/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/130123.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, January 23, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 16 Headlines 20TH CENTURY FOX: Faces Class Action Over Home Video Royalties AIS RECOVERY: Class Action Removed to Virginia Federal Court ALAMEDA COUNTY: Faces Class Action Over False Arrests AMERICAN SIGNATURE: Recalls 2,158 Hayward Push Back Chairs BELMONT CONFECTIONS: Recalls Dymatize Nutrition Elite Gourmet Bars BISHOP ROSEN: Stockbroker Loses Bid to Dodge Arbitration BP: Deadline for Oyster Leaseholders to File Claim Approaching CARGILL MEAT: Mo. Court Approves Settlement of Workers' Class Suit COVIDIEN INC: Claims in "McKinney" Suit Dismissed With Prejudice DOLAN NORTHWEST: Recalls 1,100 Burien Floor Lamps Over Shock Risk DUFF & PHELPS: Being Sold to Dakota for Too Little, Suit Claims FALCONSTOR SOFTWARE: Signs MOU to Settle Class Suit for $5-Mil. HONEST TEA: Sued Over Amount of Catechins in Green Tea Product HUMPHREY'S MARKET: Recalls 2,764 Pounds of Poultry Products HY CITE: Recalls 1.7-MM Units of Royal Prestige Thermal Cookware HYUNDAI: Veloster Sunroof Explodes Without Warning, Suit Claims JPMORGAN CHASE: Class Arbitration Waivers Unenforceable, Suit Says KING'S DELIGHT: Recalls 1,572 Lbs. of Gluten-Free Chicken Nuggets KINNIKINNICK FOODS: Recalls Frozen Pie Crusts Over Undeclared Egg LJD HOLDINGS: Recalls 33,500 Lbs. of Cooked Meat/Poultry Products MIRAMICHI REGIONAL: Class Action Appeal Adjourned Until June MODUSLINK GLOBAL: Faces Suits Over Restatement Announcement NEWS CORP: April 26 Hearing on "Forsta AP-Fonden" Suit Accord Set PATRIOT COAL: Brower Piven Named Lead Counsel in Class Suit POWERTEC INC: Recalls 565 Weight Workbenches Due to Injury Hazard RED BULL: Faces Suit Over False Claims on Energy Drink SUPERVALU INC: Continues to Defend Suit Over C&S Transaction SUPERVALU INC: Wisconsin Suit Remains Stayed Pending IOS Ruling SYNGENTA CROP: Sends Checks Under $105-MM Atrazine Settlement SYNGENTA CROP: Jasper City Gets Share in Atrazine Settlement TARGET CORP: Recalls 168,000 Hand-Held Air Misters UNITIL CORP: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in Suit vs. Fitchburg US CENTURY: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over TARP Funds UTILIQUEST LLC: Failed to Pay Regular & Overtime Wages, Suit Says WESTERN HEALTH: Feb. 8 Class Action Case Management Meeting Set * Increase in Employment Class Actions to Continue This Year ********* 20TH CENTURY FOX: Faces Class Action Over Home Video Royalties -------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Belloni, writing for Hollywood Reporter, reports that four Hollywood studios have been hit with class-action lawsuits alleging they systematically underpay profit participants on movies distributed via home video. 20th Century Fox, Paramount Pictures, Universal Pictures and Sony Pictures were sued on Jan. 16 in Los Angeles Superior Court by talent whose decades-old contracts allow them to share in the revenue from hit films. The suit against Fox was filed by filmmaker Stanley Donen over his 1975 movie Lucky Lady; the suit against Sony was filed by Larry Martindale, trustee of the estate of late actor Charles Bronson, over the 1975 film Hard Times; the suits against Paramount and Universal were filed by filmmaker Colin Higgins over the films Foul Play and The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas, respectively. The suits seek to challenge a studio practice of accounting to profit participants based on only 20 percent of home video revenue. During the rise of the VCR in the early 1980s, studios began paying talent based on a 20 percent royalty. That rate soon became an industry standard (despite protests from talent unions and lawyers) and has been written into many contracts for film and television. But the plaintiffs' contracts predate the 1980s, so they argue that they should be entitled to share in 100 percent of home video revenue. The plaintiffs cite language in their contracts to support the claim. "Rather than include 100 percent of the money earned from home video distribution when accounting to profit participants, [Sony] only includes 20 percent of the earnings and, on information and belief, wrongfully retains the balance," the Bronson lawsuit alleges, mirroring language in the other suits. Exact damages are not alleged, but the claims could total in the millions of dollars. For instance, the Bronson suit alleges that his Hard Times contract contains a profit-participation definition that allows the late actor to share in 10 percent of "all" gross receipts that the studio collects. But the studio has been paying him based only on 20 percent of revenue. "As a result, 80 percent of the income derived from the home video distribution is not being credited as income to Plaintiff and the Class when [Sony] accounts to profit participants," the suit alleges. The four lawsuits were filed on behalf of other potential class members who might be added later, meaning the lawyers for the plaintiffs likely are talking to other film stars and directors who made movies before the 1980s who might be added to the suit. The four lawsuits, filed by teams from L.A.'s Johnson & Johnson, Kiesel & Larson, Pearson Simon Warshaw & Penny, allege causes of action for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant, money had and received, declaratory judgment, open book account, conversion and a violation of California's business and professionals code. AIS RECOVERY: Class Action Removed to Virginia Federal Court ------------------------------------------------------------ Kyla Asbury, writing for The West Virginia Record, reports that a lawsuit involving AIS Recovery Solutions has been removed from Ohio County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia at Wheeling because the action involves citizens of different states. AIS Recovery Solutions is doing business as American Info Source. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC; and Cavalry Investments, LLC were also named as defendants in the suit. Nicholas Stewart and Thomas Edward Jones filed the lawsuit after AIS filed claims on behalf of Calvary against their deceased family members' estates, according to a notice of removal filed Jan. 11 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia at Wheeling. James Stewart Jr. died on Nov. 21, 2011, and on May 23, the defendant filed a claim in the amount of $1,065.56, claiming the debt arose prior to Jan. 10, 2000, according to the suit. Annette Irene Jones died on Sept. 11, 2011, and on May 11, the defendant filed a claim in the amount of $853.26, claiming the debt arose out of an account opened on Dec. 7, 2000, and the payment made was on Aug. 17, 2001, according to the suit. Nicholas Stewart and Thomas Jones claim the alleged attempted collection of a time-barred debt is in violation of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act. The plaintiffs bring the action individually and as administrators of the named estates and on behalf of all others similarly situated under Rule 23 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, according to the suit. The lawsuit was removed to federal court from Ohio Circuit Court because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and because the action is between citizens of different states, the removal notice says. Nicholas Stewart and Thomas Jones are seeking an order prohibiting defendants and/or their agents from altering, deleting or destroying any documents or records which could be used to identify the members of the class; certification of the proposed class; judgment on the legal claims asserted in the suit; and compensatory and punitive damages with pre- and post-judgment interest. They are being represented by Jason E. Causey and Christopher J. Regan of Bordas & Bordas, PLLC. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia at Wheeling case number: 5:13-cv-2 ALAMEDA COUNTY: Faces Class Action Over False Arrests ----------------------------------------------------- Angela Marie Watkins at Courthouse News Service reports that eight Occupy Oakland protesters claim in a federal class action that Oakland and Alameda County falsely arrested them and subjected them to unconstitutional conditions in jail. Lead plaintiff Steven Angell was one of about 409 people arrested by the Oakland Police and Alameda County Sheriffs offices during a march on Jan. 28, 2012. Five hundred to 1,000 people gathered that day in Frank Ogawa Plaza in downtown Oakland. Soon after the march began, "officers began to attack the crowd, pushing from behind, rushing in swinging batons, discharging 'flash-bang' grenades and tear gas," the complaint states. The class claims that police and sheriff's deputies surrounded 400 to 500 people, and arrested them for failure to disperse though police never ordered them to disperse. "Class members corralled at the detainment area, without probable cause or lawful justification, were forced to stand or sit in the street for hours. Class members were not allowed to use toilet facilities, so the only place to relieve themselves was on the street or in their clothing. Some class members were placed on buses and held there for further long periods without access to toilet facilities, and some had medical conditions that required access to toilet facilities, and ended up soiling themselves and urinating on the bus," the complaint states. The class claims its members denied access to phones and toilet facilities, and were held for 12 to 85 hours in various Alameda County jails without being charged. One class member claims he is HIV-positive and was denied his medication for 2 days. The class claims that Alameda County jailers and deputies encouraged other prisoners threaten, intimidate, and attack the Occupy Oakland people. "When class members were transferred out of holding cells into the main housing units, ACSO staff and deputies maliciously informed other in-custody individuals that all deprivations and problems they experienced were the fault of class members, in an attempt to foment hostility and violence by regular incarcerated individuals against class members ACSO staff and deputies engaged in threats, taunts and other verbal abuse against class members," the complaint states. Most class members were not charged with a crime but some received citations. All members now have arrest records and some suffered physical injuries, according to the complaint. The class wants the defendants enjoined from violating the First Amendment, destruction of any biological samples taken from class members, sealing of their arrest records, and damages for injuries. Their lead counsel is Yolanda Huang, of Berkeley. AMERICAN SIGNATURE: Recalls 2,158 Hayward Push Back Chairs ---------------------------------------------------------- About 2,158 Reclining Chairs were voluntarily recalled by American Signature Inc., of Columbus, Ohio, 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 chair can tip over backwards when used in its fully reclined position, posing a fall hazard to consumers. No incidents or injuries have been reported. The recalled chairs are Hayward Push Back reclining arm chairs. They are 38 inches high and covered in brown or black faux leather fabric with double-needle baseball stitching. The brown chair is item number HGB-805-1. The black chair is item number HGB-805-2. The item number is on the upper right-hand side of the product tag attached to the bottom side of the chair's footrest. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13719.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold exclusively at Value City Furniture stores and American Signature Furniture stores from June 2012 to August 2012 for about $150. