/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140305.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, March 5, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 45 Headlines 74 FIFTH AVE: Accused of Notice-and-Recordkeeping Violations APPLE INC: Settles Class Action Over Deactivated Gift Cards APPLIED CONSTRUCTION: Faces Suit Over Unpaid Wages for OT Work BANK OF AMERICA: Removed "Federman" Suit to N.J. District Court BANK OF THE WEST: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action BETHESDA HOSPITAL: Class Seeks to Recover Overtime Compensation CABLE NEWS: CNN App Gives Away Personal Information, Class Claims CASUAL MALE: Removed "Green" Class Suit to C.D. California CBRE GROUP: Monthly Benefit Share Deducted Upon Return, Suit Says COMMERCIAL METALS: Arguments in Direct Purchasers' Suit Pending COMMERCIAL METALS: No Discovery Yet in Indirect Buyers' Suit COMMUNITY HEALTH: Expedited Discovery Ruled Out in Merger Suit COMMUNITY HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Tenn. Securities Suit Pending COMMUNITY HEALTH: Dismissal Motion in Suit v. HMA Awaits Ruling COMMUNITY HEALTH: Expedited Discovery Ruled Out in Fla. Suit COMMUNITY HEALTH: Motion to Junk Suit by HMA Stockholders Filed COMMUNITY HEALTH: Continues to Face Suits Over HMA Acquisition CONAGRA FOODS: Has to Disclose Sodium Content in Sunflower Seeds CRANE CO: Representative in Asbestos Trial Says Products Safe DAVID COPPERFIELD: Intimidates Those Who Challenge Him, Suit Says EXECUTIVE 2000: Refused to Pay OT Wages, "Fernandez" Suit Claims FIRST AMERICAN: Denial of Class Cert. in "Hataishi" Suit Affirmed FOREST PHARMACEUTICALS: Lexapro Suit Obtains Class Action Status FREESCORE LLC: 9th Cir. Flips Lower Court Ruling in "Stout" Suit GENERAL RETIREMENT: Settles Class Action for $7.9 Million GOODWILL INDUSTRIES: Class Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages GRENVILLE CHRISTIAN: Student Abuse Class Action Can Proceed H&R BLOCK: Removed "Number" Suit to Western District of Missouri HAMMER NUTRITION: Misleads NY Consumers, "Harabedian" Suit Claims HERTZ CORP: Sued in N.J. Over Hidden Currency Conversion Fees IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in New Jersey INCYTE CORP: Court Dismisses Claims in Shareholders' Suit JEAN MADELINE: Sued Over High Student Cosmetology Service Charges JRH RESTAURANT: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages MIRAMICHI REGIONAL: Class Action Over Misdiagnosis Can Proceed NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Homeowners Dispute Loan Servicing Practices NEVADA PROPERTY: Fraud Suit Over Cosmopolitan Condominium Moved NONGSHIM CO: Faces Antitrust Suit in Cal. Over Korean Noodles OBAMA FOR AMERICA: Court Refused to Dismiss Suit Over Autodialing OZ MINERALS: To Vigorously Defend Zinifex Shareholder Class Action PAINT & BODY: Fails to Pay Federally Mandated OT Rate, Suit Says PAK BUSINESS: Never Paid Extra Halftime Overtime Rate, Suit Says POLY-COR MANAGEMENT: Did Not Pay Overtime Premium, Suit Says PAR ELECTRICAL: "Arnold" Class Suit Removed to C.D. California RAZOR CAPITAL: Illegally Attempts to Collect Debt, Suit Claims REPSOL YPF: Court Dismisses Monroe County Employees' Suit RODALE INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Baxter" Class Action SLR HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay All Overtime Hours Worked, Suit Claims STANFORD INT'L: Ponzi Scheme Class Actions Can Proceed STATE FARM: Faces "Thompson" Class Suit Over Insurance Issues SUPERVALU INC: Still Faces Wis. Suit Over RICO Act Violation SUPERVALU INC: Minn. Court Stays Lawsuit Over C&S Transaction SUPERVALU INC: May Seek Initial OK of Labor Suit Accord in 2014 TRANQUILITY SALON: Loses Bid to Strike "Cava" Class Action UNILIFE CORP: Writes to Shareholders About Suit at ASX's Request UPMC: Faces Class Action Over Data Breach UTAH: Attorney General Faces Suit Over Adoption Practices VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Class Atty. Deserves $7.5MM, Court Ruled WEST SIDE COMMUNITY: Sued by Medical Assistants Over Labor Issues WHOLE FOODS: Accused of Falsely Labeling "All Natural" Products ZALE CORP: Receives $1.9MM From De Beers Suit Settlement ZALE CORP: Still Faces 3 Wage & Hour Suits in California * Investors Lose $39-Bil. Yearly From Securities Class Actions * New Rule May Spur Product Liability Suits v. Generic Drug Cos. * Supreme Court Ruling Opens Door to More Securities Class Actions ********* 74 FIFTH AVE: Accused of Notice-and-Recordkeeping Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ Rufino Baltierra, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. 74 Fifth Ave Market Corp., d/b/a New Valentino Market, Byung Nak Lim, and John Does #1-10, jointly and severally, Case No. 1:14-cv-00393-RA (S.D.N.Y., January 22, 2014) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, spread-of-hours premiums and statutory penalties for notice-and-recordkeeping violations for the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is an hourly employee, who worked for the Defendants at their deli in New York. New Valentino is a busy and popular deli and grocery store located in Greenwich Village, and is opened 24 hours per day, seven days per week. New Valentino regularly conducts foreign credit card transactions and many of its suppliers are out-of-state vendors making regular shipments to the restaurant. Byung Nak Lim and the Doe Defendants have been "shareholders" of 74 Fifth Ave Market. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Nathan Dictor, Esq. EISNER & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 113 University Place New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 473-8700 Facsimile: (212) 473-8705 E-mail: ben@eisnermirer.com APPLE INC: Settles Class Action Over Deactivated Gift Cards ----------------------------------------------------------- Sindhu Sundar, writing for Law360, reports that Apple Inc. and Best Buy Co. Inc. on Feb. 25 agreed to settle a proposed class action alleging Best Buy deactivates unredeemed Apple iTunes gift cards it sells without informing customers about the cards' expiration dates. In a complaint in California federal court, plaintiff Barbara Fafard had claimed the gift cards didn't bear an expiration date and that neither Best Buy nor Apple informed customers of when they might expire. In a motion to preliminarily approve the settlement, Ms. Fafard said that under the agreement, the companies would provide relief to class members in one of four ways. First, some gift card holders have already received replacement iTunes gift cards. Second, qualified gift card holders will have their iTunes accounts credited with the full face value of the card. Third, all remaining deactivated cards have been reactivated, and deactivated card holders may now redeem the deactivated cards by transferring their full face value to iTunes accounts. Lastly, any class member who has a qualified, valid receipt for the purchase of a deactivated card from a Best Buy retail store from Sept. 1, 2007, to Dec. 31, 2009, but who cannot locate the personal identification number of the deactivated iTunes gift card, will be provided a replacement PIN after the receipt has been subjected to a verification and fraud review process. No estimate was given for the total value of the settlement, but the motion said the cost of administration was expected to be in excess of $300,000 and that class counsel fees won't go over $750,000. Based on the informal discovery completed in the case so far, the motion said the total number of deactivated iTunes gift cards was about 290,000. Prepaid card company InComm Holdings Inc., also named as a defendant, provides services to Best Buy for the activation and deactivation of the iTunes gift cards, according to the complaint. The suit says Apple and Best Buy responded to a prelawsuit notice by claiming InComm was responsible for system-related issues with redeeming the gift cards. Ms. Fafard claims she received two $25 iTunes gift cards from her daughter in 2009 that her daughter had purchased from a Best Buy store in California. But when Ms. Fafard tried redeeming the cards in January 2012, she says, she received a notification from Apple that the card had been canceled. An Apple customer service representative allegedly told Ms. Fafard that the card had been canceled by Best Buy and that the amount was refunded, although the plaintiff claims no such refund happened. Best Buy declined to look into the matter without a receipt from Ms. Fafard's daughter, who no longer had it, Ms. Fafard claims. The suit accuses Apple and Best Buy of breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and accuses all three defendants of unjust enrichment. Ms. Fafard is represented by Jonathan Auerbach of Marcus & Auerbach LLP. Apple is represented by David M. Walsh -- dwalsh@mofo.com -- of Morrison & Foerster LLP. Best Buy and InComm are represented by Abraham J. Colman -- acolman@reedsmith.com -- Felicia Y. Yu -- fyu@reedsmith.com -- and Mathew M. Wrenshall -- mwrenshall@reedsmith.com -- of Reed Smith LLP. Ms. Fafard is represented by Jonathan Auerbach, Jerome M. Marcus and Steven G. Tyson of Marcus & Auerbach LLC and William A. Kershaw and Stuart C. Talley of Kershaw Cutter & Ratinoff LLP. The case is Barbara Fafard v. Apple Inc. et al., case number 3:12- cv-05125, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. APPLIED CONSTRUCTION: Faces Suit Over Unpaid Wages for OT Work -------------------------------------------------------------- Zbigniew Lakomiec v. Applied Construction Inc., Mohammad T. Riaz and Mohammad Arshad, Individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-00401-CM (S.D.N.Y., January 22, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff is entitled to unpaid wages from the Defendants for overtime work for which he did not receive overtime premium pay, and liquidated damages and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Lakomiec, a resident of Kings County, New York, was employed by the Defendants from October 15, 2011, to May 2012 as a fulltime employee in the position of construction worker and foreman. Applied Construction Inc. is a domestic business corporation based in New York. Mohamad T. Riaz is the Chief Executive Officer of the Company. Mohammad Arshad, a resident of Bronx, New York, is a manager or agent of the Company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Darius A. Marzec, Esq. MARZEC LAW FIRM, PC 225 Broadway, Suite 3000 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212)267-0200 Facsimile: (718) 841-7508 E-mail: dmarzec@marzeclaw.com BANK OF AMERICA: Removed "Federman" Suit to N.J. District Court --------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit captioned Federman v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. MER-L-2704-13, was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Trenton). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-00441-MAS-TJB to the proceeding. The action is brought on behalf of a class of hourly contract employees, who are or were workers at the information technology facilities of Bank of America, N.A. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce Daniel Greenberg, Esq. Jeffrey Alan Shooman, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com jshooman@litedepalma.com The Defendant is represented by: Philip Andrew Goldstein, Esq. MCGUIRE WOODS LLP 1345 Avenue of the Americas, 7th Floor New York, NY 10105-0106 Telephone: (212) 548-2167 E-mail: pagoldstein@mcguirewoods.com BANK OF THE WEST: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- On February 24, 2014, the San Diego Employment Lawyers at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of current and former Operations and Systems Analysts, against Bank of the West for failing to pay these employees overtime wages and provide the legally required meal periods. Morales, et al. v. Bank of the West, Case No. 34-2014-00004267-CU- OE-CTL is currently pending in the San Diego County Superior Court. The class action lawsuit claims that Bank of the West is required to pay its Operations and Systems Analysts overtime wages when these employees work more than eight (8) hours in a workday and/or more than forty (40) hours in a workweek. The lawsuit alleges that the Operations and Systems Analysts working for Bank of the West spend the vast majority of their time engaging in non-exempt tasks such as reporting, planning, executing, monitoring and troubleshooting hardware and software systems. As a result, the lawsuit alleges that the Operations and Systems Analysts should be paid overtime wages. The lawsuit does not specify the amount of back wages and penalties sought on behalf of the proposed class members. The San Diego labor lawyers at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik represent employees in the State of California in class action lawsuits for unpaid overtime, unpaid business expenses, unpaid commissions and missed meal and rest breaks. If you would like free California labor law advice, call one of their experienced attorneys today at (415) 935-3957. BETHESDA HOSPITAL: Class Seeks to Recover Overtime Compensation --------------------------------------------------------------- Wayman Roy, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v. Bethesda Hospital, Inc., a Florida Corporation f/k/a Bethesda Memorial Hospital, Inc., and XYZ Entities 1-10, Case No. 9:14-cv- 80089-DMM (S.D. Fla., January 22, 2014) is brought on behalf of similarly situated current and former employees of Bethesda to recover overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Bethesda Hospital, Inc., a Florida Corporation f/k/a Bethesda Memorial Hospital, Inc., is based in Palm Beach County, Florida, and owns and operates one or more hospitals and medical facilities, including "Bethesda Hospital East," "Bethesda Hospital West" and "Bethesda Heart Hospital." The XYZ Entities are divisions, subsidiaries and affiliates of Bethesda. The Plaintiff is represented by: Keith Michael Stern, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP 1515 S Federal Highway, Suite 404 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: kstern@shavitzlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Barbara Weiss Sonneborn, Esq. Michael Sheldon Smith, Esq. SONNEBORN RUTTER COONEY & SMITH, P.A. 1400 Centrepark Blvd., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 684-2000 Facsimile: (561) 684-2312 E-mail: BWS@SRCKE.Com mss@srcke.com CABLE NEWS: CNN App Gives Away Personal Information, Class Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that with each news story or video clip viewed, CNN's mobile app sends a record of the user's activity to a data analytics company, which resells the personally identifiable information to advertisers, a class action claims in Illinois Federal Court. Lead plaintiff Ryan Perry accuses Cable News Network and CNN Interactive Group of "a brazen disregard for its users' privacy rights," in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act. CNN, one of the largest television news channels in the world, offers mobile content through its app for smartphones. But "unbeknownst to its users, each time users read news stories or view video clips using the CNN App on their iPhones, CNN discloses their personally identifiable information -- including a record of every news story, video clip, and headline viewed by each user (collectively, 'Personally Identifiable Information' or 'PII') -- to unrelated third parties. In addition to demonstrating a brazen disregard for its users' privacy rights, CNN's actions also violate the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), which prohibits companies from disclosing their customers' video viewing records to third parties without express written consent," the lawsuit states. "CNN's violation of the VPPA is particularly flagrant here, as it programmed the CNN App to submit users' PII to a third party web data analytics company. The business models of such 'big data' companies center on the collection of disparate pieces of uniquely identifying information and online behavioral data about individual consumers, which they then compile to form comprehensive profiles about a person's entire digital life. These profiles can then be used for targeted advertising, sold as a commodity to other data brokers, or both." On installation, the app prompts the user to allow CNN to use the phone's location and to send notifications, but never asks for the user's consent to share information with third parties, Perry claims. Each time a user closes the app, it sends a complete record of the activity to a U.K. data analytics company called Bango, according to the complaint. Bango and similar companies maintain massive digital databases on consumers, and collect a "frightening array of information that feeds into a consumer's digital dossier," which is sold as a commodity to advertisers, Perry says. "In an era when the collection and monetization of consumer data proliferates on an unprecedented scale, it's important that companies are held accountable for the exploitation of their users' sensitive information. CNN chose to disregard plaintiff's and thousands of other users' statutorily protected privacy rights by releasing their sensitive data into the marketplace," Perry claims. Perry seeks punitive damages for violation of the VPPA, plus $2,500 in statutory damages per violation. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Richman, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle, 13th floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: brichman@edelson.com CASUAL MALE: Removed "Green" Class Suit to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Kevin Green v. Casual Male Store LLC, et al., Case No. BC530620, was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-00527-SJO-PLA to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan Jason Smith, Esq. BRODSKY AND SMITH LLC 9595 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 900 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 534-2590 Facsimile: (310) 247-0160 E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com The Defendants are represented by: Matthew R. Orr, Esq. Michael S. Orr, Esq. CALL AND JENSEN APC 610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 717-3000 Facsimile: (949) 717-3100 E-mail: morr@calljensen.com msorr@calljensen.com CBRE GROUP: Monthly Benefit Share Deducted Upon Return, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- CBRE workers who do not make monthly benefit contributions while on a leave of absence see that amount deducted from their wages upon their return, according to Courthouse News Service, citing a class action filed in California Superior Court. The case is Melissa Woods v. CBRE Group Inc.; Does, in the Superior Court of California for San Francisco County. COMMERCIAL METALS: Arguments in Direct Purchasers' Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Oral arguments related to class certification of a suit filed by direct purchasers of steel products against Commercial Metals Company are pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, according to the company's Jan. 9, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2013. On September 18, 2008, the Company was served with a class action antitrust lawsuit alleging violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, brought by Standard Iron Works of Scranton, Pennsylvania, against nine steel manufacturing companies, including CMC. The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleges that the defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price at which steel products were sold in the United States by artificially restricting the supply of such steel products. The lawsuit, which purports to be brought on behalf of a class consisting of all purchasers of steel products directly from the defendants between January 1, 2005 and September 2008, seeks treble damages and costs, including reasonable attorney fees and pre- and post- judgment interest. Motions for and against class certification have been filed. Oral arguments related to class certification are pending. Discovery on the case merits remains pending. The Company believes the case is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously. COMMERCIAL METALS: No Discovery Yet in Indirect Buyers' Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The motion to remand a suit against Commercial Metals Company by indirect purchasers of steel products has not yet been decided, and no motion practice or discovery has taken place, according to the company's Jan. 9, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2013. Since the filing of the direct purchaser lawsuit, a case has been filed in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of a class of indirect purchasers in approximately 28 states naming the same defendants and containing allegations substantially identical to those of the Standard Iron Works complaint. That case has in effect been stayed. Another indirect purchaser action was filed in Tennessee state court, again naming the same defendants but contending that the conspiracy continued through 2010. The case has been removed to federal court, and plaintiffs have moved to remand. The motion to remand has not yet been decided, and no motion practice or discovery has taken place. The Company believes that the lawsuits are without merit and plans to defend them vigorously. Due to the uncertainty and the information available at this time, the Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss relating to these cases. COMMUNITY HEALTH: Expedited Discovery Ruled Out in Merger Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Court entered an order denying plaintiffs' motion for expedited discovery in In re Health Management Associates, Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 1302288CA, according to Community Health Systems, Inc.'s Jan. 10, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Three purported class action cases have been filed in the Circuit Court of Collier County, Florida: namely, Aliaga vs. Health Management Associates, Inc. et al., filed August 1, 2013; Lopriore vs. Health Management Associates, et al., filed August 5, 2013; and Copeland vs. Health Management Associates, et al., filed August 8, 2013. All allege a breach of fiduciary duty by the board members of HMA arising out of the approval of the proposed acquisition by the company. Community Health Systems, Inc. and FWCT-2 Acquisition Corporation are named as aiding and abetting the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. A fourth case, Smilow vs. Health Management Associates, Inc. et al., filed August 13, 2013, does not name the company or FWCT-2 Acquisition Corporation as a defendant. The company is vigorously defending these actions. An additional case with similar allegations styled Margolis & Horwitz vs. Health Management Associates, Inc. et al., filed on August 5, 2013 in Delaware Chancery Court was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on November 25, 2013. On December 11, 2013, the plaintiffs in the Florida actions filed a consolidated amended complaint. On December 12, 2013, the court entered an order consolidating the Florida actions into a single case (In re Health Management Associates, Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 1302288CA) and appointing a leadership structure for plaintiffs' counsel. On December 16, 2013, the plaintiffs moved for expedited discovery in connection with an anticipated motion for a preliminary injunction prior to the closing of the proposed Merger. Defendants filed a brief in opposition to this motion on December 19, 2013, and on December 20, 2013, the Court entered an order denying the motion. COMMUNITY HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Tenn. Securities Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- The motion of Community Health Systems, Inc. to dismiss a shareholder suit against it in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee has been fully briefed and is pending before the court, according to Community Health Systems, Inc.'s Jan. 10, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Three purported class action cases have been filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee; namely, Norfolk County Retirement System v. Community Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 9, 2011; De Zheng v. Community Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 12, 2011; and Minneapolis Firefighters Relief Association v. Community Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed June 21, 2011. All three seek class certification on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock between July 27, 2006 and April 11, 2011 and allege that misleading statements resulted in artificially inflated prices for the company's common stock. In December 2011, the cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes and NYC Funds and its counsel were selected as lead plaintiffs/lead plaintiffs' counsel. The company's motion to dismiss this case has been fully briefed and is pending before the court. The company will vigorously defend this case. COMMUNITY HEALTH: Dismissal Motion in Suit v. HMA Awaits Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in In Re: Health Management Associates, Inc., et al. (Case No. 2:12-cv- 00046-JES-DNF) was fully submitted and awaiting decision of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, according to Community Health Systems, Inc.'s Jan. 10, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On April 30, 2012, two class action lawsuits that were brought against HMA and certain of its then executive officers, one of whom was at that time also a director, were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida under the caption In Re: Health Management Associates, Inc., et al. (Case No. 2:12-cv-00046-JES-DNF) and three pension fund plaintiffs were appointed as lead plaintiffs. On July 30, 2012, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint purportedly on behalf of stockholders who purchased HMA's common stock during the period from July 27, 2009, through January 9, 2012. The amended consolidated complaint (i) alleges that HMA made false and misleading statements in certain public disclosures regarding its business and financial results and (ii) asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Among other things, the plaintiffs claim that HMA inflated its earnings by engaging in fraudulent Medicare billing practices that entailed admitting patients to observation status when they should not have been admitted at all and to inpatient status when they should have been admitted to observation status. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages. On October 22, 2012, the defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended consolidated complaint for failure to state a claim or plead facts required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The plaintiffs filed an unopposed stipulation and proposed order to suspend briefing on the defendants' motion to dismiss because they intended to seek leave of court to file a proposed second amended consolidated complaint. On December 15, 2012, the court entered an order approving the stipulation and providing a schedule for briefing with respect to the proposed amended pleadings. On February 11, 2013, the defendants were served with the second amended consolidated complaint, which asserts the same claims as the amended consolidated complaint. As of August 15, 2013, the defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint for failure to state a claim and plead facts required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act was fully submitted and awaiting the Court's decision. HMA intends to vigorously defend against the allegations in this lawsuit. HMA is unable to predict the outcome or determine the potential impact, if any, that could result from its final resolution. COMMUNITY HEALTH: Expedited Discovery Ruled Out in Fla. Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ A judge entered an order denying the plaintiff's request for expedited discovery and granting leave for the plaintiff to file a separate motion for a preliminary injunction hearing in The City of Haverhill Retirement System v. Dauten, et al. (Case No. 8:13- cv-00213), according to Community Health Systems, Inc.'s Jan. 10, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On January 22, 2013, a putative shareholder derivative action entitled The City of Haverhill Retirement System v. Dauten, et al. (Case No. 8:13-cv-00213) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, purportedly on behalf of HMA against its then directors. HMA was also named as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges that, among other things, the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to HMA and its stockholders by supposedly causing HMA to undertake a scheme to defraud Medicare by improperly admitting certain emergency room patients as "inpatients" in violation of the False Claims Act and then issuing false and misleading public statements about HMA's financial outlook and compliance with laws and regulations. The complaint also alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by exposing HMA to potentially significant civil and criminal penalties as a result of the aforementioned investigations by United States Department of Health and Human Services, OIG and the DOJ as well as the stockholder class action and other ongoing litigation. The complaint seeks monetary damages from the defendants, other than HMA. On February 8, 2013, the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division (Case No. 2:13-cv-00092). On April 10, 2013 the plaintiff filed an amended complaint which asserts the same claims as its prior complaint, but also names two of the Company's then executives as defendants. On May 15, 2013, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint for threshold lack of derivative standing, for failure to make a demand on the Board, and for failure to state a claim. On June 26, 2013, the plaintiff opposed the defendants' motion to dismiss, and on August 16, 2013, the plaintiff moved to amend its complaint to add class action claims related to the Merger Agreement. On October 31, 2013, the Court entered an order dismissing the plaintiff's complaint as a "shotgun pleading" and granting the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint that cured the pleading deficiencies of its previous complaint and that asserted claims related to the proposed Merger. Plaintiff filed its second amended complaint on November 14, 2013, which asserts the same claims as the prior complaint, but adds purported class action claims related to the proposed Merger, and names as additional defendants HMA's current directors. On December 16, 2013, the defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. On December 20, 2013, the plaintiff moved for expedited discovery and for oral argument to be scheduled for an anticipated motion for a preliminary injunction prior to the closing of the proposed Merger. The defendants filed a brief in opposition to this motion on December 24, 2013. On December 26, 2013, the magistrate judge entered an order denying the plaintiff's request for expedited discovery and granting leave for the plaintiff to file a separate motion for a preliminary injunction hearing. COMMUNITY HEALTH: Motion to Junk Suit by HMA Stockholders Filed --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants in Town of Davie Police Officers' Pension Plan v. Dauten, et al. (C.A. No. 8742) moved to dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, according to Community Health Systems, Inc.'s Jan. 10, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On July 23, 2013, an action entitled Town of Davie Police Officers' Pension Plan v. Dauten, et al. (C.A. No. 8742) was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. This action purportedly was brought as a class action on behalf of all of HMA's stockholders, as well as derivatively on behalf of HMA against HMA's then directors and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, Wells Fargo Securities, LLC ("Wells Fargo"), and Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. ("Deutsche Bank"). The complaint alleges, among other things, that those directors breached their fiduciary duties (i) by approving a credit agreement in 2011 that contains a change of control covenant which plaintiff contends will coerce shareholders into supporting the re-election of HMA's incumbent board of directors and (ii) by not approving Glenview Nominees for election to HMA's Board of Directors for purposes of seeking a waiver of the change of control covenant. The complaint further alleges that the Wells Fargo and Deutsche Bank defendants aided and abetted such breaches. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, including (i) a declaration that those directors breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the credit agreement and (ii) an order permanently enjoining the board of directors from invoking or enforcing the change of control covenant in the credit agreement. Plaintiff also seeks unspecified damages from those directors and an award of attorneys' fees and costs. On September 20, 2013, the defendants moved to dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as well as the plaintiff's failure to make a demand on the Board of Directors and failure to state a claim. HMA intends to defend this action. COMMUNITY HEALTH: Continues to Face Suits Over HMA Acquisition -------------------------------------------------------------- Community Health Systems, Inc. continues to face lawsuits over its acquisition of Health Management Associates, according to Community Health's Jan. 10, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Five putative class action lawsuits challenging the Merger have been filed on behalf of a putative class consisting of HMA's stockholders. Four were filed in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida: (1) Aliaga v. Health Mgmt. Assocs., Inc., et al., Civ. No. 13-2288-CA ("Aliaga"), filed on August 1, 2013; (2) Copeland v. Health Mgmt. Assocs., Inc., et al., Case No. 13-2356-CA ("Copeland"), filed on August 8, 2013; (3) Lopriore v. Health Mgmt. Assocs., Inc., et al., Case No. 13-2307-CA ("Lopriore"), filed on August 5, 2013; and (4) Smilow v. Health Mgmt. Assocs., Inc., et al., Case No. 13- 2371-CA ("Smilow"), filed on August 13, 2013 (collectively, the "Florida Actions"). The fifth case, Margolis, et al. v. Schoen, et al., C.A. No. 8774-CS, was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on August 5, 2013. With limited exceptions, these actions name HMA, former members of its board of directors, CHS, and Merger Sub as defendants. Generally, the plaintiffs in these actions allege that those directors breached their fiduciary duties to HMA stockholders by, among other things, approving the Merger Agreement for allegedly inadequate consideration, following an allegedly unfair sale process that favored the interests of CHS and those directors over HMA stockholders, and that CHS and Merger Sub aided and abetted such alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs further allege that those directors breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to terms in the Merger Agreement that favor CHS and deter alternative bids. The actions seek, among other things, an injunction against the completion of the Merger (or rescission of the Merger Agreement to the extent it has been implemented) and the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses. The company intends to defend these actions. CONAGRA FOODS: Has to Disclose Sodium Content in Sunflower Seeds ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that though the shells of David-brand sunflower seeds are inedible, ConAgra Foods may still have to disclose how much sodium their flavorful coating contains, the 9th Circuit ruled February 20, 2014. California resident Aleta Lilly hopes to represent a class against the packaged food giant under various state consumer laws. She claims that ConAgra must disclose on its packaging the sodium content of the seed coating, which comes in a variety of flavors, since it is meant to be ingested. She pointed out that the instructions on the popular David brand sunflower seeds tell consumers to crack the shell with their teeth and spit out the shell. Following these directions, the consumer cannot help but to ingest the outer coating, she claimed. ConAgra moved to dismiss the complaint based on federal pre- emption, arguing that Lilly's state-law claims sought to impose labeling requirements other than those mandated by the Food and Drug Administration. U.S. District Judge R. Gary Klausner agreed and dismissed the putative class action in Los Angeles, but an appellate panel revived Lilly's claims, 2-1, on February 20, 2014. ConAgra had argued that the shell and its coating are "inedible" and therefore need not be represented on labels, as the FDA does not require companies to list the sodium levels of such "inedible components." The appeals court rejected this argument, countering that it failed to make a distinction between the shell and the coating. "ConAgra's argument simply ignores the fact that while the shells themselves are inedible, the coatings put on top of the shells most certainly are not inedible," Judge Barry Silverman wrote for the majority. "To the contrary, the coatings impart flavor and are indisputably intended to be ingested as part of the sunflower seed eating experience. Indeed, these coatings come in flavors such as 'Ranch' and 'Nacho Cheese' precisely because they are to be consumed before the shell is discarded. The shell is not edible, but the coating is and is intended to be. Federal law requires that the sodium listings include the 'edible portion' of a food. For that reason, the portion of the edible coating on the shell must be accounted for in the calculation of the sodium content. The asserted state law requirements that Lilly seeks to impose here are thus no different from federal law and not preempted." U.S. District Judge C. Roger Vinson, who sat on the panel by designation from the Northern District of Florida, wrote in dissent that it was not the panel's job to determine the edibility of the coating. "Although we might prefer a regulation that includes the shell's absorbed salt and to draw a distinction between an edible 'coating' and an inedible shell, we are nonetheless bound to apply this unambiguous regulation objectively as it has been written," he wrote. "In my view, it is not currently written to allow such a nuanced distinction. The FDA could, of course, have drafted the regulation in any detail that it wanted (and it could still do so now), making distinctions such as the one favored by the majority today." The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by: Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. Danielle A. Stoumbos, Esq. FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON, LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 398-8700 Facsimile: (415) 398-8704 E-mail: rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com dstoumbos@finkelsteinthompson.com The Defendant-Appellee is represented by: Patrick E. Brookhouser, Jr., Esq. Lauren R. Goodman, Esq. Noah Priluck, Esq. MCGRATH NORTH MULLIN & KRATZ, PC LLO, First National Tower, Suite 3700 1601 Dodge Street Omaha, NE 68102 Telephone: (402) 341-3070 E-mail: pbrookhouser@mcgrathnorth.com lgoodman@mcgrathnorth.com npriluck@mcgrathnorth.com The appellate case is Aleta Lilly v. Conagra Foods, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 12-55921, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The original case is Aleta Lilly v. Conagra Foods, Inc., Case No. 2:12-cv-00225-RGK-SH, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. CRANE CO: Representative in Asbestos Trial Says Products Safe ------------------------------------------------------------- Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that nearing the end of a rare Madison County, Ill. asbestos trial, the jury was given the chance to hear directly from a Crane Co. representative who stands firm in his belief that Crane Co. gaskets and packing were not hazardous. According to the lawsuit, plaintiff Tom King was a machinist mate for the U.S. Navy from 1959-1962 and again from 1965-1969. He later died from mesothelioma on May 23 at age 71. As a machinist mate, Mr. King's job was to change gaskets, repair pumps and repair valves. Part of his job required him to scrape out dry, baked chrysotile asbestos form gaskets in order to replace them with new ones. He was also exposed to asbestos packing, which was used in valves and pumps as a sealant to prevent leaks. Crane Co.'s Vice President of Environment Health and Safety Anthony Pantaleoni's testimony was first heard on Feb. 28 when the plaintiffs showed his video deposition. Mr. Pantaleoni joined Crane Co. in 1989 and became a designated representative in 2003. In his video deposition, Mr. Pantaleoni agrees that Crane Co.'s primary product line is dedicated to valves and valve component parts, which sometimes included asbestos. He said the company first started selling the products in the early 1900s and didn't stop selling asbestos-containing valves until the mid-1980s. Mr. Pantaleoni later stated in his deposition that Crane Co. continued producing one product line of asbestos-containing valves into the 1990s. Crane Co. became aware of asbestos health hazards and illnesses in the early 70s, he said. However, in his defense testimony heard by the court on Feb. 26, Mr. Pantaleoni said Crane Co. still to this day does not believe the gaskets and packing it sold was hazardous. Questioned by Crane Co. attorney Jim Lowery, Mr. Pantaleoni said all asbestos-containing gaskets and packing were provided to them by third-party companies to be sold by Crane Co. "We never manufactured asbestos, never mined it, never milled it in any of our operations," Mr. Pantaleoni said. He admitted that while Crane Co. didn't make the asbestos- containing gaskets and packing, it did put them into its products. Mr. Pantaleoni said the valves they made were simple to use, but were intricate to construct. It is important that they are made in a clean environment to prevent malfunctions and leaking. "While the valve itself is a simple mechanism, the way you make it is a critical aspect," he said. It was also important that the metals used are correct, the formulations are correct and the way those metals are used are correct. He went on to explain that valves do not require asbestos in order to function, saying using asbestos or not makes no determination of whether it functions correctly. He added that the material running through the valve would determine whether or not asbestos is needed. "That valve doesn't care," he said. He proceeded to demonstrate the components of a valve and how it is used or manipulated on a 1.5 inch brass valve from Crane Co. "If you had a flanged end and you're bolting that into a piping system, then you have to have a gasket in order to make a proper fit," he explained. He showed the jury how a gasket would seal the surface of the valve to prevent a metal-to-metal contact, which would leak. "All they are is sealing devices," Mr. Pantaleoni said. "They're just put in there to prevent leakage." Therefore, the gasket is not actually part of the valve. Mr. Pantaleoni made it clear that while asbestos was not necessary in a gasket, gaskets were necessary in certain types of valves. Without a proper sealant, the valve or a line could explode. Answering a juror's question, he explained that packing isn't necessary in all valves. But for those that do require packing, the material would go in the stem of the valve. Packing is not friable, but if it is dry it could still be dusty, he said. Regardless of whether or not asbestos was required, Mr. Pantaleoni said Crane Co. was following Navy specifications, which dictated exactly what was needed. Drawings identified every part or component part and the materials associated with it. "Well, the Navy was the most stringent customer that Crane had," he said. "If that specification said that had to be asbestos, that's what it had to be," he added. The Navy even provided inspectors located in Crane Co.'s operations to make sure the products met those specifications and often performed random testing on those products. Because the Navy specifically asked for flange valves, gaskets were required, he said. And those gaskets had to be asbestos to meet military specifications, he said. Answering a juror's question, Mr. Pantaleoni said Crane Co. provided technical manuals if the Navy requested them, but in most cases, the Navy would take those and produce their own manuals. However, he added that he has never seen a technical manual for a pump or a valve. During redirect by the defense, Mr. Pantaleoni said it was his understanding that the Navy did not provide respirators for use aboard their ships when working with asbestos-containing materials. When asked about the safety efforts Crane Co. took, he explained that Crane Co. didn't believe its products were dangerous and he never came across any issues relating to gaskets and packing health hazards. During cross examination by plaintiff attorney Frank Wathen, he said Crane Co. never performed any testing or research on those products because it didn't manufacture them and didn't believe they were problematic. "We didn't see a reason to because of the nature of what we did," Mr. Pantaleoni said. Mr. Pantaleoni agreed that Crane Co. knew the gaskets would eventually have to be removed, but didn't test for those situations because the forceful removal of dry gaskets was not performed in Crane Co.'s operations. The efforts Crane Co. did make towards health and safety in the factories began in the early 1900s with Dr. Andrew Harvey, who was a leader of occupational health and safety. Mr. Pantaleoni said Harvey set up medical programs and rehabilitation for Crane Co. employees before a Workers' Compensation program existed. His efforts provided injured employees an opportunity to continue earning a wage while regaining health, he said. It benefited families who depended on the wages and Crane Co. which depended on having healthy workers, he said. Fast-forwarding to Mr. Pantaleoni's time, he said Crane Co. ensures the factories meet safety regulations and laws while remaining very clean for proper valve construction and controlling dusty areas to prevent any asbestos exposure. "When we were looking at our plant operations, we wanted to make sure they were safe for all of our employees," he said. DAVID COPPERFIELD: Intimidates Those Who Challenge Him, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magician David Copperfield stiffs his employees for overtime and uses his "might and influence" to intimidate those who challenge him, seven workers claim in a federal class action, reports Megan Gallegos at Courthouse News Service. Lead plaintiff Jaroslav Jastrzebski sued David Copperfield, his companies David Copperfield's Disappearing Inc., Backstage Employment and Referral, and Imagine Nation Company, and Backstage CEO Christopher Kenner. The seven named plaintiffs, all male, say they worked as stagehands and in other production jobs "The Magic of David Copperfield" show at the MGM Grand Hotel and Casino. They claim that Copperfield and his companies put together a system to make their overtime wages disappear. "This system consisted of, inter alia, creating job titles for each and every employee that did not conform to reality," the complaint states. "For instance, the majority of the employees engaged at the show had a job title of 'Illusion Specialist/Creative Associate' even though they performed mundane functions of a stagehand, spotlight operator, light-board operator, electrician, show assistant, technician, etc. As another example, many employees responsible for running Copperfield's errands, doing laundry, shopping, moving, driving, etc. were given a job title of 'Executive Assistant' and were denied overtime pay. "Every week such employees would receive a paycheck that did not specify the hours or days worked during each week, or even a classification of such employees. "Yet, despite the fact that the paycheck did not specify the amount of time worked by each employee, it was the defendants' company-wide policy that the employees made a day-rate and that any absence of a given day would result in denial of pay. "Indeed, for any workweek that the lead plaintiffs worked fewer days than their required quota, even if such an absence was necessitated by the defendants' operating requirements, the defendants deducted pay from the lead plaintiffs' paychecks accordingly." The workers claim Copperfield did not maintain timekeeping records, forced them to work six to seven days a week for 10-14 hours a day without overtime pay, and deducted housing costs for some of them. When they confronted Copperfield about the labor violations, "the defendants reminded the employees of their unique chance to work for Copperfield and demanded sacrifice," the complaint states. "In addition, the employees were constantly reminded about their economic dependence on Copperfield and threatened by Copperfield's might and influence." When the plaintiffs sought legal help in December 2013, Copperfield threatened to sue three of them for violating their "secrecy agreements," and "to discourage remaining employees for pursuing their overtime claims, according to the complaint: "on January 3, 2014 the defendants commenced a frivolous lawsuit in the Eight Judicial District Court of Nevada (Case # A-14-693932C) with a retaliatory intent to punish the most vocal Plaintiffs Jastrzebski, England, and Smith, and to deter those employees who were still considering an action against the Defendants for overtime violations," the complaint states. The plaintiffs seek money owed, an injunction, class damages and punitive damages for labor law violations, retaliation, failure to pay wages, civil conspiracy and abuse of process. Forbes magazine last year estimated Copperfield's net worth at $800 million -- $300 million more than Madonna's -- and said he rakes in about $50 million a year in ticket sales, plus merchandising, which he owns. Copperfield's publicists offered a statement on behalf of an unnamed attorney for Copperfield. In past lawsuits, Copperfield has been represented by Philip Varricchio. "Don't be fooled by these claims," the statement reads. "They have it all backwards. David and his company are the ones that have been wronged here. Evidence shows that David's trade secrets and intellectual property have been systematically revealed, and this lawsuit is smoke and mirrors to cover up a much bigger issue." The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jakub P. Medrala, Esq. DONATH & MEDRALA, PROF. LLC 7866 West Sahara Avenue Las Vegas, NV 89117 Telephone: (702) 475-8884 Facsimile: (702) 938-8625 E-mail: info@medralaw.com EXECUTIVE 2000: Refused to Pay OT Wages, "Fernandez" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Guillermo Fernandez and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(B) v. Executive 2000 Courier Systems, Inc. and Dennis Nieves, Case No. 1:14-cv-20266-JAL (S.D. Fla., January 22, 2014) accuses the Defendants of willfully and intentionally refusing to pay the Plaintiff's overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Executive 2000 Courier Systems, Inc. is a corporation that regularly transacts business within Dade County, Florida. Dennis Nieves is a corporate officer, owner or manager of the Company. The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. Daniel T. Feld, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: (305) 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM DanielFeld.Esq@Gmail.com FIRST AMERICAN: Denial of Class Cert. in "Hataishi" Suit Affirmed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In DINA HATAISHI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. FIRST AMERICAN HOME BUYERS PROTECTION CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent, NO. B244769, Ms. Hataishi appealed from a trial court order denying her motion for certification of a California class of Defendant First American Home Buyers Protection Corporation's customers whose telephone conversations were recorded without warning. The Plaintiff contends that First American's conduct violates Penal Code1 section 632, which prohibits the intentional recording of a "confidential communication" without the consent of all parties to the communication. The trial court denied Plaintiff's motion for class certification for lack of ascertainability, community of interest and superiority. The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, affirms on the ground that the proposed class lacks the requisite community of interest. The trial court also applied the correct legal standard, and its ruling is supported by substantial evidence, the Appeals Court concludes. "Because the trial court did not commit legal error in concluding common questions of fact do not predominate, we need not consider the other grounds the court identified for denying class certification," notes the Appeals Court ruling. A copy of the Appeals Court's February 21, 2014 Opinion is available at http://is.gd/hAwFPkfrom Leagle.com. Law Offices of Lisa L. Maki and Lisa L. Maki -- lmaki58@ymail.com ; Kiesel + Larson and Paul R. Kiesel -- mailto:kiesel@kbla.com -- for Plaintiff and Appellant. Dentons US, Joel D. Siegel -- joel.siegel@snrdenton.com -- and Paul M. Kakuske -- paul.kakuske@snrdenton.com -- for Defendant and Respondent. FOREST PHARMACEUTICALS: Lexapro Suit Obtains Class Action Status ---------------------------------------------------------------- Heidi Turner, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that a Lexapro lawsuit arguing Forest Pharmaceuticals misled patients about the risk of Lexapro side effects and Celexa side effects has been granted class-action status. The lawsuit alleges that Forest Pharmaceuticals Inc., maker of Lexapro and Celexa, covered up findings suggesting the antidepressants were not effective in children. Meanwhile, a lawsuit has been filed against Forest Pharmaceuticals alleging Lexapro caused fatal birth defects in a baby who died two weeks after her birth. According to Law360, the class-action decision was handed down by a Massachusetts federal judge in the lawsuit filed by Missouri parents (case number 1:09-md-02067, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts) even though similar allegations made in lawsuits in New York and Illinois were rejected. The judge determined, however, the plaintiffs' allegations -- that they were misled into giving their children Lexapro and Celexa even though the drugs were not approved for use in children -- could go ahead under Missouri's Merchandising Practices Act. All three sets of lawsuits -- from Missouri, New York and Illinois -- have been consolidated for multidistrict litigation in Massachusetts federal court. The lawsuits all allege Forest Pharmaceuticals marketed the drugs as safe for children even though they were not approved for pediatric use. Although it is not illegal for drugs to be prescribed off-label -- for uses they are not approved for -- it is illegal for drug companies to market medications for off-label uses. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit argue that by not giving parents full information about Lexapro and Celexa -- specifically that a clinical trial found the drugs to be no more effective than a placebo in children -- Forest Pharmaceuticals denied parents the opportunity to make an informed decision. While that lawsuit works its way through the system, a lawsuit alleging a baby died of birth defects caused by Lexapro has been filed against Forest Pharmaceuticals. The lawsuit (case number 14-cv-00114 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey) was filed by Chandra Shuck and claims her daughter, M.M.S., died two weeks after she was born due to birth defects caused by Lexapro, which the baby's mother took while pregnant. According to the lawsuit, baby M.M.S. was diagnosed at birth with life-threatening heart defects, including "an atrial septal defect, a ventricular septal defect, a patent ductus arteriosus, a patent foramen ovale, a coarctation of the aorta, a right ventricular outflow tract obstruction defects, a left ventricular outflow tract obstruction defects and pulmonary hypertension." In all, baby M.M.S. had four open-heart surgeries to treat her conditions in her two weeks of life. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants knew about the risk of cardiac and other birth defects in infants who were exposed to the medications prior to birth, but still marketed the drug for use in pregnant women. Furthermore, the lawsuit claims that because the defendants continued to misrepresent the risks associated with Lexapro, it took the plaintiff longer to discover that Lexapro may have caused her daughter's serious heart condition. Among the claims against Forest Pharmaceuticals are wrongful death, defective design and failure to warn. FREESCORE LLC: 9th Cir. Flips Lower Court Ruling in "Stout" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In KEVIN STOUT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FREESCORE, LLC, DBA FreeScore.com, Defendant-Appellee, NO. 10-56887, Mr. Stout appeals the dismissal of his putative class action against FreeScore under the Credit Repair Organizations Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1679, et seq. (CROA). In dismissing Mr. Stout's claim, the district court concluded that FreeScore is not a "credit repair organization" as defined in the CROA. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit holds that FreeScore is a "credit repair organization" for purposes of the CROA, because Freescore, through the representations it made on its website and in its television advertising, offered a service, in return for the payment of money, for the implied purpose of providing advice or assistance to consumers with regard to improving the consumer's credit record, credit history, or credit rating. The Ninth Circuit, therefore, reverses the judgment of the district court and remands the case for further proceedings. A copy of the Circuit Court's February 21, 2014 Opinion is available at http://is.gd/vmBErwfrom Leagle.com. For Plaintiff-Appellant, Todd M. Friedman -- tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com -- Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C., Beverly Hills, California, and: Aaron D. Radbil, Esq. (argued) Weisberg & Meyers LLC 10400 Griffin Road, Suite 302 Cooper City, FL 33328 Telephone: (888) 595-9111 Darrel J. Hieber -- darrel.hieber@skadden.com -- (argued), Jason D. Russell -- jason.russell@skadden.com -- and Jennifer E. LaGrange, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Los Angeles, California, for Defendant-Appellee. GENERAL RETIREMENT: Settles Class Action for $7.9 Million --------------------------------------------------------- Christine Ferretti, writing for The Detroit News, reports that a $7.9 million settlement was reached on Feb. 26 in a years-long legal battle against trustees of the city's two pension funds. The class-action suit filed in Wayne County Circuit Court on behalf of all pensioners alleges negligence in 10 investments trustees made in 2008-09 involving real estate, newspapers, airplanes and start-up equity funds, attorneys for the plaintiffs say. The 2009 legal action has led to procedural reforms within the General Retirement System and Police and Fire Retirement System and now calls for the Hudson Insurance Company, which insured the trustees, to equally distribute a payout of $5.4 million between the funds. The remaining $2.7 million will go to attorney fees and court costs. The plaintiffs in the suit claimed more than a dozen former trustees breached their fiduciary duties by approving high-risk investments of fund money without due diligence and were granted a restraining order from the court to prevent documents from being destroyed. None of the defendants, nor the insurer, admitted liability in the deal. Gerard Mantese, a Troy-based attorney for the plaintiffs, said the main goal was to "change the way the boards do business." "The real purpose and benefit of the litigation is to force a new era in the decision-making and approval process for investments by the trustees," Mr. Mantese said, adding the settlement funds will now go back into the retirement systems and be available for payments to pensioners. Bruce Babiarz with the Police and Fire Retirement System emphasized on Feb. 26 the lawsuit did not involve the retirement systems or pension boards, just individual trustees. The case involves figures who factor into a bribery and kickback case pending in federal court against Kwame Kilpatrick's fraternity brother and three others. A federal indictment alleges former Detroit Treasurer and Kilpatrick fraternity brother Jeffrey Beasley pressured those who dealt with the retirement systems to contribute money to the Kilpatrick Civic Fund in return for his support. The indictment includes allegations that one former trustee received a Christmas gift basket stuffed with cash, free trips and other items from people seeking investments from the Police and Fire pension fund. Mr. Beasley and three others are scheduled to stand trial in June. Among the former trustees named in the circuit court class-action suit are Mr. Beasley, ex-City Council President Monica Conyers and Marty Bandemer, a former Detroit Police union president and former trustees DeDan Milton and Paul Stewart. S. Allen Early, an attorney for Mr. Milton, said on Feb. 26 that the case was "contentious" but called its resolution fair, noting there was no admission of liability and that Detroit's pension funds are getting "a significant amount of money." GOODWILL INDUSTRIES: Class Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Goodwill Industries of Southern California stiffs workers for overtime, a class action claims in California Superior Court. GRENVILLE CHRISTIAN: Student Abuse Class Action Can Proceed ----------------------------------------------------------- Nick Gardiner, writing for Recorder and Times, reports that a $225-million class-action lawsuit alleging abuse against students attending Grenville Christian College from 1973 to 1997 has been given the go-ahead to proceed. A nine-page decision released on Feb. 24 by an appeal tribunal of the Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court overturned a May 23, 2012 ruling by Judge Paul Perell. The decision, signed by Judges Francis Kiteley, Helen Rady and Kevin Whitaker, concluded that Judge Perell was mistaken in refusing to certify the class-action suit. The now-closed school and the individual respondents cited in the claim must pay $35,000 to the appellants for the cost of the appeal. Similarly, the respondents are ordered to pay the appellants' cost of the certification motion of $150,000. The $225-million lawsuit filed in 2007 alleges physical and sexual abuse, including bizarre rituals to punish students' sins which they claim left them traumatized. The claim led by five plaintiffs names the school, the Incorporated Synod of the Diocese of Ontario, Rev. Charles Farnsworth, Betty Farnsworth and Judy Hay, executrix for the estate of Alastair Haig and Mary Haig. Judge Perell's 2012 decision ruled a class-action lawsuit could not proceed as a "preferable procedure" because the common issues are overwhelmed by individual issues. But the tribunal judges rejected the argument, noting Judge Perell "made a palpable and overriding error in the analysis and decision as to the preferable procedure." While Judge Perell correctly listed the criteria to be considered, he failed to "undertake a critical analysis that would dictate a different result," states the decision of the appeal tribunal. There is a powerful economic argument to proceed as a class-action suit, according to the latest decision. It is clear "most individuals cannot afford to pursue litigation on this scale," an argument for class actions made in a precedent case during 2012. Judge Perell also erred in suggesting common issues litigated in a class action suit would be re-litigated in the trials of individual claims, the tribunal said. The tribunal found instead "a determination of the common issues would necessarily involve a consideration of matters affecting all class members irrespective of their individual circumstances." Those matters include a history of the school, duties owed by the college and the affiliated respondents to class members especially relating to discipline, practices and policies that affected those duties and whether a school's disciplinary practices were systemic and a breach of the school's responsibilities to the students. H&R BLOCK: Removed "Number" Suit to Western District of Missouri ---------------------------------------------------------------- The purported class action lawsuit styled Number Queen, Ltd., et al. v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., Case No. 1316-CV28523, was removed from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri County, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri (Kansas City). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-00064- HFS to the proceeding. The lawsuit asserts product liability claims. The Plaintiffs are represented by: John E. Toma, Esq. 362 Gulf Breeze Parkway, Suite 223 Gulf Breeze, FL 32561 Telephone: (314) 361-1600 - and - Lyle W. Cook, Esq. Stuart C. Talley, Esq. William A. Kershaw, Esq. KERSHAW, CUTTER & RATINOFF LLP 401 Watt Avenue Sacramento, CA 95864 Telephone: (916) 448-9800 Facsimile: (916) 669-4499 E-mail: lcook@kcrlegal.com stalley@kcrlegal.com wkershaw@kcrlegal.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael Biggers, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LLP 3600 One Metropolitan Square 211 N Broadway St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 259-2000 Facsimile: (314) 259-2020 E-mail: mgbiggers@bryancave.com - and - Robert M. Thompson, Esq. BRYAN CAVE, LLP 1200 Main Street, Suite 3500 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 374-3249 Facsimile: (816) 855-3249 E-mail: rmthompson@bryancave.com HAMMER NUTRITION: Misleads NY Consumers, "Harabedian" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Harabedian, individually on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Hammer Nutrition, Ltd., Case No. 2:14-cv- 00459-LDW-ARL (E.D.N.Y., January 22, 2014) is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all consumers in New York, who purchased any of these Hammer products at any time during the applicable statute of limitations period: Appestat capsules and Perpetuem powder. Hammer's claim that its products are made with natural ingredients are false and misleading, Mr. Harabedian contends. He argues that testing of the Hammer products revealed, inter alia, that they do not fit within the United States Department of Agriculture's "natural" classification, and the products contain ingredients that would prompt objection by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration when used in connection with the term "natural." Hammer is a Montana corporation headquartered in Whitefish, Montana. Hammer distributes various dietary supplements through retailers and online throughout the country, including New York State. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Joseph Lipari, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 705-9460 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com HERTZ CORP: Sued in N.J. Over Hidden Currency Conversion Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that The Hertz Corp. is being sued in federal court in Newark by U.S. customers who say they were hit with undisclosed currency conversion charges when renting vehicles abroad using credit cards. The putative class action, Margulis v. The Hertz Corp., alleges that the 4-year-old practice violates New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act, which carries the potential of treble damages and attorney fee shifting if the plaintiffs prevail. The suit also includes claims of breach of contract with customers, common law fraud and unjust enrichment. It seeks compensatory and statutory damages as well as attorney fees and costs. According to the complaint, Hertz quotes customers vehicle-rental rates that do not include the extra fee, which comes later in the form of an exchange rate higher than that charged by most credit-card companies. Hertz unilaterally imposes a 4.5 percent fee for the currency conversion service, whereas credit card companies typically charge from 3 percent down to nothing, the complaint says. What's more, Hertz allegedly states falsely that the customer has chosen to have the service performed and that the company's method is cheaper than conversion by a credit-card issuer. Named plaintiff Daniel Margulis says he was hit with the 4.5 percent conversion rate twice in 2013 while renting cars in Italy and in Wales, whereas his own credit card company does not charge for currency conversion. When he protested, Hertz told him he opted for the service and authorized the billing. Plaintiff lawyer Jason Solotaroff -- jsolotaroff@gslawny.com -- of Giskan Solotaroff Anderson & Stewart in New York, says he believes the nationwide putative class to number in the tens of thousands. He says that the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act applies because Hertz's headquarters is in this state and the company's policies are formed here. Paul DePetris of Medford, a consumer law authority, says federal banking laws commonly are held to preempt state law claims. In addition, a judge might be reluctant to apply the Consumer Fraud Act to such a wide class of potential claimants, since the allegedly fraudulent conduct could have occurred out of state or out of country, he says. IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Feb. 27 disclosed that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of Immunomedics, Inc. common stock during the period between May 9, 2013 and October 9, 2013. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from February 27, 2014. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/immunomedics/ Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint charges Immunomedics and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Immunomedics is a biopharmaceutical company primarily focused on the development of monoclonal antibody-based products for the targeted treatment of cancer and autoimmune and other serious diseases. In July 2008, Immunomedics entered into a License and Collaboration Agreement with Nycomed GmbH, whereby the Company issued Nycomed a worldwide license to develop, manufacture and commercialize one of its most advanced therapeutic compounds, Veltuzumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody for the treatment of all non-cancer indications. Immunomedics retained the rights to develop, manufacture and commercialize Veltuzumab in the field of oncology. In September 2011, Nycomed was acquired by Takeda Pharmaceutical Company (hereinafter referred to as "Takeda- Nycomed"). As a result of entering into the Agreement, Takeda- Nycomed was solely responsible for completing the clinical development of and obtaining all necessary regulatory approvals for Veltuzumab, as well as commercializing and manufacturing Veltuzumab for sale in non-cancer indications. The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants made numerous positive statements about Veltuzumab and its related development by Takeda-Nycomed. Unbeknownst to investors however, prior to and during the Class Period, the Company and Takeda- Nycomed were embroiled in an on-going dispute regarding what Immunomedics considered to be an unacceptable delay in the development of Veltuzumab. In fact, on May 14, 2013, just three days after the beginning of the Class Period, Immunomedics provided Takeda-Nycomed with a formal notification that, as a result of the delays in the development in Veltuzumab, it considered Takeda-Nycomed to be in "material breach" of the Agreement and that the Agreement would terminate if the breach remained uncured. Thereafter, defendants continued to make positive statements about Veltuzumab and its related development by Takeda-Nycomed. Then, on October 9, 2013, Immunomedics issued a press release announcing that the Agreement with Takeda-Nycomed had been terminated. On this news, Immunomedics common stock dropped 5.9%, on very heavy trading volume. Moreover, the previous day, October 8, 2013, Immunomedics common stock dropped nearly 12%, on very heavy trading volume, as news about the termination of the Agreement leaked into the market. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Immunomedics common stock during the Class Period. The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international institutional investors in contingency-based securities and corporate litigation. With nearly 200 lawyers in ten offices, the firm represents hundreds of public and multi- employer pension funds with combined assets under management in excess of $2 trillion. INCYTE CORP: Court Dismisses Claims in Shareholders' Suit --------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Juan R. Sanchez dismissed the claims filed by plaintiffs in IN RE INCYTE SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-365, (D. Del.). Plaintiff City of Lakeland Employees' Pension Plan brought this consolidated securities fraud class action on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Incyte Corporation between April 26, 2012, and August 1, 2012. The Plaintiff asserts claims against Incyte and three of its officers -- Chief Executive Officer Paul A. Friedman, Chief Commercial Officer Patricia S. Andrews, and Executive Vice President and Chief Drug Development and Medical Officer Richard S. Levy -- for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA). Judge Sanchez granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the Plaintiff's claims without prejudice for failure to adequately state a claim for a violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act. Since Plaintiff failed to state a valid claim under Section 10(b), the Section 20(a) claims must also be dismissed. The Plaintiff has 30 days from the date of the Order to amend its Complaint to address the failure to plead fraud with sufficient particularity. A copy of the District Court's February 21, 2014 Memorandum is available at http://is.gd/TvXGOXfrom Leagle.com. JEAN MADELINE: Sued Over High Student Cosmetology Service Charges ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Packel, writing for Law360, reports that a cosmetology school run by salon chain Jean Madeline Inc. in conjunction with Aveda Corp. was hit with a class action in Pennsylvania state court on Feb. 25 alleging that customers who received services from students were charged above the state maximum for student-provided services. Plaintiff Sophia Krivy said in the lawsuit that under Pennsylvania law, customers who get cosmetology services from students can only be charged for the cost of materials. "Defendants employ a uniform policy of charging fees to members of the public for cosmetology services which are much higher than the costs of materials consumed in providing those services," she said. Ms. Krivy said that when she was charged $12 for a haircut at the Jean Madeline Aveda Institute's University City salon in Philadelphia, she paid more than the cost of materials that were used. She said that the cost structure at the school, which has three student salons in the city, violates the state's Beauty Culture Act, a law enacted in 1996. Under the law, it is illegal in the state to collect fees for cosmetology services unless an individual holds a cosmetology license, according to Ms. Krivy. She added that the only exception is for schools of cosmetology, which are allowed to charge solely for the cost of materials involved in the services. She noted that the cost of materials for her $12 haircut could not have gone past $1. Ms. Krivy seeks to certify a class of all customers who received services from any of the three Philadelphia branches of the school since February 2008. She also seeks to establish a subclass of customers who paid more than $8 for a haircut at the University City location. Ms. Krivy said that the excessive charges qualify as a deceptive business practice under the state's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, which allows for a $100 per person statutory penalty for misrepresentations. Under the law, plaintiffs need not demonstrate actual fraud and only need to show the deceptive conduct, according to the suit. Ms. Krivy estimates the size of the class to be less than 5,000 individuals, which means the school faces a $500,000 exposure. In addition to a court order directing the school to provide the notice and the refunds, Ms. Krivy wants the court to put an end to the overcharging policy. Ms. Krivy is represented by Stephen DeNittis -- sdenittis@denittislaw.com -- of DeNittis Osefchen PC. The case is Sophia Krivy v. Jean Madeline Education Center of Cosmetology Inc. et al, case number 140202603, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. JRH RESTAURANT: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sebastian Abreu, Ernesto Lopez, Gamaliel Rojas, Luis Rojas, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. J.R.H Restaurant Group, Inc. d/b/a Kumo Sushi, Jimmy Chen and John Does #1-10, jointly and severally, Case No. 1:14-cv-00394-RA (S.D.N.Y., January 22, 2014) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, spread-of-hours premiums, unlawful deductions, unlawful kickbacks and statutory penalties for notice-and-recordkeeping violations. The Plaintiffs are hourly employees, who work for the Defendants at their restaurant located in New York. J.R.H Restaurant Group, Inc. is a New York domestic business corporation. Kumo Sushi is a busy and popular restaurant located in the East Village of Manhattan and, according to its Yelp page, renowned throughout the city as a party venue that offers "all- you-can-eat" sushi, sake and beer for large groups of patrons. Jimmy Chen and the Doe Defendants have been "shareholders" of J.R.H. Restaurant Group, Inc. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eugene Gerald Eisner, Esq. EISNER & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 113 University Place New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 473-8700 Facsimile: (212) 473-8705 E-mail: gene@eisnerassociates.com The Defendants are represented by: Stephen Brian Irwin, Esq. Thomas E. Berinato, Esq. 123-40 83 Ave. Kew Gardens, NY 11412 Telephone: (718) 874-8423 Facsimile: (718) 874-6843 E-mail: sbirwin@live.com MIRAMICHI REGIONAL: Class Action Over Misdiagnosis Can Proceed -------------------------------------------------------------- CBC News reports that a class-action lawsuit against a disgraced pathologist and the Miramichi Regional Health Authority has been allowed to go ahead by the New Brunswick Court of Appeal. In a split decision on Feb. 27, the province's highest court overruled a lower court decision that struck down the class-action lawsuit brought by former patients. The lawsuit against Dr. Rajgopal Menon and the health authority was filed by three former patients, and about 100 people had signed up for the class action. Dr. Menon was previously found to have made thousands of partial or full misdiagnoses between 1995 and 2007. In the lower court decision, Justice Jean-Paul Ouellette of the Court of Queen's Bench had ruled the plaintiffs "failed to establish an identifiable class, define workable and manageable common issues, or establish that a class action would be the preferable procedure for proceeding within the requirements of the Class Proceedings Act." The judge noted that plaintiffs Albert John Gay and Kimberley Ann Doyle had no change in their diagnoses following a review of their pathology slides. "They have suffered no physical harm and they have suffered no recognizable psychiatric harm as a result of the action of Dr. Menon or the hospital," Justice Ouellette said. "It is questionable as to whether they are appropriate representatives." Lead plaintiff Jim Wilson, however, does appear to have cause for action against Dr. Menon for the alleged misdiagnosis of prostate cancer, Justice Ouellette concluded in his 41-page decision. However, in a 2-1 decision, the Court of Appeal ruled that decision amounted to reversible error and said the class-action lawsuit can proceed, making it the first class-action lawsuit to be certified in New Brunswick since legislation in 1982 was enacted to allow class action lawsuits. The certification order issued by the court defines the "class" in the lawsuit as including: More than 15,000 patients whose tissue samples underwent pathology testing by Menon between Jan. 1, 1995 and Feb. 7, 2007; The estates, children, parents and spouses of deceased patients. "The Court's order does not determine the merits of the action, but it simply allows it to go forward as a class proceeding," stated the decision by Chief Justice Ernest Drapeau and Justice Alexandre Deschenes. No automatic Supreme Court hearing A dissenting opinion was given by Justice Joseph Robertson. While split decisions of an appeal court are automatically heard by the Supreme Court of Canada in appeals of criminal cases, there is no such provision for split decisions in civil litigation to be automatically heard by the province's highest court. Either Dr. Menon or the health authority can seek leave to appeal the decision. Dr. Menon was suspended from his position at the Miramichi Regional Hospital in February 2007, following complaints about incomplete diagnoses and delayed lab results. Former health minister Michael Murphy called a formal public inquiry into the pathology work at the Miramichi hospital after an independent audit of 227 cases of breast and prostate cancer biopsies from 2004-05 found 18 per cent had incomplete results and three per cent had been misdiagnosed. The head of the inquiry, Justice Paul Creaghan, found that Dr. Menon should have been fired two years before he was suspended. Justice Creaghan's final report offered 52 recommendations to improve pathology services in the province. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Homeowners Dispute Loan Servicing Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Scata and Jeannie Scata, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 1:14-cv-00189-REB-KLM (D. Colo., January 22, 2014) is brought on behalf of classes of similarly situated homeowners across the nation to challenge Nationstar's alleged deficient, unfair, and deceptive loan servicing practices and systematic failure to offer qualified borrowers Trial Period Plans under the Federal Home Affordable Modification Program. The Scatas are citizens of Colorado. They reside on Four Rivers Road in Boulder, Colorado, and their home mortgage is one of the loans at issue in the lawsuit. Nationstar Mortgage LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Lewisville, Texas. Nationstar operates as a servicer of residential mortgage loans owned by third parties and as an originator of mortgage loans directly to consumers. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jay Edelson, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com - and - Steven L. Woodrow, Esq. Megan L. Lindsey, Esq. EDELSON PC 999 18th Street, Suite 3000 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 357-4877 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: swoodrow@edelson.com mlindsey@edelson.com The Defendant is represented by: Erik W. Kemp, Esq. SEVERSON & WERSON One Embarcadero Center, #2600 San Francisco, CA 94111-3715 Telephone: (415) 398-3344 Facsimile: (415) 956-0439 E-mail: ek@severson.com NEVADA PROPERTY: Fraud Suit Over Cosmopolitan Condominium Moved --------------------------------------------------------------- Lenny Spangler v. Nevada Property 1, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; Deutsche Bank AG, a German bank; Tutor Perini Building Corp., an Arizona corporation; First American Title Insurance Company, a business entity of unknown form; Nevada Title Company, a Nevada corporation, and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 8:13-cv-01315, has been transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. The Nevada District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-00125-GMN-NJK to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleges fraud, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment, and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, and the California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff and the Class members are individuals, who paid earnest money deposits towards the purchase of condominium units in The Cosmopolitan of Las Vegas, formerly known as the Cosmopolitan Resort & Casino. They accepted a class action settlement in the consolidated case, Watt v. Nevada Property, Clark County District Court Case No. A582541. Contrary to the Defendants' representations to the Plaintiff and the Class, and unbeknownst to them, the Bank Defendants ordered Tutor Perini Building Corp. to stop almost every phase of construction while it completely redesigned the project to make it more marketable as a hotel-only casino, Mr. Spangler alleges. He contends that Perini concealed this information from him and the public. He adds that in a concerted effort to deprive him of earnest money deposits, the Defendants concealed the critical facts, and worked together to falsely convince him that the Class that the Bank Defendants were still planning to deliver the condominiums. Nevada Property I, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada. Deutsche Bank AG is a German bank with its principal place of business in New York. Tutor Perini Building Corporation is an Arizona corporation headquartered in Henderson, New York. First American Title Insurance Company is a California corporation based in the County of Orange. Nevada Title Company is a Nevada corporation headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are unknown. The Plaintiff is represented by: Harry A. Safarian, Esq. Alexis Ara Baroian, Esq. SAFARIAN AND BAROIAN LLP 109 East Harvard Street, Suite 300 Glendale, CA 91205 Telephone: (818) 334-8528 Facsimile: (818) 344-8107 E-mail: hs@thesbfirm.com ab@thesbfirm.com Defendant Nevada Property 1 LLC is represented by: Matthew L. Lalli, Esq. SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. 15 West South Temple, Suite 1200 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Telephone: (801) 257-1900 Facsimile: (801) 257-1800 E-mail: mlalli@swlaw.com - and - Alex Fugazzi, Esq. SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. 3883 Howard Hughes Pkwy., Suite 1100 Las Vegas, NV 89169 Telephone: (702) 784-5202 Facsimile: (702) 784-5252 E-mail: afugazzi@swlaw.com - and - Elizabeth M. Weldon, Esq. SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. 600 Anton Boulevard Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7689 Telephone: (714) 427-7000 Facsimile: (714) 427-7799 E-mail: eweldon@swlaw.com Defendant Tutor Perini Building Corp. is represented by: Amanda C. Yen, Esq. MCDONALD CARANO WILSON 2300 W. Sahara, Suite 1200 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Telephone: (702) 873-4100 E-mail: ayen@mcdonaldcarano.com Defendant First American Title Insurance Company is represented by: Michael L. Mallow, Esq. Patrick N. Downes, Esq. LOEB AND LOEB LLP 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 2200 Los Angeles, CA 90067-4120 Telephone: (310) 282-2287 Facsimile: (310) 919-3883 E-mail: mmallow@loeb.com pdownes@loeb.com NONGSHIM CO: Faces Antitrust Suit in Cal. Over Korean Noodles ------------------------------------------------------------- California Market, LLC. a/k/a/ Gaju Market on Behalf of Itself and a Class of All Others Similarly Situated v. Nongshim Co., Ltd.; Nongshim America, Inc.; Ottogi Comopany, Ltd.; Ottogi America, Inc.; Sam Yang Foods Company, Ltd.; Sam Yang U.S.A., Inc.; Korea Yakult Company, Ltd., and Paldo Company, Ltd., Case No. 4:14-cv- 00335-DMR (N.D. Cal., January 22, 2014) alleges that the Defendants conspired, combined, or contracted to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the prices of Korean Noodles that they sold to Gaju and the other members of the Class. Nongshim Co., Ltd., established in 1965, is organized and existing under the laws of South Korea with its principal place of business in Seoul. Nongshim Co., Ltd. is a leading food company in South Korea and has had a dominant market share in Korea. Since 2010, the Company has maintained approximately 70% of the Korean Noodles business in Korea. The Defendants are manufacturers, exporters, distributors or sellers of Korean Noodles. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven N. Williams, Esq. Gene W. Kim, Esq. Elizabeth Tran, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY LLP San Francisco Airport Office Ctr. 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 E-mail: swilliams@cpmlegal.com gkim@cpmlegal.com etran@cpmlegal.com - and - Barbara Hart, Esq. Sung-Min Lee, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN & HART, P.C. One North Broadway, Suite 509 White Plains, NY 10601-2301 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 E-mail: bhart@lowey.com SLee@lowey.com OBAMA FOR AMERICA: Court Refused to Dismiss Suit Over Autodialing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Obama for America must face a class action alleging that it made unsolicited, autodialed calls to voters' cellphones ahead of the 2012 election, reports Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling. The case is Lori Shamblin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Obama for America, Case No. 8:13-cv- 2428-T-33TBM, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. OZ MINERALS: To Vigorously Defend Zinifex Shareholder Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Finance News Network reports that OZ Minerals Limited says it will vigorously defend a multi-million dollar class action brought against it by Zinifex shareholders. More than AUD250 million in compensation is being sought for allegedly misleading shareholders on the true position of its market debt. The former Zinifex shareholders acquired the shares in OZ Minerals as the result of a 2008 merger between Zinifex and Oxiana. OZ Minerals booked a net loss of AUD294.4 million in the 2013 calendar year. PAINT & BODY: Fails to Pay Federally Mandated OT Rate, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Crowley and Dempsey Brown, Jr. v. Paint & Body Experts of Slidell, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00172-NJB-SS (E.D. La., January 22, 2014) is a collective action brought on behalf of individuals who, since January 2011, previously worked or currently work for Paint & Body. While he worked for the Defendant through Slidell halfway house, he was not paid the federally-mandated overtime rate of one and one half their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 per week in direct violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Mr. Crowley alleges. Paint & Body Experts of Slidell, Inc. is a Louisiana company. The Defendant operates an auto body and paint shop in Slidell, Louisiana. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jody Forester Jackson, Esq. Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq. JACKSON+JACKSON 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2500 New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 599-5953 Facsimile: (888) 988-6499 E-mail: jjackson@jackson-law.net mjackson@jackson-law.net The Defendant is represented by: Ben E. Clayton, Esq. BEN E. CLAYTON, ATTORNEY AT LAW 200 Commercial Square Rd., Suite D Slidell, LA 70461 Telephone: (985) 863-3065 E-mail: benclayt@bellsouth.net PAK BUSINESS: Never Paid Extra Halftime Overtime Rate, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Irlanda Rubi Alquicira Aguilar and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(B) v. Pak Business LLC d/b/a Dry Clean Zone and Abdul H Gilani, Case No. 3:14-cv-00260-N (N.D. Tex., January 22, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff worked an average of 72 hours per week but was never paid the extra halftime overtime rate for hours worked above 40 hours in a week as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Pak Business LLC, doing business as Dry Clean Zone, is a company that regularly transacts business within Dallas County. Abdul H. Gilani is a corporate officer, owner or manager of the Company. The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. Robert Lee Manteuffel, Esq. Weina Zhou, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.C. 6310 LBJ Freeway, Suite 112 Dallas, TX 75240 Telephone: (972) 233-2264 Facsimile: (972) 386-7610 E-mail: zabogado@aol.com rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net nzhou78@yahoo.com The Defendants are represented by: Nellie G. Hooper, Esq. Barbara T. Hale, Esq. Jeffrey D. Smith, Esq. BLANSCET HOOPER & HALE LLP 14285 Midway Road, Suite 400 Addison, TX 75001 Telephone: (214) 764-7977 Facsimile: (214) 764-7981 E-mail: nhooper@metrocrestlaw.com bhale@metrocrestlaw.com jsmith@metrocrestlaw.com POLY-COR MANAGEMENT: Did Not Pay Overtime Premium, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ Jerry Monk, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees v. Poly-Cor Management, Inc.; Polycor Enterprises Management, Inc.; Poly-Cor Enterprises, Inc.; and Poly-Cor Enterprises, L.P., Case No. 2:14-cv-00096-NBF (W.D. Pa., January 22, 2014) alleges that the Defendants did not pay any extra overtime premium compensation to the Plaintiff or other day-rate employees for hours worked over 40 per week. The Defendants are corporate entities headquartered in McMurray, Pennsylvania (Washington County). They are under common ownership and are in the business of, inter alia, providing various services to the natural gas extraction industry in Pennsylvania and elsewhere. The Defendants' services include bulk nitrogen distribution, pipeline constriction, pipeline inspection, pipeline surveying, pipeline x-ray, hydrostatic testing, nitrogen pressure testing, water hauling, paving, and land clearing. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 Facsimile: (215) 884-2492 E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com asantillo@winebrakelaw.com PAR ELECTRICAL: "Arnold" Class Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Stephanie Arnold v. PAR Electrical Contractors Inc., et al., Case No. CIVDS1315081, was removed from the San Bernardino County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-00133-ABC-DTB to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Aarin A. Zeif, Esq. Michael A. Gould, Esq. GOULD AND ASSOCIATES 17822 East 17th Street, Suite 106 Tustin, CA 92780 Telephone: (714) 669-2850 Facsimile: (714) 544-0800 E-mail: aarin@wageandhourlaw.com michael@wageandhourlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Cassidy Mariko English, Esq. Charles F. Barker, Esq. Christina M. Hanna, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 333 South Hope Street 43rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1448 Telephone: (213) 620-1780 Facsimile: (213) 620-1398 E-mail: cenglish@sheppardmullin.com cbarker@sheppardmullin.com channa@sheppardmullin.com RAZOR CAPITAL: Illegally Attempts to Collect Debt, Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Edward Arevalo, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Razor Capital LLC, Case No. 5:14-cv-00135- JAK-SP (C.D. Cal., January 22, 2014) challenges the Defendant's alleged illegal actions with regard to its attempts to unlawfully and abusively collect a debt allegedly owed by the Plaintiff. Razor Capital LLC is a debt collector. The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. S. Mohammad Kazerouni, Esq. Matthew M. Loker, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com mike@kazlg.com ml@kazlg.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com - and - Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW 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 REPSOL YPF: Court Dismisses Monroe County Employees' Suit --------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin dismissed the case captioned MONROE COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Plaintiff, v. YPF SOCIEDAD ANONIMA, et al., Defendants, NO. 13 CIV. 842 (SAS), (S.D. N.Y.). Monroe County Employees' Retirement System filed this putative class action Complaint on February 5, 2013, alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933. On June 5, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint (CAC) asserting claims under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 but omitting the original Securities Act claims. In an opinion dated October 8, 2013, Judge Scheindlin granted leave for plaintiffs to file a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint (SAC) reasserting the Securities Act Claims on behalf of a new plaintiff, David Markovic. Judge Scheindlin concluded that Mr. Markovic's claims against certain defendants were tolled pursuant to the doctrine set out in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah. For purposes of the tolling analysis, Judge Scheindlin credited plaintiffs' assertion that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until April 16, 2012, and that the CAC was filed on June 6, 2013. Judge Scheindlin indicated that defendants could fully brief the issue of timeliness in their motions to dismiss. The SAC asserts claims under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act against YPF Sociedad Anonima (YPF); Repsol YPF, S.A. (Repsol); Morgan Stanley & Co., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, and Goldman, Sachs & Co. (the Underwriters); and Sebastian Eskenazi, Guillermo Reda, Antonio Brufau Niubo, Antonio Gomis Saez, Raul Fortunato Cardoso Maycotte, Fernando Ramirez Mazarredo, Fernando Marrero, Luis Suarez de Leze Mantilla, and Javier Monzon (the Individual Defendants). The Securities Act claims are based on a March 23, 2011 offering of YPF American Depository Shares (ADSs) (the Offering). Although the SAC reasserts Securities Act claims against the Individual Defendants, the October 8 Order explicitly declined to toll the statute of limitations against those defendants. Therefore, plaintiffs' Securities Act claims against the Individual Defendants are dismissed as untimely. The SAC also asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act against Repsol, YPF, and the Individual Defendants, and Section 20(a) against Repsol and the Individual Defendants. The class period for the Exchange Act claims runs from December 22, 2009 to April 16, 2012 (the Class Period). Repsol, YPF, and the Underwriters moved to dismiss the SAC. They argued that the Securities Act claims are untimely, and the Exchange Act claims fail to adequately allege material misrepresentations or omissions, scienter, loss causation and reliance. Judge Scheindlin granted in full all three motions to dismiss with prejudice. The claims against the Individual Defendants are dismissed sua sponte. A copy of the District Court's February 20, 2014 Opinion and Order is available at http://is.gd/Jkm4WEfrom Leagle.com. David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq. -- DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com -- Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq. -- SRudman@rgrdlaw.com -- Mario Alba, Jr., Esq. -- malba@rgrdlaw.com -- Avital Orly Malina, Esq. -- AMalina@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Melville, NY, for Plaintiffs. Thomas Joseph Hall, Esq. -- thall@chadbourne.com -- Marcelo Marlow Blackburn, Esq. -- mblackburn@chadbourne.com -- Chadbourne & Parke LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant YPF Sociedad Anonima. Jonathan Rosenberg, Esq. -- jrosenberg@omm.com -- Edward Nathaniel Moss, Esq. -- emoss@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, and Credit Suisse. James E. Brandt, Esq. -- james.brandt@lw.com -- Jason Kolbe, Esq. -- jason.kolbe@lw.com -- Christopher Harris, Esq. -- christopher.harris@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant Repsol. RODALE INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Baxter" Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court's dismissal of the claims filed by the plaintiff in the case captioned CHARLOTTE BAXTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, AGR v. RODALE, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, Defendant-Appellee, NO. 12-56925. Ms. Baxter filed this purported class action against Rodale, Inc. under California's "Shine the Light" (STL) law, Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1798.83-1798.84, and Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200-17210. She appealed the district court's dismissal of her complaint for failing to state a claim. The Ninth Circuit affirmed that Ms. Baxter lacked statutory standing. A copy of the Circuit Court's February 21, 2014 Memorandum is available at http://is.gd/mtSC18from Leagle.com. SLR HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay All Overtime Hours Worked, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Samuel Bisai Cruz Garcia, 3527 Center Street, NW, Apartment B1, Washington, DC 20010, On Behalf of Himself and All Other Similarly Situated Individuals v. SLR Holdings, LLC, 6914 Arlington Road, Bethesda, Maryland 20814, and SLR Holdings, INC., 6914 Arlington Road, Bethesda, Maryland 20814, Case No. 8:14-cv-00171-RWT (D. Md., January 22, 2014) seeks to to recover damages under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and for unpaid wages, interest, reasonable attorney's fees, and costs under the Maryland Wage and Hour Law. The Plaintiff alleges that he regularly worked about 65 or more hours per week but was not paid for all overtime hours worked each week in excess of 40. He was employed by the Defendants as a bread packer at their bakery in Silver Spring, Maryland, from approximately 2005 through August 2012. The Defendants were formed under the laws of Maryland, and both are engaged in a single enterprise of operating a bakery and retail bread and baked goods store in Montgomery County, Maryland. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. THE ZIPIN LAW FIRM, LLC 836 Bonifant Street Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 Facsimile: (301) 587-9397 E-mail: ggreenberg@zipinlaw.com STANFORD INT'L: Ponzi Scheme Class Actions Can Proceed ------------------------------------------------------ Sam Hananel, writing for Associated Press, reports the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Feb. 26 that victims of former Texas tycoon R. Allen Stanford's massive Ponzi scheme can go forward with class-action lawsuits against the law firms, accountants and investment companies that allegedly aided the $7.2 billion fraud. The decision is a loss for firms that claimed federal securities law insulated them from state class-action lawsuits and sought to have the cases thrown out. But it offers another avenue for more than 21,000 of Stanford's bilked investors to try to recover their lost savings. Federal law says class-action lawsuits related to securities fraud cannot be filed under state law, as these cases were. But a federal appeals court said the cases could move forward because the main part of the fraud involved certificates of deposit, not stocks and other securities. The high court agreed in a 7-2 decision, with the two dissenting justices warning that the ruling would lead to an explosion of state class-action lawsuits. Stanford was sentenced to 110 years in prison after being convicted of bilking investors in a $7.2 billion scheme that involved the sale of fraudulent certificates of deposits from the Stanford International Bank. They supposedly were backed by safe investments in securities issued by governments, multinational companies and international banks, but those investments did not exist. Former investors who were blocked under federal law from seeking damages from the firms that worked with Stanford filed suit under state law in Louisiana and Texas. But the defendants claimed those suits were also blocked by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act, a federal law aimed at limiting private lawsuits that allege securities fraud. Writing for the court, Justice Stephen Breyer said the law does not preclude the class-action lawsuits because the fraud at the center of the scheme does not involve a "covered security." Justice Breyer said the fraud involving certificates of deposit "bears so remote a connection to the national securities market that no person actually believed he was taking an ownership position in that market." Justices Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito dissented in the Stanford case, warning that the majority opinion would lead to an explosion of state class-action lawsuits and frustrate the intent of securities laws designed to protect those who advise investors. "The state-law litigation will drive up legal costs for market participants and the secondary actors, such as lawyers, accountants, brokers and advisers, who seek to rely on the stability that results from a national securities market regulated by federal law," Justice Kennedy said in dissent. The Obama administration had also argued against allowing the cases to move forward, saying it could interfere with the Securities and Exchange Commission's ability to go after fraud and could weaken investor confidence. But Justice Breyer said the government failed to show any example of past SEC enforcement actions that would have been prevented by the court's decision. He pointed to the government's successful prosecution of Stanford as proof that similar frauds will continue to be within the reach of federal authorities. Prosecutors say Stanford persuaded investors to buy certificates of deposit from his bank on the Caribbean island of Antigua. He then used the money to fund a string of failed businesses, bribe regulators and pay for his lavish lifestyle. Many victims have been disappointed so far that they have recovered only a pittance of their initial investments during a recovery process that has dragged on for more than five years. A court-appointed receiver began distributing part of $55 million in recovered assets to investors last year, just a tiny fraction of what they lost. The receiver and other court-appointed liquidators have recovered more than $500 million of Stanford's remaining assets so far, but that amount is reduced by millions in attorney fees, expenses and other costs. STATE FARM: Faces "Thompson" Class Suit Over Insurance Issues ------------------------------------------------------------- John Thompson and Leigh Ann Thompson, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Case No. 5:14-cv-00032-MTT (M.D. Ga., January 22, 2014) asserts insurance-related claims. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam P. Princenthal, Esq. C. Cooper Knowles, Esq. ANDREWS, KNOWLES & PRINCENTHAL, LLC 260 Peachtree St. NW, Suite 502 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 524-4000 Facsimile: (404) 524-4005 E-mail: aprincenthal@akpfirm.com cknowles@akpfirm.com - and - Clinton W. Sitton, Esq. KOPELMAN SITTON LAW GROUP, LLC 4840 Roswell Rd., Suite E200 Atlanta, GA 30342 Telephone: (404) 257-0777 E-mail: clint@kopelmansitton.com - and - Richard Kopelman, Esq. KOPELMAN SITTON LAW GROUP, LLC 1801 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 351-5900 E-mail: richard@kopelmansitton.com The Defendant is represented by: Thomas W. Curvin, Esq. Tracey K. Ledbetter, Esq. Valerie S. Sanders, Esq. SUTHERLAND, ASBILL & BRENNAN 999 Peachtree St. NE Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 853-8000 Facsimile: (404) 853-8806 E-mail: tom.curvin@sablaw.com tracey.ledbetter@sutherland.com valerie.sanders@sutherland.com SUPERVALU INC: Still Faces Wis. Suit Over RICO Act Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ Supervalu Inc. continues to face a lawsuit in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin over alleged violation of the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, according to the company's Jan. 9, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2013. In September 2008, a class action complaint was filed against the Company, as well as International Outsourcing Services, LLC ("IOS"); Inmar, Inc.; Carolina Manufacturer's Services, Inc.; Carolina Coupon Clearing, Inc.; and Carolina Services, in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The plaintiffs in the case are a consumer goods manufacturer, a grocery co-operative and a retailer marketing services company who allege on behalf of a purported class that the Company and the other defendants (i) conspired to restrict the markets for coupon processing services under the Sherman Act and (ii) were part of an illegal enterprise to defraud the plaintiffs under the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. The Company intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit, however all proceedings have been stayed in the case pending the result of the criminal prosecution of certain former officers of IOS. SUPERVALU INC: Minn. Court Stays Lawsuit Over C&S Transaction ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granted the motion of Supervalu Inc. to stay proceedings of a suit related to a 2003 transaction with C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. pending a decision on the second Eighth Circuit appeal regarding class certification and summary judgment, according to the company's Jan. 9, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2013. In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin against the Company alleging that a 2003 transaction between the Company and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. ("C&S") was a conspiracy to restrain trade and allocate markets. In the 2003 transaction, the Company purchased certain assets of the Fleming Corporation as part of Fleming Corporation's bankruptcy proceedings and sold certain assets of the Company to C&S which were located in New England. Since December 2008, three other retailers have filed similar complaints in other jurisdictions. The cases have been consolidated and are proceeding in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The complaints allege that the conspiracy was concealed and continued through the use of non- compete and non-solicitation agreements and the closing down of the distribution facilities that the Company and C&S purchased from each other. Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. On July 5, 2011, the District Court granted the Company's Motion to Compel Arbitration for those plaintiffs with arbitration agreements and plaintiffs appealed. On July 16, 2012, the District Court denied plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and on January 11, 2013, the District Court granted the Company's Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed the case regarding the non- arbitration plaintiffs. Plaintiffs appealed these decisions. On February 12, 2013, the Eighth Circuit reversed the District Court decision requiring plaintiffs with arbitration agreements to arbitrate and the Company filed a Petition with the Eighth Circuit for an En Banc Rehearing. On June 7, 2013, the Eighth Circuit denied the Petition for Rehearing and remanded the case to the District Court. On October 30, 2013, the parties attended a District Court ordered mandatory mediation which was not successful in resolving the matter. On November 21, 2013, the Eighth Circuit held a hearing on plaintiffs' appeal from the Class Certification denial and Summary Judgment decisions. The Eighth Circuit took the matter under advisement. On December 13, 2013, the District Court granted the Company's motion to stay the proceedings at the District Court pending a decision on the second Eighth Circuit appeal regarding class certification and summary judgment. SUPERVALU INC: May Seek Initial OK of Labor Suit Accord in 2014 --------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in a suit filed against Supervalue Inc. by former Assistant Store Manager at Save-A-Lot expect to file a motion seeking preliminary approval of a settlement in early 2014, according to the company's Jan. 9, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2013. In May 2012, Kiefer, a former Assistant Store Manager at Save-A- Lot, filed a class action against Save-A-Lot seeking to represent current and former Assistant Store Managers alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act related to the fluctuating work week method of pay ("FWW") in the United States District Court in the District of Connecticut. FWW is a method of compensation whereby employees are paid a fixed salary for all hours worked during a week plus additional compensation at one-half the regular rate for overtime hours. Kiefer claimed that the FWW practice is unlawful or, if lawful, that Save-A-Lot improperly applied the FWW method of pay, including in situations involving paid time off, holiday pay, and bonus payments. In March 2013, the United States District Court granted conditional certification in favor of Kiefer on the issue of whether Save-A-Lot properly applied the FWW. In May 2013, the United States District Court denied Save-A-Lot's motion for summary judgment on the same issue. This FWW practice is permissible under the Fair Labor Standards Act and other state laws, and Save-A-Lot denied all allegations in the case. The same plaintiffs' attorneys representing Kiefer filed two additional FWW actions against Save-A-Lot and SUPERVALU. Shortly before filing of the Kiefer lawsuit, in one of these cases filed by a former Assistant Store Manager (Roach) in March 2011, the Superior Court for the Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford granted summary judgment in favor of Save-A-Lot determining FWW was a legal practice in Connecticut. In March 2013, another Save- A-Lot Assistant Store Manager (Pagano) filed an FWW class claim against SUPERVALU under Pennsylvania state law in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas relating to overtime payment. In all three cases, which the Company was defending vigorously, plaintiffs were seeking monetary damages and attorneys' fees. On August 20, 2013, the parties agreed in principle to resolve the matters on a nationwide basis in a settlement that will cap the Company's aggregate obligation, including with respect to settlement funds, plaintiffs' attorneys fees and costs and settlement administration costs. The settlement is subject to the applicable courts' preliminary and final approval. The parties expect to file a motion seeking preliminary approval in early 2014. The Company recorded a litigation settlement charge of $5 million before tax ($3 million after tax) in the second quarter of fiscal 2014 in connection with the expected settlement of this matter. TRANQUILITY SALON: Loses Bid to Strike "Cava" Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Kaitlyn Cava commenced the action captioned KAITLYN CAVA, individually and on behalf of those individuals similarly situated; ANGELA CAIRA, and ASHLEY COLINO, Plaintiffs, v. TRANQUILITY SALON & DAY SPA, INC. and LEAH PELENGARIS, Defendants, NO. 13-CV-1109(JS)(ARL), (E.D. N.Y.) on March 1, 2013, for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., New York Labor Law (NYLL), N.Y. LAB. LAW Section 190 et seq., and New York State Department of Labor Regulations, N.Y. Comp. Code R. & Regs. tit. 12 Sections 142-2.1-142-2.4. The Plaintiff has moved to strike nine of Defendants' 19 affirmative defenses. The affirmative defenses at issue are: (1) First Affirmative Defense -- other litigation, (2) Second Affirmative Defense -- exhaustion of administrative remedies, (3) Seventh Affirmative Defense -- barred by contract, (4) Eighth Affirmative Defense -- mitigation of damages, (5) Twelfth Affirmative Defense -- punitive damages, (6) Fourteenth Affirmative Defense -- class action, (7) Fifteenth Affirmative Defense -- statute of limitations, (8) Eighteenth Affirmative Defense -- duplicative recovery, and (9) Nineteenth Affirmative Defense -- punitive damages as unconstitutional. Defendants cross- moved for an order striking Plaintiff's Complaint, preventing Plaintiff from seeking an award of damages beyond actual damages, and striking any class action status. District Judge Joanna Seybert granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's motion to strike. It is granted as to the Second, Seventh, Eighth, and Nineteenth Affirmative Defenses, but otherwise denied. Defendants' cross-motion to strike the Complaint and for declaratory orders is denied; however, to the extent that the Defendants seek to amend the Answer to correct typographical errors, that request was granted. A copy of the District Court's February 20, 2014 Memorandum & Order is available at http://is.gd/9GqoNQfrom Leagle.com. Saul D. Zabell, Esq. -- SZabell@laborlawsny.com -- Zabell & Associates, P.C., Bohemia, NY, for Plaintiffs. For Defendants: Damon Andrew Hagan, Esq. Christopher R. Ross, Esq. Mayer, Ross & Hagan P.C. 178 E Main St. Patchogue, NY 11772 United States Telephone: (631) 654-5134 UNILIFE CORP: Writes to Shareholders About Suit at ASX's Request ---------------------------------------------------------------- On November 6, 2013, in response to a request from the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX), Unilife Corporation ("Unilife") issued a letter to its stockholders regarding a securities class action lawsuit. The letter is being posted to Unilife's website on November 6, 2013 and a copy of such letter is being furnished as Exhibit 99.1 to the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Press Release states: Unilife Corporation ("Unilife" or "Company") (NASDAQ: UNIS, ASX: UNS), responded to a request from the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) by issuing a letter to its stockholders regarding a securities class action lawsuit. Dear Unilife Shareholders: I am writing to you today [Nov. 6, 2013] regarding a lawsuit brought in the US against Unilife Corporation (Unilife), myself, and other officers of the company, which we believe is entirely meritless. This lawsuit has been brought under US securities law by a shareholder holding a very small parcel of shares and mostly repeats the allegations of a lawsuit filed by a former employee, which we are in the process of defending and which we believe to be groundless. The former employee claims that he was terminated in retaliation for reporting alleged regulatory violations by Unilife. However, the former employee was in fact terminated due to poor performance and we believe filed the lawsuit in retaliation after Unilife refused to comply with his demand for severance payments (which he was not entitled to due to the reasons for his termination). We are being advised by lawyers in the US with respect to both of these claims and they have informed the company that, in the US, securities law claims of this nature are not uncommon as a means of opportunistic lawyers trying to attract clients. I am confident that Unilife will prevail with regards to both of these claims and can assure you that Unilife will vigorously defend itself against these actions. With respect to the allegations made in these claims, I can assure all of you that Unilife is in full compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements. In 2013 two regulatory compliance audits of Unilife's quality system were performed. Both audits resulted in zero observations, i.e., no deviations from applicable quality standards were noted. In February 2013, the Notified Body NSAI (National Standards Authority of Ireland) performed an audit of our quality system, which is equivalent to an FDA audit for European countries. This audit resulted in zero observations, i.e., no deviations from the applicable standards were found. The auditors' conclusion was that Unilife was in compliance with the applicable standards. In March, the FDA performed an audit of Unilife's quality system and facility. The FDA closed out the audit with no FDA 483 Inspectional Observation issued, i.e., no deviations from the applicable standards were noted. Finally, Unilife is in full compliance with all applicable securities laws. As a public company in the US we are subject to a legal system in which employees can sue companies for undeserved compensation while making unfounded allegations with impunity, and plaintiffs lawyers can first advertise for clients and then bring a lawsuit for the mere cost of the court filing fee in the hope that the company will settle with them. Thank you for your continued support of Unilife. Sincerely /s/ Alan Shortall Alan Shortall CEO UPMC: Faces Class Action Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------- Lexi Belculfine, writing for Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reports that a class-action complaint was filed against UPMC and UPMC McKeesport on Feb. 27 stating the company's negligence led to a data breach and resulting identity thefts, now the subjects of a federal investigation. Vulnerabilities in UPMC's computer system allowed for the breach and the company did not reasonably safeguard the sensitive information in its care, according to the lawsuit filed by Kraemer, Manes & Associates in Common Pleas Court. UPMC said on Feb. 26 it believed 22 employees were "victimized" in a "common fraud scheme during tax season." The suit states that more than 50 employees' information has been used to open bank accounts, file income tax returns or both, though it is anticipated more will become victims of fraud. "This isn't a theoretical breach. This isn't some abstract game," attorney Michael Kraemer -- m@lawkm.com -- said. "This information is actively being used to hurt the people whose identity was stolen." UTAH: Attorney General Faces Suit Over Adoption Practices --------------------------------------------------------- Robert Benito Manzanares; Christopher David Thomas Carlton; Jake M. Strickland; Jacob D. Brooks; Michael D. Hunter; Frank L. Martin; Samuel G. Dye; Bobby L. Nevares; William E. Bolden; John M. Wyatt, III; Cody M. O'Dea; Scottie Wallace; personally and individually, and for and on behalf of their Minor Children v. Office of the Attorney General of the State of Utah; Mark L. Shurtleff; and John E. Swallow, in both their personal/individual and official capacities; and John Does I TO XX, Case No. 2:14-cv- 00040-EJF (D. Utah, January 22, 2014) is brought on behalf of a class of individuals and children, whose constitutional rights to due process and other fundamental civil rights have been allegedly violated by the Defendants. In spite of promises by Mark L. Shurtleff, later endorsed by John E. Swallow, even though they had received numerous written notifications of gross adoption infirmities in Utah, they have done nothing for more than a decade to correct the fraud and deception that has consequently led to the unlawful and unconstitutional removal of children from their biological families, essentially resulting in their kidnapping and highly unethical and disruptive placement into adoptive homes without the knowledge or consent of their biological fathers, the Plaintiffs allege. The Office of the Attorney General of the State of Utah is an executive office within the government of the state of Utah. Mark L. Shurtleff was the Attorney General for the state of Utah from January 2001 to January 2013. John E. Swallow was the Attorney General for the State of Utah from January 2013 to December 2013, prior to which Mr. Swallow was Mr. Shurtleff's Chief Deputy of civil matters. The John Doe Defendants are individuals and entities, whose identities are presently not known. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Wesley D. Hutchins, Esq. THE HUTCHINS LAW FIRM, P.C. 6751 South Adventure Way West Jordan, UT 84081 Telephone: (801) 969-0104 Facsimile: (801) 618-4251 E-Mail: wes@thehutchinslawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: David N. Wolf, Esq. UTAH ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE (160-6-140856) LITIGATION UNIT 160 E 300 S, 6th Floor PO Box 140856 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-0856 Telephone: (801) 366-0100 E-mail: dnwolf@utah.gov VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Class Atty. Deserves $7.5MM, Court Ruled ---------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Warmerdam, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that lawyers, who helped settle a class action against Verizon over third-party billing claims, deserve $7.5 million in fees, a California federal judge ruled. U.S. District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong granted the fee award, noting that class counsel "achieved excellent results for the class and significant benefits for non-class members." Keller Grover in San Francisco represented the class, as did Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, the Law Offices of David Schachman and Jacobs Kolton. Their clients accused Verizon of charging consumers for products and services that they did not purchase and illegally billing and collecting of these charges. "Verizon knows that its third-party billing and collection system lacks sufficient checks and safeguards to prevent unauthorized charges from being added to customers' wireline telephone bills -- indeed, to the contrary, it knows that there is a significant likelihood of unauthorized charges, given the system presently used -- yet it continues to bill and collect such third-party charges without taking sufficient steps to ensure that the charges are in fact authorized by the persons legally empowered to authorize charges," the complaint stated. A 2013 settlement required Verizon to fully refund customers of all unauthorized third-party charges during the seven-year class period, and to overhaul its third-party billing practices, complete with an opt-in requirement for all new accounts. Verizon also agreed outside of the settlement not to engage in third-party billing for enhanced or miscellaneous services. In their settlement motion, class counsel called the settlement "unprecedented," and said that it has led "a great number of Verizon customers to claim refunds" and millions more consumers "have benefited from Verizon's subsequent exit from billing for so-called miscellaneous or enhanced services, a move that was subsequently matched by its major competitor, AT&T, and then yet a third major player, CenturyLink." Referred the matter of attorneys' fees and expenses, U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley recommended approving a motion for $7.5 million in fees and expenses. Verizon argued that the award was "patently unreasonable" because 75 percent of class counsel's claimed hours were post-settlement, many of the post-settlement hours were for a "cell center' set up to perform administrative tasks, and that a multiplier was not warranted. Verizon requested the lodestar be reduced to $4.6 million based on duplication of work and inefficiency. Armstrong found February 14, 2014, however, that class counsel's post-settlement time spent "communicating with class members was reasonably expended and necessary to effectuate the parties' claims-made settlement. As noted by Magistrate Corley, this Court's Order preliminarily approving the settlement expressly directed class counsel and the settlement administrator to respond to inquiries by class members." Additionally, through their post-settlement work, the lawyers were able to identify an additional 326,505 class members who had not received notice of the settlement, leading to the submission of additional claims, including a $1.2 million claim made by a public educational institute. "In the court's view, class counsel should be applauded, not penalized, for their efforts to ensure that class members receive the benefits they are entitled to under the settlement," Armstrong wrote. Armstrong also defended using a multiplier of at least 1.5, given the results achieved and "because there is ample evidence in the record establishing that this case was risky and that recovery was far from certain." "A review of the record reveals that class counsel displayed great skill in resolving this complex case and protecting the interests of class members through an extraordinary commitment of time, resources, and energy that could have been devoted to other less risky non-contingency matters," Armstrong wrote. "It is clear to the court that the results achieved would not have been possible but for the considerable effort and skill of class counsel." The case is Moore, et al. v. Verizon Communications Inc., et al., Case No. 4:09-cv-01823-SBA, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division. The Defendants are Verizon Communications Inc., Verizon California Inc., Verizon Corporate Services Group Inc., Verizon Services Corp., Telesector Resources Group, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Services Group, Verizon Services Operations Inc., Verizon Services Organizations, Inc., Verizon Corporate Services Corp., and Verizon Data Services Inc. WEST SIDE COMMUNITY: Sued by Medical Assistants Over Labor Issues ----------------------------------------------------------------- Evangelina Chavez and Jarely Zarate, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. West Side Community Health Services, Inc., Case No. 0:14-cv-00207-SER (D. Minn., January 22, 2014) is brought to obtain monetary and equitable relief on behalf of a class of individuals, who are or were employed by the Defendant as Medical Assistants. The case alleges violations of the Minnesota Payment of Wages Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act. West Side Community Health Services, Inc., is a Minnesota Nonprofit Corporation, operating health care facilities. Among other facilities, the Defendant operates La Clinica and the East Side Family Clinic, both located in the City of St. Paul, County of Ramsey. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shawn J. Wanta, Esq. Christopher D. Jozwiak, Esq. BAILLON THOME JOZWIAK & WANTA LLP 222 South Ninth Street, Suite 2955 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 252-3570 Facsimile: (612) 252-3571 E-mail: sjwanta@baillonthome.com cdjozwiak@baillonthome.com The Defendant is represented by: Ingrid N. Culp, Esq. FREDRIKSON & BYRON, PA 200 S 6th St., Suite 4000 Minneapolis, MN 55402-1425 Telephone: (612) 492-7188 Facsimile: (612) 492-7077 E-mail: iculp@fredlaw.com WHOLE FOODS: Accused of Falsely Labeling "All Natural" Products --------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Garrison and Grace Garrison, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Whole Foods Market California, Inc., Mrs. Gooch's Natural Foods Market, Inc., Whole Foods Market Rocky Mountain/Southwest, L.P., and Whole Foods Market Pacific Northwest, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-00334-EDL (N.D. Cal., January 22, 2014) is brought on behalf of a national class of consumers, who have purchased certain food products from Whole Foods stores that were falsely and misleadingly labeled as "All Natural," but which, in fact, contained synthetic ingredients. Whole Foods Market California, Inc. and Mrs. Gooch's Natural Food Market, Inc. are Texas Corporations with their principal executive offices in Austin, Texas. Whole Foods Market Pacific Northwest, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with executive offices in Bellevue, Washington, and Austin, Texas. Whole Foods Market Rocky Mountain/Southwest, L.P. is a Texas limited partnership with its principal executive offices in Austin, Texas. The Defendants advertise, market, sell, and distribute the "All Natural" Products throughout California and elsewhere. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew R. Bainer, Esq. Molly A. DeSario, Esq. Courtland W. Creekmore, Esq. SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC 1970 Broadway, Ninth Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 Facsimile: (510) 891-7030 E-mail: mbainer@scalaw.com mdesario@scalaw.com ccreekmore@scalaw.com ZALE CORP: Receives $1.9MM From De Beers Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------- Beginning in June 2004, various class-action lawsuits were filed alleging that the De Beers group violated U.S. state and federal antitrust, consumer protection and unjust enrichment laws. During the first quarter of fiscal year 2013, Zale Corp. received proceeds totaling $1.9 million as a result of a settlement reached in the lawsuit, according to Zale Corp.'s Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 28, 2013. ZALE CORP: Still Faces 3 Wage & Hour Suits in California -------------------------------------------------------- Zale Corp. faces wage and hour suits filed by former Piercing Pagoda and Zales employees, according to Zale Corp.'s Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 28, 2013. The Company is a defendant in three purported class action lawsuits, Tessa Hodge v. Zale Delaware, Inc., d/b/a Piercing Pagoda which was filed on April 23, 2013 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino, Naomi Tapia v. Zale which was filed on July 3, 2013 in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, and Melissa Roberts v. Zale Delaware, Inc. which was filed on October 7, 2013 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. All three cases include allegations that the Company violated various wage and hour labor laws. Relief is sought on behalf of current and former Piercing Pagoda and Zales employees. The lawsuits seek to recover damages, penalties and attorneys' fees as a result of the alleged violations. The Company is investigating the underlying allegations and intends to vigorously defend its position against them. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the potential loss or range of loss, if any, for the lawsuits. * Investors Lose $39-Bil. Yearly From Securities Class Actions -------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Ramonas, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that investors each year have lost an average of $39 billion from securities class action lawsuits to collect only about $5 billion in settlements per year since the enactment of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act in 1995, according to a U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) study released on Feb. 28. During the past 18 years, the suits cost shareholders at least $701 billion, while they only recovered about $90 billion, says "Economic Consequences: The Real Costs of U.S. Securities Class Action Litigation", the analysis Navigant Consulting Inc. conducted for the ILR. Plaintiffs lawyers in securities class actions during the 18-year period took in fees of $19 billion, an average of about $1 billion per year. Following the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, which was intended to ward off meritless securities suits, courts have received more than 4,200 securities class actions alleging trillions of dollars in shareholder losses, and touching more than 40 percent of public companies. The study's finding of billions of dollars lost is "pretty momentous," ILR president Lisa Rickard said, speaking at a forum at the Chamber on securities class actions. "Under the current system, you have one group of innocent shareholders paying another group of innocent shareholders with very large transaction costs," she said. "It's a situation pretty much out of a [Franz] Kafka novel, and I can't think of any part of the American lawsuit system that's more illogical or unjust." The analysis came out only days before the U.S. Supreme Court will hear an appeal on March 5 in Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund, in which the justices will determine the validity of the "fraud-on- the-market" theory in securities class actions. The construct, which the court advanced in Basic v. Levinson in 1988, makes it easier for shareholders to file securities suits as a group, by allowing courts to certify class actions without proof that investors depended on company misstatements when they bought stocks. Invalidating the theory would improve the system and help end a "cash cow" for plaintiffs lawyers, Ms. Rickard said. "It will help deter some of the truly meritless cases that we've seen over the last two decades, and it will be a meaningful step in the direction of a better system," she said. * New Rule May Spur Product Liability Suits v. Generic Drug Cos. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cliff Rieders, Esq., at Rieders, Travis, Humphrey, Harris Waters & Waffenschmidt reports that generic drug manufacturers are campaigning against a proposed U.S. rule that would require them to change the prescribing information on their products if they receive new safety information, which they allege would open them up to product liability lawsuits. The new rule would overturn regulations that have been in place for three decades that prohibit generic companies from updating safety data on their label without such changes first being made by the branded company that developed the drug. The Food and Drug Administration, which issued its proposal in November, said the change is designed to "create parity" between branded and generic drug makers with respect to labeling changes, and remove an unnecessary impediment to the prompt communication of safety data. Generic drugmakers say the proposed rule would raise the cost of drugs and lead to confusion among consumers. The House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee's health panel was set to consider the proposed changes to generic drug label during a hearing on March 3. * Supreme Court Ruling Opens Door to More Securities Class Actions ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP disclosed that on February 26, 2014, in a 7-2 decision with Justice Breyer writing for the majority, the Supreme Court issued a narrow interpretation of when the federal Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act ("SLUSA") preempts state-law securities class actions. SLUSA precludes state-law class actions that allege "a misrepresentation or omission of a material fact in connection with the purchase or sale of a covered security." 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78bb(f)(1)(A). In the Feb. 26 decision, the Supreme Court determined that a misrepresentation is not considered "in connection with" a securities transaction "unless it is material to a decision by one or more individuals (other than the fraudster) to buy or to sell a 'covered security.'" Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice, 571 U.S. __, (2014) (slip op., at 8). The Court's narrow interpretation limits SLUSA's preclusion of state- law class actions. The three cases consolidated for review arose out of a Ponzi scheme in which an individual and his companies allegedly induced the plaintiffs to purchase certificates of deposit, which are not covered securities under SLUSA, by representing that the certificates were backed by covered securities. The plaintiffs sought to recover damages for their losses through state-law class actions. The district court held that SLUSA precluded the plaintiffs' state-law class claims because (1) the plaintiffs' purchases were induced by a misrepresentation that the certificates of deposit were invested in a portfolio that included "covered securities"; and (2) one or more of the plaintiffs sold "covered securities" to purchase the certificates of deposit. The Fifth Circuit reversed that ruling, holding that a misrepresentation in connection with the purchase or sale of a covered security had to be more than tangentially related to transactions in covered securities. Roland v. Green, 675 F.3d 503, 519-20 (5th Cir. 2012). The Supreme Court affirmed and clarified that SLUSA applies only to misrepresentations that are material to the purchase or sale of a covered security by one other than the person alleged to have committed fraud. Troice, 571 U.S. __, (2014) (slip op., at 9). The Court reasoned that "the phrase 'material fact in connection with the purchase or sale' suggests a connection that matters" (i.e., a connection such that the misrepresentation impacts a person's decision to actually purchase or sell a covered security). Id. In dissent, Justice Kennedy warned that the Court's narrow interpretation of SLUSA "will subject many persons and entities whose profession it is to give advice, counsel, and assistance in investing in the securities markets to complex and costly state-law litigation based on allegations of aiding or participating in transactions that are in fact regulated by the federal securities laws." Troice, 571 U.S. __, (2014) (slip op., at 4) (Kennedy, J., dissenting). The Feb. 26 ruling will likely result in more securities class actions being allowed to be litigated in state court. ********* 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 * * *