/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140311.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, March 11, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 49
Headlines
APOLLO GROUP: Dismissal of Ariz. Securities Suit Appealed
APOLLO GROUP: Teamsters Local 617 Appeals Dismissal of Suit
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued for Conspiring to Control Gold Prices
BUCKS COUNTY, PA: Bid to Junk Suit Over Online Mug Shots Denied
CHIRO ONE: Status Hearing Today in "Kurgan" Class Suit
COCA-COLA CO: Accused of Charging Illegal Deposit Handling Fees
HI-TECH PHARMACAL: Has MoU to Settle Suits Over Akorn Merger
HI-TECH PHARMACAL: Discovery in Sinus Buster Suit on Hold
HI-TECH PHARMACAL: Accord in Nasal Ease Suit Gets Initial Okay
KAISER FOUNDATION: Suit Over Mental Health Access May Be Remanded
L.M. NOODLE: Butterballs Recalled Due to Undeclared Allergen
LAYNE CHRISTENSEN: Royalty Owners Want Suit Sent to State Court
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Briefing on Data Theft Suit Now Concluded
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Court Allows Amendment to N.Y. Securities Suit
LOCHIEL ENTERPRISES: Smoked Salmon Recalled Due to Listeria Risk
MARICOPA COUNTY, CA: Jails Still Not Improved, ACLU Claims
MENTHOLATUM COMPANY: Rohto Eye Drops Made in Vietnam Recalled
MERRELL FOOD: "Crunch'N Nutter Mixed Nut" Candy Recalled
METROCORP BANCSHARES: Inks MoU to Settle Suit Over Merger
MICHAELS STORES: Calif. Court Certifies Store Managers' Suit
MICHAELS STORES: California Zip Code Suit Wins Initial Approval
MICHAELS STORES: Settlement of "Tijero" & "Godfrey" Suit Pursued
MICHAELS STORES: "Barreras" Labor Suit Continues in California
MICHAELS STORES: Trial in Framing Products Suit Held in Feb. 2014
MICHAELS STORES: Still Faces Over Website Tracking and Coding
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Fully Pays $67MM Settlement of Antitrust Suit
MIDWEST WHOLESALE: Various Products Recalled Due to Sildenafil
MILLER ENERGY: Moved to Dismiss Securities Suit in Tenn. Court
MODUSLINK GLOBAL: Files Motion to Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
NEWO CORP: Falsely Sells Wi-Fi "Range Extenders," Suit Claims
NONGSHIM AMERICA: Faces Noodles Price-Fixing Suit in Calif.
NUCOR STEEL: Accused of Manganese Contamination
PASKESZ CANDY: Premium Belgian Chocolate Coins Hologram Recalled
PEPSICO INC: Deceptively Omits 4-MeI Info on Beverages, Suit Says
PFIZER INC: Faces "Bedi" Suit in California Over Lipitor Drug
PFIZER INC: Faces "Petersen" Suit Over Lipitor-Related Injuries
PFIZER INC: Faces Second "Petersen" Suit Over Lipitor in Cal.
PMI NUTRITION: Red Flannel Cat Food Recalled Due to Salmonella
PRESTIGE KITCHEN: Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum & Overtime Wages
PRINGLES: 5.68-Ounce Cans of Original Crisp Recalled
PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Faces "Corliss" Suit Alleging FCRA Violations
RISE'N ROLL BAKERY: Donut Products Recalled Due to Undeclared Egg
SENSA PRODUCTS: Sued Over Weight Loss System in Calif.
SKECHERS USA: Misrepresents Safety of Shape-Ups Shoes, Suit Says
SKECHERS USA: Misrepresents Shape-Ups' Health Benefits, Suit Says
STEMVIDA INTERNATIONAL: Recall of StemAlive 90 Capsules Expanded
TANDEM DIABETES: Specific Lots of Insulin Cartridges Recalled
TARGET CORP: Faces "Christina" Class Suit Over Data Breach
UNIFIED GROCERS: Special Value Ginger Snap Cookies Recalled
UNITED STATES: Faces "Klayman" Suit Over NSA Surveillance Program
US ARMY: Vietnam Veterans Sue Over Other-Than-Honorable Discharge
WINN-DIXIE: Instant Choco Drink Mix Sold in Florida Recalled
YOUNGYOU INTERNATIONAL: Mega Slim Herbal Appetite Pills Recalled
ZALE CORP: Being Sold to Signet for Too Little, Shareholders Say
*********
APOLLO GROUP: Dismissal of Ariz. Securities Suit Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in In re Apollo Group, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Lead Case Number CV-10-1735-PHX-JAT filed a Notice of Appeal with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit against the
dismissal of the case, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Oct. 30, 2013.
On August 13, 2010, a securities class action complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona by Douglas
N. Gaer naming the company, John G. Sperling, Gregory W. Cappelli,
Charles B. Edelstein, Joseph L. D'Amico, Brian L. Swartz and
Gregory J. Iverson as defendants for allegedly making false and
misleading statements regarding our business practices and
prospects for growth. That complaint asserted a putative class
period stemming from December 7, 2009 to August 3, 2010. A
substantially similar complaint was also filed in the same Court
by John T. Fitch on September 23, 2010 making similar allegations
against the same defendants for the same purported class period.
Finally, on October 4, 2010, another purported securities class
action complaint was filed in the same Court by Robert Roth
against the same defendants as well as Brian Mueller, Terri C.
Bishop and Peter V. Sperling based upon the same general set of
allegations, but with a defined class period of February 12, 2007
to August 3, 2010. The complaints allege violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On October 15, 2010, three
additional parties filed motions to consolidate the related
actions and be appointed the lead plaintiff.
On November 23, 2010, the Fitch and Roth actions were consolidated
with Gaer and the Court appointed the "Apollo Institutional
Investors Group" consisting of the Oregon Public Employees
Retirement Fund, the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme, and Amalgamated
Bank as lead plaintiffs. The case is entitled, In re Apollo
Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Case Number CV-10-1735-
PHX-JAT.
On February 18, 2011, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint naming Apollo, John G. Sperling, Peter V. Sperling,
Joseph L. D'Amico, Gregory W. Cappelli, Charles B. Edelstein,
Brian L. Swartz, Brian E. Mueller, Gregory J. Iverson, and William
J. Pepicello as defendants. The consolidated complaint asserts a
putative class period of May 21, 2007 to October 13, 2010. On
April 19, 2011, the company filed a motion to dismiss and oral
argument on the motion was held before the Court on October 17,
2011. On October 27, 2011, the Court granted the motion to
dismiss and granted plaintiffs leave to amend.
On December 6, 2011, the lead plaintiffs filed an Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint, which alleges similar claims
against the same defendants. On January 9, 2012, the company filed
a motion to dismiss the Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint. On June 22, 2012, the Court granted the motion to
dismiss and entered judgment in the company's favor.
On July 20, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and their appeal
remains pending before that Court. If the plaintiffs are
successful in their appeal, the company anticipates it will seek
substantial damages.
APOLLO GROUP: Teamsters Local 617 Appeals Dismissal of Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit from the dismissal of the suit captioned,
Teamsters Local 617 Pension & Welfare Funds v. Apollo Group, Inc.
et al., Case Number 06-cv-02674-RCB, according to the company's
Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 30, 2013.
On November 2, 2006, the Teamsters Local 617 Pension and Welfare
Funds filed a class action complaint purporting to represent a
class of shareholders who purchased the Company's stock between
November 28, 2001 and October 18, 2006. The complaint, filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, is entitled
Teamsters Local 617 Pension & Welfare Funds v. Apollo Group, Inc.
et al., Case Number 06-cv-02674-RCB, and alleges that the company
and certain of its current and former directors and officers
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by purportedly
making misrepresentations concerning the company's stock option
granting policies and practices and related accounting. The
defendants are Apollo, J. Jorge Klor de Alva, Daniel E. Bachus,
John M. Blair, Dino J. DeConcini, Kenda B. Gonzales, Hedy F.
Govenar, Brian E. Mueller, Todd S. Nelson, Laura Palmer Noone,
John R. Norton III, John G. Sperling and Peter V. Sperling.
On September 11, 2007, the Court appointed The Pension Trust Fund
for Operating Engineers as lead plaintiff. Lead plaintiff filed an
amended complaint on November 23, 2007, asserting the same legal
claims as the original complaint and adding claims for violations
of Section 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
allegations of breach of fiduciary duties and civil conspiracy. On
April 30, 2009, plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint,
which alleges similar claims for alleged securities fraud against
the same defendants.
On March 31, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona dismissed the case with prejudice and entered judgment in
the company's favor. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration
of this ruling, and the Court denied this motion on April 2, 2012.
On April 27, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and their appeal
remains pending before that Court. If the plaintiffs are
successful in their appeal, the company anticipates it will seek
substantial damages.
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued for Conspiring to Control Gold Prices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that five banks engaged in a
conspiracy to manipulate prices of gold and gold derivative
contracts, a class claims. The case is Kevin Maher v. Bank of
Nova Scotia; Barclays Bank; Deutsche Bank; HSBC Holdings, Case No.
14-cv-01459, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.
Societe Generale SA is also a defendant in the lawsuit, according
to Bloomberg News.
Bob Van Voris and Debarati Roy, writing for Bloomberg News,
reported that the banks were accused in a lawsuit of manipulating
the London gold fix, a benchmark used throughout the $20 trillion
market for the metal. Kevin Maher, a New York resident who said
he bought and sold gold and gold futures and options, sued
yesterday in Manhattan federal court claiming the five banks
overseeing the century-old benchmark colluded to manipulate it.
Maher cited press reports in his complaint, including a Bloomberg
News story in February on a draft paper by two researchers showing
what they said were unusual pricing patterns connected to the gold
fix. The paper was the first study to raise the possibility that
the banks, which also include Bank of Nova Scotia, HSBC Holdings
Plc (HSBA) and Societe Generale SA (GLE), may have been actively
working together to manipulate the benchmark.
Authorities around the world, already investigating the
manipulation of benchmarks from interest rates to foreign
exchange, are also examining the gold market for signs of
wrongdoing. German financial markets regulator Bafin interviewed
Deutsche Bank employees as part of a probe into the potential
manipulation of gold and silver prices. Britain's Financial
Conduct Authority is also scrutinizing how prices are calculated.
Deutsche Bank, Germany's largest lender, said in January it would
withdraw from the panels setting the gold and silver fixings.
Scotiabank Chief Executive Officer Brian Porter said the process
is outdated and should be reviewed. Speaking March 6 in an
interview at Bloomberg News in New York, he said he would welcome
more members.
Maher is seeking to represent a class of all investors who, from
2004 to now, held or traded gold and gold derivatives that were
priced based on the gold fix or who held or traded COMEX gold
futures or options. He's seeking unspecified damages on behalf of
the class. Damages may be tripled under U.S. antitrust law.
"We believe this suit is without merit and will vigorously defend
against it," Renee Calabro, a spokeswoman for Frankfurt-based
Deutsche Bank, said in an e-mail.
Mark Lane, a spokesman for London-based Barclays, and Juanita
Gutierrez, a spokeswoman for London-based HSBC, declined to
comment on the lawsuit.
"The claims are unsubstantiated and Societe Generale will defend
these against proceedings," Saphia Gaouaoui, a spokeswoman for the
Paris-based bank, said March 6 in an e-mailed statement.
The London gold fix is the benchmark used by miners, jewelers and
central banks to value the metal. According to the researchers, it
may have been manipulated for a decade by the banks setting it.
Unusual trading patterns around 3 p.m. in London, when the so-
called afternoon fix is set on a private conference call among the
five banks, are a sign of possible collusive behavior and should
be investigated, New York University's Stern School of Business
Professor Rosa Abrantes-Metz and Albert Metz, a managing director
at Moody's Investors Service, wrote in the draft research paper.
In February, officials at Barclays, Deutsche Bank, HSBC and
Societe Generale declined to comment on the report. Joe Konecny, a
spokesman for Toronto-based Bank of Nova Scotia (BNS), didn't
respond to a message seeking comment on the report at the time.
The rate-setting ritual dates to 1919. Dealers in the early years
met in a wood-paneled room in Rothschild's office in the City of
London and raised little Union Jacks to indicate interest. Now the
fix is calculated twice a day on telephone conferences at 10:30
a.m. and 3 p.m. London time. The calls usually last 10 minutes,
though they can run more than an hour.
Firms declare how many bars of gold they want to buy or sell at
the current spot price, based on orders from clients and
themselves. The price is increased or reduced until the buy and
sell amounts are within 50 bars, or about 620 kilograms, of each
other, at which point the fix is set.
Traders relay shifts in supply and demand to clients during the
call and take fresh orders to buy or sell as the price changes,
according to the website of London Gold Market Fixing, where the
results are published. The process is unregulated and the five
banks can trade gold and its derivatives throughout the call.
The case is Maher v. Bank of Nova Scotia, 14-cv-01459, U.S.
District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
BUCKS COUNTY, PA: Bid to Junk Suit Over Online Mug Shots Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that a Pennsylvania county must face claims it published expunged
arrest records online so that mug-shot Web sites could ruin the
reputations of innocent arrestees, a federal judge ruled.
