/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/130403.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, April 3, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 65 Headlines 3M CO: Recalls Filtrete Room Air Purifiers Due to Fire Risk AMERICAN VANGUARD: Appeal in "Patrickson" Suit Remains Pending AMERICAN VANGUARD: Suit vs. AMVAC Remains Stayed in Delaware AMWAY CANADA: Norton Rose Discusses Court of Appeal Ruling BOEING CO: Dismissal of Dreamliner Class Suit Affirmed BRITISH COLUMBIA: Faces Class Action Over Insurance Premiums BUGABOO AMERICAS: Recalls 10,160 Cameleon3 Strollers CENTURYLINK INC: Has OK of Rights-of-Way Suits Deals in 22 States CENTURYLINK INC: Majority of Claims in "Fulghum" Suit Dismissed COMCAST CORP: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Antitrust Class Action CONAGRA FOODS: Faces Class Action Over Parkay Spray Claims COST PLUS: Faces Overtime Class Action in Kern County CST BRANDS: Canadian Price Fixing Class Suits Remain Pending CST BRANDS: Settlement in Hot Fuel Suit Approved in December CVB FINANCIAL: Still Awaits Order on Bid to Junk Securities Suit GAF TIMBERLINE: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Defective Shingles LINCOLN NATIONAL: Lawsuit Against Unit Stayed Through July 20 LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend "Bezich" Suit vs. LNL LIVINGSOCIAL: Settles Daily Deals Class Action for $4.1 Million NEW YORK, NY: Officers Told to Target Black Men, Trial Reveals NIDEK INC: Judge Dismisses Suit Over Lasik Medical Experimentation OBAGI PHARMA: Being Sold to Valeant for Too Little, Suit Claims PETERBOROUGH REGIONAL: Faces Class Action Over Privacy Breach PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT: Merger-Related Suits Consolidated in Jan. PT DOMUSINDO: Recalls 73,000 PT Domusindo Perdana Drop-Side Cribs ROSENBERG & ASSOCIATES: Wins Bid to Dismiss Debt Collection Suit SELLING SOURCE: Pfister TCPA Suit Transferred to California SOUTHERN UNION: Merger-Related Suit in Texas Remains Pending SOUTHERN UNION: Panhandle Still Defends "Price" Class Suit STANDARD FIRE: Morgan Lewis Discusses Supreme Court Ruling STAR SCIENTIFIC: To Vigorously Contest Class Action Allegations SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Appeal in "Griner" Class Suit Remains Pending SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: "Childs" Class Suit in Discovery Phase SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Shareholder Derivative Suit Settlement Okayed SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Visa Awaits Okay of Interchange Fee Suit Deal UNITED STATES: Judge Orders Release of Filings on Guantanamo Case UNITED TECH: Laid-Off Worker Files Class Action Over Stock Awards WEST MUSIC: Recalls 6,500 Basic Beat Egg-Shaker Toy Instruments WHITEWATER TECHNOLOGY: Recalls 2,200 Kayaking and Rafting Helmets ********* 3M CO: Recalls Filtrete Room Air Purifiers Due to Fire Risk ----------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with 3M Company, of St. Paul, Minnesota, announced a voluntary recall of about 10,000 Filtrete(TM) room air purifiers. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The ion generator in the air purifiers can overheat, posing a fire hazard. 3M has received two incident reports: one of an air purifier overheating and another of an internal room air purifier filter catching fire. No injuries or property damage reported. This recall involves 3M air purifiers branded Filtrete. The air purifiers are white, made of plastic and plug into the wall. They measure about 19 inches tall by 8 inches wide with a 13 inch tall by 4.5 inch wide air filter. They have a two-speed fan knob with Filtrete embossed on the top. The two recalled models are Ultra Quiet, number FAP00-RS, and Maximum Allergen, number FAP00-L, which was sold only at Lowe's stores. The products serial numbers begin with E, F, G, H, I or J and the model and serial numbers are located on the bottom of the product. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/2OWmgh The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at Ultra Quiet at Ace Hardware, Bi-Mart, Do It Best, Fred Meyer, Handy Hardware Wholesale, Nuthouse, Orchard Supply, Orgill Bros., Petco, Rite Aid, Strosniders, Theisen Farm & Home, True Value Hardware stores nationwide, and online at Amazon.com and others. Maximum Allergen sold only at Lowe's stores. The FAP00-RS model was sold from November 2008 through January 2013, and the FAP00-L model was sold from October 2012 through January 2013, both for about $60. Consumers should immediately unplug the recalled air purifier and contact 3M to obtain a prepaid shipping box to return the product for a free replacement. 3M Company may be reached at (800) 388- 3458 from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday, or online at http://www.filtrete.com/roomairpurifiers/and click on the link FAP00-RS recall for more information. AMERICAN VANGUARD: Appeal in "Patrickson" Suit Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal in the class action lawsuit styled Patrickson, et al. v. Dole Food Company, et al., remains pending, according to American Vanguard Corporation's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. In October 1997, AMVAC Chemical Corporation was served with two complaints in which it was named as a defendant, filed in the Circuit Court, First Circuit, State of Hawaii and in the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit, State of Hawaii (two identical lawsuits) entitled Patrickson, et. al. v. Dole Food Company, et. al ("Patrickson Case") alleging damages sustained from injuries (including sterility) to banana workers caused by plaintiffs' exposure to 1, 2-dibromo-3-chloropropane ("DBCP(R)") while applying the product in their native countries. Other named defendants include: Dole Food Company, Shell Oil Company and Dow Chemical Company. The ten named plaintiffs are variously citizens of four countries -- Guatemala, Costa Rica, Panama, and Ecuador. Punitive damages are sought against each defendant. The case was also filed as a class action on behalf of other workers allegedly so exposed in these four countries. After several years of law and motion activity, Dow filed a motion for summary adjudication as to the remaining plaintiffs based on the statute of limitations, as they had filed lawsuit in Florida in 1995. All defendants joined in this motion. The court granted this motion on June 9, 2009. The Plaintiffs' counsel unsuccessfully argued that their claims were tolled by prior class action cases. On November 30, 2009, the court denied a motion for reconsideration. Judgment in favor of the defendants was entered on July 28, 2010. On August 24, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, which is presently pending. In March 2011, Dow filed a brief in opposition to the appeal, arguing that plaintiffs are barred from this action by the applicable statute of limitations. Following the completion of briefing on April 8, 2011, counsel for plaintiffs filed a pleading to withdraw and to substitute new counsel. The court has not ruled on any of the pending motions, nor do the court rules require that the court rule by any particular date. The Company does not believe that a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable and, accordingly, has not set up a loss contingency for this matter. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, American Vanguard Corporation -- http://www.american-vanguard.com/-- was incorporated in Delaware in January 1969 and operates as a holding company. AMERICAN VANGUARD: Suit vs. AMVAC Remains Stayed in Delaware ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit against a subsidiary of American Vanguard Corporation remains stayed, according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. On or about July 21, 2011, an action encaptioned, Blanco v. AMVAC Chemical Corporation et al., was filed with the Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County (No. N11C-07- 149 JOH) on behalf of an individual plaintiff, residing in Costa Rica, against several defendants, including, among others, AMVAC, The Dow Chemical Company, Occidental Chemical Corporation, and Dole Food Company. In the action, plaintiff claims personal injury (sterility) arising from the alleged exposure to 1, 2- dibromo-3-chloropropane ("DBCP(R)") between 1979 and 1980 while working as a contract laborer in a banana plantation in Costa Rica. The Defendant Dow filed a motion to dismiss the action as being barred under the applicable statute of limitations, as this same plaintiff filed the same claim in Florida in 1995 and subsequently withdrew the matter. The Plaintiff contends that the statute of limitations was tolled by a prior motion for class certification, which was denied. AMVAC contends that the plaintiff could not have been exposed to any DBCP supplied by AMVAC in Costa Rica. On August 8, 2012, the court denied Dow's motion to dismiss based upon applicable statutes of limitation. In response to that denial, on August 20, 2012, the defendants filed a motion for interlocutory appeal and, on September 18, 2012, the Delaware Supreme Court granted interlocutory appeal on the question of whether the State of Delaware will recognize cross jurisdictional tolling (that is, whether it is proper for a Delaware court to follow the class action tolling of another jurisdiction, in this case, Texas, rather than its own two year statute of limitations). Pending the ruling on appeal, the Blanco matter is stayed. It is expected that the Delaware Supreme Court will issue its ruling in 2013. Whatever the outcome on appeal, AMVAC intends to defend the matter vigorously. The Company does not believe that a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable and has not set up a loss contingency for the matter. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, American Vanguard Corporation -- http://www.american-vanguard.com/-- was incorporated in Delaware in January 1969 and operates as a holding company. AMWAY CANADA: Norton Rose Discusses Court of Appeal Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------- Randy C. Sutton, Esq. -- randy.sutton@nortonrose.com -- at Norton Rose Canada LLP, reports that the Federal Court of Appeal's recent decision in Murphy v Amway Canada Corp. has clarified the findings in Seidel v TELUS Communications confirming that in the absence of express statutory language overriding mandatory arbitration agreements and class action waivers, courts will continue to give effect to the parties' agreements to arbitrate individually and not by class action. As reported previously, the Supreme Court of Canada's 2011 decision in Seidel left some uncertainty as to the enforceability of mandatory arbitration agreements and class action waivers for statutory claims. Background On October 23, 2009, the appellant, Kerry Murphy, began a proposed class action proceeding against Amway Canada Corporation and Amway Global claiming their business practices were in violation of sections 52, 55 and 55(1) of the Competition Act. Murphy complained Amway failed to provide its distributors with an accurate compensation metric and Amway's business operated as an illegal scheme of pyramid-selling. Consequently, Murphy filed a claim seeking $15,000 in damages, and sought to have her action certified as a class action. No other potential class members had been identified. In response, Amway brought a motion to stay the proceedings and to compel arbitration as per the agreement to mediate and arbitrate disputes (the Arbitration Agreement) entered into between the parties. Amway's motion was granted November 23, 2011, by a Federal Court judge (the Judge). The Judge determined that a class action waiver contained in the Arbitration Agreement barred Murphy from bringing a motion for certification as a class. The clause prohibited any party from bringing a class action for an amount exceeding $1,000 and stated that any class action would have to be resolved individually in private arbitration. Issues Murphy sought to have the stay granted by the Judge set aside. The main issue raised in this appeal was whether a private claim under section 36 of the Competition Act was arbitrable. Analysis Relying on Seidel, Murphy asserted that the statutory protections under the Competition Act in this matter were closely analogous to those in the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act (BPCPA), which were at issue in that case. It was further argued that there was a compelling public policy concern that could not be adequately addressed in private and confidential arbitration proceedings. Seidel involved a dispute between Telus and one of its customers over a cell phone contract, which provided that all disputes would be resolved by way of private arbitration. Seidel argued that the contract was in violation of the BPCPA and sought to certify her action on behalf of a class. A majority of the Supreme Court determined that the effect of the language and intent of the BPCPA was to invalidate the arbitration clause, but only to the extent that it took away a protection conferred by the BPCPA. The SCC held that statutory language expressing a clear legislative intent to exclude recourse to arbitration would be required before the courts will refuse to give effect to the terms of an arbitration agreement. On that basis, Seidel was allowed to proceed with part of her claim as a class action insofar as it was covered by statutory protections interpreted by the SCC as excluding recourse to arbitration. However, it was determined that her private action for damages under another section of the BPCPA could go to arbitration as that claim was not covered by similar protections under the BPCPA. The FCA agreed with the Judge in finding that the provisions of the Competition Act raised in this matter were not comparable to those in the BPCPA. Unlike the BPCPA, the Competition Act did not contain language indicating Parliament's intent that arbitration clauses or class action waivers be restricted or prohibited. The FCA concluded that Murphy's claim was much more analogous to Seidel's private action in damages, which the SCC had determined was arbitrable. With respect to the public interest concerns raised by Murphy, the FCA held that two recent SCC cases -- Dell Computer Corp. v Union des consommateurs et al and Rogers Wireless Inc. v Muroff -- had clearly determined that public order concerns do not affect whether or not arbitration should be permitted. Very clearly, any statutory claim