/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140129.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, January 29, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 20 Headlines AT&T INC: Court Enters Judgment in "Nwabueze" Class Action BP PLC: Asks US Appeals Court to Review Ruling on Oil Spill Accord COCA-COLA AMATIL: Class Action Over Sugary Drinks May Face Hurdles DIRECTV: Denial of Arbitration Bid on Appeal FACEBOOK INC: Sued for Using Users' "Likenesses" to Endorse Pages FACEBOOK INC: In-House Legal Team Faces Variety of Legal Issues FLUSHMATE: Expands Recall of Pressure Assist Flushing Systems FRUITLAND PARK, FL: To Discuss Class Action Over Utility Fees GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Judge Transfers One of Paxil Cases to Texas Court HEWLETT-PACKARD: Judge Refuses to Dismiss OT Counterclaims ILLINOIS: Trial Court Ruling in Suit vs. Governor Overturned KITCHEN BY BRAD: Recalls Bacon Spread Over Undeclared Mustard LOUISIANA: To Decide on School Boards' MFP Class Action LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Third Class Action Over Wood Products MAKO SURGICAL: Fla. Securities Suit Now Closed; No Appeal Filed MAKO SURGICAL: Del. & Fla. Suits Over Stryker Merger Still Open MERCK: Recalls Cholesterol Drug Liptruzet Over Packaging Issues MIDWEST WHOLESALE: Recalls Male Sexual Enhancement Products NESTLE PURINA: To Relaunch Waggin' Train Following Recall NEW JERSEY: Christie Campaign Hires Patton Boggs in Class Action NEW JERSEY: Fort Lee Attorney Heads GWB Closure Class Action NORTH CAROLINA: Physicians Sue Over NCTracks Glitch NORTHERN TRUST: Class Action Settlements Hit 4th Qtr. Profits NRA GROUP: "Atlas" Suit Asserts FDCPA Violations in New York NU SKIN: Barrack Rodos & Bacine Files Securities Class Action OMNI DIRECT: Misclassified Installers as Contractors, Suit Says ONTARIO: Faces Class Action Over Child Care Failures OZ MOVING: Fails to Pay "Spread of Hours" Premium, Class Claims PALAMA HOLDINGS: Expands Recall of Frozen Raw Chicken Products PERSEL & ASSOCIATES: Plaintiffs Can Question Financial Claims PIONEER SOUTHWEST: Settling Suits Over Merger With PNRC PIONEER SOUTHWEST: Unitholder's Del. Suit Over Merger Continues PREMIUM RECEIVABLES: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Accused of Debt Collection Act Violations QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Accused of Debiting Accounts Without Consent SAMSON HEAVY: "Monday" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pays SAVIENT PHARMA: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action SHELL OIL: 7th Cir. Reverses Class Cert. Ruling in "Parko" Suit SOLACE FINANCIAL: Faces "Tabick" FDCPA Violation Suit in New York SOUTH FLORIDA COURIER: Sued Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages SRAM: Recalls Hydraulic Bicycle Brakes Due to Crash Hazards PLAYTEX: Recalls More Than 1 Million Pacifier Holder Clips SPECTRUM BRANDS: Recalls 232,000 Rayovac Flashlights SS&C FINANCIAL: GlobeOp Settles Fairfield Greenwich-Related Suits SS&C FINANCIAL: UK Hearing in Millennium Funds Case Adjourned TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: "De Figueiredo" Suit Now Part of ACTOS MDL TARGET CORP: Faces "Savedow" Class Suit Over Data Security Breach TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Painters' Suit Over Aggrenox Product TIME WARNER: Accused of Violating Family and Medical Leave Act TOPS VACUUM: Sued by Customer Sales & Services Workers in Florida TRANSOCEAN LTD: MDL Trial in Macondo Well Incident in 2nd Phase TRANSOCEAN LTD: Moves to Dismiss New York Securities Lawsuit U.S. BANK: Court Denies Motion to Remand "Trahan" Suit UNITED STATES: Privacy Board Expresses Concern on NSA Reform Plan UTAH: Fathers File Class Action v. AG Over Fraudulent Adoption VERMONT TEDDY: "Murphy" Suit Remanded to Ventura Superior Court VIKING CLIENT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act VIRGINIA: Won't Defend Same-Sex Marriage Ban as Constitutional VITACOST.COM INC: No Writ Filed v. Dismissal of Securities Suit WAL-MART STORE: Accused of Falsely Advertising Equate Pain Pills WEBBERS FOOD: Recalls "Hausmacher" Liver Pate Due to Bacteria WINN-DIXIE: Recalls Instant Chocolate Drink Mix in Florida Stores ZIPREALTY INC: Settles Ex-Agents' Class Action for $1.7 Million ********* AT&T INC: Court Enters Judgment in "Nwabueze" Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- JOY NWABUEZE, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. AT&T INC., a Delaware corporation; PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY d/b/a AT&T CALIFORNIA, a California corporation; AT&T SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; AT&T OPERATIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 21, Defendants, CASE NO. CV 09-01529 SI, (N.D. Cal.) came before the Court on November 15, 2013, at which time the Court held a fairness hearing regarding final approval of the parties' class action settlement agreement. District Judge Susan Illston entered judgment on January 13, 2014, pursuant to the terms of the Final Approval Order. "All claims in this Action are dismissed with prejudice and, except as provided in the Settlement Agreement, without costs," ruled Judge Ilston. "The Court finds that there is no just reason for delay and expressly directs Judgment and immediate entry by the Clerk." A copy of the District Court's January 13, 2014 Judgment is available at http://is.gd/T1uVbwfrom Leagle.com. BP PLC: Asks US Appeals Court to Review Ruling on Oil Spill Accord ------------------------------------------------------------------ Yang Lina, writing for Xinhua, reports that British oil giant BP on Jan. 21 asked a U.S. appeals court to review a ruling upholding a multibillion-dollar settlement to compensate victims of the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, local media reported. BP argued on Jan. 21 in a filing with the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the court erred earlier this month when it upheld a U.S. district judge's approval of the company's settlement with individuals and businesses who suffered economically in the oil spill, the Times-Picayune reported. Earlier BP has contended a U.S. District Judge and another court- appointed claims administrator have misinterpreted settlement terms in ways that would force BP to pay billions of dollars in inflated or fraudulent claims by businesses and individuals. BP alleged some businesses and individuals who didn't suffer from the oil spill took advantage of the settlement program and tried to claim money from the company. In its ruling on Jan. 10, a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed BP's contentions, saying the District Judge correctly found that the plaintiffs who filed a class-action lawsuit against BP were indeed injured from the spill. The 5th Circuit found then in challenging the settlement agreement itself, BP's allegations were not enough to overturn the approval. On April 20, 2010, BP's Deepwater Horizon drill platform caught fire and exploded, killing 11 workers and triggering one of the worst environmental disasters in the country's history. BP said it has paid more than 300,000 claims totaling over US$11 billion to help restore the Gulf economy. The company initially estimated the settlement deal would cost at about US$7.8 billion. COCA-COLA AMATIL: Class Action Over Sugary Drinks May Face Hurdles ------------------------------------------------------------------ Josh Martin and Michael Foreman, writing for Stuff.co.nz, report that a planned class action against cola companies targeting New Zealand children with addictive sugary drinks will be an "uphill battle", a prominent class-action lawyer says. Andrew Hooker is heading a representative class action against two New Zealand banks, but said he expected the case against leading cola brands would need to "jump through more than a few hoops" to succeed. Unidentified Australian lawyers are calling for Kiwis suffering from poor health related to cola addiction to come forward to assist with legal action. A newspaper notice sought "people whose families have suffered in terms of Type 2 diabetes, heart condition and/or premature death from becoming addicted to cola, from an early age". Just Water International director Tony Falkenstein is the New Zealand contact for the representative action and was tasked with collecting information from health sufferers for the Australian legal firm set to file papers in court. The notice said any proceeds from the court action would be divided among those affected. But Australia-based Hooker said it would be a complex and lengthy process. "If they're saying, 'your coke was addictive and made my kids sick', then it falls alongside drug and pharmaceutical class actions like formaldehyde," he said. "You have to convince the judge that there are commonality between the case, that they all suffered the same result because of cola," he said. In New Zealand class actions were called representative actions, on the basis that one representative is the plaintiff again a defendant company's actions that had consequences for all. New Zealand's largest cola brands were owned and produced by Frucor and Coca-Cola Amatil. Neither company would comment on the proposed case. Mr. Falkenstein said the lawyers contacted him early this month, but are not speaking to media until court papers were filed. Controversy over the health risks associated with drinking too much Coke were raised last year when a coroner ruled an Invercargill mother who drank 10 liters a day died as a result. Lawyers would have to prove the commonality between all the cases, but in general "if there were 100 people and one was found not to have been affected, that would not knock over the case for the other 99," she said. New Zealand Juice and Beverage Association head Kerry Tyack said the ACC system largely prevented class action cases. DIRECTV: Denial of Arbitration Bid on Appeal -------------------------------------------- The denial of the motion of DIRECTV to compel arbitration of federal cases seeking injunctive relief under California statutes in relation to its early cancellation fees is currently on appeal, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. In 2008, a number of plaintiffs filed putative class action lawsuits in state and federal courts challenging the early cancellation fees the company assesses its customers when they do not fulfill their programming commitments. Several of these lawsuits are pending, some in California state court purporting to represent statewide classes, and some in federal courts purporting to represent nationwide classes. The lawsuits seek both monetary and injunctive relief. While the theories of liability vary, the lawsuits generally challenge these fees under state consumer protection laws as both unfair and inadequately disclosed to customers. The company's motions to compel arbitration have been granted in all of the federal cases, except as to claims seeking injunctive relief under California statutes. The denial of the company's motion as to those claims is currently on appeal. The company believes that its early cancellation fees are adequately disclosed, and represent reasonable estimates of the costs the company incurs when customers cancel service before fulfilling their programming commitments. FACEBOOK INC: Sued for Using Users' "Likenesses" to Endorse Pages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Facebook after the plaintiffs claim it falsely used their likenesses to endorse certain pages. Anthony DiTirro, Katya Bresler and Michelle Shumate claim Facebook falsely said that they had "liked" certain pages, which they had not done, according to a complaint originally filed Jan. 9 and amended on Jan. 15 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California at San Jose. Mr. DiTirro claims in November, he received notification from one of his Facebook friends that he was featured on Facebook "liking" USA Today in a Facebook-sponsored advertisement. Mr. DiTirro claims while he has nothing negative to say about USA Today, he is not an avid reader of it, has never been to its website and never clicked the "Like" button for it. Facebook knowingly used Mr. DiTirro's likeness and Facebook profile to advertise to the general public that he endorsed USA Today without his permission, according to the suit. Ms. Bresler and Ms. Shumate claim similar incidents happened to them with Duracell and Kohl's, respectively. The plaintiffs and the members of the class have all suffered irreparable harm and damages as a result of Facebook's unlawful and wrongful conduct, according to the suit. Facebook knowingly used and is continuing to use the plaintiffs' names and Facebook photos for its advantage, all without their prior consent, the complaint states. The plaintiffs claim Facebook acted with negligence, oppression, fraud and malice; engaged in despicable conduct with a willful and conscious disregard of the plaintiffs' rights; and deprived them of their property and legal rights. Facebook's actions were an invasion of privacy and placed the plaintiffs in a false light in the public eye, according to the suit. The plaintiffs are seeking for damages in the amount of $750 or greater or the actual damages suffered and punitive damages with pre- and post-judgment interest. They are being represented by Abbas Kazerounian and Jason A. Ibey of the Kazerouni Law Firm and Todd Michael Friedman. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California at San Jose case number: 5:14-cv-00132 FACEBOOK INC: In-House Legal Team Faces Variety of Legal Issues --------------------------------------------------------------- Rebekah Mintzer, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that Facebook's law department has grown over the company's first decade to approximately 90 in-house professionals in the United States and around 10 abroad, still lean for a company with a user base bigger than the population of all but two countries on earth. Its lawyers have to deal with the huge variety of legal issues that come from operating in the digital sphere, which is often short on law and precedent, and long on gray areas. The company has been in constant motion since its birth. And the pace has only accelerated since the company went public two years ago. For Mike Johnson, head of the mergers and acquisitions team, that meant preparing -- with help from outside counsel at Fenwick & West and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett -- for the largest tech and third-largest overall IPO in U.S. history. Following the IPO, a spate of suits were filed against the company by investors who believe Facebook and major banks didn't properly disclose to investors the challenges the company was facing at the time with its transition to a "mobile-first" business model. From the infamous "Winklevii" lawsuit over who came up with the original idea for Facebook to privacy class actions, the young company has seen more than its share of high-profile litigation. Just this past summer, Facebook settled the Fraley v. Facebook class action, also known as the "Sponsored Stories" suit, originally filed in 2011. In the case, plaintiffs objected to the idea that when they hit the "like" button on Facebook below a product, their photos and names could be used in commercial endorsements called "sponsored stories" on their friends' pages. They claimed that Facebook violated California's civil code and unfair competition laws by putting their names and images in these sponsored stories without asking permission or giving them a chance to opt out. The case settled for $20 million this past August, and Facebook agreed to provide users with more control over how their names and photos will be used and to give minors special controls as part of the deal. Robert Arns -- rsa@arnslaw.com -- of the Arns Law Firm, who argued for the plaintiffs in the suit, said that the case involved 100,000 documents, including more than 20 depositions and six expert depositions, and in his view was "as hard a fight as anyone could ever imagine." Michael Rhodes of Cooley, who has worked closely with the company on many cases, including Fraley, as well as Facebook's in-house attorneys note that the department faces many issues of first impression, of which Fraley was a typical