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled chairs and contact American Signature to receive free replacement legs. Consumers may also return the chairs for a store credit equal to the full price of the chair. American Signature is contacting its customers directly. American Signature Inc. may be reached at (800) 743-4577, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday or online at http://www.vcf.com/or http://www.asfurniture.com/,then click on Safety Recalls. BELMONT CONFECTIONS: Recalls Dymatize Nutrition Elite Gourmet Bars ------------------------------------------------------------------ Belmont Confections Inc. is recalling Dymatize Nutrition Elite Gourmet Cookies & Cream bars and Dymatize Nutrition Elite Gourmet Fudge Brownie bars in both the 1.5 oz and 3 oz packages because they may contain undeclared peanuts. Belmont became aware of the problem via a complaint to the distributor Dymatize Inc. People who have allergies to peanuts run the risk of serious or life- threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. The recalled Dymatize Nutrition Elite Gourmet Bars were distributed to U.S. and International retail stores and through mail orders via e-commerce March 14, 2012, to December 18 2012. The Dymatize Nutrition Elite Gourmet Cookies & Cream bars and Dymatize Nutrition Elite Gourmet Fudge Brownie bars come in 12- pack box for the 3 oz bar and 6-pack box for the 1.5 oz bars. The retail boxes are wrapped in clear plastic and the packages are marked with the following Best By and Lot Codes # printed on the top panel of the retail box: Lot Nos. Product Name UPC Code Affected Best by Date ------------ ------------ -------- ------------ Dymatize Nutrition 705016993147 12200A SEP 2013 Elite Gourmet Cookies & Cream 1.5 oz (42.5 g) Dymatize Nutrition 705016993147 12249A NOV 2013 Elite Gourmet Cookies & Cream 1.5 oz (42.5 g) Dymatize Nutrition 705016993147 12310A JAN 2014 Elite Gourmet Cookies & Cream 1.5 oz (42.5 g) Dymatize Nutrition 705016993147 12353A FEB 2014 Elite Gourmet Cookies & Cream 1.5 oz (42.5 g) Dymatize Nutrition 705016993000 12072A MAY 2013 Elite Gourmet Cookies & Cream 3 oz (85 g) Dymatize Nutrition 705016993000 12200A SEP 2013 Elite Gourmet Cookies & Cream 3 oz (85 g) Dymatize Nutrition 705016993000 12310A JAN 2014 Elite Gourmet Cookies & Cream 3 oz (85 g) Dymatize Nutrition 705016993000 12353A FEB 2014 Elite Gourmet Cookies & Cream 3 oz (85 g) Dymatize Nutrition 705016993130 12199A SEP 2013 Elite Gourmet Fudge Brownie 1.5 oz (42.5 g) Dymatize Nutrition 705016993130 12244A OCT 2013 Elite Gourmet Fudge Brownie 1.5 oz (42.5 g) Dymatize Nutrition 705016993130 12311B JAN 2014 Elite Gourmet Fudge Brownie 1.5 oz (42.5 g) Dymatize Nutrition 705016993130 12352B FEB 2014 Elite Gourmet Fudge Brownie 1.5 oz (42.5 g) Dymatize Nutrition 705016993079 12084A MAY 2013 Elite Gourmet Fudge Brownie 3 oz (85 g) Dymatize Nutrition 705016993079 12199A SEP 2013 Elite Gourmet Fudge Brownie 3 oz (85 g) Dymatize Nutrition 705016993079 12205A SEP 2013 Elite Gourmet Fudge Brownie 3 oz (85 g) Dymatize Nutrition 705016993079 12311B JAN 2014 Elite Gourmet Fudge Brownie 3 oz (85 g) Dymatize Nutrition 705016993079 12352B FEB 2014 Elite Gourmet Fudge Brownie 3 oz (85 g) Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm335748.htm Consumers who have purchased boxes of the 1.5 oz and 3.0 oz bars of Dymatize Nutrition "Elite Gourmet" (Cookies & Cream bars and Fudge Brownie bars), are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund. This recall is only for the aforementioned bars and does not impact any other products sold by Dymatize. Consumers with questions may contact Alicia Graham at phone # (330) 759-3100 ext. 203 Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. BISHOP ROSEN: Stockbroker Loses Bid to Dodge Arbitration -------------------------------------------------------- Eric Hornbeck, writing for Law360, reports that a stockbroker can't use a class action to avoid arbitration of his overtime wage claims against brokerage Bishop Rosen & Co. Inc., a New York state judge ruled on Jan. 16 in a case over the hotly contested issue. The former Bishop Rosen stockbroker, Roger Spann, can't use the "magical words of 'similarly situated'" to skirt a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority rule that prohibits the regulatory body from hearing class actions. BP: Deadline for Oyster Leaseholders to File Claim Approaching -------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Thompson, writing for NOLA.com, reports that the federal judge overseeing the massive litigation over the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico ordered Jan. 16 those who opted-out of BP's economic and property damage settlement be offered a chance to get back in. The judge also ordered the court-appointed claims administrator to remind registered oyster leaseholders who did not opt-out of the settlement that the deadline to file a claim is approaching. U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier, who gave preliminary approval to the settlement in early 2012 as legal teams prepared for trial, had previously extended the deadline to rejoin the settlement to Dec. 15, 2012. Judge Barbier approved the terms of the settlement late last month. The judge had reserved the ability to allow people to opt back in after that deadline at the "sole and unilateral discretion" of the court. On Jan. 26, Judge Barbier directed Patrick Juneau, the Lafayette lawyer who took over the spill claims process in March, to send a letter to eligible claimants who asked to be excluded from the deal to take their temperature on rejoining the settlement class. The judge's order comes ahead of a Jan. 23 deadline for a $2.3 billion settlement to cover seafood-related claims by commercial fishing vessel owners and others. The entire settlement aims to resolve more than 100,000 claims, which BP estimates could cost about $7.8 billion or more. However, there's is no limit to payouts under the medical settlement, which also includes provisions for individuals to file for benefits in the future, if they are able to show their illnesses were caused by the spill. Judge Barbier issued a second order on Jan. 16 instructing Mr. Juneau's office to send letters to registered oyster leaseholders who did not opt-out of the settlement as a reminder that the deadline to file a claim is approaching. The proposed settlements deal with medical, economic and property claims resulting from BP's Macondo well blowout, which killed 11 rig workers and caused one of the worst environmental disasters in U.S. history. The British oil giant is preparing for the Feb. 25 start of a trial that will determine what fines the responsible parties should pay for violating a variety of federal environmental laws. CARGILL MEAT: Mo. Court Approves Settlement of Workers' Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Chief District Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri on January 17, 2013, approved a settlement of a workers' compensation lawsuit captioned Shackleford vs. Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation. Court-appointed class representatives Todd Shackleford and Martha Woolery filed the lawsuit on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated individuals against Cargill. Mr. Shackleford and Ms. Woolery are hourly production workers at Cargill's turkey processing facility in California, Missouri. They sought relief on a collective and class wide basis relating to, among other things, Cargill's alleged practice and policy of not fully compensating its employees for time spent donning and doffing required protective gear and equipment. On June 27, 2012, the parties participated in a settlement conference with Magistrate William Knox and were able to reach an agreement in principle to resolve the plaintiffs' claims. The Court certifies the case as a collective action under Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act and appoints Brady & Associates as class counsel, and Dahl Administration LLC as the Claims Administrator. The Court also finds that the Agreement is fair, reasonable and adequate, and is in the best interests of the FLSA Collective Class members. The Court directs the Claims Administrator to mail the Notice of Settlement, Consent to Join, and "Computation of Your Settlement Share," by First-Class mail to the last known address of each settlement class member. The Administrator will also mail to the Named Plaintiffs and those individuals who have already opted in, the Notice of Settlement and "Computation of Your Settlement Share." FLSA Collective Class Members must exercise their right to opt-in to the Settlement within 60 days of the mailing or other distribution of the Notice. A copy of the District Court's January 17, 2013 Order is available at http://is.gd/gY9rNLfrom Leagle.com. COVIDIEN INC: Claims in "McKinney" Suit Dismissed With Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt granted a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims in the class action complaint captioned Amy McKinney, wife of and Harley Kyle McKinney, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated v. Covidien, Inc., Civil Action No. 12-1242 (E.D. La.) The Court held that the Plaintiffs' complaint does not provide the Defendant with "fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Although a complaint does not need "detailed factual allegations, . . . more than labels and conclusions are necessary, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do," Judge Engelhardt ruled. The Plaintiffs' claims asserted under the Louisiana Products Liability Act are dismissed without prejudice to their right to amend those allegations, no later than 20 days from January 17, 2013. A copy of the District Court's January 17, 2013 Order is available at http://is.gd/CY798wfrom Leagle.com. DOLAN NORTHWEST: Recalls 1,100 Burien Floor Lamps Over Shock Risk ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Dolan Northwest LLC, of Portland, Oregon, doing business as Seattle Lighting, Globe Lighting, Builders Lighting and Destination Lighting, announced a voluntary recall of about 1,100 Burien Floor Lamps. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The on/off foot switch on the lamps can fail and melt, resulting in shock and fire hazards. The firm has received three reports of melting switches, resulting in one report of property damage to the surrounding floor. This recall involves Burien model floor lamps with four individual light sockets and white glass shades on top of four individual tubes of varying lengths. The lamps are approximately 72 inches tall and were sold in stainless steel and bronze finishes. Model number 1117 and the date of manufacture in YYYY.MM format are printed on a label affixed to the underside of the base. Dates of manufacture included in the recall are between 2010.11 (November 2011) and 2012.09 (September 2012). Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13099.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Seattle Lighting, Globe Lighting, Builders Lighting showrooms in the Pacific Northwest and online at DestinationLighting.com from November 2010 through September 2012 for about $190. Consumers should immediately stop using and unplug the recalled lamp and return it to the store for a repair. The store will replace the on/off foot switch with a new plug and dimmer. Consumers who purchased the lamps online should contact Dolan NW for a replacement lamp. Dolan NW LLC may be reached toll-free at (888) 213-5758, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time Monday to Friday, by e-mail at floorlamprecall@destinationlighting.com or online at http://seattlelighting.com/,http://globelighting.com/, http://builderslighting.com/or http://destinationlighting.com/ for more information. DUFF & PHELPS: Being Sold to Dakota for Too Little, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Duff & Phelps Corp. is selling itself too cheaply to Dakota Acquisition, for $15.55 a share or $666 million, shareholders claim in New York County Supreme Court. FALCONSTOR SOFTWARE: Signs MOU to Settle Class Suit for $5-Mil. --------------------------------------------------------------- FalconStor Software, Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle a class action lawsuit for $5 million, according to the Company's January 10, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding signed by counsel for the class plaintiffs and by counsel for all defendants, FalconStor will pay $5 million to settle the action. This amount includes damages, plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, and costs of administration of the settlement. The Company expects to pay this settlement with a combination of cash on hand and insurance proceeds. "The agreement to settle the class action lawsuit represents another significant step forward for our Company and our shareholders. As a result, we have emerged as a stronger company, better equipped than ever to continue the technological innovation for which we are known and to increase shareholder value," said Jim McNiel, president and chief executive officer of FalconStor. "The improper acts of a few individuals that resulted in the government investigations and the class action lawsuit were contrary to our core values and ethical policies. Over the last two years, we have taken aggressive measures to improve and to strengthen our business processes and compliance programs." In accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding, a stipulation of settlement and a joint motion for preliminary approval of the settlement will be submitted to the court for its approval no later than March 11, 2013. Final settlement of the class action lawsuit is subject to certain conditions and to approval by the court. About FalconStor Software FalconStor Software, Inc. delivers disk-based backup, continuous data protection, WAN-optimized replication and disaster recovery automation. FalconStor solutions are available through a worldwide network of partners, including solution providers, top- tier strategic partners and major OEMs. FalconStor maintains headquarters in Melville, N.Y., and offices throughout Europe and the Asia Pacific region. For more information, visit http://www.falconstor.com/or call 1-866-NOW-FALC (866-669-3252). HONEST TEA: Sued Over Amount of Catechins in Green Tea Product -------------------------------------------------------------- Harold M. Hoffman, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Honest Tea, Inc., Case No. L-009636-12 (N.J. Super. Ct., Bergen Cty., December 27, 2012) seeks redress for an alleged marketing fraud perpetrated on the public related to the Company's Honey Green Tea product. The Defendant's promises, claims, representations and product labeling concerning the concentration of catechins in its product were false, Mr. Hoffman alleges. In truth and in fact, he contends, based upon sophisticated, independent laboratory