/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/130925.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, September 25, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 190 Headlines ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Shareholder Wants to Vote on Purchase Accord ADVENTURES ROLLING: Parties to Submit Supplemental Briefing AGILYSYS INC: Seeks Initial Approval of $1.5MM Labor Suit Accord AMERICAN EXPRESS: Ruling Puts Small Cos at Too Big to Fail's Mercy AU OPTRONICS: High Court to Hear LCD Suit Oral Arguments in Nov. BAYER CORP: Judge Reverses Class Certification in False Ad Suit CADBURY ADAMS: Settles Price-Fixing Suit; Denies Allegations CADBURY ADAMS: Still Faces Criminal Charges Despite Settlement CAREER EDUCATION: 7th Cir. Remands "Wilson" Suit to Dist. Court COMPUTER SCIENCES: Awaits Okay of $97.5-MM Securities Suit Deal COVERALL NORTH: 1st Cir. Reverses Denial of Stay Bid in Awuah Suit EASTMAN KODAK: Appeal From Dismissal of Securities Suit Pending EASTMAN KODAK: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss ERISA Litigation EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action in Calif. FELTEX: Court Orders "Complete Terms" of Litigation Funding FERNANDINA BEACH, FL: Faces Class Action Over Water & Sewage Fees FIFTH THIRD: Awaits Final Approval of Antitrust Suit Settlement FIFTH THIRD: Awaits Prelim. Okay of Securities Suit Settlement FIFTH THIRD: Bid to Stay ERISA Violations Suits Remains Pending FORD MOTOR: Model's $20MM Suit Over Royalty Payments Nixed GREAT SOUTHERN: Class Action Trial Recalled to Hear New Evidence HOTELS.COM: Westchester County to Move Forward With Class Action HURONIA REGION: Settlement to Pave Way for Two Abuse Settlements JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Ontario Court Certifies DePuy Hip Implant Suit JOHNSON & JOHNSON: West Australian Women Join Class Action LANCE ARMSTRONG: Lies in Biographies Shielded by First Amendment MACQUARIE GROUP: 110 Tasmanian Farmers File Class Action MADISON-KIPP CORP: Settles One of Two Class Actions for $2.6MM MADISON SQUARE: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Internships MERCK & CO: Awaits Plaintiffs' Next Move in Suits Over Coupons MERCK & CO: Awaits Prelim. OK of $23-Mil. Vioxx MDL Settlement MERCK & CO: Continues to Defend Suit by Indiana Vioxx Purchasers MERCK & CO: Continues to Defend Suits Alleging AWP Manipulation MERCK & CO: Defends 5,075 Fosamax-Related Product Liability Suits MERCK & CO: Expects K-DUR Antitrust Suit to Return to N.J. Court MERCK & CO: Expert Discovery in Vioxx Securities Suits Ongoing MERCK & CO: Final Hearing on Vytorin Suits Settlements on Oct. 1 MERCK & CO: Settlement Process in Mo. Vioxx Suit to End Oct. 7 MILLWOOD INC: Unjust Enrichment Claim Dismissed in "Euceda" Suit NASHVILLE, TN: Collection Action Claims in "Noel" Suit Stayed NEVADA: Accused by San Francisco of Dumping Mental Patients NEW YORK LIFE: 2nd Cir. Upholds Wage Class Action Dismissal OAKLAND, CA: Has Final OK of BART Shooting Ralliers Accord OFFICEMAX INC: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Seek Settlement Approval Again OLD REPUBLIC: Settles "Painter" Suit Over Title Recording Fees OLD REPUBLIC: 11 of 12 RESPA Violations Lawsuits Dismissed OLD REPUBLIC: Settles Suit Filed by Escrow Officers, Assistants OLD REPUBLIC: Unit Still Faces "Friedman" False Advertising Suit PANHANDLE OIL: Received $604,000 in Settlement of Royalty Suit PENGUIN GROUP: Giskan Solotaroff to File 2nd Amended Complaint PHILIP MORRIS: Provides Updates on Smoking, Health Lawsuits PHILIP MORRIS: March 2014 Hearing Set in "El-Roy" Suit in Israel PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT: Signs Deal to Dismiss Merger-Related Suit PUSHPIN HOLDINGS: Forged Signatures in Equipment Leases, Suit Says QANTAS AIRWAYS: Oct. 2014 Trial Set for Freight Collusion Suit QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA: Torres Strait Islanders Mull Class Suit QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA: Court to Decide on Missions Class Action QUEST NUTRITION: Overstates Quest Bars' Fiber Content, Suit Says RAI: Obtains Favorable Ruling in DTT Subscribers' Class Action ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: Faces Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages SAFEWAY INC: Faces All-Natural False Advertising Class Action SPACE SYSTEMS: Hearing to Approved "Schneider" Suit Deal Continued ST. JUDE MEDICAL: 2010 Securities Suit Discovery to End in Sept. ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Defends December 2012 Securities Litigation ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Defends Riata-Related Suits in Various Courts ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Hearing in Silzone(R) Suit Appeal in November SUNPOWER CORPORATION: Wins Final OK of Securities Suit Accord UGI CORPORATION: "Swigers" Suit Still Pending in W.Va. UNITED STATES: FHFA Obtains Favorable Ruling in Georgia Tax Suit US FOODSERVICE: 2nd Cir. Affirms Class Cert. in Pricing Suit US BANCORP: Still Awaits Approval of Settlement in Visa Matter VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Seeks to Dismiss Mass. Securities Lawsuit VISA INC: MDL Settlement Worse Than Losing at Trial, NACS Says WAL-MART STORES: Squire Sanders Discusses 6th Cir. Ruling YAMAHA MOTOR: Reich & Binstock Amends Class Action Complaint YARDI SYSTEMS: Settles Suit Over Background Check Practices * Class Action Over CHSLD Laundry Services Settled ********* ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Shareholder Wants to Vote on Purchase Accord ----------------------------------------------------------------- Douglas M. Hayes, on behalf of Himself and all Others Similarly Situated and Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant Activision Blizzard, Inc. v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., Philippe G.H. Capron, Jean-Yves Charlier, Robert J. Corti, Frederic R. Crepin, Jean-Francois Dubos, Lucian Grainge, Brian G. Kelly, Robert A. Kotick, Robert J. Morgado, Richard Sarnoff, Regis Turrini, Vivendi, S.A., Amber Holding Subsidiary Co., ASASAC II LP, ASAC II LLC, Davis Selected Advisers, L.P. and Fidelity Management & Research Co., Case No. 8885- (Del. Ch. Ct., September 11, 2013) seeks to remedy alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the Defendants. The Plaintiff also seeks to prevent the Defendants and Fidelity Management & Research Co. and Davis Selected Advisers, L.P., from violating the Company's Certificate of Incorporation by failing to hold a required vote of the non- Vivendi stockholders of Activision. On July 25, 2013, Activision, Vivendi, and ASAC II LP, acting by and through its general partner, ASAC II LLC (an entity led by defendants Kelly and Kotick), entered into a Stock Purchase Agreement. Pursuant to the SPA, Activision is to purchase all of the stock of Amber, whose assets will consist of most of the Activision shares representing Vivendi's Activision business segment and at least $676 million of net operating loss carry forward attributable to Vivendi Games and other Vivendi activities. Mr. Hayes asserts that the transactions contemplated by the SPA constitute "any merger, business combination or similar transaction involving" Activision and Vivendi and its Controlled Affiliates, which under Section 9.1(b) of the Certificate requires approval by the affirmative vote of a majority of the shares of Activision not held by Vivendi and its Controlled Affiliates. In violation of the Certificate, the Defendants do not intend to submit the SPA to any stockholder vote, Mr. Hayes alleges. Hence, he seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to protect the stockholders' right to a vote on the SPA. Mr. Hayes is a stockholder of Activision. Activision is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Santa Monica, California. Activision is a worldwide publisher of online, personal computer, video game console, tablet, handheld and mobile games. Brian G. Kelly, Robert A. Kotick, Robert J. Corti, Robert J. Morgado and Richard Sarnoff are directors and officers of Activision. Vivendi is a French corporation based in Paris. Vivendi operates six businesses involved in content, platforms and interactive networks. Vivendi's 61.5% ownership interest in Activision represents one of Vivendi's business segments. Amber is currently a wholly owned subsidiary of Vivendi. Philippe G.H. Capron, Jean- Yves Charlier, Frederic R. Crepin, Jean-Francois Dubos, Lucian Grainge and Regis Turrini are directors and officers of Vivendi. ASAC II LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, is the general partner of ASAC II LP, a limited partnership established under the laws of the Cayman Islands. ASAC is an investment vehicle led by Messrs. Kelly and Kotick that includes investment management firm Davis, investment management firm FMR, private equity firm Green, and Chinese Internet, media and entertainment firm Tencent. Davis is an investment management firm based in Tucson, Arizona. Davis owns 18,999,872 shares of Activision common stock, representing approximately 1.6% of Activision's outstanding shares of common stock. FMR is an investment management firm based in Boston, Massachusetts. FMR and its affiliates own 47,354,368 shares of Activision common stock, representing approximately 4.2% of Activision's outstanding shares of common stock. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Hanrahan, Esq. Gary F. Traynor, Esq. Paul A. Fioravanti, Jr., Esq. Patrick W. Flavin, Esq. PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A. 1310 N. King Street Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Telephone: (302) 888-6500 E-mail: mhanrahan@prickett.com gftraynor@prickett.com pafioravanti@prickett.com pwflavin@prickett.com - and - Marc A. Topaz, Esq. Eric L. Zagar, Esq. Robin Winchester, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, Pennsylvania 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 E-mail: mtopaz@ktmc.com ezagar@ktmc.com rwinchester@ktmc.com The Defendants are represented by: Angela Whitesell, Esq. MORRIS NICHOLS ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP 1201 N Market St. Wilmington, DE 19801-1147 Telephone: (302) 351-9110 E-mail: awhitesell@mnat.com - and - Collins J. Seitz, Esq. Garrett B. Moritz, Esq. SEITZ ROSS ARONSTAM & MORITZ LLP 100 South West St., Suite 400 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 576-1600 E-mail: cseitz@seitzross.com gmoritz@seitzross.com - and - Edward P. Welch, Esq. SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP-WILMINGTON PO Box 636 Wilmington, DE 19899-0636 Telephone: (302) 651-3060 E-mail: EWELCH@SKADDEN.COM - and - Katherine J. Neikirk, Esq. MORRIS JAMES LLP-WILMINGTON 500 Delaware Ave Ste 1500 Wilmington, DE 19801-1494 Telephone: (302) 888-6808 E-mail: kneikirk@morrisjames.com - and - Raymond J. DiCamillo, Esq. RICHARDS LAYTON & FINGER PA-WILMINGTON 920 N King St. Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 651-7786 E-mail: dicamillo@rlf.com ADVENTURES ROLLING: Parties to Submit Supplemental Briefing ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PETER WRIGHT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ADVENTURES ROLLING CROSS COUNTRY, INC., et al., Defendants, NO. C-12-0982 EMC, (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement. Having reviewed the papers submitted, District Judge Edward M. Chen ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing and/or evidence on various issues, including: * a more concrete sense of how many people there are in the class; * an explanation on how they arrived at the estimated $750 that each class members will receive; and * their estimates as to the maximum value of the case. A copy of the District Court's August 29, 2013 Order is available at http://is.gd/U7Lon4from Leagle.com. Peter Wright, Plaintiff, is represented by Bryan Jeffrey Schwartz -- bryan@bryanschwartzlaw.com -- Bryan Schwartz Law, Michael Thomas -- michael@bryanschwartzlaw.com -- Bryan Schwartz Law and: David Adam Lowe, Esq. John T. Mullan, Esq. Rudy, Exelrod, Zieff & Lowe, LLP 351 California Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415-906-2647 Fax: 415-434-0513 Michelle Trame, Plaintiff, represented by Bryan Jeffrey Schwartz, Bryan Schwartz Law, David Adam Lowe, Rudy, Exelrod, Zieff & Lowe, LLP, John T. Mullan, Rudy, Exelrod, Zieff & Lowe, LLP & Michael Thomas, Bryan Schwartz Law. Adventures Rolling Cross Country, Inc., Defendant, represented by Reed Edward Schaper -- rschaper@hkemploymentlaw.com -- Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP & Kristin L. Oliveira -- koliveira@hkemploymentlaw.com -- Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP. Scott Von Eschen, Defendant, represented by Reed Edward Schaper, Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP & Kristin L. Oliveira, Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP. AGILYSYS INC: Seeks Initial Approval of $1.5MM Labor Suit Accord ---------------------------------------------------------------- A motion for preliminary approval of a proposed $1.5 million settlement in a labor suit against Agilysys, Inc. was filed with the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 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 February 28, 2013, the company participated in a mediation that resulted in a tentative agreement to resolve the wage and hour putative class action lawsuit filed against the company on July 9, 2012, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. A motion for preliminary approval of a proposed settlement in the amount of $1.5 million was filed with the court on June 6, 2013. This amount was accrued at March 31, 2013. AMERICAN EXPRESS: Ruling Puts Small Cos at Too Big to Fail's Mercy ------------------------------------------------------------------ Constantine Cannon LLP's Matthew L. Cantor, Esq. and Daniel J. Vitell, Esq., writing for The Hill's Congress Blog, report that the Supreme Court's recent decision in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant puts small businesses at the mercy of "too big to fail" Wall Street companies and other entities with economic heft. It allows entities with market power to demand that small businesses execute enforceable waivers that effectively prohibit them from seeking remediation, even when they are the victims of intentional conduct, such as anticompetitive price- fixing conspiracies. Left unchanged, the Court's ruling will significantly impair Main Street's ability to bring antitrust lawsuits to challenge financial harm caused to them. Tea Party members, elected to protect small business from Wall Street, and Democrats should see this decision as a threat to their mission in Congress. They should launch a bi-partisan effort to amend the Federal Arbitration Act to prohibit class action waivers where such clauses effectively prohibit small businesses and consumers from vindicating their rights under federal or state law. Contracts often dictate that disputes are to be resolved through arbitration, rather than through the courts. Buried in the fine print of many arbitration provisions is the following legalese: "Any arbitration under this Arbitration Agreement shall be solely between [Party A] and [Party B], shall not be joined with another lawsuit, claim, dispute or arbitration commenced by any other person, and may not be maintained on behalf of any purported class. Both parties waive the right to participate in any class action against the other, and the arbitrator has no authority to adjudicate any class claims or class arbitration." This class action waiver requires each party to go it alone, even if the illegal conduct impacts thousands or millions of small businesses or consumers. These words effectively strip harmed businesses -- such as the victims of a price-fixing conspiracy -- of their ability to seek a remedy, because to do so alone would be prohibitively expensive. For example, private antitrust prosecutions require substantial expenditures to pay for discovery, an economic expert, and trial costs. The costs can far exceed the expected recovery to any one business, even if the damages run into the hundreds or thousands of dollars. No rational company or individual would pursue a lawsuit that costs more than you can win. Class actions were created to deal with this problem and to ensure that those that have suffered injury have access to the courts. Class actions allow victims to pool their resources to jointly pursue an aggregate award in a cost-effective manner. Class action waivers eradicate this cost-effective means of having small businesses fight back against harm caused collectively to them. Now that they have been found enforceable, they are even more prevalent. This result is unfair. It effectively closes the courthouse's and the arbitrator's doors to small businesses not willing to engage in an economically irrational dispute resolution to protect its rights. It also effectively immunizes powerful companies from damages actions that deter dominant players from engaging in bad conduct. According to Justice Kagan, who dissented in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, the Supreme Court's response to these concerns is "Too darn bad." Consumers and small businesses are not generally in a position to negotiate form agreements that contain these clauses; rather, they merely click or sign in order to obtain necessary goods and services. With one stroke of a pen, one click of a mouse, small businesses and consumers are effectively stripped of their ability to bring private actions to vindicate their rights provided under federal and state law. Private actions, such as private antitrust actions, are increasingly important as prosecutorial resources diminish. The issue has gone as far as it can in the courts. The Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act renders class action waivers enforceable, even when those provisions effectively strip small companies and consumers of their rights. The solution lies with Congress, which can amend the Federal Arbitration Act. Democrats and Republicans who are concerned with protecting their respective constituencies from the overreaching of big business should not let this decision stand. They should amend the FAA to protect the small entrepreneurs and innovators of America. AU OPTRONICS: High Court to Hear LCD Suit Oral Arguments in Nov. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Clay Chandler, writing for Mississippi Business Journal, reports that the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in November related to Attorney General Jim Hood's price-fixing lawsuit against liquid crystal display (LCD) screen manufacturers In 2011, Mr. Hood sued the companies, accusing them of price- fixing from December 2006 to April 2011. He claimed the companies of forcing consumers to pay too much for their products, in violation of the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act. LCD screens are used in computers and televisions. Mr. Hood brought the action in Hinds County Chancery Court, under the parens patriae theory, which allows a state's top law enforcement officer to sue on behalf of his constituents. The defendants removed the case from chancery court to Mississippi's Southern District federal court. In court filings, defendants argued that the Class Action Fairness Act, passed by Congress in 2005, allowed the change in venue because the plaintiffs were the people of Mississippi, not Mr. Hood. The CAFA defines a "mass action" as litigation with a lot of plaintiffs, similar to class action lawsuits. The law allows for the removal of mass actions to federal court. Mr. Hood countered that the case, since it arose out of the parens patriae theory, belonged in state court. Federal judge Carlton Reeves of Jackson agreed with Mr. Hood, and sent the case back to chancery court. The defendants appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that the case belonged in federal court. The Fifth Circuit is the only federal appeals court to rule that consumer protection litigation brought on behalf of a state belongs in federal court, and not state court. The appeals court issued a similar ruling relating to consumer protection litigation brought by Louisiana's attorney general against Allstate Insurance Co. Due to the split, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on May 28 that it would hear the case. The justices will determine who the actual plaintiff is -- Mr. Hood, or the people he sued LCD manufacturers on behalf of. Their ruling will likely determine the venue of future consumer protection litigation brought under the parens patriae theory. "We are pleased that the court granted the state's petition and look forward to having the case heard on the merits," Mr. Hood said in June in an email to the Mississippi Business Journal. "Corporations have abused federal jurisdiction by using the Class Action Fairness Act to remove consumer actions from state court to federal court. During Senate debate on the Class Action Fairness Act, even the senators supporting the act stated on the record that it would not apply to actions brought by attorneys general. I anticipate a vast majority of attorneys general joining in an amicus brief supporting our position, which three Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals upheld." Consumer interest group Public Citizen has filed an amicus brief in support of Mr. Hood's position. The Washington, D.C.-based group was active in the process to pass the CAFA. In the brief, Public Citizen says the removal of parens patriae cases to federal "departs from the plain language and intent" of the law. Forty-six states have filed briefs supporting Mr. Hood's position to go with the AARP and the Center for State Enforcement of Antitrust and Consumer Protection Laws. The case name is Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics. BAYER CORP: Judge Reverses Class Certification in False Ad Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Greg Ryan, writing for Law360, reports that the Third Circuit recently sank a false advertising lawsuit against Bayer Corp. by holding that, without receipts or sales records, there may be no reliable way to identify class members, a game-changing decision that makes it significantly tougher for consumers to target food and other low-cost products in a class action. In a precedential Aug. 21 opinion, a three-judge panel reversed a New Jersey federal judge's certification of a class of Florida consumers who claim Bayer falsely advertised the metabolism- boosting benefits of its One-A-Day WeightSmart vitamin. I t would be too difficult to determine whether a consumer actually belongs to the class, the appeals court said, pointing to a concept known as ascertainability. The panel rejected plaintiff Gabriel Carrera's contention that class membership could be determined based on retailer records for customer-loyalty card and online purchases, since there was no proof they had such records, or based on affidavits from consumers swearing they bought the vitamins, since there was no proof they are reliable. The decision is not the first in the Third Circuit or elsewhere to apply ascertainability in a manner that benefits defendants, but none has gone as far in suggesting that, without a receipt or record of purchase from a retailer, plaintiffs bringing a consumer product class action may not be able to secure certification, according to attorneys. "What it really nails down is if a defendant doesn't have records regarding who's in the class, then a class might not be possible," McGuireWoods LLP counsel Andrew Trask -- atrask@mcguirewoods.com -- said. Such a reading hampers lawsuits targeting the types of inexpensive products that most retailers would not bother tracking and most consumers would not bother to keep a receipt for, including the common grocery items at the heart of ever-popular food labeling litigation, attorneys said. "Ultimately, in a case where a defendant does not have and is under no obligation to retain sales records, it's going to be an uphill battle for these very broad false advertising types of claims," Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP partner Sean Wajert said. The ruling builds on the Third Circuit's ruling in Marcus v. BMW of North America LLC in August 2012, the first time the appeals court examined ascertainability at length. The appeals court held in that case that a tire defect class action should not be certified because the plaintiff had not adequately shown how to determine which consumers had experienced flat tires and had the products replaced. "This case really implements [Marcus] in a concrete way that would be applicable to a whole host of products," Mr. Wajert said. In reversing the certification of the Carrera class, the Third Circuit held there is no proof that retailers have online sales or loyalty-card records proving a consumer purchased the vitamins. The judges turned aside arguments put forward by Carrera related to the viability of affidavits. It would not matter if the low value of the claims made fabricated affidavits unlikely, since Bayer still must have a way to challenge class membership, according to the panel. In addition, it would not matter if Bayer's total liability remains the same regardless of the number of claims, since the ascertainability principle protects class members from fabricated claims, just as it protects defendants, it said. Carrera cannot simply propose a screening model to ferret out fabricated affidavits without proving that it will be reliable and specific to the case, the panel said. However, it held that Carrera could overcome the ascertainability hurdle if he devises a reliable, case-specific screening model that allows Bayer to challenge affidavits, according to the panel. In reality, the opening left by such a model is so small as to be nonexistent, attorneys said. "If you read the opinion in its entirety, it certainly seems to indicate that nothing short of a receipt will be a reliable method. I don't see much of a door being left open in light of the other language in the opinion," Seeger Weiss LLP partner Jonathan Shub -- jshub@seegerweiss.com -- said. "As plaintiffs counsel, we think the court has just misconstrued Rule 23. There's no requirement that you have written proof you're in the class," Mr. Shub said. "It has far-reaching implications for consumer cases." Defense attorneys maintained that it was not fair to rely on consumers' word that they bought a product in a class setting when such a statement would be subject to much higher scrutiny in an individual action. "You don't give up your right to due process as a defendant just because the plaintiffs bring a class action," Mr. Wajert said. Circuit Judges Michael Chagares, D. Brooks Smith and Anthony Scirica sat on the panel for the Third Circuit. Mr. Carrera is represented by Caroline Bartlett, James Cecchi and Lindsey Taylor of Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello PC and Joe Whatley of Whatley Drake & Kallas LLC. Bayer is represented by Matthew Ford -- matthew.ford@bartlit- beck.com -- Christopher Landgraf -- chris.landgraff@bartlit- beck.com -- and Rebecca Weinstein Bacon -- rweinstein.bacon@bartlit-beck.com -- of Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP. The case is Carrera v. Bayer Corp. et al., case number 12-2621, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. CADBURY ADAMS: Settles Price-Fixing Suit; Denies Allegations ------------------------------------------------------------ This document corrects and replaces the press release that was issued on Sept. 16. Class action lawsuits brought across Canada against Cadbury, Hershey, Nestle and Mars entities, and distributor ITWAL Limited alleging price-fixing and price maintenance in the market for chocolate products in Canada have been settled and resolved in full. The defendants deny the allegations and have settled to avoid the expense, inconvenience and distraction of further protracted litigation. The settlements reflect a compromise of disputed claims. The settlements were approved by the courts in Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec as being fair, reasonable and in the best interests of class members. Together, the defendants, Cadbury Adams Canada Inc., Hershey Canada Inc., Nestle Canada Inc. and Mars Canada Inc. paid $23.2 million for the benefit of all persons who bought Cadbury, Hershey, Nestle and/or Mars chocolate products in Canada between February 1, 2001 and December 31, 2008. The courts in Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec have also approved a method for distributing the settlement amounts (less approved fees and expenses) to consumers and commercial purchasers with chocolate product purchases between October 1, 2005 and September 30, 2007. Consumers who purchased at least $1,000 in chocolate products between October 1, 2005 and September 30, 2007 will be eligible to make a claim for direct monetary compensation. It is not necessary to have purchase records in order to make a claim, although consumer claims that are not supported by purchase records are capped at $50. Recognizing that not all consumers will have made the threshold level of purchases required to make a claim for direct monetary compensation, consumers not eligible for direct monetary compensation will be indirectly compensated through a distribution of 10% of the available settlement funds to the following national non-profit organizations: Consumers Association of Canada; Public Interest Advocacy Centre; Phelps Centre for the Study of Government and Business (University of British Columbia); Centre for Interuniversity Research and Analysis of Organizations; and Rotman Institute for International Business (University of Toronto). The monies received by these organizations will be used to fund programs and initiatives across Canada related to competition in the Canadian marketplace and consumer education and advocacy. The remaining 90% will be allocated for direct payment to consumers and commercial purchasers whose claims are approved. Payments to eligible claimants will be made based on the estimated percentage of the purchase price affected by the alleged overcharge, and not based on the full price of the product. The deadline for filing a claim to receive direct compensation is December 15, 2013. Persons who believe they might qualify for direct compensation can obtain more information about the settlement benefits and how to make a claim online at http://www.chocolateclassaction.comor by calling 1-866-432-5534. Claims that are not made within the deadline will not be eligible for compensation. Persons in British Columbia are represented by Sharon Matthews of Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman (Vancouver) and Luciana Brasil of Branch MacMaster LLP (Vancouver). Individuals and partnerships and corporations with less than 50 employees in Quebec are represented by Simon Hebert of Siskinds Desmeules s.e.n.c.r.l. (Quebec City). Persons in provinces other than British Columbia and Quebec as well as partnerships and corporations in Quebec with 50 or more employees are represented by Charles Wright of Siskinds LLP (London) and Heather Rumble Peterson of Sutts, Strosberg LLP (Windsor). Contacts: For Persons in British Columbia: Luciana Brasil Branch MacMaster LLP 1410-777 Hornby Street Vancouver, BC V6Z 1S4 Telephone: 604-654-2966 E-mail: lbrasil@branmac.com Sharon D. Matthews Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman #400 - 856 Homer Street Vancouver, BC V6B 2W5 Telephone: 604-331-9522 E-mail: smatthews@cfmlawyers.ca For Persons in Quebec: Simon Hebert Siskinds Desmeules s.e.n.c.r.l. 43, Rue Baude, Bureau 320 Quebec City, QC G1R 4A2 Telephone: 418-694-2009 E-mail: simon.hebert@siskindsdesmeules.com For Persons in the rest of Canada: Charles Wright Siskinds LLP 680 Waterloo Steet London, ON N6A 3V8 Telephone: 1-800-461-6166 ext. 2446 E-mail: charles.wright@siskinds.com CADBURY ADAMS: Still Faces Criminal Charges Despite Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Katy Askew, writing for Just-Food, reports that chocolate giants including Nestle and Mars Inc. have moved to settle a class action lawsuit accusing them of price fixing and price maintenance in Canada. According to a statement from lawyers representing the plaintiffs, Nestle, Mars, then Kraft Foods subsidiary Cadbury Adams Canada and wholesale distributor ITWAL have agreed to resolve the civil action being brought against them. The firms will pay a total of C$23.2 million (US$14.14 million) to settle allegations they colluded to fix the price of chocolate in Canada between 2001 and 2007. "The defendants deny the allegations and have settled to avoid the expense, inconvenience and distraction of further protracted litigation," the statement revealed on Sept. 16. The Canadian government is still pursuing an ongoing criminal case, just-food understands. Earlier this year, Hershey Canada was fined C$4 million after admitting it fixed the price of chocolate products in the country as part of the Canadian government's criminal investigation. In 2012, the company also paid C$5.3 million to settle the civil case. At the time, Canada's Competition Bureau said Hershey had admitted it "conspired, agreed or arranged to fix the price of chocolate confectionery products in Canada". Nestle, Mars and ITWAL still face criminal charges, a source close to the situation told just-food. Three individuals -- Robert Leonidas, former president of Nestle Canada; Sandra Martinez, former president of Confectionery for Nestle Canada; and David Glenn Stevens, president and CEO of ITWAL -- have also been charged. It is understood that Cadbury is exempt from prosecution under the rules of Canada's immunity program, which protect a company that alerts the Bureau to a competition breach. CAREER EDUCATION: 7th Cir. Remands "Wilson" Suit to Dist. Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Riley Wilson worked as an admissions representative for Career Education Corporation, recruiting students to enroll in CEC's culinary arts college. Until February 2011, Wilson and his fellow admissions representatives worked under a contract (called the Plan) that gave them a bonus for each student they recruited, above a definite threshold, who either completed a full course or a year of study. In October 2010, however, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) issued regulations prohibiting this kind of arrangement; its new rules were scheduled to take effect in July 2011. CEC decided in effect to advance the effective date to February 2011, and pursuant to that decision, it announced to its admissions representatives that it would cease paying bonuses at the end of February 2011. It further stated that no bonuses would be regarded as earned by that date unless the student in question had completed the year of study or course by that time. Wilson sued, asserting that CEC owed him bonuses for his "pipeline" students -- that is, those whom he had recruited and who were on target to complete a full course or year of study between March and June 2011. The district court found that he had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and thus dismissed the action. On appeal, Wilson presents several grounds for reversal: (1) he argues that CEC breached its contract with him and his fellow admissions representatives; (2) he argues that CEC was unjustly enriched by his efforts to enroll qualifying students and that it should be required to disgorge the bonuses that it wrongfully withheld; and (3) he argues that CEC violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing -- implicit in the contract -- when it terminated the agreement. A majority of the panel in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit concluded that Wilson has successfully pleaded a claim for relief on his third theory -- that CEC exercised its right to terminate the Plan in bad faith and in violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. A separate opinion from Judge Hamilton indicated his agreement with Judge Darrow's position on the implied covenant theory and his disagreement with aspects of the majority's decision on the breach-of-contract theory. Judge Wood affirmed the judgment of the district court, and dissented from the ultimate disposition of the case. Judge Darrow joined Judge Wood's conclusions (a) that CEC's bonus plan was an enforceable contract, (b) that CEC had the unambiguous right to terminate that contract and to refuse to pay bonuses for students in the pipeline, and (c) that the existence of an enforceable contract precludes any recovery under an unjust- enrichment theory. In the final analysis, this means that the judgment of the district court is reversed and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings on the implied-covenant theory. The case is RILEY J. WILSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CAREER EDUCATION CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee, NO. 12-2383. A copy of the Appeals Court's August 30, 2013 Opinion is available at http://is.gd/ucAClufrom Leagle.com. COMPUTER SCIENCES: Awaits Okay of $97.5-MM Securities Suit Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- Computer Sciences Corporation is awaiting final approval of its $97.5 million settlement of a consolidated securities class action lawsuit, according to the Company's August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 28, 2013. Between June 3, 2011, and July 21, 2011, four putative class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, entitled City of Roseville Employee's Retirement System v. Computer Sciences Corporation, et al. (No. 1:11-cv-00610-TSE-IDD), Murphy v. Computer Sciences Corporation, et al. (No. 1:11-cv-00636-TSE-IDD), Kramer v. Computer Sciences Corporation, et al. (No. 1:11-cv-00751-TSE-IDD) and Goldman v. Computer Sciences Corporation, et al. (No. 1:11-cv- 777-TSE-IDD). On August 29, 2011, the four actions were consolidated as In re Computer Sciences Corporation Securities Litigation (No. 1:11-cv-610-TSE-IDD) and Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board was appointed lead plaintiff. A consolidated class action complaint was filed by plaintiff on September 26, 2011, and names as defendants CSC, Michael W. Laphen, Michael J. Mancuso and Donald G. DeBuck. A corrected complaint was filed on October 19, 2011. The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws in connection with alleged misrepresentations and omissions regarding the business and operations of the Company. Specifically, the allegations arise from the Company's disclosure of the Company's investigation into certain accounting irregularities in the Nordic region and its disclosure regarding the status of the Company's agreement with the U.K. National Health Service (NHS). Among other things, the plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages. The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification with the court on September 22, 2011, and the defendants filed a motion to dismiss on October 18, 2011. A hearing was held on November 4, 2011. On August 29, 2012, the court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss. The court granted the motion to dismiss with respect to the plaintiff's claims in connection with alleged misrepresentations and omissions concerning the Company's operations in the Nordic Region. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss with respect to the plaintiff's claims in connection with alleged misrepresentations and omissions concerning the Company's internal controls and the Company's contract with the NHS. The court also granted the plaintiff leave to amend its complaint by September 12, 2012, and maintained the stay of discovery until the sufficiency of the amended complaint had been decided. The court further denied plaintiff's motion for class certification without prejudice. On September 12, 2012, the plaintiff filed a notice advising the Court that it had determined not to amend its complaint and renewed its motion for class certification. On September 21, 2012, the court issued an Order setting the hearing on the motion for class certification for October 12, 2012, directing the parties to complete discovery by January 11, 2013, and scheduling the final pretrial conference for January 17, 2013. On October 9, 2012, the defendants filed their answer to the plaintiff's complaint. On October 12, 2012, the hearing on the motion for class certification was rescheduled to November 1, 2012. On October 31, 2012, the parties filed a joint motion with the court requesting that the hearing on the motion for class certification be rescheduled to a later date. On November 1, 2012, the court issued an order setting the hearing for class certification for November 15, 2012. On November 30, 2012, the court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification. On December 14, 2012, the defendants filed with the Fourth Circuit a petition for permission to appeal the class certification order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f). The Plaintiff's response to the petition was filed on February 20, 2013. On March 5, 2013, the Fourth Circuit denied the petition for permission to appeal the class certification order. On December 14, 2012, the court issued an order extending the expert discovery deadline to February 25, 2013. On December 20, 2012, the court issued an order extending the fact discovery deadline to February 11, 2013, and the expert discovery deadline to March 25, 2013. On January 13, 2013, the court issued an order extending the expert discovery deadline to April 1, 2013. Motions for summary judgment were filed on March 18, 2013. On May 15, 2013, the Company entered into a stipulation and agreement of settlement with the lead plaintiff to settle all claims in the lawsuit for $97.5 million, which was accrued for as of March 29, 2013 and included in accrued expenses and other current liabilities on the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet. As of March 29, 2013, the Company has also recorded a receivable of $45 million, which represents the amount recoverable under the Company's corporate insurance policies, and is included in receivables on the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet. The agreement is subject to approval by the court. On May 24, 2013, the Court entered a Preliminary Approval Order Providing for Notice and Hearing in Connection with Proposed Class Action Settlement. The Preliminary Approval Order scheduled a Settlement Hearing for September 19, 2013. Founded in 1959, Computer Sciences Corporation -- http://www.csc.com/-- is a global leader of information technology and professional services and solutions. CSC provides IT and business process outsourcing, consulting, systems integration and other IT services to its customers. The Company is headquartered in Falls Church, Virginia. COVERALL NORTH: 1st Cir. Reverses Denial of Stay Bid in Awuah Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In AWUAH v. COVERALL NORTH AMERICA, INC., Coverall appeals the denial of its motion to reconsider and to stay proceedings pending arbitration. That motion sought relief from the district court's decision to sanction Coverall by admitting to an ongoing class action certain individuals who had been pursuing their claims against Coverall in arbitration. The sanction issued upon the court's determination that Coverall had violated an order requiring it to obtain judicial permission before making any motion to delay or prevent arbitration proceedings. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit concluded that this determination was an abuse of discretion. "Without this improper determination there was no basis for the sanction, which interfered with the arbitration proceedings, and thus Coverall's motion to stay should have been granted," says the Court. Accordingly, the First Circuit reversed the denial of Coverall's motion to stay and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The case is PIUS AWUAH, ET AL., and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, Appellees, v. COVERALL NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Appellant, NO. 12-2495. A copy of the District Court's August 30, 2013 Opinion is available at http://is.gd/TrRVeLfrom Leagle.com. Norman M. Leon -- norman.leon@dlapiper.com -- with whom Matthew Iverson -- matthew.iverson@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP (US), Michael D. Vhay -- mvhay@ferriterscobbo.com -- and Ferriter Scobbo & Rodophele, PC were on brief for appellant. Shannon Liss-Riordan -- sliss@llrlaw.com --with whom Hillary Schwab -- hschwab@llrlaw.com -- Claret Vargas -- CVargas@llrlaw.com --and Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. were on brief for appellees. EASTMAN KODAK: Appeal From Dismissal of Securities Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal from the dismissal of a securities class action lawsuit remains pending, according to Eastman Kodak Company's August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. On February 10, 2012, a lawsuit was filed in federal court in the Southern District of New York against the Chief Executive Officer, the former President and Chief Operating Officer and the former Chief Financial Officer, as a putative class action lawsuit under the federal securities laws, claiming that certain Company statements concerning the Company's business and financial results were misleading (Timothy A. Hutchinson v. Antonio M. Perez, Philip J. Faraci, and Antoinette McCorvey). The Court granted the defendants' July 2, 2012 motion to dismiss this case as against all defendants but granted the plaintiffs' subsequent motion for leave to amend. The Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint against only the Chief Executive Officer and the former Chief Financial Officer (Timothy A. Hutchinson v. Antonio M. Perez and Antoinette McCorvey), in which they sought damages with interest, equitable relief as applicable, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the case on April 25, 2013, and plaintiffs have appealed. The Company believes that the securities lawsuit is not uncommon for companies in Chapter 11. On behalf of the defendants in the case, the Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit and will vigorously defend it on their behalf. Founded in 1889, Eastman Kodak Company -- http://www.Kodak.com/-- commonly known as Kodak, is an American multinational imaging and photographic equipment, materials and services company headquartered in Rochester, New York, and incorporated in New Jersey. EASTMAN KODAK: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss ERISA Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- Eastman Kodak Company is awaiting a court decision on its motion to dismiss the consolidated lawsuit styled In re Eastman Kodak ERISA Litigation, according to the Company's August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. On January 19, 2012, Eastman Kodak Company and its U.S. subsidiaries (collectively, the "Debtors") filed voluntary petitions for relief (the "Bankruptcy Filing") under Chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code (the "Bankruptcy Code") in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Bankruptcy Court") case number 12-10202. The Company's foreign subsidiaries (collectively, the "Non-Filing Entities") were not part of the Bankruptcy Filing. The Debtors continue to operate their businesses as "debtors-in-possession" under the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court and in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and the orders of the Bankruptcy Court. The Non-Filing Entities continue to operate in the ordinary course of business. As a result of the Bankruptcy Filing, much of the pending litigation against the Debtors is stayed. Subject to certain exceptions and approval by the Bankruptcy Court, during the chapter 11 process, no party can take further actions to recover pre-petition claims against the Company. Subsequent to the Company's Bankruptcy Filing, between January 27, 2012, and March 22, 2012, several putative class action lawsuits were filed in federal court in the Western District of New York against the current and certain former members of the Board of Directors (who were subsequently dismissed from the lawsuits), the Company's Savings and Investment Plan ("SIP") Committee and certain former and current executives of the Company. The lawsuits have been consolidated into a single action brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), styled as In re Eastman Kodak ERISA Litigation. The allegations concern the decline in the Company's stock price and its alleged impact on SIP and on the Company's Employee Stock Ownership Plan. The Plaintiffs seek the recovery of any losses to the applicable plans, a constructive trust, the appointment of an independent fiduciary, equitable relief, as applicable, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendants' motion to dismiss the litigation was heard on May 23, 2013, and has been taken under advisement. The Company believes that the ERISA lawsuit is not uncommon for companies in Chapter 11. On behalf of the defendants in the case, the Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit and will vigorously defend it on their behalf. Founded in 1889, Eastman Kodak Company -- http://www.Kodak.com/-- commonly known as Kodak, is an American multinational imaging and photographic equipment, materials and services company headquartered in Rochester, New York, and incorporated in New Jersey. EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, on Sept. 18 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of a class comprising all purchasers of Edwards Lifesciences common stock between April 25, 2012 and April 23, 2013, inclusive. A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IS AVAILABLE FROM THE COURT OR FROM GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP. PLEASE CONTACT US TOLL-FREE AT (888) 773-9224, OR AT (212) 682-5340, OR BY EMAIL TO SHAREHOLDERS@GLANCYLAW.COM TO DISCUSS THIS MATTER. IF YOU INQUIRE BY EMAIL PLEASE INCLUDE YOUR MAILING ADDRESS, TELEPHONE NUMBER AND NUMBER OF SHARES PURCHASED. Edwards Lifesciences is a medical device maker that designs and markets, among other things, artificial heart valves for implantation in patients with advanced cardiovascular disease. The Company offers a range of such valves, including both valves that require traditional open-chest surgery, and its newer SAPIEN line of transcatheter heart valves ("THVs"), which may be implanted using a minimally invasive procedure. The Complaint alleges that the Company issued false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts related to the prospects, projected sales and adoption of the Company's Edwards SAPIEN transcatheter aortic heart valve, including the related transfemoral and transapical delivery methods ("SAPIEN"), and related projections of financial performance for the Company's operations. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants knew but concealed from Edwards Lifesciences' shareholders during the Class Period that: (1) adoption of SAPIEN was weaker than the Company claimed, due to concerns among physicians over the risks and complexity of the procedure for implanting the valve; (2) Edwards Lifesciences' outlook for sales and earnings per share ("EPS") was significantly weaker than the optimistic guidance defendants offered to investors; and (3) as a result, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for the statements made concerning the Company's operations, forecasts and outlook. On April 23, 2013, the Company disclosed that approximately 20 candidate hospitals had postponed SAPIEN training, that there was substantially no backlog of patients awaiting SAPIEN implants, and that the Company's financial results had been and would likely continue to be weaker than estimates. In response to this news, Edwards Lifesciences' stock price fell $18.21 per share, or 21.99%, to close at $64.60 per share on April 24, 2013 on extremely heavy trading volume. If you are a member of the Class described above you may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this Notice to serve as lead plaintiff; however, you must meet certain legal requirements. If you wish to learn more about this action, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, or contact Gregory Linkh, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP at 122 E. 42nd Street, Suite 2920, New York, New York 10168, at (212) 682-5340, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at http://www.glancylaw.com If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. CONTACT: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP Los Angeles, CA Michael Goldberg Telephone: 888-773-9224 or Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP New York, NY Gregory Linkh Telephone: 212-682-5340 888-773-9224 or E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com FELTEX: Court Orders "Complete Terms" of Litigation Funding ----------------------------------------------------------- Marta Steeman, writing for Stuff.co.nz, reports that the High Court is seeking assurance that the Feltex class action funder has the ability to meet further security of NZ$1.8 million. The High Court has told counsel for the plaintiff in the class action to supply it with the "complete terms" of the undertaking by litigation funder, London-based Harbour Litigation Funding (HLIF), to meet another NZ$1.8 million of security. The information was to be supplied by 5:00 p.m. on Sept. 20. It follows High Court orders on July 19 for the plaintiff to supply more security. Security arrangements provided other than by a bank bond or guarantee were to be in place by August 16 and the first tranche of security, NZ$800,000, by August 30. The plaintiff missed those deadlines. The class action case has been running for more than five years and is to start in March next year. About 3600 former shareholders of the failed carpetmaker, represented by plaintiff Eric Houghton, are taking the action against the directors, promoters, sellers and co-managers of the offering of Feltex shares to the public in mid-2004. The company collapsed two and a half years later. Justice Robert Dobson said in his judgment released on Sept. 19 that counsel for the plaintiff was to supply by 5:00 p.m. on Sept. 20. The complete terms of the undertaking proposed by HLIF. The financial statements of HLIF for the year to December 31, 2012, and a copy of their six monthly accounts to June 30, 2013 if they were also available. The costs to HLIF of providing a bond or guarantee for the additional security by a reputable New Zealand financial institution. The bond or guarantee would commit the institution to paying adverse costs orders made in favor of the defendants up to NZ$800,000, and up to NZ$1.8 million from January next year until determination of the High Court case. Counsel for the plaintiff, Austin Forbes, has told the court HLIF would undertake to pay orders for costs required of the plaintiff in favor of the defendants up to amounts ordered by the court. Justice Dobson said although there was no evidence for challenging assurances of HLIF's substantial solvency, the financial statements relied upon previously by the plaintiff's counsel were now out of date and instructed the court receive current ones. FERNANDINA BEACH, FL: Faces Class Action Over Water & Sewage Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- Clifford Davis, writing for Jacksonville.com, reports that in a simmering dispute over water and sewage impact fees pitting property owners against the city of Fernandina Beach, the city's attorney has conceded a major point, according to a plaintiff in the class-action suit filed in 2011. But the city attorney doesn't see it that way. The suit argues that the city unlawfully levied fees to pay past debts. According to law, the fees may only be used to pay for new expenditures. "We used the water impact fees to pay back debt," city attorney Tammi Bach said. To a member of the class-action suit, that's an admission of guilt. "That's exclusively what they were using it for," said Patrick Keogh, a local businessman. "And that's an unlawful purpose for those funds." However, Ms. Bach said the city's actions were appropriate. The city bought the water assets of Florida Public Utilities in Fernandina Beach in 2003 for roughly $19 million plus $7.5 million in future payments. "The $7.5 million is money that's paid for futures for the existing excess capacity that they sold to the city," Ms. Bach said, excess capacity the new owners are now using. Ms. Bach said the $19 million was paid to provide the water service to the new occupants. But impact fees were used to pay the $7.5 million in "futures" owed on the original acquisition. "It was not to be used for acquisition," Ms. Keogh said. "The only thing they can be spent for was expansion." Impact fees are a city government's way of recouping future expenses caused by new development. Water and sewage fees are only charged for owners of new developments, expanded existing developments, or buildings changed in operation resulting in increased usage. The case is currently in front of Circuit Judge Brian Davis. Judge Davis dismissed the city's request for summary judgment Aug. 11, allowing the suit to move forward. FIFTH THIRD: Awaits Final Approval of Antitrust Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Fifth Third Bancorp is awaiting final approval of a settlement in the consolidated antitrust lawsuit originally filed against Visa, MasterCard and others, according to the Company's August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. During April 2006, Fifth Third Bancorp (the "Bancorp" or "Fifth Third") was added as a defendant in a consolidated antitrust class action lawsuit originally filed against Visa(R), MasterCard(R) and several other major financial institutions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The plaintiffs, merchants operating commercial businesses throughout the U.S. and trade associations, claim that the interchange fees charged by card-issuing banks are unreasonable and seek injunctive relief and unspecified damages. In addition to being a named defendant, the Bancorp is also subject to a possible indemnification obligation of Visa and has also entered into judgment and loss sharing agreements with Visa, MasterCard and certain other named defendants. On October 19, 2012, the parties to the litigation entered into a settlement agreement. The court entered a Class Settlement Preliminary Approval Order on November 27, 2012. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the Bancorp paid $46 million into a class settlement escrow account. Previously, the Bancorp paid an additional $4 million in another settlement escrow in connection with the settlement of claims from plaintiffs not included in the class action. More than 7,900 class members requested exclusion from the class settlement. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, 25% of the funds paid into the class settlement escrow account will be returned to the control of defendants through Class Exclusion Takedown Payments. A number of the class members who requested exclusion have filed separate lawsuits against Visa, MasterCard and certain other defendants alleging similar claims of antitrust violations. These lawsuits have been tentatively transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Fifth Third is not a named defendant in these lawsuits, but may have obligations pursuant to indemnification and/or the judgment or loss sharing agreements. Fifth Third Bancorp is a diversified financial services company headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. The Bancorp operated 18 affiliates with 1,326 full-service Banking Centers, including 104 Bank Mart(R) locations open seven days a week inside select grocery stores, and 2,433 ATMs in 12 states throughout the Midwestern and Southeastern regions of the U.S. The Bancorp reports on four business segments: Commercial Banking, Branch Banking, Consumer Lending and Investment Advisors. FIFTH THIRD: Awaits Prelim. Okay of Securities Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Fifth Third Bancorp is awaiting preliminary approval of its settlement of a consolidated securities class action lawsuit, according to the Company's August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. For the year ended December 31, 2008, five putative securities class action complaints were filed against Fifth Third Bancorp (the "Bancorp" or "Fifth Third") and its Chief Executive Officer, among other parties. The five cases have been consolidated under the caption Local 295/Local 851 IBT Employer Group Pension Trust and Welfare Fund v. Fifth Third Bancorp., et al., Case No. 1:08CV00421, and are currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. On December 18, 2012, the Bancorp entered into a settlement agreement to resolve these cases. The settlement is subject to court approval, which process is ongoing. Under the terms of the settlement, the Bancorp and its insurer will pay a total of $16 million to a fund to settle all the claims of the class members. In the settlement the Bancorp has denied any liability and has agreed to the settlement in order to avoid potential future litigation costs and uncertainty. The Bancorp does not consider the impact of the settlement to be material to its financial condition or results of operations. Fifth Third Bancorp is a diversified financial services company headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. The Bancorp operated 18 affiliates with 1,326 full-service Banking Centers, including 104 Bank Mart(R) locations open seven days a week inside select grocery stores, and 2,433 ATMs in 12 states throughout the Midwestern and Southeastern regions of the U.S. The Bancorp reports on four business segments: Commercial Banking, Branch Banking, Consumer Lending and Investment Advisors. FIFTH THIRD: Bid to Stay ERISA Violations Suits Remains Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Fifth Third Bancorp's motion for a stay of proceedings in the two class action lawsuits alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 remains pending, according to the Company's August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. Two cases were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against Fifth Third Bancorp (the "Bancorp" or "Fifth Third") and certain officers alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") based on allegations similar to those set forth in the securities class action cases filed during the same period of time. The two cases alleging violations of ERISA were dismissed by the trial court, but the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently reversed the trial court decision. The Bancorp petitioned the Supreme Court to review and reverse the Sixth Circuit decision and sought a stay of proceedings in the trial court pending appeal. On March 25, 2013, the Supreme Court issued an order directing the Solicitor General to file a brief stating the view of the United States on the issues raised in the Fifth Third's petition. The motion to stay remains pending. The Company says the impact of the final disposition of the ERISA lawsuits cannot be assessed at this time. Fifth Third Bancorp is a diversified financial services company headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. The Bancorp operated 18 affiliates with 1,326 full-service Banking Centers, including 104 Bank Mart(R) locations open seven days a week inside select grocery stores, and 2,433 ATMs in 12 states throughout the Midwestern and Southeastern regions of the U.S. The Bancorp reports on four business segments: Commercial Banking, Branch Banking, Consumer Lending and Investment Advisors. FORD MOTOR: Model's $20MM Suit Over Royalty Payments Nixed ---------------------------------------------------------- Dareh Gregorian, writing for New York Daily News, reports that a model's $20 million class action lawsuit doesn't have legs, a Manhattan judge has ruled. Louisa Raske, 31, filed suit against several top modeling agencies last year, charging that they'd been hoarding royalty payments that should have gone to the models who used to work for them. The suit charged that the agencies -- including Ford, Next and Wilhelmina -- had a long-standing practice of renewing models' endorsement deals after they'd gone to work for another agency, and then pocketing their cash from the deal. In a decision entered on Sept. 17, Justice O. Peter Sherwood said Ms. Raske might have a legitimate gripe -- but her lawsuit needs a total makeover. He noted that her action named 25 modeling agencies and nine advertising agencies, even though she'd only worked with a total of five of the companies. He dismissed her complaint. Ms. Raske's suit alleged that several top modeling agencies would renew models' endorsement deals after they'd gone to work for other agencies, and then keep their money from the deal. Tom Mullaney, a lawyer for Red Model, hailed the ruling. "Her suit tried to drag dozens of companies into a gripe she might have with, at the very most, one," Mr. Mullaney said, adding that his client "couldn't possibly have any of Ms. Raske's modeling fees, because Red Model never represented her." While her suit portrayed every modeling agency as "all the same," that's "not a legitimate reason to bring anyone into court, never mind an honest agency like Red that treats its models well and pays them every penny they're due," Mr. Mullaney said. Ms. Raske's lawyer, Skip Taylor, said the ruling was "procedural," and noted that the decision said Ms. Raske and others who had been wronged could file "proper" actions against the actual agencies that had wronged them. Mr. Taylor said he has 20 models who have been ripped off by many of the various agencies named in the Raske suit, and he plans on filing new legal actions within the next few days. "This isn't over," Mr. Taylor said. "In fact it's just the beginning." GREAT SOUTHERN: Class Action Trial Recalled to Hear New Evidence ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Danckert, writing for The Australian, reports that the class action trial brought by investors in collapsed forestry investment scheme Great Southern against the company and its financiers has been recalled to hear fresh evidence that key information was omitted in the product disclosure statement issued to 47,000 small investors. The trial was reconvened on Sept. 19 in Melbourne to hear the new evidence that was gleaned from reams of documents that were extracted from several company servers and staff computers by liquidators and not previously identified in the initial trial. Great Southern collapsed in 2009 owing investors up to AU$1.8 billion. The proceedings in the Victorian Supreme Court include 15 class actions and 82 individual actions, including claims against Bendigo and Adelaide Bank. The class action trial began late last year, with the taking of evidence initially completed in April, but the new evidence means several witnesses will be recalled, including company founder John Young and former managing director Cameron Rhodes. On Sept. 19, the barrister representing investors, Garry Bigmore, said the new evidence showed Great Southern used cash top-up payments to mask the fact that log yields from plantations were below forecast. To sate investor demand, the firm bought plots not suitable for yielding plantations as forecast in the PDS, Mr. Bigmore said. In response, lawyers for the company said the new evidence did not change the fact Great Southern was merely a victim of the financial crisis and the PDS was not defective. The court heard from Philip Crutchfield, for the banks, who said investors were being led by their lawyers "like lemmings over a cliff" into a costs claim that could be the highest in our history. Earlier this month, former head of forestry at Great Southern Gavin Ellis told the court the company was aware plantations were not meeting forecast yields. HOTELS.COM: Westchester County to Move Forward With Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Lungariello, writing for Westfair Communications, reports that Westchester County is set to move forward with a class-action lawsuit that accuses travel-booking websites of collecting hotel taxes, then underpaying the fair share to local governments. Websites such as Hotels.com and Travelocity contract rooms at a discounted rate, then mark up the rooms for resale. Nassau County filed suit in 2011 saying the sites charged and collected taxes based on the marked-up room rates, then paid local governments taxes based on the discounted rates, pocketing the difference. The websites say the retail rate includes a surcharge and that taxing the difference would constitute a new tax on hotels. The suit was granted class-action status in April and every municipality in the state with a hotel tax is automatically a plaintiff unless it actively opts out by Oct. 15. Westchester charges a 3% tax on hotel bookings, collecting roughly $5 million a year. On Sept. 17, the county Board of Legislators' Budget and Appropriations subcommittee unanimously agreed to continue with the lawsuit. Legislator Mary Jane Shimsky, a Democratic committee member, said she expected the full board to vote on the matter at its next scheduled meeting Sept. 23, after press time. "Something does not look quite right here," she said. "This is an issue of concern to the local governments and if I were a consumer and I booked rooms under these circumstances I would be concerned as well." Westchester County Executive Robert P. Astorino, a Republican who has often disagreed with the board majority, had recommended staying with the lawsuit as well. The county does not have an estimate of what it might have been underpaid, said Donna Greene, a spokeswoman for the county executive. But, whether it's a small amount or large amount, the county does not have to pay anything in terms of legal fees to remain part of the suit. "We have nothing to lose by staying in this but everything to gain in terms of revenue," Ms. Greene said. "Obviously, we're looking to get what we're entitled to." The lawsuit does not mention an amount being sought from Nassau and other governments, but with as many as 60 expected to be part of the class action it could mean millions for revenue-hungry governments across the state. One government that actively opted out is Rockland County. Terry Grosselfinger, deputy to Rockland County Executive C. Scott Vanderhoeff, said Rockland's 3% tax went into effect January 2012 and during that time the county hasn't seen a discrepancy. "From what our finance people are telling us, our numbers are right on," Mr. Grosselfinger said. "We don't think the Expedias of the world are having that much of an impact (in Rockland)." Although staying in the lawsuit wouldn't cost any money, an overburdened county staff and attorneys would have to spend time combing through records and sharing information as needed, he said. The Nassau lawsuit is one of several dozen similar suits in the U.S. against online hotel-booking sites, the majority of which have been ruled in favor of the businesses or remain in litigation, according to a report from the Tax Foundation, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit tax research group. Anywhere from 5 to 25% of all hotel bookings come from travel site bookings, the report said. The report did not take a favorable view on the attempts to tax the travel-booking companies. "Taxes on hotel rooms are generally little more than a way of shifting the tax burden to nonresidents (and nonvoters)," the report stated. "These city litigation efforts are attempting to extract yet more revenue from travelers, this time by taxing Internet-based travel facilitation services." The argument that travel-booking sites are service providers and not hotel companies, has been a common argument as to why they shouldn't be accountable for inclusion in the tax. New York City passed a law last decade to broaden the definition of who could be responsible to pay the hotel tax to include online companies and others involved in booking transactions, but a suit saw the law repealed in 2011 on state constitutional grounds. In New York, governments wanting their own hotel tax must receive approval from the state Legislature. In Westchester, several cities, towns and villages charge a local 3% hotel tax in addition to the county's 3%. The village of Rye Brook, a community of roughly 10,000, receives 3% of its entire annual revenue from taxes from the Hilton Westchester (formerly The Rye Town Hilton) and Doral Arrowwood. Rye City projects receiving $155,000 in hotel tax revenue in 2013. New Rochelle budgeted $300,000 in hotel tax revenue this year, after receiving an estimated $289,000 in 2012. White Plains expects to collect $1.05 million during the 2013-14 fiscal year, according to its adopted budget. Several other municipalities in Westchester asked the state to approve hotel taxes this year, but the state Senate did not take a vote on the matter before the end of its session. HURONIA REGION: Settlement to Pave Way for Two Abuse Settlements ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Cobb, writing for Ottawa Citizen, reports that the C$35- million settlement of a lawsuit filed against the Ontario government by former residents of a provincially operated home for the developmentally disabled clears the way for settlements in two similar lawsuits. Although it has yet to be formally approved by a court, the class- action settlement appears to have the resounding blessing of both the government and lawyers for the former residents of Orillia's Huronia Region Centre with both sides, in separate statements, calling it "a fair and reasonable agreement." The approximately 3,700 Huronia victims had asked for $1 billion. Former residents or close surviving family members will be eligible for individual payouts to a maximum of $42,000 for the chronic humiliation and abuse they suffered at the hands of staff. The amount to each claimant will be determined by the degree of suffering endured. "I'm just elated to . . . not necessarily put the past at rest but put it on the back burner, because you can never forget something like that," said Patricia Seth, one of the lead plaintiffs. "We can move forward now, tell our stories. People believe us now," she said outside court. The money will not be non-taxable and to get the compensation claimants will be able to apply on paper and not testify in person as they would often have to do in some cases where government compensation is involved. The center was operated by the province for 133 years, but the settlement covers those residents institutionalized between 1945 and 2009 when Huronia, Rideau Regional Centre on the outskirts of Smiths Falls, and Southwestern Regional Centre (Cedar Springs) near Chatham were all shut by the province. No date has been set for the final court hearing, but the same team of lawyers is handling all three cases, which suggests that former residents of the Rideau and Southwestern institutions will get similar settlements. Under the agreement announced on Sept. 17, the provincial government has also agreed to issue an apology, place a commemorative plaque at Huronia, and properly maintain its cemetery. As with the other two institutions, the Rideau Regional Centre opened in 1951 in the wake of a baby boom that saw an increasing number of young people with developmental disabilities, cerebral palsy being among the more common. Because most medical experts at the time believed that people with disabilities needed to be isolated from the stresses of daily life, Ontario politicians decided to expand services and open residential institutions where families could be confident that their children would be taken care of by the state. Rideau Regional Centre was built on a large plot -- 146 hectares -- of former forest and wetlands bought in Montague Township, near Smiths Falls. The center was built for 1,200 but within four years, the residential wards were packed with 2,600 people with hundreds more on the waiting list. It was the largest institution of its kind in Canada and a precursor to many others. By the late 1960s, there were 16 provincially operated residential institutions serving more than 6,000 people with developmental disabilities. But as social attitudes began to change, and many parents rebelled against the idea of institutionalizing their children, the popularity of community living rose and the 16 residential institutions began to empty. During the next decade, five institutions were closed and others were reduced in size. In September 2004, the government announced the closing of its three remaining institutions: the Rideau, the Huronia, and the South West regional centers -- a process that took another five years to complete. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Ontario Court Certifies DePuy Hip Implant Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lucy Campbell, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that a court in Ontario, Canada has certified a DePuy ASR class action lawsuit brought on behalf of Canadian citizens who were allegedly affected by the DePuy ASR recall. According to court documents filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on August 27, 2013, the DePuy ASR class action lawsuit seeks damages, including medical monitoring and emotional distress, for all persons implanted with the recalled hip system. Attorneys for plaintiffs estimate that as many as 4,000 Canadians could be included in the class. (Crisante, et al. v. DePuy Orthopaedics Inc., et al., No. CV-10-415755-00CP). DePuy Orthopaedics issued a global recall of its ASR XL Acetabular metal-on-metal hip replacement on August 24, 2010 following approximately 300 complaints from people undergoing hip replacement. The ASR hip replacement is a metal-on-metal device believed to have a design flaw that has resulted in many patients needing follow-up hip revision surgery to replace the device soon after implant. The ASR is considered by a number of orthopedic experts to be a defective product and DePuy hip replacement lawsuits are currently pending. Currently, in the US, more than 11,500 DePuy ASR lawsuits have been filed, all of which alleged metallosis, early device failure, or other serious complications due to the ASR's metal-on-metal design. Most of these complaints are pending in a multidistrict litigation now underway in US District Court, Northern District of Ohio. The first trial in the federal litigation is scheduled to begin on September 24, 2013. (In re: DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. ASR Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation MDL 2197). While the US federal litigation has yet to hold its first trial, two DePuy ASR lawsuits have already been heard by juries at the state level. In March, an $8 million award was granted to a plaintiff after a Los Angeles Superior Court jury found that the hip implant was defectively designed. (Kransky v. DePuy, BC456086, California Superior Court, Los Angeles County). JOHNSON & JOHNSON: West Australian Women Join Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Natasha Boddy, writing for The West Australian, reports that dozens of WA women look set to take on medical giant Johnson & Johnson in a class action that could become Australia's biggest. The women claim they suffered painful and devastating side effects from a device to repair prolapses, which can be caused by childbirth and pregnancy. At least nine West Australians are among 300 Australians who have joined the class action -- launched by Shine Lawyers in October. Shine confirmed last week that about 34 women from across the State -- including 24 from Perth -- had contacted the firm. The devices are designed to repair pelvic organ prolapse, which happens when the tissue that holds the pelvic organs in place becomes weak or stretched. Perth mother-of-three Ruth de Smit, 63, is one of the WA women who has joined the legal fight. Mrs. de Smit suffered prolapse through childbirth and had a mesh implant in October 2006. She has had six operations. "It's affected so much of my husband's and my life," she said. Shine partner Rebecca Jancauskas said the allegations included the devices were not fit for their purpose and not fit for sale. She said it was estimated at least 30,000 implants had been used in Australia, meaning the action had the potential to be Australia's biggest product class action. Ms. Jancauskas said the complications allegedly suffered by some women included incontinence, chronic pain and mesh erosion and many needed to have the devices removed. Johnson & Johnson voluntarily removed its mesh product from the Australian market last year. A spokeswoman said the company had discontinued some of its pelvic mesh products "for reasons unrelated to the safety or efficacy". In 2010, Australia's Therapeutic Goods Administration reviewed urogynaecological meshes and found complications were low. It said the skill of the surgeon, the patient and procedure were important. LANCE ARMSTRONG: Lies in Biographies Shielded by First Amendment ---------------------------------------------------------------- Writing for Courthouse News Service, Heather Johnson reports that the First Amendment protects Lance Armstrong's repeated denials of doping and performance-enhancing drug use, a federal judge ruled. PR consultant Rob Stutzman and others had hoped to represent a class of consumers who were allegedly misled by the image Armstrong presented of himself in his biographies as a "regular, hardworking, motivated, complicated, occasionally pissed-off, T-shirt wearing guy," and advocate for cancer patients. Stutzman claimed that he and other readers believed that bestsellers "It's Not About the Bike: My Journey Back to Life," published by defendant Penguin Group in May 2000, and "Every Second Counts," published by defendant Random House in January 2003, were "truthful and honest works of nonfiction biography or autobiography when, in fact, defendants knew or should have known that these books were works of fiction." Drug abuse in the cycling world came to light with the October 10, 2012, report from the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, which concluded that Armstrong used banned performance-enhancing substances starting in at least 1998 and continuing throughout his professional career. The agency ultimately disqualified all of Armstrong's competitive results since August 1, 1998, including his seven Tour de France victories, and banned him from the sport for life. In their motion to strike Stutzman's complaint, Armstrong, Penguin Group, G.P. Putnam's Sons, Berkley Publishing Group, Random House, Broadway Books and Crown Publishing Group argued that statements in Armstrong's books are considered "conduct in furtherance of the exercise of . . . free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest." U.S. District Judge Morrison England Jr. agreed Tuesday, September 10, 2013, finding the content of Armstrong's bestselling books "non-commercial speech." The contents of the books qualify as "free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest," according to the ruling. "Here, it is without question that statements concerning Lance Armstrong 'concern a person or entity in the public eye' and/or are 'a topic of widespread, public interest,'" England wrote. "Lance Armstrong is a famous cyclist and his career is a topic of interest worldwide." The judge also noted the direct connection between the text and Armstrong's public comments denying allegations of doping. Stutzman had tried to block the defendants' motion under California's anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuits against public participation) law, but England noted that the statute applies only to public matters, citing the 9th Circuit's holding that "a private controversy, even between famous people, that interests the public is not enough." "This limitation does not apply in this case, however, as the Armstrong books do not concern only the personal details of Armstrong's life -- they concern his public cycling career and cheating in the Tour de France -- public activities, 'which are the very things that interest people about [him],'" England wrote. Stutzman also cannot claim that Armstrong's alleged criminal activity -- smuggling or trafficking drugs -- would render his statements outside of the anti-SLAPP statute's scope, the court found. "The conduct at issue is the speech about the book and Armstrong's speech about whether he used drugs," England wrote. "Armstrong's lies about his use of drugs are simply not criminal conduct." The First Amendment also protects defendants from the unfair competition, false advertising and other consumer-based claims. Statements denying Armstrong's illegal drug use, whether in advertisements or to the press, "are clearly not advertisements, and do not refer to a specific product," England wrote. "While it appears that plaintiffs ask the court to find that Lance Armstrong himself is a 'brand' or 'product,' the court declines to stretch the meaning of 'product' this far." Apart from those who felt deceived by Armstrong's biographies, many others filed fraud actions after the cyclist confessed his doping habit to Oprah Winfrey in front of millions of viewers early this year. The Sunday Times reached an undisclosed settlement with Armstrong as a result of its suit. Claims from Acceptance Insurance over bonuses it paid Armstrong and his management company, Tailwind Sports, remain pending in Travis County Court for his victories in the Tour de France from 1999 to 2001. Armstrong reached a settlement with SCA Promotions over similar claims. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Clyde Talbot Turner, Esq. TURNER AND ASSOCIATES P.A. 4705 Somers Avenue, Suite 100 North Little Rock, AR 72116 Telephone: (501) 791-2277 Facsimile: (501) 791-1251 E-mail: tab@tturner.com - and - Eric J. Marcy, Esq. Kevin Roddy, Esq. WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER, P.A. 90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900 Woodbridge, NJ 07095 Telephone: (732) 855-6004 Facsimile: (732) 726-6686 E-mail: emarcy@wilentz.com kroddy@wilentz.com - and - Henry H. Rossbacher, Esq. THE ROSSBACHER FIRM 811 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1650 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 895-6500 Facsimile: (213) 895-6161 E-mail: h.rossbacher@rossbacherlaw.com - and - Tracey Stevens Buck-Walsh, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF TRACEY BUCK-WALSH 175 Foss Creek Circle Healdsburg, CA 95448 Telephone: (916) 761-9277 E-mail: tracey@tbwlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Zia F. Modabber, Esq. KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2600 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3012 Telephone: (310) 788-4400 Facsimile: (310) 788-4471 E-mail: zia.modabber@kattenlaw.com - and - F. Matthew Ralph, Esq. DORSEY & WHITNEY, LLP 50 South Sixth Street, Suite 1500 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 340-2600 Facsimile: (612) 340-2868 E-mail: ralph.matthew@dorsey.com - and - Jonathan Michael Herman, Esq. DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 51 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 415-9247 Facsimile: (646) 607-0943 E-mail: herman.jonathan@dorsey.com - and - Kent Jeffrey Schmidt, Esq. Katherine J. Santon, Esq. DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 2000 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 800-1400 Facsimile: (714) 800-1499 E-mail: santos.maria@dorsey.com santon.kate@dorsey.com - and - Stephen George Contopulos, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP 555 W Fifth Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: (213) 896-6000 Ext. 46625 Facsimile: (213) 896-6600 E-mail: scontopulos@sidley.com - and - Robert Andrew Sacks, Esq. John Darrow Echeverria, Esq. SULLIVAN AND CROMWELL LLP 1888 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067-1725 Telephone: (310) 712-6640 Facsimile: (310) 712-8800 E-mail: sacksr@sullcrom.com echeverriaj@sullcrom.com - and - Marc S. Harris SCHEPER KIM & HARRIS LLP 601 W. 5th Street, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 613-4690 Facsimile: (213) 613-4656 E-mail: mharris@scheperkim.com The case is Stutzman, et al. v. Armstrong, et al., Case No. 2:13- cv-00116-MCE-KJN, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (Sacramento). MACQUARIE GROUP: 110 Tasmanian Farmers File Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Richard Gluyas, writing for The Australian, reports that Macquarie Group is facing a class action by a group of 110 Tasmanian farmers who have plantation trees on their land that are part of investment schemes managed by failed timber company Gunns. The farmers, who lodged the Federal Court action on Sept. 17, are seeking a declaration from the court but not large-scale damages. The case relates to Macquarie's failed bid earlier this year to seize control of a AU$500 million portfolio of six tax-efficient Gunns schemes. The plantations in question total about 50,000ha, or 25% of Tasmania's hardwood plantation stock. In their statement of claim, the farmers have alleged that the Macquarie offer to participate in its proposal was misleading and deceptive, in that they were told they would get nothing unless they signed up. The Macquarie deeds required landowners to surrender their rights to be paid rent if the bank took over any of the schemes. In return, the landowners would gain the rights to the trees on their land and a small cash settlement. The farmers want a Federal Court declaration that Macquarie's letter of offer to them was false and misleading, and therefore void. They want the declaration in case Macquarie resurrects its bid to gain control of the schemes. The class action comes in the wake of a Victorian Supreme Court ruling in July that the material provided by Macquarie to investors to vote on a change of control was false and misleading. The court ruled that the results of scheme meetings held in May, where investors strongly supported the appointment of Macquarie Forestry Services as manager and WA Blue Gum as the new responsible entity, were invalid and had no effect. Macquarie and Gunns liquidators and receivers have been jousting for months over the future of the six schemes, with the investment bank accusing its adversaries of planning a firesale of the assets. The receivers KordaMentha have said the growers relied on misleading and deceptive information in Macquarie's explanatory memorandum when voting to remove the responsible entity, Gunns Plantations, which is under the control of liquidators PPB Advisory. Judge Ross Robson said in his decision that the Macquarie proposal had created the false impression