/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/130225.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, February 25, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 39
Headlines
ASSOCIATED MILK: Recalls GFS Lemon Pudding Over Undeclared Milk
AVANQUEST NORTH: "Worley Suit" Plaintiff to File Amended Suit
BBU INC: Recalls Bread and Buns Due to Presence of Flexible Wire
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Sued Over Recalled GoldCoast Blue Crab Spread
DECOTY COFFEE: Recalls DeCoty Taco Seasoning Over Undeclared Soy
DOMEGA NY: Recalls Green Day Brand Dried Coconut Over Sulfites
DZH IMPORT: Recalls Mountains Dried Mushroom Due to Sulfites
ELITE MODEL: Faces Class Action Over Labor Violations
FLUSHMATE: Faces Suit Over Defective Flushometer Tank System
GLOBAL INTEGRATED: Owes Wages to Employees, Suit Claims
HEALTH SYSTEMS: FLSA Suit Parties Must File Accord by March 8
JS PELMINI: Undeclared Milk & Soy Prompt Recall of Dumplings
LG CHEM: Accused of Artificially Raising Lithium Battery Prices
LG CHEM: Conspired to Inflate Lithium Battery Prices, Suit Says
MEDIA ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Talent Agency
MUFFIN MAM: Recalls Strawberry Creme Cake Due to Undeclared Eggs
NATURE'S VARIETY: Recalls Organic Chicken Formula for Pets
NESTLE PREPARED: Recalls LEAN CUISINE Mushroom Mezzaluna Ravioli
NETFLIX INC: Schulthes Launches Class Suit in California
NETFLIX INC: Judge Rejects Class Action Filed Against Directors
NY PARTY: Accused of Making Up Ticketing and Handling Charges
QUIK PARK: NYC Garage Sued for Negligence During Superstorm Sandy
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: $103-Mil. Paid to "Scott" Suit Class Counsel
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Appeal in "Smith" Class Suit Remains Pending
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Continues to Defend 7 Class Suits in Canada
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Feb. 2014 Status Hearing Set in "Collora" Suit
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 4 "Lights" Suits Pending in Illinois, Missouri
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Jones" Class Suit Still Pending in Missouri
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: JTI's Indemnification Bid Remains Pending
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: May 29 Status Conference Set in "Turner" Suit
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Parsons" Suit in West Virginia Still Stayed
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Still Awaits Decision in "Tatum" ERISA Suit
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Still No Activity in "Howard" Class Suit
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Still No Activity in "Young" Class Suit
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Trial in "Sateriale" Suit Set for March 2014
VIRGIN MEDIA: Faces Suit Over Proposed Acquisition by Liberty
WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Suit Over Force-Placed Flood Insurance
ZIP INT'L: Recalls Dry Salted Fish Due to Possible Health Risk
*********
ASSOCIATED MILK: Recalls GFS Lemon Pudding Over Undeclared Milk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Milk Producers Inc. (AMPI) of New Ulm, Minnesota, in
cooperation with Gordon Food Service (GFS), is recalling pudding
labeled as GFS Lemon Pudding but contains vanilla pudding. Milk
is an ingredient in this vanilla pudding. GFS Lemon Pudding does
not declare milk on the label. People who have an allergy or
severe sensitivity to milk run the risk of a serious or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume the product.
The following product is affected:
* GFS Lemon Pudding (113 ounce cans) with UPC Number
9390110676 and Lot # 3T12354C printed on the end of the can.
These cans would be found in shipping cases labeled GFS
Vanilla Pudding with Lot # 3T12354C printed on the outside
of the case.
Only GFS Lemon Pudding cans with Lot # 3T12354C are affected by
this recall. The recalled product was distributed in Illinois,
Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Picture of the recalled products'
label is available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm339892.htm
No illnesses have been reported to date.
The recall was initiated after it was discovered that some cans
labeled as lemon pudding contained vanilla pudding. Consumers are
advised to return these cans to the store where they were
purchased for a refund.
Anyone requiring more information may contact AMPI Consumer
Affairs at 888-587-4674, Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00.
p.m. Central Standard Time.
AVANQUEST NORTH: "Worley Suit" Plaintiff to File Amended Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan Illston signed a stipulation between
Plaintiff Benson Worley and Defendant Avanquest North America,
Inc., wherein the parties agreed that:
(a) the Plaintiff will name Mr. Johnny Boyd as an additional
party-plaintiff in his anticipated amended pleading and do so
no later than February 22, 2013.
(b) the Defendant will file its challenge to the Plaintiff's
amended pleading no later than March 8, 2013; the Plaintiff
will file his opposition to the pleading challenge no later
than March 22, 2013; and, the Defendant will file its reply
in support of the pleading challenge no later than April 2,
2013.
(c) the hearing on the Defendant's pleading challenge will be set
for April 19, 2013 at 9:00 a.m.
(d) the case management conference currently set for February 22,
2013, is continued to May 10, 2013, at 2:30 p.m., and the
Parties will submit a joint case management statement seven
days prior to the conference, on May 3, 2013.
(e) the Parties shall serve their respective initial disclosures
no later than May 10, 2013.
The case is captioned BENSON WORLEY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AVANQUEST NORTH
AMERICA, INC., a California corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:12-
cv-04391-SI, (N.D. Cal.).
Jay Edelson, Esq. -- jedelson@edelson.com -- Rafey S. Balabanian
Esq. -- rbalabanian@edelson.com -- Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. --
brichman@edelson.com -- Chandler R. Givens, Esq. --
cgivens@edelson.com -- at EDELSON MCGUIRE LLC, in Chicago,
Illinois, represent the Plaintiff and the Putative Class.
A copy of the February 14, 2013 Stipulation and Order signed by
Judge Illston is available at http://is.gd/ZnqnBXfrom Leagle.com.
BBU INC: Recalls Bread and Buns Due to Presence of Flexible Wire
----------------------------------------------------------------
BBU, Inc., the parent of the Bimbo Bakeries companies, has
initiated a voluntary recall due to possible presence of flexible
wire caused by a faulty screen at a third party flour mill.
This recall does not affect any products currently offered for
sale in retail stores but the company, out of an abundance of
caution, wants to alert consumers to check any affected products
they may still have in their homes.
Recalled products are listed below with the applicable "Best By"
dates and their states of distribution. The "Best By" date is
printed on the front of the bag on the bread items and on a
sticker on the thin style buns product.
Best By dates prior to and including Feb. 17:
PRODUCTS STATES
-------- ------
SARA LEE MULTI-GRAIN THIN STYLE BUNS CA ONLY
Best By dates prior to and including Feb. 20:
PRODUCTS STATES
-------- ------
ALDI L'OVEN FRESH HEARTY 12 GRAIN AR, CT, DC, IL, IA, KS,
MD, MA, MN, MO, NE, NH,
NJ, NY, NC, OK, PA, RI,
SC, TX, VA, VT, WI, WV
FARM BREAD ALL NATURAL MULTI-GRAIN UT
HARMONS 100% MULTI-GRAIN WIDE PAN UT
OVEN-BAKED BREAD
ARNOLD DUTCH COUNTRY 100% WHOLE GRAIN AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC,
SC, TN, VA, WV
ARNOLD HEALTHFULL 45 CALORIES DC, DE, MD, NJ, NY, PA,
PER SLICE MULTIGRAIN VA, WV
BROWNBERRY HEALTHFULL 45 CALORIES IA, IL, IN, KY, MI, MN,
PER SLICE MULTIGRAIN MO, ND, OH, PA, SD, WI,
WV
BROWNBERRY DUTCH COUNTRY IA, IL, IN, KY, MI, MN,
100% WHOLE GRAIN MO, ND, OH, PA, SD, WI,
WV
BROWNBERRY GRAINS & MORE IA, IL, IN, KY, MI, MN,
DOUBLE PROTEIN MO, OH, PA, ND. SD, WI,
WV
BROWNBERRY HEALTHFULL NUTTY GRAIN IA, IL, IN, KY, MI, MN,
MO, ND, OH, PA, SD, WI,
WV
STROEHMANN DUTCH COUNTRY DC, DE, MD, NJ, NY, PA,
100% WHOLE GRAIN VA, WV
EARTHGRAINS 12 GRAIN NATURAL BREAD ALL STATES
SARA LEE 12 GRAIN BREAD ALL STATES
HEARTY & DELICIOUS
No other brands or products are affected.
BBU says it is committed to providing high-quality products, and
the safety and health of our consumers is our most important
priority. The Company is working closely with the third party
flour mill to avoid this issue in the future.
Consumers who have purchased the recalled product can return the
product to its place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers
with questions may contact the Company at 1-800-984-0989 at any
time 24 hours a day.
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Sued Over Recalled GoldCoast Blue Crab Spread
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Grim, on behalf of herself, and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Costco
Wholesale Membership, Inc. and GoldCoast Salads, Inc., Case No.
151555/2013 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., February 20, 2013), is a consumer
class action lawsuit related to GoldCoast's Blue Crab Spread,
which was recalled on February 1, 2013.
On January 19, 2013, Ms. Grim says she purchased BC Spread at a
Costco store in Rego Park, New York, and afterwards, she became
seriously ill. The spread was manufactured, distributed and sold
by GoldCoast to Costco. A recall was subsequently issued by
GoldCoast citing Listeria contamination.
Ms. Grim is a resident of the state of New York.
Costco Wholesale Corporation is a foreign corporation, duly
organized and existing under the laws of the state of Washington,
and is authorized to do business and doing business in the state
of New York. Costco Wholesale Membership Inc. is a foreign
corporation, duly organized and existing under the laws of the
state of California, and authorized to do business and doing
business in the state of New York. The Costco entities are major
companies that sell food and other products throughout the United
States, including New York. GoldCoast is a Florida company, doing
business in the state of New York.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Jaroslawicz, Esq.