When Bensalem, Pa. police, arrested Daryoush Taha, booked him and
transferred him to the Bucks County Correctional Facility in 1998,
the jail allegedly generated a related file that included Taha's
photograph. Though Taha claims he "strongly believed himself to
be innocent of all charges," he completed an Accelerated
Rehabilitative Disposition in 2000 to expunge his case and "avoid
the damage to his reputation and career prospects that would arise
from having a criminal record."
Seven years later, however, the county created a public Web site
containing the booking photographs and arrest records of
arrestees, including those "who had been arrested years before and
had their charges either expunged or dismissed," Taha said. In
turn, Web sites like mugshots.com, mugshotsonline.com and
bustedmugshots.com allegedly snatched and published Taha's record
and photo for "public consumption" without his consent as early as
2011.
Taha, who said he had been convicted of no crime in the 13 years
since his arrest, hopes to represent a class against the county,
jail and Web sites, alleging the Internet publication of his mug
shot and record caused him reputational, emotional and financial
harm. The complaint asserts violations of Pennsylvania's Criminal
History Record Information Act (CHRIA) against the county, as well
as violations of a state law banning the unauthorized use of a
name or likeness and invasion-of-privacy "false light" against the
Web sites.
In a motion to dismiss, the county defendants argued that
governmental immunity bars Taha's claim for damages under Section
9121 the CHRIA, and that he has not shown a sufficient risk of
future harm to seek injunctive relief under Section 1983.
U.S. District Judge L. Felipe Restrepo denied the motion Feb. 21.
"Given the nature of the harm that violations of the CHRIA may
cause to one 'aggrieved,' injunctive relief is, at best, partial,"
Restrepo wrote. "Once false or inappropriate criminal history
information has been released, the reputational damage is done.
The bell cannot be unrung. The Pennsylvania legislature sought,
in enacting the CHRIA, to protect individual privacy and dignity.
Its manifest intent was to encourage compliance, and provide
relief for violations, through a damages remedy. At least in the
case of those provisions that can only be violated by government
actors, the damages remedy constitutes a waiver of governmental
immunity. I will accordingly deny the county defendants' motion
to dismiss Count I."
A defendant furthermore "cannot automatically moot a case simply
by ending its unlawful conduct once sued," but must show that "it
is absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful behavior could not
reasonably be expected to recur," the ruling states.
"In Already LLC v. Nike Inc., the Supreme Court found Nike's
'unconditional and irrevocable' covenant to refrain from the
challenged activity to meet this high threshold," Restrepo wrote.
"The county and [Bucks County Correctional Facility] BCCF have not
made any comparable showing. I will therefore deny the motion to
dismiss Count II."
The case is Daryoush Taha v. Bucks County, et al., Case No. 2:12-
cv-06867-LFR, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.
CHIRO ONE: Status Hearing Today in "Kurgan" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr., granted an amended motion for
collective and class certification filed by plaintiffs in MONICA
KURGAN and MADELINE DIAZ, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CHIRO ONE WELLNESS CENTERS LLC,
Defendants, CASE NO. 10-CV-1899, (N.D. Ill.).
The Plaintiffs' amended motion asked the Court to (1) authorize
notice under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) to similarly situated
current and former employees of this collective action; (2)
certify Plaintiffs' IMWL overtime wage claim under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and/or Rule 23(c)(4); (3) appoint
Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel; and (4) approve the proposed
notice forms.
In his February 19, 2014 Memorandum Opinion and Order, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/vna5Jifrom Leagle.com, Judge
Dow granted conditional certification of the FLSA claims and
certifies Plaintiffs' IMWL claims for class treatment under Rule
23.
The matter is set for status at 2:00 p.m. today, March 11, 2014.
At this time, the Court will address any questions or concerns
with respect to the form of the notice.
The Court had directed the parties to submit a joint status report
March 7, 2014.
COCA-COLA CO: Accused of Charging Illegal Deposit Handling Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Coca-Cola Refreshments
charges retailers a deceptive and illegal "deposit handling fee"
of $1.20 per 24-bottle case, a grocery store claims in a class
action in Westchester County Supreme Court in New York.
HI-TECH PHARMACAL: Has MoU to Settle Suits Over Akorn Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc. entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle lawsuits filed over its planned merger
with Akorn Inc., according to the company's Dec. 10, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2013.
A putative class action lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware on August 30, 2013, captioned Karant v.
Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 8854-VCP, in
connection with the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger
Agreement") with Akorn Inc. ("Akorn") and Akorn Enterprises, Inc.,
providing for the merger of Akorn Enterprises, Inc. with and into
the Company (the "Merger"), alleging, among other things, that Hi-
Tech and Hi-Tech's board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties and that Akorn aided and abetted the alleged breaches. The
Karant complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive relief
enjoining the defendants from completing the Merger and directing
the defendants to account to the plaintiff and the purported class
for damages allegedly sustained, and an award of fees, expenses
and costs.
In addition, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in Suffolk
County, New York, captioned Wackstein v. Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co.,
Inc., et al., Index No. 063450/2013, similarly alleging, among
other things, that Hi-Tech and Hi-Tech's board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties and that Akorn aided and abetted
the alleged breaches. The Wackstein complaint seeks, among other
things, injunctive relief enjoining the defendants from completing
the Merger and directing the defendants to account to the
plaintiff and the purported class for damages allegedly sustained,
and an award of fees, expenses and costs.
The defendants believe these lawsuits are without merit but in
order to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in
litigation and to allow stockholders to vote on the proposal to
adopt the Merger Agreement and approve the transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement, including the Merger, at Hi-
Tech's scheduled annual meeting of stockholders, to be held on
December 19, 2013, Hi-Tech, Akorn and the other defendants have
entered into a memorandum of understanding with plaintiff's
counsel, dated November 26, 2013, in connection with the Karant
and Wackstein actions (the "Memorandum of Understanding"),
pursuant to which Hi-Tech, Akorn, the other named defendants and
Wackstein have agreed to dismiss the Wackstein action with
prejudice and pursuant to which Hi-Tech, Akorn, the other named
defendants and Karant have agreed to settle the Karant action
subject to court approval. If the Delaware court approves the
settlement, the Karant action will likewise be dismissed with
prejudice.
HI-TECH PHARMACAL: Discovery in Sinus Buster Suit on Hold
---------------------------------------------------------
Discovery schedule for depositions, expert discovery and class
certification motion dates in Sinus Buster Products Consumer
Litigation are on hold until the next Court conference to allow
for the negotiation of a possible settlement, according to
Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc.'s Dec. 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Oct. 31, 2013.
On June 8, 2012, plaintiff Mathew Harrison, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, brought a class action lawsuit,
Civil Action No. 12-2897, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, against Wayne Perry, Dynova
Laboratories, Inc., Sicap Industries, LLC, Walgreens Co. and the
Company ("Harrison case"). On May 16, 2012, plaintiff David Delre,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, brought a
class action lawsuit, Civil Action No. 12-2429, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, against Wayne
Perry, Dynova Laboratories, Inc., Sicap Industries, LLC, and the
Company. Each complaint alleges, among other things, that their
Sinus Buster products are improperly marketed, labeled and sold as
homeopathic products, and that these allegations support claims of
fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of express and implied warranties
and alleged violations of various state and federal statutes.
The Company answered the complaints on July 17, 2012 and June 26,
2012, respectively, and asserted cross-claims against the other
defendants, except Walgreens which was dismissed from the Harrison
case. The Court consolidated these two cases into one action
entitled Sinus Buster Products Consumer Litigation. Discovery
commenced in the consolidated case, but is stayed while the
parties negotiate a possible settlement. Dynova has filed for
bankruptcy. The case is now proceeding without Dynova.
A discovery schedule for depositions, expert discovery and class
certification motion is in place. These dates are on hold until
the next Court conference to allow for the negotiation of a
possible settlement. The Company intends to vigorously defend
against the allegations in the complaint and the class
certification, if the case does not settle. The Company has
established a contingency loss accrual of $700,000 included in
accrued legal settlements to cover potential settlement, or other
outcomes, but cannot predict that settlement on terms deemed
acceptable to the Company will occur.
HI-TECH PHARMACAL: Accord in Nasal Ease Suit Gets Initial Okay
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
issued its preliminary approval on the settlement of a lawsuit
filed against Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc. over its Nasal Ease
product, according to the company's Dec. 10, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Oct. 31, 2013.
On December 12, 2012, plaintiff Linda Hoover, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, brought a class action lawsuit
against the Company in the Superior Court for the State of
California, which the Company removed to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Civil Action No. 5:2013-
0097, alleging that the Company's marketing and sales of its Nasal
Ease product is a violation of various state statutes, including
the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California's False Advertising
Law and Unlawful, Fraudulent & Unfair Business Practices Act. The
Company answered the complaint on January 14, 2013. The parties
have reached a settlement in this action as set forth in the Class
Action Settlement Agreement, dated as of August 15, 2013. The
motion for preliminary approval was submitted to the Court on
August 23, 2013, and the Court issued its preliminary approval on
September 27, 2013. The Company has established a contingency loss
accrual of $700,000 included in accrued legal settlements in
connection with this complaint.
KAISER FOUNDATION: Suit Over Mental Health Access May Be Remanded
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Remand to California court is likely for a class action alleging
that the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan denies adequate and timely
access to mental health services, reports Barbara Wallace at
Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling.
Susan Futterman, Megan Mortenson and Acianita Lucero are the lead
plaintiffs in a class action against Kaiser. Futterman said her
husband committed suicide while waiting for an appointment with a
psychiatrist; Mortenson said she faced long waits for appointments
until she told Kaiser's Member Services Department the wait times
were beyond those allowed by California law, and then she got an
appointment 25 miles from her house; and Lucero allegedly waited
more than 48 hours when she sought crisis-care services though
California has a timely access law demands for urgent care.
Kaiser removed the case from Alameda County Superior Court to the
Northern District of California and then moved to dismiss.
U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson agreed February 28, 2014,
that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) pre-empts
Mortenson's state-law causes of action. After dismissing those
claims without prejudice, the judge gave the plaintiffs until
March 21 to amend their complaint to state their claims under
ERISA.
The court did not, however, dismiss the other state-law claims
outright.
"If plaintiffs decline to plead any ERISA claims, and they
indicated at the hearing that they may not, then there will be no
remaining federal questions in this case, and the court will be
inclined to decline to exercise federal supplemental jurisdiction
over plaintiffs' remaining state causes of action and remand this
case to state court," Henderson wrote. "Given the likelihood of
remand, and in the interests of judicial economy and comity, the
court reserves decision on Kaiser's remaining argument pending
plaintiff's possible amendment."
The case is Susan Futterman, et al. v. Kaiser Foundation Health
Plan, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-05416-TEH, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.
L.M. NOODLE: Butterballs Recalled Due to Undeclared Allergen
------------------------------------------------------------
L.M. Noodle Company of Wiggins, CO issued a recall in January of
its Marlyce's Butterballs because they contain undeclared wheat
flour, soy flour, whey and milk. People who have allergies to
wheat and soy flour, whey and milk run the risk of serious or
life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.
The recalled butterballs were distributed in 2 Wyoming stores, 5
Nebraska stores and 5 Colorado stores.
Butterballs are made up of bread crumbs, cream, butter, eggs,
allspice and salt rolled in to a ball and cooked in soup. Twelve
butterballs come frozen in a clear plastic bag with black
lettering on a white label and the upc 094219-21708.
No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.
The recall was initiated after the undeclared allergens were
discovered by a FDA inspection.
Product was immediately relabeled in the warehouse as well as the
retail stores. Relabeled product has the allergens listed in the
lower left hand corner of the label.
Consumers who have purchased butterballs with undeclared allergens
on the label are urged to return them to the place of purchase for
a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company
at 970-371-3845 after 3:00pm Monday through Friday.
LAYNE CHRISTENSEN: Royalty Owners Want Suit Sent to State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a lawsuit filed against three Layne Christensen
Company subsidiaries and two other companies supposedly on behalf
of all lessors and royalty owners filed a motion asking the
federal court to send the case back to the District Court of
Wilson County, Kansas, according to the company's Dec. 10, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2013.
On April 17, 2013, an individual person filed a purported class
action suit against three of our subsidiaries and two other
companies supposedly on behalf of all lessors and royalty owners
from 2004 to the present. Plaintiff essentially alleges that the
company and two other companies allocated the market for mineral
leasing rights and restrained trade in mineral leasing within the
state of Kansas. Plaintiff seeks certification as a class and
unquantified damages. Plaintiff's suit was initially filed in the
District Court of Wilson County, Kansas. On July 3, 2013, the case
was removed by a co-defendant to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas. On July 10, 2013, the company and the other
defendants filed a motion asking the court to dismiss plaintiff's
case for failure to state a claim. On July 29, 2013, plaintiff
filed a motion asking the federal court to send the case back to
the District Court of Wilson County, Kansas. The company believes
it has meritorious legal positions and will continue to represent
its interests vigorously in this matter.
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Briefing on Data Theft Suit Now Concluded
----------------------------------------------------------
All substantive briefing on the motion to dismiss all claims
against Leidos Holdings, Inc. in In Re: Science Applications
International Corporation (SAIC) Backup Tape Data Theft Litigation
has concluded, according to the company's Dec. 10, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Nov. 1, 2013.
