/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/130219.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, February 19, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 35 Headlines 1-800-FLOWERS.COM: Plaintiffs Seek Consolidation of New Suit A123 SYSTEMS: Bankruptcy Plan Classifies Securities Claims AMERIGAS PARTNERS: "Swigers" Suit Remains Stayed in West Virginia AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORP: Posts $12.3MM Gain From Class Suit Accord ARLINGTON ASSET: Strikes Agreement to Settle "Hildene" Suit CELANESE CORP: Awaits Appellate Ruling in Remaining Plumbing Suit CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Defends Two Securities Class Suits in Colorado CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Reconsideration Bid in ADA Suit Denied in Jan. COINSTAR INC: Awaits Ruling on Class Cert. Bid in "Piechur" Suit COINSTAR INC: Continues to Defend Privacy Class Suit vs. Redbox COINSTAR INC: "DiSimone/Sinibaldi" Appeal Stayed Until March 7 COINSTAR INC: Shareholder Derivative Suits Resolved and Dismissed CORVEL CORP: Final Accounting of "Roche" Suit Deal Completed CORVEL CORP: Still Completing Dismissal of "Williams" Suit Claims CRAMER LLC: Recalls 6,500 Folding Step Stools Due to Fall Hazard CST BRANDS: Awaits Final OK of Fuel Temperature Suit Settlement CST BRANDS: Price Fixing Class Suits Remain Pending in Canada DFC GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Canadian Class Suits vs. Units EAGLE MATERIALS: American Gypsum Faces Antitrust Class Suits EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Awaits Ruling in "Bushansky" Class Suit EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk "OLERS" Suit ERIE INDEMNITY: Faces Insurance Exchange Suit in Pennsylvania JOHN DEERE: Recalls 4,700 Gator Utility Vehicles Due to Fire Risk NATROL INC: Faces Marketing Fraud Suit Over Lycopene Product PAIN THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Texas PERFECT PASTA: Recalls 315 Lbs. of RTE Roast Beef Products RAYMOND JAMES: Settlement of Closed End Funds Suits Approved UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Amended Consolidated Suit Filed UGI CORP: "Swigers" Class Suit Remains Stayed in West Virginia UNION PACIFIC: Awaits Ruling on Petition Related to Class Cert. ********* 1-800-FLOWERS.COM: Plaintiffs Seek Consolidation of New Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit seek the inclusion of a newly filed case to their consolidated suit pending in Connecticut, according to 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc.'s February 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 30, 2012. On November 10, 2010, a purported class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York naming Flowers (along with Trilegiant Corporation, Inc., Affinion, Inc. and Chase Bank USA, N.A.) as defendants in an action purporting to assert claims against the Company alleging violations arising under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act among other statutes, and for breach of contract and unjust enrichment in connection with certain post-transaction marketing practices in which certain of the Company's subsidiaries previously engaged in with certain third-party vendors. On December 23, 2011, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal seeking to dismiss the entire action without prejudice. The court entered an Order on November 28, 2012, dismissing the case in its entirety. On March 6, 2012, and March 15, 2012, two additional purported class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut naming the Company and numerous other parties as defendants in actions purporting to assert claims substantially similar to those asserted in the lawsuit filed on November 10, 2010. In each case, plaintiffs seek to have the respective case certified as a class action and seek restitution and other damages, each in an amount in excess of $5.0 million. On April 26, 2012, the two Connecticut cases were consolidated with a third case previously pending in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut in which the Company is not a party. A consolidated amended complaint was filed by plaintiffs on September 7, 2012, purporting to assert claims substantially similar to those originally asserted. Flowers moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on December 7, 2012. On December 5, 2012, the same plaintiff from the action voluntarily dismissed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York filed a purported class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut naming Flowers and numerous other parties as defendants, purporting to assert claims substantially similar to those asserted in the consolidated amended complaint. On January 23, 2013, plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a motion to transfer and consolidate the action filed on December 5, 2012, with the consolidated action. The Company says it intends to defend each of these actions vigorously. A123 SYSTEMS: Bankruptcy Plan Classifies Securities Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Any claims resulting from judgment in favor of plaintiffs in a consolidated securities lawsuit pending in Massachusetts will be classified as Subordinated Stock Claims in Class 8 under the liquidation plan of A123 Systems, Inc., according to the Company's February 8, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On October 16, 2012, A123 Systems and all of its domestic subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. The Chapter 11 cases are jointly administered under the caption "In re A123 Systems, Inc., et. al." Case No. 12-12859. As of the Petition Date, three lawsuits, including a class action lawsuit, were pending in Massachusetts against A123 and certain current and former directors and officers of the Debtors. The case captioned In re A123 Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 1:12-CV-10591-RGS, arises out of two securities class action cases brought against A123 (the "Securities Class Action"). The cases were filed in the District of Massachusetts in 2012 and consolidated under the caption. The plaintiffs in these cases assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and allege that certain of A123's disclosures relating to potentially defective prismatic cells were inaccurate. Under the Joint Plan of Liquidation of A123 Systems, Inc., et al., any claims resulting from a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in the Securities Class Action will be classified as Subordinated Stock Claims in Class 8. AMERIGAS PARTNERS: "Swigers" Suit Remains Stayed in West Virginia ----------------------------------------------------------------- AmeriGas Partners, L.P.'s general partner, AmeriGas Propane, Inc. (the "General Partner"), is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of UGI Corporation ("UGI"). AmeriGas Propane, L.P. ("AmeriGas OLP") is the Company's principal operating subsidiary. In 2005, Samuel and Brenda Swiger (the "Swigers") filed what purports to be a class action in the Circuit Court of Harrison County, West Virginia, against UGI, an insurance subsidiary of UGI, certain officers of UGI and the General Partner, and their insurance carriers and insurance adjusters. In this lawsuit, the Swigers are seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of the putative class for alleged violations of the West Virginia Insurance Unfair Trade Practice Act, negligence, intentional misconduct, and civil conspiracy. The Court has not certified the class and, in October 2008, stayed the lawsuit pending resolution of a separate, but related class action lawsuit filed against AmeriGas OLP in Monongalia County, which was settled in Fiscal 2011. The Company believes it has good defenses to the claims in this action. No further updates were reported in the Company's February 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2012. AmeriGas Partners, L.P., is a publicly traded limited partnership that conducts a national propane distribution business through its principal operating subsidiary AmeriGas Propane, L.P. and prior to its merger with AmeriGas OLP on October 1, 2010, AmeriGas OLP's subsidiary, AmeriGas Eagle Propane, L.P. AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORP: Posts $12.3MM Gain From Class Suit Accord ----------------------------------------------------------------- AmerisourceBergen Corporation disclosed in its February 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2012, that during the three months ended December 31, 2012, it recognized a gain of $12.3 million relating class action lawsuits, in which it is a class member. Numerous class action lawsuits have been filed against certain brand pharmaceutical manufacturers alleging that the manufacturer, by itself or in concert with others, took improper actions to delay or prevent generic drugs from entering the market. The Company has not been named a plaintiff in any of these class actions, but has been a member of the direct purchasers' class (i.e., those purchasers who purchase directly from these pharmaceutical manufacturers). None of the class actions have gone to trial, but some have settled in the past with the Company receiving proceeds