/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140429.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, April 29, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 84 Headlines 247 CAFE: Former Kitchen Workers Seek to Recover Overtime Premium ARCHSTONE COMMUNITIES: Wants to Appeal "Vagle" Suit Remand Order BANKERS LIFE: Discovery in "Parrottino" Suit Allowed In Part BANKRATE INC: Colo. Court Dismisses "Speight" TCPA Litigation BANKRATE INC: "Nicoski" Plaintiff Seeks Class Certification BANKRATE INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit in N.Y. BEBE STORES: Fails to Have Blind-Accessible POS Units, Suit Says BNY MELLON: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Madoff Feeder Fund BURGER KING: Judge Rejects Bid to Dismiss Fax Ad Class Action CABARCENO ENTERPRISES: Faces "Sainz" Collective Action in Florida CABLE NEWS: Illegally Disclosed Users' Sensitive Info, Suit Says CAL-MAINE FOODS: Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay & Other Relief CARLYLE GROUP: May 19 Class Cert. Hearing in Suit v. Apollo CARLYLE GROUP: Dismissal of Securities Lawsuits Under Appeal CENTURY LINK: Fights Suits Over Modifications to Retiree Benefits CENTURYLINK INC: Settlement in Qwest Rights-of-Way Suit Approved CHEMED CORP: Settlement in Labor Lawsuit v. VITAS Paid in 2013 CHEMED CORP: Settles Securities Litigation in Ohio for $6 Million CLC RESORTS: Makes Unsolicited and Illegal Calls, Suit Claims COMPASS HEALTH: Wants $1.1MM OT Class Action Settlement Approved CORELOGIC INC: No Appeals Court Review in RESPA "Violation" Suit CORELOGIC INC: Subsidiary Reaches Settlement in FCRA Litigation CORPORATE ENHANCEMENT: Faces "McLaughlin" Class Suit in Tennessee DIGITAL RISK: Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages and Damages DILLARD'S PROPERTIES: Removed "Stayart" Suit to E.D. California DIODES INC: Discovery Stayed in Tex. Suit Due to Dismissal Bid EXELON GENERATION: Sued for Refusing to Pay Overtime Compensation FACEBOOK INC: NASDAQ Appealed to 2nd Cir. From IPO MDL Order FAIRWAY GROUP: Faces IPO-Related Class Suit in New York GENERAL CABLE: "Livonia" Suit Transferred From N.Y. to Kentucky GENERAL MOTORS: May 29 Hearing Set for Defect-Related Cases GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Ruff" Action in N.J. Over Ignition Defect GENERAL MOTORS: Gray Ritter Files Consumer Class Action GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Judge Tosses Investors' Class Action GOOGLE INC: "Rudgayzer" Suit Transferred From N.Y. to California HESS CORP: Removed "Olson" Suit to North Dakota District Court HGB PETROLEUM: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Suit Claims HILTON WORLDWIDE: Has $86MM Payable in Suit Over Domestic Plan HUSTON CONTRACTING: Fails to Properly Pay Class, Suit Claims JAMES PETERS: One of 50 Women in Hep C Suit Blocks Settlement JERSEY CITY PARKING: Default Judgment Bid in "Ali" Suit Denied KANSAS CITY: Robins Geller Files Class Action in Missouri LEHMAN BROTHERS: Banks Balk at Bid to Dismiss Derivatives Suit MAIDENFORM BRANDS: 2 Women Sue Over Weight Reduction Claims MATTLEMAN WEINROTH: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement MERCK & CO: La. Court Approves Settlement in Vioxx Litigation MERCK & CO: Submission of Vioxx Claims in Missouri Closed in Oct MERCK & CO: Settles Vioxx Suit in Indiana With Named Plaintiffs MERCK & CO: Discovery in N.J. Vioxx Securities Suit Now Closed MERCK & CO: Settles Fosamax ONJ Litigation for $27.7 Million MERCK & CO: Wins Court OK for $215MM Accord in Vytorin/Zetia Suit MERCK & CO: Pays $480MM Into "ENHANCE Litigation" Settlement Fund MERCK & CO: Sued by Pa. Purchasers of M-M-R II Vaccine MERCK & CO: Reinstated as Defendant in New Jersey AWP Litigation MERCK & CO: 3rd Cir. Sends K-DUR Antitrust Suit to District Court MERCK & CO: Files Motion to Dismiss Amended Coupon Litigation MERCK & CO: To Re-File Motion to Dismiss Sales Force Litigation NATIONAL BROADBAND: Contractors Postpone Proposed Class Action OVASCIENCE INC: Mass. Securities Suit Voluntarily Dismissed PACKAGING CORP: Agrees to Settle Class Action for $17.6 Million QANTAS: Agrees to Settle Price Fixing Class Action for $38-Mil. RITZ TRANS: Dist. Ct. Adopts Mag. Judge's Report in "Cohn" Case SEI INVESTMENTS: 5th Cir. Won't Review Stock Suit Transfer Order SPEIGHT SEED: Court Certifies Class in "Hernandez-Martinez" Suit TEAM HEALTH: Medical Personnel File Class Action Over Wages TRANSUNION HOLDING: Distributions From Privacy Suit Deal Affirmed TRANSUNION HOLDING: Objecting Counsel Seeks Interlocutory Appeal TRANSUNION HOLDING: Seeks Approval for "Soutter" Suit Settlement TRANSUNION HOLDING: Certification Sought in OFAC Alert Lawsuit WPX ENERGY: Court Allows Method of Calculating Royalty Payments WPX ENERGY: Sued by Royalty Interest Owners in N.Mex., Colo. WPX ENERGY: Bares Updates in Suits Related to Natural Gas Biz ********* 247 CAFE: Former Kitchen Workers Seek to Recover Overtime Premium ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alipio Cueva, Mario Cueva, Miguel Lopic, Segundo Sanaycela and Carlos Cordova, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 247 Cafe Inc. d/b/a Brooklyn Public House and Kevin Lunney, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:14-cv-01053- RJD-JO (E.D.N.Y., February 18, 2014) seeks to recover unpaid overtime premium pay owed to the Plaintiffs, who are former kitchen employees at the Defendants' Irish restaurant and bar located in Brooklyn, New York. 247 Cafe Inc., doing business as Brooklyn Public House, is a New York corporation with a principal place of business in Brooklyn, New York. Kevin Lunney is the owner, operator and general manager of 247 Cafe. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. Taylor Bell Graham, Esq. PELTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 385-9700 Facsimile: (212) 385-0800 E-mail: pelton@peltonlaw.com graham@peltonlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Matthew T. McLaughlin, Esq. Nicholas Marco Reiter, Esq. VENABLE LLP 1270 Avenue of the Americas, 25th Floor New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 307-5500 Facsimile: (212) 307-5598 E-mail: mtmclaughlin@venable.com nmreiter@venable.com ARCHSTONE COMMUNITIES: Wants to Appeal "Vagle" Suit Remand Order ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Defendants in the class action lawsuit styled Jennifer Vagle, et al. v. Archstone Communities LLC, et al., asked the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for permission to appeal from an order entered on February 5, 2014, by the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The order remanded the case to a state court. Plaintiffs Jennifer Vagle and George Ponce filed a putative class action in Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of themselves and other former tenants, who resided in apartment communities allegedly owned or operated by Defendants Archstone Communities LLC, ASN Warner Center, LLC, and Archstone Long Beach LP. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants unlawfully charged the tenants, at the end of the tenants' tenancy, for apartment cleaning, painting, and carpet cleaning or replacement regardless of the unit's actual condition. Long Beach removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act and the Plaintiffs moved to remand the case to state court. On February 5, the District Court granted The Plaintiffs' remand motion. The Defendants-Petitioners are represented by: Aaron Thomas Winn, Esq. Christopher J. Healey, Esq. Jaikaran Singh, Esq. MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP 600 W. Broadway San Diego, CA 92101-3391 Telephone: (619) 699-2579 Facsimile: (619) 744-3682 E-mail: awinn@mckennalong.com chealey@mckennalong.com isingh@mckennalong.com The Plaintiffs-Respondents are represented by: R. Rex Parris, Esq. Alexander R. Wheeler, Esq. John M. Bickford, Esq. Kitty Szeto, Esq. R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM 43364 10th Street West Lancaster, CA 93534 Telephone: (661) 949-2595 Facsimile: (661) 949-7524 E-mail: rrparris@rexparris.com awheeler@rexparris.com jbickford@rexparris.com kszeto@rexparris.com The appellate case is Jennifer Vagle, et al. v. Archstone Communities LLC, et al., Case No. 14-80026, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The District Court case is Jennifer Vagle, et al. v. Archstone Communities LLC, et al., Case No. 13-cv-9044-RGK (AJWx), in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The original state court case is Jennifer Vagle, et al. v. Archstone Communities LLC, et al., Case No. BC480931, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. BANKERS LIFE: Discovery in "Parrottino" Suit Allowed In Part ------------------------------------------------------------ Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub granted in part and denied in part a motion to compel discovery filed by the plaintiff in KATHLEEN PARROTTINO, on behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. BANKERS LIFE AND CASUALTY CO., Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-CV-13084, (E.D. Mich.). Judge Majzoub's April 17, 2014 Opinion and Order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/e8lozYfrom Leagle.com, also provides that the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Depositions is granted in part and denied in part. With regards another separate Motion to Compel Discovery filed by the Plaintiff, the Court denied the request, specifically: a. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery with regard to her Second Set of Requests for Production; and b. Plaintiff's request for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. Kathleen Parrottino, Plaintiff, represented by Alyson L. Oliver, Lisa M. Gray, Oliver Law Group, PC & Christina A. Kovacs, Oliver Law Group PC. Banker's Life and Casualty Co., Defendant, represented by Charles C. DeWitt, Jr. -- cdewitt@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PLC, David K. Haase -- dhaase@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Emily K. Tyler -- etyler@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson & Stephanie S. Kelly -- skelly@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson. BANKRATE INC: Colo. Court Dismisses "Speight" TCPA Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed the case Stephanie Speight v. Bankrate, Inc. after a settlement, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. In October 2012, a putative class action lawsuit styled Stephanie Speight v. Bankrate, Inc. was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and seeking statutory damages, injunctive relief and attorney fees. The plaintiff alleged that the Company contacted her and the members of the class she sought to represent on their cellular telephones without their prior express consent. On January 16, 2014, the plaintiff and a proposed plaintiff, Julio Acosta, who filed a motion for leave to be added as a plaintiff, entered into a settlement agreement with the Company on an individual basis, at no cost to the Company. On January 17, 2014, the court dismissed the case with prejudice. BANKRATE INC: "Nicoski" Plaintiff Seeks Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiff in Steven Nicoski v. Bankrate, Inc. has filed a motion for class certification with the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. On October 8, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit styled Steven Nicoski v. Bankrate, Inc. was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota alleging violations of the TCPA and seeking statutory damages, injunctive relief and attorney fees. The plaintiff alleges that the Company contacted him and the members of the class he seeks to represent on their cellular telephones without their prior express consent. The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification in December 2013 and the parties have now fully briefed the motion. BANKRATE INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------- Bankrate Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the suit Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. Bankrate, Inc., 13-CV-7183, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. On October 10, 2013, a purported class action suit was brought in federal court in the Southern District of New York against the Company, certain officers and directors of the Company, entities associated with Apax Partners, and the underwriters in the Company's 2011 initial public offering and December 2011 stock offering. The suit, captioned Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. Bankrate, Inc., 13-CV-7183, alleges, among other things, that the Company's public disclosures regarding its insurance leads business, were materially misleading, and seeks relief under the federal securities laws, including damages. On January 21, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, which asserted claims against the Company, certain officers of the Company, and entities associated with Apax Partners, and dropped the claims asserted against the underwriters and certain Company directors. On February 11, 2014, the Company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss. BEBE STORES: Fails to Have Blind-Accessible POS Units, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- David New, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bebe Stores, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-20603-JAL (S.D. Fla., February 18, 2014) is brought against the Defendant for failing 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. Bebe Stores, Inc., is a corporation incorporated in California and headquartered in Brisbane, California. 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: Courtney Blair Wilson, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON Wells Fargo Center 333 SE 2 Avenue, Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131-1804 Telephone: (305) 400-7500 Facsimile: (305) 603-2552 E-mail: CWilson@littler.com BNY MELLON: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Madoff Feeder Fund ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Ivers, writing for Law360, reports that a New York state judge dismissed a class action against BNY Mellon on April 15, saying the plaintiffs had failed to prove the investment bank showed gross negligence in ignoring key warning signs in Bernard Madoff's notorious $65 billion Ponzi scheme that caused investors massive losses. New York Supreme Court Judge Marcy Friedman granted BNY Mellon's motion to toss the case, saying lead plaintiffs Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Bernstein Liebhard LLP -- all of which represented Madoff investors known as the Rye Funds -- had not accused the bank of any extraordinary negligence or misconduct, which would be required in order to pursue damages. "It does not allege that defendants breached, let alone recklessly disregarded, any contractual duty. . . . The law also does not impose any additional tort duty, or duty independent of contract, to exercise reasonable care," the decision said. The action had also alleged that BNY Mellon breached its fiduciary duty by failing to verify its investments with Madoff, and by entering into a conflict of interest by servicing the master account for Madoff's funds and administering the Rye Funds simultaneously -- both of which Friedman ruled were not viable claims. "In sum, the amended complaint does not allege that BNY Mellon had any role in the Rye Funds' investment decisions, any duty to independently value the funds' assets or independently calculate the funds' [net asset value] and any responsibility for monitoring sub-custodians," she said. It also unsuccessfully claimed that the bank had "superior knowledge" about suspicious elements of Madoff's fund, which it failed to disclose to Rye Funds investors. In fighting the case, BNY Mellon had argued that it provided only "back office" functions, like mailing account statements and calculating net asset value based on information submitted by third parties, and Madoff himself was the custodian of the actual investments. Vincent R. Cappucci, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said the firms were in the process of examining the decision and would weigh an appeal or other legal measures. The three firms each represented a class of Rye Funds investors that sued both BNY Mellon, Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. and a MassMutual subsidiary, Tremont Group Holdings Inc., accusing them of contributing to the loss of approximately $3 billion in accounts the investors held with Madoff's investment company before his scheme collapsed in December 2008. Those actions were eventually consolidated, and MassMutual and Tremont agreed to a $100 million settlement to resolve the suit in 2011, which included assignments of third-party claims against BNY Mellon and others to the state court. The plaintiffs are represented by Vincent R. Cappucci -- vcappucci@entwistle-law.com -- of Entwistle & Cappucci LLP. BNY Mellon is represented by Jeffrey A. Rosenthal -- jrosenthal@cgsh.com -- of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP. The case is Plaintiffs' State and Securities Law Settlement Class Counsel Entwistle & Cappucci LLP et al. v. The Bank of New York Mellon et al., case number 653415/2011, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. BURGER KING: Judge Rejects Bid to Dismiss Fax Ad Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Linda Chiem, writing for Law360, reports that a Maryland federal judge on April 16 denied Burger King Worldwide Inc.'s bid to evade a real estate company's proposed class action accusing the fast food giant of sending unsolicited faxes in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. U.S. District Judge Paul W. Grimm rejected Burger King's motion to dismiss the proposed class action for failure to state a claim, saying that plaintiff Jay Clogg Realty Group Inc. had sufficiently alleged that it received unsolicited fax advertisements that were transmitted by Burger King even if it didn't expressly allege that it received the faxes on a traditional, ink-and-paper fax machine. "Evaluating the sufficiency of a complaint is a 'context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw' not only 'on its judicial experience,' but also on 'common sense,' and the natural conclusion reasonably inferred from plaintiff's allegations is that it received the facsimile advertisements on a fax machine," the judge said. Judge Grimm also rejected Burger King's attempt to strike the class allegations by arguing that TCPA actions inherently are not appropriate for class actions, holding that there is nothing in the TCPA that precludes class action relief, according to the opinion. "The law in this district allows TCPA claims to be pursued as class actions," the judge said. "Against this weight of authority, defendant unwisely asks me to chart a different course, relying on the legislative history of the TCPA to foreclose the availability of class relief, undeterred by the fact that this is precisely the sort of argument that the Supreme Court rejected in Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs LLC." The judge shot down Burger King's argument that the legislative history of the TCPA demonstrates that private actions seeking statutory damages were intended to be brought as individual lawsuits, saying Burger King was effectively arguing that even if it has committed legion TCPA violations, the only remedy available to the recipients is to file an unaggregated and conceivably unlimited series of individual actions despite the obvious existence of common issues of fact and law. "It is apparent that allowing consumers to bring a class action under the TCPA is a uniquely effective way to protect a population already besieged by unwanted and aggressive solicitations from persons or companies hawking their products," the judge said. "In fact, if the goal of the TCPA is to remove a 'scourge' from our society, it is unlikely that 'individual suits would deter large commercial entities as effectively as aggregated class actions and that individuals would be as motivated -- or even more motivated -- to sue in the absence of the class action vehicle.'" However, Judge Grimm indicated that the current complaint, which seeks to represent a class of all persons or entities who received unsolicited faxes from Burger King over a four-year span, doesn't pass muster for class certification since there are no facts in the record that Burger King's advertising campaign lasted four years. Jay Clogg launched suit in March 2013 alleging it received several fax advertisements from Burger King advertising the fast food chain's delivery service in December 2012 and in January 2013. The advertisements did not include an opt-out notice as required by the TCPA, according to court documents. Jay Clogg claimed that even though it is based in Rockville, Md., it received advertisements and coupons for discounts in Houston and New York City. Jay Clogg is represented by Stephen H. Ring, Edward A. Broderick of Broderick Law PC and Matthew P. McCue of The Law Office of Matthew P. McCue. Burger King is represented by Daniel S. Blynn -- dblynn@kelleydrye.com -- of Kelley Drye & Warren LLP. The case is Jay Clogg Realty Group Inc. v. Burger King Corp., number 8:13-cv-00662, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. CABARCENO ENTERPRISES: Faces "Sainz" Collective Action in Florida ----------------------------------------------------------------- Milda Libertad Sainz and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(B) v. Cabarceno Enterprises Inc. d/b/a Sedano's Supermarket, # 18, Case No. 1:14-cv-20608-JLK (S.D. Fla., February 18, 2014) is brought as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Cabarceno Enterprises Inc., doing business as Sedano's Supermarket, #18, is a corporation that regularly transacts business within Dade County, Florida. 