The Company is a defendant in a putative class action, In Re:
Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) Backup Tape
Data Theft Litigation, a Multidistrict Litigation (MDL), in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The MDL action
consolidates for pretrial proceedings the following seven
individual putative class action lawsuits filed against the
Company from October 2011 through March 2012: (1) Richardson, et
al. v. TRICARE Management Activity, Science Applications
International Corporation, United States Department of Defense, et
al. in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia; (2)
Arellano, et al. v. SAIC, Inc. in U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas; (3) Biggerman, et al. v. TRICARE
Management Activity, Science Applications International
Corporation, United States Department of Defense, et al. in U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia; (4)Moskowitz, et al.
v. TRICARE Management Activity, Science Applications International
Corporation, United States Department of Defense, et al. in U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia; (5) Palmer, et al. v.
TRICARE Management Activity, Science Applications International
Corporation, United States Department of Defense, et al., in U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia; (6) Losack, et al. v.
SAIC, Inc. in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California; and (7) Deatrick v. Science Applications International
Corporation in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.
The lawsuits were filed following the theft of computer backup
tapes from a vehicle of a Company employee. The employee was
transporting the backup tapes between federal facilities under an
IT services contract the Company was performing in support of
TRICARE, the health care program for members of the military,
retirees and their families. The tapes contained personally
identifiable and protected health information of approximately
five million military clinic and hospital patients. There is no
evidence that any of the data on the backup tapes has actually
been accessed or viewed by an unauthorized person. In order for an
unauthorized person to access or view the data on the backup
tapes, it would require knowledge of and access to specific
hardware and software and knowledge of the system and data
structure. The Company has notified potentially impacted persons
by letter and has offered one year of credit monitoring services
to those who request these services and in certain circumstances,
one year of identity restoration services.
In October 2012, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint
in the MDL action, which supersedes all previously filed
complaints in the individual lawsuits. The consolidated amended
complaint includes allegations of negligence, breach of contract,
breach of implied-in-fact contract, invasion of privacy by public
disclosure of private facts and statutory violations of the Texas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the California Confidentiality of
Medical Information Act, California data breach notification
requirements, the California Unfair Competition Law, various state
consumer protection or deceptive practices statutes, state privacy
statutes, the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Privacy Act of
1974. The consolidated amended complaint seeks monetary relief,
including unspecified actual damages, punitive damages, statutory
damages of $1,000 for each class member and attorneys' fees, as
well as injunctive and declaratory relief.
The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against the claims
made in the class action lawsuits. In November 2012, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss all claims against the Company alleged
in the consolidated amended complaint and all substantive briefing
on the motion has concluded. The Company has insurance coverage
against judgments or settlements relating to the claims being
brought in these lawsuits, with a $10 million deductible. The
insurance coverage also covers the Company's defense costs,
subject to the same deductible.
As of November 1, 2013, the Company has recorded a loss provision
of $10 million related to these lawsuits, representing the low end
of the Company's estimated gross loss. The Company believes that,
if any loss is experienced by the Company in excess of its
estimate, such a loss would not exceed the Company's insurance
coverage. As these lawsuits progress, many factors will affect the
amount of the ultimate loss resulting from these claims being
brought against the Company, including the outcome of any motions
to dismiss, the results of any discovery, the outcome of any
pretrial motions and the courts' rulings on certain legal issues.
The Company has been informed that the Office for Civil Rights
(OCR) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is
investigating matters related to the incident. OCR is the division
of HHS charged with enforcement of the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, as amended (HIPAA) and
the privacy, security and data breach rules which implement HIPAA.
OCR may, among other things, require a corrective action plan and
impose civil monetary penalties against the data owner (Department
of Defense) and, in certain situations, against the data owners'
contractors, such as the Company. The Company is cooperating with
TRICARE in responding to the OCR investigation.
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Court Allows Amendment to N.Y. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed many claims in In re SAIC, Inc. Securities Litigation
with prejudice, granted the plaintiffs leave to amend some claims,
and denied dismissal of limited claims, according to Leidos
Holdings, Inc.'s Dec. 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 1,
2013.
Between February and April 2012, alleged stockholders filed three
putative securities class actions. One case was withdrawn and two
cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York in In re SAIC, Inc. Securities
Litigation. The consolidated securities complaint names as
defendants the Company, its chief financial officer, two former
chief executive officers, a former group president, and the former
program manager on the CityTime program, and was filed purportedly
on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock from
April 11, 2007 through September 1, 2011. The consolidated
securities complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations that
the Company and individual defendants made misleading statements
or omissions about the Company's revenues, operating income, and
internal controls in connection with disclosures relating to the
CityTime project. The plaintiffs seek to recover from the Company
and the individual defendants an unspecified amount of damages
class members allegedly incurred by buying the Company's stock at
an inflated price. On October 1, 2013, the district court
dismissed many claims in the complaint with prejudice, granted the
plaintiffs leave to amend some claims, and denied dismissal of
limited claims. The Company intends to vigorously defend against
these claims.
LOCHIEL ENTERPRISES: Smoked Salmon Recalled Due to Listeria Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lochiel Enterprises Limited of Sherbrooke, NS issued in January a
voluntary recall of its 56 lbs of ST MARY'S RIVER SMOKEHOUSES OVEN
SMOKED ATLANTIC SALMON STIX, CHILI MANGO FLAVOR, because it has
the potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an
organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in
young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened
immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only
short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache,
stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection
can cause miscarriages and still births among pregnant women.
No illnesses have been reported to date.
St Mary's River Smokehouses Oven Smoked Atlantic Salmon Stix,
Chili Mango Flavor was distributed in Maine, New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, Vermont and New York through retail stores.
The product comes in a 4oz, black Styrofoam tray with an outer
sleeve bearing the UPC Code 6 2642510092 9. The recall is
specific to product marked with the production code 347 31## on a
sticker on the end of the styrofoam tray.
The recall was the result of a routine sampling program by FDA
which revealed that samples of the finished products contained the
bacteria. Lochiel Enterprises Limited has voluntarily initiated
the recall and is continuing its investigation.
Consumers who have purchased the product are urged to return it to
the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions
may contact the company at 1 902 522-2005.
MARICOPA COUNTY, CA: Jails Still Not Improved, ACLU Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
The ACLU challenged a motion to end federal supervision of Sheriff
Joe Arpaio's jails, claiming the jails have not met terms of a
2008 court order demanding improvements in health care for
Maricopa County pretrial detainees, reports Jamie Ross at
Courthouse News Service.
The original class action -- filed in 1977 and joined by the ACLU
in 2008 -- alleged that Maricopa County jails knowingly
disregarded pre-trial detainees' mental and medical health needs.
U.S. District Judge Neil V. Wake in 2008 ordered the Maricopa
County Sheriff's Office to fix a number of its "unconstitutional
health risk(s)" after finding that Arpaio's jails did not "ensure
that pretrial detainees receive access to adequate medical and
mental health care because Correctional Health Services does not
provide timely in-person assessment of the urgency of their need
for treatment, is not able to readily retrieve information from
pretrial detainees' medical and mental health records and housing
records, and does not identify and appropriately treat many
pretrial detainees with serious mental illness."
The ACLU has challenged Maricopa County's motion to terminate the
federal oversight of its jails, claiming the jail's mental health
system is still deficient.
According to a court document filed in response to the motion to
terminate supervision, the ACLU claims that Maricopa County
"routinely fails to send patients to a higher level of care when
needed; fails to ensure timely access to providers; has inadequate
suicide prevention and defective medication management practices;
provides inadequate access to crisis beds and inpatient level of
care; has under-utilized or inadequate mental health programs; and
unnecessarily subjects seriously mentally ill prisoners to
isolation conditions so harsh as to predictably exacerbate their
illness."
The ACLU cites the jail system's refusal to require prisoners to
see a psychiatrist after a positive drug screen, despite a
recommendation by the court's medical expert, Kathryn Burns. The
jail's medical provider, Correctional Health Services, instead
lets prisoners be seen by a member of its mental health staff or a
psychiatrist.
The ACLU claims Arpaio's jails deny detainees their prescribed
mental health medication for up to three weeks after they are
booked into the jail system.
One detainee repeatedly spoke of the "blood of Jesus," refused to
leave her cell so that it could be cleaned, refused her
medication, and was seen washing her clothes in a toilet, but was
not taken to the Maricopa Medical Center for treatment for almost
a month, the ACLU says.
Maricopa County claims it has complied with Wake's order by
implementing new procedures and policies, including "an expanded
electronic pre-intake integrated health screen" that identifies
mental conditions and asks questions about medication.
The county claims in its request to terminate supervision that
almost half of the inmates booked are "now identified as needing
further evaluation with an RN resulting in proactive intervention
and treatment by a higher level medical provider when recommended,
resulting in reduced adverse outcomes and efficient use of
resources," and says that mental health referrals have increased
by 13 percent.
Arpaio and his office have been sued more than 300 times since
2010, often on civil rights charges. He calls himself "America's
Toughest Sheriff" and was re-elected in November 2013 to a sixth,
four-year term.
MENTHOLATUM COMPANY: Rohto Eye Drops Made in Vietnam Recalled
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Mentholatum Company in January said it is conducting a
voluntary recall to the retail level of Rohto Arctic, Rohto Ice,
Rohto Hydra, Rohto Relief and Rohto Cool eye drops Made in
Vietnam. The recall includes ONLY lots of product that were
manufactured in Vietnam and DOES NOT include eye drops made in
Japan. The lot numbers for products made in Vietnam will include
the letter "V," for example, "Lot 3E1V," and will be located on
the bottom panel of the carton, and on the bottom of the eye drop
bottle. Products manufactured in Japan are not included in this
recall and continue to be available to consumers.
The Mentholatum Company is initiating the recall due to a
manufacturing review at the production facility in Vietnam
involving sterility controls. To date, there has been no evidence
indicating that product does not meet specifications; however, the
company is taking this action as a precautionary measure.
The product is sold nationwide over-the-counter at pharmacies and
retail stores. The recall affects Rohto Arctic, Rohto Ice, Rohto
Hydra, Rohto Relief and Rohto Cool eye drops that were made in
Vietnam only, which can be identified by the words "Made in
Vietnam" on the side carton panel under the company name and
address information, as well as on the back label of the bottle.
The Mentholatum Company is notifying its distributors and
retailers by letter to stop distribution and follow instructions
in the recall letter. Consumers that have recalled product should
contact the company for instructions.
Questions about this recall may be directed to The Mentholatum
Company Customer Service Department at 1-877-636-2677 Monday -
Friday 9 AM to 5 PM (EST).
No reports of injury have been associated with the products at
issue. Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the
use of this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse
Event Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.
Complete and submit the report Online:
http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm
Regular Mail or Fax: Download form
http://www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htmor call 1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address
on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178
The recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.
MERRELL FOOD: "Crunch'N Nutter Mixed Nut" Candy Recalled
--------------------------------------------------------
Merrell Food Group of Dalton, WI, along with it's manufacturing
partner Rise'n Roll Specialties in January issued a recall of its
"Crunch'N Nutter Mixed Nut" candy packaged in a 4oz. green and
yellow plastic bag, because it contains undeclared peanuts. This
affects all product with a sell by date of June 1, 2014 or before.
People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to peanuts run
the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume these products.
The "Mixed Nut" was distributed to distributers in Wisconsin and
New Jersey.
The product comes in 4oz bags labeled Crunch'N Nutter Mixed Nut
with the UPC#861522000042
No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.
Recall was initiated during an FDA inspection of the manufacturer
which found the undeclared peanut allergen in the product.
Subsequent investigation indicates the problem was caused by a
temporary breakdown in the company's production and packaging
process.
Current product will be labeled to declare peanuts. This product
was no longer manufactured with peanuts as of Jan. 15, 2014.
Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-608-429-4838
Mon-Fri 8am to 5pm Central Standard Time.
METROCORP BANCSHARES: Inks MoU to Settle Suit Over Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
Metrocorp Bancshares, Inc. entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle In re MetroCorp Bancshares, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, No. 4:13-cv-03198, according to the
company's Dec. 10, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.
MetroCorp, the members of its board of directors and East West
have been named as defendants in a putative class action filed on
behalf of MetroCorp shareholders filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division (the "Court"), captioned In re MetroCorp Bancshares, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, No. 4:13-cv-03198 (the "Action"),
challenging, among other things, the Agreement and Plan of Merger,
dated as of September 18, 2013 (the "Merger Agreement"), by and
between East West and MetroCorp and the proposed Merger.
On December 10, 2013, following settlement discussions, the
defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding with the
plaintiffs regarding the settlement of the Action. In connection
with the settlement contemplated by the memorandum of
understanding, in consideration for the full settlement and
release of all claims under the Action, MetroCorp and East West
agreed to make certain additional disclosures related to the
proposed Merger.
East West has further agreed to forbear from requiring that the
full 3% termination fee payable by MetroCorp in the event that the
Merger Agreement is terminated under certain circumstances be
paid, instead requiring that a termination fee of 2.5% of the
merger consideration be paid in such circumstances. The memorandum
of understanding contemplates that the parties will negotiate in
good faith and use their reasonable best efforts to enter into a
stipulation of settlement.