example. "How should courts think about users' engagement with social media? What is this? Is it speech, is it content? How do we think about users' actions on a site where the explicit purpose of being there is to share and affiliate yourself with different people and causes and ideas?" asks Ashlie Beringer, Facebook's recently minted deputy general counsel. To help judges grasp the issues, Ms. Beringer, who served as outside counsel for Facebook in her last job at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, comes with up analogies. But Facebook's operations don't always lend themselves to analogies. Another essential element of the "Sponsored Stories" case was one of Facebook's most vexing problems -- user privacy, or the lack of it, according to the digerati. Colin Stretch, Facebook's general counsel, points out that much of the current legal regime around privacy grew up in the 1990s, when personal data collected from individuals was still mostly information incidental to transactions, such as banking and medical data. In 2009 the Federal Trade Commission began an investigation of the company, responding to complaints that Facebook engaged in bad privacy practices such as making users' friends lists public without asking approval or providing warning, and giving third party apps on Facebook access to nearly all of users' personal data unnecessarily. Facebook and the FTC settled in 2011, setting out biannual privacy audits for Facebook for the next 20 years and requiring the company to get user approval before making more user information public. Reconciling the legal language and the limited space available on computer screens and mobile device can be a challenge. In 2013, for instance, Facebook made some clarifications to the language of its privacy policies, largely in response to the Fraley settlement, that Stretch says were widely misinterpreted as actual changes to the way user information was being shared Individual privacy settings aren't the only controversy the company has faced in terms of the data it collects. Last year, reports on The Guardian and other publications surfaced saying that the company allowed the National Security Agency's PRISM program direct access to its servers. Mark Zuckerberg has denied those claims. Since then, the company has joined with other prominent tech companies to request permission from the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to release more data about the number and type of national security related orders they receive from the government. FLUSHMATE: Expands Recall of Pressure Assist Flushing Systems ------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that Flushmate, the maker of a high-pressure flushing system sold at Home Depot and Lowe's, is expanding its recall of the parts, because they can burst near a seam with force enough to shatter the toilet tank. The Consumer Product Safety Commission said on Jan. 23 that the company is recalling 351,000 units in the U.S. and about 9,400 units in Canada of the Series 503 Flushmate 111 Pressure Assist flushing systems installed inside toilet tanks that were made from March 2008 through June 2009. There were no reports of injuries, but Flushmate has received three reports of the units included in the recall bursting, resulting in property damage. The move expands upon a June 2012 recall of the same systems made from October 1997 through February 2008. At that time, 2.3 million units in the U.S. and 9,400 in Canada were recalled. The consumer agency says consumers should immediately stop using the recalled system, turn off the water supply to the unit, flush the toilet to release the internal pressure and contact the firm to request a free repair kit. Flushmate of New Hudson, Mich., is a division of Sloan Valve Co. FRUITLAND PARK, FL: To Discuss Class Action Over Utility Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Fussell, writing for Daily Commercial, reports that the city commissioners of Fruitland Park were set to meet behind closed doors on Jan. 21 to discuss the class action lawsuit filed by former commissioner Jim Richardson and former commission candidate Michael Howard to overturn city utility services fees. In 2009, the commission added a utilities service fee to monthly utility bills sent to city residents but not to customers outside the city limits. The two fees, totaling $8, generate about $100,000 annually for the police and fire budgets. The police department budget is about $1.1 million. The fees, which commissioners and lawyers maintain were always voluntary, were intended to offset a shortfall in tax revenue blamed on reduced real estate values and a blossoming recession. At the last commission meeting on January 9, commissioners voted to rescind the fees pending court approval, a big first step in reaching a settlement. The Jan. 21 closed-door meeting was set to take up the details of a proposed settlement. Commissioners aren't permitted to discuss what goes on in such meetings or issue minutes until after the litigation is resolved. But as soon as the meeting adjourns, Mayor Chris Bell will convene the public meeting, during which commissioners may hold an official vote on any agreement they reach in private. Reportedly, any settlement will cost city taxpayers $500,000 or more. In February, 2013, Mr. Richardson filed suit alleging city commissioners and staff directors stepped over the line opposing him in his reelection campaign. The city settled that suit for $150,000 last summer. If the city settles the class action suit, only one Richardson- inspired hurdle remains: the FDLE investigation of many of the same allegations contained in the civil suit. Mayor Chris Bell has repeatedly said he welcomes that investigation as a way to put the issue to rest. GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Judge Transfers One of Paxil Cases to Texas Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that as district judges in Pennsylvania are splitting over whether or not GlaxoSmithKline can remove cases brought over its drug Paxil to federal court, a judge in the Eastern District has transferred one of those cases to the Southern District of Texas. HEWLETT-PACKARD: Judge Refuses to Dismiss OT Counterclaims ---------------------------------------------------------- Michael Lipkin, writing for Law360, reports that a California federal judge on Jan. 21 refused to dismiss Hewlett-Packard Co.'s counterclaims in a putative overtime class action, ruling the computer giant had properly claimed it suffered damages after the lead plaintiff copied proprietary information before quitting. U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh denied the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss breach-of-contract and other counterclaims the company brought after it allegedly discovered that lead plaintiff Eric Benedict had made copies of his work laptop, which HP says contained files he should not have had access to. ILLINOIS: Trial Court Ruling in Suit vs. Governor Overturned ------------------------------------------------------------ George Wilson, sheriff of Franklin County, Illinois, and Michael Huff, sheriff of Rock Island, Illinois, filed an action in the circuit court of Franklin County against Patrick Quinn, Governor of the State of Illinois, seeking a judgment declaring that the failure of the Governor to authorize full payment of a statutorily mandated annual stipend in 2010 was contrary to the law and the constitution of Illinois. The trial court dismissed the action, finding that it was barred under the State Lawsuit Immunity Act (745 ILCS 5/1 (West 2010)). On appeal, the plaintiffs assert that the trial court erred in finding that the action was barred by sovereign immunity because their claim was brought against the Governor, not the State of Illinois, and because the suit was brought to obtain declaratory relief, and not to enforce a present claim to remedy a past wrong committed by the State. The Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District, reversed the judgment of the Circuit Court of Franklin County and remanded the case for further proceedings. According to the Appellate Court, record shows that the plaintiffs filed motions to add a party-plaintiff, to substitute a party plaintiff, to certify a class, and to seek leave to file an amended complaint for a class action. The trial court summarily denied these motions without argument, after it had dismissed the plaintiffs' action for lack of subject jurisdiction. "In our view, this was error and those orders are hereby vacated. On remand, the trial court is instructed to allow the plaintiffs the opportunity to present and argue those motions," said the ruling. The case is GEORGE WILSON, Sheriff of Franklin County, Illinois, and MICHAEL HUFF, Sheriff of Rock Island County, Illinois, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PATRICK QUINN, Governor of the State of Illinois, Defendant-Appellee, NO. 5-12-0337. 2013 IL App (5th) 120337. A copy of the Appellate Court's January 13, 2014 Opinion is available at http://is.gd/alJwSifrom Leagle.com. For appellants: Thomas F. McGuire, Esq. Jolanta A. Zinevich, Esq. Thomas F. McGuire & Associates, LTD. 4180 RFD, Route 83, Suite 206 Long Grove, Illinois 60047 Telephone: (847) 634-1727 Facsimile: (847) 634-4785 Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Michael A. Scodro, Solicitor General, and John P. Schmidt, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for appellee. KITCHEN BY BRAD: Recalls Bacon Spread Over Undeclared Mustard ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: January 10, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Allergy Alert Subcategory: Allergen - Mustard Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Kitchen by Brad Smoliak Distribution: Alberta Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 8550 Affected products: 125 g. Kitchen by Brad Smoliak Bacon Spread with UPC 6 27843 01328 0 LOUISIANA: To Decide on School Boards' MFP Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Mike Hasten, writing for Shreveportimes.com, reports that District Judge Michael Caldwell was set to decide Jan. 27, whether all 69 school boards should be included, whether they want to or not, as plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed by the St. John Parish School Board seeking funds from the state. So far, 44 school systems voted to participate, said Scott Richard, executive director of the Louisiana School Boards Association, and action is pending at several other school board meetings. The lawsuit says that when the Louisiana Supreme Court threw out the 2012-13 public school funding formula known as the Minimum Foundation Program (MFP) because it unconstitutionally funded the statewide voucher program with money dedicated to public schools, the state had to revert to a prior year's MFP. The latest one that was approved was for the 2011-12 school year and included language that if a new formula was not adopted the following year, the state had to add 2.75 percent to cover growth and inflation. The problem, says attorneys for St. John Parish, the Louisiana School Boards Association and the Louisiana Association of Educators, is that the state never funded the increase despite the requirement. If the judge rules Jan. 27 that it is class action and the lawsuit is subsequently successful, all 69 school boards stand to benefit from a 2.75 percent increase in the amount of money they receive from the $3.4 billion public school funding formula. If no class action is approved, only St. John would benefit if it wins. The other 68 school boards would have to file their own suits, said Scott Richard, executive director of the LSBA. Jimmy Faircloth, attorney representing the defendants -- the State of Louisiana, the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education and the state Department of Education -- argued that it should not be declared class action lawsuit. He said it doesn't meet the requirements of a class and the fact that not all boards have signed on to participate rules it out. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Third Class Action Over Wood Products --------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Vaughan, writing for Virginia Gazette, reports that Lumber Liquidators, nationally known floor covering manufacturer based in Toano, is facing a third federal class action lawsuit over claims some of its wood products had excessive levels of formaldehyde and may have been harvested in violation of the Lacey Act. The newest suit, filed Jan. 14 in the U.S. District Court for Eastern Virginia in Newport News, seeks in excess of $5 million in damages and injunctive relief on behalf of all purchasers of Lumber Liquidators Chinese-made flooring in Alabama, New York and Virginia, the home states of the four named plaintiffs. That makes it narrower than an earlier class action suit filed on behalf of Lumber Liquidators customers, which covered customers throughout the United States. The first suit was filed on behalf of Lumber Liquidators shareholders. All three suits result from allegations that Lumber Liquidators sold Chinese-made flooring that was allegedly made from timber cut from a restricted environment and contained illegal levels of formaldehyde. Used as a resin to bind the flooring together, formaldehyde gives off fumes and is a known carcinogen. None of the plaintiffs in the newest suit are claiming formaldehyde affected their health. Instead, they claim they suffered economic harm in buying what they say is substandard flooring. Lumber Liquidators' Morningstar Bamboo line of flooring is cited in the most recent lawsuit, although its Mayflower brand was named in the first customer suit. In addition to citing the reports, the suit also claims Lumber Liquidators improperly warranted that its flooring met federal standards. The shareholders' suit alleges that adverse publicity as a result of the federal raid and the formaldehyde tests caused the company's stock price to drop and the shareholders to suffer losses. The stock did recover from a drop after initial publicity. MAKO SURGICAL: Fla. Securities Suit Now Closed; No Appeal Filed --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida closed In re MAKO Surgical Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 12-60875-CIV-Cohn/Seltzer and the deadline for filing an appeal has expired without an appeal on the decision being filed, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. In May 2012, two shareholder complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against the Company and certain of its officers and directors as purported class actions on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock between January 9, 2012 and May 7, 2012. The cases were filed under the captions James H. Harrison, Jr. v. MAKO Surgical Corp. et al., No. 12-cv-60875 and Brian Parker v. MAKO Surgical Corp. et al., No. 12-cv-60954. The court consolidated the Harrison and Parker complaints under the caption In re MAKO Surgical Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 12-60875-CIV-Cohn/Seltzer, and appointed Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System and Baltimore County Employees' Retirement System to serve as co-lead plaintiffs. In September 2012, the co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that expanded the proposed class period through July 9, 2012. The amended complaint alleged the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, President and Chairman, Maurice R. Ferre, M.D., and its Chief Financial Officer, Fritz L. LaPorte, violated federal securities laws by making misrepresentations and omissions during the proposed class period about the Company's financial guidance for 2012 that artificially inflated the Company's stock price. The amended complaint sought an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, interest, attorneys' and expert fees, and costs. In October 2012, the Company, Dr. Ferre, and Mr. LaPorte filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety. On May 15, 2013, the court granted the motion to dismiss and found that the challenged statements in the amended complaint were not material misrepresentations or omissions but rather were forward- looking statements accompanied by meaningful cautionary language and