analysis, the Defendant's product contained only 62.7% of claimed catechins. Catechins are compounds found in green tea that in test tube studies show antioxidant, anticarcinogenic, antitumorigenic, anti-microbial and weight-loss properties. Mr. Hoffman is a resident of the County of Bergen, New Jersey. He purchased Honey Green Tea in October of 2012. Honest Tea is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland. Honest Tea advertised, marketed, distributed and sold Honey Green Tea in commerce throughout the United States, including multiple retail locations throughout the state of New Jersey. The Plaintiff represented himself in the lawsuit: Harold H. Hoffman, Esq. 240 Grand Avenue Englewood, NJ 07631 Telephone: (201) 569-0086 E-mail: hoffman.esq@verizon.net HUMPHREY'S MARKET: Recalls 2,764 Pounds of Poultry Products ----------------------------------------------------------- Humphrey's Market, Inc., a Springfield, Illinois establishment, is recalling approximately 2,764 pounds of frozen, ready-to-eat (RTE) and raw poultry products because they were produced without the benefit of inspection. The products were also misbranded after being repackaged and may contain soy, wheat and milk, known allergens not declared on the label. The following RTE products are subject to recall: * Cryovac packages of "Mesquite Chicken Breast" containing 4-oz. portions * Cryovac packages of "Italian Chicken Breast" containing 3.5-oz. portions * Cryovac packages of "Grilled Chicken Breast" containing 4-oz. portions * Cryovac packages of "Italian Tomato Basil Chicken Breast" containing 4-oz. portions * Cryovac packages of "BBQ Glazed Chicken Breast" containing 3.1-oz. portions The following raw products are subject to recall: * Cryovac packages of "Lemon Pepper Chicken Breast" containing 5-oz. portions * Cryovac packages of "Bacon-wrapped Turkey Breast Filet" containing 5-oz. portions The products subject to recall were repackaged on various dates through January 7, 2013, then shipped into commerce, without the required ingredient statement and other labeling features on the immediate product container. The repackaged products were sent to a distributor for direct home delivery in Kansas, Missouri and Nebraska. The problem was discovered during a routine food safety assessment (FSA) at the plant by FSIS. Agency enforcement personnel determined that the products were produced without the benefit of inspection, proper record-keeping, and adherence to food safety and sanitation plans approved by FSIS and without correct labeling. FSIS has received no reports of illness due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an illness should contact a health care provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify that recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that recalled product is no longer available to consumers. Consumers and members of the media who have questions regarding the recall can contact the Company's office administrator, Grant Bradley, at (217) 544-7445. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at http://www.AskKaren.gov/. "Ask Karen" live chat services are available Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888- MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. HY CITE: Recalls 1.7-MM Units of Royal Prestige Thermal Cookware ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with importer, Hy Cite Enterprises LLC, of Madison, Wisconsin, and manufacturer, Meyer Europe, SRL, of Verdellino, Italy, announced a voluntary recall of about 1.7 million units of Royal Prestige 9- Ply Thermal Wall Cookware. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The cookware can collapse, crimp or severely deform when exposed to heat, posing a burn and fire hazard to the consumer and nearby property. The Company is aware of 1,136 reports of cookware collapsing, crimping or deforming, including one report of consumers getting spattered with hot oil when the pan collapsed inward while cooking. This recall involves stainless steel 9-ply "Thermal Wall" pans sold under the "Royal Prestige" brand name. The products were sold individually and in sets. The following cookware is included in this recall: * 1.5 qt. saucepan * 2 qt. saucepan * 3 qt. Dutch oven * 4 qt. Dutch oven * 6 qt. Dutch oven * 8 qt. Dutch oven * 8" skillet * 10.5" skillet * 10" paella pan * 14" paella pan Recalled pots and pans have a seal including "Thermal Wall" and "9-Ply" imprinted on the bottom of the pot or pan. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13098.html The recalled products were manufactured in Italy and sold at independent distributors of Hy Cite Enterprises sold this product through door-to-door sales for between $250 to $800 for individual products and from $800 and $3,500 for sets. Consumers should stop using the cookware immediately and contact Hy Cite for instructions for sending the cookware to the firm for repair. Damaged pots and pans will be replaced. Hy Cite Enterprises may be reached at (800) 609-9577 from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through Thursday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Central Time on Fridays, and 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Central Time on Saturdays or at http://www.royalprestige.com/or http://www.hycite.com/and go to the Recall Information link. HYUNDAI: Veloster Sunroof Explodes Without Warning, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that the sunroof on the 2012-2013 Hyundai Veloster "explodes without warning," turning the car into a potential death trap, a family claims in a federal class action. Linda, Sonia and Fernando Palacios sued Hyundai Motor America, claiming sunroofs explode in the Veloster 2012 and 2013 models. Hyundai claimed at first that there was no problem with the $17,600 car but now offers to replace damaged vehicles with an identical part, and "act as if the problem had been solved," according to the complaint. "Hyundai's only purported 'solution' to the problem is to replace the exploded sunroof with an identical one. Hyundai offers customers no assurance that the sunroof will not explode again, leaving customers and their passengers potentially in danger every time they drive," the complaint states. "Hyundai knows of the exploding sunroof defect and knows that consumers are not aware of the risk that their sunroofs could explode without warning," it states. "Nevertheless, Hyundai refused to acknowledge that there was any problem for over a year and has recently issued only a partial recall limited to 2012 Veloster vehicles manufactured from November 1, 2011 through April 17, 2012. Hyundai has still not informed current owners and lessees of other class vehicles about the exploding sunroof defect, has not disclosed the exploding sunroof defect to purchasers and lessors of 2013 model class vehicles, and continues to market and promote the 2013 model class vehicles as safe." The Palacios, of McAllen, Texas, say Hyundai has sold thousands of the vehicles, whose sunroofs come as a $2,000 "premium option." They dispute the boast that Hyundai makes on its website: "'We loaded Veloster with safety inside and out." In fact, "The class vehicles present a safety hazard and are unreasonably dangerous to consumers," the complaint states. "The exploding sunroof defect can cause glass to fly throughout the car at high speed and without warning, putting passengers at risk of physical injury. The explosion and flying glass can also injure or startle the driver, thereby contributing to car accidents, which can cause personal injury or death." The family claims that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has received "numerous" complaints about the car. "One woman explained: 'All of the sudden there was a loud bang like a gunshot, and I heard something raining down on my car. I looked in the mirror and saw glass flying everywhere. The glass was in my hair, down the back of my shirt and my pants,'" the complaint states, apparently quoting a complaint to the NHTSA. (Ellipses in complaint.) Plaintiffs Sonia and Fernando Palacios say they bought a 2013 Veloster for their mom, Linda Palacios, last year. They say Hyundai never warned them about the defect. "On or about December 4, 2012, the sunroof exploded while Linda Palacios was parked," the complaint states. "The explosion sent shattered glass all over the car, damaging the seats. The force of the explosion was so great that it bent the metal frame surrounding the sunroof assembly. By fortunate chance, Mrs. Palacios was not in the car when the sunroof exploded." The family says a Hyundai dealership denied there was a problem with the sunroof, and said that parts might not be covered by the warranty. "Later, the dealership offered to replace the sunroof but only with an identical part, presumably containing the identical dangerous defect. The dealership could give Mrs. Palacios no assurance that the sunroof would not explode again. The dealership did not offer to repair the seats damaged by the exploding glass," the complaint states. The Palacios seek class damages for consumer law violations, unfair business practices, breach of implied warranty, breach of warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and breach of express warranty. They are represented by Michael Caddell with Caddell and Chapman, of Houston. Hyundai did not immediately respond to a request for comment. JPMORGAN CHASE: Class Arbitration Waivers Unenforceable, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Melissa Lipman, writing for Law360, reports that a Second Circuit ruling that class arbitration waivers are unenforceable if they make it too expensive for individuals to enjoy their statutory rights bars JPMorgan Chase Bank NA from enforcing a similar clause, an Ohio man accusing the bank of antitrust violations told the Sixth Circuit on Jan. 15. Christopher Lowry sued JPMorgan in early 2012, accusing the bank of violating the Clayton Act by charging improper fees on his auto loan, assessing inflated interest rates and paying illegal kickbacks connected to the loan. KING'S DELIGHT: Recalls 1,572 Lbs. of Gluten-Free Chicken Nuggets ----------------------------------------------------------------- King's Delight, a Gainesville, Georgia establishment, is recalling approximately 1,572 pounds of frozen chicken nuggets labeled as gluten-free because they contain wheat, a known allergen that is not declared on the label, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The product subject to recall include: * 8-oz. cartons of "APPLEGATE(R) Naturals Gluten-Free Chicken Nuggets." The establishment number "P-2617" can be found printed on the side of each carton. The products were packaged on September 19, 2012. The lot number "210864" and the best before date "08/28/13" are printed on each carton's side panel. The UPC code "25317-00556" is printed on the back of each carton. The products were distributed to retail stores in Indiana, Maryland, Oregon and Washington. Consumers who purchased these products should return them to the store for a full refund. Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/News_&_Events/Recall_003_2013_Release/index.asp The firm notified FSIS of the problem after a consumer familiar with the product noted a color difference. Upon investigation, it was determined that chicken nuggets containing wheat were mislabeled on September 19, 2012. FSIS and the company have received no reports of illness or adverse reactions due to consumption of this product. Anyone concerned about an illness or adverse reaction should contact a physician. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to ensure that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS Web site at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/FSIS_Recalls/Open_Federal_Cases/index.asp Consumers with questions regarding the recall should contact Gerry Clarkson, Applegate Consumer Affairs Specialist, at (800) 587- 5858. Media with questions regarding the recall should contact Joe Forsthoffer at (410) 251-0363. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at http://www.AskKaren.gov/or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. "Ask Karen" live chat services are available Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. For information on how to report a problem with a meat, poultry or processed egg product to FSIS at any time, visit http://www.fsis.usda.gov/FSIS_Recalls/Problems_With_Food_Products KINNIKINNICK FOODS: Recalls Frozen Pie Crusts Over Undeclared Egg ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kinnikinnick Foods of 10940 120 street, Edmonton, AB is warning consumers with Egg Allergies not to consume Kinnikinnick Frozen Pie Crust because it contains EGG products which may not be indicated on an applied ingredient label. Products without an ingredient label applied to the box are not subject to this recall as they correctly list the product as containing eggs. The product being recalled is: Kinnikinnick Pie Crust (frozen) Weight: 290 g/10 oz Qty/Pkg: 2 UPC: 62013300600 9 Distributed in the United States: BB2013NO30 BB2013NO19 BB2013DE04 BB2013DE12 BB2013NO23 BB2013DE05 BB2013DE13 BB2013NO27 BB2013DE06 BB2013DE14 BB2013NO28 BB2013DE11 BB2013DE17 BB2013NO29 The product is distributed across United States. This incorrectly labeled Kinnikinnick Frozen Pie Crust may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction in persons with allergies to EGGS. Consumers who are allergic to EGGS should return the product to point of sale for a refund. There have been no reported illnesses associated with this recall. Consumers can contact Kinnikinnick Foods by calling 780-424-2900 or by e-mailing info@kinnikinnick.com. For more information, media please contact: Jerry Bigam Kinnikinnick Foods Inc. Edmonton, AB Canada 802212900 LJD HOLDINGS: Recalls 33,500 Lbs. of Cooked Meat/Poultry Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- LJD Holdings, Inc., doing business as B and D Foods, a Boise, Idaho establishment, is recalling approximately 33,500 pounds of fully cooked meat and poultry products due to possible contamination with Listeria monocytogenes, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The following product is subject to recall: * 10-lb. boxes, containing 2, 5-lb bags of "ROYAL "THE TEMPURA KING" ROYAL TEMPURA CHICKEN, Fully Cooked Tempura Chicken Breast," bearing an identifying code of "A-4615." This product was distributed to foodservice and/or institutional customers in California, Colorado, Idaho, Oregon, Utah and Washington. * 10-lb. boxes, containing 2, 5-lb bags of "BLINGS! CHICKEN BREAST WITH PARMESAN FLAVORING," bearing an identifying code of "A-4844." This product was distributed to foodservice and/or institutional customers in Idaho and Montana. * 10-lb. boxes, containing 2, 5-lb bags of "STEAKHOUSE TEMPURA SEASONED BEEF & BINDER STRIPS," bearing an identifying code of "A-1070-10." This product was distributed to foodservice and/or institutional customers in Idaho and Montana. * 30-lb. boxes of "KETTLE COOKED CHICKEN BREAST PIECES," bearing an identifying code of "A-3900." This product was distributed to an industrial customer in Ohio. * 30-lb. boxes of "FULLY COOKED PORK STRIPS," bearing an identifying code of "A-3025-30." This product was distributed to an industrial customer in Arizona and California. The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "EST. 6266" or "Est. P-6266" inside the USDA mark of inspection, as well as an identifying case code of "110622." The products were produced on December 6, 2012, and distributed to foodservice and institutional customers, as well as an industrial customer in the distribution areas noted. The problem was discovered by the company through microbiological testing and the products are being recalled due to concerns of cross-contamination. FSIS and the company have not received reports of illnesses due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an illness should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. Consumers with questions regarding the recall should contact the Company's Chief Administrative Office, Gary Shaw at (208) 344-1183 ext. 106. Media with questions about the recall should contact the Company's President, Tim Andersen at (208) 344-1183 ext. 101. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. "Ask Karen" live chat services are available Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888- MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://is.gd/vlfH9I MIRAMICHI REGIONAL: Class Action Appeal Adjourned Until June ------------------------------------------------------------ The Canadian Press reports that an appeal of a decision to dismiss a class-action lawsuit against a former pathologist and a New Brunswick hospital corporation has been adjourned until June. The case was to be heard on Jan. 16, but three judges of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal said lawyers didn't provide all of the documents necessary to proceed. "This case needs to be presented to this court properly and in a thorough fashion," said Chief Justice J. Ernest Drapeau. Last March, Judge Jean-Paul Ouellette of the Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the class-action suit sought by three patients of Dr. Rajgopal Menon, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to establish an identifiable class. Dr. Menon worked as a pathologist at the Miramichi Regional Hospital between 1995 and 2007 until an audit of his work found 18 per cent of 227 breast and prostate cancer reports were incomplete. The review also concluded that three per cent of those tests were incorrect. A later review of 23,000 tests done by Dr. Menon found a complete or partial change in the results in about a quarter of the cases. Judge Ouellette suggested that each claimant could file separate lawsuits, but Albert John Gay, Kimberley Ann Doyle and James Bliss Wilson appealed, arguing they should have the ability to present the case as a group. One of their lawyers, Raymond Wagner, said the Court of Appeal is being thorough because it is the first time they'll deliver a decision on a class-action in the province. "It is the first time they are going to give their stamp of what the Class Proceeding Act should look like in this province, so that's extremely important," he said outside the court. The appeal of Judge Ouellette's ruling is now set to be heard for three days beginning June 11. MODUSLINK GLOBAL: Faces Suits Over Restatement Announcement ----------------------------------------------------------- ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc. is facing class action and derivative lawsuits arising from its June 11, 2012 announcement of the restatement of its financial results, according to the Company's January 11, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 31, 2012. On February 15, 2012, the staff of the Division of Enforcement of the SEC initiated with the Company an informal inquiry, and later a formal action, regarding the Company's treatment of rebates associated with volume discounts provided by vendors. To date, the SEC has not asserted any formal claims. Following the June 11, 2012 announcement of the pending restatement (the "June 11, 2012 Announcement"), shareholders of the Company commenced three purported class actions in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts arising from the circumstances described in the June 11, 2012 Announcement (the "Securities Actions"), entitled, respectively: * Irene Collier, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, vs. ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc., Joseph C. Lawler and Steven G. Crane, Case 1:12-CV-11044- DJC, filed June 12, 2012 (the "Collier Action"); * Alexander Shnerer Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, vs. ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc., Joseph C. Lawler and Steven G. Crane, Case 1:12-CV-11078- DJC, filed June 18, 2012 (the "Shnerer Action"); and * Harold Heszkel, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc., Joseph C. Lawler, and Steven G. Crane, Case 1:12-CV-11279- DJC, filed July 11, 2012 (the "Heszkel Action"). Each of the Securities Actions purports to be brought on behalf of those persons who purchased shares of the Company between September 26, 2007 through and including June 8, 2012 (the "Class Period") and alleges that failure to timely disclose the issues raised in the June 11, 2012 Announcement during the Class Period rendered defendants' public statements concerning the Company's financial condition materially false and misleading in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On July 13, 2012, a fourth shareholder commenced a purported derivative action in United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company (as nominal defendants), and certain of its current and former directors and officers, entitled, Samuel Montini, Derivatively On Behalf Of ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc. v. Joseph C. Lawler, Steven G. Crane, Francis J. Jules, Virginia G. Breen, Michael J. Mardy, Edward E. Lucente, Jeffrey J. Fenton, Joseph M. O'Donnell, William R. McLennan, Thomas H. Johnson, And Anthony J. Bay, Defendants, And ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc., A Delaware Corporation, Nominal Defendant, Case 1:12-CV-11296-DJC and on July 31, 2012, a fifth shareholder commenced a purported derivative action in United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company (as nominal defendants), and certain of its current and former directors and officers, entitled, Edward Tansey, Derivatively On Behalf Of ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc. v. Joseph C. Lawler, Steven G. Crane, Francis J. Jules, Virginia G. Breen, Michael J. Mardy, Edward E. Lucente, Jeffrey J. Fenton, Joseph M. O'Donnell, William R. McLennan, Thomas H. Johnson, And Anthony J. Bay, Defendants, And ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc., A Delaware Corporation, Nominal Defendant, Civil Action No. 12-CV- 11399 (DJC) (collectively, the "Derivative Actions"). The Derivative Actions further assert that as a result of the individual defendants' alleged actions and course of conduct, the Company is now the subject of the Securities Actions and will incur related expenses and a possible judgment against it. These litigation matters also arise from the issues raised in the June 11, 2012 Announcement and allege that the individual defendants breached their duty of loyalty to the Company by allowing defendants to cause, or by themselves causing, the Company to make improper statements regarding its business prospects and/or by failing to prevent the other Individual Defendants from taking such purportedly illegal actions. Although there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome, the Company believes it has meritorious defenses, will deny liability, and intends to defend this litigation vigorously. On October 10, 2012, a sixth shareholder, Donald Reith, served upon the Company's Board of Directors a demand to institute litigation and take other purportedly necessary, but unidentified, remedial measures to redress and prevent a recurrence of purported breaches of fiduciary duties on the part of the Board and unspecified corporate officers allegedly arising from the same facts and circumstances asserted in the Derivative Actions. NEWS CORP: April 26 Hearing on "Forsta AP-Fonden" Suit Accord Set ----------------------------------------------------------------- In connection with the lawsuit captioned Forsta AP-Fonden v. News Corporation, et al., on January 11, 2013, News Corporation commenced mailing of the Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Settlement Hearing, and Right to Appear to holders of the Company's Class B common stock, par value $0.01 per share, in accordance with the Scheduling Order dated December 10, 2012, according to the Company's January 11, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Purpose of Notice Pursuant to an Order of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court") dated December 10, 2012, and further pursuant to Chancery Court Rule 23, the Notice is sent to all non- U.S. persons or entities, who held shares of Class B common stock of News Corporation, to inform them of (i) the Court's determination to provisionally certify, for purposes of the settlement only, the action as a non-opt-out class action pursuant to Chancery Court Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1) and (b)(2) on behalf of the Class, (ii) the proposed settlement of the Action (the "Settlement") as provided for in a Stipulation of Settlement (the "Stipulation") dated November 30, 2012, and (iii) their right to participate in a hearing to be held on April 26, 2013, at 10:00 a.m., before the Court of Chancery in the New Castle County Courthouse, at 500 North King Street, in Wilmington, Delaware 19801 (the "Settlement Hearing") to determine whether the Court should (a) finally certify the Action as a non-opt-out class action pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1) and (b)(2) of the Court of Chancery Rules; (b) certify named plaintiff Forsta AP-fonden ("Plaintiff") in the Action as representative of the Class, and Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A. and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as co-lead counsel; (c) approve the Settlement as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Class; and (d) consider a request for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to counsel for Plaintiff. If the Court approves the Settlement, the parties will ask the Court at the Settlement Hearing to enter an Order and Final Judgment dismissing the Action with prejudice in accordance with the terms of the Stipulation. The Court has the right to adjourn the Settlement Hearing without further notice. The Court also has the right to approve the Settlement with or without modifications, and to enter its final judgment dismissing the Action on the merits and with prejudice and to order the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses without further notice. Background of the Action On April 18, 2012, News Corp. announced that based on information then available to the Company, the Board determined that approximately 36% of the Company's Class B common stock was owned by Non-U.S. stockholders; and the combined ownership of Class A common stock and Class B common stock by Non-U.S. stockholders was approximately 22% of the combined outstanding shares of Class A common stock and Class B common stock. The Company advised that, under applicable U.S. federal law, no broadcast station licensee may be owned by a corporation if more than 25% of that corporation's stock