will be subjected to arbitration where the parties have agreed to arbitrate, unless there is language in the statute expressing clear legislative intent to the contrary. Conclusion The Murphy decision confirms that Canada remains an "arbitration- friendly jurisdiction." It suggests the Seidel decision must be applied narrowly: absent factors that were present in that case (i.e., statutory language expressing clear legislative intent), courts will not interfere with parties' class action waivers or agreements to arbitrate their disputes, including statutory claims. This position is consistent with a long line of cases and affirms that such waivers and agreements remain effective tools by which businesses can limit their risk of distracting class actions and costly litigation proceedings. Norton Rose Group is an international legal practice. The firm offers a full business law service to many of the world's pre- eminent financial institutions and corporations from offices in Europe, Asia, Australia, Canada, Africa, the Middle East, Latin America and Central Asia. It has more than 2900 lawyers operating from 43 offices in Abu Dhabi, Almaty, Amsterdam, Athens, Bahrain, Bangkok, Beijing, Bogot�, Brisbane, Brussels, Calgary, Canberra, Cape Town, Caracas, Casablanca, Dubai, Durban, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Hong Kong, Johannesburg, London, Melbourne, Milan, Montr�al, Moscow, Munich, Ottawa, Paris, Perth, Piraeus, Prague, Qu�bec, Rome, Shanghai, Singapore, Sydney, Tokyo, Toronto and Warsaw; and from associate offices in Dar es Salaam, Ho Chi Minh City and Jakarta. Norton Rose Group comprises Norton Rose LLP, Norton Rose Australia, Norton Rose Canada LLP, Norton Rose South Africa (incorporated as Deneys Reitz Inc), and their respective affiliates. BOEING CO: Dismissal of Dreamliner Class Suit Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------ Andrew Harris, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that The Boeing Company won an appeals-court ruling affirming the dismissal of an investor lawsuit accusing company officials of making misleading public statements about the readiness of its 787 Dreamliner aircraft. The U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago also asked a trial-court judge to consider punishing lawyers for the City of Livonia Public Employees' Retirement System in Michigan for failing to adequately investigate statements allegedly made by a confidential source they relied on. "The plaintiffs' lawyers had made confident assurances in their complaints about a confidential source -- their only barrier to dismissal of their suit -- even though none of the lawyers had spoken to the source and their investigator had acknowledged that she couldn't verify what (according to her) he had told her," U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Posner wrote in the unanimous ruling by the three-judge appeals panel. The confidential source later denied making the alleged previous statements when questioned under oath by Boeing lawyers, according to Posner. Boeing's 787 jet entered service in 2011 after three years of delays caused by supply-chain interruptions, assembly problems and a machinists strike. The Federal Aviation Administration grounded the plane in January after overheated lithium ion batteries on some planes began smoldering and emitting smoke. The Livonia pension plan class action was filed in 2009 by San Diego-based law firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd. Named as defendants with Boeing were CEO Jim McNerney and Scott E. Carson, who led the company's Commercial Airplanes division. After an initial complaint was dismissed, U.S. District Judge Suzanne Conlon in Chicago allowed the plaintiffs to refile and then denied a subsequent defense motion for dismissal, according to the appeals court. Boeing renewed that request after questioning the source of the allegations, an engineer identified as Bishnujee Singh. Judge Conlon granted the company's request. "Noting that none of the plaintiffs' lawyers had met or talked to Singh until six months after they filed the second amended complaint, even though the first amended complaint had alleged reliance on internal Boeing communications, the judge thought their failure to attempt to verify the allegations in the investigator's notes amounted to a fraud on the court," the appeals court said on March 26. Darren Robbins, a partner in the firm's San Diego office, and James Barz, a partner in its Chicago office, didn't immediately reply to messages seeking comment on the court's decision. "Boeing is pleased that the Court of Appeals concluded, as did the district court, that the securities-fraud allegations against Boeing were baseless and that it was the plaintiffs' law firm that engaged in fraud -- fraud on the court," John Dern, a company spokesman, said in an emailed statement. "Boeing looks forward to the hearings in the district court in which sanctions against the plaintiffs' law firm will be considered," Mr. Dern said. BRITISH COLUMBIA: Faces Class Action Over Insurance Premiums ------------------------------------------------------------ According to Vancouver Sun's Pamela Fayerman, a B.C. Supreme Court judge will hear arguments this month in a class-action lawsuit against the British Columbia government. The lawsuit suggests doctors were stiffed for up to C$100 million in fees, including accumulated interest, for treating 400,000 patients who were in arrears on their Medical Services Plan premiums. It has taken 15 years for the case to get this far. It was only last year that Justice Elaine Adair agreed the class-action case could go ahead. James Halvorson, a Cowichan District Hospital emergency room doctor, is the lead plaintiff. He says he's owed more than C$100,000 in fees and interest after he treated patients only to have their bills rejected by the public health insurance scheme. Mr. Halvorson said the de-enrolling of people in arrears appeared to proliferate under premier Mike Harcourt and subsided under premier Glen Clark. The case is restricted to July 23, 1992, to April 30, 1996 -- a peak period for denials of medical service billings. In 2011-12, there was about C$80 million of unpaid premiums, with a total of C$360 million over the past four decades. But patients who are behind on payments aren't usually denied care and doctors are no longer denied fees for treating such patients. Mr. Halvorson said many of the 7,000 doctors practicing in B.C. at the time may have submitted bills and had them denied on the grounds that patients hadn't paid their premiums. Mr. Grant said he expects emergency doctors bore the brunt of bad debt. In the 1990s, doctors had no way of knowing a patient's MSP status when they were treating them. Arthur Grant, Mr. Halvorson's lawyer, said that all hospitals and medical clinics are now connected by computer to the MSP databases. That means that if patients are in arrears, doctors may not provide care. But emergency cases are not turned away. Mr. Halvorson contends cancelling enrolment of B.C. residents was unlawful under the public, universal health care system. Doctors have an ethical duty to provide care even if they don't have insurance coverage, he said. BUGABOO AMERICAS: Recalls 10,160 Cameleon3 Strollers ---------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in cooperation with importer, Bugaboo Americas, of El Segundo, California; and manufacturer, Bugaboo International B.V., of Amsterdam, The Netherlands, announced a voluntary recall of about 9,200 Bugaboo Cameleon3 Strollers in the United States of America and 960 in Canada. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The stroller's carrying handle can break and detach posing a fall hazard. Bugaboo has received 16 reports of carry handles breaking. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves the Bugaboo Cameleon3 strollers. The stroller has an aluminum and plastic frame with rubberized wheels, a removable seat and bassinet, a removable "U"-shaped carry handle, an under-the-seat storage bag and a sun canopy. The bassinet, seat and sun canopy come in a variety of colors. The removable carry handle is used to transport the bassinet or seat separately from the chassis. The words "Bugaboo" and "Cameleon3" appear on a fabric tag on the side of the sun canopy. Strollers included in the recall have serial numbers from 19010 11153 00001 to 19010 51248 00215. Serial numbers are printed on a horizontal bar of the stroller's chassis beneath the seat. Picture of the recalled products is available at: http://is.gd/gpcaPw The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Buy Buy Baby, Toys R Us and other baby product stores nationwide, Neiman Marcus, Nordstrom, online at Bugaboo.com and other online retailers from September 2012 to March 2013 for between $889 and $1,600. Consumers should immediately remove the carry handle from the stroller's bassinet or seat and contact Bugaboo for a free replacement handle. While awaiting the replacement handle, consumers can continue to use the seat or bassinet when attached to the chassis but should not attempt to use the seat or bassinet separate from the chassis. Bugaboo Americas may be reached at (800) 460-2922, from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Pacific Time Monday through Friday, at e-mailserviceus@bugaboo.com or online at http://www.bugaboo.com/,and click on "Important Safety Announcements" at the bottom left of the page for more information. CENTURYLINK INC: Has OK of Rights-of-Way Suits Deals in 22 States ----------------------------------------------------------------- CenturyLink Inc. disclosed in its March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012, that it has received final approval of settlements in rights-of-way lawsuits in 22 states. Several putative class actions relating to the installation of fiber optic cable in certain rights-of-way were filed against Qwest Communications International Inc. on behalf of landowners on various dates and in courts located in 34 states in which Qwest has such cable (Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin.) For the most part, the complaints challenge the Company's right to install the Company's fiber optic cable in railroad rights-of-way. The complaints allege that the railroads own the right-of-way as an easement that did not include the right to permit the Company to install the Company's cable in the right-of-way without the Plaintiffs' consent. Most of the currently pending actions purport to be brought on behalf of state-wide classes in the named Plaintiffs' respective states, although one action pending before the Illinois Court of Appeals purports to be brought on behalf of landowners in Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio and Wisconsin. In general, the complaints seek damages on theories of trespass and unjust enrichment, as well as punitive damages. After previous attempts to enter into a single nationwide settlement in a single court proved unsuccessful, the parties proceeded to seek court approval of settlements on a state-by-state basis. To date, the parties have received final approval of such settlements in 22 states (Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin), have received preliminary approval of the settlements in eight states (California, Kentucky, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Utah), and have not yet received either preliminary or final approval in four states (Arizona, Massachusetts, New Mexico and Texas). The Company says it has accrued an amount that the Company believes is probable for these matters; however, the amount is not material to the Company's consolidated financial statements. Headquartered in Monroe, Louisiana, CenturyLink, Inc. -- http://www.centurylink.com/-- is the third largest telecommunications company in the United States. The Company provides broadband, voice, wireless and managed services to consumers and businesses across the country. It also offers advanced entertainment services under the CenturyLink(TM) Prism(TM) TV and DIRECTV brands. CENTURYLINK INC: Majority of Claims in "Fulghum" Suit Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas dismissed in February 2013 the majority of the claims in the class action lawsuit initiated by William Douglas Fulghum, et al., against a subsidiary of CenturyLink, Inc., according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. In William Douglas Fulghum, et al. v. Embarq Corporation, et al., filed on December 28, 2007, in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, a group of retirees filed a putative class action lawsuit challenging the decision to make certain modifications in retiree benefits programs relating to life insurance, medical insurance and prescription drug benefits, generally effective January 1, 2006, and January 1, 2008 (which, at the time of the modifications, was expected to reduce estimated future expenses for the subject benefits by more than $300 million). The Defendants include Embarq, a subsidiary of CenturyLink, Inc., certain of its benefit plans, its Employee Benefits Committee and the individual plan administrator of certain of its benefits plans. Additional defendants include Sprint Nextel and certain of its benefit plans. The Court certified a class on certain of plaintiffs' claims, but rejected class certification as to other claims. Embarq and other defendants continue to vigorously contest these claims and charges. On October 14, 2011, the Fulghum lawyers filed a new, related lawsuit, Abbott et al. v. Sprint Nextel et al. CenturyLink/Embarq is not named a defendant in the lawsuit. In Abbott, approximately 1,500 plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the changes in retiree benefits that also are at issue in the Fulghum case. The Abbott plaintiffs are all members of the class that was certified in Fulghum on claims for allegedly vested benefits (Counts I and III), and the Abbott claims are similar to the Fulghum breach of fiduciary duty claim (Count II), on which the Fulghum court denied class certification. The Court has stayed proceedings in Abbott indefinitely. On February 14, 2013, the Fulghum court dismissed the majority of the plaintiffs' claims in that case. Embarq and the other defendants will continue to vigorously contest any remaining claims in Fulghum and seek to have the claims in the Abbott case dismissed on similar grounds. The Company has not accrued a liability for these matters as it is premature (i) to determine whether an accrual is warranted