/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/130613.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, June 13, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 116 Headlines 013 NETVISION: Israeli Sup. Ct. Approves Class Action Settlement ADOBE: Recalls 500 High-Powered Magnets in ConnectTM Promo Packs AGL RESOURCES: Consolidated Suit vs. Nicor Units Remains Pending ALDERMAN FARMS: Recalls Certified Organic Cherry Tomatoes ALPHA MEAT: Recalls Chicken Breasts Over Ingesta/Viscera Presence AQUA DIGITAL: Recalls 3 Models of Atman Protein Skimmer Pumps AROMASOURCE INC: Recalls PURELIVING Reed Diffusers Over Warnings AU OPTRONICS: Supreme Court to Decide on Bid to Transfer Suits BANCOLOMBIA SA: "Aguilar" Class Suit Remains Pending in Colombia BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Dentons Canada Discusses Supreme Court Ruling BLUE CROSS: Class Certification Hearing Scheduled for Sept. 18 BONDUELLE CANADA: Recalls 398 mL French-Style Cut Green Beans CANADA: Groups Challenge Police's "Card" Practice in Court CARBO CERAMICS: Still Awaits Order on Bid to Junk Securities Suit CHOBANI: Mayer Brown Seeks Disqualification of Class Action Lawyer CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 1,317 4500 and 5500 Models of RAM Vehicles CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 1500, 2500, 3500 & 5500 RAM Truck Models CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 1500, 2500 and 3500 Models of RAM Vehicles CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 18,407 JEEP WRANGLER SUVs CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 2500 and 3500 2013 Models of RAM Vehicles CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 3,566 DART Model of DODGE Vehicles CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 45,387 COMPASS and PATRIOT Vehicles CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 15,000 New Dodge Dart Compact Cars CITIGROUP INC: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Seek Approval for Settlement COMMUNITY HEALTH: Still Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Tenn. Suit CONVERGYS CORP: Status Conference in "Wheelock" Suit on July 9 CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Appeal From Dismissal of Calif. Suit Pending CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Appeal in "Rivera" Suit Still Pending CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: "Harrington" Suit Still Pending in Calif. CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: "Madden" Class Suit Dismissed in February CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: "Montgomery" Suit Scheduled for Arbitration CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Still Defends Suits by Former Students COUNTRY LIFE: Recalls 1,100 Target-Mins Iron Supplement Bottles DELAWARE MANUFACTURED: Faces Class Action Over Assessment Fees DOLLAR GENERAL: EEOC Files Suits Over Criminal Background Checks EI DUPONT: Medical Panel Recommends Medical Monitoring Protocols ELBIT IMAGING: Court Dismisses Application to Certify Class Action EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Cozen O'Connor Discusses Incentive Award FELTEX: Forsyth Barr Opts in Clients in Class Action FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA: Faces Class Action Over Loan Mismanagement FISKARS CANADA: Recalls Stitched Sheaths for Gerber Bear Machete FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Suit vs. Units FLAMEL TECHNOLOGIES: Securities Class Suit Dismissed in March FRESH DEL MONTE: Appeal From Hawaii Suit Dismissal Still Pending FRESH DEL MONTE: Defends Extra Sweet Pineapples-Related Suits FRESH DEL MONTE: Suit Over Extra Sweet Pineapples Pending in Fla. G. WILLI-FOOD: Accused of Mislabeling Certain Imported Products GENERAL MILLS: Recalls Cinnamon Toast Crunch Products GERBER LEGENDARY: Recalls 91,000 Machetes With Stitched Sheaths GOLD COAST: Beachfront Property Owners Mull Class Action GREENBERG TRAURIG: Settles Gender Discrimination Class Action GRUMA SAB: Unit Faces "Cox" Class Suit Over "All Natural" Label HEALTHCARE FOOD: Recalls 8 x 260 g Curried Lentil Casserole HERBALIFE LTD: Sales Increase Despite Pyramid Scheme Class Action HUNTSMAN CORP: Faces Class Suit by Indirect Purchasers of TiO2 HUNTSMAN CORP: Hearing in TiO2 Direct Purchasers Suit on June 25 IKEA NORTH: Recalls 231,000 LYDA Jumbo Cups Due to Burn Hazard KELLOGG CO: Settles Class Action Over Frosted Mini-Wheats for $4MM LATAM AIRLINES: Defends Suits by Workers' Unions vs. Tam Linhas LATAM AIRLINES: Defends Suits Over Price Fixing of Surcharges LATAM AIRLINES: TAM Linhas Defends Suit Over 1996 Plane Crash LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls Joe Fresh Children's Short Sleepers MACMILLAN GROUP: CEO Testifies in E-Book Price-Fixing Trial MEILLEURES MARQUES: Recalls St-Hubert Brand Chicken Chowder PACCAR: Recalls 17 T440 2013 and 2014 Models of KENWORTH Trucks PET VALU: Ontario Court of Appeal Upholds Opt-Out Process PHILADELPHIA, PA: Lawyers File Motion to Reopen 1986 Class Action PHILLIPS AGENCY: Fisher & Phillips Discusses Court Ruling PHILIPS LIGHTING: Recalls 8,100 Metal Halide Lamps Over Fire Risk PILOT FLYING J: Seeks Dismissal of Suit on Technical Grounds RIPLEY SCHOOL: Faces Class Action Over Plan to Transfer Students SEARS CORP: Supreme Court to Weigh on Washer Class Action SEQUEL NATURALS: Recalls Vega(R) Bars Due to Undeclared Milk TGI FRIDAY'S: Faces Consumer Fraud Class Action TORONTO: Activists to Move Ahead With Police Carding Practice Suit UNITED STATES: Group Seeks Class Action Status for Medicaid Suit UNITED STATES: Number of Eligibility Workers at Issue in DSS Suit VALENCIA HOLDING: Attorney Seeks to Limit Mandatory Arbitration WAL-MART STORES: Faces Class Action Over Suitable Cashier Seating WAL-MART STORES: Seeks Dismissal of Wisconsin Gender Bias Suit WALGREEN CO: Settles Suit Over Painkillers for $80 Million WHIRLPOOL CORP: Residents Attend Meeting on Clyde Cancer Cluster XUMANII: Private Investor Responds to Class Action Complaint YAKIMA PRODUCTS: Recalls Whispbar Fitting Kit Top of Car System * Appeals Courts Set to Decide on Two Consumer Class Actions * Canada Recalls Apricot Halves Due to Extraneous Material * Class Actions Challenge Church Pension Plan Status ********* 013 NETVISION: Israeli Sup. Ct. Approves Class Action Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cellcom Israel Ltd. on May 27 disclosed that the Israeli Supreme Court approved a settlement agreement executed and reported in May 2012. The settlement agreement related to a lawsuit approved as a class action in November 2010 (and appealed to the Israeli supreme Court) against 013 Netvision Ltd., or Netvision, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, and two other long distance operators, for a total claimed amount of about NIS2.2 billion, of which approximately NIS818 million was attributed to Netvision; and a purported class action filed against the same defendants in February 2012, for an amount of approximately NIS2.7 billion claimed from each of the defendants. The plaintiffs in both the class action and the purported class action alleged that the defendants misled the purchasers of certain long distance prepaid calling cards as to the amount of minutes included in those cards. As per the settlement agreement, Netvision and another defendant will provide certain long distance prepaid calling cards, free of charge, for an aggregate amount which is not material to the Company, and will further provide certain information in relation to the usage of the cards. The third defendant is not a party to the settlement agreement. ADOBE: Recalls 500 High-Powered Magnets in ConnectTM Promo Packs ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Adobe, of San Jose, California, announced a voluntary recall of about 500 High-Powered Magnets distributed with Adobe ConnectTM "Effective Collaboration is Magnetic" Promotional Materials Package. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. When two or more magnets are swallowed, they can link together inside a child's intestines and clamp onto body tissues, causing intestinal obstructions, perforations, sepsis and death. Internal injury from magnets can pose serious lifelong health effects. The firm has received no reports of incidents or injuries. CPSC has received 80 reports of incidents involving ingestion of other high powered magnets, resulting in 79 reports seeking medical intervention. This recall involves high-powered magnet sets distributed with Adobe "Effective Collaboration is Magnetic" promotional materials. The promotional materials were distributed in a green box with a black lid and contain 12 high-powered magnets which are magnetically affixed to a laminated green cardboard sheet. The spherical silver magnets are about 5 millimeter in diameter. The text "With Adobe Connect it all just clicks" is printed in a circular shape around the magnets. Picture of the recalled products is available at: http://is.gd/qL5qm1 The recalled products were manufactured in China. The magnets were distributed nationwide by Adobe as part of a promotional package for their Adobe Connect product during November 2012 at no cost to consumers. Consumers should immediately stop using the magnets and either discard them or contact Adobe for instructions on returning the magnets. Adobe Recall may be reached collect at (503) 382-8500 between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, Eastern Time or online at http://www.adobe.com/and click on "blog" for more information. AGL RESOURCES: Consolidated Suit vs. Nicor Units Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the first quarter of 2011, three putative class actions were filed against Nicor Energy Services Company and Northern Illinois Gas Company, doing business as Nicor Gas Company, and in one case against Nicor Inc. -- an acquisition completed in December 2011 and former holding company of Nicor Gas. In September 2011, the three cases were consolidated into a single class action pending in state court in Cook County, Illinois. The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of customers of Nicor Gas who purchased the Gas Line Comfort Guard product from Nicor Services. In the consolidated action, the plaintiffs variously allege that the marketing, sale and billing of the Nicor Services Gas Line Comfort Guard violate the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, constitute common law fraud and result in unjust enrichment of Nicor Services and Nicor Gas. The plaintiffs seek, on behalf of the classes they purport to represent, actual and punitive damages, interest, costs, attorney fees and injunctive relief. While the Company is unable to predict the outcome of these matters or to reasonably estimate its potential exposure related thereto, if any, and have not recorded a liability associated with this contingency, the final disposition of this matter is not expected to have a material adverse impact on the Company's liquidity or financial condition. No further updates were reported in the Company's April 30, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. Headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, AGL Resources Inc. is an energy services holding company whose principal business is the distribution of natural gas in seven states -- Illinois, Georgia, Virginia, New Jersey, Florida, Tennessee and Maryland -- through its seven natural gas distribution utilities. ALDERMAN FARMS: Recalls Certified Organic Cherry Tomatoes --------------------------------------------------------- Alderman Farms Sales Corporation, in Boynton Beach, Florida, is recalling one pint containers of Certified Organic Cherry Tomatoes because they have the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e. infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis. This recall notice is being issued out of an abundance of caution. An Alderman Farms' wholesale customer in Florida purchased 10 cartons containing 12 one-pint containers of the affected cherry tomatoes on 5/22/13. There were no other cherry tomatoes sold from this lot. The cherry tomatoes are packaged in square-shaped clear plastic clamshell containers labeled as Alderman Farms Organic Cherry Tomato, UPC number 6317195594, with a net weight of one pint and an estimated shelf life of 10 days. The carton lot number affected by the recall is 13269. The clamshell packages are distributed in cartons labeled Alderman Farms. No illnesses have been associated with the product. Alderman Farms became aware of the contamination after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration collected a sample of the cherry tomatoes located at Alderman Farms' Packing facility located in Boynton Beach, Florida. The sample of lot number 13269 found the cherry tomatoes to be contaminated with Salmonella. Alderman Farms is investigating the source of the contamination. Alderman Farms conducted an independent test on the lot and it was found to be negative of Salmonella. Consumers who have the affected product should either discard it in the trash or return it to the point of purchase. Consumers with questions can leave a message on Alderman Farms' voice mailbox at 561-369-2801 and they will return your call. ALPHA MEAT: Recalls Chicken Breasts Over Ingesta/Viscera Presence ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 4, 2013 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Extraneous Material Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Alpha Meat Packers Ltd. Distribution: Ontario, Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional, Warehouse CFIA reference number: 8039 Affected products: Common Brand name name Code(s) on product ---------- ------ ------------------ Alpha Meat Chicken 3212P0310, 3212P0312, 3212P0316, Packers Ltd. Breasts 3212P0317, 3212P0318, 3212P0319, 3212P0320, 3212P0322, 3212P0324, 3212P031, 3212P033, 3212P034, 3212P036 Prepared for Chicken 3212P0311, 3212P0315 Alimplus Inc. Breasts Prepared for Chicken 3212P0313 Ent. J. B. Breasts Lauzon Inc. Affected products are in variable sizes and UPCs. AQUA DIGITAL: Recalls 3 Models of Atman Protein Skimmer Pumps ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 7, 2013 Posting date: June 7, 2013 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Electronics Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-33949 Affected products: Atman protein skimmer pumps This recall involves Atman skimmer pumps with model numbers PH2500, PH2000, and PH1100. The water pumps are used in Bubble Magus NAC6, NAC7, NAC3.5 and NAC5E protein skimmers to maintain water quality in a saltwater aquarium. The affected products have not been tested to determine whether they are compliant with the Canadian standards for product safety and may pose a safety hazard. Aqua Digital Inc. has received one reported incident of minor property damage. There were no injuries reported. Health Canada has not received any reports of incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use of these pumps. Approximately 78 units of the affected products were sold at various retailers, including: * Oakville Reef Gallery * Reef Aquatica * Aqua Giant * Bayside Corals * Blue World Aaquatics Edmonton * Concept Aquariums * Dereks Reef Shop * East West Marine * Fish Tails * Rays Ottawa * Forty Fathoms * Go Reef * Incredible Aquariums * Marine Aquaria * Ocean Abyss Aquatics * Peters Reef * Paws N Jaws * Critter Cove (pets and ponds) * Progressive Reef * Red Coral Aquariums * Reef Concept * Reef Shoppe * Zone Animal Picture of the recalled products is available at: http://is.gd/UsxOCX The affected products were manufactured in China and sold from January 2010 to June 2012. Companies: Manufacturer Bubble Magus Yuyao Ningbo City CHINA Importer Aqua Digital Inc. Ottawa Ontario, CANADA Consumers should stop using the pump immediately and unplug it. Consumers should contact a retailer in the list with the recalled pump and proof of purchase. The retailer will provide a replacement pump. For more information, consumers may contact Aqua Digital Inc. by phone at 613-424-1679, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time Monday through Friday, by e-mail at sales@aqua- digital.com, or online at the firm's Web site [http://www.aqua- digital.com/]. Consumers may also view the recall notice on the Electrical Safety Authority's Web site [http://www.esasafe.com/pdf/Recall_Notices/RCL13-24.pdf]. AROMASOURCE INC: Recalls PURELIVING Reed Diffusers Over Warnings ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 7, 2013 Posting date: June 7, 2013 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Household Items Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-33845 Affected products: PURELIVING reed diffusers, from the Herbalcure and CASA collections This recall involves Pureliving reed diffusers from the Herbalcure and Casa collections. The set is made up of wooden sticks, a refill bottle containing oil for filling and a decorative glass container. Diffusers affected by this recall: Products Item # -------- ------ Reed diffuser - Lavender & Chamomile 614 Diffuser refill - Lavender & Chamomile (125 ml) 839 Diffuser refill - Green Tea and Ginger (125 ml) 840 Reed diffuser - Green Tea and Ginger 615 Casa fragrance diffuser - Mediterranean Mist CASA650 Casa diffuser refill - Mediterranean Mist (125 ml) CASA93 Casa diffuser refill - Tropical Grapefruit (125 ml) CASA95 Casa fragrance diffuser - Tropical Grapefruit CASA652 Casa fragrance diffuser - Fresh Basil & Olive CASA654 Casa diffuser refill - Fresh Basil and Olive (125 ml) CASA97 Casa diffuser refill - Yellow Jasmine Tea (125 ml) CASA98 Casa fragrance diffuser - Yellow Jasmine Tea CASA655 Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/Q32TbY The product does not carry the mandatory labeling as required by the Consumer Chemicals and Containers Regulations, 2001. The container lacks the symbol and warnings required for flammable and irritant products. The lack of labeling information, including appropriate warnings, may cause serious injury. Neither Health Canada nor Pureliving has received any reports of injuries or incidents related to the use of these products. Information on how to help keep children safe from unintentional exposure to reed diffusers is available at Advising Canadians about Reed Diffusers [http://is.gd/eYeEMt]. General safety information on household chemicals can be found at Use household chemicals safely [http://is.gd/ptXjki]. Approximately 300 recalled products were sold in gift shops across Canada. The recalled products were manufactured in Canada and were sold from January 2011 to March 2013. Companies: Manufacturer Aromasource Inc. Montreal Quebec, CANADA Consumers should stop using the products immediately and dispose of them. For more information, consumers may contact Aromasource Inc. by telephone at 1-866-879-5333. AU OPTRONICS: Supreme Court to Decide on Bid to Transfer Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Brent Kendall, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, the U.S. Supreme Court on May 28 said it would decide whether companies facing certain civil lawsuits brought by state attorneys general can insist on moving the cases to federal courts. The case could affect court venues for antitrust lawsuits that some states have brought against makers of liquid-crystal-display panels used in televisions and other electronic devices. The lawsuits seek to impose civil penalties and recover monetary damages on behalf of government entities and state residents that allegedly paid more for electronics because of industry price fixing. Several LCD makers, including LG Display Co. and Sharp Corp., have pleaded guilty to price fixing and have paid combined fines of more than $890 million. Another company, AU Optronics Corp., was convicted of price fixing last year and ordered to pay $500 million. Separate from the federal criminal cases, several states brought civil lawsuits over the same alleged conduct. The Supreme Court will consider a legal question arising under the Class Action Fairness Act, a 2005 federal law that changed rules for class-action lawsuits. LCD makers have argued that the law gives them the ability to defend against the states' lawsuits in federal court, instead of having the cases proceed in state courts. Businesses in general believe the federal court system is a more- favorable venue in which to litigate cases. Some states have sought to keep their lawsuits in their own courts. Lower courts have disagreed on whether state or federal courts should hear the cases. The Supreme Court will consider a lawsuit brought by the state of Mississippi and will hear oral arguments during its next term, which begins in October. The case is Mississippi v. AU Optronics, 12-1036. BANCOLOMBIA SA: "Aguilar" Class Suit Remains Pending in Colombia ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit initiated by Carlos Julio Aguilar and others remains pending, according to Bancolombia S.A.'s April 30, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. A class action was filed by Carlos Julio Aguilar and others arguing that the restructuring of the financial obligations of the Departamento del Valle and the performance plan signed by the plaintiff allegedly breached the collective rights to public administration's morality and the protection of the public funds. The proceeding is in the evidentiary stage, which was suspended due to accumulation of proceedings with another constitutional public interest action based on this same alleged grievance, filed by Carlos Aponte. As of December 31, 2012, the proceeding is pending the rendering of an expert's opinion on the amount of interest charged to Departamento del Valle by the financial institutions acting as defendants. Bancolombia S.A. -- http://www.grupobancolombia.com/-- is a banking institution organized under the laws of the Republic of Colombia and headquartered in Medellin. Bancolombia is a full service financial institution that offers a wide range of banking products and services to a diversified individual and corporate customer base of more than seven million customers. BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Dentons Canada Discusses Supreme Court Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------------ Norm Emblem, Esq. -- norm.emblem@dentons.com -- and Marina Sampson, Esq., at Dentons Canada LLP, report that the Supreme Court recently provided clarity in two leading employment class action cases for unpaid overtime. Just over one year ago, the Ontario Court of Appeal handed down two significant decisions where employees claimed for unpaid overtime work. The appeal court had certified class action lawsuits against two of Canada's largest and most prominent banks: the Bank of Nova Scotia ('Scotiabank') and the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC). In both cases -- Fulawka v Scotiabank and Fresco v CIBC -- the banks commenced applications to the Supreme Court seeking leave to appeal the decisions. On March 21, 2013 the Supreme Court denied the banks leave to appeal. As is customary when the Supreme Court denies leave to appeal, no reasons were given. As a result, the two class actions will proceed to trial and will be decided on their merits, unless a settlement is reached in the meantime. A closer look: Ontario Court of Appeal decisions Robert Frost said, "The world is full of willing people; some willing to work, the rest willing to let them." In the cases at hand the plaintiffs sought redress for what they alleged was the latter sort of willingness: that of the banks to have employees work overtime without being properly compensated. The two class actions date back more than five years and concern federally regulated companies governed by the Canada Labour Code (RSC 1985, c L-2). At a minimum, the code mandates that employers pay 1.5 times an employee's hourly rate for overtime hours that an employee is "required or permitted" to work. In both cases the plaintiffs claimed that the overtime policies of the banks imposed more onerous conditions than permissible under the code. In particular, it was alleged that the banks' policies required that the employees have received prior approval from a bank manager in order to qualify for overtime pay -- a requirement, the plaintiffs alleged, which sought to avoid the banks' obligations under the code. In addition, the plaintiffs alleged that the banks failed to implement proper systems for recording the overtime hours worked by class members. Fresco v CIBC In June 2007 Ms. Fresco, a head teller at a CIBC branch in Toronto and the representative plaintiff in CIBC, commenced a C$600 million class action on behalf of 31,000 current and former front- line customer service employees across Canada. Ms. Fresco alleged that CIBC's system of compensation unlawfully restricted overtime compensation, and that CIBC had been unjustly enriched by failing to make overtime payments. The motion judge refused to certify the action as a class proceeding, holding that there was no evidence of a systemic policy or practice of unpaid overtime. The Ontario Divisional Court, in a split decision, upheld the motion judge's order refusing to certify the proceeding. The Ontario Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal the divisional court's decision. The appeal court then heard and granted Fresco's appeal, overturning the divisional court's decision. Fulawka v Scotiabank Approximately six months after CIBC, in December 2007, Ms. Fulawka, a personal banker in Saskatchewan and the representative plaintiff in Scotiabank, commenced a C$350 million class action on behalf of more than 5,000 current and former full- time sales staff across Canada -- principally personal banking officers and financial advisers. Ms. Fulawka alleged that Scotiabank required the employees to work substantial amounts of overtime while making it nearly impossible to claim overtime pay, and that it failed to keep records of the hours actually worked by employees. In her amended statement of claim, Ms. Fulawka alleged that Scotiabank's policies and practices for compensating overtime work constituted a breach of class members' employment contracts and a breach of Scotiabank's duty to act in good faith. The motion judge certified the action as a class proceeding. The decision was upheld by a unanimous Ontario Divisional Court. The Ontario Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal the divisional court's decision and then heard the appeal, ultimately upholding the divisional court's decision. A look back: motion judges' conflicting decisions Many Canadian provinces have statutory criteria limiting the types of claim that may be pursued as class actions. These criteria must be met on what is referred to as the certification motion in order for the class proceeding to be certified. The criteria for class action certification in Ontario are similar to those in other provinces and include the following, all pursuant to Section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act 1992 (SO 1992, c 6): -- The pleadings or notice of application discloses a proper cause of action; -- There is an identifiable class of two or more persons which would be represented by the representative plaintiff (or defendant); * The claim or claims (or defenses) raise common issues; * A class proceeding is the preferable procedure to resolve the common issues; and * There is an appropriate representative plaintiff (or defendant) who: -- would fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class; -- has produced a plan for the proceeding that sets out a workable method of advancing the proceeding on behalf of the class; and -- does not have, on the common issues for the class, an interest in conflict with the interests of other class members. On certification motions, the criterion of whether the claims raise common issues is often the most contentious. The motion judges in both Scotiabank and CIBC arrived at conflicting conclusions as to whether the criteria for certification set out under Section 5(1) of the act were satisfied. On the certification motion in CIBC, the principal claim advanced by Fresco was that CIBC's pre-approval requirement in its overtime policy was unlawful. The motion judge concluded that the policy was not unlawful, and that a determination of unlawfulness would not necessarily advance the plaintiffs' claims for unpaid overtime. The motion judge found that although the plaintiffs relied on common issues, these could not be resolved without an examination of the employees' claims for unpaid overtime on an individual basis. However, such an individualized examination of the claims would undermine the very purpose of a class action proceeding. In other words, the motion judge concluded that whether an employee was paid properly was an individual issue and, as a consequence, was not suited to a class action. The motion judge further determined that there was no evidentiary foundation that supported the allegation of a systemic policy or practice of unpaid overtime at CIBC. The motion judge emphasized that there were many individual circumstances that resulted in claims for unpaid overtime which needed to be resolved individually. The divisional court's decision was split: a majority of the divisional court upheld the motion judge's decision in refusing to certify the action as a class proceeding, while a single divisional court judge gave detailed dissenting reasons in favor of certifying the action. In spite of the strong similarities between the two cases, the motion judge in Scotiabank concluded that the plaintiffs had met the criteria for certification. The motion judge held that there was an evidentiary basis to support the plaintiffs' claim that Scotiabank's failure to pay overtime was attributable to systemic conditions -- namely, the pre-approval requirement to receive overtime pay and the failure to have in place a proper system to record overtime. The motion judge further concluded that a class action was the preferable procedure to resolve the class members' claims. The Ontario Court of Appeal, recognizing the similarities in the two cases and the incongruity of the lower court decisions, concluded that both certification motions should either succeed or fail together. They succeeded. In CIBC the appeal court disagreed with the merits-based approach taken by the lower courts with respect to whether CIBC's overtime policy had breached the code; whether CIBC's overtime policy was unlawful was found to be an issue for trial and not for the certification motion. As in Scotiabank, the appeal court concluded that a trial judge may find an evidentiary basis allowing him or her to determine that all uncompensated hours were "required or permitted" by CIBC. The appeal court would not accept the argument that the case was about thousands of individual claims: there were common issues raised with respect to allegedly unlawful and systemic policies and practices which were not dependent on individual circumstances. Although the appeal court accepted that the claims raised common issues, it rejected the plaintiffs' claims for an aggregate assessment of damages, should the banks be found to be liable at trial. Therefore, proving entitlement to compensation would still have to be done on an individual basis. All of this was upheld by the Supreme Court in denying the banks leave to appeal. Comment With these class actions certified as against two prominent Canadian banks and upheld by the Supreme Court, a rash of similar claims for unpaid overtime might be expected. However, it remains to be seen whether other employees can overcome arguments that being properly paid for overtime is an individual, rather than a class, issue. Further, these decisions were made under the code and are therefore more directly applicable to non-unionized, federally regulated businesses. It should also be kept in mind that these cases have likely been on the radar of major Canadian employers for the more