/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/121017.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, October 17, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 206
Headlines
60 EAST: Consolidated Class Action Pending in New York Court
ADVANCEPIERRE FOODS: Recalls Frozen Products With Peanut Butter
AMERICAN SAMOA: EEOC Optimistic on Age Bias Class Action
ANADIGICS INC: Appeal from Dismissal of Securities Suit Pending
ANGIE'S LIST: Faces Class Action Over Membership Fees
ARCADIA PETROLEUM: Sued Over Alleged Oil Price Manipulation
CAMPBELL SOUP: Accused of Mislabeling "100% Natural" Products
CERADYNE: Being Sold to 3M for Too Little, Suit Claims
CHINA EASTERN: Chinese Court Hears 2004 Air Crash Class Action
COMPUTER ASSOCIATES: 2nd Cir. Halts Malpractice Suit v. Milberg
CREATIVE ENERGY: Recalls Crunch(R) thinkThin Nutrition Bars
CREATIVE ENERGY: Recalls Ridgebar Brand Nutrition Bars
FARMERS INSURANCE: Claims Adjusters Obtain Class Certification
GOOGLE INC: Seeks Court Approval of $6MM Text Spam Settlement
GULF RESOURCES: Continues to Defend "Lewy" Suit in Calif.
HANNAFORD SUPERMARKETS: Issues Alert on Undeclared Allergens
HIGHLANDS HOSPITAL: Judge Remands OT Suit Back to State Court
JAGRMA LLC: Recalls NuttZo Original 16 oz Nut and Seed Butter
JUSTIN'S: Expands Recall of Certain Peanut Butter Products
KKR: Court Releases Senior Executive E-mails in Class Action
KPMG: Class Action Plaintiffs Seek Papers in MFS Class Action
LAKE COUNTY: Mclin & Burnsed Files Class Action Over Fire Fees
LIN-MAR PARTNERS: Recalls Longhorn Bars With Peanut Products
MANNKIND CORP: Awaits Approval of $16MM Securities Suit Deal
METROPCS: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over T-Mobile Merger
MGIC INVESTMENT: Still Awaits Discrimination Suit Deal's Final OK
MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Trial in Derivative Suit Set for April 2013
NATURE'S RECIPE: Recalls Oven Baked Biscuits With Real Chicken
NEW ENGLAND: Faces Class Action Over Tainted Steroid Injections
NEW YORK: Health Dept. Faces Class Action Over Medications by Mail
PUREFIT INC: Recalls Purefit Peanut Butter Crunch Bars
QUESTCOR PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Inflated Stock Prices
RADIAN GROUP: Continues to Defend RESPA-Violations Class Suits
REVLON INC: Settles Tender Offer Class Action for $9.2 Million
S & P CO: Recalls 1,800 Jars of Su-nun Crushed Thai Red Pepper
SAMSUNG: Sued Over Alleged Lithium-Ion Battery Price Fixing
SAMSUNG: Faces Class Action Over Defective Television Fuses
SATCON TECHNOLOGY: Still Defends Consolidated Securities Suit
SUNLAND INC: Recalls Raw & Roasted Shelled and In-Shell Peanuts
TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Still Defends Suits Over Chrome 6 Exposure
TYSON FOODS: FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products
UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Amended Digital Royalties Suit Filed in Calif.
VIROPHARMA INC: Defends Securities Class Suit in Pennsylvania
WESTERN ALLIANCE: Settles Western Liberty Merger Class Action
WMI HOLDINGS: Awaits November 27 Hearing on Suit Deal Approval
*********
60 EAST: Consolidated Class Action Pending in New York Court
------------------------------------------------------------
60 East 42nd St. Associates L.L.C. continues to defend itself
against a recently consolidated class action lawsuit pending in
New York, according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.
The Company was originally organized as a partnership on September
25, 1958. On October 1, 1958, the Company acquired fee title to
One Grand Central Place (the Building), formerly known as the
Lincoln Building, at the address 60 East 42nd Street, New York,
New York and the land thereunder. On November 28, 2001, the
Company converted to a limited liability company under New York
law and is now known as 60 East 42nd St. Associates L.L.C. The
conversion did not change any aspect of the assets and operations
of the Company other than to protect its participants from
liability to third parties. The Company's members are Peter L.
Malkin and Anthony E. Malkin, each of whom also acts as an agent
for holders of participations in his respective member interest in
the Company (Participants). The Members in the Company hold
senior positions at Malkin Holdings LLC, One Grand Central Place,
60 East 42nd Street, New York, New York, which provides
supervisory and other services to the Company and to Lessee.
The Company does not operate the Property. It leases the Property
to Lincoln Building Associates L.L.C. (Lessee) pursuant to an
operating lease as modified (the Lease), which is currently set to
expire on September 30, 2033. Lessee is a New York limited
liability company whose members consist of, among others, entities
for the benefit of members of Peter L. Malkin's family.
Malkin Holdings LLC and Peter L. Malkin, a member in the Company,
were engaged in a proceeding with Lessee's former managing agent,
Helmsley-Spear, Inc. commenced in 1997, concerning the management,
leasing, and supervision of the Property that is subject to the
Lease to Lessee. In this connection, certain costs for legal and
professional fees and other expenses were paid by Malkin Holdings
and Mr. Malkin. Malkin Holdings and Mr. Malkin have represented
that such costs will be recovered only to the extent that (a) a
competent tribunal authorizes payment or (b) an investor
voluntarily agrees that his or her proportionate share be paid.
On behalf of himself and Malkin Holdings, Mr. Malkin has
requested, or intends to request, such voluntary agreement from
all investors, which may include renewing such request in the
future for any investor who previously received such request and
failed to confirm agreement at that time. Because any related
payment has been, or will be, made only by consenting investors,
Registrant has not provided for the expense and related liability
with respect to such costs in these financial statements.
As of August 9, 2012, five putative class actions have been
brought by Participants in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C.
and several other entities supervised by Malkin Holdings that own
fee or leasehold interests in various properties located in New
York City, the first of which was filed March 1, 2012 (the "Class
Actions"). As currently pending in New York State Supreme Court,
New York County, each Class Action challenges the proposed
consolidation of those and other properties supervised by Malkin
Holdings into a real estate investment trust (the "REIT") and the
initial public offering of shares of Class A common stock in
Empire State Realty Trust, Inc., a Maryland corporation which
intends to qualify for U.S. tax purposes as a REIT. The
plaintiffs assert claims against Malkin Holdings, Malkin
Properties, L.L.C., Malkin Properties of New York, L.L.C., Malkin
Properties of Connecticut, Inc., Malkin Construction Corp.,
Anthony E. Malkin, Peter L. Malkin, Estate of Leona M. Helmsley,
Empire State Realty OP, L.P., and Empire State Realty Trust, Inc.
("Defendants") for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment,
and/or aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, alleging,
inter alia, that the terms of the transaction and the process in
which it was structured (including the valuation which was
employed) are unfair to the investors in the existing entities,
the consolidation provides excessive benefits to the Malkin
Holdings group and the prospectus/consent solicitation fails to
make adequate disclosure. The complaints seek money damages and
injunctive relief preventing the proposed transaction. On
April 3, 2012, plaintiffs moved for consolidation of the actions
and for appointment of co-lead counsel. The motion was granted on
June 26, 2012, and the plaintiffs have 120 days from that date to
file a consolidated amended complaint.
The Class Actions are in a very preliminary stage, with no
responses to the complaints having been filed to date.
The Company says the outcome of this litigation is uncertain,
however, and as a result, the Defendants may incur costs
associated with defending or settling such litigation or paying
any judgment if they lose. In addition, the Defendants may be
required to pay damage awards or settlements. At this time, the
Defendants cannot reasonably assess the timing, outcome of this
litigation, and an estimate of the amount of loss, or its effect,
if any, on the Defendants' financial statements if applicable.
Defendants have stated they believe the Class Actions are baseless
and intend to defend them vigorously.
ADVANCEPIERRE FOODS: Recalls Frozen Products With Peanut Butter
---------------------------------------------------------------
With the FDA's announcement of an expanded recall of Sunland
Inc.'s peanut butter, AdvancePierre Foods of Cincinnati, Ohio, is
initiating a voluntary recall of select frozen products including
Peanut Butter and Jelly sandwiches, Peanut Butter and Jelly Graham
Cracker sandwiches and Peanut Butter cup products all produced at
its Easley, South Carolina factory. In the best interest of
consumers, AdvancePierre has decided to recall all of the
potentially affected products, including those beyond the one-year
shelf life.
The affected products have the potential to be contaminated with
Salmonella. To date, there have been no confirmed illnesses or
injuries reported in connection with any of the AdvancePierre
recalled products, and no other AdvancePierre products are being
recalled at this time.
Salmonella is an organism that can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected
with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea, nausea,
vomiting, and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection
with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the
bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial
infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis, and
arthritis.
The following products are included in this recall:
* Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches (frozen)
* Peanut butter and jelly Graham cracker sandwiches (frozen)
* Peanut butter cups (frozen)
The "lot number" is located on the exterior of the sandwich
wrappers and if applicable, the "sell by date" is on the outer
cartons near the folded seal.
The select products subject to this recall were manufactured
between the dates of July 17, 2011, through May 18, 2012, and
distributed nationwide through retail stores, food service,
convenience stores and the USDA commodity foods programs. A list
of the specific products being recalled can be found on the
AdvancePierre Web site, http://www.advancepierre.com/
This recall is being conducted in cooperation with the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the United States Food
and Drug Administration (FDA). Consumers with recalled product
are urged not to eat the product, and to dispose of it or return
it to AdvancePierre or the retail establishment where it was
purchased for a full refund. Consumers with questions about the
recalled products may phone AdvancePierre Customer Service at
(855) 348-8888 from 7:00 a.m. - 8:00 p.m. Central Standard Time,
7-days a week.
Product Description Lot Code Expiration date
------------------- ----------------- ---------------
Peanut Butter & Grape 1080123, 1080589, 05/12/12, 05/18/12,
and Jelly on White 2040471 01/21/13*
Bread, 2.80 oz
UPC Code: 71421921205
Peanut Butter & 1080124 05/29/12
Strawberry Jelly on
White Bread 2.80 oz
UPC Code: 71421921212
Peanut Butter & Grape 1070195, 1070209, 08/14/12, 09/02/12,
Jelly on Whole Grain 1090328 09/07/12
2.80 oz
UPC Code: 75999110047
Peanut Butter & Jelly 2030322 12/05/12*
Squarewich, 2.70 oz
UPC Code: 75999210051
PB &J Jamz, 2.80 oz 1070172, 1070178, 04/12/12, 04/14/12,
UPC Code: 605388670137 1070191, 1070192, 04/24/12, 05/02/12,
1070193, 1070207, 05/03/12, 05/23/12,
1070208, 1070507, 05/22/12, 04/13/12,
1070630, 1080001, 04/28/12, 04/27/12,
1080150, 1080322, 05/28/12, 05/21/12,
1080728, 1080834, 05/24/12, 05/21/12,
1080835, 1090001, 06/04/12, 05/25/12,
1090127, 2020624, 05/29/12, 01/19/13*,
2030324, 2030339, 12/05/12*,
2040147, 2040604 12/08/12*,
01/06/13*,
01/20/13*,
01/21/13*
Jamwich Crustless PB 2030545 01/07/13*
& Jelly Sandwich
UPC Code: 75999112805
Pierre PB & Strawberry 1080122 05/02/12
Jelly on White, 8/12PK
UPC Code: 75999213687
Grahamwich 1080571, 1080667, 05/14/12, 05/28/12,
UPC Code: 75999213748 1080825, 2030374 06/05/12, 12/31/12*
On The Go PB Jamwich 1070175, 1070186, 04/21/12, 04/29/12,
Strawberry, 2.00 oz 1070200, 1070659, 05/16/12, 04/20/12,
UPC Code: 75999213392 1080671 05/17/12
On The Go PB Jamwich 1070174, 1070214, 04/16/12, 05/15/12,
Honey, 2.00 oz 1070241, 1070610, 04/18/12, 04/17/12,
UPC Code: 75999213393 1070658, 1080292 04/19/12, 05/01/12
On The Go PB Jamwich 1070533, 1070534, 04/22/12, 04/23/12,
Grape, 2.00 oz 1080053, 1080054, 05/01/12, 04/30/12,
UPC Code: 759992133946 1080646, 1080855 05/17/12, 05/21/12
PB & Grape Jamwich, 1070180, 1070181, 04/27/12, 04/26/12,
2.80 oz 1070316, 1070466, 04/13/12, 05/07/12,
UPC Code: 75999613968 1070467, 1070468, 05/08/12, 05/20/12,
1070469, 1070547, 05/19/12, 04/15/12,
1080048, 1080305, 04/28/12, 05/28/12,
1080570, 1090087, 05/27/12, 06/05/12,
2020071, 2020629 12/04/12*, 01/07/13*
PB & Grape Jelly on 2050305 02/12/13*
Whole Grain
Graham Wafers
UPC Code: 75999200595
Peanut Butter Cup, 1080118, 1080295,
1.11 oz 1090009, 2020043*,
2020645*, 2030820*-2030822*
Peanut Butter & Grape 1070233
Jelly Cup, 1.50 oz
Peanut Butter & Grape 1070485, 2020046,
Jelly Cup, 2.80oz 2030542, 2030818, 2030819
Peanut Butter & Jelly 1070218-1070220, 1070748,
on Graham Wafers, 1070753, 1070756, 1070799,
2.20 oz 1070829, 1080129, 1080130,
1080132-1080135, 1080293,
1080466, 1080572, 1080573,
1080575, 1080734, 1080814-1080816,
1080905, 1080906, 1090057,
1090139, 1090222, 1090280,
1090391, 1090612, 2020057*,
2020058*, 2020612*, 2020613*,
2020615*-2020618*, 2030544*,
2030860*, 2040181*, 2040183*-2040186*,
2050260*
Peanut Butter & Grape 1070182, 1070188, 107018A,
Jelly on White Bread, 1070205, 1080079, 1080590,
2.80 oz 1080631, 2020626*, 2030538*
Peanut Butter & 107017A, 1070465, 1080437
Strawberry Jam on
White Bread, 2.80 oz
Peanut Butter & Grape 1070189, 1070197, 1070206,
Jelly on Whole Grain, 1070471, 1070535, 1080080,
2.80 oz 1080125, 1080314, 1080505,
1080865, 1090039, 1090086,
1090131, 1090289, 2020162*,
2020638*, 2030158*, 2030335*,
2030839*
Peanut Butter & Straw 1080731, 1090099, 1090132
Jam on Whole Grain,
2.80 oz
PB & Grape Jelly on 1080651, 1080813,
Whole Grain Graham 1090278, 2020608*
Wafers, 2.20 oz
PB & Banana on Whole 1070194
Grain Bread, 2.80 oz
Peanut Butter & Grape 1070232, 1080112, 1080120,
Jelly on White Bread, 1080576, 1090133
2.80 oz
NOTE: * Indicates item has not expired.
