DOCSLIB.ORG

Response of Omar Mining Company, A.T

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Response of Omar Mining Company, A.T NORMA ACORD, ::<L 'RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK West Virginia Residents, f SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS Plaintiffs and Class Representatives, ~~l,~,j·:' OF WEST VIRGINIA Plaintiff/Petitioner, v. Appeal No. ______ Civil Action No. 04-C-lSl-0 CO LANE COMPANY, a West Virginia Circuit Court of Logan County corporation, individually and as a successor-in-interest to Cole & Crane Real Estate Trust; COAL & CRANE REAL ESTATE TRUST, a West Virginia trust; LOGAN COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, a West Virginia public body; WEST VIRGINIA COAL & COKE COMPANY, a West Virginia corporation, OMAR MINING COMPANY, a West Virginia corporation, individually and as successor-in-interest to West Virginia Coal & Coke Company; A.T. MASSEY COAL COMPANY, a West Virginia corporation, individually and as a successor-in-interest to West Virginia Coal & Coke Company; MASSEY ENERGY COMPANY, a Virginia corporation, individually and as a successor-in-interest to West Virginia Coal & Coke Company; RICHARD FRY, a West Virginia resident, individually, Defendants/Respondents. RESPONSE OF OMAR MINING COMPANY, A.T. MASSEY COAL COMPANY, INC., AND MASSEY ENERGY COMPANY TO PETITION FOR APPEAL Daniel L. Stickler (WVSB # 3613) Jonathan L. Anderson (WVSB # 9628) JACKSON KELL Y PLLC 1600 Laidley Tower Charleston, West Virginia 25301 (304) 340-1000 Counsel for Respondents Omar Mining Company, A. T. Massey Coal Company, Inc., and Massey Energy Company {C1863023.1 } TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 II. KIND OF PROCEEDING AND NATURE OF RULING BELOW .................................. .2 III. STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................. 3 A. Historical Background ............................................................................................. 3 1. 1920-1954: Coal & Coke's Operations in the Island Creek Valley ............. 3 2. 1954: Coal & Coke's Exit From the Island Creek Valley .......................... .4 3. Coal & Coke II ............................................................................................. 6 B. The Omar School Site .............................................................................................. 7 C. Petitioner's Claims Against Omar Mining, A.T. Massey and Massey Energy ........ 8 D. The Fact Witness Testimony ................................................................................... 8 E. Omar Mining's Attempts to Discover the Factual Basis for Petitioner's Claims Against It. ............................................................................................................... 11 F. Petitioner's Response to Omar Mining's Motion for Summary Judgment. ........... .14 G. Petitioner's Expert's Deposition Testimony........................................................... 15 IV. DISCUSSION OF LAW .................................................................................................... 19 A. Petitioner Continues to Rely Upon Evidence That She Improperly Sought to Introduce After the Granting of Summary Judgment. .......................................... .19 B. The Circuit Court Properly Granted Omar Mining Company's Motion for Summary Judgment. .............................................................................................. 23 1. The Circuit Court Properly Concluded There Was Insufficient Evidence Against Omar Mining to Sustain Petitioner's Claim for Medical Monitoring ................................................................................................. 23 2. The Circuit Court Properly Concluded There Was No Underlying Tort to Support Petitioner's Claim Against Omar Mining .................................... .25 (i) The lower court correctly held that Omar Mining could not be liable under a public nuisance theory .............................................. .25 (ii) The lower court correctly held that Omar Mining could not be liable under a strict liability theory .................................................. 27 {C1863023.1} ii (iii) The lower court correctly held that Omar Mining could not be liable under a negligence theory ...................................................... 