from the settlement funds. During the three months ended December 31, 2012, the Company recognized a gain of $12.3 million relating the class action lawsuits. These gains, which are net of attorney fees and estimated payments due to other parties, were recorded as reductions to cost of goods sold in the Company's consolidated statements of operations. ARLINGTON ASSET: Strikes Agreement to Settle "Hildene" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Arlington Asset Investment Corp. reached an agreement in principle to resolve a class action lawsuit brought by Hildene Capital Management, LLC, according to the Company's February 8, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. On August 19, 2011, Hildene Capital Management, LLC filed a purported class action complaint captioned Hildene Capital Management, LLC v. Friedman, Billings, Ramsey Group, Inc. (d/b/a Arlington Asset Investment Corp.), FBR Capital Trust VI, FBR Capital Trust X, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee, and John and Jane Does 1 through 100, No. 11 Civ. 5832, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Complaint alleges unlawful acts by the Company in connection with its purchase of preferred securities issued by FBR Capital Trust VI and FBR Capital Trust X from two CDOs, Tropic IV CDO Ltd. and Soloso CDO 2005-1 Ltd., in September 2009. On November 9, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint on behalf of itself and the FBR Trusts. On December 14, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. In the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff added Hildene Opportunities Master Fund, Ltd. as plaintiff. The Plaintiffs no longer assert class action claims, but have asserted direct and derivative claims against the Company and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as trustee for Tropic III CDO Ltd., Tropic IV CDO Ltd., and Soloso CDO 2005-1 Ltd. On January 20, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on behalf of itself and the FBR Trusts. On April 25, 2012, the Court held a hearing on that motion. On August 15, 2012, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss. The Company filed its Answer to the Amended Complaint on September 17, 2012. As of January 31, 2013, there is an agreement in principle to resolve the case on terms that would not have a material impact to the financial position of the Company. CELANESE CORP: Awaits Appellate Ruling in Remaining Plumbing Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Celanese Corporation is awaiting a court decision in an appeal from the dismissal of the remaining plumbing lawsuit in the U.S., according to the Company's February 8, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. CNA Holdings LLC ("CNA Holdings"), a US subsidiary of Celanese Corporation, which included the US business now in the Advanced Engineered Materials segment, along with Shell Oil Company ("Shell"), E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company ("DuPont") and others, has been a defendant in a series of lawsuits, including a number of class actions, alleging that plastic resins manufactured by these companies that were utilized by others in the production of plumbing systems for residential property were defective for this use and/or contributed to the failure of such plumbing. Based on, among other things, the findings of outside experts and the successful use of the Company's acetal copolymer in similar applications, CNA Holdings does not believe the Company's acetal copolymer was defective for this use or contributed to the failure of the plumbing. In addition, in many cases CNA Holdings' potential future exposure may be limited by, among other things, statutes of limitations and repose. In November 1995, CNA Holdings, DuPont and Shell entered into national class action settlements in the Cox, et al. v. Hoechst Celanese Corporation, et al., No. 94-0047 (Chancery Ct., Obion County, Tennessee) matter. The time to file claims against the class has expired and the entity established by the court to administer the claims was dissolved in September 2010. In addition between 1995 and 2001, CNA Holdings was named as a defendant in various putative class actions. The majority of these actions have now been dismissed. As a result the Company recorded $59 million in reserve reductions and recoveries from associated insurance indemnifications during 2010. The reserve was further reduced by $4 million during the year ended December 31, 2011, following the dismissal of the remaining US case (St. Croix, Ltd., et al. v. Shell Oil Company d/b/a Shell Chemical Company, Case No. XC-97-CR-467, Virgin Islands Superior Court) which was appealed in 2011. Oral argument for the appeal took place on December 13, 2012, and a decision on the appeal is expected in 2013. As of December 31, 2012, the class actions in Canada are subject to a pending class settlement that would result in a dismissal of those cases. The Company does not believe the Possible Loss associated with the remaining matters is material. Accordingly, the Company has determined to reduce the reserves based on the expiration of the time to file and the resolution of certain claims under the Canada class and no significant active claims outside of Canada. Celanese Corporation and its subsidiaries is a global technology and specialty materials company. The Company's business involves processing chemical raw materials, such as methanol, carbon monoxide and ethylene, and natural products, including wood pulp, into value-added chemicals, thermoplastic polymers and other chemical-based products. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Defends Two Securities Class Suits in Colorado ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. is defending two securities class action lawsuits in Colorado, according to the Company's February 8, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. On August 16, 2012, City of Dania Beach Police & Firefighters Retirement System filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of shares of the Company's common stock between February 1, 2012, and July 19, 2012. On August 17, 2012, Sonia Kim filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado that was otherwise identical to the City of Dania Beach Police & Firefighters complaint. The complaints purport to state claims against the Company, each of its co-Chief Executive Officers and its Chief Financial Officer under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and related rules and regulations, based on the Company's alleged failure during the claimed class period to disclose material information about the Company's business results and prospects. The complaints assert that those failures and related public statements were false and misleading and that, as a result, the market price of the Company's stock was artificially inflated during the claimed class period. The complaints seek damages on behalf of the purported class in an unspecified amount, interest, an award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief. The Company says it intends to defend these cases vigorously, but it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of or any potential liability from the cases. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Reconsideration Bid in ADA Suit Denied in Jan. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A federal district court last month denied a motion filed by plaintiffs for reconsideration of a court decision denying them class certification in their lawsuits against Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., last month, according to the Company's February 8, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. In 2006, Maurizio Antoninetti filed a lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, primarily claiming that the height of the serving line wall in the Company's restaurants violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA, as well as California disability laws. On December 6, 2006, Mr. Antoninetti filed an additional lawsuit in the same court making the same allegations on a class action basis, on behalf of himself and a purported class of disabled individuals, and a similar class action was filed by James Perkins in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 7, 2008. In the individual Antoninetti action, the district court entered a ruling in which it found that although the Company's counter height violated the ADA, the Company provided the plaintiff with an equivalent facilitation, and awarded attorney's fees and minimal damages to the plaintiff. The Company and the plaintiff appealed the district court's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and on July 26, 2010, the appeals court entered a ruling finding that the Company violated the ADA and did not provide the plaintiff with an equivalent facilitation, and remanded the case to the district court. On March 21, 2012, the district court reaffirmed its original award of minimal damages to the plaintiff and denied further injunctive relief. On July 18, 2012, the district court ordered a final judgment awarding the plaintiff a portion of the attorney's fees and costs originally sought, and