AMERICAN SAMOA: EEOC Optimistic on Age Bias Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Radio New Zealand International reports that the lead counsel in
the age-discrimination lawsuit against the American Samoa
government says there is still a strong case for a government-wide
class action, despite a judgment limiting the scope of the case.
The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit
last year alleging the government had contravened the federal Age
Discrimination in Employment Act.
In June, the government asked the court to restrict the scope of
the Commission's case and on Oct. 5 a federal judge ruled that it
should be confined to employees in the Department of Human
Resources.
But the Commission's Carol Igoe says the judge's order also says
if the Commission asks the court for permission to reopen its
investigation, that the court would consider it.
She believes the Commission has a strong case.
"The people I met with really confirmed our understanding that
this effective practice of pushing older workers to retire was not
limited to the Department of Human Resources, but there were other
people in other departments who also got that same understanding."
Ms. Igoe says the Commission will make a decision within the next
few weeks.
ANADIGICS INC: Appeal from Dismissal of Securities Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a court order dismissing a consolidated securities
class action lawsuit against ANADIGICS, Inc., remains pending,
according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.
On or about November 11, 2008, plaintiff Charlie Attias filed a
putative securities class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Charlie
Attias v. Anadigics, Inc., et al., No. 3:08-cv-05572, and, on or
about November 21, 2008, plaintiff Paul Kuznetz filed a related
class action lawsuit in the same court, captioned Paul J. Kuznetz
v. Anadigics, Inc., et al., No. 3:08-cv-05750 (jointly, the "Class
Actions"). The Complaints in the Class Actions, which were
consolidated under the caption In re Anadigics, Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 3:08-cv-05572, by an Order of the District Court
dated November 24, 2008, seek unspecified damages for alleged
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, in
connection with alleged misrepresentations and omissions in
connection with, among other things, Anadigics's manufacturing
capabilities and the demand for its products. On October 23,
2009, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint, (the "First Amended Complaint"), which names the
Company, a current officer and a former officer-director, and
alleges a proposed class period that runs from July 24, 2007,
through August 7, 2008. On December 23, 2009, defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint; that motion was
fully briefed as of March 30, 2010. After holding extensive oral
argument on defendants' motion on August 3, 2010, the District
Court found plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint to be deficient,
but afforded them another opportunity to amend their pleading.
The District Court therefore denied defendants' motion to dismiss
without prejudice to defendants' renewing the motion in response
to plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, which plaintiffs filed on
October 4, 2010. The Second Amended Complaint, which contains the
same substantive claims that were alleged in the First Amended
Complaint, alleges a proposed class period that runs from February
12, 2008, through August 7, 2008. Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on December 3, 2010. By an
Opinion and an Order dated September 30, 2011, the District Court
dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint. On
October 27, 2011, plaintiffs filed with the District Court a
notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit from the District Court's September 30, 2011 Opinion
and Order. The appeal has been briefed and argued and is
currently pending.
Because the Class Actions, which are in a preliminary stage, do
not specify alleged monetary damages, the Company is unable to
reasonably estimate a possible range of loss, if any, to the
Company in connection therewith.
ANADIGICS, Inc., is a provider of semiconductor solutions in the
growing broadband wireless and wireline communications markets.
The Company's products include radio frequency (RF) power
amplifiers (PAs), tuner integrated circuits, active splitters,
line amplifiers and other components, which can be sold
individually or packaged as integrated front end modules (FEMs).
The Company is based in Warren, New Jersey.
ANGIE'S LIST: Faces Class Action Over Membership Fees
-----------------------------------------------------
Chris O'Malley, writing for Indianapolis Business Journal, reports
that Angie's List, the Web site allowing members to post and
access reviews of businesses they patronize, is accused of taking
its own customers to the cleaners.
A lawsuit seeking class-action status in U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana alleges that Angie's List
automatically renews membership fees at a higher rate than
customers are led to believe, calling the practice a "systematic
and repeated breach of its membership agreement."
The complaint was brought by Marie Fritzinger, a Philadelphia
resident who said she's been a paying member of Angie's List since
2007.
Ms. Fritzinger is represented by Irwin Levin, managing partner at
Indianapolis law firm Cohen & Malad, who has earned a national
reputation for class-action lawsuits.
Indianapolis-based Angie's List has more than 1.2 million paid
members in about 200 local markets. In 2011, it collected
membership fees of $33.8 million and total revenue of $90 million.
The complaint alleges that Angie's List, while reserving the right
to modify membership fees and billing methods, is not authorized
by contract to charge members who are renewing their subscription
more than the stated membership fee. Members provide a credit or
debit card that Angie's List keeps on file to allow for automatic
renewal later.
"In breach of the plain language of its membership agreement,
Angie's List instead automatically renews its members pursuant to
a distinct -- and more costly -- 'membership renewal fee,'"
according to the suit.
Ms. Fritzinger alleges the company does not disclose the renewal
fee anywhere in its materials.
The complaint also alleges that longer-tenured members are hurt by
a 2010 change in the Angie's List business model in 30 of its
most-mature city markets. That change gave members the option of
limiting memberships to one of three categories -- auto service
providers, home contractors and health care providers -- or
purchase a bundled premium membership for all three categories.
The suit, filed in August, says Angie's List renewed more-tenured
members at the premium rate without notification.
Angie's List has not yet filed a response to the lawsuit. It
sought and received an extension from the court to respond by Nov.
2.
"We don't comment on litigation," said spokeswoman Cheryl Reed.
"We're vigorously defending against this suit."
The suit alleges breach of contract, deception and unjust
enrichment. It seeks an unspecified award of three-times the
financial damages incurred under a count alleging deception for
allegedly mis-applying credit and debit cards to collect the
unauthorized bundled membership fees.
Angie's List has not posted a profit since founded in 1995 and
last year lost $49 million.
Company management and analysts nevertheless have said Angie's
List is on track to be profitable by 2014 as it builds critical
mass in national markets.
The company is pouring massive amounts of money into television
advertising, fueled by $72 million in proceeds from an initial
public stock offering last November.
Older markets, such as Indianapolis, tend to generate the most
revenue for Angie's List. Generally the older the market, the
higher the membership fee -- roughly $63 a year in Indianapolis
versus around $30 a year in a newer market like New York City.
ARCADIA PETROLEUM: Sued Over Alleged Oil Price Manipulation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Grant McCool, writing for Reuters, reports that a lawsuit claiming
oil price manipulation by Arcadia Petroleum, Parnon Energy and two
oil traders in early 2008 had no factual support, a lawyer for the
defendants told a judge on Oct. 10, but their accusers cited a
potentially damaging e-mail.
The traders have been accused of using a combination of contracts
for physical oil futures to manipulate the market for oil at the
key U.S. hub of Cushing, Oklahoma, including in January, March and
April 2008.
The class action, consolidating several lawsuits by other oil
traders, is the second faced by traders Nicholas Wildgoose and
James Dyer and the companies, which are owned by Norwegian
billionaire John Fredriksen.
In April, U.S. District Judge William Pauley, who is hearing both
cases, denied a motion to dismiss similar allegations by the U.S.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission regulator.
A lawyer for the plaintiffs, who brought a class action in
Manhattan federal court last year, cited a September 2007 e-mail
by one of the traders saying there was a "shitload of money to be
made shorting" NYMEX WTI crude oil calendar spreads.
A calendar spread in NYMEX WTI crude oil futures contracts is a
position in two consecutive futures contracts.
"This e-mail underpins every allegation in the case," the
plaintiff's lawyer, Warren Burns, told the judge during oral
arguments over Arcadia and Parnon's bid to dismiss the litigation.
The lawsuit said Dyer's 2007 e-mail explained that the market
would first need to believe that crude oil supplies at Cushing
were low so prices would rise. The e-mail also said someone would
have to unexpectedly turn the end-of-the-month balance into a
surplus.
The traders dumped barrels back on to the market, causing prices
to crash and racking up profits from short positions they had
accrued in futures markets, the lawsuit said.
The defendants' lawyer, Timothy Carey, argued in court on
Wednesday that the complaint "has no support of factual
allegations that could lead to liability. On that basis alone,
the complaint should be dismissed."
Mr. Carey said the plaintiffs had also failed to make their claim
that the traders intended to monopolize the crude oil futures
market at Cushing.
The judge did not make an immediate ruling on the arguments.
Among the questions he asked were whether "there was intent to
monopolize or make a whole bunch of money?" and "can you
monopolize something for just a couple of days?"
The case is In re: Crude oil commodities futures litigation in
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 11-
03600
CAMPBELL SOUP: Accused of Mislabeling "100% Natural" Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Barnes, as an individual, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Campbell Soup Co. a New Jersey corporation,
Case No. 3:12-cv-05185 (N.D. Calif., October 5, 2012) alleges that
Campbell is representing that some of its products are "100%
Natural," when in fact, they are not.
The Defendant mistakenly represents that its Campbell's 100%
Natural Southwest-Style White Chicken Chili and its Campbell's
100% Natural HealthyRequest(R) Mexican-Style Chicken Tortilla Soup
are "100% Natural," even though they contain genetically modified
organisms (GMOs), Mr. Barnes contends. He asserts that the
Defendant's "100% Natural" statements on the Products are false,
misleading and likely to deceive reasonable consumers, like him
and members of the proposed class.
Mr. Barnes is a resident of the city and county of San Francisco,
California. He purchased the Products because he believed the
Products were 100% Natural based on his reliance upon Campbell's
material statement that the Products were 100% Natural on the
front labeling of the Products.
Campbell is a corporation organized under the laws of New Jersey.
Campbell is the owner, manufacturer and distributor of the
Products, and is the company that created and authorized the
false, misleading and deceptive labeling and advertising for the
Products.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin M. Lopatin, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN, P.A.
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (800) 436-6437
Facsimile: (415) 692-6607
E-mail: lopatin@hwrlawoffice.com
CERADYNE: Being Sold to 3M for Too Little, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Ceradyne is selling itself to
3M too cheaply through an unfair process, for $35 a share or $860
million, shareholders claim in Orange County Court.
CHINA EASTERN: Chinese Court Hears 2004 Air Crash Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zhao Yinan and Cao Yin, writing for China Daily, reports that a
Chinese court has begun to hear a class action lawsuit brought by
the relatives of 32 people killed in a 2004 air crash.
Families affected by the incident are suing three companies for a
total of 132 million yuan ($21 million) and a public apology.
They also want the accident investigation report to be released to
the public, and a stone memorial placed at the crash site, in the
Inner Mongolia autonomous region.
Hao Junbo, the plaintiffs' lawyer, said he was optimistic after
the first two-hour hearing at Beijing No 2 Intermediate People's
Court, held on Oct. 9.
Although the court did not allow the families to attend the
proceedings in order to avoid emotional scenes, he said some of
the victims' relatives had been encouraged by how the case is
progressing.
It is not known when the second hearing will take place, the
lawyer said.
A spokesman for the court declined to comment on Oct. 10.
A China Eastern Airlines flight crashed less than a minute after
takeoff from an airport in Baotou on Nov 21, 2004. All 54 people
aboard and one person on the ground were killed.
The victims' families originally filed their lawsuit in the United
States against Canada-based Bombardier Aerospace, which made the
airplane, General Motors, which made the engine, and the airline.
A compensation settlement was initially agreed to by all three
companies, but was later rejected by China Eastern, prompting the
US judge hearing the case to suggest the plaintiffs take their
fight to a Chinese court.
Mr. Hao said the lawsuit was filed in Beijing in 2009, and is the
first class action case concerning an air crash ever heard in
China.
The lawyer predicted the case will encourage more relatives of
people killed or injured in similar incidents to take legal
action.
"I've seen the sorrow the families have gone through, ever since I
started to represent them in 2004," he said. "The case means more
than economic help for these people."
China Daily was unable to contact attorneys for Bombardier, GM and
China Eastern before going to press on Oct. 10.
In 2004, China Eastern offered 210,000 yuan to each family
affected by the accident. However, many rejected the sum, saying
it was too low.
Tang Ranming, whose 28-year-old nephew died in the crash, and
whose family is among the 32 plaintiffs, said he has paid close
attention to the case.
"My nephew's mother called me when she heard the news (of the
accident) on TV," said Mr. Tang, who lives in Wuxi, Jiangsu
province. "I immediately took her and my nephew's wife to see the
list of victims at China Eastern Airlines' headquarters in
Shanghai."
When the two women saw his name on the list, both almost fainted,
he said.
"My nephew was on a business trip in Baotou and told his mother he
would come back the day before the accident," he said, sobbing.
The dead man's son, who was born shortly before the 2004 tragedy,
is now at school, although he still has not been told what
happened to his father.
"I've been sensitive to information about the crash over the past
eight years," he added. "What I'm most concerned about is the
reason for the accident, which has still not been revealed."
COMPUTER ASSOCIATES: 2nd Cir. Halts Malpractice Suit v. Milberg
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that Milberg and two
other plaintiff law firms convinced a federal appeals court on
Oct. 10 to block a state-court malpractice case by the Texas
businessman Samuel Wyly.
The lawsuit had accused the law firms of putting their own
interests ahead of Mr. Wyly and other investors in a class action
against Computer Associates Inc.
But writing for the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Jose
Cabranes ruled that the federal court had the authority to stop
the malpractice case because a federal district court in Brooklyn
had awarded $40 million in attorneys' fees in the case. That
award, said Judge Cabranes, allowed the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit to toss the malpractice suit to
avoid relitigating how effective the law firms' efforts were.
The decision "further erodes the already limited ability of class
members to control the conduct of class counsel," said William
Brewer, a lawyer for Mr. Wyly at Bickel & Brewer, in a statement.
Gregory Joseph, who argued for the plaintiffs' firms, didn't
respond to a request for comment.
The case dates to a series of purported class actions, filed in
Brooklyn federal district court starting in 1998. The cases
accused Computer Associates' officers and directors of scheming to
inflate the company's stock price and revenues. Milberg and
Stull, Stull & Brody were named co-lead counsel in the 1998 cases.
More lawsuits against Computer Associates followed in 2002,
including some accusing the company of securities law violations.
Milberg and the firm now called Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check
served as co-lead counsel on those cases.
In August 2003, U.S. District Judge Thomas Platt in Brooklyn
approved a settlement between the plaintiffs and Computer
Associates, providing $130 million to $150 million in stock to the
class.
The plaintiffs' law firms under the settlement were to receive $30
million to $40 million in stock as their fee, which Judge Platt
called "fair and reasonable."
In September 2004, following more than two years of investigations
by the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange
Commission into Computer Associates' accounting practices, the
company agreed to a $225 million settlement and to enter into a
deferred prosecution agreement.