JAROSLAWICZ & JAROS, LLC
225 Broadway, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 227-2780
E-mail: dj@lawjaros.com
DECOTY COFFEE: Recalls DeCoty Taco Seasoning Over Undeclared Soy
----------------------------------------------------------------
DeCoty Coffee Company of San Angelo, Texas, is recalling its 1.25
lb and 5.75 lb of DeCoty Taco Seasoning because it contains an
undeclared ingredient, Soy. People who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to Soy run the risk of a life threatening or serious
allergic reaction if they consume these items.
The recalled DeCoty Taco Seasonings were initially distributed in
the State of Texas by DeCoty sales personnel and were also sold
nationally online at http://www.decoty.com/
The products come in 1.25 lb and 5.75 lb sizes and are distributed
in plastic spice containers with resealable lids. The item code
numbers are 71400 and 71410 with lot numbers from 010111 through
021313. Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available
at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm340085.htm
No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.
Recall was initiated after it was discovered during an FDA
Inspection that Soy was not listed as an ingredient.
Consumers who have purchased the DeCoty Taco Seasoning are urged
to return them to their local DeCoty Salesman. Customer with
questions may call 1-800-588-8001 Monday thru Fridays, 8:00 a.m.
till 5:00 p.m. Central Standard Time or e-mail questions to
sales@decoty.com
DOMEGA NY: Recalls Green Day Brand Dried Coconut Over Sulfites
--------------------------------------------------------------
Domega NY International Co., Ltd. at 47-57 Bridgewater Street, in
Brooklyn, New York, is recalling GREEN DAY BRAND DRIED COCONUT
because it contains undeclared sulfites. People who have severe
sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reactions if they consume this product.
The recalled GREEN DAY BRAND DRIED COCONUT comes in a 3 oz (85
gram), clear plastic bag with the following code: Exp 09/13/2014.
The UPC code is 6 950296 800744. The product was sold in New York
City. It is a product of China. Picture of the recalled
products' label is available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm339755.htm
The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York State
Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and
subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel
revealed the presence of sulfites in packages of GREEN DAY BRAND
DRIED COCONUT, which did not declare sulfites on the label. The
consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving has been
reported to elicit severe reactions in some asthmatics.
Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive
individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites.
No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem. Consumers who have purchased GREEN DAY BRAND DRIED
COCONUT should return it to the place of purchase. Consumers with
questions may contact the Company at 646-388-3032.
DZH IMPORT: Recalls Mountains Dried Mushroom Due to Sulfites
------------------------------------------------------------
DZH Import & Export Inc. at 1300 Metropolitan Avenue, in Brooklyn,
New York, is recalling MOUNTAINS DRIED MUSHROOM because it
contains undeclared sulfites. People who have severe sensitivity
to sulfites run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reactions if they consume this product.
The recalled MOUNTAINS DRIED MUSHROOM comes in a 1.23 oz (35 gram)
plastic tray with the following code: BEST BEFORE: NOV. 30, 2013.
The UPC code is 6931653104064. The product was sold in New York
City. It is a product of China. Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm339345.htm
The recall is initiated after routine sampling by New York State
Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and
subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel
revealed the presence of sulfites in packages of MOUNTAINS DRIED
MUSHROOM which did not declare sulfites on the label. The
consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving has been
reported to elicit severe reactions in some asthmatics.
Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfites sensitive
individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites.
No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem. Consumers who have purchased MOUNTAINS DRIED MUSHROOM
should return it to the place of purchase. Consumers with
questions may contact the Company at 718-386-0089.
ELITE MODEL: Faces Class Action Over Labor Violations
-----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Elite Model Management, the
self-proclaimed "world's most prestigious" modeling agency, has
stiffed interns for $50 million since 2007, a class action claims
in Federal Court.
FLUSHMATE: Faces Suit Over Defective Flushometer Tank System
------------------------------------------------------------
Pankaj Patel, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Flushmate, a division of Sloan Valve Company, a
Delaware Corporation, Case No. 4:13-cv-00736 (N.D. Cal., February
19, 2013) is brought on behalf of all persons or entities, who own
or owned a toilet with a Series 503 Flushmate(R) III Pressure-
Assist Flushing System, also referred to as the Flushmate
Flushometer Tank System manufactured between October 14, 1997, and
February 29, 2008, and including all serial numbers within the
range 101497 to 022908, sold by Flushmate, which is now subject to
a nationwide product recall.
The Flushmate System poses a safety hazard and is unreasonably
dangerous to consumers in that the units can burst at or near the
vessel weld seam, Mr. Patel contends. He alleges that Flushmate
has failed to adequately publicize the Recall, and as a result,
many members of the putative class have not yet received notice of
the Recall and are still in possession of and using a dangerous
product.
Mr. Patel is a resident of Millbrae, California. He is the owner
of a Travelers Inn located at 100 Hickey Boulevard, in South San
Francisco, California. In February 2002, he purchased 22 Gerber
toilets containing the Flushmate System for the Travelers Inn, and
in August 2005, he purchased four Gerber toilets containing the
Flushmate System for his home.
Flushmate is a division of the Sloan Valve Company, located in New
Hudson, Michigan. Sloan Valve is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Franklin Park, Illinois. Flushmate manufactures,
supplies and distributes pressurized flushing devices, including
the defective Flushmate System used in toilets.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark J. Geragos, Esq.
Shelley Kaufman, Esq.
Ben Meiselas, Esq.
GERAGOS & GERAGOS, A Professional Corporation
Historic Engine Co. No. 28
644 South Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017-3411
Telephone: (213) 625-3900
E-mail: Geragos@Geragos.com
mark@geragos.com
kaufman@geragos.com
meiselas@geragos.com
- and -
Richard Arsenault, Esq.
Douglas E. Rushton, Esq.
NEBLETT, BEARD & ARSENAULT
2220 Bonaventure Court
Alexandria, LA 71301
Telephone: (800) 256-1050
E-mail: rarsenault@nbalawfirm.com
drushton@nbalawfirm.com
GLOBAL INTEGRATED: Owes Wages to Employees, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Global Integrated Security
cheated employees of wages owed for work in Iraq, a class action
claims in Federal Court.
HEALTH SYSTEMS: FLSA Suit Parties Must File Accord by March 8
-------------------------------------------------------------
On February 15, 2013, District Judge Greg Kays granted a motion to
enforce a settlement in JADE McCLEAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Defendants, No. 11-03037-CV-S-
DGK,(W.D. Mo.).
The Plaintiffs' complaint alleged that Health Systems, which
manages 60 Missouri nursing home facilities, unlawfully withheld
wages from hourly, nonexempt employees in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act. The parties to the case filed a joint status
report on August 20, 2012, informing the Court that the parties
had agreed to settle in July 2012 and were working on finalizing
the settlement papers. On November 13, 2012, the Defendants
informed the Court that settlement negotiations had "reached an
impasse." The Plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce parties'
settlement agreement. The Defendants dispute that a settlement
was ever reached.
In his order, Judge Kays held that the parties have reached an
agreement on all material terms of a settlement.
Judge Kays added that "[w]ith regard to the release of claims, the
Court finds the settlement is as follows: Those who opt-in to the
FLSA case will have their FLSA rights extinguished and those who
do not opt-out of the Rule 23 Missouri class action case will have
their Missouri wage and hour claims extinguished."
Judge Kays ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding the
proposed form of notice. If the parties cannot reach an agreement,
each shall submit its proposed notice to the Court, and the Court
will determine which notice is best practicable under the
circumstances, he said.
The parties are directed to file their settlement agreement with
the Court for approval on or before March 8, 2013.
A copy of the District Court's February 15, 2013 Order is
available at http://is.gd/gy6TvFfrom Leagle.com.
JS PELMINI: Undeclared Milk & Soy Prompt Recall of Dumplings
------------------------------------------------------------
JS Pelmini OK, Inc., of Brooklyn, New York, is recalling Potato
Dumplings and Potato and Mushroom Dumplings, because they contain
undeclared Milk and Soy. People who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to milk and soy run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.
The Potato Dumplings and Potato and Mushroom Dumplings products
were distributed on or before 2/11/13 to retailers in New York,
Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Illinois.
These products are packaged in 1 lb. clear plastic bags with blue
and brown or blue and black paper labels. The products are
labeled KEEP FROZEN. The Potato Dumplings bears UPC code 6 54368
10038 6. The Potato and Mushroom Dumplings bears UPC code 6 54368
10039 3. There is no other coding. Pictures of the recalled
products' labels are available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm339905.htm
No illnesses have been reported to date.
This issue was identified by a dual inspection by the NY State
Department of Agriculture and the FDA and was caused by a failure
to include proper sub-ingredients on the finished product labels.
The recall was initiated after it was discovered that products
containing milk and soy were distributed in packaging that did not
reveal the presence of milk and soy. Subsequent investigation
indicates the problem was caused by a temporary breakdown in the
Company's production and packaging processes.
Consumers who have purchased these Dumplings are urged to return
them to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with
questions may contact the Company at 718-469-1490 Monday to
Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time.
LG CHEM: Accused of Artificially Raising Lithium Battery Prices
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Tolchin, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. LG Chem, Ltd.; LG Chem America, Inc.; Panasonic
Corporation; Panasonic Corporation of North America; Sanyo
Electric Co., Ltd.; Sanyo North America Corporation; Sony
Corporation; Sony Energy Devices Corporation; Sony Electronics,
Inc.; Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.; Samsung SDI America, Inc.; Hitachi,
Ltd.; Hitachi Maxell, Ltd.; and Maxell Corporation of America,
Case No. 3:13-cv-00700 (N.D. Cal., February 15, 2013) accuses the
Defendants of conspiring to unlawfully fix and artificially raise
the prices of Lithium Ion Rechargeable Batteries.