thus not actionable. In its order, the court gave co-lead plaintiffs an opportunity to request leave to file a second amended complaint, which they declined. Accordingly, on June 14, 2013 the court closed the case and entered final judgment for the Company, Dr. Ferre and Mr. LaPorte. No appeal was filed and the time for filing an appeal has expired. MAKO SURGICAL: Del. & Fla. Suits Over Stryker Merger Still Open --------------------------------------------------------------- In its Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013, MAKO Surgical Corp. provided updates on consolidated lawsuits filed in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware, and the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, in connection with the proposed Merger between the Company and Stryker Corporation, Lauderdale Merger Corporation. In connection with the proposed Merger between the Company and Stryker, the Company and the members of its Board have been named as defendants in nine putative stockholder class actions complaints challenging the transaction, three filed in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware (the "Delaware Actions"), and six filed in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida (the "Florida Actions"). The lawsuits generally allege that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, failing to obtain sufficient value for the Company's stockholders in the transaction and agreeing to certain terms in the Merger Agreement that allegedly restrict the individual defendants' ability to obtain a more favorable offer. The complaints also allege that the Company, Stryker, and/or Merger Sub aided and abetted these purported breaches of fiduciary duties. The relief sought includes, among other things, injunctive relief, unspecified compensatory and/or rescissory damages, attorney's fees, other expenses, and costs. On October 9, 2013, two of the three Delaware Actions were consolidated and, on October 18, 2013, the third Delaware Action was consolidated with the previous two. The six Florida Actions were consolidated on October 21, 2013. Prior to the consolidation, on October 16, 2013, defendants filed a motion to proceed in one jurisdiction in both the Florida and Delaware courts, in which the motion defendants sought to have all actions related to the proposed transaction litigated in only one of the two fora. Following consolidation, on October 21, 2013, plaintiffs in the Delaware Actions filed a consolidated amended complaint in which they allege, in addition to the claims set out in the original complaints, that the Company's directors also breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose purportedly material information to the Company's stockholders in the preliminary proxy filed by the Company with the SEC on October 16, 2013. On October 22, 2013, plaintiffs in the Florida Actions likewise filed a consolidated amended complaint that added allegations regarding purported omissions in the preliminary proxy. On October 22, 2013 and October 23, 2013, respectively, plaintiffs in both the Florida and Delaware Actions moved for expedited proceedings, and plaintiffs in the Delaware action also moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent the closing of the proposed transaction. On October 24, 2013, defendants filed an opposition to the expedited proceedings in the Florida Actions. On October 25, 2013, the Florida court heard argument on defendants' motion to proceed in one forum and determined that Florida litigation would proceed. Shortly thereafter, the Florida court scheduled a preliminary injunction hearing for November 27, 2013. On October 29, 2013, the Delaware court held a hearing on the defendant's motion to proceed in one forum, and while reserving judgment, noted that it was inclined to let the Delaware Actions proceed. On October 31, 2013, the Florida court issued a Sua Sponte Order of Reconsideration and Staying Consolidated Actions, staying all proceedings in the Florida Actions (including the preliminary injunction hearing previously set for November 27, 2013). On November 4, 2013, the Delaware court heard the argument on plaintiffs' motion for expedited proceedings and on November 5, 2013, that court granted expedited proceedings in connection with certain of plaintiffs' claims. The Company continues to believe these lawsuits are meritless. The Company has recorded $1.3 million to expense, $500,000 of which was incurred in prior periods, in selling, general and administrative expenses to cover the insurance deductible for the Company's directors' and officers' insurance policies related to the actions. MERCK: Recalls Cholesterol Drug Liptruzet Over Packaging Issues --------------------------------------------------------------- Brie Zeltner, writing for The Plain Dealer, reports that the pharmaceutical company Merck is recalling all of its cholesterol drug Liptruzet in the U.S. due to packaging defects, the company announced in a news release, temporarily eliminating supply of the drug. Liptruzet, a combination of ezetimibe and atorvastatin, was introduced in May 2013. The company is recalling all packages of the drug, including the 10/10 mg, 10/20 mg, 10/40 mg and 10/80 mg tablets. The recall is from wholesalers, but not patients or pharmacies, and patients with a supply of the drug may continue to use it. Some of the outer laminate foil pouches may allow in air and moisture, according to the release, which "could potentially decrease the effectiveness or change the characteristics of the product." The likelihood of either of these outcomes is "remote," the company said, and the recall is not due to any patient complaints or reports of adverse events. The recall will cause shortages, but the two active ingredients are available: Ezetimibe, sold as Merck's Zetia, and generic atorvastatin. "Merck is committed to resupplying Liptruzet as soon as possible," the company said in the release. To report a medication side effect to the FDA's MedWatch program, submit a report online or call 1-800-332-1088. You can also contact Merck with adverse reactions or quality concerns by calling 1-800-672-6372, Monday to Friday during business hours. MIDWEST WHOLESALE: Recalls Male Sexual Enhancement Products ----------------------------------------------------------- Mark Fisher, writing for Dayton Daily News, reports Midwest Wholesale, a Missouri-based company that distributes over-the- counter male sexual enhancement pills, has issued a voluntary recall of several brands because they contain the same effective ingredients found in prescription-only drugs Viagra and Cialis. The recalled products were sold under brand names such as Boost Ultra, Extenze, and Magic for Men. The recall affects at least 20 retailers in a dozen states; none of those retail stores are in Ohio, Midwest Wholesale spokesman John Schindele said on Jan. 20. Affected states include Pennsylvania, New York, Illinois, Texas, Iowa, Georgia, Connecticut, Florida, Louisiana, Maryland, Nevada and Wisconsin, Mr. Schindele said. The prescription-only erectile dysfunction drugs Viagara and Cialis pose a health risk for those who take certain medications for blood pressure or heart problems. "These undeclared ingredients may interact with nitrates found in some prescription drugs, such as nitroglycerin, and may lower blood pressure to dangerous levels," the recall notice distributed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said. "Men with diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, or heart disease often take nitrates." Here's a list of the retail products included in the recall: * Boost Ultra: 12 pill bottle, Lot#B70130, Expiration 03/15; 3 pill bottle, Lot#B70130, Exp 3/2015; 1 pill pack, Lot#06012011, Exp 6/2014 * XZone Gol: 1 pill pack, Lot#130710GL, Exp 7/31/18; * Sexy Monkey: 1 pill pack, Exp 12/31/14 * Triple MiracleZen Platinum: 1 pill pack, Lot# OAWF1027, Exp 1/31/15 and Lot# OAWF1003, Exp 1/31/15 * Magic for Men: 12 pill bottle, Lot# GP808, Exp 10/16 and 1 pill pack, Lot#BN030613, Exp 2/6/15 * "New" Extenze: 30 pill box, Lot# 0512058, Exp 05/16 * New XZen Platinum: 1 pill pack, Lot#130520PL, Exp 5/31/17 An FDA analysis found these products contained undeclared sildenafil (the generic name for Viagra) and/or tadalafil (Cialis). Consumers were advised to stop using these products immediately and throw the pills away or return them to the place of purchase. Those who have experienced any negative side effects should consult a health-care professional as soon as possible, the recall notice says. Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact Missouri-based Midwest Wholesale by phone (888-514-7110) from 10:00 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday. NESTLE PURINA: To Relaunch Waggin' Train Following Recall --------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Brown, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports that when Nestle Purina PetCare bought Waggin' Train, in 2010, the maker of dog jerky treats was seeing explosive growth, generating $200 million a year in sales, up 30 percent from a year earlier. Then things suddenly came screeching to a halt for the company and other dog jerky producers. Growing concern about pet deaths. Negative publicity. A government investigation. Lawsuits. The maelstrom was too great for the pet food giant. While defending its product as safe, Nestle Purina pulled the treat from the market last year. One year later, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration still has no conclusive finding on the link between the chicken jerky treats made in China and pet illnesses. Now the pet food giant plans to reintroduce Waggin' Train and a sister brand next month, saying that consumers want the products back on store shelves. But rebuilding consumer confidence -- especially when furry members of the family are involved -- could prove a difficult and sensitive challenge. Communicating with customers will be critical, said Haim Mano, associate professor of marketing and department chair at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. "People treat their pets like members of the family, and nobody knows this better than Purina," Mr. Mano said. "They have to make it very clear that the product is safe to use, and they have to rebuild that trust." UNKNOWN CAUSE In recent years, St. Louis-based Nestle Purina PetCare, a unit of Swiss-based Nestle, and other makers of dog jerky found themselves facing a growing backlash from consumers blaming the treats for their dogs' illnesses and deaths. As early as 2007, the FDA had issued a warning about a possible relationship between dog illnesses and chicken jerky products made in China. Over the past seven years, the FDA received 4,500 reports of pets, mostly dogs, that became ill after consuming jerky treats, and 580 pet deaths, but no cause has been found. No brands were ever recalled by the FDA, which asked consumers to report pets' illnesses and deaths on its website, www.safetyreporting.hhs.gov. Many pet owners reported to the FDA that their pets ate jerky treats and developed Fanconi syndrome, a kidney disease in dogs that can lead to renal failure. NEW JERSEY: Christie Campaign Hires Patton Boggs in Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Darryl Isherwood, writing for NJ.com, reports that The Christie for Governor reelection campaign has hired powerhouse law firm Patton Boggs to represent it in the ongoing investigation into lane diversions at the George Washington Bridge. The campaign was among the groups subpoenaed by the Assembly committee investigating the controversy, which began in September when a Port Authority of New York and New Jersey official ordered two local lanes in Fort Lee diverted for use by highway traffic, snarling traffic in the small borough. Emails received through a subpoena hint that political retribution was at the heart of the lane closures and not a traffic study as Port Authority officials had first indicated. The Patton Boggs attorneys representing the campaign are Bob Luskin and Mark Sheridan. The international firm also will represent Nicole Davidman Drewniak, a fundraiser for the campaign who received a subpoena in the investigation. A source connected to the inquiry told NJ.com on Jan. 22 that Davidman Drewniak was out of the country when she was alleged to be involved in the bridge scandal and received a subpoena in error. In response, committee chairman John Wisniewski said the committee had its reasons for issuing the subpoenas and would continue the investigation wherever it leads. In addition to the probe by the New Jersey legislature, U.S. Attorney Paul Fishman has said his office is conducting an inquiry to determine if the incident warrants an investigation. Earlier this month, the administration, which also received a subpoena, hired Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP to represent it. NEW JERSEY: Fort Lee Attorney Heads GWB Closure Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Sarah Nolan, writing for NortherJersey.com, reports that a local attorney is heading up a class action suit in response to the four days of major traffic jams at the George Washington Bridge in September 2013 that were allegedly created by top aides to Gov. Chris Christie for political retribution. According to the Fort Lee attorney, Rosemarie Arnold, a Saddle River resident, the class affected by the harrowing traffic is enormous -- in the hundreds of thousands. In pursuit of justice, six of those people affected got the ball rolling when they filed a lawsuit on Jan. 10 against the Port Authority, the state of New Jersey, Governor Christie and key players involved in the scandal, including the governor's former Deputy Chief of Staff Bridget Anne Kelly, who sent the "smoking gun" email that read "Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee." Other defendants include former Port Authority officials David Wildstein and Bill Baroni, who both resigned when subpoenaed emails made it apparent that they helped create the incident intentionally and it was not simply a traffic study, as officials previously stated. Ms. Arnold represents the plaintiffs in the proposed class action lawsuit and said there are more than the initial six now, including businesses such as a newspaper delivery service and a truck driver that couldn't deliver his load, school kids that were late for school and individuals late for work, suffering monetary and other damages. Ms. Arnold said that while she was approached by individuals seeking damages back in September, there was no reason to file a lawsuit until now because "traffic on the George Washington Bridge is not an uncommon occurrence." Ms. Arnold said that while there could potentially be other defendants in the case, right now evidence is pointing toward Ms. Kelly, Messrs. Baroni and Wildstein as the "facilitators" of the jam that is thought to be retribution against Fort Lee mayor Mark Sokolich, a Democrat who didn't endorse Christie for governor. Whether or not Gov. Christie was in on the scandal -- the governor has said that he was lied to by chief staff members and had no knowledge of the lane closures -- is irrelevant to Arnold's case, she said. Ms. Arnold also said she believes the governor's actions have been "bullying" in the past and "revenge tactics" have been used in his administration. She's confident the case will be certified as class action as it's designed to enable "exactly this situation" where individuals have what some might consider nominal claims that aren't worthy of hiring an attorney and suing the state of New Jersey, etc. But combined, the class makes it possible. NORTH CAROLINA: Physicians Sue Over NCTracks Glitch --------------------------------------------------- Anthony Brino, writing for Government Health IT, reports that a group of providers in North Carolina are suing the state health department and its Medicaid information system's contractors for a faulty rollout that, they argue, has translated into millions of dollars in lost payments and time. The state's new Medicaid IT system, NCTracks, has drawn provider complaints and a critical state audit since its July 2013 launch, and even before then it drew scrutiny from the state auditor for delays (it was intended to go-live in 2011) and management