27 C. The Circuit Court Properly Granted Massey Energy Company and A.T. Massey Coal Company, Inc. 's Motion for Summary Judgment. ........................................ 29 1. A.T. Massey and Massey Energy Company's Alleged Successor Liability for Coal & Coke Is Not Before This Court ................................................ 29 2. The Lower Court Correctly Found the Evidence Insufficient to Hold A.T. Massey or Massey Energy Liable for Any Acts or Omissions of Omar Mining ........................................................................................................ 31 D. The Lower Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion In Denying Petitioner's Rule 60(b )(2) Motion ..................................................................................................... 3 3 1. Standard of Review .................................................................................... 34 2. Petitioner Failed to Show Her Purported "Newly Discovery Evidence" Could Not Have Previously Been Discovered Through the Exercise of Due Diligence ............................................................................................ 35 2. Petitioner Failed to Show Her Purported "Newly Discovery Evidence" Was of Such Kind that It Ought to Produce a Different Outcome on the Merits ......................................................................................................... 40 V. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 43 {C1863023.1} iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Aikens v. Debow, 208 W.Va. 486, 541 S.E.2d 576 (2000) ........................................................... 28 Aluise v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 218 W.va. 498, 509, 625 S.Eold 260, 271 (2005) ....... 33 Bower v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 206 W.Va. 133,522 S.Eold 424 (1999) ............................. 23 Brown v. McMillian, 737 Soold 570, 571 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999) ........................................... 36 Browningv. Halle, 219 W.Va. 89,632 S.Eold 29 (2005) (per curiam) ....................................... 21 Canterbury v. Laird, 221 W.Va. 453, 655 S.E.2d 199 (2007) (per curiam) ................................. 22 Carter v. Monsanto Co., 212 W. Va. 732, 737,575 S.Eold 342,347 (2002) ............................... 27 Federated Conservationists of Westchester County, Inc. v. County of Westchester, 771 N.Y.Sold 530, 531 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004) ............................................................................................... 39 Halstead v. Horton, 38 W.Va. 727, 18 S.E. 953 (1894) ................................... :........................... 35 Hark v. Mountain Fork Lumber Co., 127 W.Va. 586, 595-96,34 S.Eold 348,354 (1945) ......... 26 Heldmair v. Taman, 58 N.E. 960,960 (Ill. 1900) ......................................................................... 36 Jackson v. Putnam County Ed. of Educ., 221 W.Va. 170, 177, 653 S.E.2d 632, 639 (2007) (per curiatn) ...................................................................................................................................... 20 Jones v. Garnes, 183 W.Va. 304, 306, 395 S.Eold 548,550 (1990) ............................................ 25 Koerner v. West Virginia Dep't of Military Affairs and Pub. Safety, 217 W.Va. 231, 617 S.Eold 778 (2005) ................................................................................................................................. 22 Laya v. Erin Homes, Inc., 177 W.Va. 343, 347,352 S.Eold 93,97 (1986) .................................. 31 Parsley v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 167 W.Va. 866, 870, 280 S.E.2d 703, 706 (1981) ................................................................................................................................................... 27 Peneschi v. Nat'l Steel Corp., 170 W.Va. 511,295 S.Eold 1 (1982) ............................................ 27 Pope v. Edward Ai Rude Carrier Corp., 138 W.Va. 218, 225, 75 S.Eold 584, 589 (1953) ........ 26 Powderidge Unit Owners Assoc. v. Highland Properties, Ltd., 196 W.va. 692, 699, 474 S.Eold 872, 879 (1996) ......................................................................................................................... 