The Defendants, their parents, subsidiaries, or affiliates have
coordinated one of the most extensive worldwide price-fixing
conspiracies in the past decade -- fixing the prices of key
components for consumer electronic goods, in particular computers,
televisions, and cellular phones, Mr. Tolchin alleges. He asserts
that he and the proposed class are consumers, who indirectly
purchased a stand-alone Lithium Ion Rechargeable Battery with a
cell manufactured by a Defendant, or a Lithium Ion Rechargeable
Battery Product with Lithium Ion Rechargeable Battery from
January 1, 2002, through 2011.
Mr. Tolchin is a resident of New York City. He purchased a
Lithium Ion Rechargeable Battery or products containing a cell
manufactured by a Defendant during the Class Period.
LG Chem is a Korean corporation based in Seoul, South Korea. LG
Chem is an affiliate of Seoul-based conglomerate LG Electronics.
LG Chem America is a Delaware corporation based in Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey, and a wholly owned subsidiary of LG Chem.
Panasonic Corp. is a Japanese corporation based in Osaka, Japan.
Panasonic Corp. was formerly known as Matsushita Electric
Industrial Co. Panasonic manufactures and sells Lithium Ion
Rechargeable Batteries under the Panasonic name and also under the
name of Defendant and wholly owned subsidiary Sanyo Electric Co.,
Ltd. Panasonic Corporation of North America, formerly known as
Matsushita Electric Corporation of America, is a Delaware
Corporation based in Secaucus, New Jersey, and a wholly owned and
controlled subsidiary of Panasonic Corporation. Sanyo is a
Japanese corporation based in Osaka, Japan. Sanyo North America
Corporation is a Delaware corporation based in San Diego,
California, and a wholly owned subsidiary of Sanyo Electric Co.,
Ltd.
Sony Corporation is a Japanese corporation based in Tokyo, Japan.
Sony Energy is a Japanese corporation based in Fukushima, Japan.
Sony Energy Devices Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Sony Corporation. Sony Electronics is a Delaware corporation
based in San Diego, California, and a wholly owned subsidiary of
Sony Corporation.
Samsung SDI is a Korean corporation based in Gyeonggi, South
Korea, and 20% owned by the Korean conglomerate Samsung
Electronics, Inc. Samsung SDI America is a California corporation
based in San Jose, California, and a wholly owned subsidiary of
Samsung SDI.
Hitachi Ltd. is a Japanese company based in Tokyo, Japan. Hitachi
Maxell is a Japanese corporation based in Tokyo, Japan, and a
wholly owned subsidiary of Hitachi, Ltd. Maxell is a New Jersey
corporation based in Woodland Park, New Jersey.
The Defendants manufacture, market, and sell Lithium Ion
Rechargeable Batteries throughout the United States and the world.
The Defendants collectively controlled approximately two-thirds or
more of the worldwide market for Lithium Ion Rechargeable
Batteries throughout this period, and over 80 percent of the
market in the early part of this period.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael D. Liberty, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL D. LIBERTY
1290 Howard Ave.
Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: (650) 685-8085
Facsimile: (650) 685-8086
E-mail: mdlaw@pacbell.net
- and -
Judd B. Grossman, Esq.
GROSSMAN LAW LLP
590 Madison Avenue, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (646) 770-7445
Facsimile: (212) 521-4044
E-mail: jgrossman@grossmanllp.com
LG CHEM: Conspired to Inflate Lithium Battery Prices, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kristina Yee, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. LG Chem. Ltd.; LG Chem America, Inc.; Panasonic
Corporation; Panasonic Corporation of North America; Sanyo
Electric Co., Ltd.; Sanyo North America Corporation; Sony
Corporation; Sony Energy Devices Corporation; Sony Electronics,
Inc.; Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.; Samsung SDI America, Inc.; Hitachi,
Ltd.; Hitachi Maxell, Ltd.; and Maxell Corporation of America,
Case No. 3:13-cv-00703 (N.D. Cal., February 15, 2013) involves
Lithium Ion Rechargeable Batteries, which are found in products
purchased by the Plaintiff and the Class members, including in
mobile telephones, smartphones, notebook computers, tablet
computers, cameras, personal assistants, and handheld game
consoles.
The Defendants and other presently unknown co-conspirators agreed,
combined and conspired to inflate, fix, raise, maintain, or
artificially stabilize prices of Lithium Ion Rechargeable
Batteries by entering into illegal agreements, Ms. Yee alleges.
She contends that she has suffered injury as a result of the
antitrust violations perpetrated by the Defendants.
Ms. Yee is a resident of San Francisco, California. She purchased
a Lithium Ion Rechargeable Battery or products containing a cell
manufactured by a Defendant during the Class Period.
LG Chem is a Korean corporation based in Seoul, South Korea. LG
Chem is an affiliate of Seoul-based conglomerate LG Electronics.
LG Chem America is a Delaware corporation based in Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey, and a wholly owned subsidiary of LG Chem.
Panasonic Corp. is a Japanese corporation based in Osaka, Japan.
Panasonic Corp. was formerly known as Matsushita Electric
Industrial Co. Panasonic manufactures and sells Lithium Ion
Rechargeable Batteries under the Panasonic name and also under the
name of Defendant and wholly owned subsidiary Sanyo Electric Co.,
Ltd. Panasonic Corporation of North America, formerly known as
Matsushita Electric Corporation of America, is a Delaware
Corporation based in Secaucus, New Jersey, and a wholly owned and
controlled subsidiary of Panasonic Corporation. Sanyo is a
Japanese corporation based in Osaka, Japan. Sanyo North America
Corporation is a Delaware corporation based in San Diego,
California, and a wholly owned subsidiary of Sanyo Electric Co.,
Ltd.
Sony Corporation is a Japanese corporation based in Tokyo, Japan.
Sony Energy is a Japanese corporation based in Fukushima, Japan.
Sony Energy Devices Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Sony Corporation. Sony Electronics is a Delaware corporation
based in San Diego, California, and a wholly owned subsidiary of
Sony Corporation.
Samsung SDI is a Korean corporation based in Gyeonggi, South
Korea, and 20% owned by the Korean conglomerate Samsung
Electronics, Inc. Samsung SDI America is a California corporation
based in San Jose, California, and a wholly owned subsidiary of
Samsung SDI.
Hitachi Ltd. is a Japanese company based in Tokyo, Japan. Hitachi
Maxell is a Japanese corporation based in Tokyo, Japan, and a
wholly owned subsidiary of Hitachi, Ltd. Maxell is a New Jersey
corporation based in Woodland Park, New Jersey.
The Defendants manufacture, market, and sell Lithium Ion
Rechargeable Batteries throughout the United States and the world.
The Defendants collectively controlled approximately two-thirds or
more of the worldwide market for Lithium Ion Rechargeable
Batteries throughout this period, and over 80 percent of the
market in the early part of this period.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
Nancy L. Fineman, Esq.
Nanci E. Nishimura, Esq.
Steven N. Williams, Esq.
Elizabeth Tran, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
840 Malcolm Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: (650) 697-6000
Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
nfineman@cpmlegal.com
nnishimura@cpmlegal.com
swilliams@cpmlegal.com
etran@cpmlegal.com
MEDIA ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Talent Agency
------------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Media Entertainment Partners
and David Davis, of Las Vegas, run an illegal online "talent
agency" that takes fees without offering a contract, a class
action claims in Alameda County Court.
MUFFIN MAM: Recalls Strawberry Creme Cake Due to Undeclared Eggs
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Muffin "Mam", Inc.(TM), headquartered in Simpsonville, South
Carolina, is recalling The Muffin "Mam", Inc.(TM) brand 24oz
Strawberry Creme Cake as they contain undeclared Whole Eggs
ingredient.
People with an allergy or severe sensitivity to eggs run the risk
of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume
this product.
The recalled item was sold in retail stores from March 19, 2011,
to January 22, 2013, located in WV, SC, NC, GA, TN, & PA within
the in-store Bakery area.
The recalled item is: The Muffin "Mam", Inc. 24 oz Strawberry
Creme Cake Product that is affected is packed in a PETE black cake
base and clear dome, All lot codes with UPC Code 7-60366-00986-3.
Picture of the recalled products' label is available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm340048.htm
No illnesses have been reported to date related to the consumption
of this product.
Upon being made aware of the issue via a consumer inquiry, all
affected product was removed from the retail stores.
Consumers who have purchased this item are urged to return it to
the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions
may contact The Muffin "Mam" Inc., Terri Jermon, Quality Assurance
Mgr, at 1-800-948-4268, Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. Eastern Standard Time. Consumers with concerns about an
illness from consumption of the product should contact a
healthcare provider.
NATURE'S VARIETY: Recalls Organic Chicken Formula for Pets
----------------------------------------------------------
Nature's Variety has announced a voluntary recall of one batch of
Instinct(R) Raw Organic Chicken Formula with a "Best if Used By"
date of 10/04/13. This action is being taken because pieces of
clear plastic may be found in some bags and could cause a
potential choking risk to pets. The source of plastic has been
identified and the issue has been resolved.
The affected product is strictly limited to a single batch of
Organic Chicken Formula with the "Best if Used By" date of
10/04/13. This includes:
* UPC# 7 69949 60137 1 -- Instinct Raw Organic Chicken Formula
medallions, 3 lbs. bag
* UPC# 7 69949 70137 8 -- Instinct Raw Organic Chicken Formula
medallions, 27 lbs. case
* UPC# 7 69949 60127 2 -- Instinct Raw Organic Chicken Formula
patties, 6 lbs. bag
* UPC# 7 69949 70127 9 -- Instinct Raw Organic Chicken Formula
patties, 36 lbs. case
The "Best if Used By" date is located on the back of the package
below the "Contact Us" section. The affected product was
distributed through retail stores and internet sales in the United
States and Canada. No other products were impacted.
Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm340076.htm
Nature's Variety became aware of a potential issue after receiving
a consumer complaint. The source of the issue was identified and
resolved. To date, there have been no reports of harm to dogs or
cats.
Reed Howlett, CEO of Nature's Variety, stated, "At Nature's
Variety we take quality and safety very seriously. We believe
that under all circumstances, the health and safety of pets comes
first."
Consumers feeding the affected product should discontinue use and
monitor their pet's health, and contact their veterinarian if they
have concerns. Consumers who have purchased one of the above
products can obtain a full refund or exchange by either returning
the product in its original packaging or bringing a proof of
purchase back to their retailer.
Consumers with additional questions can call the Nature's Variety
Consumer Relations team at 1.888.519.7387 Monday through Friday,
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Central Standard Time. Or, questions can
be e-mailed directly to cservice@naturesvariety.com
About Nature's Variety(R)
Nature's Variety is an independent pet food company located in St.
Louis, Missouri and Lincoln, Nebraska. As the maker of
Instinct(R) and Prairie(R) brand pet foods and treats, Nature's
Variety is passionate about providing natural and holistic
nutrition for dogs and cats. Nature's Variety foods are available
raw frozen diets, dry kibble diets, canned diets, and treats in a
variety of protein choices. For more information about Nature's
Variety, visit http://www.naturesvariety.com/or
http://www.instinctpetfood.com/
NESTLE PREPARED: Recalls LEAN CUISINE Mushroom Mezzaluna Ravioli
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nestle Prepared Foods Company announced the voluntary recall of
two production codes of LEAN CUISINE(R) Culinary Collection
Mushroom Mezzaluna Ravioli, UPC 13800-58358. The production codes
are 2311587812 and 2312587812; the "best before date" appears as
DEC 2013.
The voluntary recall is limited to these two days of production,
which were distributed nationwide. No other production dates,
sizes or varieties of LEAN CUISINE products are affected by this
recall. The reason for the recall is that the meal may contain
fragments of glass. Nestle is taking this action after three
consumers reported they had found small fragments of glass in the
ravioli portion of the entree. No injuries were reported by any
of the consumers.
The entree being recalled was produced during early November 2012.
Due to its popularity, Nestle believes very little remains in
retail distribution. For this reason, Nestle is reaching out to
consumers to ask that they examine their freezer inventory for
specific packages of LEAN CUISINE(R), Culinary Collection Mushroom
Mezzaluna Ravioli, UPC 13800-58358 with production codes
2311587812 and 2312587812 and a "best before date" which appears
as DEC 2013. To locate the production code, consumers should look
for the gray "proof of purchase" panel, located on the right end
flap of the package, below the ingredient statement.
Picture of the recalled products' label is available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm339174.htm
Consumers who may have purchased the recalled LEAN CUISINE item
should not consume the product, but instead should contact Nestle
Consumer Services at (866) 586-9424 or leancuisine@casupport.com
for further instructions. Hours of operation are Monday through
Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Eastern Time. Nestle will
provide a replacement coupon to reporting consumers and also may
make arrangements to retrieve the product for further examination.
Nestle says it is dedicated to food quality, and the health and
safety of its consumers. For these reasons, the Company initiated
this recall. The Company apologizes to its retail customers and
consumers and sincerely regrets any inconvenience created by this
voluntary product recall.
NETFLIX INC: Schulthes Launches Class Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------
Martin Schulthes, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Netflix, Inc., 13-cv-00712 (N.D. Cal.
February 19, 2013), was filed against the Internet television
operator.
Netflix, Inc. (Nasdaq: NFLX) -- http://www.netflix.com/-- boasts
of more than 33 million members in 40 countries enjoying more than
one billion hours of TV shows and movies per month, including
Netflix original series. For one low monthly price, Netflix
members can watch as much as they want, anytime, anywhere, on
nearly any Internet-connected screen. Members can play, pause and
resume watching, all without commercials or commitments.
NETFLIX INC: Judge Rejects Class Action Filed Against Directors
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge nixed a
consolidated class action alleging that Netflix directors spent
more than $1 billion buying back shares at inflated prices.
Netflix, Inc. (Nasdaq: NFLX) -- http://www.netflix.com/-- boasts
of more than 33 million members in 40 countries enjoying more than
one billion hours of TV shows and movies per month, including
Netflix original series. For one low monthly price, Netflix
members can watch as much as they want, anytime, anywhere, on
nearly any Internet-connected screen. Members can play, pause and
resume watching, all without commercials or commitments.
NY PARTY: Accused of Making Up Ticketing and Handling Charges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Randi McCauley, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. New York Party Shuttle LLC d/b/a Onboard Tours,
Onboard Las Vegas Tours LLC, Party Shuttle Tours LLC and John Does
1-10, Case No. 650549/2013 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., February 19, 2013) is
brought on behalf of similarly situated consumers, who purchase
OnBoard tour tickets and pay a $5.00 per ticket per person fee for
"ticketing and handling."
In truth and fact, Ms. McCauley asserts that no ticketing or
handling actually takes place during the tour. She insists that
the ticketing and handling charges are completely made up and
serve as simply an extraordinary profit center for the Defendants.
Ms. McCauley is a resident and citizen of the state of Illinois.
She made a reservation for two adults for the "NYC Freedom Tour"
on September 20, 2012, which was repeatedly represented and
advertised by the Defendants as a tour with a price of $59.99 per
person. Yet, she alleges that she paid $59.99 per ticket for the
tour plus a $5 per ticket fee for Ticketing/Handling, for a total
cost of $129.98.
New York Party Shuttle LLC is a New York-based sightseeing tours
operator. New York Party Shuttle LLC operates guided group and
private sightseeing tours of varying length, which frequent
various landmarks in New York, New York; Washington, DC; and, Las
Vegas, Nevada. OnBoard Las Vegas Tours LLC is a Nevada-
incorporated company headquartered in Henderson, Nevada. Party
Shuttle Tours LLC is the officer and manager of OnBoard Las Vegas
Tours LLC. The Doe Defendants are all other corporations or
entities that do business as "OnBoard Tours."
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ralph M. Stone, Esq.
Susan M. Davies, Esq.
STONE BONNER & ROCCO LLP
260 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 239-4340
Facsimile: (212) 239-4310
E-mail: rstone@lawssb.com
sdavies@lawssb.com
QUIK PARK: NYC Garage Sued for Negligence During Superstorm Sandy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Clark, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated Plaintiffs v. Quik Park Tribeca II LLC, and Autorama
Enterprises of Bronx, Inc., Case No. 151476/2013 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
February 19, 2013), is brought on behalf of similarly situated
individuals that paid a monthly fee in consideration for the right
to park their vehicles at the parking garage located at 450
Washington Street, in New York, on October 28, 2012.
The Plaintiff is seeking damages and other appropriate relief for
claims arising out of the Defendants' alleged negligence and gross
negligence relating to their (1) misleading and false
representations made to Monthly Parking Customers that the Parking
Garage would remain open during Superstorm Sandy, (2) failure to
notify the Monthly Parking Customers that the customers' vehicles
must be removed from the Parking Garage by 4:00 p.m. on Sunday,
October 28, 2012, (3) failure to respond to phone calls and
requests by the Monthly Parking Customers after the October 28
deadline to open the Parking Garage for the purpose of removing
the vehicles, obtaining personal property and evacuating "Zone A"
in lower Manhattan, and (4) failure to notify the Monthly Parking
Customers that the vehicles would be towed on Tuesday, October 29,
2012, to a location in the Bronx, without the opportunity to
obtain the Monthly Parking Customers' personal property or tow the
vehicles to an alternate location.
Mr. Clark is a resident of New York County, and is a Monthly
Parking Customer on October 28, 2012, at the Parking Garage.
Quik Park is a New York limited liability corporation. Quik Park
owned the Parking Garage. Autorama is a New York corporation
based in Bronx, New York. Autorama owned the towing company and
storage facilities located at 2480 Butler Place, in Bronx, New
York.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hunter Shkolnik, Esq.
Adam J. Gana, Esq.
NAPOLI, BERN, RIPKA & SHKOLNIK, LLP
350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7413
New York, NY 10118
Telephone: (212) 267-3700
Facsimile: (212) 587-0031
E-mail: Hunter@NapoliBern.com
Agana@NapoliBern.com
- and -
Jean Christensen, Esq.
Vincent Imbesi, Esq.
IMBESI CHRISTENSEN
450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 3002
New York, NY 10123
Telephone: (212) 736-0007
Facsimile: (212) 658-9177
E-mail: jchristensen@lawicm.com
vimbesi@lawicm.com
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: $103-Mil. Paid to "Scott" Suit Class Counsel
---------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately $103 million in fees and costs were paid in December
2012 to the class counsel in the lawsuit styled Scott v. American
Tobacco Co., according to Reynolds American Inc.'s February 12,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.
On November 5, 1998, in Scott v. American Tobacco Co., a case
filed in District Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, the trial
court certified a medical monitoring or smoking cessation class of
Louisiana residents who were smokers on or before May 24, 1996.
The case was brought against the major U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (RJR
Tobacco) and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. (B&W), seeking to
recover roughly $13.2 billion to pay for medical monitoring and
smoking cessation programs. In July 2003, the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the defendants on the plaintiffs' claim for
medical monitoring but also found in favor of the plaintiffs on
the claim for smoking cessation. In May 2004, the jury returned a
verdict in the amount of $591 million on the class's claim for a
smoking cessation program.