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: Surama Suarez, Esq. ANGONES, MCCLURE & GARCIA, P.A. Courthouse Tower, 8th Floor 44 West Flagler Street Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 371-5000 Facsimile: (305) 371-3948 E-mail: ssuarez@amglaw.net CABLE NEWS: Illegally Disclosed Users' Sensitive Info, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Perry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cable News Network, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and CNN Interactive Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-01194 (N.D. Ill., February 18, 2014) is brought to put an end to the Defendants' alleged unlawful practice of disclosing their users' sensitive information, and to obtain redress for that conduct. Atlanta, Georgia-based Cable News Network, Inc. is one of the largest producers of television news programming in the world. Perhaps best known for its eponymously named television channel, the Cable News Network also offers content to consumers via other media, including on mobile devices through its proprietary mobile software application, the "CNN App." CNN Interactive Group, Inc. is Cable News Network's subsidiary responsible for the development and distribution of the CNN App. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jay Edelson, Esq. Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. J. Dominick Larry, Esq. Courtney C. Booth, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com rbalabanian@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com nlarry@edelson.com cbooth@edelson.com The Defendants are represented by: Clinton Earl Cameron, Esq. Danielle Nicole Twait, Esq. TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP 55 West Monroe Street, #3000 Chicago, IL 60603-5111 Telephone: (312) 759-1920 Facsimile: (312) 759-1939 E-mail: clinton.cameron@troutmansanders.com danielle.twait@troutmansanders.com CAL-MAINE FOODS: Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay & Other Relief ------------------------------------------------------------ Noe Popoca, and Similarly Situated Individuals v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Adolphus Baker, Individually, One Balance, Inc. d/b/a Balance Staffing, a Florida Corporation, Eric Feinstein, Individually, Professional Management Services Group, Inc., a Florida Corporation, and Debra Hubbard, Individually, Case No. 8:14-cv-00412-RAL-TGW (M.D. Fla., February 18, 2014) is brought for overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc., produces and distributes shell eggs, and maintains various egg farms throughout the United States of America, including Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bertha L. Burruezo, Esq. BURRUEZO LAW FIRM, PLLC 1420A Lake Baldwin Ln. Orlando, FL 32814 Telephone: (407) 587-6552 Facsimile: (407) 754-2905 E-mail: bertha@burruezolaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Russell Landy, Esq. DAMIAN & VALORI, LLP 1000 Brickell Ave., Suite 1020 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 371-3960 Facsimile: (305) 371-3965 E-mail: rlandy@dvllp.com CARLYLE GROUP: May 19 Class Cert. Hearing in Suit v. Apollo ----------------------------------------------------------- The parties in the suit Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit v. Apollo Global Management, LLC have jointly submitted a proposed case management order that calls for a jury trial commencing in November 2014, according to The Carlyle Group L.P.'s Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. In September 2006 and March 2009, the Partnership received requests for certain documents and other information from the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") in connection with the DOJ's investigation of global alternative asset firms to determine whether they have engaged in conduct prohibited by U.S. antitrust laws. The Partnership fully cooperated with the DOJ's investigation. On February 14, 2008, a private class-action lawsuit challenging "club" bids and other alleged anti-competitive business practices was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit v. Apollo Global Management, LLC). The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain global alternative asset firms, including the Partnership, violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by forming multi-sponsor consortiums for the purpose of bidding collectively in company buyout transactions in certain going private transactions, which the plaintiffs allege constitutes a "conspiracy in restraint of trade." Count One of the complaint alleges an overarching conspiracy relating to certain large buyout transactions. Count Two of the complaint alleges a conspiracy with regard to the buyout of Healthcare Corporation of America. The plaintiffs seek damages as provided for in Section 4 of the Clayton Act and an injunction against such conduct in restraint of trade in the future. The defendants moved for summary judgment on both counts. On March 13, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that plaintiffs could proceed on Count One solely on the basis of an alleged conspiracy to refrain from "jumping" announced proprietary (i.e., non-auction) deals. The Court stated that it would entertain further summary judgment motions by individual defendants as to their participation in the more narrowly defined alleged conspiracy. The Court also denied summary judgment as to Count Two. On April 16, 2013, Carlyle filed a consolidated motion, renewing its motion for summary judgment on Count One, and moving for reconsideration on Count Two. On April 22, 2013, Carlyle joined a motion seeking reconsideration on Count Two filed on behalf of all Count Two defendants. On June 20, 2013, the Court denied the motion for reconsideration on Count Two filed by the Count Two defendants. On July 18, 2013, the Court denied Carlyle's individual summary judgment motion regarding its participation in the conspiracy alleged in Count One. The U. S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has set a schedule for class certification proceedings, which calls for a hearing on class certification sometime after May 19, 2014. The parties have jointly submitted a proposed case management order that calls for a jury trial commencing in November 2014. CARLYLE GROUP: Dismissal of Securities Lawsuits Under Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------ The dismissal of the District of Columbia and New York shareholder lawsuits against The Carlyle Group L.P. is under appeal, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. On June 21, 2011, August 24, 2011 and September 1, 2011, respectively, three putative shareholder class actions were filed against Carlyle, certain of its affiliates and former directors of Carlyle Capital Corporation Limited (CCC) alleging that the fund offering materials and various public disclosures were materially misleading or omitted material information. Two of the shareholder class actions (Phelps v. Stomber, et al. and Glaubach v. Carlyle Capital Corporation Limited, et al.) were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Phelps v. Stomber, et al. was also filed in the Supreme Court of New York, New York County and was subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The two original D.C. cases were consolidated into one case under the caption of Phelps v. Stomber and the Phelps named plaintiffs were designated "lead plaintiffs" by the Court. The New York case was transferred to the D.C. federal court and the plaintiffs requested that it be consolidated with the other two D.C. actions. The plaintiffs were seeking compensatory damages sustained as a result of the alleged misrepresentations, costs and expenses, as well as reasonable attorney's fees. On August 13, 2012, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed both the D.C. and New York shareholder class actions. The plaintiffs moved for leave to amend their complaint and/or for amendment of the Court's decision, but the trial court denied that motion on June 4, 2013. The plaintiffs' previously filed notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was then automatically reinstated and oral arguments on this appeal were held on February 19, 2014. CENTURY LINK: Fights Suits Over Modifications to Retiree Benefits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Embarq Corporation and other defendants continue to vigorously contest any remaining claims in William Douglas Fulghum, et al. v. Embarq Corporation, et al.; and seek to have the claims in the Abbott et al. v. Sprint Nextel et al. CenturyLink/Embarq dismissed, according to Centurylink, Inc.'s Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. In William Douglas Fulghum, et al. v. Embarq Corporation, et al., filed on December 28, 2007 in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, a group of retirees filed a putative class action lawsuit challenging the decision to make certain modifications in retiree benefits programs relating to life insurance, medical insurance and prescription drug benefits, generally effective January 1, 2006 and January 1, 2008 (which, at the time of the modifications, was expected to reduce estimated future expenses for the subject benefits by more than $300 million). Defendants include Embarq, certain of its benefit plans, its Employee Benefits Committee and the individual plan administrator of certain of its benefits plans. Additional defendants include Sprint Nextel and certain of its benefit plans. The Court certified a class on certain of plaintiffs' claims, but rejected class certification as to other claims. On October 14, 2011, the Fulghum lawyers filed a new, related lawsuit, Abbott et al. v. Sprint Nextel et al. CenturyLink/Embarq is not named a defendant in the lawsuit. In Abbott, approximately 1,500 plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the changes in retiree benefits that also are at issue in the Fulghum case. The Abbott plaintiffs are all members of the class that was certified in Fulghum on claims for allegedly vested benefits (Counts I and III), and the Abbott claims are similar to the Fulghum breach of fiduciary duty claim (Count II), on which the Fulghum court denied class certification. The Court has stayed proceedings in Abbott indefinitely. On February 14, 2013, the Fulghum court dismissed the majority of the plaintiffs' claims in that case. On July 16, 2013, the Fulghum court granted plaintiffs' request to seek interlocutory review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Embarq and the other defendants will defend the appeal, continue to vigorously contest any remaining claims in Fulghum and seek to have the claims in the Abbott case dismissed on similar grounds. CENTURYLINK INC: Settlement in Qwest Rights-of-Way Suit Approved ---------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in lawsuits filed against Qwest Communications International Inc. relating to the installation of fiber optic cable in certain rights-of-way have received final approval of settlements in 30 states, according to Centurylink, Inc.'s Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. Several putative class actions relating to the installation of fiber optic cable in certain rights-of-way were filed against Qwest on behalf of landowners on various dates and in courts located in 34 states in which Qwest has such cable (Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin.) For the most part, the complaints challenge the company's right to install the company's fiber optic cable in railroad rights-of-way. The complaints allege that the railroads own the right-of-way as an easement that did not include the right to permit the company to install the company's cable in the right-of-way without the plaintiffs' consent. Most of the currently pending actions purport to be brought on behalf of state-wide classes in the named plaintiffs' respective states, although one action pending before the Illinois Court of Appeals purports to be brought on behalf of landowners in Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio and Wisconsin. In general, the complaints seek damages on theories of trespass and unjust enrichment, as well as punitive damages. After previous attempts to enter into a single nationwide settlement in a single court proved unsuccessful, the parties proceeded to seek court approval of settlements on a state-by- state basis. To date, the parties have received final approval of such settlements in 30 states (Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin) and have not yet received either preliminary or final approval in one state where an action is pending (Texas) and three states where actions were at one time, but are not currently, pending (Arizona, Massachusetts, and New Mexico). CHEMED CORP: Settlement in Labor Lawsuit v. VITAS Paid in 2013 -------------------------------------------------------------- A $10.3 million settlement reached in a labor suit against VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California was paid in 2013, according to Chemed Corporation's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. VITAS is party to a class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County in September 2006 by Bernadette Santos, Keith Knoche and Joyce White, Bernadette Santos, et al. v. VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California, BC359356. This case alleges failure to pay overtime and failure to provide meal and rest periods to a purported class of California admissions nurses, chaplains and sales representatives. The case seeks payment of penalties, interest and Plaintiffs' attorney fees. In December 2009, the trial court denied Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In July 2011, the Court of Appeals affirmed denial of class certification on the travel time, meal and rest period claims, and reversed the trial court's denial on the off-the-clock and sales representation exemption claims. Plaintiffs filed an appeal of this decision. In September 2012, in response to an order of reconsideration, the Court of Appeals reiterated its previous rulings. In March 2013, the Court granted summary judgment dismissing the sales representatives' claims as they are exempt employees. In October 2013 the company reached agreement to settle the case for $10.3 million plus applicable payroll taxes ($6.5 million aftertax). As such, $10.5 million is recorded as other operating expense in the year ended December 31, 2013 Statement of Income. This settlement was paid in 2013. CHEMED CORP: Settles Securities Litigation in Ohio for $6 Million ----------------------------------------------------------------- A $6.0 million settlement was reached in In re Chemed Corp. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-28 (S.D. Ohio), according to the company's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. On January 12, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against the Company, Kevin McNamara, David Williams, and Timothy O'Toole, In re Chemed Corp. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:12- cv-28 (S.D. Ohio). On June 18, 2012, an amended complaint was filed alleging violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against all Defendants, and violation of Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Messrs. McNamara, Williams, and O'Toole. The suit's allegations concern the VITAS hospice segment of the Company's business. Plaintiffs seek, on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Chemed Capital Stock, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount and attorneys' fees and expenses, arising from Defendants' alleged failure to disclose an alleged fraudulent scheme at VITAS to enroll ineligible hospice patients and to fraudulently obtain payments from the federal government. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on August 17, 2012, which were pending when the parties reached an agreement to settle the action. On June 7, 2013, following the filing of U.S. v. VITAS, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. Defendants opposed this motion. On September 16, 2013 Plaintiffs, executed a Settlement Term Sheet with Defendants, reaching an agreement in principle to settle this case subject to court approval. On February 6, 2014, Plaintiffs, on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Chemed Capital Stock between February 15, 2010 and May 2, 2013, inclusive, executed a stipulation of settlement with Defendants, agreeing to settle this case in full and with prejudice, and to provide Defendants with full releases of all claims that are or could have been asserted by Plaintiffs in exchange for payment of $6.0 million by the company's insurer into a settlement fund for the benefit of the putative settlement class. The Settlement has been recorded as an accrual and offsetting prepaid in the accompanying Balance Sheet. This Settlement is subject to Court approval. CLC RESORTS: Makes Unsolicited and Illegal Calls, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Wagner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CLC Resorts and Developments, Inc., a Florida corporation, Surrey Vacation Resorts, Inc. (d/b/a Grand Crowne Resorts), a Missouri corporation, and Passport Holidays, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Case No. 6:14-cv-00281- GAP-GJK (M.D. Fla., February 18, 2014) seeks to stop the Defendants' alleged practice of making unsolicited calls to the cellular telephones of consumers nationwide and to obtain redress for all persons injured by their conduct. CLC Resorts and Developments, Inc. is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business located in Kissimmee, Florida. Surrey Vacation Resorts, Inc., doing business as Grand Crowne Resorts, is a Missouri corporation with its principal place of business located in Branson, Missouri. Passport Holidays, LLC is a Florida limited liability company with its principal place of business located in Daytona Beach, Florida. The Defendants work together to market and sell timeshares to a variety of resorts and vacation properties throughout the world. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Coleman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, LLC 201 South Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (877) 333-9427 Facsimile: (888) 498-8946 E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. Ari J. Scharg, Esq. John Ochoa, Esq. Mark Eisen, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com rbalabanian@edelson.com ascharg@edelson.com jochoa@edelson.com meisen@edelson.com The Defendants are represented by: Jerry Ray Linscott, Esq. Julie Singer Brady, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP 200 S Orange Ave., Suite 2300 Orlando, FL 32801-3432 Telephone: (407) 649-4000 Facsimile: (407) 841-0168 E-mail: jlinscott@bakerlaw.com jsingerbrady@bakerlaw.com - and - Kenneth Michael Swann, Esq. SNYDERBURN, RISHOI & SWANN, LLP 2250 Lucien Way, Suite 140 Maitland, FL 32751 Telephone: (407) 647-2005 Facsimile: (407) 647-1522 E-mail: mswann@srslaw.net COMPASS HEALTH: Wants $1.1MM OT Class Action Settlement Approved ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, reports that plaintiffs in a class action accusing Compass Health Inc. of underpaying workers for overtime have asked a California federal judge to grant final approval of a $1.1 million settlement, saying no putative class members objected to the deal, according to an April 14 filing. The plaintiffs applauded the proposed deal, which requires Compass to pay a net settlement amount of up to $700,500 to all members of the settlement class -- approximately 2,500 current and former hourly nonexempt employees in California who worked for Compass Health from March 29, 2009, until Jan. 6 of this year. The workers claim the health care provider miscalculated the regular rate of pay because it didn't properly include the value of annual safety bonuses. They also alleged meal and rest period violations, as well as derivative penalty claims. Compass argued that it didn't need to include the value of safety bonuses in the regular rate of pay because the bonuses were discretionary and that, even if they were included, no additional overtime wages were due because the additional amounts owed were de minimis. The memorandum said that based on the number of valid claims filed, the average settlement payment is estimated at about $425, and the highest payment is roughly $1,050, which is "an excellent result for the settlement class, particularly when compared to other, similar wage and hour class action settlements involving similar-wage workers." Compass is one of the Central Coast's biggest health care providers, operating nine skilled nursing facilities in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties, Calif., according to court papers. The class action was filed by Marlys Jean Tacker, who worked for the defendant as an hourly nonexempt residential aide from roughly September 2009 to January 2013, and Jenny Gonzalez, who was employed as an hourly nonexempt certified nursing assistant from approximately March 1999 to February 2013. In addition to unpaid overtime wages, premium pay for meal and rest period violations, related penalty claims and restitution, plaintiffs sought statutory waiting time and wage statement penalties and civil penalties under California labor laws. Compass countered that its nonexempt employees had entered into valid and enforceable meal period waivers and that it didn't have to reimburse employees for nursing scrubs. The defendant further alleged that the workers couldn't show that the alleged failure to timely pay all final wages was willful. The plaintiffs said in their motion seeking final approval of the settlement that the $1.1 million figure is about 37 percent of their reasonably forecasted recovery but includes all the alleged overtime damages, as well as additional compensation for disputed meal and rest break claims and related penalty claims. The parties finalized their long-form settlement agreement in November, and a California federal jury granted preliminary approval of the deal in January, court filings said. Plaintiffs' counsel seeks $330,000 in attorneys' fees, as well as $20,000 for reimbursement costs and incentive payments of $5,000 to each plaintiff for helping with the suit, according to a Monday filing. The plaintiffs are represented by Hernaldo J. Baltodano and Erica Flores Baltodano of Baltodano & Baltodano LLP and Paul K. Haines -- phaines@bollaw.com -- and Fletcher W. Schmidt -- fschmidt@bollaw.com -- of Boren Osher & Luftman LLP. Compass Health is represented by Stephen E. Ronk and Dina S. Glucksman of Gordon & Rees LLP. The case is Marlys Jean Tacker et al. v. Compass Health Inc. et al., case number 2:13-cv-02261, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. CORELOGIC INC: No Appeals Court Review in RESPA "Violation" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to review the class certification order in a suit alleging violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act by Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu) and eAppraiseIT, LLC, according to CoreLogic, Inc.'s Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. On February 8, 2008, a purported class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, against WaMu and eAppraiseIT alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), the California Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The complaint alleged a conspiracy between WaMu and eAppraiseIT to allow WaMu to direct appraisers to artificially inflate appraisals in order to qualify higher value loans that WaMu could then sell in the secondary market. Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed WaMu on March 9, 2009. On August 30, 2009, the court dismissed all claims against eAppraiseIT except the RESPA claim. On July 2, 2010, the court denied plaintiff's first motion for class certification. On November 19, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification. On April 25, 2012, the court granted plaintiffs' renewed motion and certified a nationwide class of all persons who, on or after June 1, 2006, received home loans from WaMu in connection with appraisals that were obtained through eAppraiseIT. On July 12, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to review the class certification order. CoreLogic Valuation Services, LLC (CVS), as the successor to eAppraiseIT, intends to defend against this claim vigorously; however, it may not be successful. At this time the company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this claim or the potential range of damages, if any. CORELOGIC INC: Subsidiary Reaches Settlement in FCRA Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- A formal settlement agreement was reached in a suit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against CoreLogic, Inc. subsidiary Teletrack, Inc. over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, according to CoreLogic's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. On June 30, 2011, a purported class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the company's subsidiary Teletrack, Inc. ("Teletrack"). The complaint alleges that Teletrack has been furnishing consumer reports to third parties who did not have a permissible purpose to obtain them in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1681 et seq., and seeks to recover actual, punitive and statutory damages, as well as attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit. On September 20, 2011, Teletrack filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing. That motion was denied on March 7, 2012. Teletrack denied the allegations and has been defending against this claim vigorously. On March 27, 2013, the parties reached a settlement in principle that would dismiss all claims. On May 8, 2013, a formal settlement agreement was concluded and on May 17, 2013 all claims were dismissed, with the dismissal of the individual plaintiffs' claims being with prejudice. CORPORATE ENHANCEMENT: Faces "McLaughlin" Class Suit in Tennessee ----------------------------------------------------------------- McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc., a Tennessee corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. Corporate Enhancement Group, Inc. d/b/a American Business Card and John Does 1-10, Case No. 3:14- cv-00059-TAV-HBG (E.D. Tenn., February 18, 2014) is brought under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: W. Michael Hamilton, Esq. PROVOST UMPHREY LAW FIRM, LLP (NASHVILLE) 2021 Richard Jones Road, Suite 300 Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (615) 242-0199 Facsimile: (615) 256-5922 E-mail: mhamilton@provostumphrey.com DIGITAL RISK: Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages and Damages -------------------------------------------------------------- Samfritz Del Valle, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v. Digital Risk, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and Digital Risk Mortgage Services, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 6:14-cv-00282-GAP-GJK (M.D. Fla., February 18, 2014) is brought to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages and the costs and reasonable attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants are Delaware limited liability companies headquartered in Maitland, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Camar R. Jones, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, PA 1515 S Federal Hwy., Suite 404 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: cjones@shavitzlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Kathryn Airth Terry, Esq. DIGITAL RISK 2301 Maitland Center Pkwy., Suite 165 Maitland, FL 32751 Telephone: (407) 418-2300 Facsimile: (407) 418-2327 E-mail: katie.terry@digitalrisk.com DILLARD'S PROPERTIES: Removed "Stayart" Suit to E.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The purported class action lawsuit styled Stayart v. Dillard's Properties, Inc., et al., Case No. 39-02013-00304605, was removed from the San Joaquin County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (Sacramento). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-00495-MCE-AC to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Douglas Deason, Esq. DEASON & ARCHBOLD 3300 Irvine Ave., #245 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 794-9560 Facsimile: (949) 794-9517 E-mail: David@yourlaborlawyers.com The Defendants are represented by: Gilbert Patrick Brosky, Esq. John Bruce Lewis, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP PNC Center 1900 E. 9th Street, Suite 3200 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 861-7547 Facsimile: (216) 696-0740 E-mail: gbrosky@bakerlaw.com jlewis@bakerlaw.com - and - Margaret Rosenthal, Esq. Sabrina Layne Shadi, Esq. BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 820-8800 Facsimile: (310) 820-8859 E-mail: mrosenthal@bakerlaw.com sshadi@bakerlaw.com DIODES INC: Discovery Stayed in Tex. Suit Due to Dismissal Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- All discovery and other proceedings in Local 731 I.B. of T. Excavators and Pavers Pension Trust Fund v. Diodes, Inc., Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-00247 are stayed pending a ruling on any motion to dismiss the case, according to Diodes' Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. The company is also currently a party to a putative securities class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, entitled Local 731 I.B. of T. Excavators and Pavers Pension Trust Fund v. Diodes, Inc., Civil Action No. 6:13- cv-00247 (E.D. Tex. filed Mar. 15, 2013), against the Company, Dr. Lu and Richard D. White. In this action, plaintiff purportedly on behalf of a class of investors who purchased the Company's Common Stock between February 9, 2011 and June 9, 2011, alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly misleading public statements during the class period regarding the labor market in China and its impact on the Company's business and prospects. On June 14, 2013, the Court entered an order appointing Local 731 I.B. of T. Excavators and Pavers Pension Trust Fund as lead plaintiff and approved lead plaintiff's selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd as lead plaintiff's counsel and the Ward & Smith Law Firm as lead plaintiff's liaison counsel. On August 1, 2013, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint reiterating the same claims for relief against the same defendants as asserted in the original complaint. On September 16, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Lead plaintiff filed its opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss on October 31, 2013. Defendants filed their reply in further support of their motion to dismiss on December 3, 2013. Lead plaintiff filed its sur- reply in further opposition of defendant's motion to dismiss on December 13, 2013. The motion is now fully submitted. No hearing date has been set for this motion. Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, all discovery and other proceedings are stayed pending a ruling on any motion to dismiss. The defendants intend to defend this action vigorously. EXELON GENERATION: Sued for Refusing to Pay Overtime Compensation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Aaron Akey, Brian Allen, Jared Barnett, Brian Bay, Michael Bernadi, James Bortoli, Joseph Campbell, Andres Campos, James Chiappetta, Michael Connell, Andrew Davis, Michael Dejewski, Zorin Dobson, David Dondlinger, Brendan Donovan, Daniel Durbin, Dennis Edwards, Joshua Ericks, Nery Fajardo, Nathaniel Falkenstein, Derek Ferguson, Guy Galster, John Gibney, Joseph Gilmartin, Michael Girka, Kenneth Gray, Jr., Steven Gulik, Jr., Zachary Hall, Leeland Hare, David Hatz, Arthur Holtz, Sean Jensen, Andrew Johnson, Christopher Kaluzny, Brian Kim, Aaron Kuzava, Larry Lacoursiere, Andrew Lamm, Bruce Lampe, Nicholas Libby, Rebecca Martin, Carl McIntyre, Joshua McKean, Sean McKibben, John McSorley, Michelle Medrow-Kielski, Alan Meekma, Robert Meyer, Mike Mulka, Jason A. Guisinger, David Mullins, Scott Nagel, Michael Nicoll, Santos Nodal, Shirlee Novak, Philip Palutsis, Justin Paul, Jimmy Pigg, Andrew Pisha, Daniel Potochnic, Angelo Powell, Charles Reader, William Riggs, Ronald Sieling, Gary Skrogstad, Jason Skrzypiec, Michael Snider, Dennis Specha, Michael Stevens, Joseph Trucano, Blair Vakili, Scott Van Ham, Ronald Vanderhyden, Jr., David Volden, Carla Wilds, Paul Zimmerman and John Zura, On Behalf of Themselves And All Others Similarly Situated v. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-01179 (N.D. Ill., February 18, 2014) is brought as a result of the Defendant's alleged denial to pay overtime compensation to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason A. Guisinger, Esq. KLEIN, THORPE AND JENKINS, LTD. 20 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1660 Chicago, IL 60606-2903 Telephone: (312) 984-6400 E-mail: jaguisinger@ktjlaw.com FACEBOOK INC: NASDAQ Appealed to 2nd Cir. From IPO MDL Order ------------------------------------------------------------ The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc., The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, Robert Greifeld, and Anna M. Ewing filed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from an order entered by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on December 16, 2013, granting in part and denying in part their motion to dismiss the multidistrict litigation known as In Re Facebook, Inc., IPO Securities and Derivative Litigation. The litigation arises from Facebook's initial public offering. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq. Jordan Abraham Cortez, Esq. Vincent Roger Cappucci, Esq. ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP (NYC) 280 Park Avenue, 26th Floor West New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 894-7200 Facsimile: (212) 894-7272 E-mail: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com jcortez@entwistle-law.com vcappucci@entwistle-law.com - and - Robert N. Cappucci, Esq. ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP(NJ) 30 Columbia Turnpike Florham Park, NJ 07932 Telephone: (212) 894-7207 Facsimile: (212) 894-7272 E-mail: rcappucci@entwistle-law.com - and - Christopher Lovell, Esq. Victor E. Stewart, Esq. Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq. LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP 61 Broadway, Suite 501 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 608-1900 Facsimile: (212) 719-4677 E-mail: clovell@lshllp.com victornj@ix.netcom.com fisquith@lshllp.com - and - Douglas G. Thompson, Esq. Michael Glenn McLellan, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, THOMPSON & LOUGHRAN 1050 30th, NW Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 337-8000 Facsimile: (202) 337-8090 E-mail: dthompson@finkelsteinthompson.com mmclellan@finkelsteinthompson.com - and - Jacob H. Zamansky, Esq. ZAMANSKY & ASSOCIATES LLC 50 Broadway, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 742-1414 Facsimile: (212) 742-1177 E-mail: jake@zamansky.com - and - Nancy Kaboolian, Esq. Arthur N. Abbey, Esq. ABBEY SPANIER RODD ABRAMS & PARADIS, LLP 212 East 39th Street New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 889-3700 Facsimile: (212) 684-5191 E-mail: nkaboolian@abbeyspanier.com aabbey@abbeyspanier.com - and - Darren J. Robbins, Esq. David C. Walton, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com davew@rgrdlaw.com - and - David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com - and - Deborah R. Gross, Esq. LAW OFFICES BERNARD M. GROSS, P.C. Suite 450, 100 Penn Square East Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 561-3600 Facsimile: (215) 561-3000 E-mail: debbie@bernardmgross.com - and - Jack Gerald Fruchter, Esq. ABRAHAM FRUCHTER & TWERSKY LLP One Penn Plaza, Suite 1910 New York, NY 10119 Telephone: (212) 279-5050 Facsimile: (212) 279-3655 E-mail: jfruchter@aftlaw.com - and - Robert B. Weiser, Esq. THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C. 22 Cassatt Avenue, First Floor Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (610) 225-2677 Facsimile: (610) 408-8062 E-mail: rw@weiserlawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Darryl M. Bloodworth, Esq. DEAN, MEAD, EGERTON, BLOODWORTH, CAPOUANO & BOZARTH, PA 800 N Magnolia Ave., Suite 1500 PO Box 2346 Orlando, FL 32802-2346 Telephone: (407) 841-1200 Facsimile: (407) 423-1831 E-mail: dbloodworth@deanmead.com - and - Margaret Osborne Padilla, Esq. Paul Lantieri, III, Esq. Stephen J. Kastenberg, Esq. William A. Slaughter, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 1735 Market Street, 51st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599 Telephone: (215) 864-8529 Facsimile: (215) 864-8999 E-mail: padillam@ballardspahr.com lantierip@ballardspahr.com kastenberg@ballardspahr.com slaughter@ballardspahr.com - and - Richard E. Griffin, Esq. JACKSON WALKER LLP 1401 McKinney, Suite 1900 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 752-4212 Facsimile: (713) 752-4221 E-mail: rgriffin@jw.com - and - Andrew Brian Clubok, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP (NYC) 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 446-4836 Facsimile: (212) 446-4900 E-mail: aclubok@kirkland.com - and - Brant Warren Bishop, Esq. Susan Elisabeth Engel, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP (WASHINGTON) 655 Fifteenth Street NW, Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 879-5067 Facsimile: (202) 879-5200 E-mail: bbishop@kirkland.com seengel@kirkland.com - and - Elizabeth L. Deeley, Esq. James Francis Basile, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 555 California Street, Suite 2700 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 439-1400 Facsimile: (415) 439-1500 E-mail: edeeley@kirkland.com jbasile@kirkland.com - and - Richard D. Bernstein, Esq. WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP 1875 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 303-1108 Facsimile: (202) 303-2000 E-mail: rbernstein@willkie.com - and - Tariq Mundiya, Esq. Todd G. Cosenza, Esq. WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP (NY) 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 728-8000 Facsimile: (212) 728-8111 E-mail: maosdny@willkie.com tcosenza@willkie.com - and - Susan W. Waesco, Esq. MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP 1201 North Market Street P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899 Telephone: (302) 498-6677 Facsimile: (302) 425-3088 E-mail: swaesco@mnat.com - and - Andrew Ditchfield, Esq. Charles S. Duggan, Esq. James P. Rouhandeh, Esq. Neal Alan Potischman, Esq. DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL L.L.P. 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 450-3009 Facsimile: (212) 701-6009 E-mail: andrew.ditchfield@davispolk.com charles.duggan@dpw.com james.rouhandeh@dpw.com Neal.Potischman@dpw.com The appellate case is In Re Facebook, Inc., IPO Securities and Derivative Litigation, Case No. 14-457, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The MDL case is In Re Facebook, Inc., IPO Securities and Derivative Litigation, MDL NO. 12-2389, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. FAIRWAY GROUP: Faces IPO-Related Class Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------- Bruce H. Paul, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Fairway Group Holdings Corp., Herbert Ruetsch, Edward Arditte, Linda M. Siluk, Charles W. Santoro, Howard Glickberg, William Selden, Michael Barr, Stephen Key, Farid Suleman, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Jefferies LLC, William Blair & Company, L.L.C., BB&T Capital Markets, a Division of BB&T Securities, LLC, Guggenheim Securities, LLC, Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., Wolfe Trahan Securities and Morgan Joseph Triartisan LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv- 01015-LAK (S.D.N.Y., February 18, 2014) is a securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Fairway pursuant and traceable to the Registration Statement issued in connection with Fairway's April 17, 2013 initial public stock offering, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933. Fairway Group Holdings Corp. operates a chain of retail grocery stores in the New York, Connecticut, New Jersey tri-state area. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated; Jefferies LLC; William Blair & Company, L.L.C.; BB&T Capital Markets; Guggenheim Securities, LLC; Oppenheimer & Co. Inc.; Wolfe Trahan Securities; and Morgan Joseph Tri Artisan LLC are financial services companies that acted as underwriters and joint managers of Fairway's IPO, helping to draft and disseminate the offering documents. The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. Mary K. Blasy, Esq. David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com mblasy@rgrdlaw.com - and - Deborah R. Gross, Esq. Robert Frutkin, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BERNARD M. GROSS, P.C. 100 Perm Square East, Suite 450 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 561-3600 Facsimile: (215) 561-3000 E-mail: debbie@bernardmgross.com rpf@bernardmgross.com The Defendants are represented by: Joseph S. Allerhand, Esq. Stacy Nettleton, Esq. WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP (NYC) 767 Fifth Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10153 Telephone: (212) 310-8000 Facsimile: (212) 833-3148 E-mail: joseph.allerhand@weil.com stacy.nettleton@weil.com - and - Jeffrey Q. Smith, Esq. Susan F. DiCicco, Esq. Matthew Minerva, Esq. BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP (NYC) 399 Park Avenue New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 705-7000 Facsimile: (212) 752-5378 E-mail: JQ.Smith@bingham.com Susan.DiCicco@bingham.com matthew.minerva@bingham.com GENERAL CABLE: "Livonia" Suit Transferred From N.Y. to Kentucky --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System v. General Cable Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-08634, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. The Kentucky District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-00024-WOB-CJS to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Darren J. Robbins, Esq. David C. Walton, Esq. James Albert Caputo, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: jimc@rgrdlaw.com darrenr@rgrdlaw.com davew@rgrdlaw.com - and - Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com - and - Thomas C. Michaud, Esq. VANOVERBEKE MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C. 79 Alfred Street Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: (313) 578-1200 Facsimile: (313) 578-1201 E-mail: mvanoverbeke@vmtlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Bernard J. Garbutt, III, Esq. David Abraham Snider, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP (NY) 101 Park Avenue New York, NY 10178 Telephone: (212) 309-6000 Facsimile: (212) 309-6273 E-mail: bgarbutt@morganlewis.com dsnider@morganlewis.com - and - Marc Sonnenfeld, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (PHILADELPHIA) 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-5000 Facsimile: (215) 963-5001 E-mail: msonnenfeld@morganlewis.com - and - David F. Fessler, Esq. FESSLER, SCHNEIDER & GRIMME 14 N. Grand Avenue Ft. Thomas, KY 41075 Telephone: (859) 291-9075 Facsimile: (859) 291-9165 E-mail: dfessler@fsgattorneys.com GENERAL MOTORS: May 29 Hearing Set for Defect-Related Cases ----------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that General Motors Co.'s move in U.S. bankruptcy court to bar lawsuits seeking economic damages tied to its recalls has put the brakes on consumer class actions across the country -- at least for the next month. GM has recalled 2.6 million cars to fix ignition-switch defects that, by shutting off engines and preventing air bags from deploying in accidents, have been linked to 13 deaths. More than 50 class actions allege that GM failed to tell its customers about the defect, which it learned of about a decade ago. The plaintiffs seek to recover for the lost value of cars they owned or leased. Such claims account for most of the lawsuits yet filed. On April 21, GM filed a motion that could potentially toss out those class actions on the ground the automaker is immune under the terms of its 2009 bankruptcy from claims for economic damages. The motion, filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, does not seek to bar cases over injuries, physical damages or deaths from accidents. "General Motors has taken responsibility for its actions and will keep doing so," the company said in a written statement on April 22. Two groups of plaintiffs attorneys are fighting back. One group, led by New York's Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz and joined by bankruptcy counsel at New York's Golenbock Eiseman Assor Bell & Peskoe, filed a complaint on April 21, seeking a declaratory judgment that GM is not immune from economic damages. The group alleges that by failing to disclose the defect, GM violated its consumers' due-process rights and committed fraud on the court. Another group, led by Seattle's Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro and Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis in Newport Beach, Calif., filed an objection on April 22, raising similar arguments. This group was joined by bankruptcy counsel at Boston's Brown Rudnick. "We didn't get due process," Mark Robinson said. "We should have been notified about the defect and the problems, and also been notified about our right to file claims in the bankruptcy court." U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Gerber has scheduled a conference for May 2. Meanwhile, in motions filed in several of the class actions this month, GM has sought to stay the litigation, citing the bankruptcy proceedings and a pending effort before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to coordinate defect- related lawsuits. Federal judges have granted stays in at least half a dozen class actions. Plaintiffs lawyers have sought to transfer the cases to U.S. District Judge James Selna of the Central District of California, who oversaw the litigation over Toyota Motor Corp.'s sudden- acceleration defects. Responses to that request, including GM's, were due by April 25. The panel has scheduled the cases for its May 29 hearing in Chicago. GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Ruff" Action in N.J. Over Ignition Defect ---------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that a federal court putative class action alleges General Motors Corp. fraudulently concealed a defect in ignition switches of 2.6 million Chevrolet, Pontiac and Saturn vehicles, a problem that has caused at least 13 deaths. The complaint, in Ruff v. General Motors, filed on April 14 in Trenton, N.J., claims company engineers first learned in 2001 that switches in some vehicles can accidentally move to the "acc" or "off" position, causing engine shutdown and resultant loss of power steering and antilock brakes and airbag deactivation. The actual number of fatalities may be as high as 303, the plaintiffs claim, citing a study of failed airbag deployments in crashes of the Chevrolet Cobalt and Saturn Ion. GM first acknowledged the problem in a 2005 bulletin to dealers but withheld information when questioned by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the plaintiffs allege. GM announced a recall of vehicles with faulty ignition switches in February of this year. The affected cars are built on common platforms and have the same ignition switches, made by a GM subsidiary, Delphi Automotive, which is also a defendant. They are the Chevrolet Cobalt (model years 2005-10), Chevrolet HHR (2006-11), Pontiac Solstice (2006- 10), Pontiac G5 (2005-10), Saturn Ion (2003-07) and Saturn Sky (2007-10). Named plaintiff Lisa Ruff of Hazlet alleges her 2007 Cobalt was totaled in an accident. Her daughter was driving when the engine stopped and she lost control and struck a tree, the suit says. Another plaintiff, Sheri Marx of East Brunswick, alleges numerous mechanical problems with her 2006 Cobalt -- though not engine failure -- and that she is concerned about the risk of driving it. The complaint asserts claims for a nationwide class under Michigan's Consumer Protection Act and other states' laws and for a New Jersey class under the Consumer Fraud Act. Also pleaded are claims of fraud by concealment and breach of implied warranty. The plaintiffs seek damages for expenses incurred rectifying the defects in their vehicles, such as time off from work, rental cars and child care. Other federal suits have been filed over the alleged defect. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has received notice of 15 pending cases, eight of them filed in the Central District of California in Los Angeles. There are two each in the Eastern District of Michigan and the Southern District of Texas and one each in the Northern District of California, the Northern District of Illinois and the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The panel will consider on May 29 an application to consolidate the cases in Los Angeles as General Motors Ignition Switch Litigation. Eight plaintiff firms are of record in the New Jersey suit: Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein of New York and San Francisco; Weitz & Luxenberg of New York; Bailey & Glasser of Charleston, W. Va.; Barrett Law Group of Lexington, Miss.; Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles of Montgomery, Ala.; Berger & Montague of Philadelphia; Lackey Hershman of Dallas; and the Lanier Law Firm of New York. A GM spokesman, Kevin Kelly, said the company does not comment on pending litigation. GENERAL MOTORS: Gray Ritter Files Consumer Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- The St. Louis law firm of Gray, Ritter & Graham, along with the Kansas City law firm of Stueve Sigel Hanson, on April 7, 2014 filed a consumer fraud class action lawsuit on behalf of Missourians who purchased and currently own a car covered by the February and March 2014 recalls of General Motors vehicles. This is similar to a class action lawsuit the firms brought against Merck & Co., the maker of Vioxx, an anti-inflammatory drug. That lawsuit was brought on behalf of the many thousands of Missouri consumers who purchased Vioxx and was settled in 2013 for $220 million. That suit alleged that the drug maker knew about but concealed the drug's safety risks, thereby violating the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. The class action lawsuit against GM is based upon the same legal principal. It is alleged that General Motors has acknowledged it was aware of the faulty ignition switch in the recalled vehicles as early as 2001. The defective part could cause the cars to lose power, affecting the vehicles' air bags, power steering, and brakes. General Motors Cars Recalled for Defective Ignition Switches The cars covered under the recall for the defective part are: - Chevrolet Cobalt - 2005-10 model years - Pontiac G5 - 2003-10 - Saturn Ion - 2003-07 - Chevrolet HHR - 2006-11 - Pontiac Solstice - 200610 - Saturn Sky - 2007 - 2010 - Opel GT - 2007 - Pontiac Pursuit - 2005-2006 Gray, Ritter & Graham and Stueve Siegel Hanson are working together on the Missouri consumer fraud class action lawsuit against General Motors. The two firms also are investigating personal injury claims of owners of the recalled GM vehicles who suffered injuries in roadway accidents. Missourians who purchased and currently own one of the GM recalled vehicles and believe they may have a legal claim -- whether or not they have been hurt in an accident -- can contact Gray, Ritter & Graham at 314-241-5620. Gray, Ritter & Graham attorney Don Downing, who was a lead attorney for the Missouri class of consumers who purchased Vioxx, is heading the GM consumer fraud investigations for the firm. About Gray, Ritter & Graham, P.C. Founded in 1946, Gray, Ritter & Graham -- http://www.grgpc.com/ -- is a St. Louis plaintiff litigation law firm that practices primarily in matters involving catastrophic injury and death, complex commercial and consumer litigation, product liability, medical negligence, and railroad and river worker injuries. GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Judge Tosses Investors' Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge in New York has refused to let more than 2,000 Genworth Financial Inc. clients pursue a class action lawsuit claiming they were defrauded into believing a well-known radio talk show host and financial adviser would oversee their portfolios. The plaintiffs claimed to lose millions of dollars from December 2003 to December 2009 because Genworth Financial Wealth Management Inc reneged on promises that Bob Brinker, host of the syndicated "Moneytalk," would recommend asset allocation and investment choices, and that "experienced professionals" would implement his strategy. Instead, Genworth allegedly stuffed their portfolios at its BJ Group Services affiliate with underperforming funds that generated higher administrative and service fees, and which were not recommended or chosen by Brinker. Those funds routinely made up more than half of the portfolios, the plaintiffs claimed. Though the plaintiffs enlisted former U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Harvey Pitt for support, U.S. District Judge Joseph Bianco in Central Islip, New York on April 15 said they could not pursue their securities fraud case as a group. "Plaintiffs have failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence a common method of proving that all class members relied on defendants' alleged representations and omissions," he wrote. Genworth spokesman Tom Topinka declined to comment, saying the Richmond, Virginia-based financial services company does not discuss pending litigation. Underperformance The plaintiffs claimed that Genworth's marketing materials touted the company's "exclusive partnership" with Brinker, in which it would implement Brinker's recommendations by selecting mutual funds for clients. They contended that Genworth did not actually do that, causing their returns to trail those in Brinker's "Marketimer" portfolio in every calendar year from 2003 to 2008. For example, in 2003 Brinker's portfolio allegedly returned 43.4 percent while a BJ Group portfolio earned 29.1 percent. Meanwhile, in 2008, the year of the financial crisis, Brinker's portfolio allegedly fell 37.4 percent, while the BJ Group portfolio lost 39.6 percent. Among the non-Brinker funds allegedly used by Genworth was Bill Miller's Legg Mason Value, which had outgained the Standard & Poor's 500 for 15 straight years through 2005. But in each of the next three years, the fund lagged that benchmark by at least nine percentage points and trailed at least 97 percent of its peers, according to Morningstar Inc. The fund is now known as ClearBridge Value. Joseph Weiss and Lenard Leeds, two of the lawyers for the plaintiffs, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The case is Goodman et al v. Genworth Financial Wealth Management Inc et al, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, No. 09-05603. GOOGLE INC: "Rudgayzer" Suit Transferred From N.Y. to California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Rudgayzer, et al. v. Google Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-00120, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-00673-PSG to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Todd C. Bank, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF TODD C. BANK 119-40 Union Turnpike, Fourth Floor Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 520-7125 E-mail: TBLaw101@aol.com The Defendant is represented by: Dennis C. Hopkins, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 30 Rockefeller Plaza, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10112 Telephone: (212) 262-6900 Facsimile: (212) 977-1646 E-mail: dhopkins@perkinscoie.com - and - Rebecca S. Engrav, Esq. Susan D. Fahringer, Esq. Ryan Spear, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, 48th Floor Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 359-6168 Facsimile: (206) 359-7168 E-mail: rengrav@perkinscoie.com sfahringer@perkinscoie.com rspear@perkinscoie.com - and - Sunita B. Bali, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 2400 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 344-7000 E-mail: sbali@perkinscoie.com HESS CORP: Removed "Olson" Suit to North Dakota District Court -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Sheryle J. Olson Family Mineral Trust v. Hess Corporation, et al., Case No. 13-2014-000007, was removed from the Southwest Judicial District Court of Dunn County to the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota (Southwestern). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14- cv-00020-DLH-CSM to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles J. Peterson, Esq. MACKOFF KELLOGG LAW FIRM 38 2nd Ave. E. P.O. Box 1097 Dickinson, ND 58602-1097 Telephone: (701) 456-3210 E-mail: cpeterson@mackoff.com - and - Cody L. Balzer, Esq. BALZER LAW FIRM, PC 1302 Cleveland, Ave. Loveland, CO 80537 Telephone: (970) 203-1515 E-mail: cody@balzerlaw.com - and - Derrick L. Braaten, Esq. Lindsey R. Nieuwsma, Esq. BAUMSTARK BRAATEN LAW PARTNERS 109 N. 4th Street, Suite 100 Bismarck, ND 58501 Telephone: (701) 221-2911 Facsimile: (701) 221-5842 E-mail: derrick@baumstarkbraaten.com lindsey@baumstarkbraaten.com - and - Britton D. Monts, Esq. THE MONTS FIRM 401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1540 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 474-6092 E-mail: bmonts@themontsfirm.com - and - James Nicholas Murdock, Esq. Timothy J. Pearse, Esq. MURDOCK LAW FIRM, P.C. 123 W. 1st Street, Suite 675 Casper, WY 82601 Telephone: (307) 235-0480 E-mail: jnmurdock@murdocklawfirm.com tpearse@murdocklawfirm.com - and - Matthew J. Kelly, Esq. TARLOW & STONECIPHER, PLLC 1705 West College Street Bozeman, MT 59715 Telephone: (406) 586-9714 E-mail: mkelly@lawmt.com The Defendants are represented by: John W. Morrison, Jr., Esq. Paul Jonathan Forster, Esq. CROWLEY FLECK PLLP 100 West Broadway, Suite 250 P.O. Box 2798 Bismarck, ND 58502-2798 Telephone: (701) 223-6585 Facsimile: (701) 222-4853 E-mail: jmorrison@crowleyfleck.com pforster@crowleyfleck.com HGB PETROLEUM: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Amadou Fall, on behalf of himself and others similarly-situated v. HGB Petroleum, Inc., Kamal Petroleum, Inc., and Harpreet Sandhu, Case No. 1:14-cv-00237-TWP-MJD (S.D. Ind., February 18, 2014) alleges that the Defendants failed to pay the federal minimum wage to the Plaintiff and others for all hours worked up to 40 per week and the federal overtime rate for all hours worked over 40 per week. HGB and Kamal are corporations operating and conducting business in the Southern District of Indiana. Harpreet Sandhu has been the president of HGB and Kamal. The Plaintiff is represented by: John H. Haskin, Esq. Bradley L. Wilson, Esq. JOHN H. HASKIN & ASSOCIATES 255 North Alabama Street, 2nd Floor Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 955-9500 Facsimile: (317) 955-2570 E-mail: jhaskin@jhaskinlaw.com bwilson@jhaskinlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: G. John Cento, Esq. CENTO LAW LLC The Emelie Building 334 North Senate Avenue Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 908-0678 E-mail: cento@centolaw.com HILTON WORLDWIDE: Has $86MM Payable in Suit Over Domestic Plan -------------------------------------------------------------- Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc. has a remaining unpaid projected benefit obligation of $86 million related to a case over its Domestic Plan, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. As of January 1, 2007, the frozen Domestic Plan and plans maintained for certain domestic hotels currently or formerly managed by the company were merged into a multiple employer plan. As of December 31, 2013, the multiple employer plan had combined assets of $342 million and a projected benefit obligation of $446 million. A class action lawsuit was filed in 1998 against Hilton and the Domestic Plan claiming that the Domestic Plan did not calculate benefit obligations in accordance with the terms of the plan nor were vesting rules followed in accordance with the plan. In May 2009, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (the "District Court") found in favor of the plaintiff in a summary judgment and required that the company and the plaintiff enter into mediation to reach agreement on the amounts necessary for recognition of service and benefits for plan participants and in August 2011, the District Court issued a final order with respect to this lawsuit. The company recorded an increase to the company's minimum additional pension obligation of $109 million as of December 31, 2012 to reflect the expected increase in benefit obligation relating to this case. The additional obligation will be recognized as additional pension expense, which will be amortized over the average remaining life expectancy of the plan participants as determined by the company's actuaries, with the unamortized portion of the obligation having been recognized in accumulated other comprehensive loss as an adjustment of the pension liability. As of December 31, 2013, the remaining unpaid projected benefit obligation related to this case was $86 million. In November 2013, the District Court issued final administrative orders in regard to the lawsuit, which allowed Hilton to adopt an amendment to the Domestic Plan required by the Court. The adoption of the amendment required the company to make a contribution of $31 million in November 2013, prior to the amendment to comply with minimum legal funding obligations of the Domestic Plan. The company expects to commence benefit payments under the new plan document in early 2014, in accordance with the requirements of the court order. In February 2012, the District Court ordered the company to post bond of $76 million under the litigation to support potential future plan contributions. The company funded an account, which is classified as restricted cash and cash equivalents, with this amount to support this requirement, and expect that the bond will be released upon the commencement of benefit payments being made under the amended plan document in 2014. HUSTON CONTRACTING: Fails to Properly Pay Class, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Kevin E. Baer II, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Huston Contracting and Consulting LLC and Jeremy Huston, Case No. 1:14-cv-00241-TWP-DML (S.D. Ind., February 18, 2014) alleges that the Defendants have failed to pay the Plaintiff and those similarly situated to him in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act. HC&C provides general contracting services and is an Indiana limited liability corporation located in Fortville, Indiana. Jeremy Huston is responsible for the day-to-day operations of HC&C. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Hunt, Esq. Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq. GIBBONS LEGAL GROUP, P.C. 10401 North Meridian Street, Suite 130 Indianapolis, IN 46290 Telephone: (317) 706-1100 Facsimile: (317) 623-8503 E-mail: phil@gibbonslegalgroup.com rob@gibbonslegalgroup.com - and - Michael D. Lore, Esq. MICHAEL D. LORE P.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 782-5291 Facsimile: (713) 758-0345 E-mail: mlore@lorefirm.com JAMES PETERS: One of 50 Women in Hep C Suit Blocks Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Russell, writing for The Age, reports that one of 50 women suing drug-addicted anaesthetist James Latham Peters for infecting them with hepatitis C is blocking settlement of the case, a court has heard. The woman is refusing to join the class action against Mr. Peters, prominent abortion specialist Dr. Mark Schulberg who had supervised Mr. Peters, and the Australian Health Practitioners Regulation Authority, because she is not prepared to accept less money. Supreme Court Justice David Beach said he was "deeply troubled" as to why the woman believed it was in her interests not to settle along with all the other women in the class action. Justice Beach said the woman was the only impediment to settlement of the case. If the woman, who had decided to opt out of the class action, did not agree to re-join the group of victims then the case would have to go to trial. A trial would be time-consuming and cost tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees which would have to come out of any final settlement figure. The judge was told the settlement offer now on the table was contingent on the woman re-joining the class action and not trying to go it alone. Justice Beach adjourned the matter until April 23 to give the woman's lawyer time to discuss the situation with her. Mr. Peters, 63, was jailed last year for 14 years with a non-parole period of 10 years, after pleading guilty to 55 counts of negligently causing serious injury to the patients by injecting himself with prefilled syringes of fentanyl -- an opioid used in general anaesthesia -- in theatre at Croydon Day Surgery. He then administered the remaining drug to the patients as they underwent pregnancy terminations. The Supreme Court was told the "complete incompetence" of Victoria's Medical Practitioners Board led to Mr. Peters infecting the women. While he was required to undergo regular urine drug screening as part of the board's monitoring conditions after he confessed to having a drug problem, he was never tested for the drug he was addicted to -- fentanyl. Mr. Peters had a history of drug abuse as well as convictions for possessing a drug of dependence and falsifying prescriptions when he infected the women with the potentially deadly blood disease between June 2008 and November 2009. While he had informed the medical board -- which was abolished under subsequent legislation -- about his addiction to fentanyl and pethidine in 1996, Mr. Peters failed to disclose his hepatitis C status. The Health Department, which the court heard would have been aware he was a doctor being monitored for a fentanyl addiction, was told as soon as he tested positive to the disease, but did not pass on the information. Despite being suspended while he sought help for his addiction, Mr. Peters was allowed to return to work under certain monitoring conditions. Many of his victims have previously told the court of the impact of what they called his "medical negligence", "crime" and "act of violence" against them. Their victim impact statements spoke of broken relationships, ruined careers and their ever-present fears of passing on the disease to their partners, children and others. Many have developed crippling depression, anxiety and stress since learning they had been exposed to the disease and finding out they had been infected. Several have been placed in psychiatric care and many contemplated suicide as a direct result of Mr. Peters' actions. In May last year, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal cancelled the registration of Dr. Schulberg -- who had been Mr. Peters' supervisor at the Croydon Day Surgery -- for one year from July after finding him guilty of serious misconduct. Between 2000 and 2009, the Croydon-based doctor prescribed multiple patients with more than 25,000 Xanax tablets and 9000 Valium among other addictive drugs. The tribunal heard Dr. Schulberg was the only doctor in Victoria, and potentially Australia, who continued to perform late-term surgical abortions on women between 16 and 24 weeks gestation. JERSEY CITY PARKING: Default Judgment Bid in "Ali" Suit Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- SHAUKAT ALI, Plaintiff, v. JERSEY CITY PARKING AUTHORITY, NIKO TAMTASURI, MARY F. PARETTI, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-CV- 02678 (SDW) (MCA), (D. N.J.) is before the Court upon (1) motion by Pro Se Plaintiff Shaukat Ali for default judgment and (2) cross-motion to set aside default and motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint (TAC) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) by Jersey City Parking Authority, Pius Niko Tampusari, improperly named as "Niko Tamtasuri," and Mary F. Paretti. In an opinion entered April 16, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/TSoUZrfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Susan D. Wigenton denied the Plaintiff's motion for default judgment. Defendants' cross-motion to set aside default and motion to dismiss the TAC were granted. "The default entered by the clerk of the court on June 7, 2013 is to be vacated and the TAC is dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice," ruled Judge Wigenton. SHAUKAT ALI, Plaintiff, Pro Se. JERSEY CITY PARKING AUTHORITY, Defendant, represented by KEITH J. ROSENBLATT -- krosenblatt@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. & RACHEL ANNE SEATON -- rseaton@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON PC. NIKO TAMTASURI, Defendant, represented by KEITH J. ROSENBLATT, LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. & RACHEL ANNE SEATON, LITTLER MENDELSON PC. MARY F. PARETTI, CEO, Defendant, represented by KEITH J. ROSENBLATT, LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. & RACHEL ANNE SEATON, LITTLER MENDELSON PC. KANSAS CITY: Robins Geller Files Class Action in Missouri --------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on April 15 announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri on behalf of purchasers of Kansas City Southern common stock during the period between October 18, 2013 and February 18, 2014. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from April 15, 2014. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/kansascitysouthern/ Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint charges KCS and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. KCS operates railroads in the Midwest and Mexico that run north to south, unlike most other U.S. railroads that run east to west. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, KCS issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial performance and future prospects and failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (i) that KCS's utility coal volumes and crude oil shipments were declining below forecasted levels during its 2013 fourth quarter; (ii) that the construction of the Company's new Port Arthur crude oil terminal was experiencing operational difficulties which was delaying its completion and the Company's realization of the benefits from the plant; (iii) that carloads in the Company's Chemical & Petroleum shipments to Mexico had declined during the fourth quarter of 2013 due to operational issues with the Company's customers in Mexico; (iv) that KCS's anticipated ramp-up of its Mexican auto shipment business was not advancing to the degree KCS led the market to believe, as the new plants were not coming on-line and there would be a negligible benefit to KCS's revenues and profits in 2014; and (v) that Mexican government officials were privately clamoring to take back or control the monopoly pricing power KCS had by way of an agreement giving KCS and another company exclusive use of tracks in Mexico. As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements and omissions, KCS common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $125.96 per share on November 14, 2013. On January 24, 2014, KCS issued a press release announcing its fourth quarter and fiscal 2013 financial results. The Company's reported fourth quarter and fiscal 2013 net income significantly missed the net income the investment community had been led to expect based on defendants' Class Period statements. The Company also offered a disappointing earnings growth outlook for fiscal 2014, forecasting per-share earnings for 2014 to rise only in the mid-teens, while the investment community had been led to expect 26% growth based on defendants' Class Period statements. On this news, the price of KCS common stock declined more than $17.79 per share to close below $100 per share on January 24, 2014. Then, on February 18, 2014, the market learned that the lower house of the Mexican legislature had approved a new bill to increase rail competition in Mexico by giving third-party companies access to KCS's exclusive freight and passenger rail networks, and to give the government control over tariffs. On this news, the price of KCS stock fell another $4.00 per share. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of KCS common stock during the Class Period. The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international institutional investors in contingency-based securities and corporate litigation. With nearly 200 lawyers in ten offices, the firm represents hundreds of public and multi- employer pension funds with combined assets under management in excess of $2 trillion. The firm has obtained many of the largest recoveries and has been ranked number one in the number of shareholder class action recoveries in MSCI's Top SCAS 50 every year since 2003. LEHMAN BROTHERS: Banks Balk at Bid to Dismiss Derivatives Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Checkler, writing for Dow Jones' Daily Bankruptcy Review, reports that the banks being sued by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. in a long-simmering derivatives fight say Lehman is seeking an "undue advantage" in the litigation by prohibiting the banks from seeking a dismissal without first receiving class-action status. In an April 14 filing with U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New York, lawyers for 77 banks and other entities said Lehman's bid to put the brakes on their bid to dismiss the lawsuit was unfair, and that receiving approval for class-action status should be a "secondary" matter. "The [Lehman] proposed order is unprecedented," lawyers for the banks said. "Defendants have found no cases in which a court has prohibited defendants from moving to dismiss the complaint until the court first addresses class certification." The banks also said Lehman is stalling so it can use a favorable U.S. District Court ruling in a similar matter to its advantage during settlement discussions. The lawyers for the banks say their scheduling proposal is fairer to all parties, and more efficient. A hearing on the scheduling argument is set for May 14 in front of Judge Shelley Chapman. Lehman affiliates Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. and Lehman Brothers Financial Products Inc. in September 2010 sued the banks to recover funds the investment bank says were wrongly transferred to credit-default swap counterparties after it filed for bankruptcy protection. The swaps contained so-called flip clauses that give investors priority over a counterparty that defaults. Lehman says those transfers, which were triggered when the swaps were terminated and the counterparties jumped ahead of Lehman in the payment priority line after its bankruptcy filing, cost its bankruptcy estate and its creditors more than $3 billion. Among the defendants named in the suit are Bank of America Corp., Bank of New York Mellon Corp., Citigroup Inc. and U.S. Bancorp. In a 2010 ruling, then-Lehman bankruptcy Judge James Peck said the flip clause was a so-called ipso facto provision that deprived Lehman of the benefit of its in-the-money position under the swaps. Provisions terminating a contract solely because of a bankruptcy filing are known as ipso facto clauses and are generally prohibited under U.S. bankruptcy law. Judge Peck's decision, which involved an entity called Saphir Finance Public Limited Co., roiled expectations in the market for structured-finance deals such as credit-default swaps, forcing investors to forgo billions of dollars in collateral. Although Lehman's holding company is out of bankruptcy, the reorganized company, overseen by a new board of directors, is expected to continue for several more years as the team liquidates the Lehman estate's assets and pursues litigation. Lehman's collapse on the morning of Sept. 15, 2008, was the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history. The filing sent markets into turmoil and triggered a global financial crisis. Lehman's main business was quickly sold to Barclays PLC, and the company's New York-based holding company officially exited bankruptcy in 2012. Individual customers of Lehman's brokerage received all $92.3 billion they were owed almost immediately after the bankruptcy. MAIDENFORM BRANDS: 2 Women Sue Over Weight Reduction Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Eric Convey, writing for Boston Business Journal, reports that two Massachusetts women filed a civil lawsuit in federal court on April 14 claiming they were tricked into buying undergarments with names like iPant and Instant Slimmer that made with fabric advertised as containing special weight-reducing substances. Annique Bellot and Tara Stefani are seeking class action status for their claim against Maidenform Brands LLC and Wacoal America Inc. The lawsuit states both companies used fabric made by Nurel S.A. of Spain that is advertised as being "constructed with minerals and nutrients that are absorbed by the skin and can permanently change women's body shape and skin tone." The suit claims the fabric is produced "to prey upon women's insecurities about their body images, because defendants know that the annual revenue of the U.S. weight-loss industry is $20 billion, sales of shapeware are estimated at over $750 million annually and sales of 'nutrient-infused' textiles, or 'cosmeto- textiles,' are estimated at more than $600 million annually." The plaintiffs were harmed, the suit states, because they paid as much as 50 percent premiums to buy undergarments falsely advertised as having the special powers. MATTLEMAN WEINROTH: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------- Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that a federal judge in Camden on April 16 approved settlement of a class-action suit against a New Jersey law firm that allegedly violated the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act by sending out letters that failed to mention the consumer's right to dispute the debt. The firm, Mattleman, Weinroth & Miller of Cherry Hill, and its codefendant, Executive Credit Management of Stanhope, agreed to pay $2,500 to the class representative, Monique Wilson, $7,000 to the 225 other class members and $40,000 in fees to class counsel Laura Mann of West Milford, N.J., and Joseph Jones of Fairfield, N.J. The suit alleged that the letters omitted language, required by the FDCPA at 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692g(a)(3), to explain that consumers may dispute the debt within 30 days of receiving the initial collection notice and that the debt will be presumed valid if they don't. Ms. Wilson's debt of $4,241 to a landlord was sold to Executive Credit Management, which, in turn, sold it to Mattleman, Weinroth & Miller, the suit says. The law firm sent Wilson the nonconforming letter in October 2012. The suit, Wilson v. Mattleman, Weinroth & Miller, was filed in January 2013. The defendants moved to dismiss before filing an answer. In June 2013, U.S. District Judge Joseph Irenas dismissed a claim that the defendants engaged in deceptive practices in violation of 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692e(10) but he declined to dismiss the Sec. 1692g(a)(3) claim. The letter said that if the recipient disputed the debt within 30 days of receipt, the firm would provide verification of the debt, a copy of the judgment or the name of the original creditor, if it is different from the current creditor. But the letter failed to explain that the debt would be presumed valid if it is not disputed after 30 days. The firm contended that it complied with the notice requirement with a statement in the letter that "Should you fail to respond within 30 days, we will recommend that our client commence an action against you to protect its rights." But Judge Irenas said that, from the perspective of the least-sophisticated debtor, that statement did not convey that the debt would be assumed valid after 30 days. The case then went to discovery, which showed that the law firm's standard collection letter included all the statutory language at one time but a revision was made around the time Wilson's letter was sent, removing the phrase about disputing the debt. "The statute tells you what to say," Mr. Jones says. "For some reason this firm failed to do it in a series of letters that went out." The parties reached a tentative settlement last November. U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen Williams gave preliminary approval in January and final approval on April 16. The $7,000 aggregate payment to the class is based on the FDCPA's requirement that such recovery is limited to 1 percent of the defendants' net worth. If no class members opt out, recovery would amount to about $30 per class member. Class counsel Mr. Jones and Ms. Mann agreed to accept the $40,000 counsel fee even though their total billings came to $44,222. Jones submitted costs of $849 and billed $37,622 at his hourly rate of $475. Ms. Mann billed $6,600 at her hourly rate of $300. The parties conducted discovery to confirm that the $7,000 figure is fair and reasonable, says Jones, who often brings FDCPA suits against debt collectors. He acknowledges that the recovery of $30 per class member is modest but says such litigation is "not necessarily about financial recovery. It's really about changing the behavior of the debt collector. Sometimes the only way you can do that is hit them in the pocketbook." The defendants' lawyers are Alison Weinroth-Shaw -- aweinroth@mwm-law.com -- and Martin Weisberg -- mweisberg@mwm-law.com -- both of Mattleman, Weinroth & Miller. MERCK & CO: La. Court Approves Settlement in Vioxx Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana entered an order approving a settlement requiring Merck & Co., Inc. to pay up to $23 million in relation to its Vioxx product, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. Merck is a defendant in approximately 90 federal and state lawsuits (the "Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits") alleging personal injury or economic loss as a result of the purchase or use of Vioxx. Most of the remaining cases are coordinated in a multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (the "Vioxx MDL") before Judge Eldon E. Fallon. Merck has reached a resolution, approved by Judge Fallon, of all remaining federal court putative class actions that were brought on behalf of individual purchasers or users of Vioxx seeking reimbursement for alleged economic loss. Under the settlement, Merck will pay up to $23 million to pay all properly documented claims submitted by class members, approved attorneys' fees and expenses, and approved settlement notice costs and certain other administrative expenses. The court entered an order approving the settlement on January 6, 2014. The period for members to submit claims under the settlement is still pending. MERCK & CO: Submission of Vioxx Claims in Missouri Closed in Oct ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Missouri state court-approved process for class members to submit claims in a settled suit over Merck & Co., Inc.'s product Vioxx closed in October 2013, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. Merck also settled a Missouri state court class action of plaintiffs who sought reimbursement for out-of-pocket costs relating to Vioxx. The Company established a reserve of $39 million in 2012 in connection with that settlement agreement, which