20 Scutieri v. Paige, 808 Fold 785, 794 (11 th Cir. 1987) .................................................................. 39 Seay v. City ofKnoxville, 654 S.Wold 397,399 (Tenn. App. 1983) ............................................ 36 Sewellv. Gregory, 179 W.Va. 585,371 S.E.2d 82 (1988) ........................................................... 28 Southern Elec. Supply Co. v. Raleigh County Nat 1 Bank, 173 W. Va. 780, 320 S.E.2d 515 (1984) ................................................................................................................................................... 31 Thompson v. Branches-Domestic Violence Shelter of Huntington, W Va., Inc., 207 W.Va. 479, 483, 534 S.E.2d 33, 37 (2000) .................................................................................................. 29 Tiernan v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc., 203 W.Va. 135, 140 n.lO, 506 S.Eold 578,583 n.lO (1998) .......................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Massey Energy Co
    Case 5:10-cv-00689 Document 83 Filed 03/11/11 Page 1 of 170 PageID #: 1266 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY In re MASSEY ENERGY CO. ) Civil Action No. 5: 1 0-cv-00689 SECURITIES LITIGATION ) ) CLASS ACTION ) This Document Relates To: ) The Honorable Irene C. BerBergerg ) ALL ACTIONS Jury Trial Demanded ) CONSOLIDATED AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS Case 5:10-cv-00689 Document 83 Filed 03/11/11 Page 2 of 170 PageID #: 1267 TABLE OF CONTENTS GLOSSARY v I. NATURE AND SUMMARY OF THE ACTION 13 A. Fallout from the 2006 Fire at Massey’s Alma No. 1 Mine 14 B. Massey Created a New Corporate Image to Lure Investors by Purporting to Implement Safety Improvement Initiatives 17 C. Notwithstanding its Purported Safety Improvement Initiatives, Massey Prioritized Production Over Safety During the Class Period, Culminating in the Disaster at Upper Big Branch 18 D. After the Explosion, Criminal and Civil Investigations Revealed Deceptive Tactics Used by Massey to Cover Up its Safety-Last Approach to Coal Mining During the Class Period 20 E. Massey Restates its Critical NFDL Safety Metric and Blankenship Resigns 23 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 25 III. PARTIES 25 A. Plaintiffs 25 B. Massey 26 C. The Officer Defendants 26 D. The Director Defendants 28 IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS 32 A. Massey and its Subsidiaries 32 B. Blankenship’s Rise to Power and Reign at Massey 35 C. Before the Class Period, Massey Was Embroiled in Criminal and Civil Litigation Arising from Unlawful Safety Practices in 2006 37 D.
    [Show full text]
  • Alpha Complaint
    Case 2:14-cv-11609 Document 1 Filed 03/05/14 Page 1 of 32 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; the STATE OF WEST ) VIRGINIA by and through the WEST VIRGINIA ) DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; the ) PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL ) PROTECTION; and the COMMONWEALTH OF ) KENTUCKY by and through the KENTUCKY ENERGY ) AND ENVIRONMENT CABINET ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) Civil Action No. ________2:14-11609 ALPHA NATURAL RESOURCES, INC.; ALPHA ) APPALACHIA HOLDINGS, INC.; ALEX ENERGY, INC.; ) ALPHA PA COAL TERMINAL, LLC; AMFIRE MINING ) COMPANY, LLC; ARACOMA COAL CO., INC.; ) COMPLAINT BANDMILL COAL CORP.; BELFRY COAL CORP.; BIG ) BEAR MINING CO.; BROOKS RUN MINING COMPANY, ) LLC; BROOKS RUN SOUTH MINING LLC; CLEAR FORK ) COAL CO.; CUMBERLAND COAL RESOURCES, LP; ) DELBARTON MINING CO.; DICKENSON-RUSSELL ) COAL COMPANY, LLC; DUCHESS COAL CO.; EAGLE ) ENERGY, INC.; ELK RUN COAL CO., INC.; EMERALD ) COAL RESOURCES, LP; ENTERPRISE MINING ) COMPANY, LLC; GOALS COAL CO.; GREYEAGLE ) COAL CO.; HARLAN RECLAMATION SERVICES LLC; ) HERNDON PROCESSING CO., LLC; HIGHLAND MINING ) CO.; INDEPENDENCE COAL COMPANY, INC.; JACKS ) BRANCH COAL CO.; KANAWHA ENERGY CO.; KEPLER ) PROCESSING CO., LLC; KINGSTON MINING, INC.; ) KINGWOOD MINING CO., LLC; KNOX CREEK COAL ) CORP.; LITWAR PROCESSING CO., LLC; MARFORK ) COAL CO.; MARTIN COUNTY COAL CORP.; NEW ) RIDGE MINING CO.; OMAR MINING CO.; PARAMONT ) COAL COMPANY VIRGINIA, LLC; PAYNTER BRANCH ) MINING,
    [Show full text]
  • Will Massey Energy Company Suffer Severe Penalties in Clean Water Act Case?