shortcomings. Now, a group of physicians and clinics have filed a class action lawsuit seeking financial damages from the state and three contractors, in amounts that would be determined in a trial, after months of struggling with what they characterize as a dysfunctional system. Filed by attorneys with the law firm Williams Mullen on behalf of seven medical practices and clinics, the suit alleges that the state Department of Health and Human Services, contractor Computer Sciences Corporation and two secondary support contractors launched NCTracks before it was actually ready. The result, the attorneys and providers argue, has been "catastrophic losses," with some $500 million in reimbursements that were delayed, shortened or not paid in the three months following the July rollout, in addition to other impacts. "In some instances, providers have decided not to accept Medicaid patients or have even closed their practices," attorney Knicole Emanuel said in a media release. NCTracks, developed by CSC on a $287 million contract awarded in 2008 (and since raised to $484 million), is the state's second attempt to replace a three decades-old Medicaid IT system. A previous Medicaid IT modernization contract awarded in 2004 was terminated in 2006 after $30 million was spent on a system that ultimately failed to work. Envisioned as a comprehensive web-based system for enrollments and payments, NCTracks is tasked with managing about $12 billion in annual reimbursements to more than 77,000 providers serving 1.5 million residents on Medicaid. Two months prior to last July's launch, North Carolina's State Auditor released a report warning of "uncertainty about project readiness." As of March 2013, the auditor found that NC DHHS and CSC had not reported the pass or fail status of 285 of 834 priority tests for some of the system's most important processes, including pharmacy claims, provider claims and managed care organization claims. In December, five months after NCTracks went live, another audit found the system struggling, with more than 3,200 software defects, including problems with the provider portal for checking beneficiary eligibility and making referrals, the operations portal for Medicaid and vendor staff to oversee claims and prior approval, and batch processing and reimbursement. Among other issues identified by the audit, 12 of the 14 federal- and state-mandated capabilities had not been implemented by their target dates, including rehabilitation care pricing rules and the Medicaid pharmacy program. The state DHHS and NCTracks contractors are not commenting on the lawsuit. But in December, in response to the audit, DHHS officials said the agency had formed a new committee to examine priorities for the system, and that issues affecting providers are regularly communicated to them and troubleshot. NORTHERN TRUST: Class Action Settlements Hit 4th Qtr. Profits ------------------------------------------------------------- Becky Yerak, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that Northern Trust Corp. reported earnings per share of 70 cents a share in the fourth quarter, up a penny from the year-ago period. If it weren't for settlements over class-action lawsuits filed at the height of the financial crisis, the company would have earned 75 cents a share. Analysts had expected a profit of 75 cents a share, according to the average of 13 estimates collected by Bloomberg News. Northern Trust said it has reached tentative agreements to settle alleged class-action claims in two cases arising out of client investments in certain Northern Trust funds that experienced losses from securities lending during the height of the 2008 financial crisis. The settlements are awaiting court approval. The Chicago-based financial services firm, the largest locally headquartered bank in Chicago, saw a 1 percent rise in fourth- quarter profits to $169.7 million. Revenues increased 8 percent in the quarter to $1.05 billion. Analysts have been expecting Northern Trust to cut costs. Compensation expense, the biggest single cost not related to interest it pays out, equaled $334.8 million, up 6 percent from the prior-year quarter. NRA GROUP: "Atlas" Suit Asserts FDCPA Violations in New York ------------------------------------------------------------ Raizel Atlas, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. NRA Group, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-00080-SJ- RER (E.D.N.Y., January 6, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 483 Chestnut Street Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Telephone: (516) 791-4400 Facsimile: (516) 791-4411 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com NU SKIN: Barrack Rodos & Bacine Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Barrack, Rodos & Bacine on Jan. 21 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, Freedman v. Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-00033-PMW, on behalf of purchasers of common stock of Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. NUS -5.73% during the period from July 10, 2013 through and including January 14, 2014. Nu Skin is a global direct selling company with operations in 53 markets worldwide. The Company purports to develop and distribute premium quality anti-aging personal care products and nutritional supplements under its Nu Skin and Pharmanex brands. The Company's global operations generated more than $2.17 billion in revenue during 2012. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued a series of false and misleading statements concerning the Company's business practices and growth prospects, particularly with respect to its Mainland China operations, upon which the Company has become very dependent for a very significant amount of its revenue and growth. Sales in Mainland China accounted for nearly one third of the Company's total revenue in the first nine months of 2013. Further, the complaint alleges that while the Company issued public statements discussing its positive results and increased guidance, it failed to disclose what are alleged to be fraudulent sales practices and non-compliance with laws and regulations in China, or their potential impact on the Company. Then, in January 2014, two Chinese agencies announced that they are probing the Company's marketing and business practices in China and that it was suspected the Company was operating as an illegal pyramid scheme. These revelations had an immediate impact on the Company's stock price, causing shares of Nu Skin's stock, which had risen from less than $70 per share to a high of $140.50 per share during the Class Period, to tumble over 44% in the two days of trading after these announcements. Nu Skin stock closed the trading day on January 17, 2014 at less than $80 per share. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of common stock of Nu Skin during the Class Period. The plaintiff is represented by the Philadelphia-based firm of Barrack, Rodos & Bacine and by the Salt Lake City-based firm of Karrenberg & Anderson, both of which have significant experience in prosecuting class actions on behalf of investors in cases involving financial and corporate fraud. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 22, 2014. To discuss your rights regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff and for additional information about your interest in this class action, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, at the following toll-free number: 877-386-3304, or via e-mail to Jeffrey W. Golan -- jgolan@barrack.com -- or Julie B. Palley -- jpalley@barrack.com A copy of the complaint is available from the Court or from Barrack, Rodos & Bacine -- http://www.barrack.com OMNI DIRECT: Misclassified Installers as Contractors, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Marcus Carter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Omni Direct Communications of Texas, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-00028-N (N.D. Tex., January 6, 2014) is a collective action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of the Defendant's current and former installers, who were paid on a per install basis. Mr. Carter, who worked for the Company as a cable installer whose primary responsibility was the installation of broadband telecommunications and cable systems, alleges that he routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week but was not paid overtime for doing so because the Defendant misclassified its installers as independent contractors and only paid them on a per install basis. Omni Direct Communications, a Texas corporation, installs broadband telecommunications and telephone systems. The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Derek Braziel, Esq. Meredith Mathews, Esq. LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P. 1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 749-1400 Facsimile: (214) 749-1010 E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com ONTARIO: Faces Class Action Over Child Care Failures ---------------------------------------------------- CBC News reports that lawyer Sandy Zaitzeff -- szaitzeff@watkinslawforthepeople.com -- of the law firm Watkins Law estimates 50,000 to 150,000 claimants could join a class action lawsuit against Ontario, Canada, claiming the province failed to live up to its responsibilities to the children in its care. Mr. Zaitzeff, of the Thunder Bay firm Watkins Law, is co- lead counsel on the case. Former Crown ward Holly Papassay of Thunder Bay is the representative claimant. "The lawsuit is about documented cases of abuse, sexual assault, criminal acts -- documented, investigated often by the police, charges being laid against the perpetrator," said Mr. Zaitzeff. "And then, the children not -- and the key word is 'not' -- being informed of their legal right to make a claim to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board," a provincial tribunal responsible for assessing claims by victims of violent crime. Mr. Zaitzeff says his firm has already been contacted by 25 to 30 potential claimants. He expects anywhere from 50,000 to 150,000 former or current Crown wards could sign up. None of the allegations has been proven in court. OZ MOVING: Fails to Pay "Spread of Hours" Premium, Class Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- William Rodriguez, Nelson Noriega, Jesus Cortes, and Jaime Paz, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Oz Moving & Storage, Inc., Avi Oz, and Eran Sobol, Case No. 1:14-cv-00047-JPO (S.D.N.Y., January 6, 2014) arises from the Defendants' alleged (i) failure to pay employees straight time wages for all hours worked; (ii) failure to pay a "spread of hours" premium for each day in which their work shift exceeded 10 hours, and (iii) taking illegal deductions or "kickbacks" from employee wages. The Defendants own and operate a moving and storage company, which provides full service coast-to-coast moving and storage services to commercial and residential customers. The Company is a New York domestic business corporation headquartered in Bronx, New York. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com PALAMA HOLDINGS: Expands Recall of Frozen Raw Chicken Products -------------------------------------------------------------- Palama Holdings, LLC, a Kapolei, HI establishment, is expanding its recall of raw, frozen marinated chicken products to approximately 24,784 pounds because they may have experienced temperature abuse in the distribution chain, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The expanded recall covers all teriyaki chicken products produced at the company's Kapolei, HI plant with "Best by" dates ranging Sept. 24, 2014 to Nov. 6, 2014. The products subject to recall include: -- 10-lb. cardboard boxes, containing four individual cryovac sealed packages of May's Hawaii "Hawaiian Style, Boneless and Skinless Teriyaki Chicken Thighs." -- 5-lb. cardboard boxes, containing two individual cryovac sealed packages of May's Hawaii "Hawaiian Style, Boneless and Skinless Teriyaki Chicken Thighs." -- 2-lb. cardboard boxes, containing one cryovac sealed package of May's Hawaii "Hawaiian Style, Boneless and Skinless Teriyaki Chicken Thighs." The products were produced on various dates between Sept. 24, 2013 and Nov. 6, 2013 then were distributed for retail sale on the islands of Oahu, Maui, Kauai and Hawaii, and to a nearby military commissary. The packages bear the establishment number "P-11077" in the USDA mark of inspection on the package. FSIS personnel discovered bloated boxes of the products at a retail location in recent days. The problem was initially discovered during shipment when the company's distributor observed boxes of product swollen with gases from the bagged chicken, an indication that there may have been temperature abuse during storage prior to distribution. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/recalls-and- public-health-alerts/current-recalls-and-alerts Consumers and media with questions about the recall may contact Gary Hanagami, May's Hawaii vice president of retail sales, at (808) 682-8300. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. "Ask Karen" live chat services are available Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. PERSEL & ASSOCIATES: Plaintiffs Can Question Financial Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Jan Lee, writing for TriplePundit, reports that a class action these days isn't supposed to enrich the plaintiffs. It isn't even supposed to compensate the class members for pain and suffering. The purpose, says Michael Kirkpatrick, who serves as an attorney for the nonprofit consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen Litigation Group, is to stop the illegal action and make sure the accused can't benefit from the monies he or she has acquired in the process. "[You] are stopping the bad behavior," Mr. Kirkpatrick explains. Think of it as sort of a large community advocacy meeting rather than a personal lawsuit. The citizens decide to band together and pool their resources because they want something stopped. The victims -- or plaintiffs in this case -- may not get all of the money back that they lost, but the problem, whether it is misleading advertising or an unfulfilled contract for services, gets halted. But does that mean that the class-action litigation system always works the way it is supposed to? The answer to that question, as class action members in two similar suits recently found out, often depends upon where the court case is heard. In 2012, a trial court in Florida made history. Its ruling may not have seemed out of line when it came to the defendant's financial claims, but the resulting outcome of the judge's decision made nationwide news. Persels and Associates, a debt-settlement firm that included its own cadre of attorneys, was slapped with a class action for onerous, misleading fees for its promised debt relief. The suit started out representing 12,000 Florida residents. Kirkpatrick says Persels then requested that the court wrap in the rest of the 125,000 nationwide members. The court agreed and extended the class action to include all plaintiffs from 49 states. Washington state was left out because it had already initiated a class action against Persels under its own weighty consumer protection laws. When it came time for the case to be settled, Persels claimed that it did not have enough money to do so. The judge accepted Persels financial claims and ruled that the 125,000 class members would receive nothing, and the representing attorneys would be compensated $300,000 for their time and expenses. The court also ordered Persels to make a charity contribution (what is called a cy pres), which is common in cases of negative value. "But the Persels case isn't a negative-value case," Mr. Kirkpatrick says. Class members each lost $1,000 or more. The plaintiffs have since won an appeal, and the case has been sent back to the trial courts. But Washington state saw things differently. According to Kirkpatrick, one reason had to do with an exception that Persels and its affiliated debt reconciliation company, CareFirst, were trying to claim. Debt-settlement laws allow companies like CareFirst that utilize legal services for debt negotiations to exempt legal firms from litigation rulings. The exemption was recognized