Two days later, The Wall Street Journal reported that Computer
Associates had withheld 23 boxes of documents from the government
and in the class actions.
Mr. Wyly and other investors then asked the plaintiffs' law firms
to seek to vacate the settlement, but the lawyers declined. Three
years of litigation over the issue ended in 2009 with Judge Platt
ruling that the missing 23 boxes didn't justify re-opening the
class action.
Following that decision, Mr. Wyly sued the plaintiffs' law firms
in 2007 in New York Supreme Court.
But on request from Milberg and Stull, Stull & Brody and Kessler
Topaz, Judge Platt enjoined the malpractice case in 2010. The
judge said an injunction was "necessary in aid of its
jurisdiction" and needed to avoid relitigation.
The 2nd Circuit reversed Judge Platt on the jurisdictional
grounds, finding there was no overlap between the claims in the
state and federal court cases to justify the decision.
But the appeals court said Judge Platt was within his rights to
enjoin the malpractice case, given his decision on the fees.
"Even a cursory review of the allegations in the (malpractice)
complaint belies (Wyly's) contention that the state court action
does not seek to relitigate the District Court's determination
that class counsel's representation was reasonable," Judge
Cabranes wrote.
Judge Cabranes was joined by Circuit judges Amalya Kearse and
Robert Sack.
Mr. Wyly continues to separately defend himself against a lawsuit
by the SEC accusing him and his deceased brother of orchestrating
a $500 million securities fraud.
The case is Wyly v. Weiss, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No.
10-4785.
For Sam Wyly: William Brewer, Bickel & Brewer.
For Milberg: Gregory Joseph, Gregory P. Joseph Law.
CREATIVE ENERGY: Recalls Crunch(R) thinkThin Nutrition Bars
-----------------------------------------------------------
Creative Energy Foods, Inc. (CEF) is voluntarily recalling
Crunch(R) thinkThin nutrition bars which may contain blanched
roasted peanuts supplied by Sunland, Inc. to CEF. The decision
was made as the result of the expanded recall of peanut butter,
nut butters and peanut products by Sunland because of potential
contamination with Salmonella.
Salmonella bacteria can cause serious and sometimes fatal
infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others
with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with
Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody),
nausea, vomiting and abdominal cramps. Consumers with the above
symptoms should consult their physician.
While no illnesses associated with any of these products have been
reported to date, as part of its commitment to the safety and
quality of its products, the Company has decided to issue a
voluntary recall.
Consumers who have any products covered by this recall should
dispose of them. Consumers who have any questions about the
recalled products are urged to contact CEF Monday through Friday,
8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. Pacific Time at 510-567-1200, extension #1.
Consumers with questions or concerns about their health should
contact their doctor or health care provider.
The Best-By-Dates for the recalled products are listed below and
can be found on the back of the package, underneath the seal.
These products were distributed at retail chain stores nationwide
from March 2010 to October 12, 2012.
The following products being recalled:
BRAND FLAVOR SIZE BEST BY DATES
----- ------ ---- -------------
Crunch(R) thinkThin Mixed Nuts 40 g 101812, 110912,
UPC Code: 7 53656 70840 9 120112, 022813,
040413, 041913,
050913, 051513,
052313, 060113,
060813, 061313.
062713, 070913
AND expired lots
prior to Best By
101012
Crunch(R) thinkThin White 40 g 030113 ,032513,
UPC Code: 7 53656 70861 4 Chocolate 042013, 052213,
Dipped 060113, 061513,
Mixed Nuts 062213 AND expired
lots prior to Best
By 101012
Crunch(R) thinkThin Chocolate 40 g 101812, 102612,
UPC Code: 7 53656 70843 0 Dipped 110812, 110912,
Mixed Nuts 120312, 030713,
030813, 031613,
032513, 041213,
041313, 042113,
042513, 042813,
051213, 052313,
052413, 060713,
061413, 062613,
062813, 071813 AND
expired lots prior
to Best By 101012
Crunch(R) thinkThin Caramel 40 g 112812, 030813,
UPC Code: 7 53656 70879 9 Chocolate 040513, 042113,
Dipped 051013, 060113,
Mixed Nuts 061513, 071313 AND
expired lots prior
to Best By 101012
Crunch(R) thinkThin Cherry & 40 g 022313, 032513,
UPC Code: 7 53656 70915 4 Mixed Nuts 041913, 042513,
061113 AND expired
lots prior to Best
By 101012
Crunch(R) thinkThin Blueberry & 40 g 111812, 022313,
UPC Code: 7 53656 70906 2 Mixed Nuts 022413, 032813,
040413, 042113,
051813, 051913,
060813, 062713,
062813, 071913 AND
expired lots prior
to Best By 101012
Crunch(R) thinkThin Cranberry 40 g 030813, 041113,
UPC Code: 7 53656 70909 3 Apple & 052913, 062213 AND
Mixed Nuts expired lots prior
to Best By 101012
CREATIVE ENERGY: Recalls Ridgebar Brand Nutrition Bars
------------------------------------------------------
Creative Energy Foods, Inc. (CEF) is voluntarily recalling
Ridgebar brand nutrition bars which contain blanched roasted
peanuts supplied to CEF by Sunland, Inc. The decision was made as
the result of the expanded recall of peanut butter, nut butters
and peanut products by Sunland because of potential contamination
with Salmonella.
Salmonella bacteria can cause serious and sometimes fatal
infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others
with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with
Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody),
nausea, vomiting and abdominal cramps. Consumers with the above
symptoms should consult their physician. No illnesses associated
with any of these products have been reported to date.
The following products are being recalled:
BRAND FLAVOR BEST BY DATE SIZE UPC CODE
----- ------ ------------ ---- --------
RidgeBar Peanut Butter 022413 50 g 855468003052
Crunch
RidgeBar Peanut Butter 042813 50 g 855468003052
Crunch
The above products were ONLY sold on the Internet at
http://www.Ridgebar.com/. The Best-By-Dates can be found on the
back of the package, underneath the seal. Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm323819.htm
Products manufactured by CEF have NOT been linked to the
nationwide Salmonella outbreak. All lots of all products
manufactured by CEF are tested by reputable independent
laboratories and all products have tested negative with no
Salmonella contamination being detected. As part of its priority
to ensure the safety and quality of all of its products, CEF is
issuing the voluntary recall.
Consumers who have any of the recalled products are urged to
dispose of the product or may contact CEF Monday through Friday,
8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. Pacific Standard Time at 510-567-1200 for
refund instructions. Consumers with questions or concerns about
their health should contact their doctor or health care provider.
FARMERS INSURANCE: Claims Adjusters Obtain Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ama Sarfo, writing for Law360, reports that, a California judge on
Oct. 5 granted class certification to a group of Farmers Insurance
Exchange claims adjusters accusing the insurer of misclassifying
them as exempt from overtime pay and rest and meal breaks, finding
their case has traction as a class action under state labor laws.
Farmers fought certification, but Superior Court Judge John
Shepard Wiley Jr. sided with the plaintiffs, writing that "the
wage and hour laws apply to [the plaintiffs]: rest breaks, meal
breaks and all the rest.
GOOGLE INC: Seeks Court Approval of $6MM Text Spam Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360, reports that Google
Inc. and Slide Inc. on Oct. 5 asked a federal judge to approve a
$6 million settlement with a class of consumers who alleged the
companies' group texting service illegally spammed them.
Plaintiffs Nicole Pimental and Jessica Franklin alleged they
received several unauthorized text messages sent by or through
Slide's "Disco" group text messaging service in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
GULF RESOURCES: Continues to Defend "Lewy" Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------
Gulf Resources, Inc. continues to defend itself against a
securities class action lawsuit captioned Lewy, et al. v. Gulf
Resources, Inc., et al., pending in California, according to the
Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.
The Company and certain of its officers and directors (Ming Yang,
Xiaobin Liu, and Min Li, collectively, the Individual Defendants")
have been named as defendants in a putative securities class
action lawsuit alleging violations of the federal securities laws.
That action, which is now captioned Lewy, et al. v. Gulf
Resources, Inc., et al., No. 11-cv-3722 ODW (MRWx), was filed on
April 29, 2011, in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California. The lead plaintiffs, who seek to
represent a class of all purchasers and acquirers of the Company's
common stock between March 16, 2009, and April 26, 2011,
inclusive, filed an amended complaint on September 12, 2011. Lead
plaintiffs assert claims for violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The
amended complaint alleges the defendants made false or misleading
statements in the Company's Annual Reports on Form 10-K for the
years ended December 31, 2008, 2009, and 2010, and in interim
quarterly reports by, among other things, overstating revenue and
net income and failing to disclose material related party
transactions and certain facts about the CEO's prior employment at
another company. The amended complaint also asserts claims
against the Individual Defendants for violations of Section 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The amended complaint
seeks damages in an unspecified amount. On November 7, 2011, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On May 15, 2012, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss
the amended complaint. The parties were required to submit a
joint report concerning scheduling and other issues on July 30,
2012, in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16 and
26(f). The Company has submitted the required report on July 30,
2012. The Court also set a scheduling conference for August 12,
2012.
The Company says it intends to defend vigorously against the
lawsuit. The Company currently cannot estimate the amount or
range of possible losses from this litigation.
The legal costs incurred for the three-month and six-month periods
ended June 30, 2012, in connection with the legal case amounted to
$100,000 and $511,289, which was included in the income statements
as general and administrative expenses. No legal costs were
incurred for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30,
2011, in connection with the legal case.
HANNAFORD SUPERMARKETS: Issues Alert on Undeclared Allergens
------------------------------------------------------------
Hannaford Supermarkets is alerting customers that, because of a
label printing error, Red Velvet Cake Truffle and Triple Chocolate
Cake Truffle sold at its stores in the bakery department, may have
contained undeclared allergens. People who have an allergy or
severe sensitivity to egg, milk, peanuts, wheat, soy and tree nuts
should not consume these products.
The affected product, which has been removed from store shelves,
is Red Velvet Cake Truffle with UPC #20335800000, and Triple
Chocolate Cake Truffle with UPC # 20335700000. The product was
distributed in New York, Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and
Vermont. Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm323806.htm
There have been no illnesses reported in connection with this.
Customers who purchased these products may return them to the
store for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the
Company at (800) 213-9040.
HIGHLANDS HOSPITAL: Judge Remands OT Suit Back to State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carolina Bolado, writing for Law360, reports that a Pennsylvania
federal judge on Oct. 5 remanded a putative class action regarding
unpaid overtime wages against Highlands Hospital back to state
court, ruling the plaintiffs' claims are not preempted by the
Labor-Management Relations Act.
U.S. District Judge Terrence F. McVerry rejected the hospital's
argument that the claims require interpretation of the collective
bargaining agreement between the hospital and the union and
therefore are preempted by the LMRA and belong in federal court.
The judge said lead plaintiff James Lambert's claims do not
involve the collective bargaining.
JAGRMA LLC: Recalls NuttZo Original 16 oz Nut and Seed Butter
-------------------------------------------------------------
JagRma LLC of San Diego, California, is doing a Limited Voluntary
recall on its 16 oz NuttZo Original (Blue Label/UPC code
894697002030) manufactured in Oct and November 2011 with "Best Buy
Dates 10/7/12-12/31/12 stamped on lid or bottom of jar," because
it has the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an
organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in
young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened
immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often
experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting
and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with
Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream
and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections
(i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.
The specifics of the affected products are as follows:
Best By Dates
Package on top or
UPC Product Description Size bottom of JARS
--- ------------------- ---- --------------
894697002030 NuttZo Original 16 oz 10/7/12-12/31/12
(BLUE Label)
NuttZo Original (Blue Label/UPC code 894697002030) was distributed
from October 2011-February 2012 with 'Best Buy Dates 10/7/12-
12/31/12'. It was distributed through natural grocery retail
stores in Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Louisiana, Texas,
Arkansas, Oklahoma, Nevada, California, Arizona, Hawaii; and
through mail order in 50 states.
JagRma LLC was notified by one of its ingredients suppliers,
Multiple Organics, Inc. located in San Rafael, California, of a
secondary recall for Sunland Inc peanuts going back as far as
March 2010; Multiple Organics informed the Company that Sunland
Inc. peanuts were used in the production run of NuttZo Original
(BLUE LABEL) in October and November of 2011; therefore, JagRma,
LLC is participating in a voluntary limited recall of specific
'Best Buy Dates' because the safety of the Company's customers is
of the utmost importance and the Company takes its obligation to
provide safe products seriously. Picture of the recalled products
is available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm323730.htm
No illnesses have been reported to date.
Please note that in the Company's 2012 NuttZo manufacturing runs,
all peanuts have been sourced from a different supplier.
Therefore, all Best Buy Dates of 2013 are not affected in this
voluntary limited recall.
Consumers who have purchased 16oz NuttZo Original (Blue Label/UPC
code 894697002030) with Best 'Buy Dates 10/7/12-12/31/12' are
urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund.
The Company says it will continue to respond quickly and with
great care to ensure that all of the Company's suppliers meet its
high quality assurance standards. The Company says it runs lab
tests on every manufacturing run of NuttZo. Anyone with questions
may contact the Company at 858-354-8429; 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Pacific Standard Time; Monday through Friday or e-mail @
pr@gonuttzo.com
JUSTIN'S: Expands Recall of Certain Peanut Butter Products
----------------------------------------------------------
Due to the ongoing Sunland Inc. nationwide peanut recall, Justin's
announced expansion of its voluntary recall of certain peanut
butter products. For more information on the Sunland recall,
please see the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Web site at:
http://is.gd/Zv5HT7or read Sunland's official statement at:
http://www.sunlandinc.com/788/html/pdfs/SunlandRecall.pdf.
The below lots of Justin's peanut butter products are being
voluntarily recalled because peanuts possibly used in the
production of these identified products may have the potential to
be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism that can cause
serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or
elderly people, and those with weakened immune systems. Healthy
persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea
(which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In
rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms),
endocarditis and arthritis.
No Justin's almond butter, hazelnut butter or candy bars are
involved in this recall. These products were manufactured using
nuts not sourced from Sunland Inc.
Justin's was notified by its contract manufacturer, Fresca Foods,
Inc. located in Louisville, Colorado, that Sunland peanuts were
and may have been used in the production of certain peanut butter
products in the past, therefore, Justin's is voluntarily
participating in the recall.
The products were distributed nationally to numerous supermarket
chains and were available for purchase on the Internet from
3/23/10 to 9/26/12.
