/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/130114.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, January 14, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 9 Headlines AEROPLAN: Consumers File Class Action Over Lost Rewards Points AVON: Faces Class Action Over False Claims on Cosmetic Products COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR: Recalls 66 Lithium Rechargeable Batteries DEBEERS DIAMONDS: Class Action Plaintiffs Set to Get Checks DELIFISH: Recalls Cold Smoked Products Due to Listeria Risk GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action Over "Buzz" Feature HOWREY: Outten & Golden, Blum Collins Seek Lead Counsel Role JP MORGAN: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Foreclosures KIA: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Sorento Design Defect NATIONAL ASSET: Employees File Suit Over Labor Law Violations NOVA SCOTIA: Executive Director Denies Alleged Children Abuses POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Recalls 327 Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles SAC CAPITAL: Investors File Insider Trading Class Action in N.Y. SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Alfred G. Yates Law Firm Files Class Action TELSTRA: Maddens Assesses Interest in Telecom. Outage Class Action UNITED STATES: Employers Get Favorable Ruling in BWC Class Action WAL-MART: 5th Cir. to Issue Ruling on Discrimination Suit Soon WOODSTOCK: Recalls Packs of Mislabeled Woodstock Tamari Almonds YAHOO: Faces Class Action Over Spam Text Messages ZIPCAR: Being Sold to Avis for Too Little, Suit Claims ********* AEROPLAN: Consumers File Class Action Over Lost Rewards Points -------------------------------------------------------------- Lynda Steele, writing for CTV British Columbia, reports that a class action lawsuit is underway against Aeroplan to force the rewards program to reinstate lost points and compensate angry consumers who were shocked to discover their points had an expiry date. Nancy Boome is one of those angry customers. She went blind three years ago after a medical emergency, then tripped and shattered her shoulder. Shortly after that, she fell off a bridge and broke her leg in four places. Ms. Boome needed a vacation. But when she called Aeroplan to use her points, she was told they had expired. "I just felt like, oh let it go, it's only points, and then I thought no, darn it! I was going to have a nice few days in the sun down in San Diego and I used my Visa to get those points and they just took them away," said Ms. Boome. Cris Nannarone experienced the same thing when he went to book a flight with his Aeroplan points. "They said you had 42,000 points, but they're gone. What do you mean they are gone?" said Mr. Nannarone. "I had no idea that they expired. How does an air mile expire?" The points had expired because Aeroplan quietly changed the rules a few years back. If you don't earn or redeem points in a year, you now lose them. "Not everyone travels within a one year span. So if you don't travel within the one year they take away the points and you didn't know about that," said lawyer Josh Merchant. Mr. Merchant's law firm is spearheading a class action lawsuit claiming Aeroplan didn't adequately inform customers about the policy change. "We allege they basically tricked the people into losing their air miles. Aeroplan isn't losing any sleep if you are losing your air miles," said Mr. Merchant. Aeroplan started out as Air Canada's frequent flyer program. Now it's owned by a company called Aimia. That company sells Aeroplan miles to its business partners to offer their customers as an incentive. When customers redeem the miles, Aeroplan uses the money from air mile sales to buy Air Canada seats. So any miles earned, but not redeemed, are pure profit for Aeroplan. "People are angry about this. People within my own firm are angry about this. A lot of people are affected. A lot of people use Aeroplan. A lot of people use air miles," said Mr. Merchant. "I'd like to see people who've lost their points without their knowledge really, get them reinstated," said Ms. Boome. Aeroplan's expiration policy also applies to any mile that's not used seven years from the date it was earned. The class action lawsuit demands Aeroplan reinstate expired points, and compensate consumers. If you would like to get involved in the class action lawsuit you will have to sign up with the Merchant Law Group. There is no financial cost to join the class action. Aeroplan says it has strong arguments against the lawsuit and will vigorously defend itself. Expired points can be reinstated for a fee, but in many cases it's not worth it. AVON: Faces Class Action Over False Claims on Cosmetic Products --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims Avon Products "preys on consumers' fundamental fear of aging" to push its cosmetics with false claims. COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR: Recalls 66 Lithium Rechargeable Batteries -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Columbia Sportswear Company, of Portland, Oregon, announced a voluntary recall of about 66 (33 jackets with two battery packs each) Omni-Heat(TM) Lithium-Polymer Rechargeable Batteries. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The batteries have a cell defect which can cause overheating, posing a fire hazard. The firm received one report of an overheating battery in Europe. No incidents or injuries were reported in the U.S. This recall involves battery packs that power heating systems in jackets. The black battery packs are 3.25 inches long by 2.3 inches wide by 0.7 inches deep and marked with "Columbia" on the top and "OMNI-HEAT(TM)" on the bottom of the pack. Part number 054978-001 is printed on the side of the battery label. Two battery packs were included with styles from: * Fall 2011 Mens: Electro Amp(TM) Jacket (SM7864) and Circuit Breaker(TM) Softshell (SM7855) * Fall 2011 Womens: Circuit Breaker(TM) Softshell (SL7856); Snow Hottie(TM) Jacket (SL7866), and Snow Hottie(TM) Parka (SL7853). The recalled battery packs were sold with Columbia electric jackets sold by Columbia online and at Columbia Sportswear stores in the cities and states listed below between September and November 2012 for about $260. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13089.html The recalled products were manufactured in China. The nine Columbia Sportswear outlets that carried the jackets with battery packs are located in: * Sunrise, Florida 33304 * Wrentham, Massachusetts 02093 * Birch Run, Michigan 48415-9496 * Albertville, Minnesota 55301 * Central Valley, New York 10917 * Las Vegas, Nevada 89106 * Grove City, Pennsylvania 16127 * Park City, Utah 84098 * Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin 53158-1705 Consumers should immediately check the battery packs included with the electric jacket to determine if they are part of the recall. Those with affected batteries should immediately remove the affected battery pack(s) from the jacket and contact Columbia Sportswear for a free replacement. Columbia Sportswear Company at (800) 622-6953 from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Pacific Time, by e-mail at Columbia@custhelp.com, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.Columbia.com/Recall/ DEBEERS DIAMONDS: Class Action Plaintiffs Set to Get Checks ----------------------------------------------------------- WSYR-TV reports that complainants in the DeBeers Diamonds class- action lawsuit could receive their checks in the mail as soon as this spring. DeBeers recently updated its Web page to indicate that checks have already been sent to retailers. They say money will be sent to consumers in the next few months. There's really no way of calculating how much each person will receive if their case has been approved. Recipients won't know until the check arrives in the mail. DELIFISH: Recalls Cold Smoked Products Due to Listeria Risk ----------------------------------------------------------- As precautionary measure, Delifish has decided to expand the voluntary recall to include cold smoked products related to Julian dates 235 to 345. The previous voluntary recall included cold smoked products related to Julian dates 249 - 291. There have been no new detections on products placed on the market in relation to this expansion. The expansion means that all cold smoked products that have been produced in the same period as the product type which initially tested positive in the U.S.A. are now voluntarily recalled. The decision is taken in agreement with the FDA and is carried out as a precautionary measure. There have been no complaints or illnesses reported. Listeria monocytogenes is an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. Product was possibly distributed in CA, NC, VA, OH, MA, IL, FL, GA, TX, DE, NJ, NY, PA, WA and Puerto Rico and reached consumers through retail stores. Under the following brand names Food Service Cold Smoked Salmon Trim 1 lb. Lot #'s = 235 thru 345, 6oz Royal Fjord Smoked Toppers, UPC = 810230000561, Lot #'s = 235 thru 345, and Royal Fjord Sliced Smoked Salmon Loin, 12-14 oz. Lot #'s= 235 thru 345 and 5 lb. cold smoked pieces Lot #'s = 235 thru 345, Royal Fjord 5 oz. rounds UPC = 810230000127, Lot #'s = 235 thru 345, 4 oz. New England Smoked Salmon UPC = 810230000066 Lot #'s = 235 thru 345, 3oz Pacific Supreme UPC # 058138102448 Lot #'s = 235 thru 345, 20oz Sam's UPC# 073030805167 Lot #'s = 235 thru 345, 2 - 3lb Icy Point NO UPC Lot #'s = 235 thru 345, 8oz Lassco Select Gourmet UPC # 072840017081 Lot #'s = 235 thru 345, 3oz Bacon Lascco UPC #072840017036 Lot #'s = 235 thru 345, 5lb Natural Trimming NO UPC Lot #'s = 235 thru 345, 4lb Trimming with preservatives NO UPC Lot #'s = 235 thru 345, 6oz Party Platter NO UPC Lot #'s = 235 thru 345, 16oz Nova (Wheel) UPC # 072840007273 Lot #'s = 235 thru 345, 4oz Nova Lascco UPC #072840017050 Lot #'s = 235 thru 345, 8oz Nathans UPC # 073030803699 Lot #'s = 235 thru 345, 3oz Nathans UPC # 073030803682 Lot #'s = 235 thru 345, and 4oz 3 Star UPC # 072840017517 Lot #'s = 235 thru 345. The voluntary recall is carried out as a precautionary measure in cooperation with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and is based on Listeria detection in a few of the recalled batches. No other products supplied by Delifish (a business unit of Marine Harvest USA) are involved in this case. Listeria control has a very high attention in the Company with strict internal standards and routines. The Company, therefore, takes this issue seriously and is taking these measures to assure that products supplied by Delifish are healthy and safe for the Company's customers and consumers. The USA FDA has a zero tolerance for Listeria in products intended to be eaten without prior heat treatment. In EU the tolerance limit for such products is maximum 100 bacteria/gram. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-877-479-8085 for more information including how to return the product for a full refund. GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action Over "Buzz" Feature -------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Google invaded privacy and disseminated private messages through its "Buzz" feature, three subclasses who opted out of a class action settlement claim in another federal class action. HOWREY: Outten & Golden, Blum Collins Seek Lead Counsel Role ------------------------------------------------------------ The Recorder reports that as U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali prepares to decide which firm to name lead counsel and which former employees to name class representatives in litigation stemming from the Howrey bankruptcy, New York-based lawyers from Outten & Golden and Los Angeles-based lawyers from Blum Collins filed pointed briefs arguing why they should be chosen and disputing the other side's qualifications. JP MORGAN: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Foreclosures ------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that JP Morgan Chase forecloses on homes without owning the underlying notes and mortgages, a class action claims in Cuyahoga County Court. KIA: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Sorento Design Defect ---------------------------------------------------------- New Jersey Law Journal reports that owners and lessors of Kia Sorento sport utility vehicles are suing the company over an alleged design defect that causes sudden engine failure. The putative class action charges the problem could have been remedied as a preventive measure by Kia dealerships, but the company instead continued to make vehicles with the defect. NATIONAL ASSET: Employees File Suit Over Labor Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that National Asset Recovery Services stiffs its phone workers for overtime and regular wages, a class action claims in Federal Court. NOVA SCOTIA: Executive Director Denies Alleged Children Abuses -------------------------------------------------------------- Keith Doucette, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that the executive director of a Halifax orphanage says she has no knowledge of staff abusing residents and instead alleges it may have been the children themselves who physically, sexually and mentally abused each other, according to an affidavit filed with the Nova Scotia Supreme Court. The accusations are contained in the document submitted by Veronica Marsman in her opposition to the proposed certification of a class-action lawsuit launched by former residents of the Nova Scotia Home for Colored Children who allege they were abused. The proposed class-action involves about 140 former residents who say they were physically, sexually and mentally abused by staff at the home over several decades up to the 1980s. Ms. Marsman, the home's executive director since 2010, also worked at the orphanage and was a resident there from 1964 until 1966. "I was not aware of abuse, systemic or otherwise at the home either as a resident, a staff member, board member or as the executive director," she says in the affidavit submitted Monday. Ms. Marsman said that with the exception of individual claims and media reports, she was only aware of one incident through the home's records in which a staff member was alleged to have had sexual contact with a 16-year-old girl in June 1983. The accused staff member was suspended and eventually fired, the affidavit says. "It is never possible to prevent all such abuse in a residential environment, but it was carefully monitored in accordance with standards at the time," Ms. Marsman says in the affidavit. Her affidavit said that 63 individual actions alleging various forms of abuse had been filed with the provincial Supreme Court since 2000 and 59 are still before the court. The submission included court documents summarizing the state of proceedings in the 59 cases. John Kulik, a lawyer for the home, said a class-action lawsuit isn't needed because the circumstances of the allegations vary widely. "This is a case where because of the different time periods involved, the different staff members involved, different eras, different administration at the home -- there's no common issues," he said in an interview. Ms. Marsman's affidavit includes a list of former residents who were accused of abuse in previous court proceedings. Some of the names are of people who have alleged they were the victims of abuse. "I am informed by counsel for the home and do believe that in the individual actions the following former residents of the home have been accused of sexual, physical or mental abuse by plaintiffs in those actions," her affidavit says. None of the allegations have been tested in court. Ray Wagner, whose legal firm is spearheading the class-action suit, expressed disappointment that the affidavit attempts to cast blame on the alleged victims. "We've known right from the start that abuse happened between residents," said Mr. Wagner. "But it's been our position that the behavior was learned as a result of the abuse inflicted upon them by workers and that in some cases that's all they knew. "They argue that there is no systemic abuse which flies in the face of the named 59 residents." Ms. Marsman's affidavit