is the minimum amount that the Company is required to pay under the agreement. The settlement was approved, and final judgment in the action has been entered. MERCK & CO: Settles Vioxx Suit in Indiana With Named Plaintiffs --------------------------------------------------------------- A suit filed by Indiana Vioxx purchasers against Merck & Co., Inc. in the Circuit Court of Marion County, Indiana settled on a named-plaintiff-only basis, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. In Indiana, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class of Indiana Vioxx purchasers in a case pending before the Circuit Court of Marion County, Indiana. That case has been dormant for several years. In April 2010, a Kentucky state court denied Merck's motion for summary judgment and certified a class of Kentucky plaintiffs seeking reimbursement for out-of-pocket costs relating to Vioxx. The trial court subsequently entered an amended class certification order in January 2011. The matter was settled on a named-plaintiff-only basis in December 2013. Merck is also a defendant in lawsuits brought by state Attorneys General of four states -- Alaska, Mississippi, Montana and Utah. All of these actions are pending in the Vioxx MDL proceeding. These actions allege that Merck misrepresented the safety of Vioxx. These suits seek recovery for expenditures on Vioxx by government-funded health care programs, such as Medicaid, and/or penalties for alleged Consumer Fraud Act violations. In November 2013, the Circuit Court of Franklin County, Kentucky approved a settlement in an action filed by the Kentucky Attorney General, under which Merck agreed to pay Kentucky $25 million to resolve its lawsuit and the related appeals. MERCK & CO: Discovery in N.J. Vioxx Securities Suit Now Closed -------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery has been completed and is now closed in The Vioxx Securities Lawsuits coordinated in a multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, according to Merck & Co., Inc.'s Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. Various putative class actions and individual lawsuits under federal securities laws and state laws have been filed against Merck and various current and former officers and directors (the "Vioxx Securities Lawsuits"). The Vioxx Securities Lawsuits are coordinated in a multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey before Judge Stanley R. Chesler, and have been consolidated for all purposes. In August 2011, Judge Chesler granted in part and denied in part Merck's motion to dismiss the Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint in the consolidated securities action. Among other things, the claims based on statements made on or after the voluntary withdrawal of Vioxx on September 30, 2004, have been dismissed. In October 2011, defendants answered the Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint. In April 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and, in January 2013, Judge Chesler granted that motion. In March 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint to add certain allegations to expand the class period. In May 2013, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint to expand the class period, but granted plaintiffs' leave to amend their complaint to add certain allegations within the existing class period. In June 2013, plaintiffs filed their Sixth Amended Class Action Complaint. In July 2013, defendants answered the Sixth Amended Class Action Complaint. Discovery has been completed and is now closed. Under the court's scheduling order, dispositive motions were filed on January 17, 2014. MERCK & CO: Settles Fosamax ONJ Litigation for $27.7 Million ------------------------------------------------------------ Merck & Co., Inc. reached an agreement in principle with the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee in the Fosamax osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) MDL to resolve pending ONJ cases not on appeal in the Fosamax ONJ MDL and in the state courts for an aggregate amount of $27.7 million, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the United States involving Fosamax (the "Fosamax Litigation"). As of December 31, 2013, approximately 5,415 cases, which include approximately 5,680 plaintiff groups, had been filed and were pending against Merck in either federal or state court, including one case which seeks class action certification, as well as damages and/or medical monitoring. In approximately 1,140 of these actions, plaintiffs allege, among other things, that they have suffered osteonecrosis of the jaw ("ONJ"), generally subsequent to invasive dental procedures, such as tooth extraction or dental implants and/or delayed healing, in association with the use of Fosamax. In addition, plaintiffs in approximately 4,275 of these actions generally allege that they sustained femur fractures and/or other bone injuries ("Femur Fractures") in association with the use of Fosamax. In December 2013, Merck reached an agreement in principle with the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee in the Fosamax ONJ MDL to resolve pending ONJ cases not on appeal in the Fosamax ONJ MDL and in the state courts for an aggregate amount of $27.7 million, which the Company recorded as liability in the fourth quarter of 2013. All of plaintiffs' counsel have advised the Company that they intend to participate in the settlement plan. As a condition to the settlement, 100% of the state and federal ONJ plaintiffs must also agree to participate in the settlement plan by March 31, 2014. If 100% participation is not achieved, Merck has until May 15, 2014, to determine whether it will terminate the agreement, waive the 100% participation requirement, or agree to a lesser funding amount for the settlement fund. This tentative settlement has no effect on the cases alleging Femur Fractures. MERCK & CO: Wins Court OK for $215MM Accord in Vytorin/Zetia Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The District of New Jersey approved a $215 million settlement of In re Merck & Co., Inc. Vytorin/Zetia Securities Litigation, according to Merck's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. In April 2008, a Merck shareholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in federal court which was consolidated in the District of New Jersey under the caption, In re Merck & Co., Inc. Vytorin/Zetia Securities Litigation. The complaint alleged that Merck and other defendants delayed releasing unfavorable results of the ENHANCE clinical trial regarding the efficacy of Vytorin and that Merck made false and misleading statements about expected earnings knowing that, once the results of the ENHANCE study were released, sales of Vytorin would decline and Merck's earnings would suffer. In February 2013, Merck announced an agreement in principle with plaintiffs to settle this matter for $215 million. The settlement agreement was executed by the parties in June 2013, and approved by the court in October 2013. The settlement was reflected in the Company's 2012 financial results. MERCK & CO: Pays $480MM Into "ENHANCE Litigation" Settlement Fund ----------------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., Inc. paid $480 million into a settlement fund of the "ENHANCE Litigation," according to Merck's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. A consolidated securities class action lawsuit was pending in the District of New Jersey against Schering-Plough and other defendants under the caption, In re Schering-Plough Corporation/ENHANCE Securities Litigation. In February 2013, Merck announced an agreement in principle with plaintiffs to settle this matter for $473 million. The settlement agreement was executed in June 2013, and approved by the court in October 2013. The settlement was reflected in the Company's 2012 financial results and, together with the settlement described in the preceding paragraph (collectively, the "ENHANCE Litigation"), resulted in an aggregate charge of $493 million after taking into account anticipated insurance recoveries of $195 million. In the second quarter of 2013, the Company paid $480 million into a settlement fund. The Company's insurers subsequently paid the remaining $208 million, which reflects an additional $13 million of insurance recoveries not previously recognized. On November 14, 2013, two complaints were filed in the District of New Jersey against Merck as successor to Schering-Plough, and other defendants, by certain institutional investors who "opted- out" of the ENHANCE securities class action against Schering- Plough. In addition, on January 14, 2014, two complaints were filed in the District of New Jersey against Merck and other defendants by certain institutional investors who "opted-out" of the Vytorin/Zetia securities class action against Merck. The "opt-out" complaints contain allegations similar to those made by plaintiffs in the settled class actions against Schering-Plough and Merck. The Company intends to move to dismiss these complaints and otherwise to defend itself in the litigation. MERCK & CO: Sued by Pa. Purchasers of M-M-R II Vaccine ------------------------------------------------------ Merck & Co., Inc. is facing a putative class action in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of direct purchasers of the M-M-R II vaccine, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. On June 21, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania unsealed a complaint that has been filed against the Company under the federal False Claims Act by two former employees alleging, among other things, that the Company defrauded the U.S. government by falsifying data in connection with a clinical study conducted on the mumps component of the Company's M-M-R II vaccine. The complaint alleges the fraud took place between 1999 and 2001. The U.S. government had the right to participate in and take over the prosecution of this lawsuit, but has notified the court that it declined to exercise that right. The two former employees are pursuing the lawsuit without the involvement of the U.S. government. In addition, a putative class action lawsuit has been filed against the Company in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of direct purchasers of the M- M-R II vaccine which is predicated on the allegations in the False Claims Act complaint and charges that the Company misrepresented the efficacy of the M-M-R II vaccine in violation of federal antitrust laws and various state consumer protection laws. The Company intends to defend against these lawsuits. MERCK & CO: Reinstated as Defendant in New Jersey AWP Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., Inc. was reinstated as a defendant in a putative class action in New Jersey Superior Court which accuses drug manufacturers of manipulating Average Wholesale Prices, according to Merck & Co., Inc.'s Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. As previously disclosed, the Company and/or certain of its subsidiaries have been named as defendants in cases brought by various states alleging manipulation by pharmaceutical manufacturers of Average Wholesale Prices ("AWP"), which are sometimes used by public and private payors in calculating provider reimbursement levels. The outcome of these lawsuits could include substantial damages, the imposition of substantial fines and penalties and injunctive or administrative remedies. Since the start of 2012, the Company has settled AWP cases brought by the states of Alabama, Alaska, Kansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Mississippi, and Wisconsin. A subsidiary of the Company continues to be a defendant in a case brought by one state, Utah. The Company has also been reinstated as a defendant in a putative class action in New Jersey Superior Court which alleges on behalf of third-party payers and individuals that manufacturers inflated drug prices by manipulation of AWPs and other means. This case was originally dismissed against the Company without prejudice in 2007. The Company intends to defend against this lawsuit. MERCK & CO: 3rd Cir. Sends K-DUR Antitrust Suit to District Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Third Circuit Court of Appeals returned the case filed on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of K-DUR against Schering-Plough Corp. to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey for further proceedings in accordance with the standard used in another suit FTC v. Actavis, Inc. on whether a so-called "reverse payment" violates antitrust laws, according to Merck & Co., Inc.'s Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. In June 1997 and January 1998, Schering-Plough settled patent litigation with Upsher-Smith, Inc. ("Upsher-Smith") and ESI Lederle, Inc. ("Lederle"), respectively, relating to generic versions of K-DUR, Schering-Plough's long-acting potassium chloride product supplement used by cardiac patients, for which Lederle and Upsher-Smith had filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications ("ANDAs"). Following the commencement of an administrative proceeding by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (the "FTC") in 2001 alleging anti-competitive effects from those settlements (which has been resolved in Schering-Plough's favor), putative class and non-class action suits were filed on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of K-DUR against Schering-Plough, Upsher-Smith and Lederle and were consolidated in a multi- district litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. These suits claimed violations of federal and state antitrust laws, as well as other state statutory and common law causes of action, and sought unspecified damages. In April 2008, the indirect purchasers voluntarily dismissed their case. In March 2010, the District Court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the remaining lawsuits and dismissed the matter in its entirety. In July 2012, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. At the same time, the Third Circuit upheld a December 2008 decision by the District Court to certify certain direct purchaser plaintiffs' claims as a class action. In August 2012, the Company filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the Third Circuit's decision. In June 2013, the Supreme Court granted that petition, vacated the judgment of the Third Circuit, and remanded the case for further consideration in light of its recent decision in FTC v. Actavis, Inc. That decision held that whether a so-called "reverse payment" -- i.e., a payment from the holder of a pharmaceutical patent to a party challenging the patent made in connection with a settlement of their dispute -- violates the antitrust laws should be determined on the basis of a "rule of reason" analysis. In September 2013, the Third Circuit returned the case to the District Court for further proceedings in accordance with the Actavis standard. MERCK & CO: Files Motion to Dismiss Amended Coupon Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in a suit alleging Merck & Co., Inc.'s coupon programs injured health insurers filed a consolidated amended complaint, and Merck has filed a new motion to dismiss that complaint, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. In 2012, a number of private health plans filed separate putative class action lawsuits against the Company alleging that Merck's coupon programs injured health insurers by reducing beneficiary co-payment amounts and, thereby, allegedly causing beneficiaries to purchase higher-priced drugs than they otherwise would have purchased and increasing the insurers' reimbursement costs. The actions, which were assigned to a District Judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, sought damages and injunctive relief barring the Company from issuing coupons that would reduce beneficiary co-pays on behalf of putative nationwide classes of health insurers. Similar actions relating to manufacturer coupon programs have been filed against several other pharmaceutical manufacturers in a variety of federal courts. On April 29, 2013, the District Court dismissed all the actions against Merck without prejudice on the grounds that plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate their standing to sue. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a consolidated amended complaint, and Merck has filed a motion to dismiss that complaint. MERCK & CO: To Re-File Motion to Dismiss Sales Force Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., Inc. intends to re-file its motion to dismiss class allegations in a suit filed by female sales representatives in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. On May 9, 2013, Ms. Kelli Smith filed a complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey of behalf of herself and a putative class of female sales representatives and a putative sub-class of female sales representatives with children, claiming (a) discriminatory policies and practices in selection, promotion and advancement, (b) disparate pay, (c) differential treatment, (d) hostile work environment and (e) retaliation under federal and state discrimination laws. On November 27, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the class claims. Plaintiffs sought and were granted leave to file an amended complaint. On January 16, 2014, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding four additional named plaintiffs. The Company intends to re-file its motion to dismiss the class allegations and to otherwise defend itself. NATIONAL BROADBAND: Contractors Postpone Proposed Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- ABC News reports that Tasmanian civil contractors are postponing legal action against the company rolling out the National Broadband Network, but have asked for government help. They are accusing Visionstream of misleading them about the amount of work on offer. They were planning a class action but contractor Andrew Bullock says it is on hold while the Premier, Will Hodgman, looks at the case. Two of the biggest contractors are in talks with the new Premier about getting more work on the NBN, or compensation. Mr. Bullock says Mr. Hodgman has only a few weeks to help. "We've pretty well put it to the Premier now that if we don't get some sort of State Government intervention, there's going to be more job losses and more people putting pressure on Centrelink," he said. "If we can't get some kind of assistance from the State Government, if our two businesses fold, it'll take 80 to 85 jobs with it." Contractors are keeping the pressure on, saying legal action is still an option. Mr. Hodgman says he is lobbying the Federal Government on behalf of Tasmanian contractors who believe they have been short- changed. "We are actively pursuing opportunities for those workers to have their voice heard, to lobby obviously the Federal Government and make representations on their behalf," the Premier said. "But obviously the Federal Government has to deal with an appalling legacy left by the Labor Government in Canberra." Visionstream denies the contractors' claims, saying commercial contracts did not include a guarantee of work. Next rollout phase detailed NBN Co has announced the next 10 locations in Tasmania to get the NBN. Construction is beginning in areas including George Town, Riverside, Port Sorell and Ellendale. More than 4,000 people live in the 10 areas. NBN Co spokeswoman Lalla Mackenzie says some will have fibre connections while others will have fixed wireless networks installed. "In southern Tasmania we have communities such as Ellendale, we'll be announcing Bell Bay to receive fibre, Low Head, Beachhead, Riverside will be receiving fibre, Bridgenorth, places like that," she said. "So any fibre community, it roughly takes 18 months to construct that community. "The fixed wireless communities, it doesn't take as long to roll out because we don't need to take fibre to each of the premises. "So they can expect to be operational about six months after we announce." The old copper network is set to be decommissioned in George Town, Deloraine, St Helens, Triabunna, Sorell and Kingston Beach. With five weeks, there are still 1,200 people yet to switch to the new fibre network. People need to manually switch accounts, or face problems. EFTPOS machines will not work and medical alarms will automatically switch off, as well as landline phones. "I would encourage, if you live beside an elderly resident or someone that wouldn't normally know about the switch, go and knock on their door and let them know to make the switch as soon as possible," Ms Mackenzie said. The cut off date is May 23. OVASCIENCE INC: Mass. Securities Suit Voluntarily Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Meriam Ratner voluntarily dismissed the securities suit she filed against OvaScience, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. On September 16, 2013, a purported shareholder class action, styled Meriam Ratner v. OvaScience, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, naming the company and certain of the company's officers as defendants. The