/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/130910.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, September 10, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 179 Headlines AIR LINE PILOTS: Owes Pilot Instructors More Than $7MM in Back Pay ALTEC INDUSTRIES: Recalls 22 Multiple Model Trucks AMERICAN ORIENTAL: Plaintiffs May File 3rd Amended Complaint BANK OF AMERICA: Settles Gender Class Action for $39 Million BUBBA GUMP: Faces Class Action in Florida Over FLSA Violation CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: iO Video Subscribers' Suit in Discovery CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Awaits Cert. Ruling in Fox Programming Suit CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk N.Y. Stock Suit CAINS FOODS: Recalls Olde Cape Cod Chipotle Ranch Dressing CHOBANI INC: Recalls Greek Yogurt Due to Product Concerns CORRECTIVE SOLUTIONS: Got Prelim. OK of $3.2MM RICO Settlement DAIMLER: 1,785 Units of Western Star Trucks Recalled in Canada DONNYCREEK ENERGY: Intends to Review Class Action Claims DUOYUAN PRINTING: November 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Conference in "Scranton" Suit on Sept. 13 ERNST & YOUNG: Epstein Becker Discusses Second Circuit Ruling FANTASY GENTLEMAN'S: Strippers File Wage Class Action FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. Court Okay GANLEY CHEVROLET: Ohio Appeals Court Upholds Class Certification GENESEE & WYOMING: Merger-Related Suit Settlements Paid in May GOOGLE INC: Sells Info From Wallet and Play Apps, Suit Claims HI-TECH PHARMACAL: Being Sold to Akorn for Too Little, Suit Says HUBBARD FEEDS: Recalls Life Homestead FastGrow Poultry Feed LKQ CORPORATION: Suit v. Aftermarket Product Suppliers Still Open MEDTRONIC INC: Fails in Bid to Dismiss Infuse Class Suit in Ore. MIDAMERICAN ENERGY: Unit Faces Suit Over NV Energy Acquisition NANO MAGNETICS: Recalls Magnet Sets Over Choking Hazard NEW YORK, NY: Monitor Appointed in Stop-and-Frisk Class Suit NUVERRA ENVIRONMENTAL: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in N.Y. OLIVE HILL: Electric Rate Suits Obtain Class Action Certification PETROCHINA: Three Senior Officials Step Down After Class Action PHOENICIA GROUP: Recalls Certain Cedar Brand Tahina Products POLYCOM INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action Suit in California PROFESSIONAL INVESTMENT: Slater & Gordon Mulls Class Action REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Progeny Lawsuits Reach 5,000 as of June SCOTT HARRINGTON: Sued for Exposing Patients to HIV, Hepatitis SESAMECO: Recalls Certain Tahini Products SOCIAL SECURITY: Sued Over Vietnamese-Speaking Counsel Suspension SPRINT CORP: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss "Crest" Suit SPRINT CORP: Clearwire Awaits Ruling in "Dennings" Class Suit SPRINT CORP: Clearwire Awaits Ruling in "Minnick" Class Suit SPRINT CORP: Clearwire Defends "DeLeo" Class Suit in Delaware SPRINT CORP: Clearwire Defends "Lindsay" Suit in Minnesota SPRINT CORP: Clearwire Defends "Wuest" Class Suit in California SPRINT CORP: Clearwire Settled "Newton" Class Action Suit SPRINT CORP: Defends "Feigeles" Merger-Related Suit vs. Unit TARGET CORP: Recalls Threshold Floor Lamps Due to Fire Hazard TMS INT'L: Being Sold to Pritzker for Too Little, Suit Says TOYOTA: Recalls GS 350, IS 350, and IS 350C Models UNITED PARCEL: Still Faces Labor Suits in State, Federal Courts UNITED PARCEL: Suits Over Brokerage Services in Canada Dismissed UNITED PARCEL: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Junk Price Fixing Suit UNITED STATES: Court Reverses Ruling in Medicare Suit vs. DOH URS CORP: Awaits Order on Judgment Bid in Hurricane Katrina Suits VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement WAL-MART CANADA: Recalls Various Ventura Brand Tents WAL-MART INC: Accused of Falsely Advertising Equate Product WASTE MANAGEMENT: East St. Louis Seeks Dismissal of Class Action WELLS FARGO: Judge Refuses to Certify Class of Bankers in OT Suit ZOO ENTERTAINMENT: 6th Cir. Dismisses Securities Class Action * BakerHostetler Sees Rise in Mileage Reimbursement aClass Action * Law Firm Calls on Homeowners to Join Short Sale Class Action ********* AIR LINE PILOTS: Owes Pilot Instructors More Than $7MM in Back Pay ------------------------------------------------------------------ Writing for Courthouse News Service, Sam Reynolds reports that the Air Line Pilots Association owes United pilot instructors more than $7 million in back pay, four instructors claim in a federal class action. Lead plaintiff Gerald Elwell claims the Air Line Pilots Association International violated the Railway Labor Act by misappropriating $400 million in retroactive pay it owed to pilots and instructors who worked for (nonparty) United Airlines from 2010 to 2012. During that time, pilots and instructors accrued back pay as the airline and union haggled over a collective bargaining agreement to replace the deal that expired in 2009. When a new deal finally was struck, United paid the $400 million its employees were owed after three years in limbo, according to the complaint. But the class claims the defendant union allocated only $225 million of the payment for retroactive pay, though it "knew at the time it received the lump sum that the lump sum would not be nearly enough to provide all United pilots with 100 percent of the retroactive pay they should have received." The class claims the union decided to pay most United pilots what they were owed, but to shaft the pilot instructors. "ALPA devised a 'General Rule' for how to distribute the retroactive pay to the United pilots," the complaint states. "The General Rule was that the calculation of retroactive pay for a particular pilot would be based on a percentage of a number that ALPA named the so-called 'Delta Differential.' "The General Rule, through the Delta Differential, arbitrarily relied on what the particular United line pilot would have earned under the 2008 Delta Airlines Pilot Working Agreement. Thus, rather than determining actual retroactive pay owed to United pilots using the 2012 UPA [United's collective bargaining agreement] that had just been adopted, ALPA arbitrarily chose to determine the retroactive pay based on what the same United pilot would have earned under the Delta PWA [pilot working agreement] as though the pilot were flying for Delta Airlines during 2010, 2011, and 2012." The class of United pilot instructors claims the application of the arbitrary "Delta Differential" was itself a breach of the union's duty of fair representation to its members, and that that they were subjected to more injustice when the union applied a different version of the equation to the instructor class alone. "Although ALPA through its United MEC [Master Executive Council] devised the above General Rule, ALPA through its United MEC arbitrarily chose to use a different method for allocating retroactive pay to the PIs. As a result, the PIs will receive a disproportionately small share of the $225 million lump sum compared to the other United line pilots," the complaint states. "Inexplicably, the PIs' retroactive pay was calculated on an arbitrary exception to the General Rule, using a different methodology to determine the PIs' 'Delta Differential,' without any reference to what a Delta pilot instructor would be paid under the 2008 Delta PWA and ignoring what a pilot instructor actually makes under the new 2012 UPA." The class claims that most United pilots would receive $54.83 per hour worked between the collective bargaining agreements, while United pilot instructors would get less than one-third of that: $17.32 per hour. The difference comes to about $7 million, the class of 130 pilot instructors claims. The class claims it tried to solve the matter internally, but the union chose an arbitrator who was "paid purely by ALPA and who had a long history of working for ALPA." The class claims arbitrator denied its claims without explanation. They seek retroactive pay and damages for violations of the Railway Labor Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard M. Paul, III, Esq. Jack D. McInnes, Esq. PAUL MCINNES, LLP 2000 Baltimore, Suite 100 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 984-8100 Facsimile: (816) 984-8101 E-mail: paul@paulmcinnes.com mcinnes@paulmcinnes.com - and - Andrew M. DeMarea, Esq. KENNER SCHMITT NYGAARD LLC 117 W. 20th St., Suite 201 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 531-3100 Facsimile: (816) 531-3600 E-mail: andy@ksnlegal.com The case is Elwell, et al. v. Air Line Pilots Association, International, Case No. 1:13-cv-02343-REB-CBS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. ALTEC INDUSTRIES: Recalls 22 Multiple Model Trucks -------------------------------------------------- Starting date: August 30, 2013 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D. Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Other Units affected: 22 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2013295 TC ID number: 2013295 Manufacturer recall number: CSN 586 On certain truck-mounted digger derricks, the bolts which secure the winch motor may not have been adequately tightened during assembly. If the bolts loosen, the motor could detach, allowing a load carried by the winch to fall, placing anyone near or beneath at risk of personal injury. Altec will direct vehicle owners to inspect and tighten the winch motor mounting bolts. Affected products: -- ALTEC DM47 - 2012, 2012, 2012, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2012 models; and -- ALTEC D2050A 2012 model AMERICAN ORIENTAL: Plaintiffs May File 3rd Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------ Parties in a securities suit filed against American Oriental Bioengineering Inc. entered into a stipulation consenting to a filing of a Third Amended Complaint, according to the company's Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012. On June 22, 2012, a putative class action complaint was filed by Kevin McGee against American Oriental Bioengineering Inc., Eileen Brody, Binsheng Li, Yangchun Li, Tony Liu, Cosimo Patti, Xianmin Wang, and Lawrence Wizel alleging violations of Section 10b of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and liability pursuant to Section 20(a) thereunder. The complaint, as subsequently amended centers on the accounting treatment of the sale of an interest held by the Company's subsidiary, Nuo Hua Investment Company Limited and the Company's Restatement filed on November 14, 2011. Several motions were filed for appointment as lead plaintiff, and on October 16, 2012, the Court appointed lead plaintiff, consolidated the cases, and ordered that a consolidated complaint be filed, which occurred on November 19, 2012. The served defendants (AOB, Brody, Wizel and Patti) moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint, and on March 25, 2013 those motions were granted with leave to amend. On April 15, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, which the served Defendants moved to dismiss on May 15, 2013. In the interim, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for leave to serve most of the remaining Defendants by alternative means, and on May 15, 2013, the parties entered into a stipulation consenting to the filing of a Third Amended Complaint ("TAC," setting forth no new paragraphs), deeming the TAC served on all defendants, deeming the motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint interposed against the TAC, and reserving all rights of the un- served Defendants. BANK OF AMERICA: Settles Gender Class Action for $39 Million ------------------------------------------------------------ The law firms of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP and Outten & Golden LLP announced on Sept. 6 a $39 million settlement with Bank of America Corp., Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. on behalf of women employed in the United States, Puerto Rico, or Guam as Financial Advisors or licensed Financial Advisor trainees at Banc of America Investments Services, Inc. or Merrill Lynch from August 2, 2007 (and earlier for certain employees) through September 15, 2013. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants discriminated against women in compensation and business opportunities. The parties entered into a three-year settlement agreement that is subject to Court approval. The settlement includes programmatic relief -- to be overseen by an Independent Monitor -- regarding teaming and partnership agreements, business generation, account distributions, manager evaluations, promotions, training, and complaint processing and procedures, among other things. Further, an Independent Consultant will conduct an internal study of the bank's FA teaming practices. The settlement also establishes a significant monetary fund of $39 million to resolve the Class' and Named Plaintiffs' claims. "Female Financial Advisors at Merrill Lynch have straightforward goals: to work hard for their clients, to flourish professionally and succeed financially, and to compete on a level playing field. The monetary and programmatic relief this settlement provides furthers these important goals of fairness and opportunity," said Rachel Geman, a partner at Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Co-Lead Class Counsel. Co-Lead Class Counsel Cara E. Greene, a partner at Outten & Golden LLP, stated, "This settlement helps ensure that Merrill Lynch is a place where women can thrive and be successful. Hopefully others will follow Merrill Lynch's example." Lieutenant Julie Moss (U.S. Navy), one of the named plaintiffs in this lawsuit, stated, "The settlement will advance our efforts to foster diversity and professional success within the workforce. Equality in the workplace should take on the same meaning as it does in our everyday life. Every individual deserves to be treated fairly. It is my hope that this settlement produces substantial benefits to the class." The settlement was the result of intensive negotiations supervised by experienced neutral mediator David A. Rotman of San Francisco, CA. The parties expect to present the settlement for consideration of final approval in mid- December, 2013. BUBBA GUMP: Faces Class Action in Florida Over FLSA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------- Ama Sarfo, writing for Law360, reports that Bubba Gump Shrimp Co. Restaurants Inc. was slapped with a proposed class action on Aug. 28 in Florida federal court alleging it violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act by forcing its hourly paid servers to work off the clock and denying them overtime wages. Former server Jessica Stuyvenberg says she worked more than 40 hours per week nearly every week that she was employed with Bubba Gump but never received the required time-and-a-half for her overtime hours because the company required her and other hourly paid servers to work off the clock at the beginning and end of their shifts. "Despite regularly working in excess of 40 hours per work week, plaintiff's paychecks in her possession confirm that plaintiff did not receive appropriate overtime compensation for all of the hours worked each week as required by the FLSA," the complaint says. The Bubba Gump Shrimp Co. is owned by Texas-based Landry's Inc., and Ms. Stuyvenberg's suit also names other Landry's seafood restaurants: Landry's Seafood House -- Florida Inc. and Landry's Seafood House -- Arlington Inc. On Aug. 22, Landry's general counsel and executive vice president Steve Scheinthal slammed the lawsuit, saying its allegations are meritless. "A common tactic by plaintiffs lawyers today is to file a collective action lawsuit any time they represent a single individual," Mr. Scheinthal told Law360. "Here you have a single employee working for a Bubba Gump Shrimp Co. in Daytona Beach, and that is all this lawsuit is about." Ms. Stuyvenberg charges that she and her colleagues were paid less than minimum wage because the restaurants took a so-called tip credit in which she and other servers received reduced wages because they received tips. But Ms. Stuyvenberg says the restaurants required her colleagues to work at the tip rate when they performed nonserving duties, like cleaning or attending meetings. And Ms. Stuyvenberg allegedly wasn't allowed to clock in when she first arrived at work and had to work off the clock for the beginning of her shift, the lawsuit says. It also charges that Ms. Stuyvenberg had to clock out early and work off the clock at the end of each shift. "As a result of defendants' intentional, willful and unlawful acts in refusing to pay plaintiff one-and-a-half her regular rate of pay for each our worked in excess of 40 per work week in one or more work weeks, plaintiff has suffered damages plus incurring reasonable attorneys' fees and costs," the complaint says. Ms. Stuyvenberg's suit is brought on behalf of all hourly paid servers who worked for the restaurants within the past three years, and she wants the restaurants to reimburse the proposed class for their unpaid overtime hours and unpaid minimum wages, plus unspecified liquidated damages and attorneys' fees. Representatives for Landry's did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Aug. 29. Ms. Stuyvenberg is represented by Kelly H. Chanfrau of Chanfrau & Chanfrau. Case information for the Bubba Gump Shrimp Co. wasn't immediately available on Aug. 29. The case is Jessica Stuyvenberg v. Bubba Gump Shrimp Co. et al., case number 6:13-cv-01330 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: iO Video Subscribers' Suit in Discovery ------------------------------------------------------------ Discovery is proceeding in the Cable Operations Litigation Marchese, et al. v. Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC, according to Cablevision's Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. The Company is a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey by several present and former Cablevision subscribers, purportedly on behalf of a class of iO video subscribers in New Jersey, Connecticut and New York. After three versions of the complaint were dismissed without prejudice by the District Court, plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint on August 22, 2011, alleging that the Company violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by allegedly tying the sale of interactive services offered as part of iO television packages to the rental and use of set-top boxes distributed by Cablevision, and violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by allegedly seeking to monopolize the distribution of Cablevision compatible set-top boxes. Plaintiffs seek unspecified treble monetary damages, attorney's fees, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief. On September 23, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. On January 10, 2012, the District Court issued a decision dismissing with prejudice the Section 2 monopolization claim, but allowing the Section 1 tying claim and related state common law claims to proceed. Cablevision's answer to the third amended complaint was filed on February 13, 2012. Discovery is proceeding. The Company believes that these claims are without merit and intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of the lawsuit or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss. CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Awaits Cert. Ruling in Fox Programming Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York is still to rule on a motion for class certification filed in a suit that seeks recovery against Cablevision Systems Corporation for the temporary discontinuation of Fox programming in 2010, Cablevision disclosed on its Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. Following expiration of the affiliation agreements for carriage of certain Fox broadcast stations and cable networks on October 16, 2010, News Corporation terminated delivery of the programming feeds to the Company, and as a result, those stations and networks were unavailable on the Company's cable television systems. On October 30, 2010, the Company and Fox reached an agreement on new affiliation agreements for these stations and networks, and carriage was restored. Several purported class action lawsuits were subsequently filed on behalf of the Company's customers seeking recovery for the lack of Fox programming. Those lawsuits were consolidated in an action before the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and a consolidated complaint was filed in that court on February 22, 2011. Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and consumer fraud, seeking unspecified compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorneys' fees. On March 28, 2012, the Court ruled on the Company's motion to dismiss, denying the motion with regard to plaintiffs' breach of contract claim, but granting it with regard to the remaining claims, which were dismissed. On April 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint, which asserts a claim only for breach of contract. The Company's answer was filed on May 2, 2012. On October 10, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and on December 13, 2012, a motion for partial summary judgment. Both motions have been fully briefed, and a decision by the Court is pending. Further discovery, if any, has been deferred until after the Court rules on the pending motions. The Company believes that this claim is without merit and intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss. CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk N.Y. Stock Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cablevision Systems Corporation is awaiting a ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on its motion to dismiss a securities suit filed against it, according to the company's Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. On January 26, 2012, a securities lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against Cablevision and certain current and former officers, by a Cablevision shareholder, purportedly on behalf of a class of individuals who purchased Cablevision common stock between February 16, 2011, and October 28, 2011. The complaint alleges that Cablevision and the individual defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act by allegedly issuing materially false and misleading statements regarding (i) the Company's customer retention and advertising costs, and (ii) the Company's loss of video customers, especially in the New York area. The complaint also alleges that the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act for the same alleged conduct. Plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages, attorneys' fees, and equitable relief. On March 26, 2012, the Iron Workers Local No. 25 Pension Fund and the Alaska Electrical Pension Fund submitted a joint application to serve as lead plaintiffs. The Court granted the application on April 13, 2012. On June 29, 2012, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On October 11, 2012, the Court issued a ruling permitting the filing of a motion to dismiss and setting a briefing schedule. The motion to dismiss has been fully briefed, and a decision by the Court is pending. Oral argument on the motion is scheduled for August 13, 2013. The Company believes that these claims are without merit, but is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss. CAINS FOODS: Recalls Olde Cape Cod Chipotle Ranch Dressing ---------------------------------------------------------- Cains Foods is recalling 2,273 six-pack cases of 16 oz. Olde Cape Cod Chipotle Ranch dressing with a "Best By" date of Nov. 30, 2014 because it may contain undeclared milk and egg. People who have allergies to milk and egg run the risk of serious or life- threatening reactions if they consume products containing these ingredients. The recall was initiated after it was discovered a small portion of the production run contains an incorrect back panel label for "Light Raspberry Vinaigrette & Marinade" dressing. This label does not list the presence of milk and egg. As of this date, there have been no adverse reaction complaints reported relating to this recall. The dressing was distributed to stores in the following states: Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and Wyoming. Consumers may return the product to the place where purchased for a full refund or replacement. Consumers with questions may contact Cains Foods at 1-800-756-5781. CHOBANI INC: Recalls Greek Yogurt Due to Product Concerns --------------------------------------------------------- Chobani, Inc., of Twin Falls, Idaho is voluntarily recalling Greek Yogurt. The company has ceased the distribution of the product due to reports of product bloating and swelling and some claims of illness as the company continues its investigation to identify the root cause. The potentially affected product was distributed nationwide from its Twin Falls, Idaho facility and was delivered to consumers through retail and club stores. The recalled products have best by date codes of Sept. 11-13 until Oct. 7-13 and are identified as follows: -- Chobani 6 oz. cups - all flavors; -- Chobani 16 oz. tubs - all flavors; -- Chobani 32 oz. tubs - all flavors; -- Chobani 3.5 oz. cups - all flavors; -- Chobani Bite 3.5 oz. cups - all flavors; -- Chobani Flip 5.3 oz. containers - all flavors; -- Chobani Champions cups 3.5 oz. - all flavors; -- Chobani Champions tubes 2.25 oz., 8, 16 and 36 count - all flavors Consumers who have purchased the product should discard the product and may contact the company's Customer Loyalty Team at http://chobani.com/careor call at 877-847-6181 between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., ET. This voluntary recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the Food and Drug Administration. CORRECTIVE SOLUTIONS: Got Prelim. OK of $3.2MM RICO Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Philip A. Janquart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a federal judge approved a preliminary $3.2 million settlement of a class action accusing a private debt collector of posing as district attorneys to extort more than $20 million in fees from scared debtors. U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White signed off on the early settlement between Corrective Solutions and about 500,000 people who say they were threatened and intimidated by the debt- collection agency in violation of anti-racketeering law. Consumers in California and Pennsylvania filed federal lawsuits in 2010, claiming Corrective Solutions (formerly National Corrective Group Inc.) ran a "fraudulent and exortionate check-recovery enterprise" from 2004 until 2009. Corrective Solutions contracted with more than two dozen district attorneys to collect bounced checks, "often for small amounts for groceries and household items," according to the California lawsuit. Consumers said they received letters on phony district attorney letterheads threatening them with prosecution and jail time if they didn't pay exorbitant fees of more than $200 per check. The debt-collection company even stated that it harnessed "the power of the district attorney's brand" to collect more money than traditional collection agencies, consumers said. Debtors were allegedly tricked into believing the letters were part of an official, outsourced "bad check diversion program." "Local district attorneys who allow the enterprise to use their names receive cash commissions from the collections obtained by the enterprise," consumers in California claimed. Corrective Solutions has been at the center of several other lawsuits making similar allegations. Washington, D.C., attorney Paul Aron, who has been intimately involved in Corrective Solutions litigation, confirmed that National Corrective Group Inc. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2009 to avoid four class actions involving more than a million consumers. Through a process of investor transactions, the company was reborn as Corrective Solutions. A four-month investigation by the Boston Globe earlier this year revealed that six district attorneys were involved in the same scheme in Massachusetts. The Globe discovered that the district attorney offices had agreed to outsource bad-check cases to Corrective Solutions and BounceBack, a smaller, Idaho-based company, to save taxpayer money and to free attorneys up for more pressing cases. The district attorneys who used Corrective Solutions terminated their relationships with the company following the Globe's investigation. But the arrangement is profitable for debt-collection agencies like Corrective Solutions, which allegedly raked in more than $20 million in illegal fees in California between November 2004 and April 2009. Corrective Solutions and its operators "vigorously deny" all allegations of wrongdoing and liability in the settlement documents. They claim that National Corrective Group is not a debt collector, that the collection letters were neither false nor misleading, and that all fees were collected legally. "I think it is morally reprehensible for elected public officials to go into business with debt collectors to do what other debt collectors can't do, and get a piece of the action," Aron said in a phone interview with Courthouse News. "They also invent fees that have no basis in law. On top of that, from a technically ethical point of view, the prosecutors are all lawyers and they are allowing non-lawyers to use their letterhead." That could be interpreted as aiding and abetting, according to Aron, who noted that Oregon recently passed a law barring attorneys from letting debt collectors use their letterhead and from receiving commissions or kickbacks. The program is not specifically authorized by state law, although Aron says recent legislation in Massachusetts aims to change that. "There is a bill (in Massachusetts) that was filed that, in my opinion, is a terrible bill that would let prosecutors and private companies do, basically, whatever they want," Aron said. "The bill was just filed and it's currently just sitting there." The class action in California alleges almost $40 million in damages covering about 500,000 individuals. A settlement was first proposed in 2012, but two class members raised objections, forcing Judge White to reject it. On Aug. 27, he preliminarily approved the amended settlement, which awards class members more than $3.2 million. Out of that, about $700,000 will be used to pay attorneys' fees and other costs associated with the litigation. A hearing for final approval is set for Jan. 31, 2014. The case is Christina Smith, et al. v. Levine Leichtman Capital Partners, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-CV-0010 JSW, in the United States District Court for the Northern District Of California. DAIMLER: 1,785 Units of Western Star Trucks Recalled in Canada -------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: September 4, 2013 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D. Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Seats And Restraints Units affected: 1785 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2013300 TC ID number: 2013300 Manufacturer recall number: FL-645 On certain trucks, a misaligned B-pillar reinforcement could affect seatbelt D-ring anchor performance. Failure of the seatbelt D-ring anchorage to restrain the seat occupant would increase the risk of personal injury during a crash. Dealers will reinforce the seatbelt D-ring anchor. Affected products: Western Star 4900 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 models DONNYCREEK ENERGY: Intends to Review Class Action Claims -------------------------------------------------------- Donnycreek Energy Inc. on Sept. 3 disclosed that it has become aware of a proposed class action lawsuit filed in the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench against Donnycreek, Donnybrook Energy Inc. and certain of their respective directors and officers. The action contains various claims relating to the plan of arrangement involving Donnycreek and Donnybrook completed in November 2011, the transfer of certain assets from Donnybrook to Donnycreek, a related private placement and other related transactions. The proposed class action can't proceed unless certified by the Court. The Company intends to review these claims in detail and take steps to protect its interests. DUOYUAN PRINTING: November 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. and Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Aug. 29 disclosed that the United States District Court Southern District of New York has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of common stock of Duoyuan Printing, Inc.: SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED DUOYUAN PRINTING, INC. ("DYP") COMMON STOCK PURSUANT AND/OR TRACEABLE TO DYP'S REGISTRATION STATEMENT AND PROSPECTUS ISSUED IN CONNECTION WITH DYP'S INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING OF STOCK ON NOVEMBER 6, 2009; OR (2) PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED DYP COMMON STOCK FROM NOVEMBER 6, 2009 TO MARCH 28, 2011, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in the above- captioned action, that a hearing will be held on November 13, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. in courtroom 11A before the Honorable George B. Daniels, United States District Judge of the Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007 for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement between Plaintiffs and Defendants Duoyuan Printing, Inc., Wenhua Guo, Xiquing Diao, Christopher P. Holbert, Lianjun Cai, Punan Xie, and William D. Suh (collectively, the "Settling Defendants") consisting of the sum of $4,300,000, should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable and adequate; (3) whether the application for an award of attorneys' fees of one third of the Settlement amount, reimbursement of expenses of not more than $175,000, and awards to each Class Representative not to exceed $1,500 should be approved; and (4) whether the Litigation as against Settling Defendants and Defendants Baiyun Sun and James Zhang should be dismissed with prejudice. If you purchased or otherwise acquired DYP common stock pursuant and/or traceable to DYP's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with DYP's initial public offering of Stock on November 6, 2009; or purchased or otherwise acquired DYP common stock from November 6, 2009 to March 28, 2011, both dates inclusive, your rights may be affected by the Settlement of this action. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release, you may obtain copies by writing to DYP Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 230, 600 North Jackson Street, Suite 3, Media, PA 19063, or going to the website, http://www.strategicclaims.net If you are a member of the Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release postmarked no later than October 9, 2013, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Litigation whether or not you make a claim. To exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a Request for Exclusion to the Claims Administrator in the manner detailed in the Notice, and postmarked no later than October 23, 2013. Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or the Plaintiffs' Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses and awards to Class Representatives must be received by the addresses indicated below and in the manner detailed in the Notice by no later than October 23, 2013. Clerk of the Court United States District Court Southern District New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Jason S. Cowart, Esq. POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Class Counsel for Plaintiffs Joel M. Mitnick, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Joseph De Simone, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 1675 Broadway New York, NY 10019 Harry A. Woods, Jr., Esq. CROWE & DUNLEVY, P.C. 20 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 1800 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Counsel for Settling Defendants If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or write to Plaintiffs' Counsel identified above. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. DATED: AUGUST 1, 2013 BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Contact: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. Timothy W. Brown, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. Tel: (212) 686-1060 E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Conference in "Scranton" Suit on Sept. 13 ------------------------------------------------------------ A case management conference has been set for September 13, 2013, in the class action lawsuit initiated by John Scranton, according to E*TRADE Financial Corporation's August 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. On April 30, 2013, a putative class action was filed by John Scranton, on behalf of himself and a class of persons similarly situated, against E*TRADE Financial Corporation and E*TRADE Securities LLC in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, pursuant to the California procedures for a private Attorney General action. The Complaint alleged that the Company misrepresented through its Web site that it would always automatically exercise options that were in-the-money by $0.01 or more on expiration date. The Plaintiffs allege violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumer Remedies Act, fraud, misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and Breach of Fiduciary Duty. The case has been deemed complex within the meaning of the California Rules of Court, and a case management conference has been set for September 13, 2013. The Company will continue to defend itself vigorously in this matter. E*TRADE Financial Corporation, a financial services company, provides online brokerage and related products and services primarily to individual retail investors under the E*TRADE Financial brand in the United States. ERNST & YOUNG: Epstein Becker Discusses Second Circuit Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------- Marisa S. Ratinoff, Esq. -- MRatinoff@ebglaw.com -- at Epstein Becker Green reports that like the Second Circuit, the Ninth Circuit recently enforced an Ernst & Young LLP arbitration agreement, reversing the district court's denial of a motion to compel arbitration in a wage and hour suit brought by a former employee. The lower court initially ruled that Ernst & Young had waived its right to arbitrate by delaying its assertion of the defense, but the Ninth Circuit reversed finding Richards failed to establish that he suffered any prejudice from Ernst & Young's delay. Richard urged the Court to rely on the National Labor Relations Board's decision in D.R. Horton, in which the NLRB concluded that a waiver of the right to bring a class action claim as a condition of employment violated federal labor laws. Despite plaintiff's urging, the Court declined to do so due to Richard's failure to raise the argument to the district court. However, the Ninth Circuit specifically noted that the majority of courts who have considered the issue declined to follow the NLRB's controversial ruling. Instead, as did the Second Circuit recently, the Ninth Circuit applied the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant. Employers should be encouraged by the unity of federal courts declining to follow the NLRB's attack on class action waivers but should be cautious as the enforceability of class action waivers is still unsettled in other jurisdictions. FANTASY GENTLEMAN'S: Strippers File Wage Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- Colleen Slevin, writing for The Associated Press, reports that strippers who say they were paid only in tips and had to pay to work at a Grand Junction club are suing the club and its owner in federal court. In the class-action lawsuit announced on Aug. 27, five women who used to work at Fantasy Gentleman's Club said they received no wages and had to pay varying rates to work at the club depending on the time and location in the club. They said they also had to give bouncers and disc jockeys up to 15 percent of their tips. According to signs posted at the club, the women also had to pay fines for violating rules, such as complaining about their personal lives to customers or if a customer touched them inappropriately, or if they changed their schedule or couldn't work. They also had to pay a $30 fine if they didn't have money to pay their fees the same day. The lawsuit claims the women were wrongly classified as independent contractors, and seeks back wages, tips and overtime. Lawyers believe there are more than 50 women who worked at the club over the past three years who are eligible to join. Lawyer Mari Newman, who is representing the women, said lawsuits have been filed challenging similar pay structures at other strip clubs across the country but that Fantasy's fine system is more extreme than seen elsewhere. Ms. Newman may be reached at: Mari Newman, Esq. KILLMER, LANE, & NEWMAN, LLP The Odd Fellows Hall 1543 Champa St, Suite 400 Denver, CO 80202 Tel: 303-571-1000 Fax: 303 571 1001 Owner Kevin Eardley confirmed that the photographs of signs displaying fees and rules included in the lawsuit were from his club and defended them. He said strippers are fined for anything that he could be fined for by the state. Mr. Eardley said the women signed contracts agreeing to, in effect, lease space in the club to work, like some hairstylists do. He said it's a common practice at Colorado strip clubs. "They were never employees," he said. Newman said the women should be considered more like wait staff than hairstylists, mainly because they didn't have much control over their work, as evidenced by the fines. FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. Court Okay ----------------------------------------------------------------- The following was released on Aug. 30 by Stull, Stull & Brody. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DEBRA GRIFFIN and JOY GARDNER, on Behalf of Themselves and a Class of Persons Similarly Situated, CASE NO.: 2:10-cv-10610 Plaintiffs, v. FLAGSTAR BANCORP, INC.; REBECCA A. LUCCI; ERIN ENGLAND; JOHN DOES 1-10, AND RICHARD ROES 1-20, Defendants. SUMMARY NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT TO: ALL CURRENT AND FORMER PARTICIPANTS AND BENEFICIARIES OF THE FLAGSTAR BANK 401(K) PLAN FOR WHOSE INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTS THE PLAN HELD SHARES OF COMMON STOCK OF FLAGSTAR BANCORP, INC. AT ANY TIME FROM DECEMBER 31, 2006 TO MAY 2, 2013, INCLUSIVE. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. A FEDERAL COURT AUTHORIZED THIS NOTICE. THIS IS NOT A SOLICITATION. YOU ARE NOT BEING SUED. A Settlement has been preliminarily approved by a federal court in a consolidated class action lawsuit against Flagstar Bancorp, Inc., alleging breaches of fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), which claims and allegations were denied by Flagstar. All capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Summary Notice of Class Action Settlement have the meaning provided in the Class Action Settlement Agreement available on the Settlement website identified in this Notice. The Settlement will provide for a payment of $3 million to the Plan (minus Court-approved attorneys' fees, certain expenses and case contribution awards to the Named Plaintiffs), which will then be allocated to the accounts of participants of the Plan, other than certain excluded persons under the terms of the Settlement, who had portions of their Plan accounts invested in Flagstar common stock or fund units in the Flagstar Stock Fund between December 31, 2006 and May 2, 2013, inclusive. You will receive a payment if you qualify under a Court-approved Plan of Allocation. You do not need to send in a claim form or take any other action to participate in the Settlement. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Southern Division) authorized this Notice. WHO IS INCLUDED IN THE SETTLEMENT? If you were a member of the Settlement Class, as defined above, then you are included in the Settlement automatically. WHAT IS THIS CASE ABOUT? The Named Plaintiffs claimed, among other things, that the Defendant breached fiduciary duties under ERISA by allowing the investment of the Plan's assets in Flagstar common stock or Flagstar Stock Fund units during a time when they allegedly knew or should have known that such investment was imprudent. Defendant denies any wrongdoing, and asserted defenses against all the claims. WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE? Defendant agreed to create a Settlement Fund of $3 million to be divided among eligible Settlement Class members after payment of attorneys' fees and expenses to Class Counsel and Case Contribution Awards to the Named Plaintiffs, and payment of other costs and expenses of the Settlement, including notice and Settlement administration, as the Court may allow. The Settlement Agreement and long-form Class Notice, available along with other related documentation and a list of Frequently Asked Questions at the website identified below, describe the details of the proposed Settlement. The Settlement releases certain claims relating to the investment of the Plan's assets in Flagstar common stock or common stock fund units during the time period listed above. HOW DO I RECEIVE A PAYMENT? If you are a Settlement Class member and are entitled to a share of the Settlement Fund according to the Settlement Agreement, you are not required to do anything to receive a payment. The payment will be made directly to your Plan account(s). If you no longer are a participant in the Plan, a Plan account will be established for you, and you will be notified of this account along with further instructions. If your address has changed since you closed your Plan account(s), please call 800-332-9084 (toll-free) to advise of the change of address. CAN I OBJECT TO OR OPT OUT OF THE SETTLEMENT? You cannot opt out of the Settlement, but you may object to all or any part of the Settlement in accordance with the Class Notice. You will be bound by any judgments or orders that are entered in this Action, and if the Settlement is approved, you will be deemed to have released all of the Defendants from all claims that were or could have been asserted in this case. The Court has scheduled a hearing in this case on December 3, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. in the Courtroom of United States District Judge Paul D. Borman, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Southern Division), Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse, 231 W. Lafayette Blvd., Room 740, Detroit, MI 48226, to consider whether to approve the Settlement and any motion(s) by the lawyers representing Settlement Class members for attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses and Case Contribution Awards to the Named Plaintiffs, and for other case-related expenses. If approved, these amounts will be paid from the Settlement Fund. You may ask to speak at the hearing by filing a notice of your intention to appear, but you are not required to appear at the hearing. If you intend to attend the hearing, please re-confirm the time and location with Plaintiffs' counsel or check the Settlement website identified in this Notice to make sure that the hearing has not been re-scheduled. HOW DO I GET MORE INFORMATION? This Notice summarizes the proposed Settlement. If you are a Settlement Class member and would like to receive additional information or to receive a copy of the long form Class Notice, which more completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder (including your right to object to the Settlement), please call toll free 800-332-9084 or visit http://www.FlagstarERISAsettlement.com STULL, STULL & BRODY Michael Klein, 212-687-7230 GANLEY CHEVROLET: Ohio Appeals Court Upholds Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Freedman, writing for Automotive News, reports that the Ohio Court of Appeals has upheld class certification in a suit alleging that the arbitration clause in a Cleveland-area dealership group's sales agreement was unconscionable and unenforceable. The 2-1 ruling against Ganley Chevrolet and Ganley Automotive Stores came in a spot delivery-related dispute that began in March 2001, after Jeffrey and Stacy Felix purchased a 2000 Chevy Blazer. Ganley has asked the appellate court for reconsideration and, if that's unsuccessful, may seek state Supreme Court review, says dealership lawyer Steven Dever of Lakewood, Ohio. The plaintiffs contend that Ganley told them they were approved for 0 percent financing and let them take home the Blazer. But a few days later, Ganley told them GMAC would approve only 1.9 percent financing, which they accepted. More than a month later, they were told GMAC had rejected them. The dealership then found a bank that would provide a 9.4 percent loan, but the Felixes refused to sign a new agreement at that rate, the decision said. The suit alleges "bait-and-switch tactics," violation of the state Consumer Sales Practices Act, misrepresentation, and emotional distress. It includes individual and class-action claims and challenges the validity of the arbitration provision in the sales agreement. A lower-court judge rejected Ganley's request for arbitration and approved class-action status on behalf of all consumers whose sales agreement with any Ganley store had the same provision. Ganley Automotive Stores has 34 franchises in northern Ohio, according to its Web site. The judge found the provision ambiguous and misleading and awarded $200 in damages to each of the "thousands of members" of the class. It covers customers who signed such agreements from two years before the lawsuit was filed in June 2001 until the company changed the provision in 2007, said plaintiffs' lawyer Mark Schlachet of Cleveland Heights, Ohio. However, only a "handful" of those customers went to arbitration, Mr. Dever said. He added: "How can you quantify the harm when people had no complaint? The analysis is fundamentally flawed." The appeals court held that class-action status was appropriate under the consumer protection law. In the majority opinion, Appeals Judge Mary Kilbane said the trial judge, who handled the case for 11 years, had "conducted a rigorous analysis into whether the prerequisites for class certification have been satisfied. The dissenting judge said Ganley's use of the arbitration provision might be an "unfair or deceptive practice" that would justify individual lawsuits but that the plaintiffs failed to meet the requirements for class-action status. Mr. Schlachet said Ganley couldn't appeal the damage award yet because it isn't final. The Felixes' individual claims are still pending, both lawyers said. GENESEE & WYOMING: Merger-Related Suit Settlements Paid in May -------------------------------------------------------------- Genesee & Wyoming Inc. disclosed in its August 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013, that its settlement of merger-related lawsuits in Florida was paid in May 2013. In connection with the Company's acquisition of RailAmerica Inc., five putative stockholder class action lawsuits were filed in 2012, three in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (Delaware Court) and two in the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit for Duval County, Florida, Civil Division (Florida Circuit Court), against RailAmerica, the RailAmerica directors and Genesee & Wyoming. The two lawsuits filed in the Florida Circuit Court alleged, among other things, that the RailAmerica directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their decision to sell RailAmerica to Genesee & Wyoming via an allegedly flawed process and failed to obtain the best financial and other terms and that RailAmerica and Genesee & Wyoming aided and abetted those alleged breaches of duty. The complaints requested, among other relief, an order to enjoin consummation of the merger and attorneys' fees. On July 31, 2012, the plaintiffs in the Florida actions filed a motion to consolidate the two Florida actions, appoint plaintiffs Langan and Sambuco as lead plaintiffs and appoint lead counsel in the proposed consolidated action. The Plaintiffs in the Florida actions also filed an emergency motion for expedited proceedings on August 7, 2012, and an amended complaint on August 8, 2012, which included allegations that the information statement filed by RailAmerica on August 3, 2012, omitted material information about the proposed merger. On August 17, 2012, the parties in the Florida actions submitted a stipulation for expedited proceedings, which the Florida Circuit Court ordered on August 20, 2012. The three lawsuits filed in Delaware Court named the same defendants, alleged substantially similar claims, and sought similar relief as the Florida actions. The parties to the Delaware actions submitted orders of dismissal in November 2012, which the Delaware Court has granted. On December 7, 2012, solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, the Company and the other parties to the Florida actions executed a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release to settle all related claims. The settlement is not material. On May 15, 2013, the Florida Circuit Court held a hearing on final approval of the settlement and entered an Order and Final Judgment that approved the settlement and dismissed with prejudice the Florida actions. The settlement was paid in May of 2013. Genesee & Wyoming Inc. -- http://www.gwrr.com/-- owns and operates short line and regional freight railroads and provides railcar switching and other rail-related services in the United States of America, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands and Belgium. The Company was incorporated in Delaware in 1977 and is headquartered in Greenwich, Connecticut. GOOGLE INC: Sells Info From Wallet and Play Apps, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Google illegally gives or sells third-party vendors access to information from its Google Wallet and Google Play apps, exposing people to ID theft, a class action claims in Federal Court. The case is Svenson v. Google, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:13-cv- 04080-HRL, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose). The Plaintiff is represented by: Kathryn S. Diemer, Esq. DIEMER WHITMAN & CARDOSI, LLP 75 East Santa Clara Street, Suite 290 San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 971-6270 Facsimile: (408) 971-6271 E-mail: kdiemer@diemerwhitman.com HI-TECH PHARMACAL: Being Sold to Akorn for Too Little, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that directors of Hi-Tech Pharmacal are selling the company too cheaply through an unfair process to Akorn, for $640 million or $43.50 a share, shareholders claim in Chancery Court. HUBBARD FEEDS: Recalls Life Homestead FastGrow Poultry Feed ----------------------------------------------------------- Hubbard Feeds Inc. announced a voluntary recall of three additional lots of Hubbard Life Homestead FASTGROW AM.0.0125 NAB/NAB MEDICATED because of elevated calcium levels that may be harmful to chickens and turkeys. This voluntary recall is the result of identification of additional lot numbers through assays by the FDA related to a voluntary recall of the same product on July 2, 2013. No adverse events or complaints have been reported to date for the three additional lots. Chickens and turkeys exposed to these lots may exhibit decreased feed intake, decreased growth rate or death. If poultry producers observe animals that have consumed product from this particular lot number and have any of these symptoms, producers should contact their local veterinarian for assistance. The recall is limited to the following item and associated lot numbers: -- Item No: 34739-2 Description: Hubbard Life Homestead FASTGROW AM.0125 NAP/NAB MEDCATED (Complete Chicken Starter/Grower/Finisher/Broiler Feed, Complete Turkey Grower/Finisher) with Lot Number: -- B00578594; -- B00582621; and -- B00584526 The product was sold in Indiana, Michigan and Illinois through retail feed stores. The Hubbard Life Homestead FASTGROW AM.0125 NAP/NAB MEDICATED is packaged in 50 lb. bags. The lot numbers will be found on the bottom of the label. Packages associated with this lot number contained levels of calcium that exceeded formulated nutrient levels. Poultry producers who have purchased Hubbard Life Homestead FASTGROW AM.0125 NAP/NAB MEDICATED with the lot numbers listed above should discontinue use of the product and return the unused portion to the place of purchase for a full refund. Poultry producers with questions may contact Hubbard Feeds Inc., during normal business hours, Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., Central Time 507-388-9645. This voluntary recall is being made with the knowledge of the Food and Drug Administration. LKQ CORPORATION: Suit v. Aftermarket Product Suppliers Still Open ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action against several aftermarket product suppliers is still pending against two defendants, according to LKQ Corporation's Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. The company is a plaintiff in a class action lawsuit against several aftermarket product suppliers. During the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2012, the company recognized gains of $8.4 million and $16.7 million, respectively, resulting from settlements with certain of the defendants. These gains were recorded as a reduction of Cost of Goods Sold on the company's Unaudited Consolidated Condensed Statements of Income. The class action is still pending against two defendants, the results of which are not expected to be material to the company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows. If there is a class settlement with (or a favorable judgment entered against) either of the remaining defendants, the company will recognize the gain from such settlement or judgment when substantially all uncertainties regarding its timing and amount are resolved and realization is assured. The company also has certain contingencies resulting from litigation, claims and other commitments and are subject to a variety of environmental and pollution control laws and regulations incident to the ordinary course of business. The company currently expects that the resolution of such contingencies will not materially affect the company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows. MEDTRONIC INC: Fails in Bid to Dismiss Infuse Class Suit in Ore. ---------------------------------------------------------------- In Alton v. Medtronic, the U.S. District Court in Oregon denied Medtronic's motion to dismiss on federal preemption grounds a personal injury/product liability suit against the company for the injuries suffered by a patient that received the Infuse bone growth protein in an off-label surgery. The Court rejected Medtronic's motion as to the majority of claims raised by plaintiff, specifically the cause of actions for fraud, misrepresentation, negligence, failure to warn, and breach of express warranty. The order is attached. "We are pleased that the Court rejected Medtronic's efforts to close the courthouse doors to Mr. Alton and the many other spine patients injured by dangerous misbranded uses of the Infuse bone growth protein," stated plaintiff's counsel Kent L. Klaudt of the national plaintiffs' law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP. "The Court's carefully-reasoned ruling makes it clear that manufacturers who violate federal safety laws cannot then hide behind federal law to evade state tort liability to injured patients." The order constitutes the second recent decision by a federal court denying Medtronic's preemption claims in an injury case arising out of the off-label use of Infuse. On August 21, 2013, the U.S. District Court in Arizona denied in large part a similar motion to dismiss by Medtronic in an Infuse personal injury lawsuit. This order can be found at http://is.gd/o7A25m In 2002, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the use of the Infuse device -- which includes the bone graft substitute intended to be inserted into a metallic spinal fusion cage -- for solely the treatment of degenerative disc disease as part of a single-level, anterior lumbar interbody fusion. The FDA had not approved Infuse in a posterior approach procedure as was used in the Oregon and Arizona cases due to concerns of potential adverse effects, such as bone overgrowth, when Infuse was used in posterior procedures. Thousands of patients nationwide, however, have been implanted with Infuse during off- label use procedures. Off-label use of Infuse by physicians constituted nearly 90% of the $800 million in revenue that Infuse generated for Medtronic in 2011. The complaint charges that Medtronic failed to warn the FDA of severe side effects associated with use of its spinal fusion product Infuse when used for surgeries other than that originally presented to the FDA. The complaint further alleges that Medtronic aggressively promoted off-label uses of its device utilizing journal articles, advertising media, sales representatives/consultants and paid leading physicians to urge the use, purchase, and utilization of Infuse. The off-label promotion of prescription drugs and medical devices violates Federal law. Please contact Kent L. Klaudt at 415-956-1000 or kklaudt@lchb.com for answers to any follow up questions. Description: LCHB Stephen H. Cassidy scassidy@lchb.com t 415.956.1000 f 415.956.1008 Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 <http://www.lieffcabraser.com>www.lieffcabraser.com This message is intended for the named recipients only. It may contain information protected by the attorney-client or work- product privilege. If you have received this email in error, please notify the send MIDAMERICAN ENERGY: Unit Faces Suit Over NV Energy Acquisition -------------------------------------------------------------- A subsidiary of MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company is facing a suit filed by purported shareholders of NV Energy in the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County, Nevada, according to MidAmerican's Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. Following the announcement of the acquisition of NV Energy by MEHC on May 29, 2013, several complaints were filed by purported shareholders of NV Energy in the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County, Nevada, challenging the proposed merger. The complaints were filed on behalf of a putative class of NV Energy public shareholders, naming NV Energy, its board of directors, MEHC and Silver Merger Sub Inc. ("Merger Sub"), an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of MEHC. The complaints, as amended, generally allege that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed merger, and that NV Energy, Merger Sub and MEHC aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary duties by the individual defendants. The amended complaints seek, among other things, an order preliminarily and permanently enjoining the acquisition, disclosure of certain information relating to the acquisition, damages, and plaintiff's expenses. Although MEHC is unable at this time to determine the ultimate outcome of these lawsuits, injunctive relief or an adverse determination in the shareholder class actions could result in a cash judgment or settlement and affect the company's ability to complete the acquisition with NV Energy. MEHC intends to vigorously defend the lawsuits. NANO MAGNETICS: Recalls Magnet Sets Over Choking Hazard ------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: September 3, 2013 Posting date: September 3, 2013 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Household Items, Toys Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety, Physical Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-29263 Affected products: Electroplated Nanodots, Coated Colors Nanodots and Mega Nanodots magnetic sets The present recall involves small powerful magnetic balls that can be used to build sculptures, puzzles, patterns, or shapes including any of the following brands: Recalled Products: Product Name UPC ------------ --- 64 Original 830491000001 64 Black 830491000018 64 Silver 830491000025 64 Gold 830491000032 64 Red 830491000452 64 Pink 830491000599 64 Purple 830491000780 64 Orange 830491000162 64 Green 830491000179 64 Blue 830491000254 64 Galaxy Black 830491000896 125 Original 830491000209 125 Black 830491000216 125 Silver 830491000223 125 Gold 830491000230 125 Red 830491000469 125 Pink 830491000476 125 Purple 830491000483 125 Orange 830491000490 125 Green 830491000544 125 Blue 830491000551 125 Galaxy Black 830491000582 216 Original 627843036005 216 Black 627843036012 216 Silver 627843036029 216 Gold 627843036036 