The specifics of the affected products are as follows:
Package
UPC Product Description Size Best By Dates
--- ------------------- ---- -------------
855188003004 Natural Classic Peanut 16 oz From 08-23-12 to
Butter Jars 09-26-12 and
08-07-13
855188003011 Natural Classic Peanut 1.15 oz From 09-06-12 to
Butter Squeeze Packs 09-28-12
894455000117 Organic Classic Peanut 16 oz From 04-07-11 to
Butter Jars 10-24-11 and
From 01-19-12 to
08-01-12
894455000087 Organic Classic Peanut 1.15 oz From 03-19-11 to
Butter Squeeze Packs 08-06-12
855188003035 Natural Honey Peanut 16 oz From 08-22-12 to
Butter Jars 10-23-12 and
08-08-13,
08-09-13,
08-25-13
855188003042 Natural Honey Peanut 1.15 oz From 09-06-12 to
Butter Squeeze Packs 09-28-12 and
07-24-13,
07-25-13,
08-24-13
894455000391* Natural Honey Peanut 0.5 oz From 04-11-11 to
Butter 0.5 oz Squeeze 12-07-12 and
Packs* 07-14-13,
07-26-13,
07-27-13,
07-28-13,
07-29-13,
08-09-13,
08-10-13,
08-13-13,
08-14-13,
08-15-13,
08-26-13,
08-27-13,
08-28-13,
08-29-13,
08-30-13
894455000001 Organic Honey Peanut 16 oz From 03-26-11 to
Butter Jars 08-08-12
894455000094 Organic Honey Peanut 1.15 oz From 03-26-11 to
Butter Squeeze Packs 08-08-12
894455000476 Natural Chocolate 16 oz From 03-23-11 to
Peanut Butter Jars 10-10-12
894455000506 Natural Chocolate 1.15 oz 1.15 oz
Peanut Butter Squeeze Packs
894455000247 Organic Milk Chocolate 1.4 oz From 11-11-11 to
Peanut Butter Cups 03-23-13
894455000254 Organic Dark Chocolate 1.4 oz From 11-11-11 to
Peanut Butter Cups 03-23-13
* This item was distributed in the Starbucks Protein Bistro Box.
There are no reported illnesses to date and affected product is no
longer available for sale.
Best By dates can by located for the jars to the left of the UPC
code, for the squeeze packs on the back, top seal and for the
peanut butter cups on the back seal.
Sunland reports that between June 11, 2012, and September 2, 2012,
twenty-nine people reported Salmonella Bredeney PFGE matching
illnesses in approximately 18 states, including Washington,
California, Arizona, Texas, Louisiana, Missouri, Illinois,
Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode
Island, North Carolina, Virginia, Connecticut, New Jersey and
Maryland.
Consumers who purchased above listed items are urged to return
them to the place of purchase for a full refund. They can bring
in a receipt in place of product and discard the product at home.
Retailers should destroy all corresponding products with the above
lot information.
Anyone with questions may contact the company at 303-449-9559 or
comments@justinsnutbutter.com, or visit
http://www.justinsnutbutter.com/ Phone lines are staffed from
9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Mountain Standard Time Monday through
Friday.
This recall is an expansion of the recall posted on
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm321511.htm/.
KKR: Court Releases Senior Executive E-mails in Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Dan McCrum, writing for The Financial Times, reports that a
federal court has released details of e-mails between senior
executives at private equity firms subject to a class-action
lawsuit alleging collusion on some of the biggest leveraged
buyouts of the credit boom.
The e-mails, from figures including George Roberts, co-founder of
KKR, and Tony James, president of Blackstone, refer to deals
conducted between 2003 and 2007.
An earlier filing of the lawsuit had been published with the text
of the e-mails, obtained during four years of discovery, obscured.
The suit alleges bid rigging on the part of several private equity
firms to lower prices in 27 so-called "club deals", where buyout
groups joined forces to take over a large company.
The defendants have denied any wrongdoing and intend to vigorously
defend the claims, brought by shareholders in 19 of the companies
taken private.
The lawsuit alleges that terms used by executives such as "club
etiquette", "quid-pro-quo", "payback", and "professional courtesy"
go beyond the normal back and forth of polite but competitive
dealmaking and show "anti-competitive conduct".
Following a decision by Blackstone not to make a bid for HCA, the
hospital operator purchased by KKR and Bain Capital, the lawsuit
cites an e-mail from Mr. James to Mr. Roberts. "We would much
rather work with you guys than against you. Together we can be
unstoppable but in opposition we can cost each other a lot of
money. I hope to be in a position to call you with a large
exclusive PTP [public to private] in the next week or 10 days."
Mr. Roberts replied with a one-word e-mail, the lawsuit said:
"Agreed."
In another exchange the lawsuit said after passing up a deal on a
target company to allow KKR and Bain to acquire it at an
artificially reduced price, Jonathan Coslet, TPG's chief
investment officer, reminded one of his colleagues, "[a]ll we can
do is do [u]nto others as we want them to do unto us. It will pay
off in the long run even though it feels bad in the short run".
Lawyers for the defendants said that the 221-page lawsuit
described shifting alliances in a competitive market and argued
that firms that worked together in one instance would compete with
each other in another.
KKR said there was no evidence of collusion and that "the facts in
the case show exactly the opposite: private equity firms spending
millions of dollars pursuing companies that they never acquired".
TPG said it "never colluded to suppress deal prices. We competed
vigorously for deals that the firm both won and lost."
At the time of the HCA deal, for instance, Blackstone and KKR were
involved in a competitive battle for Freescale, a semiconductor
company, that pushed the price up by $800 million.
KPMG: Class Action Plaintiffs Seek Papers in MFS Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Allen, writing for The Australian, reports that a class
action against KPMG, auditor of the MFS compliance plan, continues
apace with the plaintiffs seeking access to documents held by the
MFS liquidators, Bentleys.
IMF Australia is funding the action which is being brought by
Premium Income Fund unitholders and concerns a series of related-
party transactions that allegedly occurred between 2006 and 2007.
The class action concerns AUD147.5 million that it is alleged was
utilized by MFS to improperly pay a September dividend in 2007 and
to repay a AUD103 million debt to funder Fortress.
MFS, a Gold Coast-based finance, property and tourism group, also
known as Octavia, collapsed in January 2008 owing about AUD3
billion. The PIF was a key property investment vehicle of the
fund.
"This could be a big step forward for PIF unitholders in that it
will give access to documentation that they haven't previously
been able to get access to," Queensland property sources said.
"It is anticipated that the class action claim is for more than
AUD200 million."
The matter is listed for a further directions hearing in the
Federal Court on December 7.
It follows a decision to reduce the number of senior executives
and directors once associated with the MFS PIF legal action
because of concerns over the existence of insurance cover.
Subject to approval from PIF unitholders and the Federal Court,
IMF Australia proposes to discontinue the MFS class action against
nine individuals, including MFS founder Michael King, former chief
executive Craig White, former director Paul Manka and its former
fund manager Guy Hutchings.
"The proposed discontinuance will limit the likely substantial
costs of pursuing claims against the relevant respondents in
circumstances where any ultimate recovery against them is doubtful
because of questions concerning their ability to pay compensation
and the existence and extent of insurance cover available to
them," a notice issued to unitholders by IMF Australia said.
The MFS class action will continue against two KPMG partners,
Andrea Waters and Michael Andrew, and other KPMG partners because
the firm was the auditor of the MFS compliance plan.
The applicant, Mercedes Holdings, representing the PIF
unitholders, commenced the MFS class action in the Federal Court
in 2009.
It is understood that the decision to discontinue the claims
against the nine individuals is driven by IMF's desire to
streamline the case, which has been running for three years, and
make it more efficient and cost-effective.
The application for proposed discontinuance will be heard by the
Federal Court on November 6.
LAKE COUNTY: Mclin & Burnsed Files Class Action Over Fire Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Jones, writing for The Daily Commercial, reports that a
Leesburg law firm has brought a class action lawsuit against Lake
County, contending that as many as 70,000 unincorporated residents
were improperly charged special assessments for fire services.
Attorneys Phillip Smith and Matthew Black of McLin & Burnsed say
from 2005 to 2008, residents paid about $185 per year for fire
services but about 25 percent of that money went for emergency
medical services. The attorneys contend this was illegal and they
want the EMS share -- estimated at between $10 million and $12
million -- returned.
Lake County officials deny the allegation and refuse to comment on
the case.
McLin & Burnsed represents property owners Carl H. Martin, Joyce
C. Martin, Dina Martin and James H. Herlong Jr. in the case, but a
judge has ruled the action can be expanded to a class consisting
of record title holders of real property throughout unincorporated
Lake. Mr. Smith put this number at about 70,000 property owners.
Mr. Smith said his clients were tipped off by residents, who are
government watchdogs, more than three years ago. They revealed
that a special tax assessment was being improperly allocated. The
plaintiffs sued three years ago and the court last December
entered an Order Granting Class Certification.
The court ordered the parties to mediate the matter and a meeting
was held last June, but no settlement was reached. The discovery
and trial phases are next.
"I think if there were a discovery that the county was doing
something improperly, that those individuals involved should be
held accountable because that is why this lawsuit was bought
(forth)," Mr. Smith said.
As for the estimate of damages, Mr. Smith said that number could
change because the firm is still reviewing county records.
Plaintiff Carl H. Martin was contacted for comment but he said
he'd rather have the law firm talk about the suit.
Anyone wishing to opt out of the class action may do so by
contacting the law firm and returning a "Request for Exclusion"
form by year's end.
LIN-MAR PARTNERS: Recalls Longhorn Bars With Peanut Products
------------------------------------------------------------
LIN-MAR PARTNERS, INC. of Austin, Texas, is recalling two
varieties of Longhorn Bars: Roasted Peanut with Chocolate Energy
Bars and Peanut Butter Trail Mix Protein Bars because they have
the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism
which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young
children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune
systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often
experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting
and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with
Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream
and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections
(i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.
This recall was initiated because these products were made using
peanuts from Sunland Inc. which has issued an expanded recall of
the peanuts used in these products.
These products were distributed in Texas through Randall's, Tom
Thumb, HEB, University of Texas Coop, and Academy retail stores.
The products have been on the market for 11 months. The products
are in packaging labeled as Longhorn Bars and have a picture of
roasted peanuts and chocolate or peanuts and trail mix on the
packaging. The UPC code for the Roasted Peanut Energy Bar is 8-
57087-00301-7 and best by date of 11/10/12. The UPC code for the
Peanut Butter Trail Mix Protein Bar is 8-57087-00303-1 and best by
date of 11/11/12. These codes are printed on the back of the
products. Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm323804.htm
No complaints of illnesses have been reported to date. Consumers
are urged not consume the product and to return the bars to the
place where they purchased them for a full refund. Consumers with
questions may contact the company at 1-512-561-5000 between 8:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Central Standard Time.
MANNKIND CORP: Awaits Approval of $16MM Securities Suit Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
MannKind Corporation is waiting court approval of its settlement
resolving a consolidated securities class action lawsuit for a
total of $16 million, according to the Company's August 9, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.
Beginning January 31, 2011, several complaints were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against
the Company and four of its officers -- Alfred E. Mann, Hakan S.
Edstrom, Dr. Peter C. Richardson and Matthew J. Pfeffer -- on
behalf of certain purchasers of the Company's common stock. The
complaints include claims asserted under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and have been brought as purported shareholder
class actions. In general, the complaints allege that the
defendants violated federal securities laws by making materially
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business
and prospects for AFREZZA, thereby artificially inflating the
price of the Company's common stock. The U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California has consolidated the pending
actions for all purposes and appointed lead counsel.
On July 23, 2012, the Company, while continuing to deny all
allegations of wrongdoing or liability whatsoever arising out of
the Securities Action, and without in any way admitting fault or
liability, entered into a stipulation of settlement to resolve the
Securities Action. Subject to preliminary and final approval of
the settlement by the U.S. District Court and notice to potential
class members, and in exchange for a release of all claims by the
class members, among others, and a dismissal of the consolidated
lawsuits, the Company has agreed (i) to cause the Company's
insurers to pay class members and their attorneys a total of $16
million; and (ii) to issue class members and their attorneys
2,777,778 shares of the Company's common stock. The Company has
also agreed that if the consolidated closing bid price for the
Company's common stock is below $1.00 per share on the date the
U.S. District Court enters an order of final judgment, then the
Company will issue class members and their attorneys an additional
one million shares of its common stock. Following final approval
of the settlement by the U.S. District Court, the shares will be
issued pursuant to an exemption from registration provided by
Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
METROPCS: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over T-Mobile Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Lee at Courthouse News Service reports that MetroPCS and
T-Mobile, the nation's fourth- and fifth-largest wireless phone
service providers, are cheating shareholders in their "drastically
undervalued" merger, shareholders say in two derivative
complaints.
MetroPCS shareholders sued Dallas-based MetroPCS, T-Mobile USA,
its German parent Deutsche Telekom, and MetroPCS CEO Roger
Linquist and board members in Dallas County Court.
The carriers announced the merger on Oct. 3, touting the creation
of "the leading value carrier in the U.S. wireless marketplace,
which will deliver an enhanced customer experience through a wider
selection of affordable products and services, deeper network
coverage and a clear-cut technology path to one common LTE
network."
T-Mobile is the fourth-largest mobile phone service provider in
the country, with 33.2 million customers.
MetroPCS is fifth, with 9.3 million customers for its no-annual-
contract and unlimited service for a flat rate.
Under the merger, MetroPCS will declare a 1-for-2 share reverse
stock split and make a $1.5 billion cash payment to shareholders,
or $4.09 per share. It will then issue 74 percent of common stock
to Deutsche Telekom and the plaintiff shareholders will own the
remaining 26 percent of the combined company, valuing their shares
at $12.48 per share, according to the complaint.
"The process leading to the proposed acquisition was tainted by
conflicts, tilted towards T-Mobile and driven entirely by the
board and company management, who together control 15.4 percent of
PCS' outstanding stock and seek liquidity for their illiquid
holdings," the complaints claims.
"[Metro]PCS' officers and directors will receive millions of
dollars in special payments -- not being made to ordinary
shareholders -- for currently unvested stock options, performance
units and restricted shares, all of which shall, upon the merger's
closing, become fully vested and exercisable."
The plaintiffs say senior management will also get millions of
dollars in change-of-control payments.
They claim the board of directors is "conflicted and serving its
own financial interests."
Shareholders say the $12.48 per share valuation is too low, that
shares traded as high as $18.69 per share in May 2011 and that a
stock analyst has set an $18.00 per share price target on the
stock.
"Based on market estimates, the combined company is expected to
have 2012 pro forma revenues of approximately $24.8 billion and
cost synergies of $6-7 billion," the complaint states. "The deal
is expected to result in accelerated financial growth with
estimated five-year [compound annual growth rate] for revenues,
[earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization]
and free cash flow in the range of three percent to five percent,
seven percent to ten percent and 15 percent to 20 percent,
respectively."
The shareholders say the deal was designed to ensure the sale of
the company to just one buyer, T-Mobile, by agreeing to provisions
that would discourage competing bids.
The provisions include a no-solicitation clause that prevented
MetroPCS from communicating or providing confidential information
to other bidders except under "extremely limited circumstances."