lawsuit alleges that the company made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact relating to the qualification of AUGMENT as a 361 HCT/P in the company's public disclosures during the period from February 25, 2013 through September 10, 2013, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On February 2, 2014, the company and certain of the company's officers, as defendants, filed a motion to dismiss with the District Court. On February 3, 2014, plaintiff Meriam Ratner voluntarily dismissed the suit without prejudice. PACKAGING CORP: Agrees to Settle Class Action for $17.6 Million --------------------------------------------------------------- Packaging Corporation of America on April 16 disclosed that it has reached an agreement to settle a civil, class action lawsuit filed against PCA and eight other North American manufacturers of containerboard. The lawsuit, filed in 2010, is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Under the terms of the agreement, which must be approved by the court, PCA will pay $17.6 million into a settlement fund in return for a dismissal and release of all claims of the purported class. PCA will record a reserve for the expected settlement of the agreement in first quarter 2014 results, which will result in an after-tax charge of $11.3 million, or $0.11 per share. Commenting on the settlement agreement, Mark W. Kowlzan, Chief Executive Officer of PCA, said, "While PCA believes that the allegations brought against it in this action have no merit, our Board of Directors has determined that it is in the best interest of our shareholders to settle this lawsuit at this time to avoid the substantial legal costs as well as the uncertainty involved with litigation of this nature." PCA is the fourth largest producer of containerboard and corrugated packaging products in the United States and the third largest producer of uncoated freesheet paper in North America. PCA operates eight paper mills and 98 corrugated products plants and related facilities. QANTAS: Agrees to Settle Price Fixing Class Action for $38-Mil. --------------------------------------------------------------- Sky News reports that several airlines including Qantas have agreed to a $38 million settlement of a class action related to price fixing. The settlement agreement, which still needs court approval, comes seven years after the law suit relating to alleged cartel conduct in air freight services began. The class action against Qantas, Singapore Airlines, Cathay Pacific, Air New Zealand, British Airways and Lufthansa Cargo relates to alleged price fixing on international freight services since January 1, 2000. The allegations relate to fuel and security surcharges imposed by the airlines. The lawsuit sought damages on behalf of purchasers of air freight services for losses suffered as a result of the alleged cartel conduct by the airlines. The proposed settlement involves no admission of liability by the airlines. Air New Zealand did not participate in the proposed settlement, but the proceedings against Air New Zealand will be discontinued. Maurice Blackburn class actions principal Brooke Dellavedova said the class action had been complex, difficult and long, so it was a significant victory for the businesses pursuing the case. Maurice Blackburn said the lawsuit was only the fourth cartel class action to be run in Australia. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Maurice Blackburn will receive about $13 million from the payment of $38 million to cover fees. An application for approval is due to be heard in the Federal Court on June 6. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has fined 10 airlines nearly $100 million for price fixing of international air freight. Air New Zealand and Garuda Indonesia defended proceedings brought by the ACCC, and a judgment is still to be delivered. RITZ TRANS: Dist. Ct. Adopts Mag. Judge's Report in "Cohn" Case --------------------------------------------------------------- In FRANK COHN, Plaintiff, v. RITZ TRANSPORTATION, INC., et al., Defendants, NO. 2:11-CV-1832 JCM (NJK), (D. Nev.), before the court are the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Koppe. Plaintiffs filed objections to the report, and defendants filed an opposition to those objections. After reviewing Magistrate Judge Koppe's report, the plaintiffs' objections, and the underlying briefs de novo, District Judge James C. Mahan adopted the report and recommendation in full. In addition, the court ordered that defendants pay any arbitration fees assessed against plaintiffs that are in excess of the costs plaintiffs would have paid if the action had remained in the district court. Defendants' motions to dismiss and/or compel arbitration and strike class/collective claims were granted. The action is dismissed with prejudice as to the thirty-three plaintiffs listed on pages five and six of defendants' motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiffs' motion to supplement their objections was denied as moot. A copy of Judge Mahan's April 17, 2014 ruling is available at http://is.gd/28nMmPfrom Leagle.com. Frank Cohn, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy -- christian@gabroy.com -- Gabroy Law Offices, Dana Sniegocki -- dana@overtimelaw.com -- Leon Greenberg, Leon Marc Greenberg -- wagelaw@aol.com -- Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation & Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law Offices. Frank Ferrino, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law Offices & Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation. Lionel Forstall, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law Offices & Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation. David Lansdowne, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law Offices & Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation. Graciela Perez, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law Offices & Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation. Gary Chavez, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law Offices & Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation. Everett Hodge, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law Offices & Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation. Emir Lopez, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law Offices & Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation. Danny Umland, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law Offices & Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation. Leith Poindexter, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law Offices & Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation. Nikola Radev, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law Offices & Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation. Raymond Wright, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law Offices & Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation. Kevin G Nash, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law Offices & Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation. Ross Lee Brady, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law Offices & Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation. Michael Downton, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law Offices & Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation. Michael Gilmore, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law Offices & Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation. James Lee Wilson, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law Offices & Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation. Randall Borchers, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law Offices & Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation. Dwight P Canyon, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law Offices & Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation. James E. Duerr, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law Offices & Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation. Shawn C. Thompson, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law Offices & Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation. Kikhela Tsasa, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law Offices & Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation. Peter F. Miller, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law Offices & Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation. Loretta Hall, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law Offices & Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation. Orlando Green, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law Offices & Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation. Roberto S. Maglaya, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law Offices & Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation. Arthur W. Parker, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law Offices & Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation. Nicole Anthony, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law Offices & Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation. David Daniels, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law Offices & Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation. Michael H Bates, Sr., Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law Offices & Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation. Leidolf L Systad, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law Offices & Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation. AWG Ambassador, LLC, Defendant, represented by R. Calder Huntington -- rchuntington@hollandhart.com -- Holland & Hart LLP, Rick D Roskelley -- rroskelley@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC, Roger L Grandgenett -- rgrandgenett@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC, Ethan Thomas -- ethan.thomas@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis LLP & Montgomery Y Paek -- Montgomery.Paek@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. Ritz Transportation, Inc., Defendant, represented by R. Calder Huntington, Holland & Hart LLP, Rick D Roskelley, Littler Mendelson, PC, Roger L Grandgenett, Littler Mendelson, PC, Ethan Thomas, Jackson Lewis LLP & Montgomery Y Paek, Jackson Lewis P.C. Alan Waxler, Defendant, represented by R. Calder Huntington, Holland & Hart LLP, Rick D Roskelley, Littler Mendelson, PC, Roger L Grandgenett, Littler Mendelson, PC, Ethan Thomas, Jackson Lewis LLP & Montgomery Y Paek, Jackson Lewis P.C. Raymond Chenoweth, Defendant, represented by Christian James Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, R. Calder Huntington, Holland & Hart LLP, Rick D Roskelley, Littler Mendelson, PC, Roger L Grandgenett, Littler Mendelson, PC, Ethan Thomas, Jackson Lewis LLP & Montgomery Y Paek, Jackson Lewis P.C. SEI INVESTMENTS: 5th Cir. Won't Review Stock Suit Transfer Order ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied a petition of plaintiffs in a consolidated securities suit against SEI Investments Company for a writ of mandamus asking the court to review the Multi-district Litigation Panel's transfer Order of the case, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. SEI has been named in six lawsuits filed in Louisiana. Five lawsuits were filed in the 19th Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana. One of the five actions purports to set forth claims on behalf of a class and also names SPTC as a defendant and, was certified as a class in December 2012. Two of the other actions also name SPTC as a defendant. All five actions name various defendants in addition to SEI, and, in all five actions, the plaintiffs purport to bring a cause of action against SEI and SPTC under the Louisiana Securities Act. The class action originally included a claim against SEI and SPTC for an alleged violation of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act. Two of the other five actions include claims for violations of the Louisiana Racketeering Act and possibly conspiracy. In addition, another group of plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the 23rd Judicial District Court for the Parish of Ascension, State of Louisiana, against SEI and SPTC and other defendants asserting claims of negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, violations of the uniform fiduciaries law, negligent misrepresentation, detrimental reliance, violations of the Louisiana Securities Act and Louisiana Racketeering Act and conspiracy. The underlying allegations in all the actions are purportedly related to the role of SPTC in providing back-office services to Stanford Trust Company. The petitions allege that SEI and SPTC aided and abetted or otherwise participated in the sale of "certificates of deposit" issued by Stanford International Bank. Two of the five actions filed in East Baton Rouge were removed to federal court and transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. On August 31, 2011, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued an order and judgment that the causes of action alleged against SEI in the two removed actions were preempted by federal law and the court dismissed these cases with prejudice. Plaintiffs appealed this ruling, and on March 19, 2012, a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the decision of the United States District Court and remanded the actions for further proceedings. On July 18, 2012, SEI filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, seeking review of the decision by the United States Court of Appeals in the Fifth Circuit to permit the claims against SEI to proceed. SEI believes that the trial court correctly concluded that the claims against SEI were barred by the federal Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act and is requesting that the Supreme Court reinstate that dismissal. On January 18, 2013, the Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari. On October 7, 2013, the Supreme Court heard oral argument on the appeal and on February 26, 2014 the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. The case filed in Ascension was also removed to federal court and transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the Northern District of Texas. The schedule for responding to that complaint has not yet been established. The plaintiffs in the remaining two cases in East Baton Rouge have granted SEI and SPTC an extension to respond to the filings. SEI and SPTC filed exceptions in the class action pending in East Baton Rouge, which the Court granted in part and dismissed the claims under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act and denied in part as to the other exceptions. SEI and SPTC filed an answer to the East Baton Rouge class action, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification; and SEI and SPTC also filed a motion for summary judgment against certain named plaintiffs which the Court stated will not be set for hearing until after the hearing on the class certification motion. The Court in the East Baton Rouge action held a hearing on class certification on September 20, 2012. By oral decision on December 5, 2012 and later entered in a judgment signed on December 17, 2012 that was subsequently amended, the Court in East Baton Rouge certified a class to be composed of persons who purchased any Stanford International Bank certificates of deposit (SIB CDs) in Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and February 13, 2009; persons who renewed any SIB CD in Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and February 13, 2009; or any person for whom the Stanford Trust Company purchased SIB CDs in Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and February 13, 2009. On January 30, 2013, SEI and SPTC filed motions for appeal from the judgments that stated SEI's and SPTC's intention to move to stay the litigation. On February 1, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for Leave to File First Amended and Restated Class Action Petition in which they ask the Court to allow them to amend the petition in this case to add additional facts that were developed during discovery and adding claims against certain of SEI's insurance carriers. On February 5, 2013, the Court granted two of the motions for appeal and the motion for leave to amend. On February 15, 2013, SEI filed a motion for new trial, or, in the alternative, for reconsideration of the Court's order allowing amendment. On February 22, 2013, SEI filed a motion to stay proceedings in view of the pending Supreme Court case. On February 28, 2013, SEI responded to the First Amended and Restated Class Action Petition by filing an exception. On March 11, 2013, the insurance carrier defendants filed a notice of removal removing the case to the Middle District of Louisiana and on March 18, 2013, the insurance carrier defendants filed answers. On March 13, 2013, SEI notified the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) of this case as a potential tag-along action. On March 19, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, a motion for expedited briefing schedule, expedited status conference and expedited consideration of their motion to remand, a motion for leave to file under seal and a motion for order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1447(b) requiring removing defendants to supplement federal court record with certified copy of state court record. These motions are now fully briefed. On March 25, 2013, SEI filed a motion that the court decline to adopt the state court's order regarding class certification, which the court dismissed without prejudice to renew upon a determination of removal jurisdiction in an April 12, 2013 order that also dismissed without prejudice a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue filed on April 9, 2013 by one of the insurers. On April 1, 2013, the Louisiana Office of Financial Institutions (OFI) filed a motion to remand and sever claims, and a response to that motion by the insurers and opposition to that motion by the plaintiffs were filed on April 22, 2013. Along with the briefing in the Middle District of Louisiana, on March 13, 2013, SEI notified the MDL of this case as a potential tag-along action. On March 19, 2013, plaintiffs notified the MDL that they had filed a motion to remand and asked the panel to decline to issue a conditional transfer order. On March 29, 2013, the MDL issued a conditional transfer order (CTO). On April 18, 2013, OFI filed a motion to vacate the CTO or, in the alternative, stay any ruling to transfer the matter until after the Middle District of Louisiana ruled on OFI's motion to remand and sever. Plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the CTO on April 19, 2013. SEI's responses to those motions were filed on May 9, 2013. On June 12, 2013, the MDL Panel issued an order notifying the parties that on July 25, 2013, it would consider, without oral argument, Plaintiffs' and OFI's motions to vacate the CTO. On August 7, 2013, the MDL Panel affirmed the CTO and transferred the matter against SEI to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas; the MDL Panel also severed the claims against OFI and remanded those claims to the Middle District of Louisiana. On September 11, 2013, defendants filed a motion requesting a status conference with the Court to address the status of all pending motions. On October 4, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to review the MDL Panel's transfer Order and on February 14, 2014, the Court denied the petition. SPEIGHT SEED: Court Certifies Class in "Hernandez-Martinez" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Terrence W. Boyle granted a motion for class certification in JUAN MANUEL HERNANDEZ-MARTINEZ, on behalf of himself and themselves and all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. Speight Seed Farms, Inc., John Milton Beamon, and Emma Ortega, Defendants, CASE NO: 4-13-CV-82-BO, (E.D. N.C.). A copy of the April 13, 2014 ruling is available at http://is.gd/GE375Ffrom Leagle.com. Judge Boyle granted the joint motion for certification of the plaintiff's Third Claim for Relief under the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (NCWHA) as a class action under Rule 23(b) (3), Fed.R.Civ.P., for the time period from March 27, 2011 to December 31, 2012 for those persons included in the class definition. A joint motion for class certification of an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act collective was also granted with respect to all those persons who have filed a written Consent to Sue under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) on or before the date on which the Court files any Order approving the terms of the proposed settlement between the named plaintiff and the Speight defendants. Jose Luis Gonzalez-Quinones, Plaintiff, represented by Robert J. Willis. Maria de Jesus Figueroa-Ayala, Plaintiff, represented by Robert J. Willis. Juan Manuel Hernandez-Martinez, Plaintiff, represented by Robert J. Willis. Speight Seed