The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary
conditions, including Court approval following notice to
MetroCorp's shareholders. In the event that the parties enter into
a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which
the Court will consider the settlement. There can be no assurance
that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of
settlement or that the Court will approve the settlement even if
the parties were to enter into such stipulation. In such event,
the proposed settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of
understanding may be terminated.
The Company also said "the settlement will not affect the timing
of the special meeting of MetroCorp shareholders, which [was]
scheduled to be held on December 16, 2013, but it may affect the
amount of merger consideration depending on whether the merger
consideration is calculated at $14.60 per share or 1.72 times the
per share tangible equity, as adjusted. The settlement is not, and
should not be construed as, an admission of wrongdoing or
liability by any defendant. MetroCorp, East West and the directors
of MetroCorp continue to believe that the Action is without merit
and vigorously deny the allegations that MetroCorp's directors
breached their fiduciary duties. Likewise, neither MetroCorp, East
West nor the directors of MetroCorp believe that any disclosures
regarding the Merger are required under applicable laws other than
that which has already been provided in MetroCorp's definitive
proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on November 8, 2013 (the "Proxy Statement"). "
MICHAELS STORES: Calif. Court Certifies Store Managers' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court in and for the County of Orange
entered an order certifying a class of approximately 200 members
in a suit filed by four former store managers of Michaels Stores,
Inc., according to the company's Dec. 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Nov. 2, 2013.
On September 15, 2011, the Company was served with a lawsuit filed
in the California Superior Court in and for the County of Orange
("Superior Court") by four former store managers as a purported
class action proceeding on behalf of themselves and certain former
and current store managers employed by Michaels stores in
California.
The lawsuit alleges that the Company improperly classified its
store managers as exempt employees and as such failed to pay all
wages, overtime, waiting time penalties and failed to provide
accurate wage statements. The lawsuit also alleges that the
foregoing conduct was in breach of various laws, including
California's unfair competition law. The plaintiffs have pled
less than five million dollars in damages, penalties, costs of
suit and attorneys' fees, exclusive of interest. On December 3,
2013, the Superior Court entered an order certifying a class of
approximately 200 members and the Company is considering its
options with respect to the ruling.
MICHAELS STORES: California Zip Code Suit Wins Initial Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego Superior Court granted preliminary approval to a
settlement reached in a suit alleging Michaels Stores, Inc.
unlawfully requested and recorded personally identifiable
information (i.e., zip code) as part of a credit card transaction,
according to the company's Dec. 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Nov. 2, 2013.
Carson Suit
On August 15, 2008, Linda Carson, a consumer, filed a purported
class action proceeding against Michaels Stores, Inc. in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Diego ("San Diego
Superior Court"), on behalf of herself and all similarly-situated
California consumers. The Carson lawsuit alleges that Michaels
unlawfully requested and recorded personally identifiable
information (i.e., her zip code) as part of a credit card
transaction. The plaintiff sought statutory penalties, costs,
interest, and attorneys' fees. The company contested certification
of this claim as a class action and filed a motion to dismiss the
claim.
On March 9, 2009, the Court dismissed the case with prejudice. The
plaintiff appealed this decision to the California Court of
Appeals for the Fourth District, San Diego. On July 22, 2010, the
Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of the case. The plaintiff
appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of California
("California Supreme Court").
On September 29, 2010, the California Supreme Court granted the
plaintiff's petition for review; however, it stayed any further
proceedings in the case until another similar zip code case
pending before the court, Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma, was decided.
On February 10, 2011, the California Supreme Court ruled, in the
Williams-Sonoma case, that zip codes are personally identifiable
information and therefore the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of
1971, as amended ("Song Act"), prohibits businesses from
requesting or requiring zip codes in connection with a credit card
transaction.
On or about April 6, 2011, the Supreme Court transferred the
Carson case back to the Court of Appeals with directions to the
Court to reconsider its decision in light of the Pineda decision.
Upon reconsideration, the Court of Appeals remanded the case back
to the San Diego Superior Court on May 31, 2011.
Other San Diego Suits
Since the California Supreme Court decision on February 10, 2011,
three additional purported class action lawsuits alleging
violations of the Song Act have been filed against the Company:
-- Carolyn Austin v. Michaels Stores, Inc. and Tiffany Heon
v. Michaels Stores, Inc., both in the San Diego Superior
Court; and
-- Sandra A. Rubinstein v. Michaels Stores, Inc. in the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles,
Central Division. The Rubinstein case was transferred to
the San Diego Superior Court.
An order coordinating the cases has been entered and plaintiffs
filed a Consolidated Complaint on April 24, 2012.
Plaintiffs seek damages, civil penalties, common settlement fund
recovery, attorney fees, costs of suit and prejudgment interest.
The parties mediated the matter in March and a tentative
settlement was reached for an amount that will not have a material
effect on the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements.
On December 6, 2013, the Court advised that it was granting
preliminary approval of the settlement agreement.
Tyler Suit
Relying in part on the California Supreme Court decision, an
additional purported class action lawsuit was filed on May 20,
2011 against the Company: Melissa Tyler v. Michaels Stores, Inc.
in the U.S. District Court-District of Massachusetts, alleging
violation of a similar Massachusetts statute regarding the
collection of personally identifiable information in connection
with a credit card transaction. A hearing was held on October 20,
2011 on the company's Motion to Dismiss the claims. On January 6,
2012, the Court granted the Company's Motion to Dismiss. The
Court thereafter certified questions of law to the Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court regarding the interpretation of the
Statute. On March 11, 2013, the District Court's dismissal of the
action was reversed and it was remanded back to the District Court
for further proceedings.
According to the company's Aug. 30, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Aug. 3, 2013, Michaels Stores reached a settlement in a suit
related to its alleged practice of collecting personal
identification information in connection with credit card
transactions. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 8, 2013).
D'Esposito Suit
The Company also disclosed in the Aug. 30, 2013 filing that,
following the Judicial Court's decision on March 11, 2013, an
additional purported class action lawsuit asserting the same
allegations in Tyler was filed in the U.S. District Court,
District of Massachusetts by Susan D'Esposito, and the two cases
have been consolidated. On August 12, 2013, a tentative
settlement that is subject to Court approval was reached for an
amount that will not have a material effect on the company's
Consolidated Financial Statements.
Pin Pad Litigation
In April last year, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois granted final approval to a settlement of a
suit filed over the tampering of card terminals in certain
Michaels Stores, according to the company's May 24, 2013, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 4, 2013. (Class Action Reporter, July 24,
2013).
On May 3, 2011, the company was advised by the U.S. Secret Service
that they were investigating certain fraudulent debit card
transactions that occurred on accounts that had been used for
legitimate purchases in selected Michaels stores. A subsequent
internal investigation revealed that approximately 90 payment card
terminals in certain Michaels stores had been physically tampered
with, potentially resulting in customer debit and credit card
information to be compromised. The company has since removed and
replaced approximately 7,100 payment card terminals comparable to
the identified tampered payment card terminals from the company's
Michaels stores. The Company continues to cooperate with various
governmental entities and law enforcement authorities in
investigating the payment card terminal tampering, but the company
does not know the full extent of any fraudulent use of such
information.
On May 18, 2011, Brandi F. Ramundo, a consumer, filed a purported
class action proceeding against Michaels Stores, Inc. in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of
herself and all similarly-situated U.S. consumers. The Ramundo
lawsuit alleges that Michaels failed to take commercially
reasonable steps to protect consumer financial data, and was in
breach of contract and laws, including the Federal Stored
Communications Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Practices Act. The plaintiff seeks compensatory, statutory and
punitive damages, costs, credit card fraud monitoring services,
interest and attorneys' fees.
Subsequently two additional purported class action lawsuits
significantly mirroring the claims in the Ramundo complaint were
filed against the Company: Mary Allen v. Michaels Stores, Inc.,
and Kimberly Siprut v. Michaels Stores, Inc., both in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
On June 8, 2011, an order was entered consolidating these matters,
which also provided for consolidation of all related actions
subsequently filed in or transferred to the Northern District of
Illinois. On July 8, 2011, a Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint styled In Re Michaels Stores Pin Pad Litigation ("In Re
Michaels Stores Consolidated Complaint") was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On August 8,
2011, the company filed a Motion to Dismiss the In Re Michaels
Stores Consolidated Complaint.
On November 23, 2011, the Court dismissed the Stored
Communications Act and negligence claims under Illinois law, but
denied the motion as to the breach of implied contract and
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act claims.
Four other substantially similar putative class action lawsuits
have also been filed. Jeremy Williams v. Michaels Stores, Inc. and
Fred Sherry v. Michaels Stores, Inc., were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Sara
Rosenfeld and Ilana Soffer v. Michaels Stores, Inc. and Lori
Wilson v. Michaels Stores, Inc. were both filed in New Jersey
state court, removed to the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, and transferred to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The New
Jersey cases assert negligence and New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act
claims. All four cases are subject to the consolidation order. The
Court has held that Michaels is not required to respond to those
complaints.
On August 20, 2012, the company reached a tentative class-wide
settlement with plaintiffs and the Court granted preliminary
approval of the settlement on December 19, 2012. A final approval
hearing was scheduled for April 4, 2013. The Court granted final
approval on April 17, 2013.
MICHAELS STORES: Settlement of "Tijero" & "Godfrey" Suit Pursued
----------------------------------------------------------------
A renewed motion was filed seeking approval of a settlement
reached in a suit filed by a former assistant manager for Aaron
Brothers, according to Michaels Stores, Inc.'s Dec. 2, 2013, Form
10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended February 2, 2013.
On February 12, 2010, the Company and its wholly owned subsidiary,
Aaron Brothers, was served with a lawsuit filed in the California
Superior Court in and for the County of Alameda by Jose Tijero, a
former assistant manager for Aaron Brothers, as a purported class
action proceeding on behalf of himself and all current and former
hourly retail employees employed by Aaron Brothers in California.
On July 12, 2010, Aaron Brothers was served with a lawsuit filed
in the California Superior Court in and for the County of Orange
by Amanda Godfrey, a former Aaron Brothers' hourly employee
alleging similar allegations as in the Tijero suit.
On October 15, 2010, the cases were consolidated against Aaron
Brothers and re-filed in the U.S. District Court Northern District
of California. These suits allege that Aaron Brothers failed to
pay all wages and overtime, failed to provide its hourly employees
with adequate meal and rest breaks (or compensation in lieu
thereof), failed to timely pay final wages, unlawfully withheld
wages and failed to provide accurate wage statements and further
alleges that the conduct was in breach of various laws, including
California's unfair competition law. The plaintiff seeks
injunctive relief, compensatory damages, meal and rest break
penalties, waiting time penalties, interest, and attorneys' fees
and costs.
On April 4, 2012, the company reached a class-wide settlement with
plaintiffs that is subject to the Court's approval. The Court has
denied the approval of the settlement, without prejudice, however,
a renewed motion seeking approval of the settlement has been
filed. The settlement, if approved, will not have a material
effect on the company's consolidated financial statements, and was
accrued as of February 2, 2013.
MICHAELS STORES: "Barreras" Labor Suit Continues in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michaels Stores, Inc. continues to face a labor lawsuit in the
United States District Court, Northern District of California,
according to the company's Dec. 2, 2013, Form 10-K/A filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended February 2, 2013.
On July 24, 2012, Irene Barreras, a former employee, filed a
purported class action proceeding against Michaels Stores, Inc. in
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Alameda ("Alameda Superior Court"), alleging unfair business
competition and unjust enrichment, wrongful termination,
disability discrimination, failure to prevent discrimination,
failure to engage in the interactive process, and failure to
accommodate mental or physical disabilities. The suit is brought
on Ms. Barreras' behalf and on behalf of a class of all retail
store employees who were terminated from July 24, 2008 to the
present, allegedly due to Michaels refusal to engage in the
interactive process with, or provide accommodations to, the
terminated employees who did not meet the qualifications for
medical leaves. The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief,
compensatory damages, punitive damages, consequential damages,
general damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. On August
24, 2012, the company removed the case to the United States
District Court, Northern District of California. Plaintiffs'
deadline to file its Motion for Class Certification was September
25, 2013.
MICHAELS STORES: Trial in Framing Products Suit Held in Feb. 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A trial was scheduled for February 2014 in the lawsuit alleging
Michaels Stores, Inc. advertised discounts on its framing products
and/or services without actually providing a discount to its
customers, according to the company's Dec. 2, 2013, Form 10-K/A
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended February 2, 2013.
On April 30, 2012, William J. Henry, a consumer, filed a purported
class action proceeding against Michaels Stores, Inc. in the Court
of Common Pleas, Lake County, Ohio, on behalf of himself and all
similarly-situated Ohio consumers who purchased framing products
and/or services from Michaels during weeks where Michaels was
advertising a discount for framing products and/or services. The
lawsuit alleges Michaels advertised discounts on its framing
products and/or services without actually providing a discount to
its customers. The plaintiff claims violation of Ohio law ORC
1345.01 et seq., breach of contract, unjust enrichment and fraud.