The board also agreed to a matching rights provision that allows
T-Mobile to match any superior bid and agreed to a $150 million
termination fee if the merger with T-Mobile is dropped for a
better offer.
The plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief for
derivative and class claims of breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of
control, gross mismanagement, unjust enrichment and corporate
waste. They are represented by Willie Briscoe of Dallas.
MGIC INVESTMENT: Still Awaits Discrimination Suit Deal's Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MGIC Investment Corporation is still awaiting final approval of
its settlement resolving a class action lawsuit alleging housing
discrimination, according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2012.
In July 2011, the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") filed a civil
complaint against Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation
("MGIC"), a Company subsidiary, and two of its employees in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The
complaint sought redress for alleged housing discrimination. On
April 30, 2012, the parties agreed to the terms of a Consent Order
under which, among other things, MGIC, while denying any claim of
unlawful discrimination, agreed to pay (i) $511,250 into a
settlement fund for possible payments to 70 individuals covered by
the settlement (including the individual loan applicant on whose
behalf the DOJ filed its complaint), and (ii) $38,750 as a
separate civil penalty.
In October 2010, a separate purported class action lawsuit was
filed against MGIC by the same loan applicant in the same District
Court in which the DOJ complaint was filed. In this separate
lawsuit, the loan applicant alleged that MGIC discriminated
against her and certain proposed class members on the basis of sex
and familial status when MGIC underwrote their loans for mortgage
insurance. In May 2011, the District Court granted MGIC's motion
to dismiss with respect to all claims except certain Fair Housing
Act claims. On July 2, 2012, the District Court granted
preliminary approval for a class action settlement of the lawsuit.
The proposed settlement creates a settlement class of 265
borrowers. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, MGIC is
required to deposit $500,000 into an escrow account to fund
possible payments to affected borrowers. In addition, MGIC will
pay the named plaintiff an "incentive fee" of $7,500 and pay class
counsels' fees of $337,500. Any funds remaining in the escrow
account after payment of all claims approved under the procedures
established by the settlement will be returned to MGIC. The
settlement is contingent upon the District Court's final approval.
MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Trial in Derivative Suit Set for April 2013
---------------------------------------------------------------
An April 2013 trial date has been set in stock holder derivative
lawsuits against MRV Communications, Inc., according to the
Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.
From June to August 2008, five purported stockholder derivative
and securities class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S.
District Court in the Central District of California and one
derivative lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors. The five lawsuits filed in the
Central District of California were consolidated. Claims were
asserted under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The allegations set forth in
the complaints were based on facts disclosed in the Company's
press release of June 5, 2008, which stated that the Company's
financial statements could not be relied on due to the Company's
historical stock option practices and related accounting. The
complaints sought to recover from the defendants unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, to require the Company to
undertake reforms to corporate governance and internal control
procedures, to obtain an accounting of stock option grants found
to be improper, to impose a constructive trust over stock options
and proceeds derived therefrom, to disgorge from any of the
defendants who received allegedly improper stock options the
profits obtained therefrom, to rescind improperly priced options
and to recover costs of lawsuit, including legal and other
professional fees and other equitable relief. In November 2010,
the judge overseeing the securities class action lawsuits gave
final approval to a stipulated $10 million settlement agreement,
which was covered by the Company's director and officer insurance
policies.
Motions to dismiss the defendants were heard in the second half of
2010 in both the federal and California state derivative lawsuits,
and certain defendants and claims were dismissed. Discovery
continues in these matters and a trial date has been scheduled for
April 2013.
A Special Litigation Committee created by the Board engaged
counsel to conduct an investigation to evaluate the benefits to
the Company of continuing the litigation. Upon completion of
their investigation, the committee will make a recommendation to
the court, which recommendation may or may not be taken under
considered by the court. The Company and plaintiffs in the
federal and state derivative lawsuits have attended several
mediations but have not been successful in reaching a settlement
of these claims to date.
NATURE'S RECIPE: Recalls Oven Baked Biscuits With Real Chicken
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nature's Recipe brand is voluntarily recalling a limited supply of
Nature's Recipe(R) Oven Baked Biscuits with Real Chicken,
manufactured in one of its U.S. production facilities. This is
being done as a precautionary measure, as the product has the
potential to be contaminated with Salmonella. Salmonella can
affect animals eating the products and there is risk to humans
from handling contaminated pet products.
Healthy people infected with Salmonella should monitor themselves
for some, or all, of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting,
diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever.
Rarely, Salmonella can result in more serious ailments, including
arterial infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye
irritation, and urinary tract symptoms. Consumers exhibiting
these signs after having contact with this product should contact
their healthcare providers.
Pets with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have diarrhea
or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting. Some pets will have only
decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain. Infected, but
otherwise healthy pets can be carriers and infect other animals or
humans. If your pet has consumed the recalled product and has
these symptoms, please contact your veterinarian.
No pet or consumer illnesses from this product have been reported
to date. However, because of its commitment to safety and
quality, the Company is conducting a voluntary recall of this
product.
The potentially affected lots of Nature's Recipe Oven Baked
Biscuits with Real Chicken were distributed nationally, primarily
through pet specialty retailers.
Nature's Recipe Oven Baked Biscuits with Real Chicken is sold in
19-ounce stand-up resealable pouches. The product affected by
this recall is identified below and has the following "Best If
Used By" dates:
Lot Product Name/ Best If Used
Code: UPC Code: Size: Description: By Date:
----- --------- ----- ------------ ------------
2199TP 30521 51549 19-oz Nature's Recipe 10 11 13
Oven Baked
Biscuits with
Real Chicken
2200TP 30521 51549 19-oz Nature's Recipe 10 12 13
Oven Baked
Biscuits with
Real Chicken
Product and product lots that do not appear on the list above are
not subject to this recall.
Consumers who have purchased the above lots of Nature's Recipe
Oven Baked Biscuits with Real Chicken should stop feeding the
product and discard immediately. For further information about
the recall and for instructions on obtaining replacement product,
consumers can use the Contact Us form at
http://www.naturesrecipe.com/or call the Consumer Hotline, 24
hours a day, at 800-237-3856.
About Nature's Recipe(R)
Nature's Recipe(R), a brand of Del Monte Foods, markets a complete
line of natural dog food and treats and recently introduced a line
of natural cat food. Nature's Recipe(R) has been making better
pet food where "Every Ingredient Counts(R)" for more than 30
years. For additional information about Nature's Recipe(R), visit
http://www.naturesrecipe.com/.
NEW ENGLAND: Faces Class Action Over Tainted Steroid Injections
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that lawyers have filed a lawsuit for
a Minnesota woman who says she received tainted injections of a
steroid blamed for a nationwide outbreak of fungal meningitis.
The case filed in federal court in Minnesota says Barbe Puro, of
Savage, suffered headaches and nausea after receiving the shots.
It says she underwent a painful spinal tap after she learned of
the problem, and her health status is uncertain.
The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages from New England Compounding
Pharmacy, and class-action status on behalf of other Minnesotans
who received the drug.
Company spokesman Andrew Paven says they haven't seen the lawsuit
and can't comment on it.
Health Department spokesman Buddy Ferguson says two of the three
confirmed Minnesota victims have been released from hospitals and
the third should be discharged soon.
NEW YORK: Health Dept. Faces Class Action Over Medications by Mail
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Business Review reports that while receiving medications by
mail may be convenient for patients, it's a major headache for
local pharmacies.
A class action suit has been filed with a goal of leveling the
playing field and allowing Medicaid recipients to choose from
where they get their meds.
The suit, filed Oct. 5 in State Supreme Court against the state
Department of Health, seeks to change a rule that forces certain
beneficiaries to receive some medications by mail, The Business
Journals is reporting.
PUREFIT INC: Recalls Purefit Peanut Butter Crunch Bars
------------------------------------------------------
PureFit Inc., of Irvine, California, is voluntarily recalling
PureFit Peanut Butter Crunch nutrition bars manufactured on March
1 and July 12 and sold between March 9th and August 31. PureFit
Inc. is working with the FDA to recall any product made with
peanut butter from Sunland Inc. of Portales, New Mexico. Peanut
Butter manufactured by Sunland has the potential to be
contaminated with Salmonella, an organism that can cause serious
and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons
infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea, nausea,
vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection
with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the
bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial
infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis, and
arthritis.
No illnesses have been reported to date.
PureFit Peanut Butter Crunch bars were distributed throughout the
United States between March and August of 2012, primarily through
health food stores, grocery stores, and online retailers. The
bars involved in the recall are a limited amount and no other
flavors are affected. The "Best By" dates being recalled are
clearly marked on back-side of the wrapper, near the horizontal
seal and on the back of the boxes.
Size Name Flavor UPC Best By
---- ---- ------ --- -------
2 oz. PureFit Peanut Butter 812787001008 1 March 2013
Crunch
2 oz. PureFit Peanut Butter 812787001008 12 July 2013
Crunch
Box of 15 PureFit Peanut Butter 812787002005 1 March 2013
Crunch
Box of 15 PureFit Peanut Butter 812787002005 12 July 2013
Crunch
Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm323826.htm
If you have any product with these date codes, please go to
http://www.purefit.com/recall/or call toll free, 1-866-787-3348
Monday - Friday 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time to
arrange for replacement product. Additionally, you can e-mail
info@purefit.com. Any Peanut Butter Crunch PureFit bars matching
either one of the aforementioned "Best By" dates can be sent to
PureFit Inc., 216 Technology Suite E, Irvine, California 92618.
Upon receipt, PureFit will send replacement product back. Please
include a return address, phone number, and e-mail address.
QUESTCOR PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Inflated Stock Prices
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors of Questcor
Pharmaceuticals sold $107 million of their own stock at inflated
prices before the stock price crashed by 66 percent, a shareholder
claims in a federal derivative complaint.
RADIAN GROUP: Continues to Defend RESPA-Violations Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Radian Group Inc. continues to defend itself and its subsidiary
against class action lawsuits alleging violations of the Real
Estate Practices Act of 1974, according to the Company's
August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.
Recently, the Company has been named as a defendant in a number of
putative class action lawsuits alleging, among other things, that
the Company's captive reinsurance agreements violate the Real
Estate Practices Act of 1974 ("RESPA"). On December 9, 2011, an
action titled Samp v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (the "Samp case"),
was filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. The defendants are JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N.A., its affiliates (collectively, "JPMorgan"), and several
mortgage insurers, including Radian Guaranty Inc. The plaintiffs
purport to represent a class of borrowers whose loans supposedly
were referred to mortgage insurers by JPMorgan in exchange for
reinsurance agreements between the mortgage insurers and
JPMorgan's captive reinsurer. Plaintiffs assert violations of
RESPA. Radian Guaranty and some of the other mortgage insurer
defendants moved to dismiss this lawsuit for lack of standing
because they did not insure any of the plaintiffs' loans. The
court denied that motion on May 7, 2012. Radian Guaranty is
evaluating other grounds for potential dismissal of the lawsuit.
Each of these cases are putative class actions (with alleged facts
substantially similar to the facts of the Samp case) in which
Radian Guaranty has been named as a defendant:
* On December 30, 2011, a putative class action under RESPA
titled White v. PNC Financial Services Group was filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. In this case, Radian Guaranty has insured the
loan of one of the plaintiffs. Radian Guaranty intends to
move to dismiss the complaint on a number of grounds.
* On March 12, 2012, a putative class action under RESPA
titled McCarn v. HSBC USA, Inc., et al. was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California. Radian Guaranty moved to dismiss this lawsuit
for lack of standing because it did not insure the
plaintiff's loan. The court granted that motion on May 29,
2012, but gave the plaintiff permission to file an amended
complaint to attempt to address his lack of standing. On
July 30, 2012, the plaintiff filed this amended complaint.
Radian Guaranty intends to file a new motion to dismiss this
lawsuit on a number of grounds.
* On April 5, 2012, a putative class action under RESPA titled
Riddle v. Bank of America Corporation, et al. was filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. Radian Guaranty intends to move to dismiss
this lawsuit for lack of standing because it did not insure
the plaintiff's loan.
* On April 5, 2012, a putative class action under RESPA titled
Manners, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank, et al. was filed in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania. Radian Guaranty intends to move to dismiss
this lawsuit for lack of standing because it did not insure
any of the plaintiffs' loans.
* On April 19, 2012, a putative class action under RESPA
titled Rulison v. ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc., et al. was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed
this lawsuit on July 3, 2012.
* On May 18, 2012, a putative class action under RESPA titled
Hill, et al. v. Flagstar Bank FSB, et al. was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. In this case, Radian Guaranty has insured the
loan of one of the plaintiffs. Radian Guaranty intends to
move to dismiss the complaint on a number of grounds.
* On May 31, 2012, a putative class action under RESPA titled
Barlee, et al. v. First Horizon National Corporation, et al.
was filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Radian Guaranty intends
to move to dismiss this lawsuit for lack of standing because
it did not insure any of the plaintiffs' loans.
* On June 28, 2012, a putative class action under RESPA titled
Cunningham, et al v. M&T Bank Corporation, et al. was filed
in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Pennsylvania. Radian Guaranty intends to move to dismiss
this lawsuit for lack of standing because it did not insure
any of the plaintiffs' loans.
REVLON INC: Settles Tender Offer Class Action for $9.2 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lance Duroni, writing for Law360, reports that Revlon Inc. has
agreed to fork over $9.2 million to settle a class action alleging
MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings Inc. increased its controlling stake
in the cosmetics maker at the expense of minority shareholders
through a 2009 tender offer, according to court documents filed on
Oct. 9 in Delaware.
Several Revlon shareholders had sued MacAndrews & Forbes, its
principal Ronald Perelman and the cosmetics company's board in
Delaware Chancery Court, alleging the defendants duped public
investors into tendering their shares at an inadequate price.
S & P CO: Recalls 1,800 Jars of Su-nun Crushed Thai Red Pepper
--------------------------------------------------------------
S & P Company, Limited of Paramount, California, is recalling 150
cases/1,800 jars of Su-nun Crush Roasted Thai Red Pepper, because
it has the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an
organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in
young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened
immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often
experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting
and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with
Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream
and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections
(i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.
The Su-nun Brand Red Pepper was distributed in the Los Angeles
Area Grocery stores (between July of 2012 to October 2012)
including Bell and Long Beach, Rockford, IL, Phoenix, AZ, Omaha,
NE and Brooklyn, NY.
The Su-nun Brand Red Pepper 'Super Hot' 10.58 oz. is in Flake form
packaged in a clear plastic jar with a red plastic screw-on lid.
There is a clear plastic heat shrink and red and yellow label.
Bar code 659613000770. Pictures of the recalled products are
available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm323813.htm
No illnesses associated with this product have been reported to
date.