and (ii) if so, to determine a reasonable estimate of probable liability. Headquartered in Monroe, Louisiana, CenturyLink, Inc. -- http://www.centurylink.com/-- is the third largest telecommunications company in the United States. The Company provides broadband, voice, wireless and managed services to consumers and businesses across the country. It also offers advanced entertainment services under the CenturyLink(TM) Prism(TM) TV and DIRECTV brands. COMCAST CORP: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Antitrust Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that the Supreme Court on March 27 ruled in favor of Comcast Corp in an antitrust case over how much it charged cable TV subscribers, further curtailing the ability of people to pursue class action lawsuits. In a 5-4 decision, the court said a group of cable TV subscribers in the Philadelphia area who accused Comcast of overcharging them as part of an effort to monopolize the market could not sue as a group. "The permutations involving four theories of liability and 2 million subscribers located in 16 counties are nearly endless," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority. Comcast's subscribers fell "far short of establishing that damages are capable of measurement on a classwide basis," he continued. "There is no question that the model failed to measure damages resulting from the particular antitrust injury on which (Comcast's) liability in this action is premised." The March 27 decision came in one of several class action cases being addressed this term by a court whose recent decision-making is often considered friendly to businesses and unfriendly to consumers. They follow a landmark 2011 decision in Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes where the court threw out a giant employment discrimination lawsuit because the female plaintiffs did not have enough in common to sue together. The vote breakdown was a familiar one, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joining Scalia's opinion. The more liberal justices dissented, with Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer penning an unusual joint dissent, joined by Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Comcast did not immediately comment, saying its lawyers were reviewing the decision. Barry Barnett, a lawyer for the subscribers, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. While not as sweeping as the Wal-Mart ruling, the Comcast decision addressed a key issue in class action litigation: what kind of evidence must be presented in the early stages of a case before a judge can allow a class action to go forward. Led by Caroline Behrend, subscribers in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware in an $875 million lawsuit dating from 2003 accused the largest cable TV company of overcharges through its effort to monopolize the Philadelphia area market. The subscribers said that by buying rivals or swapping coverage areas, Philadelphia- based Comcast was able to triple its market share, which peaked at 77.8 percent in 2002. Comcast said the case was too big, covering subscribers in 649 franchise areas facing different competitive conditions. In August 2011, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia said a trial judge could decide the subscribers had a common methodology to justify awarding damages to a class. But in reversing that ruling, Scalia said that in focusing on damages, the 3rd Circuit failed to do what Supreme Court precedents require: examine whether "common questions" among class members predominate over individual questions. "By refusing to entertain arguments against (subscribers') damages model that bore on the propriety of class certification, simply because those arguments would also be pertinent to the merits determination, the Court of Appeals ran afoul of our precedents requiring precisely that inquiry," Scalia wrote. Justices Ginsburg and Breyer said they would have dismissed the appeal, saying the court erred in reformulating the case to focus on issues that Comcast had not pressed in lower courts and which the subscribers did not have a fair chance to address. The dissent also said the court erred in overturning factual findings made by two lower courts over whether the subscribers' damages model was legitimate. The case is Comcast Corp et al v. Behrend et al, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 11-864. CONAGRA FOODS: Faces Class Action Over Parkay Spray Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that though Parkay Spray contains 832 calories and 93 grams of fat per bottle, Conagra advertises it as having "0 fat" and "0 calories" by using artificially small serving sizes, a class claims. COST PLUS: Faces Overtime Class Action in Kern County ----------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Cost Plus stiff workers for overtime, a class action claims in Kern County Court. CST BRANDS: Canadian Price Fixing Class Suits Remain Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Class action lawsuits arising from CST Brands, Inc.'s retail operations in Canada remain pending, according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-12B/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Ultramar Ltd., Valero Energy Corporation's principal Canadian subsidiary ("Ultramar"), was named as a defendant in four class actions alleging that Ultramar and other competitors engaged in illegal price fixing in four distinct markets in the province of Quebec. The cases were filed in June 2008 following a guilty plea by Ultramar and an employee and charges laid against several alleged co-conspirators. As a result, four class actions were filed on the same day in the matters of (i) Simon Jacques vs. Ultramar et al in the Superior Court of Quebec, District of Quebec City, (ii) Daniel Thouin/ Marcel Lafontaine vs. Ultramar et al, Superior Court of Quebec, District of Montreal, (iii) Michael Jeanson et al vs. Ultramar et al, Superior Court of Quebec, District of Hull and (iv) Thibeau vs. Ultramar et al, Superior Court of Quebec, District of Montreal. As required pursuant to the civil procedure rules in effect, the first filed claim is given priority, and the others are suspended pending final judgment on the first filed claim. The guilty plea followed an extensive government investigation and was confined to a limited time period and limited geographic area around Thetford Mines and Victoriaville in Quebec. The plaintiffs attempted to widen the scope, alleging the existence of a conspiracy extending between 2002 and 2008 throughout Quebec. The court allowed a time range of 2002 to 2006 but did not expand the geographic area beyond the four limited markets identified by the investigation. A hearing on class suitability took place in September 2009, and in November 2009, the court authorized the action to proceed on a class basis for the limited geographic area. A statement of claim was filed but the proceedings were suspended until May 5, 2011. The suspension was a result, in part, of damage proof issues for plaintiffs that developed pre-discovery. The court required the plaintiffs to file a report on damages on May 5, 2011. Ultramar intends to vigorously contest the scope of alleged liability and damages. On June 10, 2011, Ultramar was served with a "new" amended motion to institute a class action in the matter of Daniel Thouin/Marcel Lafontaine v. Ultramar Ltd., et al., Superior Court of Quebec, District of Quebec. This matter had previously been put in abeyance to allow the first filed claim to proceed. The plaintiff changed the venue and the geographical scope of its recourse alleging that defendants colluded in other regions of Quebec. By issuing this motion, the attorney for the plaintiff (the same as for the other price fixing matter) is trying to extend its claim outside the limited territory authorized by the court in the Jacques matter. On September 6, 2012, the Superior Court of Quebec granted the plaintiff's motion to extend the scope of the territory to be covered by the action. Ultramar's alleged liability in these claims arises entirely out of the Company's retail operations in Canada. As a result, the Company expects that it will agree to indemnify and hold harmless Valero fully from any liability associated with these claims pursuant to the separation and distribution agreement. During the fourth quarter of 2012, the Company concluded a loss was probable and reasonably estimable and as such, the Company recorded an immaterial loss contingency liability. Due to the inherent uncertainty of litigation, the Company believes it is reasonably possible that the Company may suffer a loss in excess of the amount recorded that could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, financial position or liquidity with respect to one or more of the lawsuits. An estimate of the possible loss or range of loss from an adverse result in all or substantially all of these cases cannot be reasonably made due to a number of factors, the most significant of which is that no amount of damages has been specified by the plaintiffs. CST Brands, Inc. -- http://www.CSTBrands.com/-- is a Delaware corporation based in San Antonio, Texas. The Company is a large independent retailer of motor fuel and convenience merchandise items in the U.S. and eastern Canada. CST BRANDS: Settlement in Hot Fuel Suit Approved in December ------------------------------------------------------------ CST Brands, Inc., disclosed in its March 1, 2013, Form 10-12B/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the settlement in a litigation over fuel temperature involving its former parent was approved in December 2012. On December 13, 2006, a class action complaint was filed against Valero Energy Corporation, Shell Oil Products Company LLC, ConocoPhillips, Chevron USA, Inc., Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Costco Wholesale Corporation, The Kroger Company and a few other retailers in San Francisco federal court. The complaint accused the defendants of violating state consumer protection laws by failing to adjust the volume or price of fuel when the fuel temperature exceeded 60 degrees Fahrenheit. Following this filing, numerous other federal complaints were filed and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (Multi-District Litigation Docket No. 1840, In re: Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation). In mid-April 2012, Valero and certain of the other defendants reached a preliminary class settlement with the plaintiffs. On September 28, 2012, the court initially denied approval of this settlement concluding that the settling parties had failed to show how the settlement sufficiently benefited the class members. The settling parties, including Valero, agreed with the court and supplemented the record to demonstrate how the settlement will benefit the class. On December 10, 2012, the court approved the settlement. The Company says that it had recorded an immaterial loss contingency liability with respect to this matter consistent with its liability under the settlement; therefore, the Company has no additional exposure due to the court's approval of the settlement. Because a portion of Valero's alleged liability in the class action allegedly arises out of the Company's retail operations, the Company has agreed to indemnify Valero for 50 percent of the monetary portion of the settlement (or otherwise 50 percent of any monetary payment that Valero ultimately may be obligated to pay in final resolution of the class action). The Company has also agreed to certain actions required under the settlement agreement on a prospective basis, including the posting of fuel temperatures at the Company's U.S. retail sites. The settlement agreement includes a full release from liability for Valero and its affiliates, including the Company. CST Brands, Inc. -- http://www.CSTBrands.com/-- is a Delaware corporation based in San Antonio, Texas. The Company is a large independent retailer of motor fuel and convenience merchandise items in the U.S. and eastern Canada. CVB FINANCIAL: Still Awaits Order on Bid to Junk Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- CVB Financial Corp. is still awaiting a court decision on its motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class action lawsuit, according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. On July 26, 2010, the Company received a subpoena from the Los Angeles office of the SEC regarding the Company's allowance for credit loss methodology, loan underwriting guidelines, methodology for grading loans, and the process for making provisions for loan losses. In addition, the subpoena requested information regarding certain presentations Company officers have given or conferences Company officers have attended with analysts, brokers, investors or prospective investors. The Company has fully cooperated with the SEC in its investigation, and the Company will continue to do so to the extent any further information is requested. The Company says it cannot predict the timing or outcome of the investigation. In the wake of the Company's disclosure of the SEC investigation, on August 23, 2010, a purported shareholder class action complaint was filed against the Company in an action captioned Lloyd v. CVB Financial Corp., et al., Case No. CV 10-06256-MMM, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Along with the Company, Christopher D. Myers (President and Chief Executive Officer) and Edward J. Biebrich, Jr. (the Company's former Chief Financial Officer) were also named as defendants. On September 14, 2010, a second purported shareholder class action complaint was filed against the Company in an action originally captioned Englund v. CVB Financial Corp., et al., Case No. CV 10- 06815-RGK, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Englund complaint named the same defendants as the Lloyd complaint and made allegations substantially similar to those included in the Lloyd complaint. On January 21, 2011, the Court consolidated the two actions for all purposes under the Lloyd action now captioned as Case No. CV 10-06256-MMM (PJWx). That same day, the Court also appointed the Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund (the "Jacksonville Fund") as lead plaintiff in the consolidated action and approved the Jacksonville Fund's selection of lead counsel for the plaintiffs in the consolidated action. On March 7, 2011, the Jacksonville Fund filed a consolidated complaint naming the same defendants and alleging