Farms, Inc., Defendant, represented by William A. Oden, III -- wao@wardandsmith.com -- Ward and Smith, P.A.. John Milton Beamon, Defendant, represented by William A. Oden, III, Ward and Smith, P.A.. Emma Ortega, Defendant, represented by William A. Oden, III, Ward and Smith, P.A.. TEAM HEALTH: Medical Personnel File Class Action Over Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Karla Ward, writing for Lexington Herald-Leader, reports that a company that provides doctors and other medical personnel for Kentucky hospitals and their emergency departments is the target of a class-action lawsuit that alleges fraud and breach of contract. The suit, filed on April 10 in Fayette Circuit Court against Team Health Holdings, says the plaintiff, Lori Wagner, and other Team Health employees were "paid less money than they earned and were entitled to as wages and . . . have had other amounts wrongfully withheld from their pay." The employees affected by the suit originally worked for Mesa Medical Group, but Knoxville-based Team Holdings acquired Mesa in October. The suit alleges that Mesa improperly converted to its own use more than $2.8 million that should have gone to 254 employees over a three-year period. The suit says Mesa did this for about nine years, so "the total money illicitly taken by Mesa should approximate $9 million." When Team Health took over, employees were required to sign new contracts for less pay, the lawsuit says. "Even though Team Health knew the plaintiffs were entitled to money that had been wrongfully withheld and converted by Mesa, it never offered to repay the money to the plaintiffs and sought to take advantage of Mesa's illicit conduct to its own advantage by breaching the contracts with the plaintiffs," the suit says. Lexington attorney Dale Golden, who filed the class-action suit, has filed two similar lawsuits in recent months against Mesa. According to court documents, Mesa is accused of forcing employees to pay the employer's share of Federal Insurance Contributions Act, or FICA, taxes. The first of the lawsuits Golden filed was dismissed from U.S. District Court in Lexington after Judge Joseph Hood ruled that the plaintiff, Tammy Berera, should take her complaint to the IRS. Ms. Berera is appealing that decision. TRANSUNION HOLDING: Distributions From Privacy Suit Deal Affirmed ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals affirmed the final order approving the distributions from the Settlement fund of the Privacy Litigation against TransUnion Corp., according to Transunion Holding Company, Inc.'s Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. The company is a defendant in 16 purported class actions that arose from activities of the company's Performance Data Division that was discontinued over 12 years ago. Fifteen of these purported class actions alleging violations of federal law were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division) and are known as In Re TransUnion Corp. Privacy Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1350. The company refers to these matters as the "Privacy Litigation." A companion class action alleging violation of Louisiana state law was filed in 2002 (Andrews v. Trans Union LLC, case No. 02-18553, Civil District, Parish of Orleans, Louisiana), and the company refers to this matter as the "Louisiana Action." The Privacy Litigation, which issues have been actively litigated by the Company for close to 20 years, was the result of the company's sale of information, including names and addresses of individuals, to businesses for marketing purposes. The FTC challenged the company's target marketing practice in 1992, which challenge resulted in a final decision rendered in 1999 holding that certain target marketing lists that the company sold were consumer reports as defined in the FCRA, and were sold for purposes not permitted under the FCRA. Following that decision, the fifteen purported class actions were filed, alleging that each target marketing list was sold in willful violation of the FCRA and seeking statutory damages. A settlement of the Privacy Litigation and the Louisiana Action was approved on September 17, 2008 (the "Settlement"). The Louisiana Action was dismissed in connection with the Settlement. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement, the company paid $75.0 million into a fund for the benefit of class members on July 7, 2008, and approximately 100,000 individuals took advantage of the company's offer of free credit monitoring services. All class members released their procedural rights to pursue the claims alleged in these matters through the pending, or any new, class action. However, all class members (other than the named plaintiffs in the Privacy Litigation and the Louisiana Action) did retain their right to bring a separate, individual claim against the company for the violations alleged in these matters provided these claims were asserted on or before September 16, 2010 (the "PSCs"). The Settlement provides that any money remaining in the fund after payment of notice costs, class counsel fees and administrative expenses will be used to satisfy any such PSCs, with remaining funds distributed on a pro-rata basis to class members who elected to receive a potential cash payment in the Settlement as part of the consideration to release their procedural rights. Through court monitored mediation with counsel representing the class members and the PSC claimants, the company entered into agreements to settle substantially all of these PSCs for payments from the Settlement fund to bring this matter to conclusion. Payments from the Settlement fund have been made in accordance with the terms of the agreements entered into with the settling PSCs. After numerous hearings on this matter, the Court, on February 22, 2013, issued a final order approving the distributions from the Settlement fund that was created by the Company and terminated the proceedings. This final order was agreed to by all class counsel except one, who sought a review of the final order and certain interlocutory orders in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. On January 23, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals affirmed the final order as well as orders approving the PSC settlements and the company's corresponding disbursements, effectively terminating this action. TRANSUNION HOLDING: Objecting Counsel Seeks Interlocutory Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Objecting counsel to the settlement reached in White, et al v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (No. 05-cv-01070-DOC/MLG is seeking an interlocutory appeal of a ruling denying it "new class counsel" status, according to Transunion Holding Company, Inc.'s Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. In a matter captioned White, et al v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (No. 05-cv-01070-DOC/MLG, filed in 2005 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California), plaintiffs sought class action status against Equifax, Experian and the company in connection with the reporting of delinquent or charged-off consumer debt obligations on a consumer report after the consumer was discharged in a bankruptcy proceeding. The claims allege that each national consumer reporting company did not automatically update a consumer's file after their discharge from bankruptcy and such non-action was a failure to employ reasonable procedures to assure maximum file accuracy, a requirement of the FCRA. Without admitting any wrongdoing, the company agreed to a settlement of this matter. On August 19, 2008, the Court approved an agreement whereby the company and the other industry defendants voluntarily changed certain operational practices. These changes require the company to update certain delinquent records when the company learned, through the collection of public records, that the consumer has received an order of discharge in a bankruptcy proceeding. These business practice changes did not have a material adverse impact on the company's operations or those of the company's customers. In 2009, the company also agreed, with the other two defendants, to settle the monetary claims associated with this matter for $17.0 million each ($51.0 million in total), which amount will be distributed from a settlement fund to pay the class counsel's attorney fees, all administration and notice costs of the fund to the purported class, and a variable damage amount to consumers within the class based on the level of harm the consumer is able to confirm. The company's share of this settlement was fully covered by insurance. Final approval of this monetary settlement by the Court occurred in July 2011. Certain objecting plaintiffs appealed the Court's final approval of the monetary settlement and, in April 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the final approval order and remanded the matter to the District Court. The rationale provided by the United States Court of Appeals was not that the proposed settlement was unfair or defective, but that named class counsel and certain named plaintiffs did not adequately represent the interests of the class because of certain identified conflicts. Objecting counsel to the settlement has sought to become new class counsel and the District Court has denied this request. Objecting counsel is currently seeking an interlocutory appeal of this ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. TRANSUNION HOLDING: Seeks Approval for "Soutter" Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Final approval is being sought for a settlement reached in Donna K. Soutter v. Trans Union LLC No. 3:10-cv-00514-HEH filed with United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, according to Transunion Holding Company, Inc.'s Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. This purported class action (Donna K. Soutter v. Trans Union LLC No. 3:10-cv-00514-HEH, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia) was filed in 2010 and alleges that the company failed to maintain reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible file accuracy with respect to the collection and reporting of the satisfaction, release, dismissal or appeal of judgments entered in the Virginia state court system. Similar cases are pending against the company's competitors. The company, like the company's competitors, contracts with a third-party vendor to collect public records on a timely basis. The plaintiff alleges that the diligence used to gather and report satisfactions, releases, dismissals or appeals is inadequate and that the established intervals between trips to the various Virginia state courthouses to gather this information is too infrequent. In January 2014, the company agreed to settle this matter for a cash payment and six months of the company's Internet-based single bureau credit monitoring service for no charge. The proposed settlement has been preliminarily approved by the Court and a final fairness hearing was set for mid-March 2014. TRANSUNION HOLDING: Certification Sought in OFAC Alert Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Class action certification proceedings are progressing in lawsuits filed against Trans Union LLC over the Office of Foreign Assets Control Alert, according to Transunion Holding Company, Inc.'s Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. As a result of a decision by the United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 2010 (Cortez v. Trans Union LLC), the company modified one of the company's add-on services the company offered to its business customers that was designed to alert the company's customer that the consumer, who was seeking to establish a business relationship with the customer, may potentially be on the Office of Foreign Assets Control, Specifically Designated National and Blocked Persons alert list (the "OFAC Alert"). The OFAC Alert service is meant to assist the company's customers with their compliance obligations in connection with the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001. In Ramirez v. Trans Union LLC, (No. 3:12-cv-00632-JSC, United States District Court for the Northern District of California) that was filed in 2012, the plaintiff has alleged that: the OFAC Alert service does not comply with the Cortez ruling; the company willfully violated the FCRA and the corresponding California state-FCRA based on the Cortez ruling by continuing to offer the OFAC Alert service, and; there are one or more classes of individuals who should be entitled to statutory damages (i.e., $100 to $5,000 per person) based on the allegedly willful violations. In addition to the Ramirez action, the same lawyers representing Ramirez (who also represented the plaintiff in Cortez) have filed two additional alleged class actions in 2012 (Miller v. Trans Union, LLC, No. 12-1715-WJN, United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania; and Larson v. Trans Union, LLC, No. 12-5726-JSC, United States District Court for the Northern District of California) and one in 2014 (Amit Patel, et al. v. TransUnion LLC, TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions, Inc. and TransUnion Background Data Solutions, No. 14-cv-0522-LB, United States District Court for the Northern District of California) claiming that the company's process for disclosing OFAC information to consumers, or how the company matches OFAC information to a consumer's name or other identifying information, violates the FCRA and, in some instances, the corresponding California state-FCRA. Class action certification proceedings are progressing with respect to the Ramirez, Miller and Larson actions. With respect to the Patel action, in addition to the OFAC issue it seeks to collapse all TransUnion FCRA regulated entities into a single entity. This matter is at a very early stage in its proceedings. WPX ENERGY: Court Allows Method of Calculating Royalty Payments --------------------------------------------------------------- In a lawsuit by royalty interest owners in Garfield County, Colorado against WPX Energy, Inc., the court issued its order rejecting plaintiffs' proposed standard as to the methodology to use to calculate oil and gas royalty payments and accepting the company's position, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. In September 2006, royalty interest owners in Garfield County, Colorado, filed a class action suit in District Court, Garfield County, Colorado, alleging the company improperly calculated oil and gas royalty payments, failed to account for proceeds received from the sale of natural gas and extracted products, improperly charged certain expenses and failed to refund amounts withheld in excess of ad valorem tax obligations. Plaintiffs sought to certify a class of royalty interest owners, recover underpayment of royalties and obtain corrected payments related to calculation errors. The company entered into a final partial settlement agreement. The partial settlement agreement defined the class for certification, resolved claims relating to past calculation of royalty and overriding royalty payments, established certain rules to govern future royalty and overriding royalty payments, resolved claims related to past withholding for ad valorem tax payments, established a procedure for refunds of any such excess withholding in the future, and reserved two claims for court resolution. The company prevailed at the trial court and all levels of appeal on the first reserved claim regarding whether the company is allowed to deduct mainline pipeline transportation costs pursuant to certain lease agreements. The remaining claim related to the issue of whether the company is required to have proportionately increased the value of natural gas by transporting that gas on mainline transmission lines and, if required, whether the company did so and are entitled to deduct a proportionate share of transportation costs in calculating royalty payments. Plaintiffs had claimed damages of approximately $20 million plus interest for the period from July 2000 to July 2008. The court issued pretrial orders finding that the company bears the burden of demonstrating enhancement of the value of gas in order to deduct transportation costs and that the enhancement test must be applied on a monthly basis in order to determine the reasonableness of post-production transportation costs. Trial occurred in December 2013 on the issue of whether the company met that burden. Following that trial, the court issued its order rejecting plaintiffs' proposed standard and accepting the company's position as to the methodology to use in determining the standard by which the company's activity should be judged. The company is in the process of conducting an accounting under that standard. However, the company continues to believe the company's royalty calculations have been properly determined in accordance with the appropriate contractual arrangements and Colorado law. WPX ENERGY: Sued by Royalty Interest Owners in N.Mex., Colo. ------------------------------------------------------------ WPX Energy, Inc., faces lawsuits by royalty interest owners in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico and Colorado, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. In October 2011, a potential class of royalty interest owners in New Mexico and Colorado filed a complaint against the company in the County of Rio Arriba, New Mexico. The complaint presently alleges failure to pay royalty on hydrocarbons including drip condensate, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, fraud concealment, conversion, misstatement of the value of gas and affiliated sales, breach of duty to market hydrocarbons in Colorado, violation of the New Mexico Oil and Gas Proceeds Payment Act, and bad faith breach of contract. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and a declaratory judgment enjoining activities relating to production, payments and future reporting. This matter has been removed to the United States District Court for New Mexico. In August 2012, a second potential class action was filed against the company in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico by mineral interest owners in New Mexico and Colorado. Plaintiffs claim breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of implied duty to market both in Colorado and New Mexico, violation of the New Mexico Oil and Gas Proceeds Payment Act and seek declaratory judgment, accounting and injunction. At this time, the company believes that its royalty calculations has been properly determined in accordance with the appropriate contractual arrangements and applicable laws. The company does not have sufficient information to calculate an estimated range of exposure related to these claims. WPX ENERGY: Bares Updates in Suits Related to Natural Gas Biz ------------------------------------------------------------- In its Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013, WPX Energy, Inc. provided updates in lawsuits relating to the reporting of natural gas-related information to trade publications. Civil suits based on allegations of manipulating published gas price indices have been brought against the company and others, seeking unspecified amounts of damages. The company is currently a defendant in class action litigation and other litigation originally filed in state court in Colorado, Kansas, Missouri and Wisconsin and brought on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of natural gas in those states. These cases were transferred to the federal court in Nevada. In 2008, the court granted summary judgment in the Colorado case in favor of the company and most of the other defendants based on plaintiffs' lack of standing. On January 8, 2009, the court denied the plaintiffs' request for reconsideration of the Colorado dismissal and entered judgment in the company's favor. When a final order is entered against the one remaining defendant, the Colorado plaintiffs may appeal the order. In the other cases, on July 18, 2011, the Nevada district court granted the company's joint motions for summary judgment to preclude the plaintiffs' state law claims because the federal Natural Gas Act gives the FERC exclusive jurisdiction to resolve those issues. The court also denied the plaintiffs' class certification motion as moot. The plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On April 10, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion on the Western States Antitrust Litigation. The panel held that the Natural Gas Act does not preempt the plaintiffs' state antitrust claims, reversing the summary judgment entered in favor of the defendants. The panel further held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motions for leave to amend complaints. Defendants' filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. Because of the uncertainty around pending unresolved issues, including an insufficient description of the purported classes and other related matters, the company cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential exposures at this time. ********* 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 * * *