than five years since their inception. Therefore, employers have had time, and would have been well advised, to review and update overtime policies to ensure that they comply with employment contracts and meet applicable statutory requirements. Far from being the end of the road for Scotiabank and CIBC, in many respects this is just the beginning. The clarity provided by the Supreme Court's denial of leave to appeal now allows these cases to move to trial. Doubtless employers across Canada will watch with interest as the litigation progresses. BLUE CROSS: Class Certification Hearing Scheduled for Sept. 18 -------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Longstreth, writing for Reuters, reports that a class action in Michigan, which is scheduled to go to trial next year, offers a rare opportunity for a jury to weigh the competitive effects on healthcare of contract provisions known as most- favored-nation clauses. Under these clauses, a health insurance plan often demands that hospitals guarantee them that their competitors will not receive a better rate. Over the last decade, regulators, legislators and prosecutors have taken action to limit these provisions, concerned that they limit competition in the $900 billion health insurance market. Earlier in May, North Carolina became the latest state to outlaw the provisions. While the provisions in healthcare contracts have been addressed through legislation and enforcement actions, they have rarely been tested in court. The lawsuit alleges that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan's use of MFN clauses limited competition in the health insurance market and caused consumers to pay more. The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount for overcharges paid by purchasers of hospital services in Michigan as a result of the alleged anticompetitive conduct. A similar lawsuit was filed by Aetna Inc. Both lawsuits were filed on the heels of a similar action by the U.S. Department of Justice. The government voluntarily dismissed its case in March after Michigan passed a law banning MFN clauses. But the private lawsuits, which are seeking money damages, continue. Mark Botti of Squire Sanders, an antitrust lawyer who specializes in the healthcare industry, said he is not aware of a lawsuit over MFN clauses that has resulted in a health insurance company paying damages. A judgment against Blue Cross could add to the growing concern over MFN clauses, he said. "Significant damages, whether from a verdict or a settlement, will be a big moment in the legal movement against MFNs," Mr. Botti, who is not involved in the case, said in an email. "It certainly should change the calculation for Blue Cross plans using these clauses." A spokeswoman for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, Helen Stojic, said in a statement to Reuters that the lawsuits are meritless. "Our customers expect that BCBSM negotiates the best prices for them," Mr. Stojic said. "We won't apologize for advocating for our members. "Standard Devices" MFN clauses, which are used in a variety of industries, are not per se illegal. Under antitrust law, they are analyzed under the rule of reason, a doctrine established by the U.S. Supreme Court that requires judges and juries to look at whether a particular act restricts competition. MFN clauses used by health insurance plans have been scrutinized by regulators since at least the 1990s, but there have been relatively few court decisions considering them. In one, in 1995, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a challenge to an MFN clause contained in an agreement between a health insurance organization and a group of physicians. The court called MFN clauses "standard devices by which buyers try to bargain for low prices" and that their use in that case was "the sort of conduct that the antitrust laws seek to encourage." Health plans defend MFN clauses as pro-competitive because they ensure that their customers receive the lowest possible rates. But competitor plans argue that those provisions make it harder for them to get better rates for their customers. Each case turns on the facts of the MFN clauses at issue. "There's a lot of gray area," said Jonathan Lewis, an antitrust attorney at Baker & Hostetler. "It's not black-and-white." The class action alleges that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan used MFN clauses to require agreeing hospitals to charge its competitors as least as much as they charge Blue Cross. In exchange for the MFN clauses it obtained from hospitals, the lawsuit claimed Blue Cross actually agreed to pay hospitals a higher rate. Blue Cross agreed to do so because the MFN clauses raised prices on its competitors, according to the lawsuit. "BCBSM has effectively purchased protection from competition by causing hospitals to raise the prices they charge to BCBSM's competitors," the lawsuit alleges. "The suppression of competition caused by this scheme was so valuable to BCBSM that it was willing to pay higher prices for hospital services itself." Last November, U.S. District Judge Denise Hood denied Blue Cross's motion to dismiss. Both sides are now taking discovery over whether the case can proceed as a class action. A hearing on class certification is scheduled for Sept. 18. The case is The Shane Group Inc v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, No. 10-14360. For Plaintiffs: E. Powell Miller of The Miller Law Firm; Mary Jane Fait of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz; Daniel Small of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll; and Daniel Gustafson of Gustafson Gluek. For Blue Cross: Todd Stenerson of Hunton & Williams. BONDUELLE CANADA: Recalls 398 mL French-Style Cut Green Beans ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: May 31, 2013 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Microbiological - Other Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Bonduelle Canada Inc. Distribution: Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 8041 Affected products: Code(s) on Brand name Common name Size product ---------- ----------- ---- ------- PC Blue Menu French-Style Cut 398 ml 00922 GHFDB Green Beans UPC: 0 60383 87406 3 Compliments Salt-Free Balance French-Style Cut 398 ml 00922 GHFDB Green Beans UPC: 0 55742 52116 0 CANADA: Groups Challenge Police's "Card" Practice in Court ---------------------------------------------------------- Patty Winsa, writing for Toronto Star, reports that a coalition of community activists and lawyers will challenge the controversial practice of carding in court. The diverse grassroots group, which numbers around 30 and includes youth outreach workers, academics, activists and members of the Ontario Law Union, was set to decide at a meeting on May 27 between a Charter challenge, a class action lawsuit or small claims court. Some members are advocating all three. "It's really about, as a community, deciding which way we want to go," said Cutty Duncan, a community worker in Weston Mt. Dennis, an area of the city that has been heavily "carded" by police. "We want to make sure that there are options for people who find themselves in conflict," he said. "And we want to explore how we can fight back a bit. This meeting really is about launching that legal option." Toronto police stop, question and document -- or card -- hundreds of thousands of people every year. Most have done nothing wrong, yet their personal information, and that of those they're with, ends up in a massive database that police use to investigate crimes. Police also record an individual's race as black, brown, white or other. Several Star investigations have shown police card black and brown people at disproportionately high rates. Police contend they card in violent areas of the city and have every right to be there. Race has become a divisive issue for activist groups such as Black is Not a Crime and Rights Watch Network, which have appealed to the board to limit carding. The force maintains carding is legal. "There have been a number of deputations (at the board) that have said various things from it's entirely illegal to challenging parts of it," said police spokesperson Mark Pugash. "That's not what our view is." However, some legal experts disagree. Former prosecutor Howard Morton, a member of the law union, says there are very narrowly defined situations where police can ask for identification. They include when officers pull over a driver or stop someone they believe is drinking underage. A third category, called "investigative detention" was set out by a court of appeal about 10 years ago and allows police to briefly detain and question an individual when they "believe a person has a link to the offence, either as a suspect or a witness," says Morton. "The big block of what happens in this city and elsewhere does not fit into any of those three," he says. Summer is when officers with the Toronto Anti-Violence Intervention Strategy, or TAVIS, blanket high-crime areas; the Star's research found those officers card at the highest rates. The force hasn't announced where TAVIS will be deployed this year. Morton thinks arguing the practice is a violation of Charter rights is the best way forward. The case could be resolved in a couple of years and the law union is offering to do some of the work pro bono. "The application would have a high evidentiary burden," Morton told the group at a meeting earlier this year. "We would need young people to come forward -- 30 to 40 of them -- to show how prevalent the practice is. But with this we have a shot. A good shot," he said. But, he says, a Charter challenge wouldn't rule out the other two options. The group is considering small claims court, which is relatively inexpensive, as a way to target individual officers who card at high rates. A class action suit would be lengthy and expensive and even if successful, would rarely, if ever, result in the police being ordered to change their practice, says Murray Klippenstein, a Toronto lawyer involved in various public interest cases. But he says, "by declaring a practice to be illegal and awarding a significant amount of money to a group of people as compensation, the incentive or pressure to change the practice becomes pretty substantial." The legal move here comes just as a historic class action law suit challenging a New York police practice called "stop and frisk" wrapped up in the U.S. Statistics show New York police primarily stop black and Latino people, but defend the practice by saying they target violent neighborhoods where those groups live. They also say the practice has reduced crime and taken guns off the street. Critics such as the Center for Constitutional Rights, whose lawyers argued the case in court, describe the stops as "unreasonable, suspicionless and racially discriminatory." Officers list "furtive movement" as the justification more than 50 per cent of the time. And guns are recovered in 0.15 per cent of cases, which according to the center, is "lower than the rate of gun seizures at random checkpoints, suggesting both that it is an ineffective way to try to get guns off the street and that seizing weapons is not really the reason people are being stopped." Lawyers argued the practice violates the fourth amendment's protection of unreasonable search and seizure and in doing so, contravenes the fourteenth amendment's equal protection clause under the law. Shira Scheindlin, the judge in the case, is expected to issue her ruling later this year. Here, the Toronto Police Services Board has responded to the Star series, and complaints about carding by passing motions asking for external audits, as well as requesting that officers start handing out receipts, which could happen as early as next month. It's thought the receipts will make officers more accountable for who they stop and why. The city's director of litigation, Albert Cohen, was also asked by the board to weigh in, but he can't proceed until police finish an internal audit of the practice that he says he needs to inform his legal opinion. Board chair Alok Mukherjee says the board "must be satisfied that any collection of data and the manner and circumstances in which this is done are not only operationally justified and legitimate but are also respectful of individual rights and free from any discriminatory impact." But Ms. Duncan worries the board won't go far enough. "At the end of the day, what you have to do is limit their options," he says. "And if we make it very clear that carding is not an option for them, then it will force them to look at another way to do their policing where the community feels that they're not being victimized." CARBO CERAMICS: Still Awaits Order on Bid to Junk Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- CARBO Ceramics Inc. is still awaiting a court decision on a motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class action lawsuit, according to the Company's April 30, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. On February 9, 2012, the Company and two of its officers, Gary A. Kolstad and Ernesto Bautista III, were named as defendants in a purported class-action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "February SDNY Lawsuit"), brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's Common Stock between October 27, 2011, and January 26, 2012 (the "Relevant Time Period"). On April 10, 2012, a second purported class-action lawsuit was filed against the same defendants in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased or sold CARBO Ceramics Inc. option contracts during the Relevant Time Period (the "April SDNY Lawsuit", and collectively with the February SDNY Lawsuit, the "Federal Securities Lawsuit"). In June 2012, the February SNDY Lawsuit and the April SDNY Lawsuit were consolidated, and will now proceed as one lawsuit. The Federal Securities Lawsuit alleges violations of the federal securities laws arising from statements concerning the Company's business operations and business prospects that were made during the Relevant Time Period and requests unspecified damages and costs. In September 2012, the Company and Messrs. Kolstad and Bautista filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit. Response and reply briefs on this motion were filed during the fourth quarter of 2012, and a decision from the Court is pending. While the Federal Securities Lawsuit is in its preliminary stage, the Company does not believe it has merit, and plans to vigorously contest and defend against it. The Company says it cannot predict the ultimate outcome or duration of the lawsuit. CARBO Ceramics Inc. is a supplier of ceramic proppant and, during 2010, commenced the sale of resin-coated sand in order to broaden its proppant suite of products. The Company is the provider of the industry's most popular fracture simulation software, and a provider of fracture design and consulting services, and a broad range of technologies for spill prevention, containment and countermeasures. The Company was incorporated in 1987 in Delaware and is headquartered in Houston, Texas. CHOBANI: Mayer Brown Seeks Disqualification of Class Action Lawyer ------------------------------------------------------------------ Vanessa Blum, writing for The Recorder, reports that if Mayer Brown gets its way, it could be savoring a sweet win for yogurt maker Chobani. L.A. partner Dale Giali contends his opposing counsel in a food labeling class action should get the boot because they consulted with an expert previously retained by the defense. Plaintiffs lawyers, he says, now find themselves in a "legally impermissible position." It's one of dozens of food labeling cases brought by the same consortium of plaintiffs counsel pending in the Northern District of California but the only one where they are facing disqualification. "Chobani seeks disqualification, not to gain a tactical advantage," Mr. Giali wrote in a March court filing, "but to ensure a level playing field, stop the ongoing harm plaintiffs' counsel caused by their own willful and wrongful conduct, and protect the integrity of the judicial system." A motion to disqualify counsel is a nuclear option. It can stop a case in its tracks, particularly in a class action where individual plaintiffs are ill-equipped to simply hire new lawyers. The tussle in the Chobani case before U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose raises questions about the standard for ejecting attorneys when they court an expert witness working for the other side. To be fair, that is closer to Chobani's version of events; plaintiffs attorneys insist they did not know a former U.S. Food and Drug Administration official they hired to consult on a swath of litigation had previously advised Chobani's defense team. Since no confidential information was exchanged, there is no grounds for disqualification, plaintiffs contend. "Chobani seeks to have this court not only disqualify an expert, an act which the Ninth Circuit has found to be a 'drastic measure,' but to disqualify counsel as well," plaintiffs attorneys Pierce Gore of Pratt & Associates in San Jose and Robert Clifford of Clifford Law Offices in Chicago wrote in a response brief. "Motions to disqualify opposing counsel must be closely scrutinized because of a significant possibility that the motion is brought for tactical reasons." Between the two sides, six legal ethics experts have a weighed in either to support the lawyers' disqualification or to oppose it. Mr. Gore, lead local counsel for the plaintiffs consortium, declined comment, as did Mr. Giali, Chobani's lead lawyer. In Kane v. Chobani, 12-2425, plaintiffs accuse Chobani of misleading customers with "all natural" labeling and by listing "evaporated cane juice" as an ingredient rather than sugar. Plaintiffs lawyers are seeking monetary damages and an injunction blocking sales and advertising of the yogurt as currently labeled. The case is part of a string of similar class actions filed in the Northern District by Mr. Gore's group, which is led nationally by Clifford and Mississippi plaintiffs lawyer Don Barrett, a veteran of litigation against Big Tobacco. The district has become known as "food court" for the prevalence of such litigation, and defense lawyers have had a hard time knocking out the labeling claims. A hearing on Chobani's motion to disqualify counsel is set for July and the parties' dueling briefs present the following timeline: In May 2012, within days of being sued, Chobani lawyers contacted food labeling expert Elizabeth Campbell of EAS Consulting Group in Alexandria, Va. The defense team continued to consult with Campbell in "repeated, detailed, and confidential strategy sessions" until January, according to Chobani's motion. Plaintiffs lawyers say they hired EAS Consulting and Campbell to work on their litigation team in October. EAS chairman Edward Steele informed the team that EAS would be unable to work on the Chobani case but did not provide details, explaining only that EAS would not perform work against a former or current client. "Campbell never disclosed that she had been engaged by Chobani on any matter and never disclosed that she was serving in any capacity in this case," Messrs. Gore and Clifford wrote in their response brief. Two plaintiffs-side lawyers met in October with Campbell and Steele and discussed the group's litigation. "They never asked for or received any information on how food manufacturers might defend these lawsuits," Messrs. Gore and Clifford wrote. "Nothing was discussed at all regarding Chobani, the company or this case." Following the October meeting, plaintiffs claim all discussions with Campbell pertained to a suit against Del Monte Foods and that contact ended in late January after defense lawyers Mr. Giali and Mayer Brown partner Michael Resch notified Mr. Gore of the potential conflict. On Feb. 1 EAS terminated its agreement with plaintiffs. Mr. Giali insists opposing counsel did not meet their obligation to probe the possible conflict with Chobani. That plaintiffs did not specifically discuss the Chobani case with Campbell is irrelevant, because the food cases involve very similar legal theories, Mr. Giali argues. "The notion that Ms. Campbell never technically worked for plaintiffs on this case is a legal construct," he wrote. "She certainly worked for plaintiffs on the misbranding theories they are alleging in this case." Messrs. Gore and Clifford see the issue differently and have four legal experts backing them up. "It is hard to imagine what harm, if any, Chobani would suffer if the case were simply to go forward," wrote Joshua Davis, director for the Center for Law and Ethics at the University of San Francisco. "The advice EAS gave plaintiffs counsel seems quite straightforward and unrelated to any confidences Chobani might have shared with EAS." Drinker Biddle & Reath partner Lawrence Fox, who lectures on legal ethics at Yale Law School, submitted a declaration accusing defense lawyers of a "shocking attempt to secure draconian relief" and opined that disqualification would be "the death of the action." It was Chobani's lawyers, Fox asserted, who violated rules of civil procedure by intimidating Campbell into ending her contract with plaintiffs counsel. Plaintiffs' views are also buttressed with declarations from Fordham University law professor Bruce Green and former State Bar prosecutor Ellen Pansky. Mr. Green said Chobani's logic would bar experts for the defense in a single lawsuit from working as plaintiffs experts in other cases based on similar theories, a result he called economically unfair. Chobani has its own experts: UC-Hastings law professor Geoffrey Hazard Jr. and Ellen Peck, a former State Bar judge and past chair of its Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct. Hazard said failing to ascertain the nature of Campbell's conflict in the Chobani case amounted to "a flagrant violation" by plaintiffs counsel of recognized standards of professional conduct. Relying on assurances from EAS, which had a financial motive to downplay the conflict, was not enough, Hazard stated in a four-page declaration. Peck concurred that disqualification of counsel "would be more than justified in these circumstances." Chobani's lawyers cite the 1994 California Court of Appeal case Shadow Traffic Network v. Superior Court, 24 Cal.App.4th 1067, which established a rebuttable presumption that an expert witness who switches sides has shared their inside knowledge. In that case, the court affirmed the disqualification of Latham & Watkins, after Latham hired an expert who previously attended a one-hour meeting with the firm's opposing counsel. Plaintiffs say Shadow Traffic's presumption should not be applied because nothing prevents Chobani's lawyers from questioning Campbell to find out whether she disclosed confidential information. Chobani insists it doesn't have that burden. The company's legal team conveyed sensitive information to EAS with the expectation of confidentiality. Under Shadow Traffic, Chobani does not have to prove Campbell in turn transmitted her knowledge to plaintiffs lawyers, Mr. Giali argues. "They must be disqualified," he stated in Chobani's motion, "and they have absolutely no one to blame but themselves." CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 1,317 4500 and 5500 Models of RAM Vehicles ------------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: June 7, 2013 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D., Light Truck & Van Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Powertrain Units affected: 1,317 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2013196 TC ID number: 2013196 Manufacturer recall no.: N26 On certain four-wheel drive vehicles, due to insufficient welding of the front differential housing to the axle tubes, the housing may rotate relative to the axle tubes while the vehicle is operated in four wheel drive. This could allow the front driveshaft to bind up and fracture, causing a loss of motive power and damage to surrounding components if the driveshaft continues to spin. This could increase the risk of a crash causing personal injury and/or damage to property. Correction: dealers will repair or replace the front axle assembly on affected vehicles. Affected products: Makes and models affected ------------------------------- Model year Make Model affected ---- ----- -------- RAM 4500 2012 RAM 5500 2012 CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 1500, 2500, 3500 & 5500 RAM Truck Models ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 7, 2013 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D., Light Truck & Van Notification type: Compliance Mfr System: Lights And Instruments Units affected: 590 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2013198 TC ID number: 2013198 Manufacturer recall no.: N30 Certain vehicles may not comply with Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (CMVSS) 101 - Controls and Displays and CMVSS 105 - Brake Systems. The brake malfunction/parking brake indicator may display the word "BRAKE" instead of the required symbol. Correction: Dealers will reprogram the instrument cluster in affected vehicles. Affected products: Makes and models affected --------------------------- Model year Make Model affected ---- ----- -------- RAM 1500 2013 RAM 2500 2013 RAM 3500 2013 RAM 5500 2013 CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 1500, 2500 and 3500 Models of RAM Vehicles ------------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: June 7, 2013 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Light Truck & Van Notification type: Compliance Mfr System: Lights And Instruments Units affected: 11,545 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2013201 TC ID number: 2013201 Manufacturer recall number: N35 Certain vehicles may not comply with the requirements of Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 -- Lighting and Retroreflective Devices. The vehicles may not give notification of a turn signal malfunction, as is required by the standard. The absence of notification of a turn signal malfunction could, in conjunction with traffic and road conditions, and driver reactions, increase the risk of a crash causing personal injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will reconfigure the central body controller for proper headlamp shutter function during high-beam mode. Affected products: Makes and models affected ----------------------------- Model year Make Model affected ---- ----- -------- RAM 1500 2013 RAM 2500 2013 RAM 3500 2013 CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 18,407 JEEP WRANGLER SUVs ------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 7, 2013 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: SUV Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Steering Units affected: 18,407 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2013197 TC ID number: 2013197 Manufacturer recall number: N28 On certain vehicles, the power steering return line may wear against the automatic transmission oil cooler line, causing a transmission fluid leak. This would result in a loss of transmission fluid, potentially causing damage to the transmission and resulting in a loss of motive power. This could increase the risk of a crash causing personal injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will either add a protective sleeve or replace the transmission line. Affected products: Makes and models affected ----------------------------------------------- Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- JEEP WRANGLER 2012, 2013 CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 2500 and 3500 2013 Models of RAM Vehicles ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 7, 2013 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Light Truck & Van Notification type: Compliance Mfr System: Lights And Instruments Units affected: 167 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2013200 TC ID number: 2013200 Manufacturer recall number: N33 Certain vehicles may be equipped with headlight high-beams that do not comply with the requirements of Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 - Lighting and Retroreflective Devices. This could compromise driver down-road visibility and, in conjunction with traffic and road conditions, and driver reactions, could increase the risk of a crash causing personal injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will reconfigure the central body controller for proper headlamp shutter function during high-beam mode. Affected products: Makes and models affected ------------------------------ Model year Make Model affected ---- ----- -------- RAM 2500 2013 RAM 3500 2013 CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 3,566 DART Model of DODGE Vehicles ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 7, 2013 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Engine Units affected: 3,566 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2013199 TC ID number: 2013199 Manufacturer recall number: N32 Certain vehicles equipped with 1.4L MultiAir turbo engines may experience engine stalling at ambient temperatures of -6.5 degrees celsius or colder. This would result in the loss of motive power, which in conjunction with traffic and road conditions, and driver reactions, could increase the risk of a crash causing personal injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will reprogram the powertrain control module. Affected products: Makes and models affected ---------------------------------- Model year(s) Make Model affected ---- ----- -------- DODGE DART 2013 CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 45,387 COMPASS and PATRIOT Vehicles ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 7, 2013 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car, SUV Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Airbag Units affected: 45,387 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2013195 TC ID number: 2013195 On certain vehicles, due to a software error in the occupant restrain control (ORC) module, side curtain airbag and seatbelt pretensioner deployment could be delayed or not occur in slower- developing rollover events. This could increase the risk of personal injury in a crash. Correction: Dealers will reprogram the module. Affected products: Makes and models affected ----------------------------------------------- Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- JEEP PATRIOT 2010, 2011, 2012 JEEP COMPASS 2010, 2011, 2012 CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 15,000 New Dodge Dart Compact Cars ---------------------------------------------------------- Christina Rogers of The Wall Street Journal reports that Chrysler Group LLC said on Monday, June 10, 2013, it is recalling nearly 15,000 of its new Dodge Dart compact cars to fix engine controls that could malfunction and cause the car to stall. The Dart recall is Chrysler's second since its refusal last week to comply with a request by U.S. safety regulators that it recall 2.7 million older-model Jeep Grand Cherokee and Liberty sport- utility vehicles to modify fuel tanks the government said posed an outsize risk of fire in rear-end crashes. Chrysler said that request wasn't justified by accident data. The June 10 action affects 2013 model-year Dodge Darts with a 1.4- liter engine and dual-clutch transmission, the Company said. Chrysler said it isn't aware of any injuries or accidents related to the stalled cars. The Auburn Hills, Michigan company, which is majority owned by Italian auto maker Fiat SpA, said it discovered the problem when a vehicle it was testing stalled as it was being brought to a stop after driving only a short distance. The test vehicle had been parked for about eight hours in a 20- degree chamber. Chrysler later found dealers had recorded similar incidents. Chrysler said it would recalibrate the powertrain controls at no cost to customers. The Dodge Dart went on sale last summer and is a crucial new entry for Chrysler, which for years trailed its rivals in the industry's vast market for compact cars. About 12,900 Darts affected by the recall are in the U.S., 1,900 are in Canada, five in Mexico and 16 outside of North America. Chrysler has built 108,863 Darts since the start of production in May 2012. Sales of the Dart have lagged expectations since its launch. Last month, Chrysler sold about 7,448 Darts, far behind top-selling Honda Civic and Toyota Corolla, and the Dart's main Detroit rivals, the Chevrolet Cruze and Ford Focus. On June 6, 2013, in a separate action, Chrysler said it was recalling 254,000 2010-2012 model-year Patriot and Compass vehicles to fix problems with the air bag. Additionally, it said it would recall 180,000 2012-2013 Jeep Wrangler vehicles to repair a potentially leak fluid line connected to the transmission. CITIGROUP INC: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Seek Approval for Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that lawyers who secured a $730 million class action settlement for Citigroup Inc. investors have asked a federal judge to approve $146 million in fees. The fees, requested by Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, would be the 10th largest ever awarded to lawyers in a federal securities class action, according to NERA Economic Consulting. The award would also be the latest big payout for Bernstein Litowitz in a case stemming from the financial crisis, after a federal judge in April approved $160.5 million in fees and expenses for the law firm and two others in a $2.43 billion settlement with Bank of America Corp. The Citigroup fee request amounts to 20 percent of the settlement, according to a motion filed Friday in Manhattan federal court. The lawyers are also seeking $7.29 million in expenses. The settlement resolves claims by investors in Citigroup bonds and preferred stock. The investors accused the bank of misstating the value of its collateralized debt obligations and understating its loss reserves by tens of billions of dollars between 2006 and mid- November 2008. Citigroup announced the settlement in March and U.S. District Court Judge Sidney Stein granted preliminary approval a week later. A hearing on final approval of the settlement is set for July 23. Bernstein Litowitz filed a motion seeking approval of the fee award on June 7. It called the $730 million settlement "an outstanding result" for its clients, representing a "substantial percentage" of the investors' likely recoverable damages. The settlement ranked as the second largest in a class action by debt holders and the third largest in a case that did not involve a financial restatement, Bernstein Litowitz said. It is also among the 15 largest securities class action settlements in U.S. history, the firm said in its motion. Part of the requested fees would go to firms that represented other groups of investors, including Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check and Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross. Bernstein Litowitz partners Max Berger and Steven Singer declined to comment. The settlement on behalf of bondholders is separate from a $590 million accord reached by Citi shareholders stemming from similar claims. In that case, Stein is weighing a $100 million fee request by Kirby McInerney. The case is In re Citigroup Inc Bond Litigation, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 08-09522. For the plaintiffs: Max Berger, Steven Singer, John Browne and John Rizio-Hamilton of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann. For Citigroup: Brad Karp, Richard Rosen, Charles Davidow and Susanna Buergel of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. COMMUNITY HEALTH: Still Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Tenn. Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Community Health Systems, Inc. is still awaiting a court decision on its motion to dismiss a consolidated securities lawsuit, according to the Company's April 30, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. Three purported class action cases have been filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee; namely, Norfolk County Retirement System v. Community Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 9, 2011; De Zheng v. Community Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 12, 2011; and Minneapolis Firefighters Relief Association v. Community Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed June 21, 2011. All three seek class certification on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between July 27, 2006, and April 11, 2011, and allege that misleading statements resulted in artificially inflated prices for the Company's common stock. In December 2011, the cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes and NYC Funds and its counsel were selected as lead plaintiffs/lead plaintiffs' counsel. The Company's motion to dismiss this case has been fully briefed and is pending before the court. The Company believes this consolidated matter is without merit and will vigorously defend this case. Community Health Systems, Inc. -- http://www.chs.net/-- is a publicly-traded operator of hospitals in the United States. The Company provides healthcare services through the hospitals that it owns and operates in non-urban and selected urban markets. The Company generates revenues by providing a broad range of general and specialized hospital and other outpatient healthcare services to patients in the communities in which it is located. The Company is headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee. CONVERGYS CORP: Status Conference in "Wheelock" Suit on July 9 -------------------------------------------------------------- A status conference is scheduled for July 9, 2013, in the purported class action lawsuit styled Brandon Wheelock, individually and on behalf of a class and subclass of similarly situated individuals, v. Hyundai Motor America, according to Convergys Corporation's April 30, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. In November 2011, one of the Company's call center clients tendered a contractual indemnity claim to Convergys Customer Management Group, Inc., a subsidiary of the Company, relating to a putative class action captioned Brandon Wheelock, individually and on behalf of a class and subclass of similarly situated individuals, v. Hyundai Motor America, Orange County Superior Court, California, Case No. 30-2011-00522293-CU-BT-CJC. The lawsuit alleges that Hyundai Motor America violated California's telephone recording laws by recording telephone calls with customer service representatives without providing a disclosure that the calls might be recorded. The Plaintiff is seeking, among other things, an order certifying the lawsuit as a California class action, statutory damages, payment of attorneys' fees and pre- and post-judgment interest. Convergys Customer Management Group, Inc. is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit and has not agreed to indemnify Hyundai. On March 5, 2012, the court sustained a demurrer filed by Hyundai to one of the Plaintiff's causes of action, but overruled the demurrer as the Plaintiff's other cause of action. On March 15, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Hyundai answered the amended complaint on April 16, 2012, by generally denying the allegations and asserting certain affirmative defenses. On May 7, 2012, Hyundai filed a motion for summary judgment based on Hyundai's claim that an exemption under the California recording laws was intended to exempt the type of recording done by Hyundai's call centers. On January 10, 2013, the court heard arguments on Hyundai's motion for summary judgment. On February 5, 2013, the court denied the motion. On March 6, 2013, Hyundai filed a petition for writ of mandate with the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, requesting that the court of appeal issue a petition directing the trial court to vacate its prior order and enter a new order granting Hyundai's motion for summary judgment. On March 20, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a preliminary opposition to Hyundai's petition for writ of mandate, and on March 27, 2013, Hyundai filed its preliminary reply in support of its petition for writ of mandate. The court of appeal has not yet ruled on Hyundai's petition for writ of mandate, and at a status conference on April 10, 2013, the trial court continued a previously granted stay on formal discovery and motions and scheduled a status conference on July 9, 2013. Convergys Customer Management Group, Inc. is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit, and there has been no determination as to whether Convergys Customer Management Group, Inc. will be required to indemnify Hyundai. The Company believes Convergys Customer Management Group, Inc. has meritorious defenses to Hyundai's demand for indemnification and also believes there are meritorious defenses to the Plaintiff's claims in the lawsuit. The likelihood of losses that may become payable under such claims, the amount of reasonably possible losses associated with such claims, and whether such losses may be material cannot be determined or estimated at this time. For these reasons, the Company has not established a reserve with respect to this matter. Convergys Corporation -- http://www.convergys.com/-- is a global leader in customer management, focused on bringing value to its clients through every customer interaction. The Company is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Appeal From Dismissal of Calif. Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated securities class action lawsuit in California remains pending, according to Corinthian Colleges, Inc.'s April 30, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. On August 31, 2010, a putative class action complaint captioned Jimmy Elias Karam v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint is purportedly brought on behalf of all persons who acquired shares of the Company's common stock from October 30, 2007, through August 19, 2010, against the Company and Jack Massimino, Peter Waller, Matthew Ouimet and Kenneth Ord, all of whom are current or former officers of the Company. The complaint alleges that, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the defendants made certain material misrepresentations and failed to disclose certain material facts about the condition of the Company's business and prospects during the putative class period, causing the plaintiffs to purchase the Company's common stock at artificially inflated prices. The plaintiffs further claim that Messrs. Massimino, Waller, Ouimet and Ord are liable under Section 20(a) of the Act. The plaintiffs seek unspecified amounts in damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs, as well as other relief. On October 29, 2010, another putative class action complaint captioned Neal J. Totten v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., et al. was filed by the same law firm that filed the Karam matter in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The Totten complaint is substantively identical to the Karam complaint. Several other plaintiffs intervened in the lawsuit and petitioned the Court to appoint them to be the lead plaintiffs. On March 30, 2011, the Court appointed the Wyoming Retirement System and Stichting Pensioenfonds Metaal en Technieklead as lead plaintiffs, and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as counsel for lead plaintiffs, in the consolidated action. The Lead plaintiffs thereafter filed a second amended consolidated complaint, and the Company moved to dismiss the second amended consolidated complaint. On January 30, 2012, the U.S. District Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss, with leave to amend. On February 29, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint (the "TAC") in U.S. District Court, and, on March 30, 2012 the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On August 20, 2012, the U.S. District Court granted the Company's and the individual defendants' motion to dismiss, with prejudice. The plaintiffs have appealed that dismissal to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Company will continue to defend itself and its current and former officers vigorously. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. is one of the largest post-secondary career education companies in North America. The Company offers a variety of diploma programs and associate's, bachelor's and master's degrees, concentrating on programs in allied health, business, technology, and criminal justice. The Company also offers exclusively online degrees, primarily in business and criminal justice. CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Appeal in "Rivera" Suit Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- On May 28, 2008, a putative class action demand in arbitration captioned Rivera v. Sequoia Education, Inc. and Corinthian Colleges, Inc. was filed with the American Arbitration Association. The plaintiffs are nine current or former HVAC (heating, ventilation and airconditioning system) students from the Company's WyoTech Fremont campus. The arbitration demand alleges violations of California's Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500, fraud and intentional deceit, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract and unjust enrichment/restitution, all related to alleged deficiencies and misrepresentations regarding the HVAC program at these campuses. The plaintiffs seek to certify a class composed of all HVAC students in the Company's WyoTech Fremont and WyoTech Oakland campuses over the prior four years, and seek recovery of compensatory and punitive damages, interest, restitution and attorneys' fees and costs. The Company never operated any HVAC programs at the Company's WyoTech Oakland campus during its ownership of that campus. The arbitrator ruled that the arbitration provision in the former students' enrollment agreement is not susceptible to class-wide resolution. On November 22, 2011, a California state court judge refused to confirm the arbitrator's clause construction decision and remanded the matter to the arbitrator for further consideration. The Company has appealed the state court order. The Company believes the complaint is without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against these allegations. No further updates were reported in the Company's April 30, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. is one of the largest post-secondary career education companies in North America. The Company offers a variety of diploma programs and associate's, bachelor's and master's degrees, concentrating on programs in allied health, business, technology, and criminal justice. The Company also offers exclusively online degrees, primarily in business and criminal justice. CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: "Harrington" Suit Still Pending in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- On September 13, 2011, an action captioned Michael Harrington, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. Corinthian Schools, Inc., et al., was filed in California's Alameda Superior Court. A virtually identical action with the same caption was filed by different plaintiff's counsel on September 15, 2011, in California's Orange County Superior Court. The plaintiff is a former admissions representative at Corinthian Colleges, Inc.'s Fremont and Hayward campuses and the two actions allege violations of California's Business and Professions Code Section 17200 and the California Labor Code for alleged failure to pay for all hours worked, purported denial of meal periods, and alleged failure to pay wages upon termination. The Alameda complaint has since been voluntarily dismissed. While the scope of the putative class is not clear, the remaining Orange County action appears to seek certification of a class of current and former admissions representatives over the last four years at the Company's California campuses. The Company believes the allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself. No further updates were reported in the Company's April 30, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. is one of the largest post-secondary career education companies in North America. The Company offers a variety of diploma programs and associate's, bachelor's and master's degrees, concentrating on programs in allied health, business, technology, and criminal justice. The Company also offers exclusively online degrees, primarily in business and criminal justice. CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: "Madden" Class Suit Dismissed in February -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Mary Credille and Roger Madden, on behalf of all similarly situated current and former employees, v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., et al., was closed in February 2013, according to the Company's April 30, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. On November 17, 2008, an action captioned Mary Credille and Roger Madden, on behalf of all similarly situated current and former employees, v. Corinthian Colleges et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The two originally-named plaintiffs are former employees of the Company's Chicago campus, and allege failure to receive proper compensation for all overtime hours allegedly worked in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Credille has voluntarily dismissed her claims against the Company. On December 8, 2009, the Court granted Plaintiff Madden's motion to conditionally certify a collective action to include those current and former admissions representatives at the Company's Chicago campus who also satisfy additional requirements. A total of three former employees, including Madden, have elected to participate in the lawsuit. On the eve of trial, the Plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice and the trial court closed the case on February 10, 2013. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. is one of the largest post-secondary career education companies in North America. The Company offers a variety of diploma programs and associate's, bachelor's and master's degrees, concentrating on programs in allied health, business, technology, and criminal justice. The Company also offers exclusively online degrees, primarily in business and criminal justice. CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: "Montgomery" Suit Scheduled for Arbitration ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit commenced by Alisha Montgomery, et al., is now again being scheduled for individual arbitrations, according to the Company's April 30, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. On November 23, 2010, a putative class action complaint captioned Alisha Montgomery, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. and Corinthian Schools, Inc. d/b/a Everest College and Olympia College, was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. Corinthian Schools, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. The Plaintiffs were thirty-three individuals who purport to be current and/or former students of the Company's Medical Assistant Program at the Everest College campus in Merrionette Park, Illinois. The complaint alleged breach of contract, violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and unjust enrichment, all related to alleged deficiencies and misrepresentations regarding the Company's medical assisting program at the Merrionette Park campus. The plaintiffs sought to certify a class composed of all persons who enrolled in the Company's Medical Assisting program at the Everest College Merrionette Park campus during the four years preceding the filing of the lawsuit, and sought actual and compensatory damages on behalf of such persons, costs and attorneys' fees, punitive damages, disgorgement and restitution of wrongful profits, revenue and benefits to the extent deemed appropriate by the court, and such other relief as the court deemed proper. The Company removed the case to federal court and moved to compel individual arbitrations, which the court granted. Thirty-one plaintiffs filed individual demands in arbitration, and individual arbitration hearings commenced during the quarter ended June 30, 2012. The Company and the plaintiffs agreed to hold the hearings in abeyance to engage in settlement discussions, which were unsuccessful. These matters are now again being scheduled for individual arbitrations. The Company continues to believe these matters are without merit and will continue to defend itself vigorously. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. is one of the largest post-secondary career education companies in North America. The Company offers a variety of diploma programs and associate's, bachelor's and master's degrees, concentrating on programs in allied health, business, technology, and criminal justice. The Company also offers exclusively online degrees, primarily in business and criminal justice. CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Still Defends Suits by Former Students ----------------------------------------------------------- Corinthian Colleges, Inc., continues to defend itself against class action lawsuits initiated by former students in California, according to the Company's April 30, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. During fiscal 2011, the Company experienced an unprecedented increase in putative class action lawsuits by former students. In many of these cases, the plaintiffs and their counsel sought to represent a class of "similarly situated" people as defined in the complaint. The Company believes these lawsuits are largely the result of negative publicity -- and aggressive lawyer recruitment of potential clients -- surrounding the Department of Education's ("ED's") rulemaking efforts, the Senate HELP Committee hearings, the Government Accountability Office ("GAO") report, and other related matters that occurred during that time period. Most of the cases filed during that time have since been dismissed. In virtually all of the following remaining cases, the plaintiffs cite testimony from the HELP Committee hearings, the GAO report, public statements by elected officials and/or other negative media coverage in their complaints, although the locations of the students, the specific allegations, and the nature of their claims differ. The Company believes all of the following complaints are contractually required to be resolved in individual arbitrations between the named students and the Company, and the Company has moved to compel these cases to arbitration. A brief summary of such matters are: (I) Dated Filed: January 24, 2011, and February 17, 2011 Plaintiffs and Date Attended: Kevin Ferguson; Everest Institute in Miami, Florida; and Sandra Muniz; Heald College campuses in Rancho Cordova and Roseville, California (initially filed as separate actions, but subsequently consolidated) Venue: U.S. District Court, Central District of California Nature and Basis of Alleged Claims; Relief Sought: Alleged misrepresentations by specific admissions representative at a specific campus regarding accreditation, transferability of credits, cost of attendance, eligibility for certifications, and career placement opportunities; Causes of action alleging breach of implied contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of California's Business and Professions Code, violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, negligent misrepresentation and fraud; Complaint seeks class certification, injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and cost of lawsuit. Description of Putative Class: All persons who attended any Everest institution in the United States or Canada from January 2005 to the present; all persons, who attended any Heald institution from January 2009 to the present Status Update: District court compelled all non-injunctive claims to arbitration and permitted all injunctive claims to remain before the court; the Company appealed the order as it relates to the injunctive claims, and the court of appeal stayed the district court action pending the appeal. (II) Date Filed: March 11, 2011 Plaintiffs and Date Attended: Noravel Arevalo and fourteen former students at the Company's Everest College location in Alhambra, California Venue: American Arbitration Association Nature and Basis of Alleged Claims; Relief Sought: Alleged misrepresentations by specific admissions representatives at a specific campus and unlawful business practices in the licensed vocational nursing program in Alhambra, California; Causes of action alleging violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, fraud, breach of contract, violation of California's former Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education Reform Act, violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, violation of California's Business and Professions Code; Complaint seeks class certification, injunctive relief, damages, restitution and disgorgement, civil penalties, punitive damages, treble damages, attorneys' fees and expenses, costs of lawsuit and other relief. Description of Putative Class: The matters are proceedings on a individual basis. Status Update: Individual arbitration demands have been filed, and arbitration hearings began during the quarter ending March 31, 2013. The Company says it intends to defend itself and its subsidiaries vigorously in all of these matters. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. is one of the largest post-secondary career education companies in North America. The Company offers a variety of diploma programs and associate's, bachelor's and master's degrees, concentrating on programs in allied health, business, technology, and criminal justice. The Company also offers exclusively online degrees, primarily in business and criminal justice. COUNTRY LIFE: Recalls 1,100 Target-Mins Iron Supplement Bottles --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Country Life LLC, of Hauppauge, New York, announced a voluntary recall of about 1,100 Target-Mins(TM) Iron Supplement Bottles. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The packaging is not child-resistant as required by the Poison Prevention Packaging Act. The supplement tablets inside the bottle contain iron, which can cause serious injury or death to young children if multiple tablets are ingested at once. No incidents or injuries have been reported. This recall involves Country Life Target-Mins 25 mg iron supplements bottles. The bottle is brown with a black top and has a white label with a yellow banner at the top and a green banner at the bottom. The words "IRON," "Country Life" and "90 tablets" are printed on the label. Bar code 015794024927 and Lot Number 13A866B are printed on the far left side of the front label. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/BD64kO The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of America and sold at New Seasons, Sprouts Farmers Market, Vitamin Cottage, Whole Foods Market and other natural food stores nationwide from January 2013 to May 2013 for about $10. Consumers should immediately place recalled bottles out of the reach of children and return them to the place of purchase for a full refund or a replacement bottle. Country Life may be reached at (800) 645-5768, from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, by e-mail at salesadmin@countrylifevitamins.com or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.countrylifevitamins.com/ and click on the "Contact Us" icon, then "Product Questions" for more information. DELAWARE MANUFACTURED: Faces Class Action Over Assessment Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- Kara Nuzback, writing for CapeGazette.com, reports that a class action complaint, filed by tenants and landlords of manufactured housing communities, claims Delaware Manufactured Housing Relocation Authority has been illegally collecting monthly assessments for seven years. A bill pending in the General Assembly would require landlords to get approval from a state agency to increase lot rents for manufactured homeowners. But the agency that would approve such requests is being sued by landlords and tenants of manufactured housing communities who say the agency has been illegally charging a monthly fee for more than seven years and has paid out no benefits since 2009. Senate Bill 33 would require owners of manufactured home parks to seek approval from Delaware Manufactured Home Relocation Authority if they wanted to raise rents for park tenants by more than the three-year average increase in the consumer price index. To gain approval, landowners would have to prove the additional increase would compensate for the cost of operating, maintaining and improving the manufactured housing community. The authority was created in 2003 to assist landlords and tenants financially when they are forced to relocate, abandon or remove a manufactured home from its lot. Three landlords and two tenants of manufactured home parks in Delaware filed a class-action complaint against DEMHRA in the Court of Chancery. The plaintiffs claim the authority's right to collect $3 per month in fees for each manufactured home lot in the state expired in 2006, but the authority continues to collect the fees. According to the complaint, the General Assembly gave the authority the right to adjust, eliminate or reinstate the assessment fee by Jan. 31, 2006. "A review of DEMHRA's board minutes between 2004 and Jan. 31, 2006, reveals that DEMHRA never adjusted the amount of the trust fund assessment," attorney John Paradee wrote. The plaintiffs also say the authority holds $5.5 million in the Delaware Manufactured Home Relocation Trust Fund, but it has paid out only $570,000 in benefits and spent $880,000 in administrative costs. "For every $100 in benefits provided, DEMHRA has spent $153.69 on administration and overhead," Mr. Paradee wrote. "Since April of 2009, no benefits whatsoever have been paid out of the trust fund." Ridgewood Manor, a manufactured housing community in Smyrna; Dover Park, a manufactured housing community in Dover; Richard Thomas, owner of Kings Cliffe Mobile Home Park in Dover; Patty Weyl, a manufactured home tenant at Bay City in Millsboro; and Christopher Zmijewski, a tenant of Ridgewood Manor, filed the suit on behalf of all manufactured housing landlords and tenants in the state May 6. According to the complaint, the plaintiffs want the authority to cease collection of its monthly assessments and refund all assessments collected after January 2006 to tenants and landlords. A bill to extend the relocation trust fund for another five years -- House Bill 65 -- was released from committee May 1, and awaits a vote in the House. Authority denies charges Mitch Crane, board chairman of DEMHRA, argues the authority voted to adjust the monthly fee in 2004, thereby complying with the General Assembly's requirement to take action by 2006. "And that fee has been approved on an annual basis since then," he said. "There is no merit to the claims in the lawsuit." Mr. Crane said the 2004 vote is reflected in meeting minutes. "They had not been posted at the time the lawsuit was filed," he said. Mr. Crane also said it would be contrary to the best interests of landlords and tenants to eliminate a $5 million safety net in case some communities are subject to a change of use. "If that $5 million is returned, there would be no relief for these people," he said. The lawsuit is an effort to stop the rent justification bill from becoming law, Mr. Crane said. "I'm not speaking for or against the bill," he said. "I would think the timing of it is to affect SB 33." Sen. Bruce Ennis, D-Smyrna, introduced SB 33 April 30 at Legislative Hall in Dover. The bill was released