    A BNA, INC. DAILY ! ENVIRONMENT REPORT Reproduced with permission from Daily Environment Report, Vol. 2007, No. 186, 09/26/2007, pp. B1 - B6. Copyright ஽ 2007 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) http://www.bna.com ENFORCEMENT CLEAN WATER ACT When Wall Street analysts calculated the statutory maximum civil penalty in a Clean Wa- ter Act case against Massey Energy Company and several affiliated companies, a great deal of negative ‘‘buzz’’ was generated because of the potential magnitude of the fine, according to the author of this article. However, the author says the courts have been very reluctant to impose statutory maximum penalties. In this article, the author provides background on the issues in the case and, based on his experience as a consultant in these matters, offers his view of how the penalty actually will be calculated. Will Massey Energy Company Suffer Severe Penalties in Clean Water Act Case? BY ROBERT H. FUHRMAN conclusion. Even assuming the government is success- ful in its assertion of liability, my opinion, which I ex- all Street analysts and media reports have sug- plain in detail below, is that the likely penalty is in the gested Massey Energy Company faces a poten- range of $1.5 million to $7 million if this case is adjudi- W tial liability of $2.4 billion for alleged violations cated. of the Clean Water Act.1 I was retained by the company to assess its liability and have reached a far different Case Background 1 This figure appeared in several publications, including On May 10, 2007, in the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Consent Decree: United States of America V. Massey Energy Company, Et Al., Civil Action No. 2:07-0299
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 2:07-0299 ) Hon . John T . Copenhaver, Jr. MASSEY ENERGY COMPANY, et al ., ) ) CONSENT DECREE Defendants . ) ) TABLE OF CONTENTS I . BACKGROUND . ..... .... .... ... .. .. .... ..... .... ... ... ... ..... ... .-1­ II . JURISDICTION AND VENUE . ..... .... .. .. ... .... .... .. .... -2­ III . APPLICABILITY . ..... .... .. ... .. ... ... .... ... ... .. ... .... ... ... -2­ IV . DEFINITIONS . ..... .... .... ..... ... .. .. .:... ..... ... ... ... .... ..... .... -3­ V. CIVIL PENALTY ... ... ... .. .... ... ... ... .... .... ... .... .... ... ...... .... -7­ VI . COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS . ... .... ... .... ..... ... ... .... ... .. .... .... -8­ VII . INJUNCTIVE RELIEF . .... ..... ... ... .. ... ..... .... ..... ... ... ..... -12­ VIII . ADDITIONAL INJUNCTIVE RELIEF .. ... ... ... .. ... ... .. .. .... -20­ IX . REPORTING REQUIREMENTS . .... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... ... .... .... -21­ X. STIPULATED PENALTIES . ..... .... .. ... ..... .... ... .. ... .... .... -27­ XI . FORCE MAJEURE . ...... ..... ... ... ... ... .. .. .... ...... .... :.. ..... .... .-31­ XII . DISPUTE RESOLUTION . ...... ... .... ... .. ... .. ... ... .... .... .. .. -34­ XIII . INFORMATION COLLECTION AND RETENTION ... .... ....... ..... ..... ., . -37­ XIV. EFFECT OF SETTLEMENT/RESERVATION OF RIGHTS . ....... .... .... ... -39­ XV. COSTS . .... .. .... ..... ... .... .... ...... ... .... .... ... -41­ XVI. NOTICES
    [Show full text]
  • Twists and Turns in Ancient Roads: As Unidentified
    CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE WAR ON COAL: EXPLORING THE DARK SIDE Patrick Charles McGinley∗ To see coal purely as a gift from God overlooks the many dangerous strings attached to that gift. Similarly, to see it as just an environmental evil would be to overlook the undeniable good that accompanies that evil. “Failing to recognize both sides of coal—the vast power and the exorbitant costs—misses the essential, heartbreaking drama of the story.1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ............................................................................................... 256 I. Coal at the Millennium .......................................................................... 258 II. History of Coal ..................................................................................... 262 A. Early History .................................................................................... 262 B. Coal and the Industrial Age .............................................................. 262 C. Coal and Industrialization in the United States ................................ 263 III. Coal’s Dark Side: Examining its Externalities .................................... 265 A. The Socio-Economic Costs of Coal Mining and Burning ................ 266 1. Industrial Awakening in the Coalfields .............................. 266 ∗ Professor McGinley is the “Judge Charles H. Haden II Professor of Law” at West Virginia University. In the print version of Volume 13 Issue 2, the Vermont Journal of Environmental Law mistakenly inserted the name of a purported "co-author."