on December 26, 2012, the court of appeals awarded the plaintiff additional attorney's fees and costs for the appellate portion of the case. In the purported class action cases, on August 28, 2012, the district court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. As a result, each plaintiff may only pursue claims against the Company in those cases on an individual basis. The plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision on class certification, which was denied by the court on January 14, 2013. The Company lowered the height of its serving line walls throughout California some time ago, which makes injunctive relief in these cases moot, and has the lower serving line walls in a significant majority of the Company's restaurants outside of California as well. The Company will continue to vigorously defend the ongoing class action cases. Due to the possibility of further appeals and the uncertainties of litigation, it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate any additional potential liability from those cases. COINSTAR INC: Awaits Ruling on Class Cert. Bid in "Piechur" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Coinstar, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on Laurie Piechur's motion for class certification, according to the Company's February 8, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. In October 2009, an Illinois resident, Laurie Piechur, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint against the Company's Redbox subsidiary in the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois. The plaintiff alleges that, among other things, Redbox charges consumers illegal and excessive late fees in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and that Redbox's rental terms violate the Illinois Rental Purchase Agreement Act or the Illinois Automatic Contract Renewal Act and the plaintiff is seeking monetary damages and other relief. In November 2009, Redbox removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. In February 2010, the District Court remanded the case to the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois. In May 2010, the court denied Redbox's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims, and also denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. In November 2011, the plaintiff moved for class certification, and Redbox moved for summary judgment. The court denied Redbox's motion for summary judgment in February 2012. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 19, 2012, and an amended motion for class certification on June 5, 2012. The court denied Redbox's motion to dismiss the complaint. The class certification motion has been briefed and argued, and the court has not yet ruled on the motion for class certification. The plaintiff has dismissed its claims regarding Redbox's fees and is only pursuing its claims under the Illinois Rental Purchase Agreement Act and the Illinois Automatic Contract Renewal Act. The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter. Currently, no accrual has been established as it was not possible to estimate the possible loss or range of loss because this matter had not advanced to a stage where the Company could make any such estimate. Coinstar, Inc. provides automated retail solutions, including Redbox and Coin segments. The Company is based in Bellevue, Washington. COINSTAR INC: Continues to Defend Privacy Class Suit vs. Redbox --------------------------------------------------------------- Blake Boesky, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, in March 2011 filed a putative class action complaint against Coinstar, Inc.'s Redbox subsidiary in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiff, a California resident, alleges that Redbox retains personally identifiable information of consumers for a time period in excess of that allowed under the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2710, et seq. A substantially similar complaint was filed in the same court in March 2011 by an Illinois resident, Kevin Sterk. Since the filing of the complaint, Blake Boesky has been replaced by a different named plaintiff, Jiah Chung, and an amended complaint has been filed alleging disclosures of personally identifiable information, in addition to the plaintiffs' claims of retention of such information. The plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs of lawsuit, and interest. The court has consolidated the cases. The court denied Redbox's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims upon interlocutory appeal. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's denial of Redbox's motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims involving retention of information, holding that the plaintiffs could not maintain a lawsuit for damages under this theory. On April 25, 2012, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to add claims under the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2707, and for breach of contract. On May 9, 2012, Redbox moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On July 23, 2012, the court dismissed the added retention claims, except to the extent that plaintiffs seek injunctive, non-monetary relief. No further updates were reported in the Company's February 8, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter. Currently, no accrual has been established as it is not possible to estimate the possible loss or range of loss because this matter had not advanced to a stage where the Company could make any such estimate. Coinstar, Inc. provides automated retail solutions, including Redbox and Coin segments. The Company is based in Bellevue, Washington. COINSTAR INC: "DiSimone/Sinibaldi" Appeal Stayed Until March 7 -------------------------------------------------------------- The appeal in "DiSimone/Sinibaldi" class action lawsuit is currently stayed until March 7, 2013, according to Coinstar, Inc.'s February 8, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. In February 2011, a California resident, Michael Mehrens, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint against Coinstar, Inc.'s Redbox subsidiary in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. The plaintiff alleges that, among other things, Redbox violated California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 ("Song-Beverly") with respect to the collection and recording of consumer personal identification information, and violated the California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 based on the alleged violation of Song-Beverly. A similar complaint alleging violations of Song-Beverly and the right to privacy generally was filed in March 2011 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, by a California resident, John Sinibaldi. A third similar complaint alleging only a violation of Song-Beverly, was filed in March 2011 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, by a California resident, Richard Schiff. Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages and civil penalties, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs of lawsuit, and interest. Redbox removed the Mehrens case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the Sinibaldi case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and the Schiff case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The Sinibaldi case was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, where the Mehrens case is pending, and these two cases have been consolidated. At the same time, the plaintiffs substituted Nicolle DiSimone as the named plaintiff in the Mehrens case. After Redbox filed a motion to dismiss, stay, or transfer, the Schiff case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On January 4, 2013, the Court dismissed with prejudice the Schiff case for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court rules and orders. Redbox moved to dismiss the DiSimone/Sinibaldi case, and DiSimone/Sinibaldi moved for class certification. In January 2012, the Court granted Redbox's motion to dismiss with prejudice and denied DiSimone/Sinibaldi's motion for class certification as moot. On February 2, 2012, Plaintiff's filed their notice of appeal. The appeal is currently stayed until March 7, 2013, pending the California Supreme Court's decision in a case presenting similar issues involving Song-Beverly in a case to which Redbox is not a party. The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit and intend to defend itself vigorously in this matter. Currently, no accrual has been established as it is not possible to estimate the possible loss or range of loss because this matter had not advanced to a stage where the Company could make any such estimate. Coinstar, Inc. provides automated retail solutions, including Redbox and Coin segments. The Company is based in Bellevue, Washington. COINSTAR INC: Shareholder Derivative Suits Resolved and Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder derivative actions against Coinstar, Inc. are now resolved and dismissed with prejudice, according to the Company's February 8, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. Related to a putative class action complaint previously