The recall was as the result of a routine sampling by the Food and
Drug Administration and their further analysis which revealed that
the finished products contained the bacteria. The Company has
ceased the production and distribution of the product as FDA and
the Company continue their investigation as to what caused the
problem.
Consumers who have purchased Su-Nun Brand 'Crush Roasted Thai Red
Pepper' are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full
refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at (562)
220-2666 between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. (Pacific Time Zone)
Monday - Friday. Ask for John.
SAMSUNG: Sued Over Alleged Lithium-Ion Battery Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Samsung, Panasonic, Sanyo,
Sony, Hitachi, Maxell et al. conspired to fix the price of
rechargeable lithium-ion batteries, an antitrust class action
claims in Federal Court.
SAMSUNG: Faces Class Action Over Defective Television Fuses
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Samsung sells plasma, LCD and
DLP televisions with defective fuses that cause the sets to fail
early, a class action claims in Federal Court.
SATCON TECHNOLOGY: Still Defends Consolidated Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In July 2011, two purported securities class action complaints
were filed against Satcon Technology Corporation, its Chief
Executive Officer and its former Chief Financial Officer by the
following plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, in the U.S. District Court, District of
Massachusetts: Allan Edwards (filed July 19, 2011) and Larry
Ziegler (filed July 21, 2011). The virtually identical complaints
were consolidated into a single action on April 19, 2012, with the
Government of Bermuda contributory and Publice Service
Superannuation Pension Plan designated as the lead plaintiffs.
The cases are purportedly brought on behalf of persons who
acquired the Company's common stock during the period of March 4,
2010, through July 5, 2011, and allege claims against all
defendants for violations under Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as well as claims
against the individual defendants for violations of Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act. Putative plaintiffs claim that the
defendants caused the Company's common stock to trade at
artificially inflated prices through false and misleading
statements and/or omissions related to the Company's business.
The complaints seek compensatory damages for all damages sustained
as a result of the defendants' actions, including reasonable costs
and expenses, and other relief as the court may deem just and
proper. The Company believes these allegations are baseless and
the Company intends to defend against them vigorously. At this
time, the Company believes a loss is neither probable nor
estimable.
No further updates were reported in the Company's August 9, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.
SUNLAND INC: Recalls Raw & Roasted Shelled and In-Shell Peanuts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sunland, Inc. announced that it is extending its ongoing voluntary
recall to include raw and roasted shelled and in-shell peanuts
processed in its Peanut Processing Plant because the products have
the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella. Specifically,
the recall is being extended to include raw and roasted peanuts,
both in-shell and shelled, which were processed in its Peanut
Processing Plant located in Portales, New Mexico, and which are
within their current shelf life or have no stated expiration date.
Salmonella is an organism that can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
those with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with
Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody),
nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances,
infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into
the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as
arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and
arthritis.
The original recall initiated by the Company on September 24,
2012, included peanut butter and other nut butter products
produced in a separate building from where raw and roasted peanuts
are processed. The reason for the initial voluntary recall was
the potential for the recalled products to be contaminated with
Salmonella. At that time, twenty-nine (29) people had reported
Salmonella Bredeney PFGE matching illnesses in approximately
eighteen (18) states, and of those who had been interviewed at
that time, twelve of fourteen reported having eaten the same
single product made by the Company. Since the recall was
announced, additional confirmed illnesses have been reported. As
of October 5, 2012, the total number of confirmed illnesses
reported was thirty-five (35). The most current information
available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC), regarding confirmed illnesses is available at their Web
site:
http://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/bredeney-09-12/index.html
The extension being announced is the result of the continued joint
investigation by the Company and FDA. The Company has ceased the
production and distribution of all products from both its Peanut
Butter Plant and its Peanut Processing Plant while FDA and the
Company continue their investigation.
The raw and roasted peanuts available to retail customers were
distributed primarily under the Company's own label and were
distributed primarily to produce houses and nationally to numerous
large supermarket, grocery and retail chains. The products also
were available for purchase on the Internet. The roasted and
roasted/salted peanuts being recalled were distributed during the
six month period prior to the recall date (April 12, 2012 -
October 12, 2012), and will have best by/expiration dates on the
packaging from October 12, 2012, through April 12, 2013. The raw
peanuts being recalled (shelled and in-shell), were distributed
during the twelve months prior to the recall date (October 12,
2011 - October 12, 2012), and will have either best by dates from
October 12, 2012, through October 12, 2013, on the packaging, or a
"Crop Year" marking on the package of 2011 or 2012, up to and
including October 12, 2012.
Consumers who have purchased any of the recalled products are
urged not to eat them and to return products to the place of
purchase for a full refund or dispose of them immediately. The
"Best-If-Used-By" date or product expiration date is printed on
the packaging. The UPC used to identify the recalled products is
located below the bar code on all products. In-shell peanuts that
were sold in 2, 5 and 10 pound mesh bags (raw, roasted and
salted/roasted), do not include an expiration date on the mesh
bags. All such products should not be eaten and should be
returned to the place of purchase for a full refund or disposed of
immediately. All expired products should be discarded. Customers
who purchased products directly from the Company's website should
discard the products and contact the Company at 1-866-837-1018.
Consumers can contact the Company at 1-866-837-1018 for
information on the recall. This toll-free number is operational
24 hours a day.
The recall is being conducted in cooperation with the United
States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The most current
information available from FDA is posted at the following Web
site:
http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/CORENetwork/ucm320413.htm
The specifics of the affected products are set forth below.
Products being added to the list for the first time appear in the
first table. All previously identified products follow in the
second table.
Products Added to Recall on October 12, 2012:
Item
UPC/Item # Item Description Weight
--- ---------------- ------
No UPC; M10101 Mega Raw Oriental Produce 50 lb
Wholesaler - Valencia Peanuts
No UPC; M76101 Mega Raw Oriental Produce 50 lb
Wholesaler - Valencia Peanuts
No UPC; 910169 Natural Value Raw 30 lb
No UPC; 910152 Natural Value Raw Organic 30 lb
No UPC; 910107 Natural Value Roasted Organic 25 lb
0-48687-11216-6 Roasted Valencia Peanuts 2 oz
0-48687-12206-6 Salted & Roasted Valencia Peanuts 1 lb
0-4868718206-0 Sunland 100% Organic Raw Valencia 1 lb
Peanuts
10107 Sunland Organic Raw Inshell 25 lb
11109 Sunland Organic Roasted 25 lb
In Shell Peanuts
0-48687-79105-7 Sunland Organic Roasted 2 lb
In Shell Peanuts
0-48687-79105-7 Sunland Organic Valencia 2 lb
Roasted Peanuts
11107 Sunland Organic Roasted 25 lb
Inshell Peanuts
4868700103 Sunland Raw Organic Valencia 50 lb
Peanuts
10108 Sunland Raw In Shell 25 lb
0-48687-10101-6 Sunland Raw In Shell Peanuts 50 lb
607 Sunland Raw Red Skin Runners 30 lb
Peanuts
No UPC; 077101 Sunland Raw Salted InShell 50 lb
Virginia
403 Sunland Raw Shelled Organic 30 lb
Peanuts
400 Sunland Raw Shelled Peanuts 50 lb
404 Sunland Raw Shelled Peanuts 30 lb
402 Sunland Raw Shelled Wildlife 50 lb
(Not for Human)
4868700100 Sunland Raw Valencia Peanuts 50 lb
104 Sunland Raw Valencia Peanuts 25 lb
0-48687-10206-8 Sunland Raw Valencia Peanuts 1 lb
0-48687-10215-0 Sunland Raw Valencia Peanuts 2 lb
4868700101 Sunland Raw Valencia Peanuts - 50 lb
Export
0-48687-76101-2 Sunland Raw Virginia Reg Jumbo 50 lb
InShell
0-48687-11102-2 Sunland Roasted In Shell Peanuts 25 lb
11108 Sunland Roasted In Shell Peanuts 25 lb
0-48687-19206-9 Sunland Roasted Organic Peanuts 1 lb
0-48687-79131-6 Sunland Roasted Organic 2 lb
Peanuts-French
0-48687-11101-5 Sunland Roasted Valencia Peanuts 50 lb
0-48687-11103-9 Sunland Roasted Valencia Peanuts 10 lb
0-48687-11104-4 Sunland Roasted Valencia Peanuts 5 lb
0-48687-11105-3 Sunland Roasted Valencia Peanuts 2 lb
0-48687-11206-7 Sunland Roasted Valencia Peanuts 1 lb
0-48687-11210-4 Sunland Roasted Valencia Peanuts 12 oz
0-48687-11215-9 Sunland Roasted Valencia Peanuts 2 lb
0-48687-11217-3 Sunland Roasted Valencia Peanuts 4 oz
11112 Sunland Roasted Virginia In Shell 25 lb
Peanuts
No UPC; 011220 Sunland Roasted Virginia Peanuts 50 lb
0-48687-12108-3 Sunland Salted Inshell Bulk in Box 25 lb
0-48687-12110-6 Sunland Salted Inshell Bulk 25 lb
Organic in Box
0-48687-12112-0 Sunland Salted Inshell in Box 25 lb
Virginia Peanuts
0-48687-80105-0 Sunland Salted Organic Peanuts 2 lb
0-48687-20206-5 Sunland Salted Organic Peanuts 1 lb
0-48687-80131-2 Sunland Salted Organic 2 lb
Peanuts-French
302 Sunland Salted Roasted Virginia 50 lb
Peanuts
0-48687-12101-4 Sunland Salted Valencia Peanuts 50 lb
0-48687-12102-1 Sunland Salted Valencia Peanuts 25 lb
0-48687-12103-8 Sunland Salted Valencia Peanuts 10 lb
0-48687-12104-5 Sunland Salted Valencia Peanuts 5 lb
0-48687-12210-3 Sunland Salted Valencia Peanuts 12 oz
0-48687-12215-8 Sunland Salted Valencia Peanuts 2 lb
0-48687-12216-5 Sunland Salted Valencia Peanuts 2 oz
0-48687-12217-2 Sunland Salted Valencia Peanuts 4 oz
0-48687-13212-6 Sunland Shelled Raw Valencia 3 lb
Peanuts
0-48687-13210-2 Sunland Shelled Raw Valencia 12 oz
Peanuts
0-48687-14909-4 Sunland Shelled Roasted 18 oz
Valencia Peanuts
0-48687-15909-3 Sunland Shelled Salted Valencia 18 oz
Peanuts
401 Sunland Shelled Split Peanuts 50 lb
0-48687-10102-3 Sunland Valencia Raw Peanuts 25 lb
10103 Sunland Valencia Raw Peanuts 10 lb
0-48687-10105-4 Sunland Valencia Raw Peanuts 2 lb
0-48687-10104-7 Sunland Valencia Raw Peanuts 5 lb
0-48687-12105-2 Sunland Valencia Roasted & 2 lb
Salted Peanuts
No UPC; 022601 The Nut Shop Roasted Valencia 7 oz
Peanuts
No UPC; 022602 The Nut Shop Salted and Roasted 7 oz
Valencia Peanuts
No UPC; 000211 Treasured Harvest Valencia Peanuts 25 lb
No UPC; 000212 Treasured Harvest Valencia Peanuts 50 lb
Products previously recalled on September 24, 2012, and
October 4, 2012:
UPC Type of Product Jar Size
--- --------------- --------
AC223 American Choice Creamy Peanut 6 x 5 lb
Butter
AC222 American Choice Crunchy Peanut 6 x 5 lb
Butter
8523902336 Archer Farms Almond, Peanut & 16 oz
Cashew Butter
8523902334 Archer Farms Creamy Almond Butter 16 oz
8523920335 Archer Farms Creamy Cashew Butter 16 oz
085239021743 Archer Farms Creamy Cinnamon Peanut 12 oz
Butter
085239021750 Archer Farms Creamy Dark Chocolate 12 oz
Peanut Butter
085239023310 Archer Farms Creamy Peanut Butter 16 oz
085239264409 Archer Farms Creamy Peanut Butter 16 oz
085239020531 Archer Farms Creamy Vanilla 12 oz
Cranberry Peanut Butter
085239023327 Archer Farms Crunchy Peanut Butter 16 oz
085239264508 Archer Farms Crunchy Peanut Butter 16 oz
085239021422 Archer Farms No Stir Creamy Peanut 12 oz
Butter
085239015308 Archer Farms No Stir Crunchy 12 oz
Peanut Butter
085239020302 Archer Farms Organic Chunky 12 oz
Peanut Butter
085239020203 Archer Farms Organic Creamy 12 oz
Peanut Butter
8523902333 Archer Farms Peanut Butter with 16 oz
Flax Seeds
47046 Arrowhead Mills Creamy Peanut 40 lb
Butter
074333470588 Arrowhead Mills Creamy Valencia 15 lb
Peanut Butter
074333470380 Arrowhead Mills Crunchy Valencia 15 lb
Peanut Butter
074333470052 Arrowhead Mills Organic Sesame 16 oz
Tahini
815369011594 Cadia All Natural Creamy Peanut 18 oz
Butter
