/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140423.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, April 23, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 80 Headlines AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Faces "Sears" Securities Suit in New York ANI PHARMACEUTICALS: Shareholder Suit v. BioSante Now Concluded BALL BOUNCE: Sued for Improperly Rounding Starting/Stopping Times BANK OF AMERICA: Failed to Timely Show Mortgage Proof, Suit Says BANK OF AMERICA: Reaches $772MM Card Add-On Settlement With CFPB BANK OF THE OZARKS: Ark. High Court Ruling Expected in Q2 or Q3 BLUE CROSS: Chiropractors Win Permanent Injunction CONVERGYS CORP: Faces Indemnity Claim From Hyundai Motor DANIELS NORELLI: Faces "Yusewitz" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations DRIL-QUIP: Plaintiff in Personal Injury Suit Wants Case Remanded EXCLUSIVE GETAWAY: Class Seeks Damages Over Illegal Phone Calls FAMILY DOLLAR: "Premo" OT Class Action Returns to Superior Court FMS INC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Suit Says LA FIESTA RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Appropriate Wages, Suit Claims GRAHAM HOLDINGS: To Administer Settlement of BAR/BRI Suit in 2014 HSBC HOLDINGS: "Jaffe" Defendants Appeal $2.46 Billion Judgment HSBC HOLDINGS: Settlements of Madoff-Related Claims Reached HSBC HOLDINGS: N.Y. Court Hears Dismissal Motion in Libor Lawsuit HSBC HOLDINGS: Process to Dismiss Euroyen-Related Suit Ongoing HSBC HOLDINGS: Faces U.S. Litigation Related to Euribor HSBC HOLDINGS: Filing of Amended Complaint Ordered in Forex Suit HSBC HOLDINGS: Excluded in Amended Credit Default Swaps Lawsuit INTEL CORP: Summary Judgment Motion in Pentium 4 Suit Denied KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Faces Lawsuit in Florida Over "Junk" Faxes KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Cal. Court Certifies Five Labor Suit Classes KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Settles Labor Litigation in Illinois Court KRAFT FOODS: Recalls 96,000 Pounds of Oscar Mayer Wieners LIME ENERGY: Settlement Final Approval Hearing on May 13 LUCKY BRAND: Accused of Not Owning Blind-Accessible POS Devices LVNV FUNDING: Faces "Salvatore" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations M-QUBE INC: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss "Cullan" Class Action MICHAEL RYAN: Obtains Favorable Ruling in "Taft" Suit MINDSPEED TECHNOLOGIES: Court Dismisses "Leips" Class Action MONARCH RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Practices Act MONTAGE TECHNOLOGY: Faces "Kenny" Securities Suit in California NDG COFFEE: Accused of Failing to Pay Overtime Wages to Cooks NEW JERSEY: Gibson Dunn Releases Bridgegate Witness Interviews NOVATION COMPANIES: NJ Carpenters Fund Files Motion to Reconsider NRG ENERGY: High Court Ruling Ends One Natural Gas Suit v. GenOn NRG ENERGY: Cheswick Emissions Suit Stayed Pending Writ Request NRG ENERGY: Settlement of Six Suits v. Energy Plus Now Final NRG ENERGY: Del., Tex. Lawsuits Over GenOn Merger Now Concluded PASSAT LAUNDRY: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Suit Says PFIZER INC: Faces "Anderson" Suit in California Over Lipitor Drug PFIZER INC: Agrees to Settle Neurontin Class Action for $190MM PLAINS ALL: DuckPond Trust Lawsuit Over PNG Merger Dismissed PROFESSIONAL SERVICE: Refused to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Claims RANJHA CLEANERS: Accused of Failing to Pay Proper Overtime Wages RIDDELL INC: Sued by Buyers of Revolution Brand Football Helmets SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Awaits Approval of Santarus Suit Accord SEALED AIR: Manitoba Court Dismisses Grace in Asbestos Lawsuits SEALED AIR: Litigations Over Cryovac Transaction Remain Stayed SEALED AIR: Canada Unit Still Faces Asbestos Complaints SKECHERS USA: Faces "Burge" Suit in Kentucky Over Shape Up Shoes SKECHERS USA: Faces "Trujillo" Suit Over Shape Up Toning Shoes SKECHERS USA: Misrepresents Shape Up Toning Shoes, Suit Claims SUNTRUST MORTGAGE: Court Tosses Bid to Dismiss "Hamilton" Suit TELETECH HOLDINGS: Unit Still Faces Suit Over Google Phone Calls UNION SECURITY: Sued Over Denial of Accidental Death Benefits UNITED PARCEL: Sells Nonexistent & Pricey Air Service, Class Says UNITED PARCEL: One Canadian Case Remains Over Brokerage Services UNITED PARCEL: Wants Remaining Claims in Forwarding Suit Junked UNITED PARCEL: Still Faces Claims by Franchisees Who Rebranded UNITED SERVICES: District Court Dismisses "Allen" Class Action WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Mini Butter Croissants Over Allergen WINTRUST FIN'L: Expects Half of FLSA Class Members to Be Excluded YAHOO! INC: Shareholders Appeal Dismissal of Calif. Lawsuit YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN: Class Cert. Bid in "Jones" Suit Denied * Alaska Legislature Passes Medical Malpractice Bill * Constitutional Changes Sought Regarding Malpractice Suits ********* AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Faces "Sears" Securities Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------------ David Sears, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. AmTrust Financial Services, Inc., Barry D. Zyskind and Ronald E. Pipoly, Jr., Case No. 1:14-cv-00945-VEC (S.D.N.Y., February 14, 2014) is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons, other than the Defendants, who purchased AmTrust securities between February 15, 2011, and December 11, 2013, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws. AmTrust is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York. AmTrust offers insurance coverage to policyholders, including property/casualty, workers' compensation, special risk and warranty insurance, and extended service plans. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian P. Murray, Esq. Gregory Linkh, Esq. GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP 122 E 42nd Street, Suite 2920 New York, NY 10168 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com glinkh@glancylaw.com - and - Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Michael Goldberg, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com mmgoldberg@glancylaw.com rprongay@glancylaw.com - and - Howard G. Smith, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, PA 19020 Telephone: (215) 638-4847 Facsimile: (215) 638-4867 E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Jessica Perry Corley, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP (GA) One Atlantic Center 1201 West Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 881-7374 Facsimile: (404) 881-7777 E-mail: jessica.corley@alston.com - and - Todd R. David, Esq. John Dalgarno Roesser, Esq. Joseph Gerard Tully, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD, LLP (NYC) 90 Park Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (404) 881-7357 Facsimile: (212) 294-4700 E-mail: todd.david@alston.com john.roesser@alston.com joe.tully@alston.com - and - Louis Arnold Russo, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP (NY) 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 294-5310 Facsimile: (212) 294-4700 E-mail: louis.russo@alston.com ANI PHARMACEUTICALS: Shareholder Suit v. BioSante Now Concluded --------------------------------------------------------------- The shareholder lawsuit filed by Thomas Lauria against BioSante Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois is now concluded, according to ANI Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. On February 3, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under the caption Thomas Lauria, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BioSante Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Stephen M. Simes naming the Company and its former President and Chief Executive Officer, Stephen M. Simes, as defendants. The complaint alleges that certain of the Company's disclosures relating to the efficacy of LibiGel and its commercial potential were false and/or misleading and that such false and/or misleading statements had the effect of artificially inflating the price of the Company's securities resulting in violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Although a substantially similar complaint was filed in the same court on February 21, 2012, the complaint was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff in April 2012. The plaintiff sought to represent a class of persons who purchased the Company's securities between February 12, 2010 and December 15, 2011, and sought unspecified compensatory damages, equitable and/or injunctive relief, and reasonable costs, expert fees and attorneys' fees on behalf of such purchasers. On November 6, 2012, the plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. On December 28, 2012, the Company and Mr. Simes filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On September 11, 2013, the Illinois district court judge granted defendants' motions to dismiss, without prejudice, and gave plaintiffs 28 days to file an amended complaint. The plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint and the matter has been concluded. BALL BOUNCE: Sued for Improperly Rounding Starting/Stopping Times ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jamie Adkins, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Ball, Bounce and Sport, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00336- KSM (N.D. Ohio, February 14, 2014) is instituted as a result of the Defendant's alleged practice and policy of improperly rounding the starting and stopping times of its non-exempt employees, including the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Ashland County, Ohio-based Ball, Bounce and Sport, Inc., is a manufacturer and marketer of play and sport balls. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. Sonia M. Gassan, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC 920 Rockefeller Building 614 W. Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 696-5000 Facsimile: (216) 696-7005 E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com sonia@lazzarolawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: J. Douglas Drushal, Esq. Peggy J. Schmitz, Esq. CRITCHFIELD, CRITCHFIELD & JOHNSTON 225 North Market Street P.O. Box 599 Wooster, OH 44691 Telephone: (330) 264-4444 Facsimile: (330) 263-9278 E-mail: ddrushal@ccj.com schmitz@ccj.com BANK OF AMERICA: Failed to Timely Show Mortgage Proof, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dereck Whittenburg, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 7:14-cv-00947-VB (S.D.N.Y., February 14, 2014) seeks to redress the Defendant's alleged systematic failure to timely present to the county clerks of New York proof that mortgages have been satisfied. Bank of America, N.A., is a full-service interstate bank that operates throughout the United States, including New York. The Bank, headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, is a subsidiary of Bank of America corporation, which is the largest banking Company in the U.S. The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Gregory Blankinship, Esq. Jeremiah Lee Frei-Pearson, Esq. Todd Seth Garber, Esq. Shin Young Hahn, Esq. MEISELMAN, PACKMAN, NEALON, SCIALABBA & BAKER P.C. 1311 Mamaroneck Avenue White Plains, NY 10605 Telephone: (914) 517-5000 Facsimile: (914) 517-5055 E-mail: gblankinship@mpnsb.com jfrei-pearson@mpnsb.com tgarber@mpnsb.com shahn@mpnsb.com The Defendant is represented by: Scott Harris Kaiser, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LLP (NY) 1290 Avenue of Americas New York, NY 10104 Telephone: (212) 541-1195 Facsimile: (212)-541-13 E-mail: scott.kaiser@bryancave.com BANK OF AMERICA: Reaches $772MM Card Add-On Settlement With CFPB ---------------------------------------------------------------- Marlisse Silver Sweeney, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced it came to a $772 million deal with Bank of America to settle allegations it deceptively marketed products and illegally billed customers, according to Michael Lacy -- michael.lacy@troutmansanders.com -- and Scott Kelly -- scott.kelly@troutmansanders.com -- of Troutman Sanders. They report the bank is set to refund $727 million to its customers and pay fines totaling $45 million to the CFPB and the Comptroller of the Currency. The allegations date back to actions taken by the bank from 2010 to 2012, when BofA actively marketed two credit-card payment- protection products, explain Messrs. Lacy and Kelly. These products allowed customers to request the bank to cancel some of their debt, if certain hardships occurred. However, the CFPB found the telemarketers selling these products had misstatements in their scripts, and also allegedly went off script in order to make sales. For example, one product being offered supposedly allowed consumers to cancel up to 18 months of their minimum balance payment if they were admitted to the hospital, even only for a night, say Messrs. Lacy and Kelly. But, in reality, people were given only one month of benefits, and that was after navigating the claims process, explains Richard Cordray, the director of the CFPB. The authors note more than 1.4 million card members were affected by this practice and that this is the fifth in a series of actions the CFPB is taking against card providers. BANK OF THE OZARKS: Ark. High Court Ruling Expected in Q2 or Q3 --------------------------------------------------------------- Bank of the Ozarks, Inc. and Bank of the Ozarks expect a ruling from the Arkansas Supreme Court in the second or third quarter of 2014 regarding the issue on the dismissal and arbitration of Robert Walker, Ann B. Hines and Judith Belk vs. Bank of the Ozarks, Inc. and Bank of the Ozarks, No. CV-2011-777, according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. On January 5, 2012, the Company and the Bank were served with a summons and complaint filed on December 19, 2011, in the Circuit Court of Lonoke County, Arkansas, Division III, styled Robert Walker, Ann B. Hines and Judith Belk vs. Bank of the Ozarks, Inc. and Bank of the Ozarks, No. CV-2011-777. In addition, on December 21, 2012, the Bank was served with a summons and complaint filed on December 20, 2012, in the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, Ninth Division, styled Audrey Muzingo v. Bank of the Ozarks, Case No. 60 CV 12-6043. The complaint in each case alleges that the Company and/or Bank have harmed the plaintiffs, current or former customers of the Bank, by improper, unfair and unconscionable assessment and collection of excessive overdraft fees from the plaintiffs. According to the complaints, plaintiffs claim that the Bank employs sophisticated software to automate its overdraft system, and that this system unfairly and inequitably manipulates and alters customers' transaction records in order to maximize overdraft penalties, particularly utilizing a practice of posting of items in "high-to-low" order, despite the actual sequence in which such items are presented for payment. Plaintiffs claim that the Bank's deposit agreements with customers do not adequately disclose the Bank's overdraft assessment policies and are ambiguous, deceptive, unfair and misleading. The complaint in each case alleges that these actions and omissions constitute breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unconscionable conduct, conversion, unjust enrichment and violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The complaint in the Walker case also includes a count for conversion. Each of the complaints seeks to have the cases certified by the court as a class action for all Bank account holders similarly situated, and seeks a declaratory judgment as to the wrongful nature of the Bank's overdraft fee policies, restitution of overdraft fees paid by the plaintiffs and the putative class (defined as all Bank customers residing in Arkansas) as a result of the actions cited in the complaints, disgorgement of profits as a result of the alleged wrongful actions and unspecified compensatory and statutory or punitive damages, together with pre-judgment interest, costs and plaintiffs' attorneys' fees. The Company and Bank filed a motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration in the Walker case. The trial court denied the motion and found that the arbitration provision contained in the controlling Consumer Deposit Account Agreement was unconscionable and thus unenforceable on the grounds that the provision was the result of unequal bargaining power. The Company and Bank appealed the trial court's ruling to the Arkansas Court of Appeals on an interlocutory basis. On September 18, 2013, a three-judge panel of the Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's ruling and remanded the case to the trial court for the purpose of entering an order compelling arbitration. On October 7, 2013, the plaintiffs filed petitions for reconsideration and review before the Arkansas Court of Appeals and Arkansas Supreme Court, respectively. On October 30, 2013, the Arkansas Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs' petition for reconsideration. In January 2014, the Arkansas Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's petition for review. The Company and Bank expect a ruling from the Arkansas Supreme Court in the second or third quarter of 2014. During the pendency of the appeal and review process, the plaintiff in the Muzingo case has agreed to stay the proceedings in that case. The Company and Bank believe the plaintiffs' claims are unfounded and intend to defend against these claims. BLUE CROSS: Chiropractors Win Permanent Injunction -------------------------------------------------- In PENNSYLVANIA CHIROPRACTIC ASSOCIATION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants, NO. 09 C 5619, (N.D. Ill.), associations representing the interests of individual chiropractors sued Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) and a number of Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) entities for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). BCBSA is a national umbrella organization that facilitates the activities of individual BCBS entities, which insure and administer health care plans for Blue Cross and Blue Shield members (BCBS insureds) in various regions. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue and the Court would be unable to grant the injunctive relief that plaintiffs sought. The Court denied defendants' motion, concluding that plaintiffs had associational standing and that there were forms of declaratory and injunctive relief that it could potentially order in the case. Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the basis that defendants had uniform practices regarding post-payment audits and repayment demand policies that disregarded ERISA's requirements. The Court denied plaintiffs' motion, finding that genuine factual disputes remained regarding what each entity's policies or approaches were. After the Court's November 2013 summary judgment ruling, nearly all of the remaining claims were settled. Only one set of claims remains, specifically, the claims of Pennsylvania Chiropractic Association (PCA) against Independence Blue Cross (IBC), a BCBS entity operating in certain parts of Pennsylvania. PCA alleges that IBC violated, and continues to violate, notice and appeal requirements allegedly owed to PCA members under ERISA. PCA has asked the Court for prospective injunctive relief, namely requiring IBC to reform its policies in connection with post- payment audits and seeking repayment from chiropractic care providers. In a memorandum opinion and order dated March 28, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/T6RiTCfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly found in favor of PCA on its claims against IBC and concludes that PCA is entitled to an appropriate permanent injunction. Because the parties have not yet briefed the question of the precise contours the injunction should take, the Court ordered further briefing in that regard. Plaintiff was orderd to submit a proposed form of injunction and a supporting memorandum; defendant must reply by no later than April 21, 2014. The case is set for a status conference, to be conducted by telephone, on April 24, 2014 at 8:45 a.m. Plaintiff's counsel is to get defendant's counsel on the telephone and then call chambers (312-435-5618). Pennsylvania Chiropractic Association, Plaintiff, represented by Jason S. Cowart, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Anthony F. Maul, The Maul Firm, P.C., Christopher M. Burke, ScottScott LLP, D. Brian Hufford, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, David W Stanley, Cuneo, Waldman & Gilbert, LLP, John William Leardi, Buttaci & Leardi, LLC, Joseph P. Guglielmo, ScottScott LLP, Kimberly A. Driggers, Brooks, LeBoeuf, Bennett, Foster & Gwartney, P.A., Leigh Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP, Louis Carey Ludwig, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick J Sheehan, Whatley Drake & Kallas, Llc, Paul Donald Werner, Buttaci & Leardi, LLC, Robert J. Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP & Vincent N Buttaci, Taylor, Colicchio & Silverman, LLP. New York Chiropractic Council, Plaintiff, represented by Jason S. Cowart, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Anthony F. Maul, The Maul Firm, P.C., Christopher M. Burke, ScottScott LLP, D. Brian Hufford, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, David W Stanley, Cuneo, Waldman & Gilbert, LLP, Joseph P. Guglielmo, ScottScott LLP, Kimberly A. Driggers, Brooks, LeBoeuf, Bennett, Foster & Gwartney, P.A., Leigh Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP, Louis Carey Ludwig, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick J Sheehan, Whatley Drake & Kallas, Llc & Robert J. Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP. Association of New Jersey Chiropractors, Plaintiff, represented by Jason S. Cowart, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP. Association of New Jersey Chiropractors, on their own behalf and in a representational capacity on behalf of their members and, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony F. Maul, The Maul Firm, P.C., Christopher M. Burke, ScottScott LLP, D. Brian Hufford, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, David W Stanley, Cuneo, Waldman & Gilbert, LLP, Joseph P. Guglielmo, ScottScott LLP, Kimberly A. Driggers, Brooks, LeBoeuf, Bennett, Foster & Gwartney, P.A., Leigh Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP, Louis Carey Ludwig, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick J Sheehan, Whatley Drake & Kallas, LLC & Robert J. Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP. Jay Korsen, D.C., Plaintiff, represented by Jason S. Cowart, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Anthony F. Maul, The Maul Firm, P.C., Christopher M. Burke, ScottScott LLP, D. Brian Hufford, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, David W Stanley, Cuneo, Waldman & Gilbert, LLP, Joseph P. Guglielmo, ScottScott LLP, Kimberly A. Driggers, Brooks, LeBoeuf, Bennett, Foster & Gwartney, P.A., Leigh Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP, Louis Carey Ludwig, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick J Sheehan, Whatley Drake & Kallas, Llc & Robert J. Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP. Ian Barlow, Plaintiff, represented by Jason S. Cowart, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Anthony F. Maul, The Maul Firm, P.C., Christopher M. Burke, ScottScott LLP, D. Brian Hufford, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, David W Stanley, Cuneo, Waldman & Gilbert, LLP, Joseph P. Guglielmo, ScottScott LLP, Kimberly A. Driggers, Brooks, LeBoeuf, Bennett, Foster & Gwartney, P.A., Leigh Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP, Louis Carey Ludwig, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick J Sheehan, Whatley Drake & Kallas, Llc & Robert J. Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP. Jeffrey P. Leri, D.C., Plaintiff, represented by Jason S. Cowart, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Anthony F. Maul, The Maul Firm, P.C., Christopher M. Burke, ScottScott LLP, D. Brian Hufford, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, David W Stanley, Cuneo, Waldman & Gilbert, LLP, Joseph P. Guglielmo, ScottScott LLP, Kimberly A. Driggers, Brooks, LeBoeuf, Bennett, Foster & Gwartney, P.A., Leigh Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP, Louis Carey Ludwig, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick J Sheehan, Whatley Drake & Kallas, Llc & Robert J. Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP. Michelle M Askar, D.C., Plaintiff, represented by Jason S. Cowart, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Anthony F. Maul, The Maul Firm, P.C., Christopher M. Burke, ScottScott LLP, D. Brian Hufford, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, David W Stanley, Cuneo, Waldman & Gilbert, LLP, Joseph P. Guglielmo, ScottScott LLP, Kimberly A. Driggers, Brooks, LeBoeuf, Bennett, Foster & Gwartney, P.A., Leigh Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP, Louis Carey Ludwig, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick J Sheehan, Whatley Drake & Kallas, Llc & Robert J. Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP. Mark Barnard, D.C., Plaintiff, represented by Jason S. Cowart, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Anthony F. Maul, The Maul Firm, P.C., Christopher M. Burke, ScottScott LLP, D. Brian Hufford, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, David W Stanley, Cuneo, Waldman & Gilbert, LLP, Joseph P. Guglielmo, ScottScott LLP, Kimberly A. Driggers, Brooks, LeBoeuf, Bennett, Foster & Gwartney, P.A., Leigh Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP, Louis Carey Ludwig, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick J Sheehan, Whatley Drake & Kallas, Llc & Robert J. Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP. Barry A Wahner, D.C., Plaintiff, represented by Jason S. Cowart, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Anthony F. Maul, The Maul Firm, P.C., Christopher M. Burke, ScottScott LLP, D. Brian Hufford, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, David W Stanley, Cuneo, Waldman & Gilbert, LLP, Joseph P. Guglielmo, ScottScott LLP, Kimberly A. Driggers, Brooks, LeBoeuf, Bennett, Foster & Gwartney, P.A., Leigh Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP, Louis Carey Ludwig, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick J Sheehan, Whatley Drake & Kallas, Llc & Robert J. Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP. Anthony Fava, D.C., Plaintiff, represented by Jason S. Cowart, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Anthony F. Maul, The Maul Firm, P.C., Christopher M. Burke, ScottScott LLP, D. Brian Hufford, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, David W Stanley, Cuneo, Waldman & Gilbert, LLP, Joseph P. Guglielmo, ScottScott LLP, Kimberly A. Driggers, Brooks, LeBoeuf, Bennett, Foster & Gwartney, P.A., Leigh Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP, Louis Carey Ludwig, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick J Sheehan, Whatley Drake & Kallas, Llc & Robert J. Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP. David R Barber, D.C., Plaintiff, represented by Jason S. Cowart, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Anthony F. Maul, The Maul Firm, P.C., Christopher M. Burke, ScottScott LLP, D. Brian Hufford, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, David W Stanley, Cuneo, Waldman & Gilbert, LLP, Joseph P. Guglielmo, ScottScott LLP, Kimberly A. Driggers, Brooks, LeBoeuf, Bennett, Foster & Gwartney, P.A., Leigh Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP, Louis Carey Ludwig, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick J Sheehan, Whatley Drake & Kallas, Llc & Robert J. Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP. Larry Miggins, D.C., Plaintiff, represented by Jason S. Cowart, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Anthony F. Maul, The Maul Firm, P.C., Christopher M. Burke, ScottScott LLP, D. Brian Hufford, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, David W Stanley, Cuneo, Waldman & Gilbert, LLP, Joseph P. Guglielmo, ScottScott LLP, Kimberly A. Driggers, Brooks, LeBoeuf, Bennett, Foster & Gwartney, P.A., Leigh Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP, Louis Carey Ludwig, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick J Sheehan, Whatley Drake & Kallas, Llc & Robert J. Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP. Andrew Reno, D.C., on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jason S. Cowart, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Anthony F. Maul, The Maul Firm, P.C., Christopher M. Burke, ScottScott LLP, D. Brian Hufford, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, David W Stanley, Cuneo, Waldman & Gilbert, LLP, Joseph P. Guglielmo, ScottScott LLP, Kimberly A. Driggers, Brooks, LeBoeuf, Bennett, Foster & Gwartney, P.A., Leigh Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP, Louis Carey Ludwig, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick J Sheehan, Whatley Drake & Kallas, Llc & Robert J. Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP. Peri Dwyer, D.C., Plaintiff, represented by Jason S. Cowart, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Anthony F. Maul, The Maul Firm, P.C., Louis Carey Ludwig, Pomerantz LLP, D. Brian Hufford, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP & Leigh Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP. Florida Chiropractic Association, Plaintiff, represented by Jason S. Cowart, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Anthony F. Maul, The Maul Firm, P.C., Louis Carey Ludwig, Pomerantz LLP, D. Brian Hufford, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP & Leigh Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP. Eric Thompson, D.C., Plaintiff, represented by D. Brian Hufford, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Jason S. Cowart, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Anthony F. Maul, The Maul Firm, P.C., Leigh Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP & Louis Carey Ludwig, Pomerantz LLP. Katherine Hopkins, Plaintiff, represented by Jason S. Cowart, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Anthony F. Maul, The Maul Firm, P.C., Louis Carey Ludwig, Pomerantz LLP, D. Brian Hufford, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP & Leigh Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP. International Chiropractors Association, Plaintiff, represented by Jason S. Cowart, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Anthony F. Maul, The Maul Firm, P.C., D. Brian Hufford, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Leigh Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP & Louis Carey Ludwig, Pomerantz LLP. Brenda Tomanek, D.C., Plaintiff, represented by Jason S. Cowart, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Anthony F. Maul, The Maul Firm, P.C., D. Brian Hufford, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Leigh Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP & Louis Carey Ludwig, Pomerantz LLP. Extended Care Treatment, Inc. d/b/a/ Transitions Recovery Program, Plaintiff, represented by Jason S. Cowart, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Anthony F. Maul, The Maul Firm, P.C., D. Brian Hufford, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Leigh Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP & Louis Carey Ludwig, Pomerantz LLP. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Georgia, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amy Graham Doehring, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, Bryan Matthew Webster, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, John Andrew Litwinski, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, John Friedrich Zabriskie, Foley & Lardner, Martin J. Bishop, Foley & Lardner, Michael M. Conway, Foley & Lardner, Michael J Tuteur, Foley & Lardner LLP & Rebecca R. Hanson, Foley & Lardner. Excellus Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Defendant, represented by Michael A. Pope, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, Amy Graham Doehring, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, Bryan Matthew Webster, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, Christopher Mac Neil Murphy, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, Elizabeth Brooke Herrington, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, John Andrew Litwinski, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP & Michael M. Conway, Foley & Lardner. Independence Blue Cross, Defendant, represented by Charles Clark Jackson, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Amy Graham Doehring, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, Bryan Matthew Webster, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, Charis A. Runnels, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Deborah S. Davidson, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Jay H. Calvert, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John Andrew Litwinski, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, Kirsten Ann Milton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP & Michael M. Conway, Foley & Lardner. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan, Defendant, represented by Amy Graham Doehring, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, Bryan Matthew Webster, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, John Andrew Litwinski, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, Joseph A. Fink, Dickinson Wright PLLC, Michael M. Conway, Foley & Lardner & Patrick B. Green, Dickinson Wright Pllc. Anthem Ohio, Defendant, represented by Michael M. Conway, Foley & Lardner, Bryan Matthew Webster, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, Martin J. Bishop, Foley & Lardner, Michael J Tuteur, Foley & Lardner LLP & Rebecca R. Hanson, Foley & Lardner. Miggins & Miggins, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert J. Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP. Katherine Hopkins, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by D. Brian Hufford, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP. Tri3 Enterprises LLC, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Leigh Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP. Miggins & Miggins, Inc., Counter Defendant, represented by Leigh Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP & Robert J. Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP. Larry Miggins, D.C., Counter Defendant, represented by Robert J. Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP, Christopher M. Burke, ScottScott LLP, D. Brian Hufford, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, David W Stanley, Cuneo, Waldman & Gilbert, LLP, Joseph P. Guglielmo, Scott Scott LLP, Kimberly A. Driggers, Brooks, LeBoeuf, Bennett, Foster & Gwartney, P.A., Leigh Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick J Sheehan, Whatley Drake & Kallas, Llc & Robert J. Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP. Miggins & Miggins, Inc., Counter Defendant, represented by Robert J. Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP. Larry Miggins, D.C., Counter Defendant, represented by Robert J. Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP, Christopher M. Burke, ScottScott LLP, D. Brian Hufford, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, David W Stanley, Cuneo, Waldman & Gilbert, LLP, Joseph P. Guglielmo, ScottScott LLP, Kimberly A. Driggers, Brooks, LeBoeuf, Bennett, Foster & Gwartney, P.A., Leigh Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick J Sheehan, Whatley Drake & Kallas, Llc & Robert J. Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP. CONVERGYS CORP: Faces Indemnity Claim From Hyundai Motor -------------------------------------------------------- Convergys Customer Management Group Inc. is facing a contractual indemnity claim from Hyundai Motor America, according to Convergys Corporation's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. In November 2011, one of the Company's call center clients, Hyundai Motor America ("Hyundai"), tendered a contractual indemnity claim to Convergys Customer Management Group Inc., a subsidiary of the Company, relating to a putative class action captioned Brandon Wheelock, individually and on behalf of a class and subclass of similarly situated individuals, v. Hyundai Motor America, Orange County Superior Court, California, Case No. 30- 2011-00522293-CU-BT-CJC. The lawsuit alleges that Hyundai violated California's telephone recording laws by recording telephone calls with customer service representatives without providing a disclosure that the calls might be recorded. Plaintiff is seeking, among other things, an order certifying the suit as a California class action, statutory damages, payment of attorneys' fees and pre- and post-judgment interest. Convergys Customer Management Group Inc. is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit. On March 5, 2012, the court sustained a demurrer filed by Hyundai to one of the Plaintiff's causes of action, but overruled the demurrer as the Plaintiff's other cause of action. On March 15, 2012, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Hyundai answered the amended complaint on April 16, 2012, by generally denying the allegations and asserting certain affirmative defenses. On February 5, 2013, the court denied a motion filed by Hyundai for summary judgment based on Hyundai's claim that an exemption under the California recording laws was intended to exempt the type of recording done by Hyundai's call centers. Hyundai sought appellate review and, on September 18, 2013, the Supreme Court of the State of California denied Hyundai's petition to grant review. Discovery had been stayed while the court's ruling was under appellate review, but the stay was lifted on October 22, 2013. Hyundai, Convergys Customer Management Group Inc. and Plaintiff have agreed to attend a mediation session scheduled for March 13, 2014. On February 3, 2014 the Court issued an order staying discovery until March 20, 2014. A status conference was scheduled for March 25, 2014. Convergys Customer Management Group Inc. is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit, and there has been no determination as to whether Convergys Customer Management Group Inc. will be required to indemnify Hyundai. The Company believes Convergys Customer Management Group Inc. has meritorious defenses to Hyundai's demand for indemnification and also believes there are meritorious defenses to Plaintiff's claims in the lawsuit. DANIELS NORELLI: Faces "Yusewitz" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jacob Yusewitz, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Daniels Norelli Scully & Cecere, P.C., Case No. 2:14-cv-01011-SJF-WDW (E.D.N.Y., February 14, 2014) accuses the Company of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 483 Chestnut Street Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Telephone: (516) 791-4400 Facsimile: (516) 791-4411 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com DRIL-QUIP: Plaintiff in Personal Injury Suit Wants Case Remanded ---------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit that was consolidated in the Deepwater Horizon Incident MDL Proceeding against Dril- Quip, Inc. has filed a motion to remand the lawsuit back to the Texas state court, according to the company's Feb. 7, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. On April 22, 2010, a deepwater U.S. Gulf of Mexico drilling rig known as the Deepwater Horizon, operated by BP sank after an explosion and fire that began on April 20, 2010. The company was named, along with other unaffiliated defendants, in both class action and other lawsuits arising from the Deepwater Horizon incident. In 2012, the judge presiding over various lawsuits and proceedings dismissed all claims asserted against the company in those proceedings with prejudice. One of the lawsuits against the company consolidated in the MDL Proceeding was a personal injury lawsuit initially filed in a Texas state court. The plaintiff has filed a motion to remand the lawsuit back to the Texas state court. If the lawsuit is remanded to the Texas state court, the Company intends to vigorously defend that lawsuit and does not believe it will have a material adverse impact on the company's results of operations. EXCLUSIVE GETAWAY: Class Seeks Damages Over Illegal Phone Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- Florencio Pacleb, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Exclusive Getaway Vacations, Does 1 through 10 inclusive and each of them, and The Coral Resorts, Case No. 2:14-cv-01159-ODW-AGR (C.D. Cal., February 14, 2014) seeks damages and other remedies resulting from the Defendant's alleged illegal actions in negligently, knowingly, or willfully contacting the Plaintiff on his cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading his privacy. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.c. 369 S. Doheny Dr., #415 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com nbontrager@attorneysforconsumers.com - and - L. Paul Mankin, IV, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF L. PAUL MANKIN, IV 8730 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 310 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (800) 219-3577 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: pmankin@paulmankin.com The Defendants are represented by: Daniel M. Benjamin, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1600 San Diego, CA 92101-8494 Telephone: (619) 696-9200 Facsimile: (619) 696-9269 E-mail: benjamind@ballardspahr.com FAMILY DOLLAR: "Premo" OT Class Action Returns to Superior Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID PREMO, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. FAMILY DOLLAR STORES OF MASSACHUSETTS, INC. AND FAMILY DOLLAR STORES, INC., Defendants, CASE NO. 13- 11279-TSH, (D. Mass.) alleges one count for violation of the Massachusetts Overtime Law, Mass. Gen. L. ch. 151 Section1A, in Worcester County Superior Court, Massachusetts. Defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on the grounds that federal jurisdiction was proper under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. Section1332(d)(2). In a Memorandum of Decision and Order entered on March 28, 2014, District Judge Timothy S. Hillman allowed the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his complaint. The Court further allowed the Plaintiff's motion to remand and the case will be returned to the Worcester Superior Court. A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/VywLwafrom Leagle.com. David Premo, Plaintiff, represented by Richard E. Hayber, Hayber Law Firm, LLC & Shannon E. Liss-Riordan, Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.. Family Dollar Stores Of Massachusetts, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Seyfarth Shaw LLP, John A Ybarra, Littler Mendelson, P.C., William F. Allen, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Christopher B Kaczmarek, Littler Mendelson & Kristin G. McGurn, Seyfarth Shaw, LLP. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Seyfarth Shaw LLP, John A Ybarra, Littler Mendelson, P.C., William F. Allen, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Christopher B Kaczmarek, Littler Mendelson & Kristin G. McGurn, Seyfarth Shaw, LLP. FMS INC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Angela Reverdes, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. FMS, Incorporated, Case No. 1:14-cv-00089- ML-PAS (D.R.I., February 14, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: John T. Longo, Esq. CITADEL CONSUMER LITIGATION, P.C. 681 Smith St., Suite 201 Providence, RI 02908 Telephone: (401) 272-2177 Facsimile: (401) 537-9185 E-mail: jtlongo@citadelpc.com - and - Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK 1307 Chalkstone Avenue Providence, RI 02908 Telephone: (401) 831-7730 Facsimile: (401) 861-6064 E-mail: pnwlaw@aol.com LA FIESTA RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Appropriate Wages, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Flores, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. La Fiesta Restaurant Corp. (d/b/a La Fiesta Restaurant & Cantina), Eloy Ramales and Guadalupe Ramales, Case No. 1:14-cv-00953-JPO (S.D.N.Y., February 14, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate compensation for the hours over 40 per week that he worked. The Defendants have owned, operated, and controlled a Mexican Restaurant located in New York City under the name "La Fiesta Restaurant & Cantina." The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com - and - Hugh G. Jasne, Esq. JASNE & FLORIO 30 Glenn Street, Suite 103 White Plains, NY 10603 Telephone: (914) 997-1212 Facsimile: (914) 682-8692 E-mail: HGJ@Jasne-Florio.com GRAHAM HOLDINGS: To Administer Settlement of BAR/BRI Suit in 2014 ----------------------------------------------------------------- A settlement reached in a suit filed by purchasers of BAR/BRI bar review courses against Graham Holdings Company's subsidiary was approved by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in September 2013 and is expected to be administered in 2014, according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. On February 6, 2008, a purported class-action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by purchasers of BAR/BRI bar review courses, from July 2006 onward, alleging antitrust claims against Kaplan and West Publishing Corporation, BAR/BRI's former owner. On April 10, 2008, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, a decision that was reversed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on November 7, 2011. The Ninth Circuit also referred the matter to a mediator for the purpose of exploring a settlement. In the fourth quarter of 2012, the parties reached a comprehensive agreement to settle the matter. The settlement was approved by the District Court in September 2013 and is expected to be administered in 2014. HSBC HOLDINGS: "Jaffe" Defendants Appeal $2.46 Billion Judgment --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants in the suit Jaffe v. Household International, Inc., et al. (N.D. Ill. No. 02 C5893) have filed a Notice of Appeal of the partial final judgment against them in the amount of approximately US$2.46 billion, according to HSBC Holdings plc's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. As a result of an August 2002 restatement of previously reported consolidated financial statements and other corporate events, including the 2002 settlement with 46 states and the District of Columbia relating to real estate lending practices, Household International and certain former officers were named as defendants in a class action lawsuit, Jaffe v. Household International, Inc., et al. (N.D. Ill. No. 02 C5893), filed August 19, 2002 in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint asserted claims under Section 10 and Section 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleged that the defendants knowingly or recklessly made false and misleading statements of material fact relating to Household International's Consumer Lending operations, including collections, sales and lending practices, some of which ultimately led to the 2002 state settlement agreement, and facts relating to accounting practices evidenced by the restatement. Ultimately, a class was certified on behalf of all persons who acquired and disposed of Household International common stock between July 30, 1999 and October 11, 2002. A jury trial concluded in April 2009, which was decided partly in favor of the plaintiffs. Various legal challenges to the verdict were raised in post-trial briefing. In December 2011, following the submission of claim forms by class members, the Court-appointed claims administrator to the District Court reported that the total number of claims that generated an allowed loss was 45,921, and that the aggregate amount of these claims was approximately US$2.2 billion. The defendants filed legal challenges regarding the presumption of reliance as to the class and compliance with the claims form requirements, which the District Court in September 2012 rejected for the most part. The District Court directed further proceedings before a court-appointed Special Master to address certain claim submission issues. On October 4, 2013, the District Court denied the defendants' additional post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a new trial, and granted plaintiffs' motions for a partial final judgment and awarded pre-judgment interest at the Prime rate, compounded annually. Subsequently, on October 17, 2013, the District Court entered a partial final judgment against the defendants in the amount of approximately US$2.46 billion. In addition to the partial judgment that has been entered, there also remain approximately US$527 million in claims, prior to imposition of prejudgment interest, that still are subject to objections that have not yet been ruled upon by the District Court. The defendants have filed a Notice of Appeal of the partial final judgment. The defendants have also filed a Supersedeas Bond in the approximate amount of the judgment (US$2.46 billion) in order to stay execution on the judgment pending appeal. Despite the jury verdict, the various rulings of the District Court, and the partial final judgment, the company continues to believe that it has meritorious grounds for appeal. The timing and outcome of the ultimate resolution of this matter is uncertain. HSBC HOLDINGS: Settlements of Madoff-Related Claims Reached ----------------------------------------------------------- Settlements were reached in respect of claims related to Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC by Thema International Fund plc and AA (Alternative Advantage) Plc respectively against HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Ireland) Limited in the Irish High Court, according to HSBC Holdings plc's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. Plaintiffs (including funds, fund investors, and the Madoff Securities trustee) have commenced Madoff-related proceedings against numerous defendants in a multitude of jurisdictions. Various HSBC companies have been named as defendants in suits in the US, Ireland, Luxembourg and other jurisdictions. Certain suits (which include US putative class actions) allege that the HSBC defendants knew or should have known of Madoff's fraud and breached various duties to the funds and fund investors. In December 2011, claims against HSBC and other defendants by fund investors in three related putative class actions pending in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York were dismissed on grounds of forum non conveniens. In September 2013, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the claims. The plaintiffs have requested a rehearing of their appeal, and that request remains pending. In July and December 2013, settlements were reached in respect of the claim by Thema International Fund plc and AA (Alternative Advantage) Plc respectively against HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Ireland) Limited in the Irish High Court. HSBC HOLDINGS: N.Y. Court Hears Dismissal Motion in Libor Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The US District Court for the Southern District of New York held oral argument on the motions to dismiss amended complaints filed against HSBC Holdings plc in relation to US dollar Libor, according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. HSBC and other panel banks have been named as defendants in a number of private lawsuits filed in the US with respect to the setting of US dollar Libor. These lawsuits include individual and putative class actions, most of which have been transferred and/or consolidated for pre-trial purposes before the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints in those actions assert claims against HSBC and other US dollar Libor panel banks under various US laws including US antitrust and racketeering laws, the US Commodity Exchange Act ('CEA'), and state law. In March 2013, the US District Court Judge overseeing the consolidated proceeding that encompasses a number of pending actions related to US dollar Libor issued an opinion and order in the six oldest actions dismissing the plaintiffs' federal and state antitrust claims, racketeering claims, and unjust enrichment claims in their entirety, but allowing certain of their CEA claims that were not barred by the applicable statute of limitations to proceed. Some of those plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal opinion and order to the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Court of Appeals has dismissed those appeals on the grounds that they are premature and plaintiffs' subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied. Other plaintiffs have filed amended complaints in the District Court to assert additional allegations, and the defendants have filed motions to dismiss the amended complaints. The District Court held oral argument on the motions to dismiss in February 2014, and it has stayed proceedings with respect to all other actions in the consolidated proceeding pending its decision on the motions to dismiss. HSBC HOLDINGS: Process to Dismiss Euroyen-Related Suit Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- HSBC Holdings plc is on the process of having a lawsuit related to euroyen dismissed, according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. HSBC and other panel banks have also been named as defendants in a putative class action filed in the US on behalf of persons and entities who transacted in euroyen futures and options contracts related to the euroyen Tokyo interbank offered rate ('Tibor'). The complaint alleges, amongst other things, misconduct related to euroyen Tibor, although HSBC is not a member of the Japanese Bankers Association's euroyen Tibor panel, as well as Japanese yen Libor, in violation of US antitrust laws, the US Commodity Exchange Act, and state law. In April 2013, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint which the defendants moved to dismiss in June 2013. Oral argument on the motion to dismiss was scheduled for March 2014. HSBC HOLDINGS: Faces U.S. Litigation Related to Euribor ------------------------------------------------------- HSBC Holdings plc is facing a lawsuit filed in the U.S. on behalf of persons who transacted in futures contracts and other financial instruments related to Euribor, according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. In November 2013, HSBC and other panel banks were also named as defendants in a putative class action filed in the US on behalf of persons who transacted in futures contracts and other financial instruments related to Euribor. The complaint alleges, amongst other things, misconduct related to Euribor in violation of US antitrust laws, the US Commodity Exchange Act, and state law. HSBC has not yet responded to the complaint and an amended complaint was expected by the end of March 2014. HSBC expects to file a motion to dismiss thereafter. HSBC HOLDINGS: Filing of Amended Complaint Ordered in Forex Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court Judge handling the case filed against HSBC Holdings plc on behalf of persons who executed foreign currency trades that settled on the basis of foreign exchange rates published by WM/Reuters ordered the plaintiffs to file a consolidated amended complaint, according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. In late 2013 and early 2014, HSBC and a number of other banks were named as defendants in various putative class actions filed in the US on behalf of persons who executed foreign currency trades that settled on the basis of foreign exchange rates published by WM/Reuters or that otherwise occurred during the time periods when the WM/Reuters rates were being set. The complaints allege, amongst other things, that the defendants conspired to manipulate the WM/Reuters foreign exchange rates in violation of US antitrust laws. In February 2014, the US District Court Judge appointed interim lead class counsel and ordered the plaintiffs to file a consolidated amended complaint. HSBC has not yet responded, but intends to do so at the appropriate time set by the court. According to HSBC, based on the facts currently known, it is not practicable at this time for HSBC to predict the resolution of these private lawsuits, including the timing and potential impact on HSBC. HSBC HOLDINGS: Excluded in Amended Credit Default Swaps Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- An amended, consolidated complaint was filed in In re Credit Default Swaps Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2476 on January 31, 2014, and names HSBC Bank USA and HSBC Bank, but not HSBC Holdings plc, as defendants, among others, according to HSBC Holdings plc's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. HSBC Bank USA, HSBC Holdings and HSBC Bank have been named as defendants, among others, in numerous putative class actions filed in federal courts located in New York and Chicago. These class actions allege that the defendants, which include ISDA, Markit and several financial institutions, conspired to restrain trade in violation of the federal anti-trust laws by, among other things, restricting access to credit default swap pricing exchanges and blocking new entrants into the exchange market, with the purpose and effect of artificially inflating the bid/ask spread paid to buy and sell credit default swaps in the US. The plaintiffs in these suits purport to represent a class of all persons who purchased credit default swaps from or sold credit default swaps to defendants primarily