that the growers were "unburdened by the outstanding obligations to third-party landlords and the ongoing rental obligations to those landlords". He said the claim that WA Blue Gum, as the new responsible entity, would be entitled to rights under the leases but not the obligations was an untested legal proposition. This was misleading and deceptive, he said. Macquarie and WA Blue Gum had argued the target audience of any remarks had to be considered. They said the choice for the growers was to vote for the change of responsible entity or to vote for things to stay as they were. The growers, they said, had voted overwhelmingly for change. MADISON-KIPP CORP: Settles One of Two Class Actions for $2.6MM -------------------------------------------------------------- Ed Treleven, writing for Wisconsin State Journal, reports that a Dane County judge on Sept. 19 approved one of two settlements between Madison-Kipp Corp. and its neighbors. Under a class-action settlement reached in July involving 52 neighboring homes, Kipp agreed to pay the neighbors $2.6 million in cash and install pollution control equipment in homes near the East Side manufacturing plant. The homes are on South Marquette, Waubesa, Dixon and Fairview streets. Circuit Judge Richard Niess signed the agreement after a brief hearing on Sept. 19. A settlement approval hearing for a separate class-action lawsuit in federal court involving 33 other homes, also on South Marquette and Waubesa streets, is scheduled for Oct. 28 before U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb. That case, involving property owners whose homes directly about Kipp's plant, was settled for $4.6 million. In addition to pollution control equipment, Kipp also agreed to replace the top one foot of soil from yards with clean fill. Both lawsuits alleged that contamination from the plant has lowered property values. Despite the settlements, Kipp continues to deny the neighbors' allegations. A state environmental lawsuit against Kipp is pending. MADISON SQUARE: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Internships ---------------------------------------------------------- Jason Belzer, writing for Forbes, reports that the World's Most Famous Arena, Madison Square Garden (MSG), has become the latest company to be targeted in a class action by former interns claiming they were wrongly classified to avoid being paid. The lawsuit, which is estimated to include a class of more than 500 individuals, claims that MSG used titles such as "intern" or "student associate" when hiring college students to do work which would otherwise qualify them as employees. Interns were asked to work as many as five days a week, where they helped support MSG ticket and sponsorship sales, administrative projects and logistics pertaining to the organization of sports and entertainment events at the arena. The suit is seeking damages to cover unpaid wages for misclassified workers stemming back to 2007. According to the complaint, "Defendants did not provide any compensation to . . . members of the putative class for the hours worked . . . [and] would have hired additional employees or required existing staff to work additional hours had . . . members of the putative class not performed work for the defendants." The MSG lawsuit comes on the heels of several suits being brought against major entertainment, fashion and media companies for similar unfair labor practices concerning the hiring of interns. Among those entities being sued include Gawker Media LLC, Columbia Recordings Corp, and NBCUniversal and its famous Saturday Night Live program. Former interns claim defendants provided unreasonable working conditions and time demands for little to no compensation, and often based on unsubstantiated claims they would be given full time jobs after the completion of their internships. Of course, those who work in both the sports and entertainment industry know unpaid internships are common practice throughout. While companies like MSG could almost certainly afford to pay minimum wage for workers participating in such programs, any financial rewards such opportunities present are far outweighed by the learning experience and new skills students and young professionals acquire during such internships. More significantly, literally hundreds, if not thousands of smaller sports marketing, media and management agencies and other corporate entities throughout the sports business depend on unpaid interns to help run projects within their company. Many of the most successful companies in the sports business were started with the aide of students willing to exchange their time and energy in return for mentorship, guidance and real world business experience. The majority of these companies would be incapable of paying interns during their start-up stage, even if the law required them to do so. While the outcome of the case still remains to be seen, business owners throughout the sports industry hope that the court gives careful consideration to the implications that a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs can cause for an industry so reliant on free labor. Any victory for interns would be short lived as it would further limit the already small number of opportunities for young individuals to break into the highly competitive industry of sports and entertainment. MERCK & CO: Awaits Plaintiffs' Next Move in Suits Over Coupons -------------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., Inc. is awaiting for the plaintiffs' next move in the class action lawsuits arising from its coupon programs, according to the Company's August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. In 2012, a number of private health plans filed separate putative class action lawsuits against the Company alleging that Merck's coupon programs injured health insurers by reducing beneficiary co-payment amounts and, thereby, allegedly causing beneficiaries to purchase higher-priced drugs than they otherwise would have purchased and increasing the insurers' reimbursement costs. The actions, which were assigned to a District Judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, sought damages and injunctive relief barring the Company from issuing coupons that would reduce beneficiary co-pays on behalf of putative nationwide classes of health insurers. Similar actions relating to manufacturer coupon programs have been filed against several other pharmaceutical manufacturers in a variety of federal courts. On April 29, 2013, the District Court dismissed all the actions against Merck without prejudice on the grounds that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate their standing to sue. The Plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint was due on September 9, 2013. Merck & Co., Inc. -- http://www.merck.com/-- is a global health care company that delivers innovative health solutions through its prescription medicines, vaccines, biologic therapies, animal health, and consumer care products, which it markets directly and through its joint ventures. The Company's operations are principally managed on a products basis and are comprised of four operating segments, which are the Pharmaceutical, Animal Health, Consumer Care and Alliances segments, and one reportable segment, which is the Pharmaceutical segment. The Company is headquartered in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey. MERCK & CO: Awaits Prelim. OK of $23-Mil. Vioxx MDL Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., Inc. is awaiting preliminary approval of its $23 million settlement of the Vioxx MDL, according to the Company's August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. Merck is a defendant in approximately 90 federal and state lawsuits (the "Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits") alleging personal injury or economic loss as a result of the purchase or use of Vioxx. Most of the remaining cases are coordinated in a multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (the "Vioxx MDL") before Judge Eldon E. Fallon. There are pending in various U.S. courts putative class actions purportedly brought on behalf of individual purchasers or users of Vioxx seeking reimbursement for alleged economic loss. In the Vioxx MDL proceeding, approximately 30 such class actions remain. In June 2010, Merck moved to strike the class claims or for judgment on the pleadings regarding the master complaint, which includes the cases, and briefing on that motion was completed in September 2010. The Vioxx MDL court heard oral argument on Merck's motion in October 2010 and took it under advisement. In July 2013, Merck entered into a proposed settlement in the Vioxx MDL which would resolve Vioxx-related consumer economic loss claims asserted against the Company by all non-Missouri resident consumers who purchased Vioxx and seek to recover economic damages. Merck previously settled a similar Vioxx consumer class action in Missouri. Under the proposed settlement, Merck would pay up to $23 million to pay all properly documented claims submitted by class members, approved attorneys' fees and expenses, and approved settlement notice costs and certain other administrative expenses. The settlement is subject to court approval. Merck has also been named as a defendant in lawsuits brought by state Attorneys General in five states. All of these actions except for the Kentucky action are in the Vioxx MDL proceeding. These actions allege that Merck misrepresented the safety of Vioxx. These lawsuits seek recovery for expenditures on Vioxx by government-funded health care programs, such as Medicaid, and/or penalties for alleged Consumer Fraud Act violations. The Kentucky action is currently scheduled to proceed to trial in Kentucky state court in October 2013. On January 10, 2013, Merck finalized a settlement in the action filed by the Pennsylvania Attorney General under which Merck agreed to pay Pennsylvania $8.25 million in exchange for the dismissal of its lawsuit. Merck & Co., Inc. -- http://www.merck.com/-- is a global health care company that delivers innovative health solutions through its prescription medicines, vaccines, biologic therapies, animal health, and consumer care products, which it markets directly and through its joint ventures. The Company's operations are principally managed on a products basis and are comprised of four operating segments, which are the Pharmaceutical, Animal Health, Consumer Care and Alliances segments, and one reportable segment, which is the Pharmaceutical segment. The Company is headquartered in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey. MERCK & CO: Continues to Defend Suit by Indiana Vioxx Purchasers ---------------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., Inc. continues to defend itself against a class action lawsuit brought by Vioxx purchasers in Indiana, according to the Company's August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. In Indiana, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class of Indiana Vioxx purchasers in a case pending before the Circuit Court of Marion County, Indiana. That case has been dormant for several years. In April 2010, a Kentucky state court denied Merck's motion for summary judgment and certified a class of Kentucky plaintiffs seeking reimbursement for out-of-pocket costs relating to Vioxx. The trial court subsequently entered an amended class certification order in January 2011. Merck appealed that order to the Kentucky Court of Appeals and, in February 2012, the Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's amended class certification order and remanded the case to the trial court with instructions that the trial court vacate its order certifying the class. The plaintiff petitioned the Kentucky Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeals' order and, in November 2012, the Kentucky Supreme Court granted review. Briefing before the Kentucky Supreme Court is now complete and the court heard oral argument on May 15, 2013. Merck & Co., Inc. -- http://www.merck.com/-- is a global health care company that delivers innovative health solutions through its prescription medicines, vaccines, biologic therapies, animal health, and consumer care products, which it markets directly and through its joint ventures. The Company's operations are principally managed on a products basis and are comprised of four operating segments, which are the Pharmaceutical, Animal Health, Consumer Care and Alliances segments, and one reportable segment, which is the Pharmaceutical segment. The Company is headquartered in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey. MERCK & CO: Continues to Defend Suits Alleging AWP Manipulation --------------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., Inc. continues to defend itself against lawsuits alleging manipulation by pharmaceutical manufacturers of average wholesale prices, according to the Company's August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. The Company and/or certain of its subsidiaries have been named as defendants in cases brought by various states alleging manipulation by pharmaceutical manufacturers of Average Wholesale Prices ("AWP"), which are sometimes used by public and private payors in calculating provider reimbursement levels. The outcome of these lawsuits could include substantial damages, the imposition of substantial fines and penalties and injunctive or administrative remedies. Since the start of 2012, the Company has settled AWP cases brought by the states of Alabama, Alaska, Kansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Mississippi. The Company and/or certain of its subsidiaries continue to be defendants in cases brought by two states, Utah and Wisconsin. The Company has also been reinstated as a defendant in a putative class action in New Jersey Superior Court which alleges on behalf of third-party payers and individuals that manufacturers inflated drug prices by manipulation of AWPs and other means. This case was originally dismissed against the Company without prejudice in 2007. The Company intends to defend against this lawsuit. Merck & Co., Inc. -- http://www.merck.com/-- is a global health care company that delivers innovative health solutions through its prescription medicines, vaccines, biologic therapies, animal health, and consumer care products, which it markets directly and through its joint ventures. The Company's operations are principally managed on a products basis and are comprised of four operating segments, which are the Pharmaceutical, Animal Health, Consumer Care and Alliances segments, and one reportable segment, which is the Pharmaceutical segment. The Company is headquartered in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey. MERCK & CO: Defends 5,075 Fosamax-Related Product Liability Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., Inc. is defending 5,075 product liability lawsuits involving Fosamax, according to the Company's August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the United States involving Fosamax (the "Fosamax Litigation"). As of June 30, 2013, approximately 5,075 cases, which include approximately 5,440 plaintiff groups, had been filed and were pending against Merck in either federal or state court, including one case which seeks class action certification, as well as damages and/or medical monitoring. In approximately 1,135 of these actions, the plaintiffs allege, among other things, that they have suffered osteonecrosis of the jaw ("ONJ"), generally subsequent to invasive dental procedures, such as tooth extraction or dental implants and/or delayed healing, in association with the use of Fosamax. In addition, the plaintiffs in approximately 3,940 of these actions generally allege that they sustained femur fractures and/or other bone injuries ("Femur Fractures") in association with the use of Fosamax. Merck & Co., Inc. -- http://www.merck.com/-- is a global health care company that delivers innovative health solutions through its prescription medicines, vaccines, biologic therapies, animal health, and consumer care products, which it markets directly and through its joint ventures. The Company's operations are principally managed on a products basis and are comprised of four operating segments, which are the Pharmaceutical, Animal Health, Consumer Care and Alliances segments, and one reportable segment, which is the Pharmaceutical segment. The Company is headquartered in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey. MERCK & CO: Expects K-DUR Antitrust Suit to Return to N.J. Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., Inc., said in its August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013, that it expects that the K-DUR Antitrust Litigation will now return to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey for further proceedings. In June 1997 and January 1998, Schering-Plough Corporation, which merged with Merck in 2010, settled patent litigation with Upsher- Smith, Inc. ("Upsher-Smith") and ESI Lederle, Inc. ("Lederle"), respectively, relating to generic versions of K-DUR, Schering- Plough's long-acting potassium chloride product supplement used by cardiac patients, for which Lederle and Upsher-Smith had filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications ("ANDAs"). Following the commencement of an administrative proceeding by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (the "FTC") in 2001 alleging anti-competitive effects from those settlements (which has been resolved in Schering-Plough's favor), putative class and non-class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of K-DUR against Schering-Plough, Upsher-Smith and Lederle and were consolidated in a multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. These lawsuits claimed violations of federal and state antitrust laws, as well as other state statutory and common law causes of action, and sought unspecified damages. In April 2008, the indirect purchasers voluntarily dismissed their case. In March 2010, the District Court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the remaining lawsuits and dismissed the matter in its entirety. In July 2012, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. At the same time, the Third Circuit upheld a December 2008 decision by the District Court to certify certain direct purchaser plaintiffs' claims as a class action. In August 2012, the Company filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the Third Circuit's decision. In June 2013, the Supreme Court granted that petition, vacated the judgment of the Third Circuit, and remanded the case for further consideration in light of its recent decision in FTC v. Actavis, Inc. That decision held that whether a so-called "reverse payment" -- i.e., a payment from the holder of a pharmaceutical patent to a party challenging the patent made in connection with a settlement of their dispute -- violates the antitrust laws should be determined on the basis of a "rule of reason" analysis. The Company expects that the matter will now return to the District Court for further proceedings in accordance with the Actavis standard. Merck & Co., Inc. -- http://www.merck.com/-- is a global health care company that delivers innovative health solutions through its prescription medicines, vaccines, biologic therapies, animal health, and consumer care products, which it markets directly and through its joint ventures. The Company's operations are principally managed on a products basis and are comprised of four operating segments, which are the Pharmaceutical, Animal Health, Consumer Care and Alliances segments, and one reportable segment, which is the Pharmaceutical segment. The Company is headquartered in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey. MERCK & CO: Expert Discovery in Vioxx Securities Suits Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- Expert discovery is currently proceeding in the securities lawsuits related to Merck & Co., Inc.'s Vioxx product, according to the Company's August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. In addition to the Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits, various putative class actions and individual lawsuits under federal securities laws and state laws have been filed against Merck and various current and former officers and directors (the "Vioxx Securities Lawsuits"). The Vioxx Securities Lawsuits are coordinated in a multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey before Judge Stanley R. Chesler, and have been consolidated for all purposes. In August 2011, Judge Chesler granted in part and denied in part Merck's motion to dismiss the Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint in the consolidated securities action. Among other things, the claims based on statements made on or after the voluntary withdrawal of Vioxx on September 30, 2004, have been dismissed. In October 2011, defendants answered the Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint. In April 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and, on January 30, 2013, Judge Chesler granted that motion. On March 15, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint to add certain allegations to expand the class period. On May 29, 2013, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint to expand the class period, but granted plaintiffs' leave to amend their complaint to add certain allegations within the existing class period. On June 30, 2013, the plaintiffs filed their Sixth Amended Class Action Complaint. On July 1, 2013, the defendants answered the Sixth Amended Class Action Complaint. Fact discovery is now closed; expert discovery is currently proceeding in accordance with the court's scheduling order. Several individual securities lawsuits filed by foreign institutional investors also are consolidated with the Vioxx Securities Lawsuits. In October 2011, the plaintiffs filed amended complaints in each of the pending individual securities lawsuits. Also in October 2011, a new individual securities lawsuit (the "KBC Lawsuit") was filed in the District of New Jersey by several foreign institutional investors; that case is also consolidated with the Vioxx Securities Lawsuits. In January 2012, the defendants filed motions to dismiss in one of the individual lawsuits (the "ABP Lawsuit"). Briefing on the motions to dismiss was completed in March 2012. In August 2012, Judge Chesler granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss the ABP Lawsuit. Among other things, certain alleged misstatements and omissions were dismissed as inactionable and all state law claims were dismissed in full. In September 2012, the defendants answered the complaints in all individual actions other than the KBC Lawsuit; on the same day, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in the KBC Lawsuit on statute of limitations grounds. In December 2012, Judge Chesler denied the motion to dismiss the KBC Lawsuit and, on January 4, 2013, the defendants answered the complaint in the KBC Lawsuit. Fact discovery is now closed; expert discovery is currently proceeding in the individual securities lawsuits together with expert discovery in the class action. Merck & Co., Inc. -- http://www.merck.com/-- is a global health care company that delivers innovative health solutions through its prescription medicines, vaccines, biologic therapies, animal health, and consumer care products, which it markets directly and through its joint ventures. The Company's operations are principally managed on a products basis and are comprised of four operating segments, which are the Pharmaceutical, Animal Health, Consumer Care and Alliances segments, and one reportable segment, which is the Pharmaceutical segment. The Company is headquartered in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey. MERCK & CO: Final Hearing on Vytorin Suits Settlements on Oct. 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------- A final fairness hearing has been scheduled for October 1, 2013, in connection with Merck & Co., Inc.'s settlements of two consolidated securities lawsuits related to Vytorin product, according to the Company's August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. In April 2008, a Merck shareholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in federal court which has been consolidated in the District of New Jersey with another federal securities lawsuit under the caption In re Merck & Co., Inc. Vytorin Securities Litigation. An amended consolidated complaint was filed in October 2008. A second amended consolidated complaint was filed in February 2012, and named as defendants Merck; Merck/Schering- Plough Pharmaceuticals; MSP Distribution Services (C) LLC; MSP Singapore Company LLC; and certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors. The complaint alleged that Merck delayed releasing unfavorable results of the ENHANCE clinical trial regarding the efficacy of Vytorin and that Merck made false and misleading statements about expected earnings, knowing that once the results of the ENHANCE study were released, sales of Vytorin would decline and Merck's earnings would suffer. On February 14, 2013, Merck announced that it had reached an agreement in principle with plaintiffs to settle this matter for $215 million. On March 11, 2013, the court stayed all proceedings pending submission of the agreement for court approval. On June 4, 2013, the plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of the settlement, which the court granted on June 7, 2013. On July 2, 2013, the plaintiffs moved for final approval of the settlement and the proposed plan of allocation. A final fairness hearing has been scheduled for October 1, 2013. The proposed settlement was reflected in the Company's 2012 financial results. There is a similar consolidated, putative class action securities lawsuit pending in the District of New Jersey, filed by a Schering-Plough shareholder against Schering-Plough and its former Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Fred Hassan, under the caption In re Schering-Plough Corporation/ENHANCE Securities Litigation. Merck and Schering-Plough Corporation merged in 2010. The amended consolidated complaint was filed in September 2008 and named as defendants Schering-Plough; Merck/Schering-Plough Pharmaceuticals; certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors; and underwriters who participated in an August 2007 public offering of Schering- Plough's common and preferred stock. On February 14, 2013, Merck announced that it had reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs to settle this matter for $473 million. On March 11, 2013, the court stayed all proceedings pending submission of the settlement agreement for court approval. On June 4, 2013, the plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of the settlement, which the court granted on June 7, 2013. On July 2, 2013, the plaintiffs moved for final approval of the settlement and the proposed plan of allocation. A final fairness hearing has been scheduled for October 1, 2013. If approved, this settlement will exhaust the remaining Directors and Officers insurance coverage applicable to the Vytorin lawsuits brought by the legacy Schering- Plough shareholders. The proposed settlement was reflected in the Company's 2012 financial results and, together with the settlement described in the preceding paragraph, resulted in an aggregate charge of $493 million after taking into account anticipated insurance recoveries of $195 million. In the second quarter of 2013, the Company paid $480 million into a settlement fund. The Company's insurers subsequently paid the remaining $208 million, which reflects an additional $13 million of insurance recoveries not previously recognized. Merck & Co., Inc. -- http://www.merck.com/-- is a global health care company that delivers innovative health solutions through its prescription medicines, vaccines, biologic therapies, animal health, and consumer care products, which it markets directly and through its joint ventures. The Company's operations are principally managed on a products basis and are comprised of four operating segments, which are the Pharmaceutical, Animal Health, Consumer Care and Alliances segments, and one reportable segment, which is the Pharmaceutical segment. The Company is headquartered in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey. MERCK & CO: Settlement Process in Mo. Vioxx Suit to End Oct. 7 -------------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., Inc. said in its August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013, that court-approved process for class members to submit claims under the Company's settlement of a Vioxx-related class action lawsuit in Missouri is ongoing and will continue until October 7, 2013. In 2008, a Missouri state court certified a class of Missouri plaintiffs seeking reimbursement for out-of-pocket costs relating to Vioxx. In October 2012, the parties executed a settlement agreement to resolve the litigation. The Company established a reserve of $39 million in the third quarter of 2012 in connection with that settlement agreement, which is the minimum amount that the Company is required to pay under the agreement. The court- approved program to notify class members about the settlement has been completed. The settlement was approved, and final judgment in the action has been entered. The court-approved process for class members to submit claims under the settlement is ongoing and will continue until October 7, 2013. Merck & Co., Inc. -- http://www.merck.com/-- is a global health care company that delivers innovative health solutions through its prescription medicines, vaccines, biologic therapies, animal health, and consumer care products, which it markets directly and through its joint ventures. The Company's operations are principally managed on a products basis and are comprised of four operating segments, which are the Pharmaceutical, Animal Health, Consumer Care and Alliances segments, and one reportable segment, which is the Pharmaceutical segment. The Company is headquartered in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey. MILLWOOD INC: Unjust Enrichment Claim Dismissed in "Euceda" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Euceda, on behalf of himself and potentially other