violations by all defendants of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and violations by the individual defendants of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented and failed to disclose conditions adversely affecting the Company throughout the purported class period, which is alleged to be between October 21, 2009, and August 9, 2010. The consolidated complaint seeks compensatory damages and other relief in favor of the purported class. Following the filing by each side of various motions and memoranda and a hearing on August 29, 2011, the District Court issued a ruling on January 12, 2012, granting defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, but the ruling provided the plaintiffs with leave to file an amended complaint within 45 days of the date of the order. On February 27, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint against the same defendants, and once again, following filings by both sides and another hearing on June 4, 2012, the District Court issued a ruling on August 21, 2012, granting defendants' motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, but providing the plaintiffs with leave to file another amended complaint within 30 days of the ruling. On September 20, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint against the same defendants, and the Company filed its third motion to dismiss on October 25, 2012. The District Court has taken the Company's third motion to dismiss under submission, and the Company intends to continue to vigorously contest the plaintiff's allegations in this case. On February 28, 2011, a purported and related shareholder derivative complaint was filed in an action captioned Sanderson v. Borba, et al., Case No. CIVRS1102119, in California State Superior Court in San Bernardino County. The complaint names as defendants the members of the Company's board of directors and also refers to unnamed defendants allegedly responsible for the conduct alleged. The Company is included as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties, abuse of control, gross mismanagement and corporate waste. Specifically, the complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants engaged in accounting manipulations in order to falsely portray the Company's financial results in connection with its commercial real estate portfolio. The Plaintiff seeks compensatory and exemplary damages to be paid by the defendants and awarded to the Company, as well as other relief. On June 20, 2011, the defendants filed a demurrer requesting dismissal of the derivative complaint. Following the filing by each side of additional motions, the parties have subsequently filed repeated notices to postpone the Court's hearing on the defendants' demurrer, pending resolution of the federal securities shareholder class action complaint, and these postponements are currently extended to at least September 11, 2013. Because the outcome of these proceedings is uncertain, the Company says it cannot predict any range of loss or even if any loss is probable related to the actions. CVB Financial Corp. -- http://www.cbbank.com/-- is a bank holding company incorporated in California in 1981 with headquarters located in Ontario, California. Citizens Business Bank is the Company's principal asset. GAF TIMBERLINE: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Defective Shingles ----------------------------------------------------------------- HarrisMartin reports that a class action filed by members of a Georgia church who discovered alleged defects in GAF Timberline shingles installed nearly 15 years ago has been dismissed by a federal judge. Judge J. Michelle Childs disposed of the four-count complaint March 22 after determining that the church's negligence claims were barred by Georgia's statute of repose and that the church failed to state actionable claims against GAF for breach of warranty and violation of state business practices law. The alleged defects were discovered by a roofing inspector prior to the filing of the class action in 2012. LINCOLN NATIONAL: Lawsuit Against Unit Stayed Through July 20 ------------------------------------------------------------- An adversary proceeding involving a subsidiary of Lincoln National Corporation is stayed through July 20, 2013, according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. On July 23, 2012, The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company ("LNL"), the Company's primary insurance subsidiary, was added as a noteholder defendant to a putative class action adversary proceeding ("Adversary Proceeding") captioned Lehman Brothers Special Financing, Inc. v. Bank of America, N.A. et al., Adv. Pro. No. 10-03547 (JMP) and instituted under In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. in the United States Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York. The Plaintiff Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. ("LBSF") seeks to (i) overturn the application of certain priority of payment provisions in 47 collateralized debt obligation transactions on the basis such provisions are unenforceable under the Bankruptcy Code; and (ii) recover funds paid out to Noteholders in accordance with the Note agreements. The Adversary proceeding is stayed through July 20, 2013, and LNL's response is currently due to be filed on September 5, 2013. Lincoln National Corporation -- http://www.lfg.com/-- is a holding company, which operates multiple insurance and retirement businesses through subsidiary companies. Through its business segments, the Company sells a wide range of wealth protection, accumulation and retirement income products and solutions. The Company is an Indiana headquartered in Radnor, Pennsylvania. LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend "Bezich" Suit vs. LNL ----------------------------------------------------------- On June 13, 2009, a single named plaintiff filed a putative national class action in the Circuit Court of Allen County, Indiana, captioned Peter S. Bezich v. LNL, No. 02C01-0906-PL73, asserting he was charged a cost-of-insurance fee that exceeded the applicable mortality charge, and that this fee breached the terms of the insurance contract. The parties are conducting fact discovery, and no class certification motion has yet been filed. Lincoln National Corporation disputes the allegations and are vigorously defending this matter. No further updates were reported in the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. Lincoln National Corporation -- http://www.lfg.com/-- is a holding company, which operates multiple insurance and retirement businesses through subsidiary companies. Through its business segments, the Company sells a wide range of wealth protection, accumulation and retirement income products and solutions. The Company is an Indiana headquartered in Radnor, Pennsylvania. LIVINGSOCIAL: Settles Daily Deals Class Action for $4.1 Million --------------------------------------------------------------- Anya Kamenetz, writing for Fast Company, reports a judge ruled the single payment settles claims of 11 million customers that the daily-deals site violated federal and state law. Ever since the federal CARD Act passed in 2009, all gift certificates have been required to have no less than a five-year expiration date. Some states, such as California, ban any expiration date whatsoever for gift certificates. This includes Starbucks cards, the manicure you gave your mom for her birthday, and a judge recently decided that the five-year rule applies to the daily deals sold by LivingSocial. What would often happen is that a LivingSocial deal would be announced, exceed sales expectations, the business would be overwhelmed by customers, and it would become impossible to redeem the deal in the weeks or months allotted. A customer was angry enough to be missing out on her kayak tour that she decided to sue. The $4.1 million payout, announced last week, will be split among some 26,830 disappointed customers who filed valid claims as of last month. In the future, LivingSocial, which "deny that they have done anything wrong or illegal and admit no liability," according to the official settlement FAQ, will sidestep the "gift certificate" classification by dividing its deals into "paid value" and "promotional value," each with a different expiration date. For example, this coupon for microdermabrasion has a paid value of $49 -- the actual money you put down -- expiring on March 26, 2018, and a promotional value of $110-$140, expiring on July 2, 2013 -- the effective expiration date of the deal. In earlier statements, company spokespeople did not address the charges directly and said that if they had heard from customers, they would have done everything in their power to make it right. Besides being another example of the air escaping from the daily- deals balloon, in the wake of the departure of Groupon's CEO Andrew Mason, the case highlights how consumer law struggles to keep up with the way we shop now. It makes sense from a consumer protection standpoint to impose generous time limits on gift certificates. Billions of dollars' worth of gift cards and gift certificates go unredeemed every year because life gets in the way. But with the volume and pace implied by "daily deals," it seems excessive to require every offer by every one of these sites to be redeemable for a full five years or more. NEW YORK, NY: Officers Told to Target Black Men, Trial Reveals -------------------------------------------------------------- D.L. Chandler, writing for Hip-Hop Wired, reports that NYPD's stop-and-frisk policy is under fire once more after officers testifying in the federal class-action trial in Manhattan revealed that superiors wanted them to target Black men. Although city officials have denied the racist allegations, early testimony in the trial has been especially damaging to the police department's stance. In an opinion piece from the New York Times titled "Walking While Black In New York," officers Pedro Serrano and Adhyl Polanco took drastic measures to expose the policy's aims. Using a secretly taped recording to document the wrongdoing, officer Serrano was ordered by a superior to specifically target the "right people" -- Black males ages 14 to 21. "The problem was, what, male blacks," said 40th Precinct Deputy Inspector Christopher McCormack to Serrano. "And I told you at roll call, and I have no problem telling you this, male blacks 14 to 20, 21." As the Times column noted, this would be a clear indication that police officials violated the constitutional Fourth Amendment rights of the men. The law offers protection against illegal search and seizure, especially when officers have not established reason for suspicion. Officer Polanco of the 41st Precinct dealt with a similar matter. Noting in his testimony that officers were ordered to create stop- and-frisk scenarios, make more arrests and issue 20 summonses including one arrest per month as part of a quota. Officer Polanco also recorded police meetings in a similar hidden fashion and shared the audio during testimony as well. The trial is expected to last until the end of April, with several witnesses taking the stand to offer countering and supporting testimonies. NIDEK INC: Judge Dismisses Suit Over Lasik Medical Experimentation ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that off-label use of Lasik technology did not amount to illegal medical experimentation on humans, the 9th Circuit ruled, tossing a class action. None of the named plaintiffs -- Robert Perez, Nancy Art and Brett Harbach -- claimed that they suffered injuries from the surgical procedure, short for laser in situ keratomileusis. They claim, rather, that a number of doctors used a Nidek EC-5000 Excimer Laser System to correct their farsightedness before the Federal Drug Administration had approved the Lasik for that purpose. Each said they would not have gone through the surgery had they known it was unapproved. Their complaint alleged that anyone who used the surgery to correct farsightedness from 1996 to its FDA approval date 10 years later was an unwitting participant in a kind of unannounced clinical experiment. They accused Nidek and their doctors of having "engaged in a nationwide scheme to modify the approved laser to enable it to correct farsightedness before it was approved for that purpose." Among other things, they sought damages under California's Protection of Human Subjects in Medical Experimentation Act. The FDA, which conducted clinical trials on the technology during the class period, sent warning letters to Nidek in the early 2000s to address concerns that it was using it for "unapproved applications," according to the ruling. The plaintiffs claimed that the company ignored the warnings and continued to install and market the lasers to correct farsightedness. A federal judge in San Diego dismissed the action, and a three- judge panel of the 9th Circuit affirmed, refusing to classify the surgeries as "medical experiments." That definition goes far beyond what the California Legislature intended in passing the act, which "purposefully excluded therapeutic off-label use," according to the ruling. Plaintiff Perez, for example, "admits that the surgeries had a therapeutic purpose," the opinion states. "He does not claim that this therapeutic purpose was merely incidental to a broader research goal - in fact, he does not claim that there was any research goal whatsoever," Judge M. Margaret McKeown wrote for the panel. "Without doubt, the hyperopic surgeries at issue here were 'reasonably related' to 'improving [Perez's] health' and 'directly benefiting' him." (Brackets in original.) The panel also agreed with the lower court that the plaintiffs had no standing to seek injunctive relief under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and that the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act pre-empted their other claims. OBAGI PHARMA: Being Sold to Valeant for Too Little, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Obagi pharmaceuticals is selling itself too cheaply to Valeant Pharmaceuticals, for $19.75 a share or $360 million, shareholders claim in Superior Court. PETERBOROUGH REGIONAL: Faces Class Action Over Privacy Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- MyKawartha.com reports that a multi-million dollar lawsuit has been filed against the Peterborough Regional Health Centre (PRHC), some of its former staff members and Fleming College. The lawsuit comes after 280 patient files at the