in the US. On October 16, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multi-district Litigation ordered that all cases be consolidated in the Southern District of New York as In re Credit Default Swaps Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2476. On December 5, 2013, the District Court held its Initial Pretrial Conference, at which time it selected Lead Interim Class Counsel and set a schedule for the filing of an amended, consolidated complaint and motions to dismiss that complaint. According to Holdings, based on the facts currently known, it is not practicable at this time for HSBC to predict the resolution of these lawsuits, including the timing and potential impact on HSBC. INTEL CORP: Summary Judgment Motion in Pentium 4 Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------ Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Peter Kirwan issued a tentative ruling on April 10 denying Intel Corp.'s motion for summary judgment in an unfair-competition class action that accuses the tech giant of manipulating performance tests to raise the value of its Pentium 4 processor. Intel's counsel had argued plaintiffs couldn't prove Pentium 4 users paid more as a result of Intel's performance reviews. "The court finds there are triable issues as to whether a causal connection exists between Intel's benchmarking practices and higher P4 prices," Judge Kirwan wrote. Plaintiffs lawyers, led by Girard Gibbs partner Eric Gibbs -- ehg@GirardGibbs.com -- are seeking about $300 million on behalf of consumers nationwide who purchased computers equipped with the Pentium 4 processor for personal use in the two and a half years following its launch in November 2000. In a recent court filing, plaintiffs lawyers chided Intel's defense for its dogged, eleventh-hour campaign to unravel the case, which relies heavily on internal Intel presentation slides and emails, some of which instruct the recipients to "do not forward" and "delete after Friday's meeting." "Intel has sought dismissal of the case at least six times; deposed plaintiffs, their families and coworkers, and over 100 class members; and petitioned the court of appeals and California Supreme Court to find plaintiffs' case unsuitable for a class action trial," the plaintiffs' brief states. "Now with only a month until the trial begins, Intel asks the court to conclude that plaintiffs case is so lacking in merit that the long-awaited trial is not even necessary." Intel has turned to Munger Tolles & Olson partners Gregory Stone -- Gregory.Stone@mto.com -- and Daniel Levin -- Daniel.Levin@mto.com -- in Los Angeles, along with Miriam Kim -- Miriam.Kim@mto.com -- in the firm's San Francisco office. The Munger Tolles team challenged Judge Kirwin's tentative ruling in court on April 11. However, with a trial date set for May 5, the judge seemed unlikely to change his mind. "Those arguments should be made at trial," he said. "Ultimately, it's going to be the plaintiffs' burden to show the damages." In-Box Evidence The Pentium 4 microprocessor has long been obsolete, but plaintiffs argue it was a poor product from the time it hit the market. Class lawyers accuse Intel of engineering tests to boost its interindustry performance scores, when in reality, they contend, the new chip couldn't compete with the Pentium 3, much less competitors' products. One email obtained by plaintiffs refers to a performance analysis conducted by computer maker Dell Inc. "[T]he results were dismal," an Intel executive wrote in the May 2000 email. "I was hoping Dell made a mistake [with] the measurements, but it turns out that they are accurate." In response, Intel executives designed two new benchmark tests that would favorably rate the Pentium 4, plaintiffs allege. The company hid its involvement to make the tests seem unbiased, according to plaintiffs' complaint. "Between you and me, it is important that you understand that Intel has been the catalyst, the driving force, as well as the developer of this benchmark," an Intel executive wrote in an August 2000 email. Another internal email states: "This benchmark is probably as close as we can get to a marketing tool dream, but we must proceed cautiously." According to plaintiffs' complaint, the company also adopted a strategy known as the "dirty dozen" program, distributing a dozen Intel-written applications that would give Pentium 4 high ratings when used in existing benchmark tests. One commonly used benchmark scored Pentium 4's performance as 10 percent lower than Advanced Micro Device's rival processor before the new applications, but 13 percent higher after, plaintiffs argue. "Few more of these and we will be in cruise control," an Intel executive wrote in July 2001, according to court records. The Munger Tolles attorneys accuse plaintiffs of resting their case on a handful of emails written in "blunt or hyperbolic" language. They insist plaintiffs have no hard evidence to suggest consumers were influenced by performance test results or that those results drove up prices for end products containing Pentium 4 processors. "No matter how provocative the tone of some of these documents may be, such evidence is immaterial to the core question presented by this motion: whether plaintiffs can meet their burden of proving that the alleged unfair conduct actually caused any cognizable consumer harm," Intel's motion states. "They cannot." Girard Gibbs partner Geoffrey Munroe says his team has uncovered additional documents showing Intel's use of misleading benchmarks extends beyond the Pentium 4. "It's something they've continued to do and the group responsible for it has expanded," Mr. Munroe said. Plaintiffs seek an injunction against Intel and compensation under California's Unfair Competition Law. Defense counsel referred questions to an Intel spokesman, who declined comment. A Legal Odyssey Skold v. Intel, 05-39231, initially filed in April 2004, has slogged through the courtrooms of five judges. Three attempts to certify a class of Pentium 4 users met rejection before the Sixth District Court of Appeal demanded another look in 2011. Former Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg finally certified a class in 2012 covering residents of all states except Illinois. At that juncture, Intel replaced its defense lawyers from Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom with the Munger Tolles team, who are now making their own stab at dismantling the class action. Then Intel followed up its bid for summary judgment with a motion for class decertification, insisting that after years of litigation plaintiffs still can't make their case that the company's alleged manipulation of benchmarks raised the costs of computers. "[M]ost of the class never saw or heard of benchmarks," the motion states. "They ask the court to ignore this glaring deficiency and assume that the challenged benchmarks must have misled some people -- exactly whom they cannot say -- and that these unidentified people in turn misled consumers." The defense attacks statistical models prepared by plaintiffs' expert, economist Russel Lamb, saying they cannot show whether or how much consumers overpaid for computers. Any increase in the price of Pentium 4 processors likely would have been absorbed by manufacturers, the defense claims. Mr. Lamb has estimated Intel's illicit gains at $216 million to $318 million. However, Mr. Munroe acknowledged there is uncertainty as to the direct impact on customers' wallets. "[Lamb] knows the amount consumers paid is higher," Mr. Munroe said at a hearing. "He doesn't know how much higher." That could be an obstacle for plaintiffs, said Venable partner Angel Garganta, a class action defense lawyer who is not involved in the Pentium 4 case, though his firm represents Intel in other matters. "It doesn't sound like it's possible to demonstrate damages on a classwide basis," he said, pointing to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2013 ruling in Comcast v. Behrend, which found that an economic model designed to measure overpayment could not support class certification unless it measured damages specifically resulting from the alleged injury. It's a case that Munger Tolles also cites in its motion to decertify the class of computer purchasers. For his part, Mr. Munroe is looking forward to finally arguing that issue in court, after a decade of what he described as "motion upon motion." "I was maybe fresh out of law school when it was filed, but I've been working on the case for seven years," Mr. Munroe said, "and never imagined it would last this long." KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Faces Lawsuit in Florida Over "Junk" Faxes -------------------------------------------------------------- Kindred Healthcare, Inc. faces a suit in the United States federal district court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, over "junk" faxes, according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. On January 6, 2014, a purported class action complaint was filed in the United States federal district court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, against the company and one of the company's subsidiaries. The lawsuit, styled Pines Nursing Home, et al., v. Polaris and RehabCare Group, Inc., et al., alleges that one of the company's subsidiaries sent "junk" faxes in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 and the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005. The complaint seeks damages, statutory fines and penalties, attorneys' fees and an injunction prohibiting such conduct in the future. The company disputes the allegations in the complaint and will defend this lawsuit vigorously. KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Cal. Court Certifies Five Labor Suit Classes ---------------------------------------------------------------- The federal district court for the Central District of California conditionally certified five classes of the seven total classes sought for certification for discovery purposes in labor lawsuits filed against Kindred Healthcare, Inc., according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. Four wage and hour class action lawsuits are currently pending against the Company in federal district court for the Central District of California, and are being addressed together by the court. Each case pertains to alleged errors made by the Company with respect to regular pay and overtime pay calculations, waiting times, meal period waivers and wage statements under California law. On March 13, 2013, the court conditionally certified five classes of the seven total classes sought for certification for discovery purposes and declined to certify two others. Notice of class action certification and class members' right to opt out of the lawsuit was mailed to all of the Company's current and former California hospital employees. The Company intends to vigorously defend these claims. KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Settles Labor Litigation in Illinois Court -------------------------------------------------------------- A wage and hour lawsuit filed against Kindred Healthcare, Inc. in federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois has been settled in principle by the Company's agreement to pay $0.7 million to claimants, according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. A wage and hour class action lawsuit against the Company alleging violations of federal and state wage and hour laws is pending in federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois. This lawsuit pertains to the Company's previous automatic meal break deduction practice for non-exempt employees in the Company's hospitals located outside California. The court granted conditional class certification in part on June 11, 2013. This lawsuit has been settled in principle by the Company's agreement to pay $0.7 million to claimants from the Company's five Illinois hospitals, plaintiffs' attorney's fees and certain administrative costs, subject to reaching a written settlement agreement and obtaining court approval. KRAFT FOODS: Recalls 96,000 Pounds of Oscar Mayer Wieners --------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that Kraft Foods is recalling 96,000 pounds of its Oscar Mayer wieners because they may mistakenly contain cheese. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service said Sunday that Kraft's "Oscar Mayer Classic Wieners" may instead contain the company's "Classic Cheese Dogs." The agency said the product labels are incorrect and do not reflect the ingredients associated with the pasteurized cheese in the cheese dogs. Those products were made with milk, a known allergen, which is not declared on the label. It said the problem was discovered by a consumer who notified Kraft on April 18. The company alerted the USDA the following day, according to the statement. The Food Safety and Inspection Service said it has not received reports of adverse reactions. A representative for Kraft Foods Group Inc., Joyce Hodel, said in an email that the hot dogs were made in a plant in Columbia, Mo. The products were made in early March and bear the number "Est. 537H" inside the USDA mark of inspection. People with questions about the recall are being asked to contact Kraft's consumer relations department at (855) 688-4386. The recall applies to: -- 16-ounce individual consumer packages of "Classic Wieners Made with Turkey & Chicken, Pork Added," with a "USE BY 16 Jun 2014" date and product code "044700000632." -- Cases of 16-ounce packages that were distributed to retailers of "Classic Cheese Dogs Made with Turkey & Chicken, Pork Added, and Pasteurized Cheese Product," with "USE BY 16 Jun 2014" date and case code "00447000005300." Those cases may contain packages that are mislabeled as "Classic Wieners," according to Ms. Hodel. LIME ENERGY: Settlement Final Approval Hearing on May 13 -------------------------------------------------------- Satterfield v. Lime Energy Co. et al., Case No. 12-cv-5704 (N.D. Ill.), is a putative class action on behalf of purchasers of Lime Energy Co.'s securities between May 14, 2008 and December 27, 2012, inclusive. Following an announcement by the Company dated July 17, 2012, four separate putative class actions were filed alleging violations of the federal securities laws and naming as Defendants the Company and three of its officers, John O'Rourke, Jeffrey Mistarz and David Asplund. The four cases were consolidated. Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the "PSLRA"), on October 26, 2012, the Court appointed Lead Plaintiffs. Lead Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on January 18, 2013, alleging that Defendants issued false and misleading statements concerning Lime's revenues during the class period and thereby artificially inflated our stock price. On January 21, 2014, following several months of arm's length negotiations, the Lead Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into a stipulation of settlement under which this matter would be fully and finally settled. As part of the settlement, Defendants agreed to cause $2.5 million to be paid into a settlement fund, which $2.5 million has been provided by the Company's directors and officers liability insurers. On January 28, 2014, Judge Sara Ellis entered an order granting preliminary approval of the class action settlement and notice to the settlement class in the matter. The settlement remains subject to final approval by the court. The final approval hearing has been set for May 13, 2014. Lime Energy stated in a Feb. 28, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that Adam Procell, the Company's President and Chief Executive Officer, gave an interview to John Downey of the Charlotte Business Journal on February 26, 2014. The Company said Mr. Procell's reference in the interview to the judge's acceptance of the settlement in the class action refers to the preliminary acceptance. According to the Company, Mr. Downey has agreed to keep the information in the interview confidential until 9:00 am February 28, 2014. The Company understands that the Charlotte Business Journal would publish an article based on the interview. A transcript of the interview is available at http://is.gd/Oem865 LUCKY BRAND: Accused of Not Owning Blind-Accessible POS Devices --------------------------------------------------------------- David New, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lucky Brand Dungarees Stores, Inc., d/b/a Lucky Brand Jeans, Case No. 1:14-cv-20574-UU (S.D. Fla., February 14, 2014) alleges that the Defendant 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. Lucky Brand Dungarees Stores, Inc., doing business as Lucky Brand Jeans, is a Delaware corporation headquartered in North Bergen, New Jersey. The Company owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew B. Boese, Esq. Tiffany L. Anderson, Esq. LEON COSGROVE 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: Scott Stephan Allen, Esq. Mendy Halberstam, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 2 S Biscayne Boulevard One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3500 Miami, FL 33131-1802 Telephone: (305) 577-7600 Facsimile: (305) 373-4466 E-mail: allens@jacksonlewis.com mendy.halberstam@jacksonlewis.com LVNV FUNDING: Faces "Salvatore" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- Jaclyn Salvatore, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LVNV Funding LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-00090- ML-PAS (D.R.I., February 14, 2014) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: John T. Longo, Esq. CITADEL CONSUMER LITIGATION, P.C. 681 Smith St., Suite 201 Providence, RI 02908 Telephone: (401) 272-2177 Facsimile: (401) 537-9185 E-mail: jtlongo@citadelpc.com - and - Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK 1307 Chalkstone Avenue Providence, RI 02908 Telephone: (401) 831-7730 Facsimile: (401) 861-6064 E-mail: pnwlaw@aol.com The Defendant is represented by: Ranen S. Schechner, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 321 South Main Street, Suite 301 Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: (401) 751-0842 Facsimile: (401) 751-0072 E-mail: rschechner@hinshawlaw.com M-QUBE INC: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss "Cullan" Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- CULLAN AND CULLAN LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Plaintiff, v. M-QUBE, INC., a Delaware corporation; MOBILE MESSENGER AMERICAS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; CF ENTERPRISES PTY., LTD., an Australian Company; and JOHN DOES 1-200, Defendants, RICHARD GEIER, Intervenor, NO. 8:13CV172, (D. Neb.) is before the court on its own motion. There is presently pending a motion for preliminary approval of a purported class-action settlement. Consideration of the defendants' motions to dismiss and/or compel arbitration has been held in abeyance pending resolution of the class-action settlement issue. According to District Judge Joseph F. Bataillon, for docket control purposes, the motions to dismiss and/or compel arbitration will be dismissed without prejudice to reassertion after resolution of the motion to approve the amended settlement agreement. In an order dated March 28, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/m1LLDHfrom Leagle.com, the Court denied