216 Onyx Gold 830491000643 216 Red 830491000650 216 Pink 830491000667 216 Purple 830491000674 216 Orange 830491000681 216 Green 830491000698 216 Blue 830491000742 216 Galaxy Black 830491000773 Mega 64 Black 830491000124 Mega 64 Spectra 830491000131 Mega 64 Gold 830491000186 Mega 64 Blue 830491000193 Mega 64 Silver 830491000117 Health Canada has ordered Nano Magnetics Ltd. to recall these products from the market. The risk assessment on these magnet sets has informed Health Canada's determination that they are a danger to human health and safety because they contain small powerful magnets which can be easily swallowed or inhaled by children. Unlike other small objects that would be more likely to pass normally through the digestive system if swallowed, when more than one small powerful magnet is swallowed, the magnets can attract one another while travelling through the digestive system. The magnets can then pinch together and create a blockage and slowly tear through the intestinal walls, causing perforations. The results of swallowing small powerful magnets can be very serious and life-threatening. Swallowing incidents have often resulted in considerable damage to the gastrointestinal tissues and required emergency surgical treatment. For survivors, there can be serious long-term health consequences. Approximately 190,000 units of the affected products were sold in Canada. The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold from July 2010 to July 2013. Manufacturer: Nano Magnetics Inc. Vaughan CANADA NEW YORK, NY: Monitor Appointed in Stop-and-Frisk Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Nick DiVito, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that the president of a nonprofit reform outfit will facilitate the remediation of the unconstitutional stop-and-frisk police practices, a federal judge ruled Wednesday, September 4, 2013. U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin had noted that she would appoint such a monitor when she ruled against the city last month after a two-month bench trial. Nicholas Turner will now take on the task of developing sustainable reforms to the stop-and-frisk practices of the New York City Police Department, according to a six-page order supplementing the remedies opinion. Turner spent nine years with the Vera Institute of Justice before it appointed him recently as its fifth president. Judge Scheindlin described the institute as "widely recognized for its use of rigorous testing and broad-based collaboration to help governments plan, implement and evaluate improvements to the justice system." "Vera has a long history of working to improve public safety by strengthening its ties between police and the community," she added. The group partnered with the NYPD in the early 1980s to develop the Community Patrol Officer Program, "one of the first community policing programs in the country," Judge Scheindlin wrote. "Mr. Turner initiated and managed projects on racial profiling in prosecution, safety in America's prisons, sentencing reform, juvenile justice and domestic violence," she added. Turner left Vera for several years to serve as managing director of the Rockefeller Foundation, focusing on urban issues and the redevelopment of post-Hurricane Katrina New Orleans to "increase racial and socioeconomic integration." He graduated from Yale College and Yale Law School, then clerked for U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein in Brooklyn. Before law school, Turner worked with homeless, at-risk and court- involved youth at Sasha Bruce Youthwork, a community-based youth advocacy and services organization in Washington, D.C. Judge Scheindlin's remedies opinion last month had also called for police to wear cameras during stop-and-frisk procedures. David Floyd, Lalit Clarkson, Deon Dennis and David Ourlicht filed a federal class action challenging the department's stop-and-frisk practices five years ago in Manhattan. Those men's attorneys with the Center for Constitutional Rights said Turner was a good choice. "We are pleased that the court has appointed Mr. Turner and we are looking forward to working with him in order to move the joint remedy process forward," the group said in a statement. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Darius Charney, Esq. LANSNER & KUBITSCHEK 325 Broadway, Suite 201 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 349-0900 Facsimile: (212) 349-0694 E-mail: DCharney@ccrjustice.org - and - Jonathan C. Moore, Esq. BELDOCK LEVINE & HOFFMAN LLP 99 Park Ave (16 Fl.) New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 353-9587 Facsimile: (212) 674-4614 E-mail: jmoore@blhny.com - and - Baher Azmy, Esq. SETON HALL LAW SCHOOL CENTER FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 833 Mccarter Highway Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 642-8700 Facsimile: (973) 642-8295 E-mail: bazmy@ccrjustice.org - and - Bruce Oliver Corey, Jr., Esq. COREY COVINGTON & BURLING LLP The New York Times Building 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 841-1055 Facsimile: (646) 441-9055 E-mail: bcorey@cov.com - and - Chauniqua Danielle Young, Esq. CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 666 Broadway Fl 7 New York, NY 10012 Telephone: (212) 614-6483 E-mail: cyoung@ccrjustice.org - and - Eric Hellerman, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP(NYC) 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018-1405 Telephone: (212) 841-1155 Facsimile: (212) 841-1010 E-mail: ehellerman@cov.com - and - Gretchen Ann Hoff Varner, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP(NYC) 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018-1405 Telephone: (212) 841-1176 Facsimile: (646) 441-9176 E-mail: ghoffvarner@cov.com - and - Jennifer Rolnick Borchetta, Esq. BELDOCK LEVINE & HOFFMAN LLP 99 Park Ave (16 Fl.) New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 277-5893 Facsimile: (212) 557-0565 E-mail: jborchetta@blhny.com - and - Kasey Lynn Martini, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP(NYC) 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018-1405 Telephone: (212) 841-1167 Facsimile: (646) 441-9167 E-mail: kmartini@cov.com - and - Laura Marie Flahive Wu, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP(NYC) 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018-1405 Telephone: (212) 841-1257 Facsimile: (646) 441-9257 E-mail: lflahivewu@cov.com - and - Philip Alexander Irwin, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP(NYC) 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018-1405 Telephone: (212) 841-1190 Facsimile: (212) 841-1010 E-mail: pirwin@cov.com - and - Sunita Patel, Esq. CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 666 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10012 Telephone: (212) 614-6439 Facsimile: (212) 614-6499 E-mail: spatel@ccrjustice.org The Defendants are represented by: Brenda Elaine Cooke, Esq. NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 513-0462 Facsimile: (212) 788-0367 E-mail: bcooke@law.nyc.gov - and - David M. Hazan, Esq. NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street, Rm. 2-303B New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 788-8084 Facsimile: (212) 788-9776 E-mail: dhazan@jacobshazan.com - and - Joseph Anthony Marutollo, Esq. NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 788-1300 Facsimile: (212) 788-0367 E-mail: jmarutol@law.nyc.gov - and - Linda Donahue, Esq. 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 788-0892 Facsimile: (212) 788-9776 E-mail: ldonahue@law.nyc.gov - and - Lisa Marie Richardson, Esq. NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 442-0832 Facsimile: (212) 788-9776 E-mail: lrichard@law.nyc.gov - and - Prathyusha Bandi Reddy, Esq. MCALOON & FRIEDMAN, P.C. 123 William Steet New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 788-0963 Facsimile: (212) 788-9776 E-mail: prathyushareddy@mcf-esq.com - and - Suzanna Hallie Publicker, Esq. NYC LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street Rm. New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 788-1103 Facsimile: (212) 788-9776 E-mail: spublick@law.nyc.gov - and - Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III, Esq. 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 788-1599 Facsimile: (212) 788-9776 E-mail: alarkin@law.nyc.gov - and - Cecilia Ann Silver, Esq. NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 788-8684 Facsimile: (212) 788-9776 E-mail: csilver@law.nyc.gov - and - Judson Krebbs Vickers, Esq. 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 788-0891 Facsimile: (212) 571-4600 E-mail: jvickers@law.nyc.gov - and - Stephanie Marie Breslow, Esq. NYC LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street Rm. 3-187 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 788-1575 Facsimile: (212) 788-9776 E-mail: sbreslow@law.nyc.gov The case is Floyd, et al. v. The City of New York, et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-01034-SAS-HBP, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. NUVERRA ENVIRONMENTAL: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Sept. 3 disclosed that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Nuverra Environmental Soultions, Inc. common stock during the period between March 12, 2013 and August 23, 2013. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from September 3, 2013. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/nuverra/ Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint charges Nuverra and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Nuverra provides full-cycle environmental cleanup services to customers in energy and industrial end-markets in the United States. It focuses on the delivery, collection, treatment, recycling, and disposal of restricted solids, water, waste water, used motor oil, spent antifreeze, waste fluids, and hydrocarbons through its two operating segments: Shale Solutions and Industrial Solutions. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial performance and future prospects. As a result of defendants' false statements, Nuverra shares traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. On July 30, 2013, the Company issued a press release announcing its "preliminary" second quarter 2013 financial results for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. Rather than the EBITDA of $46.7 million on revenues of $186.4 million that Nuverra had led the investment community to expect, Nuverra stated EBITDA would only be in the range of $32.8 to $33.6 million on $165.5 million in revenues. According to Nuverra: (i) weakness in the used oil market drew down revenues and profits in the Company's Industrial Solutions segment; (ii) snow and rain hampered performance in the Company's Shale Solutions segment; (iii) the Company was experiencing unspecified operational issues in its Eagle Ford area; and (iv) heavy demand in its Marcellus and Utica shale areas forced the Company to hire subcontractors, which lowered overall margins. On this news, the price of Nuverra common stock, which had traded as high as $4.42 per share in intraday trading during the Class Period, fell more than 30% to close at $3.04 per share on July 30, 2013. Then on August 8, 2013, Nuverra announced its actual second quarter 2013 earnings results, disclosing an adjusted earnings per share loss of $0.05 per share, rather than the loss of $0.03 per share Nuverra had led the investment community to expect. Finally, on August 23, 2013, after the close of trading, stock blog Seeking Alpha.com published a research report that disclosed, among other things, specifics concerning the Power Fuels acquisition and discussed how that acquisition was weighing the Company's financial performance down. On this news, the price of Nuverra common stock declined another 11.76%, closing at $2.40 per share on August 26, 2013. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Nuverra common stock during the Class Period. The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international institutional investors in contingency-based securities and corporate litigation. With nearly 200 lawyers in nine offices, the firm represents hundreds of public and multi- employer pension funds with combined assets under management in excess of $2 trillion. OLIVE HILL: Electric Rate Suits Obtain Class Action Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Lewis, writing for Journal-Times, reports that Carter Circuit Judge Rebecca Phillips heard oral arguments on Sept. 3 before awarding class action certification of two lawsuits against Olive Hill Utilities. Both suits allege that Olive Hill illegally raised electric rates in violation of KRS 96.534, which requires prior public notice of electric rate increases for municipally-owned utilities. Attorneys representing the Kentucky League of Cities (KLC) and Olive Hill electric rate payers were on hand to discuss the particulars of the case. With little resistance from KLC's attorney, Judge Phillips certified class action status for the suits. "The action meets all the required criteria for class action status and I believe doing so to be in the best interests not only of the plaintiffs, but also the defendant in terms of responding to requests for discovery and things of that nature," Judge Phillips said in issuing the judgment. Frankfort attorney Jim Deckard and Olive Hill attorney Michael Fox then presented arguments to the court concerning which of them should be appointed as counsel for the class action. Mr. Deckard touted his experience litigating utility law, as well as his network of industry experts as selling points as to why his firm should be named as counsel. Mr. Fox countered by presenting his own lengthy resume of handling complicated cases, as well as asserting that he could more easily interact with personnel in the case because he is based locally. Mr. Fox also rebutted an argument that he could have a potential conflict of interest in the case by revealing that he has recently filed a voluntary dismissal of any claim he might have in the suit. Judge Phillips will review proposals from both firms and issue a ruling later as to who will serve as class counsel for the suit. PETROCHINA: Three Senior Officials Step Down After Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Platts reports that China's state-owned oil giant PetroChina has been hit by a slew of legal actions in the US after being tainted by a corruption scandal. Three senior officials from the company and a vice president from its parent China National Petroleum Corp. recently resigned after news emerged that they are being investigated by the Chinese government for disciplinary violations, commonly used to refer to corruption allegations. On Sept. 3, New York-based law firm Pomerantz said it has filed a class action against PetroChina in the Southern District of New York on behalf of a plaintiff identified as Johan Broux, as well as all other similar parties who purchased PetroChina securities between April 26, 2012, and August 27, 2013. PHOENICIA GROUP: Recalls Certain Cedar Brand Tahina Products ------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: August 31, 2013 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Health Hazard Alert Subcategory: Microbiological - Salmonella Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Phoenicia Group Inc. Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, May be National, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Phoenicia Group Inc. are warning the public, food service establishments, and retailers, not to consume, serve, use, or sell the Tahini products because they may be contaminated with Salmonella. The following Tahini products, sold commencing February 1, 2013 with no lot code indicated on the package, are affected by this alert. This alert does not include Cedar brand Tahini products where a lot code appears on the package. Some of the affected products were sold in bulk and may have been repacked at retail. Consumers who cannot determine the original product identity are advised to check with their retailer to determine if they have one of the affected products. There have been no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of these products. The distributor, Phoenicia Group Inc., St-Laurent, Quebec, is voluntarily recalling the affected products from the marketplace. The CFIA is monitoring the effectiveness of the recall. Affected products: -- Cedar Tahini 907 g (2 lb); and -- Cedar Tahini 18 kg (40 lb) POLYCOM INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action Suit in California -------------------------------------------------------------- Polycom, Inc. is facing a shareholder class action lawsuit filed in California, according to the Company's August 6, 2013, Form 10- Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. On July 26, 2013, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its officers. The complaint alleges that the Company issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies, which lead to materially false and misleading financial statements. The complaint alleges violation of the federal securities laws and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. At this time the Company is unable to estimate any range of reasonably possible loss relating to this action. Polycom, Inc. offers open, standards-based unified communications and collaboration solutions for voice and video collaboration. The Company's solutions are powered by the Polycom(R) RealPresence(R) Platform, comprehensive software infrastructure and rich application programming interfaces that interoperate with a broad set of communication, business, mobile, and cloud applications and devices to deliver secure face-to-face video collaboration across different environments. The Company is headquartered in San Jose, California. PROFESSIONAL INVESTMENT: Slater & Gordon Mulls Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Laura Millan, writing for Financial Standard, reports that Slater & Gordon are considering a class action against Professional Investment Services (PIS) after retail investors face losses from the collapse of a Queensland olive farm investment scheme. Over 350 Australians had ploughed approximately AUD25 million into the Brooklyn Park Organic Olive Groves Bonni-Foi project, a managed investment scheme (MIS) that collapsed when the responsible entity, Australian Green & Gold announced its intention to wind up the scheme in September 2011. Investors have approached Slater & Gordon, which has begun an investigation. The practice's group leader Ben Whitwell said that it is likely that most investors were introduced to the investment on the advice of authorized representatives of Queensland-based Australian financial services licensee PIS. "Our investigations also indicate PIS advisors failed to adequately explain the risks involved in the investment and failed to offer any alternative investments," Mr. Whitwell said. "The proposed action will allege that the relevant financial advisers did not recommend an appropriate product when they recommended the Bonni-Foi investment," he said. "These are mum and dad investors who were given assurances there were safeguards in place to protect their investment, but our investigations indicate PIS advisers failed to disclose to investors that the structure of the scheme meant this was not necessarily the case." PIS was subject to an enforceable undertaking from December 2010 to March 2012, but last July the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) ordered the appointment of an independent expert to further monitor PIS. ASIC raised concerns over the dealer group's compliance and audit functions and the expert will test PIS' regulatory requirements, its ability to identify poor advice and the effectiveness of its advice audit and pre-vet functions. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Progeny Lawsuits Reach 5,000 as of June ---------------------------------------------------------- As of June 30, 2013, 2,014 individual progeny actions were pending in federal court, and 3,282 cases were pending in state court, according to Reynolds American Inc.'s July 24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. The following cases against RJR Tobacco and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. (B&W) have attracted significant attention: the Florida state court class-action case, Engle v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and the related Engle Progeny cases; and the case brought by the U.S. Department of Justice under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, referred to as RICO. In 2000, a jury in Engle v. Liggett Group, a class-action brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers by a class of Florida smokers allegedly harmed by their addiction to nicotine, rendered a $145 billion punitive damages verdict in favor of the class. In 2006, the Florida Supreme Court set aside that award, prospectively decertified the class, and preserved several of the Engle jury findings for use in subsequent individual actions to be filed within one year of its decision. The preserved findings include jury determinations that smoking causes various diseases, that nicotine is addictive, and that each defendant sold cigarettes that were defective and unreasonably dangerous, committed unspecified acts of negligence and individually and jointly concealed unspecified information about the health risks of smoking. The Engle findings do not indicate that all cigarettes sold by each defendant were defective and unreasonably dangerous, nor do they specify what acts of negligence each defendant committed, or what information each defendant concealed. In the wake of Engle, thousands of individual progeny actions were filed in federal and state courts in Florida. As of June 30, 2013, 2,014 cases were pending in federal court, and 3,282 cases were pending in state court. These cases include approximately 6,423 plaintiffs. In addition, as of June 30, 2013, RJR Tobacco was aware of 69 additional cases that had been filed but not served. Ninety-eight cases have been tried in Florida state and federal courts since 2010, and numerous state court trials are scheduled for 2013. SCOTT HARRINGTON: Sued for Exposing Patients to HIV, Hepatitis -------------------------------------------------------------- 2NEWS reports that a Tulsa dentist accused of exposing thousands of patients to various blood-borne illnesses is now facing a class action lawsuit. Dr. Scott Harrington is being sued by seven people, and, according to the suit, at least five of them contracted infectious diseases during treatment at his dental clinics. One of the plaintiffs, who, along with her husband, is suing Harrington, told 2NEWS the last few months for them have been "difficult and annoying." She says she visited Dr. Harrington's midtown office to have a wisdom tooth pulled. The Oklahoma Board of Dentistry launched an investigation in March 2013 after one of Harrington's patients tested positive for hepatitis C. State and local health officials then notified more than 7,000 patients of the Tulsa- and Owasso-area dentist. They were told they may have been exposed to hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV due to unsanitary and improper sterilization practices at Harrington's clinics. After months of testing, the Oklahoma State Department of Health reports 77 of the dentist's former patients have tested positive for hepatitis C, five for hepatitis B and four for HIV. On Sept. 3, the class suit was filed against Dr. Harrington, his corporation and several pharmaceutical companies. According to court documents, the plaintiffs, some of whom are couples, claim they were exposed to infectious diseases through the repeated use of Propofol vials. Propofol is an anesthetic used in surgical procedures. Despite receiving information that anesthesia personnel were reusing vials, the plaintiffs claim the drug makers continued to manufacture, market and sell multi-use vials, which could be contaminated and expose patients to communicable diseases. The lawsuit reads in part that the makers, distributors and marketers of the vials, Hospira, Pharmaceutical Systems, and Southern Anesthesia were "willful, reckless, malicious and in total disregard to health and safety of the patients." The suit alleges negligence on the part of Harrington, his practice and medical staff and that the drug makers are liable due to the defective multi-use vials. The plaintiffs are seeking a judgment for damages in excess of $10,000. 2News reached out to the pharmaceutical companies named in the suit as well as attorneys for Harrington, but our calls were not returned or they declined to comment on the pending litigation. Dr. Harrington is scheduled to appear before the state dentistry board Jan. 17 in Oklahoma City. SESAMECO: Recalls Certain Tahini Products ----------------------------------------- Starting date: August 31, 2013 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Health Hazard Alert Subcategory: Microbiological - Salmonella Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Sesameco Distribution: May be National, Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Sesameco are warning the public, food service establishments, and retailers, not to consume, serve, use, or sell the Tahini product because it may be contaminated with Salmonella. The affected Tahini product was sold by the manufacturer, Sesameco, situated at 4638 boulevard Thimens, St-Laurent, Quebec. The affected product was sold from March 5, 2013 to May 15, 2013 in 18 kg (40 lb.) packages bearing no label and no lot code indicated on the package. The affected product was sold in bulk and may have been repacked at retail. Consumers who cannot determine the original product identity are advised to check with their retailer to determine if they have the affected product. There have been no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of this product. The manufacturer, Sesameco, St-Laurent-Laurent, Quebec, is voluntarily recalling the affected product from the marketplace. The CFIA is monitoring the effectiveness of the recall. SOCIAL SECURITY: Sued Over Vietnamese-Speaking Counsel Suspension ----------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Warmerdam at Courthouse News Service reports that hundreds of disabled Vietnamese refugees claim in a federal class action that the Social Security Commissioner wrongfully suspended the only fluent Vietnamese-speaking attorney in San Diego, to retaliate for a previous class action that claimed a Social Security judge was biased. Lead plaintiff Truyen Gia Phan sued Acting Social Security Commissioner Carolyn W. Colvin in a federal class action, on behalf of a class of more than 1,000. Truyen, his 25 named co-plaintiffs and the class all are "poor, disabled and non-English speaking Vietnamese former prisoner[s] of war and refugees in the United States" who have applied or will apply for Social Security benefits. All of them have been or will be represented by attorney Alexandra Nga Tran Manbeck. Manbeck has been "providing indispensable representation to the Vietnamese plaintiffs who would otherwise be shut out of court by virtue of her fluency in the Vietnamese language and her ability to advise the plaintiffs in Vietnamese, since plaintiffs did not speak English and had no understanding of administrative and judicial proceedings," Truyen says in the complaint. On March 12, 2013, the Social Security Administration suspended Manbeck from the practice of Social Security law, the complaint states. The class claims Manbeck was suspended to retaliate for her filing of a class action on behalf of Nazdar Alzayadi and Nora Donate in 2011, alleging bias from Administrative Law Judge Eve Godfrey. That case was dismissed, according to the new complaint. After citing an affidavit in which Donate called Judge Godfrey "the most evil judge I had ever met," the new complaint adds: "there is also testimony from former Social Security attorney Mary Mitchell concerning ALJ Godfrey's unfitness as a judge and the culture of corruption and the culture of cronyism at the San Diego ODAR [Office of Disability Adjudication and Review] office." The class claims the Social Security Administration suspended Manbeck for two classes of alleged violations: "filing of Request for Reconsideration and Request for Review in paper forms instead of being filed in electronic forms, and (2) the plaintiff's signing of boilerplate forms allowing the plaintiffs to ask the Commissioner to send payment checks to the plaintiffs' representative to pay outstanding costs." Truyen claims the first alleged violation is moot because the clients filed the forms themselves with the help of translators, and Manbeck was not involved in it. And the paper filings would have been violations only if the clients and their attorney requested direct payment, which they did not in many cases, according to the complaint. The second alleged violation involved documents signed by three of Manbeck's clients, two of whom filed affidavits that they were given the documents by a freelance interpreter, and Manbeck was not involved, Truyen says in the complaint. The third client whose documents were at issue, Huong Nguyen, was questioned at length by ALJ Godfrey about the documents on July 20, 2006, according to the complaint. Godfrey's "retaliation seven years later to charge plaintiffs' representative for documents that she had examined and cross- examined the claimant and well knew their contents and purports amounts to bad faith and evidence of the government's unclean hands," Truyen says in the complaint. Because another Social Security administrative law judge is the only person left in the process to determine whether Manbeck should be suspended, Manbeck will not be able to press her claims before an uninvolved judge, according to the complaint. "The enforcement branch of the agency is both the prosecutor and the judge, and given the testimony of former Social Security attorney Mary Mitchell concerning the pervasive corruption in all ranks of the Social Security Administration, there is no possibility that the ALJ would rule any differently than the Office of the General Counsel which already made the decision to prosecute plaintiffs' attorney," Truyen says in the lawsuit. If the Social Security Administration is allowed to suspend Manbeck, the class will be "threatened with the deprivation of having the only counsel in the San Diego district which could communicate with them in Vietnamese due to the government's application of illegal pattern and practice," Truyen says in the complaint. The class wants the Social Security Commissioner enjoined from suspending Manbeck. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alexandra T. Manbeck, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDRA T. MANBECK 4531 University Avenue San Diego, CA 92105 Telephone: (619) 573-8139 E-mail: manbeckjd@optonline.net The case is Phan, et al. v. Colvin, et al., Case No. 3:13-cv- 02036-WQH-NLS, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego). SPRINT CORP: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss "Crest" Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Sprint Corporation is awaiting a court decision on Crest Financial Limited's motion to dismiss its complaint, according to the Company's August 6, 2013, Form 8-K12B/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On July 10, 2013, Sprint Corporation (formerly known as Starburst II, Inc.), a Delaware corporation ("New Sprint") and an indirect subsidiary of SoftBank Corp., a Japanese kabushiki kaisha ("SoftBank"), and Sprint Nextel Corporation ("Sprint Nextel") completed the merger (the "SoftBank Merger") contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of October 15, 2012, as amended as of November 29, 2012, April 12, 2013, and June 10, 2013, by and among New Sprint, Sprint Nextel, SoftBank, Starburst I, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of SoftBank, and Starburst III, Inc., a Kansas corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of New Sprint ("Merger Sub"). In the Merger, Merger Sub was merged into Sprint Nextel, New Sprint became the parent company of Sprint Nextel, with Sprint Nextel becoming its direct wholly owned subsidiary, and Sprint Nextel changed its name to "Sprint Communications, Inc." On July 9, 2013, pursuant to the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of December 17, 2012, as amended on April 18, 2013, May 21, 2013, and June 20, 2013, by and among Sprint Nextel, Collie Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Sprint Nextel, and Clearwire Corporation, a Delaware corporation ("Clearwire"), Sprint Nextel's acquisition of Clearwire was consummated (the "Clearwire Acquisition"). On December 12, 2012, stockholder Crest Financial Limited (Crest) filed a putative class action lawsuit in Delaware Court of Chancery against Clearwire, its directors, Sprint, Sprint Holdco LLC and Eagle River, purportedly brought on behalf of the public stockholders of Clearwire. On December 14, 2012, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and on January 2, 2013, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. Also, on December 12, 2012, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking an expedited trial. Following a hearing on January 10, 2013, the Court denied the motion to expedite without prejudice. The Court also directed the parties to consolidate this lawsuit with the other Delaware actions. The lawsuit alleges that the directors of Clearwire breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed transaction between Sprint and Clearwire, that Sprint and Eagle River breached duties owed to Clearwire's public stockholders by virtue of their alleged status as controlling stockholders, including with respect to the SoftBank Transaction, and that Clearwire aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by Sprint and Eagle River. The lawsuit also alleges that the Merger Consideration undervalues Clearwire, and that the controlling stockholders acted to enrich themselves at the expense of the minority stockholders. The lawsuit seeks to permanently enjoin the SoftBank Transaction, permanently enjoin the Proposed Merger, permanently enjoin Sprint from allegedly interfering with Clearwire's plans to raise capital or sell its spectrum and to recover compensatory damages. On June 28, 2013, Crest filed a motion to dismiss its complaint. Sprint Corporation -- http://www.sprint.com/-- is the successor registrant to Sprint Nextel Corporation. Sprint is a communications company offering a comprehensive range of wireless and wireline communications products and services that are designed to meet the needs of individual consumers, businesses, government subscribers, and resellers. The Company is headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas. SPRINT CORP: Clearwire Awaits Ruling in "Dennings" Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Sprint Corporation's subsidiary is awaiting a court decision on a motion for summary affirmance in the class action lawsuit filed by Angelo Dennings, according to the Company's August 6, 2013, Form 8-K12B/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On July 10, 2013, Sprint Corporation (formerly known as Starburst II, Inc.), a Delaware corporation ("New Sprint") and an indirect subsidiary of SoftBank Corp., a Japanese kabushiki kaisha ("SoftBank"), and Sprint Nextel Corporation ("Sprint Nextel") completed the merger (the "SoftBank Merger") contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of October 15, 2012, as amended as of November 29, 2012, April 12, 2013, and June 10, 2013, by and among New Sprint, Sprint Nextel, SoftBank, Starburst I, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of SoftBank, and Starburst III, Inc., a Kansas corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of New Sprint ("Merger Sub"). In the Merger, Merger Sub was merged into Sprint Nextel, New Sprint became the parent company of Sprint Nextel, with Sprint Nextel becoming its direct wholly owned subsidiary, and Sprint Nextel changed its name to "Sprint Communications, Inc." On July 9, 2013, pursuant to the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of December 17, 2012, as amended on April 18, 2013, May 21, 2013, and June 20, 2013, by and among Sprint Nextel, Collie Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Sprint Nextel, and Clearwire Corporation, a Delaware corporation ("Clearwire"), Sprint Nextel's acquisition of Clearwire was consummated (the "Clearwire Acquisition"). In November 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Clearwire by Angelo Dennings in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The complaint generally alleges Clearwire slows network speeds when network demand is highest and that such network management violates Clearwire's agreements with subscribers and is contrary to Clearwire's advertising and marketing claims. The Plaintiffs also allege that subscribers do not review the Terms of Service prior to subscribing, and when subscribers cancel service due to network management, Clearwire charges an early termination fee (ETF) or restocking fee that they claim is unconscionable under the circumstances. The claims asserted include breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs seek class certification; unspecified damages and restitution; a declaratory judgment that Clearwire's ETF and restocking fee are unconscionable under the alleged circumstances; an injunction prohibiting Clearwire from engaging in alleged deceptive marketing and from charging ETFs; interest; and attorneys' fees and costs. On January 13, 2011, Clearwire filed concurrent motions to compel arbitration and in the alternative, to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In response to Clearwire's motions, the plaintiff abandoned its fraud claim and amended its complaint with fourteen additional plaintiffs in eight separate jurisdictions. The Plaintiff further added new claims of violation of Consumer Protection statutes under various state laws. On March 31, 2011, Clearwire filed concurrent motions to (1) compel the newly-added plaintiffs to arbitrate their individual claims, (2) alternatively, to stay this case pending the United States Supreme Court's decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, No. 09-893 (Concepcion), and (3) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Plaintiffs did not oppose Clearwire's motion to stay the litigation pending Concepcion, and the parties stipulated to stay the litigation. The parties collectively settled the lawsuit along with the matters Minnick v. Clearwire US, LLC, No. 2:09-cv- 00912-MJP (W.D. Wash.), and Newton v. Clearwire Corp., No. 2:11- cv-00783-WBS-DAD (E.D. Cal.). On December 19, 2012, the District Court granted final approval of the settlement and entered final judgment. On January 18, 2013, Objectors appealed the Court's approval of the settlement to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Plaintiffs then filed a motion for summary affirmance. On April 22, 2013, the Court of Appeals granted the Plaintiffs' motion for summary affirmance and denied the objectors' appeal. The Objectors then petitioned the Court of Appeals for a rehearing of their appeal of the lower court's final approval of the settlement. The Objectors voluntarily withdrew their motion for rehearing when the Plaintiffs challenged the Objectors' failure to post the court mandated appeal bond. On May 3, 2013, the district court approved the plaintiffs' counsel fees and expenses. On June 3, 2013, the Objectors appealed the plaintiffs' fee award. The Plaintiffs filed a second motion for summary affirmance. Clearwire has accrued an estimated amount it anticipates to pay for the settlement in Other current liabilities. The amount accrued is considered immaterial to the financial statements. Sprint Corporation -- http://www.sprint.com/-- is the successor registrant to Sprint Nextel Corporation. Sprint is a communications company offering a comprehensive range of wireless and wireline communications products and services that are designed to meet the needs of individual consumers, businesses, government subscribers, and resellers. The Company is headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas. SPRINT CORP: Clearwire Awaits Ruling in "Minnick" Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Clearwire Corporation is awaiting a court decision on a second motion for summary affirmance filed by Chad Minnick, et al., according to Sprint Corporation's August 6, 2013, Form 8-K12B/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On July 10, 2013, Sprint Corporation (formerly known as Starburst II, Inc.), a Delaware corporation ("New Sprint") and an indirect subsidiary of SoftBank Corp., a Japanese kabushiki kaisha ("SoftBank"), and Sprint Nextel Corporation ("Sprint Nextel") completed the merger (the "SoftBank Merger") contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of October 15, 2012, as amended as of November 29, 2012, April 12, 2013, and June 10, 2013, by and among New Sprint, Sprint Nextel, SoftBank, Starburst I, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of SoftBank, and Starburst III, Inc., a Kansas corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of New Sprint ("Merger Sub"). In the Merger, Merger Sub was merged into Sprint Nextel, New Sprint became the parent company of Sprint Nextel, with Sprint Nextel becoming its direct wholly owned subsidiary, and Sprint Nextel changed its name to "Sprint Communications, Inc." On July 9, 2013, pursuant to the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of December 17, 2012, as amended on April 18, 2013, May 21, 2013, and June 20, 2013, by and among Sprint Nextel, Collie Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Sprint Nextel, and Clearwire Corporation, a Delaware corporation ("Clearwire"), Sprint Nextel's acquisition of Clearwire was consummated (the "Clearwire Acquisition"). In April 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Clearwire U.S. LLC in Superior Court in King County, Washington, by a group of five plaintiffs (Chad Minnick, et al.). The lawsuit generally alleges that Clearwire disseminated false advertising about the quality and reliability of its services; imposed an unlawful early termination fee (ETF); and invoked allegedly unconscionable provisions of its Terms of Service to the detriment of subscribers. Among other things, the lawsuit seeks a determination that the alleged claims may be asserted on a class- wide basis; an order declaring certain provisions of Clearwire's Terms of Service, including the ETF provision, void and unenforceable; an injunction prohibiting Clearwire from collecting ETFs and further false advertising; restitution of any ETFs paid by Clearwire's subscribers; equitable relief; and an award of unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. The Plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint adding seven additional plaintiffs. Clearwire removed the case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. On July 23, 2009, Clearwire filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Court stayed discovery pending its ruling on the motion, and on February 2, 2010, granted