The defendants appealed, and in February 2007, the Louisiana Court
of Appeals upheld the class certification and found the defendants
responsible for funding smoking cessation for eligible class
members and remanded for further proceedings. The defendants'
applications for writ of certiorari with the Louisiana Supreme
Court and the U.S. Supreme Court were denied in 2008. In July
2008, the trial court entered an amended judgment in the case,
finding that the defendants are jointly and severally liable for
funding the cost of a court-supervised smoking cessation program
and ordering the defendants to deposit approximately $263 million
together with interest into the registry of the court for the
funding of the program. In December 2008, the trial court judge
signed an order granting the defendants an appeal from the amended
judgment. In 2010, the court of appeals amended, but largely
affirmed, the trial court's July 2008 judgment and ordered the
defendants to deposit with the court $278 million. The
defendants' motion for rehearing was denied, and their application
for writ of certiorari or review and emergency motion to stay
execution of judgment with the Louisiana Supreme Court were
denied. In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the defendant's
petition for writ of certiorari. The defendants were thus
required to pay the judgment and interest totaling approximately
$278 million, with RJR Tobacco paying $139 million, the portions
of the judgment allocated to RJR Tobacco and B&W.
In June 2011, the trial court created a trust to oversee the
cessation program and appointed three trustees. In October 2011,
after the judgment amount was paid in full, the plaintiffs filed a
motion for assessment of attorneys' fees and costs for the
prosecution of the case against the defendants rather than the
fund. On January 6, 2012, the defendants filed exceptions and
motion to strike seeking to dismiss any claim for fees from the
defendants, as opposed to the fund, which were denied by the trial
court. On April 4, 2012, the defendants filed an application for
supervisory writs with the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeal. In May 2012, the parties entered into an agreement that
all fees and expenses would come from the fund and that no
additional monies will come from the defendants. The defendants
agreed to surrender 50% of their reversionary interest in any
funds left over at the end of the 10-year program. Class counsel
and the trustees subsequently agreed on the amount of fees and
costs to be paid to class counsel by the fund, and the trial court
thereafter approved the amount (approximately $103 million). Fees
and costs were accordingly paid from the fund to class counsel in
December 2012.
The cessation program began in July 2012 and is scheduled to last
for 10 years. At the end of the 10-year period, the defendants
will assert a claim for 50% of any funds remaining.
Headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Reynolds American
Inc. ("RAI") -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding
company whose operating subsidiaries cigarette manufacturer R. J.
Reynolds Tobacco Company; smokeless tobacco products manufacturer
American Snuff Company, LLC; super-premium cigarette brand
manufacturer, Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. (SFNTC); and
Niconovum AB.
On July 30, 2004, the U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, now known as Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of
British American Tobacco p.l.c., were combined with R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, a wholly owned operating subsidiary of R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI.
As a result of the B&W business combination, B&W owns
approximately 42% of RAI's outstanding common stock. In 2006,
RAI, through a subsidiary, completed its acquisition of American
Snuff Co. and Rosswil, LLC.
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Appeal in "Smith" Class Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A number of tobacco wholesalers and consumers have sued U.S.
cigarette manufacturers, including R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., in federal and state
courts, alleging that cigarette manufacturers combined and
conspired to set the price of cigarettes in violation of antitrust
statutes and various state unfair business practices statutes. In
these cases, the plaintiffs asked the court to certify the
lawsuits as class actions on behalf of other persons who purchased
cigarettes directly or indirectly from one or more of the
defendants. As of December 31, 2012, all of the federal and state
court cases on behalf of indirect purchasers had been dismissed.
In Smith v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., a case filed in February
2000, and pending in District Court, Seward County, Kansas, the
court granted class certification in November 2001, in an action
brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including
RJR Tobacco and B&W, and the parent companies of the major U.S.
cigarette manufacturers, including Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc.
(RJR, a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI), seeking to recover an
unspecified amount in actual and punitive damages. The plaintiffs
allege that the defendants participated in a conspiracy to fix or
maintain the price of cigarettes sold in the United States. In an
opinion dated March 23, 2012, the court granted summary judgment
in favor of RJR Tobacco and B&W on the plaintiffs' claims. On
July 18, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.
No further updates were reported in the Company's February 12,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.
Headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Reynolds American
Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company
whose operating subsidiaries cigarette manufacturer R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company; smokeless tobacco products manufacturer American
Snuff Company, LLC; super-premium cigarette brand manufacturer,
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. (SFNTC); and Niconovum AB.
On July 30, 2004, the U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, now known as Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of
British American Tobacco p.l.c., were combined with R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, a wholly owned operating subsidiary of R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI.
As a result of the B&W business combination, B&W owns
approximately 42% of RAI's outstanding common stock. In 2006,
RAI, through a subsidiary, completed its acquisition of American
Snuff Co. and Rosswil, LLC.
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Continues to Defend 7 Class Suits in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. continues to defend its subsidiary from
seven class action lawsuits pending in Canada, according to the
Company's February 12, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.
The seven putative Canadian class actions were filed against
various Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
including Reynolds American Inc.'s subsidiary, R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company (RJR Tobacco), and one of its affiliates, in
courts in the Provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba,
Nova Scotia, Ontario and Saskatchewan, although the plaintiffs'
counsel have been actively pursuing only the action pending in
Saskatchewan at this time:
* In Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case
filed in July 2009 in the Court of Queen's Bench for
Saskatchewan against Canadian and non-Canadian
tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of
its affiliates, the plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of
all individuals who were alive on July 10, 2009, and who
have suffered, or who currently suffer, from chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, heart disease or
cancer, after having smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes
designed, manufactured, imported, marketed or distributed by
the defendants.
* In Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case
filed in June 2009, in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta
against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the
plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of all individuals,
including their estates, dependents and family members, who
purchased or smoked cigarettes designed, manufactured,
marketed or distributed by the defendants.
* In Kunka v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case
filed in 2009 in the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba
against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the
plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of all individuals,
including their estates, and their dependents and family
members, who purchased or smoked cigarettes manufactured by
the defendants.
* In Semple v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case
filed in June 2009 in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the
plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of all individuals,
including their estates, dependents and family members, who
purchased or smoked cigarettes designed, manufactured,
marketed or distributed by the defendants for the period of
January 1, 1954, to the expiry of the opt out period as set
by the court.
* In Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, a case filed
in June 2010 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia
against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the
plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of all individuals,
including their estates, who were alive on June 12, 2007,
and who have suffered, or who currently suffer from chronic
respiratory diseases, after having smoked a minimum of
25,000 cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported,
marketed, or distributed by the defendants.
* In McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, a case filed
in June 2010 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia
against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the
plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of all individuals,
including their estates, who were alive on June 12, 2007,
and who have suffered, or who currently suffer from heart
disease, after having smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes
designed, manufactured, imported, marketed, or distributed
by the defendants.
* In Jacklin v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a
case filed in June 2012 in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related
entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates,
the plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of all
individuals, including their estates, who were alive on
June 12, 2007, and who have suffered, or who currently
suffer from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart
disease, or cancer, after having smoked a minimum of 25,000
cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported, marketed, or
distributed by the defendants.
In each of these seven cases, the plaintiffs allege fraud,
fraudulent concealment, breach of warranty, breach of warranty of
merchantability and of fitness for a particular purpose, failure
to warn, design defects, negligence, breach of a "special duty" to
children and adolescents, conspiracy, concert of action, unjust
enrichment, market share liability, joint liability, and
violations of various trade practices and competition statutes.
The plaintiffs seek compensatory and aggravated damages; punitive
or exemplary damages; the right to waive the torts and claim
disgorgement of the amount of revenues or profits the defendants
received from the sale of tobacco products to putative class
members; interest pursuant to the Pre-judgment Interest Act and
other similar legislation; and other relief the court deems just.
Pursuant to the terms of the 1999 sale of RJR Tobacco's
international tobacco business, RJR Tobacco has tendered the
defense of these seven actions to Japan Tobacco Inc. Subject to a
reservation of rights, JTI has assumed the defense of RJR Tobacco
and its current or former affiliates in these actions.
Headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Reynolds American
Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company
whose operating subsidiaries cigarette manufacturer R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company; smokeless tobacco products manufacturer American
Snuff Company, LLC; super-premium cigarette brand manufacturer,
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. (SFNTC); and Niconovum AB.
On July 30, 2004, the U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, now known as Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of
British American Tobacco p.l.c., were combined with R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, a wholly owned operating subsidiary of R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI.
As a result of the B&W business combination, B&W owns
approximately 42% of RAI's outstanding common stock. In 2006,
RAI, through a subsidiary, completed its acquisition of American
Snuff Co. and Rosswil, LLC.
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Feb. 2014 Status Hearing Set in "Collora" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A status conference is scheduled for February 4, 2014, in the
class action lawsuit captioned Collora v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
Co., according to Reynolds American Inc.'s February 12, 2013, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2012.
A "lights" class-action case is pending against each of Reynolds
American Inc.'s subsidiary, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (RJR
Tobacco), and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. (B&W) in Missouri.
In Collora v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in May 2000
in Circuit Court, St. Louis County, Missouri, a judge in St. Louis
certified a class in December 2003. In April 2007, the court
granted the plaintiffs' motion to reassign Collora and the
following cases to a single general division: Craft v. Philip
Morris Companies, Inc. and Black v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco
Corp. In April 2008, the court stayed the case pending U.S.
Supreme Court review in Good v. Altria Group, Inc. A nominal
trial date of January 10, 2011, was scheduled, but it did not
proceed at that time. A status conference is scheduled for
February 4, 2014.
In the event RJR Tobacco and its affiliates or indemnitees lose
one or more of the pending "lights" class-action lawsuits, RJR
Tobacco could face bonding difficulties depending upon the amount
of damages ordered, if any, which could have a material adverse
effect on RJR Tobacco's, and consequently RAI's, results of
operations, cash flows or financial position.
Headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Reynolds American
Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company
whose operating subsidiaries cigarette manufacturer R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company; smokeless tobacco products manufacturer American
Snuff Company, LLC; super-premium cigarette brand manufacturer,
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. (SFNTC); and Niconovum AB.
On July 30, 2004, the U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, now known as Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of
British American Tobacco p.l.c. ("BAT), were combined with R. J.
Reynolds Tobacco Company, a wholly owned operating subsidiary of
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
RAI. As a result of the B&W business combination, B&W owns
approximately 42% of RAI's outstanding common stock. In 2006,
RAI, through a subsidiary, completed its acquisition of American
Snuff Co. and Rosswil, LLC.
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 4 "Lights" Suits Pending in Illinois, Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Four class action lawsuits involving Reynolds American Inc.'s
subsidiary over the use of the term "lights" remain pending in
Illinois and Missouri, according to the Company's February 12,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.
"Lights" class-action cases are pending against R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company (RJR Tobacco) or Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc.
(B&W) in Illinois (2) and Missouri (2). The classes in these
cases generally seek to recover $50,000 to $75,000 per class
member for compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and other
forms of relief, and attorneys' fees and costs from RJR Tobacco
and/or B&W. In general, the plaintiffs allege that RJR Tobacco or
B&W made false and misleading claims that "lights" cigarettes were
lower in tar and nicotine and/or were less hazardous or less
mutagenic than other cigarettes. The cases typically are filed
pursuant to state consumer protection and related statutes.
Many of these "lights" cases were stayed pending review of the
Good v. Altria Group, Inc. case by the U.S. Supreme Court. In
that "lights" class-action case against Altria Group, Inc. and
Philip Morris USA, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that these
claims are not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and
Advertising Act or by the Federal Trade Commission's, referred to
as FTC, historic regulation of the industry. Since this decision
in December 2008, a number of the stayed cases have become active
again.
The seminal "lights" class-action case involves RJR Tobacco's
competitor, Philip Morris, Inc. Trial began in Price v. Philip
Morris, Inc. in January 2003. In March 2003, the trial judge
entered judgment against Philip Morris in the amount of $7.1
billion in compensatory damages and $3 billion in punitive
damages. Based on Illinois law, the bond required to stay
execution of the judgment was set initially at $12 billion.
Philip Morris pursued various avenues of relief from the $12
billion bond requirement. On December 15, 2005, the Illinois
Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision and sent the
case back to the trial court with instructions to dismiss the
case. On December 5, 2006, the trial court granted the
defendant's motion to dismiss and for entry of final judgment.
The case was dismissed with prejudice the same day. In December
2008, the plaintiffs filed a petition for relief from judgment,
stating that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Good v. Altria
Group, Inc. rejected the basis for the reversal. The trial court
granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' petition
for relief from judgment in February 2009.
In March 2009, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth Judicial District, requesting a
reversal of the February 2009 order and remand to the circuit
court. On February 24, 2011, the appellate court entered an
order, concluding that the two-year time limit for filing a
petition for relief from a final judgment began to run when the
trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' lawsuit on December 18,
2006. The appellate court therefore found that the petition was
timely, reversed the order of the trial court, and remanded the
case for further proceedings. Philip Morris filed a petition for
leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court. On September 28,
2011, the Illinois Supreme Court denied Philip Morris's petition
for leave to appeal and returned the case to the trial court for
further proceedings. In December 2012, the trial court denied the
plaintiffs' petition for relief from the judgment. The plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal to the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth
Judicial District.
In the event RJR Tobacco and its affiliates or indemnitees lose
one or more of the pending "lights" class-action lawsuits, RJR
Tobacco could face bonding difficulties depending upon the amount
of damages ordered, if any, which could have a material adverse
effect on RJR Tobacco's, and consequently RAI's, results of
operations, cash flows or financial position.
Headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Reynolds American
Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company
whose operating subsidiaries cigarette manufacturer R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company; smokeless tobacco products manufacturer American
Snuff Company, LLC; super-premium cigarette brand manufacturer,
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. (SFNTC); and Niconovum AB.
On July 30, 2004, the U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, now known as Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of
British American Tobacco p.l.c., were combined with R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, a wholly owned operating subsidiary of R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI.
As a result of the B&W business combination, B&W owns
approximately 42% of RAI's outstanding common stock. In 2006,
RAI, through a subsidiary, completed its acquisition of American
Snuff Co. and Rosswil, LLC.
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Jones" Class Suit Still Pending in Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------------
In Jones v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., a case filed in December
1998 in Circuit Court, Jackson County, Missouri, the defendants
removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri in February 1999. The action was brought
against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including R. J.
Reynolds Tobacco Company (RJR Tobacco) and Brown & Williamson
Holdings, Inc. (B&W), and parent companies of U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc. (RJR, a
wholly owned subsidiary of Reynolds American Inc.), by tobacco
product users and purchasers on behalf of all similarly situated
Missouri consumers. The plaintiffs allege that their use of the
defendants' tobacco products has caused them to become addicted to
nicotine. The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of
compensatory and punitive damages. The case was remanded to the
Circuit Court in February 1999.
There is currently no activity in this case, according to the
Company's February 12, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.
Headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Reynolds American
Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company
whose operating subsidiaries cigarette manufacturer R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company; smokeless tobacco products manufacturer American
Snuff Company, LLC; super-premium cigarette brand manufacturer,
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. (SFNTC); and Niconovum AB.
On July 30, 2004, the U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, now known as Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of
British American Tobacco p.l.c., were combined with R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, a wholly owned operating subsidiary of R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI.
As a result of the B&W business combination, B&W owns
approximately 42% of RAI's outstanding common stock. In 2006,
RAI, through a subsidiary, completed its acquisition of American
Snuff Co. and Rosswil, LLC.
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: JTI's Indemnification Bid Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
By purchase agreement dated March 9, 1999, amended and restated as
of May 11, 1999, Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Reynolds American Inc., and R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
Company (RJR Tobacco) sold the international tobacco business to
Japan Tobacco Inc. Under the 1999 Purchase Agreement, RJR and RJR
Tobacco retained certain liabilities relating to the international
tobacco business sold to JTI. Under its reading of the
indemnification provisions of the 1999 Purchase Agreement, JTI has
requested indemnification for damages allegedly arising out of
these retained liabilities. As previously reported, a number of
the indemnification claims between the parties relating to the
activities of Northern Brands in Canada have been resolved. The
other matters for which JTI has requested indemnification for
damages under the indemnification provisions of the 1999 Purchase
Agreement are:
* In a letter dated March 31, 2006, counsel for JTI stated
that JTI would be seeking indemnification under the 1999
Purchase Agreement for any damages it may incur or may have
incurred arising out of a Southern District of New York
grand jury investigation, a now-terminated Eastern District
of North Carolina grand jury investigation, and various
actions filed by the European Community and others in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
referred to as the EDNY, against RJR Tobacco and certain of
its affiliates on November 3, 2000, August 6, 2001, and
October 30, 2002, and against JTI on January 11, 2002.
* JTI also has sought indemnification relating to a Statement
of Claim filed on April 23, 2010, against JTI Macdonald
Corp., referred to as JTI-MC, by the Ontario Flue-Cured
Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board, referred to as the Board,
Andy J. Jacko, Brian Baswick, Ron Kichler, and Aprad
Dobrenty, proceeding on their own behalf and on behalf of a
putative class of Ontario tobacco producers that sold
tobacco to JTI-MC during the period between January 1, 1986,
and December 31, 1996, referred to as the Class Period,
through the Board pursuant to certain agreements. The
Statement of Claim seeks recovery for damages allegedly
incurred by the class representatives and the putative class
for tobacco sales during the Class Period made at the
contract price for duty free or export cigarettes with
respect to cigarettes that, rather than being sold duty free
or for export, purportedly were sold in Canada, which
allegedly breached one or more of a series of contracts
dated between June 4, 1986, and July 3, 1996. A motion to
dismiss has been filed.
* Finally, JTI has advised RJR and RJR Tobacco of its view
that, under the terms of the 1999 Purchase Agreement, RJR
and RJR Tobacco are liable for a roughly $1.7 million
judgment entered in 1998, plus interest and costs, in an
action filed in Brazil by Lutz Hanneman, a former employee
of a former RJR Tobacco subsidiary. RJR and RJR Tobacco
deny that they are liable for this judgment under the terms
of the 1999 Purchase Agreement.
Although RJR and RJR Tobacco recognize that, under certain
circumstances, they may have these and other unresolved
indemnification obligations to JTI under the 1999 Purchase
Agreement, RJR and RJR Tobacco disagree with JTI as to (1) what
circumstances relating to any such matters may give rise to
indemnification obligations by RJR and RJR Tobacco, and (2) the
nature and extent of any such obligation. RJR and RJR Tobacco
have conveyed their position to JTI, and the parties have agreed
to resolve their differences at a later time.
No further updates were reported in the Company's February 12,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.
Headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Reynolds American
Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company
whose operating subsidiaries cigarette manufacturer R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company; smokeless tobacco products manufacturer American
Snuff Company, LLC; super-premium cigarette brand manufacturer,
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. (SFNTC); and Niconovum AB.
On July 30, 2004, the U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, now known as Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of
British American Tobacco p.l.c., were combined with R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, a wholly owned operating subsidiary of R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI.
As a result of the B&W business combination, B&W owns
approximately 42% of RAI's outstanding common stock. In 2006,
RAI, through a subsidiary, completed its acquisition of American
Snuff Co. and Rosswil, LLC.
