/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140912.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, September 12, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 182 Headlines ADOBE SYSTEMS: Judge Trims Consolidated Data Breach Class Action ADOPT-A-HIGHWAY: Faces "Conti" Employment Suit in California AIRBNB INC: Faces Class Action in California Over Rent Hike ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Gets Favorable Ruling in 19 "Lights" Cases ALTRIA GROUP: No Trial Date Set Yet for Aspinall Suit in Mass. ALTRIA GROUP: Plaintiffs in "Brown" Appeals Cost Award to PM ALTRIA GROUP: Re-Trial of "More Dangerous" Claim in "Larsen" Set ALTRIA GROUP: Appeals Certification of "Miner" to Ark. High Court ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Appeals Reversal of Cert. Order in "Pearson" ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Faces Carroll Lawsuit as Lone Defendant ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Opposes Recusal Motion in "Price" Lawsuit ALTRIA GROUP: Summary Judgment in Tobacco Price Case Affirmed APPLE INC: "Breaking Bad"-Related Class Suit Can Move Forward ASHLEY FURNITURE: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Says BANK OF AMERICA: Conspired to Manipulate ISDAfix, Fund Claims BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Refuses to Dismiss CDS Conspiracy Claims BANK OF NEW YORK: Discriminates Against Black Males, Suit Claims BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: "Matte" Suit Included in Gold Futures MDL BASF CATALYSTS: Must Face Claims It Hid Evidence, 3rd Cir. Ruled BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Pesticides Caused Bee Deaths, Class Claims BIEWER LUMBER: Faces "Stolzenburg" Class Suit in E.D. Missouri BLOOMINGBURG, NY: Hasidic Jews Sue for Alleged Religious Bias CALIFORNIA: Amendments to Deals in Medi-Cal Cases Approved CHINA HOUSING: Accused of Being Taken Private at Unfair Price DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Food Servers' Wage Suit Can't Proceed DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Bellwether Hip Replacement Trial Begins DEL MONTE: Certification in Labeling Class Suit Denied ELI LILLY: Plaintiffs Move to Coordinate 27 Cymbalta Lawsuits ENZYMOTEC LTD: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action in N.J. FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action GAF MATERIALS: Accused of Selling Defective Cross Timbers Decking GENERAL MILLS: "Kellogg" Suit Moved From California to New Jersey GENERAL MILLS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Superfund Class Action GOOGLE INC: To Settle FTC Unfair-Billing Charges for $19 Million GREAT PLAINS COCA-COLA: To Pay Women $475K to Settle Bias Claims HOME DEPOT: Confirms Security Breach in U.S., Canadian Stores HOME DEPOT: Faces Suit Over Stored Communications Act Violations INTERMOUNTAIN MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Says LEVIN FURNITURE: Violates Disabilities Act, Class Suit Claims MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Class Action Over Sharp Chrome Defect Tossed MERCK & CO: Judge Allows Antitrust Class Action to Proceed MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: "Cutrone" Suit Transferred to E.D. New York NASHVILLE, TN: Discovery in 41-Year-Old Class Suit Must Proceed NATIONAL HOCKEY: "Fritsche" Trauma Suit Transferred to Minnesota NATIONAL OILWELL: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages NEVSUN RESOURCES: October 6 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set OVASCIENCE INC: Plaintiffs Re-Filed Shareholder Class Action PURDUE PHARMA: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Opioid Painkillers RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA: Inmates' Mental Health Care Suit Can Proceed TOWER GROUP: Consolidated Merger-Related Suit Discontinued TOWER GROUP: Defends Consolidated Securities Suit in New York TOYOTA MOTOR: Translator in Acceleration Suit Faces Sanctions UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Reverses Prior Ruling in Drivers Suit VERDASYS INC: October 21 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set WEBECO FOODS: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Suit Claims * Philly Favorable for Medical Malpractice Suits, Court Data Says Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. To Appeal $11-Mil. Garvin Judgment ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Appeal in "DeLisle" Suit Is Pending ASBESTOS UPDATE: $25MM Verdict Entered Against Crane in NY Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Resolved 103,000 Claims as of June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had $659-Mil. Fibro Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Has 2,225 Individual PI Claimants ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit v. 3M Co. Remains Pending in West Virginia ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Had $129MM Accruals for Fibro Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Estimates $24-Mil. Aearo Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair plc Units Had 2,300 Fibro Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair plc Estimates Fibro Liability at $253MM ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Has 1,087 PI Cases as of June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Inc. Has 17,500 Fibro Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Continues to Defend Insurance Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarners's Appeal in PI Suit Remains Pending ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Chemical Continues to Defend Fibro Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace To Pay $632-Mil. to End PI Trust Deal ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Subsidiaries Continue to Defend PI Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: CONSOL Energy Unit Has 6,900 Fibro Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Inc.'s Maremont Had 5,800 Fibro Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Has 2,800 Rockwell Claims at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pepco Unit Continues to Defend Take-Home Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Had 65,000 Fibro Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Had $443-Mil. Fibro Claims Reserves ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Had $408MM Insurance Receivables ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc.'s Hercules Had 21,000 Fibro Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland's Hercules Unit Had $333MM Reserves ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland's Hercules Had $77MM Fibro Receivables ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. High Court to Rule on Suit by Family ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Allows Plaintiff to Amend Complaint ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rule 5(c)(1)(B) Motion in PI Suit Granted ASBESTOS UPDATE: Weyerhaeuser Dropped as Defendant in PI Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duro Dyne's Bid to Junk "Proctor" Suit Denied ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Cos. Dropped as Defendant in 2 PI Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment in Pa. PI Suit Affirmed ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Smith" Suit Remanded to Missouri State Court ASBESTOS UPDATE: 16 Cos. Gets Summary Judgment in "Spells" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio High Court Flips Ruling in "Burkhart" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurers' Claims in "Lockett" Suit Dismissed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Court Grants Summary Judgment in PI Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio High Court Flips Ruling in "Renfrow" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Denies Bid to Remand "Ronquille" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Court Affirms Ruling in "Tucker" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3d Cir. Remands Class Suit v. BASF, Law Firm ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boeing Owed No Duty to Warn Ex-Worker's Wife ********* ADOBE SYSTEMS: Judge Trims Consolidated Data Breach Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kurt Orzeck, Sindhu Sundar and Beth Winegarner, writing for Law360, report that a California federal judge on Sept. 4 trimmed a consolidated class action accusing Adobe Systems Inc. of not protecting users' private information when hackers stole 3 million credit and debit card records, although she refused to dismiss the suit entirely. U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh partially granted Adobe's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief under the Customer Records Act, ruling that because they didn't claim to have suffered any incremental harm resulting from Adobe's alleged delay in notifying customers of the 2013 data breach, they hadn't linked any injury to Adobe. However, the judge dismissed the claim without prejudice, noting that "to require plaintiffs to wait until they actually suffer identity theft or credit card fraud in order to have standing would run counter to the well-established principle that harm need not have already occurred or be 'literally certain' in order to constitute injury-in-fact." Judge Koh also dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief under California's Unfair Competition Law in regards to two plaintiffs who bought licensed products directly from Adobe. She said they hadn't alleged that they spent more money on such products than they would have had they known the company wasn't providing a reasonable level of security. But the judge additionally ruled that the four other named plaintiffs, who subscribed to Adobe's products, had plausibly alleged that they relied to their detriment on Adobe's representations that the products were secure, and thus allowed their UCL injunction claim to go forward. She also denied Adobe's motion to dismiss a claim for declaratory relief and a UCL restitution claim. The suit, filed by customers of Adobe licensed products or Creative Cloud subscribers who provided Adobe with their personal information, took aim at Adobe's Oct. 3 disclosure that it didn't use proper security measures to guard sensitive personal information that also included users' email addresses and passwords. The suit also claimed that Adobe's original notice about the hacking lowballed the estimate of how many users were affected, and that the company later revealed on Oct. 29 that the breach was much bigger than it had originally stated, with closer to 38 million Adobe users affected. Adobe had argued that an increased risk of future harm as a result of the 2013 data breach isn't a cognizable injury for Article III standing purposes, but Judge Koh ruled on Thursday that plaintiffs' allegations of a concrete and imminent threat of future harm sufficiently established such standing at the pleadings stage. While Adobe had also claimed that its privacy policy stipulates that no security measure is fully effective and that the company can't guarantee the security of personal information, the judge found enough evidence showing a dispute over the meaning and scope of Adobe's contractual obligation to provide reasonable security measures. She thus allowed plaintiffs' claim seeking a declaration that Adobe's existing security measures don't comply with its contractual obligations. The judge also let stand plaintiffs' claim for restitution, in the form of unspecified equitable relief, on behalf of individuals who bought Adobe products including ColdFusion, a platform for developing Java-based Internet applications whose source code was copied by hackers. She ruled the company had a duty to disclose that its security practices were not on par with industry standards. Judge Koh gave the plaintiffs 30 days to file a second amended complaint curing the deficiencies she identified in the Sept. 4 order. Eric H. Gibbs -- ehg@GirardGibbs.com -- of Girard Gibbs LLP, which is representing the plaintiffs, told Law360 on Sept. 5 that they "think this is an important case, so we very much appreciate the court's hard work and look forward to prosecuting our clients' claims." Plaintiffs are represented by Eric H. Gibbs and Matthew B. George -- mbg@GirardGibbs.com -- of Girard Gibbs LLP. Adobe is represented by Kenneth l. Chernof -- Kenneth.Chernof@aporter.com -- Ronald D. Lee -- Ronald.Lee@aporter.com -- Tracy T. Lane and Rachel l. Chanin -- Rachel.Chanin@aporter.com -- of Arnold & Porter LLP. The case is In re: Adobe Systems Inc. Privacy Litigation, case number 5:13-cv-05226, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. ADOPT-A-HIGHWAY: Faces "Conti" Employment Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------ Michael Conti v. Adopt-A-Highway Maintenance Corporation, Case No. 30-2014-00742881-CU-OE-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty., August 29, 2014) arises from employment-related issues. According to Courthouse News Service, the Adopt-a-Highway Maintenance Corp. stiffs workers for overtime and violates other labor laws, citing a class action. AIRBNB INC: Faces Class Action in California Over Rent Hike ----------------------------------------------------------- Beth Winegarner and Natalie Rodriguez, writing for Law360, report that Airbnb Inc. was hit in California court on Sept. 3 with a proposed class action representing thousands of renters in San Francisco, claiming the room-finder website is driving up rents and making it tough for property owners to compete in the city's fierce rental market. The lawsuit, filed by two long-term tenants of a San Francisco residential hotel, accuses Airbnb of flouting city laws that forbid the rental of residential units for "tourist or transient use." Airbnb's site even mentions those laws but continues to offer rentals in San Francisco, according to Louis Gamache and Danielle McGee's complaint. By offering San Francisco apartments as hotel rooms, Airbnb is taking those units off the long-term rental market in a city already short of housing, according to the complaint. "The conversion of residential units into short-term rentals, used primarily by tourists, has removed rent controlled apartments from use and caused residential rents in San Francisco to rise because so many residential units are no longer available to long-term tenants," the complaint said. An estimated 5,000 San Francisco apartments are available for "illegal short-term rental," the complaint said. Mr. Gamache and Ms. McGee believe that the affected class of tenants in San Francisco could number in the thousands. Both plaintiffs live in San Francisco's Sheldon Hotel, a long-term residential hotel where Airbnb also rents units to tourists. That activity affects at least 300 residents in the Sheldon alone, the complaint said. The plaintiffs are seeking damages and an injunction barring Airbnb from renting San Francisco apartments illegally. The complaint accuses Airbnb of violating California's unfair competition law by illegally converting residential units for tourist use, which allegedly makes it more difficult for other property owners to compete. It also accuses the site of violating San Francisco's residential hotel conversion and demolition ordinance and its residential unit conversion and demolition ordinance. "We believe this is the first lawsuit ever on this important issue," plaintiffs' attorney Tyson Redenbarger of Hooshmand Law Group told Law360. "Airbnb is facilitating the short-term rental of rent-controlled units, thereby preventing the rental of those units to long-term tenants. This lawsuit will hopefully correct this issue and make available more units for long-term rental." The same day the lawsuit was filed, San Francisco Board of Supervisors President David Chiu introduced changes to proposed legislation that would regulate users of Airbnb and other home- sharing sites. The amended version of the legislation incorporates several recommendations made by the city's planning commission last month, including regulating single-family homes and strengthening enforcement, among other changes, according to a statement by Mr. Chiu. The changes were incorporated ahead of a Land Use Committee meeting on Sept. 15, where the proposal will again be considered. Currently, using home-sharing sites like Airbnb and VRBO is illegal under San Francisco rules unless the property is registered as an inn or bed and breakfast. Mr. Chiu's proposal looks to amend short-term rental rules to allow for the regulated use of home-sharing sites while still prohibiting the "hotelization" of residential housing. The plaintiffs are represented by Mark Hooshmand and Tyson Redenbarger of the Hooshmand Law Group. The case is Louis Gamache et al vs. Airbnb Inc. et al, case number CGC14541477, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco. ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Gets Favorable Ruling in 19 "Lights" Cases --------------------------------------------------------------- Eighteen courts in 19 "Lights" cases have refused to certify class actions, dismissed class action allegations, reversed prior class certification decisions or have entered judgment in favor of Philip Morris USA Inc., according to Altria Group, Inc.'s July 22, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. Trial courts in Arizona, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Tennessee, Washington and Wisconsin have refused to grant class certification or have dismissed plaintiffs' class action allegations. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed a case in Michigan after a trial court dismissed the claims plaintiffs asserted under the Michigan Unfair Trade and Consumer Protection Act. Several appellate courts have issued rulings that either affirmed rulings in favor of Altria Group, Inc. and/or PM USA or reversed rulings entered in favor of plaintiffs. In Florida, an intermediate appellate court overturned an order by a trial court that granted class certification in Hines. The Florida Supreme Court denied review in January 2008. The Supreme Court of Illinois has overturned a judgment that awarded damages to a certified class in the Price case. In Louisiana, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed a purported "Lights" class action brought in Louisiana federal court (Sullivan) on the grounds that plaintiffs' claims were preempted by the FCLAA. In New York, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned a decision by a New York trial court in Schwab that granted plaintiffs' motion for certification of a nationwide class of all U.S. residents that purchased cigarettes in the United States that were labeled "Light" or "Lights." In July 2010, plaintiffs in Schwab voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice. In Ohio, the Ohio Supreme Court overturned class certifications in the Marrone and Phillips cases. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed without prejudice both cases in August 2009, but refiled in federal court as the Phillips case. The Supreme Court of Washington denied a motion for interlocutory review filed by the plaintiffs in the Davies case that sought review of an order by the trial court that refused to certify a class. Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed the Davies case with prejudice. In August 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the Illinois federal district court's dismissal of "Lights" claims brought against PM USA in the Cleary case. In Curtis, a certified class action, in May 2012, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of PM USA, concluding this litigation. In Lawrence, in August 2012, the New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed the trial court's order to certify a class and subsequently denied plaintiffs' rehearing petition. In October 2012, the case was dismissed after plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the case with prejudice, concluding this litigation. ALTRIA GROUP: No Trial Date Set Yet for Aspinall Suit in Mass. -------------------------------------------------------------- No trial date has been set for the certified class action Aspinall, filed against Philip Morris USA Inc. in Massachusetts, according to Altria Group, Inc.'s July 22, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. State trial courts have certified classes against PM USA in several jurisdictions. Over time, several such cases have been dismissed by the courts at the summary judgment stage. Certified class actions remain pending at the trial or appellate level in California (Brown), Massachusetts (Aspinall), Missouri (Larsen) and Arkansas (Miner). Significant developments in these cases include: Aspinall: In August 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the class certification order. In August 2006, the trial court denied PM USA's motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on the defenses of federal preemption and a state law exemption to Massachusetts' consumer protection statute. On motion of the parties, the trial court subsequently reported its decision to deny summary judgment to the appeals court for review and stayed further proceedings pending completion of the appellate review. In March 2009, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order denying summary judgment to PM USA and granting the plaintiffs' cross- motion. In January 2010, plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment as to liability claiming collateral estoppel from the findings in the case brought by the Department of Justice. In March 2012, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion. In February 2013, the trial court, upon agreement of the parties, dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs' claims against Altria Group, Inc. PM USA is now the sole defendant in the case. In September 2013, the case was transferred to the Business Litigation Session of the Massachusetts Superior Court. Also in September 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the scope of remedies available in the case, which the Massachusetts Superior Court denied in February 2014, concluding that plaintiffs cannot obtain disgorgement of profits as an equitable remedy and that their recovery is limited to actual damages or $25 per class member if they cannot prove actual damages greater than $25. Plaintiffs filed a motion asking the trial court to report its February 2014 ruling to the Massachusetts Appeals Court for review, which the trial court denied. In March 2014, plaintiffs petitioned the Massachusetts Appeals Court for review of the ruling, which the appellate court denied. No trial date has been set. ALTRIA GROUP: Plaintiffs in "Brown" Appeals Cost Award to PM ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs in the Brown lawsuit against Philip Morris USA Inc. is appealing the cost award of $764,553 to PM USA, according to Altria Group, Inc.'s July 22, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. State trial courts have certified classes against PM USA in several jurisdictions. Over time, several such cases have been dismissed by the courts at the summary judgment stage. Certified class actions remain pending at the trial or appellate level in California (Brown), Massachusetts (Aspinall), Missouri (Larsen) and Arkansas (Miner). Significant developments in these cases include: Brown: In June 1997, plaintiffs filed suit in California state court alleging that domestic cigarette manufacturers, including PM USA and others, violated California law regarding unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business practices. In May 2009, the California Supreme Court reversed an earlier trial court decision that decertified the class and remanded the case to the trial court. At that time, the class consisted of individuals who, at the time they were residents of California, (i) smoked in California one or more cigarettes manufactured by PM USA that were labeled and/or advertised with the terms or phrases "light," "medium," "mild," "low tar," and/or "lowered tar and nicotine," but not including any cigarettes labeled or advertised with the terms or phrases "ultra light" or "ultra low tar," and (ii) who were exposed to defendant's marketing and advertising activities in California. Plaintiffs are seeking restitution of a portion of the costs of "light" cigarettes purchased during the class period and injunctive relief ordering corrective communications. In September 2012, at the plaintiffs' request, the trial court dismissed all defendants except PM USA from the lawsuit. Trial began in April 2013. In May 2013 the plaintiffs redefined the class to include California residents who smoked in California one or more of defendant's Marlboro Lights cigarettes between January 1, 1998 and April 23, 2001, and who were exposed to defendant's marketing and advertising activities in California. In June 2013, PM USA filed a motion to decertify the class. Trial concluded in July 2013. In September 2013, the court issued a final Statement of Decision, in which the court found that PM USA violated California law, but that plaintiffs had not established a basis for relief. On this basis, the court granted judgment for PM USA. The court also denied PM USA's motion to decertify the class. In October 2013, the court entered final judgment in favor of PM USA. In November 2013, plaintiffs moved for a new trial, which the court denied. In December 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and PM USA filed a conditional cross-appeal. In February 2014, the trial court awarded PM USA $764,553 in costs. Also in February 2014, plaintiffs appealed the costs award. ALTRIA GROUP: Re-Trial of "More Dangerous" Claim in "Larsen" Set ---------------------------------------------------------------- The trial court handling the Larsen suit against Philip Morris USA Inc. has set alternative dates for a re-trial of plaintiffs' "more dangerous" claim in 2005, according to Altria Group, Inc.'s July 22, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. State trial courts have certified classes against PM USA in several jurisdictions. Over time, several such cases have been dismissed by the courts at the summary judgment stage. Certified class actions remain pending at the trial or appellate level in California (Brown), Massachusetts (Aspinall), Missouri (Larsen) and Arkansas (Miner). Significant developments in these cases include: Larsen: In August 2005, a Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the class certification order. In December 2009, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the period during which potential class members can qualify to become part of the class. The class period remains 1995 - 2003. In June 2010, PM USA's motion for partial summary judgment regarding plaintiffs' request for punitive damages was denied. In April 2010, plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment as to an element of liability in the case, claiming collateral estoppel from the findings in the case brought by the Department of Justice. The plaintiffs' motion was denied in December 2010. In June 2011, PM USA filed various summary judgment motions challenging the plaintiffs' claims. In August 2011, the trial court granted PM USA's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that plaintiffs could not present a damages claim based on allegations that Marlboro Lights are more dangerous than Marlboro Reds. The trial court denied PM USA's remaining summary judgment motions. Trial in the case began in September 2011 and, in October 2011, the court declared a mistrial after the jury failed to reach a verdict. In January 2014, the trial court reversed its prior ruling granting partial summary judgment against plaintiffs' "more dangerous" claim and allowed plaintiffs to pursue that claim. The trial court has set alternative dates for the re-trial, with one possible date being January 20, 2015 and the other being March 16, 2015. ALTRIA GROUP: Appeals Certification of "Miner" to Ark. High Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- Philip Morris USA Inc. is appealing the class certification ruling in Miner suit to the Arkansas Supreme Court, according to Altria Group, Inc.'s July 22, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. State trial courts have certified classes against PM USA in several jurisdictions. Over time, several such cases have been dismissed by the courts at the summary judgment stage. Certified class actions remain pending at the trial or appellate level in California (Brown), Massachusetts (Aspinall), Missouri (Larsen) and Arkansas (Miner). Significant developments in these cases include: Miner: In June 2007, the United States Supreme Court reversed the lower court rulings in Miner (formerly known as Watson) that denied plaintiffs' motion to have the case heard in a state, as opposed to federal, trial court. The Supreme Court rejected defendants' contention that the case must be tried in federal court under the "federal officer" statute. Following remand, the case was removed again to federal court in Arkansas and transferred to the MDL proceeding. In November 2010, the district court in the MDL proceeding remanded the case to Arkansas state court. In December 2011, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against Altria Group, Inc. without prejudice. In March 2013, plaintiffs filed a class certification motion. In November 2013, the trial court granted class certification. The certified class includes those individuals who, from November 1, 1971 through June 22, 2010, purchased Marlboro Lights, including Marlboro Ultra Lights, for personal consumption in Arkansas. PM USA filed a notice of appeal of the class certification ruling to the Arkansas Supreme Court in December 2013. ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Appeals Reversal of Cert. Order in "Pearson" ----------------------------------------------------------------- Philip Morris USA Inc. is appealing the reversal of an order that denied class certification to the Pearson suit filed against it in Oregon, according to Altria Group, Inc.'s July 22, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. State trial courts have certified classes against PM USA in several jurisdictions. Over time, several such cases have been dismissed by the courts at the summary judgment stage. Certified class actions remain pending at the trial or appellate level in California (Brown), Massachusetts (Aspinall), Missouri (Larsen) and Arkansas (Miner). Significant developments in these cases include: In Oregon (Pearson), a state court denied plaintiffs' motion for interlocutory review of the trial court's refusal to certify a class. In February 2007, PM USA filed a motion for summary judgment based on federal preemption and the Oregon statutory exemption. In September 2007, the district court granted PM USA's motion based on express preemption under the FCLAA, and plaintiffs appealed this dismissal and the class certification denial to the Oregon Court of Appeals. Argument was held in April 2010. In June 2013, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's denial of class certification and remanded to the trial court for further consideration of class certification. In July 2013, PM USA filed a petition for reconsideration with the Oregon Court of Appeals, which was denied in August 2013. PM USA filed its petition for review to the Oregon Supreme Court in October 2013, which the court accepted in January 2014. Oral argument occurred on June 23, 2014. ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Faces Carroll Lawsuit as Lone Defendant ------------------------------------------------------------ Philip Morris USA Inc. is now the sole defendant in the Carroll case (formerly known as Holmes) pending in Delaware, according to Altria Group, Inc.'s July 22, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. State trial courts have certified classes against PM USA in several jurisdictions. Over time, several such cases have been dismissed by the courts at the summary judgment stage. Certified class actions remain pending at the trial or appellate level in California (Brown), Massachusetts (Aspinall), Missouri (Larsen) and Arkansas (Miner). Significant developments in these cases include: In December 2009, the state trial court in Carroll (formerly known as Holmes) (pending in Delaware) denied PM USA's motion for summary judgment based on an exemption provision in the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act. In January 2011, the trial court allowed the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint substituting class representatives and naming Altria Group, Inc. and PMI as additional defendants. In July 2011, the parties stipulated to the dismissal without prejudice of Altria Group, Inc. and PMI. In February 2013, the trial court approved the parties' stipulation to the dismissal without prejudice of Altria Group, Inc. and PMI, leaving PM USA as the sole defendant in the case. ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Opposes Recusal Motion in "Price" Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Philip Morris USA Inc. is opposing a motion seeking recusal of Justice Karmeier, one of the Illinois Supreme Court justices, in the Price suit, according to Altria Group, Inc.'s July 22, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. Trial in Price commenced in state court in Illinois in January 2003 and, in March 2003, the judge found in favor of the plaintiff class and awarded $7.1 billion in compensatory damages and $3.0 billion in punitive damages against PM USA. In December 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. In November 2006, the United States Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' petition for writ of certiorari and, in December 2006, the Circuit Court of Madison County enforced the Illinois Supreme Court's mandate and dismissed the case with prejudice. In December 2008, plaintiffs filed with the trial court a petition for relief from the final judgment that was entered in favor of PM USA. Specifically, plaintiffs sought to vacate the judgment entered by the trial court on remand from the 2005 Illinois Supreme Court decision overturning the verdict on the ground that the United States Supreme Court's December 2008 decision in Good demonstrated that the Illinois Supreme Court's decision was "inaccurate." PM USA filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' petition and, in February 2009, the trial court granted PM USA's motion on the basis that the petition was not timely filed. In March 2009, the Price plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Fifth Judicial District of the Appellate Court of Illinois. In February 2011, the intermediate appellate court ruled that the petition was timely filed and reversed the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' petition and, in September 2011, the Illinois Supreme Court declined PM USA's petition for review. As a result, the case was returned to the trial court for proceedings on whether the court should grant the plaintiffs' petition to reopen the prior judgment. In February 2012, plaintiffs filed an amended petition, which PM USA opposed. Subsequently, in responding to PM USA's opposition to the amended petition, plaintiffs asked the trial court to reinstate the original judgment. The trial court denied plaintiffs' petition in December 2012. In January 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Fifth Judicial District. In January 2013, PM USA filed a motion asking the Illinois Supreme Court to immediately exercise its jurisdiction over the appeal. In February 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court denied PM USA's motion. Oral argument on plaintiffs' appeal to the Fifth Judicial District was heard in October 2013. On April 29, 2014, the Fifth Judicial District reversed and ordered reinstatement of the original $10.1 billion trial court judgment against PM USA. On May 12, 2014, PM USA filed in the Illinois Supreme Court a petition for a supervisory order and a petition for leave to appeal. The filing of the petition for leave to appeal automatically stayed the Fifth District's mandate pending disposition by the Illinois Supreme Court. On May 28, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion seeking recusal of Justice Karmeier, one of the Illinois Supreme Court justices, which PM USA opposed. ALTRIA GROUP: Summary Judgment in Tobacco Price Case Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Kansas affirmed the entry of summary judgment in favor of defendants in the (Smith) suit filed against Philip Morris USA Inc., according to Altria Group, Inc.'s July 22, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. One case remains pending in Kansas (Smith) in which plaintiffs allege that defendants, including PM USA and Altria Group, Inc., conspired to fix cigarette prices in violation of antitrust laws. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted. In March 2012, the trial court granted defendants' motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs sought the trial court's reconsideration of its decision, but in June 2012, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. Plaintiffs have appealed the decision, and defendants have cross-appealed the trial court's class certification decision, to the Court of Appeals of Kansas. On July 18, 2014, the Court of Appeals affirmed the entry of summary judgment in favor of defendants. APPLE INC: "Breaking Bad"-Related Class Suit Can Move Forward ------------------------------------------------------------- "Breaking Bad" fans can move forward with a class action over the way Apple sold the show's final season on iTunes, reports Elizabeth Warmerdam at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling. Apple sold customers a "Season Pass" on iTunes for the final season of the hit AMC show, which was advertised as including all current and future episodes of Season 5. The alleged one-time cost was $21.99 for high definition and $13.99 for standard definition, lead plaintiff Noam Lazebnik said in the lawsuit. Apple nevertheless then decided to break up the last season in half and charged customers who had already purchased the season pass another $22.99 or $14.99 for access to the second half, Lazebnik said. Lazebnik's son-in-law, Jeremy Tor, contacted Apple to complain that Lazebnik should not have to pay more money for access to the second half of Season 5. Apple allegedly informed Tor that it considered the second half Season 5 to be a different season and that Lazebnik would have to pay if he wanted to watch the remaining episodes. Lazebnik's lawsuit against Apple alleges breach of contract and violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and Unfair Competition Law (UCL). Apple sought to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing, noting that it was Tor, not Lazebnik, who completed the transaction of purchasing "Breaking Bad" on iTunes using Lazebnik's credit card. It was also Tor, not Lazebnik, who read and relied upon the company's alleged misrepresentations regarding the Season Pass, the company said. U.S. District Court Judge Edward Davila rejected Apple's motion on Aug. 29, finding it reasonable to infer that Lazebnik gave Tor permission to use his credit card, particularly considering the fact that the complaint states that Tor related Apple's statements regarding the Season Pass to Lazebnik prior to the purchase. Whether Lazebnik was actually "exposed" to any statements made by Apple "appears to be a question of fact not suitable for adjudication at this stage of litigation," the ruling states. "A jury could reasonably find that defendant had reason to expect that its representations would be transmitted to others, particularly in the case of statements made to a wide audience such as iTunes users," Davila added. In a partial victory for Apple, Davila did dismissed Lazebnik's contract and CLRMA claims. Although Lazebnik said his credit card was used to purchase the Season Pass, he did not produce any evidence of a contract. The CLMRA claim fails because the Season Pass is either software or a license, but not a "tangible chattel" or "good" within the meaning of the act. Lazebnik's UCL claim will advance, however, despite Apple's contention that Lazebnik did not allege that Apple made any explicit promises that purchasers of the Season 5 Season Pass would be entitled to "all 16 episodes" of the season. Apple also argued that a reasonable consumer would not believe that he would receive 16 episodes for the price of $21.99. Davila pointed out that Apple's advertisement for the Season Pass did not include any explicit statement that consumers would only be provided with eight episodes rather than 16. It advertised it as "every episode in [Season 5] and at a better price than if you were to purchase it one at a time." "Furthermore, the complaint cites a number of examples of consumer complaints posted on a discussion board on defendant's website in which consumers appear to have believed their Season Pass purchase would include all 16 episodes of Season 5," Davila wrote. Davila also rejected Apple's argument that it was AMC that chose to market the last 16 episodes of Breaking Bad as Season 5 and thus should be responsible for Lazebnik's injury. "The test is whether defendant's representations were likely to deceive a reasonable consumer. Whether the likelihood of deception arose because of AMC's conduct or defendant's conduct is not relevant to this inquiry," Davila wrote. The case is Dr. Noam Lazebnik, M.D., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 5:13-CV-04145- EJD, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. ASHLEY FURNITURE: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Ismael Salam, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation, and Ashley Homestores, Ltd., a Wisconsin limited company, Case No. 1:14-cv-06937 (N.D. Ill., September 8, 2014) alleges that in an effort to market their products and services, the Defendants sent unsolicited text messages to the wireless telephones of the Plaintiff and each of the members of the Class without prior express written consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Ashley Furniture is a Wisconsin corporation headquartered in Arcadia, Wisconsin. Ashley Homestores is a Wisconsin limited company also headquartered in Arcadia. Ashley Furniture is the largest manufacturer of furniture in the world, with manufacturing and distribution facilities in Wisconsin, Mississippi, California, Pennsylvania, Florida, China, and Vietnam. Ashley Furniture sells its products primarily through Ashley Homestores' approximately 500 retail furniture locations, which are owned and operated by licensees in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Central America, and Japan. The Plaintiff is represented by: Katrina Carroll, Esq. Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC 211 West Wacker Drive, Suite 500 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 750-1265 E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com kshamberg@litedepalma.com BANK OF AMERICA: Conspired to Manipulate ISDAfix, Fund Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Alaska Electrical Pension Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Bank of America Corporation; Barclays Bank PLC; BNP Paribas SA; Citigroup Inc.; Credit Suisse AG; Deutsche Bank AG; Goldman, Sachs & Co.; HSBC Bank PLC; ICAP PLC; J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.; Nomura Holdings Inc.; Royal Bank of Scotland PLC; UBS AG; and Wells Fargo & Co., Case No. 1:14-cv-07126-JMF (S.D.N.Y., September 4, 2014) alleges that the Defendants conspired to manipulate ISDAfix. The "ISDAfix" benchmark rate is one of the more important benchmarks in the U.S. financial system. ISDAfix is a key interest rate for a broad range of interest rate derivatives and other financial instruments. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant Banks entered into an overarching agreement that, when any subset of banks faced particular exposure to the settlement of an ISDAfix-linked transaction on a certain day, the other banks and ICAP would help manipulate USD ISDAfix rates to a level that would help that subset of banks (while hurting their customers). The Plaintiff argues that the Defendants' manipulation of ISDAfix -- even if sometimes only by a few basis points -- impacted trillions of dollars of financial instruments. Alaska Electrical Pension Fund is a pension fund that transacted with one or more Defendant Banks in interest rate derivatives that were tied to or directly affected by ISDAfix. Bank of America Corporation is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. During the Class Period, Bank of America and the other Defendant Banks were allegedly involved in and contributed to the setting of the ISDAfix rate, and transacted in interest rate derivatives with members of the proposed class. ICAP PLC is a company organized under English law, with its principal place of business in London, England, and a branch location in Jersey City, New Jersey. During the Class Period and until January 26, 2014, ICAP served as the administrator for the setting of the USD ISDAfix rate and as a broker for billions, if not trillions, of dollars of interest rate derivative transactions. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel L. Brockett, Esq. Daniel Cunningham, Esq. Marc L. Greenwald, Esq. Steig D. Olson, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10010-1601 Telephone: (212) 849-7000 Facsimile: (212) 849-7100 E-mail: danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com danielcunningham@quinnemanuel.com marcgreenwald@quinnemanuel.com steigolson@quinnemanuel.com - and - Patrick Coughlin, Esq. David Mitchell, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: patc@rgrdlaw.com davidm@rgrdlaw.com - and - Christopher M. Burke, Esq. Sylvia M. Sokol, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP The Chrysler Building 405 Lexington Ave, 40th Floor New York, NY 10174-4099 Telephone: (800) 404-7770 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: cburke@scott-scott.com ssokol@scott-scott.com - and - Stanley D. Bernstein, Esq. Ronald J. Aronoff, Esq. BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP 10 East 40th Street, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 779-1414 Facsimile: (212) 779-3218 E-mail: bernstein@bernlieb.com Aranoff@bernlieb.com BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Refuses to Dismiss CDS Conspiracy Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- David Bario, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan faced heavy opposition in its bid to lead a multibillion-dollar class action accusing a dozen major investment banks of manipulating the market for credit default swaps. Not only were other plaintiffs lawyers vying to spearhead the case, but Simpson Thacher & Bartlett attempted to disqualify the firm over alleged conflicts. As The Litigation Daily reported, Quinn Emanuel emerged victorious from the scrum late last year when a judge in Manhattan appointed the firm lead counsel. Now partner Daniel Brockett and his cocounsel at Pearson, Simon & Warshaw have proven their mettle in an early standoff with the defendants. In a 49-page decision issued on Sept. 4, U.S. District Judge Denise Cote refused to dismiss allegations that the banks secretly conspired to keep a stranglehold on the CDS market, thwarting ventures to increase price transparency and costing billions of dollars to institutional investors that purchased and traded swaps between fall 2008 and the end of last year. Judge Cote green- lighted claims that the banks violated state unjust enrichment laws and Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. She agreed to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, however, and she tossed damages claims related to CDS sales in early 2008. The ruling also applies to two alleged coconspirators: the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, a financial trade association for derivatives dealers, and Markit Group Holdings Ltd., a private price data provider responsible for key CDS indexes. Among other things, the defendants argued in their motions to dismiss that the plaintiffs lacked antitrust standing, that the Dodd-Frank Act blocks antitrust claims related to conduct after July 2011, and that their actions could be explained as rational, noncollusive responses to the pressures of the financial crisis. Judge Cote rejected each of those defenses in turn on Sept. 4. "The financial crisis hardly explains the alleged secret meetings and coordinated actions" among the defendants, she wrote. Quinn Emanuel's Brockett said he was "gratified" by the ruling and looking forward to discovery, where the plaintiffs will be able to piggyback on a parallel, ongoing European regulatory matter. "It's an important victory," said Mr. Brockett, adding that the surviving Sherman Act claim had always been the core of the case. The roster of defense firms listed on the Sept. 4 decision runs to five pages and features some of Wall Street's most formidable advocates. The lineup includes: Davis Polk & Wardwell (for Bank of America Corporation); Allen & Overy (for Barclays Bank Plc and BNP Paribas); Sidley Austin (for Citigroup Inc.); Hogan Lovells (for Credit Suisse AG); Jones Day (for Deutsche Bank AG); Sullivan & Cromwell and Winston & Strawn (for Goldman Sachs & Co.); Mayer Brown (for HSBC Bank Plc); Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (for JPMorgan Chase & Co.); Cravath, Swaine & Moore (for Morgan Stanley & Co.); Katten Muchin Rosenman (for UBS AG); Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft (for Royal Bank of Scotland NV); Simpson Thacher & Bartlett (for ISDA); and Proskauer Rose (for Markit). BANK OF NEW YORK: Discriminates Against Black Males, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Thomas v. The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation and Stephen Rehm, Case No. 1:14-cv-07229-KBF (S.D.N.Y., September 8, 2014) alleges that BNY Mellon treats African American/black males and particularly the Plaintiff differently, less favorably, unfairly, disparately and disproportionately to similarly situated Caucasian/white males by terminating black males, who have been given a work performance improvement plan ("PIP") and not terminating white males, who have been given a PIP. Jeffrey Thomas is a male black of African-American descent and a resident of New York County, state of New York. The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation is a financial services and bank holding company that provides financial services to corporations, institutions and private clients. BNY Mellon is a wholly owned subsidiary of BNY Mellon Corporation. Stephen Rehm, a male Caucasian/white, was one of the managers in the Broker Dealer Outsourcing Department of the Bank. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory G. Smith, Esq. GREGORY SMITH & ASSOCIATES 225 Broadway, Suite 3601 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 267-2042 Facsimile: (212) 267-2048 E-mail: gsmith225@aol.com BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: "Matte" Suit Included in Gold Futures MDL -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Matte v. Bank of Nova Scotia, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-02541, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-07235-VEC to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the litigation captioned In Re: Commodity Exchange, Inc., Gold Futures and Options Trading Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-md-02548-VEC. The antitrust litigation arises from allegations that the Defendant Banks conspired to manipulate the prices of gold and gold derivatives through their ownership and control of the London Gold Market Fixing Ltd. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph J. DePalma, Esq. LITE, DEPALMA, GREENBERG & RIVAS, L.L.C. Two Gateway Center, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 Facsimile: (973) 623-0858 E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com BASF CATALYSTS: Must Face Claims It Hid Evidence, 3rd Cir. Ruled ---------------------------------------------------------------- BASF Catalysts and its attorneys must face claims that they fraudulently concealed evidence that the company's talc products contained asbestos, forcing many asbestos victims to dismiss or settle their tort claims, reports Lorraine Bailey at Courthouse News Service, citing a 3rd Circuit ruling. BASF Catalysts is successor to Engelhard Corp., which made talc products containing asbestos. When Engelhard discovered the asbestos, rather than face the consequences, it enlisted the services of law firm Cahill, Gordon & Reindel to collect the tests and reports proving the presence of asbestos in Engelhard talc and destroy or hide them, according to the court's summary. Then, when victims brought tort actions against Engelhard for asbestos exposure, the company defended itself by asserting that no tests had ever affirmed that its talc contained asbestos. The scheme collapsed in a recent lawsuit when a former research chemist for Engelhard testified that he had discovered asbestos in the company's talc many years ago, and had been instructed to turn over all of his talc-related records. This testimony triggered discovery of potentially concealed documents, of which many were found kept secretly in a Cahill storage facility. Plaintiffs, primarily relatives of victims who died of asbestos- related diseases, say the scheme outlived most of the people exposed to Engelhard's asbestos, and robbed victims of a fair judgment on their claims. They seek a declaration that BASF and Cahill committed fraud, and an injunction against the defendants' future invocation of res judicata based on past state court judgments. A federal judge found entirely for the defendants, but the 3rd Circuit revived plaintiffs' fraud claims on September 3, 2014. "We conclude that the District Court erred when it dismissed the fraud and fraudulent concealment claims. The amended class action complaint properly alleges the elements of fraud and fraudulent concealment -- namely that BASF and Cahill lied about and destroyed the asbestos evidence to plaintiffs' detriment. Neither the New Jersey litigation privilege nor pleading requirements stand in the way of these claims," Judge Julio Fuentes wrote for the three-judge panel. While plaintiffs may not have believed defendants' assertions that the product did not contain asbestos, there is no doubt that their cases "would have been much stronger if [they] had evidence that BASF's products contained asbestos," and would have saved significant litigation expenses by having that evidence, the court found. Fuentes also reinstated the plaintiffs' requests for injunctive and declarative relief, dismissing defendants' arguments that injunctive relief would violate the Anti-Injunction Act. However, the court found it premature to make a ruling on any particular legal defense that defendants might make if plaintiffs seek to reopen state cases. "Although the parties certainly have adverse interests on these matters, an injunction or declaration about future legal defenses [such as res judicata] would not provide a conclusive resolution of an existing controversy. The issues are, therefore, unripe," Fuentes wrote. The Appellants are represented by: Michael Coren, Esq, Harry M. Roth, Esq. COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C. 2001 Market Street Two Commerce Square, Suite 2900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 567-3500 Toll Free: (888) 375-7600 Facsimile: (215) 567-6019 E-mail: HRoth@cprlaw.com mcoren@cprlaw.com - and - Christopher M. Placitella, Esq. COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C. 127 Maple Avenue Red Bank, N.J. 07701 Telephone: (732) 747-9003 Toll Free: (888) 375-7600 Facsimile: (732) 747-9004 E-mail: cplacitella@cprlaw.com - and - Jeffrey M. Pollock, Esq. FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP Princeton Pike Corp. Center 997 Lennox Drive Princeton Pike Corporate Center, Building 3 Lawrenceville, N.J. 08648 Telephone: (609) 896-3600 Facsimile: (609) 896-1469 E-mail: jmpollock@foxrothschild.com Appellee BASF Catalysts LLC is represented by: Stephen M. Orlofsky, Esq. David C. Kistler, Esq. BLANK ROME LLP 301 Carnegie Center, 3rd Floor Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (609) 750-7700 Facsimile: (609) 750-7701 E-mail: Orlofsky@BlankRome.com Kistler@BlankRome.com - and - Eugene F. Assaf, Esq. Daniel A. Bress, Esq. Peter A. Farrell, Esq. Michael F. Williams, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 655 Fifteenth Street, N.W., Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 879-5000 Facsimile: (202) 879-5200 E-mail: eugene.assaf@kirkland.com daniel.bress@kirkland.com peter.farrell@kirkland.com michael.williams@kirkland.com Appellees Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Howard G. Sloane, Ira J. Dembrow, and Scott A. Martin are represented by: Robert E. Ryan, Esq. Marc D. Haefner, Esq, Craig S. Demareski, Esq. CONNELL FOLEY LLP 85 Livingston Avenue Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 535-0500 Facsimile: (973) 535-9217 E-mail: rryan@connellfoley.com mhaefner@connellfoley.com cdemareski@connellfoley.com - and - John K. Villa, Esq. David S. Blatt, Esq. Kannon K. Shanmugam, Esq, Matthew B. Nicholson, Esq. Richard A. Olderman, Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP 725 Twelfth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 434-5000 Facsimile: (202) 434-5029 E-mail: jvilla@wc.com dblatt@wc.com kshanmugam@wc.com mnicholson@wc.com rolderman@wc.com Appellee Thomas D. Halket is represented by: Eric Tunis, Esq. GREENBAUM, ROWE, SMITH & DAVIS LLP 99 Wood Avenue South Iselin, NJ 08830 Telephone: (732) 549-5600 Facsimile: (732) 549-1881 E-mail: etunis@greenbaumlaw.com - and - Olivier Salvagno Esq. GREENBAUM, ROWE, SMITH & DAVIS LLP Metro Corporate Campus One, Suite 4 P.O. Box 5600 Woodbridge, NJ 07095 Telephone: (732) 476-2426 Facsimile: (732) 476-2427 E-mail: osalvagno@greenbaumlaw.com Appellee Glen Hemstock is represented by: Walter F. Timpone, Esq. Walter R. Krzastek, Jr., Esq. Michael B. Devins, Esq. MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP 1300 Mt. Kemble Avenue P.O. Box 2075 Morristown, NJ 07962 Telephone: (973) 993-8100 Facsimile: (973) 425-0161 E-mail: wtimpone@mdmc-law.com wkrzastek@mdmc-law.com mdevins@mdmc-law.com Appellee Arthur A. Dornbusch, II, is represented by: Kevin H. Marino, Esq. John A. Boyle, Esq. MARINO, TORTORELLA & BOYLE, P.C. 437 Southern Boulevard Chatham, NJ 07928 Telephone: (973) 824-9300 Facsimile: (973) 824-8425 E-mail: kmarino@khmarino.com jboyle@khmarino.com The appellate case is Kimberlee Williams, et al. v. BASF Catalysts LLC, et al., Case No. 13-1089, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The trial court case is Kimberlee Williams, et al. v. BASF Catalysts LLC, et al., Case No. 2-11-cv- 01754, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Pesticides Caused Bee Deaths, Class Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Pesticides made by Bayer and Syngenta are causing the mass die- offs of Canadian honeybees, honey producers claim in a $400 million class action, according to Darryl Greer at Courthouse News Service. Lead plaintiffs Sun Parlor Honey and Munro Honey sued Bayer Cropscience, Syngenta Canada, and the companies' affiliates on Sept. 2 in Ontario Superior Court. The class claims Bayer and Syngenta's insecticides, known as neonnicotinoids, have cost them millions in lost honey production and pollination contracts. "The chronic effects of the use of the neonicotinoids are felt by Canada's beekeepers annually, and include: bee deaths; impaired reproduction; immune suppression; behavioral abnormalities resulting in hive loss; reduced honey production; impacts on the quality of honey; contamination of hive equipment; loss of queen bees; breeding stock; and difficulties fulfilling honey product or pollination contracts," the complaint states. "Foraging bees are exposed to the active ingredients in neonicotinoids in addition to neonicotinoid degradates. The degradation components of the neonicotinoids are equally or more toxic to bees. . . . The stored pollen or nectar brought to the bee hive containing a single neonicotinoid active ingredient may later contain a mixture of both the active ingredient and the degradation products that form over time. This mixture poses a significant risk of colony impairment for hives using stored food sources during the fall and winter months." Sun Parlor claims that it lost more than $2 million from 2006 to 2013 in lost hives and decreased honey production. Munro Honey claims it lost more than $3 million in the same period. Both are among the province of Ontario's largest honey producers and have been in business for nearly a century. The beekeepers claim that Bayer and Syngenta's Imidacloprid, Clothianidin, and Thiamethoxam chemicals linger in plants for months or years and interfere with insects' nicotinic receptors, causing "tremors, paralysis and death, at extremely low doses." "Neonicotinoids are among the most widely used insecticides in Canada and pose serious risks to the bee population primarily because of their persistence in crops and soil, and their potency at low concentrations," the complaint states. "These properties, coupled with the neonicotinoids' widespread use in many cropping systems and presence in pollen and nectar, result in a chronic, continuing and lethal exposure to the bee population." The claim details several countries' responses to mass deaths in bee populations, and says that Bayer and Syngenta were negligent in "encouraging the indiscriminate use of neonicotinoids far beyond what was reasonable or necessary, purely for their own economic gain." The class seeks $400 million in general and special damages, and $50 million in punitive damages. It is represented by A. Dimitri Lascaris, Michael Robb, Paula L. Lombardi, and Emilie McLachlan Maxwell with Siskinds LLP, of London, Ontario. BIEWER LUMBER: Faces "Stolzenburg" Class Suit in E.D. Missouri -------------------------------------------------------------- Mark A. Stolzenburg, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly-situated individuals v. Biewer Lumber, LLC dba Biewer Lumber LLC, dba Biewer Lumber Company, dba Biewer Lumber v. Green Tree Composites, L.L.C., dba Green Tree Composites, LLC, Case No. 4:14-cv-01533 (E.D. Mo., September 8, 2014) asserts product liability claims. The Plaintiff is represented by: Dennis N. Smith, Jr., Esq. SMITH LAW FIRM, LLC 225 S. Meramec Avenue, Suite 532 Clayton, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 725-4400 Facsimile: (800) 805-4563 E-mail: neil@neilsmithlaw.com BLOOMINGBURG, NY: Hasidic Jews Sue for Alleged Religious Bias ------------------------------------------------------------- The Bloomingburg Jewish Education Center; Sullivan Farms II, Inc.; Learning Tree Properties, LLC; Malka Rosenbaum; Sheindel Stein; Commercial Corner, LLC; and Winterton Properties, LLC v. Village of Bloomingburg, New York; Village Board of Trustees of The Village of Bloomingburg, New York; Frank Gerardi, individually and in his official capacity as Mayor; Eileen Rogers, individually and in her official capacity as Village Clerk; Planning Board of The Village Of Bloomingburg, New York; Andrew Finnema, individually and in his former official capacity as Planning Board member; Ann Haenelt, individually and in her former official capacity as Planning Board member; Joseph B. Roe, individually and in his former official capacity as Planning Board member; Town of Mamakating, New York; Town Board of the Town of Mamakating, New York; Planning Board of the Town of Mamakating, New York; Katherine Roemer, individually and in her official capacity as Trustee; James Johnson, individually and in his official capacity as Trustee; and William Herrmann, individually and in his official capacity as Supervisor for the Town of Mamakating, Case No. 1:14- cv-07250 (S.D.N.Y., September 8, 2014) seeks to stop an alleged pervasive, government-sponsored religious discrimination against Hasidic Jews. The Village of Bloomingburg and the adjoining Town of Mamakating, acting on behalf of an aggressive and hateful group of their residents, are engaged in a conspiracy to prevent Hasidic Jews from buying houses, establishing a private religious school, and operating businesses in their community, the Plaintiffs allege. They contend that after members of the Hasidic community began to move into the area, Bloomingburg and Mamakating instituted a number of roadblocks designed to stop the community from growing. They add that these municipalities are engaged in a series of patently illegal actions to block lawful, approved, and long- planned developments in Bloomingburg and Mamakating. The Village of Bloomingburg is a political subdivision of the state of New York, with principal offices located in Bloomingburg, Sullivan County, New York. Village Board of Trustees of the Village of Bloomingburg, New York is the legislative body of the Village. Frank Gerardi is the Mayor of the Village. Eileen Rogers is the Village Clerk of the Village. Planning Board of the Village of Bloomingburg is a village planning board duly organized under the laws of the state of New York. Andrew Finnema, Ann Haenelt and Joseph B. Roe were members of the Planning Board. Katherine Roemer and James Johnson are Trustees of the Village of Bloomingburg. The Town of Mamakating, New York is a political subdivision of the state of New York, with principal offices located in Wurtsboro, Sullivan County, New York. The Town Board of the Town of Mamakating is the legislative body of the Town. Planning Board of the Town of Mamakating is a town planning board duly organized under the laws of the state of New York. William Herrmann is the Supervisor for the Town of Mamakating. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven A. Engel, Esq. Michael H. Park, Esq. K. Keely Rankin, Esq. DECHERT LLP 1095 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 698-3500 Facsimile: (212) 698-3599 E-mail: steven.engel@dechert.com - and - John J. Henry, Esq. Robert S. Rosborough IV, Esq. WHITEMAN OSTERMAN & HANNA LLP One Commerce Plaza Albany, NY 12260 Telephone: (518) 487-7600 Facsimile: (518) 487-7777 E-mail: jhenry@woh.com CALIFORNIA: Amendments to Deals in Medi-Cal Cases Approved ---------------------------------------------------------- A federal judge on September 3, 2014, approved amendments to a settlement agreement in cases accusing California of cutting Medi- Cal payments and slashing wages for in-house workers, reports Elizabeth Warmerdam at Courthouse News Service. The settlement resolves the Oster v. Lightbourne and Dominguez v. Brown lawsuits. The Oster lawsuit challenged Assembly Bill X4 4, passed in 2009, and Senate Bill 73, passed in 2011, which mandated reductions to the state's In Home Support Services (IHSS) program. Lead plaintiff David Oster claimed that ABX4 4 violated the Medicaid Act, which requires that states provide sufficient benefits, by terminating or reducing IHSS services to individuals who need them. Two classes were certified in the Oster lawsuit. The first was for all IHSS recipients whose services would be limited, cut or terminated under the provisions of ABX4 4, and all applicants who would have been eligible for IHSS services but who are either not eligible, or are eligible for fewer services, as a result of the bill. The second class was for all IHSS recipients who received notices that included a reduction of IHSS hours based on SB 73, including future applicants for IHSS services. The Dominguez lawsuit, filed by lead plaintiff Lydia Dominguez, challenged wage reductions for IHSS providers, and represents a class of IHSS recipients from 26 counties throughout California. The settlement calls for a temporary 8 percent across-the-board reduction in authorized service hours instead of a permanent 20 percent cut. The 8 percent cut was to have been implemented starting in July 2013, and was scheduled to be further reduced to 7 percent after 12 months. The settlement also commits any savings from retroactive federal approval of the new provider fee to be reinvested for the benefit of IHSS recipients. Under the settlement, recipients have the right to request a reassessment based on a change of circumstances. Recipients will not be required to provide medical certification of a change in their medical condition to obtain a reassessment, which will help ensure that consumers who need additional hours will be able to obtain them. The amendments to the settlement call for the state to submit proposed legislation authorizing an assessment on home care services by no later than Feb. 1, 2015. If the assessment is passed, the state must then submit a request by April 1, 2015, to the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for authorization to implement the assessment. The Dominguez Class is represented by: Stephen P. Berzon, Esq. Stacey M. Leyton, Esq. Peder J. Thoreen, Esq. Scott A. Kronland, Esq. Anne N. Arkush, Esq. ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 421-7151 Facsimile: (415) 362-8064 E-mail: sberzon@altshulerberzon.com sleyton@altshulerberzon.com pthoreen@altshulerberzon.com skronland@altshulerberzon.com The Oster Class is represented by: Melinda Bird, Esq. Marilyn Holle, Esq. Sujatha Jagadeesh Branch, Esq. Dara L. Schur, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA 350 South Bixel Street, Suite 290 Los Angeles CA 90017 Telephone: (213)213-8000 Facsimile: (213) 213-8001 E-mail: melinda.bird@disabilityrightsca.org marilyn@disabilityrightsca.org dara.schur@disabilityrightsca.org - and - Anna Rich, Esq. National Senior Citizens Law Center 1330 Broadway, Suite 525 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 663-1055 - and - Paula Pearlman, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER 919 Albany Street Los Angeles, CA 90015 Telephone: (213) 736-8195 Facsimile: (213) 736-1428 E-mail: paula.pearlman@lls.edu - and - Jane Perkins, Esq. NATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAM 313 Ironwoods Drive Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Telephone: (919) 968-6308 - and - Charles Wolfinger, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CHARLES WOLFINGER 4655 Cass St #314 San Diego, CA 92109-2811 Telephone: (858) 272-8115 Facsimile: (858) 270-3960 E-mail: cw@charleswolfinger.com The Defendants are represented by: Kamala D. Harris, Esq. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA Susan M. Carson, Esq. SUPERVISING DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 Telephone: (415) 703-5580 Facsimile: (415) 703-5480 E-mail: susan.carson@doj.ca.gov The Dominguez case is Lydia Dominguez, et al. v. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of the State of California, et al., Case No. CV 09-2306 CW, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. CHINA HOUSING: Accused of Being Taken Private at Unfair Price ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that directors of China Housing & Land Development are taking the company private at a price and in a process unfair to minority shareholders, a class action claims in Clark County Court. DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Food Servers' Wage Suit Can't Proceed --------------------------------------------------------- Barbara Liston, writing for Reuters, reports that a U.S. judge has ruled that food servers and bartenders employed by Darden Restaurants Inc., which owns chains including Olive Garden, the Capital Grille and LongHorn Steakhouse, cannot sue the company as a group for alleged wage violations. U.S. District Judge William Dimitrouleas in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, signed an order early last week decertifying the class, which could have numbered as many as 218,000 people, according to court records. Each server can instead file an individual lawsuit against the company, Judge Dimitrouleas wrote. The workers are considering their next moves, said a spokeswoman for David Lichter, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys on the suit. The Orlando-based company is the largest U.S. operator of full- service restaurants. The lawsuit, filed in 2012, alleged that servers were short- changed by policies that circumvented an automated time-clock system. Servers who arrived for a shift were prohibited from clocking in and being paid until the first customer arrived at a restaurant, were forced to clock out before their work was finished and were not paid correctly for overtime work, the lawsuit contends. It also charged that servers were paid below minimum wage for non-tipped work, such as cleaning the restaurants, refilling salt and pepper shakers and rolling silverware in napkins. The judge agreed with Darden's lawyers who argued that circumstances were different for each employee and at each restaurant, and that liability and damages for each person needed to be calculated separately. Darden said it was pleased with the court's decision. "We said from day one, these allegations flew in the face of our values," the company said in a statement. "It is outrageous to think there would be a systemic practice in place that would cheat our people and violate the law." More than 20,000 current and former employees from almost 2,000 Darden restaurants in all 50 states had requested to join the class action before it was decertified, according to the order. Pay for restaurant employees, and workers in general, has become a growing issue in the United States over the past year. On Sept. 4, hundreds of employees from fast-food restaurants were arrested in protests in about 150 cities calling for higher pay. DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Bellwether Hip Replacement Trial Begins ----------------------------------------------------------- Miriam Rozen, writing for Law.com, reports that the first bellwether trial began on Sept. 2 in the hip replacement device multidistrict litigation in Dallas federal court. By the end of the first day of the trial, a jury of five women and four men had been selected, according to Mark Lanier of the Lanier Law Firm in Houston, who, along with Wayne Fisher of Fisher Boyd & Huguenard, also in Houston, represents the plaintiff in the case. Opening arguments were scheduled to take place on Sept. 3 in the courtroom of U.S. District Judge Ed Kinkeade of the Northern District of Texas. This first bellwether case will help set a pattern for future trials in the MDL, which includes more than 4,000 complaints related to the Pinnacle hip replacement system filed against its manufacturers, DePuy Orthopaedics Inc. and its parent company, Johnson & Johnson Services Inc. Michael Powell -- mpowell@lockelord.com -- a partner in the Dallas office of Locke Lord, who represents DePuy and Johnson & Johnson, declined through a firm spokesman to comment on the first day of the trial. In the case on trial, Herlihy-Paoli v. DePuy Orthopaedics, the plaintiff, Kathleen Herlihy-Paoli, filed a complaint in July 2012 alleging that "defendants have known, or should have known, that the Pinnacle device was not safe or durable and presented a considerable risk of injury to those implanted with it." In her complaint, the plaintiff also alleged that, "defendants knew, or should have known, of reports that metal-on-metal implants, such as the Pinnacle, generated unusually high amounts of metal debris over time due to unusual, premature or increased wear and tear. This debris can spread throughout the surrounding bone and tissue and cause serious complications and damage." Johnson & Johnson has defended its hip replacement system in court and in the media. A corporate spokesperson wrote in an email earlier: "DePuy is vigorously defending itself against the claims made in the Pinnacle Cup System litigation. For more than 10 years, the Pinnacle Cup System has been a widely used and clinically successful modular acetabular cup system for hip replacement. The Pinnacle Cup System has a strong track record of helping to reduce pain and restore mobility for patients suffering from chronic pain. You should also know that lawsuits in the MDL primarily involve allegations related to the metal-on-metal option with the Pinnacle Cup System, called Ultamet. Ultamet has performed well in thousands of patients and is backed by clinical data showing a track record of safety and effectiveness for patients who are candidates for hip replacement." DEL MONTE: Certification in Labeling Class Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------ Consumers accusing Del Monte Foods of mislabeling its products as natural may renew their bid for class certification tailored to the narrowed set of claims, Courthouse News Service reports, citing a federal court ruling. The case is Michael Kosta and Steve Bates v. Del Monte Foods, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-1722-YGR, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. ELI LILLY: Plaintiffs Move to Coordinate 27 Cymbalta Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that more than two dozen lawsuits have been filed by patients who allege that they suffered from dizziness, electrical sensations in the brain and other side effects after they stopped taking the prescription drug Cymbalta. The suits, filed in 15 states, claim that Eli Lilly & Co., which makes Cymbalta, failed to warn its customers about the withdrawal side effects, which also include nausea, vomiting, sweating, insomnia, nightmares and diarrhea. On Aug. 15, plaintiffs attorneys moved to coordinate 27 lawsuits for pretrial purposes and said there could be "many hundreds, if not thousands, of cases." Lilly's response was due Sept. 9. "This is a litigation that's going to balloon," said R. Brent Wisner -- rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com -- an attorney at Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman in Los Angeles. "We know there have been millions of people who've purchased Cymbalta over the last 10 years. Half will experience withdrawal symptoms. The potential pool for claims in the litigation is staggeringly large." Lilly spokeswoman Celeste Stanley declined to comment. Cymbalta, which the U.S. Food & Drug Administration approved in 2004, is used to treat depression, anxiety, fibromyalgia and pain. In 2012, a consumer class action was filed alleging Lilly failed to warn about the side effects on its label and marketing materials for Cymbalta. Specifically, Lilly's own clinical studies show that the chance of suffering from withdrawal symptoms could be more than 50 percent, even though Cymbalta's label says "greater than or equal to 1 percent," the suit says. In his motion before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Wisner argued that all the Cymbalta litigation should be coordinated before the judge in that case, U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson, or else with U.S. District Judge George King, also in the Central District of California, who is overseeing three personal injury cases. Of the 27 cases listed in his motion, 10 are in federal districts in California. The others are in federal courts in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin. Most of the suits have been filed in the past month by Baum Hedlund and Pogust Braslow & Millrood in Conshohocken, Pa. ENZYMOTEC LTD: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action in N.J. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of Enzymotec Ltd., on Sept. 5 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of a class comprising purchasers of Enzymotec securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering on or about September 27, 2013, and/or on the open market between September 27, 2013 and August 4, 2014, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Please contact Lesley Portnoy at (888) 773-9224 or (310) 201-9150, or at shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this matter. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. Enzymotec develops, manufactures and markets bio-active lipid ingredients used in the production of various nutritional products. The Company's primary source of revenue is through its baby formula business, including the popular InFat line of products. The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and Prospectus contained materially false and misleading statements and omitted material information, and that defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose throughout the Class Period that: -- Enzymotec's Chinese business was subject to material and readily identifiable compliance regulations from the Chinese government. The Company's baby formula business in China was jeopardized and subject to increased volatility and decreased revenues. -- The Company's joint venture with AarhusKarlshamn AB, which marketed the popular InFat product, was crumbling and subjected the Company to liability and decreased revenues. -- Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On May 14, 2014, the Company disclosed for the first time that "Chinese regulations require infant formula manufacturers to make certain changes to their production chain," and as a result the Company's revenues were lower. Then, on August 5, 2014, the Company further disclosed the increased impact of the Chinese regulations on its sales of infant formula, and announced financial results that were significantly lower than the prior year in almost all respects. As a result of this news, Enzymotec shares declined $5.85 per share, or nearly 40%, to close on August 5, 2014, at $9.11 per share, on volume of more than 1 million shares. If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this Notice, to serve as lead plaintiff, if you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, at (310) 201-9150, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at http://www.glancylaw.com If you inquire by email, please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on Sept. 5 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Flagstar Bancorp, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, and docketed under 14-cv- 13459, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Flagstar securities between January 22, 2014 and August 26, 2014, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). If you are a shareholder who purchased Flagstar securities during the Class Period, you have until November 4, 2014 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Flagstar is the holding company for Flagstar Bank, FSB ("Flagstar Bank"). Flagstar Bank accepts deposits from the general public and originates or acquires residential mortgage loans. Flagstar Bank also originates consumer, commercial real estate, and non-real estate commercial loans and it operates predominantly in Michigan and Indiana, as well as throughout the United States. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, prospects, performance, and compliance with federal law. Specifically, during the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) dating back to 2011, the Company's loss mitigation practices and default servicing operations were not in compliance with various federal consumer financial laws promulgated by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB"); (ii) the Company lacked proper internal controls; and (iii) as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On August 26, 2014, the Company filed a Form 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), announcing that it has begun settlement discussions with the CFPB over alleged violations of consumer finance laws dating back to 2011. As a result of these allegations, Mark Palmer, an analyst at BTIG investment bank, downgraded its rating on Flagstar to sell, noting that the "allegations raise questions regarding servicing operations amid uncertainty of potential rebound of its mortgage business." On this news, Flagstar stock fell $0.83, or almost 4.5%, on unusually heavy trading volume, to close at $17.66 on August 27, 2014. With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 70 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. GAF MATERIALS: Accused of Selling Defective Cross Timbers Decking ----------------------------------------------------------------- James Wolcott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Building Materials Corporation of America d/b/a/ GAF Materials Corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-00623-REP (E.D. Va., September 8, 2014) is brought on behalf of a class of purchasers and owners of structures that contain GAF Elk Cross Timbers or DuraLife Decking. GAF's Cross Timbers Decking is a non-natural wood product that is made from manufactured composite wood. The Cross Timbers Decking is defective, and it cracks, warps, swells and expands at rates well beyond what should be occurring with a product meant for the outdoors, according to the complaint. Building Materials Corporation of America, doing business as GAF Materials Corporation, is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Wayne, New Jersey. Cross Timbers Decking was originally manufactured, marketed and sold by Elk Corporation and Elk Composite Building Products, Inc. Upon merging with Elk, GAF continued to manufacture, advertise, market, distribute and sell the Cross Timbers Decking. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Hilton Wise, Esq. James Plummer Lukes, Esq. WISE & DONAHUE PLC 11325 Random Hills Road, Suite 302 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 934-6377 Facsimile: (703) 934-6379 E-mail: dwise@wisedonahue.com jlukes@wisedonahue.com GENERAL MILLS: "Kellogg" Suit Moved From California to New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Kellogg v. General Mills, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-00939, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California 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-05565-KM-SCM to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleges that General Mills misleads consumers about the nature of the ingredients of its cereal products sold under the Kix brand name, namely Original Kix Crispy Corn Puffs Cereal, Honey Kix Crispy Corn Puffs Cereal; and, Berry Berry Kix Crispy Puffs Cereal. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant made the misleading statements that its Products are "made with All Natural Corn" or are "made with All Natural Corn & Honey," when in fact, Kix was made from corn that is derived from unnatural genetically modified plants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Reese, Esq. Kim E. Richman, Esq. Carl S.M. Hum, Esq. REESE RICHMAN LLP 875 Avenue of the Americas, 18th Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 E-mail: mreese@reeserichman.com krichman@reeserichman.com chum@reeeserichman.com - and - Ariana J. Tadler, Esq. Henry J. Kelston, Esq. MILBERG LLP One Pennsylvania Plaza New York, NY 10119 Telephone: (212) 594-5300 Facsimile: (212) 868-1229 E-mail: atadler@milberg.com hkelston@milberg.com - and - David E. Azar, Esq. MILBERG LLP 300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3900 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 617-1200 Facsimile: (213) 624-0643 E-mail: dazar@milberg.com - and - Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 Facsimile: (973) 877-3845 E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com The Defendant is represented by: David T. Biderman, Esq. Sunita B. Bali, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 2400 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 344-7000 Facsimile: (415) 344-7050 E-mail: DBiderman@perkinscoie.com SBali@perkinscoie.com - and - Charles Christian Sipos, Esq. Mica Dawn Simpson, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 3rd Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 359-3983 Facsimile: (206) 359-4983 E-mail: CSipos@perkinscoie.com MSimpson@perkinscoie.com GENERAL MILLS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Superfund Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- David Siegel, writing for Law360, reports that a Minnesota federal judge on Sept. 4 refused to throw out a proposed class action accusing General Mills Inc. of allowing carcinogens from a Superfund site to seep into a nearby residential area, finding the plaintiffs showed they face a threat of future harm from continued exposure to the chemicals. In an order denying a motion to dismiss filed by General Mills, U.S. District Judge Donovan W. Frank said the plaintiffs had met their jurisdictional and pleading burdens in their suit claiming vapors from trichloroethylene, or TCE, pose a health risk to residents of a Minneapolis neighborhood and reduce the value of their homes. Judge Frank rejected arguments from General Mills that plaintiffs lack standing for injunctive relief because the company has already agreed to install air filtration systems to mitigate the threat of injury from TCE vapors, noting that the plaintiffs sought to eliminate TCE vapors from their properties, not merely reduce them. "Plaintiffs assert that there is a continuing threat of migration of a known human carcinogen from the contaminated GMI facility that is ongoing, real and immediate," Judge Frank wrote. "These factual allegations are sufficient for plaintiffs to meet their burden of establishing jurisdiction." The events behind the suit go all the way back to 1930, when General Mills opened an industrial facility in Minneapolis' Como neighborhood. The facility closed in 1977, but for years the company disposed of thousands of gallons of hazardous substances, including TCE, by burying it in perforated drums in the ground at the facility, according to the complaint. The plaintiffs sued under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act after becoming aware of the contamination in 2013, claiming that despite General Mills working with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency since the 1980s to clean up the site, TCE vapors still migrated to surrounding properties. Judge Frank disagreed with General Mills that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, because the ongoing remediation efforts with federal and state authorities were pursuant to CERCLA, which says the EPA, not a district court, has authority over an ongoing removal or remedial action. Judge Frank found that the Minnesota state government was in fact the controlling authority regarding the cleanup efforts and not the federal government. In addition to determining the court had jurisdiction to hear the case, Judge Frank found the plaintiffs had properly plead claims of negligence, nuisance, willful and wanton misconduct and violation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. "The court concludes that based on these facts as alleged, the court can reasonably infer that the vapor's impact is 'material and substantial' by the standards of 'ordinary' people," Judge Frank wrote. "Defendant's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint is denied." Mark Thieroff -- markthieroff@siegelbrill.com -- of Siegel Brill PA, who represents the plaintiffs, told Law360 he welcomed the court's ruling. "The case is now about evidence, and we look forward to the opportunity to prove our allegations in this very important case," Thieroff said. The plaintiffs are represented by Edward J. Manzke and Shawn M. Collins of The Collins Law Firm PC, Michael D. Hayes -- mhayes@vblhc.com -- and Norman B. Berger -- nberger@vblhc.com -- of Varga Berger Ledsky Hayes & Casey, Anne T. Regan -- anne.regan@zimmreed.com -- and J. Gordon Rudd Jr. -- gordon.rudd@zimmreed.com -- of Zimmerman Reed PLLP and Mark H. Thieroff of Siegel Brill PA. General Mills is represented by Benjamin W. Hulse -- bhulse@blackwellburke.com -- Corey L. Gordon -- cgordon@blackwellburke.com -- Emily A. Ambrose, Jerry W. Blackwell and Wendy M. Carlisle -- wcarlisle@blackwellburke.com -- of Blackwell Burke PA, Jeffrey Fowler -- jfowler@omm.com -- of O'Melveny & Myers LLP and Mark J. Carpenter of Carpenter Law Firm PLLC. The case is Karl Ebert et al. v. General Mills Inc., case number 0:2013-cv-03341, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. GOOGLE INC: To Settle FTC Unfair-Billing Charges for $19 Million ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jenna Greene, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that Google Inc. will pay at least $19 million to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that the company unfairly billed consumers for millions of dollars of unauthorized charges incurred by children using mobile apps from the Google Play app store. The deal follows a similar settlement with Apple Inc. in January for $32.5 million for unauthorized children's mobile app charges. The FTC in July also went after Amazon.com for unauthorized app charges in a case that's pending in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The FTC in an administrative complaint said Google violated the FTC Act's prohibition on "unfair" commercial practices by allowing kids to make in-app charges without any password requirement or other method to ensure account-holder authorization. "Children could rack up charges simply by tapping on pop-up boxes that appeared in the app," FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez said in a conference call with reporters. "Children had no way to know they were spending real money." The case, she added, is "an important step in the commission's continuing work in ensuring consumers using mobile devices enjoy the same protections that exist in other contexts." Google, represented by Hogan Lovells partners Corey Roush -- corey.roush@hoganlovells.com -- and Logan Breed and associate Wesley Carson, did not admit or deny the allegations. In an email, a Google spokeswoman said, "We've already made product changes to ensure people have the best Google Play experience possible. We're glad to put this matter behind us so we can focus on creating more ways for people to enjoy all the entertainment they love." The settlement calls for Google to refund at least $19 million to consumers and to modify its billing practices to obtain express, informed consent from consumers before billing them for in-app charges. Google must also contact all consumers who made in-app charges to inform them of the refund process. GREAT PLAINS COCA-COLA: To Pay Women $475K to Settle Bias Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Great Plains Coca-Cola Bottling Co. will pay $475,000 in back wages to settle sex discrimination claims from 1,293 female job seekers, the Department of Labor said on September 4, 2014, according to Courthouse News Service. Coca-Cola also must offer jobs to 116 of the original class members, as jobs become available. HOME DEPOT: Confirms Security Breach in U.S., Canadian Stores ------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Blackwell, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that home improvement retailer Home Depot Inc. confirmed on Sept. 8 that its payment systems have suffered a security breach, and Canadian clients are among those affected. The chain said the breach "could potentially impact customers using payment cards" in U.S. and Canadian stores, but there is no evidence the breach hit online customers or stores in Mexico. Home Depot, which has been tight-lipped since it revealed last week it was investigating unusual activity that suggested a potential breach, said on Sept. 8 that it still doesn't know the "full scope, scale and impact of the breach." It said there is no evidence that PIN numbers associated with the debit cards have been compromised. Its investigation is focusing on transactions from April onward. Home Depot has 2,266 stores, and 180 of those are in Canada. A Home Depot spokeswoman said the company cannot say how many Canadian customers may have been affected because it does not yet know "many details or the scale of the incident." But the company said it has taken "aggressive" steps to address the "malware" and protect its customers' data. It is also offering free identity protection, and credit monitoring to any customer who has used a payment card at a Home Depot store since April of this year. Home Depot chief executive officer Frank Blake said in a statement that "we owe it to our customers to alert them that we now have enough evidence to confirm that a breach has indeed occurred. It is important to emphasize that no customer will be responsible for fraudulent charges to their accounts." The company said its internal technology security team has been working around the clock with outside security organizations, its banking partners, and the United States Secret Service to "gather facts and provide information to customers." The possible breach was first reported on Sept. 2 by the security news website Krebs on Security, run by computer security expert Brian Krebs. He said several banks had reported seeing evidence that Home Depot outlets "may be the source of a massive new batch of stolen credit and debit cards." In a posting, Mr. Krebs said analysis of card data posted on a "cybercrime store" website suggests that a spate of stolen credit card information recently put up for sale came from Home Depot. Mr. Krebs said banks believe the breach may have begun in April or May. If that is the case "this breach could be many times larger than Target, which had 40 million credit and debit cards stolen over a three-week period." Just before Christmas last year, Target said that credit and debit card information on millions of customers had been stolen. The breach, and the work to rectify it, cut into the company's fourth- quarter profit. Some of Target's Canadian customers were affected by that breach. Mr. Krebs said in a posting on Sept. 8 that sources had told him the Home Depot breach was helped by a new variant of the "BlackPOS" malware that stole account data from Target. HOME DEPOT: Faces Suit Over Stored Communications Act Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Allen Mazerolle, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. The Home Depot, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-02887-WSD (N.D. Ga., September 8, 2014) seeks relief under the Stored Communications Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Andrew Bain, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DAVID A. BAIN, LLC 1050 Promenade II 1230 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 724-9990 Facsimile: (404) 724-9986 E-mail: dbain@bain-law.com - and - Kenneth G. Gilman, Esq. GILMAN LAW LLP Beachway Professional Center Tower 3301 Bonita Beach Road, Suite 202 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Telephone: (239) 221-8301 Facsimile: (239) 676-8224 E-mail: kgilman@gilmanpastor.com INTERMOUNTAIN MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Indica Heredia, individual California resident, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Intermountain Management, L.L.C., Louisiana, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 5:14-cv-04006-RMW (N.D. Cal., September 3, 2014) alleges that the Defendants failed to pay wages and overtime wages. Intermountain Management, L.L.C. is a Louisiana Limited Liability Company with its principal place of business in California. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jose R. Garay, Esq. JOSE GARAY, APLC 9861 Irvine Center Drive Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 260-9193 Facsimile: (949) 260-9194 E-mail: jgaray@garaylaw.com LEVIN FURNITURE: Violates Disabilities Act, Class Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Heinzl, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Levin Furniture Co., Case No. 2:14-cv-01214-RCM (W.D. Pa., September 8, 2014) seeks relief pursuant to The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH 115 Federal Street, Suite 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Class Action Over Sharp Chrome Defect Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- Brandon Lowrey and Andrew Scurria, writing for Law360, report that a California federal judge on Sept. 5 tossed a putative class action alleging Mercedes-Benz USA LLC sold cars with interior chrome components that could flake off and expose sharp edges, saying the paper cut-like wounds the plaintiff allegedly suffered weren't a safety risk, despite contentions the wounds could become infected. During a hearing in Los Angeles, U.S. District Judge Dolly M. Gee said the infection argument was speculative, even though the plaintiff brought in a physician as an expert witness to testify to the threat posed by the wounds. "I can't tell you how many paper cuts I've sustained since I came to the bench," Judge Gee said. Defense attorney Eric J. Knapp of Carroll Burdick & McDonough LLP told the judge that untold millions of paper cuts are suffered daily, and if there were a serious threat of infection, "I think the Centers for Disease Control would be involved at this point." The judge's decision to grant summary judgment in the case disposes of the February 2012 suit, in which plaintiff Ani Avedisian accused the company -- the U.S. distributor for Daimler AG -- of selling cars during a six-year period with trim pieces that could flake, crack and peel and create sharp edges that could lacerate passengers' hands. According to the complaint, Mercedes-Benz knew for several years that the chrome defect had begun manifesting in cars made as early as 2006 but has neither remedied the problem nor advised consumers after the vehicles were purchased or leased by class members. Consumers were allegedly unable to discover the alleged defect until long after their initial purchase because of Mercedes-Benz's active concealment, which Avedisian argued should toll the applicable statutes of limitations for the suit's claims under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and unfair competition law, and for fraud and breach of express and implied warranties. Mercedes filed its motion for summary judgment in July, arguing there is no actual safety-related defect in the case because the alleged injuries are superficial and de minimis. "Plaintiff, her husband and even plaintiff's own expert, among others, universally describe injuries allegedly attributable to contact with chrome trim pieces in her vehicle as a 'superficial cut,' 'paper cut,' 'tiny cut,' 'scrape,' 'small scratch' 'nick,' a 'nuisance,' a 'cosmetic' issue and the like," the motion argued. "It is also undisputed that no medical treatment was ever sought or received for these alleged injuries." The plaintiff argued that proof that a plaintiff sought medical treatment for an infection was not required, and that one person did have his wound sutured at an emergency room. She also argued that Mercedes-Benz failed to disclose information about the alleged safety-related defect to consumers. In January, Judge Gee rejected a motion by Mercedes-Benz to impose sanctions on the plaintiffs, disagreeing with the carmaker's contention that the lawsuit was frivolous. The plaintiff is represented by Stephen M. Harris -- smh@kpclegal.com -- of Knapp Peterson & Clarke and by Robert L. Starr and Adam Morris Rose of the Law Office of Robert L. Starr. Mercedes-Benz is represented by Troy M. Yoshino, Matthew J. Kemner and Eric J. Knapp of Carroll Burdick & McDonough LLP. The case is Ani Avedisian v. Mercedes-Benz USA LLC et al., case number 2:12-cv-00936, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. MERCK & CO: Judge Allows Antitrust Class Action to Proceed ---------------------------------------------------------- Gina Passarella, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that a Pennsylvania federal judge has allowed the majority of claims to proceed against Merck & Co. in a qui tam suit and related antitrust putative class action over the company's testing and government sales of its mumps vaccine. U.S. District Judge C. Darnell Jones II of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued one opinion on Sept. 5 in two related suits -- United States v. Merck & Co. and Chatom Primary Care v. Merck & Co. Two former virologists at Merck brought claims as relators under the False Claims Act, alleging Merck, the sole company approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to sell a mumps vaccine, falsified testing of the efficacy of the drug and misstated the drug's efficacy to the government as having a 95 percent efficacy rate, according to the opinion. The United States declined to intervene in that suit. The putative class action is based on the claims made in the qui tam action and argues Merck's alleged "manipulation and misrepresentation" of the vaccine's efficacy allowed for Merck's monopoly of the mumps vaccine market, Judge Jones said. The class action raises various Sherman Act violations and violations of state laws, according to the opinion. Merck moved to dismiss both actions. Jude Jones denied Merck's motion as to all of the claims in the qui tam action. In his analysis of those claims, Judge Jones found that relators can plead a fraud-on-the-FDA theory through a False Claims Act suit. As to the class action, Judge Jones dismissed many of the state law claims, except for some of those involving New York and New Jersey law. He sustained the Sherman Act claim, finding that while it was a "slightly novel theory of liability" that Merck's alleged deliberate concealing of information secured its monopoly on sales of the vaccine to the government, the unique facts of the case create the basis for an antitrust claim. Those unique facts were Merck's 100 percent monopoly on the market and its statutory and contractual duties to disclose information, Judge Jones said. "Plaintiffs have argued sufficient facts to sustain a claim for proximate causation, detailing the significant barriers that other companies would face to enter the mumps vaccine market," Judge Jones said. Merck is represented in the two cases by Dino S. Sangiamo -- dssangiamo@Venable.com -- and Sally Bryan -- srbryan@Venable.com -- of Venable LLP in Baltimore, and Eric W. Sitarchuk -- esitarchuk@morganlewis.com -- and Lisa Dykstra -- ldykstra@morganlewis.com -- of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius in Philadelphia. Calls to Sangiamo and Sitarchuk were not immediately returned. Kellie C. Lerner -- klerner@rkmc.com -- and Hollis Salzman -- hsalzman@rkmc.com -- of Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi in New York are leading the plaintiffs team in the class action suit. They said it was a favorable ruling for the class and they were pleased the judge upheld the federal antitrust claim. Gordon Schnell -- gschnell@constantinecannon.com -- of Constantine Cannon in New York is leading the team for the qui tam plaintiffs. He said he was happy with the decision and looked forward to proceeding with the case. False Claims Act In the qui tam action, Merck argued the relators' claims essentially go to the alleged fact that the drug's label stating a 95 percent efficacy rate was false. Merck argued labeling changes are solely within the purview of the FDA and cannot be disputed through a False Claims Act suit. The relators countered that their claims speak more broadly than arguing the label was false. Judge Jones upheld all of the relators' claims in the qui tam suit, rejecting Merck's argument that it was an issue for the FDA to police. Judge Jones cited the government's statement of interest it filed in the case on this issue despite choosing not to intervene. In it, the government said holding that only the government and not a relator can litigate a False Claims Act suit arising from allegations of fraud on the FDA would be inconsistent with the purposes of the False Claims Act. "The court agrees. Relators allege that [Merck] consistently and deliberately withheld pertinent information as to the safety and efficacy of a medication from the government," Judge Jones said. "It is this alleged omission that is the grounds for FCA liability." Judge Jones noted that, in order to survive a motion to dismiss, the relators further had to allege with particularity that the defendant presented or caused to be presented to an agent of the United States a claim for payment, that the claim was false or fraudulent and that the defendant knew the claim was false or fraudulent. Judge Jones said the relators plainly showed Merck submitted claims to the government for payment for the vaccine on many occasions since 1999. Judge Jones further ruled the relators sufficiently pleaded that there was information about the alleged lessened efficacy of the vaccine that was not reported to the government and that the omission was material to the government continuing to buy the vaccine. As to Merck knowing the claims were false, Judge Jones said the relators sufficiently alleged their firsthand experience in Merck's labs in which they allegedly witnessed supervisors and managers instructing staff to withhold information from the government. The False Claims Act not only provides for counts alleging false claims to the government -- submitting the requests for payments - - but for false statements, Judge Jones noted. He upheld the relators' claims regarding false statements, citing their allegations that Merck falsely represented the efficacy of the drug through labels, applications for a labeling change and through not disclosing its knowledge of the weaker efficacy of the drug during mumps outbreaks in 2006 and 2009, according to the opinion. Class Action In the proposed class action, the named plaintiffs are Alabama- based Chatom Primary Care and two individual doctors from New York and New Jersey, respectively. They allege Merck's monopoly on the drug caused them to pay more for the drug. Aside from the plaintiffs' antitrust claims in the putative class action, which were upheld, Jones had to address the state law claims. Judge Jones determined that the plaintiffs only have standing to bring state law claims under laws of the states in which they reside -- New York, New Jersey and Alabama. He said they did not specify what, if any, injuries they suffered in the 22 other jurisdictions whose laws they invoked. Those claims instead rest on "abstract" injuries suffered by unidentified members of the putative class, Judge Jones said in dismissing those claims. Judge Jones went on to reject Merck's argument that the remaining state law claims were preempted by a bar on state fraud-on-the-FDA claims. Judge Jones said other courts have found that, when a claim incorporates but does not rely upon a fraud on the FDA, a state tort claim is not preempted. Judge Jones said the plaintiffs are alleging the fraud was part of a larger scheme to maintain an anti-competitive business regime. "A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs on these state law claims would not have any effect on the method by which the FDA regulates the defendant, or infringe on any FDA remedy to police fraud," Judge Jones said. Judge Jones further rejected Merck's argument that it would be impossible for it to comply with both federal labeling requirements and state laws. "This court finds it difficult to accept that [Merck] would be penalized for providing additional information on its warning label," Judge Jones said. Judge Jones went on to uphold the plaintiffs' claim under the New York Deceptive Acts and Practices Statute as well as the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. Merck had argued the New Jersey doctor couldn't be considered a consumer of the vaccine considering he was giving it to his patients, but Judge Jones rejected that argument, ruling the doctor's use of the vaccine destroys the vaccine's further utility and isn't used for resale. Judge Jones granted Merck's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims. MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: "Cutrone" Suit Transferred to E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Cutrone, et al. v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Case No. 1:14-mc-00861, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn). The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-mc-01089-ENV to the proceeding. Interested Party John A. Murphy is represented by: Gabriel M. Nugent, Esq. ROBERTS, SHERIDAN & KOTEL 12 East 49th Street New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 299-8600 NASHVILLE, TN: Discovery in 41-Year-Old Class Suit Must Proceed --------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery from an anonymous plaintiff must proceed before the court can rule on a consent decree at the heart of a 41-year-old class action about arrest records, reports Kevin Lessmiller at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling. "The procedural history of this case is both remarkable and tortured," U.S. District Judge Aleta Trauger wrote in the 17-page ruling. "John Doe, whose identity remains under seal, initiated this class action lawsuit in 1973, seeking to change local policies concerning the consideration and dissemination of arrest records that did not involve a conviction." Doe, on behalf of the class, entered into two consent decrees with the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County in the mid-70s. The 1973 consent decree required Metro Nashville not to consider arrest records in new hires, and the 1974 decree related to the dissemination and publication of arrest records. Vanderbilt University Law School Professor James Blumstein, an attorney in the original lawsuit, reopened the case in 2006 by filing a "motion for further relief to assure compliance" with the 1974 decree. A Tennessee district court vacated the 1974 decree based on a Supreme Court repeal and the 6th Circuit affirmed. Negotiations over modifications to the 1973 decree stalled and both parties have submitted their own proposed modifications, which are pending. The district granted Metro Nashville's motion for discovery of a class representative in February, with both the court and the defendants suspecting that the plaintiff's attorney was "negotiating on the basis of his own views and was not consulting with the class representative, John Doe," according to the new ruling. Doe, with a supporting affidavit, responded by moving to add a Jane Roe as a plaintiff. The court then granted a motion to defer previously ordered discovery of the class representative. In the lawsuit's latest saga, the district court granted Metro Nashville's motion for reconsideration, vacated an April order staying discovery, and denied the parties' competing motions to modify the 1973 consent decree. Trauger deferred ruling on a motion to add a named plaintiff, and permitted "discovery to proceed relative to both John Doe and Jane Roe, and, perhaps, with respect to the substitution of an appropriate representative party more generally." "In order to resolve whether and how to modify the decree (or whether factual circumstances now warrant reconsideration of the court's previous refusal to vacate the decree), the court will required a better developed -- or at least centralized -- record supporting each side's proposed modifications," Trauger wrote. "Furthermore, the issue of standing (as to John Doe and the prospective Jane Roe) is now of paramount concern and could substantially affect the nature and types of modifications to the decree," the judge wrote. "Rather than rule on the motions without sufficient facts and on such shifting procedural sands, the court will deny both motions [to modify] without prejudice to refilling them at an appropriate stage." The case is John Doe, et al. v. Beverly Briley, et al., Case No. 3:73-6971, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division. NATIONAL HOCKEY: "Fritsche" Trauma Suit Transferred to Minnesota ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Fritsche, et al. v. National Hockey League, Case No. 1:14-cv-05732, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the U.S. District of Minnesota. The Minnesota District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:14-cv-03377- SRN-JSM to the proceeding. The action arises from the alleged debilitating effects of head trauma, including mild traumatic brain injuries, caused by the concussive and sub-concussive impacts that have afflicted former professional hockey players in the NHL. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Arun S. Subramanian, Esq. Seth D. Ard, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY LLP 654 Madison Ave., 5th Floor New York, NY 10065 Telephone: (212) 471-8346 Facsimile: (212) 336-8340 E-mail: asubramanian@susmangodfrey.com sard@susmangodfrey.com - and - William Christopher Carmody, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY LLP 560 Lexington Avenue, 15th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 336-8330 Facsimile: (212) 336-8340 E-mail: bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com - and - Brian D. Penny, Esq. GOLDMAN SCARLATO & KARON, PC 101 W Elm St., Suite 360 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (484) 342-0700 E-mail: penny@gskplaw.com - and - John Zaremba, Esq. ZAREMBA BROWNELL & BROWN, PLLC 40 Wall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 400-7224 E-mail: jzaremba@zbblaw.com NATIONAL OILWELL: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Randy Benzon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Oilwell Varco, L.P., Case No. 4:14-cv-02582 (S.D. Tex., September 8, 2014) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages owed to the Defendant's workers under the Fair Labor Standards Act. National Oilwell Varco, L.P., is a Delaware corporation doing business in Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew Dunlap Lindsay R. Itkin FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON LLP 1150 Bissonnet Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com adunlap@fibichlaw.com litkin@fibichlaw.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com NEVSUN RESOURCES: October 6 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set --------------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF THE NEVSUN RESOURCES LTD. SECURITIES CLASS ACTION Read this notice carefully as it may affect your rights. PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE This notice is directed to all persons, other than certain persons associated with the defendants, who acquired securities of Nevsun Resources Ltd. ("Nevsun") during the period from March 31, 2011 to and including February 6, 2012 ("Class Period") and held some or all of those shares at the close of trading on February 6, 2012 ("Class Members"). In 2012, a proposed class action was commenced against Nevsun and certain others in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the "Court"). The plaintiffs allege that the defendants knew, or ought to have known, that the stated gold reserves at the Bisha mine were materially overstated. A proposed settlement has been reached, without admission of liability, which is subject to the approval by the Court. The settlement is a compromise of disputed claims. The defendants have denied and continue to deny all allegations of wrongdoing, fault, liability or damage in respect of the claims alleged in the class action. This notice provides a summary of the proposed settlement. THE TERMS OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT The defendants will pay US $5,350,000 in full and final settlement of all claims against them and the other defendants. The settlement funds, less the lawyers' fees approved by the Court and administration costs, will be distributed to or on behalf of the Class Members. The Settlement Agreement may be reviewed at www.nevsun.com/fricke-settlementagreement.pdf LAWYERS' FEES, DISBURSEMENTS AND TAXES The lawyers for the Class Members will ask the Court to approve legal fees in the amount of 25 percent of US $5,350,000, plus disbursements, plus taxes. THE COURT HEARINGS The Court will be asked to certify the action as a class action and approve the proposed settlement and the lawyers' fees, disbursements and taxes at hearings to be held on October 6, 2014 at 10:30 a.m. E.T., at the Court House, 245 Windsor Avenue, Windsor, Ontario for the Ontario action. Class Members who do not oppose the proposed settlement need not appear at the hearing or take any other action at this time to indicate their desire to participate in the proposed settlement. Class Members who consider it desirable or necessary to seek the advice and guidance of their own lawyers may do so at their own expense. OBJECTIONS At the hearing, the Court will consider any objections to the proposed settlement by the Class Members if the objections are submitted in writing, by prepaid mail or e-mail to: Gregory D. Wrigglesworth, Kirwin Partners LLP, 423 Pelissier Street, Windsor, Ontario, N9A 4L2, fax: 519.790.0106, email: nevsun@kirwinpartners.com Attention: Nevsun Class Action, by no later than 5:00 p.m. on October 2, 2014. A written objection should include the following information: (a) the Class Member's name, current mailing address, telephone number, fax number and email address; (b) the number of shares purchased during and held at the close of the Class Period; (c) a brief statement of the nature of and reasons for the objection; and (d) whether the Class Member intends to appear at the hearing in person or by counsel, and, if by counsel, the name, address, telephone number, fax number and email address of counsel. IF THE SETTLEMENT IS APPROVED If the proposed settlement is approved, there will be another notice published that will advise Class Members how to make a claim for settlement monies and how to decline to participate in the class action (i.e. opt-out). QUESTIONS Questions for the Class Members' lawyers may be directed to: Jay Strosberg Sutts, Strosberg LLP 600-251 Goyeau Street Windsor, ON N9A 6V4 Telephone: 800.229.5323 ext 8296 Fax: 866.316.5308 E-mail: nevsun@strosbergco.com This notice has been approved by the Court. Questions about matters in this notice should NOT be directed to the Court. OVASCIENCE INC: Plaintiffs Re-Filed Shareholder Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ OvaScience Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, a purported shareholder class action, styled Meriam Ratner v. OvaScience, Inc., et al., was filed on September 16, 2013, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants. The Company said, "The lawsuit alleges that we made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact relating to the qualification of the AUGMENT treatment as a 361 HCT/P in our public disclosures during the period from February 25, 2013 through September 10, 2013, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder." "On February 2, 2014, we and certain of our officers, as defendants, filed a motion to dismiss with the District Court. On February 3, 2014, plaintiff Meriam Ratner voluntarily dismissed the suit without prejudice. "On June 6, 2014, this purported shareholder class action was re- filed by the plaintiff in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, naming us and certain of our officers as defendants. The lawsuit includes the same allegations as were included in the action filed on September 16, 2013. The complaint seeks certification of a class of purchasers of our stock during the period February 25, 2013 through September 10, 2013. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney's fees. "We believe that this action is without merit and intend to defend it vigorously. At this time, no assessment can be made as to the likely outcome of this lawsuit or whether the outcome will be material to us." OvaScience is a global life science company focused on the discovery, development, and commercialization of new fertility treatments. Its patented technology is based on egg precursor cells, or EggPCs, which are found in the outer layer of a woman's own ovaries. The discovery of EggPCSM cells countered a long-held medical belief that women are born with a set number of eggs, thereby enabling new possibilities in the treatment of female infertility. PURDUE PHARMA: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Opioid Painkillers -------------------------------------------------------------- Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that several drugmakers facing a lawsuit from Chicago over allegedly misrepresenting the safety of using their opioid painkillers in the treatment of chronic, non-cancer pain argue that the case should be dismissed because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has primary jurisdiction over the drugs. Defendants Purdue Pharma L.P. and related defendants, Teva Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and its subsidiary Cephalon Inc., Johnson & Johnson's Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., Endo Health Solutions Inc. and Actavis, plc filed the joint motion. The pharmaceutical companies argue that the FDA rejected a citizen petition from medical and other health officials to change opioid labeling to specify a daily-dose maximum equivalent to 100 milligrams morphine, to specify that opioids should not be continuously used beyond 90 days for non-cancer pain and to inform prescribers that only severe pain, not moderate pain, was an indication to use this type of painkiller. According to the drugmakers, the only change the FDA made right away was to indicate that the drugs should only be prescribed for pain "severe enough to require daily, around-the-clock, long-term opioid treatment and for which alternative treatment options are inadequate." The FDA then required the drugmakers to conduct new studies of the risks of addiction, overdose and other problems with the opioids, and those studies are slated to be completed between 2015 and 2018, the defendants said. "The city seeks to have this court second-guess scientific and regulatory determinations the FDA has recently made after reviewing the currently available scientific evidence, and interfere with FDA's continued and active investigation of these issues, posing an obvious risk of inconsistent and non-uniform administrative and judicial determinations of matters placed within the FDA's 'special competence' and 'dependent to some degree upon administrative policy,'" the defendant said. The pharmaceutical companies also all allege that city's complaint should be dismissed because it improperly lumps them in together without pleading sufficient facts about each of them. "Despite more than 375 paragraphs and 120 pages, the city's complaint fails to allege any of the specific facts required to state a fraud-based claim, including that any defendant made any false statement to anyone connected with any opioid prescription the city paid for," the defendants said. "Prolixity cannot substitute for either specificity or clarity." The defendants also alleged that the city has not plausibly alleged that alleged misrepresentations about their painkillers caused the city to have to pay out for opioid prescriptions. The city alleges it has spent $9.5 million to reimburse opioid prescriptions under the city's health plans. In separate motions to dismiss, Actavis argues that it does not sell any pharmaceutical products and Teva argues that it does not make or sell opioids in the United States. RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA: Inmates' Mental Health Care Suit Can Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------------ Richard K. De Atley, writing for The Press Enterprise, a civil rights lawsuit by some Riverside County jail inmates has been granted class-action status by a federal judge, giving thousands of inmates legal standing in the case that claims inadequate medical and mental health care and suicide prevention in the county's five jails. The 2013 lawsuit filed by attorneys with the Prison Law Office in Berkeley said the county has acted with "deliberate indifference" regarding those issues and others, such as inadequate numbers of health care personnel including physicians, even after county grand jury reports in 2011 and 2012 criticized medical and mental health care in the jails, which are overseen by the Sheriff's Department. "This is a case to reform care. We are not seeking money for our clients," attorney Sara Norman of the Prison Law Office said Wednesday in a telephone interview. "The county will conduct a thorough review of the decision before determining the appropriate response to the court," Riverside County spokesman Ray Smith said in a statement. The 116-page ruling issued late on Sept. 2 by U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips in Riverside Federal Court says the most general class includes "all prisoners who are now, or will be in the future, subjected to the medical and mental health practices of Riverside County." At any given time there are about 4,000 inmates throughout the county system, which has been at its maximum legally permissible population since shortly after state prison realignment went into effect nearly three years ago. That has forced more than 23,500 early releases since January 2012 and increased dangers for both jail personnel and inmates as longer-term prisoners were sentenced to facilities originally built for stays under a year. As of August, 496 of the facilities' inmates were serving terms of three years or longer. Problems Preceded Realignment But the problems with medical and mental health care alleged in the lawsuit existed before prison realignment, and have only worsened since, Ms. Norman said. Recent jail improvements spurred by realignment needs and not the legal action have expanded mental health care facilities inside the jails and added mental health care workers to interview new inmates. Ms. Norman said those actions can't take care of the systemic problems alleged in the lawsuit, such as problems getting an appointment to see a doctor or a psychiatrist or getting the right medication at the right time. Judge Phillips' ruling means the plaintiffs can seek inspection visits of the jails by experts to further identify issues for trial. Ms. Norman said the goal is to reach a reform plan with the county before that. She said Prison Law Office attorneys were approaching such an agreement in a similar lawsuit filed in Fresno County. "We could do that (in Riverside County) now. The county can save a lot of time and money by agreeing to experts and agreeing to overhaul the system. That is better than going to trial, which is time consuming and expensive for both sides," she said. TOWER GROUP: Consolidated Merger-Related Suit Discontinued ---------------------------------------------------------- The settled consolidated merger-related lawsuit against Tower Group International, Ltd., was discontinued with prejudice but without costs, providing that counsel for the Plaintiffs could apply for restoration of the action, according to the Company's August 21, 2014 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. According to the Company: "On January 14, 2014, Derek Wilson, a purported shareholder of Tower, filed a purported class action complaint (the "Wilson Complaint") against Tower, certain of its current and former directors, ACP Re Ltd. ("ACP Re"), London Acquisition Company Limited ("Merger Sub"), and AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. ("AmTrust") in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Wilson Complaint alleges that the members of the Company's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to the shareholders of Tower under Bermuda law by approving Tower's entry into the ACP Re Merger Agreement and failing to take steps to maximize the value of Tower to its public shareholders, and that Tower, ACP Re, Merger Sub, and AmTrust aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. The Wilson Complaint also alleges, among other things, that the proposed transaction undervalues Tower, that the process leading up to the ACP Re Merger Agreement was flawed, and that certain provisions of the ACP Re Merger Agreement improperly favor ACP Re and discourage competing offers for the Company. The Wilson Complaint further alleges oppressive conduct by the directors against Tower's shareholders in violation of Bermuda law. The Wilson Complaint seeks, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the alleged fiduciary breaches, injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants from consummating the proposed transaction, rescission of the ACP Re Merger Agreement to the extent already implemented, and other forms of equitable relief. On February 27, 2014, the same purported shareholder filed an amended complaint alleging, in addition, that the Company and the directors disseminated a materially false and misleading preliminary proxy statement regarding the ACP Re Merger Agreement in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder (the "Wilson Amended Complaint")." "On March 3, 2014, another purported shareholder filed a purported class action complaint against the Company, certain of its current and former officers and directors, ACP Re, Merger Sub, and AmTrust, also in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Raul Complaint"). The Raul Complaint alleges that the defendants disseminated a materially false and misleading preliminary proxy statement regarding the ACP Re Merger Agreement in violation of sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9." "On May 12, 2014, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an order consolidating the Wilson and Raul actions (hereinafter the "Consolidated Federal Action"). On May 22, 2014, the Court issued an order appointing Wilson and George Strum, another purported shareholder of the Company, as co-lead plaintiffs in the Consolidated Federal Action and appointing Robbins Arroyo LLP and WeissLaw LLP as co-lead counsel." "On March 24, 2014, two purported shareholders of the Company filed a purported class action and shareholder derivative complaint against the Company, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and Tower Group, Inc. in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York (the "Bekkerman Complaint" and, together with the Wilson Amended Complaint and the Raul Complaint, the "Merger Complaints"). The Bekkerman Complaint alleges, among other things, that the members of the Company's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to the shareholders of the Company by failing to exercise appropriate oversight over the conduct of the Company's business, awarding Michael Lee excessive compensation, approving the Company's entry into the ACP Re Merger Agreement, failing to take steps to maximize the value of the Company to its public shareholders, and misrepresenting or omitting material information in connection with the proposed transaction, and that the Company and Tower Group, Inc. aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. The Bekkerman Complaint also alleges, among other things, that Lee was unjustly enriched as a result of the compensation he received while allegedly breaching his fiduciary duties and by selling stock while in the possession of material, adverse, non-public information. The Bekkerman Complaint seeks, among other things, an award of money damages, declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the alleged fiduciary breaches, injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants from consummating the proposed transaction, rescission of the ACP Re Merger Agreement to the extent already implemented, and other forms of equitable relief. On May 16, 2014, the defendants removed the Bekkerman action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and requested that it be designated as related to the Consolidated Federal Action. On June 3, 2014, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York accepted the designation of the Bekkerman Complaint as related to the Consolidated Federal Action. On July 21, 2014, the Court issued an order consolidating the Bekkerman action into the Consolidated Federal Action for all purposes." "On July 25, 2014, the defendants reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs to settle the Consolidated Federal Action. The settlement remains subject to appropriate documentation by the parties and approval by the Court. As part of the settlement, the Company agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures to Tower shareholders on Form 8-K, which was filed with the SEC on July 28, 2014. As set forth therein, the defendants deny all fault or liability and deny that they have committed any of the unlawful or wrongful acts alleged in the Merger Complaints or otherwise in relation to the Merger Agreement, or any of the events or actions related thereto, and specifically deny that any further disclosure was required to supplement the Proxy Statement under any applicable rule, statute, regulation or law. The Company agreed to provide those supplemental disclosures solely to minimize the cost of defending the litigation and to permit the special general meeting and stockholder vote to proceed without delay." "On July 29, 2014, the Court ordered that the Consolidated Federal Action be discontinued with prejudice but without costs, providing, however, that counsel for plaintiffs could apply by letter for restoration of the action to the calendar within 30 days of the order, in which event the action will be restored. The Company believes that it is not probable that the Merger Complaints will result in a loss, and if they would result in a loss, that the amount of any such loss cannot reasonably be estimated." TOWER GROUP: Defends Consolidated Securities Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------------- Tower Group International, Ltd., continues to defend itself against a consolidated securities class action lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to the Company's August 21, 2014 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. According to the Company: "On August 20, 2013, Robert P. Lang, a purported shareholder of Tower Group International Ltd. ("Tower"), filed a purported class action complaint (the "Lang Complaint") against Tower and certain of its current and former officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Lang Complaint purports to be asserted on behalf of a class of persons who purchased Tower stock between July 30, 2012 and August 8, 2013." "The Lang Complaint alleges that Tower and certain of its current and former officers violated federal securities laws and seeks unspecified damages. On September 3, 2013, a second purported shareholder class action complaint was filed by Dennis Feighay, another purported Tower shareholder, containing similar allegations to those set forth in the Lang Complaint (the "Feighay Complaint"). The Feighay Complaint purports to be asserted on behalf of a class of persons who purchased Tower stock between May 9, 2011 and August 7, 2013. On October 4, 2013, a third complaint was filed by Sanju Sharma (the "Sharma Complaint"). The Sharma Complaint names as defendants Tower and certain of its current and former officers, and purports to be asserted on behalf of a plaintiff class who purchased Tower stock between May 10, 2011 and September 17, 2013. On October 18, 2013, an amended complaint was filed in the Sharma case (the "Sharma Amended Complaint"). The Sharma Amended Complaint alleges additional false and misleading statements, and purports to be asserted on behalf of a plaintiff class who purchased Tower stock between March 1, 2011 and October 7, 2013. On October 21, 2013, a number of motions were filed seeking to consolidate the shareholder class actions into one matter and for appointment of a lead plaintiff." "On June 17, 2014, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an order consolidating the Lang, Feighay, and Sharma actions (hereinafter the "Consolidated Securities Action") and appointing Adar Enhanced Investment Fund, Ltd. and Adar Investment Fund, Ltd. (the "Adar Funds") and Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, and the Kansas City, Missouri Employees' Retirement System (the "Public Pension Funds") as co- lead plaintiffs in the Consolidated Securities Action and Bernstein Liebhard LLP, Saxena White P.A., and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as co-lead counsel. On July 1, 2014, the Court entered a stipulation and order providing for the co-lead plaintiffs to file a Consolidated Class Action Complaint on August 22, 2014." The Company believes that it is not probable that the Consolidated Securities Action will result in a loss, and if it would result in a loss, that the amount of any such loss cannot reasonably be estimated. TOYOTA MOTOR: Translator in Acceleration Suit Faces Sanctions ------------------------------------------------------------- Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a translator who provided internal Toyota documents to news outlets is facing sanctions for not obeying a protective order in the litigation over the carmaker's vehicles that unexpectedly accelerated. U.S. District Judge James V. Selna of the Central District of California ordered Betsy Benjaminson, who lives in Israel and is a self-described whistleblower, to show cause why she should not be sanctioned. Judge Selna ordered Ms. Benjaminson to appear in his Santa Ana, Calif., courtroom on Oct. 27. Ms. Benjaminson worked for Linguistic Services Inc., Toyota's translation vendor, and then promulgated thousands of Toyota's documents. Ms. Benjaminson also obtained a PowerPoint presentation prepared by Michael Barr, a plaintiffs expert witness on embedded software who concluded that Toyota's source code was defective and led to unintended acceleration in the plaintiffs' Toyota Camry. The plaintiff's expert presented the information during the first trial to test whether Toyota's throttle-control systems caused vehicles to spontaneously accelerate. According to Toyota's court papers, Ms. Benjaminson obtained the source-code material from another plaintiffs expert Antony Anderson, who got it from Mr. Barr's Dropbox account. Anderson is not one of the 17 people to whom Barr admitted he had given access to his Dropbox account. After Toyota subpoenaed Ms. Benjaminson via email to give a deposition about how she got the stolen documents, Ms. Benjaminson asserted her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. "Beyond these blatant and knowing violations of the protective order Benjaminson has used her blog to ridicule this court's orders, lodge personal attacks against Toyota and its counsel and even -- most brazenly -- to question the court's competence on these matters," Lisa Gilford -- lisa.gilford@skadden.com -- of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP said in court papers. "On July 23, 2014, after receiving the court's order on the motion and Toyota's subpoena, Ms. Benjaminson authored a post entitled 'How easy is it to hoodwink a judge on technical matters?' in which she commented . . . 'How do we really know if Judge Selna is fully apprised and trained or sufficiently advised in engineering matters to understand and pass judgment on the validity of the reasons for the technical secrecy?'" According to Toyota's court papers, Ms. Benjaminson recently disabled public access to some of the documents on her blogs and Dropbox accounts, Toyota said. Parts of the exhibits for Toyota's ex parte application were redacted. Toyota said there is good cause to file the court papers under seal because they involve documents that are confidential, including an internal comparison of Toyota's electronic data recorders to those of its competitors. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Reverses Prior Ruling in Drivers Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that reversing his prior ruling, a federal judge on September 4, 2014, said he was wrong to let out-of-state Uber drivers pursue labor claims under California law. "The court now concludes that its earlier holding was in error, and that the California statutes involved in this action do not apply extra-territorially," U.S. District Judge Edward Chen wrote. In explaining his change of opinion, Chen conceded that his 2013 ruling "rested on a fundamental mis-reading" of Gravquick A/S v. Trimble Nav. Int'l Ltd., a 9th Circuit case that Chen had said outweighed the presumption against extraterritorial application of a law where there is a choice of law clause in a contractual relationship. "The court in Gravquick did not hold that a California choice of law provision can overcome the presumption against extraterritorial application of California law," Chen wrote. "Instead, the court recognized that parties' agreement to apply California law must yield in those circumstances where the law in question contains 'geographical limitations.' " Chen cited a recent ruling by his colleague in the Northern District, Judge Vincent Chhabria, who found California law does not apply to people working exclusively out-of-state. "Even if the choice of law provision were intended to confer upon out-of- state drivers a cause of action for violation of California's wage and hour laws, it could not do so," Chhabria wrote. "An employee cannot create by contract a cause of action that California law does not provide." Chhabria went on to say, as quoted on September 4, 2014, by Chen: "The court concludes that the Labor Code violations upon which plaintiffs rely do not apply extraterritorially and, therefore, cannot apply to those plaintiffs or unnamed class members who worked in states other than California." California drivers sued Uber in 2013, accusing the taxi-service app maker of falsely stating that gratuity is included in the fare, then failing to pass along the full share of tips to which the drivers claim they are entitled. The California plaintiffs, led by Douglas O'Connor and Thomas Colopy, sought to represent Uber drivers in all states but Massachusetts and Illinois, where similar claims were brought in 2012. In his latest ruling, Chen allowed the in-state drivers' California labor code and Unfair Competition Law claims to proceed, but nixed the class's breach of implied-in-fact contract and tortious interference claims. Because the claimed misrepresentation about the tips being included in the fare happened before formation of the customer's business relationship with the driver, "the withholding of the alleged 'gratuities' would not have been wrongful," Chen said. The case is Douglas O'Connor, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. C-13-3826 EMC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. VERDASYS INC: October 21 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set -------------------------------------------------------- Berman DeValerio on Sept. 4 issued a statement regarding Sanderson et al. v. Verdasys, Inc. et al., Civil Litigation No. SUCV2012- 00621-BLS1, pursuant to an order by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Suffolk County Superior Court: ALAN SANDERSON, DONATO BUCCELLA and MARK SILVERMAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. VERDASYS, INC., TORONTO-DOMINION CAPITAL, n/k/a FAIRHAVEN CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, SPECIAL SITUATIONS FUND III, L.P., SPECIAL SITUATIONS TECHNOLOGY FUND, L.P., SPECIAL SITUATIONS PRIVATE EQUITY FUND, L.P., SPECIAL SITUATIONS TECHNOLOGY FUND II, L.P., VERDASYS INC. INVESTMENT TRUST, VERDASYS INC. SERIES B CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED INVESTMENT TRUST, VERDASYS INC. SERIES C CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED INVESTMENT TRUST, DANIEL KESHIAN, ADAM STETTNER, HUGH WARREN, ALLEN MICHELS, and SETH BIRNBAUM, Defendants. CIVIL ACTION NO. SUCV2012-00621-BLS1 SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING, AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO OWNED THE SECURITIES OF VERDASYS, INC. ("VERDASYS") AS OF APRIL 8, 2011, AND WERE THEREBY DAMAGED. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, of -- the pendency of this action ("Action") as a class action on behalf of the persons and entities described above ("Class"), except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Class by definition; and of -- a proposed all-cash settlement of the Action in the total amount of $1.05 million on behalf of all Class members that will fully and finally settle all claims against and release all Defendants. A hearing will be held at the Suffolk County Courthouse, 3 Pemberton Square, Boston, MA 02108 at 2:00 p.m. on October 21, 2014, (i) to determine whether the proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) to determine whether the Settled Claims against the Defendants and other Released Parties should be dismissed with prejudice; (iii) to determine whether the proposed plan of allocation should be approved by the Court as fair and reasonable; and (iv) to consider the application of Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses and the application of Lead Plaintiffs for a Compensatory Award. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PENDING ACTION AND THE SETTLEMENT, AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND. If you have not yet received the full printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement, Settlement Fairness Hearing, and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses ("Notice"), with the attached Claim Form, you may obtain a copy of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator: Sanderson, et al. v. Verdasys, et al. Litigation, c/o Berman DeValerio, One Liberty Square, Boston, MA, 02109, or by telephone at 617-542- 8300. Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the Claims Administrator's website, www.BermanDeValerio.com If you are a Class member, you will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action. Any objections to any of the proposed Settlement, the proposed plan of allocation, the request for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, or Lead Plaintiffs' request for a Compensatory Award, must be filed with the Court no later than October 7, 2014, and delivered to Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel and counsel for the Defendants such that they are received no later than October 8, 2014, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Inquiries may be made to Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel: Daryl DeValerio Andrews, Esq. BERMAN DEVALERIO One Liberty Square Boston, MA 02109 (617) 542-8300 www.BermanDeValerio.com By Order of the Court WEBECO FOODS: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Humberto Alfonso Llanes, Gerardo Gonzalez Garriga, Luis Orlando Castro and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Webeco Foods, Inc. and Jose Teijeiro, Case No. 1:14-cv-23320-JAL (S.D. Fla., September 8, 2014) alleges that the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs proper overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Webeco Foods, Inc. is a corporation that regularly transacts business within Dade County. Jose Teijeiro is a corporate officer, owner or manager of the Company. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: (305) 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM * Philly Favorable for Medical Malpractice Suits, Court Data Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Mondics, writing for The Philadelphia Inquirer, reports that Philadelphia remains the most favorable jurisdiction in Pennsylvania for lawyers seeking big payoffs, a maddening fact to the many physicians and hospitals. And new data compiled by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court make that point incontrovertibly. Although Philadelphia accounts for only 12 percent of the state's population, 40 percent of medical malpractice trials resulting in verdicts in 2013 took place in the city. Not only are a disproportionate number of cases tried here, but the odds are better for plaintiffs. Philadelphia plaintiffs won 45 percent of cases tried to verdict in 2013, more than any other jurisdiction. In Bucks County, there were only four medical malpractice cases resulting in verdicts, and the plaintiffs won none. In Montgomery, the results were better for plaintiffs; 19 percent of cases went their way, but they trailed Philadelphia significantly. In more than half the state's counties, there were no medical malpractice verdicts. That the odds are better for plaintiffs in Philadelphia helps explain why the upper tier of Philadelphia's plaintiffs bar live like modern-day Medici -- some are far wealthier than the corporate defense counsel at so-called white- shoe law firms they face off against in court. Yet longer-term trends foretell a less-hospitable climate. Since 2002, when the state began requiring that malpractice cases be filed only in the jurisdiction where the injury occurred, cases have dropped by half statewide. And after John Herron, administrative judge of the trial division of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, initiated rule changes in 2012 designed to restrict filings in Philadelphia by out-of- state plaintiffs, lawsuits alleging harm from asbestos and prescription drugs dropped more than two-thirds. These are typically complex litigation that can result in huge awards. The Pennsylvania legislature also sharply restricted the possibility for recovery in civil cases. The act requires that plaintiffs show a defendant is 60 percent or more responsible before the plaintiff can get any money. Previously, the threshold had been much lower. More change appears to be on the way. The state Supreme Court issued a potentially game-changing opinion expanding the circumstances under which a civil defendant in Philadelphia can ask a trial court to transfer a case to another, presumably less plaintiff-friendly, jurisdiction. Trial courts can consider factors that had been off-limits or restricted, such as the inconvenience of travel by parties and witnesses to a trial, in deciding whether to transfer a case. Philadelphia "is still a challenging jurisdiction," Cary Silverman, a lawyer with the corporate defense firm of Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. But, he added, since the rule changes of 2012, "it has been viewed as much more even-handed and moving in the right direction." The push to change the rules in civil filings began more than a decade ago, when lawsuits against hospitals and doctors were restricted to the county court jurisdictions where the injuries occurred. The plaintiffs were also required to provide certification the lawsuit had merit. The trend accelerated in 2012, when Mr. Herron, concerned by the growing backlog of out-of- state cases, instituted rules aimed at cutting back on filings. No longer would juries decide before a trial what the damages might be if the corporate defendants were found responsible -- a practice corporate-defense counsel said added pressure for a settlement. Mr. Herron also restricted the bundling of 10 or more cases for trial at a time, a practice that likely confused juries, and he limited appearances by out-of-state lawyers. "My overall goal was to add structure where there had been none, and to send a bully-pulpit message to discourage out-of-state litigation," Mr. Herron said. The results were dramatic. In 2012, the year the rules were adopted, the caseload of asbestos and pharmaceutical filings dropped from a high of 2,690 the year before to 816 in 2012, and was lower still, at 813, the following year. The number spiked sharply for the first half of this year -- to 1,074, attributable to a flood of lawsuits involving Risperdal, an anti-psychotic medication, and other litigation. But Mr. Herron said the bump is anomalous and that he expects the trend line to head back down. Whether Mr. Herron is right about that will be borne out by filings and verdict data from the Supreme Court in the years to come. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. To Appeal $11-Mil. Garvin Judgment ------------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co. plans to appeal the $11 million verdict for Lloyd Garvin's asbestos-related lawsuit, according to the Company's Form 8-K dated July 28, 2014, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2014. On September 11, 2013, a Columbia, South Carolina state court jury in the Lloyd Garvin claim entered an $11 million verdict for compensatory damages against the Company and two other defendants jointly, and also awarded exemplary damages against the Company in the amount of $11 million. The jury also awarded exemplary damages against both other defendants. The Company has filed post-trial motions seeking to overturn the verdict, to grant a new trial, or to reduce the damages. The Company plans to pursue an appeal if necessary. Crane Co. is a diversified manufacturer of engineered industrial products. It operates in five segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems, Fluid Handling and Controls. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment is comprised of two businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling equipment. The Controls segment provides customer solutions for sensing and control applications. In December 2013, the Company announced that it has completed the acquisition of MEI Conlux Holdings. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Appeal in "DeLisle" Suit Is Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co.'s appeal from the $1.3 million judgment in Richard DeLisle's asbestos-related claim is pending, according to the Company's Form 8-K dated July 28, 2014, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2014. On September 17, 2013, a Fort Lauderdale, Florida state court jury in the Richard DeLisle claim found the Company responsible for 16 percent of an $8 million verdict. The trial court denied all parties' post-trial motions, and entered judgment against the Company in the amount of $1.3 million. The Company has appealed. Crane Co. is a diversified manufacturer of engineered industrial products. It operates in five segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems, Fluid Handling and Controls. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment is comprised of two businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling equipment. The Controls segment provides customer solutions for sensing and control applications. In December 2013, the Company announced that it has completed the acquisition of MEI Conlux Holdings. ASBESTOS UPDATE: $25MM Verdict Entered Against Crane in NY Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- A verdict totaling $25 million was entered against Crane Co. in two asbestos-related lawsuits pending in New York, according to the Company's Form 8-K dated July 28, 2014, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2014. On June 16, 2014, a New York City state court jury entered a $15 million verdict against the Company in the Ivan Sweberg claim and a $10 million verdict against the Company in the Selwyn Hackshaw claim. The two claims were consolidated for trial. The Company filed post-trial motions seeking to overturn the verdicts, to grant new trials, or to reduce the damages, which the Company argues were excessive under New York appellate case law governing awards for non-economic losses and further were subject to settlement offsets. The Company plans to pursue appeals if necessary. The judgment amounts are not included in the Company's incurred costs until all available appeals are exhausted and the final payment amount is determined. Crane Co. is a diversified manufacturer of engineered industrial products. It operates in five segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems, Fluid Handling and Controls. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment is comprised of two businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling equipment. The Controls segment provides customer solutions for sensing and control applications. In December 2013, the Company announced that it has completed the acquisition of MEI Conlux Holdings. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Resolved 103,000 Claims as of June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co. has resolved approximately 103,000 asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's Form 8-K dated July 28, 2014, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2014. The gross settlement and defense costs incurred (before insurance recoveries and tax effects) for the Company for the six-month periods ended June 30, 2014 and 2013 totaled $45.0 million and $43.1 million, respectively. In contrast to the recognition of settlement and defense costs, which reflect the current level of activity in the tort system, cash payments and receipts generally lag the tort system activity by several months or more, and may show some fluctuation from quarter to quarter. Cash payments of settlement amounts are not made until all releases and other required documentation are received by the Company, and reimbursements of both settlement amounts and defense costs by insurers may be uneven due to insurer payment practices, transitions from one insurance layer to the next excess layer and the payment terms of certain reimbursement agreements. The Company's total pre-tax payments for settlement and defense costs, net of funds received from insurers, for the six-month periods ended June 30, 2014 and 2013 totaled $30.8 million and $28.9 million, respectively. The amounts shown for settlement and defense costs incurred, and cash payments, are not necessarily indicative of future period amounts, which may be higher or lower than those reported. Cumulatively through June 30, 2014, the Company has resolved (by settlement or dismissal) approximately 103,000 claims, not including the MARDOC claims. The related settlement cost incurred by the Company and its insurance carriers is approximately $415 million, for an average settlement cost per resolved claim of approximately $4,000. The average settlement cost per claim resolved during the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011 was $3,300, $6,300 and $4,123, respectively. Because claims are sometimes dismissed in large groups, the average cost per resolved claim, as well as the number of open claims, can fluctuate significantly from period to period. In addition to large group dismissals, the nature of the disease and corresponding settlement amounts for each claim resolved will also drive changes from period to period in the average settlement cost per claim. Accordingly, the average cost per resolved claim is not considered in the Company's periodic review of its estimated asbestos liability. Crane Co. is a diversified manufacturer of engineered industrial products. It operates in five segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems, Fluid Handling and Controls. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment is comprised of two businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling equipment. The Controls segment provides customer solutions for sensing and control applications. In December 2013, the Company announced that it has completed the acquisition of MEI Conlux Holdings. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had $659-Mil. Fibro Liability -------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co. had $695 million liability cover the estimated cost of asbestos claims, according to the Company's Form 8-K dated July 28, 2014, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2014. The Company has retained the firm of Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Associates, Inc., a nationally recognized expert in the field, to assist management in estimating the Company's asbestos liability in the tort system. HR&A reviews information provided by the Company concerning claims filed, settled and dismissed, amounts paid in settlements and relevant claim information such as the nature of the asbestos-related disease asserted by the claimant, the jurisdiction where filed and the time lag from filing to disposition of the claim. The methodology used by HR&A to project future asbestos costs is based largely on the Company's experience during a base reference period of eleven quarterly periods (consisting of the two full preceding calendar years and three additional quarterly periods to the estimate date) for claims filed, settled and dismissed. The Company's experience is then compared to the results of widely used previously conducted epidemiological studies estimating the number of individuals likely to develop asbestos-related diseases. Those studies were undertaken in connection with national analyses of the population of workers believed to have been exposed to asbestos. Using that information, HR&A estimates the number of future claims that would be filed against the Company and estimates the aggregate settlement or indemnity costs that would be incurred to resolve both pending and future claims based upon the average settlement costs by disease during the reference period. This methodology has been accepted by numerous courts. After discussions with the Company, HR&A augments its liability estimate for the costs of defending asbestos claims in the tort system using a forecast from the Company which is based upon discussions with its defense counsel. Based on this information, HR&A compiles an estimate of the Company's asbestos liability for pending and future claims, based on claim experience during the reference period and covering claims expected to be filed through the indicated forecast period. The most significant factors affecting the liability estimate are (1) the number of new mesothelioma claims filed against the Company, (2) the average settlement costs for mesothelioma claims, (3) the percentage of mesothelioma claims dismissed against the Company and (4) the aggregate defense costs incurred by the Company. These factors are interdependent, and no one factor predominates in determining the liability estimate. Although the methodology used by HR&A can be applied to show claims and costs for periods subsequent to the indicated period (up to and including the endpoint of the asbestos studies referred to above), management believes that the level of uncertainty regarding the various factors used in estimating future asbestos costs is too great to provide for reasonable estimation of the number of future claims, the nature of such claims or the cost to resolve them for years beyond the indicated estimate. In the Company's view, the forecast period used to provide the best estimate for asbestos claims and related liabilities and costs is a judgment based upon a number of trend factors, including the number and type of claims being filed each year; the jurisdictions where such claims are filed, and the effect of any legislation or judicial orders in such jurisdictions restricting the types of claims that can proceed to trial on the merits; and the likelihood of any comprehensive asbestos legislation at the federal level. In addition, the dynamics of asbestos litigation in the tort system have been significantly affected over the past five to ten years by the substantial number of companies that have filed for bankruptcy protection, thereby staying any asbestos claims against them until the conclusion of such proceedings, and the establishment of a number of post-bankruptcy trusts for asbestos claimants, which are estimated to provide $36 billion for payments to current and future claimants. These trend factors have both positive and negative effects on the dynamics of asbestos litigation in the tort system and the related best estimate of the Company's asbestos liability, and these effects do not move in a linear fashion but rather change over multi-year periods. Accordingly, the Company's management continues to monitor these trend factors over time and periodically assesses whether an alternative forecast period is appropriate. Each quarter, HR&A compiles an update based upon the Company's experience in claims filed, settled and dismissed during the updated reference period (consisting of the preceding eleven quarterly periods) as well as average settlement costs by disease category (mesothelioma, lung cancer, other cancer and non- malignant conditions including asbestosis) during that period. In addition to this claims experience, the Company also considers additional quantitative and qualitative factors such as the nature of the aging of pending claims, significant appellate rulings and legislative developments, and their respective effects on expected future settlement values. As part of this process, the Company also takes into account trends in the tort system such as those enumerated above. Management considers all these factors in conjunction with the liability estimate of HR&A and determines whether a change in the estimate is warranted. With the assistance of HR&A, effective as of December 31, 2011, the Company updated and extended its estimate of the asbestos liability, including the costs of settlement or indemnity payments and defense costs relating to currently pending claims and future claims projected to be filed against the Company through 2021. The Company's previous estimate was for asbestos claims filed or projected to be filed through 2017. As a result of this updated estimate, the Company recorded an additional liability of $285 million as of December 31, 2011. The Company's decision to take this action at such date was based on several factors which contribute to the Company's ability to reasonably estimate this liability for the additional period noted. First, the number of mesothelioma claims (which although constituting approximately 8% of the Company's total pending asbestos claims, have accounted for approximately 90% of the Company's aggregate settlement and defense costs) being filed against the Company and associated settlement costs have recently stabilized. In the Company's opinion, the outlook for mesothelioma claims expected to be filed and resolved in the forecast period is reasonably stable. Second, there have been favorable developments in the trend of case law which has been a contributing factor in stabilizing the asbestos claims activity and related settlement costs. Third, there have been significant actions taken by certain state legislatures and courts over the past several years that have reduced the number and types of claims that can proceed to trial, which has been a significant factor in stabilizing the asbestos claims activity. Fourth, the Company has now entered into coverage-in-place agreements with almost all of its excess insurers, which enables the Company to project a more stable relationship between settlement and defense costs paid by the Company and reimbursements from its insurers. Taking all of these factors into account, the Company believes that it can reasonably estimate the asbestos liability for pending claims and future claims to be filed through 2021. While it is probable that the Company will incur additional charges for asbestos liabilities and defense costs in excess of the amounts currently provided, the Company does not believe that any such amount can be reasonably estimated beyond 2021. Accordingly, no accrual has been recorded for any costs which may be incurred for claims which may be made subsequent to 2021. Management has made its best estimate of the costs through 2021 based on the analysis by HR&A completed in January 2012. Through June 30, 2014, the Company's actual experience during the updated reference period for mesothelioma claims filed and dismissed generally approximated the assumptions in the Company's liability estimate. In addition to this claims experience, the Company considered additional quantitative and qualitative factors such as the nature of the aging of pending claims, significant appellate rulings and legislative developments, and their respective effects on expected future settlement values. Based on this evaluation, the Company determined that no change in the estimate was warranted for the period ended June 30, 2014. Nevertheless, if certain factors show a pattern of sustained increase or decrease, the liability could change materially; however, all the assumptions used in estimating the asbestos liability are interdependent and no single factor predominates in determining the liability estimate. Because of the uncertainty with regard to and the interdependency of such factors used in the calculation of its asbestos liability, and since no one factor predominates, the Company believes that a range of potential liability estimates beyond the indicated forecast period cannot be reasonably estimated. A liability of $894 million was recorded as of December 31, 2011 to cover the estimated cost of asbestos claims now pending or subsequently asserted through 2021, of which approximately 80% is attributable to settlement and defense costs for future claims projected to be filed through 2021. The liability is reduced when cash payments are made in respect of settled claims and defense costs. The liability was $659 million as of June 30, 2014. It is not possible to forecast when cash payments related to the asbestos liability will be fully expended; however, it is expected such cash payments will continue for a number of years past 2021, due to the significant proportion of future claims included in the estimated asbestos liability and the lag time between the date a claim is filed and when it is resolved. None of these estimated costs have been discounted to present value due to the inability to reliably forecast the timing of payments. The current portion of the total estimated liability at June 30, 2014 was $88 million and represents the Company's best estimate of total asbestos costs expected to be paid during the twelve-month period. Such amount is based upon the HR&A model together with the Company's prior year payment experience for both settlement and defense costs. Crane Co. is a diversified manufacturer of engineered industrial products. It operates in five segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems, Fluid Handling and Controls. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment is comprised of two businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling equipment. The Controls segment provides customer solutions for sensing and control applications. In December 2013, the Company announced that it has completed the acquisition of MEI Conlux Holdings. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Has 2,225 Individual PI Claimants ------------------------------------------------------------- There were approximately 2,225 individual asbestos-related personal injury claimants against 3M Company, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014. As of June 30, 2014, the Company is a named defendant, with multiple co-defendants, in numerous lawsuits in various courts that purport to represent approximately 2,225 individual claimants, compared to approximately 2,200 individual claimants with actions pending at December 31, 2013. The vast majority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the Company allege use of some of the Company's mask and respirator products and seek damages from the Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the workplace. A minority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the Company generally allege personal injury from occupational exposure to asbestos from products previously manufactured by the Company, which are often unspecified, as well as products manufactured by other defendants, or occasionally at Company premises. The Company's current volume of new and pending matters is substantially lower than its historical experience over a decade ago. The Company expects that filing of claims by unimpaired claimants in the future will continue to be at much lower levels than in the past. Accordingly, the number of claims alleging more serious injuries, including mesothelioma and other malignancies, will represent a greater percentage of total claims than in the past. The Company has prevailed in all nine cases taken to trial, including seven of the eight cases tried to verdict (such trials occurred in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2007), and an appellate reversal in 2005 of the 2001 jury verdict adverse to the Company. The ninth case, tried in 2009, was dismissed by the Court at the close of plaintiff's evidence, based on the Court's legal finding that the plaintiff had not presented sufficient evidence to support a jury verdict. The Company has demonstrated in these past trial proceedings that its respiratory protection products are effective as claimed when used in the intended manner and in the intended circumstances. Consequently the Company believes that claimants are unable to establish that their medical conditions, even if significant, are attributable to the Company's respiratory protection products. Nonetheless the Company's litigation experience indicates that claims of persons with malignant conditions are costlier to resolve than the claims of unimpaired persons, and it therefore believes the average cost of resolving pending and future claims on a per-claim basis will continue to be higher than it experienced in prior periods when the vast majority of claims were asserted by the unimpaired. 3M Company (3M) is a diversified technology company. The Company operates in six segments: industrial and transportation; healthcare; consumer and office; safety, security and protection services; display and graphics, and electro and communications businesses. 3M products are sold through a number of distribution channels, including directly to users and through wholesalers, retailers, jobbers, distributors and dealers in a range of trades in a number of countries worldwide. In April 2012, it acquired CodeRyte Inc. In September 2012, it acquired the business of Federal Signal Technologies Group (FSTech) from Federal Signal Corporation. On November 28, 2012, the Company acquired Ceradyne, Inc. In April 2014, the Company acquired Treo Solutions. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit v. 3M Co. Remains Pending in West Virginia ---------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit arising from 3M Company's manufacturing of respiratory protection products remains pending in a West Virginia state court, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014. The State of West Virginia, through its Attorney General, filed a complaint in 2003 against the Company and two other manufacturers of respiratory protection products in the Circuit Court of Lincoln County, West Virginia and amended its complaint in 2005. The amended complaint seeks substantial, but unspecified, compensatory damages primarily for reimbursement of the costs allegedly incurred by the State for worker's compensation and healthcare benefits provided to all workers with occupational pneumoconiosis and unspecified punitive damages. While the case has been inactive since the fourth quarter of 2007, the court held a case management conference in March 2011. In November 2013, the State filed a motion to bifurcate the lawsuit into separate liability and damages proceedings. A hearing on that motion has not yet been scheduled. No liability has been recorded for this matter because the Company believes that liability is not probable and estimable at this time. In addition, the Company is not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss given the lack of any meaningful discovery responses by the State of West Virginia, the otherwise minimal activity in this case and the fact that the complaint asserts claims against two other manufacturers where a defendant's share of liability may turn on the law of joint and several liability and by the amount of fault, if any, a jury might allocate to each defendant if the case is ultimately tried. 3M Company is a diversified technology company. The Company operates in six segments: industrial and transportation; healthcare; consumer and office; safety, security and protection services; display and graphics, and electro and communications businesses. 3M products are sold through a number of distribution channels, including directly to users and through wholesalers, retailers, jobbers, distributors and dealers in a range of trades in a number of countries worldwide. In April 2012, it acquired CodeRyte Inc. In September 2012, it acquired the business of Federal Signal Technologies Group (FSTech) from Federal Signal Corporation. On November 28, 2012, the Company acquired Ceradyne, Inc. In April 2014, the Company acquired Treo Solutions. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Had $129MM Accruals for Fibro Liabilities ----------------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company had accruals for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities of $129 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014. The Company estimates its respirator mask/asbestos liabilities, including the cost to resolve the claims and defense costs, by examining: (i) the Company's experience in resolving claims, (ii) apparent trends, (iii) the apparent quality of claims (e.g., whether the claim has been asserted on behalf of asymptomatic claimants), (iv) changes in the nature and mix of claims (e.g., the proportion of claims asserting usage of the Company's mask or respirator products and alleging exposure to each of asbestos, silica, coal or other occupational dusts, and claims pleading use of asbestos-containing products allegedly manufactured by the Company), (v) the number of current claims and a projection of the number of future asbestos and other claims that may be filed against the Company, (vi) the cost to resolve recently settled claims, and (vii) an estimate of the cost to resolve and defend against current and future claims. Developments may occur that could affect the Company's estimate of its liabilities. These developments include, but are not limited to, significant changes in (i) the number of future claims, (ii) the average cost of resolving claims, (iii) the legal costs of defending these claims and in maintaining trial readiness, (iv) changes in the mix and nature of claims received, (v) trial and appellate outcomes, (vi) changes in the law and procedure applicable to these claims, and (vii) the financial viability of other co-defendants and insurers. As a result of the Company's on-going review of its accruals and the greater cost of resolving claims of persons who claim more serious injuries, including mesothelioma and other malignancies, the Company increased its accruals in the first six months of 2014 for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities by $21 million, $14 million of which occurred in the second quarter of 2014. In the first six months of 2014, the Company made payments for fees and settlements of $19 million related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation, $9 million of which occurred in the second quarter of 2014. As of June 30, 2014, the Company had accruals for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities of $129 million (excluding Aearo accruals). The Company cannot estimate the amount or range of amounts by which the liability may exceed the accrual the Company has established because of the (i) inherent difficulty in projecting the number of claims that have not yet been asserted, (ii) the complaints nearly always assert claims against multiple defendants where the damages alleged are typically not attributed to individual defendants so that a defendant's share of liability may turn on the law of joint and several liability, which can vary by state, (iii) the multiple factors described above that the Company considers in estimating its liabilities, and (iv) the several possible developments described above that may occur that could affect the Company's estimate of liabilities. As of June 30, 2014, the Company's receivable for insurance recoveries related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation was $47 million. The Company estimates insurance receivables based on an analysis of its policies, including their exclusions, pertinent case law interpreting comparable policies, its experience with similar claims, and assessment of the nature of each claim and remaining coverage, and records an amount it has concluded is likely to be recovered. Various factors could affect the timing and amount of recovery of this receivable, including (i) delays in or avoidance of payment by insurers; (ii) the extent to which insurers may become insolvent in the future, and (iii) the outcome of negotiations with insurers and legal proceedings with respect to respirator mask/asbestos liability insurance coverage. As previously reported, on January 5, 2007 the Company was served with a declaratory judgment action filed on behalf of two of its insurers (Continental Casualty and Continental Insurance Co. -- both part of the Continental Casualty Group) disclaiming coverage for respirator mask/asbestos claims. The action, in the District Court in Ramsey County, Minnesota, sought declaratory judgment regarding coverage provided by the policies and the allocation of covered costs among the policies issued by the various insurers. The action named, in addition to the Company, over 60 of the Company's insurers. The plaintiffs, Continental Casualty and Continental Insurance Co., as well as a significant number of the insurer defendants named in the amended complaint were dismissed because of settlements they had reached with the Company regarding the matters at issue in the lawsuit. In July 2013, the Company reached agreements in principle with the remaining insurers in the lawsuit. All of the settlement agreements have now been executed. In June 2014, the Court issued an order dismissing the case. During the first six months of 2014, the Company received payments of $11 million from settlements with insurers, $6 million of which occurred in the second quarter of 2014. The Company has unresolved coverage with claims-made carriers for respirator mask claims. The Company is also seeking coverage under the policies of certain insolvent insurers. Once those claims for coverage are resolved, the Company will have collected substantially all of its remaining insurance coverage for respirator mask/asbestos claims. 3M Company is a diversified technology company. The Company operates in six segments: industrial and transportation; healthcare; consumer and office; safety, security and protection services; display and graphics, and electro and communications businesses. 3M products are sold through a number of distribution channels, including directly to users and through wholesalers, retailers, jobbers, distributors and dealers in a range of trades in a number of countries worldwide. In April 2012, it acquired CodeRyte Inc. In September 2012, it acquired the business of Federal Signal Technologies Group (FSTech) from Federal Signal Corporation. On November 28, 2012, the Company acquired Ceradyne, Inc. In April 2014, the Company acquired Treo Solutions. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Estimates $24-Mil. Aearo Liabilities ------------------------------------------------------------ 3M Company's estimate of probable liabilities for Aearo-related asbestos- and silica-related claims is $24 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014. On April 1, 2008, a subsidiary of the Company purchased the stock of Aearo Holding Corp., the parent of Aearo Technologies ("Aearo"). Aearo manufactured and sold various products, including personal protection equipment, such as eye, ear, head, face, fall and certain respiratory protection products. As of June 30, 2014, Aearo and/or other companies that previously owned and operated Aearo's respirator business (American Optical Corporation, Warner-Lambert LLC, AO Corp. and Cabot Corporation ("Cabot")) are named defendants, with multiple co-defendants, including the Company, in numerous lawsuits in various courts in which plaintiffs allege use of mask and respirator products and seek damages from Aearo and other defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica-related, or other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the workplace. As of June 30, 2014, the Company, through its Aearo subsidiary, has recorded $24 million as the best estimate of the probable liabilities for product liabilities and defense costs related to current and future Aearo-related asbestos and silica-related claims. Responsibility for legal costs, as well as for settlements and judgments, is currently shared in an informal arrangement among Aearo, Cabot, American Optical Corporation and a subsidiary of Warner Lambert and their insurers (the "Payor Group"). Liability is allocated among the parties based on the number of years each company sold respiratory products under the "AO Safety" brand and/or owned the AO Safety Division of American Optical Corporation and the alleged years of exposure of the individual plaintiff. Aearo's share of the contingent liability is further limited by an agreement entered into between Aearo and Cabot on July 11, 1995. This agreement provides that, so long as Aearo pays to Cabot a quarterly fee of $100,000, Cabot will retain responsibility and liability for, and indemnify Aearo against, any product liability claims involving exposure to asbestos, silica, or silica products for respirators sold prior to July 11, 1995. Because of the difficulty in determining how long a particular respirator remains in the stream of commerce after being sold, Aearo and Cabot have applied the agreement to claims arising out of the alleged use of respirators involving exposure to asbestos, silica or silica products prior to January 1, 1997. With these arrangements in place, Aearo's potential liability is limited to exposures alleged to have arisen from the use of respirators involving exposure to asbestos, silica, or silica products on or after January 1, 1997. To date, Aearo has elected to pay the quarterly fee. Aearo could potentially be exposed to additional claims for some part of the pre-July 11, 1995 period covered by its agreement with Cabot if Aearo elects to discontinue its participation in this arrangement, or if Cabot is no longer able to meet its obligations in these matters. In March 2012, Cabot CSC Corporation and Cabot Corporation filed a lawsuit against Aearo in the Superior Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts seeking declaratory relief as to the scope of Cabot's indemnity obligations under the July 11, 1995 agreement, including whether Cabot has retained liability for coal workers' pneumoconiosis claims, and seeking damages for breach of contract. In June 2014, the court granted Aearo's motion for summary judgment on all claims. Cabot has filed a motion for reconsideration, and Aearo has filed a motion for clarification of the court's order granting Aearo summary judgment. Developments may occur that could affect the estimate of Aearo's liabilities. These developments 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) significant changes in the legal costs of defending these claims, (iv) significant changes in the mix and nature of claims received, (v) trial and appellate outcomes, (vi) significant changes in the law and procedure applicable to these claims, (vii) significant changes in the liability allocation among the co-defendants, (viii) the financial viability of members of the Payor Group including exhaustion of available coverage limits, and/or (ix) a determination that the interpretation of the contractual obligations on which Aearo has estimated its share of liability is inaccurate. The Company cannot determine the impact of these potential developments on its current estimate of Aearo's share of liability for these existing and future claims. If any of the developments described above were to occur, the actual amount of these liabilities for existing and future claims could be significantly larger than the amount accrued. Because of the inherent difficulty in projecting the number of claims that have not yet been asserted, the complexity of allocating responsibility for future claims among the Payor Group, and the several possible developments that may occur that could affect the estimate of Aearo's liabilities, the Company cannot estimate the amount or range of amounts by which Aearo's liability may exceed the accrual the Company has established. 3M Company (3M) is a diversified technology company. The Company operates in six segments: industrial and transportation; healthcare; consumer and office; safety, security and protection services; display and graphics, and electro and communications businesses. 3M products are sold through a number of distribution channels, including directly to users and through wholesalers, retailers, jobbers, distributors and dealers in a range of trades in a number of countries worldwide. In April 2012, it acquired CodeRyte Inc. In September 2012, it acquired the business of Federal Signal Technologies Group (FSTech) from Federal Signal Corporation. On November 28, 2012, the Company acquired Ceradyne, Inc. In April 2014, the Company acquired Treo Solutions. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair plc Units Had 2,300 Fibro Claims --------------------------------------------------------- There were approximately 2,200 lawsuits pending against Pentair plc subsidiaries, according to according to the Company's Form 10- Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 28, 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 June 28, 2014, there were approximately 2,200 lawsuits pending against our subsidiaries. A lawsuit might include several claims, and we have approximately 2,300 claims outstanding as of June 28, 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." Pentair plc provides products, services and solutions for its customers' needs in water and other fluids, thermal management and equipment protection. The Company invents and manufactures solutions for its products, services and technologies related to food, water or energy. The Company serves a range of customers in the food and beverage, residential and commercial, industrial, infrastructure, and energy sectors. It designs and manufactures technologies for the separation of solids, liquids, and gases, and for the treatment of water and steam. Its segments include Flow Technologies, Technical Solutions, Process Technologies and Valves and Controls. The Company's solutions include filtration and desalination, aquaculture systems, communications and electronics protection, controls and electrical protection, crop spray and crop protection, dewatering, flood water and wastewater systems, food and processing, foodservice, industrial heat tracing, and irrigation management. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair plc Estimates Fibro Liability at $253MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pentair plc's estimated liability for asbestos-related claims was $252.6 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2014. The Company states: "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 $252.6 million and $254.7 million as of June 28, 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 $118.6 million and $119.6 million as of June 28, 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 plc provides products, services and solutions for its customers' needs in water and other fluids, thermal management and equipment protection. The Company invents and manufactures solutions for its products, services and technologies related to food, water or energy. The Company serves a range of customers in the food and beverage, residential and commercial, industrial, infrastructure, and energy sectors. It designs and manufactures technologies for the separation of solids, liquids, and gases, and for the treatment of water and steam. Its segments include Flow Technologies, Technical Solutions, Process Technologies and Valves and Controls. The Company's solutions include filtration and desalination, aquaculture systems, communications and electronics protection, controls and electrical protection, crop spray and crop protection, dewatering, flood water and wastewater systems, food and processing, foodservice, industrial heat tracing, and irrigation management. ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Has 1,087 PI Cases as of June 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- TriMas Corporation was a party to 1,087 pending cases 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 June 30, 2014. As of June 30, 2014, the Company was a party to 1,087 pending cases involving an aggregate of 7,985 claimants alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos containing materials formerly used in gaskets (both encapsulated and otherwise) manufactured or distributed by certain of the Company's subsidiaries for use primarily in the petrochemical refining and exploration industries. In addition, the Company acquired various companies to distribute its products that had distributed gaskets of other manufacturers prior to acquisition. The Company believes that many of its pending cases relate to locations at which none of its gaskets were distributed or used. The Company may be subjected to significant additional asbestos- related claims in the future, the cost of settling cases in which product identification can be made may increase, and the Company may be subjected to further claims in respect of the former activities of its acquired gasket distributors. The Company is unable to make a meaningful statement concerning the monetary claims made in the asbestos cases given that, among other things, claims may be initially made in some jurisdictions without specifying the amount sought or by simply stating the requisite or maximum permissible monetary relief, and may be amended to alter the amount sought. The large majority of claims do not specify the amount sought. Of the 7,985 claims pending at June 30, 2014, 104 set forth specific amounts of damages (other than those stating the statutory minimum or maximum). In addition, relatively few of the claims have reached the discovery stage and even fewer claims have gone past the discovery stage. Total settlement costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all asbestos-related cases, some of which were filed over 20 years ago, have been approximately $6.7 million. All relief sought in the asbestos cases is monetary in nature. To date, approximately 40% of the Company's costs related to settlement and defense of asbestos litigation have been covered by its primary insurance. Effective February 14, 2006, the Company entered into a coverage- in-place agreement with its first level excess carriers regarding the coverage to be provided to the Company for asbestos-related claims when the primary insurance is exhausted. The coverage-in- place agreement makes asbestos defense costs and indemnity coverage available to the Company that might otherwise be disputed by the carriers and provides a methodology for the administration of such expenses. Nonetheless, the Company believes it is likely there will be a period within the next one or two years, prior to the commencement of coverage under this agreement and following exhaustion of the Company's primary insurance coverage, during which the Company will be solely responsible for defense costs and indemnity payments, the duration of which would be subject to the scope of damage awards and settlements paid. Based on the settlements made to date and the number of claims dismissed or withdrawn for lack of product identification, the Company believes that the relief sought (when specified) does not bear a reasonable relationship to its potential liability. Based upon the Company's experience to date, including the trend in annual defense and settlement costs incurred to date, and other available information (including the availability of excess insurance), the Company does not believe these cases will have a material adverse effect on its financial position and results of operations or cash flows. TriMas Corporation (Trimas) is a manufacturer and distributor of products for commercial, industrial and consumer markets. The Company operates in six segments: Packaging, Energy, Aerospace & Defense, Engineered Components, Cequent Asia Pacific and Cequent North America. In March 2014, the Company acquired acquired the remaining 30% interest of Arminak & Associates LLC. On July 25, 2014, the Company acquired Lion Holdings Pvt. Ltd. ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Inc. Has 17,500 Fibro Claims -------------------------------------------------------- There were approximately 17,500 asbestos-related claims against BorgWarner Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014. The Company states: "Like many other industrial companies who have historically operated in the U.S., the Company (or parties the Company is obligated to indemnify) continues to be named as one of many defendants in asbestos-related personal injury actions. We believe that the Company's involvement is limited because, in general, these claims relate to a few types of automotive friction products that were manufactured many years ago and contained encapsulated asbestos. The nature of the fibers, the encapsulation and the manner of use lead the Company to believe that these products are highly unlikely to cause harm. As of June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, the Company had approximately 17,500 and 17,000 pending asbestos-related product liability claims, respectively. Of the approximately 17,500 outstanding claims at June 30, 2014, approximately half were pending in jurisdictions that have undergone significant tort and judicial reform activities subsequent to the filing of these claims. "The Company's policy is to vigorously defend against these lawsuits and the Company has been successful in obtaining dismissal of many claims without any payment. The Company expects that the vast majority of the pending asbestos-related product liability claims where it is a defendant (or has an obligation to indemnify a defendant) will result in no payment being made by the Company or its insurers. In 2014, of the approximately 1,000 claims resolved, 229 (23%) resulted in payment being made to a claimant by or on behalf of the Company. In the full year of 2013, of the approximately 1,500 claims resolved, 297 (20%) resulted in payment being made to a claimant by or on behalf of the Company. "Prior to June 2004, the settlement and defense costs associated with all claims were paid by the Company's primary layer insurance carriers under a series of funding arrangements. In addition to the primary insurance available for asbestos-related claims, the Company has substantial excess insurance coverage available for potential future asbestos-related product claims. In June 2004, primary layer insurance carriers notified the Company of the alleged exhaustion of their policy limits. "Although it is impossible to predict the outcome of pending or future claims or the impact of tort reform legislation that may be enacted at the state or federal levels, due to the encapsulated nature of the products, the Company's experience in vigorously defending and resolving claims in the past, and the Company's significant insurance coverage with solvent carriers as of the date of this filing, management does not believe that asbestos- related product liability claims are likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, financial position or cash flows. "To date, the Company has paid and accrued $311.3 million in defense and indemnity in advance of insurers' reimbursement and has received $124.8 million in cash and notes from insurers. The net balance of $186.5 million, is expected to be fully recovered, of which approximately $20.0 million is expected to be recovered within one year. Timing of recovery is dependent on final resolution of the declaratory judgment action referred to above or additional negotiated settlements. At December 31, 2013, insurers owed $153.6 million in association with these claims. "In addition to the $186.5 million net balance relating to past settlements and defense costs, the Company has estimated a liability of $112.4 million for claims asserted, but not yet resolved and their related defense costs at June 30, 2014. The Company also has a related asset of $112.4 million to recognize proceeds from the insurance carriers, which is expected to be fully recovered. Receipt of these proceeds is not expected prior to the resolution of the declaratory judgment action referred to above, which, more-likely-than-not, will occur subsequent to June 30, 2015. At December 31, 2013, the comparable value of the accrued liability and associated insurance asset was $96.7 million. "The 2014 increase in the accrued liability and associated insurance asset is primarily due to an expected higher rate of claim settlement based on recent litigation claim activity. "The Company cannot reasonably estimate possible losses, if any, in excess of those for which it has accrued, because it cannot predict how many additional claims may be brought against the Company (or parties the Company has an obligation to indemnify) in the future, the allegations in such claims, the possible outcomes, or the impact of tort reform legislation that may be enacted at the state or federal levels." BorgWarner Inc., is a global supplier of engineered automotive systems and components primarily for powertrain applications. The Company's products are manufactured and sold worldwide, primarily to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of light vehicles (passenger cars, sport-utility vehicles (SUVs), vans and light- trucks). The Company's products are also sold to other OEMs of commercial vehicles (medium-duty trucks, heavy-duty trucks and buses) and off-highway vehicles (agricultural and construction machinery and marine applications). It also manufactures and sells its products to certain Tier One vehicle systems suppliers and into the aftermarket for light, commercial and off-highway vehicles. Effective February 28, 2014, BorgWarner Inc acquired the entire share capital of Gustav Wahler GmbH u Co KG. ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Continues to Defend Insurance Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- BorgWarner Inc. continues to defend itself against a lawsuit filed by insurers relating to the Company's insurance coverage for asbestos-related defense costs and liabilities, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014. A declaratory judgment action was filed in January 2004 in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois by Continental Casualty Company and related companies against the Company and certain of its historical general liability insurers. The court has issued a number of interim rulings and discovery is continuing. The Company has entered into settlement agreements with some of its insurance carriers, resolving their coverage disputes by agreeing to pay specified amounts to the Company. The Company is vigorously pursuing the litigation against the remaining insurers. BorgWarner Inc., is a global supplier of engineered automotive systems and components primarily for powertrain applications. The Company's products are manufactured and sold worldwide, primarily to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of light vehicles (passenger cars, sport-utility vehicles (SUVs), vans and light- trucks). The Company's products are also sold to other OEMs of commercial vehicles (medium-duty trucks, heavy-duty trucks and buses) and off-highway vehicles (agricultural and construction machinery and marine applications). It also manufactures and sells its products to certain Tier One vehicle systems suppliers and into the aftermarket for light, commercial and off-highway vehicles. Effective February 28, 2014, BorgWarner Inc acquired the entire share capital of Gustav Wahler GmbH u Co KG. ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarners's Appeal in PI Suit Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- BorgWarner Inc.'s appeal from a jury verdict in an asbestos- related personal injury lawsuit remains pending, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014. In August 2013, the Los Angeles Superior Court entered a jury verdict against the Company in an asbestos-related personal injury action with damages of $35.0 million, $32.5 million of which was non-compensatory and will not be recoverable through insurance if the verdict is upheld. The Company has appealed this verdict. The Company posted a surety bond of $55.0 million related to the appeal. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this pending litigation and therefore cannot reasonably estimate the amount of possible loss, if any, that could result from this action. BorgWarner Inc., is a global supplier of engineered automotive systems and components primarily for powertrain applications. The Company's products are manufactured and sold worldwide, primarily to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of light vehicles (passenger cars, sport-utility vehicles (SUVs), vans and light- trucks). The Company's products are also sold to other OEMs of commercial vehicles (medium-duty trucks, heavy-duty trucks and buses) and off-highway vehicles (agricultural and construction machinery and marine applications). It also manufactures and sells its products to certain Tier One vehicle systems suppliers and into the aftermarket for light, commercial and off-highway vehicles. Effective February 28, 2014, BorgWarner Inc acquired the entire share capital of Gustav Wahler GmbH u Co KG. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Chemical Continues to Defend Fibro Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Quaker Chemical Corporation continues to defend itself against numerous lawsuits alleging injury due to exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014. An inactive subsidiary of the Company that was acquired in 1978 sold certain products containing asbestos, primarily on an installed basis, and is among the defendants in numerous lawsuits alleging injury due to exposure to asbestos. The subsidiary discontinued operations in 1991 and has no remaining assets other than the proceeds from insurance settlements received. To date, the overwhelming majority of these claims have been disposed of without payment and there have been no adverse judgments against the subsidiary. Based on a continued analysis of the existing and anticipated future claims against this subsidiary, it is currently projected that the subsidiary's total liability over the next 50 years for these claims is approximately $2,700,000, (excluding costs of defense). Although the Company has also been named as a defendant in certain of these cases, no claims have been actively pursued against the Company, and the Company has not contributed to the defense or settlement of any of these cases pursued against the subsidiary. These cases were handled by the subsidiary's primary and excess insurers who had agreed in 1997 to pay all defense costs and be responsible for all damages assessed against the subsidiary arising out of existing and future asbestos claims up to the aggregate limits of the policies. A significant portion of this primary insurance coverage was provided by an insurer that is now insolvent, and the other primary insurers have asserted that the aggregate limits of their policies have been exhausted. The subsidiary challenged the applicability of these limits to the claims being brought against the subsidiary. In response, two of the three carriers entered into separate settlement and release agreements with the subsidiary in late 2005 and early 2007 for $15,000,000 and $20,000,000 respectively. The proceeds of both settlements are restricted and can only be used to pay claims and costs of defense associated with the subsidiary's asbestos litigation. During the third quarter of 2007, the subsidiary and the remaining primary insurance carrier entered into a Claim Handling and Funding Agreement, under which the carrier will pay 27% of defense and indemnity costs incurred by or on behalf of the subsidiary in connection with asbestos bodily injury claims for a minimum of five years beginning July 1, 2007. The agreement continues until terminated and can only be terminated by either party by providing the other party with a minimum of two years prior written notice. As of June 30, 2014, no notice of termination has been given under this agreement. At the end of the term of the agreement, the subsidiary may choose to again pursue its claim against this insurer regarding the application of the policy limits. The Company also believes that, if the coverage issues under the primary policies with the remaining carrier are resolved adversely to the subsidiary and all settlement proceeds were used, the subsidiary may have limited additional coverage from a state guarantee fund established following the insolvency of one of the subsidiary's primary insurers. Nevertheless, liabilities in respect of claims may exceed the assets and coverage available to the subsidiary. Quaker Chemical Corporation (Quaker) develops, produces and markets a range of formulated chemical specialty products for various heavy industrial and manufacturing applications and, in addition, offers and markets chemical management services (CMS). The Company operates in three segments: Metalworking process chemicals, Coatings and Other chemical products. The Metalworking process chemicals segment includes industrial process fluids for various heavy industrial and manufacturing applications. Coatings segment includes temporary and permanent coatings for metal and concrete products and chemical milling maskants. Its Other chemical products segment includes other various chemical products. In July 2012, the Company acquired NP Coil Dexter Industries S.r.l. In July 2014, Quaker Chemical Corp acquired the remaining 49% ownership interest in its Australian affiliate, Quaker Chemical (Australasia) Pty. Limited. ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace To Pay $632-Mil. to End PI Trust Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- W.R. Grace & Co. has agreed to pay $632,000,000 in cash in exchange for the termination of its deferred payment agreement with the Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, according to the Company's Form 8-K dated August 1, 2014, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2014. On February 3, 2014, the joint plan of reorganization of W. R. Grace & Co., and its debtor subsidiaries, became effective. In connection with the effectiveness of the Joint Plan, Grace entered into an agreement with the Asbestos Personal Injury Future Claimants' Representative, the Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants and certain other parties to establish the WRG Asbestos PI Trust. On the Effective Date: (i) Grace's principal subsidiary, W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn., entered into the Deferred Payment Agreement with the PI Trust that provides for deferred payments to the PI Trust of $110 million per year for five years beginning in 2019, and $100 million per year for 10 years beginning in 2024; and (ii) Grace entered into: (A) the W. R. Grace & Co. Guarantee Agreement with the PI Trust under which Grace guarantees Grace-Conn.'s obligations under the Deferred Payment Agreement (PI) and (B) the Share Issuance Agreement with the PI Trust and the WRG Asbestos PD Trust, which agreement secures Grace's obligations under the Guarantee Agreement (PI) and to the PD Trust by obligating Grace to issue 77,372,257 shares of Grace common stock in the event of default of such obligations. On August 1, 2014, Grace, Grace-Conn. and the PI Trust entered into an Obligation Termination Agreement to terminate all of the obligations of Grace and Grace-Conn. under the Deferred Payment Agreement (PI), the Guarantee (PI), and, as applicable to the PI Trust, the Share Issuance Agreement, for a cash payment of $632,000,000 to be paid by Grace-Conn. at the closing, with the payment guaranteed by Grace. The closing of the transactions set forth in the Termination Agreement will be no later than three business days after Grace receives the proceeds of a debt financing to fund the Consideration, but in no event later than October 31, 2014. Grace's obligation to consummate the transactions is not subject to the receipt of the proceeds of any financing. The Termination Agreement contains customary representations, warranties, covenants and conditions to closing; mutual releases of obligations under the Deferred Payment Agreement (PI), the Guarantee (PI), and, as applicable to the PI Trust, the Share Issuance Agreement; and mutual indemnification obligations for breaches of representations, warranties and covenants. W.R. Grace & Co. (Grace) is engaged in the production and sale of specialty chemicals and specialty materials on a global basis. The Company operates in three segments: Grace Catalysts Technologies; Grace Materials Technologies; and Grace Construction Products. Grace Catalysts Technologies will include catalysts and related technologies used in refining, petrochemical and other chemical manufacturing applications. Grace's Advanced Refining Technologies LLC (ART) joint venture will be managed in this segment. Grace Materials Technologies will include engineered materials, coatings and sealants used in industrial, consumer, pharmaceutical and packaging applications. In December 2013, the Company announced that it has completed the acquisition of the assets of the Polypropylene Licensing and Catalysts business of The Dow Chemical Company. ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Subsidiaries Continue to Defend PI Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Subsidiaries of CIRCOR International, Inc., continues to defend themselves against asbestos-related product liability claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 29, 2014. The Company states: "Asbestos-related product liability claims continue to be filed against two of our subsidiaries Spence Engineering Company, Inc., the stock of which we acquired in 1984; and Circor Instrumentation Technologies, Inc. (f/k/a Hoke Incorporated), the stock of which we acquired in 1998. Due to the nature of the products supplied by these entities, the markets they serve and our historical experience in resolving these claims, we do not believe that these asbestos-related claims will have a material adverse effect on the financial condition, results of operations or liquidity of Spence or Hoke, or our financial condition, consolidated results of operations or liquidity of the Company." CIRCOR International, Inc. designs , manufactures and markets valves and other engineered products and sub-systems used in the energy, aerospace, power generation and other industrial markets. The Company has a global presence and operates 24 primary manufacturing facilities that are located in the United States, Canada, Western Europe, Morocco, India, Brazil and the People's Republic of China. The Company has three reporting segments: Energy, Aerospace and flows Technologies. As of December 31, 2012 , the Company's products were sold through over 900 distributors and the Company serviced more than 7,500 customers in over 100 countries around the world. Within the Company's product groups The Company develops, manufactures, sells and service a portfolio of fluid-control products, sub-systems and technologies. ASBESTOS UPDATE: CONSOL Energy Unit Has 6,900 Fibro Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- There were approximately 6,900 asbestos-related claims filed against a subsidiary of CONSOL Energy Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014. The Company states: "One of our subsidiaries, Fairmont Supply Company (Fairmont), which distributes industrial supplies, currently is named as a defendant in approximately 6,900 asbestos- related claims in state courts in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Maryland, Texas and Illinois. Because a very small percentage of products manufactured by third parties and supplied by Fairmont in the past may have contained asbestos, and since many of the pending claims are asserted against dozens of defendants in any given action, it has been difficult for Fairmont to determine how many of the pending cases actually involve valid claims or plaintiffs who were actually exposed to asbestos- containing products supplied by Fairmont. In addition, while Fairmont may be entitled to indemnity or contribution in certain jurisdictions from manufacturers of identified products, the availability of such indemnity or contribution is unclear at this time, and in recent years, some of the manufacturers named as defendants in these actions have sought protection from these claims under bankruptcy laws. Fairmont has no insurance coverage with respect to these asbestos cases. Based on nearly 20 years of experience with this litigation, we have established an accrual to cover our estimated liability for these cases. This accrual is immaterial to the overall financial position of CONSOL Energy and was included in Other Accrued Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Past payments by Fairmont with respect to asbestos cases have not been material." CONSOL Energy Inc. (CONSOL Energy) is a producer of coal and natural gas for global energy and raw material markets, which include the electric power generation industry and the steelmaking industry. During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Company produced 62.6 million tons of high-British thermal unit (Btu) bituminous coal from 12 mining complexes in the United States. In addition, it provides energy services, including river and dock services, terminal services, industrial supply services, coal waste disposal services and land resource management services. The Company operates in two segments: Coal and Gas. In December 2013, the Company announced that it has completed the sale of Consolidation Coal Company (CCC) subsidiary, which includes all five of its longwall coal mines in West Virginia, to a subsidiary of Murray Energy Corporation. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Inc.'s Maremont Had 5,800 Fibro Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- There were approximately 5,800 asbestos-related claims against Meritor, Inc.'s subsidiary, Maremont Corporation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 29, 2014. Maremont Corporation, a subsidiary of Meritor, manufactured friction products containing asbestos from 1953 through 1977, when it sold its friction product business. Arvin Industries, Inc., a predecessor of the company, acquired Maremont in 1986. Maremont and many other companies are defendants in suits brought by individuals claiming personal injuries as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products. Maremont had approximately 5,800 and 5,400 pending asbestos-related claims at June 30, 2014 and September 30, 2013, respectively. Although Maremont has been named in these cases, in the cases where actual injury has been alleged, very few claimants have established that a Maremont product caused their injuries. Plaintiffs' lawyers often sue dozens or even hundreds of defendants in individual lawsuits on behalf of hundreds or thousands of claimants, seeking damages against all named defendants irrespective of the disease or injury and irrespective of any causal connection with a particular product. For these reasons, Maremont does not consider the number of claims filed or the damages alleged to be a meaningful factor in determining its asbestos-related liability. Maremont engages Bates White LLC, a consulting firm with extensive experience estimating costs associated with asbestos litigation, to assist with determining the estimated cost of resolving pending and future asbestos-related claims that have been, and could reasonably be expected to be, filed against Maremont. Bates White prepares these cost estimates annually in September. Although it is not possible to estimate the full range of costs because of various uncertainties, Bates White advised Maremont that it would be possible to determine an estimate of a reasonable forecast of the cost of the probable settlement and defense costs of resolving pending and future asbestos-related claims, based on historical data and certain assumptions with respect to events that may occur in the future. Bates White provided a reasonable and probable estimate that consisted of a range of equally likely possibilities of Maremont's obligation for asbestos personal injury claims over the next ten years of $73 million to $80 million. Management recognized a liability of $73 million as of June 30, 2014 and September 30, 2013, as the probable liability for pending and future claims over the next ten years. The ultimate cost of resolving pending and future claims is estimated based on the history of claims and expenses for plaintiffs represented by law firms in jurisdictions with an established history with Maremont. Historically, Maremont has recognized incremental insurance receivables associated with recoveries expected for asbestos-related liabilities as the estimate of asbestos-related liabilities for pending and future claim changes. Maremont currently expects to exhaust the limits of its settled insurance coverage prior to the end of the ten-year forecasted liability period. Maremont believes it has additional insurance coverage; however, certain carriers have disputed coverage under policies they issued (see "Recoveries" below). Because no insurance receivable is currently recognized for these policies in dispute, Maremont recognized a $9 million charge in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2013 associated with its annual valuation of asbestos-related liabilities. If Maremont is unable to recognize recoveries from disputed policies, it is reasonably possible that the annual valuation could result in a charge to be recognized in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2014. The following assumptions were made by Maremont after consultation with Bates White and are included in their study: * Pending and future claims were estimated for a ten-year period ending in fiscal year 2023. The ten-year assumption is considered appropriate as Maremont has reached certain longer-term agreements with key plaintiff law firms, and filings of mesothelioma claims have been relatively stable over the last few years; * Maremont believes that the litigation environment may change significantly beyond ten years and that the reliability of estimates of future probable expenditures in connection with asbestos-related personal injury claims will likely decline for each year further in the future. As a result, estimating a probable liability beyond ten years is difficult and uncertain; * Defense and processing costs for pending and future claims will be at the level consistent with Maremont's prior experience; * Potential payments made to claimants from other sources, including other defendants and 524(g) trusts favorably impact the company's estimated liability in the future; and * The ultimate indemnity cost of resolving nonmalignant claims with plaintiffs' law firms in jurisdictions without an established history with Maremont cannot be reasonably estimated. Maremont has insurance that reimburses a substantial portion of the costs incurred defending against asbestos-related claims. The insurance receivable related to asbestos-related liabilities is $58 million as of June 30, 2014 and September 30, 2013. The receivable at June 30, 2014 is for coverage provided by two insurance carriers based on coverage in place agreements. Maremont currently expects to exhaust the remaining limits provided by this coverage sometime in the next ten years. Maremont maintained insurance coverage with other insurance carriers that management believes covers indemnity and defense costs. Maremont has incurred liabilities allocable to these policies but has not yet billed these insurance carriers, and no receivable has been recorded for disputed policies. During fiscal year 2013, Maremont reinitiated a lawsuit against these carriers, seeking a declaration of its rights to insurance for asbestos claims and to facilitate an orderly and timely collection of insurance proceeds. The difference between the estimated liability and insurance receivable is primarily related to proceeds received from settled insurance policies and claims for which coverage under Maremont's insurance policies is in dispute with the insurer. Certain insurance policies have been settled in cash prior to the ultimate settlement of the related asbestos liabilities. Amounts received from insurance settlements generally reduce recorded insurance receivables. The amounts recorded for the asbestos-related reserves and recoveries from insurance companies are based upon assumptions and estimates derived from currently known facts. All such estimates of liabilities and recoveries for asbestos-related claims are subject to considerable uncertainty because such liabilities and recoveries are influenced by variables that are difficult to predict. The future litigation environment for Maremont could change significantly from its past experience, due, for example, to changes in the mix of claims filed against Maremont in terms of plaintiffs' law firm, jurisdiction and disease; legislative or regulatory developments; Maremont's approach to defending claims; or payments to plaintiffs from other defendants. Estimated recoveries are influenced by coverage issues among insurers and the continuing solvency of various insurance companies. If the assumptions with respect to the estimation period, nature of pending and future claims, the cost to resolve claims and the amount of available insurance prove to be incorrect, the actual amount of liability for Maremont's asbestos-related claims, and the effect on the company, could differ materially from current estimates and, therefore, could have a material impact on the company's financial condition and results of operations. Meritor, Inc. (Meritor) is a global supplier of a range of integrated systems and components to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and the aftermarket for the commercial vehicle, transportation and industrial sectors. The company serves commercial truck, trailer, off-highway, military, bus and coach and other industrial OEMs and certain aftermarkets. Its products are axles, undercarriages, drivelines, brakes and braking systems. Meritor serves a range of customers worldwide, including medium- and heavy-duty truck OEMs, specialty vehicle manufacturers, certain aftermarkets, and trailer producers. The Company operates in two segments: Axles, Undercarriage & Drivelines and Brakes and Braking Systems. On July 30, 2013, it completed the sale of its overall 50 % ownership equity interest in Suspensys Sistemas Automotivos LTDA (the Suspensys JV) to its joint venture partner, Randon S.A. Implementos E Participacoes (Randon). ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Has 2,800 Rockwell Claims at June 30 ------------------------------------------------------------- There were approximately 2,800 claims arising from exposure to asbestos used in certain components of Rockwell products, according to Meritor, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 29, 2014. ArvinMeritor, Inc., a subsidiary of Meritor, along with many other companies, has been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos used in certain components of Rockwell products many years ago. Liability for these claims was transferred at the time of the spin-off of the automotive business from Rockwell in 1997. At June 30, 2014 and September 30, 2013, there were approximately 2,800 and 2,600, respectively, pending active asbestos claims in lawsuits that name AM, together with many other companies, as defendants. A significant portion of the claims do not identify any of Rockwell's products or specify which of the claimants, if any, were exposed to asbestos attributable to Rockwell's products, and past experience has shown that the vast majority of the claimants will likely never identify any of Rockwell's products. Historically, AM has been dismissed from the vast majority of similar claims filed in the past with no payment to claimants. For those claimants who do show that they worked with Rockwell's products, management nevertheless believes it has meritorious defenses, in substantial part due to the integrity of the products involved and the lack of any impairing medical condition on the part of many claimants. For these reasons, the company does not consider the number of claims filed or the damages alleged to be a meaningful factor in determining asbestos-related liabilities. The company engages Bates White to assist with determining whether it would be possible to estimate the cost of resolving pending and future Rockwell legacy asbestos-related claims that have been, and could reasonably be expected to be, filed against the company. As of September 30, 2013, Bates White provided a reasonable and probable estimate that consisted of a range of equally likely possibilities of Rockwell's obligation for asbestos personal injury claims over the next ten years of $40 million to $45 million. Management recognized a liability of $40 million as of June 30, 2014 and September 30, 2013, as the probable liability for pending and future claims over the next ten years. The company is experiencing higher-than-expected defense costs in the first nine months of fiscal year 2014. Therefore, the next annual valuation at September 30, 2014 may result in an increased obligation estimate. The ultimate cost of resolving pending and future claims is estimated based on the history of claims and expenses for plaintiffs represented by law firms in jurisdictions with an established history with Rockwell. The following assumptions were made by the company after consultation with Bates White and are included in their study: * Pending and future claims were estimated for a ten-year period ending in fiscal year 2023. The ten-year assumption is considered appropriate as Rockwell has reached certain longer-term agreements with key plaintiff law firms, and filings of mesothelioma claims have been relatively stable over the last few years; * The company believes that the litigation environment may change significantly beyond ten years and that the reliability of estimates of future probable expenditures in connection with asbestos-related personal injury claims will likely decline for each year further in the future. As a result, estimating a probable liability beyond ten years is difficult and uncertain; * Defense and processing costs for pending and future claims will be at the level consistent with the company's longer-term experience and will not have the significant volatility experienced in the recent years; * Potential payments made to claimants from other sources, including other defendants and 524(g) trusts favorably impact the company's estimated liability in the future; and * The ultimate indemnity cost of resolving nonmalignant claims with plaintiff's law firms in jurisdictions without an established history with Rockwell cannot be reasonably estimated. The insurance receivable related to asbestos-related liabilities is $13 million at June 30, 2014 and September 30, 2013. Included in these amounts are insurance receivables of $9 million at June 30, 2014 and September 30, 2013 that are associated with policies in dispute. Rockwell maintained insurance coverage that management believes covers indemnity and defense costs, over and above self- insurance retentions, for most of these claims. The company shares these policies with two other nonrelated companies. The three companies have collectively initiated claims against certain of these carriers to enforce the insurance policies, which are in various stages of the litigation process. Rockwell expects to recover some portion of defense and indemnity costs it has incurred to date, over and above self-insured retentions, and some portion of the costs for defending asbestos claims going forward. The amounts recognized for policies in dispute are based on consultation with advisors, status of settlement negotiations with certain insurers, expected rights of the nonrelated companies, and underlying analysis performed by management. The remaining un- disputed receivable recognized is related to coverage provided by one carrier based on an insurance agreement in place. If the assumptions with respect to the estimation period, nature of pending claims, the cost to resolve claims and the amount of available insurance prove to be incorrect, the actual amount of liability for Rockwell asbestos-related claims, and the effect on the company, could differ materially from current estimates and, therefore, could have a material impact on the company's financial condition and results of operations. Meritor, Inc. (Meritor) is a global supplier of a range of integrated systems and components to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and the aftermarket for the commercial vehicle, transportation and industrial sectors. The company serves commercial truck, trailer, off-highway, military, bus and coach and other industrial OEMs and certain aftermarkets. Its products are axles, undercarriages, drivelines, brakes and braking systems. Meritor serves a range of customers worldwide, including medium- and heavy-duty truck OEMs, specialty vehicle manufacturers, certain aftermarkets, and trailer producers. The Company operates in two segments: Axles, Undercarriage & Drivelines and Brakes and Braking Systems. On July 30, 2013, it completed the sale of its overall 50 % ownership equity interest in Suspensys Sistemas Automotivos LTDA (the Suspensys JV) to its joint venture partner, Randon S.A. Implementos E Participacoes (Randon). ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pepco Unit Continues to Defend Take-Home Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- A subsidiary of Pepco Holdings, Inc., continues to defend a so- called take-home lawsuit, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014. In September 2011, an asbestos complaint was filed in the New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division, against ACE (among other defendants) asserting claims under New Jersey's Wrongful Death and Survival statutes. The complaint, filed by the estate of a decedent who was the wife of a former employee of ACE, alleges that the decedent's mesothelioma was caused by exposure to asbestos brought home by her husband on his work clothes. New Jersey courts have recognized a cause of action against a premise owner in a so-called "take home" case if it can be shown that the harm was foreseeable. In this case, the complaint seeks recovery of an unspecified amount of damages for, among other things, the decedent's past medical expenses, loss of earnings, and pain and suffering between the time of injury and death, and asserts a punitive damage claim. At June 30, 2014, ACE has concluded that a loss is probable with respect to this matter and has recorded an estimated loss contingency liability, which is included in the liability for general litigation totaling approximately $32 million as of June 30, 2014. However, due to the inherent uncertainty of litigation, ACE is unable to estimate a maximum amount of possible loss because the damages sought are indeterminate and the matter involves facts that ACE believes are distinguishable from the facts of the "take-home" cause of action recognized by the New Jersey courts. Pepco Holdings, Inc. (PHI) is a holding company, that, through regulated public utility subsidiaries, is engaged primarily in the transmission, distribution and default supply of electricity and the distribution and supply of natural gas (Power Delivery): Potomac Electric Power Company (Pepco), Delmarva Power & Light Company (DPL) and Atlantic City Electric Company (ACE). As of December 31, 2012, the Company segments include Power Delivery, consisting of the operations of Pepco, DPL and ACE, engaged in the transmission, distribution and default supply of electricity and the distribution and supply of natural gas, Pepco Energy Services and Other Non-Regulated, consisting primarily of the operations of PCI. PHI Service Company, a subsidiary service company of PHI, provides a range of support services, including legal, accounting, treasury, tax, purchasing and information technology services, to PHI and its operating subsidiaries. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Had 65,000 Fibro Claims ----------------------------------------------------- Ashland Inc. had 65,000 asbestos claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014. Ashland and Hercules, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ashland that was acquired in 2009, have liabilities from claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos. To assist in developing and annually updating independent reserve estimates for future asbestos claims and related costs given various assumptions, Ashland retained Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Associates, Inc. (HR&A). The methodology used by HR&A to project future asbestos costs is based largely on recent experience, including claim-filing and settlement rates, disease mix, enacted legislation, open claims and litigation defense. The claim experience of Ashland and Hercules are separately compared to the results of previously conducted third party epidemiological studies estimating the number of people likely to develop asbestos-related diseases. Those studies were undertaken in connection with national analyses of the population expected to have been exposed to asbestos. Using that information, HR&A estimates a range of the number of future claims that may be filed, as well as the related costs that may be incurred in resolving those claims. Changes in asbestos-related liabilities and receivables are recorded within the discontinued operations caption in the Statements of Consolidated Comprehensive Income. The claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos asserted against Ashland result primarily from indemnification obligations undertaken in 1990 in connection with the sale of Riley, a former subsidiary. The amount and timing of settlements and number of open claims can fluctuate significantly from period to period. For the nine-months ended June 30, 2014, Ashland had 65,000 asbestos claims, excluding those related to Hercules. Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a global specialty chemical company that provides products, services and solutions throughout a variety of industries. Ashland's business operates in four segments: Ashland Specialty Ingredients; Ashland Water Technologies; Ashland Performance Materials and Ashland Consumer Markets. In January 2012, Celanese Corporation acquired certain assets from Ashland, which include two product lines, Vinac and Flexbond. In October 2012, the Company had set up a specialties technical research and development centre in Mumbai to support producers of personal and home care products in India and southeast Asia. In April 2013, JANA Partners LLC acquired a 7.361% stake in Ashland Inc. In July 2014, Ashland Inc and Clariant completed the sale of their joint venture, ASK Chemicals GmbH headquartered in Hilden, Germany, to investment funds affiliated with Rhone, a London. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Had $443-Mil. Fibro Claims Reserves ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ashland Inc. reported that total reserves for asbestos claims were $443 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014. Ashland records the amount it believes to be the best estimate of future payments for litigation defense and claim settlement costs, which generally approximates the mid-point of the estimated range of exposure from model results. Ashland reviews this estimate and related assumptions quarterly and annually updates the results of a non-inflated, non-discounted approximate 50-year model developed with the assistance of Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Associates, Inc. As a result of the most recent annual update of this estimate, completed during the June 2014 quarter, it was determined that the liability for asbestos claims should be increased by $4 million. Total reserves for asbestos claims were $443 million at June 30, 2014 compared to $463 million at September 30, 2013. Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a global specialty chemical company that provides products, services and solutions throughout a variety of industries. Ashland's business operates in four segments: Ashland Specialty Ingredients; Ashland Water Technologies; Ashland Performance Materials and Ashland Consumer Markets. In January 2012, Celanese Corporation acquired certain assets from Ashland, which include two product lines, Vinac and Flexbond. In October 2012, the Company had set up a specialties technical research and development centre in Mumbai to support producers of personal and home care products in India and southeast Asia. In April 2013, JANA Partners LLC acquired a 7.361% stake in Ashland Inc. In July 2014, Ashland Inc and Clariant completed the sale of their joint venture, ASK Chemicals GmbH headquartered in Hilden, Germany, to investment funds affiliated with Rhone, a London. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Had $408MM Insurance Receivables -------------------------------------------------------------- Ashland Inc.'s receivable for recoveries of litigation defense and claim settlement costs from insurers, in connection with its asbestos claims, amounted to $408 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014. Ashland has insurance coverage for most of the litigation defense and claim settlement costs incurred in connection with its asbestos claims, and coverage-in-place agreements exist with the insurance companies that provide most of the coverage currently being accessed. As a result, any increases in the asbestos reserve have been largely offset by probable insurance recoveries. The amounts not recoverable generally are due from insurers that are insolvent, rather than as a result of uninsured claims or the exhaustion of Ashland's insurance coverage. For the Ashland asbestos-related obligations, Ashland has estimated the value of probable insurance recoveries associated with its asbestos reserve based on management's interpretations and estimates surrounding the available or applicable insurance coverage, including an assumption that all solvent insurance carriers remain solvent. Approximately 67% of the estimated receivables from insurance companies are expected to be due from domestic insurers. Of the insurance companies rated by A. M. Best, all have a credit rating of B+ or higher as of June 30, 2014. The remainder of the insurance receivable is due from London insurance companies, which generally have lower credit quality ratings, and from Underwriters at Lloyd's, whose insurance policy obligations have been transferred to a Berkshire Hathaway entity. Ashland discounts this piece of the receivable based upon the projected timing of the receipt of cash from those insurers unless likely settlement amounts can be determined. In October 2012, Ashland initiated arbitration proceedings against Underwriters at Lloyd's, certain London companies and Chartis (AIG member) companies seeking to enforce these insurers' contractual obligations to provide indemnity for asbestos liabilities and defense costs under existing coverage-in-place agreements. In addition, Ashland has initiated a lawsuit in Kentucky state court against certain Berkshire Hathaway entities (National Indemnity Company and Resolute Management Inc.) on grounds that these Berkshire entities have wrongfully interfered with these insurers' performance of their respective contractual obligations to provide asbestos coverage by directing the insurers to reduce and delay certain claim payments. While Ashland anticipates its position will be supported by the proceedings, an adverse resolution of these proceedings could have a significant effect on the timing of loss reimbursement and the amount of Ashland's recorded insurance receivables from these insurers. At June 30, 2014, Ashland's receivable for recoveries of litigation defense and claim settlement costs from insurers amounted to $408 million, of which $102 million relates to costs previously paid. Receivables from insurers amounted to $408 million at September 30, 2013. During the June 2014 quarter, the annual update of the model used for purposes of valuing the asbestos reserve described above, and its impact on valuation of future recoveries from insurers, was completed. This model update resulted in a $7 million increase in the receivable for probable insurance recoveries. Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a global specialty chemical company that provides products, services and solutions throughout a variety of industries. Ashland's business operates in four segments: Ashland Specialty Ingredients; Ashland Water Technologies; Ashland Performance Materials and Ashland Consumer Markets. In January 2012, Celanese Corporation acquired certain assets from Ashland, which include two product lines, Vinac and Flexbond. In October 2012, the Company had set up a specialties technical research and development centre in Mumbai to support producers of personal and home care products in India and southeast Asia. In April 2013, JANA Partners LLC acquired a 7.361% stake in Ashland Inc. In July 2014, Ashland Inc and Clariant completed the sale of their joint venture, ASK Chemicals GmbH headquartered in Hilden, Germany, to investment funds affiliated with Rhone, a London. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc.'s Hercules Had 21,000 Fibro Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ashland Inc. reported that its subsidiary, Hercules, had 21,000 asbestos claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014. Hercules, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ashland, is also subject to liabilities from asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits involving claims which typically arise from alleged exposure to asbestos fibers from resin encapsulated pipe and tank products which were sold by one of Hercules' former subsidiaries to a limited industrial market. Hercules has liabilities from claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos. Such claims typically arise from alleged exposure to asbestos fibers from resin encapsulated pipe and tank products which were sold by one of Hercules' former subsidiaries to a limited industrial market. The amount and timing of settlements and number of open claims can fluctuate significantly from period to period. For the Nine-Months Ended June 30, 2014, Hercules had 21,000 asbestos claims. Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a global specialty chemical company that provides products, services and solutions throughout a variety of industries. Ashland's business operates in four segments: Ashland Specialty Ingredients; Ashland Water Technologies; Ashland Performance Materials and Ashland Consumer Markets. In January 2012, Celanese Corporation acquired certain assets from Ashland, which include two product lines, Vinac and Flexbond. In October 2012, the Company had set up a specialties technical research and development centre in Mumbai to support producers of personal and home care products in India and southeast Asia. In April 2013, JANA Partners LLC acquired a 7.361% stake in Ashland Inc. In July 2014, Ashland Inc and Clariant completed the sale of their joint venture, ASK Chemicals GmbH headquartered in Hilden, Germany, to investment funds affiliated with Rhone, a London. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland's Hercules Unit Had $333MM Reserves ------------------------------------------------------------ Ashland Inc.'s subsidiary, Hercules, had a total of $333 million total reserves for asbestos claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014. From the range of estimates, Ashland records the amount it believes to be the best estimate of future payments for litigation defense and claim settlement costs, which generally approximates the mid-point of the estimated range of exposure from model results. Ashland reviews this estimate and related assumptions quarterly and annually updates the results of a non-inflated, non- discounted approximate 50-year model developed with the assistance of HR&A. As a result of the most recent annual update of this estimate, completed during the June 2014 quarter, it was determined that the liability for Hercules asbestos-related claims should be increased by $10 million. Total reserves for asbestos claims were $333 million at June 30, 2014 compared to $342 million at September 30, 2013. Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a global specialty chemical company that provides products, services and solutions throughout a variety of industries. Ashland's business operates in four segments: Ashland Specialty Ingredients; Ashland Water Technologies; Ashland Performance Materials and Ashland Consumer Markets. In January 2012, Celanese Corporation acquired certain assets from Ashland, which include two product lines, Vinac and Flexbond. In October 2012, the Company had set up a specialties technical research and development centre in Mumbai to support producers of personal and home care products in India and southeast Asia. In April 2013, JANA Partners LLC acquired a 7.361% stake in Ashland Inc. In July 2014, Ashland Inc and Clariant completed the sale of their joint venture, ASK Chemicals GmbH headquartered in Hilden, Germany, to investment funds affiliated with Rhone, a London. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland's Hercules Had $77MM Fibro Receivables --------------------------------------------------------------- Ashland Inc.'s subsidiary, Hercules, has receivables from insurers amounting to $77 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014. For the Hercules asbestos-related obligations, certain reimbursements pursuant to coverage-in-place agreements with insurance carriers exist. As a result, any increases in the asbestos reserve have been partially offset by probable insurance recoveries. Ashland has estimated the value of probable insurance recoveries associated with its asbestos reserve based on management's interpretations and estimates surrounding the available or applicable insurance coverage, including an assumption that all solvent insurance carriers remain solvent. The estimated receivable consists exclusively of domestic insurers. Of the insurance companies rated by A. M. Best, all have a credit rating of B+ or higher as of June 30, 2014. As of June 30, 2014 and September 30, 2013, the receivables from insurers amounted to $77 million and $75 million, respectively. During the June 2014 quarter, the annual update of the model used for purposes of valuing the asbestos reserve and its impact on valuation of future recoveries from insurers was completed. This model update caused a $3 million increase in the receivable for probable insurance recoveries. Projecting future asbestos costs is subject to numerous variables that are extremely difficult to predict. In addition to the significant uncertainties surrounding the number of claims that might be received, other variables include the type and severity of the disease alleged by each claimant, the long latency period associated with asbestos exposure, dismissal rates, costs of medical treatment, the impact of bankruptcies of other companies that are co-defendants in claims, uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, and the impact of potential changes in legislative or judicial standards. Furthermore, any predictions with respect to these variables are subject to even greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens. In light of these inherent uncertainties, Ashland believes that the asbestos reserves for Ashland and Hercules represent the best estimate within a range of possible outcomes. As a part of the process to develop these estimates of future asbestos costs, a range of long-term cost models was developed. These models are based on national studies that predict the number of people likely to develop asbestos- related diseases and are heavily influenced by assumptions regarding long-term inflation rates for indemnity payments and legal defense costs, as well as other variables. Ashland has currently estimated in various models ranging from approximately 40 to 50 year periods that it is reasonably possible that total future litigation defense and claim settlement costs on an inflated and undiscounted basis could range as high as approximately $870 million for the Ashland asbestos-related litigation and approximately $670 million for the Hercules asbestos-related litigation (or approximately $1.5 billion in the aggregate), depending on the combination of assumptions selected in the various models. If actual experience is worse than projected, relative to the number of claims filed, the severity of alleged disease associated with those claims or costs incurred to resolve those claims, Ashland may need to further increase the estimates of the costs associated with asbestos claims and these increases could be material over time. Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a global specialty chemical company that provides products, services and solutions throughout a variety of industries. Ashland's business operates in four segments: Ashland Specialty Ingredients; Ashland Water Technologies; Ashland Performance Materials and Ashland Consumer Markets. In January 2012, Celanese Corporation acquired certain assets from Ashland, which include two product lines, Vinac and Flexbond. In October 2012, the Company had set up a specialties technical research and development centre in Mumbai to support producers of personal and home care products in India and southeast Asia. In April 2013, JANA Partners LLC acquired a 7.361% stake in Ashland Inc. In July 2014, Ashland Inc and Clariant completed the sale of their joint venture, ASK Chemicals GmbH headquartered in Hilden, Germany, to investment funds affiliated with Rhone, a London. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. High Court to Rule on Suit by Family ------------------------------------------------------------ Bob Egelko, writing for San Francisco Chronicle, reported that the California Supreme Court agreed to decide whether a former Bay Area man who is dying of an asbestos-related cancer can sue a company that employed his uncle, who used to come home with his clothes covered in asbestos dust. A state appeals court had ruled in May that Johnny Kesner, diagnosed in 2011 with a terminal form of mesothelioma commonly caused by asbestos, could sue his uncle's former employer, Abex, which made brake linings filled with asbestos. While an employer isn't responsible for harm suffered by everyone who comes in contact with its employees, the First District Court of Appeal said, a company that uses a toxic substance like asbestos must take reasonable steps to protect a worker's household members who are likely to be exposed. Abex appealed that ruling, and the state's high court voted unanimously Wednesday to take it up and decide the scope of an employer's duty to members of its workers' families. The court also agreed to review a second asbestos case, in which a lower court had dismissed a suit by a cancer victim whose husband, a railroad worker, had asbestos on his work clothes. No hearing date has been scheduled. Kesner, a truck driver, said in his lawsuit that he often spent two or three nights a week at his uncle's West Virginia home as a teenager, and remembered his uncle showing up in asbestos-covered work clothes. The suit said Abex had a pamphlet -- which it didn't distribute to its employees -- warning about the dangers of bringing work clothes home. The suit was filed in Alameda County, where Kesner formerly lived and claimed asbestos exposure from other sources. Superior Court Judge John True dismissed his suit against Abex, agreeing with the company that any duty it owed to its employees to protect them from hazardous conditions didn't extend to their households. The appeals court overturned his decision. The issue has divided California appellate courts. Another court rejected a cancer patient's asbestos suit in 2012 and said allowing claims by an employee's family members would greatly increase the employer's insurance costs, which it would pass on to consumers. The Supreme Court cases are Kesner vs. Superior Court, S219534, and Haver vs. BNSF Railroad, S219919. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Allows Plaintiff to Amend Complaint --------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, issued an order dated Aug. 20, 2014, granting a plaintiff in an asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit to amend her complaint and denying certain defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint as moot, allowing them instead to refile their motions to dismiss upon the filing of the amended complaint. The case is ELAINE MOHLER, Plaintiff, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 3:13-CV-1221-DGW-SCW (S.D. Ill.). A full-text copy of the magistrate judge's decision is available at http://is.gd/GXICX0from Leagle.com. Elaine Mohler, Plaintiff, represented by Ross D. Stomel, Shrader & Associates LLP & Allyson Michelle Romani, Shrader & Associates LLP. A.O. Smith Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Curtis R. Picou, Crivello Carlson Picou & Andrekanic LLC. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Allied Manufacturing, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Marcie J. Vantine, Kernell Law Firm, P.C.. Ameron International Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Lawrence S. Denk, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. Armstrong International, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Carla C. Storm, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP &Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. Atlantic Richfield Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Howard J. Pikel, Pretzel & Stouffer. Aurora Pump Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.. AWC 1997 Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by David J. Page, Gunty & McCarthy. Bird Incorporated, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Julie Fix Meyer, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Raymond R. Fournie, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Anita M. Kidd, Armstrong Teasdale LLP & Melanie R. King, Gallop, Johnson et al.. Borg-Wagner Morse Tec, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Donald W. Ward, Herzog Crebs LLP, Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP, James D. Maschhoff, Herzog Crebs LLP, Justin Andrew Welply, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al.. BP Amoco Chemical Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Howard J. Pikel, Esq. -- hpikel@pretzel-stouffer.com -- at Pretzel & Stouffer. BP Corporation North America, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Howard J. Pikel, Pretzel & Stouffer. BP Products North America, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Burnham, LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Dennis J. Graber, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Kevin T. Dawson, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Mark D. Bauman, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Trevor A. Sondag, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP. BW/IP, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.. CBS Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel G. Donahue, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. Certainteed Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Chevron Phillips Chemical Company, LP, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Mark G. Zellmer, Husch Blackwell LLP. Chevron USA, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Robert T. Varney. Cleaver-Brooks, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Meredith S Hudgens, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C.. ConocoPhillips Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. & Mark G. Zellmer, Husch Blackwell LLP. Conwed Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Dennis J. Graber, Esq. -- dgraber@hinshawlaw.com -- Kevin T. Dawson, Esq., Mark D. Bauman, Esq. -- mbauman@hinshawlaw.com -- Nicole E. Rice, Esq., and Trevor A. Sondag, Esq. -- tsondag@hinshawlaw.com -- at Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP. Copes-Vulcan, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Dennis J. Graber, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Kevin T. Dawson, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Mark D. Bauman, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Trevor A. Sondag, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP. Crane Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Noel L. Smith, Jr., HeplerBroom LLC. Crane Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Noel L. Smith, Jr., HeplerBroom LLC, Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC. Crown Cork & Seal USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Stephen J. Maassen, Hoagland, Fitzgerald & Pranaitis. Dap, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Madeline Victoria Tzall, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Domco Products Texas, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Beth Kamp Veath, Brown & James. Eaton Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by J. Todd Applegate, Pitzer Snodgrass PC & Brian J. Connolly, Pitzer Snodgrass PC. Exxonmobil Corporation, Defendant, represented by H. Patrick Morris, Johnson & Bell & David F. Fanning, Johnson & Bell LTD. Flowserve U.S., Inc, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP, Justin Andrew Welply, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al.. FMC Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Kaitlyn N. Chenevert, Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Gardner Denver, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.. General Electric Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Julie Fix Meyer, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Raymond R. Fournie, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Anita M. Kidd, Armstrong Teasdale LLP & Melanie R. King, Gallop, Johnson et al.. Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC, Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC &Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski, Bailey et al.. Gould's Pumps, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Graber, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Kevin T. Dawson, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Mark D. Bauman, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Trevor A. Sondag, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP. Greene Tweed & Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Hollingsworth & Vose Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC. Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Dobbels, Polsinelli PC, Allison K. Sonneveld, Polsinelli Shughart PC, Kathleen Ann Hardee, Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones, Polsinelli PC. Imo Industries, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC, Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC. ITT Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Jeffrey E. Rogers, McGuire Woods LLP & Undray Wilks, McGuire Woods LLP. J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC &Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski, Bailey et al.. John Crane, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Sean P. Fergus, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C.. Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by David L. Szlanfucht, Rasmussen, Willis et al.. KCG, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by David J. Page, Gunty & McCarthy. Lennox Industries, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. McNally Industries, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Kaitlyn N. Chenevert, Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP. Meadwestvaco Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Charles L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al.. Oakfabco, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by John M. Ward, Hawkins, Parnell et al. & Tracy J. Cowan, Hawkins, Parnell et al.. Owens-Illinois Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian O'Connor Watson, Schiff Hardin LLP, Edward M. Casmere, Schiff Hardin LLP & Matthew J. Fischer, Schiff, Hardin et al.. Parker-Hannifin Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Pecora Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by David J. Page, Gunty & McCarthy. Pharmacia Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Jordan T. Ault, Husch Blackwell LLP. Pneumo Abex, LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Ross S. Titzer, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC. Research Cottrell, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by David J. Page, Gunty & McCarthy. RIC-WIL, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Riley Stoker Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Rogers Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Madeline Victoria Tzall, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Dobbels, Polsinelli PC, Allison K. Sonneveld, Polsinelli Shughart PC, Kathleen Ann Hardee, Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones, Polsinelli PC. Shell Chemical Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Shell Oil Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan M. Lively, Segal, McCambridge et al. & Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Simpson Timber Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP &Michael W. Newport, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. Spirax Sarco, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Dennis J. Graber, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Kevin T. Dawson, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Mark D. Bauman, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Trevor A. Sondag, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP. Sterling Fluid Systems (USA) LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Kaitlyn N. Chenevert, Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP. Sunoco, Inc. (R&M), Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Joseph A Kilpatrick, Husch Blackwell LLP. Sunoco, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Joseph A Kilpatrick, Husch Blackwell LLP. Texaco, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Robert T. Varney. The Dow Chemical Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Jeffrey T. Bash, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP. The Fairbanks Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. The WM. Powell Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP &Michael W. Newport, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. Thermwell Products Co., Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Nicholas B Bunnell, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. Trane US, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC, Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC. Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Jeffrey T. Bash, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Justin S. Zimmerman, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP. URS Energy & Construction, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Kenneth M. Burke, Brown & James. Velan Valve Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC, Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC. Watts Water Technologies, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by David J. Page, Gunty & McCarthy. Weil McLain, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Weir Valves & Controls USA, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael W. Newport, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. Welco Manufacturing Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP, Justin Andrew Welply, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al.. York International Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP, Justin Andrew Welply, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al.. Zurn Industries, LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rule 5(c)(1)(B) Motion in PI Suit Granted ---------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois issued an order dated Aug. 21, 2014, granting a motion filed by a defendant in an asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit under Rule 5(c)(1)(B) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. Rule 5(c)(1)(B) provides that if an action involves an unusually large number of defendants, the court may, on motion or on its own, order that . . . any crossclaim, counterclaim, avoidance, or affirmative defense in those pleadings and replies to them will be treated as denied or avoided by all other parties. The case is HOWARD H. MORRICAL, Plaintiff, v. ATLAS COPCO COMPRESSORS, L.L.C., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 3:14-CV-52-DGW- SCW (S.D. Ill). A full-text copy of the magistrate judge's decision is available at http://is.gd/yQKBuifrom Leagle.com. Howard H. Morrical, Plaintiff, represented by Ben A. Vinson, Jr., Vinson Law & Zane T. Cagle, Cagle Law Firm, LLC. Atlas Copco Compressors, L.L.C., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Amy Rae Hansen, Johnson & Bell LTD. & Robert Spitkovsky, Jr., Johnson & Bell. Buffalo Pumps, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. CBS Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Robert S. Sanderson, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Daniel G. Donahue, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. Crane Co., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Dennis J. Graber, Hinshaw & Culbertson,Daniel W. McGrath, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Kevin T. Dawson, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Mark D. Bauman, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Trevor A. Sondag, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP. Ford Motor Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Mark E. Winters, Esq. -- MWinters@SanchezDH.com -- Sanchez, Daniels & Hoffman, LLP. Foster Wheeler, L.L.C., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.. General Electric Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Raymond R. Fournie, Armstrong Teasdale LLP,Anita M. Kidd, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, Armstrong Teasdale LLP & Melanie R. King, Gallop, Johnson et al.. Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC, Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC. Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Dennis J. Dobbels, Polsinelli PC, Allison K. Sonneveld, Polsinelli Shughart PC, Kathleen Ann Hardee, Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones, Polsinelli PC. Imo Industries, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC, Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC. John Crane, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Sean P. Fergus, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C.. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Charles L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al.. Owens-Illinois Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Brian O'Connor Watson, Schiff Hardin LLP, Edward M. Casmere, Schiff Hardin LLP & Matthew J. Fischer, Schiff, Hardin et al.. Pneumo Abex Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Thomas L. Orris, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC &Ross S. Titzer, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC. Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Jeffrey T. Bash, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Justin S. Zimmerman, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP. Warren Pumps, L.L.C., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Weyerhaeuser Dropped as Defendant in PI Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Janet Pecher filed claims against defendants arising out of her late husband Urban Pecher's exposure to asbestos and a related disease, malignant mesothelioma. Defendant Weyerhaeuser Company, the former owner of a door manufacturing plant where Urban Pecher worked and asbestos fireproofing products were produced, moves for judgment on the pleadings on the claims brought against it as barred by Wisconsin's Workers' Compensation Act. Judge William M. Conley of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted the Defendant's motion for the reasons set forth in its opinion and order in Boyer v. Weyerhaeuser, No. 14cv-286 (W.D. Wis. Aug. 22, 2014). Count III and IV of the Plaintiff's first amended complaint are dismissed with prejudice and defendant Weyerhaeuser is dismissed from the action. The case is JANET PECHER, Individually and as Special Administrator on behalf of the Estate of Urban Pecher, Plaintiffs, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, 3M COMPANY, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and OWENS-ILLINOIS INC., Defendants, NO. 14-CV-147-WMC (S.D. Wis.). A full-text copy of Judge Conley's Decision dated Aug. 22, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/Moz8jvfrom Leagle.com. Janet Pecher, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P. Cascino, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., James Nicholas Hoey, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd. & Robert G. McCoy, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd.. 3M Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Edward J. McCambridge, Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd. & Emily Zapotocny, Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd.. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by William P. Croke, Esq. -- bcroke@vonbriesen.com -- at von Briesen & Roper, s.c.. Owens-Illinois Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian O'Connor Watson, Schiff Hardin LLP, Edward M. Casmere, Schiff Hardin, LLP & Matthew John Fischer, Schiff Hardin LLP. Marshfield DoorSystems, Inc., Interested Party, represented by Sherry Dawn Coley, Esq. -- scoley@gklaw.com -- at and Joshua Lee Johanningmeier, Esq. -- jjohanningmeier@gklaw.com -- at Godfrey & Kahn S.C.. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duro Dyne's Bid to Junk "Proctor" Suit Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- In an asbestos personal injury action, defendant Duro Dyne Corporation moves for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims asserted against it on the ground that the plaintiffs have failed to show that any of the Duro Dyne products plaintiff James Proctor allegedly encountered actually contained asbestos. Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, in a decision and order dated Aug. 21, 2014, denied Duro Dyne's motion for summary judgment, holding that the defendant's argument is more appropriately made to the trier of fact. The case is JAMES AUGUSTUS PROCTOR and JOY C. PROCTOR, Plaintiffs, v. ALCOA, INC., et al, Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190040/13, MOTION SEQ. NO. 008 (N.Y. Sup.). A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is available at http://is.gd/T7KaLJfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Cos. Dropped as Defendant in 2 PI Suits ---------------------------------------------------------- In two civil actions relating to asbestos exposure and asbestos- related disease as a result of that exposure, Judge William M. Conley granted motions filed by defendants Weyerhaeuser Company and Owens-Illinois Company for the reasons set forth in Boyer v. Weyerhaeuser, No. 14-cv-286 (W.D. Wis. Aug. 22, 2014). In the first action, plaintiff Virginia Prust filed claims against the defendants arising out of her late husband Valmore Prust's exposure to asbestos and resulting lung cancer and asbestosis. In the second action, plaintiffs Roger and Janice Seehafer bring claims against defendants arising out of Roger's exposure to asbestos and a related disease, malignant mesothelioma. In both actions, Weyerhaeuser, the former owner of a door manufacturing plant where Valmore Prust and Roger Seehafer worked and asbestos fireproofing products were produced, moves for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that the claims brought against it are barred by Wisconsin's Workers' Compensation Act. Owens-Illinois seeks dismissal of product liability claims premised on Owens-Illinois' licensing of a patent claiming a fireproof door. Judge Conley ordered that Counts III and IV of the Plaintiffs' first amended complaint are dismissed with prejudice and defendant Weyerhaeuser is dismissed from the action. Judge Conley also ordered that Counts I and II of the Plaintiff's first amended complaint premised on Owens-Illinois's role as a licensor are dismissed with prejudice; and that the Plaintiff may have until Sept. 22, 2014, to file an amended complaint asserting claims against Owens-Illinois as the manufacturer of Kaylo door cores, assuming they can do so in good faith. The first case is VIRGINIA PRUST, Individually and as Special Administrator on behalf of the Estate of Valmore Prust, Plaintiff, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, 3M COMPANY, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and OWENS-ILLINOIS INC., Defendants, NO. 14-CV-143-WMC (W.D. Wis.). A full-text copy of Judge Conley's Decision in the Prust case is available at http://is.gd/STskywfrom Leagle.com. The second case is ROGER SEEHAFER and JANICE SEEHAFER, Plaintiffs, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY and OWENS-ILLINOIS INC., Defendants, NO. 14-CV-161-WMC (W.D. Wis.). A full-text copy of Judge Conley's Decision in the Seehafer case is available at http://is.gd/XhePQ2 from Leagle.com. Virginia Prust, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P. Cascino, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., James Nicholas Hoey, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd. & Robert G. McCoy, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd.. Janice Seehafer and Roger Seehafer, Plaintiffs, represented by Michael P. Cascino, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., James Nicholas Hoey, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd. & Robert G. McCoy, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd.. 3M Company, a corporation, Defendant, represented by Edward J. McCambridge, Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd. & Emily Zapotocny, Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd.. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, a corporation, Defendant, represented by William P. Croke, von Briesen & Roper, s.c.. Owens-Illinois Inc., a corporation, Defendant, represented by Brian O'Connor Watson, Schiff Hardin LLP, Edward M. Casmere, Schiff Hardin, LLP & Matthew John Fischer, Schiff Hardin LLP. Marshfield DoorSystems, Inc., Interested Party, represented by Joshua Lee Johanningmeier, Godfrey & Kahn S.C. & Sherry Dawn Coley, Godfrey & Kahn, S.C.. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment in Pa. PI Suit Affirmed --------------------------------------------------------- Amy R. Smith, Executrix of the Estate of Paul A. Rowland, Deceased, appeals from the orders granting summary judgment in favor of Ford Motor Company and Borg-Warner Corporation. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania, in an opinion dated Aug. 27, 2014, affirmed the lower court's decision. The appeals case is AMY R. SMITH, Executrix of the Estate of Paul A. Rowland, Deceased, Appellant, v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC, INDIVIDUALLY AND OWNER OF AND/OR PARENT OF AND/OR SUCCESSOR TO AND/OR F/K/A MINI, BORG-WARNER CORPORATION, INDIVIDUALLY AND SUBSIDIARY OF AND/OR PARENT OF AND/OR A/K/A AND/OR F/K/A BORG & BECK, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, GENUINE PARTS COMPANY, HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST OF ALLIED SIGNAL, INC., SUCCESSOR TO BENDIX CORPORATION AND BENDIX MINTEX PTY, LTD., JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC, INDIVIDUALLY AND ITS PREDECESSORS, SUCCESSORS, PRESENT AND/OR FORMER PARENTS, SUBSIDIARIES AND/OR DIVISIONS, NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., THE PEP BOYS -- MANNY, MOE & JACK, PNEUMO ABEX, LLC, SUCCESSOR-IN- INTEREST TO ABEX CORPORATION AND QUAKER CITY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY, Appellees, NO. 3352 EDA 2013 (Pa. Super.). A full-text copy of the Pennsylvania Superior Court's Decision is available at http://is.gd/G1wxkMfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Smith" Suit Remanded to Missouri State Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff, the heir of decedent Ronald Smith, Sr., who was alleged to have died as a result of exposure to asbestos, filed a motion to remand her action to a Missouri state court, arguing that the removal of the case by defendant Boeing Company was untimely. Judge Catherine D. Perry of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, agreed with the Plaintiff and granted the motion to remand. The case is BIRLIE SMITH, Plaintiff, v. BOEING AEROSPACE OPERATIONS, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 4:14CV1200 CDP (E.D. Mo.). A full-text copy of Judge Perry's memorandum and order of remand dated Aug. 19, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/O7auuyfrom Leagle.com. Birlie Smith, Plaintiff and Cross Defendant, represented by Benjamin R. Schmickle, SWMK LAW, Matthew C. Morris, SWMK LAW, LLC & Stephanie L. Gold, SWMK LAW. Boeing Aerospace Operations, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by William R. Irwin, SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE. BP Amoco Chemical Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Lizabeth M. Conran, GREENSFELDER AND HEMKER, PC. Brand Insulations Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Mary Dianne Rychnovsky, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC & Thomas L. Orris, WILLIAMS AND VENKER, LLC. BTL Specialty Resins Corp., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Benjamin John Wilson, HEPLER BROOM & Carl J. Geraci, HEPLER BROOM. BTLSR Toledo Corp., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Benjamin John Wilson, HEPLER BROOM & Carl J. Geraci, HEPLER BROOM. Certain-Teed Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Brett M. Mares, HEYL AND ROYSTER & Kent L. Plotner, HEYL AND ROYSTER. Certain-Teed Corporation, Defendant, represented by Brett M. Mares, HEYL AND ROYSTER & Kent L. Plotner, HEYL AND ROYSTER. Chevron USA, Inc., Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Gregory T. Goldberg, Esq. -- ggoldberg@stamostrucco.com -- at STAMOS AND TRUCCO LLP. Cooper Industries, LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Amy K. Shasserre, FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P. & Joshua N. Worthington, FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P.. Eastman Chemical Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Raymond R. Fournie, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Anita Maria Kidd, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP & Melanie R. King, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP. Exxon Mobil Chemical Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by David F. Fanning, JOHNSON AND BELL &H. Patrick Morris, JOHNSON AND BELL. General Electric Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Raymond R. Fournie, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Anita Maria Kidd, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP & Melanie R. King, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP. General Gasket Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Albert J. Bronsky, BROWN AND JAMES, P.C.. Genuine Parts Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Clayton E. Dickey, RASMUSSEN AND WILLIS. Georgia-Pacific LLC, Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Benjamin John Wilson, HEPLER BROOM & Carl J. Geraci, HEPLER BROOM. Hercules, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Raymond R. Fournie, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Anita Maria Kidd, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP & Melanie R. King, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP. Industrial Holdings Corporation, Defendant, Cross Claimant and Cross Defendant, represented by Benjamin John Wilson, HEPLER BROOM &Carl J. Geraci, HEPLER BROOM. Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Benjamin John Wilson, HEPLER BROOM & Carl J. Geraci, HEPLER BROOM. KCG, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by David J. Page, VOGLER LAW FIRM, P.C.. Mendenhall Rebuilders, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Kurtis B. Reeg, REEG LAWYERS, LLC. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Charles L. Joley, JOLEY AND NUSSBAUMER, P.C.. Plastics Engineering Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Joshua N. Worthington, FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P. & Michael R. Dauphin, FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P.. Pneumo Abex, LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Ross S. Titzer, WILLIAMS AND VENKER, LLC & Thomas L. Orris, WILLIAMS AND VENKER, LLC. Reichhold, Inc., Defendant, Cross Claimant, and Cross Defendant, represented by Tracy J. Cowan, HAWKINS AND PARNELL, LLP, John L. Wright, HAWKINS AND PARNELL, LLP & Reno R. Cova, III, HAWKINS AND PARNELL, LLP. Rogers Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by William R. Irwin, SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE. Saint-Gobain Abrasives, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Timothy A. Graham, Sr., HEYL AND ROYSTER &Kent L. Plotner, HEYL AND ROYSTER. Sprinkmann Sons Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Marcie J. Vantine, KERNELL LAW KIRM, PC,Thomas J. Kernell, KERNELL LAW FIRM, PC & Megan J. Bricker, KERNELL LAW KIRM, PC. The Boeing Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by William R. Irwin, SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE. Trane U.S. Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Benjamin John Wilson, HEPLER BROOM & Carl J. Geraci, HEPLER BROOM. Welco Manufacturing Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Brian M. Wacker, HERZOG CREBS LLP, James D. Maschhoff, HERZOG CREBS LLP, Mary A. Hatch, HERZOG CREBS LLP, Gary L. Smith, HERZOG CREBS LLP & Tracy Beckman Phipps, HERZOG CREBS LLP. Yarway Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Brady Sherrod Edwards. Young Insulation Group of St. Louis, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by James R. Williams, SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 16 Cos. Gets Summary Judgment in "Spells" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, granted the motions for summary judgment filed by 16 defendants in the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit styled RICHARD SPELLS, JR., Plaintiff v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, AMPCO-PITTSBURGH CORPORATION, BW/IP INTERNATIONAL, CARRIER CORPORATION, CBS CORPORATION, CRANE CO., FLOWSERVE CORPORATION, FMC CORPORATION, FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY CORPORATION, GARDNER DENVER, INC., GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION, GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY, JOHN CRANE, INC., METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, NASH ENGINEERING CO., NORTHROP-GRUMMAN CORPORATION, TUTHILL CORPORATION, UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, WARREN PUMPS, LLC, AFLA LAVAL, INC., ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL, INC., ASBESTOS CORPORATION LTD., ASCO VALVES, INC., AURORA PUMP COMPANY, CLEAVER-BROOKS INC., ENPRO INDUSTRIES, INC. FOSTER ENGINEERING, INC. GEORGIA PACIFIC, LLC, HOPEMAN BROTHERS, INC., MCCORMICK INSULATION SUPPLY, INC., RSCC WIRE & CABLE LLC, SEARS ROEBUCK AND CO., TRANE US, INC., VELAN VALVE CORP., and WEIR VALVES & CONTROLS USA, INC., Defendants, CASE NO. 3:13-CV-129-DGW- SCW (S.D. Ill.). As a result of the approval of the motions for summary judgment, Northrop-Grumman Corporation, BW/IP International, Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Gardner Denver, Inc., Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Carrier Corporation, Imo Industries, Inc., John Crane, Inc., General Dynamics Corporation, Tuthill Corporation, Union Carbide Corporation, Ingersoll-Rand Company, General Electric Company, Crane Co., Honeywell International, Inc., and FMC Corporation are dismissed as defendants in the case. A full-text copy of the magistrate judge's decision dated Aug. 19, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/QdiLD3from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio High Court Flips Ruling in "Burkhart" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Donald Burkhart worked for H.J. Heinz Company, developed mesothelioma, and subsequently died. He had given deposition testimony in a products-liability action he had filed against various asbestos manufacturers, but he did not sue H.J. Heinz as part of that lawsuit. After he died, his wife, Mary Lou Burkhart, filed a claim against H.J. Heinz seeking workers' compensation death benefits. She relied on her husband's deposition in the products-liability case to show that H.J. Heinz had injuriously exposed him to asbestos. The Industrial Commission denied her claim, and on appeal, the trial court struck her husband's former testimony from the record and entered summary judgment for H.J. Heinz. The court of appeals reversed the entry of summary judgment and held that Burkhart's deposition testimony is admissible to prove that H.J. Heinz injuriously exposed him to asbestos, concluding that the manufacturers defending the products liability action were predecessors-in-interest because they shared a similar motive with H.J. Heinz to develop Burkhart's testimony. In an appeal, the Supreme Court of Ohio was asked to clarify whether former testimony given by the claimant in a products liability lawsuit against asbestos manufacturers is admissible in a workers' compensation lawsuit against the claimant's employer alleging workplace exposure to asbestos. The Ohio Supreme Court, in an opinion dated Sept. 3, 2014, ruled that Burkhart's deposition testimony is not admissible pursuant to Rule 804(B)(1) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which states that former testimony of a declarant who is not currently available to testify is not excluded as hearsay when the following separate, conjunctive requirements are met: (1) the party against whom the testimony is offered, or, in a civil action or proceeding, a predecessor-in-interest, had an opportunity to examine the declarant in the prior proceeding, and (2) that party had a motive that is similar to the motive that the party would have in the present proceeding to develop the former testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination. The Ohio Supreme Court concluded that in this case, the parties who had an opportunity to examine Burkhart at the prior deposition were not predecessors-in-interest to H.J. Heinz and none of the asbestos manufacturers present at his deposition preceded H.J. Heinz in ownership of its business, its facilities, or the pipe insulation that allegedly caused his exposure to asbestos. Nor did any asbestos manufacturer in the products-liability litigation have the same or similar motive as H.J. Heinz to develop Burkhart's deposition testimony; rather, each asbestos manufacturer sought to disprove that he had been exposed to asbestos that it had produced, and none had an incentive to dispute that he had not been exposed to asbestos at H.J. Heinz, the Ohio Supreme Court said. Accordingly, the Ohio Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The appeals case is Burkhart, Appellee, v. H.J. Heinz Company, Appellant, et al., NO. 2013-0580 (Ohio). A full-text copy of the Ohio Supreme Court's Decision is available at http://is.gd/Es6td8 from Leagle.com. Appellee is represented by: Thomas W. Bevan, Esq. David S. Bates, Esq. Joshua P. Grunda, Esq. BEVAN & ASSOCIATES, L.P.A., Inc. 6555 Dean Memorial Parkway Boston Heights, Ohio 44236 E-Mail: info@bevanlaw.com Appellant is represented by Keith A. Savidge, Esq. -- kasavidge@sseg-law.com -- Andrew D. Bemer, Esq. -- adbemer@sseg- law.com -- and Eric D. Baker, Esq. -- EDBaker@sseg-law.com -- at SEELEY, SAVIDGE, EBERT & GOURASH CO., L.P.A. Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease, L.L.P., Richard D. Schuster, Daniel E. Shuey, and Damien C. Kitte, urging reversal for amicus curiae, Ohio Manufacturers' Association. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurers' Claims in "Lockett" Suit Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Charles R. Breyer of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, issued an order on Sept. 4, 2014, dismissing without prejudice all claims of Hartford Fire Insurance Company, West American Insurance Company, Safeco Insurance Company of America, Travelers Indemnity Co., and Zurich American Insurance Company, Successor in Interest to Zurich Insurance Company, US Branch, as intervenors, and Plaintiffs Charles P. Lockett and Dori Lockett, in an asbestos- related personal injury lawsuit. The case is CHARLES P. LOCKETTT and DORI LOCKETT, Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 3:14-CV- 00379-CRB (N.D. Calif.). A full-text copy of Judge Breyer's Decision is available at http://is.gd/eF8nk3from Leagle.com. Charles P. Lockett and Dor Lockett, Plaintiffs, represented by Ethan A Horn, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik, LLP, Damon A. Schwartz, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik LLP, Matthew Peter Juhren, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik, Ron G. Archer, Napoli, Bern, Ripka, Shkolnik and Associates LLP & Russell Alden Brown, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik, LLP. Air and Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Glen R. Powell, Gordon & Rees LLP. Allied Insulation Supply Company, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Kathryn Lucille Hoff, Esq. -- lucy.hoff@wilsonelser.com -- Molly Anne Landon Friend, Esq. -- molly.friend@wilsonelser.com -- and William Murray Hake, Esq. -- bill.hake@wilsonelser.com -- at Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman and Dicker LLP. Allied Packing and Supply, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Theodore Thomas Cordery, Imai Tadlock Keeney & Cordery, LLP. Armstrong International, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by James Francis Regan, Low Ball and Lynch &Sonja E. Blomquist, Low, Ball & Lynch. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Eimi Watanabe, WIlson Elser Moskowitz Edelman and Dicker LLP. BASF Catalyst LLC, Cross-defendant, represented by Matthew Thomas Peters, Reed Smith LLP. Borgwarner Morse Tec, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Kimberly Chew, Burnham Brown. Carrier Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Sara Kristin Egide. Carver Pump Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Joni Lynn Loomis, Berkes Crane Robinson Seal, LLP. CBS Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Frank D. Pond, Pond North LLP, Justin Finnell Cronin, Poind North LLP, Kevin Douglas Jamison, Pond North LLP, Kimberly Lynn Rivera, Pond North LLP, Gavin David Whitis, Pond North LLP & Mary Katherine Back, Pond North LLP. Charles P. Lockett, Intervenor Dft, represented by Theodore Thomas Cordery, Imai Tadlock Keeney & Cordery, LLP, Jill James Hoffman, Imai, Tadlock, Keeney & Cordery, LLP & Stephen Earl Carlson, Imai, Tadlock, Keeney & Cordery, LLP. Chevron USA Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Brian Michael Davies, Sedgwick LLP. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Company, LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Arpi Galfayan, Prindle, Amaro, Goetz, Hillyard, Barnes and Reinholtz LLP, Carla Lynn Crochet, Prindle, Amaro, Goetz, Hillyard, Barnes & Reinholz LLP & Jeremy David Milbrodt, Prindle, Amaro, Goetz, Hillyard, Barnes & Reinholtz LLP. Cleaver Brooks, Inc., Defendant, represented by Elizabeth Rebecca Bain, Foley and Mansfield PLLP. Crane Co., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Peter Edward Soskin, K&L Gates LLP. Dori Lockett, Intervenor Dft, represented by Theodore Thomas Cordery, Imai Tadlock Keeney & Cordery, LLP, Jill James Hoffman, Imai, Tadlock, Keeney & Cordery, LLP & Stephen Earl Carlson, Imai, Tadlock, Keeney & Cordery, LLP. Exxon Mobil Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley P. Kaplan, Carlson Calladine & Peterson,William H. Armstrong, Armstrong & Associates, LLP & Jennifer Denise Fitzpatrick, Armstrong & Associates, LLP. ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, Cross-defendant, represented by William H. Armstrong, Armstrong & Associates, LLP. FMC Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Gavin David Whitis, Pond North LLP, Justin Finnell Cronin, Poind North LLP, Kevin Douglas Jamison, Pond North LLP & Russell William Schatz, Jr., Pond North LLP. Fryer-Knowles, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Bryan Stofferahn, Charles Stewart Bishop, Connor, Bishop & Stofferahn LLP, Rachel Hannah Leonard, Connor, Bishop & Stofferahn LLP & Steven Frederick Egler, Bryan Cave LLP. General Electric Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Charles Todd Sheldon, Walsworth, Franklin, Bevins & McCall LLP, Derek S. Johnson, Walsworth, Franklin, Bevins & McCall LLP & Katherine Paige Gardiner, Walsworth, Franklin, Bevins & McCall LLP. Georgia Pacific, LLC, formerly known as Georgia Pacific Corporation, Defendant, represented by Daniel Dennis O'Shea, Perkins Coie LLP. Grinnell LLC, Cross-defendant, represented by Amy Jo Talarico, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP & Kristina Francia Almquist, Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP. Hanson Permanente Cement, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Amber R. Craig, DeHay & Elliston LLP &Jennifer Judin, DeHay and Elliston LLP. Hill Brothers Chemical Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Marisa Renee Chaves, Vasquez Estrada Conway & Michael Anthony Vasquez, Vasquez Estrada & Conway LLP. Hollingsworth & Vose Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by William J. Goines, Greenberg Traurig, LLP &Alice Y Chu, Greenberg Traurig. Homosote Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by David Michael Glaspy, Glaspy and Glaspy. Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel Dennis O'Shea, Perkins Coie LLP. IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey, Leader & Berkon LLP, Justin M. Tafe, Leader and Berkon LLP & Karleen Frances Murphy, Leader & Berkon LLP. Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Arpi Galfayan, Prindle, Amaro, Goetz, Hillyard, Barnes and Reinholtz LLP, Carla Lynn Crochet, Prindle, Amaro, Goetz, Hillyard, Barnes & Reinholz LLP &Jeremy David Milbrodt, Prindle, Amaro, Goetz, Hillyard, Barnes & Reinholtz LLP. ITT Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Arpi Galfayan, Prindle, Amaro, Goetz, Hillyard, Barnes and Reinholtz LLP, Carla Lynn Crochet, Prindle, Amaro, Goetz, Hillyard, Barnes & Reinholz LLP & Jeremy David Milbrodt, Prindle, Amaro, Goetz, Hillyard, Barnes & Reinholtz LLP. J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Hillary H. Huth, Walsworth, Franklin, Bevins & McCall, LLP. Lorillard Tobacco Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by William J. Goines, Greenberg Traurig, LLP & Alice Y Chu, Greenberg Traurig. NMBFIL, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Lance Douglas Wilson, Tucker Ellis LLP & Ferlin Peregrino Ruiz, Tucker Ellis LLP. Oakfabco, Inc., formerly known as Kewanee Boiler Corp., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Richard D. Dumont, Selman Breitman LLP & William Joseph Gunter, Selman Breitman LLP. Parker-Hannifin Corporation, Successor Sacomo-Sierra Corp., Defendant, represented by Joseph Blaise Adams, Bassi Martini Edlin & Blum, LLP. Riley Power, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Deborah M.D. Gustafson, Foley Mansfield, PLLP. Thomas Dee Engineering Co. Inc., Defendant, represented by Elisabeth Anne Hansen-Baum, Walsworth, Franklin, Bevins & McCall LLP & Michael Todd McCall, Walsworth, Franklin, Bevins, McCall LLP. Trane US, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Arpi Galfayan, Prindle, Amaro, Goetz, Hillyard, Barnes and Reinholtz LLP & Carla Lynn Crochet, Prindle, Amaro, Goetz, Hillyard, Barnes & Reinholz LLP. Trane US, Inc., formerly known as American Standard, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeremy David Milbrodt, Prindle, Amaro, Goetz, Hillyard, Barnes & Reinholtz LLP. Union Oil Company of California, Cross-defendant, represented by Brian Michael Davies, Sedgwick LLP. Velan Valve Corp., Cross-defendant, represented by Alecia Elizabeth Cotton, McKenna Long Aldridge &Arlene Carol-Mendoza Barton, McKenna Long Aldridge. Velan Valve Corp., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Alecia Elizabeth Cotton, McKenna Long Aldridge & Arlene Carol- Mendoza Barton, McKenna Long Aldridge. Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by James P. Cunningham, Tucker Ellis LLP. West American Insurance Company, Intervenor Pla, represented by Theodore Thomas Cordery, Imai Tadlock Keeney & Cordery, LLP, Jill James Hoffman, Imai, Tadlock, Keeney & Cordery, LLP & Stephen Earl Carlson, Imai, Tadlock, Keeney & Cordery, LLP. William Powell Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Arturo Esteban Sandoval, Foley & Mansfield PLLP,Douglas Garth Wah, Foley Mansfield, PLLP & Khaled Taqi-Eddin, Foley & Mansfield PLLP. Zurn Industries, LLC, Successor Erie City Ironworks, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Elizabeth Rebecca Bain, Foley and Mansfield PLLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Court Grants Summary Judgment in PI Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Alan McMann and Donna McMann filed a case alleging that Alan McMann contracted pleural mesothelioma as a result of being exposed to asbestos while in the United States Navy from 1961 to 1965 and while he worked as a union carpenter at a variety of work sites from 1966 to 1978. Defendant PacifiCorp moves to have the claims against it summarily dismissed. In an order dated Sept. 2, 2014, Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Tacoma, granted PacifiCorp's motion because there are no genuine issues of fact as to whether Mr. McMann was exposed to asbestos while on PacifiCorp's property. The case is ALAN McMANN and DONNA McMANN, husband and wife, Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 14-5429 BHS (W.D. Wash.). A full-text copy of Judge Settle's Decision is available at http://is.gd/YjdcB0 from Leagle.com. Alan McMann and Donna McMann, Plaintiffs, represented by Barrett B Naman, THE NEMEROFF LAW FIRM, Benjamin Robert Couture, WEINSTEIN COUTURE PLLC, Brian Weinstein, WEINSTEIN COUTURE PLLC & Christopher B Norris, THE NEMEROFF LAW FIRM. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, successor by merger to Buffalo Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Barry Neal Mesher, SEDGWICK LLP, Brian D Zeringer, SEDGWICK LLP & Rachel Tallon Reynolds, SEDGWICK LLP. AstenJohnson Inc, Defendant, represented by Daniel Ruttenberg, FOLEY & MANSFIELD & J. Scott Wood, FOLEY & MANSFIELD PLLP. CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher S Marks, SEDGWICK LLP & R Dirk Bernhardt, SEDGWICK LLP. Crane Co, Defendant, represented by G William Shaw, K&L GATES LLP. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by David D Mordekhov, GARDNER TRABOLSI & ASSOC. PLLC & Ronald C Gardner, GARDNER TRABOLSI & ASSOC. PLLC. IMO Industries Inc, Defendant, represented by James Edward Horne, GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL & Michael Edward Ricketts, GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL. International Paper Company, Defendant, represented by John Michael Mattingly, RIZZO MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC. Pabst Brewing Company, Defendant, represented by Kevin J Craig, GORDON & REES LLP & Mark B Tuvim, GORDON & REES. Pacific Construction Systems Inc, Defendant, represented by Jason H Daywitt, RIZZO MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC. Pfizer Inc, Defendant, represented by Marissa Alkhazov, BETTS PATTERSON & MINES. Saberhagen Holdings Inc, Defendant, represented by Timothy Kost Thorson, CARNEY BADLEY SPELLMAN. SB Decking Inc, Defendant, represented by John Michael Mattingly, RIZZO MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC. Thomas Dee Engineering Co, Defendant, represented by D K Yoshida, OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE PLLC. Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Diane J. Kero, GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio High Court Flips Ruling in "Renfrow" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Norfolk Southern Railway Company appeals from a judgment of the Eighth District Court of Appeals affirming the denial of its motion to administratively dismiss the complaint of Cleo J. Renfrow, who asserts claims alleging that her husband's asbestos exposure at Norfolk Southern caused him to develop lung cancer. The court of appeals determined that Renfrow had provided sufficient evidence to prevent an administrative dismissal of the action. The Supreme Court of Ohio, in an opinion dated Sept. 3, 2014, reversed the judgment of the court of appeals, holding that, in this case, however, the physician retained by Renfrow who opined about the cause of her husband's lung cancer is not a "competent medical authority" as defined in R.C. 2307.91(Z), and therefore Renfrow failed to make a prima facie showing as required by Ohio law to prevent the administrative dismissal of the action. The appeals case is Renfrow, Appellee, v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company, Appellant, NO. 2013-0761 (Ohio). A full-text copy of the Ohio Supreme Court's Decision is available at http://is.gd/H6zhQk from Leagle.com. Doran & Murphy, P.L.L.C., and Michael L. Torcello, Christopher M. Murphy, and Colleen M. Blinkoff; and Mary Brigid Sweeney Co., L.L.C., and Mary Brigid Sweeney, for appellee. Burns White, L.L.C., and David A. Damico, and Ira L. Podheiser, for appellant. Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., and Richard D. Schuster, Daniel E. Shuey, and Damien C. Kitte, urging reversal for amici curiae, the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, the Ohio Council of Retail Merchants, and the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America. ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Denies Bid to Remand "Ronquille" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Blane P. Ronquille filed a suit in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, against 14 defendants seeking an award of damages for his alleged exposure to asbestos between the years of 1953-1982. On January 21, 2014, Defendant Shell Oil Company removed the action, arguing that federal question jurisdiction exists pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. Section 1349(b) and 28 U.S.C. Section 1331, and that removal is authorized by 28 U.S.C. Section 1441(a). The Plaintiff filed a motion to remand. In an order dated Sept. 4, 2014, Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied the Plaintiff's motion to remand, holding that it appears that at least part of the work that the Plaintiff alleges caused his exposure to asbestos arose out of or in connection with Shell's OCS operations. The case is BLANE P. RONQUILLE, v. AMINOIL INCORPORATED, ET AL., CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-164 (E.D. La.). A full-text copy of Judge Engelhardt's Order and Reasons is available at http://is.gd/dchtrj from Leagle.com. Blane P. Ronquille, Plaintiff, represented by Mickey P. Landry, Landry, Swarr & Cannella, LLC, Amanda Jones Ballay, Landry & Swarr, LLC, Charles S. Siegel, Waters & Kraus, LLP, David Ryan Cannella, Cannella Law Firm, LLC, Frank J. Swarr, Landry, Swarr & Cannella, LLC, Philip C Hoffman, Landry, Swarr & Cannella, LLC & Susannah B. Chester-Schindler, Waters & Kraus, LLP. Anco Insulations, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jamie Hebert Baglio, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker &Carey, Douglas R. Elliott, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker &Carey & Margaret M. Joffe, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker &Carey. Cameron International Corporation, Defendant, represented by Arthur Wendel Stout, III, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Douglas R. Elliott, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker &Carey, Jennifer E. Adams, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Marc John Bitner, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Margaret M. Joffe, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker &Carey & William Claudy Harrison, Jr., Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP. ConocoPhillips Company, Defendant, represented by Tyson B. Shofstahl, Adams & Reese, LLP, Katie F. Wollfarth, Adams & Reese, LLP & Roland M. Vandenweghe, Jr., Adams & Reese, LLP. Eagle Inc, Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Louis Oliver Oubre, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Nicole M. Loup, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP. Freeport McMoRan Energy LLC, Defendant, represented by Sherman Gene Fendler, Liskow & Lewis, Charles B. Wilmore, Liskow & Lewis, Scott C. Seiler, Liskow & Lewis & Tracy C. Rotharmel, Liskow & Lewis. H.B. Buster Hughes, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jerald L. Album, Reich, Album & Plunkett, LLC. Ingersoll Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Joseph Benjamin Morton, III, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP & Troy Nathan Bell, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC. McCarty Corporation, Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Louis Oliver Oubre, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Nicole M. Loup, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Defendant, represented by Mark Andrew Marionneaux, Kean Miller, Anthony M. Williams, Kean Miller LLP, Gary A. Bezet, Kean Miller, Gayla M. Moncla, Kean Miller, Gregory M. Anding, Kean Miller & Vance Arnold Gibbs, Kean Miller. Reilly Benton Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Thomas L. Cougill, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, Diane Sweezer Davis, Funderburk Finderburk Courtois, LLP, Jamie M Zanovec, Willingham, Fultz & Cougill, Jeanette Seraile-Riggins, Willingham Fultz & Cougill & Jennifer D. Zajac, Willingham Fultz & Cougill. Shell Oil Company, Defendant, represented by Gary A. Bezet, Kean Miller, Alexandra E. Rossi, Kean Miller, Allison N. Benoit, Kean Miller, Anthony M. Williams, Kean Miller LLP, Barrye Panepinto Miyagi, Kean Miller, Gayla M. Moncla, Kean Miller, Gregory M. Anding, Kean Miller, Janice M. Culotta, Kean Miller LLP, Jay Morton Jalenak, Jr., Kean Miller, Robert E. Dille, Kean Miller, Sarah W. Anderson, Kean Miller, Sean T. McLaughlin, Kean Miller LLP & Sean J Whittington, Kean Miller. Mosaic Global Holdings, Inc., Defendant, represented by Sherman Gene Fendler, Liskow & Lewis, Charles B. Wilmore, Liskow & Lewis, Scott C. Seiler, Liskow & Lewis & Tracy C. Rotharmel, Liskow & Lewis. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Court Affirms Ruling in "Tucker" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- An action was commenced by Michael Tucker, Betty Tucker, and their minor children, alleging that Tucker contracted mesothelioma as a result of being exposed to asbestos-containing products manufactured by or otherwise connected to the various defendants, including CompuDyne Corporation. Unfortunately, Tucker died of mesothelioma on January 5, 2011. Afterward, Betty Tucker, as the executrix of the estate of Michael Tucker, filed an amended complaint that included a wrongful death cause of action. Defendant-appellant CompuDyne appeals the decision of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas that denied in part a motion for a protective order. The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County, in an opinion dated Sept. 4, 2014, affirmed the decision as modified. The appeals case is BETTY TUCKER, INDIVIDUALLY, ETC., ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, v. COMPUDYNE CORPORATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, NO. 100554 (Ohio App.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/Am4w04from Leagle.com. Kevin C. Alexandersen, Eric H. Mann, Colleen A. Mountcastle, Gallagher Sharp, Sixth Floor, Bulkley Building, 1501 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44115, Attorneys for Appellants. Brian M. White, The Mismas Law Firm, L.L.C., 38052 Euclid Avenue, Suite 104, Willoughby, OH 44094, Attorneys for Appellees, for Betty Tucker, Individually, etc., et al. Kristen M. Delsole, K & L Gates, L.L.P., K & L Center, 210 6th Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15222, Also listed: For Crane Co. Laura K. Hong, Tucker Ellis L.L.P., 950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100, Cleveland, OH 44113-7213, Attorneys for Appellees, Weil McClain Division of The Marley Co. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3d Cir. Remands Class Suit v. BASF, Law Firm ------------------------------------------------------------- A putative class action lawsuit alleges that BASF Catalysts LLC and Cahill Gordon & Reindel conspired to prevent thousands of asbestos-injury victims from obtaining fair tort recoveries for their injuries. Decades ago, BASF's predecessor, Engelhard Corp., discovered that its talc products contained disease-causing asbestos. The Plaintiffs allege that, rather than confront the consequences of this discovery, Engelhard, with the help of its attorneys from Cahill, elected to pursue a strategy of denial and deceit. According to the complaint, Engelhard and Cahill collected the tests and reports that documented the presence of asbestos in Engelhard talc and they destroyed or hid them; when new plaintiffs focused on Engelhard's talc as a possible cause of their disease, Engelhard represented that its talc did not contain asbestos and that no tests had ever said otherwise. The District Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' complaint in its entirety. Analyzing the claims individually, the District Court determined that each was inadequately pled or barred by law. Analyzing the various declarations and injunctions requested by plaintiffs -- ranging from an injunction against the future invocation of res judicata based on past state court judgments to a declaration that BASF and Cahill committed fraud -- the District Court dismissed them as beyond its power to grant. The Court did, however, reject defendants' argument that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprived it of jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal of three claims: fraud, fraudulent concealment, and violation of the New Jersey Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The Plaintiffs also defend their requested relief. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in an opinion dated Sept. 3, 2014, concluded that the District Court erred when it dismissed the fraud and fraudulent concealment claims, finding that the Amended Class Action Complaint properly alleges the elements of fraud and fraudulent concealment -- namely that BASF and Cahill lied about and destroyed the asbestos evidence to plaintiffs' detriment. Neither the New Jersey litigation privilege nor pleading requirements stand in the way of these claims, the Third Circuit said. The Third Circuit further ruled that the District Court did not err in dismissing the New Jersey RICO claim as the Plaintiffs, obliged to plead an injury to their business or property, have not done so. They have alleged an injury to the prosecution of their earlier lawsuits which, under New Jersey law, does not constitute an injury to their property, the Third Circuit said. Lastly, the Third Circuit ruled that the District Court correctly discerned that it could not grant the Plaintiffs all of their requested relief. To the extent that the Plaintiffs attempt to have the District Court decide, at this point, the statute of limitations, laches, and preclusion issues that will likely arise in future cases, the Plaintiffs fail to present at Court with a whole or ripe controversy, the Third Circuit said. The Plaintiffs may, however, seek injunctive and declaratory relief aimed at resolving the claims alleged, the Third Circuit contended. Accordingly, the Third Circuit reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. The appellate case is KIMBERLEE WILLIAMS, individually, as personal representative of the Estate of Charles L. Williams, deceased on behalf of said estate, and as representative of others similarly situated; NANCY PEASE, individually, as personal representative of the Estate of William Clark, deceased on behalf of said estate, and as representative of others similarly situated; MARILYN HOLLEY, as personal representative of the Estate of Kathryn Darnell, deceased on behalf of said estate, and as representative of others similarly situated; and; DONNA WARE, individually, as personal representative of the Estate of Jennifer Graham, deceased on behalf of said estate, and as representative of others similarly situated; DONNETTE WENGERD, individually, as personal representative of the Estate of Jennifer Graham, deceased on behalf of said estate, and as representative of others similarly situated; ROSANNE CHERNICK, Appellants, v. BASF CATALYSTS LLC; CAHILL GORDON AND REINDEL LLP; CAHILL GORDON AND REINDEL, A Partnership including a Professional Corporation; THOMAS D. HALKET; ARTHUR A. DORNBUSCH, II; GLENN HEMSTOCK; HOWARD G. SLOANE, a/k/a Peter Sloane; IRA J. DEMBROW; SCOTT A. MARTIN; JOHN DOE BUSINESS ENTITIES 1 TO 100, are fictitious coporations, partnerships, or other business entities or organizations that BASF Catalysts LLC is responsible or liable for and whose identities are not presently known, which entities may have mined, milled, manufactured, sold, supplied; JOHN DOE BUSINESS ENTITIES 101 TO 200, are the fictitious firms, corporations, partnerships, limited liability companies/associations or other business entities or organizations whose indentities are not presently known, and who may have perpetrated, or are responsible for, are the alter egos; JOHN DOE LAWYERS 1 TO 500, are the fictitious names of lawyers and law firms, legal professional corporations, legal professional partnerships, or other professional business business entities or organizations, or their agents, employees, or servants, acting within the course and; JOHN DOE 1 TO 500, are the fictitious names of individuals whose identities are not presently known, who may have perpetrated, aided and abetted, conspired with, acted in concert with and/or are secondarily responsible or liable under law for the conduct or activities of, NO. 13-1089 (3d. Cir.). A full-text copy of the Third Circuit's Decision is available at http://is.gd/0NLqRFfrom Leagle.com. Michael Coren, Esq, Harry M. Roth, Esq., Cohen, Placitella & Roth, P.C., 2001 Market Street, Two Commerce Square, Suite 2900, Philadelphia, PA 19103. Christopher M. Placitella, Esq., Cohen, Placitella & Roth, P.C., 127 Maple Avenue, Red Bank, N.J. 07701. Jeffrey M. Pollock, Esq. [Argued], Fox Rothschild LLP, Princeton Pike Corp. Center, 997 Lennox Drive, Princeton Pike Corporate Center, Building 3, Lawrenceville, N.J. 08648, Attorneys for Appellants. Stephen M. Orlofsky, David C. Kistler, Blank Rome LLP, 301 Carnegie Center, 3rd Floor, Princeton, N.J. 08540. Eugene F. Assaf, Esq. [Argued], Daniel A. Bress, Esq., Peter A. Farrell, Esq., Michael F. Williams, Esq., Kirkland & Ellis LLP, 655 Fifteenth Street, N.W., Suite 1200, Washington, D.C. 20005, Attorneys for Appellee BASF Catalysts LLC. Robert E. Ryan, Esq., Marc D. Haefner, Esq, Craig S. Demareski, Esq., Connell Foley LLP, 85 Livingston Avenue, Roseland, N.J. 07068. John K. Villa, Esq., David S. Blatt, Esq., Kannon K. Shanmugam, Esq, [Argued], Matthew B. Nicholson, Esq., Richard A. Olderman, Esq., Williams & Connolly LLP, 725 Twelfth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005, Attorneys for Appellees Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Howard G. Sloane, Ira J. Dembrow, and Scott A., Martin, Eric Tunis, Esq. [Argued], Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis, 99 Wood Avenue South, Iselin, NJ 08830. Olivier Salvagno, Esq., Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP, Metro Corporate Campus One, Suite 4, P.O. Box 5600, Woodbridge, N.J. 07095, Attorneys for Appellee Thomas D. Halket. Walter F. Timpone, Esq., Walter R. Krzastek, Jr., Esq., Michael B. Devins, Esq., McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP, 1300 Mt. Kemble Avenue, P.O. Box 2075, Morristown, N.J. 07962, Attorney for Appellee Glen Hemstock. Kevin H. Marino, Esq., John A. Boyle, Esq., Marino, Tortorella & Boyle, P.C., 437 Southern Boulevard, Chatham, N.J. 07928, Attorneys for Appellee Arthur A. Dornbusch, II. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boeing Owed No Duty to Warn Ex-Worker's Wife ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Marilyn Gillen filed a lawsuit asserting she developed mesothelioma as a result of her exposure to asbestos. Mrs. Gillen worked as a secretary at the Boeing Vertol facility in Ridley Park, Pennsylvania from 1966 to 2005. The Plaintiff alleges that she was exposed to asbestos while working at Boeing when the Defendant conducted various asbestos abatement projects within her proximity. Mrs. Gillen's husband, Hugh Gillen, also worked at the Boeing Vertol facility. Mr. Gillen worked as a machinist from 1966 to 1970 and 1973 to 2005. The Plaintiff also alleges that she was exposed to asbestos when she laundered her husband's clothes in her home. The Plaintiff asserts that Mr. Gillen's clothes contained dust from asbestos products and materials that he worked with at Boeing. It is this claim relating to take-home exposure due to Mrs. Gillen's laundering of Mr. Gillen's work clothing in her home, and not her claim relating to her exposure while working as a secretary at Boeing, that is currently at issue. Defendant Boeing moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's "Household Exposure" claim. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff cannot maintain a viable take-home exposure cause of action against Boeing under Pennsylvania law. Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in a memorandum dated Aug. 26, 2014, granted Boeing's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's take-home exposure claim, concluding that Boeing owed no duty to Mrs. Gillen regarding her claim for "take-home exposure" to asbestos. The case is MARILYN GILLEN, Plaintiff, v. THE BOEING COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants, NO. MDL 875, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-CV-03118-ER (E.D. Pa.). A full-text copy of Judge Robreno's Decision is available at http://is.gd/lNdThyfrom Leagle.com. MARILYN GILLEN, Plaintiff and Cross Defendants, represented by ANDREW J. DUPONT, LOCKS LAW FIRM & RYAN W. ANDERSON, LOCKS LAW FIRM. 3M COMPANY, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by BASIL A. DISIPIO, LAVIN O'NEIL CEDRONE & DISIPIO. BASF CORPORATION, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by CHARLES SCOTT TOOMEY, LITTLETON JOYCE UGHETTA PARK & KELLY LLP, CHRISTINE M. DELANEY, LITTLETON JOYCE UGHETTA PARK & KELLY LLP & DANIEL J. KAIN, LITTLETON JOYCE UGHETTA PARK & KELLY LLP. BASF STRUCTURAL MATERIALS, INC., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by CHARLES SCOTT TOOMEY, LITTLETON JOYCE UGHETTA PARK & KELLY LLP, CHRISTINE M. DELANEY, LITTLETON JOYCE UGHETTA PARK & KELLY LLP & DANIEL J. KAIN, LITTLETON JOYCE UGHETTA PARK & KELLY LLP. BRAND INSULATIONS, INC., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by NOEL L. SMITH, JR., HELPLER BROOM &NORMAN L. HAASE, SWARTZ, CAMPBELL & DETWEILER. CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by MICHAEL J. BLOCK, WILBRAHAM, LAWLER & BUBA. DEXTER HYSOL AEROSPACE, INC., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by CATHERINE N. JASONS, KELLEY JASONS MCGUIRE SPINELLI HANNA LLP. FERRO CORPORATION, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by G. DANIEL BRUCH, JR., SWARTZ CAMPBELL, LLC & JOHN C. MCMEEKIN, RAWLE & HENDERSON. FIBER RESIN CORPORATION, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by GEORGE S. BOBNAK, CHRISTIE PABARUE and YOUNG. FIRST RESIN CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by GEORGE S. BOBNAK, CHRISTIE PABARUE and YOUNG. FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by LEROY J. JANICZEK, REILLY, JANICZEK & MCDEVITT, PC. FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY CORPORATION, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by LEROY J. JANICZEK, REILLY, JANICZEK & MCDEVITT, PC. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by JOHN P. MCSHEA, MCSHEA LAW FIRM PC. GENUINE PARTS COMPANY, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by WALTER S. JENKINS, MARON MARVEL BRADLEY & ANDERSON LLC. GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by KEVIN J. O'BRIEN, MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY P.C.. GOULDS PUMPS, INC., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by JOSHUA D. SCHEETS, MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN & MICHAEL L. TURNER, MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN. HENKEL CORPORATION, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by CATHERINE N. JASONS, KELLEY JASONS MCGUIRE SPINELLI HANNA LLP. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by PETER J. NEESON, RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP. HOPEMAN BROTHERS, INC., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by DANIEL J. RYAN, JR., MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN & JOSHUA D. SCHEETS, MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN. KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by DANIEL J. RYAN, JR., MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN & JOSHUA D. SCHEETS, MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN. NATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE PARTS ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by WALTER S. JENKINS, MARON MARVEL BRADLEY & ANDERSON LLC. PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by AARON V. SKRYPSKI, MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP & JAMES D. PAGLIARO, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP. PNEUMO ABEX CORPORATION, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by CATHERINE N. JASONS, KELLEY JASONS MCGUIRE SPINELLI HANNA LLP & ROBERT N. SPINELLI, KELLEY JASONS MCGOWAN SPINELLI & HANNA, LLP. THE BOEING COMPANY, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by JOSEPH CAGNOLI, JR., SEGAL, MCCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY & NICOLA SERIANNI, SEGAL MCCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY. THE PEP BOYS - MANNY, MOE & JACK, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER N. SANTORO, MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN & JOSHUA D. SCHEETS, MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN. UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by CATHERINE N. JASONS, KELLEY JASONS MCGUIRE SPINELLI HANNA LLP & ROBERT N. SPINELLI, KELLEY JASONS MCGOWAN SPINELLI & HANNA, LLP. VIACOM, INC., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by JOHN P. MCSHEA, MCSHEA LAW FIRM PC. VIACOM, INC., SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO CBS CORPORATION, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented byJOHN P. MCSHEA, MCSHEA LAW FIRM PC. ********* 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 * * *