/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140507.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, May 7, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 90 Headlines ALVAREZ PLAZA: Removed "Paez" FLSA-Violation Suit to S.D. Florida AMN HEALTHCARE: Court Approved Wage & Hour Lawsuit Settlement APOLLO EDUCATION: Pomerantz Firm Files Class Action in Arizona AUTOZONE INC: Removed "Sanchez" Class Suit to Central California AXESSTEL INC: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action in California BARRICK GOLD: Faces $6-Bil. Shareholder Class Action BAXTER INT'L: Provisionally Settled Suit for $64-Mil in Jan. BP EXPLORATION: Removed "Karen's Seafood" Suit to S.D. Texas BP PRODUCTS: Faces Consolidated Class Action Over Petroleum Coke BRINK'S INC: Removed "Stafford" Class Suit to C.D. California CARGILL INC: Cal. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Penalties CHARLES SCHWAB: Drops Fight on Customer Class-Action Ban CLEARVIEW CLEANING: Removed "Jean" FLSA Suit to S.D. Florida COTY INC: Faces "Carey" Suit Over Initial Public Offering CPG INT'L: "Glodo" Suit Transferred From Illinois to New Jersey CVS PHARMACY: "Granzella" Discrimination Suit Moved to E.D. Cal. DANIYAL ENTERPRISES: Sued for Violating FLSA and NJWHL EAST COAST ASSEMBLERS: Fails to Pay for OT Work, "Shad" Suit Says ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Roller" Suit Over Lidoderm Patch ESSEX COUNTY, NJ: Fails to Pay OT Hours, Correction Officers Say FAMILYMEDS GROUP: June 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set FOREVER HARDSCAPE: Fails to Pay for OT Work , "Alvarez" Suit Says FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Removed "Rodoco" Suit to S.D. West Virginia FRESH DEL MONTE: Court Affirmed Verdict Against Subsidiary FRESH DEL MONTE: Hawaii Complaint Appeal Remains Pending GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS: Bethel Residents File Class Action GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Bender" Suit Over Ignition Switch Defect GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Powell" Suit Over Ignition Switch Defect GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Arnold" Suit Over Ignition Switch Defect GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Gebremariam" Suit Over Defective Switches GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Detton" Suit Over Ignition Switch Defect GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "LaReine" Suit Over Ignition Switch Defect GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Salazar" Suit Over Ignition Switch Defect GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Villa" Suit Over Ignition Switch Defect GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Fugate" Suit Over Ignition Switch Defect GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Elliott" Suit Over Ignition Switch Defect GNC HOLDINGS: Removed "Di Cillo" Suit to N.D. California GOLDMAN SACHS: Energy Beverage et al. Sue Over Aluminum Prices GOLDMAN SACHS: Direct Purchasers Amend Aluminum Antitrust Suit HARTFORD, CT: Issues Notice on Relocation Assistance HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Group Seeks Affirmative Action Plaintiffs HYUNDAI MOTOR: "Gentry" Suit Added to Fuel Economy MDL in Cal. INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Non-FDA Approved Drugs IOD INC: July 30 Final Settlement Hearing Set LEHMAN BROTHERS: Helios Books Reserve Related to Class Action LIFELOCK INC: Wohl & Fruchter Files Class Action in Arizona LIFE TIME: Members File Class Action Over Spam Text Messages LIME ENERGY: May 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set LITHIA MOTORS INC: Accord Alaska Dealership Suit to Cost $6.2MM MAZDA MOTOR: Faces Class Action in California Over Warranties MB FINANCIAL: Faces Amended Complaint Over Taylor Capital Merger NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Made Unsolicited Calls, Class Claims NCL CORP: Plaintiffs File Writ of Certiorari NCL CORP: Defends Stayed Crew Members' Wage Deduction Complaint NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Sued Over Murano's Defective Anchor Bracket NONNI'S FOODS: Removed "Larsen" Class Suit to N.D. California OMNICARE INC: Removed "Avilez" Class Suit to S.D. California ONECHICAGO LLC: Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismisses Class Action PDC ENERGY: Merger Complaint Scheduled for Trial This Month PEABODY ENERGY: Agrees to Dismiss Benefit Plans Lawsuit PFIZER INC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Design of Lipitor PFIZER INC: Faces "Brown" Suit in Louisiana Over Lipitor Drug PFIZER INC: Faces "Rayford" Suit Alleging Lipitor-Related Injury PFIZER INC: Sued Over Alleged Injuries Caused by Lipitor Drug POLYCOM INC: Lead Plaintiff Named in N.D. Cal. Shareholder Suit SANDISK CORP: Ritz Camera Seeks to File 4th Amended Complaint SANDISK CORP: Oral Argument Held Dec. 5 in Calif. Antitrust Suit SNA SHEPHERD ENTERPRISES: Sued for Failure to Pay Minimum Wage T&T HART: Sued for Failing to Pay Overtime Wages Pursuant to FLSA TARGET CORP: Faces "Noe" Suit in Oklahoma Over Security Breach TOSHIBA AMERICA: Falsely Marketed LED TVs & LED HDTVs, Suit Says UNITEDHEALTHCARE INC: Faces Class Actions Over Unsolicited Faxes WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Faces Securities Class Action Amid CFPB Probe * Courts Resort to Cy Pres Awards Without Legislative Guidance * New Arizona Law Allows Foreclosure Suits Against Home Builders ********* ALVAREZ PLAZA: Removed "Paez" FLSA-Violation Suit to S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Paez v. Alvarez Plaza, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-01659 CC 26, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-21464-CMA to the proceeding. The Plaintiff accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edilberto O. Marban, Esq. 1600 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 902 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 448-9292 Facsimile: (305) 448-9477 E-mail: marbanlaw@gmail.com The Defendants are represented by: Giselle Jimenez Maranges, Esq. Marlene Quintana, Esq. GRAY ROBINSON, P.A. 1221 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1600 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 416-6880 Facsimile: (305) 416-6887 E-mail: giselle.maranges@gray-robinson.com marlene.quintana@gray-robinson.com AMN HEALTHCARE: Court Approved Wage & Hour Lawsuit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- A U.S. court in February 2014 granted final approval of the settlement with the plaintiffs in a class action related to wage and hour claims against AMN Healthcare Services, Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on February 21, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013. The Company states: "We are subject to various claims and legal actions in the ordinary course of our business. Some of these matters relate to professional liability, tax, payroll, contract and employee-related matters and include individual and collective lawsuits, as well as inquiries and investigations by governmental agencies regarding our employment practices. The most significant matter of which we were the defendant was a class action related to wage and hour claims. In the second quarter of 2013, we reached a settlement with the plaintiffs in such action (and a related action) for an immaterial amount. The Court granted final approval of the settlement in February 2014. At December 31, 2013, we had fully reserved for the settlement of such action, which was included in accounts payable and accrued expenses in the consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2013. We currently are not aware of any pending or threatened litigation that we believe is reasonably possible to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position or liquidity." AMN Healthcare Services, Inc. (AMN Healthcare) is the healthcare workforce solutions and staffing services to healthcare facilities. The Company manages services programs, recruitment process outsourcing, consulting services, and placement of physicians, nurses and allied healthcare professionals into temporary and permanent positions enable its clients to successfully reduce complexity, increase efficiency and improve patient outcomes within the rapidly evolving healthcare environment. The Company's clients include acute and sub-acute care hospitals, government facilities, community health centers and clinics, physician practice groups, and several other healthcare settings. The Company's number of hospital, healthcare facility and other clients provides the Company with the opportunity to offer clinical positions typically in all 50 states and in a variety of work environments and clinical settings. In November 2013, it announced the acquisition of ShiftWise. APOLLO EDUCATION: Pomerantz Firm Files Class Action in Arizona -------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on April 24 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Apollo Education Group, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, District of Arizona, and docketed under 2:14-at- 99904, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Apollo securities between October 19, 2011 and April 1, 2014, both dates inclusive. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. If you are a shareholder who purchased Apollo securities during the Class Period, you have until June 23, 2014 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Apollo is a publicly traded, for-profit education company headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona. Apollo employs approximately 15,000 non-faculty employees, and approximately 29,000 faculty members, and enrolls over 250,000 students across its online and in person course offerings. The Company, through its subsidiaries, offers associate, bachelor, masters and doctorate degrees to students around the world in over 100 fields. The Company's largest reporting segment, The University of Phoenix, generates more than $4 billion in revenue. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) defendants manipulated federal student loan and grant programs in order to appear to be in compliance with new federal regulations enacted in June 2011; (ii) defendants' predatory and deceptive recruiting and enrollment practices violated federal regulations enacted beginning in June 2011; and (iii) the Company engaged in a number of practices, including loan forbearance programs, in order to create the appearance that the Company was in compliance with relevant government regulations. On July 30, 2012, Senator Tom Harkin, chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, completed a two-year investigation of the for-profit college industry, and issued a report (the, "Harkin Report") containing troubling statistics and findings regarding the for profit college industry, and specifically about Apollo. After the Harkin Report was published, the Company's shares fell 4.1% or $1.17, to close at $27.22 on July 30, 2012. On April 1, 2014, the Company disclosed that the Department of Education was conducting an investigation into the company, and that the department had subpoenaed documents and communications related to student recruitment, attendance, completion, placement, defaults on loans, along with information on other corporate and financial matters. On this news, Apollo shares declined $3.10 per share, or over 8.8%, to close at $32.06 per share on April 2, 2014. With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. AUTOZONE INC: Removed "Sanchez" Class Suit to Central California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Mark Sanchez v. AutoZone, Inc., et al., Case No. BC 456794, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv- 01347-DDP-PLA to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts causes of action under the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff contends that AutoZone violated state law by failing to timely deliver all earned wages at separation. AutoZone is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business and corporate headquarters in Memphis, Tennessee. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Yablonovich, Esq. Joseph Steven Hoff, Esq. Michael Damon Coats, Esq. Neda Roshanian, Esq. Patrick Joseph Clifford, Esq. MARK YABLONOVICH LAW OFFICES 1875 Century Park East, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2508 Telephone: (310) 286-0246 Facsimile: (310) 407-5391 E-mail: mark@yablonovichlaw.com joseph@yablonovichlaw.com michael@yablonovichlaw.com neda@yablonovichlaw.com Patrick@Yablonovichlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael Hoffman, Esq. Ronald D. Arena, Esq. ARENA HOFFMAN LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3520 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-1414 Facsimile: (415) 520-0446 E-mail: mhoffman@arenahoffman.com rarena@arenahoffman.com AXESSTEL INC: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action in California ------------------------------------------------------------ Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of Axesstel, Inc., has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of a class comprising all purchasers of Axesstel securities between February 25, 2013 and March 31, 2014, inclusive. Please contact Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, toll-free at (888) 773-9224 or at (212) 682-5340, or by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this matter. Axesstel provides wireless voice, broadband access and connected home solutions for the telecommunications market worldwide. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants issued false and misleading statements or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was facing issues that were negatively impacting the rollout of Axesstel's new Home Alert product line; (2) certain aspects of sales to two customers in Africa in the first quarter of 2013, including payment terms and market allowances, were not finalized by the end of the quarter; (3) the Company improperly recognized revenue from the foregoing sales to the two customers in Africa, in violation of the Company's stated revenue recognition policy; (4) as a result, the Company's revenue and financial results were overstated, and the Company misrepresented the progress of the rollout of the new Home Alert product line, as well as the true demand for the new product line; (5) the Company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); (6) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (7) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements and other statements about Axesstel's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading at all relevant times and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this Notice, to serve as lead plaintiff, if you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, or contact Gregory Linkh, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP at 122 E. 42nd Street, Suite 2920, New York, New York 10168, at (212) 682-5340, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at http://www.glancylaw.com If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. BARRICK GOLD: Faces $6-Bil. Shareholder Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Drew Hasselback, writing for Financial Post, reports that Barrick Gold Corp. has been named in a proposed shareholders class action lawsuit that seeks $6-billion in damages because the company allegedly failed to make timely disclosure of problems at its Pascua-Lama mine in South America. "Barrick misrepresented the progress and feasibility for development and production at the Pascua-Lama mine, repeatedly through the class period," the plaintiffs allege in a notice of action filed on April 24 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto. Lawsuits in Ontario usually begin with the filing of a legal document called a statement of claim. Filing a notice of action officially launches the case, but also gives plaintiffs more time to follow up with more detailed allegations in the statement of claim. The document filed on April 24 contains allegations that have not been proven in court. "The company is aware that a notice of action has been filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Barrick disputes the allegations, and will defend itself against any lawsuit vigorously," the company said in an emailed statement late on April 24. Plaintiffs have filed similar securities class actions against Barrick over Pascua-Lama in the U.S. federal courts. The company has denied the allegations in the U.S. claims. In an interview with the Financial Post on April 24, Barrick chairman Peter Munk was asked what went wrong at Pascua-Lama. His response: "Everything." According to the document filed in the Ontario court, Barrick said in 2009 that construction of the mine would cost between $2.8-billion and $3-billion. That estimate was increased several times in the following years, eventually settling on a figure of $8.5-billion in late 2012. Costs weren't the only challenge at Pascua-Lama, a massive gold deposit located underneath glaciers in the Andes mountains on the border between Chile and Argentina. The Chilean government approved construction of the mine in 2006, but held Barrick to hundreds of conditions regarding the environment. On April 10, 2013, an appellate court in Chile ordered Barrick to halt construction of the project due to environmental infractions. Barrick announced at the end of June 2013 it would take an after- tax writedown of up to $5.5-billion related to Pascua-Lama. Then, on Oct. 31, the company said that it would suspend Pascua- Lama indefinitely, and that it would revive the project only if it found a cheaper way to proceed. The court filing notes that immediately after Barrick announced it would pull the plug on Pascua-Lama, the company announced a $3-billion share offering and said the proceeds would be used to pay down debt, strengthen the balance sheet, and pay for ongoing operating and capital costs of its mines. "In short," the Ontario court filing alleges, "the costs of the Pascua-Lama project had become so significant that Barrick was raising capital from public markets." The plaintiffs intend to make a standard legal argument that is raised in securities class actions: The company allegedly made misrepresentations that inflated the price of its securities beyond the amount investors would have paid had they heard the full story. "Barrick owed a duty to class members to ensure the accuracy of public statements," the filing alleges. "The plaintiff and the class members relied on the misrepresentations to their detriment." The suit, which has yet to be certified as a class action by an Ontario court, would be open to investors who acquired Barrick securities from May 7, 2009, which was the day the company announced that it would begin construction of Pascua-Lama and Nov. 1, 2013, which was the day after Barrick said it would indefinitely suspend the project. The lawsuit names as defendants the company and former chief executive Aaron Regent, current CEO Jamie Sokalsky, chief financial officer Ammar Al-Joundi and former chief operating officer Peter Kinver. The plaintiffs are represented by Kirk Baert and Celeste Poltak -- cpoltak@kmlaw.ca -- of Koskie Minsky LLP in Toronto and Jay Strosberg of Sutts, Strosberg LLP in Windsor. BAXTER INT'L: Provisionally Settled Suit for $64-Mil in Jan. ------------------------------------------------------------ In January 2014, Baxter International Inc., provisionally settled with the direct purchaser plaintiffs for $64 million, in the complaint alleging conspiracy to restrict output and artificially increase the price of plasma-derived therapies since 2003, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on February 21, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013. Baxter is a defendant in a number of suits alleging that certain of the company's current and former executive officers and its board of directors failed to adequately oversee the operations of the company and issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's plasma-based therapies business, the company's remediation of its COLLEAGUE infusion pumps, its heparin product, and other quality issues. Plaintiffs allege these actions damaged the company and its shareholders by resulting in a decline in stock price in the second quarter of 2010, payment of excess compensation to the board of directors and certain of the company's current and former executive officers, and other damage to the company. In August 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reinstated a consolidated derivative suit filed in the U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of Illinois that had earlier been dismissed by the district court in September 2012. In January 2014, an independent special litigation committee was established by the company's board of directors to determine whether it is in the best interests of the company and its shareholders to pursue or otherwise resolve the claims raised in and arising from this matter. Two other derivative actions have been filed in state court: one pending in the Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois has been stayed pending the outcome of the federal action and another, in Delaware Chancery Court, that Baxter has moved to dismiss. In addition, a consolidated alleged class action is pending in the U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of Illinois against the company and certain of its current executive officers seeking to recover the lost value of investors' stock and the parties are currently proceeding with discovery. In April 2013, the company filed its opposition to the plaintiff's motion to certify a class action. The company is a defendant, along with others, in a number of lawsuits consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of Illinois alleging that Baxter and certain of its competitors conspired to restrict output and artificially increase the price of plasma-derived therapies since 2003. Some of the complaints attempt to state a claim for class action relief and some cases demand treble damages. In January 2012, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss certain federal claims brought by indirect purchasers and returned the remaining indirect purchaser claims to the court of original jurisdiction (U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of California) in August 2012. The indirect purchaser complaint was amended to remove class action allegations in May 2013. In January 2014, the company provisionally settled with the direct purchaser plaintiffs for $64 million, pending final approval of the settlement by the court which is anticipated in the first half of 2014. As of December 31, 2013, the company has a litigation reserve to cover the settlement. Baxter International Inc. (Baxter,) is a global, diversified healthcare company. Baxter, through its subsidiaries, develops, manufactures and markets products that save and sustain the lives of people with hemophilia, immune disorders, infectious diseases, kidney disease, trauma, and other chronic and acute medical conditions. The Company operated in two segments: BioScience and Medication Delivery. It is engaged in the medical devices, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology to create products that advance patient care worldwide. These products are used by hospitals, kidney dialysis centers, nursing homes, rehabilitation centers, doctors' offices, clinical and medical research laboratories, and by patients at home under physician supervision. Baxter manufactures products in 27 countries and sells the products in more than 100 countries. In September 2013, Baxter International Inc completed the acquisition of Gambro AB. BP EXPLORATION: Removed "Karen's Seafood" Suit to S.