defendants' motions to dismiss and/or to compel arbitration without prejudice to reassertion. Cullan and Cullan LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Esq. Erich P. Schork, Esq. BARNOW & ASSOCIATES LAW FIRM 1 N La Salle St # 4600 Chicago, IL 60602 United States Telephone: (312) 621-2000 Mitchell L. Burgess -- mitch@burgessandlamb.com -- BURGESS, LAMB LAW FIRM, Ralph K. Phalen -- phalenlaw@yahoo.com -- PHALEN LAW OFFICE, Richard J. Schicker -- rich@teamschick.com -- SCHICKER LAW FIRM & Sharon A. Harris, BARNOW & ASSOCIATES LAW FIRM. M-Qube, Defendant, represented by Ari N. Rothman, VENABLE LAW FIRM, John P. Passarelli, KUTAK, ROCK LAW FIRM, Molly T. Cusson, VENABLE LAW FIRM & Paul R. Gwilt, KUTAK, ROCK LAW FIRM. Mobile Messenger Americas, Defendant, represented by Ari N. Rothman, VENABLE LAW FIRM, John P. Passarelli, KUTAK, ROCK LAW FIRM, Molly T. Cusson, VENABLE LAW FIRM & Paul R. Gwilt, KUTAK, ROCK LAW FIRM. CF Enterprises Pty., Defendant, represented by Carrie S. Dolton, GOBER, HILGERS LAW FIRM & Michael T. Hilgers, GOBER, HILGERS LAW FIRM. Richard Geier, Movant, represented by Matthew J. Zuchetto, SCOTT LAW GROUP, Renae D. Steiner, HEINS, MILLS LAW FIRM & Toby J. Marshall, TERRELL, MARSHALL LAW FIRM. David Hanson, Intervenor, represented by Elizabeth A. Ryan, BAILEY, GLASSER LAW FIRM, Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld, KRONENBERGER, BURGOYNE LAW FIRM, John J. Roddy, BAILEY, GLASSER LAW FIRM, Karl S. Kronenberger, KRONENBERGER, BURGOYNE LAW FIRM & William L. Reinbrecht, CAR, REINBRECHT LAW FIRM. Kristian Kunder, Intervenor, represented by Elizabeth A. Ryan, BAILEY, GLASSER LAW FIRM, Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld, KRONENBERGER, BURGOYNE LAW FIRM, John J. Roddy, BAILEY, GLASSER LAW FIRM, Karl S. Kronenberger, KRONENBERGER, BURGOYNE LAW FIRM & William L. Reinbrecht, CAR, REINBRECHT LAW FIRM. MICHAEL RYAN: Obtains Favorable Ruling in "Taft" Suit ----------------------------------------------------- In DAVID L. TAFT, JR., Plaintiff, v. DR. MICHAEL RYAN, ERVIN WHITEHEAD, STEVE McQUEEN, Defendants, NO. 11-CV-4021-DEO, (N.D. Iowa.), before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 Complaint should be dismissed. In his Complaint, Mr. Taft, who is an involuntarily committed patient at the Civil Commitment Unit for Sex Offenders (CCUSO) in Cherokee, Iowa, argues that he should be given a hearing, pursuant to Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), when disciplinary incidents negatively impact his progression through CCUSO's treatment levels. Mr. Taft originally filed the present Complaint in March of 2011. In June of 2011, the Complaint was consolidated with Taft et al. v. Turner et al., 05-CV-4065-DEO, a then pending class action case in which Mr. Taft was the named Plaintiff and CCUSO staff members were the named Defendants. On April 25, 2012, the Court accepted a settlement in 05-CV-4065-DEO. However, Mr. Taft's present issue, regarding Wolff v. McDonnell, was not addressed by the settlement. Consequently, on May 22, 2012, the Court entered an Initial Review Order allowing Mr. Taft's Wolff v. McDonnell claim to proceed independent from the class action. In a March 28, 2014 ruling, a copy of which is is available at http://is.gd/hYQDRhfrom Leagle.com, Senior District Judge Donald E. O'Brien granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment, and dimissed the Plaintiff's Complaint. Judge O'Brien said the Court is persuaded that Mr. Taft's Complaint must be dismissed on the merits. David L Taft, Jr, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick E Ingram -- mearslaw@mearslawoffice.com -- Mears Law Office. Dr Michael Ryan, Defendant, represented by Gretchen Witte Kraemer, Department of Justice. Ervin Whitehead, Defendant, represented by Gretchen Witte Kraemer, Department of Justice. Steve McQueen, Defendant, represented by Gretchen Witte Kraemer, Department of Justice. MINDSPEED TECHNOLOGIES: Court Dismisses "Leips" Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Sue L. Robinson dismissed the case captioned CLARK LEIPS, Derivatively on Behalf of MINDSPEED TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and individually on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated shareholders of MINDSPEED TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. RAOUF Y. HALIM, MICHAEL T. HAYASHI, MING LOUIE, THOMAS A. MADDEN, JERRE L. STEAD, ROBERT J. CONRAD and DWIGHT W. DECKER, Defendants, and MINDSPEED TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Nominal defendant, CIV. NO. 13-15-SLR, (D. Del.) Mindspeed Technologies filed the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Individual defendants also filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court granted Mindspeed's motion to dismiss on the issue of standing. The Plaintiff is given leave to file an amended complaint on or before April 30, 2014. The individual defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was denied as moot. In his March 28, 2014 Memorandum, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/RvH5Wpfrom Leagle.com, Judge Robinson held that faced with Mindspeed's challenge to his standing, Plaintiff could have provided the court with the appropriate information in his responsive briefing. As he did not do so, the court is without the necessary information to determine whether Plaintiff meets the standing requirement. MONARCH RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Practices Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Sylvia Santilli, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Monarch Recovery Management, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00088-ML-PAS (D.R.I., February 14, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: John T. Longo, Esq. CITADEL CONSUMER LITIGATION, P.C. 681 Smith St., Suite 201 Providence, RI 02908 Telephone: (401) 272-2177 Facsimile: (401) 537-9185 E-mail: jtlongo@citadelpc.com - and - Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK 1307 Chalkstone Avenue Providence, RI 02908 Telephone: (401) 831-7730 Facsimile: (401) 861-6064 E-mail: pnwlaw@aol.com MONTAGE TECHNOLOGY: Faces "Kenny" Securities Suit in California --------------------------------------------------------------- Janice Kenny, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Montage Technology Group Limited, Howard C. Yang, Stephen Tai and Mark Voll, Case No. 3:14-cv-00722-SI (N.D. Cal., February 14, 2014) is a securities class action on behalf of all persons, who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Montage between September 26, 2013, and February 6, 2014, inclusive, against Montage and certain of its officers and directors for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Montage is a global fabless provider of analog and mixed-signal semiconductor solutions addressing the home entertainment and cloud computing markets. The Company's analog and radio frequency solutions, digital signal processors and high speed interfaces serve as the foundation for its technology platform. Montage has a corporate office in San Jose, California. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn A. Williams, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 288-4545 Facsimile: (415) 288-4534 E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com - and - Darren J. Robbins, Esq. David C. Walton, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-8498 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com davew@rgrdlaw.com - and - W. Scott Holleman, Esq. JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP 99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 802-1486 Facsimile: (212) 602-1592 The Defendants are represented by: Seth A. Aronson, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 400 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899 Telephone: (213) 430-6000 Facsimile: (213) 430-6407 E-mail: saronson@omm.com Movant Martin Graham is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com NDG COFFEE: Accused of Failing to Pay Overtime Wages to Cooks ------------------------------------------------------------- Rafael Casiano and Luis Alberto Galindo, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. NDG Coffee Shop Inc. (d/b/a Big Nick's Burger & Pizza Joint Too), Pizza Joint Too Inc. (d/b/a Big Nick's Burger & Pizza Joint Too), Dimitrios Galanopoulus and Niko Galanopoulus, Case No. 1:14-cv-00955-PAE (S.D.N.Y., February 14, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate compensation for the hours over 40 per week that they worked. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as cook and pizza maker. The Defendants own, operate, and control a fast food restaurant located in New York City under the name "Big Nick's Burger & Pizza Joint." The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com NEW JERSEY: Gibson Dunn Releases Bridgegate Witness Interviews -------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Booth, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher has publicly released summaries of its interviews of 75 witnesses as part of its investigation of Gov. Chris Christie's administration's potential involvement in the Bridgegate affair. The people interviewed by the New York firm, which Christie commissioned to conduct the internal investigation, included the governor himself and members of his inner circle. Gibson Dunn produced the same memoranda for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey and the New Jersey Legislative Select Committee on Investigation. The committee had demanded that the documents be turned over. The interviews touched on last fall's abrupt closures of George Washington Bridge local access lanes and on Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer's claim that allocation of Hurricane Sandy relief funds was tied to Hoboken development projects proposed by the Rockefeller Group, a developer represented by West Orange's Wolff & Samson. Not interviewed were three key players in Bridgegate: former Deputy Chief of Staff Bridget Kelly, Christie's two-time campaign chairman, Bill Stepien, and David Wildstein, the former director for interstate capital projects at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which operates the bridge. Ms. Kelly and Mr. Stepien have invoked their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and are seeking immunity in exchange for testifying. Mercer County Assignment Judge Mary Jacobson ruled on April 9 that they need not comply with the committee's subpoenas for documents. Mr. Wildstein has turned over documents to the committee but has declined to answer questions. A contempt charge has been referred to the Mercer County Prosecutor's Office. News reports say he has met with federal prosecutors to discuss possible immunity. Also not interviewed was Wolff & Samson partner David Samson, who stepped down on March 28 as chairman of the Port Authority. Those interviewed included Lt. Gov. Kimberly Guadagno; Chief of Staff Kevin O'Dowd; Regina Egea, the director of the Authorities Unit; Deborah Gramiccioni, the deputy executive director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey; and Marc Ferzan, the executive director of the Office of Recovery and Rebuilding Most of those interviewed did not have their own attorneys present. They were given warnings that Gibson Dunn represented the administration and that the statements they made might be revealed to third parties. The interview memos released are not transcripts but reconstructions based on the attorneys' notes and memories. Gibson Dunn partner Randy Mastro and two other firm lawyers interviewed Gov. Christie three times -- on Feb. 12, Feb. 28 and March 14. They concluded, "Gov. Christie had no role in the lane realignment and had no knowledge of anyone's participation in the lane realignment." But they also depicted Gov. Christie as "agitated and disappointed" by the news coverage of Bridgegate. At a Dec. 13 senior staff meeting, Gov. Christie entered the room, slammed the door and stood the entire time and at one point said "this is a mess, and now I have to clean it up." He said that he was about to hold a press conference and that if anyone knew anything about the closures they had 45 minutes to speak to Mr. O'Dowd or Charles McKenna, then the chief counsel. No one did. Gov. Christie then told reporters at the conference that no one in his administration was involved in Bridgegate. The memo says Mr. O'Dowd told Gov. Christie that Ms. Kelly was crying when she "swore up and down that she had no knowledge of it." The memo also relates a senior staff meeting at Drumthwacket, the governor's mansion, held on Jan. 8 shortly after Gov. Christie read a story in The Record of Hackensack that discussed Ms. Kelly's possible involvement. The memo says Gov. Christie "got emotional, with tears in his eyes" and said the administration "could not get sandbagged again." It was then that he decided to fire Ms. Kelly and replace Mr. Stepien. Another memo relates Christie spokesman Michael Drewniak's account of the Dec. 13 senior staff meeting, saying Gov. Christie was angry because the governor's office had "taken a beating" nationally because of the controversy. Mr. O'Dowd, who had been tapped last year to be the state attorney general, was interviewed on Jan. 19 and on March 8. At the second interview, he was accompanied by former First Assistant Attorney General Paul Zoubek, now with the Cherry Hill office of Montgomery McCracken. The memo relates that Mr. O'Dowd said Ms. Kelly on Dec. 13 unequivocally denied to him any involvement in lane closures and that he was inclined to give her "the benefit of the doubt." He said he did not know of Ms. Kelly's alleged involvement until Jan. 8. "O'Dowd was angry that Kelly had lied to him," the memo says. The committee's co-chair, Assemblyman John Wisniewski, D-Middlesex, says he is reviewing the memos and so far, "They seem to be particularly sparse, especially in terms of recollection." He says the memos do not answer the "fundamental questions," such as whether Ms. Kelly thought her actions would be appropriate. "Did somebody talk to her? Did somebody above her talk to her? We don't know the answers to these questions. The Gibson report gives us no enlightenment," he says. NOVATION COMPANIES: NJ Carpenters Fund Files Motion to Reconsider ----------------------------------------------------------------- Novation Companies, Inc., disclosed in its Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that in a suit filed by New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund against its subsidiary, the plaintiff has filed its memorandum with the lower court seeking a reconsideration of the earlier dismissal of plaintiff's claims. On May 21, 2008, a purported class action case was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated. Defendants in the case included NovaStar Mortgage Funding Corporation ("NMFC"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, and its individual directors, several securitization trusts sponsored by the Company ("affiliated defendants") and several unaffiliated investment banks and credit rating agencies. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On June 16, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The plaintiff seeks monetary damages, alleging that the defendants violated sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, by making allegedly false statements regarding mortgage loans that served as collateral for securities purchased by the plaintiff and the purported class members. On August 31, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims, which the court granted on March 31, 2011, with leave to amend. The plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on May 16, 2011, and the Company again filed a motion to dismiss. On March 29, 2012, the court dismissed the plaintiff's second amended complaint with prejudice and without leave to replead. The plaintiff filed an appeal. On March 1, 2013, the appellate court reversed the judgment of the lower court, which had dismissed the case. Also, the appellate court vacated the judgment of the lower court which had held that the plaintiff lacked standing, even as a class representative, to sue on behalf of investors in securities in which plaintiff had not invested, and the appellate court remanded the case back to the lower court for further proceedings. On April 23, 2013 the plaintiff filed its memorandum with the lower court seeking a reconsideration of the earlier dismissal of plaintiff's claims as to five offerings in which plaintiff was not invested. NRG ENERGY: High Court Ruling Ends One Natural Gas Suit v. GenOn ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari, thereby ending one of five Natural Gas Litigation against GenOn Energy, Inc., according to NRG Energy Inc.'s Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. GenOn is party to several lawsuits, certain of which are class action lawsuits, in state and federal courts in Kansas, Missouri, Nevada and Wisconsin. These lawsuits were filed in the aftermath of the California energy crisis in 2000 and 2001 and the resulting FERC investigations and relate to alleged conduct to increase natural gas prices in violation of antitrust and similar laws. The lawsuits seek treble or punitive damages, restitution and/or expenses. The lawsuits also name as parties a number of energy companies unaffiliated with NRG. In July 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, which is handling four of the five cases, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims against GenOn in those cases. The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit reversed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. On August 26, 2013, GenOn along with the other defendants in the lawsuit filed a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the Ninth Circuit's decision. On December 2, 2013, the United States Supreme Court requested the views of the U.S. Solicitor General on the petition for certiorari. In September 2012, the State of Nevada Supreme Court, which is handling the remaining case, affirmed dismissal by the Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada of all plaintiffs' claims against GenOn. In February 2013, the plaintiffs in the Nevada case filed a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. In June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari, thereby ending one of the five lawsuits. GenOn has agreed to indemnify CenterPoint against certain losses relating to these lawsuits. NRG ENERGY: Cheswick Emissions Suit Stayed Pending Writ Request --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania stayed further proceedings in the case against GenOn Energy, Inc., over emissions from the Cheswick generating facility, pending a decision on the petition for writ of certiorari in relation to the reversal of the dismissal of the case, according to NRG Energy, Inc.'s Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. In April 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against GenOn in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania alleging that emissions from the Cheswick generating facility have damaged the property of neighboring residents. The Company disputes these allegations. Plaintiffs have brought nuisance, negligence, trespass and strict