disclosed, on March 2 and 10, 2011, shareholder derivative actions were filed in the Superior Court of the State of Washington (King County), allegedly on behalf of and for the benefit of Coinstar, against certain of its current and former directors and officers. Coinstar was named as a nominal defendant. On April 12, 2011, the court consolidated these actions as a single action entitled In re Coinstar, Inc. Derivative Litigation. A third substantially similar complaint was later filed in the same court. On April 18, 2011, two purported shareholder derivative actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. On May 26, 2011, the court consolidated the federal derivative actions and joined them with the securities class actions, captioned In re Coinstar Securities Litigation, for pre-trial proceedings. The derivative plaintiffs' consolidated complaint was filed on July 15, 2011. The Company moved to dismiss this complaint on August 12, 2011, on the ground that the plaintiffs had not made a pre-litigation demand on the Company's Board of Directors and had not demonstrated that such a demand would have been futile. On November 14, 2011, the court granted the Company's motion and issued an order dismissing the complaint with leave to amend the compliant. On November 23, 2011, plaintiffs moved to stay the action or defer filing of an amended complaint in order to allow them time to inspect Coinstar's books and records prior to any such amendment. On December 22, 2011, the court entered an order granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs' motion. The order grants plaintiffs' request to defer filing of an amended complaint, but provided that if plaintiffs choose to file an amended complaint, they must pay attorneys' fees incurred by defendants on the motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On April 9, 2012, before expiration of plaintiffs' deadline to file an amended complaint, the parties filed a joint status report with the court indicating they had agreed upon a proposed settlement of the federal and state derivative actions. On April 27, 2012, a stipulation and agreement of settlement, was filed with the court, along with Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. On May 25, 2012, the court conducted a hearing on the motion. On August 6, 2012, after some supplemental briefing by the parties, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. On November 9, 2012, the court granted final approval of the settlement, including $750,000 in plaintiffs' attorneys' fees paid by the Company's insurer. These shareholders derivative actions are now resolved and the lawsuits have been dismissed with prejudice as part of the settlement. Coinstar, Inc. provides automated retail solutions, including Redbox and Coin segments. The Company is based in Bellevue, Washington. CORVEL CORP: Final Accounting of "Roche" Suit Deal Completed ------------------------------------------------------------ Final report and accounting relating to CorVel Corporation's settlement of a class action lawsuit initiated by Kathleen Roche, D.C., was completed in November 2012, according to the Company's February 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2012. In February 2005, Kathleen Roche, D.C., as plaintiff, filed a putative class action in Circuit Court for the 20th Judicial District, St. Clair County, Illinois, against the Company. The case sought unspecified damages based on the Company's alleged failure to direct patients to medical providers who were members of the CorVel CorCare PPO network and also alleged that the Company used biased and arbitrary computer software to review medical providers' bills. The Company denies that its conduct was improper in any way and denied all liability. On October 29, 2010, the Company entered into a settlement agreement providing for the payment of $2.1 million to class members and up to an additional $700,000 for attorneys' fees and expenses, and as a result the Company accrued $2.8 million of estimated liability for this settlement agreement during the quarter ended September 30, 2010. In exchange for the settlement payment by the Company, class members consisting of Illinois medical providers (excluding hospitals) have released the Company and all of its affiliates for claims relating to any PPO or usual and customary reductions recommended by the Company on class members' medical bills. On January 21, 2011, the Circuit Court gave final approval to the settlement and awarded class counsel $700,000 in attorneys' fees and expenses. A modified final judgment approving the settlement and addressing certain class notice issues was approved on January 20, 2012; the modified judgment did not change the financial terms of the settlement or the release. Final payments were sent to class members on July 16, 2012, and the final report and accounting to the Court was completed in November 2012. CORVEL CORP: Still Completing Dismissal of "Williams" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- On March 25, 2011, George Raymond Williams, MD, as plaintiff, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, filed a First Amended and Restated Petition for Damages and Class Certification in the 27th Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Landry, Louisiana, against CorVel Corporation and its insurance carriers, Homeland Insurance Company of New York and Executive Risk Specialty Insurance Company and several other unrelated parties. Williams alleges that CorVel violated Louisiana's Any Willing Provider Act (the "AWPA"), which requires a payor accessing a preferred provider contract to give 30 days' advance written notice or point of service notice in the form of a benefit card before the payor accesses the discounted rates in the contract to pay the provider for services rendered to an insured under that payor's health benefit plan. On March 31, 2011, CorVel entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with attorneys representing the plaintiffs and the class setting forth the terms of settlement of this class action lawsuit. The Memorandum of Understanding provides that subject to the execution of a mutually acceptable settlement agreement and final non-appealable approval of such settlement by the Louisiana state court, CorVel will pay $9 million to resolve claims for which CorVel recorded a $9 million pre-tax charge to earnings during the March 2011 quarter. In addition, CorVel will assign to the class certain rights it has to the proceeds of CorVel's insurance policies relating to the claims asserted by the class. The class action arbitration filed with the American Arbitration Association against CorVel in December 2006 by Southwest Louisiana Hospital Association dba Lake Charles Memorial Hospital as previously disclosed by CorVel is encompassed within the settlement terms of the Memorandum of Understanding. Pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding, the parties have also agreed to request that the appropriate courts stay all related proceedings in State and Federal Court, as well as the Louisiana Office of Workers Compensation and the arbitration proceeding before the American Arbitration Association in which the parties are named, until the settlement agreement is prepared, executed and receives final court approval. The settlement does not constitute an admission of liability. On June 23, 2011, CorVel and class counsel executed a definitive settlement agreement. The settlement agreement contains the same terms and conditions as were set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding. Accordingly, CorVel made a $9 million cash payment into escrow on July 6, 2011. As set forth in the settlement agreement, certain contingencies such as preliminary court approval, resolutions of objections filed by class members challenging the fairness of the settlement, class members excluded from the settlement not exceeding a materiality threshold, and final court approval, must be satisfied before the settlement can become final. On June 23, 2011, the 27th Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Landry, Louisiana granted preliminary approval of settlement and set a deadline of October 16, 2011, for parties to opt out of or object to the proposed settlement. Notice of the settlement was given to Class Members. The Court gave final approval of the settlement on November 4, 2011. No appeal was filed, so the judgment became final on January 17, 2012. CorVel is in the process of completing the dismissal of all claims covered by the settlement in state and federal court. In exchange for the settlement payment by CorVel, class members released CorVel and all of its affiliates and clients for any claims relating in any way to re-pricing, payment for, or reimbursement of a workers' compensation bill, including but not limited to claims under the AWPA. Plaintiffs have also agreed to a notice procedure that CorVel may follow in the future to comply with the AWPA. No further updates were reported in the Company's February 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2012. CRAMER LLC: Recalls 6,500 Folding Step Stools Due to Fall Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Cramer LLC, of Kansas City, Missouri, announced a voluntary recall of about 6,500 Task*It 1-UP folding step stools. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The folding step stool can crack or break and collapse, posing a fall hazard to the user. Cramer has received 14 reports of the step stools breaking or cracking. Of the 14 reports, two reported injuries including head, neck and back pain. This recall includes grey Task*It 1-UP folding step stools. The stools are plastic and have a 9.5 x 14.5 top step and feature two 11.5 inch legs that fold inward for storage. The top of the folding step stool is covered with black rubber treading imprinted with an asterisk symbol. "1-UP step" is printed on the product packaging. The Task*It name is imprinted on the legs. Pictures of the recalled products are available at http://is.gd/C44TiW The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at office supply stores, such as SP Richards, United Stationers and Staples, nationwide and online at Amazon.com from January 2012 through December 2012 for between $30 and $40. Consumers should immediately stop using the folding step stool and contact Cramer LLC for a free replacement step stool. Cramer LLC may be reached at (800) 366-6700 from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.cramerinc.com/and click on the recall link. CST BRANDS: Awaits Final OK of Fuel Temperature Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- CST Brands, Inc. awaits final approval of a settlement in a litigation over fuel temperature involving its former parent, according to the Company's February 8, 2013, Form 10-12B/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On December 13, 2006, a class action complaint was filed against Valero Energy Corporation, Shell Oil Products Company LLC, ConocoPhillips, Chevron USA, Inc., Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Costco Wholesale Corporation, The Kroger Company and a few other retailers in San Francisco federal court. The complaint accused the defendants of violating state consumer protection laws by failing to adjust the volume or price of fuel when the fuel temperature exceeded 60 degrees Fahrenheit. Following this filing, numerous other federal complaints were filed and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (Multi-District Litigation Docket No. 1840, In re: Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation). In mid-April 2012, Valero and certain of the other defendants reached a preliminary class settlement with the plaintiffs. On September 28, 2012, the court initially denied approval of this settlement concluding that the settling parties had failed to show how the settlement sufficiently benefited the class members. The settling parties, including Valero, agreed with the court and supplemented the record to demonstrate how the settlement will benefit the class, and the Company expects that the settlement will ultimately be approved. Because a portion of Valero's alleged liability in the class action allegedly arises out of the Company's retail operations, the Company has agreed to indemnify Valero for 50% of the monetary portion of the settlement (or otherwise 50% of any monetary payment that Valero ultimately may be obligated to pay in final resolution of the class action). The Company has also agreed to certain actions required under the proposed settlement agreement on a prospective basis, including the posting of fuel temperatures at the Company's U.S. retail sites. The proposed settlement agreement includes a full release from liability for Valero and its affiliates, including the Company. The Company has recorded a loss contingency liability with respect to this matter. However, if the settlement is not approved, the Company may suffer a loss with respect to one or more of the lawsuits in excess of the amount accrued due to the inherent uncertainty of litigation. The Company believes that such an outcome in any one of these lawsuits could have a material adverse effect on its results of operations or financial position. An estimate of the possible loss or range of loss from an adverse result in all or substantially all of these cases cannot reasonably be made. CST BRANDS: Price Fixing Class Suits Remain Pending in Canada ------------------------------------------------------------- Class action lawsuits arising from CST Brands, Inc.'s retail operations in Canada remain pending, according to the Company's February 8, 2013, Form 10-12B/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Ultramar Ltd., Valero Energy Corporation's principal Canadian subsidiary, was named as a defendant in four class actions alleging that Ultramar and other competitors engaged in illegal price fixing in four distinct markets in the province of Quebec. The cases were filed in June 2008 following a guilty plea by Ultramar and an employee and charges laid against several alleged co-conspirators. As a result, four class actions were filed on the same day in the matters of (i) Simon Jacques vs Ultramar et al in the Superior Court of Quebec, District of Quebec City, (ii) Daniel Thouin/ Marcel Lafontaine vs Ultramar et al, Superior Court of Quebec, District of Montreal, (iii) Michael Jeanson et al vs Ultramar et al, Superior Court of Quebec, District of Hull and (iv) Thibeau vs Ultramar et al, Superior Court of Quebec, District of Montreal. As required pursuant to the civil procedure rules in effect, the first filed claim is given priority, and the others are suspended pending final judgment on the first filed claim. The guilty plea followed an extensive government investigation and was confined to a limited time period and limited geographic area around Thetford Mines and Victoriaville in Quebec. The plaintiffs attempted to widen the scope, alleging the existence of a conspiracy extending between 2002 and 2008 throughout Quebec. The court allowed a time range of 2002 to 2006 but did not expand the geographic area beyond the four limited markets identified by the investigation. A hearing on class suitability took place in September 2009, and in November 2009, the court authorized the action to proceed on a class basis for the limited geographic area. A statement of claim was filed but the proceedings were suspended until May 5, 2011. The suspension was a result, in part, of damage proof issues for plaintiffs that developed pre- discovery. The court required the plaintiffs to file a report on damages on May 5, 2011. Ultramar intends to vigorously contest the scope of alleged liability and damages. On June 10, 2011, Ultramar was served with a "new" amended motion to institute a class action in the matter of Daniel Thouin/Marcel Lafontaine v. Ultramar Ltd., et al., Superior Court of Quebec, District of Quebec. This matter had previously been put in abeyance to allow the first filed claim to proceed. The plaintiff changed the venue and the geographical scope of its recourse alleging that defendants colluded in other regions of Quebec. By issuing this motion, the attorney for the plaintiff (the same as for the other price fixing matter) is trying to extend its claim outside the limited territory authorized by the court in the Jacques matter. On September 6, 2012, the Superior Court of Quebec granted the plaintiff's motion to extend the scope of the territory to be covered by the action. Ultramar's alleged liability in these claims arises entirely out of the Company's retail operations in Canada. As a result, the Company expects that it will agree to indemnify and hold harmless Valero fully from any liability associated with these claims pursuant to the separation and distribution agreement. The Company does not believe that this case has merit, and it intends to vigorously contest the matter. The Company has not recorded a loss contingency liability with respect to this matter, but due to the inherent uncertainty of litigation, the Company believes that it is reasonably possible that the Company may suffer a loss with respect to one or more of the lawsuits. An estimate of the possible loss or range of loss from an adverse result in all or substantially all of these cases cannot be reasonably made due to a number of factors, the most significant of which is that no amount of damages has been specified by the plaintiffs. DFC GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Canadian Class Suits vs. Units -------------------------------------------------------------- DFC Global Corp. continues to defend its subsidiaries against class action lawsuits pending in Canada, according to the Company's February 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2012. In 2003 and 2006, purported class actions were brought against the Company's wholly owned indirect Canadian subsidiary, National Money Mart Company ("NMM"), and Dollar Financial Group, Inc. in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, Canada on behalf of a class of consumers who obtained short-term loans from NMM in Alberta, alleging, among other things, that the charge to borrowers in connection with such loans was usurious under Canadian federal law (the "Alberta Litigation"). The actions seek restitution and damages, including punitive damages. In April 2010, the plaintiffs in