also said allegations in three of the 63 cases that were filed have been dismissed based on Nova Scotia's Statute of Limitations, adding that the proposed class-action would require reviewing incidents that have allegedly occurred over 50 years. But Mr. Wagner said the cases expired after the complainants had died. "The only way that justice can be done . . . is to have the class- action," he said. "Otherwise we will have litigation until I'm 110 years of age." Last month, Halifax police and the RCMP announced they would not be laying criminal charges in the case after concluding there was not enough evidence to support the allegations. POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Recalls 327 Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles ----------------------------------------------------------------- About 327 2013 Polaris Ranger(R) 400 recreational off-highway vehicles were voluntarily recalled by Polaris Industries Inc., of Medina, Minnesota, in cooperation with the CPSC. Consumers should stop using the product immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The recreational vehicle's throttle can fail to operate properly, which can cause the vehicle's rider to lose control, posing a crash hazard. No incidents or injuries have been reported. This recall involves 2013 Polaris Ranger(R) 400 recreational off- highway vehicles with model number R13RH45AG and VIN numbers between 4XARH45A3D4726305 and 4XARH45A7DE648444. Not all VIN numbers in the range are included in this recall. To see a complete list of recalled VIN numbers visit the firm's Web site. "Polaris" is stamped on the front of the vehicle above the front grill. A "400 HO" decal is located on the right and left side of the hood and "Ranger 4x4" is printed on the side of the rear bed box. The vehicles are green and gray in color. The model number is printed in the owner's manual. A picture of the recalled products is available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13716.html The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of America and Mexico, and sold at Polaris dealers nationwide from July 2012 through September 2012 for about $8,300. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled Polaris Ranger vehicles and contact Polaris to schedule a free repair. Polaris is contacting its customers directly. Polaris may be reached toll-free at (888) 704-5290, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday, or online at http://www.polarisindustries.com/and click on Help Center under the Services and Support tab, then Common Rider Questions, then Service bulletins/recalls to check your VIN number. SAC CAPITAL: Investors File Insider Trading Class Action in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Beth Winegarner, writing for Law360, reports that Elan Corp. PLC investors slapped SAC Capital Advisors with a proposed class action on Jan. 7 in New York federal court, accusing SAC of reaping $220 million from illegal insider trading related to an Alzheimer's drug while suppressing negative information about the drug's trials. The lawsuit, filed by Elan investor Jeannie Kiser, also targets SAC founder Steven Cohen; Mathew Martoma, a former portfolio manager for one of SAC's subsidiaries; and Sidney Gilman, a professor of neurology at the University of Michigan Medical School. SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Alfred G. Yates Law Firm Files Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., P.C. announced that it has filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, # 5:13-cv-00019, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the securities of SandRidge Energy, Inc. between February 24, 2011 and November 8, 2012. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Alfred G. Yates Jr., at 1-800-391-5164, toll free, or at yateslaw@aol.com by e-mail. Please visit http://yatesclassactionlaw.com Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 4, 2013. The Complaint alleges that defendants shocked the market by disclosing that they had been grossly overstating the proportion of oil-producing versus natural gas producing assets in the Company's Mississippian formation throughout the Class Period. Defendants also disclosed that they intended to sell the remaining interest in the Company's Permerian Basin assets, though those assets were the Company's highest-margin oil producing assets. On this news, SandRidge's stock fell precipitously from its November 8, 2012 closing price of $6.10 per share to close at $5.51 per share on November 9, 2012, or 9%, on extremely high volume of more than six times the average daily trading volume over the prior three month period. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of SandRidge securities during the Class Period. The firm is also investigating actions on behalf of shareholders for the following companies: Ameristar Casinos, Inc., Arbitron Inc., Bankrate, Inc., CommonWealth REIT, Duff & Phelps Corporation, Envivio, Inc., FirstCity Financial Corporation, The Greenbrier Companies, Inc., Groupon, Inc., and VeriFone Systems, Inc. If you are a shareholder of any of the above companies and wish learn more about any of the investigations or have any questions, please contact Alfred G. Yates Jr., Esquire at 1-800-391-5164, toll free, or at yateslaw@aol.com by e-mail. TELSTRA: Maddens Assesses Interest in Telecom. Outage Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Peter Collins, writing for The Standard, reports that a barrister has been briefed on a possible class action seeking compensation over the south-west telecommunications outage late last year. Warrnambool law firm Maddens expects to have expert advice from the barrister by the end of January which will help determine if a major compensation case should be launched. Maddens' class action principal Brendan Pendergast -- bfp@maddenslawyers.com.au -- told The Standard on Jan. 8 dozens of businesses had registered their interest. "We've had a steady trickle from throughout the region, some are large enterprises, others mid-tier businesses," he said. "Some are alleging substantial losses. To calculate losses takes time and complexity in analysis." Telstra is processing claims lodged by business operators but there are concerns it will not be adequate, Mr. Pendergast said. About 100,000 services were knocked out by a fire in the Warrnambool Telstra exchange on November 22, affecting domestic and business clients from as far as Lismore to Portland and north to Edenhope. Some Warrnambool customers had to wait three weeks for full landline and internet services to be restored. Meanwhile, a survey into the social impact of the shutdown has had almost 300 responses. The study, being conducted by RMIT University's Regional and Rural Futures Research Group at Hamilton, will help local, state and federal representatives put a stronger case to Telstra to improve their breakdown service. RMIT senior research fellow Dr. Sean MacDermott said results would be analyzed at the end of the month and there was still time for people to participate. "The telecommunications breakdown that occurred late last year is still a current discussion point as some businesses continue to experience intermittent service," Dr. MacDermott said. "We need all the facts about how this impacted families and businesses in the region and what we have lost from it all and what we gained." Dr. MacDermott said the survey was recording negative and positive effects of the outage. To complete the anonymous survey visit http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/outage "Some people have rightly said that 25 years ago we got on around here fine all the time without any mobile phones whatsoever and it was good to have a break from them again," he said. "Others have told us that the outage was a business and income- killer for them. We want to hear from people now, while the events of late last year are fresh in their minds." UNITED STATES: Employers Get Favorable Ruling in BWC Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- George Wilkinson at Dinsmore & Shohl LLP reports that the decision is in and the employers won. Judge Richard McMonagle decided the Bureau of Workers' Compensation overcharged employers who did not participate in group rating from 2001 to 2009. Many of those could now receive refunds based upon the court's future calculations. No damages have yet been determined, but the amount may range from $800,000 to $1.3 billion. Before spending the money, employers should know that this is subject to appeal. The checks are not, as they say, in the mail. Judge McMonagle's 28-page Opinion is detailed and thorough. He rejects the employers' constitutional equal protection argument because the group rating program did have an effect on encouraging safety in the workplace, which is a legitimate state interest. For constitutional purposes, that is the acid test. However, the Judge found the program violated two state statutes. First, the specific statute which enabled group rating said it should be "retrospective." The group rating program adopted by the BWC clearly was prospective. The difference is that a retrospective program requires that the employer pay lower premiums but then pay actual claims or some portion of actual claims "retrospectively." A prospective plan, on the other hand, uses the employers' risk experience to determine what the rates are this year, and once those premiums are paid, that is the end of it. This was not a retrospective plan and the Judge ruled that as such it violated the statute. Second, the Judge found that the plan violated the statutory requirement that the BWC adopt "fixed and equitable rules controlling the rating system." The Judge found that the rules were certainly fixed, which they were, but not equitable. In making this determination, he has unassailable testimony from the BWC's own experts who said they were aware that the group rating program was producing inequitable results for non-group employers as far back as 1994, and certainly within the class period starting in 2001. Thus, the BWC acted inequitably. The issue then became whether or not the BWC is obligated to repay the employers. The answer is yes: the BWC is required to repay those employers who were, in one year or another, not in group rating from 2001 to 2009. There is a limit: only employers in certain hazard classifications whose premiums were off-balance more than 23% will receive reimbursement. So the question now is how much? In this regard, the Judge accepted the plaintiffs' expert on damages, and essentially rejected the BWC's expert. Their opinions differed, according to the Judge, in how they treated dividends, and that difference was "staggering." Apparently, the expert for the plaintiffs determined that dividends were a discount and the