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------------------ The lawsuit captioned Karen's Seafood Market, et al. v. BP Exploration & Production Inc., et al., Case No. 2013-76655, was removed from the 295th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-00425 to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs' petition states a claim under the federal Oil Pollution Act of 1990. The OPA-covered injuries for which the Plaintiffs seek compensation include loss of profits or impairment of earning capacity, loss of subsistence use of natural resources, and damages for injury to, or economic losses resulting from destruction of, real or personal property. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brent Wayne Coon, Esq. BRENT COON AND ASSOCIATES PC 215 Orleans Beaumont, TX 77701 Telephone: (409) 835-2666 Facsimile: (409) 833-4025 E-mail: brent@bcoonlaw.com The BP Defendants are represented by: Thomas W. Taylor, Esq. Georgia L. Lucier, Esq. ANDREWS KURTH LLP 600 Travis, Suite 4200 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 220-4200 Facsimile: (713) 220-4285 E-mail: ttaylor@andrewskurth.com glucier@andrewskurth.com - and - Richard C. Godfrey, Esq. J. Andrew Langan, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 300 North LaSalle Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 862-2000 Facsimile: (312) 862-2200 E-mail: richard.godfrey@kirkland.com andrew.langan@kirkland.com - and - Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Esq. Dominic E. Draye, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 655 Fifteenth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 879-5000 Facsimile: (202) 879-5200 E-mail: jeffrey.clark@kirkland.com dominic.draye@kirkland.com The Transocean Defendants are represented by: John M. Elsley, Esq. ROYSTON RAYZOR 711 Louisiana, Suite 500 Houston, TX 77002-2716 Telephone: (713) 224-8380 Facsimile: (713) 225-9945 E-mail: john.elsley@roystonlaw.com Defendants Halliburton Energy Services and Sperry Drilling Services are represented by: Donald Everett Godwin, Esq. GODWIN LEWIS PC 1201 Elm St., Suite 1700 Dallas, TX 75270 Telephone: (214) 939-4400 Facsimile: (214) 760-7332 E-mail: Don.Godwin@GodwinLewis.com BP PRODUCTS: Faces Consolidated Class Action Over Petroleum Coke ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ellyn Fortino, writing for Progress Illinois, reports that as the debate over petroleum coke stored on Chicago's Southeast Side rages on, a consolidated class action lawsuit has been filed in federal court against BP and various companies -- including three connected to the conservative billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch -- for failing to contain mounds of the gritty material. The class action complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on April 7, is consolidated with two other lawsuits brought last year by Southeast Side Chicagoans against BP, which produces petroleum coke, or petcoke, in its oil refining process, as well as several companies that house the powdery substance in the city. The 10 Chicagoans named as plaintiffs in the consolidated lawsuit brought the complaint on behalf of themselves and a class estimated to be comprised of thousands of property owners located near the large petcoke piles on the city's Southeast Side. Petcoke, which can pollute the air and water, is being stored outside along the banks of the Calumet River. Residents who live near the three Southeast Side petcoke storage facilities -- two maintained by North Dakota-based KCBX Terminals Company and one operated by Indiana-based Beemsterboer Slag Corp. -- say black ash dust from the uncovered petcoke piles is blowing into their communities and covering their homes. "Petcoke is dangerous to property, as it is highly flammable and explosive, and can be ignited by heat," the complaint reads. "The expenditure of time and money washing and rinsing the exterior and interior of homes, furnishings, vehicles and other real and personal property has been required to prevent potentially hazardous aggregations of petcoke." The three suits were consolidated "because if this is going to be resolved in any meaningful way, we needed to get every (company) who was a major participant in the creating [of the] situation to be at the table," said Robert Pavich with Pavich Law Group, P.C., one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the case. The defendants in the case are: - BP Products North America, Inc - Calumet Transload Railroad, LLC - DTE Chicago Fuels Terminal, LLC - George J. Beemsterboer, Inc. - Beemsterboer Slag And Ballast Corporation - KCBX Terminals Company - KM Railways, LLC - Koch Carbon, LLC KCBX, KM Railways and Koch Carbon are subsidiaries of the privately held Wichita, Kansas-based Koch Industries Inc., a massive American multinational corporation run by the billionaire Koch brothers. The petcoke mounds piled along the banks of the Calumet River were largely transported there from the BP refinery in Whiting, Indiana, which is the same facility that malfunctioned last month and spilled an estimated 39 barrels of oil into Lake Michigan. According to the suit, BP generally stores the eqivalent of about five days' production of petcoke at its Whiting refinery. After roughly five days, the petcoke produced at the refinery is transported to the Chicago storage facilities, which also take in petcoke from other sources, the complaint reads. Another attorney representing the plaintiffs, Ian Levin, also with the Pavich Law Group and a former U.S. magistrate judge, noted that the stored petcoke often gets shipped to markets overseas in places like China, India and Mexico. The material is commonly used as a fuel source in power plants and is a component in the aluminum, steel and cement making process. BP is named as one of the defendants in the case because, among other reasons, it "knew or reasonably should have known that the storage/distribution defendants were not taking, and would not take, reasonable and adequate measures to ensure that petcoke being stored at the storage facilities would not migrate into surrounding communities and contaminate the properties of plaintiffs and class members," the lawsuit states. Mr. Levin said the plaintiffs are suing for punitive damages, "which is to punish the wrongdoer and defer further wrongdoing." The families are also seeking injunctive relief, including barring the companies from distributing, storing and transporting the material near the densely-populated residential area. Mr. Pavich said the goal of the suit is to get some relief for the people living on the city's Southeast Side, who for some time now have said the petcoke dust is making their lives unbearable. BRINK'S INC: Removed "Stafford" Class Suit to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Miko Stafford v. Brink's Incorporated, et al., Case No. BC532260, was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv- 01352-MWF-PLA to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims. The Plaintiff is represented by: Dennis S. Hyun, Esq. HYUN LEGAL APC 550 South Hope Street Suite 2655 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 E-mail: dhyun@hyunlegal.com - and - Larry W. Lee, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP APC 550 South Hope Street Suite 2655 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Aaron H. Cole, Esq. Beth A. Gunn, Esq. OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK AND STEWART PC 400 South Hope Street Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-9800 Facsimile: (213) 239-9045 E-mail: aaron.cole@ogletreedeakins.com beth.gunn@ogletreedeakins.com CARGILL INC: Cal. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Penalties ---------------------------------------------------------------- Victor M. Villasenor, as an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cargill, Incorporated, a Delaware Corporation; and Does 1 22 through 10, Case No. 2:14-cv-01328- BRO-PJW (C.D. Cal., February 21, 2014) is brought to recover unpaid wages and penalties under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Business and Professions Code and the California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 1-2001. Based in Minnetonka, Minnesota, Cargill, Incorporated is a multinational corporation and the largest privately held corporation in the United States by revenue. Cargill owns and operates various business enterprises, including businesses specializing in asset management, agricultural commodities trading, and industrial food processing. Cargill has locations all around the globe, with multiple locations throughout California, including a facility in Vernon, California, where the Plaintiff worked, that processes meat and produces vegetable oils. The Plaintiff does not know the true names or capacities of the Doe Defendants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq. BOREN OSHER & LUFTMAN LLP 5900 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 920 Los Angeles, CA 90036 Telephone: (323) 937-9900 Facsimile: (323) 937-9910 E-mail: phaines@bollaw.com fschmidt@bollaw.com - and - Hernaldo J. Baltodano, Esq. Erica Flores Baltodano, Esq. BALTODANO & BALTODANO LLP 1411 Marsh Street Suite 102 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Telephone: (805) 322-3412 Facsimile: (805) 322-3413 E-mail: hjb@bbemploymentlaw.com efb@bbemploymentlaw.com CHARLES SCHWAB: Drops Fight on Customer Class-Action Ban -------------------------------------------------------- Jed Horowitz and Suzanne Barlyn, writing for Reuters, report Charles Schwab Corp. has dropped a fight to require customers to waive their rights to participate in class action lawsuits, the company said on April 24. Schwab, the San Francisco-based pioneer discount brokerage, has agreed to pay $500,000 to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority for violating the group's arbitration rules when it barred clients in 2011 from joining class actions. It had more than 6.8 million clients then, and now has more than 9 million. In 2013, a FINRA hearing panel said Schwab's class-action ban was valid under the Federal Arbitration Act, even though the ban violated the group's own rules. On April 24, FINRA's board overturned that finding, determining that the federal act does not preclude FINRA from enforcing its rules. "We are pleased to resolve this dispute with FINRA, and to put to rest any client concerns on this issue," Schwab said in an e- mailed statement that noted it has removed the waiver from its account agreements. "Over the last year, we heard clearly that a number of our clients and members of the general public have strong feelings about maintaining access to class-action lawsuits. In a business like ours where our reputation and public trust are key to our success, we take perspectives like those very seriously." Schwab could have fought the decision in court but decided it was more expedient to settle, said people familiar with its decision. It also failed to rally support from other companies in the securities industry, despite their long-held opposition to litigating in courts rather than in arbitration. "We believed, and still believe, that FINRA arbitration is the best means for investors to resolve disputes with their brokerage firm, but we will maintain their access to class action lawsuits should they prefer that option," Schwab said. Plaintiffs' lawyers and consumer advocates, who have been waging an unsuccessful fight against a range of class-action waiver agreements in other types of consumer contracts, had rallied support among Schwab clients. They argued that arbitration cases are often too expensive for small investors to bring on their own, and that public court cases can shine light on abusive sales practices while FINRA arbitrations are private. "It's a huge victory for investors," said Christine Hines, consumer and civil justice counsel at watchdog group Public Citizen, which organized a public campaign to oppose the Schwab waivers and mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts. "I think other brokerage firms will be deterred from including class action waivers in their contracts," Ms. Hines said. "Schwab overreached," said Joseph Peiffer, a lawyer in New Orleans who represents investors. The FINRA appeals panel also upheld the hearing panel's rejection of Schwab's attempt to prohibit clients from participating in group arbitrations. Critics of class-action cases argue that are often frivolous, and that settlements often yield very low sums to each plaintiff while generating hefty fees for lawyers. Schwab's attempt to ban customer class-action lawsuits followed its $235 million settlement of a class action charging it misled thousands of clients about its YieldPlus money-market fund, which had huge losses during the financial crisis in 2008. CLEARVIEW CLEANING: Removed "Jean" FLSA Suit to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit styled Jean v. Clearview Cleaning Contractors of Broward County, Inc., et al., Case No. CACE-14- 001835-03, was removed from the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft. Lauderdale). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:14-cv-60440-JAL to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Saul Remer, Esq. Brody Max Shulman, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, Fl 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com bshulman@rgpattorneys.com The Defendants are represented by: Andrea Rosenblum Bernstein, Esq. FOWLER WHITE BURNETT, P.A. Northbridge Centre 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 2100 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 802-9044 Facsimile: (561) 802-9976 E-mail: abernstein@fowler-white.com COTY INC: Faces "Carey" Suit Over Initial Public Offering --------------------------------------------------------- Norman C. Carey, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Coty Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-01107 (S.D.N.Y. Feb 21, 2014), alleges that the defendant filed false and misleading registration statement filed with the SEC on Form S- 1/A and prospectus filed with the SEC on Form 424(b)(4), with respect to the Company's initial public offering of 57,142,857 million shares of common stock at a price of $17.50 per share, for proceeds of nearly $1 billion. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages caused by violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. Coty Inc. is a Delaware corporation located at 350 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10118. Coty Inc. is a global beauty products manufacturer founded in Paris, France in 1904. Its main products are fragrances, color cosmetics and skin & body care products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. Lesley Frank Portnoy, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com lfportnoy@pomlaw.com CPG INT'L: "Glodo" Suit Transferred From Illinois to New Jersey --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Glodo, et al. v. CPG International, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-00402, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark). The New Jersey District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-01135-KM-MCA to the proceeding. The case asserts product liability claims. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric D. Holland, Esq. Randall Seth Crompton, Esq. HOLLAND GROVES SCHNELLER & STOLZE LLC 300 N. Tucker Boulevard, Suite 801 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-8111 Facsimile: (314) 241-5554 E-mail: eholland@allfela.com scrompton@allfela.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN FISHBEIN SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Facsimile: (215) 592-4663 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com - and - Jordan Lucas Chaikin, Esq. PARKER WAICHMAN LLP 3301 Bonita Beach Road, Suite 101 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Telephone: (239) 390-1000 Facsimile: (239) 390-0055 E-mail: jchaikin@yourlawyer.com - and - John R. Climaco, Esq. John A. Peca, Esq. CLIMACO, WILCOX, PECA, TARANTINO & GAROFOLI-CLEVELAND 55 Public Square, Suite 1950 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 621-8484 Facsimile: (216) 771-1632 E-mail: jrclim@climacolaw.com japeca@climacolaw.com - and - Richard Joseph Arsenault, Esq. NEBLETT, BEARD AND ARSENAULT P.O. Box 1190 2220 Bonaventure Court Alexandria, LA 71309 Telephone: (318) 487-9874 Facsimile: (318) 561-2591 E-mail: rarsenault@nbalawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Troy A. Bozarth, Esq. HEPLERBROOM LLC - EDWARDSVILLE 130 North Main Street P.O. Box 510 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 656-0184 Facsimile: (618) 656-1364 E-mail: tbozarth@heplerbroom.com - and - Christopher J. Dalton BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY, PC 550 Broad Street, Suite 810 Newark, NJ 07102-4599 Telephone: (973) 273-9800 Facsimile: (973) 273-9430 E-mail: christopher.dalton@bipc.com - and - Mackenzie A. Baird, Esq. BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY, PC 301 Grant Street One Oxford Centre, 20th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1410 Telephone: (412) 562-1825 Facsimile: (412) 562-1041 E-mail: mackenzie.baird@bipc.com - and - Holly P. Smith, Esq. Molly S. Carella, Esq. Paul A. Williams, Esq. SHOOK HARDY & BACON, L.L.P 2555 Grand Boulevard Kansas City, MO 64108-2613 Telephone: (816) 474-6550 Facsimile: (816) 421-5547 E-mail: hpsmith@shb.com mcarella@shb.com pwilliams@shb.com - and - Russell K. Scott, Esq. GREENSFELDER, HEMKER & GALE PC - SWANSEA 12 Wolf Creek Drive, Suite 100 Swansea, IL 62226 Telephone: (618) 257-7308 E-mail: rks@greensfelder.com Interested Parties Mel Beucler, Michael Esposito, John Edmonds, Kathleen Dalpiaz, Michael Fennell, Barbara Derwich, Daniel Berkowitz, Kevin Mayhew and Dr. Adam Niedelman are represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com ltaylor@carellabyrne.com CVS PHARMACY: "Granzella" Discrimination Suit Moved to E.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Granzella, et al. v. CVS Pharmacy Inc., et al., Case No. 34-02013-00156661, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (Sacramento). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14- cv-00518-KJM-DAD to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleges disability discrimination under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark P. Velez, Esq. Karen Asplund Velez, Esq. Kellen Michael Crowe, Esq. THE VELEZ LAW FIRM PO Box 433 6940 Destiny Drive Rocklin, CA 95677 Telephone: (916) 774-2720 Facsimile: (916) 774-2730 E-mail: velezlaw@live.com karenesq@sbcglobal.net kellen.crowe@gmail.