in Florida, but was rejected in Washington, which said Persels wasn't providing contracted services; this was its full- time business. The loss of that exemption weakened Persels' hand and forced it to negotiate settlements with the class members, who on average saw payments of about $500 each. Mr. Kirkpatrick admits that good class-action settlements often rely upon careful oversight from the bench. And that's also why state attorneys' offices and organizations like Public Citizen play such a vital role as the Big Brother that is willing to lodge an objection to poor settlements. He says Washington's settlement will now allow the plaintiffs in the Florida case to call Persels' financial claims into question. PIONEER SOUTHWEST: Settling Suits Over Merger With PNRC ------------------------------------------------------- Pioneer Southwest Energy Partners L.P. is continuing the process of settling lawsuits filed in state and federal courts in Texas relating to its Merger with Pioneer Natural Resources Company, according to Pioneer Southwest's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. On May 15, 2013, David Flecker, a purported unitholder of the Partnership, filed a class action petition on behalf of the Partnership's unitholders and a derivative suit on behalf of the Partnership against, Pioneer, Pioneer USA, the General Partner and the directors of the General Partner, in the 134th Judicial District of Dallas County, Texas (the "Flecker Lawsuit"). A similar class action petition and derivative suit was filed against the same defendants on May 20, 2013, in the 160th Judicial District of Dallas County, Texas, by purported unitholder Vipul Patel (the "Patel Lawsuit"). On August 27, 2013, the plaintiff in the Flecker Lawsuit filed an amended petition. On September 3, 2013, the court consolidated the Patel Lawsuit into the Flecker Lawsuit (as consolidated, the "Texas State Court Lawsuit"), and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated derivative and class action petition on September 5, 2013. The Texas State Court Lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the consideration offered by Pioneer in the Merger is unfair and inadequate and that, by pursuing a transaction that is the result of an allegedly conflicted and unfair process, the defendants have breached their duties under the Partnership Agreement as well as the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and are engaging in self-dealing. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the director defendants: (i) engaged in self-dealing, failed to act in good faith toward the Partnership, and breached their duties owed to the Partnership; (ii) failed to properly value the Partnership and its various assets and operations and ignored or failed to protect against the numerous conflicts of interest arising out of the proposed transaction; and (iii) breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by engaging in a flawed merger process. The Texas State Court Lawsuit also alleges that Pioneer, Pioneer USA and the General Partner aided and abetted the director defendants in their purported breach of fiduciary duties. Based on these allegations, the plaintiffs in the Texas State Court Lawsuit seek to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with or consummating the proposed transaction. To the extent that the Merger is implemented before relief is granted, the plaintiffs seek to have the Merger rescinded. The plaintiffs also seek money damages and attorneys' fees. The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the Texas State Court Lawsuit based on improper forum. On August 21, 2013, Allan H. Beverly, a purported unitholder, filed a class action complaint against the Partnership, Pioneer, Pioneer USA, MergerCo and the directors of the General Partner in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (the "Beverly Lawsuit"). The Beverly Lawsuit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to the Merger by means of an unfair process and for an unfair price. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the director defendants: (i) failed to maximize the value of the Partnership to its public unitholders and took steps to avoid competitive bidding; (ii) failed to properly value the Partnership; and (iii) ignored or failed to protect against the numerous conflicts of interest arising out of the proposed transaction. The Beverly Lawsuit also alleges that Pioneer, Pioneer USA and MergerCo aided and abetted the director defendants in their purported breach of fiduciary duties. On September 13, 2013, Douglas Shelton, another purported unitholder, filed a class action complaint against the same defendants in the Beverly Lawsuit (as well as the General Partner) in the same court as the Beverly Lawsuit (the "Shelton Lawsuit"). The Shelton Lawsuit makes similar allegations to the Beverly Lawsuit, and also alleges that Section 7.9 of the Partnership Agreement fails to alter or eliminate the defendants' common law fiduciary duties owed to unitholders in the context of the Merger. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges: (i) that Pioneer, as controlling unitholder, failed to fulfill its fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger because it purportedly cannot establish that the proposed Merger is the result of a fair process that will return a fair price to the unaffiliated unitholders of the Partnership; (ii) that the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to exercise due care and diligence in connection with the proposed Merger because the proposed Merger is purportedly not the result of a fair process that will return a fair price to the unaffiliated unitholders; and (iii) that the non-director defendants aided and abetted the director defendants in their purported breach of fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs in the Beverly Lawsuit and the Shelton Lawsuit (together, the "Federal Lawsuits") seek the same remedies as the plaintiffs in the Texas State Court Lawsuit. On September 26, 2013, representatives of the plaintiffs in the Texas State Court Lawsuit and the Federal Lawsuits and representatives of the defendants in such lawsuits entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "memorandum of understanding") to settle the claims and allegations made in such lawsuits. The memorandum of understanding provides the plaintiffs with a period of confirmatory discovery during which the plaintiffs can confirm the fairness and reasonableness of the settlement contemplated by the memorandum of understanding. The parties agreed to use their reasonable best efforts to agree upon, execute and present to the Dallas County, Texas District Court a stipulation of settlement, which will provide for, among other things, a certification, for settlement purposes only, of the applicable class of unitholders to which the settlement will apply. Furthermore, the stipulation of settlement will provide for a full and complete discharge, dismissal with prejudice, settlement and release of all claims, suits and causes of action by the plaintiffs (other than appraisal rights under the Merger Agreement) against the defendants and their representatives arising out of or relating to the allegations made in the Texas State Court Lawsuit and the Federal Lawsuits, the Merger or any deliberations, negotiations, disclosures, omissions, press releases, statements or misstatements in connection therewith, any fiduciary or other obligations in respect of the Merger or any alternative transaction or under the Partnership Agreement, or any costs and expenses associated with settlement other than as provided in the stipulation. All proceedings relating to the allegations made in the Texas State Court Lawsuit other than with respect to the settlement have been stayed. As part of the consideration for the settlement, the Merger Agreement was amended to provide for contractual appraisal rights for the unitholders of the Partnership. The parties to the memorandum of understanding have agreed to use their reasonable best efforts to obtain the agreement of any plaintiffs filing similar lawsuits to the Texas State Court Lawsuit or the Federal Lawsuits (whether filed in any state or federal court) to become party to the memorandum of understanding and the related settlement, and it is a condition to the consummation of the final settlement that any such plaintiffs join the settlement or such similar lawsuits otherwise be dismissed with prejudice prior to the final approval of the settlement. On October 15, 2013, the plaintiffs in the Beverly Lawsuit voluntarily dismissed all claims in the lawsuit in accordance with the memorandum of understanding. On October 16, 2013, the plaintiffs in the Shelton Lawsuit likewise voluntarily dismissed all claims in the lawsuit in accordance with the memorandum of understanding. There can be no assurance that a final settlement will be consummated. PIONEER SOUTHWEST: Unitholder's Del. Suit Over Merger Continues --------------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Wilson, a purported unitholder of Pioneer Southwest Energy Partners L.P., is continuing with his suit filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware over the company's merger with Pioneer Natural Resources Company, according to Pioneer Southwest's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. On September 23, 2013, Patrick Wilson, another purported unitholder, filed a class action petition on behalf of the unitholders against Pioneer USA, MergerCo, the Partnership, the General Partner and the directors of the General Partner in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Wilson Lawsuit"). The Wilson Lawsuit alleges that the director defendants breached their purported fiduciary obligations to the unitholders by engaging in a process that undervalued the Partnership and which allegedly constitutes gross negligence, recklessness, willful misconduct, bad faith or knowing violations of law. Additionally, the Wilson Lawsuit alleges that the non-director defendants aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duties of the director defendants. The Wilson Lawsuit seeks the same remedies as the plaintiffs in the Texas State Court Lawsuit and the Federal Lawsuits. As of the date of Company's SEC Report, the plaintiffs in the Wilson Lawsuit have not joined the memorandum of understanding. PREMIUM RECEIVABLES: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ozer Babad, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Premium Receivables LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-00074-ARR- MDG (E.D.N.Y., January 6, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 483 Chestnut Street Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Telephone: (516) 791-4400 Facsimile: (516) 791-4411 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Accused of Debt Collection Act Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- Shmuel Lowenbein, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Professional Claims Bureau, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00068-ADS-GRB (E.D.N.Y., January 6, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 483 Chestnut Street Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Telephone: (516) 791-4400 Facsimile: (516) 791-4411 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Accused of Debiting Accounts Without Consent --------------------------------------------------------------- Nadene Moore, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 8:14-cv-00015-JLS-AN (C.D. Cal., January 6, 2014) is brought pursuant to the Electronic Funds Transfer Act. The Plaintiff contends that the action arises from the alleged illegal actions of the Defendant debiting her and also the putative Class members' bank accounts on a recurring basis without obtaining a written authorization signed or similarly authenticated for preauthorized electronic fund transfers from their accounts. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated is a collection agency headquartered in Dauphin, Pennsylvania. The principal purpose of the Company's business is health screening and diagnostic testing. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman Nicholas J. Bontrager Suren N. Weerasuriya LA W OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 369 S. Doheny Dr., #415 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com nbontrager@attorneysforconsumers.com sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com SAMSON HEAVY: "Monday" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pays ----------------------------------------------------------------- Melissa Monday, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Samson Heavy Hauling Company, Inc., and Charles Fowler, Case No. 4:14-cv-00007-SWW (E.D. Ark., January 6, 2014) is brought to recover overtime payments. Ms. Monday alleges that she was paid a salary by the Defendants but they did not pay her overtime even though she did not perform exempt job duties. She adds that later in her employment, Samson began paying her a salary; however, anytime she worked more than 40 hours, Charles Fowler changed her timecard to reflect fewer hours than she actually performed. Samson Heavy Hauling Company, Inc., is an Arkansas Corporation with its principal place of business in Arkansas. Charles Fowler is a citizen of Arkansas, and he owns and operates Samson. Samson provides business and industrial transportation services, specializing in over-dimensional loads, including steel used for the building of bridges. The Plaintiff is represented by: John T. Holleman, Esq. Maryna O. Jackson, Esq. Timothy A. Steadman, Esq. HOLLEMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1008 West Second Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 975-5040 Facsimile: (501) 975-5041 E-mail: jholleman@johnholleman.net maryna@johnholleman.net tim@johnholleman.net SAVIENT PHARMA: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on Jan. 21 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the securities of Savient Pharmaceuticals, Inc. between April 1, 2013 and October 14, 2013, inclusive, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against certain of the Company's officers and directors. The case is entitled Johansson v. Ferrari, Case No. 14-cv-0042 (D. Del.). If you purchased shares of Savient during the Class Period and wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire or Peter Allocco of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300, Garden City, NY at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail to info@rl-legal.com or at http://is.gd/4cx2cW The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business operations, financial condition and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants concealed from the investing public that: (a) Savient lacked the sufficient cash and cash equivalents to fund anticipated levels of operations, which ultimately lead to the Company filing voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code; and (b) the Company mislead investors by actively exploring the sale of the Company despite insisting its intention to proceed with efforts to commercialize its chief drug, KRYSTEXXA, in the United States and to explore partnership opportunities in the EU and other jurisdictions. As a result of the foregoing, the Company's stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. According to the Complaint, on October 15, 2013, only two months after falsely assuring the market that it had an adequate cash position to fund operations for an additional 12 months, and after misrepresenting the Board's efforts to engage in strategic alternatives, Savient announced that it had elected to file voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. In that same announcement, Savient reported that it was seeking authorization to pursue a sale process under Section 363 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Upon the news of the bankruptcy filing, the price of Savient common stock fell approximately 88%, from a close of $0.5737 per share on October 14, 2013 to a close of $0.0716 on October 15, 2013 on extremely high trading volume. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 24, 2014. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the proposed class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York, regularly litigates securities class, derivative and direct actions, shareholder rights litigation and corporate governance litigation , including claims for breach of fiduciary duty and proxy violations in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in state and federal courts throughout the United States. SHELL OIL: 7th Cir. Reverses Class Cert. Ruling in "Parko" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The district court certified a class of property owners in Roxana (a tiny village in southwestern Illinois, across the Mississippi River from St. Louis) in a suit against Shell Oil Company, which (together with Shell subsidiaries also joined as defendants) until 2000 owned and operated an oil refinery (the Wood River Refinery, built in 1918) that is adjacent to the village. The suit is also against ConocoPhillips (and some of its subsidiaries), which bought the refinery from Shell that year and is its current owner and operator. The plaintiffs claim that the refinery has leaked benzene and other contaminants into the groundwater under the class members' homes. The suit, a diversity suit, charges nuisance and related torts in violation of Illinois common law, and seeks by way of remedy damages measured primarily by the effect of the groundwater contamination on the value of the class members' properties. The defendants have petitioned for leave to appeal the certification of the class. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs have presented no theory, let alone credible evidence, of a connection between the leaks and property values, or between specific defendants and the leaks and property values, that would justify a class action on behalf of all the property owners whose properties sit above groundwater that contains an amount of benzene considered dangerous to human health by regulatory authorities (more than 5 micrograms per liter) -- if drunk. But there is, as yet anyway, no evidence that any of it is ever drunk. Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit reversed the class certification ruling. The case is JEANA PARKO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SHELL OIL CO., et al., Defendants, NOS. 13-8023 & 13-8024. A copy of the Appeals Court's January 17, 2014 Opinion is available at http://is.gd/vzTvCKfrom Leagle.com. SOLACE FINANCIAL: Faces "Tabick" FDCPA Violation Suit in New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Tabick, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Solace Financial LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv- 00070-DLI-VVP (E.D.N.Y., January 6, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 483 Chestnut Street Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Telephone: (516) 791-4400 Facsimile: (516) 791-4411 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com SOUTH FLORIDA COURIER: Sued Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Teresa Aguila, Ricardo Aguila Almeida and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(B) v. South Florida Courier Systems, Inc. and Gonzalo Ochoa, Case No. 9:14-cv-80015-KLR (S.D. Fla., January 6, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiffs have not been paid overtime and minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours in a week. South Florida Courier Systems, Inc. is a corporation that regularly transacts business within Palm Beach County. Gonzalo Ochoa is a corporate officer, owner or manager of the Company. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: (305) 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM SRAM: Recalls Hydraulic Bicycle Brakes Due to Crash Hazards ----------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with SRAM, LLC, of Chicago, Ill., announced a voluntary recall of about 25,350 SRAM Hydraulic Road Rim Brakes and Hydraulic Road Disc Brakes for bicycles. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The brake systems can fail, posing a crash and injury hazard. The firm received 95 reports of brakes failing in the U.S. One minor injury was reported in the U.S. and another in Australia The recalled bicycle brake models include SB Red Hydraulic Road Disc, SB Red Hydraulic Road Rim, SB 700 Hydraulic Road Disc and SB 700 Hydraulic Road Rim, used as either front or rear brakes. The SB RED brake lever is labeled "RED" on the body of the lever assembly. The SB 700 brake lever is labeled "S-Series" on the body of the lever assembly. The serial numbers for the recalled brakes have the digit "3" as the fourth digit of the serial number. The serial number can be found on the bottom of the caliper body. The brakes were sold as aftermarket products and as original equipment on the following bicycle brands and models: Brand Name Model Name ---------- ---------- ASI Fuji Altamira CX 1.1 Cannondale Super X Hi-Mod Black Inc. Diamondback Steilacoom RCX Carbon Pro Disc Felt Bicycles F2x Z2 Red Z3 Red Jamis Supernova Team Kona Super Jake Norco Threshold C1 Threshold SL Orbea Avan M-LTD Specialized Bicycles Crux Elite Carbon Disc Rival Crux Elite Evo Carbon Disc Crux Expert Carbon Disc Red Crux Pro Race Carbon Disc Red Crux Sport E5 Disc Apex Roubaix SL4 Elite Rival HRR C2 Roubaix SL4 Sport Disc SRAM C2 Ruby Elite Rival HRR S-works Crux Carbon Disc Red S-works Roubaix SL4 Disc Red S-works Tarmac SL4 Red HRR X2 S-works Venge Red HRR X2 Tarmac SL4 Elite Rival HRR M2 Venge Elite Rival HRR M2 Volagi Liscio 2 Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/aHIZ0y The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at specialty bicycle retailers nationwide from May 2013 to December 2013 for between $285 and $581 for the disc or rim brakes. Bicycles sold with the SRAM disc or rim range from $2,500 to $7,500. Consumers should immediately stop using bicycles equipped with the recalled SRAM brake systems and contact any SRAM dealer to arrange for a free replacement product to be installed and to receive a $200 product voucher or cash per customer. PLAYTEX: Recalls More Than 1 Million Pacifier Holder Clips ---------------------------------------------------------- Marina Lopes, writing for Reuters, reports that baby products manufacturer Playtex, a unit of Energizer Holdings is recalling more than one million pacifier holder clips after it received reports that they develop cracks, consumer safety officials said on Jan. 23. The cracks can cause small parts of the clip to break off, posing a potential choking threat to infants, according to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. "Consumers should immediately take the recalled pacifier holders away from infants," Playtex posted on its website. While there have been no known injuries, the product safety commission said there had been 99 reports of cracked clips. The clips are designed to attach pacifiers to clothing, diaper bags and strollers and retail for $3. "We are taking this action out of an abundance of caution, because our top priority is the health and safety of the people who use our products," said Catherine McCormack, a spokeswoman for Playtex. The company is offering a full refund to customers. Some 1.25 million clips were sold in the United States and Canada from mid- 2010 through late 2013. SPECTRUM BRANDS: Recalls 232,000 Rayovac Flashlights ---------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that Spectrum Brands Inc. is recalling 232,000 Rayovac flashlights because the batteries can overheat, melt the plastic casing and potentially burn users. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission said on Jan. 23 that consumers should stop using the product, remove the batteries and contact Spectrum for a refund. Spectrum has received reports of 12 flashlights overheating and melting during use. No injuries or property damage has been reported. The company is recalling about 225,000 flashlights in the United States and 7,000 in Canada. They were sold at retailers nationwide and online from through most of 2012 and 2013 for about $2.30. The recall involves Rayovac LED Industrial flashlights with run times of 25 or 50 hours, Rayovac Value Bright LED plastic flashlights and Rayovac Value Bright flashlights. The flashlights measure about 6 1/2 inches long in red, blue, green or black with yellow. They use two AA batteries. SS&C FINANCIAL: GlobeOp Settles Fairfield Greenwich-Related Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- GlobeOp Financial Services S.A., a subsidiary of SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc., entered into a settlement agreement for the Fairfield Greenwich-Related Actions, according to SS&C's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. In April 2009, GlobeOp was named as defendant in a putative class action (the "Anwar Action"), filed by Pasha S. Anwar in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against multiple defendants relating to Greenwich Sentry L.P. and Greenwich Sentry Partners L.P., (the "FG Funds"), and the alleged losses sustained by the FG Funds' investors as a result of Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme. The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duties by GlobeOp and negligence in the performance of its duties and seeks to recover as damages the net losses sustained by investors in the putative class, together with applicable interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. GlobeOp served as administrator for the Greenwich Sentry fund from October 2003 through August 2006 and for the Greenwich Sentry Partners fund from May 2006 through August 2006, during which time the approximate net asset value of the Greenwich Sentry Fund was $135.0 million and the Greenwich Sentry Partners Fund was $6.0 million. In February 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification of a class consisting of all net loss investors in the litigated funds (excluding investors from a number of enumerated foreign countries). GlobeOp petitioned the Court of Appeals to permit an interlocutory appeal of the class certification order, but subsequently requested that the Court of Appeals hold its petition in abeyance pending the consummation of a settlement. GlobeOp was also named as one of five defendants in two derivative actions (the "Derivative Actions") that were initially filed in New York State Supreme Court in February 2009. Following initial motion practice, the court ordered the plaintiffs to arbitrate the claims asserted against GlobeOp. A litigation trustee on behalf of the bankrupt FG Funds subsequently substituted in as the plaintiff in these actions, which relate to the same losses alleged in the Anwar Action. The litigation trustee is seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, together with applicable interest, costs, and attorneys' fees, as well as contribution and indemnification from GlobeOp for the FG Funds' settlement with Irving Picard, trustee for the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, LLC. GlobeOp maintains that the prior orders compelling arbitration apply to the litigation trustee. The litigation trustee has not yet commenced arbitration proceedings. In August 2013, GlobeOp and the plaintiffs in the Anwar Action and the Derivative Actions, as well as certain insurers who have agreed to provide GlobeOp with coverage for these claims, entered into a settlement agreement resolving all disputes and claims between and among the parties. The prospective settlements are subject to approval by the court in which the Anwar Action is pending and various other conditions. GlobeOp's insurers have funded the entirety of the contemplated settlement payments into escrow where funds are being held subject to final consummation of the settlement agreement. SS&C FINANCIAL: UK Hearing in Millennium Funds Case Adjourned ------------------------------------------------------------- A hearing on the merits of claims related to Millennium Funds (with which GlobeOp, Financial Services S.A. performed valuation services), that were asserted in a United Kingdom arbitration has been adjourned and is not expected to be reconvened until 2014, according to SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc.'s Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. Several actions (the "Millennium Actions") have been filed in various jurisdictions against GlobeOp, Financial Services S.A., a subsidiary of SS&C, alleging claims and damages with respect to services performed by GlobeOp under a valuation agent services agreement for the Millennium Funds. These actions include (i) a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors in the Millennium Funds filed in May 2012 asserting claims of $844.0 million (the alleged aggregate value of assets under management by the Millennium Funds at the funds' peak valuation); (ii) an arbitration proceeding in the United Kingdom on behalf of the Millennium Funds' investment manager, which commenced with a request for arbitration in July 2011, seeking an indemnity of $26.5 million for sums paid by way of settlement to the Millennium Funds in a separate arbitration to which GlobeOp was not a party, as well as an indemnity for any losses that may be incurred by the investment manager in the U.S. class action; and (iii) a claim in the same arbitration proceeding by the Millennium Global Emerging Credit Master Fund Ltd against GlobeOp for damages alleged to be in excess of $160.0 million. These actions allege that GlobeOp breached its contractual obligations and/or negligently breached a duty of care in the performance of services for the funds and that, inter alia, GlobeOp should have discovered and reported a fraudulent scheme perpetrated by the portfolio manager employed by the investment manager. The putative class action pending in the Southern District of New York also asserts claims against SS&C identical to the claims against GlobeOp in that action. In the arbitration, GlobeOp has asserted counterclaims against both the investment managers and the Millennium Emerging Credit Mast Fund Ltd. for indemnity, including in respect of the U.S. class action. A hearing on the merits of the claims asserted in the United Kingdom arbitration was conducted in London in July and August 2013. The hearing has been adjourned and is not expected to be reconvened until 2014. TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: "De Figueiredo" Suit Now Part of ACTOS MDL ------------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled De Figueiredo, et al. v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals America Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-00454, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (Lafayette). The Louisiana District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:13-cv-03310-RFD-PJH to the proceeding. The lawsuit will now be part of the multidistrict litigation known as In Re: Actos (Pioglitazone) Products Liability Litigation, Lead Case No. 6:11-md-02299-RFD-PJH. In his complaint, Mr. de Figueiredo alleges that he sustained severe, permanent and life threatening personal injuries, pain, suffering, emotional distress, lifelong fear of premature death and the need for continued lifelong treatment and medications resulting from his ingestion of ACTOS. The Defendants designed, manufactured, marketed, advertised, distributed, promoted and sold ACTOS for the treatment of type II diabetes mellitus. ACTOS was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in July of 1999 to treat type II diabetes. As a result of the defective nature of ACTOS, the complaint asserts, persons who were prescribed and ingested ACTOS for more than 12 months have suffered and may continue to suffer from bladder cancer. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph R. Donohue, Esq. Marilyn T. McGoldrick, Esq. THORNTON & NAUMES 100 Summer St., 30th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 720-1333 Facsimile: (617) 720-2445 E-mail: jdonohue@tenlaw.com mmcgoldrick@tenlaw.com TARGET CORP: Faces "Savedow" Class Suit Over Data Security Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------- Scott G. Savedow, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Target Corporation, Case No. 0:14-cv-00054- RHK-FLN (D. Minn., January 6, 2014) arises from the recent data security breach in Target. In November and December 2013, Target sustained one or more massive security breaches to its computer systems, servers, and databases. These security breaches, the Plaintiff contends, placed sensitive personal and financial information in the hands of cyber criminals, including customer names, mailing addresses, as well as credit and debit card numbers, expiration dates, CVV codes, security codes, other personal information. Target is a Minnesota Corporation with its principle place of business in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Target, the second largest general merchandise retailer in America, is self-described as an upscale discount retailer that provides high-quality, on-trend merchandise at attractive prices in clean, spacious and guest- friendly stores. The Plaintiff is represented by: Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Esq. Brant D. Penney, Esq. REINHARDT, WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD E-1250 First National Bank Bldg. 332 Minnesota St. St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (651) 287-2100 Facsimile: (651) 287-2103 E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com - and - Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. Mark J. Dearman, Esq. Christopher C. Martins, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Facsimile: (561) 750-3364 E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com mdearman@rgrdlaw.com cmartins@rgrdlaw.com - and - Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Robert M. Rothman, Esq. Mark S. Reich, Esq. William J. Geddish, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: SRudman@rgrdlaw.com rrothman@rgrdlaw.com mreich@rgrdlaw.com wgeddish@rgrdlaw.com TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Painters' Suit Over Aggrenox Product ---------------------------------------------------------------- International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, District Council 21 Health and Welfare Fund on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., an Israeli corporation, Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc., a Delaware corporation, Barr Laboratories Inc., a Delaware corporation, Duramed Pharmaceuticals Inc. (n/k/a Teva Women's Health Inc.), a Delaware corporation, Duramed Pharmaceuticals Sales Corp., a Delaware corporation, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, a German limited partnership, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, a German limited liability company, and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 0:14-cv- 00050-JRT-TNL (D. Minn., January 6, 2014) alleges violation of civil antitrust laws on behalf of a class of indirect purchasers of the drug Aggrenox since August 14, 2009. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and its affiliates developed Aggrenox, combining extended-release dipyridamole with acetylsalicylic acid, aspirin, to lower the risk of stroke in patients whose blood clots have caused a transient ischemic attack or stroke. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., is a Delaware corporation headquartered in North Wales, Pennsylvania. Teva manufactures and distributes generic drugs for sale throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Woodward, Esq. Renae D. Steiner, Esq. HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C. 310 Clifton Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55403 Telephone: (612) 338-4605 Facsimile: (612) 338-4692 E-mail: dwoodward@heinmills.com rsteiner@heinsmills.com - and - Brian D. Penny, Esq. Mark S. Goldman, Esq. GOLDMAN SCARLATO KARON & PENNY, P.C. 101 E. Lancaster Avenue, Suite 204 Wayne, PA 19087 Telephone: (484) 342-0700 E-mail: penny@gskplaw.com goldman@gskplaw.com - and - Stewart L. Cohen, Esq. Michael Coren, Esq. Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq. COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C. Two Commerce Square, Suite 2900 2001 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 567-3500 E-mail: scohen@cprlaw.com mcoren@cprlaw.com jgoldberg@cprlaw.com - and - John D. Zaremba, Esq. ZAREMBA BROWNELL & BROWN PLLC 40 Wall Street New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 380-6700 E-mail: jzaremba@zbblaw.com TIME WARNER: Accused of Violating Family and Medical Leave Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Dena M. Cannon, Suzanne Bolden, Sergio Alcala, Teri Nelson and Juliana Van Tuil, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Time Warner NY Cable LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-00037-PAB- BNB (D. Colo., January 6, 2014) alleges violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Walker G. Harman, Jr., Esq. THE HARMAN FIRM, P.C. 1776 Broadway, Suite 2030 New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 426-2600 Facsimile: (212) 202-3926 E-mail: wharman@theharmanfirm.com TOPS VACUUM: Sued by Customer Sales & Services Workers in Florida ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dennis Boom and Tabitha Boom, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Tops Vacuum & Sewing, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation, and Gregory Bank, Individually, Case No. 2:14- cv-00006-SPC-DNF (M.D. Fla., January 6, 2014) accuses the Defendants of failing to pay minimum wages and overtime to customer sales and services employees. Tops Vacuum & Sewing, Inc., is a Florida Profit Corporation headquartered in Sarasota, Florida. Tops sells vacuums, sewing machines and other related supplies and services. Gregory Bank is a resident of Sarasota County, who owned and operated Tops. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bill B. Berke, Esq. BERKE LAW FIRM, PA 1003 Del Prado Blvd., Suite 300 Cape Coral, FL 33990 Telephone: (239) 549-6689 Facsimile: (239) 549-3331 E-mail: Berkelaw@yahoo.com TRANSOCEAN LTD: MDL Trial in Macondo Well Incident in 2nd Phase --------------------------------------------------------------- The second phase of the trial in the Multidistrict Litigation of the Macondo well related claims are pending in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana began in September 2013, according to Transocean Ltd.'s Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. Many of the Macondo well related claims are pending in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana (the "MDL Court"). In March 2012, BP America Production Co. and the Plaintiff's Steering Committee (the "PSC") announced that they had agreed to a partial settlement related primarily to private party environmental and economic loss claims as well as response effort related claims (the "BP/PSC Settlement"). The BP/PSC Settlement agreement provides that (a) to the extent permitted by law, BP will assign to the settlement class certain of BP's claims, rights and recoveries against the company for damages with protections such that the settlement class is barred from collecting any amounts from the company unless it is finally determined that the company cannot recover such amounts from BP, and (b) the settlement class releases all claims for compensatory damages against the company but purports to retain claims for punitive damages against the company. On December 21, 2012, the MDL Court granted final approval of the economic and property damage class settlement between BP and the PSC. Various parties who objected to the BP/PSC Settlement have filed appeals in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the MDL Court's final approval of the BP/PSC Settlement. Oral argument for such appeals had been scheduled for November 4, 2013. BP has filed appeals in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the manner in which the BP/PSC Settlement has been interpreted by the MDL Court with respect to business economic loss claims ("BEL Claims"). In these appeals, BP argues that, if the MDL Court's interpretation of the settlement with respect to BEL Claims is not overturned, the entire BP/PSC Settlement is invalid and should not have been approved. On October 2, 2013, the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion questioning the manner in which the settlement had been interpreted with respect to BEL Claims. In December 2012, in response to the BP/PSC Settlement, the company filed three motions seeking partial summary judgment on various claims, including punitive damages claims. If successful, these motions would eliminate or reduce the company's exposure to punitive damages. The MDL Court has not ruled on these motions. In May 2013, the company filed a motion seeking partial summary judgment on claims asserted by BP against the company seeking damages from loss of the well and for source-control and cleanup costs (the "Direct Damages" claims). The Direct Damages claims are included in the claims BP assigned to the economic and property damages settlement class. The motion argues that BP released the Direct Damages claims in its contract with the company and that the release is enforceable even if the company is found grossly negligent. Some courts have held that such agreements will not be enforced if the defendant is found grossly negligent. The MDL Court has not ruled on this motion. The first phase of the trial began on February 25, 2013 and testimony concluded on April 17, 2013. This phase addressed fault issues, including negligence, gross negligence, or other bases of liability of the various defendants with respect to the cause of the blowout and the initiation of the oil spill, as well as limitation of liability issues. In June and July 2013, the parties filed post-trial briefs and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The MDL Court has not yet ruled on the issues tried in the first phase of the trial. If the MDL Court finds in this phase of the trial that the company was grossly negligent, it will be exposed to at least three litigation risks: (1) the MDL Court could award punitive damages under general maritime law to plaintiffs who own property damaged by oil and to plaintiffs who are commercial fishermen; (2) the MDL Court could find that the company's gross negligence voids the release BP gave the company in the drilling contract for direct claims by BP, which BP has assigned to the plaintiffs in the BP/PSC settlement; and (3) the company could be liable for all other oil pollution damages claims, including claims resulting from NRDA, if the MDL Court were to go beyond gross negligence for which the company is to be indemnified and find a "core breach" of the drilling contract, or if the court of appeals were to reverse a prior ruling that BP owes the company indemnity for these claims even in the event of gross negligence. The company's four pending motions for partial judgment on the pleadings or partial summary judgment, if successful, could reduce or eliminate the company's exposure to these claims. A finding of gross negligence against the company or against BP or a finding that either the company or BP violated certain safety regulations would also result in the removal of the statutory liability caps under OPA. Under the MDL Court's present ruling, however, the company's liability for damages under OPA is limited to damages caused by discharge on or above the surface of the water. The second phase of the trial began on September 30, 2013. This phase addressed conduct related to stopping the release of hydrocarbons after April 22, 2010 and quantification of the amount of oil discharged. In light of BP's criminal plea agreement with the DOJ acknowledging that it provided the government with false or misleading information throughout the spill response, the company amended the company's pleadings to allege as an affirmative defense that BP's fraud delayed the final capping of the well and that the company should not be liable for damages resulting from this delay. The company can provide no assurances as to the outcome of the trial, as to the timing of any phase of trial or any rulings, that the company will not enter into additional settlements as to some or all of the matters related to the Macondo well incident, including those to be determined at a trial, or the timing or terms of any such settlements. TRANSOCEAN LTD: Moves to Dismiss New York Securities Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Transocean Ltd. filed a motion to dismiss a securities lawsuit filed against it in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. A federal securities proposed class action is currently pending in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, naming the company and former chief executive officers of Transocean Ltd. and one of the company's acquired companies as defendants. In the action, a former shareholder of the acquired company alleges that the joint proxy statement related to the company's shareholder meeting in connection with the company's merger with the acquired company violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff claims that the acquired company's shareholders received inadequate consideration for their shares as a result of the alleged violations and seeks compensatory and rescissory damages and attorneys' fees on behalf of itself and the proposed class members. In addition, the company is obligated to pay the defense fees and costs for the individual defendants, which may be covered by the company's directors' and officers' liability insurance, subject to a deductible. On October 4, 2012, the court denied the company's motion to dismiss the action. On October 5, 2012, the company asked the court to stay the action pending a decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in an unrelated action involving the time period within which Section 14 claims can be filed that could be relevant to the disposition of this case. On June 27, 2013, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on the issue in the unrelated action in a manner that the company believes supports its position that the plaintiff's existing claims alleged in the action are time-barred. On August 30, 2013, the company filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the claims are time-barred under the Second Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling. U.S. BANK: Court Denies Motion to Remand "Trahan" Suit ------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Jeffrey S. White denied a motion to remand filed by the plaintiff in the case captioned JERRY TRAHAN, Plaintiff, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant, NO. C 09-03111 JSW, (N.D. Cal.). Jerry Trahan filed this complaint on May 28, 2009, in Alameda County Superior Court, in which he sought relief on behalf of himself and a putative class, defined as "[a]ll current and former California based employees of U.S. Bank, N.A. with the title 'Business Banking Officer,' including trainees for the Business Banking Offer [sic] position, however titled, who worked at any time from September 27, 2005 up to the time the class is certified." Mr. Trahan's allegations against U.S. Bank arise following a judgment in Duran v. U.S. National Bank Association [sic], Alameda Co. Sup. Ct. Case No. 2001-035537, in which that court determined that Defendant, U.S. National Bank Association, illegally mis- classified employees with the title Business Banking Officer or Small Business Banking Officer as exempt employees. On July 9, 2009, U.S. Bank removed the action to the District Court and argued that subject matter jurisdiction existed based on the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. section 1331(d)(2)(A), and based on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1332(a). Judge White ordered the parties to appear for a case management conference on February 21, 2014, at 1:30 p.m., and to submit a joint case management conference statement by no later than February 14, 2014. A copy of the District Court's January 13, 2014 Order is available at http://is.gd/vaqsnAfrom Leagle.com. UNITED STATES: Privacy Board Expresses Concern on NSA Reform Plan ----------------------------------------------------------------- Todd Ruger, writing for Legal Times, reports that members of an independent White House board voiced concern on Jan. 23 about President Barack Obama's suggestion to have private companies or a third party hold a vast database of phone records generated through government surveillance programs. The bipartisan Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board