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: May 29 Status Conference Set in "Turner" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A status conference has been scheduled for May 29, 2013, in the
class action lawsuit titled Turner v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
according to Reynolds American Inc.'s February 12, 2013, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2012.
In Turner v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in February
2000 in Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, a judge certified
a class in November 2001. In June 2003, RJR Tobacco filed a
motion to stay the case pending Philip Morris's appeal of the
Price v. Philip Morris Inc. case, which the judge denied in July
2003. In October 2003, the Illinois Fifth District Court of
Appeals denied RJR Tobacco's emergency stay/supremacy order
request. In November 2003, the Illinois Supreme Court granted RJR
Tobacco's motion for a stay pending the court's final appeal
decision in Price. On October 11, 2007, the Illinois Fifth
District Court of Appeals dismissed RJR Tobacco's appeal of the
court's denial of its emergency stay/supremacy order request and
remanded the case to the Circuit Court. A status conference is
scheduled for May 29, 2013.
Headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Reynolds American
Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company
whose operating subsidiaries cigarette manufacturer R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company; smokeless tobacco products manufacturer American
Snuff Company, LLC; super-premium cigarette brand manufacturer,
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. (SFNTC); and Niconovum AB.
On July 30, 2004, the U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, now known as Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of
British American Tobacco p.l.c., were combined with R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, a wholly owned operating subsidiary of R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI.
As a result of the B&W business combination, B&W owns
approximately 42% of RAI's outstanding common stock. In 2006,
RAI, through a subsidiary, completed its acquisition of American
Snuff Co. and Rosswil, LLC.
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Parsons" Suit in West Virginia Still Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In Parsons v. A C & S, Inc., a case filed in February 1998 in
Circuit Court, Ohio County, West Virginia, the plaintiff sued
asbestos manufacturers, U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including R.
J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (RJR Tobacco) and Brown & Williamson
Holdings, Inc. (B&W), and parent companies of U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc. (RJR, a
wholly owned subsidiary of Reynolds American Inc.), seeking to
recover $1 million in compensatory and punitive damages
individually and an unspecified amount for the class in both
compensatory and punitive damages. The class was brought on
behalf of persons who allegedly have personal injury claims
arising from their exposure to respirable asbestos fibers and
cigarette smoke. The plaintiffs allege that Mrs. Parsons' use of
tobacco products and exposure to asbestos products caused her to
develop lung cancer and to become addicted to tobacco. In
December 2000, three defendants, Nitral Liquidators, Inc.,
Desseaux Corporation of North America, and Armstrong World
Industries, filed bankruptcy petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware, In re Armstrong World
Industries, Inc. Pursuant to Section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy
Code, Parsons is automatically stayed with respect to all
defendants.
No further updates were reported in the Company's February 12,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.
Headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Reynolds American
Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company
whose operating subsidiaries cigarette manufacturer R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company; smokeless tobacco products manufacturer American
Snuff Company, LLC; super-premium cigarette brand manufacturer,
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. (SFNTC); and Niconovum AB.
On July 30, 2004, the U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, now known as Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of
British American Tobacco p.l.c., were combined with R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, a wholly owned operating subsidiary of R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI.
As a result of the B&W business combination, B&W owns
approximately 42% of RAI's outstanding common stock. In 2006,
RAI, through a subsidiary, completed its acquisition of American
Snuff Co. and Rosswil, LLC.
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Still Awaits Decision in "Tatum" ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In May 2002, in Tatum v. The R.J.R. Pension Investment Committee
of the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company Capital Investment Plan, an
employee of Reynolds American Inc.'s subsidiary, R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company (RJR Tobacco), filed a class-action lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina,
alleging that the defendants, Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc.
(RJR), RJR Tobacco, the RJR Employee Benefits Committee and the
RJR Pension Investment Committee, violated the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The actions about which the
plaintiff complains stem from a decision made in 1999 by RJR
Nabisco Holdings Corp., subsequently renamed Nabisco Group
Holdings Corp. -- NGH -- to spin off RJR, thereby separating NGH's
tobacco business and food business. As part of the spin-off, the
401(k) plan for the previously related entities had to be divided
into two separate plans for the now separate tobacco and food
businesses. The plaintiff contends that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties to participants of the RJR 401(k) plan when
the defendants removed the stock funds of the companies involved
in the food business, NGH and Nabisco Holdings Corp., referred to
as Nabisco, as investment options from the RJR 401(k) plan
approximately six months after the spin-off. The plaintiff
asserts that a November 1999 amendment (the "1999 Amendment") that
eliminated the NGH and Nabisco funds from the RJR 401(k) plan on
January 31, 2000, contained sufficient discretion for the
defendants to have retained the NGH and Nabisco funds after
January 31, 2000, and that the failure to exercise such discretion
was a breach of fiduciary duty. In his complaint, the plaintiff
requests, among other things, that the court require the
defendants to pay as damages to the RJR 401(k) plan an amount
equal to the subsequent appreciation that was purportedly lost as
a result of the liquidation of the NGH and Nabisco funds.
In July 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the
court granted in December 2003. In December 2004, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the
complaint, holding that the 1999 Amendment did contain sufficient
discretion for the defendants to have retained the NGH and Nabisco
funds as of February 1, 2000, and remanded the case for further
proceedings. The court granted the plaintiff leave to file an
amended complaint and denied all pending motions as moot. In
April 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint.
The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part,
dismissing all claims against the RJR Employee Benefits Committee
and the RJR Pension Investment Committee. The remaining
defendants, RJR and RJR Tobacco, filed their answer and
affirmative defenses in June 2007. The plaintiff filed a motion
for class certification, which the court granted in September
2008. The district court ordered mediation, but no resolution of
the case was reached. In September 2008, each of the plaintiffs
and the defendants filed motions for summary judgment, and in
January 2009, the defendants filed a motion to decertify the
class. A second mediation occurred in June 2009, but again no
resolution of the case was reached. The district court overruled
the motions for summary judgment and the motion to decertify the
class.
A non-jury trial was held in January and February 2010. During
closing arguments, the plaintiff argued for the first time that
certain facts arising at trial showed that the 1999 Amendment was
not validly adopted, and then moved to amend his complaint to
conform to this evidence at trial. On June 1, 2011, the court
granted the plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint and found
that the 1999 Amendment was invalid.
The parties filed their findings of fact and conclusions of law on
February 4, 2011. A decision is pending.
No further updates were reported in the Company's February 12,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.
Headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Reynolds American
Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company
whose operating subsidiaries cigarette manufacturer R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company; smokeless tobacco products manufacturer American
Snuff Company, LLC; super-premium cigarette brand manufacturer,
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. (SFNTC); and Niconovum AB.
On July 30, 2004, the U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, now known as Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of
British American Tobacco p.l.c., were combined with R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, a wholly owned operating subsidiary of R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI.
As a result of the B&W business combination, B&W owns
approximately 42% of RAI's outstanding common stock. In 2006,
RAI, through a subsidiary, completed its acquisition of American
Snuff Co. and Rosswil, LLC.
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Still No Activity in "Howard" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Howard v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., filed in
February 2000 in Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, a judge
certified a class in December 2001. In June 2003, the trial judge
issued an order staying all proceedings pending resolution of the
Price v. Philip Morris, Inc. case. The plaintiffs appealed this
stay order to the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals, which
affirmed the Circuit Court's stay order in August 2005.
There is currently no activity in the case, according to Reynolds
American Inc.'s February 12, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.
Headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Reynolds American
Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company
whose operating subsidiaries cigarette manufacturer R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company; smokeless tobacco products manufacturer American
Snuff Company, LLC; super-premium cigarette brand manufacturer,
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. (SFNTC); and Niconovum AB.
On July 30, 2004, the U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, now known as Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of
British American Tobacco p.l.c., were combined with R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, a wholly owned operating subsidiary of R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI.
As a result of the B&W business combination, B&W owns
approximately 42% of RAI's outstanding common stock. In 2006,
RAI, through a subsidiary, completed its acquisition of American
Snuff Co. and Rosswil, LLC.
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Still No Activity in "Young" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In Young v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., a case filed in November
1997 in Circuit Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, the plaintiffs
brought an environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) class action against
U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
Company (RJR Tobacco) and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. (B&W),
and parent companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including
RJR, on behalf of all residents of Louisiana who, though not
themselves cigarette smokers, have been exposed to secondhand
smoke from cigarettes which were manufactured by the defendants,
and who allegedly suffered injury as a result of that exposure.
The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of
compensatory and punitive damages. In October 2004, the trial
court stayed this case pending the outcome of an appeal in Scott
v. American Tobacco Co., Inc.
There is currently no activity in the case, according to Reynolds
American Inc.'s February 12, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.
Headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Reynolds American
Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company
whose operating subsidiaries cigarette manufacturer R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company; smokeless tobacco products manufacturer American
Snuff Company, LLC; super-premium cigarette brand manufacturer,
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. (SFNTC); and Niconovum AB.
On July 30, 2004, the U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, now known as Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of
British American Tobacco p.l.c., were combined with R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, a wholly owned operating subsidiary of R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI.
As a result of the B&W business combination, B&W owns
approximately 42% of RAI's outstanding common stock. In 2006,
RAI, through a subsidiary, completed its acquisition of American
Snuff Co. and Rosswil, LLC.
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Trial in "Sateriale" Suit Set for March 2014
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action lawsuit styled Sateriale v. R. J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co., is scheduled for March 4, 2014, according to
Reynolds American Inc.'s February 12, 2013, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.