liability claims seeking both damages and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs seek to certify a class that consists of people who own property or live within one mile of the Company's plant. In July 2012, the Company removed the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. In October 2012, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss, which Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On August 20, 2013, the Third Circuit reversed the decision of the District Court. On September 3, 2013, the Company filed a petition for rehearing with the Third Circuit which was subsequently denied. In February 2014, the Company filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review and reversal of the Third Circuit Decision. The District Court has stayed further proceedings in the case pending a decision on the petition for writ of certiorari. NRG ENERGY: Settlement of Six Suits v. Energy Plus Now Final ------------------------------------------------------------ The settlement of lawsuits against Energy Plus Holdings in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania became final and non- appealable in October 2013, according to NRG Energy, Inc.'s Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. Energy Plus Holdings was sued in six purported class action lawsuits, two in New York, two in New Jersey, and two in Pennsylvania. On February 28, 2013, Energy Plus Holdings entered into a settlement agreement with plaintiffs to resolve all of the claims in the six pending suits, subject to court approval. On September 17, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered an order approving the settlement. This settlement became final and nonappealable on October 27, 2013. Energy Plus Holdings continues to cooperate with the Connecticut Office of Attorney General and Office of Consumer Counsel and the State of New York Office of Attorney General to resolve certain issues related to Energy Plus Holdings sales, marketing and business practices. Energy Plus Holdings and the Connecticut Office of Attorney General and Office of Consumer Counsel have been involved in settlement discussions and their efforts to reach a resolution continue. NRG ENERGY: Del., Tex. Lawsuits Over GenOn Merger Now Concluded --------------------------------------------------------------- Lawsuits in Delaware state court and Texas state and federal courts over NRG Energy, Inc.'s acquisition of GenOn Energy, Inc. has now ended, according to NRG's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. NRG was named as a defendant in eight purported class actions in Texas and Delaware related to its announcement of its agreement to acquire all outstanding shares of GenOn. These cases were consolidated into one state court case in each of Delaware and Texas and a federal court case in Texas. The plaintiffs generally alleged breach of fiduciary duties, as well as conspiracy, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties. Plaintiffs generally sought to: be certified as a class; enjoin the merger; direct the defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties; rescind the acquisition; and be awarded attorneys' fees costs and other relief that the court deems appropriate. Plaintiffs also demanded that there be additional disclosures regarding the merger terms. On October 24, 2012, the parties to the Delaware state court case executed a Memorandum of Understanding to resolve the Delaware purported class action lawsuit. In March 2013, the parties finalized the settlement of the Delaware action. On June 3, 2013, the court approved the Delaware class action settlement thereby ending the Delaware lawsuit. The remaining Texas state and federal court cases were dismissed in July 2013 and August 2013, respectively, thereby ending these matters. PASSAT LAUNDRY: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Donald Kirkland, on behalf of himself and others similarly- situated v. Passat Laundry Systems, Inc. d/b/a Kannegiesser USA, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-00577-N (N.D. Tex., February 14, 2014) alleges that the Defendant has failed to pay the Plaintiff and those similarly situated to him in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act. Specifically, the Defendant misclassified him as an exempt employee and did not pay time-and-a-half of his regular rate of pay for all hours he worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, Mr. Kirkland contends. Passat Laundry Systems, Inc., doing business as Kannegiesser USA, Inc., is a for-profit corporation authorized to do business, and is doing business, in the state of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Derek Braziel, Esq. LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P. 1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 749-1400 Facsimile: (214) 749-1010 E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com PFIZER INC: Faces "Anderson" Suit in California Over Lipitor Drug ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judy A. Anderson, an Individual v. Pfizer Inc., a corporation; and Does 1 through 100, Case No. 2:14-cv-00489-JAM-DAD (E.D. Cal., February 14, 2014) is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a proximate result of the Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, testing, and labeling, of Lipitor (also known chemically as Atorvastatin Calcium). Lipitor is prescribed to reduce the amount of cholesterol and other fatty substances in the blood. Lipitor is an HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor and a member of the drug class known as statins. New York-based Pfizer Inc. produces, manufactures, distributes, advertises, promotes, supplies and sells Lipitor to distributors and retailers for resale to physicians, hospitals, pharmacies, and medical practitioners. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ramon Rossi Lopez, Esq. Matthew Ramon Lopez, Esq. LOPEZ MCHUGH LLP 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 5600 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 737-1501 Facsimile: (949) 737-1504 E-mail: rlopez@lopezmchugh.com mlopez@lopezmchugh.com - and - Brad Seidel, Esq. NIX, PATTERSON & ROACH, L.L.P. 3600 N. Capital of Texas Highway Building B, Suite 350 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 328-5333 E-mail: bseidel@npraustin.com - and - Robert K. Jenner, Esq. Lindsey M. Craig, Esq. JANET, JENNER & SUGGS, LLC 1777 Reisterstown Road, Suite 165 Baltimore, MD 21208 Telephone: (410) 653-3200 Facsimile: (410) 653-9030 E-mail: rjenner@myadvocates.com lcraig@myadvocates.com - and - Austin Tighe, Esq. Vic Feazell, Esq. Eleeza Johnson, Esq. FEAZELL & TIGHE, LLP 6618 Sitio Del Rio Boulevard Building C-101 Austin, TX 78730 Telephone: (512) 372-8100 Facsimile: (512) 372-8140 E-mail: austin@feazell-tighe.com vic@feazell-tighe.com eleeza@feazell-tighe.com PFIZER INC: Agrees to Settle Neurontin Class Action for $190MM -------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Longstreth, writing for Reuters, reports that Pfizer Inc has agreed to pay $190 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging the pharmaceutical company took steps to delay market entry of generic versions of its epilepsy drug Neurontin, according to court documents filed on April 21. Lawyers representing a class of Neurontin purchasers disclosed the terms of the settlement in a motion seeking approval of the deal that was filed in New Jersey federal court. The lawsuit, first filed in 2002, alleged that Pfizer took multiple steps to maintain its exclusivity on the sale of Neurontin, including sham patent infringement lawsuits and promotion of the drug for unapproved uses. Buyers of Neurontin claimed that Pfizer's activity forced them to pay inflated prices for the drug. Pfizer, which did not admit to liability or wrongdoing, said in a statement that the settlement "reflects a desire by the company to concentrate on its business and the needs of patients and prescribers, while also reducing the cost and distraction of prolonged litigation." "We're happy with the result after a long and hard litigation," said Robert Kaplan, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs. In 2004, Pfizer agreed to pay $430 million to federal and state governments and pleaded guilty to criminal charges of illegally marketing Neurontin, a drug the company obtained with its 2000 acquisition of Warner Lambert Corp. The case is In re Neurontin Antitrust Litigation, No. 02-1390, U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey. PLAINS ALL: DuckPond Trust Lawsuit Over PNG Merger Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------ The suit DuckPond Trust, et al., v. PAA Natural Gas Storage, LP., et al., 4:13-cv-03170 (S.D. Tex.) was dismissed in February, according to Plains All American Pipeline, L.P.'s Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. Class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of PNG unitholders challenging the PNG Merger. Two lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery in September 2013 and were consolidated under the caption In re PAA Natural Gas Storage, Limited Partnership Unitholder Litigation, C.A. No. 8908-VCL (which the company refers to as the Consolidated Delaware Action). Two lawsuits were filed in Texas state court in September 2013 and were consolidated under the caption Vicars v. PNGS GP, LLC, et al., Cause No. 2013-52687 (Tex. Dist. Ct. Harris County) (which the company refers to as the Consolidated Texas Action). Four lawsuits were filed in Texas federal court in October 2013 and were consolidated under the caption The DuckPond Trust, et al., v. PAA Natural Gas Storage, LP., et al., 4:13-cv- 03170 (S.D. Tex.) (which the company refers to as the Consolidated Federal Action). Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Delaware Action generally allege that (i) the individual defendants breached fiduciary duties owed to PNG unitholders by allegedly approving the merger agreement at an unfair price and through an unfair process and by agreeing to certain deal protection devices; and (ii) the PNG Merger unfairly benefits certain members of PNG's board of directors. Plaintiffs also allege that PNG's general partner, PNG and other of the company's affiliates aided and abetted the alleged fiduciary breaches by the individual defendants. Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Texas Action generally allege that (i) the individual defendants breached their duties owed to PNG's unitholders under PNG's partnership agreement as well as the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and are engaging in self-dealing; and (ii) PNG's general partner, PNG and other of the company's affiliates have aided and abetted the defendant directors for the purpose of advancing their own interests and/or assisting such directors in connection with their breaches of their respective duties. In addition, the Consolidated Texas Action includes purported derivative claims on behalf of PNG based on the alleged breaches of duties by the individual defendants. In February 2014, the Consolidated Federal Action was dismissed. Plaintiffs in the remaining actions generally seek, among other relief, to enjoin the transaction, rescission in the event the transaction is consummated, an order directing defendants to account to plaintiff and other members of the putative class for all damages caused by their breaches, money damages and an award of costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorneys' fees. PROFESSIONAL SERVICE: Refused to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Francisco J. Bruno and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(B) v. Professional Service Industries, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-20570-KMM (S.D. Fla., February 14, 2014) alleges that the Defendant willfully and intentionally refused to pay the Plaintiff's overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Professional Service Industries, Inc. is a foreign corporation that regularly transacts business within Dade County. The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. K. David Kelly, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: (305) 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM david.kelly38@rocketmail.com The Defendant is represented by: Luis E. Ordonez, Esq. QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, WOOD & BOYER, P.A. 9300 South Dadeland Blvd., 4th Floor Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 670-1101 Facsimile: (305) 670-1161 E-mail: LOrdonez@QPWBLaw.com RANJHA CLEANERS: Accused of Failing to Pay Proper Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ernesto Navarrete, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Ranjha Cleaners, Inc., (d/b/a Ranjha Cleaners), Soho Cleaners Inc.,(d/b/a Soho Cleaners), Mulberry Street Cleaners Inc. (d/b/a Mulberry Cleaners), Ranjha Mott Cleaners Inc. (d/b/a Mott Cleaners), Mulberry Subway Inc. (d/b/a Subway), Worth Subway Inc. (d/b/a Subway), Shahid Razza and John Doe, Case No. 1:14-cv- 00954-VSB (S.D.N.Y., February 14, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff regularly worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate overtime compensation for any of the hours that he worked. Ranjha Cleaners Inc. is a New York corporation headquartered in New York City. The Defendants own, operate and control a chain of full service dry cleaners and Subway franchises around lower Manhattan. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com RIDDELL INC: Sued by Buyers of Revolution Brand Football Helmets ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gustavo Galvan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Riddell, Inc.; All American Sports Corporation d/b/a Riddell/All American; Riddell Sports Group; Easton-Bell Sports, Inc.; Easton-Bell Sports, LLC; EB Sports Corporation; RBG Holdings Corporation; and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 3:14-cv-00359-DMS-WVG (S.D. Cal., February 14, 2014) is brought on behalf of California consumers, who purchased Riddell Revolution brand football helmets. The Revolution helmet was marketed based on the Defendants' uniform false or misleading representations that the helmet would prevent or substantially reduce the incidence of concussion compared to traditional and lower-cost football helmets, Mr. Galvan alleges. The Defendants, either individually or collectively, have all operated as a business through designing, developing, manufacturing, selling, or distributing football equipment, including helmets, in one entity form or another, since 1922. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan M. Mansfield, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 10200 Willow Creek Rd., Suite 160 San Diego, CA 92131 Telephone: (619) 308-5034 Facsimile: (855) 274-1888 E-mail: amansfield@whatleykallas.com - and - D. G. Pantazis, Jr., Esq. WIGGINS CHILDS QUINN & PANTAZIS, LLC 301 19th Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 314-0557 Facsimile: (205) 314-0757 E-mail: dpantazisjr@wcqp.com - and - E. Kirk Wood, Esq. WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC 2001 Park Place North, Suite 1000 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 612-0243 Facsimile: (866) 747-3905 E-mail: ekirkwood1@cs.com SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Awaits Approval of Santarus Suit Accord -------------------------------------------------------------- Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. awaits final approval of a settlement reached in shareholder lawsuits over its acquisition of Santarus, according to Salix's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. Beginning on November 12, 2013, eleven putative class action lawsuits were filed by shareholders of Santarus seeking to challenge the company's proposed acquisition of Santarus, which was announced on November 7, 2013. Nine of these actions were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, one was filed in California Superior Court (San Diego County) and one was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. These actions generally allege that the members of the Santarus board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to Santarus's shareholders by failing to maximize the value of Santarus and by making inadequate or misleading disclosures regarding the proposed merger, and that Santarus, the company and certain of its subsidiaries aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint in the action pending in California federal court also asserts causes of action on behalf of the individual plaintiff for alleged violations of certain sections of the Exchange Act. These actions generally sought, among other things, to enjoin the merger, unspecified damages and fees. On December 9, 2013, Santarus and its directors filed a motion to stay the action pending in California Superior Court. On December 11, 2013, the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated the nine actions pending in that court, appointed lead counsel for the plaintiffs, and designated the amended complaint filed by plaintiff Imad Ahmad Khalil on December 9, 2013 as the operative complaint in the consolidated Delaware litigation. On December 20, 2013, the parties in the Delaware litigation reached an agreement in principle, subject to full documentation, to resolve the plaintiffs' claims in that action in exchange for certain supplemental disclosures that Santarus included in an amended Schedule 14D-9 it filed on that date. The company completed the company's merger with Santarus on January 2, 2014. The parties in the Delaware litigation executed a Memorandum of Understanding reflecting the terms of their agreement in principle on January 17, 2014 and are currently drafting full settlement documentation and engaging in confirmatory discovery. The settlement of the Delaware litigation will be subject to approval by the Delaware Court of Chancery. The plaintiffs' counsel in the Delaware litigation has also indicated that the plaintiffs intend to request an award of an unspecified amount attorneys' fees from the Delaware Court of Chancery. On January 23, 2014, Santarus and its directors filed a renewed motion to stay the action pending in California Superior Court, and the company filed a separate motion to stay that action in favor of the Delaware litigation. On February 12, 2014, the parties in the action pending in California federal court filed a joint motion to stay that action pending a decision by the Delaware Court of Chancery regarding final approval of the proposed settlement of the Delaware litigation, and the California federal court granted that motion on February 13, 2014. The company is vigorously defending the action pending in California Superior Court and attempting to finalize the settlement of the consolidated Delaware litigation. SEALED AIR: Manitoba Court Dismisses Grace in Asbestos Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- Two actions over W.R. Grace & Co.'s alleged marketing, manufacturing or distributing of asbestos or asbestos containing products were dismissed by the Manitoba court as against the Grace parties and it is anticipated that the remaining actions will now also be dismissed, according to Sealed Air Corporation's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. Since November 