from the Senate Small Business Committee May 8, and the Senate will likely vote on the bill after the General Assembly reconvenes Tuesday, June 4. Another version of the bill -- Senate Bill 205 -- was approved in the Senate in the last General Assembly, but it failed to pass the House. DOLLAR GENERAL: EEOC Files Suits Over Criminal Background Checks ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sam Hananel, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed lawsuits on June 11 against discount retailer Dollar General Corp. and a BMW manufacturing plant in South Carolina over their use of criminal background checks to screen out job applicants or fire employees. In both cases, the agency claims the practice discriminates against African-Americans, who have higher arrest and conviction rates than whites. The two lawsuits are the first since the agency issued revised guidance last year to warn employers against using overly broad criminal checks in a way that could limit job opportunities for people with past convictions. The commission says it wants to reduce barriers to employment for those with past criminal records who "have been held accountable and paid their dues." The EEOC alleges that BMW's policy affected dozens of employees working for a contractor that staffed a BMW warehouse in Spartanburg, S.C. The contractor's policy was not to employ anyone with a criminal record within the past seven years. When a new contractor took over the company, BMW ordered a new round of criminal background checks and fired anyone with a criminal record from any year. Of the 88 workers fired, 70 were black. Some had worked for BMW -- through the contractor -- for more than a decade, the EEOC alleged in a lawsuit filed in federal district court in Spartanburg. The commission claims the BMW policy is a "blanket exclusion" without any regard for the nature and gravity of the crimes, how old they are, or whether they are relevant to the type of work being performed. BMW spokeswoman Sky Foster said the company "believes that it has complied with the letter and spirit of the law and will defend itself against the EEOC's allegations of race discrimination." In the Dollar General case, the EEOC filed a nationwide lawsuit in federal district court in Chicago based on charges of discrimination filed by two rejected black job applicants. One applicant was offered employment even though she disclosed a 6- year-old conviction for possession of a controlled substance, the EEOC said. But her job offer was allegedly revoked because Dollar General's policy was to disqualify anyone who had that type of conviction within the past 10 years. Another applicant to Dollar General was fired by the company despite the fact that a report showing she had a felony conviction was wrong, the EEOC said. Even after she advised Dollar General of the mistake, the company did not reverse its decision to fire her, the agency claimed. "Overcoming barriers to employment is one of our strategic enforcement priorities," EEOC spokeswoman Justine Lisser said. "We hope that these lawsuits will further educate the public and the employer community on the appropriate use of conviction records." A Dollar General spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The EEOC says it attempted to resolve both cases through settlement before filing lawsuits. It is seeking back pay for the rejected applicants and for those fired, as well as injunctive relief to prevent future discrimination. The new EEOC guidelines issued last year urge employers to give job applicants a chance to explain past criminal misconduct before they are rejected. It also recommends that employers stop asking about past convictions on job applications. Some employers see the checks as a way to weed out unsavory workers and prevent negligent hiring claims. EI DUPONT: Medical Panel Recommends Medical Monitoring Protocols ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that a panel of doctors has released its recommended protocols for medical monitoring of mid-Ohio Valley residents exposed to a chemical used by a DuPont plant in West Virginia. The three-member C8 Medical Panel was formed as part of a 2005 class-action settlement of a lawsuit that claimed water supplies in Ohio and West Virginia were contaminated with perfluorooctanoic acid, also known as C8. DuPont uses C8 at its Washington Works plant near Parkersburg. A separate C8 Science Panel formed under the settlement has found probable links between C8 and six health issue, including thyroid disease, high cholesterol, testicular and kidney cancers, pregnancy-induced hypertension and ulcerative colitis. Its findings were based on studies of data collected from about 70,000 residents. The medical panel's report, filed on May 24 in Wood County Circuit Court, addresses protocols for initial screening and diagnostic testing. It also recommends that data be collected on the medical monitoring program's implementation and findings to determine whether any future changes are needed, said Harry Deitzler, an attorney for Parkersburg-area plaintiffs. The medical panel also plans to create educational materials about the benefits and harms of screening to help residents who are eligible for the program, Mr. Deitzler said in a news release issued on May 25. A plan and process to implement the screening and testing program will be developed by Michael Rozen, the court-appointed director medical monitoring, and Brookmar, Inc. Under the settlement, DuPont agreed to pay as much as $235 million on medical monitoring programs to help detect the onset of C8- linked diseases among eligible residents. The company also agreed to provide treatment to remove the chemical from local water systems. "On behalf of the impacted residents, we thank the Medical Panel for its significant efforts to provide this important new medical information and testing program to the community so quickly after the final list of diseases linked to PFOA exposure was released," attorney Robert Bilott, who also represents plaintiffs in the case, said in the news release. The science panel released its final report in October 2012. ELBIT IMAGING: Court Dismisses Application to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Elbit Imaging Ltd. on May 26 disclosed that the Israeli Supreme Court dismissed an appeal on the District Court decision not to certify claims against Elscint Ltd., Elbit Imaging and others, as a class action due to the fact that the appellant failed to pay court fees. Elscint Ltd. is a former wholly owned subsidiary of the Company which was merged to the company. This case was initially filed in the District Court of Haifa, Israel in September 2006 by Mr. Beeri against Elscint, the Company, their controlling shareholders (Europe Israel (MMS) Ltd. and Control Centers Ltd.) and past and present officers and directors of such companies and certain unrelated third parties. EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Cozen O'Connor Discusses Incentive Award -------------------------------------------------------------- Ronald F. Wick, Esq., at Cozen O'Connor, reports that it is not uncommon for class action settlements to include an "incentive award" for class representatives for their service to the class in bringing the lawsuit. Neither is it uncommon for courts to approve such settlements, so long as the incentive award is not so large as to undermine class representatives' adequacy to represent the class. A recent settlement approved by a Los Angeles federal court, however, added another dimension to incentive awards. In Radcliffe v. Experian Information Solutions, a settlement agreement with three credit reporting bureaus not only included a $5,000 incentive award to each class representative, but also conditioned that award on the class representative's support of the settlement. If a class representative objected to the settlement, he or she would forfeit the $5,000 incentive award and recover the same proceeds as the represented class members -- which worked out to between $26 and $750, depending on the type of damages incurred by the class member. The Ninth Circuit reversed the settlement approval. By explicitly conditioning the incentive award on the class representatives' support for the settlement, the court held, the settlement agreement undermined the adequacy of the class representatives and class counsel. "Instead of being solely concerned about the adequacy of the settlement for absent class members," the panel held, "the class representatives now had a $5,000 incentive to support the settlement regardless of its fairness and a promise of no reward if they opposed the settlement." The conditional awards thus "removed a critical check on the fairness of the class-action settlement, which rests on the unbiased judgment of class representatives similarly situated to absent class members." The court also criticized the amount of the incentive award, suggesting that even if the award's conditionality had not doomed the settlement, its magnitude would have: "There is a serious question whether class representatives could be expected to fairly evaluate whether awards ranging from $26 to $750 is a fair settlement value when they would receive $5,000 incentive awards." Although the court held only that the amount of the awards "exacerbated the conflict of interest" created by their conditional nature, the language of the opinion strongly suggests that the court would have rejected the settlement even if the payments had not been conditional. With respect to class counsel, the court held that counsel's adequacy was undermined because once the conditional incentive award "divorced the interests of the class representatives from those of the absent class members, class counsel was simultaneously representing clients with conflicting interests." However, because the conflict developed late in the representation, the panel directed the district court to determine, on remand, the extent to which class counsel should be permitted to participate in any fee award. (The majority reached this determination over the objections of a concurring judge, who argued that class counsel's role in the creation of the conditional incentive award should disqualify them from any fees awarded as part of the settlement agreement). The moral: in negotiating a class action settlement, counsel must not only ensure that any incentive award to class representatives is not so excessive as to create a disincentive for them to fairly evaluate the settlement. Attorneys must also ensure that any incentive award, no matter how small, is independent of the class representatives' ultimate position on the settlement. FELTEX: Forsyth Barr Opts in Clients in Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Duncan Bridgeman, writing for The National Business Review, reports that some clients of broker Forsyth Barr are being automatically opted in to the Feltex class action through a nominee company. Feltex collapsed in 2006, wiping out shareholder investments of about NZD250 million just 21 months after it floated on the stock exchange. Former shareholder Eric Houghton is mounting a civil case on behalf of investors against Feltex's former directors, two broking firms, First NZ Capital and Forsyth Barr, and the promoter and vendor, Credit Suisse Private Equity and Credit Suisse First Boston Asian Merchant Partners. Feltex's directors at the time of the offer were Tim Saunders, Sam Magill, John Feeney, Craig Horrocks, Peter Hunter, Peter David and Joan Withers. So far about 3000 former shareholders have joined the claim and Mr. Houghton's lawyer, Austin Forbes QC, says final opt in for qualifying shareholders was set to close on May 30. In the last few days some opt in forms have started coming in from clients of the fifth defendant, Forsyth Barr, Mr. Forbes says. Forsyth Barr has written to those 2004 clients because in many cases their investment in shares in the Feltex float was first registered into the name of their nominee company, Forsyth Barr Custodians Limited. As a result Mr. Houghton has not been able to contact these potential claimants directly to offer representation. Mr. Houghton's solicitors, Wilson McKay, have been told by lawyers for Forsyth Barr that it is intending to opt in any Forsyth Barr Custodian managed clients who invested in June 2004, Mr. Forbes says. Any qualifying shareholder opted in by Forsyth Barr Custodians can opt out by June 21, 2013, and be excluded from the final claimant group to be filed with the High Court. FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA: Faces Class Action Over Loan Mismanagement ----------------------------------------------------------------- ThisDayLive reports that Former President of the Nigeria Bar Association (NBA), Mr. Olisa Agbakoba (SAN), and other aggrieved customers of First Bank of Nigeria Plc, have filed a class action against the bank at the Federal High Court in Lagos, claiming gross mismanagement of his margin loan running into millions of naira. The plaintiffs are claiming that the bank failed to use its professional expertise and skills to manage, operate and control the loans. They averred that it was the responsibility of the bank to manage the risks of the loans and that its failure made him to lose huge sums of money. The plaintiffs stated that although other aggrieved customers of banks and investment houses in the country have found it difficult to successfully prosecute their claims in relation to injuries occasioned by margin loan agreements because of the nature and structure of the contracts entered into, this case appears to be different on the evidence seen thus far. They specifically alleged that in their case, the bank took the contractual responsibility to manage the risks associated with the margin loans that it was its failure to manage the loans in accordance to the contract that led to their losses. In his statement of claim, Agbakoba stated that as a result of the banker/customer relationship between him and bank, the bank in 2008 introduced its margin trading facility to him and requested that he take a margin loan contract, which he accepted. He stated that the defendant explained to him that its customers were to purchase shares with the advanced margin trading facility and pledge the shares to it. He contended that the defendant, for a management fee, was to professionally manage the advanced facility by selecting the broker and securities the facility would be invested into. The former NBA boss said the defendant was to also prepare all the paper work needed, provide information about the fund's holdings and performances and reserved the power to exit should the fund diminish to a threshold that could impair the economic underpinnings of the investment and left the bank's exposure uncovered. He said he was also servicing the margin trading facility by paying interests on the facility as and when due. "In fact, the defendant always deducted the interests due on the facility from the plaintiff's Operative Account with the Defendant (Current Account Number 5072010001816) as and when due. "The defendant issued a statement of plaintiff's Operative Account with the defendant. All the payments made by the plaintiff (interests and loan repayment are disclosed in the statement of account. The entries in the statement of Account were made by the defendant in the usual and ordinary course of its banking business." Agbakoba is claiming that in the transaction, the principal sum of N200,000,000 was completely lost. He said he paid a total sum of N250,434,639.13 in liquidation of the Margin Loan Account; excluding interests and other charges. He said his 30 per cent equity contribution valued at N60 million was completely lost, adding that N40 million out of this would have been saved if the shares were sold at the Second Trigger Point. Agbakoba is therefore seeking a general damages of N500 million for fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of the margin loan agreement by the bank. He also wants the bank to pay him the sum of N301.76 million as special damages. FISKARS CANADA: Recalls Stitched Sheaths for Gerber Bear Machete ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 6, 2013 Posting date: June 6, 2013 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Miscellaneous, Outdoor Living Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-33639 Joint recall with Gerber Legendary Blades, Health Canada and the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (US CPSC) Affected products: Stitched sheaths for Gerber(R) Bear Grylls Parang Machete This recall involves the stitched sheaths sold with curved blade Parang machetes. The recalled stitched sheath is made of black nylon, with only stitching on the curved side. There are five rivets on the bottom of the sheath and two rivets bordering the strap on top. The machete measures 50 centimetres (19.5 inches) with a blade length of 34 centimetres (13.5 inches). The sheath measures 40 centimetres (16 inches) long and 9 centimetres (3.5 inches) wide, and has "GERBER" printed in gray and two Bear Grylls logos in orange. The machetes with sheaths were sold as a set or as part of Gerber's Apocalypse Survival Kit, which includes a Parang machete among other items in a foldable black cloth case with "GERBER" printed on the inside right. The stitched sheath has a total of seven rivets and is the only one of the three styles of sheaths sold with the Parang machete included in this recall. The other two types of Parang sheaths, one of which has nine rivets and two snap buttons, and the other of which has twelve rivets, are not being recalled. The model numbers are on the package and include 31-000698, 31- 000986, 31-001111, 31-002290 and 31-002289. Model number 30- 000601 is on the package for the Apocalypse Survival Kit. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/H36ntZ The Parang machete can cut through the stitching of the sheaths when the blade is taken from or replaced in the sheath, posing a laceration hazard. Gerber has received eight reports of lacerations to the user's hands or fingers, including three injuries that required stitches. There have been no reports of injuries in Canada. Health Canada has received no reports of incidents or injuries related to the use of the stitched sheaths. Approximately 11,542 of the recalled stitched sheaths were sold in Canada and approximately 80,000 were sold in the United States. The recalled products were sold from February 2012 to February 2013 in Canada and the United States at sporting goods stores and online. The recalled products were manufactured in China. Companies: Manufacturer JinHeng Factory Yangjiang CHINA Distributor Fiskars Canada Inc. Markham Ontario, CANADA Consumers should stop using the stitched sheaths immediately and store the Parang machete in a safe area away from children. Contact Gerber Legendary Blades to receive a free replacement fully-riveted sheath. For additional information, consumers may contact Gerber Legendary Blades toll-free at 1-877-314-9130 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site [http://www.gerbergear.com/]and click on "Product Notifications" at the bottom of the page. Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's Web site [http://is.gd/uGEPHC]. FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Suit vs. Units ---------------------------------------------------------------- Flagstar Bancorp, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on its motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit against its subsidiaries, according to the Company's April 30, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. In May 2012, Flagstar Bank, FSB, and Flagstar Reinsurance Company were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging a violation of Section 2607 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"). Section 2607(a) of RESPA generally prohibits anyone from "accept[ing] any fee, kickback or thing of value pursuant to any agreement or understanding, oral or otherwise, that business related incident to or part of a real estate settlement service involving a federally related mortgage loan shall be referred to any person." Section 2607(b) of RESPA also prohibits anyone from "accept[ing] any portion, split, or percentage of any charge made or received for the rendering of a real estate settlement service in connection with a federally related mortgage loan other than for services actually performed." The lawsuit specifically alleges that the Bank and Flagstar Reinsurance Company violated Section 2607 of RESPA through a captive reinsurance arrangement involving (i) allegedly illegal payments to Flagstar Reinsurance Company for the referral of private mortgage insurance business from Bank to private mortgage insurers to Flagstar Reinsurance Company, and (ii) Flagstar Reinsurance Company's purported receipt of an unlawful split of private mortgage insurance premiums. In January 2013, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint identifying new plaintiffs. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint based upon the statute of limitations and equitable tolling and awaits the court's ruling on that motion. Flagstar Bancorp, Inc. -- http://www.flagstar.com/-- is a Troy, Michigan-based savings and loan holding company founded in 1993. The Company's business is primarily conducted through its principal subsidiary, Flagstar Bank, a federally chartered stock savings bank. FLAMEL TECHNOLOGIES: Securities Class Suit Dismissed in March ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed with prejudice and costs in March 2013 a securities class action lawsuit against Flamel Technologies S.A., according to the Company's April 30, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. On November 9, 2007, a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its current and former officers entitled Billhofer v. Flamel Technologies, et al. By Order dated March 8, 2013, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss and the action was dismissed with prejudice and costs. The complaint purported to allege claims arising under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on certain public statements by the Company concerning, among other things, a clinical trial involving Coreg CR and seeks the award of damages in an unspecified amount. By Order dated February 11, 2008, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel in the action. On March 27, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint that continued to name the Company and two previously named officers as defendants and asserted the same claims based on the same events as alleged in the initial complaint. On May 12, 2008, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the action, which the Court denied by Order dated October 1, 2009. On April 29, 2010, the lead plaintiff moved to withdraw and substitute another individual as lead plaintiff and to amend the Case Management Order. On June 22, 2010, the lead plaintiff voluntarily agreed to dismiss the action against one of the previously named officers. On September 20, 2010, the Court granted the lead plaintiff's withdraw and substitution motion and the parties proceeded to engage in fact discovery. On March 6, 2012, the Court issued its opinion granting the lead plaintiff's motion for class certification, which was originally filed in October 2010 and opposed by the Company. On July 30, 2012, the Court issued an opinion denying the lead plaintiff's motion, filed on December 15, 2011, to further amend his complaint, which motion sought to substantially revise plaintiff's asserted basis for contending that the defendants should be found liable for the statements at issue. In its opinion, the Court held that the proposed amended complaint failed to properly plead a viable claim. Flamel Technologies S.A. -- http://www.flamel.com/-- is a specialty pharmaceutical company. The Company is focusing on (1) the development and licensing of five versatile, proprietary drug delivery platforms, (2) the development of novel, high-value products based on the Company's drug delivery platforms, and (3) as a result of the Company's acquisition of Eclat Pharmaceuticals, LLC, the development, approval, and commercialization of niche branded and generic pharmaceutical products in the U.S. The Company is headquartered in Venissieux Cedex, France. FRESH DEL MONTE: Appeal From Hawaii Suit Dismissal Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Beginning in December 1993, certain of Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc.'s U.S. subsidiaries were named among the defendants in a number of actions in courts in Texas, Louisiana, Hawaii, California and the Philippines involving claims by numerous non- U.S. plaintiffs alleging that they were injured as a result of exposure to a nematocide containing the chemical dibromochloropropane ("DBCP") during the period 1965 to 1990. As a result of a settlement entered into in December 1998, the remaining unresolved DBCP claims against the Company's U.S. subsidiaries are pending or subject to appeal in Hawaii, Louisiana, California, Delaware and the Philippines. In 1997, the plaintiffs from Costa Rica and Guatemala named certain of the Company's U.S. subsidiaries in a purported class action in Hawaii. On June 28, 2007, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the Company's U.S. subsidiaries named in the action without ties to Hawaii. At a hearing held on June 9, 2009, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the Company's remaining U.S. subsidiaries with ties to Hawaii, holding that the claims of the remaining plaintiffs are time-barred. A final judgment dismissing all remaining claims and terminating the action was entered on July 28, 2010. On August 24, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. The appeal is fully briefed and remains pending. No further updates were reported in the Company's April 30, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2013. Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. is a vertically integrated producer, marketer and distributor of high-quality fresh and fresh-cut fruit and vegetables, as well as a producer and marketer of prepared fruit and vegetables, juices, beverages and snacks in Europe, Africa, the Middle East and countries formerly part of the Soviet Union. The Company markets its products worldwide under the DEL MONTE(R) brand, a symbol of product innovation, quality, freshness and reliability since 1892. FRESH DEL MONTE: Defends Extra Sweet Pineapples-Related Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. continues to defend itself against lawsuits over its Del Monte Gold(R) Extra Sweet pineapples, according to the Company's April 30, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2013. On March 5, 2004, an alleged individual consumer filed a putative class action complaint against certain of the Company's subsidiaries in the state court of Tennessee on behalf of consumers who purchased (other than for resale) Del Monte Gold(R) Extra Sweet pineapples in Tennessee from March 1, 1996, to May 6, 2003. The complaint alleges violations of the Tennessee Trade Practices Act and the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. On February 18, 2005, the Company's subsidiaries filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On May 15, 2006, the court granted the motion in part, dismissing the plaintiffs' claim under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. Between March 17, 2004, and March 18, 2004, three alleged individual consumers separately filed putative class action complaints against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries in the state court of California on behalf of residents of California who purchased (other than for re-sale) Del Monte Gold(R) Extra Sweet pineapples between March 1, 1996, and May 6, 2003. On November 9, 2005, the three actions were consolidated under one amended complaint with a single claim for unfair competition in violation of the California Business and Professional Code. On September 26, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class action. On August 20, 2009, the court denied class certification. On October 19, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the court's order denying class certification. On February 29, 2012, the oral argument hearing on the appeal was held. On March 7, 2012, the appeal was rejected and the denial of class certification was upheld. Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. is a vertically integrated producer, marketer and distributor of high-quality fresh and fresh-cut fruit and vegetables, as well as a producer and marketer of prepared fruit and vegetables, juices, beverages and snacks in Europe, Africa, the Middle East and countries formerly part of the Soviet Union. The Company markets its products worldwide under the DEL MONTE(R) brand, a symbol of product innovation, quality, freshness and reliability since 1892. FRESH DEL MONTE: Suit Over Extra Sweet Pineapples Pending in Fla. ----------------------------------------------------------------- On April 19, 2004, an alleged individual consumer filed a putative class action complaint against Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc.'s subsidiaries in the state court of Florida on behalf of Florida residents who purchased (other than for re-sale) Del Monte Gold(R) Extra Sweet pineapples between March 1, 1996, and May 6, 2003. The only surviving claim under the amended complaint alleges violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act relating only to pineapples purchased since April 19, 2000. The Company's subsidiaries filed an answer to the surviving claim on October 12, 2006. On August 5, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class action. The Company's subsidiaries filed an opposition on January 22, 2009, to which the plaintiffs filed a reply on May 11, 2009. On November 29, 2011, the court denied the motion to certify a class action. No further updates were reported in the Company's April 30, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2013. Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. is a vertically integrated producer, marketer and distributor of high-quality fresh and fresh-cut fruit and vegetables, as well as a producer and marketer of prepared fruit and vegetables, juices, beverages and snacks in Europe, Africa, the Middle East and countries formerly part of the Soviet Union. The Company markets its products worldwide under the DEL MONTE(R) brand, a symbol of product innovation, quality, freshness and reliability since 1892. G. WILLI-FOOD: Accused of Mislabeling Certain Imported Products --------------------------------------------------------------- G. Willi-Food International Ltd. and a subsidiary are defending themselves against class action lawsuits alleging they mislabel some of the products that the Company imports, according to the Company's April 30, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. In December 2012, the Company and its subsidiary, Gold Frost Ltd., were served with three purported class action lawsuits alleging that it misled its customers by mislabeling some of the products that the Company imports. The lawsuits seek to represent any Israeli resident, who bought those products during the last seven years. The plaintiffs appraise total group damages at approximately NIS33 million (approximately $8.8 million). At this preliminary stage, the Company's management and legal counsel are not able to assess the chance of success of the claims. G. Willi-Food International Ltd. -- http://www.willi-food.com/-- is an Israeli company engaged in the development, import, export, marketing and distribution of a wide variety of over 600 food products world-wide. The Company is headquartered in Yavne, Israel. GENERAL MILLS: Recalls Cinnamon Toast Crunch Products ----------------------------------------------------- Nathalie Tadena, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports that General Mills Inc. (GIS) is voluntarily recalling a small quantity of single-serve reduced-sugar Cinnamon Toast Crunch "bowlpaks" after a supplier recalled an ingredient due to the possible presence of salmonella. The packaged-food maker said no illnesses have been associated with this finding and that the recall is being taken as a precaution. The recall affects approximately 168 cases of the product with "Better if Used By" dates of Aug. 31 and Sept. 2. No other varieties or sizes of Cinnamon Toast Crunch or other General Mills products are affected. Food-service operators or consumers who have the affected product are urged to dispose of it and contact General Mills at 1-800-328- 1144 for a replacement. The maker of Cheerios cereal, Betty Crocker baking products and Green Giant frozen vegetables has struggled to mitigate higher raw-material costs with price increases as pushback from budget- conscious consumers challenged sales volume. But General Mills' profit has improved in recent quarters due in part to the performance of newly acquired businesses overseas and improving results in its home market. In March, General Mills reported its fiscal third-quarter earnings rose 1.8% as the company sold more products in its base business, as measured by weight, for the first time in two years, a sign the packaged-food industry is continuing its steady, but, slow improvement. GERBER LEGENDARY: Recalls 91,000 Machetes With Stitched Sheaths --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in conjunction with Health Canada and in cooperation with Gerber Legendary Blades, of Portland, Oregon, announced a voluntary recall of about 80,000 Gerber(R) Bear Grylls Parang Machete with stitched sheaths in the United States of America and 11,000 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 Parang machete can cut through the stitching of the sheaths when the blade is taken from or replaced in the sheath, posing a laceration hazard. Gerber has received eight reports of lacerations to the user's hands or fingers, including three injuries that required stitches. This recall involves stitched sheaths sold with curved blade Parang machetes. The stitched sheath is made of black nylon, with only stitching on the curved side. There are five rivets on the bottom of the sheath and two rivets bordering the strap on top. The machete measures 19.5 inches with a blade length of 13.5 inches. The sheath measures 16 inches long and 3.5 inches wide and has "GERBER" printed in gray and two Bear Grylls logos in orange. The machetes with sheaths were sold as a set or as part of Gerber's Apocalypse Survival Kit, which includes a Parang machete among other items in a foldable black cloth case with "GERBER" printed on the inside right. The model numbers are on the package. Model numbers are: 31-000698, 31-001507 and 31- 002289. Model number 30-000601 is on the package for the Apocalypse Survival Kit. The stitched sheath is the only one of three styles of sheaths sold with the Parang machete included in this recall. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/uGEPHC The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at sporting goods stores nationwide and online from February 2012 through February 2013 for about $43 for the machete and sheath set, and $349 for the Survival Kit. Consumers should immediately store the covered Parang machete in a safe area away from children. Contact Gerber Legendary Blades to receive a free replacement fully-riveted sheath. Gerber Legendary Blades may be reached toll-free at (877) 314-9130 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time Monday through Friday or online at http://www.gerbergear.com/and click on "Product Notifications" at the bottom of the page. GOLD COAST: Beachfront Property Owners Mull Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Greg Stolz, writing for The Courier-Mail, reports that Gold Coast beachfront property owners have accused the city council and State Government of abandoning them to the sea, and are threatening a legal class action as severe erosion gouges away their properties. For the second time this year, big swells and high tides have stripped away millions of tonnes of sand from the Glitter Strip's beaches, leaving some oceanfront homes teetering on the brink of steep cliffs. Beach stairs and viewing platforms have collapsed into the ocean, and sand the council spent tens of thousands of dollars replenishing after ex-Cyclone Oswald battered the coast in January has been washed away. That erosion was described as the worst the Coast has seen in 40 years but locals say even more sand is now disappearing. Businessman Terry Taylor said he and fellow residents of a Mermaid Beach unit complex had been forced to spend thousands of dollars sandbagging the property to protect it from voracious erosion. Mr. Taylor said the council and State Government had refused to help, even though the beach was a "public asset". "We're starting to get worried. It's affecting us -- one of the ladies that lives here has been in tears," he said. "I'll have to keep sandbagging because the council has its head in the sand and has made it clear they're not going to help us. Is it going to take a home to fall into the sea before they act? Or will it take a class action?" Mr. Taylor said beachfront residents were seen as wealthy people who should pay their own way. But he said many had already outlaid tens of thousands of dollars on boulder walls because the council and government would not pay. "I pay nearly AUD60,000 a year in rates and have got nothing out of it," he said. Mr. Taylor said while the council had repaired Surfers Paradise beach in time for Easter, it had done "nothing" to restore badly eroded Mermaid and Nobby beaches. He said the land value of his unit block had slumped from AUD19.8 million to AUD9.8 million. "When you've got yards slipping into the sea, people are scared (of buying beachfront property)," he said. One long-time Albatross Ave resident, who is trying to sell her property, said she was worried the erosion would affect her property values. "With the amount of rates we pay, the council should be doing something," she said. The council has asked the State Government for half the estimated AUD30 million cost of a long-term erosion solution but the plea has so far fallen on deaf ears. GREENBERG TRAURIG: Settles Gender Discrimination Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Casey Sullivan, writing for Reuters, reports that a proposed $200 million gender discrimination class action against the large Florida law firm Greenberg Traurig was settled on May 24, concluding the lawsuit five months after it was filed, according to court documents. In December, former Greenberg Traurig shareholder Francine Friedman Griesing filed a 52-page complaint in New York federal court claiming the 1,700-lawyer firm violated the Equal Pay Act, the federal law that prohibits wage disparity based on sex. The lawsuit sought to represent 215 current and former Greenberg Traurig shareholders. Ms. Griesing, who worked at the firm in Philadelphia from April 2007 through January 2010, claimed that the firm underpaid women lawyers and was governed by an "old boys club." She claimed further that she was underpaid by at least $200,000. In her lawsuit, she pointed to an alleged incident in 2009, when she complained to managers about the size of her annual bonus. According to her complaint, she was told by compensation committee member Michael Lehr that the men had families to support and that she did not need the money. In a single-paragraph order on May 24, New York federal Judge William Pauley dismissed the case after Ms. Griesing and Greenberg Traurig worked out a settlement. In his order, Judge Pauley said that "all claims that were or could have been brought in the . . . litigation are hereby withdrawn and shall be and hereby are dismissed in their entirety, with prejudice, and without attorney's fees, costs, or disbursement to any party." David Sanford, the lawyer who brought the lawsuit for Ms. Griesing, declined to comment. A Greenberg Traurig spokeswoman said that "the matter was concluded amicably" but declined to elaborate on terms of the settlement. Multiple Greenberg Traurig representatives, including CEO Richard Rosenbaum and Michael Lehr, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The lawsuit came after Ms. Griesing filed a complaint with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which subsequently found that it had "reasonable cause to believe" the firm discriminated against its female lawyers by underpaying and "treating them less favorably" than men, according to court records. The EEOC finding was limited to the firm's Philadelphia office, according to a Greenberg Traurig spokeswoman. It is rare for the EEOC to find "reasonable cause" when complaints are filed. Only 3.8 percent of complaints receive that determination, according to EEOC statistics. GRUMA SAB: Unit Faces "Cox" Class Suit Over "All Natural" Label --------------------------------------------------------------- Gruma, S.A.B. de C.V.'s principal U.S. subsidiary is facing a class action lawsuit titled Cox v. Gruma Corporation, according to the Company's April 30, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. On or about December 21, 2012, a consumer filed a putative class action against Gruma Corporation claiming that Mission tortilla chips should not be labeled "All Natural" if they contain certain non-natural ingredients. The plaintiff seeks restitution or other actual damages including attorneys' fees. Gruma Corporation believes that the claims have no merit and filed a motion to dismiss. In response to the motion to dismiss, the plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. Gruma filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on April 10, 2013. The Company says it intends to vigorously defend against this action. It is the opinion of the Company that the outcome of this proceeding will not have a material adverse effect on the financial position, results of operations or cash flows of the Company. Founded in 1949, Gruma, S.A.B. de C.V. -- http://www.gruma.com/-- is a publicly held corporation organized under the laws of Mexico and headquartered in Nuevo Leon. Gruma is a holding company and conduct its operations through subsidiaries. The Company produces and sells corn flour as an alternative raw material for producing tortillas. The Company has diversified its product mix to include wheat flour in Mexico and Venezuela, and other types of flatbreads, such as pita, naan, chapatti, pizza bases and piadina, mainly in Europe, Asia and Oceania. HEALTHCARE FOOD: Recalls 8 x 260 g Curried Lentil Casserole ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 6, 2013 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Extraneous Material Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Healthcare Food Services Inc. Distribution: Alberta, Ontario Extent of the product distribution: Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional CFIA reference number: 8000 Affected products: Brand name Common name Size Code(s) on product ---------- ----------- ---- ------------------ Healthcare Food Curried Lentil 8x260 g Day Codes: 3035, 3045, Services Inc. Casserole 3063, 3077, 3084, 3101 UPC: (01) 1 0062373 99596 0 HERBALIFE LTD: Sales Increase Despite Pyramid Scheme Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Heide Malhotra, writing for Epoch Times, reports that despite multiple accusations of running a pyramid scheme, Herbalife Ltd., reported in its first quarter 2013 earnings release, Apr. 29, a 17 percent increase in sales over the same period in 2012 and announced a dividend of $0.30 per share, payable on May 28. Bill Ackman, hedge fund manager and founder of Pershing Square Capital Management, has accused Herbalife of running a pyramid scheme, with supporting documentation published on the Fact About Herbalife website. Mr. Ackman began his attack on Herbalife with a detailed presentation at a Sohn Conference Foundation event Dec. 20, 2012, which concludes with the accusation of Herbalife being a pyramid scheme that has hurt "the most vulnerable communities in the U.S. and around the world." "Pershing Square believes Herbalife is a pyramid scheme because, among other reasons, distributors earn more than 10 times as much from recruitment as they do by selling the company's overpriced products to bona fide retail customers," said Mr. Ackman in his presentation. Herbalife Ltd., is a global nutrition company that sells its products through a multilevel marketing (MLM) business model utilizing independent distributors in more than 75 countries. Its products are said to help people improve their nutritional intake, develop healthy skin, and lose weight. On Dec. 20, Herbalife responded to Mr. Ackman's presentation with a press release, calling it "a malicious attack on Herbalife's business model based largely on outdated, distorted, and inaccurate information." Mr. Ackman is a noted short seller of Herbalife's stock, which means he stands to profit from a decline in the share price. Facing Continued Confrontation In 2012, the Commercial Court in Brussels, Belgium, ruled that Herbalife runs a pyramid scheme in violation of the act governing such schemes. It reasoned that this company pays for bringing in distributors instead for selling its products. The company was fined $6,467 (5,000 euros) for each violation up to a total of 250,000 euros. On April 8, attorneys for Dana Bostick of California and on behalf of others filed a class action complaint against Herbalife in the United States District Court Central District of California, accusing the company of running an illegal pyramid scheme. The above "real numbers are in direct contrast to the deceptive earning claims referenced in Herbalife's promotional materials, including videos on Herbalife's website, YouTube, and Herbalife distributor's websites," states the complaint. On April 29, Pyramid Scheme Alert (PSA), an international association, sent a detailed open letter of protest to the Direct Selling Association (DSA) in Washington, D.C., for its defense of Herbalife. It asked that DSA justify its support of Herbalife and explain its statement that a "large number of people" live off their earnings from that company. Stock Market Reaction Herbalife's stock initially reacted to Mr. Ackman's accusations by dropping from $33.70 on Dec. 20, 2012, to $27.27 the next day -- a 19 percent plunge. However, the company's stock has largely had a reversal of fortune this year, thanks at least in part to support from two of Mr. Ackman's fellow billionaires, Daniel Loeb of Third Point Partners and activist-investor Carl Icahn, both of whom have taken the opposite position from Mr. Ackman and made considerable bets in favor of the company. So far in 2013, Herbalife's stock is up 45 percent, or $14.71, as of close of trading May 24. It is rumored that a group of investors may be accumulating shares with the intention taking the company private again. Despite rumors and the recovery of Herbalife's stock, experts concerning such accusations suggest that since Mr. Ackman was quite detailed and convincing in his accusations, the future for Herbalife is still uncertain. HUNTSMAN CORP: Faces Class Suit by Indirect Purchasers of TiO2 -------------------------------------------------------------- Huntsman Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit brought by purchasers of products made from titanium dioxide, according to the Company's April 30, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. The Company has been named as a defendant in a class action civil antitrust lawsuit filed on March 15, 2013, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by purchasers of products made from titanium dioxide (the "Indirect Purchasers") making essentially the same allegations as the Plaintiffs in the Direct Purchasers' lawsuit. The plaintiffs in the Indirect Purchasers' action seek to recover on behalf of their class injunctive relief, treble damages or the maximum damages allowed by state law, costs of lawsuit and attorneys fees. The Company is not aware of any illegal conduct by it or any of its employees. Nevertheless, the Company has incurred costs relating to these claims and could incur additional costs in amounts material to the Company. Because of the overall complexity of the case, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate any possible loss or range of loss associated with these claims and the Company has made no accruals with respect to these claims. Headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, Huntsman Corporation is a global manufacturer of differentiated organic chemical products and of inorganic chemical products. The Company's products comprise a broad range of chemicals and formulations, which the Company markets globally to a diversified group of consumer and industrial customers. HUNTSMAN CORP: Hearing in TiO2 Direct Purchasers Suit on June 25 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hearing on Huntsman Corporation's motion for summary judgment in the consolidated class action lawsuit brought by direct purchasers of titanium dioxide is scheduled for June 25, 2013, according to the Company's April 30, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. The Company has been named as a defendant in two class action civil antitrust lawsuits filed on February 9, and 12, 2010, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland alleging that the Company and its co-defendants and other asserted co-conspirators conspired to fix prices of titanium dioxide sold in the U.S. between at least March 1, 2002, and the present. The lawsuits were subsequently consolidated. The other defendants named in this matter are DuPont, Kronos and Millennium. On August 28, 2012, the court certified a class consisting of all U.S. customers who purchased titanium dioxide directly from defendants (the "Direct Purchasers") since February 1, 2003. A hearing to consider the Company's motion for summary judgment is scheduled for June 25, 2013, and trial is set to begin September 9, 2013. The plaintiffs in the Direct Purchasers' action seek to recover on behalf of their class injunctive relief, treble damages or the maximum damages allowed by state law, costs of lawsuit and attorneys fees. The Company is not aware of any illegal conduct by it or any of its employees. Nevertheless, the Company has incurred costs relating to these claims and could incur additional costs in amounts material to the Company. Because of the overall complexity of the case, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate any possible loss or range of loss associated with these claims and the Company has made no accruals with respect to these claims. Headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, Huntsman Corporation is a global manufacturer of differentiated organic chemical products and of inorganic chemical products. The Company's products comprise a broad range of chemicals and formulations, which the Company markets globally to a diversified group of consumer and industrial customers. IKEA NORTH: Recalls 231,000 LYDA Jumbo Cups Due to Burn Hazard -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with IKEA North America Services LLC, of Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, announced a voluntary recall of about 11,000 LYDA jumbo cups in the United States and 220,000 worldwide. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The cups can break when hot liquid is poured into them, posing a burn hazard. No incidents of injuries have been reported in the United States. There have been 20 incidents reported worldwide, including 10 scalding injuries. This recall involves IKEA's LYDA jumbo coffee/tea cups. The 20- ounce cups are four inches tall and are white with a pink rose and green leaves. Printed on the bottom of the cup is the following information: Model number 302.033.7; Supplier number 10866; the IKEA logo; the words "IKEA of Sweden Design and Quality," and "Made in Thailand." Picture of the recalled products is available at: http://is.gd/jcc2Fu The recalled products were manufactured in Thailand and sold exclusively at IKEA stores nationwide and on the firm's Web site at http://www.ikea-usa.com/from August 2012 through April 2013 for about $5. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled LYDA jumbo cups and return them to any IKEA store for a full refund. IKEA may be reached toll-free at (888) 966-4532 anytime or online at http://www.ikea-usa.com/and click on the recall link on the home page. KELLOGG CO: Settles Class Action Over Frosted Mini-Wheats for $4MM ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Associated Press reports that Kellogg has agreed to pay $4 million to settle a class-action lawsuit over the marketing claims it made for Frosted Mini-Wheats. The company, which also makes Frosted Flakes, Eggo waffles and Pop Tarts, was sued for saying that the cereal improved children's attentiveness, memory and other cognitive functions. Kellogg says in a statement that the ad campaign in question ran about four years ago and that it has since adjusted its messaging to incorporate guidelines set by the Federal Trade Commission. The company, based in Battle Creek, Mich., also noted that is "has a long history of responsible advertising." On its website, Kellogg now says that Frosted Mini-Wheats are full of fiber and that they "fill you up first thing and help keep you focused all morning." If approved by the court, the law firm representing consumers says the settlement will result in cash refunds for up to three boxes of cereal purchased during the time of the advertising in question. People may seek reimbursement of up to $5 per box, with a maximum of $15 per customer, according to the settlement. Kellogg Co. said customers can visit www.cerealsettlement.com to submit a claim for a refund. The claims are for boxes of Frosted Mini-Wheats purchased from Jan. 28, 2009 to Oct. 1, 2009. LATAM AIRLINES: Defends Suits by Workers' Unions vs. Tam Linhas --------------------------------------------------------------- LATAM Airlines Group S.A. continues to defend a subsidiary against class action lawsuits brought by workers' unions, according to the Company's April 30, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. Class Suits Against Tam Linhas Aereas S.A. ------------------------------------------ Court Case No. Origin Stage of Trial ----- -------- ------ -------------- Labour Ct. of 0000504- Class action by Process in the Porto Alegre. 79.2010. the Union of last instance, 5.04.0014 Aviation Workers waiting judgment of Porto Alegre, of appeal. which requires payment of the bond risk for maintenance employees. Amount Committed: $5.046 million (Approximate value/Estimated) Labour Justice 0000728- Class action by Process in the Guarulhos/SP - 47.2010. the Union of second instance, Jurisdiction 5.02.0313 Aviation Workers awaiting the of Labor of Guarulhos/SP, judgment of the Guarulhos. which requires appeal on both payment of risk parts. bonus for all workers of the base. Amount Committed: $53.020 million (Approximate value/Estimated) Labour Justice 0000033- Class action by Process in the Salvador/BA - 78.2011. the National Union first instance. Labor 5.05.0021 of Aviation Awaiting Jurisdiction workers, which sentencing. Salvador/BA. requires payment of risk bonus for all employees of the SSA base. Amount Committed: $13.010 million (Approximate value/Estimated) In order to deal with any financial obligations arising from legal proceedings outstanding at December 31, 2012, whether civil, labor or tax, LATAM Airlines Group S.A., has made provisions, which at the end of these financial statements, reached the sum of $466.848 million. The Company says it has not disclosed the individual probability of success for each contingency in order to not negatively affect its outcome. LATAM Airlines Group S.A. -- http://www.latamairlinesgroup.net/-- is a Santiago, Chile-based airline holding company formed by the merger of LAN Airlines S.A. of Chile and TAM S.A. of Brazil in 2012. LATAM is primarily involved in the transportation of passengers and cargo, and operates as one unified, merged business enterprise with two separate brands: LAN and TAM. LATAM AIRLINES: Defends Suits Over Price Fixing of Surcharges ------------------------------------------------------------- LATAM Airlines Group S.A. continues to defend itself and its subsidiaries against class action lawsuits alleging price fixing of cargo fuel surcharges, according to the Company's April 30, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. In February 2006, the European Commission ("EC"), in conjunction with the Department of Justice of the United States ("DOJ"), initiated a global investigation of a large number of international cargo airlines (among them LAN Cargo S.A., a Company subsidiary) for possible price fixing of cargo fuel surcharges and other fees in the European and United States air cargo markets. On December 26, 2007, the European competition authorities notified LAN Cargo and LATAM of the initiation of proceedings against twenty-five cargo airlines, among them LAN Cargo, for allegations of anti-competitive behavior in the airfreight business. On January 21, 2009, LAN Cargo announced that it had reached a plea agreement with the DOJ in relation to the DOJ's ongoing investigation regarding price fixing of fuel surcharges and other fees for cargo shipments. Under the plea agreement, LAN Cargo agreed to pay a fine of $88 million. In addition, Aerolinhas Brasileiras S.A. ("ABSA") also reached a plea agreement with the DOJ and agreed to pay a fine of $21 million. These amounts were stipulated to be paid over a five-year payment schedule starting in 2009. As of December 31, 2012, the pending amount to be paid during the next two years is approximately $22 million and has been recorded within "Other Accounts Payable." On November 9, 2010, the EC imposed fines on 11 air carriers for a total amount of EUR800 million (equivalent to approximately $1.1 billion). The fine imposed against LAN Cargo and its parent company, LAN Airlines S.A. ("LAN"), totaled EUR8.2 million (equivalent to approximately $10.9 million). The Company provisioned $25 million during the fourth quarter of 2007 for such fines, and maintained this provision until the fine was imposed in 2010. In 2010, the Company recorded a $14.1 million gain (pre- tax) from the reversal of a portion of this provision. This was the lowest fine applied by the EC, which includes a significant reduction due to the Company's cooperation with the Commission during the course of the investigation. In accordance with European Union law, on January 24, 2011, this administrative decision was appealed by LAN Cargo and LAN to the General Court in Luxembourg. Any judgment by the General Court may also be appealed to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The investigation by the DOJ prompted the filing of numerous civil class actions by freight forwarding and shipping companies against many airlines, including LAN Cargo and LATAM Airlines Group, including fifty-four in the United States. The cases filed in the United States were consolidated in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York and the original complaint was subsequently amended to include additional airlines, including ABSA. On May 11, 2011, LAN Cargo announced that it had reached a settlement agreement with the class action plaintiffs in relation to this litigation. As per the settlement agreement, LAN Cargo agreed to pay $59.7 million. Furthermore, ABSA also reached a settlement agreement with class action plaintiffs and agreed to pay $6.3 million. The amounts were paid to the plaintiffs' counsel escrow account in 2011. DHL, a former member of the civil class action plaintiffs, timely opted out of the settlements agreement. LAN Cargo recently reached a settlement agreement with StarBroker A.G., on behalf of DHL Global Forwarding, whereby LAN Cargo agreed to pay $8.2 million, of which $7.1 million shall be recovered by LAN Cargo from the escrow amount set aside in the class action settlement previously paid by LAN Cargo for opt out plaintiffs. The Canadian Competition Bureau ("CCB"), in conjunction with the DOJ, also initiated a global investigation of a large number of international cargo airlines (among them LAN Cargo) for possible price fixing of cargo fuel surcharges and other fees in the Canadian air cargo markets in 2006. The CCB's investigation prompted the filing of four separate civil class actions by freight forwarding and shipping companies against many airlines, including LAN Cargo and LAN, in Canada. On January 31, 2012, LAN and LAN Cargo approved a settlement agreement with the class actions plaintiffs for an amount of CAD$700,000 (Canadian Dollars), which is pending court approval. On April 5, 2008, Brazilian authorities notified ABSA of the initiation of administrative proceedings before the Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Economica (the Brazilian Antitrust Authority) against several cargo airlines and airline officers, among them ABSA, for allegations of anticompetitive practices regarding fuel surcharges in the air cargo business. Given the current stage of the proceedings, it is not possible at this time to anticipate with any precision the outcome of this matter, although it is expected to be a lengthy process. LATAM Airlines Group S.A. -- http://www.latamairlinesgroup.net/-- is a Santiago, Chile-based airline holding company formed by the merger of LAN Airlines S.A. of Chile and TAM S.A. of Brazil in 2012. LATAM is primarily involved in the transportation of passengers and cargo, and operates as one unified, merged business enterprise with two separate brands: LAN and TAM. LATAM AIRLINES: TAM Linhas Defends Suit Over 1996 Plane Crash ------------------------------------------------------------- LATAM Airlines Group S.A.'s subsidiary is defending itself against lawsuits arising from an October 1996 plane crash, according to the Company's April 30, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. TAM Linhas Aereas S.A. is party to three actions filed by relatives of victims of an accident that occurred in October 1996 involving one of its Fokker 100 aircraft, which crashed during departure, in addition to 27 actions filed by residents of the region of where the accident occurred, who are claiming pain and suffering, and a class action related to this crash. Any damages resulting from the aforementioned legal claims are covered by the civil liability guarantee provided for in TAM's insurance policy with ItauUnibancoSeguros S.A. The Company believes that the cap of $400 million in that insurance policy is sufficient to cover any potential penalties and judicial or extrajudicial agreements arising as a result of this matter. LATAM Airlines Group S.A. -- http://www.latamairlinesgroup.net/-- is a Santiago, Chile-based airline holding company formed by the merger of LAN Airlines S.A. of Chile and TAM S.A. of Brazil in 2012. LATAM is primarily involved in the transportation of passengers and cargo, and operates as one unified, merged business enterprise with two separate brands: LAN and TAM. LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls Joe Fresh Children's Short Sleepers ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 6, 2013 Posting date: June 6, 2013 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Children's Products, Clothing and Accessories Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-33859 Affected products: Joe Fresh Children's Short Sleeper This recall involves the Joe Fresh Children's Short Sleeper, style number BGU3SL3813. The sleeper has short sleeves and comes in a pink heart print and a purple floral print. The UPC for each size are: Sleepers affected by this recall ------------------------------------------------ Print Size UPC ----- ---- ------------ Pink Heart Print 0-3M 057846349671 Pink Heart Print 3-6M 057846349688 Pink Heart Print 6-12M 057846349695 Pink Heart Print 12-18M 057846349701 Pink Heart Print 18-24M 057846349718 Purple Floral Print 0-3M 057846385402 Purple Floral Print 3-6M 057846385433 Purple Floral Print 6-12M 057846385440 Purple Floral Print 12-18M 057846385419 Purple Floral Print 18-24M 057846385426 Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/CadFiW There is a potential that the snaps on the sleepwear could come loose, posing a choking hazard. Loblaw Companies Limited has received one report of the snaps detaching from the garment after overnight wear. No injury was incurred. Health Canada has not received any reports of incidents or injuries related to the use of this sleepwear. Approximately 9800 of the recalled sleepers were sold across Canada at various Loblaw banner stores selling Joe Fresh apparel. The recalled sleepers were sold from March 2013 to May 2013. The recalled products were manufactured in China. Companies: Manufacturer Sammart Fashion Co., Ltd. Kwai Chung HONG KONG Importer Loblaw Companies Ltd. Consumers should stop using the recalled sleepers immediately and return them to any Loblaw banner store where Joe Fresh apparel is sold. The customer service desk will provide a full refund (even without a receipt). For more information, consumers may contact Loblaw Companies Limited customer service at 1-800-296-2332 or by email. MACMILLAN GROUP: CEO Testifies in E-Book Price-Fixing Trial ----------------------------------------------------------- Hillel Italie, writing for The Associated Press, reports that Macmillan CEO John Sargent, who testified this week at a trial over alleged price-fixing of e-books, was no one's idea of a friendly witness. Of the five publishers the U.S. Justice Department sued last year, Macmillan was the last to settle and the most defiant. The government alleged that Macmillan, HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster, Penguin Group (USA) and Hachette Book Group illegally conspired to raise wholesale prices in an effort to help Apple make headway against Amazon in the e-books market. Speaking last month at BookExpo America, the publishing industry's annual convention, Mr. Sargent labeled the government's view of the e-market as "extraordinarily myopic." "They carried the water for Amazon, when it had 92 percent of the market," he said, criticizing the justice department for caring more about price than a possible monopoly. "The senior guys, (Attorney General) Eric Holder, are just incompetent." Apple is the only defendant left in the antitrust suit, filed in response to the 2010 launch of the iBookstore and a new "agency" pricing system. Publishers, who had worried that Amazon's pricing of some new e-book releases at $9.99 was crippling to the industry, welcomed the arrival of Apple and an "agency" model that allowed publishers, not retailers, to set the cost of e-books. Many new releases were sold for $12.99 or $14.99, a change the government has cited as unfair to consumers. Apple has insisted that its entrance into the e-book market improved the online book industry and stabilized prices for the long term. Mr. Sargent, 56, has said he only settled because Macmillan, owned by the German-based Holtzbrinck Publishers, was "not large enough to risk a worst-case judgment," an opinion he clearly still held on the stand. Whether under direct or cross testimony in U.S. District Court on Monday and Tuesday, the lean, graying Mr. Sargent changed neither his posture nor manner of speaking. His dark, deep-set eyes stared right at the questioning attorney, his head was erect, chin upturned, his answers crisp and often terse. "What I'm doing here is negotiating," he said in response to questions from Justice Department lawyer Mark Ryan about exchanges he had with Apple over contract terms. Mr. Sargent is seasoned in conflict. In January 2010, soon before Apple announced its e-book store, Mr. Sargent became the point man in the publishers' dispute with Amazon when the online retailer disabled the "buy" tabs for releases by Bill O'Reilly, Jonathan Franzen and other Macmillan authors. Mr. Sargent said that he had proposed that Amazon either accept the agency model or face a "window" of seven months before new e-books would become available -- a policy that had become common among publishers in 2009 because of fears that cheap e-books of new releases were harming the hardcover market. The standoff ended after a few days with Amazon agreeing to the agency system. Mr. Sargent acknowledged that his initial discussions with Amazon did not "go well" and that having four other major publishers sign with Apple would strengthen Macmillan's position in negotiations. But he resisted suggestions by Justice Department lawyer Mark Ryan that he had forced Amazon to adopt the agency system. When Mr. Mr. Ryan suggested that Apple pressured Mr. Sargent into making Amazon accept agency, the Macmillan CEO said that such a scenario was "completely alien" to him. Mr. Sargent also denied that he consulted with Apple on his negotiations with Amazon. He said that the practice of telling one client about his talks with a rival client was bad business and bad ethics, if only because an executive for one retailer might take a job with another retailer and reveal what Sargent had said. "There's no trust left (if that happens)," Mr. Sargent explained. The rise of e-books is the trial's backdrop, from Amazon's introduction of the Kindle reading device in 2007, to the explosive growth of digital sales in 2008 and 2009. All the while, publishers' feared that Amazon was dominating the market and selling books at unsustainable prices. Both Mr. Ryan and Apple attorney Orin Snyder noted a Macmillan strategic memo from 2009 that referred to the e-book market as "fluid" and to the likely emergence of Barnes & Noble, Google and other new competitors. Asked by Mr. Ryan whether the memo contradicted Mr. Sargent's pre-trial testimony that Amazon was consolidating its hold, Sargent said it didn't. He called Barnes & Noble's entry a question mark because the superstore chain had no experience designing electronic devices. Sony, an early maker of e-readers, was "clearly failing." And Google, he said, has never showed a knack for retail. "They're very good at running search engines," Mr. Sargent said. With publishers accused of collusion on prices, Mr. Sargent found himself discussing the shifting relationships among rival houses. They might fight to sign up a given author, or juggle release schedules of popular books in hopes of gaining a coveted No. 1 spot on one of the New York Times' best-seller lists. At other times, they are business partners with common goals, whether fighting piracy or censorship. Overall, publishers do not view the market as a zero sum game in which the purchase of a Macmillan book comes at the expense of one from Simon & Schuster or Random House. They are more likely to see a sale for one publisher as helpful to others, what economists might call a "multiplier effect." Just as reading often begets more reading, the sale of a book, hopefully, leads to the sale of more books. Referring to Amazon's disabling of the "buy" tabs in 2010, Mr. Ryan asked Mr. Sargent whether he was worried a customer who might have bought a Macmillan book would instead buy one from a different publisher. No, Mr. Sargent responded, he worried only that the customer didn't buy a Macmillan book. MEILLEURES MARQUES: Recalls St-Hubert Brand Chicken Chowder ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 5, 2013 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Allergy Alert Subcategory: Allergen - Egg, Allergen - Wheat Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Meilleures Marques Limitee Distribution: Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 8059 Affected products: Brand name Common name Size Code(s) on product ---------- ----------- ---- ------------------ St-Hubert Chicken Chowder 540 ml BB/MA 2015 AL 19 EST 142 214 12 110 UPC: 0 66701 00408 2 PACCAR: Recalls 17 T440 2013 and 2014 Models of KENWORTH Trucks --------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 7, 2013 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D. Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Other Units affected: 17 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2013202 TC ID number: 2013202 Manufacturer recall number: 13KWG On certain trucks, the slip-resistant surface of the cab access step is not aligned with the cab door opening. This could allow the user to slip and fall from the vehicle, which may result in personal injury. Correction: Dealers will replace the step assembly. Affected products: Makes and models affected -------------------------------------------- Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- KENWORTH T440 2013, 2014 PET VALU: Ontario Court of Appeal Upholds Opt-Out Process --------------------------------------------------------- Kirk Baert, writing for The Canadian Lawyer, reports that in May, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the validity of a class action opt-out process in which a group of class members engaged in a concerted attempt to pressure other class members to opt out of the action through the use of misinformation and pressure. Section 9 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 permits class members to opt out of a class proceeding during a finite period after certification of an action in a manner specifically set out in the court-approved notice. It is left to the courts to police the conduct of the class during the opt-out period in order to ensure class members are free to exercise their right to participate in or abstain from the class action on an informed, voluntary basis, free from undue influence. Judicial intervention in the opt-out process is necessary where defendants, class members, or other persons engage in misinformation, threats, intimidation, or coercion and the integrity of the process becomes compromised. 1250264 Ontario Inc. v. Pet Valu Canada Inc. concerned an appeal from an order made by the court addressing the validity of the opt-out process in a certified class proceeding. The action was brought on behalf of franchisees of the Pet Valu chain who claimed Pet Valu had a duty to share with its franchisees the volume discounts and rebates it received from suppliers. Communication with class members became an extremely contentious subject in this action and by order of the court, neither side was permitted to communicate with the class without court approval. Following the certification of the action, a group of franchisees who did not want to participate in the class action began to wage a concerted campaign to convince other franchisees to opt out. The franchisees waging the opt-out campaign conducted a telephone blitz, calling every franchisee to encourage them to opt out, and launching a web site voicing strong opposition to the class action. The result of this campaign was dramatic: 65 per cent of current franchisees and 10 per cent of former franchisees opted out of the class action, drastically reducing the size of the class but not gutting it. In response to the opt-out war waged by the dissident franchisees, the representative plaintiff moved to set aside certain opt-out notices. The motions judge identified many specific concerns with the information published on a web site, finding it both misleading and intimidating. Given the representative plaintiff was not permitted to communicate with other class members to correct this misleading information, it was reasonable to seek the court's directions. The motion judge found this behavior constituted a well-organized, systematic, and highly effective campaign to deal a "death blow" to the class action. Recognizing the impropriety of this conduct, the motion judge granted the motion in part by invalidating any opt-out notices received following the campaign and provided for a new opt-out period to take place following the final disposition of the action. On appeal, the court allowed the appeal and set aside the order invalidating the opt-out notices. The Court of Appeal recognized that class members ought to participate in or abstain from a class action on an informed, voluntary basis, free from undue influence. In this case, the court found this particular opt-out campaign did not cross the line. The court made that other cases, arising on different facts, and on a different record, may raise different considerations. For example, in 1176560 Ontario Ltd. v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Co. of Canada Ltd., the court held that an opt-out war has the potential to frustrate an important goal of the Class Proceedings Act, namely, access to justice. In that case, the defendant franchisor used various techniques to attempt to scare off class members. The court recognized in Great Atlantic & Pacific Co. that class actions, by their nature, can overcome economic barriers to redress by aggregating individual claims. Given the high cost of class action litigation, where the size of a class is dramatically reduced through defense coercion and intimidation, the entire calculus of the viability of the action comes into question. Moreover, significant time and expense will be required to combat the tactics used in the opt-out campaign maintained by a well-financed defendant. In Great Atlantic & Pacific Co., the court used s. 12 of the act to nullify the inappropriate steps the defendant had taken to "gut" the class action. In Pet Valu, the Court of Appeal confirmed that case-management judges do indeed have such powers and that they should exercise those powers in clear cases and on a clear record. More importantly, in Pet Valu, the Court of Appeal also confirmed that certification is not, and should not, be turned into a poll on the class actions. Accordingly, evidence going to whether class members do or do not favor the class action will almost always be irrelevant at the certification stage. PHILADELPHIA, PA: Lawyers File Motion to Reopen 1986 Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Campisi, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reports that more than a quarter-century may have passed since the case of Y.S. v. School District of Philadelphia first made its way into the courts, but as lawyers representing similar present-day plaintiffs tell it, not much has changed in the district's policies regarding foreign-language students. Attorneys from Drinker Biddle & Reath and the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia recently announced that they have filed a motion to reopen the class action dating back to 1986, litigation that was initiated by a then-teenage high-schooler from Cambodia who claimed he was misidentified as needing special education services because of the fact that school district officials failed to communicate with him in his native tongue. The 16-year-old, identified as "Y.S." in the original complaint, was labeled as "mentally retarded," and placed in isolation in a special education classroom where he fell even further behind academically, according to the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, which filed to reopen the case in late April. The plaintiff's school at the time failed to provide translation or interpretation services to the boy's parents, who also did not speak English, during his evaluation and placement process, according to the Public Interest Law Center. The attorneys stated that they had no choice but to seek to reopen the case since the school district has allegedly failed to meet the requirements of a 2010 stipulation amendment arising out of the original litigation in which the district would provide translation and interpretation services during IEP meetings and in special education documents, according to the Law Center. The term IEP stands for Individualized Education Program, which is something that all teachers of students with special needs must prepare in concert with a student's parents to address an individual student's academic goals. "Y.S. and his family are just one of thousands of families in Philadelphia who have been discriminated against by the District's failure to systematically address communication issues with non- English-speaking students and their families," the Law Center's attorneys stated in announcing their desire to reopen the 1986 case. "In spite of years of compliance monitoring and intervention, the District has persisted in its failure to provide the language support services mandated by federal law and mandates that came out of the original case." The original complaint, filed at the federal court in Philadelphia in late August 1986 by Education Law Center attorneys Leonard Rieser and Janet F. Stotland, alleged that the Philadelphia School District "failed to take sufficient steps to address the problems resulting from these students' and parents' limited proficiency in English," and as a result left the students without adequate services in areas including school counseling, English language and/or bilingual instruction, and special education. The plaintiff, "Y.S.," brought suit on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. The case was eventually given class certification by a federal judge. The initial complaint accused the district of violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Educational Opportunities Act, and various state statutes. In their May 13 memorandum in support of their motion to reopen the case, the attorneys -- they include Sonja Kerr and Michael Churchill of the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, Maura McInerney of the Education Law Center, and Paul H. Saint-Antoine and Chanda A. Miller of Drinker Biddle & Reath -- wrote that the plaintiffs in the original lawsuit received only minimal English as a Second Language instruction each school day, and as a result, students with limited English proficiency fell "significantly behind their native-English speaking peers in their educational progress." The issue was even more pronounced in students with special needs, the lawyers wrote, "because the District's lack of interpretation and translation services meant that the family members could not effectively participate in their child's education," something that is required by law. Throughout the course of the litigation, the attorneys wrote in their memorandum, various remedial orders and stipulations were entered to address the claims, and on Feb. 18, 2009, in an effort to bring a closure to the litigation's remedial process, the parties entered into a stipulation dealing with the district's English as a Second Language program, an amended stipulation of which was entered in October 2010, the record shows. Now, the plaintiffs' attorneys are claiming that the district has failed to comply with the stipulation, which included things like requiring the district to provide specific services to class members. The amended stipulation also obligates the district to provide "promptly, upon Plaintiffs' counsel's request, all documents generated or maintained in connection with the implementation of Amended Stipulation," the memorandum reads. The attorneys are now alleging that since the spring of 2011, advocates who regularly attend IEP team meetings for district students have reported that parents of students with IEPs are being denied equal access to the IEP team process." The lawyers claim that despite attempts during the past two years to obtain information and documents relating to the district's compliance with the stipulation, the district has "failed to cooperate in any meaningful way, as outlined by the history of the parties' communications over the course of the last two years." In a four-page response filed on May 16, attorney Miles H. Shore, who represents the district, requested that the court deny the plaintiffs' attorneys motion to reopen the case, writing that "attorneys should not pursue education reform by civil litigation unless they currently represent clients who have standing to pursue the claims." "The named plaintiffs may no longer have standing as class representatives to pursue enforcement of claims against the School District," Ms. Shore wrote. "The School District does not know if the named plaintiffs are alive and well and whether they are currently represented by the attorneys who entered their appearances for them." Ms. Shore also wrote that the district is requesting that the court order the plaintiffs' attorneys to produce current authorizations, powers of attorney, engagement letters or fee agreements signed by the named plaintiffs in the 1986 case or their parents, authorizing the lawyers to represent the clients in this case. Ms. Shore also noted that, due to the district's current "severely-distressed financial condition," and the fact that major changes have taken place in the governance and management of the district since the amended stipulation was agreed to in 2010, the district is now considering to move to vacate the stipulation. PHILLIPS AGENCY: Fisher & Phillips Discusses Court Ruling --------------------------------------------------------- Andria L. Ryan, Esq., at Fisher & Phillips LLP, reports that in Farmer v. The Phillips Agency, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia denied a plaintiff's motion to certify a class action, under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, consisting of all individuals who had been the subject of an adverse criminal-background report, whether accurate or inaccurate, generated by defendant The Phillips Agency. In doing so, the Northern District of Georgia became the first court to explicitly state that a plaintiff bringing claims under the FCRA must establish that the underlying consumer report was not "complete and up to date." The defendant, The Phillips Agency, is a small, family-owned consumer reporting agency. It has an impressive record for accuracy -- over a five-year period, The Phillips Agency generated nearly 15,000 consumer reports that contained some adverse information, ranging from serious felony convictions to minor traffic and other summary infractions. During the same period, the agency received just four consumer disputes, and each of these was promptly resolved. In December 2010, plaintiff Cynthia Gale Hamilton Farmer's employer engaged the agency to conduct a criminal background search on her for employment purposes. The search disclosed three "possible" matches, including one individual with the same first and maiden name as the plaintiff. That individual had been convicted of two felonies and one misdemeanor. The Phillips Agency followed its established quality-control procedures to ensure that the information was complete and up to date, and released the "possible match" report to Farmer's employer. The employer notified Farmer of the adverse information and Farmer ultimately resolved the matter with her employer and suffered no loss of pay. Despite this resolution, Ms. Farmer filed a putative class action against The Phillips Agency under the FCRA. Ms. Farmer sought $1,000 for every individual who in the past five years had been the subject of a consumer report that contained any adverse criminal or public-record information -- which would have been some number less than the 15,000 adverse reports generated during that time. Ms. Farmer sought to certify an expansive class that included individuals who had been the subject of adverse reports involving matters including bankruptcies, civil judgments or tax liens, as well as criminal reports. She also sought to include individuals who had been the subject of accurate consumer reports and made no attempt to limit her class to people who had been the subject of inaccurate consumer reports. In a decision of first impression, the court rejected the plaintiff's argument, holding that the FCRA section required a threshold showing of "inaccuracy." The court first looked to the statute's text. According to the court, the very fact that the statute included language establishing a standard for when a consumer report is "complete and up to date" suggested that the consumer report must be inaccurate to establish a cause of action. The court's decision not only clarifies the essential elements of a cause of action under the FCRA section, it makes it considerably more difficult for plaintiffs to certify class actions under the provision. Whereas plaintiffs previously relied on the supposed uniformity of a consumer reporting agency's procedures alone to satisfy Rule 23, they can no longer do so. Under Farmer, the parties must instead conduct "a highly individualized inquiry into the content of each consumer's report in order to determine if the adverse information is complete and up to date." In nearly every instance, this will prevent plaintiffs from satisfying the typicality and predominance requirements necessary to certify a class under Rule 23. The effects of the Farmer decision likely will be felt well outside the Northern District of Georgia and, in the absence of any contrary authority, restrict plaintiffs' ability to maintain class action lawsuits under Section 1681k of the FCRA. PHILIPS LIGHTING: Recalls 8,100 Metal Halide Lamps Over Fire Risk ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Philips Lighting Company, of Bath, New York, announced a voluntary recall of about 8,100 Metal Halide Lamps. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The internal wiring can arc causing the lamp to catch fire or the glass to shatter. This poses fire and laceration hazards. Philips has received one report of a failure that damaged a lamp. The Company has received no reports of injury or property damage. The recalled items are egg-shaped, clear glass, 150-watt industrial metal halide lamps. They are about five inches long and have a medium base. Recalled lamps were manufactured between November 2012 and March 2013. "Philips," "150W" "ALTO M142/0," "Hg," "USA 3A-1" and "MHC150/U/MP/4K" are stamped on the lamp. Each lamp comes in a protective cardboard sleeve. The Philips logo appears at the top of the protective sleeve on all sides. "MasterColor," "Ceramic Metal Halide ED-17 Protected," "Hg - Lamp Contains Mercury" are on the side of the sleeve. "MHC150/U/MP/4K ALTO" and Universal Product Code (UPC) "46677 37724" are on a label on the side of the sleeve. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/x3LUSM The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of America and sold at professional electrical wholesale supply distributors for use by industrial and commercial property owners from November 2012 to April 2013 for about $20. The lamps have been installed in retail stores and recreational facilities. Consumers should immediately stop using the lamps and contact Philips for a full refund or a replacement. Philips will issue a refund as a credit to all distributors with recalled lamps in their inventories and will replace recalled lamps that have been installed at no cost to the consumer. Philips Lighting Company may be reached at (800) 372-3331, from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday, at e-mail qualityadvisory2013@philips.com, or online at http://www.philips.com/recall/for more information. PILOT FLYING J: Seeks Dismissal of Suit on Technical Grounds ------------------------------------------------------------ Walter F. Roche Jr., writing for The Tennessean, reports that a Mississippi trucker has joined 10 others and filed a class action suit against Pilot Flying J in federal court charging fraud and deceptive sales practices based on allegations in an affidavit filed by an FBI agent. The suit -- filed on May 24 in Jackson, Miss. -- charges that Pilot secretly reduced rebates that had been promised to Mike Campbell by Pilot sales executives. It states that he has been a Pilot customer since Jan. 1, 2005. The suit, like others filed in state and federal courts, bases the charges on an affidavit filed in U.S. District Court in Knoxville following an April 15 raid on Pilot's Knoxville headquarters by FBI and IRS agents. The affidavit, which was attached to Mr. Campbell's suit, quotes from the transcripts of secretly taped meetings of Pilot sales executives in which they discussed the scheme to secretly reduce the rebates promised to truckers who they thought would not notice. "Defendants knowingly engaged in the deceptive practices, which constitute unfair and deceptive conduct in trade or commerce," the 22-page complaint states. The suit charges that the amount owed to the truckers exceeds $5 million. James A. Haslam III, Pilot's chief executive officer, has denied any knowledge of the rebate-skimming scheme and has vowed to repay with interest any amounts owed to the trucking firms. The suit is similar to ones filed by truckers in Florida, Georgia, Arkansas and Alabama. A suit filed in circuit court in Knoxville was originally filed by a Georgia trucking firm and it has now been joined by three other trucking firms. Lawyers for Pilot have asked that the latest amended complaint in that case be thrown out on technical grounds. RIPLEY SCHOOL: Faces Class Action Over Plan to Transfer Students ---------------------------------------------------------------- WIVB.com reports that dozens of parents are filing a class-action lawsuit against a school district in Chautauqua County. They're fighting to block a plan that will send more than a hundred students to a different high school. Come September, Ripley High School students will be sent to a different school. The community recently voted to send grades 7-12 to Chautauqua Lake, effectively closing Ripley High School. Wanda Bentley believes she and other neighbors have been deceived. "They were told it would be a 20-minute bus ride, now it's turned into an hour. They were told they'd get huge tax savings, now the board president says we'll be lucky if we break even," Wanda Bentley said. She is part of a group bringing a class-action lawsuit against the Ripley School District. The group is looking to nullify the contract signed by board president Bob Bentley this past April. She claims some voters were disenfranchised. "The main goal here is to look out for the students in the school who are not given a fair chance to stay in their district because of, how do I want to say it, deceit on behalf of the school board," Wanda Bentley said. This lawsuit also seeks to remove Bob Bentley and three others from the school board, claiming election law violations. Steven Cohen is representing Wanda Bentley and her group. "Because of funneling of funds away from the high school, it was able to go into receivers of money that we believe benefited Mr. Bentley and other board members," Mr. Cohen said. The contract explains, the Ripley School District would pay Chautauqua Lake about $7,000, per student, through 2015. But the contract expires in 2018, and fees still have to be worked out for the following three years. It could all be voided if school districts are consolidated or a regional high school is built. The lawsuit is expected to play out in the months to come. SEARS CORP: Supreme Court to Weigh on Washer Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- The Washington Times reports that the final weeks of a Supreme Court's term tend to be the most provocative. Hotly debated issues can take the longest to decide. When the court meets in conference on May 30, it should exploit another opportunity to crack down on greedy class-action trial lawyers. In March, the justices decided by a vote of 5 to 4 to restrain the ability of lawyers to sue in the name of a large group of people who may or may not want to participate in a lawsuit. Winning lawyers often pocket millions from their slice of the judgment, and "victims" walk away with a few dollars and a discount coupon. The court has this second chance to strike a blow against jackpot justice by agreeing to hear Sears v. Butler, the second case of smelly washing machines to make its way to the Supreme Court. Consumers who can't or won't read the manufacturer's instructions before using Whirlpool washing machines can in rare circumstances detect a moldy odor. Once trial lawyers learned this, they set out to find clients, dreaming of fat settlements. They obtained certification for class action from judges in the 6th and 7th U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals. Taking the issue to court often has little to do with resolving an actual problem. The lawyer for Sears, Timothy Bishop, argued that the moldy scent is rare. "There's no class here," says Mr. Bishop. "Fewer than 3 percent of buyers noticed a musty smell in the first five years of machine ownership. But the manufacturer's warranty is explicitly designed to address those cases and any others in which consumer products unexpectedly malfunction." Judge Richard A. Posner of the 7th Circuit nevertheless ruled that it was more convenient to consider the lawsuits all at once. Only a small number of consumers were actually affected, but everyone within a certain geographic area who owned one of the machines was drawn into the suit, like it or not. In granting class-action certification, Judge Posner ignored the Supreme Court's guidance on class certification, which was handed down in a 2011 sex- discrimination case against Wal-Mart. Justice Antonin Scalia warned in that lawsuit that parties to class actions "must be prepared to prove that there are in fact . . . common questions of law or fact." Judge Posner said it was "a question of efficiency" to certify, with the common issue being whether the machines were defective, leaving the facts of the defect to be determined during the trial. The Supreme Court should weigh in on this crucial point, the point about leverage. Once a trial lawyer gets class certification, his ability to extract a large settlement increases manyfold. Given the risk of losing such a suit, manufacturers choose to settle and pay huge sums to make the case go away. The high court should raise the bar for class certification. Otherwise, manufacturers will continue to settle when they shouldn't, the price of appliances will increase, and only greed wins. That's what stinks. SEQUEL NATURALS: Recalls Vega(R) Bars Due to Undeclared Milk ------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: June 6, 2013 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Updated Allergy Alert Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Sequel Naturals Ltd. Distribution: National The public warning issued on May 25, 2013, has been updated to include additional products. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Sequel Naturals Ltd. are warning people with allergies to milk not to consume the Vega(R) brand bars. The affected products may contain milk which is not declared on the label. There has been one reported allergic reaction. Consumption of these products may cause a serious or life- threatening reaction in persons with allergies to milk. The distributor, Sequel Naturals Ltd., Burnaby, BC, is voluntarily recalling the affected products from the marketplace. The CFIA is monitoring the effectiveness of the recall. Affected products: Brand name Common name Size Code(s) on product ---------- ----------- ---- ------------------ Vega(R) Sport Protein Bar 60 g From 12100-C to 13037C Chocolate Coconut UPC: 8 38766 10830 8 Best By date: From 10-MAY-13 to 06-MAR-14 Vega(R) Sport Protein Bar 60 g From 12095-C to 13038C Chocolate Saviseed UPC: 8 38766 10831 5 Best By date: From 01-MAY-13 to 07-MAR-14 Vega(R) Sport Endurance Bar 50 g From 12184 C to 12327C Acai Berry UPC: 8 38766 10731 8 Best By date: From 01-AUG-13 to 01-DEC-13 Vega(R) Sport Endurance Bar 50 g 12185C, 12217C, Mocha 12328C, 13064C, 22273C UPC: 8 38766 10730 1 Best By date: 01-AUG-13, 01-SEP-13, 01-OCT-13, 01-DEC-13, 01-APR-13 Vega(R) One Bar All-in-one 63 g 13026C nutrition Double Chocolate UPC: 8 38766 17003 9 Best By date: 26-FEB-14 Vega(R) One Bar All-in-one 63 g 13028C, 13095C nutrition Chocolate Almond UPC: 8 38766 17004 6 Best By date: 28-FEB-14, 04-MAY-14 Vega(R) One Bar All-in-one 63 g 13032C, 13071C nutrition Chocolate Cherry UPC: 8 38766 17005 3 Best By date: 01-MAR-14, 07-APR-14 Vega(R) Vibrancy Bar Berry 50 g From 12182 C to 13153C Bliss UPC: 8 38766 14001 8 Best By date: From 01-JUL-13 to 01-JUL-14 Vega(R) Vibrancy Bar 50 g From 12180 C to 13053C Wholesome Original UPC: 8 38766 14006 3 Best By date: From 01-JUL-13 to 01-MAR-14 Vega(R) Whole Food Energy 63 g From 22141 to 22321 Bar Berry Flavour UPC: 8 38766 00582 9 Best By date: From 01-JUN-13 to 01-DEC-13 Vega(R) Whole Food Energy 63 g From 22322 to 32271 Bar Chocolate Flavour UPC: 8 38766 00581 2 Best By date: From 01-JUN-13 to 01-DEC-13 Vega(R) Whole Food Energy 63 g From 12141 to 22320 Bar Natural Flavor UPC: 8 38766 00583 6 Best By date: From 01-JUN-13 to 01-DEC-13 Vega(R) Whole Food Vibrancy 50 g 32139 Bar Chocolate Decadence UPC: 8 38766 00550 8 Best By date: 01-JUN-13 Vega(R) Whole Food Vibrancy 50 g 42139 Bar Green Synergy UPC: 8 38766 00551 5 Best By date: 01-JUN-13 Vega(R) Whole food Vibrancy 50 g 22139 Bar Wholesome Original UPC: 8 38766 00552 2 Best By date: 01-JUN-13 Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/i3CHHl TGI FRIDAY'S: Faces Consumer Fraud Class Action ----------------------------------------------- Mary Pat Gallagher, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that a putative consumer fraud class action accuses 13 T.G.I. Friday's restaurants in New Jersey of selling cheap liquor masquerading as high-end brands like Grey Goose Vodka and Cuervo Gold Tequila and charging premium prices. The suit, Pasieka v. Briad Restaurant Group, MER-L-1151-13, was filed in Mercer County Superior Court on May 24, two days after the state Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control raided 29 establishments in the culmination of a year-long investigation dubbed "Operation Swill." Plaintiffs Kristi Pasieka and Nicole Ruglio, of Monmouth County, seek to represent an estimated class of more than 5,000 people who, between May 22, 2012 and May 22, 2013, ordered and were charged for premium liquors at any one of the raided T.G.I. Friday's, located in Old Bridge, West Orange, East Windsor, North Brunswick, Piscataway, Freehold, Marlboro, Hazlet, East Hanover, Linden, Hamilton, Springfield and Clifton. The plaintiffs claim that owner and operator Briad Group, of Livingston, runs the franchises according to a uniform set of procedures and policies, including a "concerted and deliberate policy . . . to inflate its profits from liquor sales by charging customers premium prices for allegedly premium liquor and then substituting a cheaper, cut-rate brand for the premium liquor brand ordered by the customer." They say the fact that the ABC found the same practice occurred at multiple franchise locations on more than one occasion and after several rounds of tests shows that the substitutions were not the work of a rogue bartender or bar manager, "but rather was a common course of conduct and uniform policy implemented by the Briad Group" and consistently followed at all of the raided locations. Both named plaintiffs claim they were scammed at the T.G.I. Friday's in Hamilton. Ms. Pasieka says she bought a purported Grey Goose vodka in March 2013, while Ms. Ruglio claims she purchased what she thought was Cuervo Gold Tequila on one visit and Kettle One Vodka on another. They allege the uniform policy or common course of conduct constituted an unconscionable commercial practice under the Consumer Fraud Act and that they each suffered an ascertainable loss, as required by the statute: the difference between the premium price they paid and the lesser value of the cut-rate liquor they were served. The suit seeks reimbursement, treble damages and legal fees. The case has been assigned to Judge Darlene Pereksta. The plaintiff's lawyer, Stephen DeNittis, of DeNittis Osefchen in Marlton, says "this is classic consumer fraud." He calls the estimate of a 5,000-member class "conservative," adding that he would be open to extending the class period if he obtains information indicating the practice went on longer than one year. Other potential plaintiffs have contacted him and he is contemplating adding more locations, he says. Briad president Rick Barbrick released a statement saying the company had not yet reviewed the complaint and was thus, "not clear regarding its merits," but "we reiterate our ongoing mission to ensure that all of our strict bar and beverage standards are being followed and that our commitment to integrity is being adhered to in all actions." Mr. Barbrick also said: "Briad will take the steps necessary to correct issues identified through our investigation, including the complete retraining of our teams so that guests have full confidence in the quality of our food, drink and service." In a separate statement, T.G.I. Friday's president Ricky Richardson called the ABC allegations "very disturbing" and, if true, "a violation of our company's values and our extensive bar and beverage standards which are designed to deliver the highest guest experience in our restaurants." Richardson further stated, "We have zero tolerance for actions that undermine the trust of our guests and call into question the reputation we have built up over the past 48 years." Operation Swill began with customer complaints and a confidential informant and involved sending investigators to 63 licensed establishments throughout the state where they ordered drinks "neat" -- with no ice or mixer -- and tested 150 samples with a portable device that can provide quick preliminary results. Suspect samples were then sent to the brand manufacturers for further testing. Thirty samples were found to be misbranded. The ABC claims one drink was rubbing alcohol with caramel coloring but did not identify the source or if it was a T.G.I. Friday's. The May 22 raids were carried out by more than 100 state employees, who seized all open bottles of more than 20 premium brands, about 1,000 bottles in all. The attorney general's office and ABC decline comment through spokeswoman Rachel Goemaat. DeNittis says he is helped by a 2011 Appellate Division ruling, in Dugan v. T.G.I. Friday's, that allowed a putative class action under the Consumer Fraud Act to go forward against T.G.I. Friday's over its alleged practice of charging more for drinks in the dining area than at the bar. Customers allegedly experienced sticker shock when they got the check because drink prices were not listed on the menu. The court rejected T.G.I. Friday's argument that the Consumer Fraud Act did not apply because alcoholic beverage sales are regulated by state alcohol laws, finding no conflict between the statutory schemes. The case is ongoing. TORONTO: Activists to Move Ahead With Police Carding Practice Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Patty Winsa, writing for Toronto Star, reports that community activists and lawyers are moving ahead with plans to launch a Charter challenge as well as a class action lawsuit to try to stop the controversial Toronto police practice known as "carding." The group has been meeting since a Toronto Star investigation published last year showed that officers stop and document -- or card -- black and brown people at disproportionately high rates. The series led to criticism of the practice by activists such as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Law Union of Ontario and the Toronto Police Accountability Coalition led by former mayor John Sewell. The Toronto Police Service maintains that carding is legal. The police board has asked the city's auditor general to conduct an independent review of the data kept by police, who record race along with other personal information when they stop and document an individual. But that review, as well as a legal opinion from the city, are months away. UNITED STATES: Group Seeks Class Action Status for Medicaid Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that 13 severely disabled residents who sued the state last year after their Medicaid budgets were dramatically cut are asking a federal judge to make the case a class-action lawsuit on behalf of the roughly 3,600 people who receive medical care through Idaho's Developmentally Disabled Medicaid Wavier program. UNITED STATES: Number of Eligibility Workers at Issue in DSS Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Christine Stuart, writing for CT News Junkie, reports that at the heart of the argument in a class action lawsuit set to resume on May 9 in U.S. District Court is whether the state Department of Social Services has enough workers to process Medicaid eligibility applications in a timely manner. Arguing for the plaintiffs, New Haven Legal Assistance Association attorney Sheldon Toubman questioned Astread Ferron-Poole, chief of staff to Commissioner Roderick Bremby, about the number of eligibility workers. In July 2002, before the 2003 layoffs under former Gov. John G. Rowland, Mr. Toubman said there were 845 eligibility workers. Today, there are 881 and that includes the 220 new hires created under last year's state budget. "What has happened to enrollment during that time?" Mr. Toubman asked. "It's gone up," Ms. Ferron-Poole testified. Mr. Toubman pointed out that as of May 2, 2013, there were 619,579 individuals enrolled in the program. Almost double the nearly 346,000 who were enrolled in the program in 2002. "So, you're still basically flat?" Mr. Toubman asked Ms. Ferron- Poole. "I don't think that's the correct question to ask," she replied. She said it ignores the modernization effort the department has undertaken to upgrade its technology and phone system -- changes designed to speed up application processing. Currently, all applications are submitted on paper and hardly any of the eligibility work is being done online. There is a pilot program in Waterbury where the applications are being scanned and turned into a digital documents, but the other 11 DSS regional offices have yet to employ the technology. "Eighteen months from now it will be replaced," Ms. Ferron-Poole said of the old eligibility system. But she said some of the other improvements are scheduled to begin in two or three months. Ms. Ferron-Poole also testified that it takes between eight to 10 months to train eligibility workers, so the 120 people hired last summer are just now able to process applications on their own. "We will begin to see they are making a difference," Ms. Ferron- Poole testified. U.S. District Court Judge Alvin Thompson seemed surprised that it would take a worker eight to 10 months to be able to begin processing applications. "I guess I'm not understanding," Judge Thompson said. "My law students are doing research on their first day." Ms. Ferron-Poole, who has worked for the department for 25 years, said it takes a college degree to be an eligibility worker, but "it's not routine work." She said workers are generally not productive at all until they've been on the job for at least six months. Eligibility workers process applications for Medicaid, food stamps, and long-term care. A memo from Darlene Klase, the director of training for DSS, said the department needed an additional 540 employees on top of the 661 it had at the time -- for a total of 1,201. DSS was given 220 more for a total of 881. Mr. Toubman says department still is short about 676 additional employees if it wants to keep up with demand. He tried to ascertain from Ms. Ferron-Poole the likelihood of the department's ability to hire more workers under a statewide hiring freeze. Ms. Ferron-Poole said the commissioner requested more hiring after Office of Policy and Management Secretary Ben Barnes announced a statewide hiring freeze on Jan. 22. "What I do know is we are in the process of filling 35 eligibility positions," Ms. Ferron-Poole said on May 20. "We requested those 35 positions." She couldn't recall the total number requested, but she recalled that the 35 the department received was less than what had been requested. According to DSS spokesman David Dearborn, those 35 positions are not new positions to be added to the 220. Rather, he said, they were new vacancies "because of staff departures." Mr. Toubman said the revelation that the department had to request permission to even hire 35 workers to fill vacancies demonstrates that the department is in the unsatisfactory position of having no autonomy over hiring. But the department maintains that Mr. Toubman seems to want to ignore the technology improvements on the horizon for the agency. A report by a consultant called First Data suggests that the planned technological upgrades will save the agency the labor of about 395 workers under the best case scenario. Assistant Attorney General Jennifer Callahan argued that First Data's conclusion means the department will have enough workers processing applications within the 220 new hires. Ms. Ferron-Poole testified that the department hired an outside contractor to look at how it's operating before the technological upgrades are in place. She said she expects that the contractor's assessments will help the DSS increase efficiencies and improve processing times. Mr. Toubman estimated the department would still be about 290 workers short even if it was able to achieve greater efficiencies by employing technology. "The question of liability in this case is what is happening today to comply with the law, not what will happen or what they hope will happen in the future," he said. Mr. Toubman pointed out that the percentage of "unexcused delays" in processing Medicaid applications has gone up since the start of this year. At the end of April, the number of "unexcused delays" was 26 percent, which was up from 12 percent in March. The total number of overdue applications in April was 43 percent and 39 percent in March. Federal law says the applications must be processed within 45 days and many are languishing well-beyond that time period, which is why Mr. Toubman filed the lawsuit back in January 2012. VALENCIA HOLDING: Attorney Seeks to Limit Mandatory Arbitration --------------------------------------------------------------- Will Carless, writing for Voice of San Diego, reports that in a case pending before the California Supreme Court, Hal Rosner, an attorney with the Auto Fraud Legal Center, is seeking to limit the scope of mandatory arbitration clauses. Mr. Rosner was apoplectic. The Scripps Ranch lawyer turned ever-darker shades of pink as he outlined what he called the U.S. Supreme Court's war against consumers. He was brandishing a 28-inch, yellow automobile purchase contract and waving it like a pennant. "It's a basic, fundamental attack on the United States Constitution, and it's why our Supreme Court should walk around with shame," Mr. Rosner said. "Our Supreme Court violated the United States constitutional right to jury trial like a group of little whores." Mr. Rosner's a trial lawyer, so it's fair to chalk up some of his outrage down to the natural theatrics of his profession. But he's also got good reason to be mad. And so do consumers. In a game-changing 2011 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt a huge blow to consumer advocates. In a 5-4 ruling, the court essentially said that not only is it OK for companies to put clauses in their contracts forcing customers to settle disputes in private arbitration, but they can also bar customers from bringing class action lawsuits against them or even arbitrating their disputes as a class. The decision in the case, AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, a class action lawsuit that originated in San Diego, involved customers who had been charged small amounts for phones advertised as "free," overturned years of law developed in the California Legislature and upheld by its courts to protect consumers against a seemingly unstoppable trend. For decades, businesses across the country have increasingly been writing their way out of the judicial system. By inserting "mandatory arbitration clauses" into their contracts, companies ranging from auto dealers to cell phone companies to health care providers have cut off their customers' access to the courts, forcing them instead to settle disputes in private arbitration. That has long concerned consumer advocates and even some industry insiders, who say arbitration is biased in favor of big business. But, for many observers, those worries are nothing compared with the U.S. Supreme Court's 2011 decision. "It's earth-shattering. It takes away your right to hold companies accountable for transactions that we all engage in every day," said Deepak Gupta, one of the attorneys who represented the plaintiffs in the Concepcion case before the U.S. Supreme Court. "We all assume that we have a right to hold a company accountable if they're cheating us. We assume the consumer protection laws will apply. What's frustrating is the average person doesn't know that when they take out a contract . . . they've given away their rights." The Golden State for Consumer Protection Historically, California hasn't been a bad place to be a consumer. The Legislature in the Golden State has spent the last few decades trying to protect the little guys, and successive big court decisions have upheld consumer rights. In the 1990s and early 2000s, as mandatory arbitration clauses became all the rage for corporations across the country, the California Legislature pounced, passing a slew of laws in 2002 aimed at protecting consumers from the ever-growing trend toward private justice. (Though one of the key laws has since been widely ignored by much of the arbitration industry). The activism wasn't limited to lawmakers. Several high-profile lawsuits concerning arbitration clauses found their way to the California Supreme Court. The granddaddy of these was a case called Discover Bank v. Superior Court, in 2005. The California Supreme Court ruled in that case that companies couldn't put blanket bans on class action lawsuits in their contracts. To do so was "unconscionable" in legalese. It wouldn't fly. Over the next few years, at least 13 other states ruled that blanket class action bans by companies were illegal, according to a research paper by Myriam Gilles of the Cardozo School of Law and Gary Friedman, a New York attorney. Then, in 2011, California's groundbreaking rules were put to the ultimate legal test. The Concepcion case originated in 2006, when a San Diego couple, Vincent and Liza Concepcion, signed a deal offered by AT&T to receive a "free" phone if they signed a two-year cell phone contract. The couple was later charged $30.22 in sales tax for the phone, and they sued AT&T in a class action. But AT&T had a mandatory arbitration clause in its contract with the Concepcions and other customers barring them from suing the company in court. The clause also said that each customer had to arbitrate his or her case individually, and that groups of consumers couldn't come together to fight their cases as a class arbitration. AT&T asked the U.S. District Court in San Diego to dismiss the class action based on that clause. But the court refused, citing the rule that had been established in the Discover Bank case. AT&T appealed to the 9th Circuit and eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in 2010. The high court's ruling -- which found that the Federal Arbitration Act trumped individual states' decisions to forbid class action bans -- largely dismantled California's years of consumer protection efforts. The impact of the ruling was swift and far-reaching. A 2012 report by Public Citizen, an advocacy group, and the National Association of Consumer Advocates, found that judges nationwide had struck down 76 potential class action cases since the ruling. "These cases undoubtedly would have included the claims of thousands -- if not hundreds of thousands -- of consumers," the report states. F. Paul Bland, a senior attorney at Public Justice, a public interest law firm in Washington, D.C., and one of the country's leading consumer advocates, said the U.S. Supreme Court took away the only method by which consumers can get justice when they've been bilked out of small amounts of money. Companies are now free to scam their customers out of small amounts, Mr. Bland said, and even if the customers realize they're being scammed, they're almost certainly not going to bother fighting the company in an individual arbitration. And, even if they wanted to challenge the company, few lawyers would be willing to take on such small cases, he said. "Concepcion is being interpreted in a way that lets corporations get away with cheating people, in complicated ways, out of sums of money that aren't that big to the individual, but add up to hundreds of millions of dollars to the company," Mr. Bland said. "Concepcion is being interpreted in a way that lets corporations get away with cheating people, in complicated ways, out of sums of money that aren't that big to the individual, but add up to hundreds of millions of dollars to the company," Mr. Bland said. Creating a Better System Andrew Pincus, the attorney who argued the Concepcion case on AT&T's behalf, said the shift away from class actions is actually good for consumers. Mr. Pincus said AT&T's mandatory arbitration clause provides excellent remedies for consumers who have been legitimately wronged. Consumers can recoup bonuses from the company worth thousands of dollars more than their claim, he said, and lawyers have impetus to fight arbitrations, since they're entitled to double their fees if they win. Mandatory arbitration clauses like AT&T's are a much better way to filter out frivolous claims against companies, Mr. Pincus said. Mr. Pincus' arguments would have more merit in a world where every business has an arbitration clause that provides legitimate, generous bonuses to successful plaintiffs, Gupta countered. But many arbitration clauses don't, and only allow wronged consumers to recoup the small amounts of money they have lost, he said. And Gupta argued there's no incentive for companies to provide such bonuses in their contracts. The End for Consumer Class Actions? Jeremy Robinson, a class action attorney at San Diego firm Casey Gerry, said the Concepcion decision has undoubtedly had a dampening effect on his firm's class action business. But that doesn't mean consumer class actions are dead, Robinson said. His firm's lawyers still look closely at all potential class actions brought to them, even if the consumers have signed a contract that bars class actions. That's because the U.S. Supreme Court left another door for consumers open just a crack. At its core, the Concepcion case was all about the legal concept of "unconscionability." The key question was whether it was unconscionable for companies to flat-out bar class actions in their contracts. The U.S. Supreme Court said no, it wasn't. But in the same decision, the court left open the possibility that mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts can be found unconscionable for other reasons. There are all sorts of ways that mandatory arbitration clauses can, and are, struck down by the courts. A company is unlikely, for example, to get away with a mandatory arbitration clause that includes a $10,000 bill to consumers for arbitrating the case. That's where Mr. Rosner, in Scripps Ranch, comes in. Mr. Rosner currently has a big case pending before the California Supreme Court. The lawsuit hinges on that long, yellow contract that Mr. Rosner is fond of waving about. Mr. Rosner's case, Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co. LLC, argues that the standard-issue contract long used by California car dealerships is unconscionable for a number of reasons, including the fact that the mandatory arbitration clause is printed on the back of the form. The lawsuit is significant because it's an opportunity for the California Supreme Court to further define what is allowable in a contract, Mr. Bland said. But it's also limited -- if the court finds that the specific form of contract the car dealers were using was not allowed, they can simply rewrite the contract, he said. To avoid class action lawsuits, then, all big companies need to do is to bar customers from bringing such lawsuits in their contracts, and make sure the contracts are otherwise legally airtight, Mr. Bland said. Mr. Rosner's case illustrates the remarkable sea change that's taken place in consumer laws in California: Not long ago, California was pioneering measures that enshrined consumers' rights. Now consumer attorneys must pore through corporate contracts, picking apart clauses or insertions that might be unfair and asking courts to toss them out in a piecemeal attempt to regain some of those rights. All Eyes on Washington For consumer advocates, this issue has pretty much hit a dead end in the judicial branch of the American political system. Unless the U.S. Supreme Court makes a U-turn on arbitration clauses, advocates like Mr. Bland are only going to get incremental help from the court system. That leaves the legislative branch and executive branches. "Until something comes out of Washington, D.C., consumers, workers, patients, investors, are in a lot of trouble," said San Francisco attorney Cliff Palefsky, a longtime opponent of mandatory arbitration. On the legislative side, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) re-introduced legislation he wrote in response to the Concepcion ruling. But several consumer advocates said the Arbitration Fairness Act is dead in the water, given that the Republican House majority is unlikely to even consider the bill. That leaves the executive branch. Last year, President Obama's newly minted Consumer Financial Protection Bureau launched a public inquiry into arbitration clauses. That was more than a year ago, and there's been little movement from the agency since. Without action from the very top, Californians will just have to live with the fact that a longtime remedy against the companies they spend their money on is rapidly disappearing. WAL-MART STORES: Faces Class Action Over Suitable Cashier Seating ----------------------------------------------------------------- Barbara Farfan, writing for About.com, reports that in May Wal-Mart found itself on the defending end of another massive employee class action suit in California when a California judge certified a class of 10,000 employees who think Wal-Mart broke the law when it refused to provide suitable seating for its cashiers who requested it. Wal-Mart's response to this latest class action certification was not that it provided appropriate seating within parameters of existing laws. Instead the response from Wal-Mart's legal team was that the class shouldn't have been certified at all, and instead, each cashier should have to file and fight an individual lawsuit. Publicly Wal-Mart is not denying that it has consciously chosen to deny seating to its cashiers. Reportedly Wal-Mart's argument against providing seating is that cashiers need to be able to move around to look inside carts, stock shelves, and greet customers. In addition to the suitable seating lawsuit, the perpetually busy Wal-Mart legal team is currently defending itself against an individual employee lawsuit filed recently for malicious prosecution and against a suit filed by a group of warehouse workers claiming poor working conditions and safety violations. A judge recently ruled that even though Wal-Mart does not directly employ the warehouse workers, the company could still be named as part of the lawsuit because it owns and/or leases the warehouse facilities where the bad working conditions allegedly exist. Wal-Mart is also on the legal offensive with employees, filing lawsuits against groups that are daring to protest against Wal- Mart's working conditions and employment policies. A suit against the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UCFW) in