/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140421.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, April 21, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 78 Headlines AAA SECURITY: Ex-Armed Security Officer Seeks to Recover Wages AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Illegally Called Plaintiff's Phone, Suit Says AMERICAN HONDA: Settles Suit Over Cars That Excessively Burn Oil ANTHROPOLOGIE INC: Sued Over POS Devices Not Usable by Blinds ATLAS CARPET: Class Seeks to Recover Damages for Unpaid Wages BAJA MINING: Provides Update on Class Action Litigation CAL-MAINE FOODS: September 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set CATHOLIC CHURCH: Victims of Pedophile Priests Mull Class Action CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Scout Petroleum Seeks Refund in Royalty Suit CONAGRA FOODS: Hebrew National Hotdog Suit Belongs to State Court CONSOLIDATED RAIL: Loses Bid to Halt Derailment Class Action DART CHEROKEE: Case to Have Implications on Class Actions DIRECTV INC: Court Won't Send "Imburgia" Action to Arbitration DYSON: Recalls Heaters Due To Fire Hazard ENTERPRISE RENT: Faces Overtime Class Action in Los Angeles FARO SERVICES: Removed "Castellanos" Class Suit to C.D. Cal. FIFTH THIRD: Sued in Florida for Reporting Inaccurate Information FOSSIL INC: Sued for Violating Americans with Disabilities Act FPI MANAGEMENT: Faces Action in California Over Unpaid Wages GENERAL MOTORS: To Ask NY Judge to Enforce Bankruptcy Order GENERAL MOTORS: Two Engineers Put on Leave Amid Recall Probe GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Van Pelt" Suit in Ga. Over Ignition Switch GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Groman" Suit in N.Y. Over Ignition Switch GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "DePalma" Suit in Pa. Over Ignition Switch GENERAL MOTORS: Halfshaft Defect Prompts Recall in Canada GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action in New York HEWLETT-PACKARD: Judge Dismisses Laffen's ESOP Class Suit HORIZON DISTRIBUTORS: Recalls Snack Bars Due To Undeclared Milk HUNTING POINT: Regulators Face Residents' Ire Over Asbestos HUSSONG MANUFACTURING: Recalls About 16,00 Gas Fireplaces INFINITY INSURANCE: Removed "Ramos" Class Suit to C.D. California INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE: June 23 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set INVENTURE FOODS: Faces "Montantes" Class Suit in C.D. California KINDRED SPIRITS WHOLESALE: Recalls Shot Glasses Due To Lead LENOVO INC: Recalls ThinkPad Battery Packs Due to Fire Hazard MARIAH RESOURCES: Failed to Pay for All Hours Worked, Suit Claims MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Investors File Class Action Amid Patent Suit MIRACO FOOD: Recalls Cookie Products Due To Peanut Allergy MIRACO FOOD: Recalls Cookie Products Due To Peanut Allergy NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR: Wildlife Expert Testifies in Moose Suit NNW LLC: Misrepresented "Healthy 100% Whey" Product, Suit Claims PIE PLACE: Recalls Cookie Products Due to Undeclared Milk PIERRE BELVEDERE: Recalls Toys Due To Mislabelling PIPELINE CARRIERS: Removed 1st "Concho" Suit to C.D. California PIPELINE CARRIERS: Removed 2nd "Concho" Suit to C.D. California REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR a Defendant in 5,131 Engle Progeny Cases REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Still Facing DeLoach Case REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Trial Date Set in 9 Lawsuits v. RJR Tobacco REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 2,572 Broin II Cases Still Pending in Florida REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Subsidiaries Face Eight Collective Suits in US REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Nov. Trial in Camel Cash Certificates Suit REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Tobacco, B&W Still Face Lights Cases REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Young" Stayed Pending Compliance in "Scott" REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Parsons" Asbestos Suit v. Subsidiaries Stayed REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Unit Still Faces 7 Canadian Lawsuits REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Parties in "Smith" Suit Await Appeal Ruling REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Dismissal of Tobacco Growers' Claim Sought REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Appeal in "Villarreal" Age Bias Suit Pending REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Tatum" Plaintiffs Appeal Case Dismissal SHOWMARK MEDIA: Removed "Bontrager" Suit to C.D. California SKINNY CRISPS: Removed "Agazanof" Class Suit to C.D. California SOCIETE DES ALCOOLS: Recalls Chartreuse Products SPRINT CORP: Settles Action Over Use of Right-of-Way Easements SUNRISE BAKERY: Recalls Cookie Products Due To Undeclared Milk TARGET CORP: Removed "Velarde" Suit to C.D. California TYSON FOODS: FDA Recalls 75,320 Pounds of Chicken Nugget Products WAL-MART: Faces Class Action Over Owing Workers Sick Time Wages WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: July 8 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ********* AAA SECURITY: Ex-Armed Security Officer Seeks to Recover Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Rafael Rosario, Individually and on behalf of himself and all Others similarly situated v. AAA Security Protection, Inc., a Florida profit corporation, Case No. 8:14-cv-00391-JDW-AEP (M.D. Fla., February 13, 2014) is brought by the Plaintiff and others similarly situated against their former employer for unpaid wages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff seeks damages for unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, a reasonable attorney's fee and costs. Mr. Rosario was employed by AAA as an armed security officer. AAA Security Protection, Inc. is a Florida profit corporation with its principal place of business located in Brandon, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Dennis A. Creed, III, Esq. FELDMAN MORGADO, P.A. 501 N. Reo Street Tampa, FL 33609 Telephone: (813) 639-9366 Facsimile: (813) 639-9376 E-mail: dcreed@ffmlawgroup.com AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Illegally Called Plaintiff's Phone, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Carrie Couser, on behalf of herself all other similarly situated v. AMC Entertainment Inc., and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 5:14-cv-00284-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal., February 13, 2014) accuses the Defendants of illegally contacting the Plaintiff on her cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. AMC Entertainment Inc. was incorporated and headquartered in California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq. Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC 369 South Doheny Drive, Suite 415 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com NBontrager@attorneysforconsumers.com sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com - and - Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com The Defendants are represented by: Anahit Tagvoryan, Esq. Joshua M. Briones, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP 2000 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 400 North Tower Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 595-3000 Facsimile: (310) 595-3300 E-mail: ana.tagvoryan@dlapiper.com joshua.briones@dlapiper.com AMERICAN HONDA: Settles Suit Over Cars That Excessively Burn Oil ---------------------------------------------------------------- Legal Newsline reports that Honda has agreed to a settlement in a class action lawsuit filed by consumers who claimed some of its vehicles excessively burned oil. The excessive oil burning caused engine misfiring and premature spark plug degradation, the consumers claimed in their 2012 class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Consumers who purchased 2008-2012 Honda Accord, 2008-2013 Honda Odyssey, 2009-2013 Honda Pilot, 2010-2011 Honda Accord Crosstour or 2012 Honda Crosstour equipped with a 6-cylinder engine with Variable Cylinder Management are eligible to receive compensation for repairs or a warranty extension. The parties agree there are no safety concerns with the vehicles named in the litigation, according to court documents. Honda has denied the allegations in the class action lawsuit. Honda says it agreed to the class action settlement in order to avoid the costs of a trial. On Oct. 9, District Judge Susan Illston approved the proposed class action settlement. A final order of judgment was filed on March 27. The court awarded a named plaintiff's incentive award of $1,000 to Vince Eagen. Attorneys received counsel fees and expenses in the amount of $800,000, according to the final order of judgment. The total amount of the settlement has been sealed, according to a sealing order filed March 19. Those who are eligible will receive full reimbursement of out-of-pocket repair expenses, plus a warranty extension. To receive full compensation for vehicle repairs, class members must submit a valid claim form with a copy of an original repair invoice or receipt plus proof of payments for repairs or replacement of parts on a settlement class vehicle by Thursday. Class members do not need to take any action to obtain the warranty extension, which will cover repairs for the affected vehicles within eight years of the original purchase or lease date of the vehicle, with no mileage limitation. Mr. Eagen was represented by Beth E. Terrell and Kimberlee Gunning of Terrell Marshall Daudt & Willie PLLC; Steven N. Berk -- steven@berklawdc.com -- and Matthew J. Bonness -- matt@berklawdc.com -- of Berk Law PLLC; Shanon Jude Carson -- scarson@bm.net -- Lawrence Deutsch -- ldeutsch@bm.net -- and Eugene Tompkins -- gtompkins@bm.net -- of Berger & Montague PC; and Karl Olson and Michael Francis Ram -- mram@rocklawcal.com -- of Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP. Honda was represented by Darlene Mi-Hyung Cho, Michael Lawrence Mallow -- mmallow@loeb.com -- Michael Brian Shortnacy -- mshortnacy@loeb.com -- and Denise A. Smith-Mars -- dmars@loeb.com -- of Loeb & Loeb LLP. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case number: 3:12-cv-01377 ANTHROPOLOGIE INC: Sued Over POS Devices Not Usable by Blinds ------------------------------------------------------------- David New, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Anthropologie, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-20546-MGC (S.D. Fla., February 13, 2014) alleges that the Company fails to design, construct, and own or operate Point Of Sale Devices that are fully accessible to, and independently usable by blind people, like the Plaintiff. Anthropologie, Inc., is a corporation incorporated in Pennsylvania and headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew B. Boese, Esq. Tiffany L. Anderson, Esq. LEON COSGROVE LLC 255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 424 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 740-1975 Facsimile: (305) 437-8158 E-mail: aboese@leoncosgrove.com tanderson@leoncosgrove.com The Defendant is represented by: Courtney Blair Wilson, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON Wells Fargo Center 333 SE 2 Avenue, Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131-1804 Telephone: (305) 400-7500 Facsimile: 603-2552 E-mail: CWilson@littler.com ATLAS CARPET: Class Seeks to Recover Damages for Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Cristian Portillo, Juan Montanaro, and other similarly situated individuals v. Atlas Carpet Center Co., Inc., d/b/a Atlas Carpet And Tile Co. and Claudio Garcia, individually, and Christian J. Garcia, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-20549-CMA (S.D. Fla., February 13, 2014) seeks to recover money damages for unpaid wages under the laws of the United States. Atlas Carpet Center Co., Inc., doing business as Atlas Carpet and Tile Co., is a Florida Profit Corporation, having its place of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida, where the Plaintiffs worked for Atlas. The Individual Defendants are officers, directors, managers or owners of Atlas. The Plaintiffs are represented by: R. Martin Saenz, Esq. THE SAENZ LAW FIRM, P.A. 20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 503-5131 Facsimile: (888) 270-5549 E-mail: msaenz@saenzlawfirm.com - and - Peter Neil Andresky, Esq. THE ANDRESKY LAW FIRM, P.A. 9121 N. Lake Park Circle Davie, FL 33328 Telephone: (954) 348-4546 Facsimile: (954) 342-1988 E-mail: pandresky@andreskylawfirm.com BAJA MINING: Provides Update on Class Action Litigation ------------------------------------------------------- Baja Mining Corp. on April 9 provided an update on the proposed class action proceeding previously reported on July 27, 2012. A hearing was held on April 8, 2014 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice with respect to certification of the proceeding as a class action and leave to proceed with claims under the Ontario Securities Act, and ancillary relief. A further announcement will be made once the court's decision has been released. CAL-MAINE FOODS: September 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------- Weinstein Kitchenoff & Asher LLC on April 7 issued a statement regarding the In re Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation. Legal Notice If you purchased shell eggs or egg products produced in the United States directly from any producer from January 1, 2000 through February 28, 2014, you could be a Class Member in a proposed class action settlement. This legal notice is to inform you of the proposed Cal-Maine Settlement reached in the class action lawsuit, In re Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 08-md-02002, pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and also inform you of an amendment to the Sparboe Settlement. Who is included in the Cal-Maine Settlement & Sparboe Amendment? The Cal-Maine Settlement "Class" includes all persons and entities in the United States that purchased shell eggs and egg products, in the United States directly from any producer from January 1, 2000 through February 28, 2014. Due to the Cal-Maine Settlement, the prior Sparboe Settlement, approved by the Court in 2012, is amended to add to the Sparboe Settlement Class direct purchases of shell eggs and egg products from October 24, 2009 through February 28, 2014, expanding the Class Period to make it comparable to the Cal-Maine Class. What is this case about? Plaintiffs claim that Defendants conspired to limit the supply of shell eggs and egg products, which raised the price of shell eggs and egg products and, therefore, violated the Sherman Antitrust Act, a federal statute that prohibits agreements that unreasonably restrain competition. Cal-Maine and Sparboe deny all of Plaintiffs' allegations. What does the Cal-Maine Settlement provide? The Cal-Maine Settlement is with Cal-Maine only; the case is continuing against the remaining defendants. Plaintiffs will release all claims against Cal-Maine. In exchange, Cal-Maine will provide the Class with $28,000,000 from which claims can be paid. Cal-Maine will also provide Plaintiffs with information that Plaintiffs' attorneys believe will aid in their analysis and prosecution of this Action. What does the Sparboe Settlement provide? There is no monetary relief under the Original or Amended Sparboe Settlement. Sparboe agreed to provide substantial and immediate cooperation to Plaintiffs, which the Court already found conferred substantial benefits upon the Class. The amendment merely conforms the Sparboe Class to the Cal-Maine Class. What do I do now? If you are a Class Member your legal rights are affected, and you now have a choice to make. Participate in the Settlements: No action is required to remain part of the Cal-Maine Settlement or the amended Sparboe Settlement. If the Court grants final approval to the Cal-Maine Settlement and the Sparboe Amendment, the Cal-Maine Settlement and Amended Sparboe Settlement will be binding upon you and all other Class Members. By remaining part of the Cal-Maine Settlement, you will give up any potential claims that you may have against Cal-Maine relating to the claims alleged in this lawsuit. You may be eligible to receive a payment from the Cal-Maine Settlement if you submit a completed claim form (postmarked no later than August 1, 2014). Ask to be excluded: If you wish to exclude yourself from the Sparboe Settlement as amended (if you had no purchases before October 24, 2009) and/or the Cal-Maine Settlement and wish to retain your rights to pursue your own lawsuit relating to the claims alleged in this lawsuit, you must formally exclude yourself from one or both Classes by sending a signed letter to the Claims Administrator postmarked on or before August 1, 2014. Object: You may notify the Court that you object to the Cal-Maine Settlement and/or Sparboe Amendment by mailing a statement of your objection(s) to the Court, Plaintiffs' Counsel, and Defense Counsel postmarked by August 1, 2014. Detailed instructions on how to participate, opt out or object are on the settlement website. Who represents you? The Court appointed Steven A. Asher of Weinstein Kitchenoff & Asher LLC; Michael D. Hausfeld of Hausfeld LLP; Stanley D. Bernstein of Bernstein Liebhard LLP; and Stephen D. Susman of Susman Godfrey LLP as Interim Co- Lead Class Counsel. You do not have to pay them or anyone else to participate. You may hire your own lawyer at your own expense. When will the Court decide whether to approve the Cal-Maine Settlement and/or the Sparboe Amendment? At 2:00 p.m. on September 18, 2014, at the United States District Court, James A. Byrne Federal Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106-1797, the Court will hold a hearing to determine the fairness and adequacy of the Cal-Maine Settlement and the Sparboe Amendment, and consider a motion for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation costs. You may appear at the hearing, but are not required to do so. Please note that the Court may change the date and/or time of the Fairness Hearing without further notice. Settlement Class members are advised to check www.eggproductssettlement.com for any updates. How can I learn more? This notice is only a summary. For more information, visit www.eggproductssettlement.com. CATHOLIC CHURCH: Victims of Pedophile Priests Mull Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Nick McKenzie, Richard Baker and Mark Russell, writing for The Age, reports that victims of one of Australia's most notorious pedophile priests, Gerald Ridsdale, are preparing a landmark class action against the Catholic Church in what will be the first test of Cardinal George Pell's recent commitment to make the church less hostile to litigation from sex abuse victims. Lawyer Vivian Waller said at least 20 victims had instructed her to launch claims against the Diocese of Ballarat and argue that the church's negligence or cover-ups allowed Mr. Ridsdale to remain as a priest after it was known he was a sexual predator. It is understood the church could be forced to pay out millions in compensation if the cases succeed. On April 8, Mr. Ridsdale, who admitted to abusing at least 53 children between 1961 and 1982, was sentenced to eight more years' jail, after he pleaded guilty to 39 new charges involving sex offences against 11 boys and three girls, he having already been jailed in previous court cases. County Court Chief Judge Michael Rozenes said Mr. Ridsdale's "unfettered sexual deviance" had been a blatant breach of trust. He abused one young girl in the confessional box after ordering her to say the prayer "Forgive me Father for I have sinned" and told a nine-year-old boy the abuse was "the Lord's work". One victim, who was in court on April 8, said Mr. Ridsdale's sentencing amounted to "winning a battle but not the war". "There are other people who should be made be accountable because they [the church] knew what Ridsdale was doing," said the victim, who asked not to be named. "There will not be full closure until those people are made responsible for their action." The victim is one of Ms Waller's clients. Ms. Waller said Cardinal Pell's recent appearance before the royal commission into sexual abuse suggested the church would no longer rely on legal technicalities to avoid proper compensation. "I hope that the Archdiocese of Ballarat will abide by the indication of George Pell that the church won't employ certain defences to defeat sexual abuse claimants," she