The plaintiff has alleged damages, penalties and fees not to
exceed $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs. The company
filed a Motion to Dismiss on July 3, 2012. On October 23, 2012,
the Court granted the company's Motion to Dismiss, in part,
dismissing the Plaintiff's breach of contract claim and denying
the motion as to the other claims.
MICHAELS STORES: Still Faces Over Website Tracking and Coding
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michaels Stores, Inc. continues to face a suit filed on behalf of
individuals who accessed the Michaels website and allegedly had
Flash cookies attach to their computers, according to the
company's Dec. 2, 2013, Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
February 2, 2013.
On June 19, 2012, Jerome Jurgens, a citizen of Missouri, filed a
purported class action proceeding against Michaels Stores, Inc. in
the 25th Judicial Circuit Court, Phelps County, Missouri, on
behalf of himself, Wendy Poepsel and all other similarly-situated
Missouri individuals who, on or after June 19, 2007, accessed the
Michaels website and had Flash cookies attach to their computers.
Plaintiffs allege that Michaels, through the use of its website,
makes use of cookies in order to ascertain user's web browsing
habits. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege violations of the
Missouri Computer Tampering and Merchandising Practices Act
statutes, as well as common law claims of conversion, trespass to
chattels, invasion of privacy and unjust enrichment are alleging
damages, penalties and fees not to exceed $5 million, inclusive of
costs and attorneys' fees. The company filed a Motion to Dismiss
on August 8, 2012, which was subsequently denied. Trial was to
commence in September 2013. The company believes it has
meritorious defenses and intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.
Michaels has tendered the matter to a vendor and the vendor has
accepted the indemnity and defense of the case.
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Fully Pays $67MM Settlement of Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc. paid into an escrow account the full
amount of the approximately $67 million it agreed to pay to settle
an antitrust lawsuit, according to the company's Jan. 7, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Nov. 28, 2013.
At least 68 purported class action price-fixing lawsuits have been
filed against the company and other DRAM suppliers in various
federal and state courts in the United States and in Puerto Rico
on behalf of indirect purchasers alleging a conspiracy to increase
DRAM prices in violation of federal and state antitrust laws and
state unfair competition law, and/or unjust enrichment relating to
the sale and pricing of DRAM products during the period from April
1999 through at least June 2002. The complaints seek joint and
several damages, trebled, in addition to restitution, costs and
attorneys' fees. A number of these cases were removed to federal
court and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California for consolidated pre-trial proceedings. In
July, 2006, the Attorneys General for approximately forty U.S.
states and territories filed suit in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California. The complaints allege, among
other things, violations of the Sherman Act, Cartwright Act, and
certain other states' consumer protection and antitrust laws and
seek joint and several damages, trebled, as well as injunctive and
other relief. On October 3, 2008, the California Attorney General
filed a similar lawsuit in California Superior Court, purportedly
on behalf of local California government entities, alleging, among
other things, violations of the Cartwright Act and state unfair
competition law.
On June 23, 2010, the company executed a settlement agreement
resolving these purported class-action indirect purchaser cases
and the pending cases of the Attorneys General relating to alleged
DRAM price-fixing in the United States. Subject to certain
conditions, including final court approval of the class
settlements, the company agreed to pay approximately $67 million
in aggregate in three equal installments over a two-year period.
The company paid the full amount into an escrow account by the end
of the first quarter of 2013 in accordance with the settlement
agreement.
MIDWEST WHOLESALE: Various Products Recalled Due to Sildenafil
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nixa, MO-based Midwest Wholesale said in January it was
voluntarily recalling these products and Lot numbers:
-- Boost Ultra
12 pill bottle, Lot#B70130, Exp 03/15
3 pill bottle, Lot#B70130, Exp 3/2015
1 pill pack, Lot#06012011, Exp 6/2014
-- XZone Gold
1 pill pack, Lot#130710GL, Exp 7/31/18
-- Sexy Monkey
1 pill pack, Exp 12/31/14
-- Triple MiracleZen Platinum
1 pill pack, Lot# OAWF1027, Exp 1/31/15 and Lot# OAWF1003,
Exp 1/31/15
-- Magic for Men
12 pill bottle, Lot# GP808, Exp 10/16
1 pill pack, Lot#BN030613, Exp 2/6/15
-- "New" Extenze
30 pill box, Lot# 0512058, Exp 05/16
-- New XZen Platinum
1 pill pack, Lot#130520PL, Exp 5/31/17
The recall is being conducted to the consumer level. FDA analysis
found these products to contain undeclared Sildenafil and/or
Tadalafil, the active ingredients in FDA-approved prescription
drugs used to treat erectile dysfunction (ED). These undeclared
ingredients may interact with nitrates found in some prescription
drugs, such as nitroglycerin, and may lower blood pressure to
dangerous levels. Men with diabetes, high blood pressure, high
cholesterol, or heart disease often take nitrates.
Consumers should stop using this product immediately and throw it
away. Consumers who have experienced any negative side effects
should consult a health care professional as soon as possible.
These products are labeled and intended to be used as dietary
supplements for sexual enhancement. The products are packaged in
1 capsule blister packs, 3 pill bottles, 6 pill bottles, 12 pill
bottles and 30 tablet boxes. These products were distributed to
20 selected retail locations in several states by Midwest
Wholesale from August 1, 2013 to October 22, 2013.
Midwest Wholesale is notifying its retailers and customers by
telephone and recall letter and is arranging for return of all
recalled products. Consumers and retailers that have these
products which are being recalled should stop consumption or
further distribution and return to place of purchase or directly
to Midwest Wholesale, 617 N Althea Ave, Nixa, MO 65714.
Consumers are requested to have their order number or proof of
purchase.
Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact Midwest
Wholesale by phone (888-514-7110), Monday to Friday, 09:00am-
5:00pm, Central Time. Consumers should contact their physician or
healthcare provider if they have experienced any problems that may
be related to taking or using this drug product.
Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch-Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.
MILLER ENERGY: Moved to Dismiss Securities Suit in Tenn. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Miller Energy Resources, Inc. filed a Motion to Dismiss the case
In re Miller Energy Resources, Inc. Securities Litigation which is
pending before The United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee, according to the company's Dec. 10, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2013.
In August 2011, several purported class action lawsuits were filed
against the company in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee. The lawsuits made similar claims
and have been consolidated into one case, styled In re Miller
Energy Resources, Inc. Securities Litigation. The suit names the
company, along with several of our current and former executive
officers, Scott Boruff, Paul Boyd, Ford Graham, David Hall, and
Deloy Miller, as defendants. The Plaintiffs allege two causes of
action against the defendants: (1) violation of Section 10(b) and
Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, (2) violation of Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act. The case seeks money damages against the
company and the other defendants, and payment of the Plaintiffs'
attorney's fees. The company filed a Motion to Dismiss the case,
which is pending before the court.
MODUSLINK GLOBAL: Files Motion to Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
held a hearing on the motion of ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc.
to dismiss an amended complaint filed by shareholders, according
to the company's Dec. 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31,
2013.
On June 11, 2012, the company announced the pending restatement of
the Company's financial statements for the periods ending on or
before January 31, 2012 (the "June 11, 2012 Announcement"),
related to the Company's accounting treatment of rebates
associated with volume discounts provided by vendors. The restated
financial statements were filed on January 11, 2013. After the
June 11, 2012 Announcement, stockholders of the Company commenced
three purported class actions in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts arising from the circumstances
described in the June 11, 2012 Announcement (the "Securities
Actions"), entitled, respectively:
(1) Irene Collier, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others
Similarly Situated, vs. ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc., Joseph
C. Lawler and Steven G. Crane, Case 1:12-CV-11044-DJC, filed June
12, 2012 (the "Collier Action");
(2) Alexander Shnerer Individually And On Behalf Of All Others
Similarly Situated, vs. ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc., Joseph
C. Lawler and Steven G. Crane, Case 1:12-CV-11078-DJC, filed June
18, 2012 (the "Shnerer Action"); and
(3) Harold Heszkel, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc., Joseph C.
Lawler, and Steven G. Crane, Case 1:12-CV-11279-DJC, filed July
11, 2012 (the "Heszkel Action").
Each of the Securities Actions purports to be brought on behalf of
those persons who purchased shares of the Company between
September 26, 2007 through and including June 8, 2012 (the "Class
Period") and alleges that failure to timely disclose the issues
raised in the June 11, 2012 Announcement during the Class Period
rendered defendants' public statements concerning the Company's
financial condition materially false and misleading in violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. On February 11, 2013, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint in the Securities Actions. The
Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint on March 11, 2013.
On November 8, 2013, the Court held a hearing on the Company's
motion, but it has not yet issued a decision.
NEWO CORP: Falsely Sells Wi-Fi "Range Extenders," Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Simoni, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Newo Corporation, Amped Wireless and Does 1-10,
inclusive, Case No. 5:14-cv-00330-MMM-E (C.D. Cal., February 21,
2014) challenges, inter alia, the Company's alleged deliberate
fraudulent, tortious, misleading, and unfair business practices in
its marketing and sales of its Range Extenders on the fraudulent
premise that they "work with any Router/Gateway."
In fact, the Company recently acknowledged that its Range
Extenders do not work with one of the most common routers used by
one of the largest providers of Internet access services to
consumers throughout the United States, i.e., the Motorola
Surfboard router provided by Time Warner Cable Company, the
Plaintiff contends.
Newo Corporation is a California corporation headquartered in
Chino Hills, California. Newo represents that Amped Wireless is
"a division of" Newo. The Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names
of the Doe Defendants.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen J. Simoni, Esq.
SIMONI CONSUMER LAW OFFICES
12131 Turnberry Drive, Suite 100
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270-1500
Telephone: (917) 621-5795
E-mail: StephenSimoni@yahoo.com
NONGSHIM AMERICA: Faces Noodles Price-Fixing Suit in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Seoul Shopping, Inc.; Hansfood I Corp.; Hansfoods II Corp.; and
Met Foods Ridgefield Corp. on Behalf of Themselves and a Class of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Nongshim Co., Ltd.; Nongshim
America, Inc.; Ottogi Company, 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. 3:14-cv-00352-JCS
(N.D. Cal., January 23, 2014) conspired, combined, or contracted
to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the prices of Korean Noodles
that they sold to Hanyang Mart and other members of the Class.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged unlawful conduct, Hanyang
Mart and other members of the Class paid supra-competitive prices
for Korean Noodles and, thus, suffered injury of the type the
federal antitrust laws are designed to prevent.
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. Nongshim
America, Inc. was established in 1994, and is headquartered in
Rancho Cucamonga, California. Nongshim Co., Ltd. owns non-
defendant Nongshim USA Holdings, Inc., which in turn owns
Defendant Nongshim America.
The Plaintiffs are 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 PC
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
NUCOR STEEL: Accused of Manganese Contamination
-----------------------------------------------
Richard Grubb, Esq., 534 East Davids Street, Marion, Ohio 43302,
and those similarly situated v. Nucor Steel Marion Inc., 912
Cheney Avenue, Marion, OH 43302, Case No. 3:14-cv-00158-JZ (N.D.
Ohio, January 23, 2014) arises out of Nucor's alleged
contamination of the Plaintiff's and the putative class members'
properties and persons in Marion, Ohio, with hazardous manganese.
The levels of manganese that have invaded his properties pose both
a private and public health hazard, Mr. Grubb contends.
Nucor Steel Marion Inc. owns and operates a steel manufacturing
facility located at 912 Cheney Avenue, in Marion, Ohio. The
Company's business activities include, among other things,
operating an electric arc furnace 24/7 and running a slag
processing operation.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas J. Connick, Esq.
DUBYAK CONNICK SAMMON THOMPSON & BLOOM LLC
3401 Enterprise Parkway, Suite 205
Cleveland, OH 44122
Telephone: (216) 364-0500
Facsimile: (216) 364-0505
E-mail: tconnick@dctblaw.com
- and -
Thomas A. Barni, Esq.
DINN, HOCHMAN & POTTER, L.L.C.
5910 Landerbrook Drive, #200
Cleveland, OH 44124
Telephone: (440) 681-8085
Facsimile: (440) 446-1240
E-mail: tbarni@dhplaw.com
PASKESZ CANDY: Premium Belgian Chocolate Coins Hologram Recalled
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paskesz Candy Company, Brooklyn, New York in January said it was
recalling its Premium Belgian Chocolate Coins Hologram .5 oz bags
because they may contain traces of milk.
People who have allergies to milk run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. To
date one parent has reported that her child took ill after eating
one of these coins with the production code P233. Subsequent
testing of a sample by the FDA showed that the coin contained
.000041 parts of milk (41 parts per million). Out of caution the
company is recalling all production codes.
The recalled "Coins" were distributed nationwide in retail stores
between October 2012 and December 2013.
The product is sold in mesh bags of .5 oz. There are 24 bags in a
box.
To date one parent has reported that her child took ill after
eating one of these coins with the production code P233.
Subsequent testing of a sample by the FDA showed that the coin
contained .000041 parts of milk (41 parts per million). Out of
caution the company is recalling all production codes.
This does not affect the product's "KOSHER PAREVE" status.
The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the milk-
containing product was distributed in packaging that did not list
the presence of milk. Sale and distribution of the chocolate
coins have been suspended until FDA and the company is certain
that the problem has been corrected.