similarly situated employees, brought a purported class action lawsuit against Millwood Inc., his employer, asserting two separate counts. The first count alleges that the defendant violated the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, 43 P.S. Section 260.1 et seq. by improperly subjecting the plaintiff and the potential class members to unauthorized pay deductions. The plaintiff's second count alleges unjust enrichment. In an Aug. 26, 2013 Memorandum is available at http://is.gd/hltEcE from Leagle.com, District Judge Malachy E. Mannion ruled that the Defendant's motion will be denied with regard to Count I, but will be granted with respect to Count II as dismissal of that count is unopposed. The case is JOSE EUCEDA, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees, Plaintiff v. MILLWOOD, INC., Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-0895, (M.D. Penn.). Jose Euceda, Plaintiff, represented by Stephanie A Dorenbosch -- sdorenbosch@friendsfw.org -- Friends of Farmworkers, Inc. and: Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. Peter D. Winebrake, Esq. R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. Winebrake & Santillo, LLC Twining Office Center, Suite 211 715 Twining Road Dresher, PA 19025 Phone: (215) 884-2491 Fax: (215) 884-2492 Millwood, Inc., Defendant, represented by Sharon M. O'Donnell -- sodonnell@mdwcg.com -- Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman and Goggin. NASHVILLE, TN: Collection Action Claims in "Noel" Suit Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Kevin H. Sharp granted the Joint Motion to Stay Litigation of Plaintiffs' Collective Claims Brought under the FLSA and Tennessee State Law filed in the case is VONDA NOEL, On behalf of HERSELF and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE, Defendant, CASE NO. 3:11-CV-519, (M.D. Tenn.). The parties agree that the claims brought collectively on behalf of Plaintiff Noel and the 214 other plaintiffs who have opted into this litigation pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) should be stayed until the final resolution of Plaintiff's Rule 23 class claims. In an August 26, 2013 Order available at http://is.gd/vNucLefrom Leagle.com, Judge Sharp said the collective claims asserted in the Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Collective and Class Action Complaint are stayed pending the final resolution of Plaintiff's Rule 23 class claims. The Court directed the parties to notify the Court within 30 days of final resolution of Plaintiff's Rule 23 class claims as to the status of Plaintiffs' collective claims and how the parties propose to proceed on such claims. David W. Garrison -- dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com -- GEORGE E. BARRETT -- gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com -- DAVID W. GARRISON, SCOTT P. TIFT -- stift@barrettjohnston.com -- SETH M. HYATT -- shyatt@barrettjohnston.com -- BARRETT JOHNSTON, LLC, Nashville, TN, (615) 244-2202 Attorneys for Plaintiffs. ALLISON L. BUSSELL -- allison.bussell@nashville.gov -- CHRISTOPHER M. LACKEY -- chris.lackey@nashville.gov -- R. ALEX DICKERSON -- alex.dickerson@nashville.gov -- Metropolitan Legal Department, Nashville, TN, Attorneys for Defendant. NEVADA: Accused by San Francisco of Dumping Mental Patients ----------------------------------------------------------- Jonny Bonner at Courthouse News Service reports that Nevada dumped 1,500 mental patients on other states, including 500 in California, by putting them on Greyhound buses and sending them to cities where they don't live, San Francisco claims in a class action. "Virtually all" of the patients dumped on California need continuing medical care, but Nevada didn't arrange for them to be received by family members or a medical facility, San Francisco says in its complaint in Superior Court. It claims the abusive practice has cost it at least $500,000. The City and County of San Francisco sued Nevada, its Department of Health and Human Services, its Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services, Southern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services, and Rawson-Neal Psychiatric Hospital, from which the patients allegedly were discharged and dumped. "Over the past five years, the state of Nevada has transferred to other states approximately 1,500 patients discharged from its state-run Rawson-Neal Psychiatric Hospital, including almost 500 patients that Nevada sent by Greyhound bus to cities and counties in California," the complaint states. "Nevada knew many of these patients were not California residents at the time it discharged them to buses bound for California. A substantial number of the patients bused to California are mentally ill and indigent, and at the time of their discharge and transportation, were not residents of the California cities and counties to which they were bused. "Further, despite the fact that virtually all of the patients transported to California required continuing medical care, Nevada did not make arrangements for the patients to be received by family members or a medical facility in the destination city or county prior to putting the patients on a Greyhound bus for California. Nevada jeopardized the bused patients' physical and mental health by failing to provide them with adequate food, water and medication during their trip to California, and by failing to assure that shelter or medical care had been arranged for the patients at their destinations. While some of the patients were given the names of shelters or told to dial '911' upon arrival in California, a substantial number were not provided any instructions or assistance in finding shelter, continued medical care, or basic necessities in the cities and counties to which they were sent." The defendants have sent 24 patients to San Francisco by bus since 2008, 20 of whom required medical care "shortly after their arrival in San Francisco, some within mere hours of getting of the bus," San Francisco says in the complaint. The city says it provided medical care to the patients at San Francisco General Hospital or at health clinics run by the San Francisco Department of Public Health. "San Francisco has to date expended approximately $500,000 to provide necessary medical care, shelter and housing, and other basic necessities to the patients that San Francisco has to date identified as having been bused to it by Nevada," the complaint states. Rawson-Neal Hospital and its administrators and staff -- including doctors, social workers and nurses -- were aware their patients were indigent, living in shelters or on the streets of Las Vegas or other Nevada cities, and suffered from mental illnesses requiring ongoing medical care and medication, San Francisco claims. "Rawson-Neal understood and expected that the bused patients would rely on San Francisco's public health resources for continuing medical care, and specifically directed some of the patients to seek care at San Francisco public health clinics and shelter at San Francisco-supported shelter and care programs," according to the complaint. "If defendants had not transported them to San Francisco, these 24 indigent patients would instead have been reliant upon Rawson-Neal or other publicly-supported hospitals and medical clinics in Nevada for their continued medical care, and upon shelter and support programs publicly funded by Nevada." Nevada thus jeopardized patients' physical and mental health, the welfare of other bus passengers, and the safety of San Francisco residents, the city claims. "By transporting to California cities and counties indigent and mentally ill patients who were not residents of those cities and counties, Nevada intentionally and wrongfully appropriated the resources that the destination California cities and counties had established to provide medical care and basic necessities to the indigent, and avoided expending its own public resources to care for these patients. Nevada, through its political subdivisions, is required by state law to provide 'care, support and relief to the poor, indigent, incompetent, and those incapacitated by age, disease or accident' to county residents," the complaint states. City Attorney Dennis Herrera wrote a letter of protest to Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto in August and warned he would sue for this. "Homeless psychiatric patients are especially vulnerable to the kind of practices Nevada engaged in, and the lawsuit I've filed today is about more than just compensation -- it's about accountability," Herrera said in a statement Wednesday, September 11, 2013. "What the defendants have been doing for years is horribly wrong on two levels: it cruelly victimizes a defenseless population, and punishes jurisdictions for providing health and human services that others won't provide. It's my hope that the class action we're pursuing against Nevada will be a wake-up call to facilities nationwide that they, too, risk being held to account if they engage in similarly unlawful conduct." Nevada's Chief Deputy Attorney General Linda Anderson sent Herrera a letter on Monday, September 9, 2013, claiming the transfers were "appropriate," and saying that hundreds of California residents had been treated at Rawson-Neal since 2008, according to the Los Angeles Times. In August, in Herrera's public threat to sue Nevada, the city attorney cited a Sacramento Bee story about a schizophrenic patient named Brown whom Rawson-Neal "sent on a 15-hour bus ride to Sacramento -- despite having never before visited, having no friends or family members in the area, and with no prior arrangements for his care, housing or medical treatment." The August 20 statement from the City Attorney's Office continued: "The Nevada-run hospital had discharged Brown in a taxicab to the Greyhound bus station with a one-way ticket to Sacramento, snacks, and a three-day supply of medication to treat his schizophrenia, depression and anxiety. Brown was instructed to call 911 when he arrived. A Rawson-Neal physician reportedly recommended 'sunny California' to Brown as a destination, according to the Sacramento Bee, because they 'have excellent health care and more benefits than you could ever get in Nevada.'" The defendants were not available for comment Wednesday night, September 11, 2013. San Francisco seeks class status and an injunction prohibiting the patient-dumping -- plus damages, restitution and costs. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristine Poplawski, Esq. 1390 Market Street, 7th Floor San Francisco, CA 94102-5408 Telephone: (415) 554-3878 Facsimile: (415) 554-3985 E-mail: kristine.poplawski@sfgov.org The case is City and County of San Francisco v. State of Nevada, et al., Case No. CGC-13-534108, in the California Superior Court, San Francisco County. NEW YORK LIFE: 2nd Cir. Upholds Wage Class Action Dismissal ----------------------------------------------------------- Richard Vanderford and Abigail Rubenstein, writing for Law360, report that the Second Circuit on Sept. 18 upheld a lower court order throwing out a putative class action claiming New York Life Insurance Co. underpaid its insurance agents, ruling that the plaintiffs were too local to press claims in federal court. A three-judge panel said that the putative class of insurance agents had too many New Yorkers -- the Class Action Fairness Act says that a class action can be dismissed if over two-thirds of the class are from the state where the case was filed, a rule termed the "home state exemption" The decision upholds U.S. District Judge William H. Pauley III's ruling throwing out a case brought by former New York Life agent Avraham Gold, who claimed the company failed to pay him for overtime and improperly deducted from his wages. Though Mr. Gold sued in 2009, New York Life waited three years before bringing up the CAFA rule, blaming the delay on Mr. Gold's decision to ask for individual discovery to be finished before class discovery began. The Second Circuit said the delay, though on the long side, was acceptable. "Under most circumstances we would have serious doubts that a delay of this length could be deemed reasonable," the opinion said. "But, the application of the exception was, to a certain extent, complicated by the discovery schedule imposed by the district court." The panel also affirmed Judge Pauley's ruling that, as an outside salesperson, Gold was not entitled to overtime pay under New York law. New York Life lawyer Richard G. Rosenblatt -- rrosenblatt@morganlewis.com -- of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP said the insurer is encouraged by the decision. "We remain confident that both the law and the facts strongly support New York Life's position that it has paid agents wholly consistent with the law," he said. "New York Life will continue to defend these baseless claims vigorously." Mr. Gold said in his April 2009 suit that he was not paid for overtime. He also alleged that because insurance agents were paid on a commission only basis, their wages for hours worked in a given workweek sometimes dipped below the state mandated minimum wage. Mr. Gold had hoped to bring his claims on behalf of a class of New York Life insurance agents that he estimated could number over 1,000. The putative class members were "grossly undercompensated" for the work they performed for the insurance company because of New York Life's violations of state labor laws, Mr. Gold said. Judges Barrington D. Parker, Raymond J. Lohier Jr. and Susan L. Carney sat on the panel for the Second Circuit. Mr. Gold is represented by John Halebian of Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP. New York Life is represented by Richard G. Rosenblatt of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP. The case is Gold v. New York Life Insurance Co., case number 12-2344, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. OAKLAND, CA: Has Final OK of BART Shooting Ralliers Accord ---------------------------------------------------------- Megan Gallegos, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that the 150 protesters arrested at a rally for the young black man fatally shot by a Bay Area transit cop will see those records expunged in a $1 million settlement approved by a federal judge. Hundreds had gathered on November 5, 2010, to protest the two-year sentence handed down to Bay Area Rapid Transit officer Johannes Mehserle for involuntary manslaughter. It had been nearly two years since Mehserle took the life of 22- year-old Oscar Grant on New Year's Day 2009 at the Fruitvale Station in Oakland, California. Mehserle claimed that he meant to use his Taser on the handcuffed Grant but fired his pistol instead. Police were on high alert after the sentencing, having seen the riot that erupted after Mehserle's conviction a year earlier. Daniel Spalding and three other participants of the 2010 rally ultimately sued on behalf of the approximately 150 people who were allegedly unlawfully arrested and booked into jail by Oakland Police, Alameda County Sheriff's Department and others. "The 150 class members were never ordered to disperse or allowed the opportunity to disperse, and there was no probable cause or legal basis to arrest them," the complain stated. "Oakland and Alameda County proceeded to hold the class for an excessive period of time in buses and vans, and then imprisoned them all in the Alameda County Jail. The plaintiffs were incarcerated overnight, for up to 24 hours, in overcrowded holding cells without cots or even room to lie on the floor, and subjected to other unreasonable conditions or confinement, None of the class members were ever charged." On September 9, 2013, U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson approved the settlement that gives the defendants 15 days to pay class counsel $1.025 million "for distribution to class members who submitted approved claims, class representatives, and class counsel, as provided in the agreement." The settlement also orders that the Oakland Police Department and any other law enforcement agency that participated in the arrests seal and destroy all arrest records in relation to the protest because "these individuals are factually innocent of all charges for which they were arrested, and that these individuals are thereby exonerated." Judge Thelton ordered Oakland Police and its attorneys to meet with representatives of the San Francisco Bay Area's chapter of the National Lawyers Guild and the ACLU of Northern California before making any changes to their crowd control policy, training bulletin or training outlines. The Alameda County Sheriff's Office additionally will have to adopt new policies and procedures that will speed up the citation and release process for those taken into custody during a mass arrest. The court will have jurisdiction of this settlement to solve any disputes for four years. Rachel Lederman of Lederman & Beach in San Francisco, California, is listed as the lead attorney for the plaintiffs. Lead attorney for the defendants is Christopher Andrew Kae of Etna, California. Other named plaintiffs were Katherine Loncke, Danielle Lopez Green and Adrian Drummond-Cole. The defendants included the city of Oakland, Alameda County, Oakland Police Chief Anthony Batts, Alameda County Sheriff Gregory Ahern. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rachel Lederman, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALEXSIS C. BEACH & RACHEL LEDERMAN 558 Capp Street San Francisco, CA 94110 Telephone: (415) 282-9300 Facsimile: (415) 285-5066 E-mail: rachel@beachledermanlaw.com - and - Bobbie Fay Stein, Esq. 503 Dolores Street, #201 San Francisco, CA 94110-1564 Telephone: (415) 255-0301 Facsimile: (510) 601-5780 E-mail: bstein8692@aol.com - and - Carl L. Messineo, Esq. Mara E. Verheyden-Hilliard, Esq. PARTNERSHIP FOR CIVIL JUSTICE FUND 617 Florida Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 232-1180 E-mail: cm@justiceonline.org mvh@justiceonline.org - and - Carol A. Sobel, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SORBEL 429 Santa Monica Blvd. Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 393-3055 Facsimile: (310) 451-3858 - and - Robert Michael Flynn, Esq. FLYNN LAW OFFICE 170 Columbus Ave., Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94133 Telephone: (415) 989-8000 Facsimile: (415) 989-8028 E-mail: rmflynnlaw@gmail.com The Defendants are represented by: Christopher Andrew Kee, Esq. 4330 Old Pine Court Etna, CA 96027 Telephone: (510) 735-5364 E-mail: chriskee@sisqtel.net - and - William Edmond Simmons, Esq. OAKLAND CITY ATTORNEY One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 238-6520 Facsimile: (510) 238-6500 E-mail: wesimmons@oaklandcityattorney.org - and - Gregory J. Rockwell, Esq. Jill Sazama, Esq. BOORNAZIAN JENSEN & GARTHE 555 12th Street, Suite 1800 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 834-4350 Facsimile: (510) 839-1897 E-mail: grockwell@bjg.com jsazama@bjg.com The case is Spalding, et al. v. City of Oakland, et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-02867-TEH, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). OFFICEMAX INC: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Seek Settlement Approval Again ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judy Selby, Esq., at Baker & Hostetler LLP, reports that lawyers representing a purported class of customers who accused retailer OfficeMax North America Inc. of illegally recording their zip codes tried again to gain court approval of a settlement deal agreed to with OfficeMax. Dardarian v. OfficeMax Inc., case number 4:11-cv-009947 (N.D.Cal.) A previously submitted settlement was rejected by the US District Court for Northern California in July 2013, in part on the ground that attorney fees had not been properly calculated pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) because the calculation was based on the issuance of merchandise vouchers that might never be redeemed. The new proposed settlement again was based on the issuance of vouchers to affected customers, but this time reserves a final decision on fees until after the vouchers have actually been redeemed. The proposed settlement arises out of a claim by plaintiffs from two consolidated class actions, both of which alleged that OfficeMax's "Information Capture Policy," which required cashiers to ask for zip codes from customers paying with credit cards, violated California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act (Song-Beverly). Song-Beverly generally prohibits requests for personal identification information from customers paying with credit card in California, imposing civil penalties up to $1,000 per violation. In rejecting the parties' previously submitted voucher-based plan, the court stated, "In light of the uncertainty regarding the ultimate value of the settlement, and the factors showing that the settlement is based effectively on a coupon, the Court is not persuaded that it can ignore CAFA's rules governing the award of attorneys' fees. At a minimum, the intent of CAFA should be followed. Under Sec. 1712 of CAFA, a district court may not award attorneys' fees to class counsel that are 'attributable to' an award of coupons without first considering the redemption value of the coupons." The unopposed revised settlement plan calls for distributing 120,0000 $5.00 vouchers to OfficeMax customers at the time they make a purchase in California. The plan also provides for payment of a $10.00 voucher to customers who file for a direct claim. All vouchers are subject to a defined redemption period. In an attempt to address the court's prior ruling that the fee calculation could not be based on anticipated voucher redemptions, the revised plan defers the calculation until after the voucher redemption period has expired. Under the revised plan, OfficeMax will file a report within 14 days after the expiration of the redemption period, documenting how many $5 and $10 vouchers were actually redeemed. The plan also provides a floor of $200,000 and a ceiling of $500,000 for attorney fees. OLD REPUBLIC: Settles "Painter" Suit Over Title Recording Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- The putative class action filed in state court in Kansas City, Missouri on December 7, 2006, Painter et al. v. Old Republic Title Company of Kansas City and Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, alleging that the companies overcharged title recording fees in a number of states has been settled, according to Old Republic International Corporations' Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. Purported class action lawsuits are pending against the Company's principal title insurance subsidiary, Old Republic National Title Insurance Company ("ORNTIC"), in federal courts in two states - Pennsylvania (Markocki et al. v. ORNTIC, U.S. District Court, Eastern District, Pennsylvania, filed June 8, 2006), and Texas (Ahmad et al. v. ORNTIC, U.S. District Court, Northern District, Texas, Dallas Division, filed February 8, 2008). The plaintiffs allege that ORNTIC failed to give consumers reissue and/or refinance credits on the premiums charged for title insurance covering mortgage refinancing transactions, as required by rate schedules filed by ORNTIC or by state rating bureaus with the state insurance regulatory authorities. The Pennsylvania suit also alleges violations of the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"). The Court in the Texas suit dismissed similar RESPA allegations. Classes have been certified in the Pennsylvania suit, but the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed the earlier class certification in the Texas case. The putative class action filed in state court in Kansas City, Missouri on December 7, 2006 (Painter et al. v. Old Republic Title Company of Kansas City and Old Republic National Title Insurance Company) alleging that the companies overcharged title recording fees in a number of states has been settled. The settlement does not result in any material liability to the Company. OLD REPUBLIC: 11 of 12 RESPA Violations Lawsuits Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------- Eleven of the twelve suits alleging federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA") violations against Republic Mortgage Insurance Company have been dismissed, according to Old Republic International Corporation'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 4, 2013, a purported class action suit alleging federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA") violations was filed in the Federal District Court, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania targeting Republic Mortgage Insurance Company, and four other mortgage guaranty insurance companies and HSBC Bank USA, N.A., and its wholly-owned captive insurance subsidiary. (Ba, Chip, et al. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al). The lawsuit is one of twelve against various lenders, their captive reinsurers and the mortgage insurers, filed by the same law firms, all of which were substantially identical in alleging that the mortgage guaranty insurers had reinsurance arrangements with the defendant banks' captive insurance subsidiaries under which payments were made in violation of the anti-kickback and fee splitting prohibitions of Sections 8(a) and 8(b) of RESPA. Eleven of the twelve suits have been dismissed. The remaining suit seeks unspecified damages, costs, fees and the return of the allegedly improper payments. A class has not been certified in the suit and RMIC has filed a motion to dismiss the case. OLD REPUBLIC: Settles Suit Filed by Escrow Officers, Assistants --------------------------------------------------------------- The case Hinrichs v. Old Republic Title Company filed against Old Republic Title Company in the Superior Court of California for Orange County has been settled, according to Old Republic International Corporation's Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. A purported state class action suit was filed against Old Republic Title Company in the Superior Court of California for Orange County on January 7, 2011, on behalf of the Company's escrow officers and escrow assistants in the State of California. (Hinrichs v. Old Republic Title Company). The Company filed a demur to the complaint, and in response, plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on January 5, 2012 adding another named plaintiff. The suit alleged that the Company failed to pay overtime, failed to calculate overtime properly, denied meal breaks and rest breaks and failed to itemize pay statements, in violation of the California Labor Code and seeks compensatory damages, statutory penalties, interest, costs and attorneys' fees for the period from January 7, 2007 to the present. The case has been settled for the estimated liability previously recorded. OLD REPUBLIC: Unit Still Faces "Friedman" False Advertising Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The suit Friedman v. Old Republic Home Protection Company, Inc. continues in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, according to Old Republic International Corporation's Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. On September 26, 2012 a purported national class action suit was filed against Old Republic Home Protection Company in the Superior Court of California for Riverside County. (Friedman v. Old Republic Home Protection Company, Inc.). The suit alleges that the Company operates in breach of its home warranty contracts, in breach of implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, in violation of various provisions of the California Civil Code and Business and Professions Code and is guilty of false advertising. The stated class period is from November 24, 2004 through the present. The suit seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, restitution, damages, costs and attorneys' fees in unspecified amounts. The firm representing the plaintiff had previously filed similar suits against the Company, which were unsuccessful. The Company succeeded in having the case removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on October 24, 2012, and believes it has strong defenses to the allegations and to the certification of any class in this matter. PANHANDLE OIL: Received $604,000 in Settlement of Royalty Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Panhandle Oil and Gas Inc. received in July 2013 $604,000 in settlement of a class action lawsuit alleging underpayment of royalty interest revenues, according to the Company's August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. On July 26, 2013, the Company was notified and received a class action lawsuit settlement of approximately $604,000 related to the underpayment of royalty interest revenues. The settlement is a gain contingency and will be reflected in earnings in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2013. Founded in 1926, Panhandle Oil and Gas Inc. -- http://www.panhandleoilandgas.com/-- operated as a cooperative (Panhandle Cooperative Royalty Company) until 1979, when the Company merged into Panhandle Royalty Company and its shares became publicly traded. The Company's principal line of business is to explore for, develop, produce and sell oil, natural gas liquid and natural gas. The Company is headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. PENGUIN GROUP: Giskan Solotaroff to File 2nd Amended Complaint -------------------------------------------------------------- Victoria Strauss, writing for Writer Beware, reports that in April of this year, the law firm of Giskan Solotaroff Anderson & Stewart filed a class action lawsuit against Author Solutions Inc. (ASI) and its parent, Penguin Group, on behalf of three plaintiffs, alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, various violations of the California Business and Professional Code, and violation of New York General Business Law. Not surprisingly, ASI and Penguin filed a motion to dismiss. On July 19, Giskan Solotaroff filed an Amended Complaint. On August 23, Penguin moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint in its entirety, and ASI moved to dismiss the claims of one of the three plaintiffs in their entirety, and all but the breach of contract claims of the other two plaintiffs. Penguin and ASI also informed the court that they intend to file