penny said. Still, safety measures are being implemented. "Normally, we'd only close one lane and have flaggers directing traffic, but because we will have workers wearing (hazardous materials) suits because of the asbestos, we didn't want to have people driving through with their windows down," Penny said. From 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. daily, portions of that stretch of New Holland Avenue will be closed to motorists, pedestrians and bicycle riders. Motor traffic will be detoured using adjacent roads. There will be two sets of detours, one for the first two days of work, the second for the next three. From 4 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., New Holland Avenue will be reopened to traffic in the work area. Then from 7:30 p.m. to 5:30 a.m., PennDOT crews will be back in the work area paving over the road surface that was milled during the day. During those hours, traffic will be limited to a single lane controlled by flaggers. Asbestos is tightly bound in the asphalt, and does not become airborne under normal roadway use, Penny said. Tearing up a roadway, however, involves drilling, cutting, excavation and milling, all of which can generate clouds of dust. To prevent that, PennDOT will spray down the asphalt as it is being removed, and keep it wet as it is loaded onto trucks and carted away. It will be disposed of at a site approved by the state Department of Environmental Protection for handling such waste. "Air quality sampling and analysis will be performed anytime this material is disturbed to ensure that the precautionary measures are effective," PennDOT said. Dealing with asphalt that contains asbestos "is not common, but it's not rare either," Penny said. The removal process meets state and federal guidelines, he said. PennDOT's stated precautions are sufficient to prevent migration of airborne dust from the work site, a DEP spokeswoman said. New Holland Avenue between East Walnut and East Ross streets is largely residential. PennDOT is telling residents to stay inside while the milling takes place. Penny sent the Intelligencer Journal/New Era a copy of a flier delivered to residents in the area. It directs them to "minimize their outdoor activities, keep windows and doors shut, and consider turning off HVAC systems that draw in outside air during the removal of the asphalt material when work operations are occurring immediately adjacent to their property." PennDOT asked School District of Lancaster officials to direct students who normally walk along New Holland Avenue to McCaskey High School, Wickersham Elementary School and Lincoln Junior High School, which are located one block east, to take another route during the work period. SDL posted notices on its website and Facebook page, spokeswoman Kelly Burkholder said. City officials also have been notified of the project. The work is being done by Pennsy Supply Inc. of Annville. The asbestos precautions make the milling more expensive than normal, Penny said: about $14 per square foot, versus $3.80 per square foot. For the New Holland Avenue segment, that raises the cost of the milling phase from about $63,450 to about $233,800, he said. The overall project cost is $3.5 million, PennDOT said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Collegiate Governors Fined for Fibro Discovery --------------------------------------------------------------- BBC News Northern Ireland reported that the governors of an east Belfast grammar school have been fined after asbestos was found in buildings being used as a nursery school. In 2012, asbestos was found in buildings rented out by Bloomfield Collegiate prep school to a nursery. Bloomfield's board of governors pleaded guilty to three breaches of health and safety law. They were fined GBP7,500, plus costs of GBP1,750. The judge at Belfast Crown Court said he accepted the school and its board did not breach regulations deliberately, but added: "It is a concern children were being exposed, especially children of such a tender age." Not surveyed The prep department comprises smaller buildings on the school's main campus. It was used as primary school until June 2011, and then used as a nursery. During the hearings, it emerged that the Department of Education had undertaken an asbestos survey of Bloomfield's main school in 2004 but this did not include the prep department. The court heard that the potential presence of asbestos was raised by the school's new principal in October 2011, when concerns were expressed that the smaller building had not been surveyed for asbestos in 2004. In May 2012, the school carried out a survey of the prep building, and asbestos was found in and around cupboards, shelves, behind the blackboards and in the hallway. The HSENI (Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland) was notified and it immediately carried out its own examination of the building, where "elevated levels" of asbestos were found. Financial difficulties Prosecuting lawyers said the board was aware there was a potential problem in June 2011, but did not do anything until May the following year. However a defence lawyer argued that the school "mistakenly" believed the prep school had been surveyed in 2004 and that when the issue was raised by the principal in 2011 he was "remarkably proactive". The lawyer said the principal contacted the HSENI and the person who ran the nursery as well as informing parents and holding public meetings. The court also heard that the school is undergoing financial difficulties and is now controlled by the Department of Education, having previously been run as a voluntary grammar school. A defence lawyer said the school "has no capacity to raise any income" and has "no ability to pay its debtors". The judge said he accepted there was no deliberate intention to expose anyone to the substance and the offences were not "financially motivated". He added: "It is clear that the individuals concerned and the members of the board have shown remorse and that it is obvious from the actions that were taken once this material was discovered." Ronan Magee, head of the education group for the HSENI, said: "HSENI takes this opportunity to remind everyone responsible for the school premises of duty to manage the risks presented by asbestos containing materials (ACMs)." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fire, Fibro Close University Biology Building -------------------------------------------------------------- CBC News reported that the University of Windsor, in Ontario, Canada, closed its biology building after a small fire broke out in one of the labs. Dennis Higgs, an associate professor and the school's head of biology, said the incident happened in the ceiling above his lab. "There was a bang and some smoke," he said. Higgs said Windsor Fire and Rescue responded. "In their efforts to find the source of the smoke, they exposed some of the asbestos fibers we have and they shut down the building," Higgs said. He said no one was injured but that there was a question about the air quality after the asbestos was exposed. The University of Windsor had no timetable as to when the building would open again. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Extends Work on Route 42 ----------------------------------------------- Luke Marshall, writing for Citizen's News, reported that work on the retaining wall along the northbound lane of Route 42, in Connecticut, is expected to continue until August. Supervising Engineer Matthew Cleary and Assistant District Engineer John Dunham of the state's Department of Transportation gave an update on the work during the Board of Selectmen. The project was started in July 2013 to replace the two existing metal walls. Cleary said the walls needed to be replaced because of large areas of rust and the soil behind the walls was spilling onto the shoulder of the road. The wall will be replaced by a large concrete wall set to look like large concrete bricks. When finished it will be approximately two feet wide, 139 feet long and rise in height from eight feet to just over 10 feet. The work was originally supposed to have wrapped up in November 2013. However, the crew ran into asbestos, which set the project completion date back to Aug. 18, 2014. The discovery of asbestos also caused the project's cost to increase $445,859. It was originally slated to cost $1.97 million. The state is paying for the repairs. Cleary said the wall that is currently there is a bin wall, which consists of boxes made of metal walls that are coated on the inside with asbestos. The asbestos posed a problem because the wall needs to be reinforced with rebar and to do so means drilling holes into it, Cleary said. The drilling, however, would cause the asbestos to become airborne. Cleary said the crews had to cut holes in the outer wall, which took a while because of the asbestos remediation needed while cutting. The contractor designed a lancing system that allowed workers to punch through the wall, into the dirt and rock, leaving the casings remained in place and without disturbing the asbestos, he said. These casings will provide a path for the 30-foot rebar to be drilled into the earth behind the wall. "So now we can completely avoid touching that metal with the drill," Cleary said. Selectman Peter Betkoski asked what would happen to the rotting metal wall currently along the road. Cleary said the crews will install the concrete wall right up against the metal wall and let it continue to rot away. Dunham said the wall is designed to encapsulate the previous wall and prevent the asbestos from getting out into the atmosphere. The work will continue during which Route 42 will be reduced from four lanes down to two. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bags of Fibro Dumped in Stockholds Lane -------------------------------------------------------- Laura Burnip, writing for Hertfordshire Mercury, reported that an investigation has been launched after a substance which appears to be asbestos was dumped on a lane along which children walk to school in Old Hall Green, in Hertfordshire, England. Mum-of-two Sarah Jackson has called for action after 24 bags of building material were dumped in Stockholds Lane. And Hertfordshire police confirmed the force was investigating, and appealed for information and witnesses to the incident. Ms Jackson said: "All the children walk that way to school, people walk their dogs up and down there. "It's the only through route up to Puckeridge. "We're all fed up with it. "It's highly dangerous stuff." Ms Jackson said 16 sacks had appeared in the road on May 4. After reporting the fly-tipping to East Herts Council, the rubbish was taken away five days later. But after the same thing happened, she said she was still waiting for the bags to be taken away -- with more having appeared in the meantime. The 42-year-old, who moved to the hamlet four years ago, said this had not been a problem in the past. She said: "We've not had a problem with asbestos. "It's started in the past couple of weeks." A spokesman for Herts police said the problem had been reported. She said: "We are investigating. "The offence occurred between midnight on May 9 and May 11 at 9.35am. "Between those dates, bags of broken up asbestos have been fly- tipped." She said anyone who had information about the offence should contact Herts police on the non-emergency number 101 quoting crime reference number A5/14/185. Alternatively they can contact the charity Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555111. "If you have got any information that could help us, or know who it was, please get in touch," added the spokesman. A spokesman for East Herts Council said the dumped asbestos was in the process of being dealt with by the authority. She said: "We are aware of it. We have removed one lot and we are removing another one. "We had to get a specialist company to remove it. "Not only is it very irresponsible behaviour, it also costs the council a lot of money. "We will investigate the fly-tipping as we always do. "We will carry out an investigation and prosecute where we can. "We do prosecute and we certainly will take any measures we can to find out who the perpetrators are." Fly-tipping of controlled waste is a serious criminal offence which carries a fine of up to GBP50,000 and/or one year imprisonment. If the case is very serious and goes to crown court an unlimited fine may be imposed and the prison term goes up to five years. To report fly-tipping, contact East Herts Council on (01279) 655261 and ask for Environmental Services or use the online form at www.eastherts.gov.uk If you witness fly-tipping actually taking place, call the police on 999 and give as much detail as possible about the incident. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Charleston Airport Wants to Recoup Fibro Losses ---------------------------------------------------------------- Warren L. Wise, writing for The Post and Courier, reported that officials in Charleston, South Carolina, airport want to recoup financial losses from removing asbestos discovered during renovation and expansion, but they might face an uphill struggle. They learned earlier it will cost $670,000 to remove the cancer- causing substance embedded in a tar-like waterproofing material at Charleston International. The substance was found in January behind brick walls being dismantled as part of the $200 million redevelopment of the 29- year-old terminal building. The asbestos removal will also delay airport construction by about a month to September 2015. "We are going to look closely to see if we can recover this funding from the contractor who installed it or the manufacturer who made it," airport attorney Arnold Goodstein said. "When the airport was built, it was widely known that asbestos was toxic." He believes the Charleston County Aviation Authority, which owns and oversees the state's busiest airport, has a "good chance" of recovery by looking at the "chain of handlers." Airports Director Paul Campbell doesn't know who the contractor was and said the staff will have to sort through old records to determine the installer. "There may be some remedy," he said. "If at all possible, we intend to pursue it." It is believed the work was done around 1982, meaning more than three decades have passed since the material was placed on the building. If the contractor or the manufacturer are no longer in business, the airport could turn to the retailer who sold it, but even then, airport officials could have to dig deeper to make a legal case, said Anne Kearse, an attorney with Mount Pleasant-based Motley Rice law firm, which handles asbestos cases. Not all asbestos was banned by federal regulations in the 1970s, she said. "What was banned was pipe insulation, fireproofing materials and things sprayed on ceilings -- things that could become airborne," Kearse said. "There are some products that still have asbestos that are properly labeled. They have to be below a certain level." The adhesive used at the airport might have been legal, and it could have been labeled as containing asbestos, she said. The work specifications might have called for that product as well. Among other qualifications for the airport to collect damages, officials would have to show that the product was dangerous or defective and there was a substitute that could have been used, Kearse said. Campbell believes other materials were available at the time and one of those should have been used. "There is no way in 1982 asbestos should have been used on this project," he said. Even though some asbestos still might be legal, Kearse said the firm's stance on the substance is one of zero-tolerance. "The position we have taken is that there is no safe level because it's a cancer-causing fiber," Kearse said. "There is no safe level for carcinogens." Campbell said the asbestos discovered at the airport never posed a danger to passengers or workers there because it was not airborne. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Begins Demolition Before Fibro Check ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Woodard, writing for KOIN6.com, reported that the Department of Environmental Quality in Portland, Oregon, will take action against a building contractor for not checking for asbestos in a home they were demolishing in Southeast Portland. Robert McCullough, the president of a Southeast Portland neighborhood association and a frequent critic of city building and demolition policies, said he got a call "from an angry neighbor." He believed there was asbestos in the home right across the street from Duniway Elementary. It seemed there were no precautions taken before demolition began, so he called the Oregon DEQ. "Sitting across the street are hundreds of small children," he told KOIN 6 News. "When the men in hazmat suits came to finish the demolition they were dressed better for this than the children." There was asbestos inside, and the home is now wrapped in plastic. The contractor told KOIN 6 News they made a mistake by not checking for asbestor before beginning the demolition. But he said he doesn't believe anything harmful was released into the air because a qualified crew eventually came in to get rid of it. McCullough said the city needs new policies requiring contractors to notify neighbors of demolition. A spokesperson for the school district also told KOIN 6 News they've asked the city to monitor the work being done at the home. They also said they're less worried about kids being affected because the home is near the playground but not near any classroom windows. ASBESTOS UPDATE: "300 Week" Standard Not Applicable in Meso Cases ----------------------------------------------------------------- Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that a Pennsylvania appeals court has reversed a summary judgment order for an electricity company on the grounds that the Workers' Compensation Act's "300 week" requirement does not apply to mesothelioma cases. Judge John Musmanno delivered the opinion in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Judges Jacqueline Shogan and Cheryl Allen concurred. Plaintiffs Howard A. Scott, on behalf of the estate of Albert L. Scott, and Laverne Scott appealed an order granting summary judgment to defendant Duquesne Light Company entered on Nov. 17, 2009, in the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County. According to the May 12 opinion, Albert Scott was an employee of Duquesne Light from 1941 to 1943 and again from 1945 to 1985 in various locations around Pittsburgh. Scott was diagnosed with mesothelioma on Sept. 17, 2007, and died on March 26, 2008. Prior to his death, the decedent filed an asbestos lawsuit against Duquesne Light, alleging asbestos exposure during his employment with the defendant. However, Duquesne Light filed preliminary objections arguing the claims should be dismissed due to the exclusivity provision of the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act, which implies that an employer's liability is "exclusive and in place of all other liability" to employees on account of injury or death. Duquesne Light claims the decedent was last employed by the company more than 300 weeks before developing mesothelioma, prohibiting him from his claims. Based on Duquesne Light's arguments, the trial court granted its motion for summary judgment. In response, the plaintiffs appealed the summary judgment. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted the petition for appeal and remanded the case to the Superior Court for further proceedings based upon the Tooey decision. In Tooey, plaintiffs John Tooey, who worked for Ferro Engineering from 1964 to 1982, and Spurgeon Landis, who worked for Alloy Rods, Inc. from 1946 to 1992, both alleged they developed mesothelioma from asbestos exposure at work. They filed lawsuits against several defendants, including their respective employers, which in turn filed motions for summary judgment. The defendants in Tooey argued that the plaintiffs' causes of action were barred by the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Act. However, the plaintiffs responded that their claims were permitted because their injuries fell outside the jurisdiction, scope and coverage of the Workers' Compensation Act, the opinion states. In Tooey, the trial court denied the motions for summary judgment, then the appeals court reversed the decision on appeal. The plaintiffs then appealed to the state Supreme Court. Musmanno explained that the Supreme Court reviewed the Workers' Compensation Act, "under the assumption that the language was ambiguous, and determined that the employers' interpretation would leave workers without any remedy for essentially all late- manifesting occupational diseases." The Supreme Court explained that the average latency period for mesothelioma is 30 to 50 years, meaning employees would not show symptoms of the injury until well past the 300 week mark. Therefore, the court in Tooey found that the "300 week time window operates as a de facto exclusion of coverage under the Act for essentially all mesothelioma claims." Musmanno added that the Supreme Court concluded that "where the plaintiffs' injuries from the occupational disease do not manifest within 300 weeks of the last employment-based exposure, the [Workers' Compensation Act] is inapplicable and an employee may file a common law tort claim against his/her employers." Regarding the case on hand, the Scotts questioned whether the lower court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of Duquesne Light. They argued Duquesne Light's claims were barred by the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Act, when it was uncontested that the Scotts have no recovery against Duquesne under the Act. Similar to the Tooey case, the Scotts claimed that because decedent's disease resulting in death occurred more than 300 weeks after his last occupational asbestos exposure, his injury did not trigger the Workers' Compensation Act's exclusivity provision, Musmanno stated. The court remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order Giving Access to Garlock Filings Stayed -------------------------------------------------------------- Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that just one day after granting Ford Motor Company's request for access to Rule 2019 filings in the Garlock Sealing Technologies bankruptcy proceeding, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges stayed the order. Hodges' stay will be imposed while an appeal by the Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants is pending. Hodges originally granted access to Rule 2019 filings on May 6 after previously denying the same request from several defendant companies that believe they may have been victimized what Hodges called in January a pattern of misrepresentation. Hodges then granted the motion to stay on May 7, which prohibits the release or access to any Rule 2019 filings pending the outcome of any appeals regarding the access. The ex parte motion to stay the order granting access to Rule 2019 proceedings was also filed on May 6 by the Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants. In its motion, the committee requested the stay in order to "preserve the ability of affected persons" to appeal. The committee cites United States Bankruptcy Rule 8005, saying the bankruptcy judge may suspend proceedings while an appeal is pending in order to protect the rights of all interested parties. The committee adds that the "court is already keenly aware" of the interests at stake for claimants and "the irreparable nature of the harm they may suffer should this court's order not be stayed." Rule 2019 filings contain personal identification and medical information relating to asbestos bankruptcy trust claimants, and once that information is released to the defendants, it is "essentially released to the public," the motion explains. The group added that during the March 27 hearing with respect to motions to unseal, Hodges explained that "'once the genie's out of the bottle, it's out of the bottle and there aint no putting it back . . . if I granted the motions to unseal that are filed by Ford [and others], it would essentially moot the appeal.'" "'Given the history of having initially sealed the information, the only fair thing to do would be to stay such an order so that the Committee could appeal,'" Hodges continued. "'Because to not do so would essentially be to deny them a right to appeal.'" According to the motion, the movants suggested the same considerations should apply to Rule 2019 filings. "Indeed, irreparable injury is frequently held to exist where the order appealed from would result in the disclosure of documents," the committee wrote. The movants also argued that equities favor the committee rather than Ford. Ford is seeking access to Rule 2019 fillings in order to evaluate whether it has suffered any harm in the past, they assert. For those reasons, the committee contended it is unlikely Ford would suffer any "obvious" injury if its access is stayed. However, the committee would suffer "immediate and irreversible" harm if the order is not stayed. According to the motion, public interest could be impacted based on the appellate court's decision on the appeal, but no public interest would be affected by granting a stay. In March, Aetna Health Insurance was granted access to Rule 2019 Filings filed in the Garlock bankruptcy case. Aetna moved for access in an effort to recover medical expenses from claimants who have been paid for the same costs through litigation. At the time, however, Hodges denied similar requests from the movants who were later granted Rule 2019 access, including Ford and Volkswagen, among others. Hodges ultimately concluded that the Rule 2019 Filings are public record available for examination. He added that granting access was appropriate because no improper purpose with the information exists. According to the Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2019, lawyers are required to make certain disclosures about clients' claims against the bankrupt company, including prices paid for the debt and the date of acquisition. Ford responded to the stay order by filing its own notice of appeal on May 7 to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina regarding the order to stay its previous order granting access to Rule 2019 filings. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suffolk DA Eyes Possible Illegal Dumping at Park ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Crichton and Sarah Armaghan, writing for Newsday.com, reported that asbestos has been found at a second Islip Town, New York, park, town officials said, and Suffolk County district attorney investigators are looking into possible illegal dumping of hazardous waste at a third town park. Both town facilities are on the site of the former Central Islip state psychiatric hospital. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Salvage Owner Guilty of Fibro-Related Charges -------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reported that owner and operator of A&E Salvage has pleaded guilty to Clean Air Act violations for removing asbestos from a closed Hamblen County plant without exercising the legally required controls. According to the U.S. Justice Department, Mark Sawyer was the last of five co-defendants to plead guilty when he entered his plea in federal court in Greeneville. All five are scheduled to be sentenced on Nov. 19. According to court documents, Sawyer and his co-conspirators had workers remove asbestos from the shuttered Liberty Fibers plant without proper protective gear. The conspirators also did not properly dispose of the hazardous material. Sawyer faces up to five years in prison and a fine that could exceed $250,000. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Children Could be Exposed to Fibro at School ------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Rolly, writing for The Salt Lake Tribune, reported that when teachers learned that the asbestos-laden tile on the third and fourth floors of West High would be removed and new tile laid, it raised an obvious question: Why not wait for summer vacation when the kids are gone? After all, couldn't disturbing the asbestos fibers and possibly sending them into the environment be potentially hazardous to students' health? Several parents had no idea this was the plan. The tile would be removed during the evening when school was out, but the students would be back the next morning. The project would take a week. Teacher complaints about the project seemed not to be heeded. After the Salt Lake City School District was called, wondering what was the rush, and School Board member Michael Clara emailed Superintendent McKell Withers with the same question, officials decided to delay the removal until summer. It had been determined that the project was not dangerous, but perhaps officials decided caution was the better approach. Bob Ford, of the Utah Division of Air Quality, said there are projects to remove asbestos from schools and other buildings throughout the summer. He said West's removal had been scheduled for this week because it was a relatively small job that the contractors wanted to get out of the way before tackling larger projects this summer. Asbestos remains in many schools and buildings throughout the Salt Lake Valley. At West, teachers say, a half dozen or more teachers on the fourth floor have gotten cancer in the past several years. Two have died. The Salt Lake City School District commissioned an environmental inspection in 2009 because of the flurry of cancer cases among teachers. The study concluded there was no environmental issue at West that could be linked to cancer. And the bat problem is gone. West lies in the migratory path of a certain species of bats that took up residence in the school's ceiling. Principal Parley Jacobs said a thorough sealing on the building's exterior has kept out the bats the past couple of years. Now they hang out in the lighting structures at the football field. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found on LE Aoife Should Have Been Removed ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Journal.ie reported that the Irish Government aware of asbestos found on a naval ship more than a decade ago -- and made arrangements for it to be removed at the time. It is the third Defence Forces ship to be affected by asbestos in recent weeks. The LE Aoife was taken out of action after a gasket, believed to contain asbestos, blew, leading to the ship being brought ashore in order for the device to be examined. It is understood that staff involved are unlikely to have been exposed to the material. Concerns that asbestos could still be on this ship were sparked when when several gaskets and lagging material were flagged by staff as a cause of concern during maintenance on the vessel. A Defence Force spokesperson confirmed that these later tested positive for asbestos. However, the issue was raised in the Dail over a decade ago, when in late 1999 the then Minister for Defence Michael Smith said that asbestos was detected in "engine exhausts and manifold lagging" on the LE Aoife, as well as the LE Emer, LE Aisling, LE Orla, and the now decommissioned LE Deirdre. The ships were subsequently awarded a clean air certificate. Minister Phil Hogan addressed the issue last month during Topical Issues, after asbestos was found on both the LE Ciara and LE Orla. In the case of LE Orla, work was permitted to carried out on the ship as the 2000 survey stated that "there was no asbestos on board the vessels", Hogan said. Naval personnel thought to have been exposed to asbestos last month after carrying out maintenance work on the LE Ciara are now seeking legal advice, in an incident described as a "failure of health and safety". "Naval Personnel remain our primary concern and all Health and Safety Authority guidelines were followed as those issues were addressed," a spokesperson for the Defence Force said. "It is expected that these vessels will return to service when the remedial works are complete, this is estimated to take a number of weeks." TheJournal.ie revealed that over 300 Defence Forces troops were potentially exposed to asbestos while serving with a UN peacekeeping force in East Timor. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Row Erupts Over GBP4.5-Mil. Flat Demolition ------------------------------------------------------------ Jenny Foulds, writing for Daily Record and Sunday Mail, reported that row has broken out after it was revealed that the demolition of four blocks of flats in Dumbarton, England, will cost an EXTRA GBP1.3m as they are riddled with asbestos. West Dunbartonshire Council (WDC) says it is being forced to fork out the extra cash after "unexpectedly high levels" of the potentially deadly material were found in the four high-rise blocks in Bellsmyre. But critics described the revelation as "absolutely astonishing", blasting the authority for failing to discover the asbestos until now. Stuart McMillan MSP said: "While dealing with asbestos and ensuring public safety is of the utmost priority, serious questions must now be asked as to why such huge costs are now being realised. "These flats have been in council ownership since they were built and prior to their becoming unoccupied the council were responsible for maintaining the flats. How, therefore, is it that the council have got its demolition sums so wrong?" The blocks could make way for a new Our Lady and St Patrick's High School (OLSP). Mr McMillan added it comes as a hammer blow to the authority, which admitted blowing GBP1.5m on finding a school site -- before a location had even been confirmed. The new approach, approved by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), will see platforms erected around the structures to allow contractors to remove the concrete surrounding the asbestos. Enclosed scaffolding will then be put up to facilitate the safe removal of the asbestos. HSE originally proposed demolition by explosion in January but the council, contractor and Clydebank Asbestos Group disagreed, stating it could cause airborne contamination. Councillor David McBride, housing convener, said: "We need to demolish these unwanted tower blocks using the safest possible methods for the local community and our contractors. "Our surveys revealed that the levels of asbestos were far beyond the normal content expected in buildings of this age and type and so we've had to revise our approach accordingly." Jackie Baillie MSP added: "The safety of residents in the surrounding area must be the priority so I am glad that the contractors have finally come up with a solution to deal with the unexpected level of asbestos." The council stressed the GBP4.5m demolition will be completed in time to allow construction of OLSP, if it is approved, to begin as planned in March 2015. Lennox Herald columnist Bill Heaney slammed the council. He said: "Another day, another GBP1m down the drain. The disasters pile up for WDC. It should accept that this discovery, kept under wraps until 'this is a good time to bury bad news' Friday afternoon moment, should be postponed and a new public consultation should take place pointing out in the consultation document that the preferred site is polluted with deadly asbestos. "Heads should roll for this -- councillors and highly paid officials should be held to account." A Dumbarton resident, who didn't want to be named, added: "Flats of this age are well known to contain asbestos. It is also basic health and safety that any workers carrying out any work on asbestos containing buildings are to be protected from exposure to asbestos. "How, therefore, can it be that the council did not know that these flats contained asbestos? Moreover, in being aware of the asbestos, why is it thousands of tonnes of building debris stripped from within the towers is stockpiled in huge mounds with no form of covering whatsoever?" A council spokeswoman said that the rubble does not contain asbestos and has been transported from other sites to build a platform for machinery. She added that the areas where asbestos is being removed are within airtight enclosures and that the asbestos, which is harmless unless disturbed, is located within concrete walls Dumbarton councillor George Black disagreed with the method of demolition, believing the blocks should be blown up with explosives -- at a cost of GBP8.4m. Mr Black said "hand demolition" increased health risks to workers and residents as the asbestos will be disturbed daily over a long period of time. He commented on West Dunbartonshire Opposition Councillors Facebook page, stating: "Labour have opted for savings over health and safety. We should be going with HSE's original proposal." Councillor McBride replied, accusing him of making a "scurrilous attack", saying that the safe method was agreed in consultation with industry experts and endorsed by HSE, adding: "In my non- informed opinion I can't understand how exploding higher than expected asbestos level flats into the Bellsmyre area can be safer." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Receives No Compensation in Legal Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ North Wales Daily Post reported that a widow who claimed her husband's death was caused by asbestos exposure whilst working in a Staffordshire cemetery in the 1970s has won a top judge's sympathy, but not a penny in compensation. Una Abbott, 74, said her bricklayer husband of 40 years, Dennis, had -- four months before he died from cancer in 2011 -- recounted details of how he had inhaled asbestos dust at a Cannock cemetery. Lawyers for the widow, of Penmaenmawr, claimed Cannock Chase Council failed in its duty of care by not protecting him properly, but the local authority denied he was ever in contact with asbestos while in its employment. Judge Peter Ralls QC dismissed Mrs Abbott's claim for about GBP130,000 damages at London's High Court, saying he had "great sympathy" for her but her case had not been proved. Judge Ralls said Mr Abbott worked for the council between 1973 and 1979, after joining from Staffordshire County Council, and lived in the Cannock area before retiring from his lifelong career as a brickie in 1979. In April, 2010, he complained of chest pains and his condition worsened when he and his ballroom-dancing instructor wife went on a holiday cruise soon after, the judge added. He was told that he might have mesothelioma -- an incurable cancer of the lining of the lungs almost always associated with asbestos -- in December, 2010 and deteriorated quickly, tragically dying at the age of 80 in January, 2011. Mrs Abbott said that, four months before his passing, her husband asked her to write down his memories of working with "asspesters" at Pye Green Cemetery in the late 1970s, which he blamed for his terminal illness. He had told her that labourers had refused to lay a ceiling coating in an outbuilding beside the Sexton's house in the graveyard, so he was then given the job and denied protective gear. Mrs Abbott, who first met her soulmate when she was 15, earlier told the court: "When he asked for a mask he was told to 'get on with the job'." Judge Ralls said the building Mr Abbott probably meant was a mess room used by gravediggers, but that subsequent surveys in 2005, 2010 and 2013 revealed no asbestos there. He found that Mr Abbott had accurately recounted what he believed to be a brush with asbestos and described his wife as a "witness of truth". But he ruled: "At the end of the day, I am driven to the conclusion that, whatever Mr Abbott must have believed on looking back at events, I am not satisfied there was any form of plaster or decorative coating that contained asbestos. "Whilst I have great sympathy with the deceased, and for Mrs Abbott, I am compelled to conclude that the burden of proof has not been discharged and the claim must be dismissed." The judge granted permisson for Mrs Abbott to challenge his decision before the Court of Appeal. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jamaica Plain Contractor Fined for Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- Banker & Tradesman reported that the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) has fined Jamaica Plain-based contractor Envirogreen LLC $8,312.50 for violations of state asbestos regulations. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal at Lincoln Center to Start --------------------------------------------------------- KVIA.com reported that TxDOT will begin the initial phase of the demolition of the Lincoln Center, according to spokesman David Glessner. The first phase will involve the removal of asbestos and mold from the building and is expected to take a few weeks to complete. "We intend then to move forward with our plan to tear down the structure," Glessner said in an email to ABC-7. "During the initial phase, we will keep open the dialogue with Rep. (Joe) Pickett, Senator (Jose) Rodriguez and other elected officials regarding the disposition of the Lincoln Center and any options that may be offered." The demolition company told ABC-7 that the demolition will occur in two weeks. Glessner cited safety as the reason for the demolition of the Lincoln Center. "There have been many unfortunate instances where vehicles have crashed and driven off of overpasses falling onto the ground below," Glessner said. "Our goal is to prevent such an occurrence in El Paso." View some examples of vehicles falling off overpasses onto the ground below at http://www.kvia.com/news/26023730 Activists planned to protest the center's demolition. At a City Council meeting in October, the agency said it would give the city and supporters of the Lincoln Center one year to come up with a plan to finance and renovate the property. But now TxDOT says the center has to be demolished. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Exposed to Toxic Dust at Wokingham Site ---------------------------------------------------------------- Local Berkshire reported that a company was fined GBP10,000 after 'needlessly' putting the lives of workers at risk through failing to inform them of a threat of asbestos. Redwood Contractors Ltd was ordered to pay the fine -- and costs of GBP2,857 -- after it did not disclose the presence of asbestos insulating board (AIB) at a building undergoing refurbishment, in Molly Millars Close, Wokingham. Despite undertaking an asbestos survey just two months prior to work starting, the information about the deadly material was not passed on to the site foreman. Mistaking the AIB for asbestos cement -- which poses a much lower risk -- workers ripped it out without adequate safety procedures. This put the workers at severe risk, as the substance can be 'terminal' if inhaled, according to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Only a licensed asbestos contractor can remove such deadly material using specialist equipment, due to the health hazard the dangerous fibres pose. The lack of information supplied -- even though Redwood Contractors Ltd had the survey in its possession -- was investigated by the HSE. Redwood, based in Battersea, London, pleaded guilty at Reading Magistrates' Court to two separate breaches of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006, relating to the incident in December 2011. It was fined by the court. After the case, Karen Morris, an inspector at HSE, said: "It is disappointing that the foreman and others were needlessly put at risk simply because the asbestos survey for the warehouse wasn't supplied to the team on the ground, or the location of the AIB relayed. "What is the point of having a suitable survey in hand if you aren't going to act on it and share vital information with those who need to know? Sadly, breakdowns in communication of this kind are all too common, but that doesn't excuse Redwood Contractors from failing to do more. "The company is guilty of a clear oversight that may have compromised the future health and wellbeing of its workers. "Everyone knows that asbestos is a potential killer, and the onus is on duty holders to implement proper control measures at all times when dealing with asbestos." Redwood Contractors Ltd declined to comment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alex Neil Blamed Over Hospital Wards' Fibro ------------------------------------------------------------ Andrew Whitaker, writing for The Scotsman, reported that two hospital wards that were controversially kept open by health secretary Alex Neil contained asbestos, Scotland reveals. Pressure mounted on the health secretary last night with the revelation that the potentially harmful substance was found in the two wards where mental health patients are treated. Neil faced calls for his resignation when it emerged that one of his first acts on appointment as health secretary was to use his ministerial powers to save the wards at Monklands Hospital in his Airdrie and Shotts constituency. Neil came under fire for reversing the decision of his predecessor, Nicola Sturgeon, to remove the acute mental health beds from the hospital when he was appointed to the post by First Minister Alex Salmond in September 2012. NHS Lanarkshire said that asbestos had been present on the hospital's wards 24 and 25, but there was no risk to patients. Neil intervened to keep the wards open, before handing responsibility for the matter to his deputy, Michael Matheson, citing concerns over a "conflict of interests". Salmond dismissed Labour's claims that the health secretary had inappropriately intervened and resisted calls to sack him. The health board confirmed that asbestos is still present on ward 25, some 20 months after Neil acted to keep it open. Asbestos has now been cleared from the neighbouring ward 24, but remained on site until the end of last month, the board stated. Labour's health spokesman, Neil Findlay, said: "Alex Neil must explain whether he knew about the asbestos in these wards when he ordered NHS bosses to keep them open. "The more we find out about Alex Neil's meddling, the worse it gets. Throughout this sorry affair, he has put his own political interests before patients. "In order that we can have any confidence in his running of the NHS, he must explain his actions." Neil admitted that he knew asbestos was present at Monklands, but the health secretary said he did not know which wards had been affected. "I was arguing as an MSP for the need for a mental health facility, not to protect a particular location. That is the job of NHS Lanarkshire. The location of the service is the responsibility of NHS Lanarkshire. "I knew there was a general problem with it at Monklands, but I couldn't tell you what particular wards were affected. I would expect NHS Lanarkshire to ensure patients are in a safe place. "We have known for years there is a problem with asbestos and that's why the government has supplied funds to the NHS for this." An NHS Lanarkshire spokesman said: "Ward 24 is clear of asbestos, some remains in Ward 25. "NHS Lanarkshire takes the decision to remove asbestos based on its condition and if it presents a risk, in line with Health and Safety Executive advice." ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSPs Clash on Fibro Parliament Debate "Snub" ------------------------------------------------------------- Greenock Telegraph reported that two local MSPs in England have clashed over a bid to force insurance companies to pay compensation to the NHS for treating asbestos victims. The SNP's Stuart McMillan said it was 'a disgrace' that only two Labour MSPs turned up for the debate in the Scottish Parliament. But Greenock & Inverclyde Labour MSP Duncan McNeil, who was not there, said he was 'angry and dismayed' that Mr McMillan had broken long-standing cross-party unity over asbestos matters. The Holyrood debate which sparked the controversy had centred on an SNP motion welcoming proposals by Clydeside Action on Asbestos on the recovery of costs to the NHS of treating people with asbestos-related conditions and diseases. Mr McMillan, who is taking forward a Bill on the matter, said: "This Bill is intended to help NHS Scotland recover the costs of treating people with asbestos-related conditions from insurance companies who have already settled civil claims with victims. "It is estimated the NHS spends GBP20 million a year on diagnosing and treating people suffering as a result of asbestos exposure -- money which will be freed up to treat more people if this Bill is successful. "I am extremely disappointed in the Labour party's reaction to both this debate and my Bill. It seems they would prefer to side with the insurance industry and employers who negligently exposed their workforce to asbestos." When asked about the debate no-show, Mr McNeil responded by saying that few MSPs were at the debate because it came at the end of a parliamentary day in which business had gone on longer than expected and many had to go to various appointments. Mr McNeil said: "If the SNP were serious about this they could bring this Bill forward right now, and I hope that they do. "My experience and commitment towards fighting for asbestos victims cannot be questioned. I have family and friends who have suffered through exposure to asbestos, and I am outraged and offended that Mr McMillan is trying to seek political advantage on an issue where there is no division between the parties. "We have achieved successes for asbestos sufferers through the parties working together, and it's shameful to try to score political points like this." ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACT Decides Not to Identify Fibro-Filled Homes --------------------------------------------------------------- Kathleen Dyett, writing for ABC News, reported that the ACT Government has again refused to release a list of Canberra homes containing dangerous loose-fill asbestos, citing concerns the information could damage relations with the Commonwealth. Earlier this year the Chief Minister's Directorate received a Freedom of Information (FoI) request to identify the homes in question. A list of homes had been prepared for an asbestos-removal program, which was first overseen by the Commonwealth and then the ACT government between 1988 and 1993. The scheme aimed to remove loose-fill asbestos which had been installed in hundreds of homes by a company called Mr Fluffy. However, it has since come to light the material may still be present and the ACT Government has written to 1,000 households to warn them. The Directorate has previously refused to publicly release the list of affected properties, and on appeal it has stood by that decision. In its reasons it argues doing so could damage the ACT's relations with the Commonwealth and that negotiations relating to the program and remediation costs should happen in confidence. An online letter of the decision also says the list has errors and its release could also damage the value of individual homes. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meeting Held on Hospital's Future -------------------------------------------------- Derby Telegraph reported that a meeting will be held to discuss the future of Heanor Memorial Hospital, in England, after asbestos was discovered in parts of the building. The hospital has been closed to patients since last year after the potentially deadly material was discovered in a boiler room during a routine inspection by staff in September. It means clinics and services have been moved temporarily to Ilkeston Community Hospital. Since then, bosses at the NHS Southern Derbyshire Clinical Commissioning Group said they have been trying to find the "best way forward" for the hospital. At a meeting earlier this year, options discussed for its future included replacing it with a new GBP1.6 million building or refurbishing the current 89-year-old premises at a cost of GBP850,000. Members of the public are invited to hear the latest on progress at the site at a meeting at St Lawrence's Church, in Church Street, Heanor. Andy Layzell, chief officer for the clinical commissioning group, said: "Patients and the public can continue to be assured that we remain committed to enhancing and developing health services in Heanor -- and four pledges I outlined in January's meeting still stand true. "Finding asbestos at the hospital, combined with the age of the building, means health services cannot be provided in the hospital building as it stands and we know from speaking with local groups and individuals that people now understand that to be the case. "We look forward to welcoming everyone to the meeting, where we will provide an update on everything we have been doing since our last meeting in January." Mr Layzell said that since January's meeting, blood testing and services had returned to Heanor and the group was also looking to bring outpatient clinics back to town. He said: "I would like to stress that no decisions have been made at this stage." ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Doncaster Men Jailed in Illegal Waste Case ------------------------------------------------------------- InvestinUK.net reported that to offences relate to illegal waste activities that occurred between 2008 and 2010 at Middleton Quarry, Pollington and then at Wroot Road, Doncaster, in England. Phillip Slingsby, aged 42, was sentenced to a term of 12 months imprisonment, ordered to pay a contribution towards prosecution costs of GBP20,000 and disqualified as a director for 6 years. He was also subject to a confiscation order in the amount of GBP200,000 under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 made at an earlier court hearing. No separate penalties were imposed on Mr Slingsby's associated companies Slingsby Plant Hire Limited and Slingsby Quarries Limited in view of their financial status and the fact that one of the companies has been dissolved whilst the other company is in liquidation. Robert Spencer, aged 63, was sentenced to a term of 9 months imprisonment, suspended for 2 years and ordered to pay GBP20,000 in confiscation under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Charges were brought by the Environment Agency under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Environmental Permitting (England & Wales) Regulations 2007 and 2010. Throughout the course of this complex case the Environment Agency worked closely with the Insolvency Service and its own in-house Accredited Financial Investigators to secure orders under Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. Operations at Middleton Quarry, Pollington Prosecuting for the Environment Agency, Counsel Mr Christopher Stables told the Court that between December 2008 and April 2009, officers from the Environment Agency visited the Middleton Quarry, Pollington and observed tipping taking place on a large scale. The quarry did not benefit from an environmental permit that would authorise such an activity to take place. In fact, a permit would never have been granted given the proximity of the site to 3 Yorkshire boreholes used for the abstraction of drinking water. Following initial discussions with Mr Slingsby about concerns over the activities taking place, a surveillance operation took place. Officers observed waste being tipped and levelled on an industrial scale. The waste comprised of wood, vegetation, plastics, asbestos sheeting and other non-inert waste. Sample testing results revealed the presence of chrysotile asbestos and asbestos fibres. The nature of the waste tipped posed a significant pollution risk to the nearby water sources. In total 127,000.00 tonnes of waste were deposited at Middleton Quarry. Lawful disposal would have cost in excess of GBP440,000. Operations at Wroot Road, Doncaster Mr Slingsby then moved operations to 36 Acre Field, Wroot Road, Doncaster, a site owned by Mr Robert Spencer. Between January 2009 and October 2009 Robert Spencer allowed Phillip Slingsby to tip thousands of tonnes of waste on his land when there was no environmental permit in force. It is unlikely that a permit would ever have been granted due to the proximity of the site to water sources, the potential risks posed to ground water and the lack of planning permission. In September 2009, officers from the Environment Agency attended Wroot Road and observed tipping taking place. It was clear to officers that this was a large scale operation. Officers told Mr Spencer that tipping on land was illegal and that it should cease immediately. Further warnings were given and followed up in writing. Mr Spencer claimed that Phillip Slingsby was responsible for the deposit of the waste. Further visits to the site revealed evidence that a large hole had been excavated and then backfilled with waste. The waste included brick, rubble, soil, plastics and green waste, metal, wood and tyres. In October 2010 officers from the Environment Agency conducted a raid of the Wroot Road site. A series of 'trial pits' were dug at the site from which samples confirmed the presence of asbestos on site. Waste transfer notes and invoices seized suggested that the defendants made considerable financial gains from operating the site without the benefit of an environmental permit and handling the waste incorrectly. In total around 72,000 tonnes of waste was deposited at Wroot Road. Comments made in passing sentence His Honour Judge Jack stated that the defendants had both acted in a way that had "put the public at serious risk." The offences were further aggravated by the fact that they were deliberate, committed in environmentally sensitive areas and financially motivated. In passing sentence, he accepted that Robert Spencer was less culpable than Phillip Slingsby. In both cases, the custody threshold was passed and, whilst the sentence imposed on Robert Spencer could be suspended, such was the seriousness of the case, it was appropriate for Phillip Slingsby to serve an immediate term of imprisonment. Speaking after the case, an Environment Agency officer in charge of the investigation said: "This was a large scale waste operation where the defendants allowed waste to be brought onto land without being permitted to do so. Illegal waste sites have the potential to cause serious pollution incidents or harm human health, and this prosecution demonstrates that we take waste crime very seriously and will not hesitate to prosecute if necessary, to protect the environment and local communities." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Agency Not "Window Dressing" --------------------------------------------------- Jessica Chambers, writing for Latrobe Valley Express, reported that Gippsland Asbestos-Related Disease Support group in Australia has defended the agency tasked with eradicating asbestos after it was criticised by Federal Finance Minister Mathias Cormann. In a recently released ministerial paper, Mr Cormann accused the former Labor government of "window dressing", when it established the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency in 2013, . Mr Cormann claimed there was no change in the scope of the asbestos-related activity of government, other than the addition of extra resource and administrative costs. GARDS chief executive Vicki Hamilton said she could not understand why Mr Cormann was attacking a newly-formed agency which the current government had supported. "I'm asking Mr Cormann, if he's so worried about the agency just being window dressing, to take the mantle up and give the agency the teeth it needs to hand down the decisions and actions it needs to," Ms Hamilton said. She said the agency was formed so it could work several government departments and agencies, including WorkSafe and the Environment Protection Authority, to improve asbestos education and move towards the future eradication of the deadly substance from Australian homes and workplaces. "It was created so people didn't have to deal with four or five different departments, it would be a one-stop shop to address these problems in the community," Ms Hamilton said. However, Ms Hamilton has applauded the Federal Government's decision to continue to fund the agency as detailed in the budget, despite Mr Cormann's criticisms. "The federal budget also cemented ongoing bipartisan support for the agency, which was set up last year, while rejecting the deeply concerning recommendation of the National Commission of Audit that the agency, and its advisory council, be abolished as a budget saving measure," she said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inquest Blames Fibro for Speldhurst Man's Death ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kent and Sussex Courier reported that a man who died suddenly at home aged 77 had been exposed to asbestos throughout his career, an inquest heard. Retired contractor Alan Passmore of Roopers in Speldhurst, England, died on March 30 but he had been diagnosed with mesothelioma in December 2010. During his employment he had "climbed over, under and around" machinery and had come into contact with asbestos-lagged pipes in "various states of degradation" said coroner Roger Hatch. He added: "As he brushed against them he would have disturbed the asbestos lagging and even the pipes would have had dust on them. "The asbestos would become airborne and he would have breathed it in and was not provided with any protective clothing or face mask or given training or advice." Mr Passmore later worked in Erith looking at redundant pipe lagging machinery where there would have been many asbestos fibres, he said. Mr Hatch recorded a verdict of industrial disease. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow of Former Shipyard Worker Files Fibro Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kyle Barnett, writing for The Louisiana Record, reported that the widow of a former shipyard employee who died of mesothelioma is suing numerous companies she claims are at fault for his exposure to asbestos. Janet Wusthoff, on behalf of Charles W. Wusthoff, filed suit against Huntington Ingalls Inc., Northrop Grumman Ship Systems Inc., Avondale Industries Inc., Reilly Benton Co Inc., Taylor- Seidenbach Inc., Mccarty Corporation, Eagle Inc., Eagle Asbestos And Packing Co Inc., Onebeacon America Insurance Company, Onebeacon Insurance Company and Commercial Union Insurance Company in the 24th Judicial District Court on April 17. Janet Wusthoff alleges that after her husband Charles died on July 24, 2013 it was found that the direct cause of his death was due to asbestos exposure. The plaintiff asserts that her husband was employed as a boiler-room painter by the shipyard at Avondale Industries Inc. located at 5100 River Road in Avondale in the early 1970s where he was allegedly exposed to asbestos and asbestos containing products in poorly ventilated quarters without being provided respiratory or other safety equipment. Wusthoff claims the exposure during her husband's employment resulted in his contraction of lung cancer and eventual death. The defendant is accused of wrongful death, general negligence and strict liability. An unspecified amount in damages is sought for physical pain and suffering, medical expenses, funeral and burial expenses, loss of quality of life, disfigurement, financial loss, mental anguish, emotional distress, loss of love, loss of affection and loss of society. Wusthoff is represented by Mickey P. Landry of New Orleans-based Landry & Swarr LLC. The case has been assigned to Division C Judge June Berry Darensburg. Case no. 737-583. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Making Roadwork on Pa. Street More Tedious ----------------------------------------------------------------- Meredith Jorgensen, writing for WGAL.com, reported that a busy section of New Holland Ave. in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, was closed for a week as crews work to repave the road. The work is also more tedious because small amounts of asbestos must be removed. ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Compensation for Widow for Husband's Death -------------------------------------------------------------- Dean Kirby, writing for Manchester Evening News, reported that the widow of a man who died from asbestos-related cancer may miss out on up to GBP100,000 from a government compensation scheme . . . because he was diagnosed too soon. Sid Pointon, 73, was diagnosed with cancer just 15 DAYS before the Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme was launched to help families who have lost loved ones because of the killer dust. The scheme was launched for families of workers who fell victim while working at defunct companies and whose employers' insurance companies cannot be traced. Mr Pointon worked in a 'snow storm' of toxic dust at Morgan & Crossley, a Manchester firm which manufactured asbestos brake linings, aged just 21 in the early 1960s. But his widow Irene, 69, and her solicitor have been unable to find the firm's insurers to launch a legal claim. She has now been left devastated that she will not be entitled to government compensation. Irene, from Chorlton, said: "To watch my husband die from this terrible disease was heart-breaking for me, my son and daughter, and for our three grandchildren. "It was wrong that Sid was exposed to asbestos by his employer when the dangers of asbestos were widely known. He was given no warnings about asbestos dust nor was he provided with a mask for protection. I was so upset when his employer's insurers couldn't be traced but thought that the Mesothelioma Scheme would help. Now it seems that I will get nothing. I want to point out how unfair this is, not just for me but for hundreds of others. I am determined to fight for justice. It was what Sid would have wanted me to do." Mr Pointon was diagnosed with cancer on July 16, 2012, just 15 days before the government scheme came into operation. He died in February last year. Irene is now seeking the support of solicitors at Manchester law firm, Pannone, which is part of Slater & Gordon. Irene's solicitor Alicia Rendell, an industrial disease specialist, said the government scheme is 'inflexible' and should be altered to help people like Mrs Pointon. She is also urging anyone who worked at Morgan & Crossley and who may know the name of the company's insurer to contact her. She said: "This new scheme is tailor-made for cases like this but because Mr Pointon attended hospital and was diagnosed with this incurable cancer before the scheme was announced, Mrs Pointon cannot claim for payment. "We think this situation is unjust and inflexible and we would like some common sense to be applied to help our client and indeed others faced with similar situations." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claimants Want to Limit Garlock Docs Access ------------------------------------------------------------ Law360 reported that Ford Motor Co. and others that won access to documents relating to asbestos claims against Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC should not be allowed to give other parties access to that information, asbestos claimants told a North Carolina bankruptcy judge. In a motion to reconsider, the official committee of asbestos personal injury claimants asked U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George R. Hodges to amend a motion he granted that allowed asbestos defendants to access so-called Rule 2019 filings in the Garlock bankruptcy case. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock FCR Supports Deadline for Fibro Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that the Future Claims Representative in the Garlock Sealing Technologies bankruptcy case filed a brief siding with Garlock and urging the court to set a bar date for current asbestos claims, which he says would allow Garlock to better estimate the number of future claims. Joseph W. Grier III is representing future asbestos claimants in the Garlock case. In his brief, he supported the debtors' request for an order that would establish a bar date for filing settled Garlock's asbestos claims, approve the proof of claim form and approve the forum and procedures for notice to settled Garlock asbestos claims. The debtors to which Grier is referring includes Garlock, Garrison Litigation Management Group, Ltd., and The Anchor Packing Company. A bar date in a bankruptcy proceeding is a deadline for asbestos victims or companies to make their claims against Garlock, which is intended to prevent surprise claims from arising. Grier claims a bar date will provide certainty as to the pool of existing settled claims, both disputed and undisputed, which will permit reliable provision for such claims under any plan of reorganization. Asbestos-related diseases often have latency periods up to 35 years or longer, meaning some personal injury claims against the debtors may not manifest themselves for decades to come, Grier explained. While the parties involved in the bankruptcy case disagree as to the number of possible future claims, the debtors predict that roughly 16,800 mesothelioma claims alone will be brought through 2059, which is nearly eight times the number of current claims. However, Grier added that all future claims are unknown. Grier included an article written by S. Todd Brown as an exhibit, which addressed the negative impact that miscalculations of future claims can have on claimants. According to Brown's article, asbestos trusts have miscalculated by either underestimating their long-term liabilities or overestimating its projected assets. "This miscalculation begins during the bankruptcy case," Brown wrote. "Although estimation proceedings are common in asbestos bankruptcies, they do not provide a basis for ensuring that the trust is in position to pay current and future claimants equitably." "These estimates consistently fall short, thereby allowing current claimants to obtain high initial recoveries and requiring substantial reductions in payments to future claimants." Putting numbers to words, Brown showed just how depleted trusts have become. To date, nearly 60 asbestos bankruptcy trusts have been established or are in the process of being established. Nearly $14 billion has been distributed to trust claimants from 2006 through 2011, leaving $18 billion in assets to satisfy claims submitted over the next 40 years. Put simply, the same amount of money spent in about five years must last the next 40 years. Grier noted that the parties do agree that there will be, at a minimum, tens of thousands of such claims across all asbestos- related disease categories, adding that future claims are "by far the largest creditor constituency." Grier argues that after a debtor creates a trust, it loses any incentive to question the existence or merits of a settlement. Instead, the task falls to the creditor representatives. If those representatives, relying on the debtor's data alone, underestimate the number of settlements, adjustments may need to be made, which could prejudice the future claimants. Aware of this potential problem, the FCR previously sought to better understand the amount of settled claims by working informally with the debtors for current claimants in order to avoid the cost and burden of a bar date. However, the FCR and the debtors were unable to reconcile the parties' respective different views as to the magnitude of settled claims or otherwise obtain complete data that would allow him to do so. "In fact, the actual amount of settled claims was one of the many contested items during the estimation trial," the brief states. "The FCR subsequently advised the court that he believed a bar date would ultimately be needed, before plan confirmation and the finalization of requisite trust funds, to determine the number and amount of settled claims. The FCR is of the same view." As part of his duties, Grier seeks to ensure that present and future asbestos claimants are treated fairly under Garlock's trust procedures. According to the brief, the FCR wishes for various protections to be embedded in the trust procedures, including "clearly defined, meaningful asbestos exposure standards reasonably tailored to the Debtors' products; appropriate but attainable medical requirements for proof of a claimant's illness; and robust audits for other measures to identify invalid claims and ensure accountability." However, Grier added that despite measures put in place to protect claimants, the parties involved will still face challenges of accurately predicting just how many claims, of all types, will be submitted, which leaves a potential for future claims to be paid significantly less than present claims. Grier understands that it is impossible for the debtors to know exactly how many cases have been settled and assume how many it could face because they confront thousands of claims and asbestos cases are occasionally settled in large groups. "As such, it is foreseeable that plaintiff firms could reasonably believe they reached an enforceable settlement or settlements but the Debtor could reasonably disagree," the brief states. Grier reassures the court that completing the Official Form No. 10 and setting a bar date should not be too burdensome or costly, because the debtors have contact information for all the plaintiff firms that could have entered into unpaid pre-petition settlements. In fact, setting a bar date will allow the counsel to quickly determine if their clients are subject to an enforceable settlement agreement and provide supporting documentation. "Any minimal burden will be outweighed by the benefit to all parties of knowing exactly how many claims are subject to unpaid pre-petition settlements," the brief states. Grier explains that the debtors may facilitate the exercise by providing listings of known settlements, allowing the parties and the court to know the number and amount of all settlements, undisputed and disputed, allowing for accurate provision of reserves. The FCR was appointed by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges to represent the interest of the holders of future asbestos personal injury claims against the Debtors. Hodges appointed Grier just after a Jan. 10 bankruptcy ruling in favor of Garlock, ordering the gasket manufacturer to put $125 million in an asbestos trust -- roughly $1 billion less than what plaintiffs' representatives felt was proper. In his decision, Hodges noted how attorneys had been withholding evidence while pursuing claims against Garlock in order to maximize recovery. As an exhibit, Grier included an article by Thomas M. Wilson addressing bankruptcy trust fraud. Wilson's piece, titled "Institutionalized Fraud in Asbestos Bankruptcy Trusts," was published in the Mealey's Litigation Report: Asbestos. His article focuses on Hodges' actions in the Garlock bankruptcy proceeding, noting that the judge did not address loopholes that have been built into asbestos bankruptcy trusts, which can be viewed as institutionalized fraud. "Institutionalized fraud consists of certain procedures and processes which are systematically built into asbestos trusts through documents such as the trust agreement and the trust distribution procedures," Wilson wrote. Wilson explains that fraud begins with the procedures set forth by the Trust Distribution Procedures, TDP, which makes settlement payments possible for asbestos claimants even though similar payments would not otherwise be permissible. Because the system was designed by those who are now submitting claims, loopholes have been integrated into the trust system. "What is wrong with this picture? Simply put, by building into asbestos bankruptcy trusts legitimate procedures which permit a claimant to receive compensation for claims which are not otherwise payable within the tort system, asbestos claimants, and therefore their attorneys, are able to obtain millions of dollars in compensation without fear of repercussion," Wilson wrote. "Plaintiff asbestos lawyers then use the millions of dollars of fees obtained from the system they were instrumental in building, to run countless advertisements designed to obtain more clients so that they can submit more claims and obtain more fees. Thus, institutionalized fraud, as built into the system, allows the system to perpetuate itself." In order to complement his arguments, Grier also included an article by Marc C. Scarcella and Peter R. Kelso discussing the self-serving provisions in the TDP. Scarcella and Kelso's piece, titled "Asbestos Bankruptcy Trusts: A 2012 Overview of Trust Assets, Compensation & Governance," was published in Mealey's Asbestos Bankruptcy Report. Scarcella and Kelso's article primarily discusses bankruptcy trusts in general and their assets, saying that as assets have grown, so have payments to asbestos claimants. They explain that trusts have established a payment percentage that reduces the actual awards by a fixed percentage when trusts cannot pay claimants the full compensation for a specified claim amount as prescribed in the TDP. The TDPs have also been amended recently to include confidentiality provisions and a sole benefit clause. "The confidentiality provision mandates that a claimant's submission to a respective trust and all associated information is to be treated in the course of settlement negotiations and is afforded all the applicable confidentiality privileges and protections. The sole benefit clause states that evidence submitted to a respective trust to establish proof of claim is for the sole benefit of the respective trust, not third parties or defendants in the tort system," Scarcella and Kelso wrote. They add that trusts have also established "presumptive" medical and exposure criteria in an effort to quickly determine whether a claim qualifies for payment. However, the resolution procedures have only allowed plaintiff attorneys to utilize the same claims material for multiple trust submissions, thus minimizing their filing costs per claim. In his brief, Grier adds that he takes no position as to the appropriateness of the debtors' treatment of claims based on its reorganization plan, reserving those arguments for another day. Grier filed his brief supporting Garlock's request for a bar date through attorneys Jonathan P. Guy of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP and A. Cotton Wright of Grier, Furr & Crisp. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mr. Fluffy Found in Bags Under House ----------------------------------------------------- Emma Macdonald, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that three bags of old Mr Fluffy asbestos have been stored under a home in Macgregor, Australia -- presumably left behind when the home was part of the federal government clean-up in the late 1980s. The bags were left unsealed. ACT Work Safety Commissioner Mark McCabe said his agency was dealing with a potentially serious Mr Fluffy discovery each week on average since the government urged all 1050 Mr Fluffy homeowners to get an inspection. WorkSafe ACT was advised of the discovery -- made during an inspection carried out by Robson Environmental -- and is conducting an investigation. Mr McCabe said the bags "appear to have been there for a very long time". But as the bags were in a contained area beneath the house and the only access was via the garage, he said the amosite fibres presented no immediate risk to the residents. WorkSafe had engaged an independent assessor who took samples and secured other evidence. Mr McCabe said he was awaiting the test results before the next steps could be determined but confirmation it was amosite asbestos would mean the bags would need to be sealed and buried in a controlled clean-up. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gov't Adds to Registry to Better Protect Workers ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Canadian Press reported that Saskatchewan is putting new requirements in place for an asbestos registry that Labour Minister Don Morgan says will help protect workers from exposure. Occupational Health and Safety rules have been amended to include additional forms of asbestos to be reported and to update required information. A law making asbestos reporting mandatory for Crown corporations, school districts, health regions and provincial government buildings was enacted last November. Building owners have to submit information about the presence of asbestos to the registry. Owners who have already provided information will have to review the changes to the rules and update their submissions if needed. Compliance and enforcement are to come into effect for all asbestos-related activities on June 1. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ed Lauter Fibro Lawsuit Casts Wide Net ------------------------------------------------------- Tim Povtak, writing for Asbestos.com, reported that the list of companies accused of exposing actor Ed Lauter to asbestos, the toxic mineral blamed for causing the pleural mesothelioma that eventually killed him, could continue to grow, according to documents obtained by Asbestos.com. Defendants named in the lawsuit filed April in the Los Angeles County Superior Court include some well-known broadcasting, automotive, manufacturing and conglomerate giants: * CBS Corporation * CertainTeed Corporation * Ford Motor Company * Foster Wheeler AG * General Electric Company * Georgia-Pacific LLC * Honeywell International, Inc. * Ingersoll-Rand PLC * John Crane, Inc. * Soco West, Inc. * Union Carbide Corporation In addition to those 11 companies, there are dozens more, including Blockbuster LLC, MarketWatch.com, Sportsline.com, Inc. and Viacom, Inc., which are wholly or partially owned subsidiaries of the primary defendants. The complaint states the defendants "knew that asbestos was a dangerous and toxic substance and knew the risks to 'exposed persons' associated with the use and manipulation of asbestos and asbestos-containing products, materials, components and equipment." Lauter family attorney David Rosen said that although the complaint already was filed, none of the defendants have officially been served. Rosen also said more companies could be added to the list. "His career in motion pictures put him at risk for exposure," Rosen told Asbestos.com. "We're not saying everyone in motion pictures is at risk, but it is known where asbestos was used in certain motion picture equipment and on what sets." Lauter was exposed to asbestos at various movie studios and location sets where he worked in the Los Angeles area over a 20- year period, according to the lawsuit. The dates of his exposure are listed in the complaint as "approximately 1958-1979." Widow Mia Lauter, along with children Emma Lauter, Ameke Lauter, Ben Lauter and Anton Lauter, are listed as plaintiffs in the wrongful death lawsuit. The complaint states the family is seeking punitive damages necessary to punish the defendants and prevent them from engaging in misconduct in the future. They are also asking for compensation for medical expenses, Lauter's loss of income and income potential, funeral and burial costs, as well as each family member's loss of income, financial support and financial contributions. The exact dollar amount of damages is not listed in the complaint. More Than Two Decades of Asbestos Exposure Lauter was first diagnosed with mesothelioma in June 2013 while he still was working. He died October 13, 2013 at age 74. Asbestos is the only known cause of mesothelioma, a rare and aggressive cancer. Typically, there is a latency period of 20-50 years between first exposure and diagnosis. Although the disease is more common with military veterans, blue collar workers and those in the ship building industry, Lauter isn't the first entertainer diagnosed with the deadly cancer. Steve McQueen, once America's highest-paid movie star; Merlin Olsen, actor, broadcaster and football player; and Warren Zevon, musician and songwriter, all died of mesothelioma. "It's a little unusual for an actor to pass away from mesothelioma, but actually it's not that unusual when you consider that only a small percentage of people who are exposed to asbestos come down with the disease," Rosen said. "Many are exposed who don't get sick." According to the lawsuit, Lauter's exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products "caused severe and permanent injury." 'Those Most Responsible' California state law requires survivors to file their wrongful death lawsuits within six months after their loved one passes, which explains why the Lauter case was filed in April before the list of defendants was complete. "You want to make sure, ultimately, that you are suing those most responsible," Rosen said. "All of them haven't been named yet. More could be added." Lauter did not file any legal action before his death. The character actor worked almost 50 years in the film and television industry, playing a wide variety of roles. He was best known for his supporting characters alongside bigger Hollywood stars. He played a prison guard alongside Burt Reynolds in "The Longest Yard." He was a vigilante in "Death Wish 3," starring Charles Bronson. He worked as a baseball scout with Clint Eastwood in "Trouble with the Curve." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found at Chichester's County Hall -------------------------------------------------------- Chichester Observer reported that meetings have had to be relocated from Chichester's County Hall, in England, after asbestos was discovered in the ceiling above the main chamber. West Sussex County Council is unable to hold full council meetings in the chamber for the immediate future, as the whole roof needs to be taken off to get rid of the asbestos. The roof's removal was discussed at a governance committee meeting, held in a separate room in County Hall, as councillors discussed changes to the webcast facility. After the meeting, a spokeswoman for the county council said: "There are currently problems with the council chamber due to a roof leak earlier in the year. "The ceiling of the chamber has an asbestos coating which was damaged by the water leak, resulting in the chamber having to be taken out of use. "The decision has now been taken to remove the entire ceiling and eliminate the risks relating to asbestos. "The work to remove the ceiling will take in the order of six to eight weeks to complete and there will then be a further period of six to eight weeks for the installation of a new ceiling. "While we hope to be back in the chamber for the October council meeting, we will not be able to use it for either the June or July meetings. "Arrangements will be made for the meeting to take place in room 140 of county hall where there will also be a public gallery. Committee room 3 will be used to show the live webcast to ensure there is full disabled access." The discovery of the asbestos has already led to one meeting of the full council being moved -- with April's meeting held at Chichester College. The council said it was not yet able to confirm how much the repair work would cost. It currently has a tender out for contractors to carry out the work. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Supervisor Strips Fibro Without Face Mask ---------------------------------------------------------- Grant Prior, writing for Construction Enquirer, reported that a supervisor in charge of removing asbestos from a Canterbury school, in England, has been prosecuted after he recklessly exposed himself to the potentially-dangerous material. Jack Conn, then a supervisor with a Medway company licensed to remove asbestos, was spotted working unprotected at the site at Canterbury Academy on 30 May 2013 by an HSE inspector. Conn was seen walking around inside the sealed enclosure without wearing his essential respiratory mask, and with the hood of his protective overalls down. A second worker could be seen removing the asbestos materials but with the correct personal protective equipment in use. Canterbury Magistrates' Court heard that on arrival at the school the HSE Inspector saw the thorough and correct preparations the firm had put in place, which included a fenced-off site compound with restricted access warning signs; a decontamination unit with three separate cleaning areas and the sealed boiler house with a three-stage air lock. Looking to find someone in charge, the Inspector went down to the basement where work was underway and viewed what was happening inside the sealed enclosure on a CCTV monitor. She saw Conn without his respiratory protection and tried to get his attention by shouting through an airlock. When that failed, she rang the company telling them they needed to get the worker out of the enclosure. She filmed some of the CCTV footage before the firm managed to make contact with the site and the supervisor was told leave the enclosure. HSE told the court Conn later admitted his respiratory equipment was in the enclosure with him, on the floor, and that he was aware of the risks and the duty to wear it. He also confirmed he had undertaken the training to be a supervisor. Conn, 23, of Upnor, Rochester, Kent, was fined œ1,000 with œ1,500 towards costs after admitting a safety breach. After the case, HSE Inspector Nicola Wellard said: "It really does beggar belief that a trained supervisor with a licensed company, fully aware of the very real dangers associated with exposure to asbestos, could then casually disregard those dangers and work in a contaminated environment. "Jack Conn, as supervisor, should have been setting a high standard to other employees and being seen to take seriously the precautions necessary to control the risks to himself and others. "It was an obviously flagrant and deliberate breach. I hope he will not come to regret it in years ahead." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Delays Add to Fibro Risk ----------------------------------------- Rosanna Candler, writing for Western Suburbs Weekly, reported that a delayed report of amendments to the Health (Asbestos) Regulations 1992 has been sitting on Asbestos Diseases Society of Australia president Robert Vojakovic's desk for seven years. Mr Vojakovic said the amendments would introduce increased penalties, subsequent offence provisions and daily penalties for asbestos material mishandling or negligence. He questioned why the Health Department would propose the amendments if the State Government would not enforce them. "They're bragging about it. Every time you go to a meeting they say, 'Oh we've got these amendments coming up,'" he said. "The amendments are so important because, at the moment, the penalties are often no more than a slap on the wrist. "Asbestos is deteriorating by the day, more fibres are being released, more people are being diagnosed and thousands are losing their lives, but 22 years later we cannot get an update on this report. I want to see these amendments made without delay." A Health Department spokesman said the proposed amendments were in final drafting stage and its implementation would be linked to the new Public Health Act. "Some delays in preparing the amendments were experienced due to the need to consider and document regulatory impacts and the National Asbestos Management Review, which necessitated further scrutiny on some proposed areas of reform," he said. Mr Vojakovic said the discovery of asbestos fibres within Lords recreation centre in March indicated the need for increased accountability regarding council and government-owned public buildings. "The laws simply say you have to have an asbestos register and just monitor that, but you don't have to do anything if it doesn't release fibres," he said. "It is fine that councils check their buildings every year, but they need to do it properly. I don't know how well they test them, because who is going to check them if that information is not made easily public? That's the problem." A Department of Health spokesman said the majority of government and council-owned public buildings were deemed to be workplaces and the main legislation for the management of asbestos was Occupational Safety and Health legislation and supporting codes of practice. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Red Rock Elementary School Fibro-Free ------------------------------------------------------ Nancy Laflin, writing for KOAT7.com, reported that a former state inspector and school workers are claiming asbestos was being yanked out of a ceiling where food is prepared at a New Mexico elementary school. "It was standard routine. If you came across asbestos, just remove it and go along with it," said Brice Rohrer, a maintenance man with the Gallup-McKinley County School District. Rohrer said he's worked in that position for 17 years. He said three years ago at Red Rock Elementary, a pipe broke in the cafeteria. He said a crew went to fix it, but two men stopped when they saw it was covered with asbestos. One did not. He said asbestos went flying right into the cafeteria over the food counter during lunch, which caught the attention of a state inspector. Benny Kling, now retired from an environmental enforcement officer position, said Rohrer's story is spot on. "Asbestos was removed from the school during school hours without proper protection (and) without proper persons being trained and by contractors who were not licensed or trained to remove asbestos," said Kling. He said he turned the case over to the feds. A spokesman with New Mexico's Environment Department said tests were done at Red Rock and samples were taken, but there was no evidence of asbestos. Kling said that's because by then, the insulation labeled as asbestos had been removed. The school was built in 1966. John Hartog has worked at the school for more than 30 years. He's been principal for 11. "I have no fear of asbestos being here," he said. He said four years ago some was found in the gym plumbing, but it has been removed. He said there is none in the cafeteria, and parents should not be concerned. State Sen. George Munuz said parents hadn't been properly notified for months. The state says the feds are involved. They were unable to be reached for comment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Disposal Costs Blamed for Illegal Fibro Dumping ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael McGowan, writing for Newcastle Herald, reported that the "outrageously high" cost of asbestos disposal in Hunter, Australia, is hampering efforts to curb the problem of illegal dumping, members of the local construction industry say. Though figures for asbestos clean-ups are not independently available, illegal dumping costs Hunter councils hundreds of thousands of dollars every year -- in Newcastle, it's about $100,000, in Lake Macquarie, it's closer to $300,000. It's a cost that the owner of Toronto Timber and Building Supplies, David Israel, believes is only going to rise. "It's an issue because at the moment we're only talking about the surface of the problem," he said. "Most buildings built prior to the changes in composition of insulation in the mid-1980s contain asbestos, and now you've got a lot of people renovating, demolishing and rebuilding those homes - the issue is there and it's going to be around for a long time." Disposing of asbestos the correct way is not cheap - in Newcastle a tonne will set you back $330, in Lake Macquarie it's $350, in Cessnock it's $370, while in Maitland it costs $262 per tonne, plus a $200 additional burial charge per load. Mr Israel, who worked in the asbestos industry for years before the 1980s, believes cost is "driving the problem" of dumping and Len Blakeney, chief executive of the Master Builders Association in Newcastle, agrees. "There's a lot [of asbestos] out there, and it's very costly to dispose of legally," he said. "I think a lot of people probably get a quote to do it properly and it all just becomes too expensive; if we could reduce the cost it would definitely play a part in improving that." The association runs training in safe asbestos removal - an industry that is becoming increasingly lucrative - and Mr Blakeney said there was probably "20 to 30 years' work left in disposal". A lot of councils say removing the levy - $107.80 in metro areas and $53.70 in the bush - would help alleviate the cost. A spokeswoman for Newcastle City Council called it a "major underlying issue" with asbestos dumping. "The waste levy is meant to encourage people to recycle because the cost of dumping is high, which works well for recyclable or reusable materials," she said. "However, asbestos cannot be reused or recycled so the waste levy becomes counter-productive. "For those of a mind to do the wrong thing, the high cost of dumping for hazardous waste gives them more reason to do so." A 2012 review of the waste levy found that there was no "conclusive evidence" linking the levy to illegal dumping, but evidence that illegal dumping of asbestos was mostly carried out by households renovating on a small scale suggested rebates for households appropriately disposing of asbestos might help reduce it. Later in May, the NSW Environment Protection Authority was slated to announce a trial to scrap the levy at several sites around the state, as well as paying $50 towards the cost of removing and transporting asbestos to tips and landfill sites. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow of Fibro Exposure Victim Launches Appeal --------------------------------------------------------------- Exeter Express and Echo reported that an Exeter, England, widow whose husband died from an asbestos-related disease earlier this year has issued a plea for his former work colleagues to come forward. Diane Allen, 59, is seeking help from former workers at Kneels Laundry Services, at Cowley Bridge Road Depot. Her husband Bernard died at the age of 72 from an asbestos related disease; mesothelioma in February 2014. Bernard had been fighting this aggressive cancer since October 2012. This type of cancer is linked with past exposure to asbestos dust. Bernard was married to Diane and had been together for 30 years. His family are devastated and still trying to come to terms with his death. Bernard had two grown up sons from a previous marriage and three grandchildren. Before he was diagnosed with his fatal condition he enjoyed a very active retirement with hobbies of cycling and karate. Bernard remembered being exposed to asbestos whilst working for Kneels Laundry Services in Exeter where he had to drive the wagons to collect dusty overalls from Devonport Dockyard in Plymouth and other factories/ foundries. The overalls would have been contaminated with asbestos dust as this was in the mid 1970s. He remembered collecting piles of dusty overalls, shaking these out and putting them in the back of his wagon to take back to the Cowley Bridge Road Depot in Exeter. Once back at the depot, he put them in basket trolleys and put them in the lift to take them up to the sorting area. The overalls were laundered back at the Depot and Bernard went inside the large laundry room back at the Depot where there were commercial sized washing machines and dryers. The building was pulled down in the early 1980's. Shortly before his death Bernard told the Echo: "I remember collecting piles of dusty overalls, shaking these out and putting them in the back of his wagon to take back to the Cowley Bridge Road Depot in Exeter. Once back at the depot, we put them in basket trolleys and put them in the lift to take them up to the sorting area. "There was a lot of asbestos lagged pipework in this area. I could have been exposed to asbestos dust from the work overalls and asbestos inside the old building of the Kneels Depot. " Bernard's family have now insructed solicitor, Helen Grady of Novum Law, Plymouth to investigate this case and have been helping piece together details of his past exposure. She said: "This is a particularly sad case as it would appear that Bernard was exposed to asbestos back in the 1970's and this was at a time when the dangers of asbestos dust were well known. "Although compensation awards are very helpful for the families left behind, they do not change the fact that most people who contract mesothelioma will be aware that their condition is terminal. "Only research investment will change that, together with very strict adherence to health and safety rules relating to asbestos and its management. It is the case that 50,000 people are likely to die of the disease in the UK in the next 30 years and research investment plus strict adherence to health and safety rules is something we desperately need to prioritise." Diane is appealing for people to come forward who may remember the old building at the Cowley Bridge Road Depot. Former workers may also remember collecting dusty overalls and bring them back to the depot. ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG & Resolute OK'd to Join in Access Info Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Max O. Cagburn, Jr., of the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, issued an order dated May 12, 2014, granted Resolute Management, Inc.'s and the AIG Member Companies' motion to join Ford Motor Company's motion for withdrawal of the reference with respect to contested matters relating to access to sealed trial transcripts and evidence. Ford Motor sought access to trial transcripts and evidence filed in the Chapter 11 case of Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC. The case is FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GARLOCK SEALING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Defendant, DOCKET NO. 3:14-CV-00171-MOC (W.D.N.C.). A full-text copy of Judge Cagburn's Order is available at http://is.gd/rzyah6from Leagle.com. Ford Motor Company, Plaintiff, represented by E. Duncan Getchell, Jr., Esq. -- dgetchell@mcguirewoods.com -- Karen Elizabeth Sieg, Esq. -- bsieg@mcguirewoods.com -- Michael H. Brady, Esq. -- mbrady@mcguirewoods.com -- and Kirk Gibson Warner, Esq. -- kwarner@smithlaw.com -- at Smith Anderson. Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC, Defendant, represented by Garland Stuart Cassada, Esq. -- gcassada@rbh.com -- Jonathan C. Krisko, Esq. -- jkrisko@rbh.com -- and Richard Charles Worf, Jr., Esq. -- rworf@rbh.com -- at Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A.. Resolute Management, Inc., Movant, represented by Henry T. M. LeFevre-Snee, Esq. -- hlefevre-snee@hkmpp.com -- and John S. Favate, Esq., at Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto, P.A., and Jodi Danielle Hildebran, Esq. -- jhildebran@allmanspry.com -- Allman Spry Leggett & Crumpler, PA, and George Dudley Humphrey, III, Esq. -- ghumphrey@allmanspry.com -- at Allman Spry Davis Leggett & Crumpler, PA. AIU Insurance Company, Movant, represented by Henry T. M. LeFevre- Snee, Esq., and John S. Favate, Esq., at Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto, P.A., and Jodi Danielle Hildebran, Esq., and George Dudley Humphrey, III, Esq., at Allman Spry Davis Leggett & Crumpler, PA. American Home Assurance Company, Movant, represented by Henry T. M. LeFevre-Snee, Esq., and John S. Favate, Esq., at Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto P.A.; and Jodi Danielle Hildebran, Esq., and George Dudley Humphrey, III, Esq., at Allman Spry Davis Leggett & Crumpler, PA. Birmingham Fire Insurance Company of Pennsylvania, Movant, represented by Henry T. M. LeFevre-Snee, Esq., and John S. Favate, Esq., at Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto P.A.; and Jodi Danielle Hildebran, Esq., and George Dudley Humphrey, III, Esq., at Allman Spry Davis Leggett & Crumpler, PA. Granite State Insurance Company, Movant, represented by Henry T. M. LeFevre-Snee, Esq., and John S. Favate, Esq., at Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto P.A.; and Jodi Danielle Hildebran, Esq., and George Dudley Humphrey, III, Esq., at Allman Spry Davis Leggett & Crumpler, PA. Lexington Insurance Company, Movant, represented by Henry T. M. LeFevre-Snee, Esq., and John S. Favate, Esq., at Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto P.A.; and Jodi Danielle Hildebran, Esq., and George Dudley Humphrey, III, Esq., at Allman Spry Davis Leggett & Crumpler, PA. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., Movant, represented by Henry T. M. LeFevre-Snee, Esq., and John S. Favate, Esq., at Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto P.A.; and Jodi Danielle Hildebran, Esq., and George Dudley Humphrey, III, Esq., at Allman Spry Davis Leggett & Crumpler, PA. Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants, Movant, represented by Travis Waterbury Moon, Esq. -- tmoon@mwhattorneys.com -- at Moon Wright & Houston, PLLC & Trevor W. Swett, III, Esq. -- tswett@capdale.com -- at Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered. Honeywell International, Inc., Movant, represented by H. Lee Davis, Jr., Esq. -- ldavis@davisandhamrick.com -- at Davis & Hamrick, L.L.P., and Nava Hazan, Esq. -- nava.hazan@squiresanders.com -- at Squire & Sanders LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenn. High Court Flips Ruling in "Blackmon" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Delores Blackmon filed a lawsuit pursuant to the Federal Employers' Liability Act, alleging that her husband was exposed to toxic substances, including asbestos and other chemicals, during his employment with the Illinois Central Railroad Company and that that exposure led to his death from mesothelioma. The railroad filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the deceased employee had executed a release, when he settled previous litigation with the railroad, which served to bar the current litigation. The trial court granted the railroad's motion for summary judgment based on the release. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee, at Jackson, in an opinion dated May 16, 2014, reversed and remanded the lawsuit for further proceedings, holding that the limited record before the Court does not contain evidence sufficient to demonstrate, conclusively, that Mr. Blackmon understood that he was at risk of developing mesothelioma, or, in other words, that it was a risk known to him, at the time the release was signed. The only evidence Illinois Central has submitted on this issue is the boilerplate Release itself, which contains the terms "mesothelioma" and "asbestos" buried in a laundry list of other conditions and substances, the Court noted. "Evaluating releases under Section 5 of FELA is undeniably a fact- intensive process, and an assessment of the parties' intent at the time of agreement 'is an essential element of this inquiry,'" the Court said, citing Acuff, 950 So.2d at 960 (quoting Wicker, 142 F.3d at 700). Illinois Central has not submitted evidence demonstrating that the Plaintiff cannot prove the invalidity of the Release at trial or cannot prove that Mr. Blackmon was not aware of the risk of mesothelioma when he signed the release, the Court ruled. Therefore, the Court found that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Illinois Central based on the Release. The case is DELORES BLACKMON, Individually and as surviving spouse and personal representative of DOLPHUS H. BLACKMON v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, Individually and successor-in-interest to Gulf, Mobile & Ohio Railroad Company, and Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Company, ET AL., NO. W2013-01605-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. App.). A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated May 16, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/MnBycFfrom Leagle.com. Jimmy F. Rodgers, Jr., Esq., in Chattanooga, Tennessee; John E. ("Rett") Guerry, III, Esq., in Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina; Joe H. Byrd, Jr., Esq., in Jackson, Tennessee, for the appellants, Delores Blackmon, Individually and as surviving spouse and personal representative of Dolphus H. Blackmon. Thomas R. Peters, Esq., and Michael C. Hermann, Esq., in Belleville, Illinois; Brooks E. Kostakis, Esq., in Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellee, Illinois Central Railroad Company. ASBESTOS UPDATE: OSG PI Claimants Allowed to Proceed with Appeals ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Mary Pat Thynge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware recommended that certain appeals filed by asbestos claimants of Overseas Shipholding Group Inc., et al., be withdrawn from the mandatory referral for mediation and proceed through the appellate process of the District Court. The asbestos claimants filed appeals from orders by the bankruptcy court in Wilmington, Del., approving the OSG's omnibus objections to claims. The appeals are IN RE: Overseas Shipholding Group Inc. et al., relating to Asbestos Claimants, Appellants, v. Overseas Shipholding Group Inc., Appellee, C. A. NO. 14-103-GMS, BANKRUPTCY CASE NO. 12-20000, AP NO. 13-112; Asbestos Claimants, Appellants, v. Overseas Shipholding Group Inc., Appellee, C. A. NO. 14-104- GMS, BANKRUPTCY CASE NO. 12-20000, AP NO. 13-113; Asbestos Claimants, Appellants, v. Overseas Shipholding Group Inc., Appellee, C. A. NO. 14-106-GMS, BANKRUPTCY CASE NO. 12-20000, AP NO. 13-114; Asbestos Claimants, Appellants, v. Overseas Shipholding Group Inc., Appellee, C. A. NO. 14-107-GMS, BANKRUPTCY CASE NO. 12-20000, AP NO. 13-115; Asbestos Claimants, Appellants, v. Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc., et al., Appellees, C. A. NO. 14-480-GMS, BANKRUPTCY CASE NO. 12-20000, AP NO. 14-9; Asbestos Claimants, Appellants, v. Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc., et al., Appellees, C. A. NO. 14-481-GMS, BANKRUPTCY CASE NO. 12- 20000, AP NO. 14-10; Asbestos Claimants, Appellants, v. Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc., et al., Appellees, C. A. NO. 14-482-GMS, BANKRUPTCY CASE NO. 12-20000, AP NO. 14-11; Asbestos Claimants, Appellants, v. Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc., et al., Appellees, C. A. NO. 14-483-GMS, BANKRUPTCY CASE NO. 12-20000, AP NO. 14-12; Asbestos Claimants, Appellants, v. Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc., et al., Appellees, C. A. NO. 14-484-GMS, BANKRUPTCY CASE NO. 12-20000, AP NO. 14-13; Asbestos Claimants, Appellants, v. Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc., et al., Appellees, C. A. NO. 14-604, BANKRUPTCY CASE NO. 12-20000, AP NO. 14-14 (D. Del.). A full-text copy of the Recommendation dated May 14, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/szzr0kfrom Leagle.com. Overseas Shipholding Group Inc. et al, Debtor, represented by Derek C. Abbott, Esq. -- dabbott@mnat.com -- and Daniel Bryan Butz, Esq. -- dbutz@mnat.com -- at Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP. Asbestos Claimants, Appellant, represented by Kathleen M. Miller, Smith, Esq. -- kmiller@skjlaw.com -- at Katzenstein, & Jenkins LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Flips Ruling in Take-Home Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Johnny Blaine Kesner, Jr., appeals following the grant of a motion for nonsuit in favor of Pneumo Abex, LLC. Kesner's uncle was employed by Abex from 1973 to 2007. Kesner seeks to hold Abex liable for mesothelioma he contracted, allegedly due in part to his exposure, while present in his uncle's home, to friable asbestos that his uncle brought home from work on his clothing. In granting nonsuit in Abex's favor, the trial court, relying on the decision in Campbell v. Ford Motor Co. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 15 (Campbell), concluded that "Abex owed no duty to Kesner for any exposure to asbestos through contact with an employee of the Abex plant, . . . none of which exposures took place at or inside Abex's plant." In defending the ruling, Abex contends that "no duty is owed [by an employer] to family members of workers for take-home exposures." The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Three, in an opinion dated May 15, 2014, reversed the judgment, and said it does not believe that such a broad and unqualified limitation on an employer's duty accurately states the law. The Court accepted the premise that the prospect of "indeterminate liability" places a limitation on those to whom the duty of exercising reasonable care may extend but also recognized the difficulty in articulating the limits of that duty and the different conclusions that courts throughout the country have reached when considering claims for secondary exposure to toxics, particularly asbestos, emanating from the workplace. The duty of care undoubtedly does not extend to every person who comes into contact with an employer's workers, but the Court concluded that the duty runs at least to members of an employee's household who are likely to be affected by toxic materials brought home on the worker's clothing. While Kesner was not a member of his uncle's household in the normal sense, he was a frequent visitor, spending several nights a week in the home. After consideration of the factors specified in Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108 (Rowland), as instructed by the Supreme Court in Cabral v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 764 (Cabral), the Court concluded that the likelihood of causing harm to a person with such recurring and non-incidental contact with the employer's employee, in this case Kesner's uncle, is sufficient to bring Kesner within the scope of those to whom the employer, in this case Abex, owes the duty to take reasonable measures to avoid causing harm. The cases are JOHNNY BLAINE KESNER, JR., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, Respondent; PNEUMO ABEX LLC, Real Party in Interest, NO. A136378; and JOHNNY BLAINE KESNER, JR., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PNEUMO ABEX, LLC, Defendant and Respondent, NO. A136416 (Cal. App.). A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at http://is.gd/2Ym6aifrom Leagle.com. Benno Ashrafi, Esq., Cindy Saxey, Esq., Josiah Parker, Esq., Ted W. Pelletier, Esq., at WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C., Counsel for Appellant Johnny Blaine Kesner, Jr. Counsel for Real Party in Interest, Pneumo Abex LLC, is: Edward R. Hugo, Esq. James C. Parker, Esq. Jeffrey Kaufman, Esq. BRYDON HUGO & PARKER 135 Main Street, 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Don Willenburg, Esq. -- dwillenburg@gordonrees.com -- at GORDON & REES LLP, for Association of Defense Counsel of Northern California and Nevada; and Curt Cutting, Esq. -- ccutting@horvitzlevy.com -- and Steven Fleishman, Esq. -- sfleischman@horvitzlevy.com -- at HORVITZ & LEVY, LLC, for Association of Southern California Defense Counsel, Counsel as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Pneumo-Abex, LLC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ga. Court Affirms Judgment in "Fields" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In Georgia-Pacific, LLC v. Fields, 293 Ga. 499 (748 S.E.2d 407) (2013), the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals of Georgia in Division 1 (d) of Union Carbide Corp. v. Field, 315 Ga.App. 554 (726 S.E.2d 521) (2012), in which the Court of Appeals affirmed the partial grant of summary judgment to Rhonda and Gary Fields on the defense of nonparty fault as it pertained to Central Moloney, Inc., Nehring Electrical Works Co., Phelps Dodge Cable & Wire, Southern States LLC and Southwire Co. Consequently, the Court of Appeals vacated Division 1 (d) of its opinion in Union Carbide, supra, and in its place adopt the opinion of the Supreme Court as its own. The Supreme Court did not address or consider Divisions 1 (a)-(c) or Division 1 (e) of the Court of Appeals' earlier opinion, in which it concluded that the trial court properly granted partial summary judgment to the Fields on the defendants' nonparty defense as it pertained to Georgia Power Company, Ford Motor Company, Genuine Parts Co., Chrysler LLC, General Motors, Asbestos Corporation Ltd., Atlas Asbestos, Johnson Mines, Nicolet Industries and Pacific Asbestos. The Supreme Court also did not address or consider Division 2 of the earlier opinion in which the Court of Appeals held that a factual issue remained as to causation with regard to Mrs. Fields's exposure to Union Carbide's product. Since those portions of the earlier opinion are consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion, Divisions 1 (a)-(c), Division 1 (e) and Division 2 of the earlier opinion "become binding upon the return of the remittitur." Accordingly, the Court of Appeals, in a decision dated May 5, 2014, reversed the grant of partial summary judgment to the Fieldses on the defendants' nonparty defense as it pertained to Central Moloney, Inc., Nehring Electrical Works Co., Phelps Dodge Cable & Wire, Southern States LLC and Southwire Co. The Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of partial summary judgment to the Fieldses on the defendants' nonparty defense as it pertained to Georgia Power Co., Ford Motor Co., Genuine Parts Co., Chrysler LLC, General Motors, Asbestos Corp. Ltd., Atlas Asbestos, Johnson Mines, Nicolet Indus. and Pacific Asbestos. The case is UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION et al, v. RHONDA FIELDS et al., A11A2025 (Ga. App.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/xBPWhdfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4th Cir. Affirms Order in Colgate Exposure Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Colgate Palmolive Company appealed from a federal district court's denial of its motion to vacate an order remanding an exposure lawsuit, contending that it was error for the district court to rule that it did not have the authority to consider whether the plaintiffs' counsel committed misconduct and "whether such misconduct warrants relief from the Remand Orders." The case involves two defendants who separately sued Colgate and a variety of other companies in Maryland state court, asserting that each of the defendants' products had at some point exposed them to asbestos. With respect to Colgate, the plaintiffs' theory was that its "Cashmere Bouquet" line of powder makeup products contained unhealthy levels of asbestos and had thereby contributed to the plaintiffs' health problems. A three-judge panel in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit rejected Colgate's collateral attack on the remand orders and affirmed the district court's order insofar as it ruled that it lacked jurisdiction. The Fourth Court explained that the federal removal statute immunizes from review -- appellate or otherwise -- any order remanding to state court a case removed to federal court, with an exception for certain civil rights cases or suits against federal officers. In particular, the statute has been interpreted to "preclude review only of remands for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for defects in removal procedure." The Fourth Circuit emphasized that it is Congress' explicit direction to federal courts that an order remanding a case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction after it has been removed "is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise." The appellate cases are JOYCE BARLOW, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COLGATE PALMOLIVE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, and JOHN CRANE- HOUDAILLE, INCORPORATED; E.L. STEBBING & COMPANY, INC.; HAMPSHIRE INDUSTRIES, INC., f/k/a John H. Hampshire Company; UNIVERSAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY; J.H. FRANCE REFRACTORIES COMPANY; THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, f/k/a Kelly Springfield Tire Company; MCIC, INC., and its remaining Director Trustees, Robert I. McCormick, Elizabeth McCormick and Patricia Schunk; 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; METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY; CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, individually and as successor to Bestwall Gypsum Co.; KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC.; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, individually and as successor in interest to Champion International Corporation and U.S. Plywood Corp.; BAYER CROPSCIENCE, INC., individually and as successor in interest to Benjamin Foster Co., Amchem Products, Inc., H.B. Fuller Co., Aventis CropScience USA, Inc., Rhone-Poulenc AG Company, Inc., Rhone-Poulenc, Inc. and Rhodia, Inc.; COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC., individually and as successors in interest to Crouse Hinds Co.; PFIZER CORPORATION; SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC., f/k/a Square D Company, individually and as successor in interest to Electric Controller and Manufacturing Co.; GEORGIA-PACIFIC, LLC, individually and as successor to Bestwall Gypsum Co.; FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION; THE WALLACE & GALE ASBESTOS SETTLEMENT TRUST; CONWED CORPORATION; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; and GEORGIA PACIFIC CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Bestwall Gypsum Co., Defendants, NO. 13-1839; and CLARA G. MOSKO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COLGATE PALMOLIVE COMPANY, Defendant- Appellant, and JOHN CRANE-HOUDAILLE, INCORPORATED; E.L. STEBBING & CO., INCORPORATED; HAMPSHIRE INDUSTRIES, INC., f/k/a John H. Hampshire Company; UNIVERSAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY; J.H. FRANCE REFRACTORIES COMPANY; THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, f/k/a Kelly Springfield Tire Company; MCIC, INC., and its remaining Director Trustees, Robert I. McCormick, Elizabeth McCormick and Patricia Schunk; CBS CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation f/k/a Viacom, Inc.,f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation; METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY; CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, individually and as successor to Bestwall Gypsum Co.; KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC.; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, individually and as successor in interest to Champion International Corporation and U.S. Plywood Corp.; BAYER CROPSCIENCE, INC., individually and as successor in interest to Benjamin Foster, Co., Amchem Products, Inc., H.B. Fuller Co., Aventis Cropscience USA, Inc., Rhone-Poulenc AG Company, Inc., Rhone-Poulenc, Inc. and Rhodia, Inc.; COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC., individually and as successors in interest to Crouse Hinds Co.; PFIZER CORPORATION; SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC., f/k/a Square D Company, individually and as successor in interest to Electric Controller and Manufacturing Co.; FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION; THE WALLACE & GALE ASBESTOS SETTLEMENT TRUST; CONWED CORPORATION; GEORGIA-PACIFIC, LLC, individually and as successor to Bestwall Gypsum Co.; 3M COMPANY; MALLINCKRODT, INC.; CROWN, CORK & SEAL CO., INC.; KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.; WALTER E. CAMPBELL CO., INC.; KRAFFT-MURPHY COMPANY, individually and as successor to National Asbestos Company, a dissolved Delaware Corporation; AC&R INSULATION CO., INC.; COTY, INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON; LUZENAC AMERICA INC.; R.T. VANDERBILT COMPANY, INC.; BAYER CORPORATION, as successor in interest to Sterling Drug, Inc., and Sterling-Winthrop Inc.; and GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendants, NO. 13-1840 (4th Cir.). A full-text copy of the Fourth Circuit's decision dated April 30, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/2rm2Jofrom Leagle.com. William Balden Adams, Esq. -- williamadams@quinnemanuel.com -- at QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP, in New York, New York, argued for Appellant. Thomas P. Bernier, Esq. -- tbernier@smsm.com -- at SEGAL McCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY, in Baltimore, Maryland; and Faith E. Gay, Esq. -- faithgay@quinnemanuel.com -- at QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP, in New York, New York, filed the brief for Appellant. Jennifer Louise Lilly, Esq., at LAW OFFICES OF PETER G. ANGELOS, in Baltimore, Maryland, argued for Appellees. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleaver-Brooks Bid to Vacate NOI in Suits Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., moves to vacate the Note of Issue in three asbestos personal injury actions. The Plaintiffs oppose and cross-move for sanctions. Judge Sherry Klien Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, denied CB's motions to vacate in their entirety, finding that CB was in clear violation of the long-standing NYCAL rule that all discovery and trial-readiness disputes must be brought before the Special Master in the first instance, and, should the dispute continue, only then by petition to the court. Judge Heitler sternly warned CB to adhere to provisions of the Case Management Order in the NYCAL in order to avoid inconsistent rulings, waste of resources, and, importantly, sanctions. The cases are EDWARD L. DUL and GLORIA DUL, Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., et al., Defendants; CHARLES F. HILLYER, Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., et al., Defendants; JOHN MURRAY and MARY MURRAY, Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., et al., Defendants; DOCKET NO. 190571/12, NO. 190132/13., 190554/13, MOTION SEQ. 004, MOTION SEQ. 002 (N.Y. Sup.). A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision and Order dated April 25, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/sIdiMafrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Reverses Ruling in "Fields" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Two, in a decision dated April 29, 2014, reversed a trial court's judgment granting the motion for summary judgment filed by a defendant in an asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit, agreeing with the plaintiff's contention that the defendant did not meet its initial burden of production and that, even if it did meet that burden, he had produced evidence that established a triable issue of material fact. The case is DONALD FIELDS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent, NO. A136572 (Cal. App.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/f6CLvPfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling Denying Dependent Benefits Claim Affirmed ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, in a memorandum decision dated April 14, 2014, affirmed the decision of the Board of Review affirming the order of the Workers' Compensation Office of Judges. The Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator's decision denying a widow's request for dependent benefits relating to her husband's death, which allegedly was caused by exposure to asbestos while he was working for Alcan Rolled Products. The Supreme Court of Appeals found that the decision of the Board of Review is not in clear violation of any constitutional or statutory provision, nor is it clearly the result of erroneous conclusions of law, nor is it based upon a material misstatement or mischaracterization of the evidentiary record. The case is LOUISE FRANK, WIDOW OF CLARENCE S. FRANK (DECEASED), Claimant Below, Petitioner, v. ALCAN ROLLED PRODUCTS -- RAVENSWOOD, LLC, Employer Below, Respondent, No. 12-1247 (W. Va. App.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/7StZg5from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6th Cir. Keeps Ruling in Legal Malpractice Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Donna Frazier brought a suit against her former attorneys, alleging that they committed malpractice by mishandling claims pertaining to her husband's illness and death from mesothelioma. The district court concluded that Frazier's suit was time-barred under Tennessee's one-year limitations period for malpractice actions and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The sole question presented on appeal is whether Frazier suffered her alleged injuries more than one year before filing. Because the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit agreed with the district court that she did, it affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment. The case is DONNA FRAZIER, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Joseph Frazier, Plaintiff- Appellant, v. SIDNEY JACKSON; KEVIN GRAHAM; JACKSON, FOSTER & RICHARDSON, LLC, Successor in Interest Jackson, Foster & Graham; BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, PC; MICHAEL PADWAY; MICHAEL PADWAY & ASSOCIATES, Defendants-Appellees, NO. 13-6045 (6th Cir.). A full-text copy of the Opinion dated April 21, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/0F2f9Hfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appleton Denied Summary Judgment in NY PI Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, in a decision and order dated April 3, 2014, denied defendant Appleton Electric LLC's motion for summary judgment dismissing all claims and cross-claims asserted against it in the asbestos- related personal injury lawsuit styled STANLEY FRIEDMAN & PHYLLIS FRIEDMAN, Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., et al., Defendants, NO. 190187/12, MOTION SEQ. 008 (N.Y. Sup.)., after finding that there is material issue whether Appleton's fiber fillers actually contained asbestos. A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is available at http://is.gd/h3HlQ7from Leagle.com. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Ma. Cristina Canson, 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 * * *