815369010993 Cadia All Natural Creamy Peanut 18 oz
Butter No Stir
815369011600 Cadia All Natural Crunchy Peanut 18 oz
Butter
815369011006 Cadia All Natural Crunchy Peanut 18 oz
Butter No Stir
815369011181 Cadia All Natural Unsalted Creamy 18 oz
Almond Butter
815369011167 Cadia All Natural Unsalted Creamy 18 oz
Peanut Butter
815369011174 Cadia All Natural Unsalted 18 oz
Crunchy Peanut Butter
22722 Creamy Peanut Butter 15 lb
26704 Creamy Sugar Butter 5 lb
25704 Crunchy Sugar Butter 5 lb
3050 Dogsbutter RUC with Flax PB 16 oz
3377610090 Earth Balance Natural Almond 16 oz
Butter and Flaxseed
20003395 fresh & easy Creamy Almond Butter 16 oz
51379022525 fresh & easy Creamy Cashew Butter 16 oz
20003364 fresh & easy Creamy Peanut Butter 18 oz
5051379032494 fresh & easy Creamy Peanut Butter 6/2 oz
51379026431 fresh & easy Creamy Peanut Butter 40 oz
3248 Fresh & Easy Creamy Peanut 72/2 oz
Butter Cups
51379022518 fresh & easy Crunchy Almond Butter 16 oz
20003371 fresh & easy Crunchy Peanut Butter 18 oz
51379041625 fresh & easy goodness Valencia 8/1.1
Creamy Peanut Butter oz cups
20003357 fresh & easy Organic Creamy Peanut 16 oz
Butter with Sea Salt
20003388 fresh & easy Organic Crunchy 16 oz
Peanut Butter with Sea Salt
8099473871 Harry & David Creamy Banana 12 oz
Peanut Spread
780994757868 Harry & David Creamy Caramel 12 oz
Peanut Spread
8099473872 Harry & David Creamy Raspberry 12 oz
Peanut Spread
8099473873 Harry & David Crunchy Almond 12 oz
and Peanut Butter
2060140048 heinen's All Natural Peanut 16 oz
Butter, Creamy
2060140047 heinen's All Natural Peanut 16 oz
Butter, Crunchy
2060140046 heinen's Organic Peanut Butter, 16 oz
Creamy
2060140045 heinen's Organic Peanut Butter, 16 oz
Crunchy
3307915072 Joseph's Salt-Free No Sugar Added 18 oz
New Creamy Valencia Peanut Butter
3307915073 Joseph's Salt-Free No Sugar Added 18 oz
New Crunchy Valencia Peanut Butter
096619124497 Kirkland Natural Peanut Butter 40 oz
Creamy
048687309177 Kirkland Organic Creamy Peanut 28 oz
Butter
5VR3023099 Multiple Organics Certified 30 lb
Organic Valencia Peanuts-Dry Roasted
910053 Natural Value Creamy Peanut 15 lb
Butter/Salt
706173011057 Natural Value Creamy Salted 18 oz
100% Organic Peanut Butter
910145 Natural Value Creamy Salted 5 lb
Peanut Butter
706173011033 Natural Value Creamy Unsalted 18 oz
100% Natural Peanut Butter
706173011019 Natural Value Creamy Unsalted 18 oz
100% Organic Peanut Butter
910060 Natural Value Crunchy Peanut 15 lb
Butter/Salt
706173011064 Natural Value Crunchy Salted 18 oz
100% Organic Peanut Butter
706173011040 Natural Value Crunchy Unsalted 18 oz
100% Natural Peanut Butter
706173011026 Natural Value Crunchy Unsalted 18 oz
100% Organic Peanut Butter
909057 Natural Value Organic Creamy 5 lb
Peanut Butter
909095 Natural Value Organic Creamy 15 lb
Peanut Butter
910039 Natural Value Organic Creamy 15 lb
Peanut Butter w/ Salt
910121 Natural Value Organic Creamy 5 lb
Salted Peanut Butter
909064 Natural Value Organic Crunchy 5 lb
Peanut Butter
909101 Natural Value Organic Crunchy 15 lb
Peanut Butter
910046 Natural Value Organic Crunchy 15 lb
Peanut Butter w/ Salt
910114 Natural Value Organic Crunchy 5 lb
Salted Peanut Butter
5859500019 Naturally More Almond Butter 16 oz
5859500019 Naturally More Almond Butter 16 oz
5859500020 Naturally More Organic Peanut 16 oz
Butter
5859500020 Naturally More Organic Peanut 16 oz
Butter
5859500033 Naturally More Peanut Butter 16 oz
Crunchy
5859500050 Naturally More Peanut Butter, 16 oz
Gluten Free Vegan
5859500055 Naturally More Peanut Butter, 26 oz
Gluten Free Vegan
7989311202 Open Nature Crunchy Peanut Butter 16 oz
7989311201 Open Nature Old Fashioned Creamy 16 oz
Peanut Butter
5855200003 Peanut Power Butter, Original 16 oz
Formula
5855200007 Peanut Power Butter, Original 4 lb
Formula
847921004409 Serious Food Silly Prices 12 oz
Cashew Butter Creamy
847921004416 Serious Food Silly Prices 12 oz
Cashew Butter Crunchy
4792100444 Serious Food Silly Prices Tahini 12 oz
4792100442 Serious Food, Silly Prices Almond 12 oz
Butter Creamy
4792100438 Serious Food, Silly Prices Organic 16 oz
No-Stir Peanut Butter, Creamy
4792100439 Serious Food, Silly Prices Organic 16 oz
No-Stir Peanut Butter, Crunchy
4792100436 Serious Food, Silly Prices Organic 16 oz
Peanut Butter, Creamy
4792100434 Serious Food, Silly Prices, 16 oz
No-Stir Peanut Butter, Creamy
4792100435 Serious Food, Silly Prices, 16 oz
No-Stir Peanut Butter, Crunchy
4792100432 Serious Food, Silly Prices, 16 oz
Peanut Butter, Creamy
847921004430 Serious Food...Silly Prices 12 oz
Almond Butter Crunchy
847921004379 Serious Food...Silly Prices 16 oz
Organic Peanut Butter Crunchy
847921004331 Serious Food...Silly Prices 16 oz
Peanut Butter Crunchy
8506000004 Snaclite Power PB 16 oz
7487500433 Sprout's Creamy Almond Butter 16 oz
7487500336 Sprout's Creamy Peanut Butter 16 oz
7487500431 Sprout's Creamy Peanut Butter 16 oz
7487500434 Sprout's Crunchy Almond Butter 16 oz
7487500337 Sprout's Crunchy Peanut Butter 16 oz
7487500334 Sprouts Farmers Market Creamy 16 oz
Peanut Butter, No Salt
7487500335 Sprouts Farmers Market Crunchy 16 oz
Peanut Butter, No Salt
874875004322 Sprouts Tahini Butter 16 oz
646670304316 Sun Harvest Natural Creamy 18 oz
No Stir Peanut Butter
646670304392 Sun Harvest Natural Creamy 18 oz
Peanut Butter
646670304293 Sun Harvest Natural Creamy 16 oz
Roasted Almond Butter
646670304972 Sun Harvest Natural Crunchy 16 oz
Mixed Nut Butter
646670304378 Sun Harvest Natural Crunchy 18 oz
Peanut Butter
646670304279 Sun Harvest Natural Crunchy 16 oz
Roasted Almond Butter
646670304354 Sun Harvest Organic Creamy 16 oz
Peanut Butter
646670304330 Sun Harvest Organic Crunchy 16 oz
Peanut Butter
56906 Sunland Almond & Valencia 16 oz
Mixed Nuts Creamy Peanut Butter
72704 Sunland Almond Butter 5 lb
060301 Sunland Banana Peanut Butter 50 lb
060527 Sunland Banana Peanut Butter 500 lb
073301 Sunland Chocolate PB 50 lb
073527 Sunland Chocolate PB 500 lb
072725 Sunland Creamy Almond Butter 40 lb
26725 Sunland Creamy Butter 40 lb
26570 Sunland Creamy Dark Roast 500 lb
Peanut Butter
4868790301 Sunland Creamy Natural 50 lb
Stabilized Peanut Butter
086527 Sunland Creamy No Stir 500 lb
4868786704 Sunland Creamy No Stir Peanut 5 lb
Butter
048687263011 Sunland Creamy Peanut Butter 50 lb
081725 Sunland Creamy Peanut Butter 40 lb
086301 Sunland Creamy Peanut Butter 50 lb
22704 Sunland Creamy Peanut Butter 5 lb
22705 Sunland Creamy Peanut Butter 40 lb
22725 Sunland Creamy Peanut Butter 40 lb
26527 Sunland Creamy Peanut Butter 500 lb
36527 Sunland Creamy Peanut Butter 500 lb
47730 Sunland Creamy Peanut Butter 30 lb
4868726909 Sunland Creamy Peanut Butter 18 oz
4868726910 Sunland Creamy Peanut Butter 12 oz
4868786724 Sunland Creamy Peanut Butter 35 lb
4898732722 Sunland Creamy Peanut Butter 15 lb
4868709915 Sunland Creamy Peanut Butter 40 oz
with Sea Salt
72048687866165 Sunland Creamy Valencia Peanut 72/2 oz
Butter Cups
87725 Sunland Crunchy Natural 40 lb
Stabilized Peanut Butter
048687259090 Sunland Crunchy Peanut Butter 18 oz
21705 Sunland Crunchy Peanut Butter 40 lb
4868721722 Sunland Crunchy Peanut Butter 15 lb
4898731722 Sunland Crunchy Peanut Butter 15 lb
048687548132 Sunland Dark Chocolate Organic 10 oz
Creamy Peanut Butter
62725 Sunland Dark Roast Creamy 40 lb
Peanut Butter
4868784301 Sunland Extra Stabilized Organic 50 lb
Creamy Peanut Butter
56704 Sunland Mixed Nuts Creamy Peanut 5 lb
Butter
4868772906 Sunland Natural Almond Butter, 16 oz
Creamy Roasted Almond
22527 Sunland Natural Creamy Peanut 500 lb
Butter
48687009704 Sunland Natural Creamy Peanut 5 lb
Butter
4868767909 Sunland Natural Creamy Peanut 18 oz
Butter
21704 Sunland Natural Crunchy Peanut 6 x 5 lb
Butter
48687009778 Sunland Natural Crunchy Peanut 5 lb
Butter
21724 Sunland Natural Crunchy Valencia 50 lb
No Salt Peanut Butter
4868757906 Sunland Natural Mixed Nut Butter, 16 oz
Crunchy Almonds and Peanuts
044725 Sunland Natural Peanut Butter 40 lb
048687607549 Sunland Natural Peanut Butter 500 g
Creamy Banana
048687600724 Sunland Natural Peanut Butter 1.1 oz
Creamy Banana - Squeeze Pack
048687599066 Sunland Natural Peanut Butter 16 oz
Creamy Caramel Spread
048687540723 Sunland Natural Peanut Butter 1.1 oz
Creamy Chocolate
048687547548 Sunland Natural Peanut Butter 500 g
Creamy Chocolate
4868722906 Sunland Natural Peanut Butter 16 oz
Creamy Salt Free Valencia
048687340729 Sunland Natural Peanut Butter 1.1 oz
Creamy Valencia
4868786906 Sunland Natural Peanut Butter 16 oz
Creamy Valencia No Stir
4868787906 Sunland Natural Peanut Butter 16 oz
Crunchy Valencia No Stir
48687867349 Sunland Natural Peanut Butter 500 g
Valencia Creamy
048687877348 Sunland Natural Peanut Butter 500 g
Valencia Crunchy
4868760906 Sunland Natural Peanut Butter, 16 oz
Creamy Banana Spread
4868773906 Sunland Natural Peanut Butter, 16 oz
Creamy Chocolate Spread
4868761906 Sunland Natural Peanut Butter, 16 oz
Creamy Raspberry Spread
4868771906 Sunland Natural Tahini, Creamy 16 oz
Roasted Sesame
C47810 Sunland Onion Parsley Peanut 375 g
Butter
048687528295 Sunland Organic Cinnamon Currant 375 g
Creamy Peanut Butter
4868788704 Sunland Organic Creamy No Stir 5 lb
Peanut Butter
4868722715 Sunland Organic Creamy Peanut 40 lb
Butter
4868730725 Sunland Organic Creamy Peanut 40 lb
Butter
4868732704 Sunland Organic Creamy Peanut 5 lb
Butter
4868732723 Sunland Organic Creamy Peanut 32 lb
Butter
4868732724 Sunland Organic Creamy Peanut 35 lb
Butter
048687329700 Sunland Organic Creamy Valencia 16 oz
Peanut Butter
4868731724 Sunland Organic Crunchy Peanut 35 lb
Butter
4868735723 Sunland Organic Crunchy Peanut 32 lb
Butter
4868735724 Sunland Organic Crunchy Peanut 35 lb
Butter w/ Salt
048687319701 Sunland Organic Crunchy Valencia 16 oz
Peanut Butter
048687898299 Sunland Organic Dark Chocolate 375 g
Creamy Peanut Butter
048687508105 Sunland Organic Thai Ginger 375 g
Crunchy Peanut Butter
50704 Sunland Organic Thai Ginger 5 lb
Peanut Butter
048687328093 Sunland Organic Valencia Creamy 500 g
Peanut Butter
048687318094 Sunland Organic Valencia Crunchy 500 g
Peanut Butter
048687508105 Sunland Organic Valencia Peanut 12 oz
Butter Creamy Thai Ginger & Red Pepper
4868732810 Sunland Organic Valencia Peanut 12 oz
Butter, Creamy
4868755810 Sunland Organic Valencia Peanut 12 oz
Butter, Creamy Cherry Vanilla
4868754810 Sunland Organic Valencia Peanut 12 oz
Butter, Creamy Dark Chocolate
4868731810 Sunland Organic Valencia Peanut 12 oz
Butter, Crunchy
4868747810 Sunland Organic Valencia Peanut 12 oz
Butter, Crunchy Chipotle Chile
41331 Sunland Organic Valencia Roasted 30 lb
and Blanched Bar Ready Peanuts
41333 Sunland Organic Valencia Roasted 30 lb
and Blanched Granulated Peanuts
41334 Sunland Organic Valencia Roasted 30 lb
and Blanched Granulated Peanuts
41330 Sunland Organic Valencia Roasted 30 lb
and Blanched Peanuts
83326 Sunland Organic Valencia Roasted 30 lb
Blanched and Salted Peanuts
048687558292 Sunland Organic Vanilla Cranberry 375 g
Creamy Peanut Butter
55813 Sunland Organic Vanilla Cranberry 10 oz
Peanut Butter
29725 Sunland Pecan Deluxe Creamy 40 lb
Peanut Butter
28725 Sunland Pecan Deluxe Crunchy 40 lb
Peanut Butter
4868763326 Sunland Roasted and Blanched Bar 30 lb
Ready Runner Peanuts
4868741325 Sunland Roasted and Blanched 30 lb
Granulated Peanuts
4868763329 Sunland Roasted and Blanched 30 lb
Granulated Runner Peanuts
4868763325 Sunland Roasted and Blanched 30 lb
Runner Peanuts
16326 Sunland Roasted Blanched Honey 30 lb
Peanuts
2370230000 Sunland Roasted Blanched Organic 30 lb
Spanish Peanuts
4868771725 Sunland Sesame Tahini 40 lb
71704 Sunland Tahini Butter 6 x 5 lb
048687349708 Sunland TruePB Creamy Valencia 16 oz
Peanut Butter
048687339709 Sunland TruePB Crunchy Valencia 16 oz
Peanut Butter
C22809 Sunland Valencia Creamy Peanut 500 g
Butter
048687318131 Sunland Valencia Crunchy Organic 10 oz
Peanut Butter
048687219063 Sunland Valencia Natural Crunchy 16 oz
048687328130 Sunland Valencia Organic Creamy 10 oz
Peanut Butter
048687229093 Sunland Valencia Peanut Butter 18 oz
Creamy
048687866281 Sunland Valencia Peanut Butter 6/2 oz
Creamy
048687219094 Sunland Valencia Peanut Butter 18 oz
Crunchy
4868785920 Sunland Valencia Peanut Sauce 36 oz
41320 Sunland Valencia Roasted and 30 lb
Blanched
41321 Sunland Valencia Roasted and 30 lb
Blanched Bar Ready Peanuts
41322 Sunland Valencia Roasted and 30 lb
Blanched Wildlife
41323 Sunland Valencia Roasted Blanched 30 lb
Salted
940795 Trader Joe's Almond Butter with 16 oz
Roasted Flaxseeds, Crunchy & Salted
00819558 Trader Joe's Organic Creamy 16 oz
Peanut Butter
00915878 Trader Joe's Organic Creamy 16 oz
Unsalted Peanut Butter
00819534 Trader Joe's Organic Crunchy 16 oz
Peanut Butter
00915816 Trader Joe's Organic Crunchy 16 oz
Unsalted Peanut Butter
971119 Trader Joe's Valencia Creamy 16 oz
Salted Peanut Butter with Sea Salt
989275 Trader Joe's Valencia Peanut 16 oz
Butter with Roasted Flaxseeds,
Crunchy and Salted
891317002210 Tropical Traditions Coconut 16 oz
Peanut Butter
891317002326 Tropical Traditions Coconut 26 oz
Peanut Butter
1A733 Yogurtland Dark Roast Peanut 45 lb
Butter with Flax
Media representatives should contact Ms. Katalin Coburn, Vice
President for Media Relations, Sunland, Inc., at (805) 796-3368.