members offered their comments at a meeting in Washington just after the panel released a report critical of the National Security Agency's bulk collection of telephone records under Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act. Pres. Obama, during a Jan. 17 speech, citing concerns about the potential for government abuse, gave Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. and the NSA two months to find another place to store that database -- millions of records that document phone numbers dialed and duration of the call. On Jan. 23, board member Rachel Brand, also the chief counsel for regulatory litigation for the Chamber of Commerce's National Chamber Litigation Center, said she has not yet heard a proposal that is better than keeping the phone records with the NSA. "A third-party alternative, something other than the service providers, I don't see any possible way that could work," Ms. Brand said. "And in terms of the providers themselves, I think that just provides a whole host of legal questions about the nature of the data, responsibility for the data, liability of the companies and additional privacy concerns." Another board member, Elisebeth Collins Cook, a Wilmer Culter Pickering Hale and Dorr litigation and government affairs counsel, said other alternatives pose difficulties. She cited an example in which telephone companies run queries of the database at the request of the NSA. "However, even assuming the companies currently keep the relevant records, there is no guarantee that those records will continue to be retained in the future," Ms. Cook wrote. "By the same token, if another terrorist attack happens, the pressure will be immense to impose data retention requirements on those companies, which would pose separate and perhaps greater privacy concerns." The most vocal board member critic was James Dempsey, vice president for Public Policy at the Center for Democracy & Technology, a non-profit public policy organization focused on privacy. "I think the third party idea is a terrible idea. It just replicates all the problems that are unanswered," Mr. Dempsey said. "Who is it, how long do they keep it, who else gets it, how do they secure it, what security requirements are their employees subject to, who oversees it, is it subject to the constitution." "To me you just take all the same questions and you have to answer them all over again from scratch," Mr. Dempsey said. UTAH: Fathers File Class Action v. AG Over Fraudulent Adoption -------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Rascon, writing for KUTV, reports that a group of 12 fathers are part of a class action lawsuit claiming that their children were fraudulently taken away from them through adoption. The dads say their pregnant ex-girlfriends all came to Utah without their knowledge, had their babies and gave them up for adoption before they could file the paper work needed to stop it. "This is the ultimate form of child abuse. It's the equivalent of a death sentence for a birth father," said Attorney Wesley Hutchins who filed the federal lawsuit. The lawsuit names the Utah office of the Attorney General and former attorney general's Mark Shurtleff and John Swallow. Mr. Hutchins legal argument is all contained in a 73 page document. "The Attorney General's office has done nothing to persecute the adoption agencies that are guilty of conspiring to commit fraud," said Hutchins. "They are just being essentially kidnapped and fraudulently placed in other homes without any consent or knowledge from the birth fathers." The attorney general's office told 2News that they are reviewing the case. Mr. Shurtleff did respond to 2News by saying, "it's misguided to sue the AG's office because they are tasked with enforcing state laws and the rulings of courts. As the father of three adopted children I certainly empathize with birth parents, and urge plaintiffs to work with Utah legislatures and follow Utah law and judicial precedence in protecting their rights." Many of the fathers named in the lawsuit have lost their case in court. VERMONT TEDDY: "Murphy" Suit Remanded to Ventura Superior Court --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Otis D. Wright, II, issued an order remanding the case captioned CHERYL MURPHY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. VERMONT TEDDY BEAR COMPANY, a Vermont Corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-09387-ODW(CWX), (C.D. Cal.) to the Superior Court of California, Ventura County. Vermont Teddy Bear Company (VTBC) removed the case to the California District Court on December 20, 2013, ostensibly invoking diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332, 1441, and 1453. But after considering VTBC's Notice of Removal, the Court finds that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the action. The Court, therefore, remands this case to Ventura County Superior Court, case number 50-2013-00444706. A copy of the District Court's January 13, 2014 Order is available at http://is.gd/vj6jj5from Leagle.com. VIKING CLIENT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ------------------------------------------------------------ Ira Dick, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Viking Client Services, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00084- CBA-VMS (E.D.N.Y., January 6, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 483 Chestnut Street Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Telephone: (516) 791-4400 Facsimile: (516) 791-4411 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com VIRGINIA: Won't Defend Same-Sex Marriage Ban as Constitutional -------------------------------------------------------------- Gary Robertson, Susan Heavey, Doina Chiacu, Ian Simpson and Joseph Ax, writing for Reuters, report that Virginia will no longer defend its ban on same-sex marriage, the state's new attorney general said on Jan. 23, making it the latest U.S. state to challenge a prohibition on gay marriage. Attorney General Mark Herring said the southern state's constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman was part of a long history of opposing landmark Supreme Court rulings on civil rights. Mr. Herring told a news conference the same-sex marriage ban violated the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which provides for equal protection of the laws, and infringed on the rights of families. Mr. Herring filed a brief on Jan. 23 in federal court in Norfolk, noting the state's change of stance in Bostic v. Rainey, a case that challenged Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage. Mr. Herring said the constitutional ban would remain in place and the Norfolk case would go forward, but neither he nor State Registrar of Vital Records Janet Rainey would defend it as constitutional. The attorney general said his decision was aimed at changing Virginia's history of opposing landmark civil rights rulings by the Supreme Court. They included those on school desegregation in 1954, interracial marriage in 1967 and allowing women to enter Virginia Military Institute in 1996, he said. In another Virginia case in federal court, two lesbian couples are suing the state in an attempt to overturn the ban on same-sex marriage. They asked a federal judge in October to certify it as a class-action lawsuit. VITACOST.COM INC: No Writ Filed v. Dismissal of Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The deadline to file a petition for writ of certiorari in relation to the dismissal of a second amended securities complaint against Vitacost.com, Inc. passed without the lead plaintiff filing a petition, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. On May 24, 2010, a punitive class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against the Company and certain current and former officers and directors by a stockholder on behalf of herself and other stockholders who purchased Vitacost common stock between September 24, 2009 and April 20, 2010, captioned Miyahira v. Vitacost.com, Inc., Ira P. Kerker, Richard P. Smith, Stewart Gitler, Allen S. Josephs, David N. Ilfeld, Lawrence A. Pabst, Eran Ezra, and Robert G. Trapp, Case 9:10-cv-80644-KLR. After being appointed to represent the purported class of shareholders, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against Vitacost, its current and former officers and directors, and the underwriters of its initial public offering ("IPO"). On December 12, 2011, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, and granted plaintiffs leave to amend. On January 11, 2012, lead plaintiff filed its second amended complaint asserting claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against Vitacost, its current and former officers and directors, and its underwriters. Lead plaintiff purported to bring its action on behalf of investors who purchased stock in connection with or traceable to the Company's IPO between September 24, 2009 and April 20, 2010. The complaint alleged that the defendants violated the federal securities laws during the period by, among other things, disseminating false and misleading statements and/or concealing material facts concerning the Company's current and prospective business and financial results. The complaint also alleged that as a result of these actions the Company's stock price was artificially inflated during the class period. The complaint sought unspecified compensatory damages, costs, and expenses. On June 25, 2012, the Southern District of Florida entered its order granting defendants' motion to dismiss in full and dismissing the second amended complaint with prejudice. On July 23, 2012, lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Eleventh Circuit of the order granting defendants' motion to dismiss. On May 5, 2013, the Eleventh Circuit issued its opinion affirming the dismissal. The deadline to file a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court passed on August 5, 2013, and lead plaintiff did not file a petition. WAL-MART STORE: Accused of Falsely Advertising Equate Pain Pills ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simeon Nelson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Wal-Mart Store, Inc., an Illinois corporation, Case No. 4:14-cv-00004-RH-CAS (N.D. Fla., January 6, 2014) accuses the Defendant of making false and misleading statements, which directly influenced the Plaintiff's decision to pay more than double the price for Equate Migraine Relief instead of Equate Extra Strength Headache Relief. Wal-Mart, a Delaware corporation, sells a variety of products under its "Equate" brand, including two pain relievers -- Equate Headache and Equate Migraine. The Plaintiff is represented by: Tim Howard, J.D., Ph.D., Esq. Lucas Lanasa, Esq. HOWARD & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 8511 Bull Headley Rd., Suite 405 Tallahassee, FL 32312 Telephone: (850) 298-4455 E-mail: tim@howardjustice.com luke@lanasalawfirm.com - and - Richard A. Daynard, Ph.D., Esq. HOWARD & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 400 Huntington Avenue Boston, MA 02115 E-mail: r.daynard@neu.edu WEBBERS FOOD: Recalls "Hausmacher" Liver Pate Due to Bacteria ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: January 14, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning Subcategory: Microbiological - Clostridium botulinum Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Webbers Food Distribution: Nova Scotia Extent of the product distribution: Retail Webbers Food is recalling "Hausmacher" liver pate from the marketplace because it may permit the growth of Clostridium botulinum. Consumers should not consume the recalled product. The following product has been sold in glass jars with no label only from November 13, 2013 to December 5, 2013, inclusively, at the following locations in Nova Scotia: Hammonds Plains Farmers' Market, Hammonds Plains, Nova Scotia Lunenburg Farmers' Market, Lunenburg, Nova Scotia. Check to see if you have recalled product in your home. Recalled product should be thrown out. Food contaminated with Clostridium botulinum toxin may not look or smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include nausea, vomiting, fatigue, dizziness, blurred or double vision, dry mouth, respiratory failure and paralysis. In severe cases of illness, people may die. There have been no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of this product. The recall was triggered by Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) test results. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Affected products: "Hausmacher" liver pate WINN-DIXIE: Recalls Instant Chocolate Drink Mix in Florida Stores ----------------------------------------------------------------- WCTV.tv reports that Winn-Dixie on Jan. 20 announced an immediate recall of the 30 oz. canister of Winn-Dixie Instant Chocolate Drink Mix, with expiration date code of JUL 14 15B, from shelves in all stores throughout Florida. The recall does not affect stores in Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana or Mississippi. The reason for the recall is the potential that the product may contain an incorrect formula mixture, which could result in an undeclared milk allergen. "We advise customers who have a milk allergy to throw it out immediately to ensure they do not experience any health issues," said Brian Wright, Winn-Dixie's vice president of communications and community. Winn-Dixie has received no reports of any issues associated with consumption at this time. The recall only pertains to canisters with the expiration date code of JUL 14 15B. The product UPC code is 2114022031. Consumers who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk products are urged not to consume and return products to the store for a full refund. To receive the refund, customers may present proof of purchase through a receipt or the product-packaging label. Symptoms of a milk allergy reaction can range from mild, such as hives, to severe, such as anaphylaxis. Customers with questions about the recalled products may contact the Winn-Dixie Customer Call Center toll free at 866-946-6349, Mon. -- Fri., 8 a.m. - 6 p.m. EDT, and Sat., 8 a.m. -- 4 p.m. EDT. ZIPREALTY INC: Settles Ex-Agents' Class Action for $1.7 Million --------------------------------------------------------------- Inman News reports that real estate brokerage and referral site operator ZipRealty Inc. will pay $1.7 million to settle a class- action lawsuit filed by two real estate agents formerly employed by the company in Arizona. The settlement, which is subject to court approval, resolves the last class-action claim pending against the company related to its former compensation practices of employee real estate agents. ZipRealty began converting its California agents to independent contractor status in the latter half of 2010, and transitioned all of the firm's agents to independent contractors in January 2011. Former employee agents soon began filing class-action lawsuits against ZipRealty, alleging the company had failed to pay minimum and overtime wages as required by law. ZipRealty denied the allegations, saying its agents were classified as "outside salespersons" exempt from overtime wage requirements. By the end of 2012, ZipRealty had paid at least five settlements in cases making similar claims, including $5 million to settle a suit brought by the California Labor Commissioner. The $1.7 million settlement, announced in a public filing on Jan. 17, resolves a February 2012 suit filed by two former ZipRealty agents in Arizona, Patricia Anderson and James Kwasiborski, on behalf of themselves and "all other similarly situated individuals" seeking damages in addition to wages and overtime. A former ZipRealty agent in California, Tracy Adewunmi, also sought class-action standing in a February 2012 lawsuit over the company's compensation practices, but dropped the class claims in May 2013, according to a public filing. Ms. Adewunmi's individual claims remain, as do ZipRealty's cross claims against her alleging fraud and breach of contract. The case is set to go to trial in February, according to the filing. ********* 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 G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2014. 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 * * *