hospital were breached. Information regarding the breach was released to the public last spring by hospital officials. Seven employees were fired as a result. Since, Ottawa-based lawyer Michael Crystal has been meeting with former patients in the Peterborough area to begin the process of filing a class-action lawsuit. Those papers were filed in the Ontario Superior of Court of Justice in Peterborough on March 21. The lawsuit is seeking general damages in the amount of C$5.6 million plus punitive and aggravated damages in the amount of C$1 million and an additional C$50,000 against each defendant named. Mr. Crystal is confident the lawsuit will move ahead, considering that hospital officials have acknowledged wrong doing and even went as far as to fire seven employees last year involved in the privacy breach. "There's been acknowledgment that the records were accessed," says Mr. Crystal. The lawsuit was filed by Mr. Crystal's firm on behalf of plaintiffs Jessica Hopkins, Heike Hesse and Erkenraadje Wensvoort. The defendants are Andrea Kay, Dana Gildon Cormier, Mandy Edgerton Reid, Dawn Deciocci, Jane Doe "A", Jane Doe "B", Jane Doe "C", the PRHC and Fleming College. Mr. Crystal says they chose three of the most compelling breach of privacy stories to go ahead with the suit, but adds all those who had their medical files breached are included. Last year, hospital officials sent out letters of apology to 280 patients who had their files accessed. Mr. Crystal says one of the most concerning cases involves a former hospital staff member who was also a teacher at Fleming College. In the statement of claim it reads the staff member, Mandy Edgerton Reid, accessed the medical files of a nursing student who went to the emergency room in January of last year to be treated for a severe cough. She was seen by a physician, given prescription drugs and was sent home by her teacher, who was working at the hospital that day. In the statement of claim it reads: "Jessica was later informed that while attending the emergency department of the defendant hospital, Mandy had accessed her electronic medical records for the class of RPN (registered practical nursing) students to view without Jessica's consent." It goes on to read that, "Mandy improperly accessed numerous medial records and showed the contents thereof to her students. Mandy accessed and disseminated patients' records, including but not limited to patients in palliative care and those coming and going from the emergency department, to her students." Because of her employment with Fleming College, the lawsuit names the institution as a defendant. Fleming President Dr. Tony Tilly declined to comment on the matter, saying it was before the courts. However, hospital officials did release a statement in light of the lawsuit being filed. It states the hospital's legal counsel will review the lawsuit, but refused to provide any further details about the legal matter. "The standard to which we hold ourselves, our staff and our physicians, is of the highest order. It's not only what our patients expected of us -- it's our ethical and legal obligation," the statement reads. "PRHC has a zero tolerance policy with respect to inappropriate access of medical records. This standard is not negotiable. If a breach is detected it is carefully investigated. If confirmed, decisive action is taken." Another case mentioned in the suit involves a woman who visited the hospital on numerous occasions suffering from injuries sustained while in an abusive relationship with her husband. She left her husband and went into hiding. When she did attend the hospital she wanted to be named as an "unknown patient" for fear her former partner would find her. She later found out her medical records were accessed only a few months after she had left her husband. In the statement of claim it reads the plaintiff became "paranoid, anxious and had an increase in blood pressure at the thought of her husband locating her." She feared her husband knew someone at the hospital and had paid to have her information accessed. The third case mentioned in the claim involved a woman who went to the hospital to have an abortion. She had kept the procedure from her family and her partner. At the time, she had recently completed the RPN course at Fleming and knew many people employed at the hospital. She also feared her parents and partner would become aware of the abortion as a result of the breach. Mr. Crystal says his firm is continuing to investigate more breach of privacy complaints related to the matter. He says anyone who was contacted by the hospital about their medical files being breached are urged to contact his firm's investigator, Blair Nicholson at 613-355-5606. Mr. Crystal says he will also be heading to Peterborough in the coming months to conduct more interviews. The defendants have 20 days to prepare a statement of defense from the day the lawsuit was served. PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT: Merger-Related Suits Consolidated in Jan. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A Nevada court issued in January 2013 an order consolidating merger-related lawsuits against Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc., according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. On December 20, 2012, the Company agreed to acquire Ameristar Casinos, Inc. ("Ameristar") for $26.50 per share, in an all cash transaction valued at $2.8 billion, including assumed debt. Ameristar owns and operates casino facilities in St. Charles near St. Louis, Missouri; Kansas City, Missouri; Council Bluffs, Iowa; Black Hawk, Colorado; Vicksburg, Mississippi; East Chicago, Indiana; and Cactus Petes Resort Casino and the Horseshu Hotel and Casino in Jackpot, Nevada. On December 24, 2012, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit related to the Company's proposed acquisition of Ameristar Casinos, Inc. ("Ameristar") was filed in Nevada District Court for Clark County (hereafter "Nevada District Court"), captioned Joseph Grob v. Ameristar Casinos, Inc., et al. (the "Grob action"). The complaint names Ameristar and members of Ameristar's Board of Directors (the "Ameristar Defendants"); and Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc., PNK Holdings, Inc., and PNK Development 32, Inc. as defendants (the "Pinnacle Defendants"). The complaint generally alleges that the Board of Directors of Ameristar, aided and abetted by Ameristar and the Pinnacle Defendants, breached their fiduciary duties owed to Ameristar's shareholders in connection with Pinnacle's proposed acquisition of Ameristar. The action includes claims for, among other things, an injunction halting the proposed acquisition of Ameristar by Pinnacle, and an award of costs and expenses to the putative plaintiff stockholder, including attorneys' fees. Thereafter, other plaintiffs filed additional complaints in the same court making essentially the same allegations and seeking similar relief to the Grob action. On January 15, 2013, the Court issued an order consolidating the actions, and any subsequently filed actions, into a single, consolidated action. The action is still in the initial stages and there has been no discovery. The Company believes that the allegations directed against the Company lack merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. -- http://www.pnkinc.com/-- is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada. Pinnacle is an owner, operator and developer of casinos and related hospitality and entertainment facilities. PT DOMUSINDO: Recalls 73,000 PT Domusindo Perdana Drop-Side Cribs ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with importer, JC Penney Corp., of Plano, Texas, and manufacturer, PT Domusindo Perdana, of Indonesia, announced a voluntary recall of about 73,000 PT Domusindo Perdana drop-side cribs. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The cribs' drop sides can malfunction, detach or otherwise fail, causing part of the drop side to fall out of position, creating a space into which an infant or toddler can roll and become wedged or entrapped, which can lead to strangulation or suffocation. A child can also fall out of the crib. Drop-side incidents can also occur due to incorrect assembly and with age-related wear and tear. CPSC and the firm are aware of three incidents involving drop side rails that malfunctioned or detached. No injuries were reported. This recall includes 14 models of PT Domusindo Perdana wooden drop-side cribs. The name, model number and date codes are printed on the plywood mattress board. Model # Description Date Code ------- ----------- --------- 343-1509 Jenny Lind Crib 01/1991-12/1997151 343-3810 Christopher Crib 2001151 343-5500 Early American Crib 01/1998-12/1999151 343-6771 Scottsdale Crib 01/1998/12/1999151 343-7100 Sleigh Crib w/o Rosette 01/2004-12/2006 343-7134 Sleigh Crib 01/2001-2/2004 343-7144 Anniversary Sleigh Crib 01/2002-12/2004 343-7753 Kristin Crib 01/1998-12/1999 343-8249 Cameron Crib 01/1998/12/1999 343-8020 Solid Panel Sleigh Crib 01/2001-12/2002 343-8070 Roll Bar Convertible Crib 01/2004-12/2005 343-8200 Spindle Convertible Crib 01/2001-12/2005 343-8913 Bella 3-in-1 Crib 01/2005-12/2008 343-8155 Anniversary Convertible 01/2002-12/2006 Sleigh Crib Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/mPTfjA The recalled products were manufactured in Indonesia and sold at JCPenney.com and the JCPenney catalog from January 1998 through December 2008 for between $200 and $400. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled cribs and contact customer service at Modus Furniture International to get a free immobilizer kit that will immobilize the drop side. The immobilizer kits will be available in May 2013. In the meantime, parents are encouraged to find an alternate, safe sleep environment for the child, such as a bassinet, play yard or toddler bed depending on your child's age. Modus Furniture International may be reached at (800) 827-2129 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.savannababy.com/and click on the Recall tab for more information. ROSENBERG & ASSOCIATES: Wins Bid to Dismiss Debt Collection Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Juliette Murdoch, on behalf of herself and as a class, filed an action on January 10, 2012, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against Rosenberg & Associates, LLC, and its managing member and partner, Diane Rosenberg, Esq., captioned JULIETTE MURDOCH, Plaintiff, v. ROSENBERG & ASSOCIATES, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. RWT 12-cv-2234, (D. Md.). The Complaint alleged that the Defendants' form debt collection notices, one of which the Defendants sent to Ms. Murdoch, violated "federal and state laws on a class-wide basis." Ms. Murdoch asserted that the debt collection practices violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act, and the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act. The Rosenberg firm asked the court to dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Ms. Rosenberg filed a Motion to Dismiss on similar grounds. Ms. Murdoch filed a Motion to Stay Class Certification Briefing Pending Discovery. The Defendants jointly filed a Motion to Strike Class Action Allegations. On July 11, 2012, Judge Richard W. Roberts of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying in part the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss for improper venue and transferring the case to the District of Maryland "in the interest of justice" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1406(a), and noting that "[a]ll remaining motions are left for decision by the transferee district court." On August 8, 2012, Ms. Murdoch filed in Maryland District Court a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Counts II and IV, dismissing without prejudice her claims under the MCPA and the DCCPPA as to both Defendants, thus leaving for resolution the motions to dismiss as to her causes of action under the FDCPA and the MCDCA. On the same day, Ms. Murdoch filed a Motion to Certify a Class Against Defendants, Appoint Named Plaintiff as Class Representative, and Appoint Class Counsel. District Judge Roger W. Titus said he will grant Rosenberg LLC's Ms. Rosenberg's Motions to Dismiss; deny as moot the Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Class Certification Briefing Pending Discovery; grant the Defendants' Motion to Strike Class Action Allegations; and deny the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify a Class Against Defendants, Appoint Named Plaintiff as Class Representative, and Appoint Class Counsel. According to Judge Titus, Ms. Murdoch failed to allege sufficient factual support in her Complaint that Ms. Rosenberg personally violated any section of the FDCPA or the MCDCA as a "debt collector" or otherwise. Ms. Murdoch also failed to "specifically identify how [Rosenberg LLC's] conduct was . . . unfair or unconscionable under section 1692f," and such failure "warrants dismissal of this claim," he said. Moreover, Ms. Murdoch's Motion to Certify Fails to Satisfy Procedural Rules and Substantive Requirements of Rule 23, he added. A copy of the District Court's March 22, 2013 Memorandum Opinion is available at http://is.gd/RZfY62from Leagle.com. SELLING SOURCE: Pfister TCPA Suit Transferred to California ----------------------------------------------------------- DIANE PFISTER, Plaintiff(s), v. SELLING SOURCE, LLC, et al., Defendant(s), No. 2:12-CV-408 JCM (NJK), (D. Nev.), is a purported class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act based on Ms. Pfister's allegations that Selling Source, and LeadRev Inc. engaged in a practice of making unsolicited text message calls to cellular telephones. LeadRev, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Florida, moved to transfer or dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that it lacks sufficient contacts with Nevada for the Nevada District Court to exercise personal jurisdiction over it. District Judge James C. Mahan agreed and held that it lacks personal jurisdiction over LeadRev and that the Nevada District Court is not a proper venue for the Plaintiffs' lawsuit. Accordingly, Judge Mahan granted LeadRev's motion to transfer, and transferred the case to the Northern District of Florida. Judge Mahan said the interest of justice is served in transferring the case rather than dismissing it. Dismissing the action and requiring the Plaintiff to file a new action in Florida would waste both the parties' and the court's