In Sateriale v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a class action filed
in November 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, the plaintiffs brought the case on behalf
of all persons who tried unsuccessfully to redeem Camel Cash
certificates from 1991 through March 31, 2007, or who held Camel
Cash certificates as of March 31, 2007. The plaintiffs allege
that in response to the defendants' action to discontinue
redemption of Camel Cash as of March 31, 2007, customers, like the
plaintiffs, attempted to exchange their Camel Cash for merchandise
and that the defendants, however, did not have any merchandise to
exchange for Camel Cash. The plaintiffs allege unfair business
practices, deceptive practices, breach of contract and promissory
estoppel. The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, actual damages,
costs and expenses. In January 2010, the defendants filed a
motion to dismiss, which prompted the plaintiffs to file an
amended complaint in February 2010. The class definition changed
to a class consisting of all persons who reside in the U.S. and
tried unsuccessfully to redeem Camel Cash certificates, from
October 1, 2006 (six months before the defendant ended the Camel
Cash program) or who held Camel Cash certificates as of March 31,
2007. The plaintiffs also brought the class on behalf of a
proposed California subclass, consisting of all California
residents meeting the same criteria.
In May 2010, RJR Tobacco's motion to dismiss the amended complaint
for lack of jurisdiction over subject matter and, alternatively,
for failure to state a claim was granted with leave to amend. The
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. In July 2010, RJR
Tobacco's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was
granted with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed a third amended
complaint, and RJR Tobacco filed a motion to dismiss in September
2010. In December 2010, the court granted RJR Tobacco's motion to
dismiss with prejudice. Final judgment was entered by the court
and the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in January 2011.
In July 2012, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the
plaintiffs' claims under the Unfair Competition Law and the
Consumer Legal Remedies Acts and reversed the dismissal of the
plaintiffs' claims for promissory estoppel and breach of contract.
RJR Tobacco's motion for rehearing or rehearing en banc was denied
in October 2012. RJR Tobacco filed its answer to the plaintiffs'
third amended complaint in December 2012. Trial is scheduled for
March 4, 2014.
Headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Reynolds American
Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company
whose operating subsidiaries cigarette manufacturer R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company; smokeless tobacco products manufacturer American
Snuff Company, LLC; super-premium cigarette brand manufacturer,
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. (SFNTC); and Niconovum AB.
On July 30, 2004, the U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, now known as Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of
British American Tobacco p.l.c., were combined with R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, a wholly owned operating subsidiary of R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI.
As a result of the B&W business combination, B&W owns
approximately 42% of RAI's outstanding common stock. In 2006,
RAI, through a subsidiary, completed its acquisition of American
Snuff Co. and Rosswil, LLC.
VIRGIN MEDIA: Faces Suit Over Proposed Acquisition by Liberty
-------------------------------------------------------------
Girvan Watts, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Virgin Media Inc., Liberty Global, Inc., Lynx Europe
Limited, Lynx US Mergerco 1 LLC, Lynx US Mergerco 2 LLC, Viper US
Mergerco 1 LLC, Viper US Mergerco 2 LLC, James F. Mooney, Neil A.
Berkett, Charles L. Allen, James A. Chiddix, Andrew J. Cole,
William R. Huff, Gordon D. McCallum, Eamonn O'Hare, John N.
Rigsby, Steven J. Simmons, Doreen A. Toben and George R.
Zoffinger, Case No. 650537/2013 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., February 19, 2013)
seeks equitable relief compelling the Company's Board of Directors
to properly exercise its fiduciary duties to the Company's
shareholders and to enjoin the close of the proposed acquisition
of the Company by Liberty until the alleged misconduct is
addressed.
In connection with the Proposed Acquisition, Mr. Watts alleges
that the conflicted Board failed to adequately discharge its
fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders by, inter alia,
failing to ensure that shareholders will receive maximum value for
their shares, approving the Poison Pill and Poison Pill Lock-Up,
which ensure that, for all potential acquirors other than Liberty,
the Company is prohibitively expensive and agreeing in the merger
agreement dated February 5, 2013, to a strict "no-solicitation"
provision that precludes Virgin Media from soliciting, or even
providing confidential Company information to, potential third
parties.
Mr. Watts is a shareholder of Virgin Media.
Virgin Media is a New York-based company incorporated in Delaware.
Liberty Global is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Englewood, Colorado. UK Holdco is a private limited company
incorporated under English law and a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Liberty Global. Lynx Merger Sub 1 is a Delaware limited liability
company and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Liberty Global. Lynx
Merger Sub 2 is a Delaware limited liability company and a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Lynx Merger Sub 1. Viper US Merger Sub 1 is a
Delaware limited liability company and an indirectly wholly-owned
subsidiary of UK Holdco. Viper Merger Sub 2 is a Delaware limited
liability company and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Viper Merger
Sub 1. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of
the Company.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
Mark S. Reich, Esq.
Michael Capeci, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 367-7100
Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
mreich@rgrdlaw.com
mcapeci@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Randall J. Baron, Esq.
A. Rick Atwood, Jr., Esq.
David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
Edward M. Gergosian, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
E-mail: randyb@rgrdlaw.com
ricka@rgrdlaw.com
DWissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com
EGergosian@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Willie C. Briscoe, Esq.
THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC
8150 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1575
Dallas, TX 75206
Telephone: (214) 239-4568
Facsimile: (281) 254-7789
E-mail: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com
- and -
Patrick W. Powers, Esq.
POWERS TAYLOR LLP
Campbell Centre II
8150 North Central Expressway, Suite 1575
Dallas, TX 75206
Telephone: (214) 239-8900
Facsimile: (214) 239-8901
E-mail: patrick@powerstaylor.com
WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Suit Over Force-Placed Flood Insurance
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arley and Valerie Leghorn, as individuals, as representatives of
the classes, and on behalf of the general public v. Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo Insurance, Inc., QBE Insurance
Corporation, and QBE First Insurance Agency, Inc., Case No. 4:13-
cv-00708 (N.D. Cal., February 19, 2013), is brought on behalf of
those who have mortgages secured by residential property, and were
charged for lender-placed, also known as "force-placed," flood
insurance.
Although mortgage lenders and servicers generally have the right
to force-place flood insurance where the property securing the
loan falls in a Special Flood Hazard Area and is not insured by
the borrower, WFB systematically abused that right and violated
the legal rights of the Plaintiffs and other putative class
members by (1) purchasing backdated policies, (2) charging
borrowers for expired or partially expired coverage, and (3)
arranging for kickbacks or so-called "commissions" for itself and
its affiliates in connection with force-placed flood insurance,
the Plaintiffs allege.
The Leghorns are residents of San Mateo, California. The
Plaintiffs' residential property in San Mateo was subjected to
force-placed flood insurance coverage.
WFB is a national banking association, legally headquartered in
Sioux Falls, South Dakota. WFB is engaged in the business of
mortgage lending and servicing, and does business in the state of
California and throughout the United States. WFI is an affiliate
of WFB, and is based in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. During the
relevant time period, WFI arranged for force-placed flood
insurance coverage for WFB through the QBE Defendants and other
entities, and received kickbacks or so-called "commissions" from
QBEF on the force-placed flood insurance coverage.
QBEC is headquartered on Wall Street Plaza, in New York. QBEC
issues force-placed flood insurance policies for numerous mortgage
lenders and servicers, and collects and retains premiums payments
in connection with those policies. The flood insurance policies
that Wells Fargo force-placed on the Plaintiffs' property were
issued by QBEC. QBEF is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, and
during the relevant time period, QBEF arranged for mortgage
lenders and servicers, including WFB, to purchase force-placed
flood insurance from QBEC, and received a portion of the premiums
paid on each force-placed policy. QBEF also tracked and monitored
the portfolios of various mortgage lenders and servicers,
including WFB, for flood insurance coverage.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 720
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 277-7235
Facsimile: (415) 277-7238
E-mail: helland@nka.com
- and -
Kai Richter, Esq.
G. Tony Atwal, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4600 IDS Center
80 South 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3200
Facsimile: (612) 215-6870
E-mail: krichter@nka.com
tatwal@nka.com
ZIP INT'L: Recalls Dry Salted Fish Due to Possible Health Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
ZIP International Group LLC is recalling Dry Salted Fish (bream)
because the product was found to be uneviscerated, and has the
potential to be contaminated with Clostridium botulinum, a
bacterium which can cause life-threatening illness or death.
Consumers are warned not to use the product even if it does not
look or smell spoiled.
Botulism, a potentially fatal form of food poisoning, can cause
the following symptoms: general weakness, dizziness, double-vision
and trouble with speaking or swallowing. Difficulty in breathing,
weakness of other muscles, abdominal distension and constipation
may also be common symptoms. People experiencing these problems
should seek immediate medical attention.
The recalled product, Dry Salted Fish (bream) was distributed by
East Coast Foods Inc. Brooklyn, NY, via delivery to retail stores
and wholesalers in September 2012.
The recalled product, Dry Salted Fish (bream) is packaged in
vacuum sealed packaging labeled "Astrakhansky Lesh" (Dry Salted
Fish Eviscerated) weight 14.2 oz. Bar Code 835856001228 is located
on the top right corner of the package. The recalled product, Dry
Salted Fish (bream) is a product of Russia.
Picture of the recalled products' label is available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm339737.htm
No illnesses have been reported to date.
Dry Salted Fish(bream) was sampled by the New York State
Department of Agriculture during inspection. Subsequent analysis
of the product by New York State Food Laboratory personnel
confirmed that the Dry Salted Fish (bream) was not properly
eviscerated prior to processing.
The sale of uneviscerated fish is prohibited under New York State
Agriculture and Markets regulations because Clostridium botulinum
spores are more likely to be concentrated in the viscera than any
other portion of the fish. Uneviscerated fish have been linked to
outbreaks of botulinum poisoning.
Consumers that have purchased Dry Salted Fish (bream) are advised
not to eat it and should return it to the place of purchase or
discard for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact
the company East Coast Foods Inc. at (718) 372-1113, Monday-Friday
10:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.
*********
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 * * *