2004, the Company and specified subsidiaries have been named as defendants in a number of cases, including a number of putative class actions, brought in Canada as a result of W.R. Grace & Co.'s alleged marketing, manufacturing or distributing of asbestos or asbestos containing products in Canada prior to the Cryovac transaction in 1998. Grace has agreed to defend and indemnify the company and the company's subsidiaries in these cases. A global settlement of these Canadian claims to be funded by Grace has been approved by the Canadian court, and the Plan provides for payment of these claims. The company does not have any positive obligations under the Canadian settlement, but it is a beneficiary of the release of claims. The release in favor of the Grace parties (including us) became operative upon the effective date of a plan of reorganization in Grace's United States Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding. As filed, the Plan contemplates that the claims released under the Canadian settlement will be subject to injunctions under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Bankruptcy Court entered the Bankruptcy Court Confirmation Order on January 31, 2011 and the Clarifying Order on February 15, 2011 and the District Court entered the Original District Court Confirmation Order on January 30, 2012 and the Amended District Court Confirmation Order on June 11, 2012. The Canadian Court issued an Order on April 8, 2011 recognizing and giving full effect to the Bankruptcy Court's Confirmation Order in all provinces and territories of Canada in accordance with the Bankruptcy Court Confirmation Order's terms. The Plan became effective on February 3, 2014. In accordance with an order of the Canadian court, on the Effective Date the actions became permanently stayed until they are amended to remove the Grace parties as named defendants. Two actions were dismissed by the Manitoba court as against the Grace parties on February 19, 2014 and it is anticipated that the remaining actions will now also be dismissed. SEALED AIR: Litigations Over Cryovac Transaction Remain Stayed -------------------------------------------------------------- Purported class actions and a number of personal injury lawsuits against Sealed Air Corporation as a result of the Cryovac, Inc. transaction remained stayed as a result of W.R. Grace & Co.'s bankruptcy filing, according to Sealed Air's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. Since the beginning of 2000, the company was served with a number of lawsuits alleging that, as a result of the Cryovac transaction, the company becomes responsible for alleged asbestos liabilities of Grace and its subsidiaries, some of which were also named as co-defendants in some of these actions. Among these lawsuits are several purported class actions and a number of personal injury lawsuits. Some plaintiffs seek damages for personal injury or wrongful death, while others seek medical monitoring, environmental remediation or remedies related to an attic insulation product. Neither the former Sealed Air Corporation nor Cryovac, Inc. ever produced or sold any of the asbestos-containing materials that are the subjects of these cases. None of these cases has reached resolution through judgment, settlement or otherwise. Grace's Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding stayed all of these cases and the orders confirming Grace's plan of reorganization enjoin parties from prosecuting Grace-related asbestos claims against the Company. SEALED AIR: Canada Unit Still Faces Asbestos Complaints ------------------------------------------------------- Sealed Air Corp.'s Canadian subsidiary still faces suits as a result of W.R. Grace & Co.'s marketing, selling, processing, manufacturing, distributing and/or delivering asbestos or asbestos-containing products in Canada prior to the Cryovac, Inc. Transaction, according to Sealed Air's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. In November 2004, the Company's Canadian subsidiary Sealed Air (Canada) Co./Cie learned that it had been named a defendant in the case of Thundersky v. The Attorney General of Canada, et al. (File No. CI04-01-39818), pending in the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench. Grace and W. R. Grace & Co. - Conn. were also named as defendants. The plaintiff brought the claim as a putative class proceeding and sought recovery for alleged injuries suffered by any Canadian resident, other than in the course of employment, as a result of Grace's marketing, selling, processing, manufacturing, distributing and/or delivering asbestos or asbestos-containing products in Canada prior to the Cryovac Transaction. A plaintiff filed another proceeding in January 2005 in the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench naming the Company and specified subsidiaries as defendants. The latter proceeding, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Manitoba v. The Attorney General of Canada, et al. (File No. CI05-01-41069), sought the recovery of the cost of insured health services allegedly provided by the Government of Manitoba to the members of the class of plaintiffs in the Thundersky proceeding. In October 2005, the company learned that six additional putative class proceedings had been brought in various provincial and federal courts in Canada seeking recovery from the Company and its subsidiaries Cryovac, Inc. and Sealed Air (Canada) Co./Cie, as well as other defendants including W. R. Grace & Co. and W. R. Grace & Co. - Conn., for alleged injuries suffered by any Canadian resident, other than in the course of employment (except with respect to one of these six claims), as a result of Grace's marketing, selling, manufacturing, processing, distributing and/or delivering asbestos or asbestos-containing products in Canada prior to the Cryovac transaction. Grace and W. R. Grace & Co. - Conn. agreed to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Company and its affiliates in respect of any liability and expense, including legal fees and costs, in these actions. SKECHERS USA: Faces "Burge" Suit in Kentucky Over Shape Up Shoes ---------------------------------------------------------------- Helga Burge, 19109 Cherry Rose Circle, Lutz, FL 33558 v. Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., 228 Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan Beach, CA 90266; Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., II, 228 Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan Beach, CA 90266; and Skechers Fitness Group, 228 Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan Beach, CA 90266, Case No. 3:14- cv-00131-TBR (W.D. Ky., February 14, 2014) alleges that Skechers made numerous misrepresentations regarding the efficacy and health benefits of Shape-ups. Skechers is a shoe company that manufactures toning shoes, including Skechers Shape-ups and Tone-ups. Skechers markets and promotes its toning shoes as footwear that will provide countless health benefits, including improved cardiac function and orthopedic benefits. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard W. Schulte, Esq. WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC 812 E. National Road Dayton, OH 45377 Telephone: (937) 435-7500 Facsimile: (937) 435-7511 E-mail: rschulte@legaldayton.com The Defendants are represented by: Jill F. Endicott, Esq. DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP - LOUISVILLE 101 S. Fifth Street, Suite 2500 Louisville, KY 40202-3197 Telephone: (502) 581-8057 Facsimile: (502) 581-8111 E-mail: jill.endicott@dinsmore.com SKECHERS USA: Faces "Trujillo" Suit Over Shape Up Toning Shoes -------------------------------------------------------------- Diane Trujillo, 74 Houston Street, Buffalo, NY 14220 v. Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., 228 Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan Beach, CA 90266; Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., II, 228 Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan Beach, CA 90266; and Skechers Fitness Group, 228 Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan Beach, CA 90266, Case No. 3:14- cv-00126-TBR (W.D. Ky., February 14, 2014) alleges that Skechers made numerous misrepresentations regarding the efficacy and health benefits of Shape-ups. Skechers is a shoe company that manufactures toning shoes, including Skechers Shape-ups and Tone-ups. Skechers markets and promotes its toning shoes as footwear that will provide countless health benefits, including improved cardiac function and orthopedic benefits. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard W. Schulte, Esq. WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC 812 E. National Road Dayton, OH 45377 Telephone: (937) 435-7500 Facsimile: (937) 435-7511 E-mail: rschulte@legaldayton.com The Defendants are represented by: Jill F. Endicott, Esq. DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP - LOUISVILLE 101 S. Fifth Street, Suite 2500 Louisville, KY 40202-3197 Telephone: (502) 581-8057 Facsimile: (502) 581-8111 E-mail: jill.endicott@dinsmore.com SKECHERS USA: Misrepresents Shape Up Toning Shoes, Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Cindy Jefferson, 1805 SE 9th St., Moore, OK 73160 v. Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., 228 Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan Beach, CA 90266; Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., II, 228 Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan Beach, CA 90266; and Skechers Fitness Group, 228 Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan Beach, CA 90266, Case No. 3:14- cv-00133-TBR (W.D. Ky., February 14, 2014) alleges that Skechers made numerous misrepresentations regarding the efficacy and health benefits of Shape-ups. Skechers is a shoe company that manufactures toning shoes, including Skechers Shape-ups and Tone-ups. Skechers markets and promotes its toning shoes as footwear that will provide countless health benefits, including improved cardiac function and orthopedic benefits. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard W. Schulte, Esq. WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC 812 E. National Road Dayton, OH 45377 Telephone: (937) 435-7500 Facsimile: (937) 435-7511 E-mail: rschulte@legaldayton.com The Defendants are represented by: Jill F. Endicott, Esq. DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP - LOUISVILLE 101 S. Fifth Street, Suite 2500 Louisville, KY 40202-3197 Telephone: (502) 581-8057 Facsimile: (502) 581-8111 E-mail: jill.endicott@dinsmore.com SUNTRUST MORTGAGE: Court Tosses Bid to Dismiss "Hamilton" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- CARINA HAMILTON f/k/a LISA MONTI and DAVID S. WIEDER on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SUNTRUST MORTGAGE INC., QBE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, and STERLING NATIONAL INSURANCE AGENCY f/k/a QBE FIRST INSURANCE AGENCY, Defendants, CASE NO. 13-60749-CIV-COHN/SELTZER, (S.D. Fla.), is before the Court on separate motions to dismiss a third amended complaint filed by (i) QBE Specialty and QBE First, and (ii) SunTrust Mortgage Inc. SunTrust, alternatively asked the Court to abstain from hearing Ms. Hamilton's Claims. District Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr., issued an order denying the QBE defendants' motion to dismiss, saying the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that the QBE Defendants caused them harm. A copy of the March 28, 2014 ruling is available at http://is.gd/gNNIsAfrom Leagle.com. In a separate ruling dated March 25, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/8tu2H7from Leagle.com, District Judge James I. Cohn denied SunTrust's motion to dismiss, or alternatively, for the Court to abstain from hearing Plaintiff hamilton's claims. Judge Cohn held that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that SunTrust acted capriciously to contravene their reasonable contractual expectations. To find otherwise at this stage of the proceedings would, in effect, eliminate any reasonable limit on the amount of force-placed insurance that SunTrust may lawfully charge to its borrowers. This, the Court declines to do, he said. Carina Hamilton, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron Samuel Podhurst -- apodhurst@podhurst.com -- Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Catherine E. Anderson -- canderson@gslawny.com -- Giskan, Solotaroff Anderson & Stewart, LLP, Eric D. Holland, Hollan, Groves, Schneller & Stolze, LLC, Gerard B. Schneller, Holland, Groves, Schneller & Stolze, LLC, John Gravante, III, Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Margery Ellen Golant, Margery E. Golant, P.A., Matthew Weinshall, Podhurst Orseck, Peter Prieto, Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Randall Seth Crompton, Holland, Groves, Schneller & Stolze, Robert J. Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP, Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Adam M. Moskowitz, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Dyanne Elyce Feinberg, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A., Howard Mitchell Bushman, Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP, Lance August Harke, Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP, Rachel Sullivan, Robert J Neary, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A., Tal J Lifshitz, Kozyak Tropin Throckmorton & Jeffrey N. Golant. David Wieder, Plaintiff, represented by Eric D. Holland, Hollan, Groves, Schneller & Stolze, LLC, Gerard B. Schneller, Holland, Groves, Schneller & Stolze, LLC, Rachel Sullivan, Randall Seth Crompton, Holland, Groves, Schneller & Stolze, Robert J. Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP, Robert J Neary, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A., Dyanne Elyce Feinberg, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A., Tal J Lifshitz, Kozyak Tropin Throckmorton & Adam M. Moskowitz, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton. Suntrust Mortgage Inc., Defendant, represented by Marc Jonathan Gottlieb -- marc.gottlieb@akerman.com -- Akerman Senterfitt & Eidson, William Patrick Heller -- william.heller@akerman.com -- Akerman Senterfitt & Eidson, Christopher Stephen Carver -- christopher.carver@akerman.com -- Akerman Senterfitt & Nathaniel Dwight Callahan -- nathaniel.callahan@akerman.com -- Akerman Senterfitt & Eidson. Sterling National Insurance Agency, Defendant, represented by Robyn C. Quattrone -- rquattrone@buckleysandler.com -- Buckley Sandler, LLP, Ross E. Morrison -- rmorrison@buckleysandler.com -- BuckleySandler, LLP, Stephen M. LeBlanc -- sleblanc@buckleysandler.com -- BuckleySandler, LLP, Brian W. Toth -- brian.toth@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight & Marc Jonathan Gottlieb, Akerman Senterfitt & Eidson. QBE Specialty Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Robyn C. Quattrone, Buckley Sandler, LLP, Ross E. Morrison, BuckleySandler, LLP, Stephen M. LeBlanc, BuckleySandler, LLP, William Newton Shepherd, Holland & Knight LLP, Brian W. Toth, Holland & Knight & Marc Jonathan Gottlieb, Akerman Senterfitt & Eidson. TELETECH HOLDINGS: Unit Still Faces Suit Over Google Phone Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- A subsidiary of TeleTech Holdings, Inc. continues to face a lawsuit alleging it violated California Penal Code Section 632 by recording telephone calls made on behalf of Google Inc., according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. In the fourth quarter of 2012, a class action complaint was filed in the State of California against a TeleTech subsidiary and Google Inc. ("Google"), as co-defendants. The action alleges that the defendants violated California Penal Code Section 632 by recording telephone calls made on behalf of Google to residents in California without disclosure. Pursuant to its contractual commitments, the Company has agreed to indemnify Google for costs and expenses related to the complaint. UNION SECURITY: Sued Over Denial of Accidental Death Benefits ------------------------------------------------------------- Fallon Logan, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Union Security Insurance Company, Case No. 2:14-cv- 01174-DMG-E (C.D. Cal., February 14, 2014) is an individual and class action lawsuit brought by a beneficiary under an employee benefit plan for the improper denial of accidental death benefits by the plan's insurer and administrator, Union Security Insurance Company. Union Security has uniformly and improperly denied accidental drug overdose claims by relying on erroneous applications of a "drug exclusion" in its accidental death and dismemberment policies, the Plaintiff contends. Fallon Logan is the named beneficiary of an accidental death and dismemberment policy issued on the life of her fiance, Tabias Bryant, formerly an employee of Ipayment, Inc. Union Security is a life insurance company licensed to do business in California and domiciled in Kansas. The Company underwrites, administers, and decides claims under accidental death and dismemberment policies issued to employers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert S. Gianelli, Esq. Jully C. Pae, Esq. GIANELLI & MORRIS, A Law Corporation 550 South Hope Street, Suite 1645 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 489-1600 Facsimile: (213) 489-1611 E-mail: rob.gianelli@gmlawyers.com jully.pae@gmlawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: Allison Anne Vana, Esq. James J. Moak, Esq. MESERVE MUMPER AND HUGHES LLP 800 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-2611 Telephone: (213) 620-0300 Facsimile: (310) 625-1930 E-mail: avana@mmhllp.com jmoak@mmhllp.com UNITED PARCEL: Sells Nonexistent & Pricey Air Service, Class Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Flores, and Mary Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. United Parcel Service Inc., a Delaware Corporation; United Parcel Service, Inc.; an Ohio Corporation; United Parcel Service General Services Co., a Delaware Corporation; and United Parcel Service Co. d/b/a United Parcel Service Co. (Air), a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 2:14- cv-01182-GW-PJW (C.D. Cal., February 14, 2014) arises from UPS's alleged unfair and deceptive practice of selling customers nonexistent, expensive air service and charging them for aviation fuel on letters and packages. UPS, under the names "Next Day Air" and "2nd Day Air," sells its customers alleged expensive "air" shipping services for domestic letters and packages. UPS's domestic package business consists of air and ground shipment of small packages (up to 150 pounds in weight) and letters to and from all 50 states. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Peter J. McNulty, Esq. MCNULTY LAW FIRM 827 Moraga Drive Los Angeles, CA 90049 Telephone: (310) 471-2707 Facsimile: (310) 472-7014 E-mail: peter@mcnultylaw.com - and - Kirk D. Tresemer, Esq. Darren A. Natvig, Esq. IRWIN & BOESEN, P.C. 4100 E. Mississippi Ave., Suite 1900 Denver, CO Telephone: (303) 999-9999 Facsimile: (303) 321-1915 E-mail: ktresemer@coloradolawyers.com dnatvig@coloradolawyers.com - and - Stephen C. Neal, Esq. Kathleen H. Goodhart, Esq. COOLEY LLP Five Palo Alto Square 3000 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306 Telephone: (650) 843-5182 Facsimile: (650) 857-0663 E-mail: nealsc@cooley.com kgoodhart@cooley.com - and - Matthew J. Geragos, Esq. GERAGOS LAW GROUP 150 S Los Robles Avenue, Suite 665 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (626) 449-8700 Facsimile: (626) 449-8702 E-mail: matthew@geragoslaw.com - and - Paul R. Alanis, Esq. Loren S. Ostrow, Esq. ALANIS & OSTROW 150 South Los Robles Avenue, Suite 665 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (626) 356-1188 Facsimile: (626) 345-1164 E-mail: palanis@a-olaw.com lostrow@a-olaw.com - and - Jonathan H. Waller, Esq. WALLER LAW OFFICE, P.C. 2001 Park Place North, Suite 900 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 33-7330 E-mail: jwaller@waller-law.com UNITED PARCEL: One Canadian Case Remains Over Brokerage Services ---------------------------------------------------------------- United Parcel Service, Inc. continues to defend one outstanding case in Ontario over allegations of inadequate disclosure concerning the existence and cost of its brokerage services, according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. In Canada, four purported class-action cases were filed against the company in British Columbia (2006); Ontario (2007) and Quebec (2006 and 2013). The cases each allege inadequate disclosure concerning the existence and cost of brokerage services provided by the company under applicable provincial consumer protection legislation and infringement of interest restriction provisions under the Criminal Code of Canada. The British Columbia class action was declared inappropriate for certification and dismissed by the trial judge. That decision was upheld by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in March 2010, which ended the case in the company's favor. The Ontario class action was certified in September 2011. Partial summary judgment was granted to the company and the plaintiffs by the Ontario motions court. The complaint under the Criminal Code was dismissed. No appeal is being taken from that decision. The allegations of inadequate disclosure were granted and the company is appealing that decision. The motion to authorize the 2006 Quebec litigation as a class action was dismissed by the motions judge in October 2012; there was no appeal, which ended that case in the company's favor. The 2013 Quebec litigation also has been dismissed. The company denies all liability and are vigorously defending the one outstanding case in Ontario. UNITED PARCEL: Wants Remaining Claims in Forwarding Suit Junked --------------------------------------------------------------- Objections of United Parcel Service, Inc.'s to the retention of some claims in the Third Amended Complaint in a suit over price- fixing activities filed against it relating to the provision of freight forwarding services are currently pending before the court, according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. In January 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleging price-fixing activities relating to the provision of freight forwarding services. UPS was not named in this case. In July 2009, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint naming numerous global freight forwarders as defendants. UPS and UPS Supply Chain Solutions are among the 60 defendants named in the amended complaint. The plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint in October 2010, which the company moved to dismiss. In August 2012, the Court granted the company's motion to dismiss all claims relevant to UPS in the Second Amended Complaint, with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint in November 2012. The company filed another motion to dismiss. On September 20, 2013, the Magistrate Judge recommended to the Court that UPS be dismissed from one of the claims in the Third Amended Complaint, with prejudice, but recommended that UPS's motion to dismiss with respect to other claims in the Third Amended Complaint be denied. UPS and other defendants filed objections to the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge to the extent they recommended denial of UPS's motion to dismiss. Those objections are currently pending before the Court. UNITED PARCEL: Still Faces Claims by Franchisees Who Rebranded -------------------------------------------------------------- The claims of a certified class of all United Parcel Service, Inc. franchisees who did rebrand their UPS Store franchises remain pending, according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. UPS and the company's subsidiary Mail Boxes Etc., Inc. are defendants in a lawsuit in California Superior Court about the rebranding of The UPS Store franchises. In the Morgate case, the plaintiffs are (1) 125 individual franchisees who did not rebrand to The UPS Store and (2) a certified class of all franchisees who did rebrand. With respect to the 125 individual franchisees described in (1), the trial court entered judgment against a bellwether individual plaintiff, which was affirmed in January 2012. In March 2013, the company reached a settlement in principle with the remaining individual plaintiffs who did not rebrand. The company believes this settlement will not have a material adverse effect on the company's financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. The trial court granted the company's motion for summary judgment against the certified class, which was reversed in January 2012. The company has not reached a settlement with this class of franchisees, and the claims of the class remain pending. UNITED SERVICES: District Court Dismisses "Allen" Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge M. Casey Rodgers dismissed the case captioned JAMES R. ALLEN and DIANE Z. ALLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al. Plaintiffs, v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants, CASE NOS. 3:13CV143-MCR/CJK, 3:13CV582-MCR/CJK, (N.D. Fla.). James R. Allen and Diane Z. Allen filed this putative class action against their insurer, United Services Automobile Association (USAA) claiming that USAA increased their homeowner's law and ordinance insurance coverage without a written selection, in violation of Fla. Stat. Section 627.7011(2). They sought monetary damages for breach of contract as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. USAA filed the Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the statute does not provide a private cause of action and the Allens have otherwise failed to state a cause of action. A copy of Judge Rodgers' March 30, 2014 order is available at http://is.gd/zqMbRxfrom Leagle.com. The Order also applies to the complaint in the consolidated Schall file, No. 3:13 cv582- MCR-CJK, which involves the same issues and thus likewise suffers from the same defect of failure to state a claim and is dismissed for the same reasons. Judge Rodgers directed the Clerk of Court to close both files. Costs to be taxed against the Plaintiffs in each case. All other pending motions were denied as moot. JAMES R ALLEN, Plaintiff, represented by: James Nixon Daniel, Esq. Russell Frank Van Sickle, Esq. TERRIE DIDIER, Esq. BEGGS & LANE RLLP 501 Commendencia Street Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850)432-2451 Facsimile: (850)469-3331 DIANE Z ALLEN, Plaintiff, represented by JAMES NIXON DANIEL, BEGGS & LANE RLLP, RUSSELL FRANK VAN SICKLE, BEGGS & LANE RLLP & TERRIE DIDIER, BEGGS & LANE RLLP. MATTHEW J SCHALL, Plaintiff, represented by JAMES NIXON DANIEL, BEGGS & LANE RLLP, RUSSELL FRANK VAN SICKLE, BEGGS & LANE RLLP & TERRIE DIDIER, BEGGS & LANE RLLP. JUDITH A SCHALL, Plaintiff, represented by JAMES NIXON DANIEL, BEGGS & LANE RLLP, RUSSELL FRANK VAN SICKLE, BEGGS & LANE RLLP & TERRIE DIDIER, BEGGS & LANE RLLP. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Defendant, represented by STEPHEN E GOLDMAN -- sgoldman@rc.com -- ROBINSON & COLE LLP, WYSTAN MICHAEL ACKERMAN -- wackerman@rc.com -- ROBINSON & COLE LLP, and: Charles Franklin Beall, Jr., Esq. Thomas Larry Hill, Esq. MOORE HILL & WESTMORELAND PA 220 West Garden Street, 9th Floor Pensacola, FL 32502-5702 Telephone: (850)434-3541 Facsimile: (850)435-7899 WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Mini Butter Croissants Over Allergen --------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that Whole Foods Markets is recalling mini butter croissants sold in Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana because they contain eggs, an undeclared allergen. The recalled item is sold with a Whole Foods market scale label reading "mini butter croissants" in six-pack plastic containers with a "Best by" date of April 21 through April 23. It also has a uniform product code of 2 28719-00499-1 on the scale label. A company statement says the issue arose after one illness was reported. That's the only illness reported so far, but persons with an allergy or severe sensitivity to eggs run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reactions if they consume the pastry. Austin-based Whole Foods Markets' Southwest Region distributed the pastry to 26 While Foods Market stores in the regions four states. WINTRUST FIN'L: Expects Half of FLSA Class Members to Be Excluded ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wintrust Financial Corporation anticipates that about half of new class members designated in a Fair Labor Standards Act class action lawsuit filed against Wintrust, Barrington Bank and its subsidiary, Wintrust Mortgage Company will ultimately be excluded from the class, according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. On March 15, 2012, a former mortgage loan originator employed by Wintrust Mortgage Company, named Wintrust, Barrington Bank and its subsidiary, Wintrust Mortgage Company, as defendants in a Fair Labor Standards Act class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "FLSA Litigation"). The suit asserts that Wintrust Mortgage Company violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and challenges the manner in which Wintrust Mortgage Company classified its loan originators and compensated them for their work. The suit also seeks to assert these claims as a class. On September 30, 2013, the Court entered an order conditionally certifying an "opt-in" class in this case. Notice to the potential class members was sent on or about October 22, 2013, primarily informing the putative class of the right to opt-into the class and setting a deadline for same. Approximately 15% of the notice recipients joined the class. However, the Company anticipates that about half of these new class members will ultimately be excluded from the class. YAHOO! INC: Shareholders Appeal Dismissal of Calif. Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in In re Yahoo! Inc. Securities Litigation are appealing the dismissal of the case, according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. Since June 6, 2011, two purported stockholder class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain officers and directors of the Company by plaintiffs Bonato and the Twin Cities Pipe Trades Pension Trust. In October 2011, the District Court consolidated the two actions under the caption In re Yahoo! Inc. Securities Litigation and appointed the Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers as lead plaintiff. In a consolidated amended complaint filed December 15, 2011, the lead plaintiff purports to represent a class of investors who purchased the Company's common stock between April 19, 2011 and July 29, 2011, and alleges that during that class period, defendants issued statements that were materially false or misleading because they did not disclose information relating to Alibaba Group's restructuring of Alipay. The complaint purports to assert claims for relief for violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and for violation of Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and seeks unspecified damages, injunctive and equitable relief, fees, and costs. On August 10, 2012, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. Plaintiffs have appealed. YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN: Class Cert. Bid in "Jones" Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- James Jones, Nicole Steels, Kavon Ward, and Iona Toles filed a lawsuit on behalf of themselves and other similarly-situated employees of the National Council of Young Men's Christian Associations of the United States of America, alleging claims of race discrimination and retaliation against the YMCA and Elinor Hite, the former director of the YMCA's human resources department. Before the Court are the parties' respective objections to the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys issued on September 5, 2013. Judge Keys has recommended that the Court: (i) grant the defendants' motion to strike the report and testimony of one of the plaintiffs' proffered experts, Dr. Anthony G. Greenwald; (ii) deny the defendants' motion to strike the report and testimony of another expert proffered by the plaintiffs, Dr. Mark Killingsworth; (iii) deny the plaintiffs' motion for class certification; and (iv) grant the defendants' motion to deny class certification. District Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. issued a memorandum opinion and order overruling the parties' objections to Magistrate Judge Keys' thorough and persuasive Report, and adopts the Report's recommendations in full. The plaintiffs' motion for class certification was denied. A copy of the March 31, 2014 ruling is available at http://is.gd/LOok3gfrom Leagle.com. The case is JAMES JONES, NICOLE STEELS, KAVON WARD, AND IONA TOLES, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL COUNCIL OF YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOICATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ("YMCA of the USA"), an Illinois not-for-profit corporation, and ELINOR HITE, former Senior Vice President of YMCA of the USA, Defendants, NO. 09 C 06437, (N.D. Ill.). James Jones, Plaintiff, represented by James Bryan Wood -- bryan@jbryanwoodlaw.com -- The Law Office of J. Bryan Wood, Jessica Judith Fayerman -- jfayerman@prinz-lawfirm.comv -- The Prinz Law Firm, P.C. and: Johanna J. Raimond, Esq. Law Offices of Johanna J. Raimond Ltd. 431 South Dearborn, Suite 1002 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312)235-6959 Facsimile: (312)469-8302 Nicole Steels, Plaintiff, represented by James Bryan Wood, The Law Office of J. Bryan Wood. Nicole Steels, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica Judith Fayerman, The Prinz Law Firm, P.C. & Johanna J. Raimond, Law Offices of Johanna J. Raimond Ltd.. Kavon Ward, Plaintiff, represented by James Bryan Wood, The Law Office of J. Bryan Wood & Johanna J. Raimond, Law Offices of Johanna J. Raimond Ltd.. Iona Toles, Plaintiff, represented by Johanna J. Raimond, Law Offices of Johanna J. Raimond Ltd.. National Council of Young Men's Christian Associations of the United States of America, Defendant, represented by: Richard Patrick McArdle, Esq. Aleka Lenette Jones, Esq. Brianne M. Gruszka, Esq. David Donald Kadue, Esq. David Bennett Ross, Esq. Gerald L. Pauling, Esq. Jay C. Carle, Esq. Kyle R. Hartman, Esq. Tracy Marie Billows, Esq. William Francis Dugan, Esq. Seyfarth Shaw LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Telephone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 Elinor Hite, Defendant, represented by Richard Patrick McArdle, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Aleka Lenette Jones, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Brianne M. Gruszka, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, David Donald Kadue, Seyfarth Shaw Llp, David Bennett Ross, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Gerald L. Pauling, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Jay C. Carle, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Tracy Marie Billows, Seyfarth Shaw LLP & William Francis Dugan, Seyfarth Shaw LLP. * Alaska Legislature Passes Medical Malpractice Bill ---------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that the Alaska Legislature has passed a bill that would make expressions of apology or compassion inadmissible as evidence in medical malpractice cases. HB250, from Rep. Kurt Olson, has been labeled the "I'm sorry" bill. In his sponsor statement, Mr. Olson said the bill was intended to clear up a "gray area" that exists between apologies and admissions of negligence. He said a goal was to improve doctor-patient relationships. HB250 passed the Senate unanimously on April 16, after clearing the House. Sens. Donny Olson and Cathy Giessel declared conflicts but were required to vote. Donny Olson is a doctor and Giessel a nurse. Under the bill, if an expression of apology or sympathy were made with an admission of liability or negligence, the admission of liability or negligence could still be admissible. * Constitutional Changes Sought Regarding Malpractice Suits ----------------------------------------------------------- Steve Miller, writing for The Associated Press, reports that following a Florida Supreme Court decision that struck down caps on certain awards in medical malpractice lawsuits, the members of a 2002 task force that supported those caps are calling for a constitutional amendment that would place the caps on solid footing. The task force appointed by then-Gov. Jeb Bush recommended a cap for individuals on non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering, and the legislature passed it in 2003. The five people who served on that task force wrote to Senate President Don Gaetz and House Speaker Will Weatherford on April 9, asking for the proposed amendment. It would have to be approved by voters. However, officials in both chambers say the request comes too late in this year's legislative session for any action. The panel members in 2002 compiled a 345-page report that resulted in legislation in 2003 placing a $500,000 lid for individuals on non-economic damages. The five members who signed the letter wrote that the court decision left them in a "disheartening" position. They included task force president John Hitt, president of the University of Central Florida, and Donna Shalala, the former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services who now serves as president of the University of Miami. In the letter, the five asked legislative leaders to consider putting a constitutional amendment before voters that would give the malpractice caps constitutional authority and remove questions about their constitutionality. Last month, Florida's high court ruled that the caps violate the equal protection guarantee in the state's constitution. The lawsuit limits had been part of a law that Bush pushed in an effort to lower the cost of malpractice insurance rates and to keep doctors from moving out of state. Supporters at the time called skyrocketing insurance rates a crisis. "Because we are eager to give the court the benefit of the doubt, we can only conclude that they made an egregious mistake," concluded the letter, signed by the panel. The idea that the Senate would consider the issue at this point in the session, with about two weeks left, is "unlikely," a Gaetz spokeswoman said. On the House side, subcommittees are no longer meeting, which would hinder any consideration at this point, a spokesman said. ********* 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 * * *