is owned or voted by Non-U.S. Stockholders (the "Foreign Ownership Threshold"). The Company is the parent of broadcast station licensees in connection with its ownership and operation of 27 U.S. television stations. Based on its determination, the Company announced its decision to suspend 50 percent of the voting rights of News Corp. Class B common stock held by non-U.S. shareholders in order to remain in compliance with U.S. law governing the dissemination of broadcast licenses (the "Suspension"). The Board effected the Suspension in reliance upon authority granted pursuant to Article IV, Section 5 of the Company's certificate of incorporation. On April 18, 2012, the Murdoch Family Trust, the K.R. Murdoch 2004 Revocable Trust, K. Rupert Murdoch and his minor children (the "Murdoch Family Interests"), which owned approximately 39.7% of the Class B common stock, entered into an agreement with the Company, whereby the Murdoch Family Interests agreed to limit their voting rights during the Suspension period (the "Murdoch Letter Agreement"). On May 30, 2012, Plaintiff filed a verified class action complaint (the "Original Complaint") in the Court captioned Forsta AP-Fonden v. News Corporation et al., C.A. No. 7580-CS, against defendants News Corp., Jose Maria Aznar, Natalie Bancroft, Peter L. Barnes, James W. Breyer, Chase Carey, David F. DeVoe, Viet Dinh, Roderick I. Eddington, Joel I. Klein, Andrew S.B. Knight, K. Rupert Murdoch, James R. Murdoch, Lachlan K. Murdoch, Arthur M. Siskind, and John L. Thornton (the "Individual Defendants," and together with News Corp., the "Defendants"), alleging, among other things, that by enacting the Suspension the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties and the Defendants violated the Company's Certificate of Incorporation and Delaware statutory law. On May 30, 2012, Plaintiff also filed a motion to expedite proceedings and a motion for a preliminary injunction against the application and enforcement of the Suspension at any stockholder meeting where a stockholder vote is to take place, including the Company's 2012 annual meeting of the stockholders (the "Annual Meeting"). On June 11, 2012, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Original Complaint and a brief in support of the motion. On June 28, 2012, News Corp. announced that the board of directors had authorized management to explore the separation, into two separate public companies, of the Company's publishing business and its media and entertainment business (the "Separation"), and in connection therewith, it was anticipated that a special shareholder meeting will be convened during the first half of calendar 2013 to vote on the Separation. On July 24, 2012, Plaintiff's counsel provided to Defendants' counsel a final draft copy of Plaintiff's amended complaint. On August 1, 2012, Plaintiff served its first request for production of documents directed to Defendants. On August 2, 2012, Plaintiff filed a verified amended and supplemented class action complaint (the "Amended Complaint") that, in addition to the claims and allegations in the Original Complaint, sought a declaratory judgment of the right to vote on the Separation, among other things. On August 2, 2012, Plaintiff also filed an amended motion to expedite proceedings and an amended motion for a preliminary injunction against the application and enforcement of the Suspension at the Annual Meeting. On August 3, 2012, Plaintiff filed an opening brief in support of expedition. On August 9, 2012, News Corp. filed a Request for Declaratory Ruling with the Federal Communications Commission (the "FCC"), seeking permission from the FCC to allow all shares owned by the suspended non-U.S. stockholders to be voted in connection with the Separation. On August 9, 2012, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint and a brief in support of the motion and in opposition to Plaintiff's amended motion for expedited proceedings. On August 14, 2012, Plaintiff filed a reply brief in support of expedition. Counsel for the parties to the Action engaged in arm's-length negotiations and, on August 28, 2012, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the Action and, through their respective counsel, executed a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") memorializing the material terms of an agreement in principle to settle the Action. On September 6, 2012, Plaintiff's counsel submitted the MOU to the Court with a letter informing the Court that the parties had reached an agreement in principle to settle the Action. The Defendants provided to Plaintiff additional discovery as agreed by the parties ("Confirmatory Discovery") to further confirm the fairness and reasonableness of the Settlement. Specifically, Defendants provided Plaintiff with documents in response to Plaintiff's Second Request for Production of Documents and the deposition of Viet Dinh, an outside director of the Company. Reasons for the Settlement Plaintiff, through its counsel, completed an investigation of the claims and allegations asserted in the Action, as well as the underlying events that are relevant to the Suspension. In connection with their investigation, counsel for Plaintiff reviewed the confidential documents produced by Defendants, and have also conducted additional factual and legal research concerning the validity of Plaintiff's claims, including the deposition of Viet Dinh. While Plaintiff believes that the claims that it has asserted have merit, it also believes that the Settlement provides substantial benefits for the Class. Plaintiff and its counsel believe the benefits of the Settlement provide the Class with significant benefits designed to create more accountability and monitoring of the Company's foreign ownership levels and to minimize the effect of the Suspension while ensuring the Company's compliance with U.S. federal law governing foreign ownership and voting power by non-U.S. stockholders. In addition to the benefits provided by the Settlement to the Class, Plaintiff and its counsel have considered: (i) the attendant risks of continued litigation and the uncertainty of the outcome of the Action; (ii) the probability of success on the merits and the allegations contained in the Action; (iii) the desirability of permitting the Settlement to be consummated according to its terms; and (iv) whether the terms and conditions of the Settlement are fair, reasonable, and adequate, and that it is in the best interests of Plaintiff and members of the Class to settle the Action. Plaintiff and its counsel have determined that a settlement of the Action on the terms reflected in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Class. Defendants have vigorously denied, and continue to deny: (i) any wrongdoing or liability with respect to all claims, events, and transactions complained of in the Action; (ii) that they engaged in any wrongdoing; (iii) that they committed any violation of law; (iv) that they breached or aided and abetted any breach of any fiduciary or disclosure duties; (v) that they acted improperly in any way; and (vi) any liability of any kind to Plaintiff or the Class in the Action. Notwithstanding their denial of liability, in order to: (i) avoid the distraction, burden, and expense of further litigation; (ii) dispose of potentially burdensome and protracted litigation; and (iii) finally put to rest and terminate the claims asserted in the Action, Defendants consider it desirable that the Action be settled and dismissed on the merits, with prejudice, and without costs to any party (except as set forth). Plaintiff's entry into the Settlement is not an admission as to the lack of any merit of any of the claims asserted in the Action. Settlement In consideration for the settlement and dismissal with prejudice of the Action and the releases provided herein, News Corp. will file a petition (the "Petition") with the FCC requesting certain relief within five business days after entry of an order by the Court of Chancery approving the Settlement. Plaintiff will have the opportunity to review and comment on the Petition. Subject to reasonable objection by the Company's counsel -- including Delaware counsel, other outside counsel, FCC counsel, and in-house counsel -- the Company will incorporate Plaintiff's comments in the Petition. For the avoidance of doubt, the parties agree that the filing of the Petition, and not the result (if any), together with the other terms, constitutes the consideration for any settlement. None of the parties knows how or when the FCC will rule on the Petition, so the Company is under no further obligation to take any other action with respect to the requested relief if the FCC denies or fails to act on the Petition. For the avoidance of doubt, the Company will timely respond to objections or opposition and will cooperate with and respond to requests for information or questions (if any) from the FCC, as soon as reasonably practicable after such requests are made. The Company will not otherwise be required to take action relating to the Petition and the requested relief. The Petition to the FCC will request permission to comply with 47 U.S.C. Section 310(b)(4) for any meeting of stockholders of the Company (or any Company successor holding the Company's broadcast licenses) in the following manner: The current Suspension will remain in place for each vote of stockholders, provided that the Audit Committee of the Company's board of directors (the "Audit Committee") will modify or withdraw the Suspension if it determines that a reduction in foreign voting power warrants the change. Notwithstanding the foregoing sentence, for each vote of its stockholders to which the Suspension would apply, the Company would (i) determine the number of shares held by foreign stockholders that are present at the meeting and that would be entitled to vote but for the Suspension, and (ii) count as votes cast all voted shares held by foreign stockholders, up to a total of 25 percent of the shares voted. If voted shares held by foreign stockholders represent more than 25 percent of the shares voted, the shares voted by foreign stockholders would be reduced pro rata until the voted shares held by foreign stockholders represent only 25 percent of the shares voted. The Company will amend the Audit Committee Charter to provide that the Audit Committee will determine on a regular basis the total number of voting shares held by non-U.S. citizens. The Audit Committee's determination will be made at least annually and disclosed in the Company's annual meeting proxy materials, except that in connection with the 2012 Annual Meeting of stockholders the Company announced the change in additional proxy materials. The Audit Committee will have the power and authority of the Company's board of directors to modify or eliminate the then- existing Suspension percentage based on that determination. The Audit Committee will seek to modify the then-existing Suspension percentage in such a way as to reduce the number of shares suspended to the lowest number that the Audit Committee determines, in the exercise of its business judgment, will provide adequate protection against exceeding the 25 percent threshold in the circumstances, taking into account all information reasonably available to it. The Company will not alter the agreed-upon procedure as long as it is subject to 47 U.S.C. Section 310(b)(4). On September 28, 2012, News Corp. announced that the Audit Committee conducted a review of News Corp.'s foreign ownership and reduced the percentage of shares affected by the Suspension to 40% from 50%. In connection with the 2012 Annual Meeting and pursuant to 8 Del. C. Section 213(a), the Company set two record dates. The Company set a record date at least 55 days before the 2012 Annual Meeting for determining the stockholders entitled to notice of the 2012 Annual Meeting. The Company set an additional record date 20 days before the 2012 Annual Meeting for determining the stockholders entitled to vote at the 2012 Annual Meeting so as to enable the Audit Committee to review information from stockholders and, as it deemed appropriate in accordance herewith, modified the Suspension percentage from 50% to 40%. Additionally, the proxy cards and ballots for the 2012 Annual Meeting requested stockholders to confirm their citizenship. The Company will not act to give its consent to amend, modify or terminate the Murdoch Letter Agreement without prior approval of the Audit Committee upon a determination that any such amendment, modification or termination is in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders. To the extent that the Audit Committee determines to amend, modify or terminate the Murdoch Letter Agreement in connection with any vote related to the Separation, the Audit Committee shall only do so by unanimous vote of the Committee. Plaintiff provided comments on the draft proxy statement for the 2012 Annual Meeting. The Company considered and included comments provided by Plaintiff. Without admitting any wrongdoing, Defendants acknowledge that the filing and prosecution of the Action and negotiations between the parties' counsel resulted in Defendants' agreement to enter into the Settlement. Defendants have denied and continue to deny committing, threatening, or attempting to commit any violation of law or breach of any duty to