March, and a separate suit filed this month against OUR Walmart group organizers both seek injunctions to stop protest activities from happening in and around Wal-Mart stores and at the upcoming Wal-Mart shareholders' meetings. Wal-Mart leaders don't really address the issues fueling the protests are valid. They just want the courts to help them shut the protestors up. That seems right. And then there's the tragic Bangladesh factories where employees burned to death while creating the garments that would stock Wal- Mart shelves. The Bangladesh tragedy is not a legal battle as much as it is a moral debate. Wal-Mart's stance is that they weren't Wal-Mart's employees, so what happened at the factory is neither Wal-Mart's fault nor responsibility. So . . . the official ethical position from the world's largest retail chain is . . . What happens in Bangladesh stays in Bangladesh? It's so curious that Wal-Mart has never earned a spot on the Most Ethical Retail Companies list. Certainly Wal-Mart is not the only major U.S. retail chain that is being taken to court by its employees. Just this month, the Wet Seal (WTSL) chain agreed to pay $5.5 million to settle a racial discrimination lawsuit that had been filed by three of its former black managers. A wage-and-hour lawsuit against Russell Stover was also filed this month by current and former Russell Stover employees who claim they have been misclassified as "exempt" employees and should be paid overtime. Rite Aid (RAD) already settled an employee lawsuit earlier this year similar to the Russell Stover suit after assistant store managers claimed they were misclassified as "exempt" and were due overtime pay. Retailers large and small must pay attention to employee legal actions large and small because each legal battle sets a precedent for every retail company in the world doing business in the U.S. But because Wal-Mart is the defendant more often than any other retail company, the Wal-Mart legal team has the most influence in defining labor laws for the entire U.S. retail industry. In essence, with every lawsuit that Wal-Mart defends, the entire U.S. retail industry is being aligned behind the ethics, human resources philosophy, and employment practices that Wal-Mart is willing to fight for. WAL-MART STORES: Seeks Dismissal of Wisconsin Gender Bias Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Aaron Kase, writing for Lawyers.com, reports that Wal-Mart is hoping to get a gender bias class action suit in Wisconsin thrown out of court, thanks to the reversal of a new rule imposed by the National Labor Relations Board. Five women are trying to make the retail giant answer their claims that they were paid less and had fewer opportunities for promotions than their male counterparts. Several other similar suits have been filed in other states following a 2011 Supreme Court ruling that disallowed a national class action against Wal-Mart. The Wisconsin suit's efforts were bolstered by a 2011 decree by the NLRB that suspended a six-month statute of limitations for unfair labor practice charges, among other new rules. However, the NLRB rules were tossed out by the District of Columbia U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals earlier in May, creating a fresh hurdle for the class action. Equitable Tolling The appeals court ruling also stated that there was no basis for asserting that "ignorance of the law should warrant equitable tolling of a statute of limitations." "Tolling refers to a suspension of the running of a period of limitations," explains Richard Esenberg, a professor at the Marquette University School of Law. "There is a rule that, when a class action has been filed and class certification has been subsequently denied, the running of the limitations period for individual class members is suspended from the date of filing to the date of denial." "So if there is a two year statute of limitations and a class action is filed after two months, the statute stops running on the individual claim of Mary Smith as a potential class member," Mr. Esenberg says. "If class certification is denied three years later, the statute starts to run on Mary's claim again and she has ten months to file." However, the class suing Wal-Mart had to re-form as a smaller entity after the nationwide lawsuit was thrown out in the Supreme Court's anti-consumer Dukes v. Wal-Mart ruling, which stated that the women did not have enough in common to meet eligibility standards to form a class. "The question in the Wal-Mart cases is whether this tolling also applies to new class actions in which the class is defined in a different way that the plaintiffs hope can be certified," says Mr. Esenberg. "In the Wal-Mart cases, having failed to certify a national class, they seem to be attempting to certify smaller classes of regional employees." Denied a Jury The NLRB rule would have made the tolling dispute effectively moot by suspending the statute of limitations entirely, but since it has been invalidated the class members are now facing a litigation battle just to get their complaint heard in court. "This holding [by the D.C. court] directly refutes plaintiffs' argument that the plaintiffs here should be excused from the statute of limitations and [U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission] charge requirements due to their ignorance of the relevant deadlines," Wal-Mart wrote in a letter to the judge. The allegations leveled in the suit are quite serious: Women claim that men with less experience and responsibility nevertheless earned more money than they did, and that "women at Wal-Mart were told by management that women deserved less pay and fewer promotions than men because men had families to support," according to the plaintiff's lawyer. So far, the company has prevented any trial on the actual merits of the lawsuit. If the retail giant is successful in its latest effort, the women will be running out of options. "If this doesn't work," Mr. Esenberg says, "I guess the plaintiffs could try to bring individual claims." WALGREEN CO: Settles Suit Over Painkillers for $80 Million ---------------------------------------------------------- Timothy W. Martin, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that Walgreen Co. reached an $80 million settlement with federal authorities on June 11 over the drugstore chain's distribution of highly addictive painkillers in Florida, long the nation's epicenter of illicit prescription drug sales. It is the largest fine related to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration's strategy of cracking down on rampant prescription drug abuse by targeting large corporations like Walgreen. As part of the settlement, Walgreen admitted it hadn't upheld its obligations as a DEA registrant, which requires the company to flag suspicious sales of prescription painkillers. The DEA alleged that Walgreen, the nation's largest pharmacy chain, had committed an "unprecedented number" of record-keeping and prescription dispensing violations. The DEA licenses retail pharmacies that want to distribute controlled substances like opioid painkillers. Walgreen had "negligently allowed" prescription painkillers "to be diverted for abuse and illegal black market sales," the DEA said. The June 11 settlement covers six Walgreen pharmacies in Florida and a Jupiter, Fla., distribution facility, which will be blocked from shipping controlled substances until September of 2014. "National pharmaceutical chains are not exempt from following the law," said Mark R. Trouville, head of Miami DEA office, in a statement. "As the largest pharmacy chain in the U.S., we are fully committed to doing our part to prevent prescription drug abuse," said Kermit Crawford, a Walgreen president, in a statement. The settlement and associated costs will have an impact of four cents to six cents per share in its fiscal third quarter, Walgreen said. The settlement also resolves civil investigations involving Walgreen by U.S. attorneys' offices in Colorado, New York and Michigan, as well as other DEA branches. Other national pharmacy companies, like CVS Caremark Corp. and Cardinal Health Inc., have recently been targeted over pain pills by the DEA. Cardinal, one of the nation's largest drug wholesalers, reached a settlement last year with the DEA to halt controlled-substance shipments from a Lakeland, Fla., facility. In August, two subpoenas were issued by federal prosecutors and agents against a major wholesaler, AmerisourceBergen Corp. The DEA said Walgreen's civil penalty was its largest-ever settlement, topping CVS's $75 million payment in 2010 over charges it illegally sold cold and cough medicines that were used to make methamphetamine, an agency spokeswoman said. Oxycodone, hydrocodone and other prescription painkillers are legal drugs. Addicts and abusers like them because when consumed, via injecting, swallowing or inhaling, the pills can release a heroinlike high. In recent years, manufacturers like Purdue Pharma LP have launched reformulated versions of their pain drugs that make them harder to crush open or inject. As part of the settlement, Walgreen promised to create a pharmaceutical integrity department intended to ensure regulatory compliance and monitor for potential controlled-substance diversion, according to the DEA release. Walgreen will also boost its training and no longer tie pharmacist compensation to prescription volume, the DEA said. The six Walgreen pharmacies in Florida targeted by federal agents won't be allowed to dispense painkillers or other controlled medications until May 2014, the company said. Overdose deaths from painkillers totaled more than 16,500 in 2010, more than heroin and cocaine combined, according to government data. The investigation was jointly conducted by the DEA's Miami field office and the U.S. attorney's office for the Southern District of Florida. WHIRLPOOL CORP: Residents Attend Meeting on Clyde Cancer Cluster ---------------------------------------------------------------- Emily Valdez, writing for FOX8.com, reports that dozens of people turned out at Fremont High School on May 27 for a town hall meeting on the alleged Clyde cancer cluster. "The last seven years has been hell. It's been horrible," said Clyde resident Dave Hisey. Mr. Hisey said two of his children had cancer. He is a plaintiff in one of two class action lawsuits filed against Whirlpool Corporation over the alleged cancer cluster in eastern Sandusky County. The suit alleges Whirlpool intentionally dumped toxic, cancer- causing materials at the former Whirlpool Park in Sandusky County. According to the Ohio Department of Health, 35 children in eastern Sandusky County have been diagnosed with various types of cancer since 1996. Four kids have died. "It's very frustrating; it's very sad. You just get tired, worn down," Mr. Hisey said. Many people who turned out on May 27 have loved ones who lived in the area, died from cancer or have children suffering from cancer or other diseases. "Our first granddaughter has been diagnosed with Crohn's Disease. She's 10, and the four-year-old, her little sister, has been diagnosed with immune deficiencies," attendee Penny Foos said. Attorney Alan Mortensen filed the second lawsuit. He claims the cancer-causing substance is benzaldehyde. "It's a known hazardous substance by the EPA," Mr. Mortensen said. FOX8.com called Whirlpool for their response, but their office was closed for the holiday. In a previous statement they said: "We are currently reviewing the lawsuit filed. As a member of the community for over 60 years, with more than 3,000 employees in the area, we are also very interested in figuring out the facts behind this ongoing issue. We are working closely with the current property owner, the U.S. EPA and the Ohio EPA to address the issues at the former Whirlpool Park through the Ohio EPA Voluntary Action Program. We have submitted a Phase I Property Assessment Report and Phase II Work Plans for comment and approval by both agencies." The suit asks for a jury trial. The plaintiffs are seeking $750 million in damages. It asks that a medical monitoring fund and a clean-up fund are created, as well. XUMANII: Private Investor Responds to Class Action Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------ Private citizen, George Sharp, responds to the draft of the proposed class action complaint, being distributed to potential plaintiffs who allegedly incurred losses as a result of Mr. Sharp's announcement of his litigation against current Pump & Dump subject, Xumanii, for the dissemination of spam emails and his admonitions to the general public regarding tremendous losses to those participating in Awesome Penny Stocks promotions. The draft complaint is being distributed by law firm, LKP Global Law, LLP. According to Mr. Sharp, LKP attempted previous litigation against him on behalf of another of its clients, Forex International Trading Corp. That litigation was immediately abandoned after Mr. Sharp filed a Motion to Strike the Complaint under California Civil Code of Procedure Sec. 426.15, commonly known as the anti- SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute, designed to protect the First Amendment rights of those seeking litigation privilege. "SLAPP" suits are commonly used to attempt to get righteous litigants like Mr. Sharp to abandon their right to free speech and their litigation. Those found in violation of the anti-SLAPP statute are required to pay the attorney's fees of the defendant, as was the case of LKP's client Forex International. Mr. Sharp strongly feels that the proposed case, if actually filed, will end up in a similar result, "This is obviously just another attempt by some nefarious characters to try and get me to be quiet," he stated. In the past, LKP Global Law has also represented Eco-Trade Corporation, an issuer recently suspended by FINRA during a suspected Pump & Dump, and since relegated to trading on the little-followed Grey Sheets. Mr. Sharp commented, "It appears that LKP Global Law is in the habit of providing aid and comfort to penny stock companies with dubious characteristics." Within the draft complaint, LKP Global Law refers to a number of Mr. Sharp's past and current litigations, not one of which has ever proved to be without merit. In the ongoing case of Sharp v Arena Pharmaceuticals (US Southern District of California Case 3:10-cv-2111-BTM), Mr. Sharp's case was one of a dozen filed against the company for the same allegations of fraud. In Sharp v Aniko Kaye (Los Angeles County Division of California Superior Court Case No. BC381214), the case was settled in his favor in the amount of $1.6 million. As a result of Mr. Sharp's efforts, Ms. Kaye was later denied a bankruptcy discharge (US Bankruptcy Court Central District of California Case No. 2:09-bk-38287-BR) for committing what the court determined was "massive fraud and deception." All of the other cases referenced by LKP Global Law are either ongoing, or were litigated, or settled in Mr. Sharp's favor. Mr. Sharp further stated, "I am proud of the hundreds of emails I've received from past victims of Awesome Penny Stock frauds, thanking me for my efforts to put an end to all of this, and for seeking my counsel. I must remind all that I am not qualified to be giving legal advice and strongly recommend that victims seek the advice of an attorney, as I cannot add Plaintiffs to my case. This is NOT a class action lawsuit." Named as defendants in the litigation (San Diego County Division of California Superior Court Case No. 37-2013-00048310-CU-MC-CTL) for violations of California Business and Professions Codes 17529.5 (Anti-Spam) are: Degroupa Tenner Morales Media Corp. and Centro Azteca S.A., the current and former publishers of the Awesome Penny Stocks series of newsletters; and, Victory Mark Corp Ltd., the publisher of newsletters Select Penny Stocks, Preferred Penny Stocks and Penny Stock Heroes; as well as the subjects of several of their promotions, including: VuMee, Inc.; Amwest Imaging, Inc.; Goff Corporation; Swingplane Ventures, Inc. (OTCQB:SWVI); World Moto, Inc.; Taglikeme Corp.; and, Pharmagen, Inc. Mr. Sharp, reminds those considering an investment in Xumanii, that every single Awesome Penny Stock Ponzi-scheme style promotion, has left a trail of those whom have lost almost their entire investment, totaling hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. Investors should remember that it is never a good idea to invest in stocks advertised in any manner, including email tout sheets, conventional mail brochures, and newspaper/magazine ads, nor is it wise to rely on the advice posted on the internet message boards which are controlled by shills for the promoters. These deceiving promotional campaigns always invoke ridiculous and outright fabricated projections, such as those in the case of Xumanii, which suggest that Google, Inc., Hulu, LLC., and NetFlix, Inc. could be involved in a bidding war for the company or that a Barclays Bank fund could be buying up shares. Having contacted these companies, Mr. Sharp reports that all deny having ever heard of Xumanii and are dismayed at the invoking of their brands to promote the stock. Mr. Sharp holds no interest in any of the stocks mentioned and has never participated, directly or indirectly, in the shorting of any stock. Updates to this litigation may be viewed by following Mr. Sharp's tweets at www.twitter.com/goniffs and his website at www.AwesomePennyScams.com. CONTACT: George Sharp E-mail: george@clippercp.com YAKIMA PRODUCTS: Recalls Whispbar Fitting Kit Top of Car System --------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 7, 2013 Posting date: June 7, 2013 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Miscellaneous Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-33875 Affected products: Whispbar fitting kit top of car system This recall involves the Whispbar fitting kit top of car system, which consists of four mounting bases and brackets with necessary fasteners used to attach the Whispbar Crossbar/Rack systems that are sold separately. The following fitting kit models are included and noted are the specific vehicle types with which they are intended to be used. Whispbars affected by this recall --------------------------------- Model Part No. Vehicle Type ----- -------- ------------ K393 8051393 Audi Q7 2007-2013 K480 8051480 Toyota Matrix 2009-2013 K580 8051508 Mitusbishi Outlander Sport 2011-2013 K543 8051543 Kia Sportage with flush rails 2011-2013 The fit kits do not attach to the roofline or raised rail properly which prevents the crossbar from securely attaching to the vehicle roof, resulting in the racks becoming loose or separating from the vehicle. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/uNOyDg Neither Yakima Products Inc. nor Health Canada has received any reports of incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use of the recalled fitting kits. Approximately 23 units of the recalled fitting kits were sold in Canada. The recalled fitting kits were manufactured in China and sold from May 2011 to April 2013. Companies: Manufacturer Kemflo Environmental Technology Co., Ltd. Nanjing CHINA Distributor Yakima Products Inc. Beaverton Oregon, UNITED STATES Importer The Hitch Company Burnaby British Columbia, CANADA Importer LTP Sports Port Coquitlam British Columbia, CANADA Consumers should stop using the racks immediately and contact Yakima Products Inc. for a replacement Yakima rack or full refund. For more information, consumers may contact Yakima Products Inc. by telephone at 1-888-925-4621, from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time Monday through Friday, or by e-mail. * Appeals Courts Set to Decide on Two Consumer Class Actions ------------------------------------------------------------ Jessica Dye, writing for Reuters, reports that a pair of cases before the 6th and 7th Circuit Courts of Appeals could signal whether it will become more difficult to certify product liability and consumer actions in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in Comcast v. Behrend. The cases, Sears Roebuck & Co v. Butler and Whirlpool v. Glazer, were brought by consumers who claimed they bought washing machines with an alleged design defect that caused some machines to develop a moldy odor. After the 6th and 7th Circuits in 2012 allowed plaintiffs to proceed as a class, Sears and Whirlpool both appealed to the Supreme Court. The companies argued that plaintiffs' alleged injuries were too dissimilar to be tried as a class. While their petitions were pending, the Supreme Court handed down Comcast, in which it decertified a class of Comcast subscribers that had accused the company of monopolizing the cable market in Philadelphia. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the 5-4 majority Comcast opinion that plaintiffs had failed to show that damages could be accurately measured on a classwide basis. In a joint dissent, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer said the majority decision should not disturb the "well-nigh universal" recognition by courts that individual damages calculations do not preclude class certification. In a one-paragraph order on April 1 in Whirlpool and a nearly identical June 3rd order in Sears, the Supreme Court vacated the judgments and remanded the respective cases to the 6th and 7th Circuit to decide the class certification question in the wake of Comcast. The outcome in both cases could help clarify whether judges will apply Comcast beyond the antitrust arena to product liability and other types of class action cases. "You can read Comcast narrowly, or you can read it broadly," said Sergio Campos, an associate professor at the University of Miami School of Law who specializes in civil procedure and torts. "The appeals courts have the opportunity to pick the reading they like the best." Stephen Shapiro, a partner at Mayer Brown who represented the Sears and Whirlpool defendants, said he believed the lower courts should use Comcast to decertify classes where individual issues outweigh the common ones. "It isn't enough to just have an abstract question about whether a product is defective, or if the warranty service was denied," Mr. Shapiro said. But Jonathan Selbin, a lawyer at Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein who represented the Sears and Whirlpool classes, said he thought Comcast was meant to be applied narrowly and not to the product liability claims in Whirlpool and Sears. "What courts have always said is that the fact damages are going to necessarily have some individual aspects to them can't preclude class cert," Mr. Selbin said. The Product Liability Advisory Council, a nonprofit group of manufacturers that advocate on liability issues, filed an amicus brief on behalf of Sears and Whirlpool, as did the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Pacific Legal Foundation, a nonprofit legal foundation. John Beisner, who leads the mass tort practice at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom and wrote the Product Liability Advisory Council's amicus brief, agreed that such a ruling could make classes more difficult to certify, but said that was precisely what the Supreme Court intended to underscore in Comcast. Reading between the lines, the Supreme Court in Sears and Whirlpool sent a message to the lower circuits, Mr. Beisner said: "We've spoken our piece on Comcast, now go apply it." Regardless of how the 6th and 7th Circuits ultimately rule, the stakes of each case could prompt the losing parties to appeal once again to the Supreme Court, said William Narwold, who heads Motley Rice's securities and consumer fraud practice groups. While he thought the lower courts would be likely to let certification stand in Whirlpool and Sears, "Were the courts to say you have to prove damages on a classwide basis, that would be a serious issue for consumer cases." Mr. Campos agreed. "Courts are already kicking out consumer class actions because there are individual issues of injury," he said. A broad application of Comcast "would make it that much harder to certify classes." The cases are Sears Roebuck & Co v. Butler and Whirlpool Corp v. Glazer, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-1067, No. 12-322. For the plaintiffs: Jonathan Selbin, Mark Chalos and Jason Lichtman of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein and Samuel Issacharoff of New York University Law School. For the defendants: Michael Williams, Galen Bellamy and Allison Cohn of Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell and Stephen Shapiro, Timothy Bishop, Jeffrey Sarles and Joshua Yount of Mayer Brown. The cases are Sears Roebuck & Co v. Butler, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-1067 and Whirlpool Corp v. Glazer, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-322. For the plaintiffs: Jonathan Selbin, Mark Chalos and Jason Lichtman of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein and Samuel Issacharoff of New York University Law School. For the defendants: Michael Williams, Galen Bellamy and Allison Cohn of Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell and Stephen Shapiro, Timothy Bishop, Jeffrey Sarles and Joshua Yount of Mayer Brown. * Canada Recalls Apricot Halves Due to Extraneous Material ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 6, 2013 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Extraneous Material Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Distribution: National CFIA reference number: 7992 Affected products: Brand name Common name Size Code(s) on product ---------- ----------- ---- ------------------ No Name Apricot halves 398 ml 10F10 B in light syrup AH 2 SL PN BB/MA 2013 DE 10 UPC: 0 60383 05927 9 * Class Actions Challenge Church Pension Plan Status ---------------------------------------------------- Hazel Bradford, writing for Pensions & Investments, reports that the IRS' long-term trend of allowing church-affiliated defined benefit pension plans to be exempt from federal pension rules could reverse course after an unusual decision by the agency and a flurry of lawsuits. One sign of that change came in late March when the Internal Revenue Service took the unusual step of revoking a church plan status ruling issued a decade ago to the now-closed Hospital Center at Orange in Orange, N.J., whose plan had a $30 million funding deficit. The IRS move led the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., whose officials supported the reversal, to announce May 10 that it would cover the pension benefits for nearly 800 former employees. Between March and now, five major class-action lawsuits were filed in separate jurisdictions against some of the biggest names in health care -- Dignity Health, San Francisco; Ascension Health Alliance, St. Louis; Catholic Health Initiatives, Englewood, Colo., Catholic Health East, Newtown Square, Pa.; and Saint Peter's Healthcare System, New Brunswick, N.J. -- now operating their pension plans under church plan status. The lawsuits, filed by ERISA law firms Keller Rohrback LLP in Seattle and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC in Washington, are collectively seeking more than $2 billion in missed pension contributions and other damages. Among other claims, the lawsuits challenge the interpretations made by the IRS and the Department of Labor that allowed the hospitals, which have varying degrees of church associations, to be exempt from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. St. Peter's Healthcare System spokesman Phil Hartman said officials there consider the lawsuit to be without merit because the hospital was established by nuns more than a century ago and is affiliated with a local Catholic diocese. Despite having operated as an ERISA plan until seeking church plan status in 2006, "we've always been overseen by a religious entity," Mr. Hartman said. Dignity Health spokeswoman Tricia Griffin declined to comment on the lawsuit, but said in a statement, "We remain committed to ensuring our retirees and beneficiaries receive the benefits they have earned. We believe we have complied with the law, including the applicable requirements for our retirement plans." Catholic Health Initiatives spokesman Michael Romano and Ascension Health spokeswoman Trudy Hamilton declined to comment. Calls to Catholic Health East and attorneys for the plaintiffs were not returned. Tide may be changing The lawsuits could be changing the tide of plans seeking to be exempted from ERISA. "It's certainly plausible there will be more cases filed if success is seen as likely," said Thomas E. Clark Jr., chief compliance officer at FRA PlanTools, a fiduciary consulting firm in Charlotte, N.C. "The stature of the plaintiffs' (law) firms involved, combined with the amount of alleged damages, and the severity of the long-term harm to the participants makes this a hot topic," said Mr. Clark, a former ERISA litigator. Pension plans run by church-affiliated organizations are not required to be covered by ERISA. In recent years, opting out of ERISA coverage has appealed to many such organizations. Liz Sweeney, health-care credit analyst at Standard & Poor's Rating Services in Timonium, Md., said church plan status means the organizations "have substantially more flexibility as to how and when they fund their plans." But, she added, "They take their stewardship seriously." An April 22 S&P report on pension funding in the non-profit health-care sector showed 2012 funding levels for Ascension Health Alliance, Catholic Health Initiatives and Dignity Health at 93.1%, 75.2% and 65.5%, respectively, down from 94.1%, 88.6% and 75% in 2011. The report also noted a general downward trend in funding status despite higher contributions, mainly because of lower discount rates. Plans opting for church plan status can stop paying premiums to the PBGC and can get up to six years of PBGC premiums refunded. One indicator of the trend comes from PBGC documents obtained by the Pension Rights Center, Washington, which show that 85 plan sponsors, at least 60% of them not-for-profit health-care companies, received premium refunds from 1999 until 2007. Raising alarms That level of activity raised alarms among pension advocates that the church-affiliation status was being too loosely interpreted, and in some cases, abused. "I have been concerned for years that companies only loosely affiliated with religious institutions are trying to use a loophole in federal law to get out of having to fund their plans," said Sen. Tom Harkin D-Iowa, chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. "ERISA was put in place for a reason -- to protect participants. In the past, there have been too many instances where pensions went broke, leaving employees and retirees with nothing," Mr. Harkin said. "We were the poster child for the most egregious example," said Mary Rich, a former hospital vice president and nurse with the Hospital Center at Orange, who helped wage a 10-year campaign by former employees and the Pension Rights Center to challenge the IRS ruling and put the participants back under PBGC protection. The unique circumstances at Hospital Center at Orange -- a defunct employer; a pension plan likely to run out of assets by the end of this year; and an unusual collaboration between the IRS, the PBGC and the Pension Rights Center -- make further IRS reversals unlikely in the short term. But many observers think it does put pressure on the IRS to take a stronger position, rather than just issue individual rulings. "It certainly casts a shadow," said James Keightley, a former PBGC general counsel and IRS official now a partner in the Washington law firm Keightley & Ashner LLP. He believes the IRS' shift in the Hospital Center at Orange case will be seen as setting a precedent, but IRS officials are "not going to take on this issue until the courts step in." IRS officials declined to comment. ********* 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 * * *