application of the dividends to the non-group employers would only reduce the amount of damages. Indeed, according to the plaintiffs' brief in this case, their expert determined that the damages should be $1.3 billion, taking into account the dividend treatment as he saw it. The BWC's expert calculated dividends differently, resulting in little or no repayments to the non-group employers. The Judge entirely accepted the plaintiffs' expert's evaluation, and said damages would be determined using that calculation. The Judge was, however, unable to determine exactly what the amount should be because the BWC, on the eve of trial, produced additional information that needed to be factored into the expert's calculation. For that reason, the decision on how much the repayment should be has been extended. Evidence as to the damages is to be submitted to the Court by January 28th, with the BWC's calculations submitted a month later and a hearing to be held on March 14, 2013. The Court will decide subsequent to that. For employers in the group some of the time, the Judge rejected the BWC's request that there be a "cross-subsidy." The cross- subsidy would be a reduction of the amount of damages to a particular employer who participated in group for one year but did not participate in the following year (i.e., an employer subject to the unfair non-group treatment in the one year but then rewarded with group treatment the next). The Judge rejected the cross-subsidy argument. He said each rating year would stand on its own. Non-group employers will receive a refund for the years that they were not in group, if otherwise qualified. The damages are predicted by plaintiffs' counsel to be $1 billion. That is essentially one half-year premium for the entire system. The employers could receive a fairly substantial premium refund if, in fact, the figures justify it. It all depends upon their payroll for the period in question and how many years they were actually excluded from group rating. The BWC has the money. As of the end of the last fiscal year, the BWC had $7 billion in net assets, essentially monies which are allocated to take care of contingencies such as this. For the BWC, the damages appear manageable. For the individual employers, and particularly those excluded from group for the entire eight- year period, the amount could certainly be material. WAL-MART: 5th Cir. to Issue Ruling on Discrimination Suit Soon -------------------------------------------------------------- The Litigation Daily reports that almost two years after the U.S. Supreme Court killed off a nationwide sex discrimination suit against Wal-Mart, the fate of a follow-on class action on behalf of Texas Wal-Mart employees may soon be decided by the Fifth Circuit. A federal judge has ruled that the plaintiffs can seek immediate review of his decision to toss their claims on statute of limitations grounds last fall. WOODSTOCK: Recalls Packs of Mislabeled Woodstock Tamari Almonds --------------------------------------------------------------- Woodstock(R) issued a voluntary recall of Woodstock Tamari Almonds, because of an incorrect back label on packages of a single Lot. This mislabeling incident resulted in an undeclared allergen (Soy). People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to soy run the risk of a serious or life threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product. The front of the retail package is correctly labeled Woodstock All Natural Tamari Almonds, 7.5 OZ. However, the back of the retail package has incorrect back label information -- including Nutrition Facts, Ingredients, UPC# 0-42563-00838-3. One code date is affected: Best By: 10/24/13, Lot 12298, which appears on the shipping case sticker and on the back of the retail pouch (ONLY this Best By date is being recalled). A picture of the recalled products is available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm334691.htm The product was distributed to retailers in the following states (Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, and District of Columbia). The recall was initiated when it was discovered that packages were mislabeled by the packer. Although soy ingredient is contained in the product, the incorrect back label does not list soy in the ingredients statement. No other lot numbers of Woodstock Tamari Almonds are affected. In addition, the package bears the allergen advisory statement "Manufactured on shared equipment in a plant that processes peanuts, tree nuts, soy, wheat (gluten), and milk products." No illnesses have been reported to date in association with this product. Consumers can return the product to their place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions can contact the company at 888-534-0246 x25154, Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time. YAHOO: Faces Class Action Over Spam Text Messages ------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Yahoo! sends spam text messages to cell phones, a class action claims in Federal Court. ZIPCAR: Being Sold to Avis for Too Little, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that Zipcar is selling itself too cheaply through an unfair process to the Avis Budget Group, for $12.25 a share or $500 million, shareholders claim in Chancery Court. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2013. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200. * * * End of Transmission * * *