Plaintiff, News Corp.'s shareholders, or any other person or entity. Defendants are entering into this Settlement solely because it will eliminate the uncertainty, distraction, burden, and expense of further litigation. Class Action Certification The Court has provisionally ordered that, for settlement purposes only, the Action shall be maintained as a non-opt-out class action pursuant to Court of Chancery Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1) and (b)(2) on behalf of any and all non-U.S. holders of News Corp. Class B common stock between April 18, 2012, and October 16, 2012, including any and all of their respective successors in interest, predecessors, representatives, trustees, executors, administrators, heirs, assigns or transferees, immediate and remote, and any person or entity acting for or on behalf of, or claiming under, any of them, and each of them (the "Class"), but excluding Defendants and Released Persons. Settlement Hearing The Court has scheduled a Settlement Hearing which will be held on April 26, 2013, at 10:00 a.m., in the New Castle County Courthouse, at 500 North King Street, in Wilmington, Delaware 19801, to: (a) determine whether the provisional class action certification should be made final; (b) determine whether the Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Class; (c) determine whether an Order and Final Judgment should be entered pursuant to the Stipulation; (d) consider Plaintiff's counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses; and (e) rule on such other matters as the Court may deem appropriate. The Court has reserved the right to adjourn the Settlement Hearing or any adjournment thereof, including consideration of the application for attorneys' fees, without further notice of any kind other than oral announcement at the Settlement Hearing or any adjournment thereof. The Court has also reserved the right to approve the Settlement at or after the Settlement Hearing with such modification(s) as may be consented to by the parties to the Stipulation and without further notice to the Class. PATRIOT COAL: Brower Piven Named Lead Counsel in Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ERNESTO ESPINOZA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. RICHARD M. WHITING and MARK N. SCHROEDER, Defendants, Nos. 4:12cv1711 SNLJ, 4:12cv1815 RSW, Consolidated No. 4:12cv2167 FRB (E.D. Mo.), District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh appointed: (a) the Patriot Coal Investor Group -- consisting of Dr. Jan Arnett, Douglas Keehn, Dennis Doucet, Kevin Lowery, and Thomas J. Podraza -- as Lead Plaintiff for the Class pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(3)(B), as amended by Section 101(b) of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995; (b) Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, the Patriot Coal Investor Group's lawyers, to serve as Lead Counsel; and (c) Holland, Groves, Schneller & Stolze, LLC, to serve as Liaison Counsel. The Court denied the request for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel filed by (1) John Ziants; (2) James Karas and Denis Dehne; (3) James Schmitt, Karel Rybacek, and Douglas Combs; (4) the Cambridge Retirement System; and (6) Richard Sitko. The consolidated securities class action cases are brought on behalf of all persons who purchased Patriot Coal Corporation securities between Oct. 21, 2010 and July 6, 2012 against certain officers of Patriot Coal. The officers are alleged to have made false and misleading statements concerning Patriot Coal's court- ordered environmental remediation efforts. A copy of the Court's Jan. 16, 2013 Memorandum and Order is available at http://is.gd/A0Dw94from Leagle.com. About Patriot Coal St. Louis-based Patriot Coal Corporation (NYSE: PCX) is a producer and marketer of coal in the eastern United States, with 13 active mining complexes in Appalachia and the Illinois Basin. The Company ships to domestic and international electricity generators, industrial users and metallurgical coal customers, and controls roughly 1.9 billion tons of proven and probable coal reserves. Patriot Coal and nearly 100 affiliates filed voluntary Chapter 11 petitions in U.S. bankruptcy court in Manhattan (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Lead Case No. 12-12900) on July 9, 2012. Patriot said it had $3.57 billion of assets and $3.07 billion of debts, and has arranged $802 million of financing to continue operations during the reorganization. Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP is serving as legal advisor, Blackstone Advisory Partners LP is serving as financial advisor, and AP Services, LLC is providing interim management services to Patriot in connection with the reorganization. Ted Stenger, a Managing Director at AlixPartners LLP, the parent company of AP Services, has been named Chief Restructuring Officer of Patriot, reporting to the Chairman and CEO. GCG, Inc. serves as claims and noticing agent. The U.S. Trustee appointed a seven-member creditors committee. Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP serves as its counsel. Houlihan Lokey Capital, Inc., serves as its financial advisor and investment banker. Epiq Bankruptcy Solutions, LLC, serves as its information agent. On Nov. 27, 2012, the New York bankruptcy judge moved Patriot's bankruptcy case to St. Louis. The order formally sending the reorganization to Missouri was signed December 19 by the bankruptcy judge. POWERTEC INC: Recalls 565 Weight Workbenches Due to Injury Hazard ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Powertec, Inc., of Long Beach, California, announced a voluntary recall of about 565 Weight Workbenches. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The weld on the backrest adjustment brackets of the weight workbench can break, posing an injury hazard to consumers. Powertec is aware of one incident involving a minor injury. The recalled workbenches are free-standing and typically used for free weight workouts. They have black, square tube, steel bases with a jet black, vinyl, adjustable bench seat and backrest. "Powertec" is embossed on the backrest pad and printed on a sticker located on the upright or the base frame of the workbench. Model names and numbers included in this recall are listed in the table below. The model name and number are located on the product's packaging. Model Name Model No. Key Features ---------- --------- ------------ Workbench Multipress WB-MP11 Multi-press component with Isolateral Arms and optional leg lift attachment Workbench Olympic Bench WB-OB11 Adjustable bench rack and optional leg lift attachment Workbench Utility Bench WB-UB11 Optional leg lift attachment Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13096.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at specialty fitness stores nationwide and online at www.powertecfitness.com from September 2011 to May 2012 for between $299 and $549. Consumers should immediately stop using the product until they order and install a free safety retrofit repair kit. Consumers can also return the product for a full refund. To order the free repair kit or for instructions on receiving a full refund, contact Powertec toll-free at (877) 525-5710 any time, send an e-mail to Info@PowertecFitness.com, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.PowertecFitness.com/and click on Important Safety Notice. RED BULL: Faces Suit Over False Claims on Energy Drink ------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that Red Bull pushes its "energy drink" with false claims about its effects, a class action claims in Federal Court. SUPERVALU INC: Continues to Defend Suit Over C&S Transaction ------------------------------------------------------------ SuperValu Inc. continues to defend itself against a lawsuit arising from a 2003 transaction with C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., according to the Company's January 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 1, 2012. In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin against the Company alleging that a 2003 transaction between the Company and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. ("C&S") was a conspiracy to restrain trade and allocate markets. In the 2003 transaction, the Company purchased certain assets of the Fleming Corporation as part of Fleming Corporation's bankruptcy proceedings and sold certain assets of the Company to C&S which were located in New England. Since December 2008, three other retailers have filed similar complaints in other jurisdictions. The cases have been consolidated and are proceeding in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The complaints allege that the conspiracy was concealed and continued through the use of non- compete and non-solicitation agreements and the closing down of the distribution facilities that the Company and C&S purchased from each other. Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. On July 16, 2012, the Court denied plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The case is now limited to the two named retailers as plaintiffs. The Company says it is vigorously defending these lawsuits. Predicting the outcomes of claims and litigation and estimating related costs and exposures involves substantial uncertainties that could cause actual outcomes, costs and exposures to vary materially from current expectations. The Company regularly monitors its exposure to the loss contingencies associated with these matters and may from time to time change its predictions with respect to outcomes and its estimates with respect to related costs and exposures. With respect to the matter, the Company believes the chance of a negative outcome is remote. It is possible, although management believes it is remote, that material differences in actual outcomes, costs and exposures relative to current predictions and estimates, or material changes in such predictions or estimates, could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. SUPERVALU INC: Wisconsin Suit Remains Stayed Pending IOS Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- In September 2008, a class action complaint was filed against SuperValu Inc., as well as International Outsourcing Services, LLC ("IOS"), Inmar, Inc., Carolina Manufacturer's Services, Inc., Carolina Coupon Clearing, Inc. and Carolina Services, in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The plaintiffs in the case are a consumer goods manufacturer, a grocery co-operative and a retailer marketing services company who allege on behalf of a purported class that the Company and the other defendants (i) conspired to restrict the markets for coupon processing services under the Sherman Act and (ii) were part of an illegal enterprise to defraud the plaintiffs under the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. The Company says it intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit, however all proceedings have been stayed in the case pending the result of the criminal prosecution of certain former officers of IOS. No further updates were reported in the Company's January 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 1, 2012. Predicting the outcomes of claims and litigation and estimating related costs and exposures involves substantial uncertainties that could cause actual outcomes, costs and exposures to vary materially from current expectations. The Company regularly monitors its exposure to the loss contingencies associated with these matters and may from time to time change its predictions with respect to outcomes and its estimates with respect to related costs and exposures. With respect to the matter, the Company believes the chance of a negative outcome is remote. It is possible, although management believes it is remote, that material differences in actual outcomes, costs and exposures relative to current predictions and estimates, or material changes in such predictions or estimates, could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. SYNGENTA CROP: Sends Checks Under $105-MM Atrazine Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- The St. Louis law firm of Korein Tillery announced on Jan. 16 that checks are now being sent to water systems across the country in the final phase of a class action settlement with Syngenta, the largest manufacturer of the weed killer atrazine. (City of Greenville v. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., Case No.: 3:10-cv- 00188-JPG-PMF) A suspected endocrine disruptor, atrazine is the subject of an Environmental Protection Agency special review to determine its connection to possible adverse health problems, especially in developing fetuses. Tens of millions of pounds of the weed killer are sprayed on new corn crops each year, much of which ends up in the rivers and streams providing water to communities across the country. The Swiss company Syngenta is the largest manufacturer of atrazine in the world. Although banned in Europe, (International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health) atrazine continues to be heavily used in this country. A growing number of independent scientists in the United States are calling for tighter restrictions here too. Stephen M. Tillery -- STillery@koreintillery.com -- senior partner of Korein Tillery, said, "Science has been fighting an uphill battle against giant pesticide manufacturers like Syngenta who claim that a little weed killer in your drinking water won't hurt you. Independent scientists now believe that even trace amounts can harm you and your children for generations to come." The settlement was meant to help reimburse communities for past expenses associated with the removal of atrazine. Mr. Tillery said the percentage of participation by class members was unprecedented. "Every cent of the settlement fund will be distributed to class members." Nearly 1100 community water providers filed claims and are receiving a portion of the fund. For more information visit http://www.atrazinesettlement.com Korein Tillery is an AV-rated, award-winning law firm with offices in St. Louis and Chicago that has won significant verdicts and settlements over the past decade in Class Action, ERISA/Pension Fund Litigation, and Environmental Litigation. The firm represents individuals and businesses in local, state, federal and international venues in complex multi-party litigation. SYNGENTA CROP: Jasper City Gets Share in Atrazine Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ According to Dubois County Free Press, the Jasper Municipal Utilities has received $110,466.33 as a result of the $105 million settlement of a class action lawsuit over atrazine. The Jasper Water Treatment Facility removes the chemical from the city's water supply and the settlement funds are intended to help reimburse the costs of removing the weed killer from the Jasper community water system. Atrazine is sprayed on corn and other crops and frequently runs off of fields and into waterways used as drinking water sources. "The City of Jasper, through its water utility, has constructed and maintained a cutting edge water treatment system designed to protect and provide clean drinking water to its customers," said Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP attorney Bill Kaiser -- bkaiser@bgdlegal.com -- who represented Jasper Municipal Utilities in the suit. "This settlement will help defray some of the costs associated with the future maintenance of this system." The St. Louis law firm of Korein Tillery and the Dallas law firm of Barron & Budd have represented water providers across the country against Syngenta, the world's largest atrazine manufacturer, based in Switzerland. Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP served as the local counsel for Jasper Municipal Utilities. The local utility was one of 1,085 water systems, providing water to nearly 37 million people, to benefit from this settlement. Individual amounts were calculated based on the contamination history of the claimants. Settlement facts: * 1,085 cities and towns across America filed settlement claims. * Settlement amounts were determined by past atrazine detections. * The case was originally filed in Illinois in 2004, but expanded to other states in 2010. * The law firms involved were Korein Tillery of St. Louis, Baron & Budd of Dallas, and Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP of Jasper. * On October 23, 2012 a federal judge in Illinois approved the $105 million settlement. * About 37 million people live in the areas served by the claimants in this case. The judge ruled that it is up to the water providers and the local governments to determine how these funds are used. Jasper Municipal Utilities manager Bud Hauersperger was unavailable for comment when this report was published. TARGET CORP: Recalls 168,000 Hand-Held Air Misters -------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Target Corp., of Minneapolis, Minnesota, announced a voluntary recall of about 168,000 Hand-Held Air Misters. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The Air Mister can shatter during use, posing an injury hazard. Target has received three reports of incidents of misters shattering, including one in which a consumer received lacerations. The recall is for hand-held devices designed to spray a mist for personal cooling. The Air Misters are 8 inches tall and hold 2 ounces of water at the "Fill" line. They are clear plastic cylinders with colored tops and bases. The tops and bases come in black, blue, green and pink. A nylon carrying strap is attached to the tops. Instructions for use are written in white lettering on the outside of the clear plastic cylinder. Picture of the recalled products is available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13097.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold exclusively at Target stores nationwide from February 2012 to May 2012 for approximately $2.50. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled misters and return them to any Target store for a full refund. Target Guest Relations may be reached at (800) 440-0680 from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday, or online at http://www.target.com/,click on Product Recalls at the bottom of the page, and then select Sports, Outdoor & Recreation. UNITIL CORP: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in Suit vs. Fitchburg --------------------------------------------------------------- The Massachusetts' Worcester Superior Court denied a motion to certify a class in the lawsuit captioned Bellerman et al v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company, according to Unitil Corporation's January 11, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In early 2009, a putative class action complaint was filed against Unitil Corporation's (the "Company") Massachusetts based utility, Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company ("Fitchburg"), in Massachusetts' Worcester Superior Court (the "Court"), (captioned Bellerman et al v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company). As previously reported, the complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, including the cost of temporary housing and alternative fuel sources, emotional and physical pain and suffering and property damages allegedly incurred by customers in connection with the loss of electric service during the ice storm in Fitchburg's service territory in December 2008. Following several years of discovery, the plaintiffs in the complaint filed a motion with the Court to certify the case as a class action. On January 7, 2013, the Court issued its decision denying plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a class action. As a result of this decision, the lawsuit will now continue with only the twelve named plaintiffs seeking damages. Future proceedings may include an appeal of this decision or a trial on the claims of the twelve named plaintiffs. The Company continues to believe the lawsuit is without merit and will defend itself vigorously. US CENTURY: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over TARP Funds ---------------------------------------------------------- Brian Bandell, writing for South Florida Business Journal, reports that a lawsuit filed on behalf of minority shareholders alleges U.S. Century Bank and some of its directors depleted the bank's capital and wasted taxpayer funds for personal benefit. The complaint, which seeks class action status for more than 400 minority shareholders, says the taxpayer TARP funds were "squandered" and used to "bail out" the business ventures of certain current and former directors. Many of the minority shareholders are professionals and small business owners who were customers of the bank. U.S. Century Bank is the nation's largest "undercapitalized" bank and in urgent need of capital after its sale to C1 Bank fell through in December. The Doral-based bank also owes the federal government $50.2 million borrowed from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). The minority shareholders would have recovered only 1.5 cents on the dollar if the C1 Bank deal had gone through and taxpayers faced a major haircut on TARP. Coral Gables attorney Gonzalo Dorta represents shareholder Jesus R. Tome, who is also an attorney, and his wife in the class action lawsuit filed on Jan. 9. Mr. Dorta is also the attorney representing the Tomes, along with six other U.S. Century Bank shareholders, in a lawsuit filed in November for breach of contract against the bank and also as a shareholder derivative action demanding that the current and former directors pay damages to the bank to compensate for the money they allegedly deprived it of. U.S. Century Bank has vowed to fight the November lawsuit. The bank's spokeswoman declined comment on the latest lawsuit. There's a strategy behind Mr. Dorta's multiple types of claims. Winning a shareholder class action lawsuit against U.S. Century Bank at the moment would essentially be futile because the bank is low on capital. Winning a derivative claim against its current and former directors might result in them paying the bank, which would provide money to pay the shareholder class action claim. The bank has a $20 million directors and officers liability insurance policy that could potentially be tapped to pay claims, according to U.S. Century Bank shareholder documents. Some of its current and former directors are successful businessmen. "The matters alleged are quite serious. It remains to be seen if the plaintiffs can prove them," said non-party to the litigation Barton S. Sacher, founding shareholder of Sacher, Zelman, Hartman, Paul, Beiley & Sacher, P.A. and a former senior enforcement attorney for the Securities and Exchange Commission. "I would be surprised if the regulators, whether it's the FDIC, the SEC or others, are not already looking into these allegations." Among those currently at the bank, the class action lawsuit names Chairman Ramon Rasco, a partner in Coral Gables-based law firm Rasco, Klock, Reininger, Perez, Esquenazi, Vigil & Nieto, and President and CEO Carlos Davila. The complaint also names former directors Sergio Pino, the head of Century Homebuilders; Carlos M. Garcia, a developer; Armando Guerra, a real estate investor and former VP of Sedano's Pharmacy; Agustin Herran, a developer and president of Sedano's Supermarkets; Manuel Herran, chairman of Sedano's Supermarkets; Rodney Barreto, a developer and head of consulting firm Floridian Partners; and former senior lending officer Abel Montouri. Mr. Barreto is one of the key figures working to bring the Super Bowl back to Miami Gardens and a major advocate involving in securing public funding for the renovation of Sun Life Stadium. The complaint charges that the bank directors abused their power to exploit business opportunities and advance risky extensions of credit to keep their development projects and business ventures from insolvency at the expense of minority shareholders. The directors secured U.S. Century Bank loans for their family, friends and business associates at unusually favorable terms not available to other customers, the complaint says. "Upon information and belief, the TARP money was used to bail out and rescue the collapsing business and real estate investments of the controlling shareholders and directors, Rasco, Pino, Garcia, Guerra and the Herrans," the complaint stated. The complaint cited the nine U.S. Century Bank branches leased to directors at rates allegedly higher than market rates and $22 million in insider transactions they benefited from. The Business Journal detailed those insider transactions, such as leases, legal fees and asset sales, in December. Another Business Journal story found that bank insiders benefited by about $16.8 million from 2006 through 2009 by receiving more favorable loan and deposit rates than non-insider customers. The charges against the bank in the complaint include breach of fiduciary duty, negligence and waste of corporate assets for not properly overseeing the lending functions of the bank and allowing it to act as a "lending pool" for the speculative real estate projects of directors. The breach of fiduciary duty charge is also made against the individual directors and officers and named wrongful acts they allegedly did. All of the directors were charged with failing to monitor insider lending to board members and allowing branches to be placed in locations that benefited Messrs. Pino, Guerra and Agustin Herran. Mr. Pino responds "I recommended hundreds of customers to U.S. Century Bank," Mr. Pino said in an e-mail. "At no time I participated in decision making on a loan or a branch site where I or my family had an interest in it. It is my understanding that every loan was done with the support of professional appraisals with the support of our own U.S. Century Bank professional management and the support of the most decent fellow board members that I have ever worked with and excluding my participation." Mr. Pino added that professional appraisals were ordered for the branch sites. For Mr. Pino individually, the complaint says that he used U.S. Century Bank to finance buyers in his real estate developments, including Century Gardens Village in Kendall, and the loans were often under-collateralized and poorly underwritten, which led to many foreclosures. A search of court records by the Business Journal found that U.S. Century bank held 35 loans for a total of $7.2 million in three Century Homebuilders projects in Miami-Dade County. Most of the loans were made in 2009 -- a year when home sales were tough to finance. Mr. Pino confirmed that some of the borrowers were U.S. Century Bank shareholders as well. "We have never used