a motion to either strike the class allegations included in the amended complaint, or to deny class certification altogether. In response, Giskan Solotaroff intends to file a Second Amended Complaint by September 27. Another motion to dismiss will surely follow. But as it looks now, even if the motion is successful, and/or Penguin/ASI gets the class allegations tossed, two of the breach of contract claims against ASI will go forward. PHILIP MORRIS: Provides Updates on Smoking, Health Lawsuits ----------------------------------------------------------- Philip Morris International Inc. disclosed the number of smoking and health cases pending against it, its subsidiaries or indemnitees as of August 1, 2013 in 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. Pending claims related to tobacco products generally fall within the following categories: Smoking and Health Litigation: These cases primarily allege personal injury and are brought by individual plaintiffs or on behalf of a class or purported class of individual plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in these cases are based on various theories of recovery, including negligence, gross negligence, strict liability, fraud, misrepresentation, design defect, failure to warn, breach of express and implied warranties, violations of deceptive trade practice laws and consumer protection statutes. Plaintiffs in these cases seek various forms of relief, including compensatory and other damages, and injunctive and equitable relief. Defenses raised in these cases include licit activity, failure to state a claim, lack of defect, lack of proximate cause, assumption of the risk, contributory negligence, and statute of limitations. As of August 1, 2013, there were a number of smoking and health cases pending against the company, the company's subsidiaries or indemnitees, as follows: (1) 63 cases brought by individual plaintiffs in Argentina (24), Brazil (25), Canada (2), Chile (4), Costa Rica (2), Greece (1), Italy (3), the Philippines (1) and Scotland (1), compared with 74 such cases on August 1, 2012, and 94 cases on August 1, 2011; and (2) 11 cases brought on behalf of classes of individual plaintiffs in Brazil (2) and Canada (9), compared with 10 such cases on August 1, 2012, and 10 such cases on August 1, 2011. In the first class action pending in Brazil, The Smoker Health Defense Association (ADESF) v. Souza Cruz, S.A. and Philip Morris Marketing, S.A., Nineteenth Lower Civil Court of the Central Courts of the Judiciary District of Sao Paulo, Brazil, filed July 25, 1995, the company's subsidiary and another member of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, a consumer organization, is seeking damages for smokers and former smokers and injunctive relief. The verdict and post-trial developments in this case are described in the table. In the second class action pending in Brazil, Public Prosecutor of Sao Paulo v. Philip Morris Brasil Industria e Comercio Ltda., Civil Court of the City of Sao Paulo, Brazil, filed August 6, 2007, the company's subsidiary is a defendant. The plaintiff, the Public Prosecutor of the State of Sao Paulo, is seeking (i) unspecified damages on behalf of all smokers nationwide, former smokers, and their relatives; (ii) unspecified damages on behalf of people exposed to environmental tobacco smoke ("ETS") nationwide, and their relatives; and (iii) reimbursement of the health care costs allegedly incurred for the treatment of tobacco- related diseases by all Brazilian States and Municipalities, and the Federal District. In an interim ruling issued in December 2007, the trial court limited the scope of this claim to the State of Sao Paulo only. In December 2008, the Seventh Civil Court of Sao Paulo issued a decision declaring that it lacked jurisdiction because the case involved issues similar to the ADESF case and should be transferred to the Nineteenth Lower Civil Court in Sao Paulo where the ADESF case is pending. The court further stated that these cases should be consolidated for the purposes of judgment. In April 2010, the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals reversed the Seventh Civil Court's decision that consolidated the cases, finding that they are based on different legal claims and are progressing at different stages of proceedings. This case was returned to the Seventh Civil Court of Sao Paulo, and the company's subsidiary filed its closing arguments in December 2010. In March 2012, the trial court dismissed the case on the merits. This decision has been appealed. In the first class action pending in Canada, Cecilia Letourneau v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in September 1998, the company's subsidiary and other Canadian manufacturers are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages for each member of the class who is deemed addicted to smoking. The class was certified in 2005. In February 2011, the trial court ruled that the federal government would remain as a third party in the case. In November 2012, the Court of Appeals dismissed defendants' third-party claims against the federal government. Trial began on March 12, 2012. At the present pace, trial is expected to conclude in 2014, with a judgment to follow at an indeterminate point after the conclusion of the trial proceedings. In the second class action pending in Canada, Conseil Quebecois Sur Le Tabac Et La Sant� and Jean-Yves Blais v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in November 1998, the company's subsidiary and other Canadian manufacturers are defendants. The plaintiffs, an anti-smoking organization and an individual smoker, are seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages for each member of the class who allegedly suffers from certain smoking-related diseases. The class was certified in 2005. In February 2011, the trial court ruled that the federal government would remain as a third party in the case. In November 2012, the Court of Appeals dismissed defendants' third-party claims against the federal government. Trial began on March 12, 2012. At the present pace, trial is expected to conclude in 2014, with a judgment to follow at an indeterminate point after the conclusion of the trial proceedings. In the third class action pending in Canada, Kunta v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Winnipeg, Canada, filed June 12, 2009, the company, our subsidiaries, and the Company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD"), severe asthma, and mild reversible lung disease resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and family members, as well as restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products. In September 2009, plaintiff's counsel informed defendants that he did not anticipate taking any action in this case while he pursues the class action filed in Saskatchewan. In the fourth class action pending in Canada, Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Saskatchewan, Canada, filed July 10, 2009, the company, the company's subsidiaries, and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who have smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly suffered, or suffer, from COPD, emphysema, heart disease, or cancer, as well as restitution of profits. Preliminary motions are pending. In the fifth class action pending in Canada, Semple v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Supreme Court (trial court), Nova Scotia, Canada, filed June 18, 2009, the company, the company's subsidiaries, and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco products. He is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and family members, as well as restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products. No activity in this case is anticipated while plaintiff's counsel pursues the class action filed in Saskatchewan. In the sixth class action pending in Canada, Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Alberta, Canada, filed June 15, 2009, the company, the company's subsidiaries, and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and chronic bronchitis and severe sinus infections resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and family members, restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products. To date, the company, the company's subsidiaries, and the company's indemnitees have not been properly served with the complaint. No activity in this case is anticipated while plaintiff's counsel pursues the class action filed in Saskatchewan. In the seventh class action pending in Canada, McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia, Canada, filed June 25, 2010, the company, the company's subsidiaries, and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to tobacco products and heart disease resulting from the use of tobacco products. He is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who suffered from heart disease allegedly caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family members, plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January 1, 1954 to the date the claim was filed. Defendants have filed jurisdictional challenges on the grounds that this action should not proceed during the pendency of the Saskatchewan class action. In the eighth class action pending in Canada, Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia, Canada, filed June 25, 2010, the company, the company's subsidiaries, and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, the heir to a deceased smoker, alleges that the decedent was addicted to tobacco products and suffered from emphysema resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who suffered from chronic respiratory diseases allegedly caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family members, plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January 1, 1954 to the date the claim was filed. Defendants have filed jurisdictional challenges on the grounds that this action should not proceed during the pendency of the Saskatchewan class action. In the ninth class action pending in Canada, Suzanne Jacklin v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., Ontario Superior Court of Justice, filed June 20, 2012, the company, the company's subsidiaries, and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who have smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly suffered, or suffer, from COPD, heart disease, or cancer, as well as restitution of profits. Plaintiff's counsel have indicated that they do not intend to take any action in this case in the near future. PHILIP MORRIS: March 2014 Hearing Set in "El-Roy" Suit in Israel ---------------------------------------------------------------- An oral hearing has been scheduled for March 2014 in the suit El-Roy, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., filed at the District Court of Tel-Aviv/Jaffa, Israel, 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. Lights Cases: These cases, brought by individual plaintiffs, or on behalf of a class of individual plaintiffs, allege that the use of the term "lights" constitutes fraudulent and misleading conduct. Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in these cases are based on various theories of recovery including misrepresentation, deception, and breach of consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs seek various forms of relief including restitution, injunctive relief, and compensatory and other damages. Defenses raised include lack of causation, lack of reliance, assumption of the risk, and statute of limitations. As of August 1, 2013, the following lights cases were pending against the company's subsidiaries or indemnitees: (1) 1 case brought on behalf of individual plaintiffs in Israel, compared with 2 such cases on August 1, 2012 and August 1, 2011; and (2) 1 case brought by an individual in the equivalent of small claims courts in Italy, where the maximum damages are approximately one thousand Euros per case, compared with 7 such cases on August 1, 2012, and 9 such cases on August 1, 2011. In the class action pending in Israel, El-Roy, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., District Court of Tel-Aviv/Jaffa, Israel, filed January 18, 2004, the company's subsidiary and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and the company's former importer) are defendants. The plaintiffs filed a purported class action claiming that the class members were misled by the descriptor "lights" into believing that lights cigarettes are safer than full flavor cigarettes. The claim seeks recovery of the purchase price of lights cigarettes and compensation for distress for each class member. Hearings took place in November and December 2008 regarding whether the case meets the legal requirements necessary to allow it to proceed as a class action. The parties' briefing on class certification was completed in March 2011. In November 2012, the court denied class certification and dismissed the individual claims. Plaintiffs have appealed, and an oral hearing has been scheduled for March 2014. The claims in the previously reported class action in Israel, Navon, et al. v. Philip Morris Products USA, et al., District Court of Tel-Aviv/Jaffa, Israel, filed December 5, 2004, against the company's indemnitee (our distributor) and other members of the industry are similar to those in El-Roy, and the case was stayed pending a ruling on class certification in El-Roy. In March 2013, the district court dismissed the case because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate their intent to continue pursuing the case. Plaintiffs failed to appeal and the case is terminated. The company will no longer report this case. PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT: Signs Deal to Dismiss Merger-Related Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc., disclosed in its August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013, that parties of the consolidated merger-related lawsuit entered into a stipulation for the voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice. On December 24, 2012, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit related to the Company's proposed acquisition of Ameristar Casinos, Inc. ("Ameristar") was filed in Nevada District Court for Clark County (hereafter "Nevada District Court"), captioned Joseph Grob v. Ameristar Casinos, Inc., et al. (the "Grob action"). The complaint names Ameristar and members of Ameristar's Board of Directors (the "Ameristar Defendants"); and Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc., PNK Holdings, Inc., and PNK Development 32, Inc. as defendants (the "Pinnacle Defendants"). The complaint generally alleges that the Board of Directors of Ameristar, aided and abetted by Ameristar and the Pinnacle Defendants, breached their fiduciary duties owed to Ameristar's shareholders in connection with Pinnacle's proposed acquisition of Ameristar. The action includes claims for, among other things, an injunction halting the proposed acquisition of Ameristar by Pinnacle, and an award of costs and expenses to the putative plaintiff stockholder, including attorneys' fees. Thereafter, other plaintiffs filed additional complaints in the same court making essentially the same allegations and seeking similar relief to the Grob action. On January 15, 2013, the Court issued an order consolidating the actions, and any subsequently filed actions, into a single, consolidated action. On April 16, 2013, the Nevada District Court heard the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction seeking additional proxy disclosure and denied plaintiffs' request. On August 5, 2013, the parties filed a stipulation and order for voluntary dismissal of action without prejudice. Headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada, Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. is an owner, operator and developer of casinos and related hospitality and entertainment facilities. The Company operates L'Auberge Lake Charles in Lake Charles, Louisiana; River City Casino and Lumiere Place in St. Louis, Missouri; Boomtown New Orleans in New Orleans, Louisiana; L'Auberge Baton Rouge in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Belterra Casino Resort in Vevay, Indiana; and Boomtown Bossier City in Bossier City. The Company also owns and operates a racetrack facility, River Downs, in Cincinnati, Ohio, manage a racetrack facility, Retama Park Racetrack, in San Antonio, Texas, and own and operate a live and televised poker tournament series, Heartland Poker Tour. PUSHPIN HOLDINGS: Forged Signatures in Equipment Leases, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Michael B. Johnson, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of those similarly situated plaintiffs v. Pushpin Holdings, LLC, Jay Cohen, Leonard Mezei, Ari R. Madoff, Alisha Rios, Louisa Tatbak, Shaun Redwood, GCN Holding, LLC, and CIT Financial USA, Inc., Case No. 2013-L-010173 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., September 11, 2013) accuses the Defendants of prosecuting the Plaintiff and similarly situated persons using forged leases. The Plaintiff contends that contrary to the Defendants' assertion, he did not sign a lease agreement for which they seek payment. He argues that the signature in the alleged equipment lease is not his and was not placed there by anyone else on his behalf or with his authority. He points out that those signatures are forged. Mr. Johnson, is a citizen of the state of North Carolina. Pushpin Holdings is a Delaware limited liability company, which has not registered with the Illinois Secretary of State to conduct business in Illinois as a foreign company. The Company is a shell entity, which does not have any full time employees or place of business, and is the alter ego of Defendants Jay Cohen and Leonard Mezei. Messrs. Cohen and Mezei are the managing members of Pushpin Holdings, and various other shell entities, and control its operations. They also own, operate and control numerous interchangeable alter ego entities, which sell equipment leases, finance leases, buy debts, collect debts acquired by purchase and assignment. GCN Holding is also the alter ego of Messrs. Cohen and Mezei. Ari R. Madoff is a citizen and resident of the state of Illinois and an attorney licensed to practice law in Illinois. CIT Financial is a Delaware corporation, which is registered with the Illinois Secretary of State to conduct business in Illinois as a foreign corporation. Alisha Rios is a citizen and resident of either New Jersey or New York. She worked as a part-time employee and agent for the Shell Entities and Messrs. Cohen and Mezei, falsely claiming to be an executive legal administrator for Pushpin Holdings and for the other Shell Entities. Louisa Tatbak is a citizen of New York, who at all relevant times was a notary public for New York. As an agent for Pushpin Holdings and Messrs. Cohen and Mezei, she notarized false affidavits signed by Alisha Rios for numerous cases filed by Pushpin Holdings in Cook County, Illinois, with knowledge that Ms. Rios did not have personal knowledge of the matters claimed in the affidavits she signed and with knowledge that there were no business records, which supported the affidavits signed by Ms. Rios. Ms. Rios and Ms. Tatbak signed and notarized affidavits on an assembly line basis for numerous entities owned and controlled by Messrs. Cohen and Mezei, including Pushpin Holdings, with knowledge that Ms. Rios did not have knowledge or business records supporting the affidavit she was signing. Shaun Redwood is an agent for Pushpin Holdings and Messrs. Cohen and Mezei. He works in the offices of Northern Leasing Systems, Inc. and GCN Holdings, which share the same offices in New York. He is not employed by Pushpin Holdings but answers the telephone on its behalf at the same telephone number employed by Messrs. Cohen and Mezei for all of their Shell Entities, including Pushpin Holdings. He acts as an unlicensed bill collector on behalf of Pushpin Holdings and Messrs. Cohen and Mezei by attempting to collect debts and alleged debts purchased by Pushpin Holdings with respect to lawsuits filed, or to be filed in Cook County, Illinois by Pushpin Holdings. The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Duree, Esq. DAVID M. DUREE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 312 South Lincoln Avenue P.O. Box 1416 O'Fallon, IL 62269 Telephone: (618) 628-0186 Facsimile: (618) 628-0259 E-mail: law@dmduree.net QANTAS AIRWAYS: Oct. 2014 Trial Set for Freight Collusion Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Short Haul, writing for The Australian, reports that a federal Court class action against 12 international airlines over alleged collusion on freight charges has been set down for trial in October next year. Airlines including Qantas, Lufthansa Cargo, Singapore Airlines, Cathay Pacific, Air New Zealand and British Airways face detailed and widespread allegations of cartel conduct, according to lawyers Maurice Blackburn. The parties have been ordered to attend mediation in November as part of the action, which is seeking damages and other relief on behalf of purchasers of international airfreight services for losses as a result of alleged cartel conduct between 2000 and 2007. Canberra Airport chief executive Stephen Byron has been honored with a special award at the Australian Airports Association conference in Darwin, for most outstanding contribution to the airport industry. Airport of the year awards included Canberra Airport, in the capital city category; Cairns International Airport, in the major airport section; Wagga Wagga and Mildura, in the large regional category. Portland was named the best smaller regional airport. QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA: Torres Strait Islanders Mull Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Ashleigh Stevenson, writing for ABC News, reports that a group of Torres Strait Islanders has asked the Federal Court to allow it to sue the Queensland Government over their alleged mistreatment. The group of almost 100 people says they suffered abuse after they were placed in mission dormitories in far north Queensland decades ago. They are each seeking up to AU$42,000 in compensation in a lawsuit that could cost more than AU$4 million. The Federal Court has been asked to grant leave to the group to pursue a class action but has reserved its decision to next month. QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA: Court to Decide on Missions Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- The Cairns Post reports that the Federal Court was set to decide on Sept. 19 whether to allow a class action against the State Government regarding alleged suffering of indigenous people in religious missions in Far North Queensland. Almost 100 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who were placed in mission dormitories at Mona Mona, Wujal Wujal, Hope Vale and the Daintree decades ago, or relatives of those who were, are each seeking up to AU$42,000 compensation from the government. Kirsten Lesina, a lawyer for Cairns firm Bottoms English, said the action involved claims of racial discrimination over the way the redress scheme was set up following the Forde Inquiry in the 1990s, which examined the abuse of children in Queensland institutions. She said the scheme unfairly deprived people who were put in mission dormitories from getting compensation. "If you had been in one of the so-called 'licensed' institutions you could apply for between AU$7000 and AU$42,000 compensation," she said. "But the missions were unlicensed institutions, so that excluded indigenous people. "We are arguing it was racial discrimination because it excluded a whole class of people who were exclusively indigenous from claiming compensation." Ms. Lesina said if the Federal Court sitting in Brisbane decided on Sept. 19 to allow the case to continue to a representative proceeding, hundreds more aggrieved people were expected to sign up. If not, the battle for compensation will continue on two other fronts: through the Australian Human Rights Commission and by way of individual cases pursued through the Federal Court. Judy Enoch, a spokeswoman for Mona Mona, said the mission's elders had been ignored. "They weren't given any legal rights as to how they were to live, neither were their parents and we know that whilst they lived in the boys' and girls' dormitories, it wasn't the best care that was provided," she said. " . . . We support their right to obtain compensation for the things that they endured." The amount being sought was at the higher end of the AU$42,000 band to reflect that the claimants were forcibly removed from their families, stopped from using their own language and suffered a loss of cultural identity, lack of proper medical attention and poor education. Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie refused to comment as the case was before the courts. QUEST NUTRITION: Overstates Quest Bars' Fiber Content, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Quest Nutrition and General Nutrition Centers overstate the fiber content of "Quest Bars" by 50 percent to 1,000 percent, and understate their carbohydrate content, a class action claims in California Federal Court. The Plaintiff is represented by: Casey Edwards Sadler, Esq. Lionel Zevi Glancy, Esq. Marc L. Godino, Esq. Michael M. Goldberg, Esq. GLANCY BINKOW AND GOLDBERG LLP 1925 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: csadler@glancylaw.com info@glancylaw.com mgodino@glancylaw.com mmgoldberg@glancylaw.com The case is David Takeda v. Quest Nutrition LLC, et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-06656-PSG-JEM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles). RAI: Obtains Favorable Ruling in DTT Subscribers' Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Branislav Pekic, writing for Advanced Television, reports that Advanced Italian public broadcaster RAI and its transmission unit Rai Way have won the first class action brought against them by a group of DTT subscribers. The case brought by 123 subscribers came before the Administrative Regional Court of Lazio. They demanded the repayment of three years of TV license fee, i.e. from the start of the transition from analogue to digital terrestrial TV in the region of Emilia Romagna. However, the Court ruled in favor of Rai and Rai Way, stating that there is no disruption in the digital terrestrial broadcasts. Rai Way had produced its own fact-finding investigation saying 99.6% of users in the province of Ravenna successfully receives the signal. Any reception problems, according to the Court, result from the installations of the individual users. The citizens of Ravenna are not giving up and are planning to appeal to the Council of State. ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: Faces Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Roadrunner Transportation and Morgan Southern Trucking misclassified employees as independent contractors to cheat them of overtime, a class action claims in California Superior Court. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lenden F. Webb, Esq. WEBB & BORDSON 466 W. Fallbrook Avenue, Suite 102 Fresno, CA 93711 Telephone: (619) 399-7700 E-mail: LWebb@WBLawGroup.com The case is Marcie Veneman, et al. vs. Roadrunner Intermodel Services LLC, et al., Case No. 13CECG02834, in the Superior Court of California, County of Fresno. SAFEWAY INC: Faces All-Natural False Advertising Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Kat Greene, writing for Law360, reports that a Safeway Inc. customer who says he paid premium prices for products the grocery store chain falsely advertised as all-natural hit the company with a putative class action in California federal court on Sept. 18. Consumer Ryan Richards claims Safeway falsely advertised products as all-natural, and charged customers a premium for them. According to the Sept. 18 complaint, the store's branded multigrain and homestyle waffles were advertised as being "100 percent natural," but contained sodium acid pyrophosphate, a chemical preservative. Mr. Richards and other customers spent more on the products because of their purported benefits, relying on Safeway's allegedly false labeling to make their buying decisions, the complaint says. "[Safeway] played on consumer ignorance to fraudulently generate substantial profits and engender unfair competition between itself and competitor companies that, unlike Safeway, behave responsibly and honestly toward their customers," Mr. Richards wrote in the Sept. 18 complaint. The grocery store has a line of products branded as "Open Nature" that it claims are 100% natural and free of chemicals, according to the complaint. Safeway's website includes a list of some 130 artificial ingredients that aren't found in the Open Nature line of products, but sodium acid pyrophosphate isn't on the list. "Safeway engaged in the unfair, unlawful, deceptive and fraudulent practice of describing and falsely advertising the products listed heretofore in this complaint as '100% Natural' when, in fact, they contain the synthetic chemical ingredient," Mr. Richards claimed. The ingredient in the frozen waffles listed in Mr. Richards' complaint is an odorless white powder used to remove hair from hogs and feathers from birds at slaughterhouses, according to the Sept. 18 complaint. "Not having the specialized food chemistry and regulatory knowledge necessary to make independent determinations thereof, a reasonable consumer would interpret the fine-print ingredient label in a way to be consistent with the front label representation," Mr. Richards alleged. Mr. Richards is seeking to represent a class suing Safeway for common law fraud, breach of contract and violation of several California state consumer protection laws, according to the complaint. Mr. Richards is represented by Scott Edward Cole -- scole@scalaw.com -- Molly A. DeSario -- mDeSario@scalaw.com -- and Jessica L. Campbell -- jcampbell@scalaw.com -- of Scott Cole & Associates APC. Counsel information for Safeway could not be immediately determined. The case is Ryan Richards et al. v. Safeway Inc., case number 3:13-cv-04317, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. SPACE SYSTEMS: Hearing to Approved "Schneider" Suit Deal Continued ------------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Maxine M. Chesney signed an order approving a stipulation continuing to December 13, 2013, at 9:00 a.m., the final approval hearing of a class action settlement in JEREMY SCHNEIDER on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SPACE SYSTEMS/LORAL, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendant, CASE NO. CV-11- 02489-MMC, (N.D. Cal.). A copy of the District Court's August 29, 2013 Order is available at http://is.gd/7SmOL4from Leagle.com. LYNNE C. HERMLE (STATE BAR NO. 99779) -- lchermle@orrick.com -- JESSICA R. PERRY (STATE BAR NO. 209321) -- jperry@orrick.com -- ALLISON RIECHERT GIESE (STATE BAR NO. 267533) -- agiese@orrick.com -- ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP, Menlo Park, California, Attorneys for Defendant, SPACE SYSTEMS/LORAL, INC. Attorneys for Plaintiff, JEREMY SCHNEIDER are: MARC H. PHELPS (STATE BAR NO. 237036) THE PHELPS LAW GROUP 2030 Main Street, Suite 1300 Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 260-9111 Fax: (949) 260-4754 ROGER R. CARTERM (STATE BAR NO. 140196) -- rcater@carterlawfirm.net -- THE CARTER LAW FIRM, Irvine, California, Additional Counsel For Plaintiff. SCOTT B. COOPER (STATE BAR NO. 174520) -- scott@cooper-firm.com -- THE COOPER LAW FIRM, P.C., Irvine, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff, Jeremy Schneider. ST. JUDE MEDICAL: 2010 Securities Suit Discovery to End in Sept. ---------------------------------------------------------------- St. Jude Medical Inc. disclosed in its August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 29, 2013, that the discovery phase of the March 2010 Securities Class Action Litigation closes in this month. In March 2010, a securities lawsuit seeking class action status was filed in federal district court in Minnesota against the Company and certain officers on behalf of purchasers of St. Jude Medical common stock between April 22, 2009, and October 6, 2009. The lawsuit relates to the Company's earnings announcements for the first, second and third quarters of 2009, as well as a preliminary earnings release dated October 6, 2009. The complaint, which seeks unspecified damages and other relief as well as attorneys' fees, alleges that the Company failed to disclose that it was experiencing a slowdown in demand for its products and was not receiving anticipated orders for cardiac rhythm management devices. Class members allege that the Company's failure to disclose the information resulted in the class purchasing St. Jude Medical stock at an artificially inflated price. In December 2011, the Court issued a decision denying a motion to dismiss filed by the defendants in October 2010. In October 2012, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a class action, which the defendants did not oppose. The discovery phase of the case closes in September 2013 and the trial is scheduled in July 2014. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against the claims asserted in this lawsuit. Based in St. Paul, Minnesota, St. Jude Medical Inc. develops, manufactures and distributes cardiovascular medical devices for the global cardiac rhythm management, cardiac surgery, cardiology and atrial fibrillation therapy areas, and implantable neuromodulation devices. ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Defends December 2012 Securities Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------- St. Jude Medical Inc. continues to defend itself against the consolidated December 2012 Securities Class Action Litigation, according to the Company's August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 29, 2013. On December 7, 2012, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in federal district court in Minnesota against the Company and an officer for alleged violations of the federal securities laws, on behalf of all purchasers of the publicly traded securities of the Company between October 17, 2012, and November 20, 2012. The complaint, which seeks unspecified damages and other relief as well as attorneys' fees, challenges the Company's disclosures concerning its high voltage cardiac rhythm lead products during the purported class period. On December 10, 2012, a second securities class action lawsuit was filed in federal district court in Minnesota against the Company and certain officers for alleged violations of the federal securities laws, on behalf of all purchasers of the publicly traded securities of the Company between October 19, 2011, and November 20, 2012. The second complaint pursues similar claims and seeks unspecified damages and other relief as well as attorneys' fees. In March 2013, the Court consolidated the two cases and appointed a lead counsel and lead plaintiff. The Company was scheduled to file its responsive pleading by August 26, 2013. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims asserted in this matter. Based in St. Paul, Minnesota, St. Jude Medical Inc. develops, manufactures and distributes cardiovascular medical devices for the global cardiac rhythm management, cardiac surgery, cardiology and atrial fibrillation therapy areas, and implantable neuromodulation devices. ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Defends Riata-Related Suits in Various Courts --------------------------------------------------------------- St. Jude Medical Inc. is defending itself against 29 lawsuits related to Riata(R) products pending in various courts, according to the Company's August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 29, 2013. In April 2013, a lawsuit seeking a class action was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington by plaintiffs alleging they suffered injuries caused by Riata(R) and Riata(R) ST Silicone Defibrillation Leads. The potential class of plaintiffs in this lawsuit is limited to residents of the State of Washington. The complaint seeks compensatory damages in unspecified amounts, punitive damages and a declaratory judgment that the Company is liable to the proposed class members for any past, present and future evaluative monitoring, and corrective medical, surgical and incidental expenses and losses. As of August 1, 2013, the Company is aware of 29 lawsuits from plaintiffs alleging injuries caused by, and asserting product liability claims concerning, Riata(R) and Riata(R) ST Silicone Defibrillation Leads. Most of the lawsuits have been brought by a single plaintiff, but some of them name multiple individuals as plaintiffs. The action in Washington is the only case that seeks a class action. Outside of this class action, five separate multi-plaintiff lawsuits have been initiated against the Company that involve more than one unrelated plaintiff: a multi-plaintiff lawsuit joining 29 unrelated claimants was filed in the Superior Court of California for the city and county of Los Angeles on April 4, 2013; a multi-plaintiff lawsuit joining two unrelated claimants was filed in the Superior Court of California for the city and county of Los Angeles on April 4, 2013; a multi-plaintiff lawsuit joining two claimants was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 4, 2013; a multi-plaintiff lawsuit joining three unrelated claimants was filed in the Superior Court of California for the city and county of Los Angeles on April 29, 2013; and a multi-plaintiff lawsuit joining 21 unrelated claimants was filed in the Superior Court of California for the city and county of Los Angeles on July 15, 2013. Of the 29 lawsuits, ten cases are pending in federal courts, including three in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, four in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, one in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, one in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana and one pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The remaining 19 lawsuits are pending in state courts across the country, including seven in Minnesota, ten in California, one in Indiana and one in Georgia. All but one of the claimants in the lawsuits allege bodily injuries as a result of surgical removal and replacement of Riata(R) leads, or other complications, which they attribute to the leads. The majority of the claimants who seek recovery for implantation and/or surgical removal of Riata(R) leads are seeking compensatory damages in unspecified amounts, and declaratory judgments that the Company is liable to the claimants for any past, present and future evaluative monitoring, and corrective medical, surgical and incidental expenses and losses. Several claimants also seek punitive damages. The Company is responsible for legal costs incurred in defense of the Riata product liability claims including any potential settlements, judgments and other legal defense costs. Based in St. Paul, Minnesota, St. Jude Medical Inc. develops, manufactures and distributes cardiovascular medical devices for the global cardiac rhythm management, cardiac surgery, cardiology and atrial fibrillation therapy areas, and implantable neuromodulation devices. ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Hearing in Silzone(R) Suit Appeal in November --------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal in the Silzone(R)-related class action lawsuit pending in Canada is expected to be heard in November 2013, according to St. Jude Medical Inc.'s August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 29, 2013. The Company has been sued in various jurisdictions beginning in March 2000 by some patients who received a heart valve product with Silzone(R) coating, which the Company stopped selling in January 2000. The Company's outstanding Silzone cases consist of one class action in Ontario that has been appealed by the plaintiffs and one individual case in Ontario. In June 2012, the Ontario Court ruled in the Company's favor on all nine common class issues in a class action involving Silzone patients, and the case was dismissed. In September 2012, counsel for the class filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal for the Province of Ontario and filed their initial appellate brief in February 2013. The Company was scheduled to file its responsive brief in August 2013, and the appeal is expected to be heard in November 2013. The individual case in Ontario requests damages in excess of $1 million (claiming unspecified special damages, health care costs and interest). Based on the Company's historical experience, the amount ultimately paid, if any, often does not bear any relationship to the amount claimed. To the extent that the Company's future Silzone costs (inclusive of settlements, judgments, legal fees and other related defense costs) exceed its remaining historical insurance coverage of $13 million, the Company would be responsible for such costs. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims that have been asserted. The Company has not recorded an expense related to any potential damages in connection with these product liability litigation matters because any potential loss is not probable or reasonably estimable. Other than disclosed, the Company cannot reasonably estimate a loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from these litigation matters. Based in St. Paul, Minnesota, St. Jude Medical Inc. develops, manufactures and distributes cardiovascular medical devices for the global cardiac rhythm management, cardiac surgery, cardiology and atrial fibrillation therapy areas, and implantable neuromodulation devices. SUNPOWER CORPORATION: Wins Final OK of Securities Suit Accord ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted final approval to the settlement of a consolidated securities suit filed against SunPower Corporation, 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. Three securities class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a class consisting of those who acquired the Company's securities from April 17, 2008 through November 16, 2009. The cases were consolidated as In re SunPower Securities Litigation, Case No. CV-09-5473-RS (N.D. Cal.), and lead plaintiffs and lead counsel were appointed on March 5, 2010. Lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on May 28, 2010. The actions arise from the Audit Committee's investigation announcement on November 16, 2009 regarding certain unsubstantiated accounting entries. The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants made material misstatements and omissions concerning the Company's financial results for 2008 and 2009, seeks an unspecified amount of damages, and alleges violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The court held a hearing on the defendants' motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint on November 4, 2010. The court dismissed the consolidated complaint with leave to amend on March 1, 2011. An amended complaint was filed on April 18, 2011. The amended complaint added two former employees of the Company as defendants. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on May 23, 2011. The motions to dismiss the amended complaint were heard by the court on August 11, 2011. On December 19, 2011, the court granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss, dismissing the claims brought pursuant to sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and the claims brought against the two newly added former employees. On December 14, 2012, the Company announced that it reached an agreement in principle to settle the consolidated securities class action lawsuit for $19.7 million. The Company recorded a charge in its fiscal fourth quarter of 2012 in the same amount which is further classified within "Accrued liabilities" on the Company's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 30, 2012. On July 3, 2013, the court granted final approval of the settlement and entered an order of final judgment and dismissal with prejudice. UGI CORPORATION: "Swigers" Suit Still Pending in W.Va. ------------------------------------------------------ UGI Corporation continues to face a lawsuit filed by the "Swigers" in the Circuit Court of Harrison County, West Virginia for alleged violations of the West Virginia Insurance Unfair Trade Practice Act, 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 2005, Samuel and Brenda Swiger (the "Swigers") filed what purports to be a class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Harrison County, West Virginia, against UGI, an insurance subsidiary of UGI, certain officers of UGI and the General Partner, and their insurance carriers and insurance adjusters. In this lawsuit, the Swigers are seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of the putative class for alleged violations of the West Virginia Insurance Unfair Trade Practice Act, negligence, intentional misconduct, and civil conspiracy. The Court has not certified the class. The company believes it has good defenses to the claims in this action. UNITED STATES: FHFA Obtains Favorable Ruling in Georgia Tax Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hall County, Georgia, brings an action for itself and as a class action on behalf of 158 other Georgia counties to collect unpaid real estate transfer taxes from Defendants Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Housing Finance Agency. The Defendants claim that their federal charters exempt them from paying any state taxes except taxes on real property. District Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., sides with the great weight of authority and concludes that the Defendants are exempt from paying the transfer taxes at issue. The case is HALL COUNTY, GEORGIA, a body corporate of the State of Georgia, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, as conservator for Federal National Mortgage Association, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 1:12-CV-4402-TWT, (N.D. Ga.). A copy of the District Court's August 30, 2013 Opinion and Order is available at http://is.gd/qe6HBLfrom Leagle.com. US FOODSERVICE: 2nd Cir. Affirms Class Cert. in Pricing Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE WEST, TOMAS & KING, INC., WATERBURY HOSPITAL o/b/o themselves & others similarly situated, CASON INC., o/b/o themselves & others similarly situated, FRANKIE'S FRANCHISE SYS INC., o/b/o themselves & others similarly situated, Plaintiffs- Appellees, v. US FOODSERVICE INC., Defendant-Appellant, KONINKLIJKE AHOLD N.V., GORDON REDGATE, BRADY SCHOEFIELD, Defendants, NO. 12-1311-CV, concerns allegations of fraudulent overbilling by U.S. Foodservice, Inc., the country's second largest food distributor whose customers have included the United States government, as well as hospitals, schools, restaurant chains, and small businesses across the United States. An interlocutory appeal in the case requires the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to determine whether the district court abused its discretion in certifying a nationwide class consisting of about 75,000 USF "cost-plus" customers. The gravamen of plaintiffs' complaint is that USF devised and executed a fraud to overbill these customers in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 1961- 68, and state and tribal contract law. Despite the size of the class and the fact that it implicates the laws of multiple jurisdictions, the district court correctly concluded that both the RICO and contract claims are susceptible to generalized proof such that common issues will predominate over individual issues and a class action is superior to other methods of adjudication. In an August 30, 2013 Opinion available at http://is.gd/83n9sp from Leagle.com, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's certification of the class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). RYAN PHAIR -- rphair@hunton.com -- Hunton & Williams LLP, Washington, D.C. (James E. Hartley, JR. -- jhart@dholaw.com -- Drubner, Hartley & Hellman; Richard Laurence Macon -- lmacon@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP; Joe R. Whatley, Jr. -- jwhatley@wdklaw.com -- Whatley Drake & Kallas, LLC; Richard Leslie Wyatt, Jr. -- rwyatt@hunton.com -- Hunton & Williams LLP, on the brief), for Plaintiffs-Appellees. GLENN M. KURTZ -- gkurtz@whitecase.com -- (Douglas P. Baumstein -- dbaumstein@whitecase.com -- on the brief), White & Case LLP, New York, New York, for Defendant-Appellant. US BANCORP: Still Awaits Approval of Settlement in Visa Matter -------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Bancorp is still awaiting court approval of the settlement of Visa litigation matters, according to the Company's August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. The Company's payment services business issues and acquires credit and debit card transactions through the Visa U.S.A. Inc. card association or its affiliates (collectively "Visa"). In 2007, Visa completed a restructuring and issued shares of Visa Inc. common stock to its financial institution members in contemplation of its initial public offering ("IPO") completed in the first quarter of 2008 (the "Visa Reorganization"). As a part of the Visa Reorganization, the Company received its proportionate number of shares of Visa Inc. common stock, which were subsequently converted to Class B shares of Visa Inc. ("Class B shares"). Visa U.S.A. Inc. ("Visa U.S.A.") and MasterCard International (collectively, the "Card Associations") are defendants in antitrust lawsuits challenging the practices of the Card Associations (the "Visa Litigation"). Visa U.S.A. member banks have a contingent obligation to indemnify Visa Inc. under the Visa U.S.A. bylaws (which were modified at the time of the restructuring in October 2007) for potential losses arising from the Visa Litigation. The indemnification by the Visa U.S.A. member banks has no specific maximum amount. Using proceeds from its IPO and through reductions to the conversion ratio applicable to the Class B shares held by Visa U.S.A. member banks, Visa Inc. has funded an escrow account for the benefit of member financial institutions to fund their indemnification obligations associated with the Visa Litigation. The receivable related to the escrow account is classified in other liabilities as a direct offset to the related Visa Litigation contingent liability. On October 19, 2012, Visa signed a settlement agreement to resolve class action claims associated with the multi-district interchange litigation, the largest of the remaining Visa Litigation matters. The settlement has not yet been finally approved by the court, is not yet binding, and has been challenged by some class members. At June 30, 2013, the carrying amount of the Company's liability related to the Visa Litigation matters, net of its share of the escrow fundings, was $65 million and included the Company's estimate of its share of the temporary reduction in interchange rates specified in the settlement agreement. The remaining Class B shares held by the Company will be eligible for conversion to Class A shares, and thereby become marketable, upon settlement of the Visa Litigation. These shares are excluded from the Company's financial instruments disclosures. U.S. Bancorp is a multi-state financial services holding company headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota. U.S. Bancorp was incorporated in Delaware in 1929 and operates as a financial holding company. U.S. Bancorp provides a full range of financial services and also engages in credit card services, merchant and ATM processing, mortgage banking, insurance, brokerage and leasing. VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Seeks to Dismiss Mass. Securities Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated is seeking to dismiss a purported shareholder class action, City of Bristol Pension Fund v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, et al., 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 September 6, 2012, a purported shareholder class action, City of Bristol Pension Fund v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, naming the Company and certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors as defendants. The lawsuit alleges that the Company made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in the Company's disclosures during the period from May 7, 2012 through June 28, 2012, all in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. By order dated December 12, 2012, the court appointed the City of Bristol lead plaintiff and appointed the City of Bristol's attorneys lead counsel. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 11, 2013. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on April 12, 2013. On May 28, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint. On June 27, 2013, the Company filed a reply in further support of the Company's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, as well as disgorgement of the proceeds from certain individual defendants' sales of the Company's common stock. The Company believes that this action is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously. As of June 30, 2013, the Company has not recorded any reserves for this purported class action. VISA INC: MDL Settlement Worse Than Losing at Trial, NACS Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Nick DiVito at Courthouse News Service reports that a $7.25 billion proposed settlement to end an eight-year class action over credit card swipe fees is "worse than losing at trial," the president of the Association for Convenience & Fuel Retailing told a federal judge Thursday, September 12, 2013, during a fairness hearing on the settlement. Hank Armour testified before U.S. District Judge John Gleeson in the Eastern District of New York. "From the beginning of this litigation, our principal concern has been to obtain meaningful reforms of the credit card market to restrain the undue market power being used to set fees," Armour said. "Anti-competitive practices have resulted in our industry paying more in card fees than it makes in pre-tax profits every year since 2006." In 2005, retailers alleged that Visa and MasterCard violated antitrust law by fixing swipe fees to generate more than $40 billion a year. The suit went to trial before Gleeson in September 2012, and in July 2013, a proposed settlement was reached. The trial and settlement were the result of the consolidation of 14 different antitrust actions challenging "swipe fees" and "interchange fees" from New York, Connecticut, California and Georgia, representing more than 7 million businesses. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation assigned it to Judge Gleeson in October 2005. It later became known as the "Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation." The National Retail Federation also appeared before Gleeson, asking him to either "right or reject" the proposed settlement, which the group said needs to be rewritten to do more to bring fees under control. "As it stands, the settlement rewards the perpetrators and traps the victims," NRF attorney Andrew Celli argued. "But it is not hopeless. It can be made fair. You have the power to make it so." The judge did not issue a decision, and industry insiders expect a final decision within weeks. Twenty-five retailers opted out of the settlement -- including 7-Eleven Inc., Wal-Mart Stores and Starbucks Corp. -- thus decreasing its chance of becoming one of the largest private cash settlements in an antitrust case in U.S. history. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alexandra S. Bernay, Esq. Carmen A. Medici, Esq. David W. Mitchell, Esq. COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: xanb@csgrr.com cmedici@csgrr.com davidm@csgrr.com - and - D. Cameron Baker, Esq. COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP 100 Pine Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 288-4545 Facsimile: (415) 288-4534 E-mail: cbaker@csgrr.com - and - Bart D. Cohen, Esq. H. Laddie Montague, Esq. Michael J. Kane, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: bcohen@bm.net hlmontague@bm.net mkane@bm.net - and - Benjamin R. Nagin, Esq. SIDLEY, AUSTIN BROWN & WOOD LLP 787 7th Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 839-5911 Facsimile: (212) 839-5599 E-mail: bnagin@sidley.com - and - Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq. Jonah H. Goldstein, Esq. Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 W Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: bonnys@rgrdlaw.com jonahg@rgrdlaw.com patc@rgrdlaw.com - and - Dennis Stewart, Esq. HULETT HARPER STEWART LLP 550 West C Street, Suite 1600 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338-1133 Facsimile: (619) 338-1139 E-mail: dstewart@hulettharper.com - and - Eric H. Grush, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP One South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 853-7855 Facsimile: (312) 853-7036 E-mail: egrush@sidley.com - and - Gary R. Carney, Jr., Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARISON, LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019-3051 Telephone: (212) 373-3051 E-mail: gcarney@paulweiss.com - and - George D. Carroll, Esq. K. Craig Wildfang, Esq. ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI, L.L.P. LaSalle Plaza, Suite 2800 800 LaSalle Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015 Telephone: (612) 349-8500 Facsimile: (612) 339-4181 E-mail: gdcarroll@rkmc.com kcwildfang@rkmc.com - and - Matthew Stephen Freimuth, Esq. WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 728-8000 E-mail: mfreimuth@willkie.com - and - Merrill G. Davidoff, Esq. BEGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3084 Facsimile: (215) 875-4671 E-mail: mdavidoff@bm.net - and - Ryan W. Marth, Esq. Stacey Slaughter, Esq. Thomas B. Hatch, Esq. Thomas J. Undlin, Esq. ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI-MN 2800 Lasalle Plaza 800 Lasalle Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 349-8500 Facsimile: (612) 339-4181 E-mail: rwmarth@rkmc.com spslaughter@rkmc.com tbhatch@rkmc.com tjundlin@rkmc.com - and - Jeffrey Isaac Shinder, Esq. Adam Owen Glist, Esq. CONSTANTINE CANNON LLP 335 Madison Avenue, 9th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 350-2700 Facsimile: (212) 350-2701 E-mail: jshinder@constantinecannon.com oglist@constantinecannon.com - and - Richard J. Kilsheimer, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 Facsimile: (212) 687-7714 E-mail: rkilsheimer@kaplanfox.com - and - Thomas M. Campbell, Esq. SMITH CAMPBELL, LLP 110 Wall Street, 19th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 344-1500 Facsimile: (212) 344-5585 E-mail: tcampbell@sc-llp.com - and - William Jay Blechman, Esq. Richard A. Arnold, Esq. KENNY NACHWALTER, P.A. 201 S Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1100 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 373-1000 Facsimile: (305) 372-1861 E-mail: wblechman@knpa.com rarnold@kennynachwalter.com - and - David P. Germaine, Esq. Joseph Michael Vanek, Esq. VANEK VICKERS & MASINI, P.C. 