resources, he added. A copy of the District Court's March 20, 2013 Order is available at http://is.gd/X5ka7Jfrom Leagle.com. SOUTHERN UNION: Merger-Related Suit in Texas Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ A consolidated merger-related lawsuit filed in Texas remains pending, according to Southern Union Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. On March 26, 2012, the Company, Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. (ETE), and Sigma Acquisition Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of ETE (Merger Sub), completed their previously announced merger transaction. Pursuant to the Second Amended and Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of July 19, 2011, as amended by Amendment No. 1 thereto dated as of September 14, 2011 (as amended, the Merger Agreement), among the Company, ETE and Merger Sub, Merger Sub was merged with and into the Company, with the Company continuing as the surviving corporation as an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of ETE (the Merger). The Merger became effective on March 26, 2012. In June 2011, several putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, naming as defendants the members of the Southern Union Board, as well as Southern Union and ETE. The lawsuits were styled Jaroslawicz v. Southern Union Company, et al., Cause No. 2011-37091, in the 333rd Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, and Magda v. Southern Union Company, et al., Cause No. 2011-37134, in the 11th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas. The lawsuits were consolidated into an action styled In re: Southern Union Company; Cause No. 2011-37091, in the 333rd Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas. The Plaintiffs allege that the Southern Union directors breached their fiduciary duties to Southern Union's stockholders in connection with the Merger and that Southern Union and ETE aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The amended petitions allege that the Merger involves an unfair price and an inadequate sales process, that Southern Union's directors entered into the Merger to benefit themselves personally, including through consulting and noncompete agreements, and that defendants have failed to disclose all material information related to the Merger to Southern Union stockholders. The amended petitions seek injunctive relief, including an injunction of the Merger, and an award of attorneys' and other fees and costs, in addition to other relief. On October 21, 2011, the court denied ETE's October 13, 2011 motion to stay the Texas proceeding in favor of cases pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery. Also in June 2011, several putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery naming as defendants the members of the Southern Union Board, as well as Southern Union and ETE. Three of the lawsuits also named Merger Sub as a defendant. These lawsuits are styled: Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, et al. v. Southern Union Company, et al., C.A. No. 6615-CS; KBC Asset Management NV v. Southern Union Company, et al., C.A. No. 6622-CS; LBBW Asset Management Investment GmbH v. Southern Union Company, et al., C.A. No. 6627- CS; and Memo v. Southern Union Company, et al., C.A. No. 6639-CS. These cases were consolidated with the following style: In re Southern Union Co. Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 6615-CS, in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The consolidated complaint asserts similar claims and allegations as the Texas state-court consolidated action. On July 25, 2012, the Delaware plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of all claims without prejudice. In the notice, plaintiffs stated their claims were being dismissed to avoid duplicative litigation and indicated their intent to join the Texas case. The Texas case remains pending, and discovery is ongoing. Southern Union Company -- http://www.sug.com/-- was incorporated in Delaware in 1932 and is based in Houston, Texas. The Company owns and operates assets in the regulated and unregulated natural gas industry and is primarily engaged in the gathering, processing, transportation, storage and distribution of natural gas in the United States. The Company operates in three reportable segments: Transportation and Storage, Gathering and Processing, and Distribution. SOUTHERN UNION: Panhandle Still Defends "Price" Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Will Price, an individual, filed actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas for damages against a number of companies, including Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP, a Southern Union Company subsidiary, alleging mis-measurement of natural gas volumes and Btu content, resulting in lower royalties to mineral interest owners. On September 19, 2009, the Court denied plaintiffs' request for class certification. Plaintiffs have filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court denied on March 31, 2010. No further updates were reported in the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. Panhandle believes that its measurement practices conformed to the terms of its Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) natural gas tariffs, which were filed with and approved by the FERC. As a result, the Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the Will Price lawsuit (including FERC-related affirmative defenses, such as the filed rate/tariff doctrine, the primary/exclusive jurisdiction of the FERC, and the defense that Panhandle complied with the terms of its tariffs). In the event that Plaintiffs refuse Panhandle's pending request for voluntary dismissal, Panhandle will continue to vigorously defend the case. The Company believes it has no liability associated with this proceeding. Southern Union Company -- http://www.sug.com/-- was incorporated in Delaware in 1932 and is based in Houston, Texas. The Company owns and operates assets in the regulated and unregulated natural gas industry and is primarily engaged in the gathering, processing, transportation, storage and distribution of natural gas in the United States. The Company operates in three reportable segments: Transportation and Storage, Gathering and Processing, and Distribution. STANDARD FIRE: Morgan Lewis Discusses Supreme Court Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------- John S. Battenfeld, Esq. -- jbattenfeld@morganlewis.com -- Kristofer T. Henning, Esq., Kenneth M. Kliebard, Esq. -- kkliebard@morganlewis.com -- and Franco A. Corrado, Esq. -- fcorrado@morganlewis.com -- at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, report that the U.S. Supreme Court holds in a 9--0 decision that class action plaintiffs cannot promise to limit damages in an effort to remain below the Class Action Fairness Act's $5 million federal jurisdictional threshold. Under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), a defendant in a class action filed in state court may remove the case to federal court if, among other requirements, the projected amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. Notwithstanding that provision, some class action plaintiffs have successfully avoided CAFA removal by stipulating that they will not seek more than $5 million on behalf of the putative class. On March 19, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles that a named plaintiff cannot avoid federal CAFA jurisdiction (if CAFA jurisdiction is otherwise appropriate) by stipulating, prior to class certification, that the class will not seek aggregate damages in excess of $5 million. [1] The Court held that a precertification stipulation by the named plaintiff is not binding on the absent putative class members. As a result, the stipulation is illusory and ineffective in defeating CAFA jurisdiction. This decision is significant because it increases the likelihood that class action defendants will be able to successfully remove class actions to federal court, where discovery is often more limited than in state court and class certification standards may be more stringent. The Standard Fire decision also eliminates one tactic class action plaintiffs have been using to avoid litigating in federal court. It is likely that the rule announced in Standard Fire will also apply to other similar tactics used by class action plaintiffs. For example, assertions by a plaintiff in a complaint about the amount in controversy have been found by some courts to create a heightened burden of proof for a defendant to establish that more than $5 million is in controversy under CAFA. Although Standard Fire did not address this specific issue, the Supreme Court held that district courts, when assessing the amount in controversy for CAFA purposes, should ignore assertions by the class action plaintiff attempting to limit the amount in controversy. The Supreme Court also noted the importance of CAFA's "primary objective," which is to ensure that federal courts can consider "'interstate cases of national importance.'"[2] The decision does not expressly resolve the divergent case law on the burden of proof placed on the defendant to establish the amount in controversy, which ranges from a "preponderance of the evidence" to a "legal certainty" standard. Nevertheless, any damages-limitation stipulation from the named plaintiff should not result in a heightened burden on the defendant to establish the amount in controversy, as suggested in decisions such as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's pronouncement in Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n.[3] Until that issue is squarely resolved in the courts, removing defendants will be wise to continue to use extra care in establishing that the projected amount in controversy exceeds the $5 million threshold. [1]. Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, No. 11-1450 (U.S. Mar. 19, 2013), available here. [2]. Id. at 6 (quoting Sec. 2(b)(2), 119 Stat. 5). [3]. Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 479 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2007). STAR SCIENTIFIC: To Vigorously Contest Class Action Allegations --------------------------------------------------------------- Paul L. Perito, Esq., Chairman, President, and COO of Star Scientific, Inc., on March 26 issued the following statement on behalf of Star Scientific and Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: "[Tuesday] morning, Star Scientific was alerted to the filing of a purported class action lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond Division). The complaint, which lists one named plaintiff, focuses on the validity of the Company's research and development related to the active ingredient in the Company's now marketed dietary supplements and cosmetic products. Star Scientific is proud of its worthy science-based products, as well as the fact that these products are used by thousands of satisfied regular customers. We stand behind our scientific research, and that of other credentialed third-parties, that has been conducted on our anatabine compound as well as the reporting on the results of that research. Accordingly, the Company will vigorously contest each of the allegations in the complaint. We are confident that the meritless nature of this lawsuit will cause it to be ultimately dismissed." "In a cursory review of the complaint, the Company noted, with interest, that the purported lead class action plaintiff is an individual who purchased 500 shares of Star Scientific stock on January 23, 2013, and held the stock for only seven days, selling his 500 shares on January 30, 2013. For a range of compelling reasons, it is difficult to conceive of a more inappropriate class action plaintiff representative. In addition, the lawsuit seems to result from a wide, and until now, unsuccessful search by plaintiffs' law firms seeking to find anyone to bring any kind of action without regard to its merits." Subpoenas According to The Associated Press, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of people who bought Star Scientific shares between October 31, 2011 and March 18, 2013. The complaint says the company made false and misleading statements about the company's business, operational and compliance policies. Star Scientific said that the company, its directors, and others received subpoenas from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia. The company said it believes the main focus of the investigation is its securities, including private placements and related transactions dating to 2006. In a form filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Star said it is responding to the subpoenas and plans to cooperate fully with the investigation. The Richmond, Va., company received the subpoenas in late January and February. It hired a law firm to conduct an internal investigation. SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Appeal in "Griner" Class Suit Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Synovus Bank's appeal from an order denying its motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit titled Griner et. al. v. Synovus Bank, et al., remains pending, according to Synovus Financial Corp.'s March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. Synovus Bank was named as a defendant in a putative state-wide class action in which the plaintiffs allege that overdraft fees charged to customers constitute interest and, as such, are usurious under Georgia law. The case, Griner et al. v. Synovus Bank, et al. was filed in Gwinnett County State Court (state of Georgia) on July 30, 2010, and asserts claims for usury, conversion and money had and received for alleged injuries suffered by the plaintiffs as a result of Synovus Bank's assessment of overdraft charges in connection with its POS/debit and automated-teller machine cards used to access customer accounts. The Plaintiffs contend that such overdraft charges constitute interest and are therefore subject to Georgia usury laws. Synovus Bank contends that such overdraft charges constitute non-interest fees and charges under both federal and Georgia law and are otherwise exempt from Georgia usury limits. On September 1, 2010, Synovus Bank removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. The plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to state court. On July 22, 2011, the federal court entered an order granting plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to the Gwinnett County State Court. Synovus Bank