Consumers who have purchased these .5 ounce packages of "Paskesz
Chocolate Pareve Hologram Coins" are urged to return them to the
place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may
contact the company at 1-800-PASKES0 between the hours of 9AM and
4PM Monday through Thursday and on Friday until 12 pm EST.
PEPSICO INC: Deceptively Omits 4-MeI Info on Beverages, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thamar Santisteban Cortina, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Pepsico, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-00168-H-JMA
(S.D. Cal., January 23, 2014) alleges that Pepsi, Diet Pepsi and
Pepsi One contain an amount of 4-methylimidazole (4-MeI), a
carcinogen, sufficient to expose California consumers to
substantial health risks. Pepsi, however, deceptively omits that
the Pepsi beverages contain these amounts of 4-MeI, Ms. Cortina
alleges.
4-MeI is an impurity generated during the manufacture of caramel
colors III and IV used in some soft drinks. 4-MeI has been found
by the National Toxicology Program to cause lung tumors in
laboratory animals.
Pepsico, Inc. is a North Carolina company with its principle place
of business in Purchase, New York. Pepsi sells soft drinks
including Pepsi, Diet Pepsi, and Pepsi One throughout the state of
California.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC
The Palm Canyon Building
2870 Fourth Avenue, Suite 205
San Diego, CA 92103
Telephone: (619) 692-3840
Facsimile: (619) 362-9555
E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
- and -
Courtland W. Creekmore, Esq.
THE WESTON FIRM
1405 Morena Blvd., Suite 201
San Diego, CA 92110
Telephone: (619) 798-2006
Facsimile: (408) 247-4553
E-mail: ccreekmore@scalaw.com
- and -
Matthew R. Bainer, Esq.
Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES
1970 Broadway, 9th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 891-9800
Facsimile: (510) 891-7030
E-mail: mbainer@scalaw.com
scole@scalaw.com
PFIZER INC: Faces "Bedi" Suit in California Over Lipitor Drug
-------------------------------------------------------------
Manjeekaur Bedi, an Individual v. Pfizer Inc., a corporation; and
Does 1 through 100, Case No. 3:14-cv-00354-EMC (N.D. Cal.,
January 23, 2014) is an action for damages suffered by the
Plaintiff as a proximate result of the Defendant's alleged
negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
testing, and labeling, of Lipitor (also known chemically as
Atorvastatin Calcium).
Lipitor is prescribed to reduce the amount of cholesterol and
other fatty substances in the blood. Lipitor is an HMG-CoA
reductase inhibitor and a member of the drug class known as
statins.
New York-based Pfizer Inc. produces, manufactures, distributes,
advertises, promotes, supplies and sells Lipitor to distributors
and retailers for resale to physicians, hospitals, pharmacies, and
medical practitioners.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew Ramon Lopez, Esq.
Ramon Rossi Lopez, Esq.
LOPEZ MCHUGH LLP
100 Bayview Circle
Suite 5600 North Tower
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 737-1501
Facsimile: (949) 737-1504
E-mail: mlopez@lopezmchugh.com
rlopez@lopez-hodes.com
- and -
Robert Keith Jenner, Esq.
JANET, JENNER AND SUGGS, LLC
1777 Reisterstown Road, Suite 165
Baltimore, MD 21208
Telephone: (410) 653-3200
E-mail: rjenner@myadvocates.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Karin A. Kramer, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 875-6422
Facsimile: (415) 875-6700
E-mail: karinkramer@quinnemanuel.com
PFIZER INC: Faces "Petersen" Suit Over Lipitor-Related Injuries
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Petersen, an Individual v. Pfizer Inc., a corporation; and
Does 1 through 100, Case No. 2:14-cv-00228-GEB-CKD (E.D. Cal.,
January 23, 2014) is an action for damages suffered by the
Plaintiff as a proximate result of the Defendants' alleged
negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
testing, and labeling, of Lipitor (also known chemically as
Atorvastatin Calcium).
Lipitor is prescribed to reduce the amount of cholesterol and
other fatty substances in the blood. Lipitor is an HMG-CoA
reductase inhibitor and a member of the drug class known as
statins.
Based in New York Pfizer Inc. produces, manufactures, distributes,
advertises, promotes, supplies and sells Lipitor to distributors
and retailers for resale to physicians, hospitals, pharmacies, and
medical practitioners.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ramon Rossi Lopez, Esq.
Matthew Ramon Lopez, Esq.
LOPEZ McHUGH LLP
100 Bayview Circle, Suite 5600
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 737-1501
Facsimile: (949) 737-1504
E-mail: rlopez@lopezmchugh.com
mlopez@lopezmchugh.com
- and -
Brad Seidel, Esq.
NIX, PATTERSON & ROACH, L.L.P.
3600 N. Capital of Texas Highway
Building B, Suite 350
Austin, TX 78746
Telephone: (512) 328-5333
E-mail: bseidel@npraustin.com
- and -
Austin Tighe, Esq.
Vic Feazell, Esq.
Eleeza Johnson, Esq.
FEAZELL & TIGHE, LLP
6618 Sitio Del Rio Boulevard
Building C-101
Austin, TX 78730
Telephone: (512) 372-8100
Facsimile: (512) 372-8140
E-mail: austin@feazell-tighe.com
vic@feazell-tighe.com
eleeza@feazell-tighe.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Karin A. Kramer, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 875-6422
Facsimile: (415) 875-6700
E-mail: karinkramer@quinnemanuel.com
PFIZER INC: Faces Second "Petersen" Suit Over Lipitor in Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Petersen, an Individual v. Pfizer Inc., a corporation; and
Does 1 through 100, Case No. 2:14-at-00101 (E.D. Cal., January 23,
2014) is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a
proximate result of the Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful
conduct in connection with the design, testing, and labeling, of
Lipitor (also known chemically as Atorvastatin Calcium).
Lipitor is prescribed to reduce the amount of cholesterol and
other fatty substances in the blood. Lipitor is an HMG-CoA
reductase inhibitor and a member of the drug class known as
statins.
Headquartered in New York, Pfizer Inc. produces, manufactures,
distributes, advertises, promotes, supplies and sells Lipitor to
distributors and retailers for resale to physicians, hospitals,
pharmacies, and medical practitioners.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ramon Rossi Lopez, Esq.
Matthew Ramon Lopez, Esq.
LOPEZ McHUGH LLP
100 Bayview Circle, Suite 5600
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 737-1501
Facsimile: (949) 737-1504
E-mail: rlopez@lopezmchugh.com
mlopez@lopezmchugh.com
- and -
Brad Seidel, Esq.
NIX, PATTERSON & ROACH, L.L.P.
3600 N. Capital of Texas Highway
Building B, Suite 350
Austin, TX 78746
Telephone: (512) 328-5333
E-mail: bseidel@npraustin.com
- and -
Austin Tighe, Esq.
Vic Feazell, Esq.
Eleeza Johnson, Esq.
FEAZELL & TIGHE, LLP
6618 Sitio Del Rio Boulevard
Building C-101
Austin, TX 78730
Telephone: (512) 372-8100
Facsimile: (512) 372-8140
E-mail: austin@feazell-tighe.com
vic@feazell-tighe.com
eleeza@feazell-tighe.com
PMI NUTRITION: Red Flannel Cat Food Recalled Due to Salmonella
--------------------------------------------------------------
PMI Nutrition, LLC (PMI), Arden Hills, Minn., in January said it
was initiating a voluntary recall of its 20 lb. bags of Red
Flannel Cat Formula cat food for possible Salmonella
contamination. There have been no reports of illness related to
this product to date. The recall is being issued out of an
abundance of caution after routine testing by the FDA Detroit
District Office identified possible Salmonella contamination.
Salmonella can affect animals eating the products and there is
risk to humans from handling contaminated pet products, especially
if they have not thoroughly washed their hands after having
contact with the products or any surfaces exposed to these
products.
Healthy people infected with Salmonella should monitor themselves
for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting,
diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever.
Rarely, Salmonella can result in more serious ailments, including
arterial infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye
irritation, and urinary tract symptoms. Consumers exhibiting
these signs after having contact with this product should contact
their healthcare providers.
Pets with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have diarrhea
or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting. Some pets will have only
decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain. Infected but
otherwise healthy pets can be carriers and infect other animals or
humans. If your pet has consumed the recalled product and has
these symptoms, please contact your veterinarian.
Red Flannel Cat Food was manufactured by a third-party
manufacturer for PMI. The product was sold through dealers to
customers distributed in the following states: Alabama, Georgia,
Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Maryland,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota,
New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Virginia, Vermont, Wisconsin and West Virginia.
The lot number is printed on the lower back side of the bag in a
white box on the right-hand side. The lot number will be preceded
by a time stamp that will be unique to each bag. (Example 14:32)
The lot number and best-by date impacted by this recall are as
follows:
Best by 05 06 14 096 13 SM L2 1A (lot number)
The UPC code for the recalled product is: 7 42869 00058 5.
No other products/lot numbers are affected by this recall.
Customers should immediately discontinue use of and return
impacted product to their dealer for a full refund or replacement.
The company continues to work with impacted dealers and
distributors to trace the bags.
For more information on the recall, customers can contact the
customer service line for PMI products at 1-800-332-4738.
Customer service representatives will be available Sunday, Jan. 26
from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. CST and Monday through Friday from 8 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m. CST.
PRESTIGE KITCHEN: Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum & Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Porfirio Valenzuela-Mateo, and all other similarly situated
employees past and present v. Prestige Kitchen Design, Inc., and
Michael Amar, an individual, Case No. 2:14-cv-00518-JS-AKT
(E.D.N.Y., January 23, 2014) is a collective action lawsuit to
recover unpaid minimum wage, overtime, spread of hours
compensation from the Defendants, pursuant to New York State Labor
Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Prestige Kitchen Design, Inc. is a domestic corporation doing
business within the State of New York, County of Nassau, and has a
principal place of business in W. Hempstead, New York. Michael
Amar, is an individual, and an employer.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Salua V. Baida, Esq.
COMMUNITY LEGAL FOUNDATION, INC.
41-44 44th Street, Suite C-6
Sunnyside, NY 11104
Telephone: (888) 337-6759
Facsimile: (888) 337-6463
E-mail: saluavbaida@gmail.com
PRINGLES: 5.68-Ounce Cans of Original Crisp Recalled
----------------------------------------------------
Pringles in January said it was recalling a small quantity of
5.68-ounce cans of its Original crisps. The crisps are being
recalled because they may have been inadvertently exposed to
seasoning containing milk, which is not listed as an ingredient on
the label. Approximately 75 cans may have been impacted.
However, the company is recalling one hour's worth of production
as a precaution.
People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the
risk of allergic reaction and should avoid eating this impacted
product. The company was first alerted to this issue by consumer
contact. No illnesses or allergic reactions have been reported to
date.
The recalled product is marked on the bottom of the can with a UPC
code of 38000 84496 and best by date of 12/26/2014, with the
manufacturing code L 3269KT70 that ends with four numbers ranging
from 0830 to 0930.
The small quantity of Pringles Original cans was distributed to
seven customer warehouses that supply retail stores nationwide.
No other Pringles products in the U.S. or outside the U.S. are
part of this voluntary recall.
Consumers with questions may contact the Consumer Response Center
using the Contact Us feature on www.Kelloggs.com or by calling at
1-800-568-4035 from Monday - Friday, from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Eastern
Time.
PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Faces "Corliss" Suit Alleging FCRA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel R. Corliss, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Providence Health & Services, Case No. 3:14-cv-00119-
BR (D. Or., January 23, 2014) alleges that the Company violated
the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony R. Pecora, Esq.
Matthew A. Dooley, Esq.
O'TOOLE MCLAUGHLIN DOOLEY & PECORA CO. LPA
5455 Detroit Road
Sheffield Village, OH 44054
Telephone: (440) 930-4001
Facsimile: (440) 934-7208
E-mail: apecora@omdplaw.com
mdooley@omdplaw.com
- and -
Justin M. Baxter, Esq.
BAXTER & BAXTER, LLP
8835 S.W. Canyon Lane, Suite 130
Portland, OR 97225-3429
Telephone: (503) 297-9031
Facsimile: (503) 291-9172
E-mail: justin@baxterlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Timothy W. Snider, Esq.
STOEL RIVES LLP
900 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 2600
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: (503) 294-9557
Facsimile: (503) 220-2480
E-mail: twsnider@stoel.com
RISE'N ROLL BAKERY: Donut Products Recalled Due to Undeclared Egg
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rise'n Roll Bakery of Middlebury, IN, in January said it was
recalling all its donut varieties and cinnamon caramel donut holes
because they may contain undeclared egg. The company is also
recalling its Rise'n Roll Specialties Nutty Crunch in 8oz pouches
because they contain undeclared peanuts. People who have
allergies to egg, or peanut run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.
The donut and donut holes products containing undeclared egg are
packaged in brown boxes and labeled with the name Rise'n Roll
Bakery and Deli. The donuts are packaged in 6 and 12 count boxes
with UPC 626570617440 & 626570617457 respectively while the
cinnamon caramel donut holes are packaged in 1.05# boxes with UPC
626570617433. These products were produced on or before
Jan. 13, 2014, and were sold in its retail store and distributed
to retail stores in Northern Indiana.