    [Show full text]
  • Massey Energy Company 2007 Annual Report Any X 26765
    Massey Energy Company Energy Massey 2007 MAssEy EnERgy CoMpAny Annual Report p.o. BoX 26765 RICHMonD, VA 23261 (804) 788-1800 Meet the energy behind massey energy Massey energy coMpany 2007 annual report finanCial highlights shareholder information Year Ended December 31, (In millions, except per share, per ton Common Stock Information Comparison of Cumulative Total Return for the and number of employees amounts) 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 at February 15, 2008, there were 80,491,644 shares Period December 31, 2002 to December 31, 2007 outstanding and approximately 6,800 shareholders $ 800 Consolidated Statement of Income Data of record of Massey energy’s common stock. $ 700 produced coal revenue $ 2,054.4 $ 1,902.3 $ 1,777.7 $ 1,456.7 $ 1,262.1 Registrar and Transfer Agent $ 600 Total revenue SM 2,413.5 2,219.9 2,204.3 1,766.6 1,571.4 Wells Fargo Shareowner Services $ 500 Income (Loss) before interest and Shareowner relations Department $ 400 income taxes 179.7 111.0 (20.9) 46.2 (17.5) p.o. Box 64854 Income (Loss) before cumulative effect St. paul, Mn 55164-0854 $ 300 of accounting change 94.1 41.6 (101.6) 13.9 (32.3) For change of address, lost dividends or lost stock $ 200 net income (loss) 94.1 41.0 (101.6) 13.9 (40.2) certificates, write or telephone: $ 100 Income (Loss) per share – Basic Wells Fargo Bank, n.a. $ 0 p.o. Box 64874 Income (Loss) before cumulative effect 12/02 12/03 12/04 12/05 12/06 12/07 of accounting change $ 1.17 $ 0.51 $ (1.33) $ 0.18 $ (0.43) St.
    [Show full text]
  • Winds of Change the Newsletter of The
    Winds of Change the newsletter of the June 2010 Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition E Huntington, WV www.ohvec.org Victory! Passing Stronger Cemetery Legislation by Robin Blakeman operations and other land-altering After at least three years of activities. trying to more effectively protect During our first three years cemeteries, we finally did it! This year, of work, four separate bills were at OVEC’s urging, citizens and introduced; none resulted in new members of the faith community joined legislation, but all increased elected forces in lobbying for the passage of officials’ awareness of the need to HB 4457, which improves cemetery protect cemeteries. protection throughout West Virginia. We built allies within faith Our efforts to protect community groups and other cemeteries were sparked by an organizations, such as genealogical increasing number of reports of societies and the WV Perpetual cemetery desecration and blocked Care Cemetery Board. Prominent access to family cemeteries. representatives from Catholic, Many of the access and Episcopalian, Methodist, Unitarian desecration complaints are related to and Presbyterian faith groups lent mountaintop removal operations, but support. For the past two years, there are statewide problems with the WV Council of Churches has protecting cemeteries from natural gas endorsed the need for improved cemetery protection Anderson “Devil Anse” legislation in its legislative Supreme Court Pilot Project Approved Hatfield’s grave is just one policy guide. of hundreds in WV by Carol Warren During the 2009 overshadowed by MTR Coalition partners of WV Citizens for Clean WV legislative interims, a Elections were very encouraged when Governor Manchin mining operations (center announced in his State of the State address that he planned background).