A full copy of the list of recalled products is also available at
the Company's Web site: http://www.sunlandinc.com/.
Previously posted press releases:
* October 4, 2012 Press Release
[http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm322747.htm]
* September 24, 2012 Press Release
[http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm320647.htm]
* September 24, 2012 Press Release
[http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm320818.htm]
TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Still Defends Suits Over Chrome 6 Exposure
------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Industries, Inc. continues to defend lawsuits arising from
exposure to chrome 6, according to the Company's August 9, 2012,
Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended May 31, 2012.
In late April 2008, a lawsuit was filed in Riverside County
Superior Court of the State of California styled Virginia
Shellman, et al. v. Riverside Cement Holdings Company, et al. The
lawsuit against three of the Company's subsidiaries purports to be
a class action complaint for medical monitoring for a putative
class defined as individuals who were allegedly exposed to chrome
6 emissions from the Company's Crestmore cement plant. The
complaint alleges an increased risk of future illness due to the
exposure to chrome 6 and other toxic chemicals. The lawsuit
requests, among other things, establishment and funding of a
medical testing and monitoring program for the class until their
exposure to chrome 6 is no longer a threat to their health, as
well as punitive and exemplary damages.
Since the Shellman lawsuit was filed, five additional putative
class action lawsuits have been filed in the same court. The
putative class in each of these cases is the same as or a subset
of the putative class in the Shellman case, and the allegations
and requests for relief are similar to those in the Shellman case.
As a consequence, the court has stayed four of these lawsuits
until the Shellman lawsuit is finally determined.
Since August 2008, additional lawsuits have been filed in the same
court against Texas Industries, Inc. or one or more of the
Company's subsidiaries containing allegations of personal injury
and wrongful death by approximately 3,000 individual plaintiffs
who were allegedly exposed to chrome 6 and other toxic or harmful
substances in the air, water and soil caused by emissions from the
Crestmore plant. The court has dismissed Texas Industries, Inc.
from the lawsuits, and the Company's subsidiaries operating in
Texas have been dismissed by agreement with the plaintiffs. Most
of the Company's subsidiaries operating in California remain as
defendants. The court has dismissed from these lawsuits
plaintiffs that failed to provide required information, leaving
approximately 2,000 plaintiffs.
Since January 2009, additional lawsuits have been filed against
Texas Industries, Inc. or one or more of the Company's
subsidiaries in the same court involving similar allegations,
causes of action and requests for relief, but with respect to the
Company's Oro Grande, California cement plant instead of the
Crestmore plant. The lawsuits involve approximately 300
individual plaintiffs. Texas Industries, Inc. and the Company's
subsidiaries operating in Texas have been similarly dismissed from
these lawsuits. The court has dismissed from these lawsuits
plaintiffs that failed to provide required information, leaving
approximately 250 plaintiffs. Prior to the filing of the
lawsuits, the air quality management district in whose
jurisdiction the plant lies conducted air sampling from locations
around the plant. None of the samples contained chrome 6 levels
above 1.0 ng/m3.
The plaintiffs allege causes of action that are similar from
lawsuit to lawsuit. Following dismissal of certain causes of
action by the court and amendments by the plaintiffs, the
remaining causes of action typically include, among other things,
negligence, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional
distress, trespass, public and private nuisance, strict liability,
willful misconduct, fraudulent concealment, unfair business
practices, wrongful death and loss of consortium. The plaintiffs
generally request, among other things, general and punitive
damages, medical expenses, loss of earnings, property damages and
medical monitoring costs. As of August 9, 2012, none of the
plaintiffs in these cases has alleged in their pleadings any
specific amount or range of damages. Some of the lawsuits include
additional defendants, such as the owner of another cement plant
located approximately four miles from the Crestmore plant or
former owners of the Crestmore and Oro Grande plants.
The Company says it will vigorously defend all of these lawsuits
but it cannot predict what liability, if any, could arise from
them. The Company also cannot predict whether any other lawsuits
may be filed against it alleging damages due to injuries to
persons or property caused by claimed exposure to chrome 6.
TYSON FOODS: FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service disclosed that certain stores in various states received
Chicken Wyngz products that have been recalled by Tyson Foods,
Inc.
The FSIS says the list of store locations may not include all
retail locations that have received the recalled product or may
include retail locations that did not actually receive the
recalled product. Therefore, the FSIS says, it is important that
consumers use the product-specific identification information
available at http://is.gd/lq7hvN,in addition to the list of
retail stores, to check meat or poultry products in the consumers'
possession to see if they have been recalled.
Nationwide, State-Wide, or Area-Wide Distribution
-------------------------------------------------
Retailer Name Location
------------- --------
Wal-Mart Nationwide
Kroger Nationwide
Hannaford New York and New England states
H-E-B Texas
Publix Florida and Georgia
Shaw's Supermarkets Maine
Redner's Markets Delaware, Maryland and Pennsylvania
Roundy's Wisconsin and greater Chicago area
Wegmans New York and Pennsylvania
UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Amended Digital Royalties Suit Filed in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Morris, writing for Variety, reports that a
consolidated amended complaint in the class action filed over
underpaid digital royalties by several heritage acts against
Universal Music Group gives the most complete delineation yet of
the plaintiffs' case.
The complaint, filed on Oct. 11 in a Northern California federal
court, claims that UMG, "run almost entirely by lawyers, embarked
on a scheme to defraud its artists," and that the No. 1 major
label "conceived, approved and undertook this deception at its
highest executive level."
The class action consolidates claims made on behalf of the class
in a series of filings made since spring of 2011 by the estate of
Rick James, Chuck D of Public Enemy, Dave Mason, Whitesnake and
Temptations members Otis Williams and Ron Tyson.
Former plaintiff Rob Zombie and his group White Zombie have exited
the action, due to what a source said were "individualized
issues." Bo Donaldson, founder of the '70s act Bo Donaldson and
the Heywoods (known for their 1974 hit "Billy Don't Be a Hero"),
and hip-hop duo Black Sheep have joined as plaintiffs.
A number of individually filed suits -- many of which also include
other matters of royalty accounting -- are also pending against
UMG and the other major label firms over digital payouts.
The newly filed complaint is a scathing indictment of UMG's
business practices in the digital era.
It claims that UMG understood for years that -- as a 2010
appellate decision in a case filed against UMG by F.B.T. Prods.,
Eminem's early producers, ruled -- royalties for digital downloads
and ringtones should be calculated as licenses (usually specified
contractually as 50% of net receipts) and not as sales (calculated
at a much lower rate, typically not higher than 12%-15% of net).
The action maintains that in order to pay its acts less, UMG
deliberately miscategorized the licenses as sales, continuing,
"UMG's lawyers sought to delete the word 'license' from proposed
agreements with (download) providers. Many of the providers, such
as Sprint, refused to call the licenses something that they were
not, and the license language stayed."
The complaint continues: "UMG spent years engaging in this cover
up. Since almost all of its executives involved in the foregoing
wrongful conduct were (and are) lawyers, UMG consistently invoked
not only business confidentiality but also the attorney-client
privilege to cloak their deliberations on this subject in secrecy.
It has continued to do so in this lawsuit."
The action claims that UMG's policy of treating downloads as sales
was a "corporate-wide decision made at the highest executive
level," which dates back to a 2002 memorandum from Michael
Ostroff, then the company's executive vice president of business
and legal affairs.
The action says, "Prior to the Ostroff memo, and before the advent
of iTunes, UMG routinely entered into licenses with digital
content providers . . . and treated the income derived from those
licenses accordingly, paying the licensing rate to artists on such
income. On royalty accounting statements to its artists from this
time period, UMG showed the income derived from this arrangement
under 'license' and paid artists at the licensing rate."
The suit claims that the plaintiff class has been underpaid by UMG
to the tune of "hundreds of millions of dollars" on digital
downloads and "tens of millions" on ringtones.
One telling paragraph indicates how little some heritage artists
are receiving from both records and downloads.
According to the suit, the Temptations are entitled under their
1971 contract to 6% of the retail price of records sold. "Under
its current policy," it continues, "UMG has combined this low
record sold rate with the underpayment for permanent downloads to
pay approximately 2› per download out of the 70› paid to UMG by
Apple on that artist's catalog of recorded music. Many Motown
legacy artists have similar contracts."
A Universal spokesman said he had no knowledge of the consolidated
complaint and could not comment. UMG has consistently maintained
that the appellate ruling in the so-called Eminem case is not a
legal precedent.
VIROPHARMA INC: Defends Securities Class Suit in Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
ViroPharma Incorporated is defending a securities class action
lawsuit in Pennsylvania, according to the Company's August 9,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.
On May 17, 2012, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
naming as defendants ViroPharma Incorporated and Vincent J.
Milano. The complaint alleges, among other things, possible
securities laws violations by the defendants in connection with
certain statements made by the defendants related to the Company's
Vancocin product. The defendants believe that the allegations in
the class action complaint are without merit and intend to defend
the lawsuit vigorously; however, there can be no assurance
regarding the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit. It is possible
that other plaintiffs may file class actions containing similar
allegations.
WESTERN ALLIANCE: Settles Western Liberty Merger Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Segall, writing for Las Vegas Sun, reports that the parent
companies of two Nevada banks have settled a class-action lawsuit
by an investor who claimed their proposed merger was at a low-ball
price.
Bank of Nevada's parent, Western Alliance Bancorp., said on Oct. 9
that it and Service1st Bank of Nevada's parent, Western Liberty
Bancorp, settled David Raul's lawsuit. The Western Liberty
shareholder sued the companies and Western Liberty's board of
directors last month in Clark County District Court.
He sought to quash their merger, alleging Western Liberty's board
breached its fiduciary duties by agreeing to sell the company to
Western Alliance for "grossly inadequate consideration." The deal
has been valued at $55 million.
The companies believe the lawsuit is "without merit." But to avoid
the "costs, risks and uncertainties" that come with litigation,
they reached a memorandum of understanding with Mr. Raul to settle
the case, Western Alliance said.
The settlement is subject to court approval.
Phoenix-based Western Alliance announced Aug. 17 it signed a
definitive agreement to buy Western Liberty. The deal is expected
to close this fall, and at that point, Service1st will merge into
Bank of Nevada.
Under the terms of the deal, Western Liberty shareholders can
choose to receive either $4.02 in cash or 43 percent of a share of
Western Alliance for each share they owned in Western Liberty.
WMI HOLDINGS: Awaits November 27 Hearing on Suit Deal Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
WMI Holdings Corp. is awaiting the November 27, 2012 final hearing
to approve the settlement of a class action lawsuit involving its
subsidiary, according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.
With respect to the Company's sole operating subsidiary, of WM
Mortgage Reinsurance Company, Inc. ("WMMRC"), on October 22, 2007,
lead plaintiffs Robert Alexander and James Reed filed a putative
Class Action Complaint (the "Class Action Complaint") in the
United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(the "Pennsylvania Action") against WMMRC, Washington Mutual, Inc.
("WMI"), Washington Mutual Bank ("WMB") and Washington Mutual Bank
fsb ("FSB", and collectively, the "Defendants") alleging that the
Defendants violated Section 8 of the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act ("RESPA"), 12 U.S.C. Section 2607, by collecting
referral payments or unearned fees in the form of reinsurance
premiums. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that the private
mortgage insurance policies procured in connection with their
loans are subject to captive reinsurance arrangements between
private mortgage insurers and WMMRC. Plaintiffs have alleged that
a percentage of the mortgage insurance premiums paid by borrowers
are ceded to WMMRC, but that the risk assumed by WMMRC is not
commensurate with the premiums that it receives. According to
plaintiffs, these allegedly excessive reinsurance premiums are
disguised kickbacks paid to WMI through the captive reinsurance
arrangements in exchange for the placement of its primary mortgage
business. The complaint seeks treble damages, attorney's fees and
defense costs.
On December 21, 2007, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' Complaint. That motion was denied. The Defendants
subsequently filed an interlocutory appeal of the denial with the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Following the Third Circuit's
October 2009 decision in Alston v. Countrywide Financial Corp.,
585 F.3d 753 (3d Cir. 2009), which raised similar issues, the
petition for appeal in the Pennsylvania Action was denied and the
matter was returned to the district court. On January 11, 2010,
the Pennsylvania Action was removed from the Civil Suspense File
and re-opened for final disposition by the district court. A
joint discovery plan was approved by the district court on
February 2, 2010. The Pennsylvania Action remained stayed as to
WMI due to its bankruptcy filing.
On March 1, 2010, WMMRC filed an Amended Answer to the Class
Action Complaint. In addition, pursuant to the parties' joint
discovery plan, three additional motions were filed on March 1,
2010. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC"), in its
capacity as receiver for WMB, and JPMorgan Chase Bank, National
Association ("JPMC"), as successor to FSB, filed motions to
dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Additionally, the FDIC, as receiver, filed a motion to strike
plaintiffs' class allegations against the FDIC for failure to
comply with procedural requirements of the Financial Institutions
Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act ("FIRREA"). The FDIC's
motion to dismiss was granted on June 28, 2011.
In 2011, the parties reached a preliminary compromise and
settlement in the Class Action Complaint. That compromise was
subsequently memorialized in a written settlement agreement.
Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the settlement
must be approved by the District Court. On June 4, 2012,
Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement and on June 25, 2012, the District Court entered an
order preliminarily approving such settlement. In accordance with
GAAP guidance on Loss Contingencies, in 2010 management recorded
(and continues to record) an accrual for estimated anticipated
settlements of $4 million as a component of other liabilities on
the balance sheet and as a component of general and administrative
expenses on the statement of operations. The amount of such
accrual as of June 30, 2012, and December 31, 2011, corresponds to
the settlement amount. On or about July 16, 2012, the settlement
amount was deposited into a settlement distribution escrow account
and will remain on deposit in such account until the District
Court finally approves the settlement. A final hearing to approve
the settlement of the Class Action Complaint is currently
scheduled for November 27, 2012.
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA. Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Psyche A. Castillon,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan
and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2012. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter Chapman
at 240/629-3300.
* * * End of Transmission * * *