The Rise'n Roll Specialties Nutty Crunch containing undeclared
peanuts was packaged in 8 oz. pouches with UPC 827912041583. The
product was sold in its retail store; distributed to retail stores
in the following states PA, IL, KS, MI, OH, WI, IN, MN, MO, VA;
and to a distributer in PA. Customers may have also purchased
this product on its website http://www.risenrollbakery.com The
recalled product has a sell by date of June 13th, 2014 or earlier.
No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.
The recall was initiated during an FDA inspection of the
manufacturer where label review found the undeclared ingredients
in the product. Subsequent investigation indicates the problem
was caused by a temporary breakdown in the company's production
and packaging process.
Rise'n Roll Specialties Nutty Crunch will no longer be produced
with peanuts. All future donut production will be labeled to
declare egg.
Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-574-825-4032
Mon-Fri 8am to 4pm Eastern Standard Time.
SENSA PRODUCTS: Sued Over Weight Loss System in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------
Mollie Delaney, Angela Dobbins, and Amanda Retcofsky individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sensa Products,
LLC, Sensa, Inc., f/k/a Intelligent Beauty, Inc., General
Nutrition Corp., General Nutrition Centers, Inc., and Alan R.
Hirsch, Case No. 3:14-cv-00358-SI (N.D. Cal., January 23, 2014) is
brought on behalf of purchasers of the Sensa Weight Loss System,
which is marketed as "an easy, effective way to lose weight" that
is "doctor formulated" and "clinically shown to help you lose up
to 30lbs or more in just 6 months."
Sensa consists of shakers of magic "tastant crystals," also
described as "sprinkles," which users are instructed to sprinkle
on their food. The "Sensa 6-Month System" includes two shakers of
tastants for each month starting with "Month 1" and continuing
through "Month 6."
Sensa Products, LLC is a Delaware corporation based in El Segundo,
California. Sensa, Inc., formerly known as Intelligent Beauty,
Inc., is a Delaware Corporation also based in El Segundo,
California. Sensa has an ownership interest in Sensa Products,
LLC. Alan R. Hirsch is a citizen of Illinois, who created Sensa
after he purportedly did 25 years of research on "tastants."
General Nutrition Corporation is a Pennsylvania Corporation.
General Nutrition Centers, Inc. is a Delaware corporation. GNC
Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of GNC Corp. GNC advertises
promotes, distributes, and sells Sensa's products to consumers.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Sarah Nicole Westcot, Esq.
Annick Marie Persinger, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
swestcot@bursor.com
apersinger@bursor.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Jeffrey Lowell Richardson, Esq.
Seth Eric Pierce, Esq.
Valentine Antonavich Shalamitski, Esq.
MITCHELL SILBERBERG AND KNUPP LLP
11377 W Olympic Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90064-1683
Telephone: (310) 312-3769
Facsimile: (310) 312-3100
E-mail: jlr@msk.com
sep@msk.com
vas@msk.com
SKECHERS USA: Misrepresents Safety of Shape-Ups Shoes, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rae Gonzalez, 3212 Wike Road, Catawba, NC 28609 v. Skechers,
U.S.A., Inc., Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., and Skechers Fitness Group,
Case No. 3:14-cv-00060-TBR (W.D. Ky., January 23, 2014) alleges
that in addition to misrepresenting the efficacy and health
benefits of Skechers Shapeups, Skechers also made numerous
misrepresentations about the safety of Shape-ups, which served to
lull consumers into believing that these shoes were safe despite
their unbalanced appearance.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc., and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II, are Delaware
corporations headquartered in Manhattan Beach, California.
Skechers Fitness Group is a trademarked subsidiary of Skechers
U.S.A., Inc. II. Skechers is a shoe company that manufactures
toning shoes, including Skechers Shape-ups and Tone-ups.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard W. Schulte, Esq.
WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC
812 E. National Road
Dayton, NC 45377
Telephone: (937) 435-7500
Facsimile: (937) 435-7511
E-mail: rschulte@legaldayton.com
SKECHERS USA: Misrepresents Shape-Ups' Health Benefits, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charity Paylor, 5855 Highway 18, Pachuta, MS 39347 v. Skechers,
U.S.A., Inc., Skechers, U.S.A., Inc. II and Skechers Fitness
Group, Case No. 3:14-cv-00059-TBR (W.D. Ky., January 23, 2014)
alleges that Skechers made numerous misrepresentations regarding
the efficacy and health benefits of Shape-ups.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc., and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II, are Delaware
corporations headquartered in Manhattan Beach, California.
Skechers Fitness Group is a trademarked subsidiary of Skechers
U.S.A., Inc. II. Skechers is a shoe company that manufactures
toning shoes, including Skechers Shape-ups and Tone-ups.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard W. Schulte, Esq.
WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC
812 E. National Road
Dayton, OH 45377
Telephone: (937) 435-7500
Facsimile: (937) 435-7511
E-mail: rschulte@legaldayton.com
STEMVIDA INTERNATIONAL: Recall of StemAlive 90 Capsules Expanded
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stemvida International Corporation of Ontario California said in
January it was expanding the recall of its StemAlive 90 Count
Capsules to the following additional states: Alaska, Arkansas,
Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia,
Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,
Minnesota, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Illinois, Iowa,
Kentucky, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and
Wyoming.
The voluntary recall is being conducted because the StemAlive 90
Count Capsules contain undeclared milk. People who have an
allergy or severe sensitivity to milk (bovine colostrum) run the
risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume this product.
The product is in a white plastic bottle with white lid, the brand
is StemVida International with a white and gold label. The lot
numbers and expiration dates are 8419 (Exp.05/2015 and 06/2015),
8486 (Exp.07/2015), 8535 (Exp. 08/2015), 8598 (Exp. 10/2015), 8652
(Exp. 12/2015), 8863 (Exp. 01/2016 and 02/2016), 8872 (Exp.
03/2016), 8873 (Exp. 04/2016 and 05/2016), 9040 (Exp. 08/2016 and
09/2016), 9258 (Exp. 10/2016) and 9314 (Exp. 11/2016). The lot
number and expiration date is printed in black ink at the bottom
of the label.
StemAlive was distributed in these states:
-- Alabama; Alaska; Arizona; Arkansas; California; Colorado;
Connecticut; Delaware; D.C.; Florida; Georgia; Hawaii;
Idaho; Illinois; Indiana; Iowa; Kansas; Kentucky; Louisiana;
Maine; Maryland; Massachusetts; Michigan; Minnesota;
Missouri; Montana; Nebraska; Nevada; New Jersey; New Mexico;
New York; North Carolina; Ohio; Oklahoma; Oregon;
Pennsylvania; Puerto Rico; Rhode Island; South Carolina;
South Dakota; Tennessee; Texas; Utah; Virginia; Washington;
Wisconsin; and Wyoming
No illnesses have been reported to date.
The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the
ingredient (bovine colostrum) is a known milk allergen and
StemAlive contains this ingredient without including an allergen
warning on the label.
Consumers who have purchased StemAlive 90 Capsules are urged to
return it to the company for replacement or refund. Consumers
with questions may contact the company at 888-950-8432 between the
hours of 9:00am and 8:30pm PST.
TANDEM DIABETES: Specific Lots of Insulin Cartridges Recalled
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. (NASDAQ: TNDM) announced in January
that it is initiating a voluntary recall of specific lots of
insulin cartridges that are used with the t:slim Insulin Pump.
The affected cartridges may be at risk for leaking. The cause of
the recall was identified during Tandem's internal product
testing, and has not been associated with any complaints or
adverse events reported by customers. However, a cartridge leak
could potentially result in the device delivering too much or too
little insulin, which can lead to a serious adverse event.
"The safety of our customers is our top priority, and we are
committed to quickly addressing issues if they arise," said Kim
Blickenstaff, President and CEO of Tandem Diabetes Care. "The
potential for a cartridge leak was identified during in-house
product testing, and the cause has been identified. Modifications
to our cartridge manufacturing process have been implemented to
prevent this issue from occurring in the future."
Customers should discontinue using cartridges labeled with the
below lot numbers, which were shipped on or after December 17,
2013. The affected lots represent approximately 4,746 boxes of
cartridges (10 cartridges per box).
Affected Lot Numbers:
Announced January 20, 2014 Announced January 10, 2014
-------------------------- ---------------------------
M000857 M001414 M001454 M001963 M002028
M000869 M001415 M001455 M001964 M002029
M001344 M001416 M001456 M001973 M002030
M001345 M001417 M001457 M001974 M002082
M001346 M001420 M001458 M001979 M002083
M001347 M001421 M001459 M001980 M002096
M001389 M001422 M001460 M001987 M002097
M001390 M001423 M001528 M001988 M002099
M001391 M001451 M001529 M001990 M002100
M001392 M001452 M001530 M001991 M002119
M001393 M001453 M001532 M002027 M002120
All other cartridge lots and the t:slim Insulin Pump are not
affected by this recall. Customers who received affected
cartridges are being contacted by the Company or its authorized
distributors and asked to call Tandem Technical Support to receive
replacement cartridges at no charge. Tandem expects to have
sufficient quantities of cartridges to replace affected lots in a
timely manner. Tandem Customer Support is available 24 hours a
day, 7 days a week at 1-877-801-6901.
TARGET CORP: Faces "Christina" Class Suit Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
Amy Christina, an individual, on her own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Target Corporation of Minnesota
and Target Corporate Services, Inc.; and Does 1-10, Case No. 3:14-
cv-00051-SDD-RLB (M.D. La., January 23, 2014) arises from the data
breach at Target.
The Defendants failed to implement and maintain reasonable
security procedures and practices appropriate to the nature and
scope of the information compromised in the data breach, Ms.
Christina contends.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Camilo K. Salas III, Esq.
SALAS & CO., L.C.
650 Poydras Street, Suite 1660
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 799-3080
Facsimile: (504) 799-3085
E-Mail: csalas@salaslaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Seth A. Schmeeckle, Esq.
LUGENBUHL, WHEATON, PECK, RANKIN & HUBBARD
601 Poydras Street, Suite 2775
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 568-1990
Facsimile: (504) 310-9195
E-mail: sschmeeckle@lawla.com
UNIFIED GROCERS: Special Value Ginger Snap Cookies Recalled
-----------------------------------------------------------
Unified Grocers said in January it was recalling its 12 ounce bags
of "Special Value Ginger Snap Cookies" because they may contain
undeclared eggs. People who have allergies to eggs run the risk of
serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume
these products. This update includes the UPC for "Special Value
Ginger Snap Cookies" (UPC 41380-23359).
The recalled "Special Value Ginger Snap Cookies" were distributed
throughout California, Arizona and Nevada in retail stores.
The product comes in a 12 ounce, plastic package with UPC 41380-
23359 marked with best by SEP 23 14 on the backside of the
package.
No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.
The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the bags
were mistakenly packed with cinnamon sugar cookies instead of
ginger snap cookies they were intended to contain. The cinnamon
sugar cookies contain egg among their ingredients and the
packaging they were distributed in did not reveal the presence of
egg.
The recall was the result of a routine sampling program conducted
by Unified Grocers, Inc. which revealed that the finished product
was mislabeled.
Production of the product has been suspended until FDA and Unified
Grocers, Inc. are certain that the problem has been corrected.
Consumers who have purchased 12 ounce packages of "Special Value
Ginger Snap Cookies" are urged to return them to the place of
purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact
Carey Ryan, Quality Assurance Manager, at 1-323-881-4046 Monday
through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. PST for
further information.
UNITED STATES: Faces "Klayman" Suit Over NSA Surveillance Program
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Klayman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, 2020 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC
20006; Charles and Mary Ann Strange, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Michael
Ferrari, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Santa Clara, CA; and Matt Garrison, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Long Beach, CA v. Barack Hussein Obama
II, et al., 1:14-cv-00092-RJL (D.D.C., January 23, 2014) is an
action for monetary, declaratory, equitable, and injunctive relief
as a result of the U.S. Government's alleged illegal and
unconstitutional use of an electronic surveillance program in
violation of the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments of the U.S.
Constitution.
The lawsuit also challenges and the Plaintiffs sue the
Government's expansive acquisition of their telephone and Internet
records under the Patriot Act and the legality of a secret and
illegal Government scheme to intercept and analyze vast quantities
of communications from Internet and electronic service providers.
The Defendants are:
* Barack Hussein Obama II, individually, and in his
professional capacity
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20500;
* Eric Himpton Holder, Jr., individually and in his
professional capacity as U.S. Attorney General
555 Fourth St. NW, Washington, DC 20530;
* Keith B. Alexander, individually and in his professional
capacity, Director of the National Security Agency
9800 Savage Rd., Fort Meade, MD 20755;
* Roger Vinson, individually and in his professional capacity,
Judge, U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20530;
* James Clapper, individually and in his professional
capacity, Director of National Intelligence
Washington, DC 20511
* John O. Brennan, individually and in his professional
capacity, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency,
Central Intelligence Agency
Washington, DC 20505;
* James Comey, individually, and in his professional capacity,
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
Federal Bureau of Investigation
935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20535;
* National Security Agency
9800 Savage Rd., Fort Meade, MD 20755;
* The U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20530;
* Federal Bureau of Investigation
935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20535; and
* Central Intelligence Agency
Washington, DC 20505.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Larry E. Klayman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF LARRY KLAYMAN
2020 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 345
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (310) 595-0800
Facsimile: (310) 651-3025
E-mail: leklayman@gmail.com
US ARMY: Vietnam Veterans Sue Over Other-Than-Honorable Discharge
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vietnam veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder
have filed a class action lawsuit asking the U.S. military to
upgrade their other-than-honorable discharges, reports Christine
Stuart at Courthouse News Service.