    [Show full text]
  • MASSEY ENERGY COMPANY (Exact Name of Registrant As Specified in Its Charter)
    UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20549 FORM 8-K CURRENT REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 Date of report (Date of earliest event reported): April 8, 2010 (April 5, 2010) MASSEY ENERGY COMPANY (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter) Delaware 1-7775 95-0740960 (State of Incorporation) (Commission File Number) (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) 4 North 4th Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219 (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code) Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (804) 788-1800 N/A (Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report date) Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions: Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425) Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12) Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b)) Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c)) https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/37748/000119312510079731/d8k.htm 9/26/2015 Form 8-K Page 2 of 4 Item 7.01 Regulation FD Disclosure On April 5, 2010, an explosion occurred at the Upper Big Branch mine in Montcoal, West Virginia, operated by our subsidiary, Performance Coal Company. The explosion resulted in 25 fatalities as of the date of this Current Report on Form 8-K (“Form 8-K”).
    [Show full text]
  • To Dance with the Devil: the Social Impact of Mountaintop Removal Surface Coal Mining Shirley Stewart Burns ABSTRACT
    To Dance with the Devil: The Social Impact of Mountaintop Removal Surface Coal Mining Shirley Stewart Burns ABSTRACT Five generations have passed since railroads began to take West Virginia’s bountiful natural-resource treasures of coal and timber to places outside the region, decimating the state’s hardwood forests and diminishing its coal reserves. By 1920, West Virginia’s bountiful hardwood forests had nearly disappeared. The repercussions of constantly extracting resources with no thought of the future consumed those within the region. At the turn of the nineteenth century, West Virginia’s inhabitants learned a difficult lesson about what such a “dance with the devil” could do. In this present struggle, once again balancing economics with community needs for a safe and functioning environment, this generation has now done the same. 4 SHIRLEY STEWART BURNS / TO DANCE WITH THE DEVIL ARTICLE “There are two roads in life, a right one and a wrong one. There is no in-between path to take.” —Pauline Canterberry, resident of Sylvester, West Virginia As the nineteenth century gave way to the twentieth, West Virginia’s rural backcounties experienced a fundamental transformation. Natural-resource speculators pervaded the area; chief among them were the coal and timber industries, along with their handmaiden, the railroad industry. Throughout West Virginia, beautiful hardwood forests came crashing down until, by the 1920s, nearly all of them were gone.1 Railroads penetrated the rugged countryside to whisk the natural treasures of timber and coal away from the state and into the large cities beyond. Older agricultural communities were soon joined by new industrial towns that dotted the landscape for the express purpose of providing a home for workers and their families.
    [Show full text]
  • IN RE MASSEY ENERGY ) Consolidated COMPANY DERIVATIVE and ) C.A
    IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ) IN RE MASSEY ENERGY ) Consolidated COMPANY DERIVATIVE AND ) C.A. No. 5430-CB CLASS ACTION LITIGATION ) ) OPINION @Xk\ OlYd`kk\[9 B\YilXip 7+ 1/06 @Xk\ @\Z`[\[9 IXp 3+ 1/06 Stuart Grant, Cynthia A. Calder, and Michael T. Manuel of GRANT & EISENHOFFER P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; Mark Lebovitch and David Wales of BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP, New York, New York; Gregory M. Nespole and Benjamin Y. Kaufman of WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP, New York, New York; Nadeem Faruqi of FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP, New York, New York; Co-Lead Attorneys for Plaintiffs. Kevin G. Abrams, Matthew L. Miller, and Michael A. Barlow of ABRAMS & BAYLISS LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Ronald S. Rolfe and Julie A. North of CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP, New York, New York; Attorneys for Defendants James B. Crawford, Robert H. Foglesong, Richard M. Gabrys, E. Gordon Gee, Bobby R. Inman, Dan R. Moore, Stanley C. Suboleski, and Lady Barbara Thomas Judge. Kenneth J. Nachbar and Ryan D. Stottmann of MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; William W. Taylor, III and Steven N. Herman of ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP, Washington, DC (on behalf of Don. L. Blankenship); Peter H. White of SCHULTE ROTH & ZABEL LLP, Washington, DC (on behalf of Mark A. Clemens and Jeffrey M. Jarosinski); Stephen E. Baril of KAPLAN VOEKLER CUNNINGHAM & FRANK PLC, Richmond, Virginia; Stephen P. Anthony of COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Washington, DC (on behalf of Christopher Adkins); Attorneys for Defendants J. Christopher Adkins, Don L. Blankenship, Mark A. Clemens, Jeffrey M.