said. On April 8, Judge Rozenes said it was disturbing that one of Mr. Ridsdale's victims believed another priest was present when Mr. Ridsdale abused her when she was aged 10 or 11. Judge Rozenes said victim impact statements tendered to the court collectively revealed "a feeling of being exploited; feeling trapped, powerless, worthless and humiliated; anger at, and distrust of, the Catholic church; loss of faith and innocence; loss of the enjoyment of childhood; a sense of bewilderment and disbelief; and the fracturing of family relationships". The judge said that, tragically, many thought themselves to blame for Mr. Ridsdale's actions. "To me, one of the most tragic comments I heard was that 'if I had 'taken my turn' maybe my little brothers would have had happier lives'." Mr. Ridsdale, 79, who has been in prison since 1994 and is in poor health, had been due for release on June 29, 2019. He will now not be released, unless granted parole, until 2022 and is expected to die in prison. CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Scout Petroleum Seeks Refund in Royalty Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- John Beauge, writing for PennLive.com, reports that a company that has interests in Marcellus Shale natural gas leases wants an arbitration panel to order a full refund for what it alleges have been improper deductions from royalty payments by Chesapeake Appalachia. Scout Petroleum of Nicholson has asked the American Arbitration Association to declare its demand a class action to include all those who have entered into what are known as paid-up oil and gas leases. Chesapeake, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Chesapeake Energy, on April 7 filed in U.S. Middle District Court a request for an injunction to prevent class-action status it claims could involve thousands of landowners. It contends leases do not provide for class-action arbitration and further argues only a judge can approve such a status. Besides class action and refund demands, Scout, whose interests primarily are in Bradford, Sullivan, Susquehanna and Wyoming counties, is seeking a declaration Chesapeake has breached its leases. The filings are the latest in the controversy involving the 1979 Guaranteed Minimum Royalty Act that states leaseholders are to receive a minimum of 12.5 percent of the sale price of the gas produced. One Bradford County farmer reported receiving royalty checks for as little as $1.10 and 10 cents. Chesapeake has been accused of taking deductions not permitted by the law or leases. Scout alleges, for example, Chesapeake reduces the volume on which royalties are paid by deducting gas used by compressors. Attorney General Kathleen Kane last month told state Sen. Gene Yaw, R-Lycoming, her office was reviewing complaints that property owners are not getting their entitled royalties. Gov. Tom Corbett has written Chesapeake President Robert D. Lawler telling him he had received complaints about practices that "strike many as unfair and perhaps illegal." On April 7, the state Senate approved three bills introduced by Yaw aimed at expanding the rights of landowners with natural gas leases: -- One bill would allow inspection of natural gas companies' records to verify proper royalty payments. It also would require payments to begin within 60 days of a well going into production. -- The second measure would prohibit a gas company from retaliating, by terminating a lease or ceasing development because the accuracy of royalty payments was questioned. -- The third bill would require a gas company to record within 30 days of the expiration, termination or forfeiture of a lease a document with the county register of deeds that releases its interests in the oil and gas. The bills now move to the House. CONAGRA FOODS: Hebrew National Hotdog Suit Belongs to State Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a federal appeals panel, acting as the "higher authority" to which the maker and consumers of Hebrew National hotdogs must answer, has ruled that a proposed consumer class action challenging the product's kosher status belongs in state, not federal, court. On April 4, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit remanded Melvin Wallace v. ConAgra Foods Inc., reversing the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota's dismissal and ordering the lower court to toss the matter back to Minnesota's state courts, for jurisdiction reasons. The complaint alleges that, contrary to the label proclaiming that the hot dogs contain 100 percent kosher meat, the company's production quotas mean the franks actually are only about 70 percent kosher. The plaintiffs' concern is not a religious one. Instead, they objected to paying a premium price for the hotdogs, which they bought because they believed the product to be healthier than cheaper franks because they contained no artificial ingredients. But Eighth Circuit Chief Judge William Riley wrote that the plaintiffs did not allege that all or even most Hebrew National products are not kosher, "which means the particular packages of processed beef they purchased may have been -- and indeed more than likely were -- prepared in accordance with minimum kosher standards." Furthermore, Riley wrote for the panel, the consumers did not show the particular packages they purchased were fraudulently labeled and marketed, meaning they and their case had no standing in federal court. "It is pure speculation to say the particular packages sold to the consumers were tainted by non-kosher beef, while it is quite plausible ConAgra sold the consumers exactly what was promised: a higher quality, kosher meat product," Judge Riley wrote. On Hebrew National's website, a statement leads the home page, noting, "In light of the recent lawsuit, we want to assure our fans that we stand behind our kosher status." Along with Judge Riley, Eighth Circuit judges Roger Wollman and James Loken heard the case. CONSOLIDATED RAIL: Loses Bid to Halt Derailment Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Joe Green, writing for South Jersey Times, reports that a federal judge has thwarted efforts to stop a class action suit concerning the November 2012 Paulsboro train derailment and chemical spill. U.S. District Judge Robert Kugler denied a motion by Conrail and other companies to keep more than 100 individuals and businesses from combining their complaints into a class action. The ruling doesn't mean those 100-plus -- who seek damages for financial losses -- will definitely be able to pursue their case. A court still must decide whether to certify the class action suit, based on evidence that they can do so legally. The failed motion by Conrail and the others was merely an attempt to stop that before it even got to the certification stage. In their motion, the companies argued that the court cannot verify that the plaintiffs were all truly affected by the derailment -- and therefore have legal standing to sue in this case -- without extra encumbering hearings. But Judge Kugler said in part that the evacuation and shelter-in- place areas designated after the derailment were defined, and the plaintiffs' home and business addresses are verifiable. To stop the class action at this point, the companies would have to prove that identifying the plaintiffs who can truly sue would bring on complicating hearings and defeat the very purpose of a combined suit. The companies didn't do that, Judge Kugler ruled, and the plaintiffs should have the opportunity to go through the certification process. There, the court will more closely examine their reasons for forming the class action. On Nov. 30, 2012, an 84-car train derailed over the Jefferson Street Bridge as it entered Paulsboro. Seven tanker cars on the southbound train left the track. Three of them ended up in the water of Mantua Creek below, and one of those cars was punctured in the accident, spilling thousands of pounds of vinyl chloride gas -- a toxic chemical used in making vinyl floors and PVC pipe -- into Paulsboro's air. DART CHEROKEE: Case to Have Implications on Class Actions --------------------------------------------------------- Zach Warren, writing for Inside Counsel, reports that the U.S. Supreme Court granted one new case on April 7, and it's one that in-house counsel should pay attention to for its implications on class action lawsuits. In Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Company, LLC v. Owens, a group of royalty owners sued Dart Cherokee over unpaid royalties on the company's oil and gas wells. The plaintiffs originally filed suit in Kansas state court, where the wells were located, but the Michigan-based Dart Cherokee sought to have the case moved to federal court. Here's where the Supreme Court ruling comes in: The Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) of 2005 allows transfers of cases involving more than $5 million in damages from state to federal court. The plaintiffs did not seek a specific damage amount in their initial filing, but the defendant claimed that damages would be well over $5 million in its filing to change forum. The district court ruled against Dart Cherokee's motion to move the case to federal court, and the 10th Circuit upheld that decision, saying in a split en banc decision that the company did not offer enough evidence to back up its $5 million claim. However, Judge Harris L. Hartz of the 10th Circuit said in a dissent, joined by three other judges, that the burden of proof the courts were imposing sets "an evidentiary burden on the notice of removal that is foreign to federal-court practice and, to my knowledge, has never been imposed by a federal appellate court (Owens does not cite to any such case). Unfortunately, this may be the only opportunity for this court to correct the law in our circuit." He went on to argue that "a defendant seeking removal under CAFA need only allege the jurisdictional amount in its notice of removal and must prove that amount only if the plaintiff challenges the allegation." Now, the Supreme Court will get its shot at the case. If the Court rules in Dart Cherokee's favor, then defendants of class action lawsuits may only need to prove damages north of $5 million if the plaintiff challenges their bid to move to federal court. If a case is being tried in an unfavorable forum, this ruling could be a godsend to in-house counsel looking for a leg up. DIRECTV INC: Court Won't Send "Imburgia" Action to Arbitration -------------------------------------------------------------- Lance Duroni and Daniel Siegal, writing for Law360, report that a California appeals court on April 7 refused to send to arbitration a consumer class action accusing DirecTV Inc. of failing to disclose early termination fees, finding that a waiver of class claims in the company's arbitration agreement with customers was unenforceable under state law. A three-judge panel agreed with a lower court that the language of the arbitration agreement included in DirecTV's service contracts deferred to state law, including the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, which bars waiving the right to bring class claims, according to an opinion penned by Justice Frances Rothschild. "The class action waiver is unenforceable under California law, so the entire arbitration agreement is unenforceable," the opinion said. "The superior court therefore properly denied the motion to compel arbitration." The ruling ensures that five-year-old allegations that DirecTV ripped off California consumers will move forward in state court as a class action, rather than being decided on a case-by-case basis by arbitrators. Amy Imburgia and Marlene Mecca sued DirecTV in September 2008, claiming the satellite provider entered into contracts with its customers over the phone or in-person after satellite installation but did not disclose the stiff termination fees associated with canceling the service before the end of the contract. In upholding the lower court's decision on April 7, the panel rejected DirecTV's argument that the arbitration agreement passed muster under the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, a ruling that cleared the way for companies to insert class action waivers in consumer arbitration agreements. During oral arguments last month, the company relied on the Ninth Circuit's 2013 ruling in Murphy v. DirecTV Inc., which held that a similar arbitration agreement was enforceable under Concepcion because the high court's decision preempted any state law to the contrary. But the panel found the Ninth Circuit's analysis in Murphy "unpersuasive," rejecting the federal appeals court's finding that the parties' contract interpretation arguments were "largely irrelevant" because the Federal Arbitration Act preempts state law. "[I]nsofar as the court reasoned that contract interpretation is irrelevant because the parties are powerless to opt out of the FAA by contract, we are aware of no authority for the court's position," Justice Rothschild wrote. "Rather . . . if the customer agreement expressly provided that the enforceability of the class action waiver 'shall be determined under the (nonfederal) law of your state without considering the preemptive effect, if any, of the FAA,' then that choice of law would be enforceable; Murphy cites no authority to the contrary," the judge added, quoting from the arbitration agreement. Melissa Ingalls -- melissa.ingalls@kirkland.com -- of Kirkland & Ellis LLP, who represents DirecTV, blasted the decision on April 8, saying the company intends to appeal. "The decision is wrong, and clearly contravenes the Federal Arbitration Act and Supreme Court precedent, as well as the Ninth Circuit's published Murphy v. DirecTV opinion, which already ruled on this exact issue of federal law," she wrote in an email. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Emilie H. Elias certified a class in the case in April 2011. A month later, after the Concepcion decision was handed down, DirecTV moved to decertify the class and either dismiss or stay the case so it could be sent to arbitration. But Judge Elias denied that motion, ruling that Concepcion did not apply, prompting DirecTV's instant appeal. The plaintiffs are represented by Paul D. Stevens, Mayo L. Makarczyk and Shireen Mohsenzadegan of Milstein Adelman LLP. DirecTV is represented by Melissa D. Ingalls, Robyn E. Bladow -- rbladow@kirkland.com -- and Shaun Paisley -- shaun.paisley@kirkland.com -- of Kirkland & Ellis LLP. The case is Imburgia et al. v. DirectTV Inc., case number B239361, in the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District. DYSON: Recalls Heaters Due To Fire Hazard ----------------------------------------- Starting date: April 1, 2014 Posting date: April 1, 2014 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Tools and Electrical Products Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Fire Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-38697 Affected products Dyson Hot and Dyson Hot+Cool heaters This recall involves two Dyson heaters: Dyson Hot and Dyson Hot+Cool heaters, sold under the model numbers AM04 and AM05. The heater's serial number is on the base of the machine. No other models are involved in the recall. The AM04 and AM05 heaters are made up of a round base and lozenge-shaped looped body that contains an aperture with no blades. Each machine comes with a remote control to set airspeed, oscillation and temperature. Available colours: blue and grey, black and grey, white and silver, grey. The heaters measure 58 centimetres (23 inches) high, 20 centimetres (8 inches) deep and 20 centimetres (8 inches) wide (with base fitted). The heaters can develop an electrical short and overheat, posing a fire hazard to the consumer. Dyson is aware of 82 confirmed incidents worldwide of the recalled heaters short-circuiting and overheating, in which four cases have led to contained burning within the machine. No injuries or property damage have been reported in any of these incidents. To date, neither Health Canada nor Dyson have received any confirmed incidents of injury related to the use of these heaters in Canada. Approximately 1,000,000 machines were sold globally including about 43,000 heaters in Canada and about 338,000 heaters in the United States. In Canada, the heaters were sold at Sears, Canadian Tire, Future shop, Best Buy, The Bay, Home Outfitters, Costco, Home Hardware, Leon's, Corbeil, www.dysoncanada.ca, Bed Bath & Beyond, The Shopping Channel, Walmart, Lowe's, The Brick, Home Depot, Staples, Target, various incentive suppliers, and independent retailers. The recalled heaters were sold from July 2011 to March 2014 in Canada and from September 2011 to March 2014 the United States. Manufactured in Malaysia. Manufacturer ATA Industrial (M) Sdn Bhd Johor Bharu MALAYSIA Distributor Dyson Canada Limited Toronto Ontario CANADA Photo of the affected product is available at: http://is.gd/ByDHRi Consumers should immediately stop using the heaters and register their machines for a free repair at dyson's recall website. Consumers can also register their heater for repair by calling Dyson toll-free at 1-866-876-0749, 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. EST Monday through Friday, and 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST Saturday. Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's website. Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given away in Canada. ENTERPRISE RENT: Faces Overtime Class Action in Los Angeles ----------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Enterprise Rent a Car stiffs workers for overtime, a man claims in a class action in Superior Court in Los Angeles. FARO SERVICES: Removed "Castellanos" Class Suit to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Richard Castellanos, et al. v. FARO Services Inc., et al., Case No. BC509830, was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14- cv-01150-FMO-RZ to the proceeding. The lawsuit asserts labor-related claims. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael John Carras, Esq. Bridget C. McGuire, Esq. Daniel A. Conforti, Esq. CONFORTI AND CARRAS APC 151 N Kraemer Blvd., Suite 204 Placentia, CA 92870 Telephone: (714) 577-1071 Facsimile: (714) 577-0711 E-mail: mike@cocalaw.com bridget@cocalaw.com dan@cocalaw.com - and - Joseph Antonelli, Esq. Janelle Christine Carney, Esq. Jason T. Hatcher, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI 14758 Pipeline Avenue, 2nd Floor, Suite E Chino Hills, CA 91709 Telephone: (909) 303-0233 Facsimile: (909) 393-0471 E-mail: jantonelli@antonellilaw.com jcarney@antonellilaw.com jhatcher@antonellilaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Brandon R. McKelvey, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2300 Sacramento, CA 95814-4428 Telephone: (916) 448-0159 Facsimile: (916) 558-4839 E-mail: bmckelvey@seyfarth.com - and - Bruce M. Timm, Esq. Kimberly A. Lucia, Esq. Michael E. Chase, Esq. BOUTIN JONES INC. 