both actions indicated that they would proceed with their claims. Demands for arbitration were served on the plaintiff in each of the actions, and NMM filed motions to enforce the arbitration clause and to stay the actions, which were denied in October 2012. In January 2013, NMM filed appeals of those rulings. To date, neither case has been certified as a class action. The Company is defending these actions vigorously. In 2004, an action was filed against NMM in Manitoba on behalf of a purported class of consumers who obtained short-term loans from NMM. In early February 2012, a separate action was filed against NMM and DFG in Manitoba on behalf of a purported class of consumers which substantially overlaps with the purported class in the 2004 action. The allegations in each of these actions are substantially similar to those in the Alberta Litigation and, to date, neither action has been certified as a class action. If either or both of these actions proceed, the Company intends to seek a stay on the grounds that the plaintiffs entered into arbitration and mediation agreements with NMM with respect to the matters which are the subject of the actions. The Company intends to defend these actions vigorously. As of December 31, 2012, an aggregate of approximately CAD32.5 million is included in the Company's accrued expenses and other liabilities relating to the purported Canadian class action proceedings pending in Alberta and Manitoba and for the settled class actions in Ontario, British Columbia, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland that were settled by the Company in 2010. The settlements in those class action proceedings consisted of a cash component and vouchers to the class members for future services. The component of the accrual that relates to vouchers is approximately CAD18.9 million, the majority of which is expected to be non-cash. Although the Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims in the purported class proceedings in Alberta and Manitoba and intends vigorously to defend against such remaining pending claims, the ultimate cost of resolution of such claims may exceed the amount accrued at December 31, 2012, and additional accruals may be required in the future. EAGLE MATERIALS: American Gypsum Faces Antitrust Class Suits ------------------------------------------------------------ Eagle Materials Inc.'s subsidiary is facing class action lawsuits alleging violations of antitrust laws, according to the Company's February 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2012. Since late December 2012, several purported class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company's subsidiary, American Gypsum Company LLC, alleging that American Gypsum conspired with other wallboard manufacturers to fix the price for drywall sold in the United States in violation of federal antitrust laws and, in some cases related provisions of state law. The complaints allege that the defendant wallboard manufacturers conspired to increase prices through the announcement and implementation of coordinated price increases, output restrictions, and other restraints of trade, including the elimination of individual "job quote" pricing. In addition to American Gypsum, the defendants in these lawsuits include CertainTeed Corp., USG Corporation, New NGC, Inc., Lafarge North America Inc., Georgia-Pacific LLC, Temple Inland Inc. and PABCO Building Products LLC. The plaintiffs in these class action lawsuits bring claims on behalf of direct or indirect purchasers of wallboard during various periods from 2008 to present for unspecified monetary damage (including treble damages) and in some cases injunctive relief in various United States district courts, including the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Western District of North Carolina, North Carolina and the Northern District of Illinois. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has been asked to consider whether their action should be transferred to a single jurisdiction for consolidated pretrial proceedings. No discovery in any of the actions has taken place. Due to the recent nature of these claims, the Company says it is unable to assess the likelihood or amount of potential loss relating to the claims, or whether such losses, if any, would have a material impact on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows. American Gypsum denies the allegations in these lawsuits and will vigorously defend itself against these claims. EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Awaits Ruling in "Bushansky" Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Education Management Corporation is awaiting a court decision on its motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed by Stephen Bushansky, according to the Company's February 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2012. On August 3, 2012, a shareholder derivative class action captioned Stephen Bushansky v. Todd S. Nelson, et al. was filed against certain of the directors of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The Company is named as a nominal defendant in the case. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated their fiduciary obligations to the Company's shareholders due to the Company's use of improper recruiting, enrollment admission and financial aid practices and violation of the U.S. Department of Education's prohibition on the payment of incentive compensation to admissions representatives. The Company previously received a demand letter from the plaintiff which was investigated by a Special Litigation Committee of the Board of Directors and found to be without merit. The Company and the named director defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case on October 19, 2012. The Company believes that the claims set forth in the complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself. Based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Education Management Corporation -- http://www.edmc.com/-- provides post-secondary education in North America. The Company provides education through four education systems comprising The Art Institutes, Argosy University, Brown Mackie Colleges, and South University. It operates 105 schools in 32 states of the United States and Canada. EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk "OLERS" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Education Management Corporation is awaiting a court decision on its motion to dismiss a shareholder class action lawsuit commenced by the Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System, according to the Company's February 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2012. On May 21, 2012, a shareholder derivative class action captioned Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System v. Todd S. Nelson, et al. was filed against the directors of the Company in state court located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The Company is named as a nominal defendant in the case. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated their fiduciary obligations to the Company's shareholders due to the Company's violation of the U.S. Department of Education's prohibition on paying incentive compensation to admissions representatives, engaging in improper recruiting tactics in violation of Title IV of the Higher Education Act ("HEA") and accrediting agency standards, falsification of job placement data for graduates of its schools and failure to satisfy the U.S. Department of Education's financial responsibility standards. The Company previously received two demand letters from the plaintiff which were investigated by a Special Litigation Committee of the Board of Directors and found to be without merit. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the case with prejudice on August 13, 2012. In response, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint making substantially the same allegations as the initial complaint on September 27, 2012. The Company and the director defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on October 17, 2012. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself. Based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Education Management Corporation -- http://www.edmc.com/-- provides post-secondary education in North America. The Company provides education through four education systems comprising The Art Institutes, Argosy University, Brown Mackie Colleges, and South University. It operates 105 schools in 32 states of the United States and Canada. ERIE INDEMNITY: Faces Insurance Exchange Suit in Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------- Erie Indemnity Company is facing a class action lawsuit brought by members of Erie Insurance Exchange in Pennsylvania, according to the Company's February 8, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Erie Indemnity Company received a Complaint on February 6, 2013, that is captioned "Erie Insurance Exchange, an unincorporated association, by members Patricia R. Beltz, Joseph S. Sullivan and Anita Sullivan, and Patricia R. Beltz, on behalf of herself and others similarly situate, Plaintiffs, vs. Richard L. Stover; J. Ralph Borneman, Jr.; Terrence W. Cavanaugh; Jonathan Hirt Hagen; Susan Hirt Hagen; Thomas B. Hagen; C. Scott Hartz; Claude C. Lilly, III; Lucian L. Morrison; Thomas W. Palmer; Martin P. Sheffield; Elizabeth H. Vorsheck; and Robert C. Wilburn, Defendants." The Complaint was filed on February 6, 2013, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The individuals named as Plaintiffs are alleged to be policyholders (subscribers) of the Erie Insurance Exchange (the "Exchange"). The individuals named as Defendants comprise the Board of Directors of the Registrant. The Complaint asserts many of the same allegations made in an action brought against the Registrant by, among others, Plaintiffs Joseph S. Sullivan, Anita Sullivan and Patricia R. Beltz that was previously described by the Registrant in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q which was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2012. The Complaint asserts two causes of action: (1) a class action claim brought by Plaintiff Patricia R. Beltz on behalf of all policyholders of the Exchange and (2) a non-class action claim brought by the Plaintiffs on behalf of the Exchange, or, in the alternative, a derivative claim brought by the Plaintiffs on behalf of the Exchange. Both causes of action are based on allegations that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Exchange by causing the Registrant to retain Services Charges (installment fees) and Added Services Charges (late fees and policy reinstatement fees) that should have been paid to the Exchange. The first cause of action seeks damages plus pre- judgment and post-judgment interest and costs of lawsuit on behalf of the class consisting of all policyholders of the Exchange. The second cause of action seeks compensatory and punitive damages plus post-judgment interest and costs on behalf of the Exchange. The Complaint alleges that the total of the Services Charges and Additional Services Charges retained during the period from 1998 through 2011 amounted to approximately $308 million. JOHN DEERE: Recalls 4,700 Gator Utility Vehicles Due to Fire Risk ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Deere & Company of Moline, Illinois, announced a voluntary recall of about 4,700 Utility Vehicles. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The oil filter can leak, posing a fire hazard. Pinholes or cracks have been identified in oil filters installed by the engine supplier which were not manufactured to specification. John Deere has received four reports of incidents resulting in fires. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves John Deere Gator(TM) RSX850i Base, Sport and Trail model recreational utility vehicles manufactured between May 2012 and October 2012. They have side-by-side seating for two people and were available in Realtree(R) Hardwoods(TM) HD Camo, olive and black, or traditional green and yellow. RSX850i is located on the hood. The serial number is on the rear frame above the receiver hitch. Utility vehicles with the following serial numbers are included in this recall: Model Serial Number Range ----- ------------------- RSX850i Base 1M0850TB++M010009 thru 1M0850TB++M010778 RSX850i Sport 1M0850TS++M010001 thru 1M0850TS++M012077 RSX850i Trail 1M0850TT++M010001 thru 1M0850TT++M012867 Pictures of the recalled products are available at http://is.gd/bBaeE1 The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of America and sold at John Deere dealers nationwide from August 2012 through January 2013 for between $12,900 and $15,500. Consumers should stop using the recalled utility vehicles and contact a John Deere dealer to schedule a free inspection and free repair. John Deere is contacting all registered owners of the recalled utility vehicles directly. Deere and Company may be reached at (800) 537-8233, from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, and Saturdays from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time or http://www.johndeere.com/and click on Services & Support for more information. NATROL INC: Faces Marketing Fraud Suit Over Lycopene Product ------------------------------------------------------------ Harold M. Hoffman, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Natrol, Inc., Case No. L-001100-13 (N.J. Super. Ct., Bergen Cty., February 12, 2013), seeks redress of an alleged marketing fraud perpetrated by Natrol on the United States consumer public. Natrol's promises and representations, both in product advertising and labeling, concerning the constituent ingredient in its product -- lycopene -- were false, Mr. Hoffman alleges. In truth and in fact, he contends, the product contained only 42% of the claimed 15 mg of lycopene per tablet. He adds that the Defendant took consumers' money in exchange for a specific, promised product, with specific ingredients, in specific concentrations, and delivered to them, in return, something less than and different from the product promised. Mr. Hoffman is a resident of the County of Bergen, in New Jersey. He alleges that he was exposed to and read, saw and heard the Defendant's advertising and marketing claims and promises, and thereafter purchased Natrol Lycopene, in October 2012. Natrol is a Delaware corporation based in Chatsworth, California. Natrol advertised, marketed, distributed and sold Natrol Lycopene in commerce throughout the United States, including to multiple retail locations throughout the state of New Jersey. The Plaintiff represented himself in the lawsuit: Harold M. Hoffman, Esq. 240 Grand Avenue Englewood, NJ 07631 Telephone: (201) 569-0086 E-mail: hoffman.esq@verizon.net PAIN THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Texas --------------------------------------------------------------- Pain Therapeutics, Inc. continues to defend itself against a securities class action lawsuit pending in Texas, according to the Company's February 8, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. On December 2, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and its executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. This complaint alleges, among other things, violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act arising out of allegedly untrue or misleading statements of material facts made by the Company regarding REMOXY's development and regulatory status during the purported class period, February 3, 2011, through June 23, 2011. The complaint states that monetary damages are being sought, but no amounts are specified. As with any litigation proceeding, the Company says it cannot predict with certainty the eventual outcome of any outstanding legal actions. The Company has incurred expenses in connection with the defense of this lawsuit, and it may have to pay damages or settlement costs in connection with any resolution thereof. Any such expenses, damages or settlement costs may be substantial. In addition, because of the number of shareholders involved, plaintiffs in class action lawsuits may claim enormous monetary damages even if the alleged claim is small on a per-shareholder basis. Any such expenses, damages or settlement costs may be substantial. Although the Company has insurance coverage against which it may claim recovery against some of these expenses and costs, the amount of coverage may not be adequate to cover the full amount or certain expenses and costs may be outside the scope the policies the Company maintains. In the event of an adverse outcome or outcomes, the Company's business could be materially harmed from depletion of cash resources, negative impact on its reputation, or restrictions or changes to its governance or other processes that may result from any final disposition of the lawsuit. Moreover, responding to and defending pending litigation significantly diverts management's attention from the Company's operations. PERFECT PASTA: Recalls 315 Lbs. of RTE Roast Beef Products ---------------------------------------------------------- Perfect Pasta Inc., an Addison, Illinois establishment, is recalling approximately 315 pounds of ready-to-eat roast beef 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: * 5-lb. packages of "GINA FULLY COOKED ROAST BEEF WITH SEASONED JUICE" with a lot code number of "040615RB" and a pack date of "02-06-13." The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "EST. 19829" inside the USDA mark of inspection. The products were produced on February 6, 2013, and distributed to institutions in Chicago. The problem was discovered by FSIS through microbiological testing by the Agency. After the company received a positive sample for Listeria monocytogenes, most of its products were held but a portion may have been cross-contaminated as a result of equipment not being cleaned between production shifts and shipped into commerce. 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 (including at restaurants) to ensure that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. Consumers and members of the media with questions regarding the recall should contact the company's Quality Assurance Manager, Connie DeMarco, at (630) 543-8300. 