    [Show full text]
  • Coal Company Blasts Last Intact Mountain in Coal River Valley
    Coal Company Blasts Last Intact Mountain in Coal River Valley SustainableBusiness.com News 11/09/2009 [no author listed] A subsidiary of Massey Energy (NYSE: MEE) has begun mountaintop-removal coal-mining operations on Coal River Mountain in West Virginia, the only peak in Coal River Valley that hasn't been blasted away for mining. Blasting for the mine is taking place 200 yards from the Brushy Fork coal slurry impoundment, which holds 8 billion gallons of toxic coal sludge above the Coal River community. Local and national conservation organizations including the Center for Biological Diversity are asking the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the White House to halt the mining operation. "It is just plain wrong to blow up the last mountain in Coal River Valley and to jeopardize the lives of the people living below the slurry dam. The federal government should intervene and protect this community," said Tierra Curry, a biologist at the Center. Citizens are concerned that blasting could weaken or breach the slurry dam. A coal slurry impoundment owned by a Massey subsidiary failed in 2000, spilling more than 300 million gallons of toxic slurry into the Big Sandy River in Martin County, Kentucky. In 1972, 125 people were killed by a 132-million-gallon slurry spill in Logan County, West Virginia. At 3,300 feet, Coal River Mountain is the tallest mountain ever to undergo mountaintop-removal mining. Massey Energy plans to blast away 6,600 acres of the mountain and fill in 18 streams with toxic mining waste, the Center for Biological Diversity said.
    [Show full text]
  • James “Buck” Harless Presented the Spring 2006 Poundstone Lecture
    Page 1 From the Department of Mining Engineering College of Engineering and Mineral Resources West Virginia University n April 20, James “Buck” O Harless presented the Volume 6 Issue 1 For the latest, visit our website at June 2006 Poundstone Lecture to a http://www.mine.cemr.wvu.edu packed house of students, pro- fessors, alumni and friends. His lecture was simply titled, James “Buck” Harless Presented the Spring “Success”, and he is certainly uniquely qualified to discuss 2006 Poundstone Lecture this topic. Buck was born 86 years ago in Logan County, “Success” West Virginia (WV). The inter- that success often requires vening years have seen him At the start of the lecture, Buck presented hard work and sacrifices; and 3) grow a single sawmill into a a strong faith to provide spiri- multi-million dollar, multi- three important ques- tions for the students to tual and moral guidance. national company (International Another secret of success is Industries) in the timber, coal ponder: 1) What does success mean? 2) How recognizing opportunity. Specifi- and land businesses. Along the cally for the students, Buck way, he earned six honorary do we know that we have achieved success? noted that education is an op- doctoral degrees from higher portunity and is important to institutions in WV and KY, in- and 3) Who determines if a person is success- maximizing an individual’s op- cluding WVU, became a vision- portunities. Throughout his ary leader in the WV lumber and ful? To assist the stu- dents in their pursuit of career, Buck related how he coal industries, and has gener- had advanced his businesses ously given back to his local success, and the mean- ing of success, Buck interests by buying and selling and state communities as a his various assets as the best distinguished philanthropist.
    [Show full text]