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 1500 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 321-4444 Facsimile: (916) 441-7597 E-mail: btimm@boutinjones.com klucia@boutinjones.com mchase@boutinjones.com FIFTH THIRD: Sued in Florida for Reporting Inaccurate Information ----------------------------------------------------------------- Larry Frost on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Fifth Third Bank, N.A., Case No. 2:14-cv-00083-JES-CM (M.D. Fla., February 13, 2014) accuses Fifth Third of reporting false or inaccurate information to credit reporting agencies. Fifth Third Bank, N.A., is an Ohio banking corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven E. Martin, Esq. Jonathan M. Bierfeld, Esq. Dustin Michael Butler, Esq. MARTIN LAW FIRM, PL 3701 Del Prado Blvd. Cape Coral, FL 33904 Telephone: (239) 443-1094 Facsimile: (239) 443-1168 E-mail: esmartin@martinlawfirm.com jonathan.bierfeld@martinlawfirm.com dustin.butler@martinlawfirm.com FOSSIL INC: Sued for Violating Americans with Disabilities Act -------------------------------------------------------------- David New v. Fossil, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-20545-FAM (S.D. Fla., February 13, 2014) alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Benjamin Boese, Esq. LEON COSGROVE LLC 255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 424 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 740-1975 Facsimile: (305) 437-8158 E-mail: aboese@leoncosgrove.com The Defendant is represented by: Kevin Douglas Zwetsch, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK, & STEWART, P.C. 100 N. Tampa Street, Suite 3600 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 289-1247 Facsimile: (813) 289-6530 E-mail: kevin.zwetsch@ogletreedeakins.com FPI MANAGEMENT: Faces Action in California Over Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ FPI Management Inc. was slapped with a putative wage-and-hour class action on April 3 by a current employee who claims the California property manager failed to pay her and other workers overtime as well as provide meal and rest breaks in accordance with California employment law. The filing in California Superior Court is the latest employment class action against FPI Management, which recently settled a wage-and-hour misclassification suit. "After going through all that, they didn't learn their lesson," Edwin Aiwazian, counsel for the plaintiff, who also represented FPI Management in the recently settled suit, told Law360 in an interview on April 8. "It was wage theft before and it's wage theft now. This is just obnoxious. This is on the stratosphere of meritoriousness." In February, a California Superior Court judge approved a $775,000 settlement in a suit brought against FPI Management by a class of 108 individuals, according to court documents. As part of that settlement, brought on behalf of plaintiffs who claimed they should be eligible for overtime pay, FPI reclassified employees as hourly. At issue now is that hourly employees at the company claim they aren't receiving overtime pay. "Defendants engaged in a uniform policy and systematic scheme of wage abuse against their hourly paid or nonexempt, on-site employees within the state of California," the complaint states. "Defendants knew or should have known that defendants had to keep complete and accurate payroll records . . . but, in fact, did not." The class in the current case is estimated to comprise more than 350 individuals, and includes individuals who worked for FPI Management in California at any point over the past four years. Named plaintiff Iffat Khan lives in Los Angeles County and has worked at FPI since August 2013. The complaint alleges a "scheme" behind FPI's purported failure to pay employees for overtime work and failure to provide required meal and rest breaks. California employees are entitled to a 10-minute rest period for every four hours worked. Employees whose shifts are a at least six hours are not required to work more than five hours before taking a meal break of at least 30 minutes. Plaintiffs are seeking compensation for off-the-clock hours missed and pay for short, missed or interrupted breaks. They are also seeking reimbursement for business-related expenses. Mr. Aiwazian told Law360 that his client may also seek punitive damages. The plaintiffs are represented by Edwin Aiwazian of Lawyers for Justice PC. FPI Management is represented by James M. Nelson -- nelsonj@gtlaw.com -- of Greenberg Traurig LLP. The case is Khan v. FPI Management Inc., case number BC541747, in the Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles County. GENERAL MOTORS: To Ask NY Judge to Enforce Bankruptcy Order ----------------------------------------------------------- Tom Krisher, writing for The Associated Press, reports that General Motors revealed in court filings late on April 15 that it will soon ask a federal bankruptcy judge to shield the company from legal claims for conduct that occurred before its 2009 bankruptcy. The automaker's strategy is in a motion filed in a Corpus Christi, Texas, federal court case, and in other cases across the nation that involve the defective ignition switches that have led GM to recall 2.6 million small cars. The motion asks U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos to delay action on the lawsuit until the bankruptcy court rules and other federal courts decide if the case should be combined with other lawsuits. But GM says it's not asking to halt action on a motion to force GM to tell customers not to drive their cars that are being recalled. GM has said at least 13 deaths have been linked to the switch problem. The switch can unexpectedly slip out of the "run" position, shutting down the engine, knocking out power-assisted steering and power brakes, and disabling the air bags. GM admits knowing about the problem for at least a decade, but it didn't start recalling the cars, including Chevrolet Cobalts and Saturn Ions, until February. The company's motion says GM will ask the bankruptcy court in New York to enforce an order made during the 2009 bankruptcy case that split GM into a new company and an old company. Claims from before the bankruptcy would go to "Old GM," called Motors Liquidation Co., while claims after the bankruptcy would go to the new General Motors Co. "Just like the other 'ignition switch actions' that other plaintiffs have filed in the wake of public reports regarding the outstanding recall, this case relates to a vehicle designed, manufactured, originally sold and advertised by Old GM," the company's motion says. GM's motion says more than 30 cases have been filed against the company since February. With the motion, GM is trying to limit its legal liability in the cases while at the same time it considers compensation for families of crash victims. GM has hired Kenneth Feinberg -- who handled the fund for the victims of 9/11, the Boston Marathon bombing and the BP oil spill -- to explore ways to compensate victims. No decision has been made. Attorney Robert Hilliard filed the Texas lawsuit on behalf of Charles and Grace Silvas. It claims they are stuck with a defective 2006 Chevrolet Cobalt and seeks repairs, compensation for loss of value and alternative transportation. Hilliard called GM's motion to send the case to the bankruptcy court a "long shot" and accused GM CEO Mary Barra of directing lawyers to hide behind the bankruptcy. He said he expects a ruling soon on the request for an order for GM to tell owners to keep the recalled cars off the road. GM has said owners can continue safely using the cars if precautions are taken. GENERAL MOTORS: Two Engineers Put on Leave Amid Recall Probe ------------------------------------------------------------ Bernie Woodall, writing for Reuters, reports that General Motors Co. Chief Executive Mary Barra said she "agonized" over last week's decision to put two GM engineers on paid leave pending the outcome of an investigation into faulty ignition switches linked to at least 13 deaths. Ms. Barra's comments, made to reporters on April 15 after an industry conference ahead of the New York Auto Show, referred to Ray DeGiorgio and Gary Altman, two engineers involved in the development of the defective switches, which are being replaced in 2.6 million recalled GM vehicles. "There was a lot of attention, and we agonized over that decision, but we felt it was right for the individuals and right for the company at this time," she said of Mr. DeGiorgio, who designed the switch, and Altman, who was the program engineering manager for the recalled cars. GM has not explained why the men were suspended, and the two have not responded to Reuters requests for comment. In the wake of the recall, announced in several waves in February and March, Ms. Barra said on April 15 that GM is creating a new global product integrity organization that will focus on product safety and quality. It will report to Jeff Boyer, who was named the chief of vehicle safety in mid-March, and Mark Reuss, GM's global product development chief. "This new way of developing vehicles will provide the highest levels of safety, quality, and customer service, and ensure that a situation like the ignition-switch recall doesn't happen again," Ms. Barra said in New York. The automaker is on track to complete its own investigation of the recall by the middle to the end of May, Ms. Barra said. The internal probe is being headed by Anton Valukas, chief executive of Chicago law firm Jenner & Block, which has done legal work for GM for more than 10 years. "When Mr. Valukas has completed his investigation, we will then take the appropriate actions and then, as I've said, we will be transparent. So that's where we're at," Ms. Barra said. Congress also is investigating the recall, and a group of U.S. lawmakers on April 15 wrote to Delphi Automotive, asking whether the parts maker had pushed back when the automaker apparently did not accept a proposed fix to the ignition switch. Ms. Barra said a team at GM is working around the clock to answer questions asked by the U.S. National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration on the ignition switch defect issue. NHTSA has said GM did not answer more than a third of the 107 questions the safety regulator asked. GM faces a $7,000-per-day fine since the April 3 deadline for not responding to all questions. She said GM may wait for the completion of Mr. Valukas' investigation before answering some of NHTSA's questions. Ms. Barra spoke at an auto industry conference held by the National Automobile Dealers Association and J.D. Power. GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Van Pelt" Suit in Ga. Over Ignition Switch ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that parents of a Georgia teenager who suffered a severe brain injury in a 2009 car crash say General Motors knew of a defect in her car but took steps to conceal it. In a federal lawsuit filed on April 11 in U.S. District Court, Alexina and William Van Pelt of Evans say a defective key system in their daughter Haley's 2003 Saturn Ion caused the key to move from the "run" to "accessory/off" position, shutting the engine off and causing her to lose control and smash into a tree. The lawsuit adds that Haley has incurred more than $1 million in medical bills. Ignition switch defects are at the center of a congressional subcommittee's investigation into how GM handled safety issues. GM has admitted knowing about the switch problem for more than a decade, but failed to recall the cars until February. "More than eight years before Haley's injuries, GM knew about the safety-related defects in the Saturn Ion, and did nothing to recall or fully remedy the defects or warn users about them," the lawsuit said. "Rather, GM intentionally, purposely, fraudulently, and systematically concealed the defects from Haley, the Van Pelts, the National Highway Safety Administration, and the driving public." GM says a heavy key ring or jarring from rough roads can cause the ignition switch to move out of the "run" position and shut off the engine and electrical power. That can knock out power- assisted brakes and steering and disable the front air bags. In Haley's crash, the airbags failed to deploy when she struck the tree, the lawsuit said. The lawsuit cited several similar deadly crashes involving faulty key switches in GM's Chevy Cobalts: Brooke Melton was driving her 2005 Cobalt on a two-lane highway in Paulding County, northwest of Atlanta, when her key moved from the run position to "accessory/off," causing her engine to shut off, the lawsuit said. Her car veered into another lane, and she was killed by an oncoming car. GM CEO Mary Barra has said that she only become aware of the ignition switch issues in December. She has distanced herself from GM's slow action on safety issues in the past, saying she's trying to install a culture that is focused on consumer protection. GM has said that it is deeply sorry for the losses suffered by its customers, and that it will work to regain their trust. "Ensuring our customers' safety is our first order of business," GM North America President Alan Batey said in a statement earlier this year. "We are deeply sorry and we are working to address this issue as quickly as we can." GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Groman" Suit in N.Y. Over Ignition Switch ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Van Voris, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that General Motors Co., which recalled more than 2.59 million small cars for faulty ignition switches linked to 13 deaths, was sued in a proposed class action in Manhattan federal court, adding to more than a dozen similar cases filed across the country. Vehicle owners in the cases seek compensation for the lost value of their cars stemming from the unreliable switches, which can cut power to the engine and airbags when jostled by keys. A federal judge in Corpus Christi, Texas, is considering a request that she order GM to tell owners of the recalled vehicles not to drive them until they can be repaired. Steven Groman, who said he owned a 2008 Chevrolet HHR, claimed GM falsely advertised its cars as safe and reliable. Instead, his car experienced at least four engine shutdowns, prompting him to trade it in at a loss in 2011, he said in his complaint. "GM knew that the defective design of the ignition switches in these vehicles presented serious safety issues," Mr. Groman said. "GM consciously chose to conceal it and not address the problem." Mr. Groman, who seeks to represent a nationwide group of people who owned or leased defective GM vehicles since 2002, is asking for unspecified damages. His lawsuit joins at least 15 federal suits against GM over the ignition switches filed throughout the U.S. The case is Groman v. General Motors LLC, 12-cv-02458, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan). GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "DePalma" Suit in Pa. Over Ignition Switch ---------------------------------------------------------------- Terrie Morgan-Besecker, writing for The Times-Tribune, reports that a federal class-action lawsuit filed on April 8 against General Motors offers a possible explanation: It was the car, not the driver, at fault. Austin DePalma's family just thought he was a lousy driver. How else, they wondered, could the 21-year-old Scranton man be involved in four crashes within the past two years? Mr. DePalma, the owner of a 2007 Chevrolet Cobalt, is among four lead plaintiffs in a lawsuit that seeks to recover damages for economic harm caused to owners of GM vehicles identified as having a faulty ignition switch that caused the cars to unexpectedly shut off while driving. The defect, which led GM recently to recall 2.6 million cars, has been blamed for causing crashes that killed at least 13 people nationwide. The lawsuit, filed by several law firms, including Dougherty, Levanthal & Price in Scranton, does not seek any money for physical harm caused to owners, however. It focuses on recovering consequential damages they suffered, including repair and towing costs, lost resale value and increases in insurance premiums resulting from accidents caused by the defect, said attorney Paul Oven of Scranton, one of the lead attorneys in the case. "The consequential damages is the most pervasive problem," said Mr. Oven. "Jacked insurance rates, towing and repair costs. Property damage claims . . . We are looking to recover all those damages for people." Mr. Oven joined with attorneys from two Philadelphia law firms to file the suit against GM and Delphia Automotive, the manufacturer of the switch. GM has acknowledged the switch could be jostled into the accessory position while driving, causing the car to lose electrical power that would disable the power brakes, steering and air bags. The lawsuit names Mr. DePalma, Bob and Dorothy McCann, of Philadelphia, and Paul Pollastro, of Coraopolis, as the lead plaintiffs. The attorneys are seeking to certify the complaint as a class action that could include as many as 2.6 million Chevrolet, Pontiac and Saturn car owners whose vehicles have been identified as possibly having the defect. Mary DePalma, grandmother of Austin DePalma, contacted the attorneys after receiving notice of the recall on March 18. She was relieved to have another possible explanation for the crashes, she said. Mrs. DePalma said her grandson struck four vehicles, the last being in January, after he said the car's engine shut off, causing him to lose his power brakes and steering. The rash of crashes led his insurance company to cancel his policy. She finally found another firm to insure him, but his premium doubled from about $130 to $262 a month, she said. She also spent several thousand dollars to cover some damages she did not submit to insurance out of fear he would be cancelled again, she said. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Harrisburg, is a scathing rebuke to GM, alleging the automaker knew of the ignition problem as early as 2001, but concealed that information to avoid the cost of replacing a part GM acknowledged cost 57 cents. "GM instructed service shops to provide defective vehicle owners with a new key ring if they complained about unintended shut down, rather than admit what (it) knew -- that the ignition switches were dangerously defective," the suit states. The suit seeks damages for breach of warranty and violations of federal and state consumer protection laws, including Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection law. Those statutes would allow owners to recover as much as three times the actual damages they incurred. Mr. Oven said one of the key issues the vehicle owners face now is the loss of resale value of their cars. "Who is going to buy these cars even with the remedy? They truly are damaged goods in every sense of the word," he said. Mrs. DePalma said she immediately called GM after getting the recall notice. It took some pressing, but the company agreed immediately to take the car in for repair and provide her grandson a rental vehicle. Kelly Ruddy, 21, of Scranton, was killed in 2010, when her Chevrolet Cobalt veered inexplicably off the highway and crashed. Mrs. DePalma said GM has not yet told her if it confirmed the switch in her grandson's car was defective. She is sure it was, given that the air bag never deployed in any of the crashes, all of which were front-end collisions. She said she hopes the lawsuit will help bring awareness to the public of their rights, and that she and her grandson will some day be fully reimbursed for their expenses. "He has to carry these accidents on his record for three years. I just want them to pay off his debt and make him happy," she said. GENERAL MOTORS: Halfshaft Defect Prompts Recall in Canada --------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: March 31, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Powertrain Units affected: 26757 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2014100 TC ID number: 2014100 Manufacturer recall number: 14079 On certain vehicles, the passenger side halfshaft could fracture and separate. If this were to occur while the vehicle is being driven, it could result in a loss of motive power. If this were to occur while the vehicle is parked on an incline without the parking brake applied, it could result in unintended vehicle movement. Both situations could increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or property damage. Correction: Dealers will replace affected halfshafts. Note: This recall supersedes recalls 2013323. Some vehicles that were inspected and/or repaired under the previous recall will need to be re-inspected and repaired if necessary. Makes and models affected Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- CHEVROLET CRUZE 2013, 2014 GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action in New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of Genworth Financial, Inc., has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class comprising all purchasers of Genworth securities between February 3, 2012 and April 17, 2012, inclusive. Please contact Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, toll-free at (888) 773-9224 or at (212) 682-5340, or by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this matter. Genworth is a financial services company and provides insurance, including life insurance, long-term care insurance and fixed annuity products, and investment and financial solutions in the United States and internationally. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants issued false and misleading statements or failed to disclose that: -- The Company was not adequately accounting for its loss reserves related to its Australian mortgage insurance unit, in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. -- Genworth had far greater exposure to anticipated losses and defaults than it had previously disclosed for its Australian book of business related to insurance written in the Queensland coastal area and insurance written in 2007 and 2008 to small business and self-employed borrowers. -- The Company failed to disclose known trends and uncertainties concerning an increase in claims and delinquencies associated with its Australian unit in the second half of 2011. The Complaint further alleges that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its outlook, including statements about the stability and outlook of the Company's Australian mortgage insurance unit or the Company's ability to complete an initial public offering of its Australian business unit in the second quarter of 2012. If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the Court no later than June 3, 2014, to serve as lead plaintiff, if you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, or contact Gregory Linkh, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP at 122 E. 42nd Street, Suite 2920, New York, New York 10168, at (212) 682-5340, by e- mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at http://www.glancylaw.com If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. HEWLETT-PACKARD: Judge Dismisses Laffen's ESOP Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Philip A. Janquart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a federal judge has thrown out claims that Hewlett-Packard Co. should have suspended employee investments after mismanagement destroyed stock prices. The December 2012 class action claimed that fiduciaries had the power to stop spending employee retirement funds on a tanking company, but continued to do so to the detriment of tens of thousands of retirement plans. With some 300,000 employees, HP has been mired with legal troubles, including a 2011 class action that said former CEO Leo Apotheker misled shareholders about corporate operations before he was fired. The company agreed to pay $57 million to settle the lawsuit. HP is also facing securities fraud and derivative lawsuits filed on behalf of shareholders for the disastrous $10.3 billion acquisition of the British software company Autonomy Corp., which led to a nearly $9 billion write-down of HP's assets in 2012. HP claims it is the victim of fraud by former Autonomy management members, Bloomberg reported. Mike Laffen is the lead plaintiff of the lawsuit U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer dismissed. He had claimed that those entrusted with investing funds from the Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) should have suspended investment in HP in light of the company's troubles and the freefall of stock prices that ensued. "The plan's fiduciaries were aware or should have been aware of internal and external warnings indicating HP had engaged in a series of strategic management blunders, wasting nearly $20 billion, which has destroyed HP's market position and credibility, and brought it to the verge of collapse, causing its stock price to fall approximately 76 percent," the complaint stated. Breyer nevertheless concluded that HP had an obligation to continue to invest the funds, citing the Moench presumption of prudence. In Moench v. Robertson, the 3rd Circuit addressed "to what extent" fiduciaries are liable for ESOPs under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). "The court concluded that only 'in limited circumstances, ESOP fiduciaries can be liable under ERISA for continuing to invest in employer stock according to the plan's direction," Breyer wrote. "Thus, when an employee benefit plan requires or encourages investment in employer's stock, plan fiduciaries are entitle to a strong presumption that they satisfied ERISA's prudence mandate by permitting plan participants to invest in their employer's stock." Laffen failed to duck the Moench presumption by saying because HP's ESOP does not "require or strongly encourage investment in the stock fund." "The plan requires that the HP Stock Fund be an ESOP offered as an investment option for plan participants," he wrote. "The argument hinges on plaintiffs' reading of the plan as providing the IRC 'the power to terminate, hold purchases of, or transfer assets out of the stock fund." Though HP's Investment Review Committee (IRC), which consist of top executives, does have that power, it does not apply to ESOPs, according to the ruling. "The funds other than the HP Stock fund are addressed in [the plan], which gives the IRC broad discretion to add, remove, or modify the investment funds available," he wrote. "Section 9(b), which applies to just the HP Stock Fund, provides no such discretion to the IRC and instead mandates that the 'stock fund shall be invested and reinvested primarily in [HP] stock.' Read together, these two sections unequivocally provide the IRC with broad discretion as to all investment funds offered under the plan, except for the HP Stock Fund." Breyer dismissed the action without prejudice. HORIZON DISTRIBUTORS: Recalls Snack Bars Due To Undeclared Milk --------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: March 28, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Horizon Distributors Ltd., Karma Nutritionals Distribution: National Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 8744 The food recall warning issued on March 20, 2014 has been updated to include additional codes. Industry is recalling Zing brand snack bars from the marketplace because they contain milk which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to milk should not consume the recalled products described below. If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of these products. This recall was triggered by a trade complaint. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled products from the marketplace. The table of the affected products is available at : http://is.gd/6WWaut The photos of the affected products is available at : http://is.gd/rwOoDE http://is.gd/4FGCx6 CFIA Media Relations 613-773-6600 HUNTING POINT: Regulators Face Residents' Ire Over Asbestos ----------------------------------------------------------- Patricia Sullivan, writing for Washington Post, reports that residents of one of Alexandria's largest affordable apartment complexes grilled federal regulators, local authorities and their landlord on April 5 over the discovery of asbestos during renovations of their homes, angrily asking why it took three months for officials to halt the work. Owners of the 530-unit Hunting Point on the Potomac, formerly Hunting Towers, received a rare stop-work order from the Environmental Protection Agency after inspectors discovered asbestos in the floors, doors and windows. The agency also found that workers were not taking legally required precautions. During four visits to the 63-year-old complex since the beginning of the year, EPA officials found crumbling asbestos in apartments, halls and trash areas where windows and floor tiles are being replaced. No notice of the danger was posted, the EPA said, and workers did not seal the area to protect residents. No certified supervisor was on the job, nor were workers certified in the task of removing hazardous materials. The EPA has ordered testing for airborne asbestos fibers. The stop-work order is an unusual action by the EPA; only five a year are typically issued, and they rarely involve occupied apartment buildings, an EPA spokeswoman said. The crowd of more than 100 that gathered at Alexandria's Lee Center to hear the EPA's explanations was angry and mistrustful of the buildings' owners and contractors. Some responses offered by officials drew scoffs and catcalls. "All the units should be sampled," said resident Crystal Kilby, who is a nurse. "I live there. I don't want my health compromised." "The thing I find most disconcerting is it was necessary for a resident to bring this to your attention," Doug Meckes said. "I'd like to know where the town of Alexandria was." "This isn't even negligence -- this is recklessness," said Stephanie Ackerman, who said she has been threatened with eviction for refusing to let contractors in her apartment to replace windows. Several parents testified that they worried about children who have crawled on or touched contaminated surfaces. Steve Boyack, senior vice president of the Laramar Group, the part-owner that manages the complex, said the company had been unaware that the buildings had asbestos in them until the EPA's stop-work notice arrived. Laramar immediately complied, he said, and will follow EPA regulations to resume work. Residents have been complaining about the renovations, possible asbestos and lead-paint contamination and rising rents for the past year, ever since the two eight-story buildings were sold by the Virginia Department of Transportation for $81 million to Laramar and the investment fund Lubert-Adler. The residents say that the city failed to take their complaints seriously. "Why, instead of responding to citizens and saving several months of exposure to asbestos and neurotoxins . . . why did you wait for the federal government to come in and do your job?" Chuck Benagh asked. City inspectors who checked the plumbing work at Hunting Point last summer found no evidence of asbestos because there was no insulation around the pipes, said John Catlett, the city's director of code enforcement. The city did no other inspections because it lacks the authority, spokesman Craig Fifer said. He added that the city referred residents to state and federal authorities that can perform the inspections. Other tenant complaints, lodged with the city's landlord-tenant office, focused on a lack of notice given by workers who sought access to apartments. Tenants' attempts to get the city to stop the construction failed; city officials said their hands were tied because of Virginia laws that favor property owners. The tenants also have been fighting rent increases, which they fear will force them out of the high-rises and into a rental market where more than 12,000 affordable apartments have disappeared since 2000. Some, upset that they now must pay utilities in addition to rent, opted for the insecurity of month- to-month agreements rather than signing a long-term lease with a higher rent. They accused Laramar of trying to force them out. "I realize that the owner has a right to improve the property and raise rents," said Maurice Barboza, a tenant since 1995 whose rent for an efficiency apartment rose from $795 to $1,096 per month. "My problem is that these buildings are not yet in market- rate condition. They are substandard in the middle of major renovations." Mr. Boyack acknowledged that there have been rent increases but said the 100 to 150 people most affected had not had increases since 2002, when VDOT froze rents in consideration of the disruption caused by the construction of the adjacent Woodrow Wilson Bridge. Sixty-two percent of tenants renewed their leases in 2013, Mr. Boyack said. "The intent is not to turn this into a new building," Mr. Boyack said in an interview. "It's more geared toward making it . . . a decent, safe and affordable place to live." On April 5, residents did not believe him. "This is a sham!" some shouted from the audience. "One lie after another!" HUSSONG MANUFACTURING: Recalls About 16,00 Gas Fireplaces --------------------------------------------------------- Reuters reports that Hussong Manufacturing Co. Inc. is recalling about 16,000 gas fireplaces and fireplace inserts after nine reports of explosions and two injuries, the Consumer Product Safety Commission said. The Lakefield, Minn., company is recalling 22 models sold under the brands Kozy Heat Fireplaces, Ambiance Fireplaces and Stellar Hearth Products, the agency said in a statement. Hussong has received nine reports of gas being released prematurely and exploding, causing minor property damage. There have been two reports of abrasions, it said. The gas fireplaces and fireplace inserts use American Flame brand control modules. They were manufactured in the United States between October 2009 and April 2013. The products were sold in Canada and the United States for between $1,450 and $3,325, the Consumer Product Safety Commission said. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled fireplaces and fireplace inserts, turn off the gas to the units and contact the dealer where the unit was purchased or Hussong Manufacturing to have the ignition board on the fireplace main control module replaced free of charge. INFINITY INSURANCE: Removed "Ramos" Class Suit to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit captioned Jose Ivan Ramos, et al. v. Infinity Insurance Company, et al., Case No. BC497863, was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14- cv-01151-JFW-CW to the proceeding. The case asserts insurance-related claims. The Plaintiffs are represented by: James M. Treglio, Esq. Laura M. Cotter, Esq. R. Craig Clark, Esq. CLARK AND MARKHAM LLP 401 West A Street, Suite 2200 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 239-1321 Facsimile: (619) 239-5888 E-mail: jtreglio@clarklawyers.com lcotter@clarklawyers.com cclark@clarklawyers.com - and - Sergio Feria, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SERGIO FERIA 625 Broadway, Suite 600 San Diego, CA 92101-5040 Telephone: (619) 234-8787 Facsimile: (619) 234-8509 E-mail: sergioferia@ferialaw.net The Defendants are represented by: Marc J. Feldman, Esq. Peter H. Klee, Esq. MCKENNA LONG AND ALDRIDGE LLP 600 West Broadway, Suite 2600 San Diego, CA 92101-3372 Telephone: (619) 236-1414 Facsimile: (619) 645-5389 E-mail: mfeldman@mckennalong.com pklee@mckennalong.com INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE: June 23 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set -------------------------------------------------------------- The following is being released by the law firm of Nexsen Pruet, LLC for the In re International Textile Group, Inc. Merger Litigation settlement. LEGAL NOTICE OF CLASS AND DERIVATIVE ACTION SETTLEMENT IN IN RE INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE GROUP, INC. MERGER LITIGATION WHAT'S THIS ABOUT? This "Notice of Settlement" relates to the proposed settlement in the lawsuit called In re International Textile Group, Inc. Merger Litigation, C.A. No. 2009-CP-23-3346. The Action is pending in the Court of Common Pleas in Greenville, South Carolina. The Action involves the merger on October 20, 2006, of two companies, Safety Components International, Inc. and the former International Textile Group, Inc., that Plaintiffs allege were controlled by Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., the investment company, W.L. Ross & Co., LLC, and certain of their affiliates. After the Merger, SCI was renamed the new International Textile Group, Inc. (or "NITG"; ticker: "ITXN"). This is a legal publication notice summarizing the terms of the Settlement. For a more comprehensive description of the Settlement, please refer to the Notice of Settlement approved by the Court at www.ITGMergerLitigation.com Capitalized terms used but not defined in this publication notice have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Notice. Plaintiffs allege that the Merger was not "entirely fair" to the SCI minority shareholders, that Mr. Ross and his affiliates breached their fiduciary duties to, and/or aided and abetted others in breaching their fiduciary duties to, SCI's minority shareholders and to NITG. Plaintiffs also allege gross negligence and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against RSM EquiCo Capital Markets LLC. Defendants denied all material allegations against them, and have asserted various affirmative defenses in the Action. The portion of the Action involving these claims on behalf of the SCI minority shareholders as of the date of the Merger is the "Class Action." The portion of the Action involving these claims on behalf of NITG is the "Derivative Action." The Court preliminarily approved the Settlement by Order dated February 19, 2014. The Court will hold a hearing on June 23, 2014, at 9:30 A.M. at the Greenville County Courthouse to determine (1) whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate for the Class and for NITG and should be granted final approval, (2) whether the Court should enter the proposed judgment dismissing the Action with prejudice, (3) whether the Court should grant Class/Derivative Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and expenses for the Class and Derivative Actions or award some other amount, and (4) whether the Court should grant incentive awards to the Class Representatives and, if so, in what amounts. If the Court approves the proposed Settlement, it will enter a judgment dismissing the Action, including both the Class and Derivative Actions, with prejudice, and all claims related to the Actions will be released. The Settlement has two parts: First, the "Class Action Settlement" relates to the settlement of the Class Action on behalf of the minority shareholders of SCI as of October 20, 2006. The proposed Class Action Settlement provides the Class with $10 million. Should the Court approve the Class Action Settlement, Class Counsel intend to request an attorneys' fee award totaling $3.5 million and reimbursement of expenses totaling $306,375.29 for a total of $3,806,375.29. Should the Court approve Class Counsel's request for fees and expenses, those funds would leave a balance of $6,193,624.71 for the Class. Certain fees of the Claims Administrator will also be deducted from the Class Action Settlement. The remaining balance, which Class Counsel estimates will be approximately $6 million, will be distributed to Class Members in accordance with the procedures discussed in the Notice. In addition, Class Counsel will also ask the Court to award $90,000 in incentive payments to the four Class Representative groups to compensate them for their time, effort, and services on behalf of the Class. These payments are in addition to benefits they will receive under the Class Action Settlement. The incentive payments will be paid out of the attorneys' fees awarded for the Class Action. Second, the "Derivative Action Settlement" relates to the settlement of the Derivative Action on behalf of NITG. The proposed Derivative Action Settlement provides $26 million cash and additional non-cash consideration to NITG. The non-cash consideration consists of the cancellation of certain debt and preferred stock, which the parties other than RSM agree has a value to NITG of $45 million. Should the Court approve the Derivative Action Settlement, Derivative Counsel intend to request an attorneys' fee award totaling $24.85 million and reimbursement of expenses totaling $2,246,752.13 for a total of $27,096,752.13. Should the Court approve this request, they would be paid from the $26 million in cash included in the Derivative Action Settlement Fund. To the extent the Court awards more than $26 million in fees and expenses to Derivative Counsel, Derivative Counsel intend to request the Court to order NITG to pay such amounts. The two parts of these settlements are interdependent. There will be no Settlement unless both parts are approved. The details of the Class and Derivative Action Settlements, including the consideration provided and the scope of the releases to be granted, can be found at www.ITGMergerLitigation.com WHO'S INCLUDED IN THE CLASS? The Class is defined as: "all persons who were minority stockholders of SCI as of the Merger of FITG into SCI on October 20, 2006, excluding Defendants and persons or entities affiliated with Defendants, and excluding all persons who would otherwise be members but whose damages do not exceed one hundred dollars -- i.e., all minority stock holders of [pre-merger] SCI (non-WLR affiliated stockholders) with damages in excess of $100." WHAT ARE YOUR OPTIONS AS A CLASS MEMBER? Class Members have the following options: (i) do nothing; (ii) submit a Proof of Claim to be eligible to receive a share of the Class Action Settlement Fund; (iii) object or comment on the Class Action Settlement, and/or; (iv) hire their own counsel at their own expense. If you believe that you may be a Class Member and want to submit a Proof of Claim in the Class Action lawsuit, you must submit to the Claims Administrator by June 16, 2014 a Proof of Claim. There are several requirements for completing and filing a valid Proof of Claim, which can be found at www.ITGMergerLitigation.com No Proof of Claim will be honored if submitted after the Claims Deadline unless special permission is granted. If you are a Class Member, you will be bound by any judgment or other disposition of this Action, even if you do not submit a Proof of Claim and even if your Proof of Claim is denied, in whole or in part, for any reason. The Claims Administrator will review your Proof of Claim and supporting documentation for timeliness and completeness and determine whether and to what extent you qualify for distribution from the Net Class Action Settlement Fund. If you are a Class Member, you also have the right to file an objection to, or a comment in support of, the proposed Class Action Settlement, Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and expenses regarding the Class Action, or the proposed payment of incentive awards to the Class Representatives. If you are a current shareholder of NITG, you also have the right to file an objection to, or comment in support of, the Derivative Action Settlement and Derivative Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and expenses regarding the Derivative Action. You must file your objection or statement with the Court by June 12, 2014. If you wish to be heard at the Settlement Hearing regarding an objection or comment, you must submit your objection or comment in writing. If the Court approves the Settlement, you will be bound by the terms of the Settlement. You also have the right, either personally or through an attorney retained by you, at your own expense, to seek to intervene in the Class Action. WHAT ARE YOUR OPTIONS AS A CURRENT SHAREHOLDER OF NITG? Current shareholders of NITG have the following options regarding the proposed Derivative Action Settlement: (i) do nothing; (ii) object or comment on the Derivative Action Settlement, and/or; (iii) hire your own counsel at their own expense. If you are a current shareholder of NITG, you have the right to file an objection to, or a comment in support of the proposed Derivative Action Settlement, or the proposed award of attorneys' fees and expenses regarding the Derivative Action. You must file your objection or statement with the Court by June 12, 2014. If you wish to be heard at the Settlement Hearing regarding an objection or comment, you must submit your objection or comment in writing and include in your comments a statement that you wish to be heard at the Settlement Hearing. If you have any questions, or would like more information, please contact the Claims Administrator, Rust Consulting, Inc., P.O. Box 3065, Faribault, MN 55021-2665. The telephone number and website are (866) 403-5449 and www.ITGMergerLitigation.com INVENTURE FOODS: Faces "Montantes" Class Suit in C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- Vanessa Montantes, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Inventure Foods d/b/a Boulder Canyon Natural Foods, Case No. 2:14-cv-01128-MWF-RZ (C.D. Cal., February 13, 2014) is brought on behalf of a proposed class of all persons situated in California, who place calls to Inventure that secretly have been, and are, recorded. Inventure Foods, doing business as Boulder Canyon Natural Foods, is an Arizona corporation with its headquarters in Goodyear, Arizona. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas D. Mauriello, Esq. MAURIELLO LAW FIRM, APC 1181 Puerta Del Sol, Suite 120 San Clemente, CA 92673 Telephone: (949) 542-3555 Facsimile: (949) 606-9690 E-mail: tomm@maurlaw.com - and - Rose F. Luzon, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 401 A Street, Suite 2350 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 235-2416 Facsimile: (619) 234-7334 E-mail: rluzon@sfmslaw.com - and - James C. Shah, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 35 E. State Street Media, PA 19063 Telephone: (610) 891-9880 Facsimile: (610) 891-9883 E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Monica D. Scott, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP 2000 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 595-3000 Facsimile: (310) 595-3300 E-mail: monica.scott@dlapiper.com KINDRED SPIRITS WHOLESALE: Recalls Shot Glasses Due To Lead ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 1, 2014 Posting date: April 1, 2014 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Chemicals Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Chemical Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-38737 Affected products Collage Shot Glasses imported by Kindred Spirits Wholesale Product description This recall involves four styles of shot glasses imported and distributed by Kindred Spirits Wholesale. The shot glasses are 2 Oz in size and contain a collage of images from various outdoor scenes. Each glass has lettering indicating one of the following: Product Description Item Number ------------------- ----------- Prince Edward Island 75039 Nova Scotia 400008 Nova Scotia 300008 New Brunswick 600008 Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has revealed that the recalled products contain lead and cadmium in excess of the allowable limits. These products were tested and determined to be non-compliant with the Glazed Ceramics and Glassware Regulations (GCGR) requirements for heavy metals. Lead and cadmium are known to be very toxic metals, especially for children. A range of serious health effects have been associated with exposure to lead and cadmium, including anemia, vomiting, diarrhea, serious brain injury, convulsions, coma, as well as effects related to the liver, kidneys, heart and immune system. In extreme cases, there have been deaths. Neither Health Canada nor Kindred Spirits Wholesale has received reports of incidents or illnesses related to the use of these products. For more information on the risks and symptoms of lead exposure, visit the Healthy Canadians page called Reduce your exposure to lead. Consumers may also visit Health Canada's Glazed Ceramics and Glassware Regulations - Dealer Information for information regarding the heavy metals in glazes. Number sold Approximately 616 of the recalled shot glasses were sold at various retailers in Canada. Time period sold The recalled products were sold from August 2013 to March 2014. Place of origin Manufactured in China. Companies Distributor Kindred Spirits Wholesale Kensington Prince Edward Island CANADA Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled products and contact Kindred Spirits Wholesale for a refund. For additional information, consumers may contact Kindred Spirits Wholesale at 1-800-665-2663 between 8:00 a.m and 5:00 p.m AST Monday through Friday, or by email. LENOVO INC: Recalls ThinkPad Battery Packs Due to Fire Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: March 27, 2014 Posting date: March 27, 2014 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Electronics Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Fire Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-38643 This recall involves Lenovo battery packs sold with the following ThinkPad notebook computers: the Edge 11, 13 and 14 series, the T410, T420, T510 and W510 series, and the X100e, X120e, X200, X201 and X201s series. The battery packs were also sold separately. Recalled battery packs have one of the following part numbers starting with the fourth digit in a long series of numbers and letters printed on a white sticker below the bar code on the battery pack: 42T4695, 42T4711, 42T4798, 42T4804, 42T4812, 42T4822, 42T4828, 42T4834, 42T4840 and 42T4890. The battery packs measure between 20 to 28 centimetres (8 to 11 inches) long, 2.5 to 7.5 centimetres (1 to 3 inches) wide and about 2.5 centimetres (1 inch) high. The battery packs can overheat, posing a fire hazard. Lenovo has received two reports in the United States of the battery packs overheating, resulting in damage to the computer, battery pack and nearby property. No injuries have been reported. Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use of this product. Approximately 2,900 units of the battery packs were sold in Canada and about 34,500 units in the United States. The recalled products were sold from April 2010 to April 2011 in Canada and the United States. Manufactured in China. Distributor Lenovo (Canada) Inc. North York Ontario CANADA The photos of the affected product is available at : http://is.gd/IMgrV5 http://is.gd/xWyUJ1 http://is.gd/DqAM6G http://is.gd/7sZaq6 Consumers should immediately turn off their ThinkPad notebook computer, remove the battery pack and contact Lenovo for a free replacement battery pack. Consumers can continue to use their ThinkPad notebook without the battery pack by plugging in the AC adapter and power cord. For more information, consumers can contact Lenovo toll-free at 1-800-426-7378 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST Monday through Friday or Lenovo's website and select Support at the top of the page, then click on the link to the recall page in the News and Alerts section at the bottom right of the page for more information. Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's website. Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given away in Canada. MARIAH RESOURCES: Failed to Pay for All Hours Worked, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Laurie Kursar v. Mariah Resources Inc., a California Corporation; Cory Kasinger, as an individual, James Kasinger, as an individual, and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-00484- KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal., February 13, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff was misclassified as an exempt employee and was not paid for all hours worked beyond eight hours a day and 40 hours a week. Because of her misclassification as a salaried exempt employee, Plaintiff was unaware, and never told, she was entitled to take meal and rest periods, Ms. Kursar contends. Mariah Resources Inc. is a California Corporation and the owner and operator of an industry, business and facility doing business in the state of California. The Defendants operate a business that works on wind turbine power generators throughout the United States and other countries. The Plaintiff is represented by: Galen T. Shimoda, Esq. Justin P. Rodriguez, Esq. Cassandra D. Shaft, Esq. SHIMODA LAW CORP. 9401 East Stockton Boulevard, Suite 200 Elk Grove, CA 95624 Telephone: (916) 525-0716 Facsimile: (916) 760-3733 E-mail: attorney@shimodalaw.com jrodriguez@shimodalaw.com cshaft@shimodalaw.com MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Investors File Class Action Amid Patent Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Chown, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that with Marvell Technology Group facing a $1 billion patent infringement judgment, shareholders filed a class action derivative complaint against the company and seven officers and directors. Founded in 1995 by defendant brothers Sehat and Pantas Sutardja, Marvell designs and develops semiconductors for major brands such as Hitachi, Toshiba and Samsung. Its stock is traded on the NASDAQ exchange under the ticker MRVL. Its headquarters is in the Silicon Valley, but it is a Bermuda company. Lead plaintiff Lee Voss claims that the defendants unjustly enriched themselves through fraud, wasted corporate assets and damaged shareholders by jeopardizing their dividends. Voss seeks restitution for the class, shareholder representation on Marvell's board and strengthened oversight, audits and other procedures. The 70-page complaint lists a litany of problems at Marvell, culminating in a 2012 judgment of $1.17 billion for patent infringement against Carnegie Mellon University. Marvell staff referring to its own chips as "coffee warmers" because of their ineffectiveness, and used Carnegie Mellon's technology without licensing it, according to the judgment. The jury awarded Carnegie Mellon the huge sum because Marvell willfully infringed for nearly a decade, ignoring warnings from its own engineers, requests from Carnegie Mellon to negotiate a license for the patents, and even concerns and questions from a customer. In all, Marvell sold 2.34 billion chips, at a profit margin of more than $2 per chip, using Carnegie Mellon's technology. The $1.17 billion judgment could be tripled because it was willful; the amount has yet to be determined. According to the complaint, Sehat Sutardja, the company president, and his co-defendant wife Weili Dai, the vice president and corporate secretary, who drives a Ferrari F430, live lavishly and have a history of financial misdealing. In 2001, Jasmine Networks, a competitor, claimed Marvell tried to steal its trade secrets and sued. Jasmine lost, and has appealed. In 2006, the Securities Exchange Commission found that Marvell's executives and directors had backdated stock options, illegally pocketing about $760 million. As a result of the SEC investigation, stock in Marvell dropped by 53 percent, from $35.32 a share on Jan. 27, 2006, to $16.37 on May 21, 2007, a loss of $10 billion. A suit filed by shareholders was settled for $55 million. After settling with the SEC, Dai paid a civil penalty of $500,000 and agreed not to serve as a director or officer in a public company for five years. A Marvel special committee recommended stripping CEO Sehat Sutardja of his chairman duties, but the board of directors didn't do it, according to the complaint. Despite the SEC ban, Dai received more than $15 million in compensation from Marvell in 2007 and 2008, and more than $6 million in 2012, the complaint states. In 2013, after the ban had expired, Dai was given a $400,000 bonus and a $10,000 raise to her annual base salary of $510,000. According to the lawsuit, the $3.5 billion Marvell may have to pay in damages is close to the company's current market value of $4.2 billion. Furthermore, Marvell is required to make 50-cent royalty payments on all infringing chips its sells, which is estimated to reduce the company's profits by 25 percent. Defendant board members Juergen Gromer, John Kassakian, Randhir Thakur and Arturo Krueger failed to prevent this and also are defendants, according to the complaint. Voss seeks class certification and damages for breach of fiduciary duty, failure to maintain adequate controls, and unjust enrichment and breach of duty of honest services against the Sutardjas and Dai. He is represented by Francis Bottini Jr. with Bottini & Bottini, of La Jolla. MIRACO FOOD: Recalls Cookie Products Due To Peanut Allergy ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: March 28, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Allergy Alert Subcategory: Allergen - Peanut Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Miraco Euro Food Ltd. Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 8690 The table of the affected products is available at : http://is.gd/nCXk1o Media enquiries CFIA Media Relations 613-773-6600 MIRACO FOOD: Recalls Cookie Products Due To Peanut Allergy ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: March 28, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Allergy Alert Subcategory: Allergen - Peanut Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Miraco Euro Food Ltd. Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 8690 The table of the affected products is available at : http://is.gd/nCXk1o Media enquiries CFIA Media Relations 613-773-6600 NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR: Wildlife Expert Testifies in Moose Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sue Bailey, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that other jurisdictions cut moose-vehicle crashes with highway fencing but Newfoundland and Labrador urged drivers to slow down, a wildlife expert testified on April 8 in a class-action lawsuit against the province. In Quebec, Alaska and Sweden, fencing "has been effectively keeping moose off the highway and has been effective in reducing moose-vehicle collisions," Tony Clevenger told provincial Supreme Court. Research on the success of moose fencing has been around for more than 10 years yet the province has instead relied on public awareness campaigns, roadside brush cutting and highway signs, he said. Moose collision lawsuit alleges Newfoundland was negligent Clevenger said he could find no evidence that the province tracked how well those measures worked. "It's extremely important that there be monitoring and research around these mitigation efforts to make proper decisions in future," he told Judge Robert Stack. Clevenger, a Montana State University wildlife ecologist based in Alberta, specializes in how to prevent vehicle collisions with animals. For example, he cited 60 kilometers of highway fencing between Quebec City and Saguenay, and 365 kilometers installed in New Brunswick, along with underpasses for moose and deer. He also referred to a 1996 article in the Wildlife Society Bulletin, a peer-reviewed scientific publication, that was based on a survey of state transportation agencies across the U.S. It found that 91 per cent of respondents believed highway fencing was successful in preventing highway collisions. That compared to 63 per cent for underpasses or overpasses, 24 per cent for public awareness efforts and 17 per cent for "habitat alteration," which may include brush cutting. Just seven per cent thought warning signs were successful and zero per cent said lower driving speeds or highway lighting worked. Brush clearing can have the unintended consequence of actually attracting wildlife to roadways, Clevenger testified. The lawsuit is led by victims of moose-vehicle crashes. It involves 135 plaintiffs, including at least 15 estates of those killed in collisions since 2001. The class was limited to injuries that required hospital admission. Plaintiffs are claiming unspecified damages as they seek to prove the province is liable for not doing more to limit risks created after the government introduced moose, a non-native species, to the island of Newfoundland more than a century ago. Clevenger said Newfoundland now has the highest moose density rate in North America with an average of 1.7 moose per square kilometer. Up to seven moose will be found per square kilometer in the most populated regions, he said. Clevenger said an average of about 660 moose-vehicle collisions happen each year. He said the latest research advises prevention efforts, such as fencing, be focused on "hot spots" where the most crashes occur. Such statistics can be drawn from transportation reports of animal road kill and police responses to accident scenes, he said. The province is defending its prevention efforts, including a limited fencing pilot project, more hunting licenses, brush cutting, public awareness campaigns and roadside warning devices. Plaintiffs say those measures weren't enough. Proceedings started on April 2 with testimony from Ben Bellows, who became a quadriplegic after his car hit a moose in 2003, and Jennifer Pilgrim, whose husband Roy died in 2009 when his vehicle collided with a moose. Adult moose weigh between 360 and 450 kilograms. The top-heavy animals tend to race onto roads with little or no warning and often crash over the hoods of vehicles into the windshield. The case is expected to be heard over three weeks. NNW LLC: Misrepresented "Healthy 100% Whey" Product, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia Ruhlman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. NNW, LLC and Hy-Vee, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-03039 (D. Neb., February 13, 2014) is brought on behalf of consumers, who purchased a whey protein product from Hy-Vee from 2009 until 2013 called NNW Healthy 100% Whey. Whey protein is a highly popular product given its ability, among other things, to aid in building and maintaining muscle mass, weight management, immune support, and bone health. The complaint alleges that Hy-Vee actively participated in the dissemination of the nutritional misrepresentations set forth on the Healthy 100% Whey label on its Web site, through its dieticians and in-store demonstrations, and on television. NNW, LLC is a Nebraska limited liability company headquartered in Gretna, Nebraska. Hy-Vee, Inc. is an Iowa corporation headquartered in West Des Moines, Iowa. Hy-Vee has at least 235 retail stores located in Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. The Plaintiff is represented by: Rod Rehm, Esq. REHM, BENNETT & MOORE, P.C., L.L.O. 3701 Union Drive, Suite 200 Lincoln, NE 68516 Telephone: (402) 474-2300 Facsimile: (402) 420-1508 E-mail: rodrehm@rehmlaw.com PIE PLACE: Recalls Cookie Products Due to Undeclared Milk --------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 1, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Soy, Allergen - Wheat Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: The Pie Place Distribution: Ontario Extent of the product distribution: Consumer CFIA reference number: 8749 The Pie Place is recalling various cookie products from the marketplace because they contain milk, wheat and soy which are not declared on the label. People with allergies to milk, wheat, or soy should not consume the recalled products described below. If you have an allergy to milk, wheat, or soy do not consume the recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported allergic reactions associated with the consumption of these products. This recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing the recalled product from the marketplace. A list of the affected products is available at: http://is.gd/wo6MLG Photos of the affected products are available at: http://is.gd/YAuqTi http://is.gd/zLE2kv Media enquiries CFIA Media Relations 613-773-6600 For more information The Pie Place, Embro ON: theschuts@pieplace.com PIERRE BELVEDERE: Recalls Toys Due To Mislabelling -------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 2, 2014 Posting date: April 2, 2014 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Toys, Chemicals Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Labelling and Packaging Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-38695 Affected products Clementoni(R) "Chemistry" Kit and Clementoni(R) "Chimie" Kit Products affected by this recall: Product Name Product number/SKU UPC ------------ ------------------ --- Chemistry 618415 8005125618415 Chimie 624386 8005125624386 Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has revealed that the recalled kits contain hazardous chemicals and have been sold in Canada without the required safety warning statements and labels. These labels direct the user to important safety information regarding use of the chemicals provided with the product. Neither Health Canada, nor Pierre BelvedŠre Inc. have received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use of these products. Approximately 302 of the recalled "Chemistry" kits (English version) and 1157 of the "Chimie" kits (French version) were sold in Canada. The recalled science education sets were sold from May 2012 to March 2014. Manufactured in Italy. Distributor Pierre BelvedŠre Inc. LaSalle Quebec CANADA Photos of the affected products are available at: http://is.gd/DwMkX3 http://is.gd/C2FEZ6 Consumers should immediately take the recalled kits away from children and return it to the store where purchased to obtain a credit. For further information, consumers may contact Pierre BelvedŠre Inc. at 1-514-286-2880 or 1-800-561-2358. Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given away in Canada. PIPELINE CARRIERS: Removed 1st "Concho" Suit to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Jerry Concho, et al. v. Pipeline Carriers Inc., et al., Case No. 30-2013-00649600-CU-0E, was removed from the Orange County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Santa Ana). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:14-cv-00232- DOC-AN to the proceeding. The case accuses the Defendants of failing to, among other things, pay all wages and overtime compensation. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Aaron A. Bartz, Esq. Ross E. Shanberg, Esq. SHANBERG STAFFORD AND BARTZ LLP 19200 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 400 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 622-5444 Facsimile: (949) 622-5448 E-mail: abartz@ssbfirm.com rshanberg@ssbfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Keith Allen Fink, Esq. Sarah E. Hernandez, Esq. FINK AND STEINBERG 11500 West Olympic Blvd., Suite 316 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 268-0780 Facsimile: (310) 268-0790 E-mail: kfink@finksteinberg.com shernandez@finklawfirm.com PIPELINE CARRIERS: Removed 2nd "Concho" Suit to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Jerry Concho, et al. v. Pipeline Carriers Inc., et al., Case No. 30201300649600CUOE, was removed from the Orange County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Central District pf California (Riverside). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-00289-JGB-DTB to the proceeding. The lawsuit seeks to recover unpaid wages, including overtime. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Aaron A. Bartz, Esq. Ross E. Shanberg, Esq. SHANBERG STAFFORD AND BARTZ LLP 19200 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 400 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 622-5444 Facsimile: (949) 622-5448 E-mail: abartz@ssbfirm.com rshanberg@ssbfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Keith Allen Fink, Esq. Sarah E. Hernandez, Esq. FINK AND STEINBERG 11500 West Olympic Blvd., Suite 316 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 268-0780 Facsimile: (310) 268-0790 E-mail: kfink@finksteinberg.com shernandez@finklawfirm.com REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR a Defendant in 5,131 Engle Progeny Cases --------------------------------------------------------------- As of December 31, 2013, RJR Tobacco was a defendant in 5,131 Engle Progeny cases in both state and federal courts in Florida. These cases include approximately 6,323 plaintiffs. Many of these cases are in active discovery or nearing trial, according to Reynolds American Inc.'s Feb. 11, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. In Engle v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a class-action filed in Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County, Florida, the class consisted of Florida citizens and residents, and their survivors, who suffer from or have died from diseases or medical conditions caused by an addiction to smoking. The action was brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. Trial began in July 1998. In July 1999, the Engle jury found against RJR Tobacco, B&W and the other defendants in the initial phase of the trial, which addressed alleged common issues related to the defendants' conduct, general causation, the addictiveness of cigarettes, and potential entitlement to punitive damages. On July 14, 2000, in the second phase of the trial, the jury returned a punitive damages verdict in favor of the class of approximately $145 billion, including verdicts of $36.3 billion and $17.6 billion against RJR Tobacco and B&W, respectively. On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court issued a ruling in 2006 that, while determining that the case could not proceed further as a class action, permitted members of the Engle class to file individual claims, including claims for punitive damages, through January 11, 2008. The decision preserved several of the Engle jury findings for use in adjudicating these subsequent individual actions, which are now known as Engle Progeny cases. Specifically, the Florida Supreme Court preserved a number of findings from Phase I of the trial, including findings that cigarettes can cause certain diseases, that nicotine is addictive, and that defendants placed defective cigarettes on the market, breached duties of care, and concealed health-related information about cigarettes. The court authorized former class members to file individual lawsuits within one year, and it stated that the preserved findings would have res judicata effect in those actions. In all Engle Progeny cases tried to date, a central issue has been the proper use of the preserved Engle findings. RJR Tobacco has argued that use of the Engle findings to establish individual elements of claims (such as defect, negligence and concealment) is a violation of federal due process. In 2013, both the Florida Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit rejected that argument. The Engle Progeny cases have resulted in increased litigation and trial activity, including an increased number of adverse verdicts, and increased expenses. To date, RJR Tobacco had paid $20,708,000 in compensatory damages and $62,380,000 in punitive damages, for a total of $83,088,000 in these cases. In addition, outstanding jury verdicts in favor of the Engle Progeny plaintiffs had been entered against RJR Tobacco in the amount of $111,459,200 in compensatory damages (as adjusted) and in the amount of $120,965,000 in punitive damages, for a total of $232,424,200. All of these verdicts are in various stages in the appellate process. Although RJR Tobacco cannot currently predict when or how much it may be required to pay, RJR Tobacco will likely be required to pay additional judgments as the litigation proceeds. According to the Company, an accrual of $11 million has been recorded in its consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2013 for nine Engle Progeny cases -- Jimmie Lee Brown, Sherman, Koballa, Ward, Duke, Walker, Hiott, Kirkland and Sury. This amount includes $5.4 million for compensatory and punitive damages and $5.6 million for attorneys' fees and statutory interest through December 31, 2013. During the fourth quarter of 2013, a payment of $305,000 was made in satisfaction of the adverse judgment in the Douglas case. Finally, payment in Ward, of $2.4 million was made on January 31, 2014. RAI also disclosed that various legal proceedings or claims, including litigation claiming cancer and other diseases, as well as addiction, have resulted from the use of, or exposure to, RAI's operating subsidiaries' products, and seeking damages in amounts ranging into the hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars, are pending or may be instituted against RJR Tobacco, American Snuff Co. or their affiliates, including RAI or RJR, or indemnitees, including B&W. Unfavorable judgments have been returned in a number of tobacco-related cases and state enforcement actions. As of December 31, 2013, RJR Tobacco had paid approximately $114 million since January 1, 2011, related to unfavorable smoking and health litigation judgments and $139 million related to an unfavorable smoking cessation case. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Still Facing DeLoach Case ------------------------------------------------ Reynolds American Inc., disclosed in its Feb. 11, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013, that in 2004, RJR Tobacco and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. separately settled the antitrust case DeLoach v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., which was brought by a unique class of plaintiffs: a class of all tobacco growers and tobacco allotment holders. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendants conspired to fix the price of tobacco leaf and to destroy the federal government's tobacco quota and price support program. Despite legal defenses they believed to be valid, RJR Tobacco and B&W separately settled this case to avoid a long and contentious trial with the tobacco growers. The DeLoach case and the antitrust case currently pending against RJR Tobacco and B&W involve different types of plaintiffs and different theories of recovery under the antitrust laws than the smoking and health cases pending against RJR Tobacco and its affiliates and indemnitees. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Trial Date Set in 9 Lawsuits v. RJR Tobacco -------------------------------------------------------------- There are nine cases, exclusive of the Engle Progeny cases, scheduled for trial as of December 31, 2013 through December 31, 2014 for RJR Tobacco, including one class action, according to Reynolds American Inc.'s Feb. 11, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. Trial schedules are subject to change, and many cases are dismissed before trial. It is likely that RJR Tobacco and other cigarette manufacturers will have an increased number of tobacco- related trials in 2014. There are nine cases, exclusive of Engle Progeny cases, scheduled for trial as of December 31, 2013 through December 31, 2014, for RJR Tobacco or its affiliates and indemnitees: two non-smoking and health cases, six individual smoking and health cases and one class action. There are 65 Engle Progeny cases against RJR Tobacco and/or Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. set for trial through December 31, 2014, but it is not known how many of these cases will actually be tried. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 2,572 Broin II Cases Still Pending in Florida ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc., disclosed in its Feb. 11, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013, that as of Dec. 31 there were 2,572 Broin II lawsuits pending in Florida. There have been no Broin II trials since 2007. RJR Tobacco, Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. and other cigarette manufacturer defendants settled Broin v. Philip Morris, Inc. in October 1997. This case had been brought in Florida state court on behalf of flight attendants alleged to have suffered from diseases or ailments caused by exposure to ETS in airplane cabins. The settlement agreement required the participating tobacco companies to pay a total of $300 million in three annual $100 million installments, allocated among the companies by market share, to fund research on the early detection and cure of diseases associated with tobacco smoke. It also required those companies to pay a total of $49 million for the plaintiffs' counsel's fees and expenses. RJR Tobacco's portion of these payments was approximately $86 million; B&W's portion of these payments was approximately $57 million. The settlement agreement bars class members from bringing aggregate claims or obtaining punitive damages and also bars individual claims to the extent that they are based on fraud, misrepresentation, conspiracy to commit fraud or misrepresentation, RICO, suppression, concealment or any other alleged intentional or willful conduct. The defendants agreed that, in any individual case brought by a class member, the defendant will bear the burden of proof with respect to whether ETS can cause certain specifically enumerated diseases, referred to as "general causation." With respect to all other issues relating to liability, including whether an individual plaintiff's disease was caused by his or her exposure to ETS in airplane cabins, referred to as "specific causation," the individual plaintiff will have the burden of proof. On Sept. 7, 1999, the Florida Supreme Court approved the settlement. The Broin II cases arose out of the settlement of this case. On October 5, 2000, the Broin court entered an order applicable to all Broin II cases that the terms of the Broin settlement agreement do not require the individual Broin II plaintiffs to prove the elements of strict liability, breach of warranty or negligence. Under this order, there is a rebuttable presumption in the plaintiffs' favor on those elements, and the plaintiffs bear the burden of proving that their alleged adverse health effects actually were caused by exposure to ETS in airplane cabins, that is, specific causation. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Subsidiaries Face Eight Collective Suits in US ----------------------------------------------------------------- As of December 31, 2013, eight class-action cases were pending in the United States against RJR Tobacco or its affiliates or indemnitees, according to Reynolds American Inc.'s Feb. 11, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. In 1996, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Castano v. American Tobacco Co. overturned the certification of a nation- wide class of persons whose claims related to alleged addiction to tobacco products. Since this ruling by the Fifth Circuit, most class-action suits have sought certification of state-wide, rather than nation-wide, classes. Class-action suits based on claims similar to those asserted in Castano or claims that class members are at a greater risk of injury or injured by the use of tobacco or exposure to ETS are pending against RJR Tobacco and its affiliates and indemnitees in state or federal courts in California, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, and West Virginia. All pending class-action cases are discussed. The pending class actions against RJR Tobacco or its affiliates or indemnitees include four cases alleging that the use of the term "lights" constitutes unfair and deceptive trade practices under state law or violates the federal RICO statute. Such suits are pending in state or federal courts in Illinois and Missouri and are called the 'Lights' Cases. Finally, certain third-party payers have filed health-care cost recovery actions in the form of class actions. These cases are called "Health-Care Cost Recovery Cases." Few smoker class-action complaints have been certified or, if certified, have survived on appeal. Eighteen federal courts, including two courts of appeals, and most state courts that have considered the issue have rejected class certification in such cases. Apart from the Castano case, only two smoker class actions have been certified by a federal court -- In re Simon (II) Litigation, and Schwab [McLaughlin] v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., both of which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York and ultimately decertified. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Nov. Trial in Camel Cash Certificates Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Trial is scheduled for November 4, 2014, in a case filed against R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. on behalf of all persons who tried unsuccessfully to redeem Camel Cash certificates, according to Reynolds American Inc.'s Feb. 11, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. In Sateriale v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a class action filed in November 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of all persons who tried unsuccessfully to redeem Camel Cash certificates from 1991 through March 31, 2007, or who held Camel Cash certificates as of March 31, 2007. The plaintiffs allege that in response to the defendants' action to discontinue redemption of Camel Cash as of March 31, 2007, customers, like the plaintiffs, attempted to exchange their Camel Cash for merchandise and that the defendants, however, did not have any merchandise to exchange for Camel Cash. The plaintiffs allege unfair business practices, deceptive practices, breach of contract and promissory estoppel. The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, actual damages, costs and expenses. In January 2010, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which prompted the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint in February 2010. The class definition changed to a class consisting of all persons who reside in the U.S. and tried unsuccessfully to redeem Camel Cash certificates, from October 1, 2006 (six months before the defendant ended the Camel Cash program) or who held Camel Cash certificates as of March 31, 2007. The plaintiffs also brought the class on behalf of a proposed California subclass, consisting of all California residents meeting the same criteria. In May 2010, RJR Tobacco's motion to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction over subject matter and, alternatively, for failure to state a claim was granted with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. In July 2010, RJR Tobacco's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was granted with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, and RJR Tobacco filed a motion to dismiss in September 2010. In December 2010, the court granted RJR Tobacco's motion to dismiss with prejudice. Final judgment was entered by the court, and the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, in January 2011. In July 2012, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims under the Unfair Competition Law and the Consumer Legal Remedies Acts and reversed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims for promissory estoppel and breach of contract. RJR Tobacco's motion for rehearing or rehearing en banc was denied in October 2012. RJR Tobacco filed its answer to the plaintiffs' third amended complaint in December 2012. Trial is scheduled for November 4, 2014. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Tobacco, B&W Still Face Lights Cases ----------------------------------------------------------- "Lights" class-action cases are pending against RJR Tobacco or Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. in Illinois (2) and Missouri (2), according to Reynolds American Inc.'s Feb. 11, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. The classes in these cases generally seek to recover $50,000 to $75,000 per class member for compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and other forms of relief, and attorneys' fees and costs from RJR Tobacco and/or B&W. In general, the plaintiffs allege that RJR Tobacco or B&W made false and misleading claims that "lights" cigarettes were lower in tar and nicotine and/or were less hazardous or less mutagenic than other cigarettes. The cases typically are filed pursuant to state consumer protection and related statutes. Many of these "lights" cases were stayed pending review of the Good v. Altria Group, Inc. case by the U.S. Supreme Court. In that "lights" class-action case against Altria Group, Inc. and Philip Morris USA, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that these claims are not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act or by the Federal Trade Commission's, referred to as FTC, historic regulation of the industry. Since this decision in December 2008, a number of the stayed cases have become active again. The seminal "lights" class-action case involves RJR Tobacco's competitor, Philip Morris, Inc. Trial began in Price v. Philip Morris, Inc. in January 2003. In March 2003, the trial judge entered judgment against Philip Morris in the amount of $7.1 billion in compensatory damages and $3 billion in punitive damages. Based on Illinois law, the bond required to stay execution of the judgment was set initially at $12 billion. Philip Morris pursued various avenues of relief from the $12 billion bond requirement. On December 15, 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision and sent the case back to the trial court with instructions to dismiss the case. On December 5, 2006, the trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss and for entry of final judgment. The case was dismissed with prejudice the same day. In December 2008, the plaintiffs filed a petition for relief from judgment, stating that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Good v. Altria Group, Inc. rejected the basis for the reversal. The trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' petition for relief from judgment in February 2009. In March 2009, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth Judicial District, requesting a reversal of the February 2009 order and remand to the circuit court. On February 24, 2011, the appellate court entered an order, concluding that the two-year time limit for filing a petition for relief from a final judgment began to run when the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' lawsuit on December 18, 2006. The appellate court therefore found that the petition was timely, reversed the order of the trial court, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Philip Morris filed a petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court. On September 28, 2011, the Illinois Supreme Court denied Philip Morris's petition for leave to appeal and returned the case to the trial court for further proceedings. In December 2012, the trial court denied the plaintiffs' petition for relief from the judgment. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth Judicial District. Oral argument occurred on October 23, 2013. A decision is pending. In Turner v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in February 2000 in Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, a judge certified a class in November 2001. In June 2003, RJR Tobacco filed a motion to stay the case pending Philip Morris's appeal of the Price v. Philip Morris Inc. case, which the judge denied in July 2003. In October 2003, the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals denied RJR Tobacco's emergency stay/supremacy order request. In November 2003, the Illinois Supreme Court granted RJR Tobacco's motion for a stay pending the court's final appeal decision in Price. On October 11, 2007, the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals dismissed RJR Tobacco's appeal of the court's denial of its emergency stay/supremacy order request and remanded the case to the Circuit Court. A status conference is scheduled for May 28, 2014. In Howard v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., another case filed in February 2000 in Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, a judge certified a class in December 2001. In June 2003, the trial judge issued an order staying all proceedings pending resolution of the Price v. Philip Morris, Inc. case. The plaintiffs appealed this stay order to the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Circuit Court's stay order in August 2005. There is currently no activity in the case. A "lights" class-action case is pending against each of RJR Tobacco and B&W in Missouri. In Collora v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in May 2000 in Circuit Court, St. Louis County, Missouri, a judge in St. Louis certified a class in December 2003. In April 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to reassign Collora and the following cases to a single general division: Craft v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc. and Black v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. In April 2008, the court stayed the case pending U.S. Supreme Court review in Good v. Altria Group, Inc. A nominal trial date of January 10, 2011 was scheduled, but it did not proceed at that time. A status conference is scheduled for February 2, 2015. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Young" Stayed Pending Compliance in "Scott" --------------------------------------------------------------- The Circuit Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana entered an order staying the case Young v. American Tobacco Co., Inc. pending the implementation of the smoking cessation program ordered by the court in Scott v. The American Tobacco Co., according to Reynolds American Inc.'s Feb. 11, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. In Young v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., a case filed in November 1997 in Circuit Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, the plaintiffs brought an ETS class action against U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. (B&W), and parent companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, on behalf of all residents of Louisiana who, though not themselves cigarette smokers, have been exposed to secondhand smoke from cigarettes which were manufactured by the defendants, and who allegedly suffered injury as a result of that exposure. The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages. In March 2013, the court entered an order staying the case, including all discovery, pending the implementation of the smoking cessation program ordered by the court in Scott v. The American Tobacco Co. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Parsons" Asbestos Suit v. Subsidiaries Stayed ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case Parsons v. A C & S, Inc., which names RJR Tobacco and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. (B&W), was stayed after three defendants filed bankruptcy petitions, according to Reynolds American Inc.'s Feb. 11, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. In Parsons v. A C & S, Inc., a case filed in February 1998 in Circuit Court, Ohio County, West Virginia, the plaintiff sued asbestos manufacturers, U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., and parent companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, seeking to recover $1 million in compensatory and punitive damages individually and an unspecified amount for the class in both compensatory and punitive damages. The class was brought on behalf of persons who allegedly have personal injury claims arising from their exposure to respirable asbestos fibers and cigarette smoke. The plaintiffs allege that Mrs. Parsons' use of tobacco products and exposure to asbestos products caused her to develop lung cancer and to become addicted to tobacco. In December 2000, three defendants, Nitral Liquidators, Inc., Desseaux Corporation of North American and Armstrong World Industries, filed bankruptcy petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, In re Armstrong World Industries, Inc. Pursuant to section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, Parsons is automatically stayed with respect to all defendants. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Unit Still Faces 7 Canadian Lawsuits ----------------------------------------------------------- Seven putative Canadian class actions were filed against various Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco, according to Reynolds American Inc.'s Feb. 11, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. The following seven putative Canadian class actions were filed against various Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, in courts in the Provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Saskatchewan, although the plaintiffs' counsel have been actively pursuing only the action pending in British Columbia at this time: (i) In Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case filed in July 2009 in the Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleging her own addiction and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease resulting from the use of tobacco products, is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all individuals who were alive on July 10, 2009, and who have suffered, or who currently suffer, from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, heart disease or cancer, after having smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported, marketed or distributed by the defendants, as well as disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants. RJR Tobacco and its affiliate have brought a motion challenging the jurisdiction of the Saskatchewan court. A decision is pending. (ii) In Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case filed in June 2009, in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleging her own addiction and chronic bronchitis resulting from the use of tobacco products, is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all individuals, including their estates, dependents and family members, who purchased or smoked cigarettes designed, manufactured, marketed or distributed by the defendants, as well as restitution of profits and reimbursement of government expenditure for health-care benefits allegedly caused by the use of tobacco products. (iii) In Kunka v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case filed in 2009 in the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleging her own addiction and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, severe asthma and lung disease resulting from the use of tobacco products, is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all individuals, including their estates, and their dependents and family members, who purchased or smoked cigarettes manufactured by the defendants, as well as restitution of profits and reimbursement of government expenditure for health care benefits allegedly caused by the use of tobacco products. (iv) In Semple v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case filed in June 2009 in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleging his own addiction and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease resulting from the use of tobacco products, is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all individuals, including their estates, dependents and family members, who purchased or smoked cigarettes designed, manufactured, marketed or distributed by the defendants for the period from January 1, 1954, to the expiry of the opt out period as set by the court, as well as restitution of profits and reimbursement of government expenditure for health-care costs allegedly caused by the use of tobacco products. (v) In Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, a case filed in June 2010 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, the heir to a deceased smoker, alleging that the deceased was addicted to and suffered emphysema resulting from the use of tobacco products, is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all individuals, including their estates, who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who have suffered, or who currently suffer from chronic respiratory diseases, after having smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported, marketed, or distributed by the defendants, as well as disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January 1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed. RJR Tobacco and its affiliate have filed a challenge to the jurisdiction of the British Columbia court. A decision is pending. The plaintiff filed a motion for certification in April 2012, and filed affidavits in support in August 2013. (vi) In McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, a case filed in June 2010 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleging his own addiction and heart disease resulting from the use of tobacco products, is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all individuals, including their estates, who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who have suffered, or who currently suffer from heart disease, after having smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported, marketed, or distributed by the defendants, as well as disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January 1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed. RJR Tobacco and its affiliate have filed a challenge to the jurisdiction of the British Columbia court. A decision is pending. (vii) In Jacklin v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case filed in June 2012 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleging her own addiction and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease resulting from the use of tobacco products, is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all individuals, including their estates, who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who have suffered, or who currently suffer from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart disease, or cancer, after having smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported, marketed, or distributed by the defendants, as well as restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government expenditure for health-care benefits allegedly caused by the use of tobacco products. In each of these seven cases, the plaintiffs allege fraud, fraudulent concealment, breach of warranty, breach of warranty of merchantability and of fitness for a particular purpose, failure to warn, design defects, negligence, breach of a "special duty" to children and adolescents, conspiracy, concert of action, unjust enrichment, market share liability, joint liability, and violations of various trade practices and competition statutes. Pursuant to the terms of the 1999 sale of RJR Tobacco's international tobacco business, RJR Tobacco has tendered the defense of these seven actions to JTI. Subject to a reservation of rights, JTI has assumed the defense of RJR Tobacco and its current or former affiliates in these actions. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Parties in "Smith" Suit Await Appeal Ruling -------------------------------------------------------------- Parties in the antitrust suit Smith v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., await a decision from the court regarding plaintiffs appeal of a decision granting summary judgment in favor of RJR Tobacco and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. (B&W), according to Reynolds American Inc.'s Feb. 11, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. A number of tobacco wholesalers and consumers have sued U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and B&W, in federal and state courts, alleging that cigarette manufacturers combined and conspired to set the price of cigarettes in violation of antitrust statutes and various state unfair business practices statutes. In these cases, the plaintiffs asked the court to certify the lawsuits as class actions on behalf of other persons who purchased cigarettes directly or indirectly from one or more of the defendants. As of December 31, 2013, all of the federal and state court cases on behalf of indirect purchasers had been dismissed. In Smith v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., a case filed in February 2000, and pending in District Court, Seward County, Kansas, the court granted class certification in November 2001, in an action brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and B&W, and the parent companies of the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, seeking to recover an unspecified amount in actual and punitive damages. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants participated in a conspiracy to fix or maintain the price of cigarettes sold in the United States. In an opinion dated March 23, 2012, the court granted summary judgment in favor of RJR Tobacco and B&W on the plaintiffs' claims. On July 18, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. A hearing on the appeal occurred on December 11, 2013, and the parties await a decision from the court. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Dismissal of Tobacco Growers' Claim Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- A motion to dismiss has been filed in a Statement of Claim filed by the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board against JTI Macdonald Corp., according to Reynolds American Inc.'s Feb. 11, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. By purchase agreement dated March 9, 1999, amended and restated as of May 11, 1999, referred to as the 1999 Purchase Agreement, RJR and RJR Tobacco sold the international tobacco business to Japan Tobacco Inc. (JTI). Under the 1999 Purchase Agreement, RJR and RJR Tobacco retained certain liabilities relating to the international tobacco business sold to JTI. Under its reading of the indemnification provisions of the 1999 Purchase Agreement, JTI has requested indemnification for damages allegedly arising out of these retained liabilities. As previously reported, a number of the indemnification claims between the parties relating to the activities of Northern Brands in Canada have been resolved. In one matter for which JTI has requested indemnification for damages under the indemnification provisions of the 1999 Purchase Agreement: JTI has sought indemnification relating to a Statement of Claim filed on April 23, 2010, against JTI Macdonald Corp., referred to as JTI-MC, by the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board, referred to as the Board, Andy J. Jacko, Brian Baswick, Ron Kichler, and Aprad Dobrenty, proceeding on their own behalf and on behalf of a putative class of Ontario tobacco producers that sold tobacco to JTI-MC during the period between January 1, 1986, and December 31, 1996, referred to as the Class Period, through the Board pursuant to certain agreements. The Statement of Claim seeks recovery for damages allegedly incurred by the class representatives and the putative class for tobacco sales during the Class Period made at the contract price for duty free or export cigarettes with respect to cigarettes that, rather than being sold duty free or for export, purportedly were sold in Canada, which allegedly breached one or more of a series of contracts dated between June 4, 1986, and July 3, 1996. A motion to dismiss has been filed. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Appeal in "Villarreal" Age Bias Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiff's motion to certify for immediate appeal a trial court's prior dismissal of plaintiff's disparate impact and time- barred claims in Richard Villarreal v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. is pending, according to Reynolds American Inc.'s Feb. 11, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. In Richard Villarreal v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed June 6, 2012, the plaintiff filed a collective action complaint against R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Pinstripe, Inc., and CareerBuilder, LLC, in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia. The complaint alleges unlawful discrimination with respect to the hiring of individuals to fill entry-level regional sales positions in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (29 U.S.C. Section 621, et seq.). Although the complaint is currently a single plaintiff case, the complaint seeks collective/class action status. RJR Tobacco's and Pinstripe's motion for partial dismissal was granted on March 6, 2013, thereby eliminating the plaintiff's disparate impact claim and limiting the relevant time period for both the plaintiff's claims and potential class claims. RJR Tobacco and Pinstripe filed answers to the remaining disparate treatment claim on March 20, 2013. Defendant CareerBuilder was dismissed with prejudice on September 25, 2012. The plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint on March 28, 2013, which was denied by the court on November 26, 2013. Discovery is currently proceeding. The plaintiff's Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) motion to certify for immediate appeal trial court's prior dismissal of plaintiff's disparate impact and time-barred claims is pending. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Tatum" Plaintiffs Appeal Case Dismissal ----------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal against the dismissal of the suit Tatum v. The R.J.R. Pension Investment Committee of the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company Capital Investment Plan, according to Reynolds American Inc.'s Feb. 11, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. In May 2002, in Tatum v. The R.J.R. Pension Investment Committee of the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company Capital Investment Plan, an employee of RJR Tobacco filed a class-action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, alleging that the defendants, RJR, RJR Tobacco, the RJR Employee Benefits Committee and the RJR Pension Investment Committee, violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, referred to as ERISA. The actions about which the plaintiff complains stem from a decision made in 1999 by RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp., subsequently renamed Nabisco Group Holdings Corp., referred to as NGH, to spin off RJR, thereby separating NGH's tobacco business and food business. As part of the spin- off, the 401(k) plan for the previously related entities had to be divided into two separate plans for the now separate tobacco and food businesses. The plaintiff contends that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to participants of the RJR 401(k) plan when the defendants removed the stock funds of the companies involved in the food business, NGH and Nabisco Holdings Corp., referred to as Nabisco, as investment options from the RJR 401(k) plan approximately six months after the spin-off. The plaintiff asserts that a November 1999 amendment (the "1999 Amendment") that eliminated the NGH and Nabisco funds from the RJR 401(k) plan on January 31, 2000, contained sufficient discretion for the defendants to have retained the NGH and Nabisco funds after January 31, 2000, and that the failure to exercise such discretion was a breach of fiduciary duty. In his complaint, the plaintiff requests, among other things, that the court require the defendants to pay as damages to the RJR 401(k) plan an amount equal to the subsequent appreciation that was purportedly lost as a result of the liquidation of the NGH and Nabisco funds. In July 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the court granted in December 2003. In December 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the complaint, holding that the 1999 Amendment did contain sufficient discretion for the defendants to have retained the NGH and Nabisco funds as of February 1, 2000, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court granted the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint and denied all pending motions as moot. In April 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing all claims against the RJR Employee Benefits Committee and the RJR Pension Investment Committee. The remaining defendants, RJR and RJR Tobacco, filed their answer and affirmative defenses in June 2007. The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, which the court granted in September 2008. The district court ordered mediation, but no resolution of the case was reached. In September 2008, each of the plaintiffs and the defendants filed motions for summary judgment, and in January 2009, the defendants filed a motion to decertify the class. A second mediation occurred in June 2009, but again no resolution of the case was reached. The district court overruled the motions for summary judgment and the motion to decertify the class. A non-jury trial was held in January and February 2010. During closing arguments, the plaintiff argued for the first time that certain facts arising at trial showed that the 1999 Amendment was not validly adopted, and then moved to amend his complaint to conform to this evidence at trial. On June 1, 2011, the court granted the plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint and found that the 1999 Amendment was invalid. The parties filed their findings of fact and conclusions of law on February 4, 2011. On February 25, 2013, the district court dismissed the case with prejudice. On March 8, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. Oral argument was scheduled for March 18, 2014. SHOWMARK MEDIA: Removed "Bontrager" Suit to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Nicholas Bontrager v. Showmark Media LLC, et al., Case No. BC532628, was removed from the Superior Court of the state of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14- cv-01144-MMM-E to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee Paul Mankin, IV, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF L. PAUL MANKIN IV 8730 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 310 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (800) 219-3577 Facsimile: (323) 207-3885 E-mail: pmankin@paulmankin.com The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld, Esq. Karl S. Kronenberger, Esq. KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD LLP 150 Post Street Suite 520 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 955-1155 Facsimile: (415) 955-1158 E-mail: jeff@KRInternetlaw.com karl@KRInternetlaw.com SKINNY CRISPS: Removed "Agazanof" Class Suit to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Asaf Agazanof v. Skinny Crisps, Inc., Case No. BC532760, was removed from the Superior Court of the state of California for Los Angeles County to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv- 01125-DDP-SH to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee Paul Mankin, IV, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF L. PAUL MANKIN IV 8730 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 310 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (800) 219-3577 Facsimile: (323) 207-3885 E-mail: pmankin@paulmankin.com The Defendant is represented by: Megan Hayati, Esq. Samuel Y. Edgerton, III, Esq. EDGERTON & WEAVER LLP 2615 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 300 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Telephone: (310) 937-2066 Facsimile: (310) 937-2064 E-mail: mhayati@edgertonweaver.com sedgerton@edgertonweaver.com SOCIETE DES ALCOOLS: Recalls Chartreuse Products ------------------------------------------------ Starting date: March 28, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Chemical Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Societe des Alcools Du Quebec Distribution: Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 8728 Brand name Common name Size Code(s) on product UPC ---------- ----------- ---- ------------------ --- Chartreuse Chartreuse(Green) 375 ml L929353 3 023480 110370 Media enquiries CFIA Media Relations 613-773-6600 For more information, consumers and industry can contact the CFIA by filling out the online feedback form. SPRINT CORP: Settles Action Over Use of Right-of-Way Easements -------------------------------------------------------------- Some 60,000 present and past Texas landowners on some 3,200 miles of land stand to receive millions of dollars in cash and other benefits as a result of a class action settlement agreement with three of the nation's largest telecommunications companies. In return, Sprint, Qwest and Level 3 Communications will be able to resolve difficult real estate problems and potential liability arising out of their installation of fiber-optic-cable networks in Texas without the consent of the landowners. The case is pending in the federal court in Beaumont, Texas, where both sides have filed briefs and presented oral arguments requesting preliminary approval of the class settlement by U.S. District Judge Ron Clark. The landowners' announcement of this settlement follows the recent U. S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust, et al. v. United States, which defined the limits on permitted uses of railroad right-of-way easements. According to the landowners' lawyers, the Texas settlement is an application of the Brandt Court's reasoning. In Brandt, the Court explained that the "essential features of easements . . . are well settled as a matter of property law," and "granting an easement merely gives the grantee the right to enter and use the grantor's land for a certain purpose." The landowners' lawyers say the same analysis supports this settlement. All qualified landowners who file claims will be paid without regard to any railroad's claim that it owns broader rights than railroad use. The settlement will end nearly fifteen years of litigation over real estate rights and alleged trespass and unjust enrichment claims. It follows approval of similar settlements by federal courts in 40 other states. Like the 40 other settlements, the Texas settlement terms require the defendant companies to pay farmers, ranchers, homeowners, businesses and other landowners for past use of the land and for future use of portions of the land that will be subject to limited easements that the companies will receive. Thus, the companies will benefit from removal of a threat to their ability to maintain their fiber-optic-cable networks in Texas. Paul Drawhorn of Beaumont, Texas filed the class action in 1999 and is named as a class representative. He said that some people call his lawsuit a "David and Goliath battle," but he says it has been "more like a war than a battle." Mr. Drawhorn explains, "we had to fight three Goliaths, not just one." "Besides," he says, "in the biblical story, David's battle probably lasted a few minutes with the sling of a single stone, not fifteen years of slinging arguments in courts. I wish we could have reached this settlement years ago." According to the lawyers, most of the nearly fifteen years of delay were caused by procedural motions, appeals and other disputes in related cases across the nation. But the lawyers are concerned that landowners are facing additional delays in Texas. Statistics compiled by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts show that the Eastern District of Texas federal court has the third heaviest caseload per judge of all 94 U.S. district courts. Also, two of the eight judgeship positions in the district are vacant. Delays are a concern where judges face so many demands on their time, the lawyers said. However, now that the causes for delays in other states have been resolved, the lawyers believe this case can proceed efficiently. Both Judge Clark and federal judges in 40 other states have heard arguments about the same issues of fairness, notice and claims administration, involving the same kinds of claims by landowners against the same defendants. In all of those 40 cases, federal courts have approved the settlements. The next step necessary for conclusion of the settlement will be for Judge Clark to issue an order of preliminary approval so that notices may be sent to the Texas landowners. Any class members who wish to opt out of the settlement and retain their individual rights may do so. Also, any class members who wish to do so may object and appear at a final fairness hearing to voice their concerns. After considering any additional filings or objections that may be made, the Court may grant final approval. Only when the process is completed will Texas landowners receive just compensation, say the landowners' lawyers, and only then can the defendant companies be secure in the future use of their fiber-optic-cable networks. SUNRISE BAKERY: Recalls Cookie Products Due To Undeclared Milk -------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: March 31, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Sunrise Bakery Ltd. Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Possibly National, Saskatchewan Extent of the product distribution: Consumer CFIA reference number: 8748 Sunrise Bakery Ltd. is recalling Sunrise Bakery brand Macaroon Cookies from the marketplace because they contain milk which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to milk should not consume the recalled product described below. If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There has been one reported allergic reaction associated with the consumption of this product. This recall was triggered by a consumer complaint. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Affected products Brand name Common name Size Code(s) on product UPC ---------- ----------- ---- ------------------ --- Sunrise Bakery Macaroon Cookies 227 g R009 and R0 55138 03581 3 The photo of the affected products is available at: http://is.gd/AGLhcY Media enquiries CFIA Media Relations 613-773-6600 For more information Sunrise Bakery Ltd., (QA/HACCP Coordinator): liz@sunrise-bakery.com TARGET CORP: Removed "Velarde" Suit to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit captioned Hector Velarde v. Target Corporation, Case No. BC533554, was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv- 01149-GAF-FFM to the proceeding. The case alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan Jason Smith, Esq. BRODSKY AND SMITH LLC 9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 534-2590 Facsimile: (310) 247-0160 E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com The Defendant is represented by: Mark Easton Earnest, Esq. Robert A. Naeve, Esq. JONES DAY 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 851-3939 Facsimile: (949) 553-7539 E-mail: mearnest@jonesday.com rnaeve@jonesday.com TYSON FOODS: FDA Recalls 75,320 Pounds of Chicken Nugget Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- Fashion Times reports that plastic bits were reportedly found by consumers in chicken nugget products of Tyson Foods Inc. resulting to the recall of approximately 75,320 pounds of the product among stores. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced the recall on April 11 saying the food company's fully cooked chicken nugget products may be contaminated with extraneous materials. According to Food Safety News, the following products were subjected to the USDA recall: 5-lb. bags of "Tyson Fully Cooked White Meat Chicken Nuggets - 16142-928" with a "Best if Used By" date of "Jan 26 2015" or Feb 16 2015." The manufacturer codes "0264SDL0315 through 19" and "0474SDL0311 through 14" can also be found on the bags. These products were made Jan. 26, 2014, or Feb. 16, 2014, and shipped nationwide to Sam's Clubs. Included also were 20-lb. bulk packs of "Spare Time Fully Cooked Nugget-Shaped Chicken Breast Pattie Fritters w/Rib Meat - 16142- 861" with identifying case codes of "0264SDL0315 through 19" and "0474SDL0311 through 14." These products were made Jan. 26 and Feb. 16, 2014, and were shipped for institutional use in Indiana and to a Tyson Foods company store in Arkansas. The product bags bear the establishment number "P-13556." The contamination came to attention when the company received consumer complaints that pieces of plastic were found in the food product. The problem was traced by the USDA to a product scraper inside the blending machine, International Business Times reported. Reports of minor oral injury associated with consumption of the contaminated products were received by the company. They advised anyone who had experienced any injury or illness due to their product consumption, to contact a healthcare provider. Dan Fogelman, Tyson Foods spokesman, sent out release on April 11 noting that the affected product lots were produced on two days on a single line at one of the company's 40 chicken production facilities and that product in smaller packages or at any other retailer, are not affected by the recall. Mr. Fogelman also added that anyone owning a bag of the affected product should discard the product, cut the UPC and date code from the back of the bag, and mail it to Tyson Foods- CP631, P.O. Box 2020, Springdale, AR, 72765-9989. "Tyson Foods has inspected all lines at the production facility to ensure product quality standards are being met and has implemented corrective measures at all of its facilities to prevent similar occurrences from happening," he stated. The FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to validate that recalling establishments notify their costumers of the recall, and that steps are taken to ensure that the defective product is no longer available to consumers. WAL-MART: Faces Class Action Over Owing Workers Sick Time Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Wal-Mart stiffs workers for sick time wages owed, a class action claims in Superior Court in Los Angeles. WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: July 8 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on April 9 issued a statement regarding the In Re Weatherford International Securities Litigation. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES LITIGATION, 11 Civ. 1646 (LAK) (JCF) CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL LTD. ("WEATHERFORD") COMMON STOCK BETWEEN APRIL 25, 2007 AND MARCH 1, 2011, INCLUSIVE, AND WHO WERE ALLEGEDLY DAMAGED THEREBY (THE "SETTLEMENT CLASS"). CERTAIN PERSONS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITION OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, AS SET FORTH IN DETAIL IN THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, that the above-captioned litigation ("Action") has been preliminarily certified as a class action for the purposes of settlement only and that a settlement has been proposed for $52,500,000 in cash. A hearing will be held in Courtroom 21B before the Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan, at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 at 4:00 p.m. on July 8, 2014 to, among other things: determine whether the proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the settlement proceeds should be approved as fair and reasonable; and consider the application of Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PENDING ACTION AND THE SETTLEMENT, AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND. If you do not receive a copy of the full printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement, Settlement Fairness Hearing and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice"), with the attached Claim Form, you may obtain a copy of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator: In re Weatherford International Securities Litigation, c/o GCG, P.O. Box 10038, Dublin, OH 43017-6638, (877) 900-6750. Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator, www.WeatherfordSecuritiesLitigationSettlement.com, or from Lead Counsel's website www.ktmc.com. If you are a Settlement Class Member, in order to be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked on or before August 19, 2014. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgment entered by the Court in this Action. To exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion such that it is received no later than June 8, 2014, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will be bound by the judgment entered by the Court in this Action, including the releases provided for in the judgment, whether or not you submit a Claim Form. If you submit a request for exclusion, you will have no right to recover money pursuant to the Settlement and will have to pursue any claims against the defendants independently. Lead Counsel offers no advice and no opinion on whether you will be able to maintain such claims. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or the request for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel for the Settlement Class and counsel for the defendants such that they are received no later than June 13, 2014, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or Claim Form, may be made to Lead Counsel: Eli R. Greenstein, Esq. Stacey M. Kaplan, Esq. Jennifer Joost, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP One Sansome Street, Suite 1850 San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 400-3000 www.ktmc.com By Order of the Court ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Ma. Cristina Canson, 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 * * *