subsequently filed a motion to dismiss. On February 22, 2012, the state court entered an order denying the motion to dismiss. On March 1, 2012, the state court signed and entered a certificate of immediate review thereby permitting Synovus Bank to petition the Georgia Court of Appeals for a discretionary appeal of the denial of the motion to dismiss. On March 12, 2012, Synovus Bank filed its application for interlocutory appeal with the Georgia Court of Appeals. On April 3, 2012, the Georgia Court of Appeals granted Synovus Bank's application for interlocutory appeal of the state court's order denying Synovus Bank's motion to dismiss. On April 11, 2012 Synovus Bank filed its notice of appeal. Oral arguments were heard in the case on September 19, 2012. The case remains pending on appeal. Synovus Financial Corp. -- http://www.synovus.com/-- is a financial services company and a registered bank holding company headquartered in Columbus, Georgia. The Company provides integrated financial services, including commercial and retail banking, financial management, insurance and mortgage services to the Company's customers through 29 locally-branded banking divisions of its wholly-owned subsidiary bank, Synovus Bank, and other offices in Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, Florida and Tennessee. SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: "Childs" Class Suit in Discovery Phase --------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Childs et al. v. Columbus Bank and Trust et al., is currently in discovery, according to Synovus Financial Corp.'s March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. On September 21, 2010, Synovus, Synovus Bank and Columbus Bank and Trust Company ("CB&T") were named as defendants in a putative multi-state class action relating to the manner in which Synovus Bank charges overdraft fees to customers. The case, Childs et al. v. Columbus Bank and Trust et al., was filed in the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, and asserts claims for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unconscionability, conversion and unjust enrichment for alleged injuries suffered by plaintiffs as a result of Synovus Bank's assessment of overdraft charges in connection with its POS/debit and automated-teller machine cards allegedly resulting from the sequence used to post payments to the plaintiffs' accounts. On October 25, 2010, the Childs case was transferred to a multi-district proceeding in the Southern District of Florida, In Re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, MDL No. 2036. The Plaintiffs amended their complaint on October 21, 2011. The Synovus entities filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on November 22, 2011. On July 26, 2012, the court denied the motion as to Synovus and Synovus Bank, but granted the motion as to CB&T. Synovus and Synovus Bank filed their answer to the amended complaint on September 24, 2012. The case is currently in discovery. On January 25, 2012, Synovus Bank was named as a defendant in another putative multi-state class action relating to the manner in which Synovus Bank charges overdraft fees to customers. The case, Green et al. v. Synovus Bank, was filed in the Middle District of Georgia, Columbus Division, and asserts claims for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unconscionability, conversion, unjust enrichment and money had and received for alleged injuries suffered by the plaintiffs as a result of Synovus Bank's assessment of overdraft charges in connection with its POS/debit and automated-teller machine cards allegedly resulting from the sequence used to post payments to the plaintiffs' accounts. On February 14, 2012, Synovus Bank filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On March 8, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint to add a claim under the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act. On March 22, 2012, Synovus Bank filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On April 19, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued a Conditional Transfer Order conditionally transferring the case to the multi-district proceeding in the Southern District of Florida, In Re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, MDL No. 2036. On April 20, 2012, Synovus Bank and Plaintiffs separately filed objections to the Conditional Transfer Order. On May 4 and 5, 2012, Synovus Bank and Plaintiffs separately filed motions to vacate the Conditional Transfer Order. On August 3, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the case transferred to the multi-district proceeding in the Southern District of Florida, In Re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, MDL No. 2036. On September 5, 2012, the plaintiffs in the Childs case filed an amended complaint that added Richard Green, the named plaintiff from the Green et al. v. Synovus Bank case, as a named plaintiff in the Childs case. As a result, the parties advised the court that the Green et al. v. Synovus Bank case should be dismissed without prejudice. On November 8, 2012, the court entered an order dismissing without prejudice the Green case. Synovus Financial Corp. -- http://www.synovus.com/-- is a financial services company and a registered bank holding company headquartered in Columbus, Georgia. The Company provides integrated financial services, including commercial and retail banking, financial management, insurance and mortgage services to the Company's customers through 29 locally-branded banking divisions of its wholly-owned subsidiary bank, Synovus Bank, and other offices in Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, Florida and Tennessee. SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Shareholder Derivative Suit Settlement Okayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Synovus Financial Corp.'s settlement of a federal shareholder derivative lawsuit was approved in February 2013, according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. On July 7, 2009, the City of Pompano Beach General Employees' Retirement System filed a lawsuit against Synovus, and certain of Synovus' current and former officers, in the United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia (Civil Action File No. 1:09-CV-1811) (the "Securities Class Action"); and on June 11, 2010, Lead Plaintiffs, the Labourers' Pension Fund of Central and Eastern Canada and the Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund, filed an amended complaint alleging that Synovus and the named individual defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose material facts that artificially inflated Synovus' stock price in violation of the federal securities laws. Lead Plaintiffs' allegations are based on purported exposure to Synovus' lending relationship with the Sea Island Company and the impact of such alleged exposure on Synovus' financial condition. The Lead Plaintiffs in the Securities Class Action seek damages in an unspecified amount. On May 19, 2011, the Court ruled that the amended complaint failed to satisfy the mandatory pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The Court also ruled that Lead Plaintiffs would be allowed the opportunity to submit a further amended complaint. The Lead Plaintiffs served their second amended complaint on June 27, 2011. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss that complaint on July 27, 2011. On March 22, 2012, the Court granted in part and denied in part that Motion to Dismiss. On April 19, 2012, the Defendants filed a motion requesting that the Court reconsider its March 22, 2012 order. On September 26, 2012, the Court issued a written order denying the Motion for Reconsideration. The Defendants filed their answer to the second amended complaint on May 21, 2012. Discovery in this case is ongoing. On November 4, 2009, a shareholder filed a putative derivative action purportedly on behalf of Synovus in the United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia (Civil Action File No. 1:09-CV-3069) (the "Federal Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit"), against certain current and/or former directors and executive officers of Synovus. The Federal Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit asserts that the individual defendants violated their fiduciary duties based upon substantially the same facts as alleged in the Securities Class Action. The plaintiff is seeking to recover damages in an unspecified amount and equitable and/or injunctive relief. On December 1, 2009, at the request of the parties, the Court consolidated the Securities Class Action and Federal Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit for discovery purposes, captioned In re Synovus Financial Corp., 09-CV-1811-JOF, holding that the two cases involve "common issues of law and fact." The Plaintiff in the Federal Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit served a verified amended shareholder derivative complaint on June 5, 2012. On July 25, 2012, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended shareholder derivative complaint. Discovery in this case is ongoing. On December 21, 2009, a shareholder filed a putative derivative action purportedly on behalf of Synovus in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia (the "State Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit"), against certain current and/or former directors and executive officers of Synovus. The State Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit asserts that the individual defendants violated their fiduciary duties based upon substantially the same facts as alleged in the Federal Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit. The plaintiff is seeking to recover damages in an unspecified amount and equitable and/or injunctive relief. On June 17, 2010, the Superior Court entered an Order staying the State Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit pending resolution of the Federal Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit. On October 4, 2012, the parties to the Federal Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit reached an agreement in principal to settle, subject to the Court's approval, the outstanding derivative claims purportedly brought on behalf of Synovus in the Federal Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit and the State Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit. On November 14, 2012, the parties to the Federal Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit executed a Stipulation of Settlement memorializing the principal terms of their proposed settlement agreement (the "Settlement Agreement"). On January 8, 2013, the Court granted preliminary approval to the proposed Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement was finally approved at a hearing held on February 26, 2013. The Company says there are significant uncertainties involved in any potential class action and derivative litigation. Synovus may seek to mediate the Securities Class Action in order to determine whether a reasonable settlement can be reached. In the event the Securities Class Action is not settled, Synovus and the individually named defendants collectively intend to vigorously defend themselves against the Securities Class Action. Synovus Financial Corp. -- http://www.synovus.com/-- is a financial services company and a registered bank holding company headquartered in Columbus, Georgia. The Company provides integrated financial services, including commercial and retail banking, financial management, insurance and mortgage services to the Company's customers through 29 locally-branded banking divisions of its wholly-owned subsidiary bank, Synovus Bank, and other offices in Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, Florida and Tennessee. SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Visa Awaits Okay of Interchange Fee Suit Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Visa is awaiting approval of its settlement of a multidistrict interchange litigation, according to Synovus Financial Corp.'s March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. Synovus is a member of the Visa USA network and received shares of Visa Class B common stock in exchange for its membership interest in Visa USA in conjunction with the public offering by the Visa IPO in 2008. Visa members have indemnification obligations with respect to the Covered Litigation. Visa Class B shares are subject to certain restrictions until March 25, 2011 or settlement of the Covered Litigation. As of December 31, 2012, all of the Covered Litigation had not been settled. Visa has established a litigation escrow to fund settlement of the Covered Litigation. The litigation escrow is funded by proceeds from Visa's conversion of Class B shares. The Visa IPO was completed in March 2008. Immediately following completion of the Visa IPO in March 2008, Visa redeemed a portion of the Class B shares of its common stock held by Visa members. Synovus recognized a pre-tax gain of $38.5 million on redemption of a portion of its Visa Class B shares. During 2008 and 2009, Synovus reduced its contingent liability for its indemnification obligation upon events of Visa's funding of the litigation escrow through conversion of Class B shares. In November 2009, Synovus sold its remaining Visa Class B shares to another Visa USA member financial institution for $51.9 million and recognized a gain on sale of $51.9 million. In conjunction with the sale, Synovus entered into a derivative contract with the purchaser which provides for settlements between the parties based upon a change in the ratio for conversion of Visa Class B shares to Visa Class A shares. The fair value of the derivative liability of $3.0 million and $9.1 million, at December 31, 2012, and 2011, respectively, is based on an estimate of Visa's exposure to liability based upon probability-weighted potential outcomes of the Covered Litigation, and with respect to December 31, 2012, includes the present value of estimated future fees paid to the derivative counterparty, and the estimated impact of a ten bps decrease in credit interchange fees for an eight-month period beginning in mid-2013. Synovus paid settlements of approximately $9.9 million and $888,000 to the derivative counterparty in connection with conversion rate changes in February 2012 and August 2012, respectively. The conversion rate changed each of these times in connection with Visa's deposit of funds to the litigation escrow. For