Lead plaintiff Conley Monk, the Vietnam Veterans of America, et
al., claim that PTSD was not recognized by the medical community
as a psychiatric disorder until 1980, well after the end of the
Vietnam War.
The five individual plaintiffs all applied for discharge upgrades
and were denied.
The five men -- Monk, Kevin Marret, George Siders, James Cottam,
and James Davis -- all were given other-than-honorable discharges,
which is sometimes referred to as an "undesirable discharge,"
according to the 37-page lawsuit. The plaintiffs seek class
status for "tens of thousands" of Vietnam veterans in similar
situations.
More than 260,000 veterans, about 3 percent of those who served
during the Vietnam War Era, received other-than-honorable
discharges. Soldiers with an other-than-honorable discharge
generally are ineligible for numerous benefits, including
disability compensation, education benefits, a military burial and
benefits for surviving family members.
The National Vietnam Veterans Readjustment Study estimates that
30.9 percent of Vietnam veterans have suffered from PTSD. The
study also indicates that rates of PTSD in 1990 were significantly
elevated for veterans with high levels of war-zone exposure.
Yet, "The United States military has near-categorically refused to
correct these wrongful discharges," according to the lawsuit.
The plaintiffs and veterans in similar situations have "have
experienced such hardships as homelessness, prolonged
unemployment, and severely damaged family and social
relationships. Isolated and impoverished, they have struggled to
cope not only with their war wounds, but also with the shame of
other than honorable discharges. Because of their stigmatizing
discharges, many of these veterans are ineligible for the
disability compensation and other benefits that their military
service otherwise earned them," the veterans say in the complaint.
The plaintiffs add that "many Vietnam veterans who suffer from
PTSD and received other than honorable discharges are now elderly,
disabled, and indigent." The veterans claim there is a
discriminatory pattern of denying Vietnam veterans' requests for
upgrades to their discharges.
Since 1993, Vietnam veterans asserting PTSD have made 375
applications for upgrades of other-than-honorable discharges to
military discharge boards. Of those 375 only 4.53 percent were
granted.
In requests from veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,
30.58 percent of the records were corrected, according to the
National Veterans Legal Services Program.
"The military has failed to prioritize discharge upgrade requests
from Vietnam veterans with PTSD," the lawsuit states.
"The military has failed to apply consistent and medically
appropriate standards to assess the impact of PTSD attributable to
service on the conduct that led to discharge, resulting in the
defendants' discriminatory and near-categorical denial of
discharge upgrade applications by veterans who acquired PTSD from
their service in the Vietnam Theater."
The lawsuit was filed by students at Yale Law School's Jerome
Frank Legal Services Organization. Michael Wishnie, Esq., is the
supervising attorney.
Joining as plaintiffs are the Vietnam Veterans of America
Connecticut State Council; and the National Veterans Council for
Legal Redress. Named as defendants are the secretaries of the
Army, Navy and Air Force. The Marines are a branch of the Navy.
WINN-DIXIE: Instant Choco Drink Mix Sold in Florida Recalled
------------------------------------------------------------
Winn-Dixie announced in January an immediate recall of the 30 oz.
canister of Winn-Dixie Instant Chocolate Drink Mix, with
expiration date code of JUL 14 15B, from shelves in all stores
throughout Florida. The recall does not affect stores in Alabama,
Georgia, Louisiana or Mississippi. The reason for the recall is
the potential that the product may contain an incorrect formula
mixture, which could result in an undeclared milk allergen.
"We advise customers who have a milk allergy to throw it out
immediately to ensure they do not experience any health issues,"
said Brian Wright, Winn-Dixie's vice president of communications
and community.
Winn-Dixie has received no reports of any issues associated with
consumption at this time. The recall only pertains to canisters
with the expiration date code of JUL 14 15B. The product UPC code
is 2114022031.
Consumers who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk
products are urged not to consume and return products to the store
for a full refund. To receive the refund, customers may present
proof of purchase through a receipt or the product-packaging
label.
Symptoms of a milk allergy reaction can range from mild, such as
hives, to severe, such as anaphylaxis.
Customers with questions about the recalled products may contact
the Winn-Dixie Customer Call Center toll free at 866-946-6349,
Mon. - Fri., 8 a.m. - 6 p.m. EDT, and Sat., 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. EDT.
About Bi-Lo Holdings
Bi-Lo Holdings, LLC, the parent company of BI-LO and Winn-Dixie
grocery stores, is the ninth-largest conventional supermarket
chain in the United States based on net sales. The company
employs nearly 60,000 associates who serve customers in 684
grocery stores and 482 in-store pharmacies throughout the eight
southeastern states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee. BI-LO
and Winn-Dixie are well-known and well-respected regional brands
with deep heritages, strong neighborhood ties, proud histories of
giving back, talented and loyal associates, and strong commitments
to providing the best possible quality and value to customers.
For more information, please visit http://www.bi-lo.comand
http://www.winn-dixie.com
YOUNGYOU INTERNATIONAL: Mega Slim Herbal Appetite Pills Recalled
----------------------------------------------------------------
YoungYou International in January issued a voluntary recall of
Mega Slim Herbal Appetite Management, one pill a day, sold from
Sept. 15, 2013 through Jan. 23, 2014 at the consumer level. Mega
Slim Herbal Appetite Management was found to contain DMAA.
DMAA is also known as 1,3-dimethylamylamine, methylhexanamine or
geranium extract. DMAA is commonly used as a stimulant, pre-
workout, and weight loss ingredient in dietary supplement
products. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has warned that
DMAA is potentially dangerous to health as it might cause a rise
in blood pressure or other cardiovascular problems such as
shortness of breath, tightening in the chest or heart attack.
Mega Slim Herbal Appetite Management is packaged in White Bottles
with 30 white capsules. The affected lots include the following
Bar Code 736211614094 and expiration date of June 2014. The
product can be identified by Mega Slim Herbal Appetite Management.
Mega Slim Herbal Appetite Management was made available to
consumers only through the YoungYoucorp.com website.
YoungYou is notifying its customers by email and is asking for
return of all recalled product to its facility in California.
Consumers in possession of the Mega Slim Herbal Appetite
Management product subject to this recall are advised to
immediately stop using the product and return it to YoungYou.
As a customer courtesy, YoungYou will issue refunds of the
purchase price or credit the purchase price towards any other
products sold by YoungYou. Refunds or credits will be issued only
to customers who return more than 50% of unused product within 30
(thirty) calendar days from the date of publication of this
advisory, or receipt of direct email notification by the customer,
whichever is later, as indicated by the postmark of the customer's
return package. Customers seeking a refund or credit are
encouraged to ship the product in its original packaging and
enclose the purchase receipt.
Although YoungYou received no customer complaints, YoungYou is
conducting a voluntary Level I recall following receipt of FDA
laboratory report indicating DMAA presence in Mega Slim Herbal
Appetite Management.
Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact
YoungYou by phone at (818) 344-3344 Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm PST.
Consumers should contact their physician or healthcare provider if
they experience any problems that may be related to taking or
using Mega Slim Herbal Appetite Management.
Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.
Complete and submit the report Online:
http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm1
Regular Mail or Fax: Download form
http://www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm2or call 1-800-332-1088
to request a reporting form, then complete and return to the
address on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-
0178.
The recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.
ZALE CORP: Being Sold to Signet for Too Little, Shareholders Say
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zale is selling itself too cheaply through an unfair process to
Signet Jewelers, for $1.4 billion or $21 a share, shareholders
claim in a class action in Delaware Chancery Court, according to
Courthouse News Service.
Signet Jewelers Limited and Zale Corporation have entered into a
definitive agreement for Signet to acquire all of the issued and
outstanding stock of Zale for $21.00 per share in cash
consideration.
"This transformational acquisition further diversifies our
businesses and extends our international footprint, opening the
door to greater growth and innovation across the enterprise,"
stated Mike Barnes, Signet's chief executive officer. "The
addition of Zale to the Signet family is consistent with our long-
term growth strategy and leverages our combined operating
expertise to create better choices for our customers, new
opportunities for our employees, and makes us a more attractive
partner to our vendors. In addition, it allows us to better
optimize our balance sheet, creating long-term value for our
shareholders. We are excited about the prospects for the combined
company and the many opportunities that this creates for our
future. I am happy to say it is our intention that Zale will
continue to run under current leader CEO, Theo Killion, who would
report directly to me after the transaction closes."
The acquisition strengthens Signet's omni-channel presence with
some of the most recognizable jewelry store brands in the world,
each operating as stand-alone brands including: Kay Jewelers,
Jared The Galleria Of Jewelry, H.Samuel, Ernest Jones, Zales, and
Peoples.
"Having successfully completed our multi-year turnaround program
to return to profitability, Signet's operating strengths will
enable us to accelerate Zale's performance improvement for the
benefit of our current and future guests," commented Killion.
Signet's offer represents a premium of 41 percent over Zale's
closing price as of Feb. 18, 2014. The transaction would be
valued at approximately $1.4 billion, representing an enterprise
value to last twelve months Oct-13 Adjusted EBITDA1 multiple of
7.4x2. As part of the transaction, Signet has entered into a
voting and support agreement with Golden Gate Capital, the
beneficial owner of approximately 22 percent of Zale's common
stock. The transaction is expected to be high single-digit
percentage accretive to earnings in the first full fiscal year
after the close of the transaction, excluding acquisition
accounting adjustments and one-time transaction costs.
The acquisition is expected to be financed through bank debt,
other debt financing and the securitization of a significant
portion of Signet's accounts receivable portfolio.
The transaction is subject to Zale stockholder approval, certain
regulatory approvals and customary closing conditions.
J.P. Morgan Securities LLC acted as exclusive financial advisor
and provided a fairness opinion to the board of directors of
Signet and J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. committed to provide
bridge financing for the transaction. Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
acted as legal counsel to Signet in connection with the
transaction. BofA Merrill Lynch acted as financial advisor and
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP acted as legal counsel to Zale in
connection with the transaction.
On Feb. 19, 2014, and in connection with the execution of the
Merger Agreement, Z Investment Holdings, LLC, which holds warrants
exercisable into 11,064,684 shares of the Company's common stock
entered into a Voting and Support Agreement with Signet and the
Company. Pursuant to the Voting Agreement, Z LLC has agreed,
among other things, to exercise its warrants and to vote the
shares of the Company's common stock issued upon that exercise in
favor of the adoption of the Merger Agreement and has agreed not
to dispose of such shares while the Voting Agreement is in effect.
The Voting Agreement shall terminate upon termination of the
Merger Agreement, and certain other specified events.
On Feb. 19, 2014, the Company sent a letter to its employees and
prepared additional materials to discuss with its employees, which
are available for free at:
http://is.gd/63UdMZ
http://is.gd/un7WoH
A copy of the Agreement and Plan of Merger is available for free
at http://is.gd/X8pyi0
Additional information is available for free at:
http://is.gd/pQPCd8
About Signet
Signet Jewelers Limited is the largest specialty jewelry retailer
in the US and UK. Signet's US division operates over 1,400 stores
in all 50 states primarily under the name brands of Kay Jewelers
and Jared The Galleria Of Jewelry. Signet's UK division operates
approximately 500 stores primarily under the name brands of
H.Samuel and Ernest Jones. Further information of Signet is
available at www.signetjewelers.com. See also www.kay.com,
www.jared.com, www.hsamuel.co.uk and www.ernestjones.co.uk.
About Zale Corporation
Based in Dallas, Texas, Zale Corporation (NYSE: ZLC) --
http://www.zalecorp.com/-- is a specialty retailer of diamonds
and other jewelry products in North America, operating
approximately 1,695 retail locations throughout the United States,
Canada and Puerto Rico, as well as online. Zale Corporation's
brands include Zales Jewelers, Zales Outlet, Gordon's Jewelers,
Peoples Jewellers, Mappins Jewellers and Piercing Pagoda. Zale
also operates online at http://www.zales.com/,
http://www.zalesoutlet.com/,
http://www.gordonsjewelers.com/and http://www.pagoda.com/
Zale Corp reported a net loss of $27.30 million for the three
months ended Oct. 31, 2013. Zale Corp disclosed net earnings of
$10.01 million for the year ended July 31, 2013, as compared with
a net loss of $27.31 million for the year ended July 31, 2012.
The Company incurred a net loss of $112.30 million for the year
ended July 31, 2011 and a net loss of $93.67 million for the year
ended July 31, 2010.
As of Oct. 31, 2013, Zale Corporation had $1.31 billion in total
assets, $1.16 billion in total liabilities and $152.95 million in
total stockholders' investment.
*********
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 * * *