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 RAYMOND JAMES: Settlement of Closed End Funds Suits Approved ------------------------------------------------------------ A settlement to resolve two lawsuits over certain closed end funds received preliminary approval last month, according to Raymond James Financial, Inc.'s February 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2012. Certain of the Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc. entities, along with Regions Financial Corporation, have been named in class-action lawsuits filed in federal and state courts on behalf of shareholders of Regions and investors who purchased shares of certain mutual funds in the Regions Morgan Keegan Fund complex (the "Regions Funds"). The Regions Funds were formerly managed by Morgan Asset Management ("MAM"), an entity which was at one time a subsidiary of one of the Morgan Keegan affiliates, but an entity which was not part of the Company's Morgan Keegan acquisition. The complaints contain various allegations, including claims that the Regions Funds and the defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose material facts relating to the activities of the Funds. In January 2013, the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee preliminarily approved the settlement of the class action and the derivative action regarding the closed end funds for $62 million and $6 million, respectively. No other class has been certified. Certain of the shareholders in the Funds and other interested parties have entered into arbitration proceedings and individual civil claims, in lieu of participating in the class action lawsuits. UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Amended Consolidated Suit Filed -------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated securities complaint in January, according to Ubiquiti Networks, Inc.'s February 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2012. Beginning on September 7, 2012, two shareholder class action complaints were filed against the Company, certain of its officers and directors and the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On January 30, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint, which alleges claims under the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 on behalf of a purported class of those who purchased the Company's common stock between October 14, 2011, and August 9, 2012, and/or acquired the Company's stock pursuant to or traceable to the registration statement for the initial public offering. The Amended Consolidated Complaint alleges that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing false or misleading statements regarding the sale of counterfeit Company products. The consolidated complaint seeks, among other things, damages and interest, rescission, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Company believes that the allegations in the consolidated complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously contest the litigation. However, there can be no assurance that the Company will be successful in its defense. Because the case is at a very early stage, the Company cannot currently estimate the loss or the range of possible losses it may experience in connection with this litigation. UGI CORP: "Swigers" Class Suit Remains Stayed in West Virginia -------------------------------------------------------------- In 2005, Samuel and Brenda Swiger filed what purports to be a class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Harrison County, West Virginia, against UGI Corporation, an insurance subsidiary of UGI, certain officers of UGI and the General Partner, and their insurance carriers and insurance adjusters. In this lawsuit, the Swigers are seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of the putative class for alleged violations of the West Virginia Insurance Unfair Trade Practice Act, negligence, intentional misconduct, and civil conspiracy. The Court has not certified the class and, in October 2008, stayed the lawsuit pending resolution of a separate, but related, class action lawsuit filed against AmeriGas OLP in Monongalia County, which was settled in Fiscal 2011. The Company believes it has good defenses to the claims in this action. No further updates were reported in the Company's February 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2012. UNION PACIFIC: Awaits Ruling on Petition Related to Class Cert. --------------------------------------------------------------- Union Pacific Corporation is awaiting a court decision on defendant railroads' petition for review of a class certification ruling, according to the Company's February 8, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. Twenty small rail shippers (many of whom are represented by the same law firms) filed virtually identical antitrust lawsuits in various federal district courts against the Company and four other Class I railroads in the U.S. (one railroad was eventually dropped from the lawsuit). The original plaintiff filed the first of these claims in the U.S. District Court in New Jersey on May 14, 2007, and the additional plaintiffs filed claims in district courts in various states, including Florida, Illinois, Alabama, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia. These lawsuits allege that the named railroads engaged in price-fixing by establishing common fuel surcharges for certain rail traffic. The Company received additional complaints following the initial claim, increasing the total number of complaints to 30. In addition to lawsuits filed by direct purchasers of rail transportation, a few of the lawsuits involved plaintiffs alleging that they are or were indirect purchasers of rail transportation and seeking to represent a purported class of indirect purchasers of rail transportation that paid fuel surcharges. These complaints added allegations under state antitrust and consumer protection laws. On November 6, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that all of the rail fuel surcharge cases be transferred to Judge Paul Friedman of the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Subsequently, the direct purchaser plaintiffs and the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaints against Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR) and three other Class I railroads. One additional shipper filed a separate antitrust lawsuit during 2008. Subsequently, the shipper voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice. On October 10, 2008, Judge Friedman heard oral arguments with respect to the defendant railroads' motions to dismiss. In a ruling on November 7, 2008, Judge Friedman denied the motion with respect to the direct purchasers' complaint, and pretrial proceedings are underway in that case. On December 31, 2008, Judge Friedman dismissed the complaints of the indirect purchasers based upon state antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment laws. He also ruled, however, that these plaintiffs could proceed with their claim for injunctive relief under the federal antitrust laws, which is identical to a claim by the direct purchaser plaintiffs. The indirect purchasers appealed Judge Friedman's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. On April 16, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed Judge Friedman's ruling dismissing the indirect purchasers' claims based on various state laws. With respect to the direct purchasers' complaint, Judge Friedman conducted a two-day hearing on October 6 and 7, 2010, on the class certification issue and the railroad defendants' motion to exclude evidence of interline communications. On April 7, 2011, Judge Friedman issued an order deferring any decision on class certification until the Supreme Court issued its decision in the Wal-Mart employment discrimination case. On June 21, 2012, Judge Friedman issued his decision certifying a class of plaintiffs to be represented by the eight named plaintiffs. The class includes all shippers that paid a rate- based fuel surcharge to any one of the defendant railroads for rate-unregulated rail transportation from July 1, 2003, through December 1, 2008. This is a procedural ruling, which does not affirm any of the claims asserted by the plaintiffs and does not affect the ability of the railroad defendants to disprove the allegations made by the plaintiffs. On July 5, 2012, the defendant railroads filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia requesting that the court review the class certification ruling. On August 28, 2012, a panel of the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia referred the petition to a merits panel of the court to address the issues in the petition and to address whether the district court properly granted class certification. The Company denies the allegations that its fuel surcharge programs violate the antitrust laws or any other laws. The Company believes that these lawsuits are without merit, and it will vigorously defend its actions. Therefore, the Company currently believes that these matters will not have a material adverse effect on any of its results of operations, financial condition and liquidity. ********* 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, Valerie Udtuhan, 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 * * *