the year ended December 31, 2012, the $6.3 million indemnification charges included a $5.8 million increase in the fair value of the derivative liability and $466 thousand of fees payable to the derivative counterparty. On July 13, 2012, Visa announced that it had signed a memorandum of understanding with the class plaintiffs in the multi-district interchange litigation, which obligated the parties to enter into a settlement agreement, and on October 19, 2012, Visa announced that a settlement agreement had been executed to resolve class plaintiff's claims. Among other things, the settlement agreement provides for settlement payments of approximately $6.6 billion, of which Visa's share will be approximately $4.4 billion, and further provides for distribution to class merchants of an amount equal to ten basis points of default interchange across all credit rate categories for a period of eight consecutive months, which otherwise would have been paid to card issuers and which effectively reduces credit interchange for that period of time. The eight month period would begin sixty days after completion of the court ordered period during which individual class members may opt out of the proposed settlement. These announcements have been factored into the fair value determination as of December 31, 2012, using the probability model described in Note 16 -- Fair Value Accounting. Management believes that the estimate of Synovus' exposure to the Visa indemnification and fees associated with the Visa Derivative is adequate based on current information, including Visa's recent announcements. However, future developments in the litigation could require potentially significant changes to Synovus' estimate. Synovus Financial Corp. -- http://www.synovus.com/-- is a financial services company and a registered bank holding company headquartered in Columbus, Georgia. The Company provides integrated financial services, including commercial and retail banking, financial management, insurance and mortgage services to the Company's customers through 29 locally-branded banking divisions of its wholly-owned subsidiary bank, Synovus Bank, and other offices in Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, Florida and Tennessee. UNITED STATES: Judge Orders Release of Filings on Guantanamo Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- Annie Youderian at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge ordered the government to release, with some exceptions, unclassified public versions of the materials filed in a former Guantanamo Bay detainee's case. In a March 8 ruling that was recently unclassified, U.S. District Chief Judge Royce Lamberth in Washington, D.C., partially rejected the government's bid to shield certain records on Somali native Mohammed Sulaymon Barre, and largely granted Barre's cross-motion to compel disclosure. "The court is troubled by the government's apparent lack of urgency in issuing public versions of classified materials filed in Guantanamo proceedings," Lamberth wrote. "The government's arguments are unavailing and largely boil down to this: 'Declassification is complicated and time consuming and we already have a lot of work - please don't pile on.'" Lamberth said that while he "is sympathetic to the government's position . . . classified filings should be made available to the public, with appropriate redactions." Barre was arrested and detained in 2001 while living as a refugee in Pakistan. He was interrogated about his former job at a Somali-based financial institution that purportedly sent money to and from customers in Pakistan. The Pakistani government suspected Barre had ties to Al Wafa, an Islamic foundation accused of terrorist activities. But the Center for Constitutional Rights, which filed the petition challenging his detention in court, says Barre is believed to have been sold to the United States for a bounty. Once in the custody of U.S. forces, Barre was detained at military bases in Kandahar and Bagram before being transferred to the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he claims he was tortured. He was released in 2009, leading a judge to dismiss his habeas petition as moot. As his appeal was pending, Barre sought a court order forcing the government to publicly disclose three of his classified filings. He claimed it "would be highly misleading for the public to have available to it only the government's selective version" of the circumstances surrounding his capture and detention at Guantanamo. The government, however, fought to keep many of the documents classified, citing national security concerns. Specifically, it asked the court to shield the location of an al-Qaida training facility, along with an unspecified word that it claimed had been mistakenly disclosed in a court filing. Judge Lamberth said these pieces of information are not protected, because they "have been officially acknowledged and remain publicly available." If the disclosure was inadvertent, as the government claimed, Lamberth questioned why the government "made no attempt to remove or replace" the public document with a redacted version. Lamberth also chided the government for dragging its feet on disclosing public versions of the three classified filings simply because Barre has since been released and his petition dismissed. "[T]his ignores the inherent public interest in Guantanamo litigation generally, and in the facts related to the release of this detainee in particular," Lamberth wrote. "Here, petitioner's documents have remained essentially under seal for 42 months, and the court sees no reason to write the government a blank check and allow them to produce the documents at some unknown point in the future." Lamberth gave the government 90 days -- longer than the 30-day deadline sought by Barre -- to produce unclassified public versions of the three court filings and the reprocessed factual return. Allowing the government to indefinitely withhold documents would provide a "backdoor" for the government to effectively seal a case, "which is exclusively the prerogative of the court," Lamberth wrote. The judge allowed the government to protect some documents, such as the litigation materials shown to Barre and his attorney in detention. Barre had argued that he should be able to reveal the contents of those documents following his release in 2009 - an argument Lamberth called "rather novel" and "meritless." UNITED TECH: Laid-Off Worker Files Class Action Over Stock Awards ----------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Dowling, writing for The Hartford Courant, reports that a laid-off United Technologies Corp. employee filed a class-action lawsuit against the company on March 22 claiming the company refused him stock that was due to him through the company's employee tuition program. Richard A. Grisafi, 31, started work as an engineer for UTC Fire & Security in Montvale, N.J., in July 2007 and months later began a graduate program to further his engineering skills. He participated in the company's Employee Scholar Program, which, at the time, promised about $10,000 in company shares to Mr. Grisafi if he finished a graduate degree and stayed on for a year after graduation. He graduated in 2010 with a master's degree in mechanical engineering from Manhattan College. Shortly before his graduation the company changed the vesting period to three years, which pushed the date that the stock would be his to October 2013. About a year before his shares would have vested -- becoming Mr. Grisafi's property -- the company laid him off, terminating his employment without cause. And the stocks never vested. That stock award -- according to Mr. Grisafi's case that was filed in the U.S. District Court in New Jersey -- should not have been lost if the employee left his job involuntarily, which is what happened in August 2012. The 141 shares of UTC stock were valued at about $71.13 each when he would have received them. On March 26, the shares were valued at about $13,000. "I withheld my end of the bargain and I think they should too," Mr. Grisafi said on March 26. "They seemed to not care." Ian Race, a UTC spokesman, said that the company hasn't been served with the lawsuit yet and so doesn't have a comment. He said that the current Employee Scholar Program doesn't issue stock awards of the sort that Mr. Grisafi received. In a letter sent to Mr. Grisafi in November, the company's assistant general counsel John C. Foley argued that the layoff counted as a termination of employment that made the stock award invalid, quoting a 2010 program document that said the stock "will be forfeited in the event of termination from employment prior to vesting except in the case of disability of death." "There is no disputing that your employment was terminated for reasons other than disability or death," Mr. Foley wrote to Mr. Grisafi. "Consequently, this provision governs." Mr. Grisafi's lawsuit doesn't identify other plaintiffs that would be included in the class of people affected by the company's actions, but it estimates that the group could include "in excess of 5,000 persons." The lawsuit claims that United Technologies violated the U.S. Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as well as caused a breach of contract, a breach of fiduciary duties, and a violation of a good-faith agreement, among other claims. Mr. Grisafi's lawyer G. Martin Meyers said that he hopes the class- action complaint will help identify more former employees in the same position. "Making the decision to further your education is an important life decision, and when someone dangles a carrot in front of your head to induce you do to that, they should give you the carrot," Mr. Meyers said. "It comes down to trampling on the rights of employees and kicking people when they're down," he said. "Corporations have the right to engage in their reorganizations and downsizings, but they also have the legal obligation to respect people's legal rights when they do it." The employee scholar program has helped company employees earn more than 34,540 degrees since 1996, spending more than $1 billion on tuition, books and supplies for employees, said Mr. Race of UTC. The program, which has won numerous national awards, has 8,000 current participants. WEST MUSIC: Recalls 6,500 Basic Beat Egg-Shaker Toy Instruments --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Bongo Logic Development LTD, of Hong Kong, announced a voluntary recall of about 6,500 Basic Beat BB201 standard egg shakers. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The outer "end cap" that is glued onto the top, smallest part of the egg can come off, posing a small part choking or aspiration hazard. West Music has received three reports of ends popping off, with no injuries reported. These recalled egg-shaker toy instruments are plastic, egg-shaped instruments sold in five colors: yellow, green, blue, red and purple. The toy instruments are about the size of small eggs and have a "Basic Beat" label printed on the front of the product. The product is marked for children ages 3 years and older but West Music is concerned with the possibility of the egg being used by or near a younger child. The toy instruments have Lot Number 0E0212 located on the bottom of the roundest part of the egg. Picture of the recalled products is available at: http://is.gd/ecTSCJ The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at West Music stores, West Music Catalog, Westmusic.com, Amazon.com and at West Music booths at summer workshops from July 2012 through October 2012 for about $1.50 each. Consumers should immediately take the recalled egg shaker toy instruments away from young children and contact West Music for a free replacement product. West Music may be reached at (800) 397- 9378 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday, e-mail atservice@music.com or online at http://www.westmusic.com/and click on Help & FAQs and Recalls for more information. WHITEWATER TECHNOLOGY: Recalls 2,200 Kayaking and Rafting Helmets ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in cooperation with Whitewater Technology Associates, LC, doing business as Whitewater Research & Safety Institute (WRSI), of Park City, Utah, announced a voluntary recall of about 2,000 Whitewater Kayaking and Rafting Helmets in the United States of America and 200 in Canada. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The chinstrap buckle can fail, posing a head injury hazard to users. WRSI is aware of 10 incidents of chinstrap failures. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves WRSI Moment and Trident models whitewater kayaking and rafting helmets. They have a black chinstrap with a black plastic buckle and were sold in sizes S/M and M/L. "WRSI" is printed under or on top of the helmet's visor. WRSI's "Wave Logo" is visible on the back of the Moment helmet. "WRSI" is printed vertically on the back of the Trident helmet. The part number is printed on the hang tag of both models. Helmets in the following colors or color combinations and sizes, and with the part numbers listed below, are being recalled: Model Color and Size Part Number ----- -------------- ----------- Moment Glossy red - S/M 852145003633 and 852145003657 (w/ and Glossy red - M/L 852145003602 and 852145003619 without Matte black - S/M 852145003626 and 852145003640 vents) Matte black - M/L 852145003589 and 852145003596 Trident Black Rasta - M/L 852145003411 Black with 852145003466 pinstripe - S/M Black with 852145003367 pinstripe - M/L Blue/Carbon - S/M 852145003459 Blue/Carbon - M/L 852145003398 Green/Army green 852145003480 - S/M Green/Army green 852145003381 - M/L Green/Carbon - S/M 852145003442 Green/Carbon - M/L 852145003404 Red/Burnt red - S/M 852145003473 Red/Burnt red - M/L 852145003374 Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/MTb2A9 The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Northwest River Supplies and sporting goods stores nationwide and online at www.whitewaterhelmet.com from March 2012 through November 2012 for between $140 and $170. Consumers should stop using the helmets immediately and contact WRSI for a free replacement or full refund. WRSI may be reached toll-free at (888) 441-1041, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Mountain Time Monday through Friday, e-mail buckle@whitewaterhelmet.com, or online at http://www.whitewaterhelmets.com/and click on "Safety Alert" at the center of the home page for more information. ********* 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 * * *