Clearwire's motion to dismiss in its entirety. The Plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On March 29, 2011, the Court of Appeals entered an Order Certifying Question to the Supreme Court of Washington requesting guidance on a question of Washington state law. On May 23, 2012, the Washington Supreme Court issued a decision holding that an ETF is a permissible alternative performance provision. The Court of Appeals has stayed the matter. The parties collectively settled the lawsuit along with the matters Dennings v. Clearwire Corp., No. C10-1859-JLR (W.D. Wash.), and Newton v. Clearwire Corp., No. 2:11-cv-00783-WBS-DAD (E.D. Cal.). On December 19, 2012, the District Court granted final approval of the settlement and entered final judgment. On January 18, 2013, Objectors appealed the Court's approval of the settlement to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Plaintiffs then filed a motion for summary affirmance. On April 22, 2013, the Court of Appeals granted Plaintiffs' motion for summary affirmance and denied the Objectors' appeal. Objectors then petitioned the Court of Appeals for a rehearing of their appeal of the final approval of the settlement. Objectors voluntarily withdrew their motion for rehearing when the Plaintiffs challenged Objectors' failure to post the court mandated appeal bond. On May 3, 2013, the district court approved the plaintiffs' counsel fees and expenses. On June 3, 2013, the Objectors appealed plaintiffs' fee award. The Plaintiffs filed a second motion for summary affirmance. Clearwire has accrued an estimated amount Clearwire anticipates to pay for the settlement in Other current liabilities. The amount accrued is considered immaterial to the financial statements. Sprint Corporation -- http://www.sprint.com/-- is the successor registrant to Sprint Nextel Corporation. Sprint is a communications company offering a comprehensive range of wireless and wireline communications products and services that are designed to meet the needs of individual consumers, businesses, government subscribers, and resellers. The Company is headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas. SPRINT CORP: Clearwire Defends "DeLeo" Class Suit in Delaware ------------------------------------------------------------- A subsidiary of Sprint Corporation is defending itself against a merger-related class action lawsuit filed by David DeLeo in Delaware, according to the Company's August 6, 2013, Form 8-K12B/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On July 10, 2013, Sprint Corporation (formerly known as Starburst II, Inc.), a Delaware corporation ("New Sprint") and an indirect subsidiary of SoftBank Corp., a Japanese kabushiki kaisha ("SoftBank"), and Sprint Nextel Corporation ("Sprint Nextel") completed the merger (the "SoftBank Merger") contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of October 15, 2012, as amended as of November 29, 2012, April 12, 2013, and June 10, 2013, by and among New Sprint, Sprint Nextel, SoftBank, Starburst I, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of SoftBank, and Starburst III, Inc., a Kansas corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of New Sprint ("Merger Sub"). In the Merger, Merger Sub was merged into Sprint Nextel, New Sprint became the parent company of Sprint Nextel, with Sprint Nextel becoming its direct wholly owned subsidiary, and Sprint Nextel changed its name to "Sprint Communications, Inc." On July 9, 2013, pursuant to the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of December 17, 2012, as amended on April 18, 2013, May 21, 2013, and June 20, 2013, by and among Sprint Nextel, Collie Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Sprint Nextel, and Clearwire Corporation, a Delaware corporation ("Clearwire"), Sprint Nextel's acquisition of Clearwire was consummated (the "Clearwire Acquisition"). On or about January 3, 2013, stockholder David DeLeo filed a putative class action lawsuit in Delaware Court of Chancery against Clearwire, its directors, Sprint and Merger Sub, purportedly brought on behalf of public stockholders of Clearwire. The lawsuit alleges that the directors of Clearwire breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Proposed Merger, that Sprint breached duties owed to Clearwire's public stockholders by virtue of its alleged status as controlling stockholder, and that Clearwire and Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by Sprint and the directors of Clearwire. The lawsuit also alleges that the Merger Consideration undervalues Clearwire, that Sprint and the directors of Clearwire misappropriated non-public information that was not disclosed to the plaintiffs, and that the Proposed Merger was negotiated pursuant to an unfair process. The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment that the proposed transaction between Sprint and Clearwire was entered into in breach of Sprint's fiduciary duties, an injunction preventing the proposed transaction between Sprint and Clearwire and, should the Proposed Merger be consummated, to rescind the Proposed Merger, and it seeks unspecified rescissory and compensatory damages. This litigation is in the early stages, its outcome is unknown and an estimate of any potential losses cannot be made at this time. Sprint Corporation -- http://www.sprint.com/-- is the successor registrant to Sprint Nextel Corporation. Sprint is a communications company offering a comprehensive range of wireless and wireline communications products and services that are designed to meet the needs of individual consumers, businesses, government subscribers, and resellers. The Company is headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas. SPRINT CORP: Clearwire Defends "Lindsay" Suit in Minnesota ---------------------------------------------------------- Sprint Corporation's subsidiary is defending itself against a class action lawsuit filed by Kenneth Lindsay, et al., in Minnesota, according to the Company's August 6, 2013, Form 8- K12B/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On July 10, 2013, Sprint Corporation (formerly known as Starburst II, Inc.), a Delaware corporation ("New Sprint") and an indirect subsidiary of SoftBank Corp., a Japanese kabushiki kaisha ("SoftBank"), and Sprint Nextel Corporation ("Sprint Nextel") completed the merger (the "SoftBank Merger") contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of October 15, 2012, as amended as of November 29, 2012, April 12, 2013, and June 10, 2013, by and among New Sprint, Sprint Nextel, SoftBank, Starburst I, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of SoftBank, and Starburst III, Inc., a Kansas corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of New Sprint ("Merger Sub"). In the Merger, Merger Sub was merged into Sprint Nextel, New Sprint became the parent company of Sprint Nextel, with Sprint Nextel becoming its direct wholly owned subsidiary, and Sprint Nextel changed its name to "Sprint Communications, Inc." On July 9, 2013, pursuant to the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of December 17, 2012, as amended on April 18, 2013, May 21, 2013, and June 20, 2013, by and among Sprint Nextel, Collie Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Sprint Nextel, and Clearwire Corporation, a Delaware corporation ("Clearwire"), Sprint Nextel's acquisition of Clearwire was consummated (the "Clearwire Acquisition"). In April 2013, Kenneth Lindsay, a former employee and others, filed a purported collective class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, against Clear Wireless LLC and Workforce Logic LLC. The Plaintiffs allege claims individually and on behalf of a purported nationwide collective class under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), from April 9, 2010 to present. The lawsuit alleges that defendants violated the FLSA, notably sections 201 and 207 and relevant regulations, regarding failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay for hours worked during breaks or work performed "off the clock" before, during and after scheduled work shifts, overtime, improper deductions, and improper withholding of wages, commissions and bonuses. The Plaintiffs seek back wages, unpaid wages, overtime, liquidated damages, attorney fees and costs. Clearwire filed an answer to the complaint on April 30, 2013. The litigation is in the early stages, its outcome is unknown and an estimate of any potential loss cannot be made at this time. Sprint Corporation -- http://www.sprint.com/-- is the successor registrant to Sprint Nextel Corporation. Sprint is a communications company offering a comprehensive range of wireless and wireline communications products and services that are designed to meet the needs of individual consumers, businesses, government subscribers, and resellers. The Company is headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas. SPRINT CORP: Clearwire Defends "Wuest" Class Suit in California --------------------------------------------------------------- Sprint Corporation's subsidiary is defending a class action lawsuit brought by Richard Wuest in California, according to the Company's August 6, 2013, Form 8-K12B/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On July 10, 2013, Sprint Corporation (formerly known as Starburst II, Inc.), a Delaware corporation ("New Sprint") and an indirect subsidiary of SoftBank Corp., a Japanese kabushiki kaisha ("SoftBank"), and Sprint Nextel Corporation ("Sprint Nextel") completed the merger (the "SoftBank Merger") contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of October 15, 2012, as amended as of November 29, 2012, April 12, 2013, and June 10, 2013, by and among New Sprint, Sprint Nextel, SoftBank, Starburst I, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of SoftBank, and Starburst III, Inc., a Kansas corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of New Sprint ("Merger Sub"). In the Merger, Merger Sub was merged into Sprint Nextel, New Sprint became the parent company of Sprint Nextel, with Sprint Nextel becoming its direct wholly owned subsidiary, and Sprint Nextel changed its name to "Sprint Communications, Inc." On July 9, 2013, pursuant to the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of December 17, 2012, as amended on April 18, 2013, May 21, 2013, and June 20, 2013, by and among Sprint Nextel, Collie Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Sprint Nextel, and Clearwire Corporation, a Delaware corporation ("Clearwire"), Sprint Nextel's acquisition of Clearwire was consummated (the "Clearwire Acquisition"). In August 2012, Richard Wuest filed a purported class action against Clearwire in the California Superior Court, San Francisco County. The Plaintiff alleges that Clearwire violated California's Invasion of Privacy Act, Penal Code 630, notably Section 632.7, which prohibits the recording of communications made from a cellular or cordless telephone without the consent of all parties to the communication. The Plaintiff seeks class certification, statutory damages, injunctive relief, costs, attorney fees, and pre and post judgment interest. Clearwire removed the matter to federal court. On November 2, 2012, Clearwire filed an answer to the complaint. On May 31, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint adding two Clearwire call vendors to the lawsuit. Clearwire filed an answer on July 15, 2013. Clearwire says the litigation is in the early stages, its outcome is unknown and an estimate of any potential loss cannot be made at this time. Sprint Corporation -- http://www.sprint.com/-- is the successor registrant to Sprint Nextel Corporation. Sprint is a communications company offering a comprehensive range of wireless and wireline communications products and services that are designed to meet the needs of individual consumers, businesses, government subscribers, and resellers. The Company is headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas. SPRINT CORP: Clearwire Settled "Newton" Class Action Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Sprint Corporation said in its August 6, 2013, Form 8-K12B/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that its subsidiary has collectively settled the class action lawsuit captioned Newton v. Clearwire, Inc., along with other similar cases. On July 10, 2013, Sprint Corporation (formerly known as Starburst II, Inc.), a Delaware corporation ("New Sprint") and an indirect subsidiary of SoftBank Corp., a Japanese kabushiki kaisha ("SoftBank"), and Sprint Nextel Corporation ("Sprint Nextel") completed the merger (the "SoftBank Merger") contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of October 15, 2012, as amended as of November 29, 2012, April 12, 2013, and June 10, 2013, by and among New Sprint, Sprint Nextel, SoftBank, Starburst I, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of SoftBank, and Starburst III, Inc., a Kansas corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of New Sprint ("Merger Sub"). In the Merger, Merger Sub was merged into Sprint Nextel, New Sprint became the parent company of Sprint Nextel, with Sprint Nextel becoming its direct wholly owned subsidiary, and Sprint Nextel changed its name to "Sprint Communications, Inc." On July 9, 2013, pursuant to the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of December 17, 2012, as amended on April 18, 2013, May 21, 2013, and June 20, 2013, by and among Sprint Nextel, Collie Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Sprint Nextel, and Clearwire Corporation, a Delaware corporation ("Clearwire"), Sprint Nextel's acquisition of Clearwire was consummated (the "Clearwire Acquisition"). In March 2011, a purported class action was filed against Clearwire in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The case, Newton v. Clearwire, Inc. [sic], alleges Clearwire's network management and advertising practices constitute breach of contract, unjust enrichment, unfair competition under California's Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq., and violation of California's Consumers' Legal Remedies Act. The Plaintiff contends Clearwire's advertisements of "no speed cap" and "unlimited data" are false and misleading. The Plaintiff alleges Clearwire has breached its contracts with customers by not delivering the Internet service as advertised. The Plaintiff also claims slow data speeds are due to Clearwire's network management practices. The Plaintiff seeks class certification; declaratory and injunctive relief; unspecified restitution and/or disgorgement of fees paid for Clearwire service; and unspecified damages, interest, fees and costs. On June 9, 2011, Clearwire filed a motion to compel arbitration. The parties collectively settled the lawsuit along with the matters Dennings v. Clearwire Corp., No. C10-1859-JLR (W.D. Wash.), and Minnick v. Clearwire US, LLC, No. 2:09-cv-00912- MJP (W.D. Wash.). Sprint Corporation -- http://www.sprint.com/-- is the successor registrant to Sprint Nextel Corporation. Sprint is a communications company offering a comprehensive range of wireless and wireline communications products and services that are designed to meet the needs of individual consumers, businesses, government subscribers, and resellers. The Company is headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas. SPRINT CORP: Defends "Feigeles" Merger-Related Suit vs. Unit ------------------------------------------------------------ Sprint Corporation's subsidiary is defending itself against a class action lawsuit brought by Kenneth L. Feigeles in Delaware, according to the Company's August 6, 2013, Form 8-K12B/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On July 10, 2013, Sprint Corporation (formerly known as Starburst II, Inc.), a Delaware corporation ("New Sprint") and an indirect subsidiary of SoftBank Corp., a Japanese kabushiki kaisha ("SoftBank"), and Sprint Nextel Corporation ("Sprint Nextel") completed the merger (the "SoftBank Merger") contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of October 15, 2012, as amended as of November 29, 2012, April 12, 2013, and June 10, 2013, by and among New Sprint, Sprint Nextel, SoftBank, Starburst I, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of SoftBank, and Starburst III, Inc., a Kansas corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of New Sprint ("Merger Sub"). In the Merger, Merger Sub was merged into Sprint Nextel, New Sprint became the parent company of Sprint Nextel, with Sprint Nextel becoming its direct wholly owned subsidiary, and Sprint Nextel changed its name to "Sprint Communications, Inc." On July 9, 2013, pursuant to the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of December 17, 2012, as amended on April 18, 2013, May 21, 2013, and June 20, 2013, by and among Sprint Nextel, Collie Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Sprint Nextel, and Clearwire Corporation, a Delaware corporation ("Clearwire"), Sprint Nextel's acquisition of Clearwire was consummated (the "Clearwire Acquisition"). On December 28, 2012, stockholder Kenneth L. Feigeles filed a putative class action lawsuit in Delaware Court of Chancery against Clearwire, its directors, Sprint, Merger Sub and Eagle River, purportedly brought on behalf of the public stockholders of Clearwire. The lawsuit alleges that the directors of Clearwire breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Proposed Merger, that Sprint breached duties owed to Clearwire's public stockholders by virtue of its alleged status as controlling stockholder, and that Clearwire, Sprint, Merger Sub and Eagle River aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by Sprint and the directors of Clearwire. The lawsuit also alleges that the Merger Consideration undervalues Clearwire, and that the Proposed Merger was negotiated pursuant to an unfair process. The lawsuit seeks to enjoin the Proposed Merger and, should the Proposed Merger be consummated, to rescind the Proposed Merger, and it seeks unspecified rescissory and compensatory damages. This litigation is in the early stages, its outcome is unknown and an estimate of any potential losses cannot be made at this time. Sprint Corporation -- http://www.sprint.com/-- is the successor registrant to Sprint Nextel Corporation. Sprint is a communications company offering a comprehensive range of wireless and wireline communications products and services that are designed to meet the needs of individual consumers, businesses, government subscribers, and resellers. The Company is headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas. TARGET CORP: Recalls Threshold Floor Lamps Due to Fire Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Target Corp. of Minneapolis, Minn., announced a voluntary recall of about 25,000 and 541 in Canada White 2-Bulb Floor Lamp. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The lamp can short when a standard one-way bulb is fully tightened in the lamp's three-way socket, posing a fire and shock hazard to consumers. Target has received six reports of short circuiting which have resulted in fires, minor property damage and two consumers being shocked. The recall includes white plastic, turned-spindle design floor lamps with white fabric drum lamp shades and two 3-way pull-chain switches. Lamp is illuminated by two 3-way 100-watt or 29-watt CFL bulbs and stands approximately 60 inches tall. The model number PL1071 is located on a sticker on the bottom of the lamp. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/6VFZxR The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold exclusively at Target stores nationwide and Target.com from September 2012 through May 2013 for about $70. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled lamp, unplug it and return it to any Target store for a full refund. TMS INT'L: Being Sold to Pritzker for Too Little, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Bushansky, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. TMS International Corp., Joseph Curtin, Raymond S. Kalouche, Timothy A.R. Duncanson, Manish K. Srivastava, Colin Osborne, John J. Connelly, Patrick W. Tolbert, and Herbert K. Parker, Case No. 8853-VCG (Del. Ch. Ct., August 30, 2013) is a stockholder class action brought in connection with the proposed acquisition of TMS by The Pritzker Organization LLC through Crystal Acquisition Company, Inc. and Crystal Merger Sub, Inc. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Defendants from pursuing the Proposed Transaction, or in the event that the Proposed Transaction is consummated, recover damages resulting from the Defendants' wrongful conduct. In pursuing the Proposed Transaction, the Plaintiff alleges that each Defendant has violated applicable laws by directly breaching fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith, independence, fair dealing, and due care owed to the Plaintiff and the proposed class. Mr. Bushansky owns TMS common stock. TMS is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Glassport, Pennsylvania. Through its subsidiaries, TMS is the largest provider of outsourced industrial services to steel mills in North America as measured by revenue. TMS provides mill services at 81 customer sites in 12 countries and operates 36 brokerage offices from which it buys and sells raw materials across five continents. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan M. Ernst, Esq. O'KELLY ERNST &BIELLI, LLC 901 North Market Street, Suite 1000 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 778-4000 Facsimile: (302) 295-2873 E-mail: rernst@oeblegal.com - and - Joseph H. Weiss, Esq. Richard A. Acocelli, Esq. Michael A. Rogovin, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 1500 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 682-3025 Facsimile: (212) 682-3010 E-mail: jweiss@weisslawllp.com racocelli@weisslawllp.com mrogovin@weisslawllp.com TOYOTA: Recalls GS 350, IS 350, and IS 350C Models -------------------------------------------------- Starting date: September 4, 2013 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Engine Units affected: 3922 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2013297 TC ID number: 2013297 Manufacturer recall number: 217 On certain vehicles, the bolts used to secure the housing and sprocket of the intake-side Variable-Valve Timing (VVT) gear assembly could loosen. If this occurs, the VVT gear will not control the intake valves correctly. In some instances, the VVT gear housing and sprocket could separate, causing the engine to stall. Engine stalling would result in a loss of vehicle propulsion which, in conjunction with traffic and road conditions, and the driver's reactions, could increase the risk of a crash causing property damage and/or personal injury. Dealers will replace the VVT unit with an improved version. Affected products: Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- LEXUS IS 350 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 LEXUS GS 350 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 LEXUS IS350C 2010, 2011 UNITED PARCEL: Still Faces Labor Suits in State, Federal Courts --------------------------------------------------------------- United Parcel Service, Inc. is a defendant in a number of lawsuits filed in state and federal courts containing various class action allegations under state wage-and-hour laws, according to the company's Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. At this time, the company does not believe that any loss associated with these matters, would have a material adverse effect on the company's financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. UPS and the company's subsidiary Mail Boxes Etc., Inc. are defendants in a lawsuit in California Superior Court about the rebranding of The UPS Store franchises. In the Morgate case, the plaintiffs are (1) 125 individual franchisees who did not rebrand to The UPS Store and (2) a certified class of all franchisees who did rebrand. With respect to the 125 individual franchisees described in (1) above, the trial court entered judgment against a bellwether individual plaintiff, which was affirmed in January 2012. In March 2013, the company reached a settlement in principle with the remaining individual plaintiffs who did not rebrand. The company believes this settlement will not have a material adverse effect on the company's financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. The trial court granted the company's motion for summary judgment against the certified class described in (2) above, which was reversed in January 2012. The company has not reached a settlement with this class of franchisees, and the claims of the class remain pending. UNITED PARCEL: Suits Over Brokerage Services in Canada Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- United Parcel Service, Inc. provides updates on suits filed against it in Canada over alleged inadequate disclosure concerning the existence and cost of brokerage services on the company's Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. In Canada, four purported class-action cases were filed against the company in British Columbia (2006); Ontario (2007) and Quebec (2006 and 2013). The cases each allege inadequate disclosure concerning the existence and cost of brokerage services provided by the company under applicable provincial consumer protection legislation and infringement of interest restriction provisions under the Criminal Code of Canada. The British Columbia class action was declared inappropriate for certification and dismissed by the trial judge. That decision was upheld by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in March 2010, which ended the case in the company's favor. The Ontario class action was certified in September 2011. Partial summary judgment was granted to the company and the plaintiffs by the Ontario motions court. The complaint under the Criminal Code was dismissed. No appeal is being taken from that decision. The allegations of inadequate disclosure were granted and The company is appealing that decision. The motion to authorize the 2006 Quebec litigation as a class action was dismissed by the motions judge in October 2012; there was no appeal, which ended that case in the company's favor. The 2013 Quebec litigation also has been dismissed. The company denies all liability and are vigorously defending the one outstanding case in Ontario. There are multiple factors that prevent the company from being able to estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result from this matter, including: (1) the company is vigorously defending ourselves and believe that the company has a number of meritorious legal defenses; and (2) there are unresolved questions of law and fact that could be important to the ultimate resolution of this matter. Accordingly, at this time, the company is not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result from this matter or to determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on the company's financial condition, results of operation or liquidity. UNITED PARCEL: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Junk Price Fixing Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- A motion filed by United Parcel Service, Inc. to dismiss a suit alleging price-fixing activities relating to the provision of freight forwarding services is pending before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, according to the company's Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. In January 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleging price-fixing activities relating to the provision of freight forwarding services. UPS was not named in this case. In July 2009, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint naming numerous global freight forwarders as defendants. UPS and UPS Supply Chain Solutions are among the 60 defendants named in the amended complaint. The plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint in October 2010, which the company moved to dismiss. In August 2012, the Court granted the company's motion to dismiss all claims relevant to UPS in the Second Amended Complaint, with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint in November 2012. The company filed another motion to dismiss, which is currently pending before the Court, and will otherwise vigorously defend ourselves in this case. There are multiple factors that prevent the company from being able to estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result from these matters including: (1) the court has dismissed the complaint once but has not considered the adequacy of the amended complaint; (2) the scope and size of the proposed class is ill-defined; (3) there are significant legal questions about the adequacy and standing of the putative class representatives; and (4) the company believes that it has a number of meritorious legal defenses. Accordingly, at this time, the company is not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result from these matters or to determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on the company's financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. UNITED STATES: Court Reverses Ruling in Medicare Suit vs. DOH ------------------------------------------------------------- Annie Youderian at Courthouse News Service reports that the 9th Circuit on Wednesday, September 4, 2013, reversed orders that would have barred the government from demanding that patients disputing their bills reimburse Medicare up front. The three lead plaintiffs in the underlying class action were injured in car accidents or at work, and Medicare covered their hospital bills. Before they received any money for their injuries, the government sent them letters demanding reimbursement within 60 days of receiving their settlements. In each case, the patients were told to pay even as they challenged the government's bills. They sued Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, claiming she overstepped her authority by demanding payment before their appeals had been resolved or their waiver applications processed. The Medicare patients further argued that the secretary's demand violated their due-process rights. John Balentine, an attorney for one of the lead plaintiffs, also challenged Sebelius' authority to force attorneys to withhold any settlement funds until Medicare gets reimbursed. U.S. District Judge David Bury sided with the beneficiaries and Balentine, and barred the government from demanding upfront reimbursements. The 9th Circuit, however, ruled that the lower court lacked jurisdiction, because the Medicare patients failed to present their claim to the agency before taking it to court. The lead plaintiffs "did not provide an opportunity for the Secretary to consider the claim that her interpretation of the secondary payer provisions exceeded her authority," Judge Morgan Christen wrote for the panel. Because he is not a Medicare beneficiary, Balentine does not have to go through the same administrative channels, the court ruled. But it ruled against him on the merits of his claim, saying the government's interpretation of the reimbursement provision is "reasonable." We conclude the Secretary's interpretation of the reimbursement provision is rational and consistent with the statute's text, history, and purpose," Judge Christen wrote, reversing Judge Bury's second injunction. The 9th Circuit sent the case back to the district court for a ruling on the beneficiaries' due-process claim. The Plaintiffs-Appellees are represented by: Gill Deford, Esq. CENTER FOR MEDICARE ADVOCACY, INC. P.O. Box 350 Willimantic, CT 06226 Telephone: (860) 456-7790 The Defendant-Appellant is represented by: Adam D. Kirschner, Esq. DOJ - U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave. NW Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 353-9265 - and - Alisa Beth Klein, Esq. Mark B. Stern, Esq. DOJ - U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 The appellate case is Patricia Haro, et al v. Kathleen Sebelius, Case No. 11-16606, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The original case is Patricia Haro, et al v. Kathleen Sebelius, Case No. 4:09-cv-00134-DCB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. URS CORP: Awaits Order on Judgment Bid in Hurricane Katrina Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- URS Corporation is awaiting a court decision on its subsidiary's motion for summary judgment in the class action lawsuits related to the destruction and injuries brought by Hurricane Katrina, according to the Company's August 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 28, 2013. From July 1999 through May 2005, Washington Group International, Inc., an Ohio company ("WGI Ohio"), a wholly owned subsidiary acquired by the Company on November 15, 2007, performed demolition, site preparation, and environmental remediation services for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the east bank of the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (the "Industrial Canal") in New Orleans, Louisiana. On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans. The storm surge created by the hurricane overtopped the Industrial Canal levee and floodwall, flooding the Lower Ninth Ward and other parts of the city. Fifty-nine personal injury and property damage class action lawsuits were filed in Louisiana State and federal court against several defendants, including WGI Ohio, seeking $200.0 billion in damages plus attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiffs are residents and property owners who claim to have incurred damages from the breach and failure of the hurricane protection levees and floodwalls in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. All 59 lawsuits were pleaded as class actions but none have yet been certified as class actions. Along with WGI Ohio, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Board for the Orleans Levee District, and its insurer, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company were also named as defendants. At this time WGI Ohio and the Army Corps of Engineers are the remaining defendants. These 59 lawsuits, along with other hurricane-related cases not involving WGI Ohio, were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana ("District Court"). The Plaintiffs allege that defendants were negligent in their design, construction and/or maintenance of the New Orleans levees. Specifically, as to WGI Ohio, the plaintiffs allege that work WGI Ohio performed adjacent to the Industrial Canal damaged the levee and floodwall, causing or contributing to breaches and flooding. WGI Ohio did not design, construct, repair or maintain any of the levees or the floodwalls that failed during or after Hurricane Katrina. Rather, WGI Ohio performed work adjacent to the Industrial Canal as a contractor for the federal government. WGI Ohio filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal on grounds that government contractors are immune from liability. On December 15, 2008, the District Court granted WGI Ohio's motion for summary judgment, but several plaintiffs appealed that decision to the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on April 27, 2009. On September 14, 2010, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's summary judgment decision and WGI Ohio's dismissal, and remanded the case back to the District Court for further litigation. On August 1, 2011, the District Court decided that the government contractor immunity defense would not be available to WGI Ohio at trial, but would be an issue for appeal. Five of the cases were tried in District Court from September 12, 2012 through October 3, 2012. On April 12, 2013, the District Court ruled in favor of WGI Ohio and the Army Corps of Engineers, finding that the five plaintiffs failed to prove that WGI Ohio's or the Army Corps of Engineers' actions caused the failure of the Industrial Canal floodwall during Hurricane Katrina. On July 1, 2013, WGI Ohio filed a motion for summary judgment in District Court to dismiss all other related cases as a result of the District Court's April 2013 decision. WGI Ohio intends to continue to defend these matters vigorously; however, WGI Ohio cannot provide assurance that it will be successful in these efforts. The potential range of loss and the resolution of these matters cannot be determined at this time primarily due to the likelihood of an appeal, the unknown number of individual plaintiffs who are actually asserting claims against WGI Ohio; the uncertainty regarding the nature and amount of each individual plaintiff's damage claims; uncertainty concerning legal theories and factual bases that plaintiffs may present and their resolution by courts or regulators; and uncertainty about the plaintiffs' claims, if any, that might survive certain key motions of the Company's affiliate, as well as a number of additional factors. Headquartered in San Francisco, California, URS Corporation provides engineering, construction, and technical services to public agencies and private sector clients worldwide. The Company plans, designs, engineers, constructs, retrofits, and maintains various power-generating facilities, and systems that transmit and distribute electricity, as well as develops and installs clean air technologies. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Gavin Broady, writing for Law360, reports that a California federal judge on Aug. 28 approved an adjusted class settlement between Verizon Communications Inc. and consumers who say they were hit with unauthorized third-party charges on landline phone bills, but said the court was reviewing a $7.5 million attorneys' fee award. U.S. District Court Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong gave the final nod to a deal that would resolve allegations that Verizon failed to include safeguards in its third-party billing and collection system to prevent "cramming" -- the addition of unauthorized charges onto customers' bills. The settlement, which Judge Armstrong preliminarily approved in February 2012, offers class members either a $40 flat payment or a full refund of charges stemming from the alleged practice. The parties agreed to modify the settlement in March after the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice weighed in, urging the court to reject the deal over concerns that it would unfairly shield Verizon and others from future claims and might prevent the FTC and other regulators from mounting separate enforcement actions, all while providing class members with only "illusory recovery," according to the order. "The settlement in this action was reached after the parties engaged in discovery, litigated a motion to dismiss, and participated in mediation that involved an extensive exchange of information, multiple briefings, and six all-day mediation sessions," Judge Armstrong said. "The fact that the settlement was reached at this juncture of the proceedings supports the conclusion that the parties' decision to settle was a fully informed one." After the parties filed a stipulation with the court outlining several modifications to the settlement agreement, the FTC withdrew from the final approval hearing on the deal, saying the adjustments outlined in the stipulation "significantly improve the settlement for consumers" by no longer releasing third-party service providers from future claims, making clear that government agencies are not precluded from pursuing enforcement and providing stronger protections for class members whose claims are challenged, according to Judge Armstrong. The judge noted that the court had referred the matter of the $7.5 million set aside for attorneys fees to a magistrate judge in July, and would therefore defer any final decision on the matter pending that judge's decision, though she did approve a $5,000 incentive award to named class representatives Desiree Moore and Karen Jones. Ms. Moore and Ms. Jones launched the suit in April 2009, claiming the company was aware of widespread third-party cramming but failed to institute safeguards to ensure that customers were being billed only for authorized charges. Under the deal granted preliminary approval in February 2012, Verizon was required to tell customers annually that they can block some third-party charges on their bill by calling a toll- free number and to ask new customers whether they would like to block third-party charges for free before processing their orders. Within six months after the settlement becomes final, Verizon would apply a 0.5 percent threshold for customer complaints that lead to a refund of a third-party charge. The company then would lower the complaint threshold to 0.25 percent threshold within one year of settlement's effective date. Bill aggregators and third-party service providers would be required to keep total complaints for third-party charges below that threshold or face suspension. The FTC cited several problems with the settlement last August, and while many of those concerns were addressed in the March stipulation, Judge Armstrong noted that the agency was still "generally concerned" that the claims process includes a number of hurdles that could impede class members from obtaining recovery. The agency instead suggested that, given the "extremely low incidence of legitimate third-party charges," a more reasonable method would involve scrapping the claims process altogether and simply providing refunds to consumers who paid any such charges, unless there is reasonable evidence the charge was legitimate, according to the order. "Although it is clear that adopting the FTC's proposal would be a better outcome for the class than the claims-made process agreed to by the parties, the court finds that the FTC has failed to demonstrate that the settlement should be rejected," Judge Armstrong said. "The proper standard for approval of the settlement is whether it is fair, reasonable, adequate, and free from collusion -- not whether the class members could have received a better deal in exchange for the release of their claims." Representatives for the parties were not immediately available on Aug. 29 for comment. The plaintiffs are represented by Jeffrey F. Keller of Keller Grover LLP, John G. Jacobs -- jgjacobs@jacobskolton.com -- and Bryan G. Kolton -- bgkolton@jacobskolton.com -- of Jacobs Kolton Chtd., Michael W. Sobol -- msobol@lchb.com -- and Jahan C. Sagafi -- jsagafi@lchb.com -- of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP and David Schachman of David Schachman & Associates PC. Verizon is represented by Henry Weissmann -- Henry.Weissmann@mto.com -- Rosemarie T. Ring -- Rose.Ring@mto.com -- Avi Braz and Gabriel P. Sanchez of Munger Tolles & Olson LLP. The case is Moore et al. v. Verizon Communications Inc. et al., case number 4:09-cv-01823, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. WAL-MART CANADA: Recalls Various Ventura Brand Tents ---------------------------------------------------- Starting date: September 5, 2013 Posting date: September 5, 2013 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Outdoor Living Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety, Flammability Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-35405 Affected products: Various Ventura Brand Tents which includes: Scout Junior Dome Tent 6' x 5'; Scout Junior Dome Tent 6' x 5'; Scout Junior Dome Tent 