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3500 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 224-1500 Facsimile: (312) 224-1510 E-mail: dgermaine@daarvanek.com jvanek@vaneklaw.com - and - Paul E. Slater, Esq. SPERLING SLATER & SPITZ 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3200 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 641-3200 Facsimile: (312) 641-6492 E-mail: pes@sperling-law.com - and - Robert C. Mason, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER 399 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 715-1088 Facsimile: (212) 715-1399 E-mail: robert_mason@aporter.com - and - Jeffrey M. Norton, Esq. NEWMAN FERRARA LLP 1250 Broadway, 27th Fl., New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 619-5400 Facsimile: (212) 619-3090 E-mail: jnorton@nfllp.com - and - Donald A. Broggi, Esq. SCOTT & SCOTT, LLC 1291 Robinson Ave. San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-4565 Facsimile: (610) 233-0508 E-mail: dbroggi@scott-scott.com - and - Walter W. Noss, Esq. SCOTT & SCOTT, LLC 33 River Street Chagrin Falls, OH 44022 Telephone: (440) 247-8200 Facsimile: (440) 247-8275 E-mail: wnoss@scott-scott.com - and - Jay S. Cohen, Esq. SPECTOR, ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C. 1818 Market St, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 Facsimile: (215) 496-6611 E-mail: jcohen@srkw-law.com - and - Patrick A. Klingman, Esq. SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLC 65 Main Street Chester, CT 06412 Telephone: (860) 526-1100 Facsimile: (860) 526-1120 E-mail: pklingman@sfmslaw.com - and - Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq. SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLP 1640 Town Center Circle, Suite 216 Weston, FL 33326 Telephone: (954) 515-0123 Facsimile: (954) 515-0124 E-mail: jgoldstein@sfmslaw.com - and - Brian N. Toder, Esq. Jeffrey D. Bores, Esq. Karl Cambronne, Esq. Stewart C. Loper, Esq. CHESTNUT & CAMBRONNE, P.A. 3700 Campbell Mithun Tower 222 South Ninth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 Facsimile: (612) 336-2940 E-mail: btoder@chestnutcambronne.com jbores@chestnutcambronne.com kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com sloper@chestnutcambronne.com - and - Mark Reinhardt, Esq. REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD E1250 First National Bank Bldg 322 Minnesota Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (651) 287-2100 Facsimile: (651) 287-2103 E-mail: m.reinhardt@rwblawfirm.com - and - Craig Gordon Harley, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. Yeshimebet Abebe, Esq. CHITWOOD HARLEY HARNES, LLP 1230 Peachtree St NE, Suite 2300 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 873-3900 Facsimile: (404) 876-4476 E-mail: charley@chitwoodlaw.com - and - Dean Martin Solomon, Esq. LEVITT & KAIZER 40 Fulton Street, 23rd Floor New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 480-4000 Facsimile: (646) 277-1151 E-mail: dsolomon@landklaw.com - and - Gary B. Friedman, Esq. Tracey L. Kitzman, Esq. FRIEDMAN LAW GROUP LLP 270 Lafayette St., Suite 1410 New York, NY 10012 Telephone: (212) 680-5150 Facsimile: (646) 277-1151 E-mail: gfriedman@flgllp.com tkitzman@flgllp.com - and - Noah Shube, Esq. 434 Broadway, Sixth Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 274-8638 Facsimile: (212) 966-8652 E-mail: nshube@nsfirm.com - and - Robert S. Kitchenoff, Esq. Steven A. Asher, Esq. WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER 1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 545-7200 Facsimile: (215) 545-6535 E-mail: kitchenoff@wka-law.com asher@wka-law.com - and - Patricia I. Avery, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 845 Third Avenue, 12th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 759-4600 Facsimile: (212) 486-2093 E-mail: pavery@wolfpopper.com - and - Robert D. Greenbaum, Esq. ROBERT D. GREENBAUM & ASSOCIATES LLC 123 S Broad Street, 28th Fl Philadelphia, PA 19109 Telephone: (215) 772-5060 Facsimile: (215) 772-5080 E-mail: rgreenba@voicenet.com - and - William J. Ban, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 425 Park Avenue, Suite 3100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 688-0782 Facsimile: (212) 688-0783 E-mail: wban@barrack.com - and - Jason S. Cowart, Esq. J. Douglas Richards, Esq. POMERANTZ HAUDEK BLOCK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP 100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jasoncowart@yahoo.com drichards@pomlaw.com - and - Jason S. Kilene, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 E-mail: jkilene@gustafsongluek.com - and - Carmen B. Copher, Esq. Charles N. Nauen, Esq. Darla Jo Boggs, Esq. Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq. Rachel J. Christiansen, Esq. Richard A. Lockridge, Esq. W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq. William A. Gengler, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: cnnauen@locklaw.com khriebel@locklaw.com rjchristiansen@locklaw.com ralockridge@locklaw.com wjbruckner@locklaw.com wagengler@locklaw.com - and - Hadley P. Roeltgen, Esq. Robert J. LaRocca, Esq. KOHN SWIFT & GRAF One South Broad Street, Suite 2100 Philadelphia, PA 19107-3389 Telephone: (215) 238-1700 Facsimile: (215) 238-1968 E-mail: hroeltgen@kohnswift.com rlarocca@kohnswift.com - and - Jason L. Solotaroff, Esq. GISKAN & SOLTAROFF 11 Broadway, Suite 2150 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 847-8315 Facsimile: (212) 646-9618 E-mail: jsolotaroff@gslawny.com - and - Joshua D. Snyder, Esq. Kate Reznick, Esq. Michael J. Boni, Esq. BONI & ZACK LLC 15 St Asaphs Rd. Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (610) 822-0200 Facsimile: (610) 822-0206 E-mail: jsnyder@bonizack.com mboni@bonizack.com - and - Donald L. Perelman, Esq. FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C. One South Broad Street, Suite 2300 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 567-6565 Facsimile: (215) 568-5872 E-mail: dperelman@finekaplan.com - and - Robert N. Kaplan, Esq. KAPLAN, KILSHEIMER & FOX, LLP 805 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 Facsimile: (212) 687-7714 E-mail: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com - and - Joseph Goldberg, Esq. FREEDMAN BOYD DANIELS HOLLANDER GOLDBERG & CLINE, P.A. P.O. Box 25326 20 First Plaza, Suite 700 Albuquerque, NM 87102 Telephone: (505) 842-9960 Facsimile: (505) 842-0761 E-mail: jg@fbdlaw.com - and - Leslie Hurst, Esq. LERACH COUGHLIN, ET AL. 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 - and - Jerald M. Stein, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JERALD M. STEIN 470 Park Avenue South, 10th Floor North New York, NY 10016-7321 Telephone: (212) 481-6698 Facsimile: (212) 481-6803 E-mail: jmslaw@nyc.rr.com - and - Ann D. White, Esq. ANN D. WHITE LAW OFFICE 165 Township Line Road, Suite 2400 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Telephone: (215) 481-0274 Facsimile: (215) 481-0271 E-mail: awhite@awhitelaw.com - and - Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 485 Lexington Avenue, 29th floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 722-8500 Facsimile: (646) 722-8501 E-mail: lnussbaum@gelaw.com - and - Barry L. Refsin, Esq. Ashely M. Chan, Esq. HANGLEY ARONCHICK SEGAL & PUDLIN One Logan Square, 27th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 568-6200 Facsimile: (215) 568-0300 E-mail: brefsin@hangley.com achan@hangley.com - and - Eric Bloom, Esq. HANGLEY ARONCHICK SEGAL & PUDLIN 30 North Third Street, Suite 700 Harrisburg, PA 17101 Telephone: (717) 364-1003 Facsimile: (717) 364-1020 E-mail: ebloom@hangley.com - and - Francis J. Balint, Esq. BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C. 2901 N Central Avenue, Suite 1000 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Telephone: (602) 274-1100 Facsimile: (602) 274-1199 E-mail: fbalint@bffb.com - and - Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 - and - Daniel M. Bradley, Esq. Kimberly Keevers Palmer, Esq. RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC 174 East Bay Street Charleston, SC 29401 Telephone: (843) 727-6500 Facsimile: (843) 727-3103 E-mail: kkeevers@rpwb.com - and - Daniel O. Myers, Esq. RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC 1037-A Chuck Dawley Blvd Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 727-6500 Facsimile: (843) 216-6509 E-mail: dmyers@rpwb.com - and - Jonathan J. Lerner, Esq. STARR, GERN, DAVISON & RUBIN, P.C. 103 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068-1050 Telephone: (973) 403-9200 Facsimile: (973) 226-0031 E-mail: jlerner@starrgern.com - and - Jason S. Hartley, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 550 West C Street, Suite 1750 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 400-5822 E-mail: hartley@stuevesiegel.com - and - Bernard Persky, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN MILLER & CIRESI LLP 601 Lexington Avenue, Suite 3400 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 980-7400 Facsimile: (212) 980-7499 E-mail: bpersky@rkmc.com - and - Douglas Thompson, Esq. FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP 1077 30th Street Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 337-8000 Facsimile: (202) 337-8090 E-mail: dthompson@finkelsteinthompson.com - and - Gregory Scott Asciolla, Esq. Christopher J. McDonald, Esq. Jay L. Himes, Esq. Morissa Robin Falk, Esq. William V. Reiss, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 883-7527 E-mail: gasciolla@labaton.com cmcdonald@labaton.com jhimes@labaton.com - and - Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq. WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS LLC 1540 Broadway, 37th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 447-7070 Facsimile: (212) 447-7077 E-mail: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com - and - Charles S. Hellman, Esq. DUBNER, HARTLEY & O'CONNOR LLC 2 Penn Plaza, Suite 1500 New York, NY 10119 Telephone: (212) 292-5665 Facsimile: (212) 629-4568 E-mail: chellman@dholaw.com - and - Michael M. Buchman, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 275 Seventh Avenue, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 577-0040 Facsimile: (212) 577-0054 E-mail: mbuchman@motleyrice.com - and - Richard P. Rouco, Esq. QUINN CONNOR WEAVER DAVIES & ROUCO 2700 Highway 280 East, Suite 380 Birmingham, AL 35223 Telephone: (205) 870-9989 Facsimile: (205) 803-4143 E-mail: rrouco@qwwdlaw.com - and - Ryan G. Kriger, Esq. MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD & SCHULMAN LLP One Pennsylvania Plaza New York, NY 10119 Telephone: (212) 594-5300 - and - Dianne M. Nast, Esq. Erin Burns, Esq. NASTLAW LLC 1101 Market Street, Suite 2801 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 923-9300 Facsimile: (215) 923-9302 E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com eburns@nastlaw.com - and - Kenneth G. Walsh, Esq. KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP 825 Third Avenue, 16th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 371-6600 Facsimile: (212) 751-2540 E-mail: kwalsh@kmllp.com - and - Lee Albert, Esq. MAGER & GOLDSTEIN LLP One Liberty Place, 21st Floor 1650 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 640-3280 Facsimile: (215) 640-3281 - and - Angus Macaulay Lawton, Esq. Jonathan Craig Smith, Esq. JOYCE LAW FIRM Northgate Office Building 5861 Rivers Avenue, Suite 101 Charleston, SC 29406 Telephone: (843) 554-3100 Facsimile: (843) 529-9180 - and - L. Webb Campbell, II, Esq. Phillip F. Cramer, Esq. SHERRARD & ROE PLC 424 Church Street, Suite 2000 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 742-4200 Facsimile: (615) 742-4539 E-mail: wcampbell@sherrardroe.com pcramer@sherrardroe.com - and - Bruce Levinson, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BRUCE LEVINSON 747 Third Avenue, 4th Flr. New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 750-9898 Facsimile: (212) 750-2536 E-mail: ecf@blevlaw.com - and - David Balto, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DAVID BALTO 2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 1111 Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202) 577-5424 Facsimile: (202) 333-4168 E-mail: david.balto@yahoo.com - and - Carroll H. Ingram, Esq. INGRAM & ASSOCIATES P.O. Box 15039 Hattiesburg, MS 39404-5039 Telephone: (601) 261-1385 E-mail: carroll@ingramlawyers.com - and - Jennifer Ingram Wilkinson, Esq. INGRAM WILKINSON, PLLC 2901 Arlington Loop P.O. Box 15039 Hattiesburg, MS 39404 Telephone: (601) 261-1385 Facsimile: (601) 261-1393 E-mail: Jennifer@ingramlawyers.com - and - John Corlew, Esq. CORLEW, MUNFORD & SMITH, PLLC 4450 Old Canton Road, Suite 111 Jackson, MS 39236-6807 Telephone: (601) 366-1106 Facsimile: (601) 366-1052 - and - John F. Hawkins, Esq. HAWKINS STRACENER & GIBSON, PLLC 129B South President Street Post Office Box 24627 Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 969-9692 Facsimile: (601) 914-3580 E-mail: John@hsglawfirm.net - and - Arun Srinivas Subramanian, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY LLP 560 Lexington Avenue, 15th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 336-8330 Facsimile: (212) 336-8340 E-mail: asubramanian@susmangodfrey.com - and - Richard E. Norman, Esq. CROWLEY NORMAN LLP Three Riverway, Suite 1775 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 651-1771 Facsimile: (713) 651-1775 E-mail: rnorman@crowleynorman.com The Defendants are represented by: Mark E. Tully, Esq. Robert Donald Carroll GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP 53 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 570-1000 Facsimile: (617) 523-1231 E-mail: mtully@goodwinprocter.com rcarroll@goodwinprocter.com - and - Peter Edward Greene, Esq. Peter S. Julian, Esq. Linda Wong Cenedella, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP Four Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 735-3620 Facsimile: (917) 777-3620 E-mail: pgreene@skadden.com pjulian@skadden.com lwong@skadden.com - and - Michael Y. Scudder, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 155 North Wacker Drive, Suite 2700 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 407-0877 Facsimile: (312) 407-0411 E-mail: michael.scudder@skadden.com - and - William Harry Rooney, Esq. Keila D. Ravelo, Esq. Wesley Railey Powell, Esq. WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019-6099 Telephone: (212) 728-8259 Facsimile: (212) 977-0292 E-mail: maoedny@willkie.com kravelo@willkie.com wpowell@willkie.com - and - Ali Stoeppelwerth, Esq. William Kolasky, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR 2445 M Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202) 663-6589 Facsimile: (202) 663-6363 E-mail: Ali.Stoeppelwerth@wilmerhale.com William.Kolasky@wilmerhale.com - and - Perry Lange, Esq. William J. Perlstein, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR 1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 663-6000 Facsimile: (202) 663-6363 E-mail: perry.lange@wilmerhale.com bill.perlstein@wilmerhale.com - and - David Sapir Lesser, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR, LLP 7 World Trade Center New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 230-8800 Facsimile: (212) 230-8811 E-mail: david.lesser@wilmerhale.com - and - Andrew J. McDonald, Esq. PULLMAN & COMLEY, LLC 300 Atlantic Streeet Stamford, CT 06901 Telephone: (203) 324-5000 Facsimile: (203) 363-8659 E-mail: amcdonald@pullcom.com - and - James T. Shearin, Esq. Jonathan B. Orleans, Esq. Adam S. Mocciolo, Esq. PULLMAN & COMLEY, LLC 850 Main Street PO Box 7006 Bridgeport, CT 06601 Telephone: (203) 330-2000 Facsimile: (203) 576-8888 E-mail: jshearin@pullcom.com jborleans@pullcom.com amocciolo@pullcom.com - and - Brian A. Herman, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKUIS, LLP 101 Park Aevnue New York, NY 10178 Telephone: (212) 309-6909 Facsimile: (212) 309-6001 E-mail: bherman@morganlewis.com - and - Erica Fenby, Esq. Kara Kennedy, Esq. Teresa T. Bonder, Esq. Valerie C. Williams, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 1201 West Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 881-7893 Facsimile: (404) 253-8693 E-mail: kara.kennedy@alston.com tbonder@alston.com valarie.williams@alston.com - and - Michael Edward Johnson, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 90 Park Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 210-9400 Facsimile: (212) 210-9444 E-mail: mjohnson@alston.com - and - James M. Sulentic, Esq. John P. Passarelli, Esq. KUTAK ROCK LLP 1650 Farnam Street Omaha, NE 68102-2186 Telephone: (402) 346-6000 Facsimile: (402) 346-1148 E-mail: james.sulentic@kutakrock.com john.passarelli@kutakrock.com - and - John M. Majoras, Esq. Joseph W. Clark, Esq. JONES DAY 51 Louisiana Ave Nw Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 879-3939 Facsimile: (202) 626-1700 E-mail: jwclark@jonesday.com - and - Kenneth A. Gallo, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON, LLP 2001 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 223-7356 Facsimile: (202) 204-7356 E-mail: kgallo@paulweiss.com - and - Andrew Corydon Finch, Esq. PAUL WEISS RIFKIND WHARTON & GARRISON 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 373-3460 Facsimile: (212) 492-0460 E-mail: afinch@paulweiss.com - and - Lisl J. Dunlop, Esq. James P. Tallon, Esq. SHEARMAN & STERLING 599 Lexington Avenue, Suite 548 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 848-4000 Facsimile: (646) 848-8010 E-mail: ldunlop@shearman.com jtallon@shearman.com - and - Mark P. Ladner, Esq. Michael B. Miller, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER 1290 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10104 Telephone: (212) 468-8035 Facsimile: (212) 468-7900 E-mail: mladner@mofo.com mbmiller@mofo.com - and - Jonathan Mitchell Jacobson, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, PC 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 39th Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 397-7758 Facsimile: (212) 999-5899 E-mail: jjacobson@wsgr.com - and - Paul W. Bartel, II, Esq. DAVIS, POLK AND WARDWELL 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 450-4760 Facsimile: (212) 450-3760 E-mail: paul.bartel@dpw.com - and - Joshua N. Holian, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391-0600 Facsimile: (415) 395-8095 E-mail: joshua.holian@lw.com - and - Andrew J. Frackman, Esq. Kenneth T. Murata, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 326-2017 Facsimile: (212) 326-2061 E-mail: afrackman@omm.com kmurata@omm.com - and - Robert P. LoBue, Esq. Vivian Ruth Mills Storm, Esq. PATTERSON, BELKNAP, WEBB & TYLER LLP 1133 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 336-2000 Facsimile: (212) 336-2222 E-mail: rplobue@pbwt.com vstorm@pbwt.com - and - Bruce Alan Birenboim, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON 1285 6th Avenue, 33rd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 373-3165 Facsimile: (212) 492-0165 E-mail: bbirenboim@paulweiss.com - and - Karen L. Berenthal, Esq. PAUL WEISS RIFKIND WHARTON & GARRISON, LLP 2001 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 223-7338 Facsimile: (202) 204-7387 E-mail: kberenthal@paulweiss.com - and - Ada Asante Davis, Esq. Eamon Paul Joyce, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 839-5906 Facsimile: (212) 839-5599 E-mail: ejoyce@sidley.com - and - Benjamin G. Stewart, Esq. Brenna L. Penrose, Esq. Charles M. Miller, Esq. Drew M. Hicks, Esq. Joseph M. Callow, Esq. Richard L. Creighton, Esq. Trenton B. Douthett, Esq. KEATING MUETHING & KLEKAMP, PLL One East Fourth Street, 14th Floor Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 579-6405 Facsimile: (513) 579-6457 E-mail: bgstewart@kmklaw.com cmiller@kmklaw.com dhicks@kmklaw.com jcallow@kmklaw.com rcreighton@kmklaw.com - and - Demian Alexander Ordway, Esq. Michael Shuster, Esq. Richard J. Holwell, Esq. HOLWELL SHUSTER & GOLDBERG LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 837-5159 Facsimile: (646) 837-5150 E-mail: dordway@hsgllp.com mshuster@hsgllp.com rholwell@hsgllp.com - and - Anthony D. Boccanfuso, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER 399 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 715-1000 Facsimile: (212) 715-1399 E-mail: anthony_boccanfuso@aporter.com - and - John Jacob Pentz, III, Esq. CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS GROUP 2 Clock Tower Place, Suite 260g Maynard, MA 01754 Telephone: (978) 461-1548 Facsimile: (707) 276-2925 E-mail: clasaxn@earthlink.net The case is In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:05-md-01720-JG-JO, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn). WAL-MART STORES: Squire Sanders Discusses 6th Cir. Ruling --------------------------------------------------------- Carlee H. Toth, Esq. -- carlee.toth@squiresanders.com -- at Squire Sanders, reports that the Sixth Circuit's recent decision is particularly interesting in that it granted an interlocutory appeal of the dismissal of a class action despite the lack of circuit split or an issue of first impression. Plaintiffs brought Title VII claims on behalf of a regional class against Wal-Mart. The regional class action, based in the Middle District of Tennessee, arose out of the Supreme Court's dismantling of the Dukes v. Wal-Mart class action in 2011. The district court, in dismissing the class claims as time-barred, held that the Sixth Circuit's decision in Andrews v. Orr did not allow class members to benefit from the tolling provided to individual claims under the Supreme Court's ruling in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah. Nevertheless, the district court certified the issue for appeal, holding that the Sixth Circuit's recent decision in In re Vertrue Mktg. & Sales Practices Litigationmade the issues presented "important, complex, and merit[ing] clarification by the Sixth Circuit." The Sixth Circuit agreed. Even though the parties had not identified a circuit split or an issue of first impression, U.S. Supreme Court and other circuit developments had raised questions about whether American Pipe allowed the plaintiffs to bring their regional class claims after the dismissal of the broader nationwide class: "[a]lthough our precedent seemingly establishes a bright-line rule barring follow-on subclass actions by former putative class members, subsequent caselaw from this court, the Supreme Court, and other circuit and district courts have established exceptions to the rule that might extend to the present subclass." YAMAHA MOTOR: Reich & Binstock Amends Class Action Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------ Reich & Binstock on Sept. 19 disclosed that attorneys for the Houston-based law firm of Reich & Binstock have filed an amended complaint that has added class representatives and causes of action to the class action lawsuit filed in California against Yamaha in regard to alleged defects in the Yamaha First Generation Four Stroke Outboard motor. Reich & Binstock Of Counsel Debra Brewer Hayes and other attorneys jointly filed the amended complaint Sept. 5 at U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in the case of Williams et al. v. Yamaha Motor Co. Ltd. et al. (Case No. 2:13-cv-05066-BRO- VBK). The complaint cited an "inherent design and/or manufacturing defect" that caused corrosion buildup that "forced owners such as Plaintiffs . . . to undergo significant repair or replacement of the internal corroded parts." The class representatives claimed that although they followed recommended maintenance schedules, internal corrosion resulted in significant repair or replacement costs after as few as 380 hours of use; nevertheless, allegedly Yamaha, citing warranty expiration, failed to replace or to repair plaintiffs' motors. As Reich & Binstock continues to receive calls from disgruntled owners of a Yamaha First Generation Four Stroke Outboard motor, the number of class representatives is by no means exhaustive. "We are receiving eight to 10 calls a week from people experiencing the same problems," Ms. Hayes said, adding that Reich & Binstock is also investigating premature-failure claims from the owners of Mercury outboard motors. The class is headed by namesake plaintiff and Seattle resident George Williams, who used his outboard for a relatively scant 650 hours, from September 2003 to November 2011, before internal corrosion allegedly caused an oil leak. He paid a repair invoice totaling $3,011.91. One of the new class representatives is Goldsboro, N.C., resident Lorenda Overman, who operated her Yamaha F-Series motor for only 512 hours between 2005 and 2011. In September 2011, according to the complaint, a "'rotten' exhaust tuner and a hole in the exhaust housing" and other corrosion damage was too much for her F225, which overheated and failed at sea near Cape Lookout Lighthouse near Core Banks, N.C. Overman and her guests had to be rescued at sea, indeed towed back to shore, and she wound up paying a repair bill totaling $3,118.44. New plaintiff Gerald Chiariello of Glen Cove, N.Y., used his Yamaha outboard for a mere 380 hours between May 2006 and March 2012 before he removed the engine's lower unit and allegedly discovered, according to the complaint, "complete corrosion all the way through the exhaust chamber," which cost him $2,574 worth of repairs. Having purchased his Yamaha First Generation Four Stroke Outboard motor in September 2010, new plaintiff Charles Pencinger of Rowley, Mass., inspected his motor in March 2013 after he read Internet discussions about defects, as Chiariello did. The corrosion-related repairs cost Pencinger $3,908.63. The most exorbitant horror story belongs to new plaintiff Steve Oetegenn of San Marcos, Calif., who claimed that he kept his two 2004 and 2006 model year outboards properly maintained after he purchased them from the first user with extended warranties intact. By the time Mr. Oetegenn discovered the corrosion, he had used his outboards for only 500 hours. He found out about the problems during a 2012 sea trial during which he was about to close the sale of his boat. Smoke rose from one of the engines, and after Mr. Oetegenn took both engines to be serviced, he learned that both corroded so severely that the repair costs would be about $20,000. He elected to pay $31,337.62 for two new F225 outboards. Mr. Oetegenn's claims are contained in the complaint. In addition to violations of a federal warranty statute and breach of state express and implied warranties, the complaint alleges that the motor company violated California's Consumer Legal Remedies and Unfair Competition statutes. Causes of action added by the amended complaint include Yamaha's alleged violations of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, the New York Generation Business Law, the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the Washington Consumer Protection Act. The complaint demands a jury trial. Hayes takes calls and e-mails from across the country from owners who have had similar problems with either the Yamaha First Generation Four Stroke Outboard motor or a Mercury outboard motor. Those who contact her may be entitled to compensation and inclusion in the class action. Her contact information is as follows: Contact: Debra Brewer Hayes Phone: (713) 622-7271 E-mail: dhayes@dhayeslaw.com Address: 4265 San Felipe, Suite 1000, Houston, TX 77027 About Reich & Binstock Founded in 1984 and operating in every state, Reich & Binstock is a Houston-based law firm that has extensive trial practice and significant experience in virtually every area of civil litigation, including medical malpractice, all areas of personal injury trial law, products liability, toxic and environmental torts, consumer class actions involving consumer protection against insurance fraud, physician protection against insurance bundling and down coding, vanishing life insurance premiums and securities violations. The firm has been successful in numerous defective drug and medical device cases against major health care and pharmaceutical corporations. The partners of the firm have served on several national Multi-District Litigation Steering committees. Reich & Binstock was awarded Texas Super Lawyers status in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012. YARDI SYSTEMS: Settles Suit Over Background Check Practices ----------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that a company that screens tenants for rental housing has agreed to pay $150,000 to settle a lawsuit over its background check practices. The class-action case was filed in April by a Kent woman who was denied rental housing based on drug convictions that were 17 and 24 years old. Under state law, such background checks aren't supposed to include cases unless the conviction, sentence or parole period occurred within the past seven years. The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington and two other firms took on the case, representing 273 people denied housing in Washington based on old criminal convictions. Under the settlement, the screening company, Yardi Systems Inc., did not admit wrongdoing, but will pay $400 to each of the plaintiffs plus $32,600 in attorney fees as well as some other costs. The company also agreed to modify its practices to prevent similar instances in the future. The settlement was given preliminary approval in King County Superior Court. * Class Action Over CHSLD Laundry Services Settled -------------------------------------------------- The Conseil pour la protection des malades and 89 CHSLDs of the Quebec health and social services network on Sept. 19 announced the conclusion of an agreement in connection with a class action instituted in 2011 against 58 public and 31 private CHSLDs. The dispute concerned the quality as well as the gratuitous nature of laundering and maintenance of personal clothing for residents of the CHSLD defendants. Among other things, the settlement agreement, in the amount of C$1,349,585, contains a remedial measure providing for indemnification of C$944,668, to be paid for by the CHSLDs participating in the financial part of the settlement. The purpose of this indemnification is to improve the living environment of the residents by financing new activities or the purchase of equipment not included in the services provided by the CHSLDs concerned as part of their normal operations. However, class members who prefer to receive compensation may claim the amount of C$40 per month if they paid for laundry service during the period covered by the agreement, or C$30 per month if they did their own laundry or had it done by a friend or relative. Any such compensation paid will be deducted from the amount contemplated for the aforementioned remedial measure. The parties are also pleased to have agreed on a policy concerning the laundering and maintenance of the personal clothing of CHSLD residents which sets the standards for the services and quality thereof that will henceforth be provided by those institutions. The adoption of a laundry policy represents a historic gain for residents of long-term care centers, as does the remedial measure contained in the agreement, which is a very innovative provision. The parties hope that this agreement will bring closure to this component of the services provided by the Quebec health and social services network. This agreement will be submitted for approval to the Quebec Superior Court on December 19, 2013. Class members who wish to receive compensation may submit their claims by December 18, 2013, and are invited to consult the website of the lawyers acting for the plaintiffs at http://www.roylarochelle.comto obtain the claim form. More details will be provided in a notice to be published in the newspapers. ********* 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 * * *