U.S. Century Bank to fund my products," Mr. Pino said. "Those you mention in Gardens Village were loans to U.S. Century Bank shareholders who happen to buy a house from Century Garden Village. It is my understanding they are the best loans U.S. Century Bank currently have (sic) on their real estate portfolio." The complaint alleges that Mr. Pino's loans from U.S. Century Bank were on terms more favorable than what other customers received. It also says that he used U.S. Century Bank to help him sell depreciating real estate assets. Public records show that U.S. Century Bank gave a $15.8 million loan to DYL Merrick Park Development for a site in Coral Gables that it bought for $24.5 million in 2006 from Mr. Pino's Merrick Arc, which paid only $11.2 million for it two years earlier. The loan wound up in foreclosure -- and that's not the only time such a situation happened. Mr. Pino said he never encouraged the bank to make any deals. The complaint also charges Messrs. Agustin Herran and Guerra for using U.S. Century Bank to help him dispose of depreciated real estate assets. For Mr. Barreto, the complaint says he had the bank restructure a $17.5 million U.S. Century Bank loan on several gas stations on terms highly favorable to him after he left the bank. Mr. Barreto previously defended the interest rate reduction on that loan in a Business Journal story. In Mr. Rasco's case, the complaint says he amassed nearly $2 million in legal fees from the bank for primarily insider loan closings (a monetary figure confirmed by the bank's financial filings) and authorizing loans to his political friends, as well as the partners, secretaries and staff members of his law firm, on favorable terms. For Mr. Garcia, the complaint says he utilized his director status to have U.S. Century Bank buy a Homestead property from him for $1.6 million, only to sell it in 2012 for $575,000 -- without building a branch there. As to current CEO Davila, who joined the bank in September, and Mr. Montouri, the complaint says they breached their fiduciary duty by failing to monitor insider loans and transactions and promoting an "elite lending program" with less underwriting scrutiny for friends and affiliates of board members and controlling shareholders. At the same time, the derivative lawsuit was amended for a third time to include many of the allegations against directors present in the minority shareholder class action. However, former U.S. Century Bank CEO Octavio Hernandez was voluntarily dismissed from that lawsuit. The plaintiff attorney declined to say why. UTILIQUEST LLC: Failed to Pay Regular & Overtime Wages, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey H. Allen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. UtiliQuest, LLC, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CGC-12-525644 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., October 31, 2012) is filed by employees of UtiliQuest. The Plaintiff alleges that UtiliQuest failed to properly calculate and pay its employees' regular and overtime pay. He adds that UtiliQuest failed to pay earned wages, to issue wage instruments in conformity with the California Labor Code, to provide accurate wage statements and to provide meal period breaks. Mr. Allen was a resident of the state of California during the entire time that he worked for UtiliQuest. UtiliQuest is a Georgia limited liability company headquartered in Alpharetta, Georgia. The identities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown. The Company removed the lawsuit on January 4, 2013, from the Superior Court of the state of California, County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. UtiliQuest argues that the removal is proper because the parties are from different states. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:13-cv-00049 to the proceeding. The Defendants are represented by: Eric S. Beane, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 2000 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 400 North Tower Los Angeles, CA 90067-4704 Telephone: (310) 595-3000 Facsimile: (310) 595-3300 E-mail: eric.beane@dlapiper.com WESTERN HEALTH: Feb. 8 Class Action Case Management Meeting Set --------------------------------------------------------------- Diane Crocker, writing for The Western Star, reports that a case management meeting in the breach of privacy lawsuits filed against Western Health is scheduled to take place at the Supreme Court in Corner Brook on Feb. 8. Scott Burden, of Brothers and Burden Law Office, is representing some 250 to 300 people who had their personal information inappropriately accessed by a former employee of the health authority. The breach was uncovered last May following an investigation into a complaint. The investigation looked at the access to patient records from June 2011 to May 2012 and found that 1,043 files had been inappropriately accessed. Western Health went public with the breach on Aug. 1 and said it would be sending letters of apology to those affected. The employee involved was fired and at the time Susan Gillam, CEO of the health authority, said it would not be pursuing criminal charges against that person. In the weeks that followed two class-action lawsuits were filed with the Supreme Court. Mr. Burden's suit names Valerie Dyke and Catherine Allen-Vater as representative plaintiffs and lists Donna Colbourne, the former clerk accused of the breach, and Western Health as defendants. A suit being handled by St. John's lawyer Bob Buckingham lists Barbara Hynes as the representative plaintiff. Mr. Burden said on Jan. 16 that Western Health has not filed a statement of defense in response to the statements of claim filed against it. However, he said that was "nothing unexpected," as the rules don't indicate the health authority has to do so. Mr. Burden said during the case management meeting all sides will receive direction from the judge on how the matter should proceed. The next step would involve having the class-action certified, but Mr. Burden noted it's too early in the process to discuss that. * Increase in Employment Class Actions to Continue This Year ------------------------------------------------------------ Bethany Krajelis, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record, reports that employment class action law and collective action litigation will become more sophisticated and continue to expose employers to significant financial costs this year, a new report shows. Released earlier last week by Seyfarth, Shaw LLP, the Ninth Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report analyzes 2012's landmark rulings on employment-related disputes and predicts several trends for class action attorneys and employers to keep an eye on in 2013. Gerald L. Matman Jr., co-chair of the firm's class action litigation practice group in Chicago, served as the report's general editor. "The events of the past year in the workplace class action world demonstrate the array of bet-the-company litigation issues that businesses face continue to evolve on a landscape that is undergoing significant change," the report asserts. Employers, the report adds, should expect that these types of lawsuits "increasingly will combine claims under multiple statutes, thereby requiring the defense bar to have a cross- disciplinary understanding of substantive employment law," among other procedures. With more governmental enforcement litigation and regulatory oversight of workplace issues last year than in previous years, the report also suggests that businesses will face challenges "to integrate their litigation and risk mitigation strategies to navigate these exposures." According to the report, 2012 saw "significant change for workplace class action litigation" thanks to a trio of 2011 U.S. Supreme Court decisions handed down in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, et al.; AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, et al; and Smith, et al. v Bayer Corp. Referring to it as the "800-pound gorilla" in the courtroom last year, the report notes that the Wal-Mart ruling "had a wide- ranging impact on virtually all types of class actions pending in both federal and state courts throughout the nation." In analyzing more than 1,000 decisions, the report shows that as of the close of 2012, "Wal-Mart had been cited a total of 541 times in lower court rulings, a remarkable figure for a decision rendered in June of 2011." The court in Wal-Mart overturned a district court order that certified a class seeking relief and back-pay, holding that individualized monetary relief claims can't be certified under Rule 23, which governs class actions in federal courts. "Rule 23 decisions in 2012 pivoted off of Wal-Mart and leverage points in class action litigation increased or decreased depending on the manner in which judges interpreted and applied Wal-Mart," the report states. Besides its finding over individualized monetary relief claims, the Wal-Mart ruling, according to the report, clarified Rule 23's commonality requirement and rejected previous readings of Supreme Court precedent on the rule's burden of proof. "As a result, Wal-Mart fostered a tidal wave of decisions in 2012, as litigants and courts grappled with the ruling's implications in a wide variety of class action litigation contexts," the report states. The court in Concepcion, according to the report, determined that the Federal Arbitration Act preempted state precedent in California that deemed class action waivers in consumer contracts unenforceable. "The decision has been hailed by business interests, which prefers the speed and efficiency of bilateral arbitration for resolving claims arising from consumer and employment contracts," the report states. "Consumer and civil rights advocates suggest the decision closes the door on many small-dollar consumer claims and allows corporations to perpetrate frauds unchecked." This ruling, according to the report, had been cited in 325 rulings by the end of last year. Both the rulings in Wal-Mart and Concepcion "had a profound influence in shaping the course of class action litigation rulings in 2012, beginning a new wave of creative case law theories that will continue to evolve and impact employers in the defense of their cases in 2013," the report states. The report notes that these two rulings have spurred courts to review previous class certification orders in pending cases and defendants to file new motions to decertify classes. This point about "creative case law theories" was listed as one of six emerging trends that Seyfarth's report suggests employers pay attention to this year. Another trend, according to the report, is the impact of the Wal- Mart ruling on settlement strategies. "Employers settled fewer employment discrimination class actions and at a fraction of the levels experienced from 2006 to 2011," the report states, adding that a total of about $48 million was reported for the top 10 settlements in 2012, compared to $363 million in 2010. As a result, the report states that "the plaintiffs' class action bar is 're-booting' its approach to class litigation and this trend may reverse itself in 2013." In addition, the report points to government enforcement as another emerging trend for 2013. The report shows that more discrimination charges were filed with the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 2012 than in all but one previous year in the commission's 48-year history, making 2013 ripe for the filing of these lawsuits. The EEOC's investigation program, which identifies claims affecting large groups of alleged victims, saw a four-fold increase last year from 2011, a trend of "significant importance to employers, for it evidences an agency with a laser-focus on high-impact, big stakes litigation." The report also hypothesizes that last year's increase in class action and collective action filings will continue in 2013 "as businesses retool operations in an improving economy and the Obama Administration renews an emphasis on enforcing workplace laws." In addition, the report notes that wage and hour litigation will continue to outpace other types of workplace class actions. It shows that nearly 900 more Fair Labor Standards Act lawsuits were filed in 2012 than in 2011. "Significant growth in wage and hour litigation also was centered at the state court level, and especially in California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Washington," the report states. It adds, "The crest of the wave of wage and hour litigation is still not in sight and this trend is likely to continue in 2013." The report also stresses the need for attorneys to pay attention to the "new approaches to class-wide theories of certification, liability and damages related to the Rule 23 developments" that came out of the Wal-Mart decision. "The tight-knit plaintiffs' class action bar has moved quickly to respond to Wal-Mart and craft new approaches," the report states, adding that this has "in turn impacted defense litigation strategies." One of the main lessons to learn from last year, according to Seyfarth's report, is that the plaintiffs' bar and governmental enforcement attorneys "are apt to be equally, if not more, aggressive in 2013 in bringing class action and collective action litigation against employers." ********* 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 * * *