6' x 5'; Scout Junior Dome Tent 6' x 5'; Scout Junior Dome Tent 6' x 5'; Cabin Tent; Dome Tent; Hiker Dome Tent 7.5' x 5'; Sport Dome Tent 9' x 8'; Family Dome Tent 10' x 8'; Two Room Family Dome Tent 13' x 10'; Two Room Family Dome Tent 16' x 9'; Cabin Dome Tent 7' x 6'; Cabin Dome Tent 7' x 6'; and Cabin Dome Tent 7' x 6' Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has identified that the flooring material(s) used in the recalled tents may not meet the requirements for tent flammability under Canadian law. The tents could catch fire if exposed to a flame or other ignition source, and pose possible burn hazard to consumers. Neither Health Canada nor Wal-Mart Canada Corporation has received reports of incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use of these tents. Approximately 82,000 of the recalled tents were sold at Wal-Mart retail stores across Canada. The recalled tents were manufactured in both China and Cambodia and sold from February 2013 to August 2013. Companies: Manufacturer Xiamen Unipros Camping Products Co. Ltd. Fujian China Distributor Wal-Mart Canada Corporation Mississauga Ontario Canada Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled tents. The products can be returned to a Wal-Mart Canada retail store for a refund. WAL-MART INC: Accused of Falsely Advertising Equate Product ----------------------------------------------------------- Thamar Santisteban Cortina, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated and the general public v. Wal-Mart, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-02054-JAH-DHB (S.D. Cal., September 3, 2013) accuses Wal-Mart of selling defective product and of false advertising. Coenzyme Q10, or CoQ10, is a dietary supplement with many potential benefits, especially to heart health. Wal-Mart sells a self-branded CoQ10 product, Equate Co-Q10, which claims it provides "clinical strength," "high absorption," and "3x better absorption" than competing products. The Plaintiff contends that the claim is false. She argues that independent laboratory analysis demonstrates Equate does not meet the industry standard dissolution for effectiveness, much less offer "3 times better absorption" than competitors. Ms. Cortina is a resident of Bonita, California, in San Diego County. Wal-Mart is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas. Wal-Mart sells Equate in its retail stores throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Fitzgerald, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC 2850 4th Ave., Suite 11 San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 692-3840 Facsimile: (619) 362-9555 E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com - and - Ronald A. Marron, Esq. Skye Resendes, Esq. Alexis M. Wood, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON, APLC 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 Facsimile: (619) 564-6665 E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com skye@consumersadvocates.com alexis@consumersadvocates.com WASTE MANAGEMENT: East St. Louis Seeks Dismissal of Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Korris, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record, reports that judges of a federal court that has run for 103 years in East St. Louis should understand the necessity of trash removal, the city pleads in a class action. On Aug. 26, the city moved to dismiss a claim that its nuisance citations violate due process and unlawfully benefit its exclusive trash hauler, Waste Management. "The court itself is a long term resident of the city occupying the same courthouse since 1910 and should be familiar with this history and the conditions in the community and neighborhood surrounding its own courthouse," John Sabo wrote for the city. "The city requests the court take judicial notice of this history and the fact that the city is engaged in a long term struggle against the illegal and improper accumulation and dumping of trash and garbage," he wrote. He identified Scott Sieron as president of three plaintiff corporations that own nearly 150 parcels in the city. "The real crux of plaintiffs' complaint is that the plaintiffs, as absentee landlords, don't want to pay for trash collection service or be otherwise responsible for the condition of trash on their properties," Mr. Sabo wrote. "The class action complaint represents an effort to obtain from the city through the intimidation of a class action what they admit they could not achieve by means of negotiation." Alvin Paulson of Belleville sued the city and Waste Management Inc., on July 2. Mr. Paulson wrote, "The citations are given indiscriminately and force city residents to come to the city's municipal building, costing those affected time and money." "This practice is a form of harassment and unduly burdens low income individuals and minorities." The complaint alleges 17 counts against the city and two against Waste Management, claiming the city acts as debt collector for Waste Management. Mr. Paulson wrote that the city issues citations to those on a list that Waste Management submits. The list includes residents who do not have trash service and Waste Management customers with delinquent bills. He also wrote that officers without training conducted hearings on citations. "No Illinois state statute requires a person to have a trash service provider," Mr. Paulson wrote. He proposed to represent all who received citations for failure to have trash service, estimating their number in hundreds if not thousands. Sabo answered that Illinois municipalities with home rule powers may adopt their own system of administrative adjudication. The city's answer states that appeals may be made pursuant to the Illinois administrative review law or by petition to an Illinois circuit court. Mr. Sabo wrote that trash collection service is mandatory under an ordinance that the complaint didn't refer to. He states that plaintiffs failed to establish that the city acts as debt collector and that a citation doesn't refer to any alleged delinquency in a recipient's account with Waste Management. He defended due process, writing that plaintiffs didn't allege they were subjected to a determination where a hearing officer was the person who issued the citation. "Instead they allege that this occurs based upon their information and belief indicating that it has not happened to plaintiffs, but they suspect or speculate that it has occurred to others," Mr. Sabo wrote. "One cannot sue in a federal court to enforce someone else's legal rights. "It is also difficult to discern from the allegations in the complaint how the hearing officer was not trained and how that alleged lack of training infringed upon their right of due process." Mr. Sabo wrote that plaintiffs didn't attack the validity of the city's nuisance ordinances. Residents without trash collection, he wrote, have few options other than to allow it to accumulate in their yards, homes, adjacent properties, nearby alleys, and vacant lots. "The court need only look to the city's recent history to recall that this is what happened when there was no trash collection in the city between 1987 and 1992 due to the city's financial issues," Sabo wrote. After Mr. Paulson filed Mr. Sieron's suit, he failed to serve it on Waste Management because he named the wrong corporation. He amended the complaint on Aug. 26, and Waste Management accepted service. Chief Judge David Herndon set a Sept. 27 deadline for Waste Management's answer. While pursuing his own practice in cases like this, Mr. Paulson also serves as special assistant to St. Clair County State's Attorney Brendan Kelly in civil litigation. Last year the county paid Mr. Paulson's firm $333,240.50. WELLS FARGO: Judge Refuses to Certify Class of Bankers in OT Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Randles, writing for Law360, reports that a group of Wells Fargo Bank NA employees on Aug. 28 lost a bid to have their complaint alleging they were stiffed overtime pay proceed as a class action, as a New York judge ruled the workers failed to present evidence of a common bank policy requiring off-the-clock work. U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel refused the plaintiffs' motion to certify a statewide class of Wells Fargo bankers under New York labor law and a collective action class under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The court also refused to certify a statewide class of Wachovia Corp. financial specialists who also allege they were not paid overtime. "Plaintiffs have not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the personal bankers of Wells Fargo or the financial specialists of Wachovia were subject to a common, New York-wide policy to limit their recorded hours or require off-the-clock work," Judge Castle said. The court poked holes in the individual declarations that were submitted in support of the motion for class certification, in particular the deposition testimony of one of the named plaintiffs, Jim Akasala, who worked for both Wells Fargo and Wachovia. Wells Fargo acquired Wachovia in 2008. Following the acquisition, Wells Fargo changed the financial specialist title to personal banker. The plaintiffs argued that financial specialists in New York were told not to record overtime because additional hours would not be approved. However, Mr. Akasala's statements cited in support of that claim don't back up the accusation, Judge Castle said. Mr. Akasala's deposition testimony does not mention any specific instructions from Wells Fargo or Wachovia management, and instead recounts incidents in which he allegedly was not properly compensated for the overtime hours he worked, according to the ruling. "This may be evidence of unlawful conduct directed toward Akasala personally, but it is not evidence of a common New York policy concerning overtime," Judge Castle said. The plaintiffs had sought to certify a class of New York-based Wells Fargo personal bankers under the state's labor laws, as well as an FLSA collective action for similarly situated employees working New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware and Pennsylvania. They also moved to certify a separate class of Wachovia financial specialists. The lawsuit against Wells Fargo was filed last year by former personal bankers Akasala, David Fernandez and Joseph Scutts. The plaintiffs claim Wells Fargo routinely requires its workers to work before and after their scheduled shifts. Wells Fargo has publicly denied the accusation, and stated that it compensates all of its employees appropriately and in accordance with state and federal law. The Aug. 27 ruling marks at least the second time in recent months Wells Fargo has defeated a similar class certification bid. Last year, a Texas federal judge refused to certify an FLSA collective action class in a separate lawsuit that accuses Wells Fargo of similar wage-and-hour violations. Representatives for Wells Fargo and the plaintiffs could not immediately be reached for comment. The plaintiffs are represented by Michael DiChiara -- md@kdlawllc.com -- of Krakower DiChiara LLC, Rhonda H. Wills of Wills Law Firm PLLC and by John M. Padilla of Padilla Rodriguez & de la Garza LLP. Wells Fargo is represented by Timothy M. Watson, Esteban Shardonofsky, Robert S. Whitman and Adam J. Smiley of Seyfarth Shaw LLP. The cases are David Fernandez et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, case number 1:12-cv-07193; and Joseph Scutts et al. v. Wachovia Corp. et al., case number 1:12-cv-07194; both in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. ZOO ENTERTAINMENT: 6th Cir. Dismisses Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, reports that the Sixth Circuit dismissed a shareholder securities class action accusing Zoo Entertainment Inc. of publishing false financial statements that caused its stock to drop 34.3 percent, ruling on Aug. 27 that it didn't support a strong inference that Zoo acted with scienter. Affirming an Ohio federal court's decision, the three-judge panel found that shareholder Bruce E. Ricker failed to allege multiple, obvious red flags usually required to support claims of recklessness. Mr. Ricker claimed an accountant for the video game software developer warned its chief executives that a major customer was failing to pay on time, and thus Zoo's filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission would be inaccurate. The Sixth Circuit decided that Zoo's financial reporting irregularities weren't a result of securities fraud but rather an inadequate finance staff, which the company had previously admitted was a problem. "Ricker has simply failed to state facts giving rise to a strong inference of recklessness," the Aug. 27 decision said. Over the course of the 2010 fiscal year, Zoo claimed record revenue in SEC filings, including $17.13 million in the first quarter, $10.47 million in the second and $17.58 million in the third. In a press release issued the following April, Zoo said that a year-end audit revealed errors in recording transactions, according to court documents. The company lowered its 2010 quarterly revenue figures by between 2 and 6 percent, and stock subsequently plummeted. Mr. Ricker's suit cited information provided by an anonymous ex- Zoo accountant alleging that problems with one of its biggest customers, Cokem International Ltd., were behind the inaccurate revenue figures. Even though Cokem accounted for a 40 percent share of Zoo's net revenue in 2010, the company never paid Zoo on time, according to court documents. David Rosenbaum, the primary salesman for the Cokem account, allegedly cut deals in which the company didn't have to pay all the money it owed. Due to these irregularities, the accountant couldn't accurately project cash flow or evaluate billing issues, court documents said. The accountant said she advised CEO Mark Seremet and CFO David Fremed to be wary of Mr. Rosenbaum and Cokem, but to no avail. Mr. Ricker alleged that Messrs. Seremet and Fremed continued to let Mr. Rosenbaum manage the Cokem account, even though they knew the problems associated with it. He also accused Zoo of knowing it had weak internal controls leading to the allegedly reckless SEC filings. In July 2012, an Ohio federal judge dismissed the suit, holding that Zoo might have been financially mismanaged but didn't deliberately mislead the public about its revenues. Even if Zoo knew that the Cokem account was problematic, such didn't mean the company necessarily should have known its financial statements were false, the judge ruled. The Sixth Circuit agreed with the lower court, adding that Ricker didn't alert the district court to Zoo's 2011 SEC information, despite having plenty of time to do so. The information showed that Cokem only accounted for 11 percent of Zoo's gross revenue in that fiscal year. While Ricker argued that the Cokem share decline was due to Zoo's alleged recklessness, it could have been attributed to Mr. Rosenbaum's exit from the company or the general decline in the U.S. economy, according to the three-judge panel. John F. Sylvia -- JSylvia@mintz.com -- of Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo PC, which is representing the defendants, told Law360 on Aug. 27 that they are pleased with the Sixth Circuit's decision. "The opinion is very straightforward . . . and focused on the issue that was before the judge below -- that the plaintiffs had not alleged scienter," he said. Attorneys for Mr. Ricker didn't immediately respond on Aug. 27 to requests for comment. U.S. Circuit Judges Alan Eugene Norris, Deborah L. Cook and David William McKeague sat on the panel for the Sixth Circuit. Mr. Ricker is represented by Jacob A. Goldberg and Sandra G. Smith of Faruqi & Faruqi LLP and Richard S. Wayne -- rswayne@strausstroy.com -- and Thomas P. Glass -- tpglass@strausstroy.com -- of Strauss Troy. The defendants are represented by John F. Sylvia, Matthew D. Levitt -- MDLevitt@mintz.com -- and Marbree D. Sullivan of Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo PC and W. Jeffrey Sefton of Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL. The case is Bruce E. Ricker v. Zoo Entertainment Inc. et al., case number 12-3951, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. * BakerHostetler Sees Rise in Mileage Reimbursement Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nancy Inesta, Esq. -- ninesta@bakerlaw.com -- at BakerHostetler reports that in California, there has been an increase in class action litigation against employers for the alleged failure to reimburse employees for business expenses, particularly mileage reimbursement. By way of example, in recent actions filed against prominent retailers, employees allege that they were not reimbursed for mileage and other travel expenses caused by: daily bank deposits, purchasing supplies for store events; required travel between stores to attend meetings; required travel between stores to provide staffing support; or required travel to transfer inventory. Under California Labor Code Section 2802, employers must reimburse employees for "all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties, or of his or her obedience to the directions of the employer." Meaning that an employer must reimburse an employee for all monies that they spend or lose, directly related to performing their duties or following employer directions. Where an employer fails to do so, Section 2802 allows an employee to recover, along with any unreimbursed expenses, interest from the date the expense was incurred, as well as any reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the employee to enforce the rights granted by the statute. With respect to mileage reimbursement, California state agencies, including the Department of Labor Standards Enforcement ("DLSE"), consider the IRS rate to be the most reasonable reimbursement rate. The IRS increased the standard mileage rate for the use of a car effective January 1, 2013, to 56.5 cents per mile for business miles driven. Although using the IRS rate is the best practice, employers may reimburse for mileage expenses at less than the IRS rate as long as the payment reimburses the employee for all actual expenses incurred by the employee in the operation of the vehicle for business use. Other business expenses that must be reimbursed under California law include: the cost of uniforms, defined as apparel and accessories of distinctive design and color, and maintenance of those uniforms (i.e., dry cleaning) where they are required to be worn as a condition of employment by non-exempt employees; and the cost of providing and maintaining tools or equipment required for the performance of the job. This litigation trend focusing on failure to reimburse for expenses may not be limited to California. In fact, just last month, delivery drivers filed a wage and hour class action lawsuit against a franchisee of 138 Domino's pizza restaurants in Mississippi and Louisiana for failure to pay minimum wage. The drivers allege that the employer violated federal wage and hour laws by failing to adequately reimburse its drivers for their automobile expenses, which resulted in a reduction in the drivers' net wages below minimum wage. The lawsuit is presently pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of Mississippi. BakerHostetler recommends that employers review their policies and practices to ensure that they are in compliance with California or other state laws, regarding business-expense reimbursements. To comply with federal law, employers should also assess whether any failure to reimburse required business expenses would reduce employees' compensation below minimum wage in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. * Law Firm Calls on Homeowners to Join Short Sale Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- If you paid your lender ANY money in connection with the short sale of your home, contact Louis White Professional Law Corporation at 888-992-1LAW(529). Louis White Professional Law Corporation is the leading counsel on a potential class action law suit for California Homeowners who short sold their home in the last four years AND, 1.) paid the lender ANY money to process their short sale or, 2.) the lender collected or attempted to collect any monies in deficiency of the short sale price and what was owed on the loan. "If you have short sold your home, Banks, including Chase, Citibank, Bank of America, US Bank, Wells Fargo and every other bank, may have violated California law if they took your money as a deficiency on purchase money loans tied to owner occupied properties," says Jamil White managing attorney at Louis White Law Firm. "Homeowners should contact us immediately to see if they are eligible for compensation." In California, a lender may agree to "short sale" a homeowner's property if the homeowner owes more than the home is worth and cannot feasibly pay on the loan. Short sales effectively allow homeowners to avoid foreclosure by selling a home for less than they owe on it. Successful short sale transactions transfer properties from the distressed seller to a qualified buyer. California short sale transactions have certain safeguards in place to protect sellers from possible legal repercussions, including lenders seeking deficiency judgments -- amounts owed to cover the difference between what was originally owed on the loan and the price the home actually short sold for. Anyone who short sold a home in the last four years and have paid the bank any money in connection with the short sale should contact the Louis White Professional Law Corporation immediately at 888-992-1LAW (529). ********* 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 * * *