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael E. Brewer, Esq. Johanna R. Carney, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON 1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Telephone: (925) 932-2468 Facsimile: (925) 946-9809 E-mail: mbrewer@littler.com jcarney@littler.com - and - Michael Gerald Leggieri, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2000 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 830-7244 Facsimile: (916) 561-0828 E-mail: mleggieri@littler.com DANIYAL ENTERPRISES: Sued for Violating FLSA and NJWHL ------------------------------------------------------ Afzaal Ahmad v. Daniyal Enterprises LLC, et al, Case No. 2:14-cv- 01142 (D.N.J., February 21, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law, N.J.S.A 34:11-56a et seq. Daniyal Enterprises LLC, is a company that services vehicles for gas stations located in Oradell, Bergen County, New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew I. Glenn, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP PA 168 Franklin Corner Road Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: aglenn@jaffeglenn.com The Defendant is represented by: James M. Turteltaub, Esq. CARLIN & WARS, P.C. 25A Vreeland Road, 751 Florham Park, NJ 07932 Telephone: (973) 377-3350 Facsimile: (973) 377-5626 E-mail: turteltaub@carlinward.com EAST COAST ASSEMBLERS: Fails to Pay for OT Work, "Shad" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Omar Shad, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, v. East Coast Assemblers, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-01141 (E.D.N.Y. Feb 21, 2014) results from the Defendant's alleged breach to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),that the employees including the Plaintiff claimed that they are entitled to unpaid wages for overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay, liquidated damages, declaratory relief and reasonable attorneys' fees and cost. East Coast Assemblers Inc. is a Foreign Profit Corporation engaged in business in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318-0268 Facsimile: (954) 333-3515 E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Roller" Suit Over Lidoderm Patch ------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Roller, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc.; Teikoku Seiyaku Co., Ltd.; Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Watson Laboratories, Inc.; Actavis PLC; Anda Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Anda, Inc., and Valmed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv- 00792-JSW (N.D. Cal., February 21, 2014) is asserted on behalf of all end-payors, who indirectly purchased, reimbursed, or otherwise paid for the lidocaine 5% patch, sold by Endo under the brand name Lidoderm in the United States. Lidoderm is the brand name for the prescription drug lidocaine patch 5% manufactured by Teikoku Seiyaku and marketed by Endo Pharmaceuticals. Lidoderm is a pain patch for the treatment of pain associated with post-herpetic neuralgia. The Plaintiff seeks overcharge damages and other relief for the Defendants' alleged anticompetitive scheme of illegally delaying the availability of less expensive generic versions of Lidoderm and injunctive relief for the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania. Endo markets and sells Lidoderm in the United States. The Defendants manufacture, market or sell Lidoderm. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Ryan J. McEwan, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC. 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com rmcewan@saverilawfirm.com - and - Ralph B. Kalfayan, Esq. Amanda M. Friedman, Esq. KRAUSE, KALFAYAN, BENINK & SLAVENS 550 West C Street, Suite 530 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 232-0331 Facsimile: (619) 232-4019 E-mail: rkalfayan@kkbs-law.com afriedman@kkbs-law.com - and - Solomon B. Cera, Esq. C. Andrew Dirksen, Esq. GOLD BENNETT CERA & SIDENER LLP 595 Market Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 777-2230 Facsimile: (415) 777-5189 E-mail: scera@gbcslaw.com cdirksen@gbcslaw.com ESSEX COUNTY, NJ: Fails to Pay OT Hours, Correction Officers Say ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dwayne Davis and Jeda Austin, individually, v. Essex County, Case No. 2:14-cv-01122-CCC-JBC (D.N.J., February 21, 2014) alleges that during relevant time periods, the Defendant willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay the Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated employees for all of their overtime hours. The Plaintiffs perform their duties as Correction Officers at the Defendant's Essex County Juvenile Detention Center located in Newark, New Jersey, which is the Defendant's county seat. Essex County is a county located in the state of New Jersey. The County is charged with operation of the Juvenile Detention Center. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew I. Glenn, Esq. Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. Building 2, Suite 220 168 Franklin Corner Road Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com The Defendant is represented by: Courtney M. Gaccione, Esq. ESSEX COUNTY COUNSEL Hall of Records-Room 535 465 MLK Boulevard Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 621-2703 E-mail: cgaccione@counsel.essexcountynj.org FAMILYMEDS GROUP: June 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set -------------------------------------------------------- DOCKET NO. CV-09-4045755-S JUGAL K. TANEJA, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. FAMILYMEDS GROUP, INC., ET AL, Defendants. SUPERIOR COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD AT HARTFORD NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT OF DERIVATIVE ACTION TO: ALL SHAREHOLDERS OF FAMILYMEDS GROUP, INC. STOCK AS OF JANUARY 4, 2012. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ACTION DESCRIBED BELOW IS NOT A "CLASS ACTION" AND FAMILYMEDS SHAREHOLDERS WILL NOT RECEIVE PRO RATA COMPENSATION AS A RESULT OF THIS SETTLEMENT, WHICH IS BEING SUBMITTED TO THE COURT FOR APPROVAL PURSUANT TO CONNECTICUT GENERAL STATUTES Sec. 33-725. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the parties in the above-captioned shareholder derivative action have entered into a Settlement Agreement, dated February 21, 2014. The terms of the proposed settlement of the Action are set forth in the Agreement, and accordingly, this Notice should be read in conjunction with, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to, the text of the Agreement. You may review the Agreement, the complete Notice, and related pleadings online via the following link: https://www.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8b6d628d61606daf9ea6 On June 9, 2014, at 11:30 a.m., a hearing will be held before the Superior Court for the State of Connecticut, 95 Washington Street, Hartford, CT 06103. IF YOU WERE A SHAREHOLDER OF FAMILYMEDS STOCK AS OF JANUARY 4, 2012, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY PROCEEDINGS IN THE ACTION. Any shareholder of Familymeds who objects to the settlement of the Action shall have a right to appear and be heard at the Settlement Hearing, provided that he or she was a shareholder of record as of January 4, 2012. No shareholder of Familymeds shall be heard at the Settlement Hearing unless, no later than fourteen (14) days before the Settlement Hearing, such shareholder has filed with the Court and delivered to Plaintiffs' counsel, counsel for the Company, and counsel for the individual defendants, a written notice of objection, their grounds for objecting to the Settlement, and proof of their status as a shareholder. Only shareholders who have filed and delivered validly and timely written notices of objection will be entitled to be heard at the Settlement Hearing. Written notice of objection to the Agreement should be served on counsel for all parties to this action, whose addresses may be found in the notice posted online at the link above. FOREVER HARDSCAPE: Fails to Pay for OT Work , "Alvarez" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Eduardo Alvarez and Arturo Alvarez on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons, known and unknown v. Forever Hardscape, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:14-cv-01327 (N.D. Ill., February 21, 2014) is brought against the Defendant for its failure to pay for overtime wages for all time work in excess of 40 hours in individual workweeks to the laborers, including the Plaintiff. Forever Hardscapes, Inc., is an Illinois corporation located in Westpoint, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. David Erik Stevens, Esq. Maureen Ann Salas, Esq. Sarah Jean Arendt, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 West Washington, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 Facsimile: (312) 419-1025 E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com dstevens@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com sarendt@flsalaw.com FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Removed "Rodoco" Suit to S.D. West Virginia --------------------------------------------------------------- Freedom Industries, Inc. removed the class action lawsuit titled Rodoco, Inc, Almost Heaven Burgers, Inc., Hargis Unlimited, LLC, Melanie Martin, Megan Spears, Syrra Salon LLC, Paul Kirk, v. Freedom Industries, Inc., West Virginia American Water Company, Case No. 14-C-97, from the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-ap-02011 to the proceeding. Freedom Industries filed a voluntary petition in the Court for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on January 17, 2014, as a result of an incident that occurred on January 9, 2014, involving one of its storage tanks located at its Charleston facility. The Plaintiffs seek, inter alia, compensatory damages for their alleged bodily injuries and economic losses arising from the Incident. The Plaintiffs allege claims against Freedom based on these theories: (i) negligence; (ii) medical monitoring; (iii) nuisance; and (iv) trespass and battery. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael O. Callaghan, Esq. NEELY & CALLAGHAN 159 Summers Street Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 343-6500 Facsimile: (304) 343-6528 E-mail: mcallaghan@neelycallaghan.com - and - Jana Eisinger, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JANA EISINGER, PLLC 11 West Prospect Avenue Mount Vernon, NY 10550 Telephone: (914) 418-4111 E-mail: jeisinger@eisingerlawfirm.com - and - Frank Petosa, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 600 North Pine Island Road, Suite 400 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318-0268 Facsimile: (954) 327-3018 E-mail: fpetosa@forthepeople.com The Defendant Freedom Industries, Inc. is represented by: Mark E. Freedlander, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 625 Liberty Ave, 23rd Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 667-7928 Facsimile: (412) 667-7967 E-mail: mfreedlander@mcguirewoods.com Defendant West Virginia American Water Company is represented by: A. L. Emch, Esq. JACKSON & KELLY PLLC 1600 Laidley Tower P.O. Box 553 Charleston, WV 25322 Telephone: (304) 340-1212 E-mail: aemch@jacksonkelly.com FRESH DEL MONTE: Court Affirmed Verdict Against Subsidiary ---------------------------------------------------------- The Oregon Court of Appeals on January 2, 2014, affirmed the judgments against a subsidiary of Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc.'s in a class action complaint for unpaid wages, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on February 21, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 27, 2013. In December 2007, a class action complaint was filed against one of our subsidiaries for unpaid wages in an action styled Maria Delgado and Abdia Liberio, et al. v. Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. in the Circuit Court of Multnomah County, Oregon. On October 5, 2009, a jury verdict was entered against our subsidiary. The court entered judgments in favor of plaintiffs consistent with the jury verdict. On January 2, 2014, the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the judgments. Our subsidiary is appealing the Court of Appeals decision to the Oregon Supreme Court and has accrued $2.2 million in reserve pending the outcome of the appeal. Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. (Fresh Del Monte) is a holding company. The Company is a producer, marketer and distributor of fruit and vegetables, as well as a producer and distributor of prepared fruit and vegetables, juices, beverages and snacks in Europe, Africa and the Middle East. The Company markets its products worldwide under the DEL MONTE brand. It sources its fresh produce products (bananas, pineapples, melons, tomatoes, grapes, apples, pears, peaches, plums, nectarines, cherries, citrus, avocados, blueberries and kiwi) primarily from Central and South America, Africa, the Philippines, North America and Europe. The Company sources its prepared food products primarily from Africa, Europe, the Middle East and Asia. Its products are sourced from company-owned operations, through joint venture arrangements and through supply contracts with independent producers. It distributes its products in North America, Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Africa and South America. FRESH DEL MONTE: Hawaii Complaint Appeal Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------- The appeal in a Hawaii class action involving Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc., is fully briefed and remains pending, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on February 21, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 27, 2013. In 1997, plaintiffs from Costa Rica and Guatemala named certain of our U.S. subsidiaries in a purported class action in Hawaii. On June 28, 2007, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed our U.S. subsidiaries named in the action without ties to Hawaii. At a hearing held on June 9, 2009, the court granted summary judgment in favor of our remaining U.S. subsidiaries with ties to Hawaii, holding that the claims of the remaining plaintiffs are time- barred. A final judgment dismissing all remaining claims and terminating the action was entered on July 28, 2010. On August 24, 2010, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. The appeal is fully briefed and remains pending. Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. (Fresh Del Monte) is a holding company. The Company is a producer, marketer and distributor of fruit and vegetables, as well as a producer and distributor of prepared fruit and vegetables, juices, beverages and snacks in Europe, Africa and the Middle East. The Company markets its products worldwide under the DEL MONTE brand. It sources its fresh produce products (bananas, pineapples, melons, tomatoes, grapes, apples, pears, peaches, plums, nectarines, cherries, citrus, avocados, blueberries and kiwi) primarily from Central and South America, Africa, the Philippines, North America and Europe. The Company sources its prepared food products primarily from Africa, Europe, the Middle East and Asia. Its products are sourced from company-owned operations, through joint venture arrangements and through supply contracts with independent producers. It distributes its products in North America, Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Africa and South America. GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS: Bethel Residents File Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Suzanna Caldwell, writing for Alaska Dispatch, reports that four Bethel residents have filed a class action suit against General Communications Inc. contending that, among other things, the company misrepresented the service it provides to customers in rural Alaska. The plaintiffs claim that the telecommunications company, known in Alaska as GCI, sought to enroll thousands of new subscribers in wireless, smartphone and data plan services through statewide marketing campaigns, all of which fell short of advertised promises. The complaint, filed in Bethel court on April 22, contends that thousands of customers in the region have suffered dropped calls, an inability to connect in placing calls, unreceived calls, data plans that are virtually useless and a "cumbersome" customer service policy that requires subscribers to petition GCI for credit each time an attempted communication fails. The filing is the latest in what attorney David Henderson said is a growing movement in the Bethel region. He said hundreds of people have been posting in Bethel groups on Facebook complaining about cell phone service in the area. "GCI is telling people when they sign up that they're going to provide data, but 'by the way, just so you know, it's not going to work,'" he said from Bethel on April 24. "If a company went out and sold a product that didn't work, it would be fraud." He said when the company acquired United Utilities -- the previous cell service provider in the region -- in 2008, the infrastructure was set to accommodate 1,500 users. Mr. Henderson suspects that after GCI's purchase, 5,000 people were signed up in the first year for wireless services in the region -- well above what the system could handle, which contributed to the problems. More than 6,000 people live in Bethel, the hub community of the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, with another 56 smaller villages in the region. GCI spokesperson David Morris did not have specific numbers on April 24 on how many people currently have service in the region, or how many people the system can reasonably accommodate. GCI's Mr. Morris couldn't speak directly to the lawsuit, since the company had not yet been served with it as of April 24. But he said the company has invested heavily in rural Alaska, building infrastructure literally from the ground up in most cases. In recent years GCI has spent $200 million connecting satellite systems to terrestrial systems in Bethel, Nome and Kotzebue to improve communications. Last summer the company launched 3G data service in Dillingham, a rural hub for the Bristol Bay region. Mr. Morris said GCI is planning to launch 3G service in Bethel and 10 surrounding communities in the coming weeks. It's also waiting for Federal Communications Commission approval to expand 3G and 4G capabilities to 48 rural and urban Alaska communities. While the company understands the concerns of Bethel residents, he said, it is working against trying to invest in rural Alaska versus concentrated population centers that are easier to serve. He said GCI has invested in rural Alaska during a time when others have either scaled back or refused to expand at all. "If service isn't where we would like it to be, it's just (that) we're working on it," he said. "It just takes time and money to install some of this extremely advanced communication in rural Alaska." GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Bender" Suit Over Ignition Switch Defect --------------------------------------------------------------- Larry Bender v. General Motors, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-00134-TLS- RBC (N.D. Ind., May 1, 2014) argues that in making the decision to cover up the ignition switch defect in its vehicles for at least a decade, GM consciously put millions of Americans' lives at risk. General Motors is a Delaware limited liability company headquartered in Detroit, Michigan. The Company manufactures and distributes the alleged Defective Vehicles from its Michigan manufacturing plants to consumers in Kentucky and throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jasper D. Ward IV, Esq. JONES WARD PLC Marion E. Taylor Building 312 South Fourth Street, 6th Floor Louisville, KY 40202 Telephone: (502) 882-6000 Facsimile: (502) 587-2007 E-mail: jasper@jonesward.com GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Powell" Suit Over Ignition Switch Defect --------------------------------------------------------------- Amy Powell v. General Motors, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-00963-DAP (N.D. Ohio, May 2, 2014) involves the Defendant's alleged conscious decision to overlook, and in fact conceal, a deadly design defect in vehicle ignition switches in millions of GM vehicles placed on the road since 2003. General Motors is a Delaware limited liability company headquartered in Detroit, Michigan. The Company manufactures and distributes the alleged Defective Vehicles from its Michigan manufacturing plants to consumers in Kentucky and throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michelle L. Kranz, Esq. ZOLL, KRANZ & BORGESS,LLC 6620 W. Central Ave., Suite 100 Toledo, OH 43617 Telephone: (419) 841-9623 Facsimile: (419) 841-9719 E-mail: michelle@toledolaw.com - and - Jasper D. Ward IV, Esq. JONES WARD PLC Marion E. Taylor Building 312 South Fourth Street, Sixth Floor Louisville, KY 40202 Telephone: (502) 882-6000 Facsimile: (502) 587-2007 E-mail: jasper@jonesward.com GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Arnold" Suit Over Ignition Switch Defect --------------------------------------------------------------- Phillip R. Arnold and Patrick C. Painter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. General Motors LLC; General Motors Holding, LLC; Delphi Automotive PLC; and DPH-DAS LLC f/k/a Delphi Automotive Systems, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-02882 (N.D. Ill., April 22, 2014) alleges that an estimated 2.6 million vehicles were sold in the United States, including many sold in Illinois, equipped with the alleged defective ignition switches. The Plaintiffs contend that there are also other vehicles sold in the United States, including in Illinois, equipped with the Ignition Switches that have not yet been disclosed by GM. General Motors LLC is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Detroit, Michigan. General Motors Corporation and its successor in interest General Motors LLC were engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, constructing, assembling, marketing, warranting, distributing, selling, leasing, and servicing automobiles, including the Class Vehicles, and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components throughout Illinois and all of the United States. Delphi Automotive PLC is headquartered in Kent, United Kingdom, and is the parent company of Delphi Automotive Systems LLC, which is headquartered in Troy, Michigan. Delphi began as a wholly- owned subsidiary of General Motors Corporation, until it was launched as an independent publicly-held corporation in 1999. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert A. Clifford, Esq. Shannon M. McNulty, Esq. Kristofer S. Riddle, Esq. 120 N. LaSalle, Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 899-9090 Facsimile: (312) 251-1160 E-mail: rac@cliffordlaw.com smm@cliffordlaw.com ksr@cliffordlaw.com - and - G. Patrick Murphy, Esq. Patricia S. Murphy, Esq. 3415 Office Park Drive, Suite D Marion, IL 62959 Telephone: (618) 248-3236 E-mail: gpatrick@murphymurphyllc.com trisha@murphymurphyllc.com GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Gebremariam" Suit Over Defective Switches ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mesafint Gebremariam, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. General Motors, LLC, Case No. 8:14-cv- 00627-JVS-AN (C.D. Cal., April 21, 2014) alleges that since at least model year 2013, GM has designed, manufactured, promoted, marketed and sold defective vehicles throughout the United States, including the state of California, that pose known and significant dangers to unsuspecting drivers, passengers, pedestrians, and the other motorists and cars on the road. GM is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located in Detroit, Michigan. GM was incorporated in 2009, and on July 10, 2009, acquired substantially all assets and assumed certain liabilities of General Motors Corporation. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mary E. Alexander, Esq. Jennifer L. Fiore, Esq. MARY ALEXANDER & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 1303 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-4440 Facsimile: (415) 433-5440 E-mail: malexander@maryalexanderlaw.com jiore@maryalexanderlaw.com GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Detton" Suit Over Ignition Switch Defect --------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah and Jeff Detton, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated v. General Motors LLC and Delphi Automotive PLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-00500-MJR-PMF (S.D. Ill., April 30, 2014) alleges that GM, one of the largest automakers in the U.S., and Delphi, one of GM's key parts suppliers, risked the lives of millions of consumers by choosing to conceal a dangerous defect in the design of the ignition switches installed in millions of GM vehicles, all in an attempt to drive home profits. General Motors LLC is incorporated in Delaware with its principal executive offices located in Detroit, Michigan. GM was incorporated in 2009 and, on July 10, 2009, acquired substantially all assets and assumed certain liabilities of Old GM. GM designed, manufactured, and marketed the Vehicles at issue. Delphi Automotive PLC is headquartered in Kent, United Kingdom and is the parent company of Delphi Automotive Systems LLC, which is headquartered in Troy, Michigan. Delphi began as a wholly- owned subsidiary of Old GM until it was launched as an independent publicly-held corporation in 1999. The Plaintiffs are represented by: D. Todd Mathews, Esq. Randy L. Gori, Esq. Jean Maguire, Esq. GORI JULIAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 156 N. Main Street Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 659-9833 Facsimile: (618) 659-9834 E-mail: todd@gorijulianlaw.com randy@gorijulianlaw.com jmaguire@gorijulianlaw.com - and - Patrick C. Cooper, Esq. WARD & WILSON LLC 2100A Southbridge Parkway, Suite 580 Birmingham, AL 35209 GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "LaReine" Suit Over Ignition Switch Defect ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lianne LaReine, Marguerite Chandler, James Evans, Bonita Lagoe, Lea Jordanides and Yvonne E. Rodriguez, individually and as class representatives on behalf of all others similarly situated v. General Motors LLC, and Delphi Automotive PLC, Case No. 2:14-cv- 03112-JVS-AN (C.D. Cal., April 23, 2014) alleges that GM has sold more than two million vehicles that have a serious safety defect. Millions of GM vehicles have defective "ignition switch torque performance," which means the vehicle's ignition switch may move out of the "run" position, turning off the engine and most of the electrical components on the vehicle and causing air bags not to deploy depending on the time that the ignition moved out of the "run" position, the Plaintiffs contend. General Motors LLC is a foreign limited liability company formed under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business located in Detroit, Michigan. GM was incorporated in 2009 and on July 10, 2009, acquired substantially all assets and assumed certain liabilities of General Motors Corporation. Delphi Automotive PLC is headquartered in Kent, United Kingdom, and is the parent company of Delphi Automotive Systems LLC, which is headquartered in Troy, Michigan. Delphi began as a wholly- owned subsidiary of General Motors Corporation, until it was launched as an independent publicly-held corporation in 1999. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marc M. Seltzer, Esq. Steven G. Sklaver, Esq. Kalpana Srinivasan, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 Facsimile: (310) 789-3150 E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com ksrinivasan@susmangodfrey.com - and - Lester L. Levy, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 759-4600 Facsimile: (212) 486-2093 E-mail: llevy@wolfpopper.com GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Salazar" Suit Over Ignition Switch Defect ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jesse Salazar III, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. General Motors LLC; General Motors Company; General Motors Holding, LLC; Delphi Automotive PLC; and DPH-DAS LLC f/k/a Delphi Automotive Systems, LLC, Case No. 5:14-cv-00362- FB (W.D. Tex., April 21, 2014) arises from the alleged defective ignition switches manufactured by Delphi and installed in GM's vehicles. Because of defects in their design, the Ignition Switches installed in the Class Vehicles are, by their nature, loose and improperly positioned and are susceptible to failure during normal and expected conditions, Mr. Salazar asserts. General Motors LLC is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. General Motors Company is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Detroit. General Motors Corporation and its successors in interest General Motors LLC and General Motors Company were engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, constructing, assembling, marketing, warranting, distributing, selling, leasing, and servicing automobiles, including the Class Vehicles, and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components throughout the United States. Delphi Automotive PLC is headquartered in Kent, United Kingdom, and is the parent company of Delphi Automotive Systems LLC, which is headquartered in Troy, Michigan. Delphi began as a wholly- owned subsidiary of General Motors Corporation, until it was launched as an independent publicly-held corporation in 1999. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Caddell, Esq. Cory S. Fein, Esq. CADDELL & CHAPMAN 1331 Lamar, Suite 1070 Houston, TX 77010-3027 Telephone: (713) 751-0400 Facsimile: (713) 751-0906 E-mail: mac@caddellchapman.com csf@caddellchapman.com GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Villa" Suit Over Ignition Switch Defect -------------------------------------------------------------- Amberlynn I. Villa, Jack Cohen, Helen Bell, Caitlyn Armstrong, and Frank Keenan, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. General Motors, LLC, General Motors Corporation, Delphi Automotive PLC, and DPH-DAS LLC (f/k/a Delphi Automotive Systems, LLC), Case No. 2:14-cv-02548-JCJ (E.D. Pa., May 1, 2014) arises from the manufacture and sale of millions of defective vehicles that are unsafe to drive because: (a) the vehicles' ignition switches can spontaneously switch, or be inadvertently switched, into the "off" or "accessory" position during normal and expected vehicle operation, thereby, immediately turning off the engine; and (b) the vehicles' ignition lock cylinders can fail to secure the ignition key while the ignition switch is in the "on" position, resulting in key removal while the engine is running. General Motors Corporation was a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The Corporation through its various entities designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed and sold Pontiac, Saturn, Chevrolet and other brand automobiles in Pennsylvania and multiple other locations in the United States and worldwide. In 2009, General Motors Corporation filed for bankruptcy, and substantially all of its assets were sold pursuant to a Master Sales and Purchase Agreement to General Motors, LLC. General Motors, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company with its headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. At all relevant times, General Motors Corporation and its successor in interest General Motors, LLC, were engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, constructing, assembling, marketing, warranting, distributing, selling, leasing, and servicing automobiles, including the Defective Vehicles, and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components throughout the United States. Delphi Automotive, PLC, is headquartered in Kent, United Kingdom, and is the parent company of Defendant DPH-DAS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company formerly known as Delphi Automotive Systems, LLC. DPH-DAS, LLC, is headquartered in Troy, Michigan. Delphi began as a wholly-owned subsidiary of General Motors Corporation until it was launched as an independent publicly-held corporation in 1999. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeanne A. Markey, Esq. Gary L. Azorsky, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC 3 Logan Square 1717 Arch St., Suite 3610 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 207-3477 E-mail: jmarkey@cohenmilstein.com gazorsky@cohenmilstein.com - and - Andrew N. Friedman, Esq. Kit A. Pierson, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC 1100 New York Avenue NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 E-mail: afriedman@cohenmilstein.com kpierson@cohenmilstein.com - and - Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. Diana L. Martin, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 515-1400 E-mail: tleopold@cohenmilstein.com dmartin@cohenmilstein.com GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Fugate" Suit Over Ignition Switch Defect --------------------------------------------------------------- Jolene Fugate v. General Motors, LLC, Case No. 7:14-cv-00071-ART (E.D. Ky., May 2, 2014) arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of its obligations and duties, including its failure to disclose that, as a result of defective ignition switches, at least 2.59 million GM vehicles (and almost certainly more) may have the propensity to shut down during normal driving conditions and create an extreme and unreasonable risk of accident, serious bodily harm, and death. Since at least 2003, the Plaintiff contends, the Defendant has sold millions of vehicles throughout the United States and worldwide that have a safety defect causing the vehicle's ignition switch to inadvertently move from the "run" position to the "accessory" or "off" position during ordinary driving conditions, resulting in a loss of power, vehicle speed control, and braking, as well as a failure of the vehicle's airbags to deploy. General Motors is a Delaware limited liability company headquartered in Detroit, Michigan. The Company manufactures and distributes the alleged Defective Vehicles from its Michigan manufacturing plants to consumers in Kentucky and throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jasper D. Ward IV, Esq. JONES WARD PLC Marion E. Taylor Building 312 South Fourth Street, 6th Floor Louisville, KY 40202 Telephone: (502) 882-6000 Facsimile: (502) 587-2007 E-mail: jasper@jonesward.com GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Elliott" Suit Over Ignition Switch Defect ---------------------------------------------------------------- Colin Elliott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. General Motors LLC; General Motors Holding, LLC; Delphi Automotive PLC; and DPH-DAS LLC f/k/a Delphi Automotive Systems, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-11982-WGY (D. Mass., May 1, 2014) is brought on behalf of all similarly situated persons, who purchased or leased certain vehicles manufactured, distributed, or sold by GM with defective ignition switches manufactured by Delphi. General Motors Corporation and its successor in interest General Motors LLC were engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, constructing, assembling, marketing, warranting, distributing, selling, leasing, and servicing automobiles, including the Class Vehicles, and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components throughout the United States. Delphi Automotive PLC is headquartered in Kent, United Kingdom, and is the parent company of Delphi Automotive Systems LLC, which is headquartered in Troy, Michigan. Delphi began as a wholly- owned subsidiary of General Motors Corporation, until it was launched as an independent publicly-held corporation in 1999. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas M. Greene, Esq. Michael Tabb, Esq. GREENE LLP One Liberty Square, Suite 1200 Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 261-0040 Facsimile: (617) 507-6559 E-mail: tgreene@greenellp.com matabb@greenellp.com - and - Robin L. Greenwald, Esq. James Bilsborrow, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C. 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212)-558-5500 Facsimile: (212) 344-5466 E-mail: rgreenwald@weitzlux.com jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com GNC HOLDINGS: Removed "Di Cillo" Suit to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- GNC Holdings, Inc. removed the purported class action lawsuit titled Di Cillo v. GNC Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. CGC-14- 536601, from the San Francisco Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv- 00810-SI to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts claims on behalf of all California consumers, who purchased these creatine products from GNC: GNC Pro Performance Creatine Monohydrate, GNC Pro Performance AMP Amplified Creatine, GNC Pro Performance Hybrid Creatine Complex, GNC Pro Performance Creatine Complex Chew and GNC Pro Performance Creatine Plus. The Plaintiff seeks "damages, restitution and injunctive relief" on behalf of the putative class. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce Lee Simon, Esq. William James Newsom, Esq. PEARSON SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-9000 Facsimile: (415) 433-9008 E-mail: bsimon@pswlaw.com wnewsom@pswlaw.com - and - Clifford H. Pearson, Esq. Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq. PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 788-8300 Facsimile: (818) 788-8104 E-mail: cpearson@pswlaw.com dwarshaw@pswlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Gordon W. Schmidt, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 625 Liberty Avenue, 23rd Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15237 Telephone: (412) 667-6000 E-mail: gschmidt@mcguirewoods.com - and - Laura E. Coombe, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 315-8200 E-mail: lcoombe@mcguirewoods.com GOLDMAN SACHS: Energy Beverage et al. Sue Over Aluminum Prices -------------------------------------------------------------- Energy Beverage Management, LLC; Goldring Gulf Distributing Company, LLC; Gulf Distributing Co. of Mobile, LLC; and Allstate Beverage Company, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., GS Power Holdings Llc, Metro International Trade Services LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-00082-WS-C (S.D. Ala., February 21, 2014) arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to limit and restrain the availability of aluminum and artificially inflate the price of aluminum, including the Midwest Transaction Premium, during the period of at least January 1, 2009, through the present in violation of state antitrust laws and common law. Aluminum is the second most widely used metal in the world. Aluminum is essential in packaging materials (e.g., beverage cans), transportation (e.g., cars) and building and construction materials (e.g., door frames and exterior siding). According to the complaint, beverage bottlers and distributors, including the Plaintiffs, are the second largest industrial users of aluminum with approximately 100 billion aluminum beverage cans produced in North America each year. All U.S.-made beverage cans are aluminum, representing 20% of all of the aluminum produced in the world. New York-based Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is a leading global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a wide range of financial services to a substantial and diversified client base. Through December 2012, Goldman Sachs was the largest London Metal Exchange principal. GS Power Holdings LLC is a subsidiary of Goldman Sachs. Romulus, Michigan-based Metro International Trade Services LLC is a global warehouse operator, specializing in the storage of non- ferrous metals, including aluminum, for the LME. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven A. Martino, Esq. TAYLOR MARTINO, P.C. 51 Saint Joseph Street Post Office Box 894 Mobile, AL 36601 Telephone: (251) 433-3131 Facsimile: (251) 405-5080 E-mail: stevemartino@taylormartino.com - and - Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Esq. Matthew B. Moreland, Esq. Jennifer L. Crose, Esq. BECNEL LAW FIRM, LLC 106 E. 7th Street P.O. Drawer H Reserve, LA 70084 Telephone: (985) 536-1186 E-mail: dbecnel@becnellaw.com mmoreland@becnellaw.com jcrose@becnellaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Wesley B. Gilchrist, Esq. LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE 400 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 581-0735 Facsimile: (205) 380-9135 E-mail: wgilchrist@lightfootlaw.com GOLDMAN SACHS: Direct Purchasers Amend Aluminum Antitrust Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation captioned In re Aluminum Warehousing Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 13 MD2481 (KBF), filed on April 28, 2014, with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York a second corrected consolidated amended class action complaint. The amended complaint relates to Direct Purchaser Cases. In violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and State laws, the Defendants have, from May 1, 2009, combined, conspired or agreed with one another and other persons to inflate aluminum prices, restrain aluminum supplies in LME Detroit Warehousing, and provide extremely inefficient, low quality load out and other services, the Plaintiffs allege. The Plaintiffs are Ampal, Inc., Admiral Beverage, Central Aluminum Company, Claridge Products and Equipment, Inc., Custom Aluminum Products, Inc., Extruded Aluminum Corporation, International Extrusions, Inc., Talan Products Inc. and Thule, Inc. The Plaintiffs are direct purchasers of aluminum. The Defendants are The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., GS Power Holdings LLC, MCEPF Metro I, Inc., Mitsi Holdings LLC, Metro International Trade Services LLC, London Metal Exchange Limited, LME Holdings Limited, Hong Kong Exchanges & Clearing, Ltd., Glencore Xstrata, PLC, Pacorini Metals AG, Glencore Ltd., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Henry Bath & Son, Ltd., and Henry Bath LLC. The Doe Defendants are other persons, who own warehouses, have similar financial interests as the Defendants, are parties to the contracts in restraint of trade as well as co-conspirators or others who joined the combination, and have otherwise entered in the agreement. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York. Goldman Sachs is a leading global investment banking, securities, and investment management firm that provides a wide range of financial services to a substantial and diversified client base. Goldman Sachs was a shareholder of the LME during the Class Period, until the LME was acquired by HMEx. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edith M. Kallas, Esq. Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS LLP 1180 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 447-7060 Facsimile: (212) 922-4851 E-mail: ekallas@wdklaw.com jwhatley@whatleykallas.com - and - John G. Emerson, Jr., Esq. EMERSON POYNTER LLP 830 Apollo Lane Houston, TX 77058 Telephone: (281) 488-8854 Facsimile: (281) 488-8867 E-mail: jemerson@emersonpoynter.com - and - William T. Crowder, Esq. EMERSON POYNTER LLP 1301 Scott Street Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 907-2555 Facsimile: (501) 907-2556 E-mail: wcrowder@emersonpoynter.com - and - Robert M. Rothman, Esq. Samuel Howard Rudman, 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: rrothman@rgrdlaw.com srudman@rgrdlaw.com - and - Bonny E. Sweeney, 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: bonnys@rgrdlaw.com - and - Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Esq. Jennifer L. Crose, Esq. Matthew B. Moreland, Esq. BECNEL LAW FIRM, LLC 106 W. Seventh St. P.O. Drawer H Reserve, LA 70084 Telephone: (504) 756-4840 Facsimile: (985) 536-1186 E-mail: mmoreland@becnellaw.com jcrose@becnellaw.com mattmoreland@cox.net - and - Christopher Lovell, 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 - and - Craig M. Essenmacher, Esq. LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP 162 E. Main Street Northville, MI 48167 Telephone: (248) 615-1752 Facsimile: (248) 928-0909 E-mail: cessenmacher@lshllp.com - and - Harold Z. Gurewitz, Esq. GUREWITZ & RABEN, PLC 333 W. Fort Street, Suite 1400 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 628-4733 Facsimile: (313) 628-4701 E-mail: hgurewitz@grplc.com - and - James J. Sabella, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2100 Wilmington, DE 19801-2599 Telephone: (302) 622-7000 Facsimile: (302) 622-7100 E-mail: jsabella@gelaw.com - and - Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 722-8500 Facsimile: (212) 687-7714 E-mail: lnussbaum@gelaw.com - and - Alyson Louise Oliver, Esq. OLIVER LAW GROUP PC 950 W. University Drive, Suite 200 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 327-6556 Facsimile: (248) 436-3385 E-mail: notifications@oliverlg.com - and - Patrick E. Cafferty, Esq. MILLER, FAUCHER AND CAFFERTY, L.L.P. 30 North La Salle Street Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 782-4880 E-mail: pcafferty@caffertyclobes.com - and - Dean M. Googasian, Esq. Thomas H. Howlett, Esq. GOOGASIAN LAW FIRM 6895 Telegraph Road Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301-3138 Telephone: (248) 540-3333 Facsimile: (248) 540-7213 E-mail: dgoogasian@googasian.com thowlett@googasian.com - and - Joseph Richard Saveri, Esq. Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc. 505 Montgomery St. Suite 625 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 395-9940 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com - and - Steven A. Martino, Esq. TAYLOR MARTINO, P.C. P.O. Box 894 Mobile, AL 36601 Telephone: (251) 433-3131 Facsimile: (251) 433-4207 E-mail: stevemartino@taylormartino.com - and - Robert J. Bonsignore, Esq. BONSIGNORE, LLC 193 Plummer Hill Road Belmont, NH 03220 Telephone: (781) 856-7650 E-mail: rbonsignore@class-actions.us - and - Solomon B. Cera, Esq. GOLD BENNETT CERA & SIDENER, LLP 595 Market Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 777-2230 Facsimile: (415) 777-5189 E-mail: sbc@gbcslaw.com - and - Vincent J. Esades, Esq. HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C. 3550 IDS Center 310 Clifton Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55403 Telephone: (612) 338-4605 Facsimile: (612) 338-4692 E-mail: vesades@heinsmills.com - and - Dean M. Harvey, Esq. Eric B. Fastiff, Esq. Lin Y. Chan, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415)-956-1008 E-mail: dharvey@lchb.com efastiff@lchb.com lchan@lchb.com - and - Geoffrey Milbank Horn, Esq. Gerald Lawrence, Esq. Peter Dexter St. Philip, Jr., Esq. Raymond Peter Girnys, Esq. Vincent Briganti, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN & HART, P.C. White Plains Plaza One North Broadway, Suite 509 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 E-mail: ghorn@lowey.com glawrence@lowey.com pstphillip@lowey.com rgirnys@lowey.com vbriganti@lowey.com - and - Peter George Safirstein, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.C. 28 West 44th St., Suite 2001 New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 564-1637 Facsimile: (212) 564-1807 E-mail: psafirstein@forthepeople.com - and - David P. Germaine, Esq. John Paul Bjork, Esq. Joseph M. Vanek, Esq. VANEK, VICKERS & MASINI, P.C. 55 W. Monroe, Suite 3500 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 224-1500 Facsimile: (312)-224-1510 E-mail: dgermaine@vaneklaw.com jbjork@vaneklaw.com jvanek@vaneklaw.com The Goldman Sachs Defendants are represented by: Richard C. Pepperman, II, Esq. Suhana S. Han, Esq. SULLIVAN AND CROMWELL, LLP (NYC) 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 558-3493 Facsimile: (212) 558-3588 E-mail: peppermanr@sullcrom.com hans@sullcrom.com - and - Mark Aaron Cunningham, Esq. JONES WALKER (NEW ORLEANS) Place St. Charles 201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 5100 New Orleans, LA 70170-5100 Telephone: (504) 582-8536 E-mail: mcunningham@joneswalker.com - and - Gregory L. Curtner, Esq. Jessica A. Sprovtsoff, Esq. SCHIFF HARDIN LLP 350 South Main Street, Suite 210 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 222-1506 Facsimile: (734) 222-1501 E-mail: gcurtner@schiffhardin.com jsprovtsoff@schiffhardin.com - and - Wesley B. Gilchrist, Esq. LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE 400 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 581-0735 Facsimile: (205) 380-9135 E-mail: wgilchrist@lightfootlaw.com Defendant JP Morgan Chase & Co. is represented by: Robert D. Wick, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING, L.L.P. (DC) 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 662-5487 Facsimile: (202) 778-5487 E-mail: rwick@cov.com Defendant London Metal Exchange Limited is represented by: William H. Horton, Esq. GIARMARCO, MULLINS & HORTON, P.C. 101 West Big Beaver Road, 10th Floor Troy, MI 48084-5280 Telephone: (248) 457-7000 Facsimile: (248) 457-7001 E-mail: bhorton@gmhlaw.com HARTFORD, CT: Issues Notice on Relocation Assistance ---------------------------------------------------- On February 28, 2014, the Housing Session of the Superior Court in the Judicial District of Hartford Court approved a settlement agreement in a class action lawsuit called Serrano et al. v. Gaitor et al, CVH-519. This notice is to inform your potential rights under the agreement and Connecticut's Uniform Relocation Assistance Act (Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 8-266 et seq.). In order to qualify for this assistance, City of Hartford officials must have informed you that you have to move out of your apartment as a result of fire, damage to your building, structural defects, or other emergency or safety related issues. For some parts of the assistance, you must have lived in the residence from which you are being displaced for 90 days or more. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, if, on or after April 10, 2012, you were ordered to leave your apartment by the City of Hartford, or left as a direct result of code enforcement activities by the City of Hartford, you may be eligible for retroactive relocation assistance. You may also be eligible for relocation assistance benefits if you are ordered to vacate your apartment by City of Hartford officials now or in the future. The following assistance may be available: * temporary emergency housing, paid for by the City of Hartford; * help in finding permanent replacement housing; * actual reasonable moving costs and related expenses. Or you can choose to be paid fixed moving and dislocation expense allowances, up to the statutory limits of $300.00 (moving allowance) and $200.00 (dislocation allowance); * some rental assistance (including help with the security deposit and/or the difference between the rent for a new residence and the rent for the residence you were displaced from) to a maximum of $4,000. To receive this assistance, you must apply to the Hartford Department of Health and Human Services, located at 131 Coventry Street, Hartford, CT 06112. You may need to provide the City of Hartford with documents such as bills or a proof of a lease to establish length of residency in the dwelling from which you were displaced, as well as receipts and other evidence to establish eligibility for other related expenses. If, after applying with the City of Hartford, you feel that you were treated unfairly please contact Statewide Legal Services at (860) 344-0380, or (800) 453-3320. HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Group Seeks Affirmative Action Plaintiffs ------------------------------------------------------------- Nina Totenberg, writing for NPR.org, reports that a group opposed to affirmative action in higher education is taking the unprecedented step of looking for plaintiffs online. The Project on Fair Representation is advertising for college applicants willing to challenge Harvard University, the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and the University of Wisconsin, Madison. When the Supreme Court issued a ruling last spring that made affirmative action programs more legally difficult to sustain, project director Edward Blum promised that more "costly and polarizing litigation" would soon be filed against university affirmative action programs across the country. But a year later, the plaintiffs apparently had not materialized, and so the project has now launched websites dedicated to finding challengers. The group promises to pay all expenses and notes that in its previous litigation, no college applicant had to testify or "talk to the media." The group has litigated for more than a decade against what it deems to be unconstitutional racial classifications. Last year it won two Supreme Court decisions: the partial victory in the affirmative action case, and a total victory when the Supreme Court struck down a key section of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act. HYUNDAI MOTOR: "Gentry" Suit Added to Fuel Economy MDL in Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the class action lawsuit styled Gentry, et al. v. Hyundai Motor America, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-00030-NKM-RSB, from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The California District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-01359- GW-FFM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Judge George H. Wu for the purpose of consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation known as In re: Hyundai and Kia Fuel Economy Litigation, Case No. 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM. The Plaintiffs are represented by: James Ben Feinman, Esq. JAMES B. FEINMAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW PO Box 697 Lynthburg, VA 24505 Telephone: (434) 846-7603 Facsimile: (434) 846-0158 E-mail: jb@jfeinman.com The Defendant is represented by: James Francis Neale, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP Court Square Building 310 Fourth Street NE, Suite 300 Charlottesville, VA 22902-1288 Telephone: (434) 977-2582 Facsimile: (434) 980-2263 E-mail: jneale@mcguirewoods.com - and - Shon Morgan, Esq. Joseph R. Ashby, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 E-mail: shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com josephashby@quinnemanuel.com INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Non-FDA Approved Drugs ----------------------------------------------------------- Scot H. Atwood, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:14-cv-01123-NRB, seeks to put an end to the Company's alleged unlawful practice of using drug products including obeticholic acid (OCA) that is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in and promotion to humans. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is headquartered in New York, New York. The Company's common stock is traded on the NASDAQ. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Avi Rosenfield, 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 The Defendant is represented by: Michael G. Bongiorno, Esq. Shauna Kathleen Friedman, Esq. Tamar Batya Kaplan-Marans, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP (NYC) 7 World Trade Center, 250 Greenwich St. New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 230-8800 Facsimile: (212) 230-8888 E-mail: michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com shauna.friedman@wilmerhale.com tamar.kaplan-marans@wilmerhale.com IOD INC: July 30 Final Settlement Hearing Set --------------------------------------------- COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT BUSINESS LITIGATION SESSION PAUL MORAN, as an individual 13-4224- BLS2 on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. IOD INCORPORATED, Defendant. NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION AND HEARING ON PROPOSED SETTLEMENT TO: ALL PERSONS WHO ORDERED MEDICAL RECORDS FROM THE FOLLOWING MASSACHUSETTS HOSPITALS: CARNEY HOSPITAL, DEDHAM MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, FAIRLAWN REHABILITATION HOSPITAL, HARRINGTON HOSPITAL, NORTH SHORE MEDICAL CENTER, UNION HOSPITAL, AND NORTH SHORE MEDICAL CENTER, SALEM HOSPITAL AND WHO HAD THEIR MEDICAL RECORDS REQUESTS PROCESSED BY SERVICE PROVIDER IOD INCORPORATED AT ANY TIME FROM NOVEMBER 29, 2007 TO THE PRESENT (THE CLASS AND EACH MEMBER THEREOF A CLASS MEMBER). On November 29, 2013, Plaintiff Paul Moran filed the above- captioned class action litigation against IOD, Inc. (IOD) on behalf of all those who ordered medical records in Massachusetts that were processed by IOD from November 29, 2007 to the present. The lawsuit alleged violations of Massachusetts statute G.L. chapter 111, section 70, including that IOD overcharged on average $0.58 in postage when responding to certain medical records requests made by Class Members of the Massachusetts hospitals listed above. The parties have agreed to settle the litigation on the following terms. Given the impracticality of sending checks for approximately $0.58 to thousands of residents and businesses, the parties agreed that IOD will pay the entire amount of the calculated overcharge of $11,170.70 to Health Law Advocates, a Massachusetts-based non-profit that provides assistance to low income residents for health care access. Additionally, IOD has affirmed that it does not and will not charge amounts for postage in excess of that allowed by Massachusetts statute G.L. chapter 111, section 70 when processing and responding to medical records requests. Lastly, IOD has agreed to pay plaintiffs attorneys fees and expenses not to exceed $45,000. All such amounts will be paid by IOD and not by the Class. The Massachusetts Superior Court preliminarily approved this settlement. A final hearing will be held on [ ], 2014 at 2:00 p.m. (the Settlement Hearing), before the Court in Courtroom 1017, Suffolk County Superior Court, Three Pemberton Square, Boston, MA 02108, at which the parties will ask the Court to: (i) determine whether, for settlement purposes only, the Courts preliminary certification of the non-opt-out Class, pursuant to Massachusetts Rule of Civil Procedure 23, should be made final; (ii) determine whether the Court should grant final approval of the proposed Settlement on the terms and conditions provided for in the Parties settlement agreement as fair, reasonable, and adequate, and in the best interest of the Class; (iii) determine whether judgment should be entered dismissing the litigation with prejudice; (iv) consider the application of Plaintiffs Counsel for attorneys fees and reimbursement of expenses; and (v) hear and determine other matters relating to the proposed Settlement. Any claims you might have against IOD for non-compliance with Massachusetts statute G.L. chapter 111, section 70 in connection with IODs processing of medical records requests at any time from November 29, 2007 to the present, will be forever released and dismissed as a result of this Settlement and the Courts approval of it. If you have any objection to this Settlement, you must deliver it in writing to the lawyers involved and the Court by no later than June 20, 2014 to the following three addresses: (1) Civil Clerks Office, Massachusetts Superior Court, Three Pemberton Square, Boston, MA 02108 (2) John R. Yasi, Yasi & Yasi, P.C., Two Salem Green, Salem, MA 01970 (counsel for plaintiff); and (3) Matthew C. Baltay, Foley Hoag LLP, 155 Seaport Blvd., Boston, MA 02210 (counsel for IOD Inc.). Your written objection must include the following case name and civil action number: Moran v. IOD Inc., 13-4224-BLS2, and must state the details, including date, of your medical records request that was processed by IOD and the basis of your objection. You are also invited to appear at the final settlement hearing on July 30, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. before the Court in Courtroom 1017, Suffolk County Superior Court, Three Pemberton Square, Boston, MA 02108; please note, however, that in order to appear and be heard, you must timely submit the written objection referenced immediately above. For the full details of the lawsuit, the claims that have been asserted by Plaintiff, and the terms and conditions of the Settlement, you may refer to the papers on file with the Court. You or your attorney may examine the Courts files during regular business hours of each business day at the office of the Clerk of Court, Civil Clerks Office, 12th Floor, Suffolk County Superior Court, Three Pemberton Square, Boston, MA 02108. LEHMAN BROTHERS: Helios Books Reserve Related to Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Helios Advantage Income Fund, Inc., Helios High Income Fund, Inc., Helios Multi-Sector High Income Fund, Inc. and Helios Strategic Income Fund, Inc. on April 30 disclosed that they have each booked a reserve for potential costs and expenses related to the class action lawsuit filed against the Funds by Lehman Brothers Special Finance, Inc. ("LBSF"), styled Lehman Brothers Special Financing, Inc. v. Bank of America National Ass'n, et al., Adv. Pro. No. 10- 03537 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.). The Class Litigation is currently pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, with LBSF seeking to recover funds that it alleges were inappropriately distributed to counter-parties upon the termination of credit swap agreements based on the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy. The Class Litigation was originally filed on September 14, 2010, and the Funds were added as defendants in September 2012. The Class Litigation, as amended, names more than 270 defendants, including the issuers of certain asset-backed securities, the trustees for such securities, and certain of the investors in the securities, such as the Funds. The disputed payments for HAV, HIH, HMH and HSA, exclusive of any interest (including pre-judgment interest) and expenses are $2,009,959.09, $1,004,979.54, 2,009,959.09, and $1,004,979.54, respectively. Based on the current status of the litigation, HAV, HIH, HMH and HSA have each booked a reserve that has resulted in a reduction in net asset value per share of $0.17, $0.11, $0.14 and $0.09, respectively. There is no assurance that the amount of the reserve booked for a Fund will be sufficient to cover the ultimate costs of litigation for that Fund. Brookfield Asset Management Inc. is a global alternative asset manager with approximately $187 billion in assets under management as of December 31, 2013. Brookfield has over a 100- year history of owning and operating assets with a focus on property, renewable power, infrastructure and private equity. The company offers a range of public and private investment products and services, which leverage its expertise and experience and provide it with a competitive advantage in the markets where it operates. On behalf of its clients, Brookfield is also an active investor in the public securities markets, where its experience extends over 30 years. Over this time, the company has successfully developed several investment operations and built expertise in the management of institutional portfolios, retail mutual funds, and structured product investments. Brookfield's public market activities are conducted by Brookfield Investment Management, a registered investment advisor. These activities complement Brookfield's core competencies and include global listed real estate and infrastructure equities, corporate high yield investments, opportunistic credit strategies and a dedicated insurance asset management division. Headquartered in New York, NY, Brookfield Investment Management maintains offices and investment teams in Toronto, Chicago, Boston and London and has over $10 billion of assets under management as of December 31, 2013. The Funds are managed by Brookfield Investment Management. LIFELOCK INC: Wohl & Fruchter Files Class Action in Arizona ----------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Wohl & Fruchter LLP on April 24 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against LifeLock, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed on March 10, 2014, in the United States District Court, District of Arizona, and docketed under 14-CV-0479, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired any securities of LifeLock between February 26, 2013 and February 19, 2014, both dates inclusive. This class action seeks to recover damages against the Company and certain of its officers and directors as a result of alleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. If you purchased LOCK securities during the Class Period, and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you have until May 5, 2014, to seek appointment by the Court. To discuss the case or learn more about becoming a lead plaintiff, please contact J. Elazar Fruchter at jfruchter@wohlfruchter.com or call us toll free at 866.833.6245. A copy of the complaint filed by Wohl & Fruchter LLP can be obtained at: http://www.wohlfruchter.com/cases/lock LifeLock is a self-proclaimed provider of proactive identity theft protection services that it provides to consumers and enterprises. In March 2010, LifeLock (and its Chairman and CEO, Todd Davis) entered into a settlement order (Settlement Order) with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) whereby LifeLock settled allegations by the FTC that certain of LifeLock's advertising and marketing practices constituted deceptive acts or practices in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act). The Settlement Order enjoined LifeLock from deceptive advertising and marketing of its identity theft protection services, including making any misrepresentations of "the means, methods, procedures, effects, effectiveness, coverage, or scope of" its identity theft protection services. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that the Company's marketing and advertising practices violated applicable government rules and regulations, as well as the terms of the Settlement Order, during the Class Period, and that as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. In its 2013 Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2014, LifeLock disclosed that it had met with the FTC on January 17, 2014, regarding its compliance with the terms of the Settlement Order, after a whistleblower had discussed certain violations of the Settlement Order with the FTC. On this news shares of LOCK fell $2.29 per share, or nearly 10%, over the course of four trading sessions, to close on February 25, 2014 at $20.00. Subsequently, on March 17, 2014, LifeLock disclosed that it had received a request from the FTC for documents and information related to LifeLock's compliance with the Settlement Order. Since that time, LOCK shares have fallen further to close at $16.52/share on April 24, 2014. Wohl & Fruchter LLP -- http://www.wohlfruchter.cois an securities litigation firm representing plaintiffs in class actions arising from securities fraud and fiduciary breaches, as well as other complex litigation matters. LIFE TIME: Members File Class Action Over Spam Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------ Cassie Hart, writing for KSTP, reports that current and former Life Time Fitness members have filed a class action lawsuit against the company. They're suing because they say Life Time sent spam text messages to get them to sign up. Federal rules ban companies from sending group text messages like this. The current and former members say these messages are expensive when sent over and over again. They want Life Time to stop the texts and pay a minimum of $500 for each text message sent. LIME ENERGY: May 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set --------------------------------------------------- The following is being released by the law firm of Pomerantz LLP in Satterfield v. Lime Energy Co., No. 1:12-cv-05704 (N.D. Ill). SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION, MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES, AND FINAL APPROVAL HEARING To: All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Lime Energy Co. securities during the period from May 14, 2008 through December 27, 2012, both dates inclusive. Excluded from the Class are Defendants, all current and former directors and officers of Lime during the Class Period, members of their families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, that a settlement of the above-captioned class action has been proposed. A hearing will be held on May 13, 2014, at 12:30 p.m., before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis, United States District Judge, at the courthouse for the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse, Courtroom 1719, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604, for the purpose of determining, among other things: (1) whether a Settlement Class should be certified for purposes of the Settlement and whether Class Plaintiffs and their counsel have adequately represented the Class Members; (2) whether the proposed Settlement of the Class's claims against the Defendants for $2,500,000.00 should be approved as fair, reasonable and adequate; (3) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation is fair, just, reasonable, and adequate; (4) whether the Court should permanently enjoin the assertion of any claims that arise from or relate to the subject matter of the Action; (5) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against the Defendants as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement filed with the Court; (6) whether the application by Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved; and (7) whether the Lead Plaintiffs' application for reimbursement of costs and expenses should be granted. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Lime Securities between May 14, 2008, and December 27, 2012, both dates inclusive, your rights may be affected by this Action and the Settlement thereof. If you have not received the detailed Notice Of Proposed Settlement Of Class Action, Motion For Attorneys' Fees And Expenses, And Final Approval Hearing and Proof of Claim and Release Form, you may obtain them free of charge by contacting the Claims Administrator, by mail at: Satterfield v. Lime Energy Co., c/o Rust Consulting, Inc., P. O. Box 8095, Faribault, MN 55021- 9495; by telephone at: 1-877-872-3809; or by visiting the Settlement website www.LimeEnergySettlement.com If you are a member of the Class and wish to share in the Settlement money, you must submit a Proof of Claim no later than June 12, 2014 establishing that you are entitled to recovery. As further described in the Notice, you will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action, regardless of whether you submit a Proof of Claim, unless you exclude yourself from the Class in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice by no later than April 29, 2014. Any objections to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation or attorney's fees and expenses must be filed and served in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice no later than April 29, 2014. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to Lead Counsel for the Class: Leigh Handelman Smollar, Esq. Pomerantz LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Ste. 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 E-mail: lsmollar@pomlaw.com INQUIRIES SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTED TO THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, THE DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL DATED: January 28, 2014 BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS LITHIA MOTORS INC: Accord Alaska Dealership Suit to Cost $6.2MM --------------------------------------------------------------- As of December 31, 2013, Lithia Motors, Inc., estimated costs of $6.2 million to settle all claims in the Alaska dealerships complaints and to pay plaintiffs' legal fees, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on February 21, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013. The Company states: "In December 2006, a class action suit was filed against us (Jackie Neese, et al vs. Lithia Chrysler Jeep of Anchorage, Inc., et al, Case No. 3AN-06-13341 CI), and in April 2007, a second class action suit (Jackie Neese, et al vs. Lithia Chrysler Jeep of Anchorage, Inc, et al, Case No. 3AN-06-4815 CI) was filed against us, in the Superior Court for the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District at Anchorage. These suits were subsequently consolidated. In the consolidated suit, plaintiffs alleged that we, through our Alaska dealerships, engaged in three practices that purportedly violate Alaska consumer protection laws: (i) charging customers dealer fees and costs (including document preparation fees) not disclosed in the advertised price, (ii) failing to disclose the acquisition, mechanical and accident history of used vehicles or whether the vehicles were originally manufactured for sale in a foreign country, and (iii) engaging in deception, misrepresentation and fraud by providing to customers financing from third parties without disclosing that we receive a fee or discount for placing that loan. The suit sought statutory damages of $500 for each violation or three times plaintiff's actual damages, whichever was greater, and attorney fees and costs. In June 2013, the parties agreed to mediate the claims. The mediation resulted in a settlement agreement that received the final approval of the Court on December 11, 2013. The Company added, "Under the settlement agreement, we agreed to reimburse plaintiffs' legal fees and to pay (i) $450 in the form of cash and vouchers and (ii) $3,000 for each claim representative. As of December 31, 2013, we estimated costs of $6.2 million to settle all claims against us and to pay plaintiffs' legal fees. The estimated costs are based on our assumptions of the final number of approved claims and a voucher redemption rate. We believe that these estimates are reasonable; however, actual cost could differ materially. We recorded this amount as a component of selling, general and administrative expense in our Consolidated Statements of Operations and, as of December 31, 2013, the amount was included as a component of accrued liabilities in our Consolidated Balance Sheets." Lithia Motors, Inc., is an operator of automotive franchises and a retailer of new and used vehicles and services. The Company sells new and used cars and light trucks and replacement parts; provides vehicle maintenance, warranty, paint and repair services; and arranges related financing, service contracts, protection products and credit insurance. As of February 24, 2012, it offered 25 brands of new vehicles and all brands of used vehicles in 86 stores in the United States and online at Lithia.com. Its dealerships are primarily located throughout the Western and Midwestern regions of the United States. In February 2014, the Company acquired Island Honda of Kahului, Hawaii. In February 2014, Lithia Motors Inc acquired Hammer Lane Volkswagen in Stockton, California. In March 2014, the Company acquired Honolulu Buick GMC Cadillac and Honolulu Volkswagen in Honolulu, Hawaii. MAZDA MOTOR: Faces Class Action in California Over Warranties ------------------------------------------------------------- Laura Castro, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that Mazda Motor of America Inc. has been hit with a class action in a California federal district court by consumers accusing the company of failing to honor customer warranties by not repairing defects in Mazda RX8 engines that cause them to flood. Plaintiff Christina Paschal filed the complaint on April 16 in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of herself and others who purchased or leased a 2004-2008 Mazda RX8 vehicle manufactured, distributed, and sold by Mazda and its subsidiaries. She alleges that at least 50,000 vehicles are a part of the class, and that Mazda has known about the defects since 2004, if not earlier. Ms. Paschal claims that due to defects in the design, manufacture and assembly of the RX8 rotary engines they are susceptible to engine flooding and fuel flooded spark plugs. When the engine floods, the cars won't start and costly repairs are needed. Ms. Paschal also alleges that although Mazda issued a warranty extension to owners and lessees of the class vehicles in order to address complaints about the engine defect, Mazda has never come up with an adequate remedy to eliminate the defect. The company also failed to pay for all repairs needed during the warranty extension time period due to the engine defect, she said. As a result of Mazda's misconduct, Ms. Paschal and class members have been harmed by incurring out of pocket unreimbursed costs and by not receiving full benefits of Mazda's extended engine core warranty including new spark plugs as part of the repair. The suit cites various state law violations by Mazda including the California Secret Warranty Law because Mazda allegedly refused to disclose to customers an adjustment program relating to the engine defect. The law requires in part that automakers must notify consumers whenever they enact "any program or policy that expands or extends the consumer's warranty beyond its stated limit." MB FINANCIAL: Faces Amended Complaint Over Taylor Capital Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- A consolidated amended class action complaint was filed on October 24, 2013, against MB Financial, Inc., alleging that the Taylor Capital Board breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the MB Financial Merger and that MB Financial aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty, according to MB Financial's Form 10-K filed on February 21, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013. On July 26, 2013, an action captioned James Sullivan v. Taylor Capital Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2013-CH17751 (the "Sullivan Action") was commenced against Taylor Capital, the board of directors of Taylor Capital (the "Taylor Capital Board"), and MB Financial (collectively, the "Defendants") in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (the "Court"), alleging that the Taylor Capital Board breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the pending MB Financial/Taylor Capital merger (the "Merger") and that MB Financial aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty. On August 8, 2013, a stockholder class action captioned Dennis Panozzo v. Taylor Capital Group, Inc., et. al., Case No. 2013-CH-18546 (the "Panozzo Action") was commenced against the Defendants in the Court making similar allegations in connection with the Merger. Subsequently, on September 10, 2013, the Sullivan Action and the Panozzo Action were consolidated pursuant to Court order under the first-filed Sullivan Action, Case No. 2013-CH17751 (as so consolidated, the "Action"). On October 24, 2013, the plaintiffs in the Action (the "Plaintiffs") filed a consolidated amended class action complaint, alleging that the Taylor Capital Board breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger, including by making incomplete and misleading disclosures concerning the Merger, and that MB Financial aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty. MB Financial, Inc. (MB Financial), is a financial holding company. The Company's primary market is the Chicago metropolitan area, in which MB Financial operates approximately 87 banking offices through its bank subsidiary, MB Financial Bank, N.A. (MB Financial Bank). Through MB Financial Bank, the Company offers a range of financial services primarily to small and middle market businesses and individuals in the markets that it serves. Its primary lines of business include commercial banking, retail banking and wealth management. As of December 31, 2011, the Company had total assets of $9.8 billion, deposits of $7.6 billion, stockholders' equity of $1.4 billion, and $3.6 billion of client assets under administration in its Wealth Management Group. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Made Unsolicited Calls, Class Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Robert Jordan, Sean Halbert and Dana Skelton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 3:14-cv- 00787-WHO (N.D. Cal., February 21, 2014) seeks to stop the Defendant's allged practice of making unsolicited phone calls to the cellular telephones of consumers nationwide and to obtain redress for all persons injured by its conduct. Nationstar Mortgage LLC is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business located at in Lewisville, Texas. Nationstar Mortgage is mortgage lender and servicer and does business throughout the United States and the state of California. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark Eisen, Esq. EDELSON PC 555 West Fifth Street, 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: (213) 533-4100 Facsimile: (213) 947-4251 E-mail: meisen@edelson.com - and - Steven L. Woodrow, Esq. Megan Lindsey, Esq. EDELSON PC 999 West 18th Street, Suite 3000 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 357-4878 Facsimile: (303) 446-9111 E-mail: swoodrow@edelson.com mlindsey@edelson.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Alicia Hwang, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 589-6380 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com ahwang@edelson.com - and - Stefan Coleman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, LLC 201 S Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (877) 333-9427 Facsimile: (888) 498-8946 E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com The Defendant is represented by: Abraham Joshua Colman, Esq. Felicia Yangru Yu, Esq. Jack J. Gindi, Esq. Raymond Yoon Ho Kim, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 355 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 457-8000 Facsimile: (213) 457-8080 E-mail: acolman@reedsmith.com fyu@reedsmith.com jgindi@reedsmith.com rkim@reedsmith.com NCL CORP: Plaintiffs File Writ of Certiorari -------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in a class action complaint against NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., a subsidiary NCL Corporation Ltd., have filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court seeking review of the appellate court's decision in October 2013, affirming the Court's rulings as to the denial of Class Certification and the trial verdict, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on February 21, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013. On July 2009, a class action complaint was filed against NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, on behalf of a purported class of crew members alleging inappropriate deductions of their wages pursuant to the Seaman's Wage Act and wrongful termination resulting in a loss of retirement benefits. In December 2010, the Court denied the plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. In February 2011, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration as to the Court's Order on Class Certification which was denied. The Court tried six individual plaintiffs' claims, and in September 2012 awarded wages aggregating approximately $100,000 to such plaintiffs. In October 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the Court's rulings as to the denial of Class Certification and the trial verdict. The Plaintiffs' have filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court seeking review of the appellate court's decision. We intend to continue to vigorously defend this action and are not able at this time to estimate the impact of these proceedings. Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. is a global cruise line operator, offering cruise experiences for travelers with a variety of itineraries in North America (including Alaska and Hawaii), the Mediterranean, the Baltic, Central America, Bermuda and the Caribbean. The Company offers a variety of cruises ranging from one day to three weeks. During the year ended December 31, 2010, the Company docked at over 125 ports worldwide, with itineraries originating from 17 ports of which ten were in North America. In June 2010, the Company took delivery of its largest cruise ship, Norwegian Epic (4,100 Berths), which offers 21 dining options. NCL CORP: Defends Stayed Crew Members' Wage Deduction Complaint --------------------------------------------------------------- NCL Corporation Ltd., is defending a stayed class action complaint alleging inappropriate deductions of crew members' wages pursuant to the Seaman's Wage Act and breach of contract, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on February 21, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013. In May 2011, a class action complaint was filed against NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, on behalf of a purported class of crew members alleging inappropriate deductions of their wages pursuant to the Seaman's Wage Act and breach of contract. In July 2012, this action was stayed by the Court pending the outcome of the litigation commenced with the class action complaint filed in July 2009. We are vigorously defending this action and are not able at this time to estimate the impact of these proceedings. Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. is a global cruise line operator, offering cruise experiences for travelers with a variety of itineraries in North America (including Alaska and Hawaii), the Mediterranean, the Baltic, Central America, Bermuda and the Caribbean. The Company offers a variety of cruises ranging from one day to three weeks. During the year ended December 31, 2010, the Company docked at over 125 ports worldwide, with itineraries originating from 17 ports of which ten were in North America. In June 2010, the Company took delivery of its largest cruise ship, Norwegian Epic (4,100 Berths), which offers 21 dining options. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Sued Over Murano's Defective Anchor Bracket ----------------------------------------------------------------- Diane Luebke and Michael Luebke, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Nissan North America, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-00141-wmc (W.D. Wis., February 21, 2014) is brought on behalf of similarly situated persons or entities, who purchased, own or leased a Nissan Murano, model years 2003 through at least 2008, with a defective anchor bracket on the left rear side of the driver's seat. Nissan North America, Inc. is a foreign corporation incorporated in California and headquartered in Tennessee. NNA designs, manufactures and sells automobiles and other vehicles under several prominent brand names, including the Nissan Murano, throughout the United States, including the state of Wisconsin. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert J. Gingras, Esq. Heath P. Straka, Esq. AXLEY BRYNELSON, LLP 8150 Excelsior Drive Madison, WI 53717 Telephone: (608) 833-2632 E-mail: gingras@gcllawyers.com straka@gcllawyers.com - and - Michael J. Modl, Esq. John C. Mitby, Esq. GINGRAS, CATES & LUEBKE 2 E. Mifflin Street, Ste. 200 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 257-5661 E-mail: mmodl@axley.com jmitby@axley.com NONNI'S FOODS: Removed "Larsen" Class Suit to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Larsen, et al. v. Nonni's Foods, LLC, et al., Case No. CGC-12-522317, was removed from the California Superior Court for the County of San Francisco to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv- 00790-JCS to the proceeding. The Complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the Magnuson- Moss Warranty Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, the California False Advertising Law, and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Each of the claims in the lawsuit is premised on an allegation that the Defendants' "all natural" biscotti products are mislabeled because they contain allegedly "synthetic" ingredients. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael D. Braun, Esq. BRAUN LAW GROUP, P.C. 10680 West Pico Boulevard, Suite 280 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 836-6000 Facsimile: (310) 836-6010 E-mail: mdb@braunlawgroup.com - and - Janet Lindner Spielberg, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JANET LINDNER SPIELBERG 12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 392-8801 Facsimile: (310) 278-5938 E-mail: jlspielberg@jlslp.com - and - Joseph N. Kraves, Jr., Esq. Wyatt A. Lison, Esq. STEMBER FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC Allegheny Building, 17th Floor 429 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 281-8400 Facsimile: (412) 281-1007 E-mail: wlison@fdpklaw.com The Defendants are represented by: C. Robert Boldt, Esq. Michael Shipley, Esq. Beth Marie Weinstein, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 333 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 680-8400 Facsimile: (213) 680-8500 E-mail: robert.boldt@kirkland.com beth.weinstein@kirkland.com michael.shipley@kirkland.com OMNICARE INC: Removed "Avilez" Class Suit to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Avilez, et al. v. Omnicare, Inc., et al., Case No. 37-2014-00084453-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv- 00409-GPC-JMA to the proceeding. The case asserts labor-related claims. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul David Jackson, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PAUL D. JACKSON 10951 Sorrento Valley Road, Suite 1-G San Diego, CA 92121-1622 Telephone: (858) 552-4900 Facsimile: (858) 552-4904 E-mail: paul@jacksonlaw.biz - and - Raul Cadena, Esq. CADENA CHURCHILL, LLP 701 "B" Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 546-0888 Facsimile: (619) 923-3208 E-mail: rcadena@cadenachurchill.com The Defendants are represented by: Chad Daniel Bernard, Esq. John Paul Nordlund, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 225 Broadway, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 573-4915 Facsimile: (619) 573-4901 E-mail: BernardC@jacksonlewis.com John.Nordlund@jacksonlewis.com ONECHICAGO LLC: Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismisses Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ The City of Providence, Rhode Island and OneChicago, LLC jointly announced that plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed OneChicago from the securities class action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of the retirement system for the City of Providence, Rhode Island. The class action was filed on behalf of all investors who purchased and/or sold shares of stock in the United States between April 18, 2009 and the present on public stock exchanges or alternate trading venues. In dismissing the case, the City of Providence acknowledges that OneChicago is not involved in the activity which is the subject of the complaint, which charges the defendants with a scheme whereby the national securities exchanges, together with a defendant class comprised of the brokerage firms, are diverting billions of dollars to themselves by electronic front-running, rebate arbitrage, slow-market arbitrage, layering and contemporaneous trading with their clients and scores of sophisticated high frequency trading firms. In contrast, OneChicago is an equity finance exchange providing a marketplace for trading security futures, including single stock futures (SSFs). SSFs are a financing tool that allow market participants to carry equity positions at more favorable financing rates due to the competitively derived interest rate which is embedded into the price. OneChicago paid no amount for the dismissal of the claims. PDC ENERGY: Merger Complaint Scheduled for Trial This Month ----------------------------------------------------------- Jury trial is scheduled for May 2014, on the class action against PDC Energy, Inc., alleging that the disclosures in the proxy statements issued in connection with the mergers were inadequate, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on February 21, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013. The Company states: "In December 2011, the Company and its wholly-owned merger subsidiary were served with an alleged class action on behalf of certain former partnership unit holders, related to its partnership repurchases completed by mergers in 2010 and 2011. The action was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and is titled Schulein v. Petroleum Development Corp. The complaint primarily alleges that the disclosures in the proxy statements issued in connection with the mergers were inadequate, and a state law breach of fiduciary duty. In June 2012, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss. In January 2014, the plaintiffs were conditionally certified as a class by the court. Jury trial is scheduled for May 2014. We have not recorded a liability for claims pending because we believe we have good legal defenses to the asserted claims and it is not possible for management to reasonably estimate monetary damages resulting from this claim." PDC Energy, Inc. (PDC) doing business as PDC Energy, is a domestic independent exploration and production company, which acquires, develops, explores, and produces natural gas, natural gas liquids (NGLs), and crude oil. Its Western Operating Region is focused on development in the Wattenberg Field in Colorado, particularly in the liquid-rich horizontal Niobrara play and on the ongoing development of refractures and recompletions of its Wattenberg wells. In its Eastern Operating Region, it is focused on development activity in the liquid-rich portion of the Utica Shale play in Ohio. The Company owns an interest in approximately 7,200 gross producing wells and maintained an average production rate of 135.6 One million cubic feet of natural gas volume (MMcfe) per day for the year ended December 31, 2012, which was comprised of 65.3% natural gas, 10.2% NGLs and 24.5% crude oil. On June 18, 2013, PDC Energy Inc announced that it has sold its non-core Colorado natural gas assets. PEABODY ENERGY: Agrees to Dismiss Benefit Plans Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------- Peabody Energy Corporation and the plaintiffs on December 20, 2013, filed a joint stipulation with the Court dismissing the appeal as to the Company on the complaint requiring the maintenance of certain Patriot benefit plans, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on February 21, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013. On October 23, 2012, eight individual plaintiffs and the United Mine Workers of America filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia against the Company, one of its subsidiaries and an unrelated coal company (Lowe et al. v. Peabody Holding Company, LLC, et al.). The lawsuit sought to have the court obligate the defendants to maintain certain Patriot benefit plans at their current levels and to find the defendants' actions in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. On January 7, 2013, the Company defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The plaintiffs thereafter amended their complaint to include new allegations and name two more individuals as plaintiffs. The Company defendants updated their motion to dismiss to respond to the new allegations and filed it with the Court. On September 27, 2013, the Court granted the Company defendants' motion to dismiss, and plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. On December 20, 2013, after the effective date of the settlement agreement, the parties filed a joint stipulation with the Court dismissing the appeal as to the Company defendants with prejudice. Peabody Energy Corporation (Peabody) is a private-sector coal company. The Company owns interests in 28 active coal mining operations located in the United States and Australia. The Company has a majority interest in 27 of those coal operations and a 50% equity interests in the Middlemount Mine in Australia. The Company also owns a noncontrolling interest in a mining operation in Venezuela. In addition to the Company's mining operations, the Company markets and broker coals from its operations and other coal producers, both as principal and agent, and trade coal and freight-related contracts through trading and business offices. The Company conducts business through four principal segments: Western United States. Mining, Midwestern U.S. Mining, Australian Mining and Trading and Brokerage. The Company's fifth segment, Corporate and Other, includes mining and export/transportation joint ventures, activities associated with certain energy-related commercial matters, Btu Conversion. PFIZER INC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Design of Lipitor -------------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca J. Larimer and Daniel S. Larimer, 15240 Old McArthur Road, Logan, Ohio 43138 v. Pfizer Inc., 235 East 42nd Street, New York, New York 10017, Case No. 2:14-cv-00192-MHW-NMK (S.D. Ohio, February 21, 2014) is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs as a proximate result of the Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, testing, and labeling, of Lipitor (also known chemically as Atorvastatin Calcium). Lipitor is prescribed to reduce the amount of cholesterol and other fatty substances in the blood. Lipitor is an HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor and a member of the drug class known as statins. New York-based Pfizer Inc. produces, manufactures, distributes, advertises, promotes, supplies and sells Lipitor to distributors and retailers for resale to physicians, hospitals, pharmacies, and medical practitioners. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Penny Unkraut Hendy, Esq. SCHACHTER, HENDY & JOHNSON P.S.C. 909 Wright Summit Parkway, Suite 210 Ft. Wright, KY 41011 Telephone: (859) 578-4444 Facsimile: (859) 578-4440 E-mail: phendy@pschachter.com - and - Robert K. Jenner, Esq. Lindsey M. Craig, Esq. JANET, JENNER & SUGGS, LLC 1777 Reisterstown Road, Suite 165 Baltimore, MD 21208 Telephone: (410) 653-3200 Facsimile: (410) 653-9030 E-mail: RJenner@myadvocates.com LCraig@myadvocates.com The Defendant is represented by: Julie A. Callsen, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 950 Main Avenue, Suite 100 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 696-2286 Facsimile: (216) 592-5009 E-mail: julie.callsen@tuckerellis.com PFIZER INC: Faces "Brown" Suit in Louisiana Over Lipitor Drug ------------------------------------------------------------- Barbara J. Brown, 643 Sotogrande Street, Grand Prairie, Texas 75057 v. Pfizer Inc., 235 East 42nd Street, New York, New York 10017, Case No. 2:14-cv-00399-CJB-DEK (E.D. La., February 21, 2014) is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a proximate result of the Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, testing, and labeling, of Lipitor (also known chemically as Atorvastatin Calcium). Lipitor is prescribed to reduce the amount of cholesterol and other fatty substances in the blood. Lipitor is an HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor and a member of the drug class known as statins. New York-based Pfizer Inc. produces, manufactures, distributes, advertises, promotes, supplies and sells Lipitor to distributors and retailers for resale to physicians, hospitals, pharmacies, and medical practitioners. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen J. Herman, Esq. HERMAN HERMAN & KATZ, LLC 820 O'Keefe Avenue New Orleans, LA 70113 Telephone: (504) 581-4892 Facsimile: (504) 561-6024 E-mail: Sherman@hhklawfirm.com - and - Brad Seidel, Esq. NIX, PATTERSON & ROACH, L.L.P. 3600 N. Capital of Texas Highway Building B, Suite 350 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 328-5333 E-mail: bseidel@npraustin.com - and - Robert K. Jenner, Esq. Lindsey M. Craig, Esq. JANET, JENNER & SUGGS, LLC 1777 Reisterstown Road, Suite 165 Baltimore, MD 21208 Telephone: (410) 653-3200 Facsimile: (410) 653-9030 E-mail: RJenner@myadvocates.com LCraig@myadvocates.com - and - Austin Tighe, Esq. Vic Feazell, Esq. Eleeza Johnson, Esq. FEAZELL & TIGHE, LLP 6618 Sitio Del Rio Boulevard, Building C-101 Austin, TX 78730 Telephone: (512) 372-8100 Facsimile: (512) 372-8140 E-mail: austin@feazell-tighe.com vic@feazell-tighe.com eleeza@feazell-tighe.com PFIZER INC: Faces "Rayford" Suit Alleging Lipitor-Related Injury ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kim Rayford, 222 Woodhills Boulevard, West Carrolton, Ohio 45449- 2401 v. Pfizer Inc., 235 East 42nd Street, New York, New York 10017, Case No. 3:14-cv-00059-TMR (S.D. Ohio, February 21, 2014) is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a proximate result of the Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, testing, and labeling, of Lipitor (also known chemically as Atorvastatin Calcium). Lipitor is prescribed to reduce the amount of cholesterol and other fatty substances in the blood. Lipitor is an HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor and a member of the drug class known as statins. New York-based Pfizer Inc. produces, manufactures, distributes, advertises, promotes, supplies and sells Lipitor to distributors and retailers for resale to physicians, hospitals, pharmacies, and medical practitioners. The Plaintiff is represented by: Penny Unkraut Hendy, Esq. SCHACHTER, HENDY & JOHNSON P.S.C. 909 Wright Summit Parkway, Suite 210 Ft. Wright, KY 41011 Telephone: (859) 578-4444 Facsimile: (859) 578-4440 E-mail: phendy@pschachter.com - and - Robert K. Jenner, Esq. Lindsey M. Craig, Esq. JANET, JENNER & SUGGS, LLC 1777 Reisterstown Road, Suite 165 Baltimore, MD 21208 Telephone: (410) 653-3200 Facsimile: (410) 653-9030 E-mail: RJenner@myadvocates.com LCraig@myadvocates.com The Defendant is represented by: Julie A. Callsen, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 950 Main Avenue, Suite 100 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 696-2286 Facsimile: (216) 592-5009 E-mail: julie.callsen@tuckerellis.com PFIZER INC: Sued Over Alleged Injuries Caused by Lipitor Drug ------------------------------------------------------------- Manuela T. Castillo and Ramiro A. Castillo, 5516 South Mason Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60638 v. Pfizer Inc., 235 East 42nd Street, New York, New York 10017, Case No. 1:14-cv-01300 (N.D. Ill., February 21, 2014) is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs as a proximate result of the Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, testing, and labeling, of Lipitor (also known chemically as Atorvastatin Calcium). Lipitor is prescribed to reduce the amount of cholesterol and other fatty substances in the blood. Lipitor is an HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor and a member of the drug class known as statins. New York-based Pfizer Inc. produces, manufactures, distributes, advertises, promotes, supplies and sells Lipitor to distributors and retailers for resale to physicians, hospitals, pharmacies, and medical practitioners. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lawrence B. Finn, Esq. THE FINN LAW FIRM 115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 962-0425 Facsimile: (312) 332-3550 E-mail: lfinn@finnlawassociates.com - and - Robert K. Jenner, Esq. Lindsey M. Craig, Esq. JANET, JENNER & SUGGS, LLC 1777 Reisterstown Road, Suite 165 Baltimore, MD 21208 Telephone: (410) 653-3200 Facsimile: (410) 653-9030 E-mail: RJenner@myadvocates.com LCraig@myadvocates.com - and - Brad Seidel, Esq. NIX, PATTERSON & ROACH, L.L.P. 3600 N. Capital of Texas Highway Building B, Suite 350 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 328-5333 E-mail: bseidel@npraustin.com - and - Austin Tighe, Esq. Vic Feazell, Esq. Eleeza Johnson, Esq. FEAZELL & TIGHE, LLP 6618 Sitio Del Rio Boulevard, Building C-101 Austin, TX 78730 Telephone: (512) 372-8100 Facsimile: (512) 372-8140 E-mail: austin@feazell-tighe.com vic@feazell-tighe.com eleeza@feazell-tighe.com The Defendant is represented by: Andrew H. Schapiro, Esq. Thomas William Cushing, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 500 W Madison St., Suite 2450 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 705-7400 Facsimile: (312) 705-7401 E-mail: andrewschapiro@quinnemanuel.com thomascushing@quinnemanuel.com POLYCOM INC: Lead Plaintiff Named in N.D. Cal. Shareholder Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- A U.S. Court on December 13, 2013, appointed a lead plaintiff and approved lead and liaison counsel to a purported shareholder class action suit against Polycom, Inc., alleging among others things that the Company failed to disclose information regarding its business, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on February 21, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013. On July 26, 2013, a purported shareholder class action suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Polycom and certain of its current and former officers and directors. The lawsuit alleges that, between July 24, 2012 and July 23, 2013, Polycom issued materially false and misleading statements or failed to disclose information regarding Polycom's business, operational and compliance policies, including with respect to its former Chief Executive Officer's expense submissions and the Company's internal controls, alleges that the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading, and alleges violations of the federal securities laws and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. On December 13, 2013, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved lead and liaison counsel. Pursuant to the schedule entered by the Court, the lead plaintiff was to file an amended consolidated complaint by February 24, 2014. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate any range of reasonably possible loss relating to the action. Polycom, Inc. is a provider of unified communications (UC) solutions and a provider of telepresence, video, voice and infrastructure solutions based on open standards. With Polycom RealPresence video and voice solutions, from infrastructure to endpoints, people all over the world can collaborate face-to-face without being in the same physical location. The Company has three operating segments: Americas, which consist of North, Central and Latin Americas; Europe, Middle East and Africa, and Asia Pacific. The products and solutions include Network Infrastructure, UC Group Systems and UC Personal Devices, which includes desktop video devices and wireless local area network products. On March 21, 2011, the Company acquired Accordent Technologies, Inc. On July 27, 2011, it acquired Hewlett-Packard Company's (HP) Visual Collaboration (HPVC) business, including the Halo Products and Managed Services business. Effective March 1, 2013, it acquired red Sentri Inc. SANDISK CORP: Ritz Camera Seeks to File 4th Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------- Ritz Camera & Image, LLC on December 17, 2013, sought leave to file a fourth amended complaint alleging that SanDisk Corporation violated federal antitrust law by conspiring to monopolize and monopolizing the market for flash memory products, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on February 21, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013. On June 25, 2010, Ritz filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the "District Court"), alleging that the Company violated federal antitrust law by conspiring to monopolize and monopolizing the market for flash memory products. The lawsuit captioned Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. SanDisk Corporation, Inc. and Eliyahou Harari, purports to be on behalf of direct purchasers of flash memory products sold by the Company and joint ventures controlled by the Company from June 25, 2006 through the present. The complaint alleges that the Company created and maintained a monopoly by fraudulently obtaining patents and using them to restrain competition and by allegedly converting other patents for its competitive use. On February 24, 2011, the District Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part the Company's motion to dismiss which resulted in Dr. Harari being dismissed as a defendant. On September 19, 2011, the Company filed a petition for permission to file an interlocutory appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the "Federal Circuit") for the portion of the District Court's Order denying the Company's motion to dismiss based on Ritz's lack of standing to pursue Walker Process antitrust claims. On October 27, 2011, the District Court administratively closed the case pending the Federal Circuit's ruling on the Company's petition. On November 20, 2012, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court's order denying SanDisk's motion to dismiss. On December 2, 2012, the Federal Circuit issued its mandate returning the case to the District Court. Discovery is now open in the District Court. On February 20, 2013, Ritz filed a motion requesting that Albert Giuliano, the Chapter 7 Trustee of the Ritz bankruptcy estate, be substituted as the plaintiff in this case, which the District Court granted on July 5, 2013. On October 1, 2013, the District Court granted the Trustee's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, which adds CPM Electronics Inc. and E.S.E. Electronics, Inc. as named plaintiffs. On December 17, 2013, Ritz sought leave to file a fourth amended complaint, which would add a cause of action for attempted monopolization and add another named plaintiff. SanDisk Corporation designs, develops and manufactures data storage solutions in a range of form factors using its flash memory, controller and firmware technologies. The Company's solutions include removable cards, embedded products, universal serial bus (USB), drives, digital media players, wafers and components. Its removable cards are used in a range of consumer electronics devices, such as mobile phones, digital cameras, gaming devices and laptop computers. Its embedded flash products are used in mobile phones, tablets, ultrabooks, eReaders, global positioning system (GPS), devices, gaming systems, imaging devices and computing platforms. For computing platforms, it provides storage solutions known as solid-state drives (SSDs) that can be used in lieu of hard disk drives. In August 2013, the Company announced that it has completed its acquisition of SMART Storage Systems. SANDISK CORP: Oral Argument Held Dec. 5 in Calif. Antitrust Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Oral argument took place on December 5, 2013, on the appeal for SanDisk Corporation's motion to dismiss a complaint alleging various claims against the Company under federal antitrust law pursuant, among others, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on February 21, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013. On March 15, 2011, a putative class action captioned Oliver v. SD- 3C LLC, et al was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the "District Court") on behalf of a nationwide class of indirect purchasers of SD cards alleging various claims against the Company, SD-3C, Panasonic, Toshiba, and Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. under federal antitrust law pursuant to Section 1 of the Sherman Act, California antirust and unfair competition laws, and common law. The complaint seeks an injunction of the challenged conduct, dissolution of "the cooperation agreements, joint ventures and/or cross-licenses alleged herein," treble damages, restitution, disgorgement, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs allege that the Company (along with the other members of SD-3C) conspired to artificially inflate the royalty costs associated with manufacturing SD cards in violation of federal and California antitrust and unfair competition laws, which in turn allegedly caused plaintiffs to pay higher prices for SD cards. The allegations are similar to, and incorporate by reference the complaint in the Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Panasonic Corporation; Panasonic Corporation of North America; and SD-3C LLC. On May 21, 2012, the District Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs have appealed. Briefing on the appeal was completed on June 21, 2013. Oral argument took place on December 5, 2013. SanDisk Corporation designs, develops and manufactures data storage solutions in a range of form factors using its flash memory, controller and firmware technologies. The Company's solutions include removable cards, embedded products, universal serial bus (USB), drives, digital media players, wafers and components. Its removable cards are used in a range of consumer electronics devices, such as mobile phones, digital cameras, gaming devices and laptop computers. Its embedded flash products are used in mobile phones, tablets, ultrabooks, eReaders, global positioning system (GPS), devices, gaming systems, imaging devices and computing platforms. For computing platforms, it provides storage solutions known as solid-state drives (SSDs) that can be used in lieu of hard disk drives. In August 2013, the Company announced that it has completed its acquisition of SMART Storage Systems. SNA SHEPHERD ENTERPRISES: Sued for Failure to Pay Minimum Wage -------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Ann Branham on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SNA Shepherd Enterprises Company et al, Case No. 4:14-cv-00439 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 21, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 2011 et seq., specifically its failure to pay employees, including the Plaintiff, the minimum wage for all hours worked at the rate mandated and failure to pay the correct rate for all hours worked over 40 in a week, in violation of the over time provision. SNA Shepherd Enterprises Company is a Texas corporation with principal place of business at 7322 Southwest Freeway, Suite 1870, Houston, Texas 77074. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex Mabry, Esq. THE MABRY LAW FIRM, PLLC 7155 Old Katy Road Ste N235 Houston, TX 77024 Telephone: (832) 350-8335 Facsimile: (832) 350-8335 E-mail: amabry@mabrylaw.com T&T HART: Sued for Failing to Pay Overtime Wages Pursuant to FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Davis, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. T&T Hart, Inc.; Anthony Lee Hart; and Tina Hart, Case No. 1:14- cv-00525-RWS (N.D. Ga., February 21, 2014) is brought for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. T&T Hart, Inc. is a domestic Georgia corporation headquartered in Douglasville, Georgia. The Individual Defendants are directors or officers of the Company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Kerr, Esq. Winfield Murray, Esq. MAYS & KERR LLC 235 Peachtree Street NE North Tower, Suite 202 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 410-7998 Facsimile: (877) 813-1845 E-mail: jeff@maysandkerr.com winfield@maysandkerr.com The Defendants are represented by: Alan Howard Garber, Esq. Marc N. Garber, Esq. THE GARBER LAW FIRM, P.C. 4994 Lower Roswell Road, NE, Suite 14 Marietta, GA 30068 Telephone: (678) 560-6685 Facsimile: (678) 560-5067 E-mail: ahgarber@garberlaw.net mngarber@garberlaw.net TARGET CORP: Faces "Noe" Suit in Oklahoma Over Security Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- Cynthia S. Noe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Target Corporation, a Minnesota Corporation, Case No. 4:14-cv-00083-GKF-TLW (N.D. Okla., February 21, 2014) arises from the data security breach at Target stores. The Plaintiff is represented by: Cornelius P. Dukelow, Esq. ABINGTON COLE 320 S Boston Ave., Suite 1130 Tulsa, OK 74103 Telephone: (918) 588-3400 E-mail: cdukelow@abingtonlaw.com - and - William Bernard Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 Facsimile: (405) 239-2112 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Scott Randall Rowland, Esq. GABLE & GOTWALS (TULSA) 100 W 5th St., Suite 1100 Tulsa, OK 74103-4217 Telephone: (918) 595-4800 Facsimile: (918) 595-4990 E-mail: srowland@gablelaw.com TOSHIBA AMERICA: Falsely Marketed LED TVs & LED HDTVs, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Stacey Pierce-Nunes, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-00796-DMR (N.D. Cal., February 21, 2014) is brought to recover damages and restitution in connection with the purchase of Toshiba-brand televisions that were falsely marketed and advertised by Toshiba as "LED TVs," "LED HDTVs" or "LED televisions." The televisions at issue are not "LED TVs," but instead are LCD TVs that use light emitting diodes (LEDs) instead of cold cathode fluorescent lights (CCFLs) to light the liquid crystal display (LCD) panel that is present in each of the televisions at issue, Ms. Pierce-Nunes contends. Toshiba is a California corporation with its principal place of business located in Irvine, California. Toshiba distributes and markets and directs the marketing of so called "LED TVs" within this district, the State of California, and throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis O. Scarpulla, Esq. Judith A. Zahid, Esq. Patrick B. Clayton, Esq. ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 693-0700 Facsimile: (415) 693-0770 E-mail: fscarpulla@zelle.com jzahid@zelle.com pclayton@zelle.com - and - Jonathan Shub, Esq. Scott A. George, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 1515 Market Street, Suite 1380 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 564-2300 Facsimile: (215) 851-8029 E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com sgeorge@seegerweiss.com - and - Hayward J. Kaiser, Esq. MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP 11377 West Olympic Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 312-2000 Facsimile: (310) 312-3100 E-mail: hjk@msk.com - and - Daniel R. Shulman, Esq. Gregory R. Merz, Esq. Kathryn J. Bergstrom, Esq. Dean C. Eyler, Esq. GRAY PLANT & MOOTY 500 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 632-3000 Facsimile: (612) 632-4444 E-mail: daniel.shulman@gpmlaw.com gregory.merz@gpmlaw.com katie.bergstrom@gpmlaw.com dean.eyler@gpmlaw.com UNITEDHEALTHCARE INC: Faces Class Actions Over Unsolicited Faxes ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Madison-St. Clair Record reports that a local chiropractor has filed two putative class action lawsuits, alleging he was sent unsolicited faxes on his fax machine, costing him paper and ink. Dr. Robert L. Meinders filed suit April 3 in the St. Clair County Circuit Court against UnitedHealthCare Inc., UnitedHealthCare of Illinois Inc. and John Does 1-12. The Record reported on the other case Meinders filed against The Emery Corp., doing business as Sterling Management Systems. In both cases, Meinders, who operates the Back Pain Clinic in Belleville, says the unsolicited faxes violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. "Unsolicited faxes damage their recipients," the suits state. "A junk fax recipient loses the use of its fax machine, paper and ink toner. An unsolicited fax wastes the recipient's valuable time that would have been spent on something else." Dr. Meinders claims he received the faxes on March 2, 2013, and at various other times throughout 2013. He says he was not the only one to receive faxes. Dr. Meinders is asking the judge to certify his complaints as class action lawsuits and is seeking damages of $500 to $1,500 for each violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. He is also seeking an injunction prohibiting the defendants from engaging in the statutory violations at issue, plus costs and other relief the court deems just. He is being represented by Phillip A. Bock and James M. Smith of Bock and Hatch in Chicago and Robert J. Sprague of Sprague and Urban in Belleville. St. Clair County Circuit Court case numbers 14-L-256, 14-L-255. WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Faces Securities Class Action Amid CFPB Probe --------------------------------------------------------------- Ed Beeson, writing for Law360, reports that World Acceptance Corp., a top provider of short-term loans to low-income borrowers, on April 23 was slapped with a securities class action after the disclosure of a recent U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau probe caused its stock to tumble. Plaintiff Edna Selan Epstein also took aim at current and former World Acceptance executives, including chief executive A. Alexander Mclean III, accusing them of violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements about the company's lending practices and its compliance with related federal laws. Her complaint cites both corporate disclosures and public comments made by World Acceptance executives prior to the CFPB probe as evidence of her charges "because defendants knew that World was non-compliant with government regulations and guidance." In March, the Greenville, S.C.-based lender said it had received a Civil Investigative Demand from the CFPB and that the regulator was investigating possible wrongdoing by finance companies and others. The agency made a broad request for World Acceptance documents, the company added, and asked it to answer interrogatories and provide written reports about its loans and other aspects of its business. "Negative reactions to the company's press release followed shortly thereafter," Ms. Epstein said in her complaint, filed in South Carolina federal court on behalf of herself and others. The stock suffered a nearly 20 percent drop, falling to $78.25 on March 13 -- the day it disclosed the probe -- from $97.32 a day earlier. Ms. Epstein maintains that the company downplayed any risks, with the CEO allegedly telling investors on an earnings call that he anticipated a CFPB visit at some point but expected no problems to arise, according to the complaint. The investor argued that the company and its executives should not be able to rely on the statutory safe harbor given to forward-looking statements because these would not apply to the allegedly false statements the complaint describes. The complaint also notes that the company's statements were made against the backdrop of a May 2013 investigative report by ProPublica. In it, the media outlet described how World Acceptance's installment loans -- which are paid back over time - - and other products effectively trapped many customers in a cycle of spiraling debt. "The investigative report by ProPublica further characterized World as a predatory business, persuading customers to renew loans and purchase unnecessary insurance so that World can reap the lion's share of loan charges while keeping borrowers on the hook for the majority of the principal amount, with borrowers renewing several times," she wrote. World Acceptance operates more than 1,200 locations in 13 states and in Mexico and specializes in lending to people who may not otherwise qualify for financing. A spokeswoman for the company did not return a call seeking comment on Epstein's lawsuit. In its statement about the CFPB request, the company said it believes its marketing and lending practices are lawful. Edna Selan Epstein and the prospective class are represented by Badge Humphries of Motley Rice LLC; Joseph E. White III and Lester R. Hooker of Saxena White PA; and Katherine M. Ryan and Richard A. Maniskas of Ryan & Maniskas LLP. Defense counsel was not immediately available for World Acceptance Corp., CEO A. Alexander Mclean III, chief financial officer and treasurer John L. Calmes Jr., former CFO and treasurer Kelly M. Malson, and former president and chief operating officer Mark Roland. The case is Epstein v. World Acceptance Corporation et al., case number 6:14-cv-01606, in the U.S. District Court of South Carolina. * Courts Resort to Cy Pres Awards Without Legislative Guidance -------------------------------------------------------------- Charlotte Santry, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that courts are resorting to cy-pres awards without scrutinizing lawyers' attempts to locate class members, a major study of Canadian class action settlements has found. This can result in access to justice being "turned on its head," according to author Jasminka Kalajdzic, an associate professor at the University of Windsor's Faculty of Law. Cy-pres awards allow class action settlements to be given to charities when there is no practical way of distributing all the funds to individual plaintiffs. A draft paper by Ms. Kalajdzic, published on April 22, says: "Courts have adopted cy-pres as a second best alternative to direct compensation of class members, and have done so with only occasional academic scrutiny and virtually no legislative guidance." Ms. Kalajdzic calls her study "the most comprehensive collection of information regarding the nature and extent of cy-pres use in Canada." It reveals that, from 2001 to 2012, cy-pres was used in at least 65 class actions. Around $100 million of class funds were given to charitable organizations via "fixed" cy-pres awards -- where the recipient, and often the payment amount, is known when the settlement is reached. The amount paid through "residual" cy-pres awards -- where unclaimed settlement funds are paid to charities -- is unknown. The study found no evidence in the 65 class actions that courts had seriously questioned parties' claims that money could not be paid directly to class members. Ms. Kalajdzic says: "This is money that in theory belongs to class members who were wronged by defendants' conduct; the money is given to charities or non-profit organizations because the judge and lawyers have determined it is too difficult or expensive to give the money directly to class members. "In a sense, cy-pres is a form of privatized distributive justice." Most cy-pres awards are made in Ontario, where s. 24 and s. 26 of the Class Proceedings Act are widely interpreted as authorizing the distributions. In a June 2013 Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision, Sorensen v. easyhome Ltd., Justice Paul Perell wrote: "As a general rule, cy-pres distributions should not be approved where direct compensation to class members is practicable." But, highlights Ms. Kalajdzic's paper, there is no clear case law on how "impracticability" should be defined. "Judges accept, with little or any discussion, the submissions or evidence that identifying class members is 'cost-prohibitive,'" it states. In contrast, U.S. courts are "increasingly vigilant about counsel using cy-pres relief." The paper recommends: "Judges must hold both plaintiff and defense counsel's feet to the fire." The report also claims many cy-pres distributions benefit causes with little connection to the nature of the class action. It proposes courts ensure there is a proper "nexus" between the members and the cy-pres recipient. Where a portion of the settlement remains unclaimed, the paper suggests this could be apportioned to successful claimants rather than going to an "uninjured third party." Koskie Minsky LLP partner Kirk Baert agrees cy-pres should have a "proper evidentiary basis," but feels the system is working well overall. "I think that class counsel are in the best position to make that assessment [on the feasibility of compensating class members] and their recommendation should be given serious weight by the judge," he says. Gowling LaFleur Henderson LLP partner Scott Kugler -- scott.kugler@gowlings.com -- said in a recent Canadian Lawyer article that courts are becoming increasingly insistent that settlement proceeds are actually paid to class members. * New Arizona Law Allows Foreclosure Suits Against Home Builders ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kristena Hansen, writing for Phoenix Business Journal, reports that starting Jan. 1, speculative home builders will no longer find refuge under Arizona's anti-deficiency law. On April 22, Gov. Jan Brewer signed House Bill 2018, which enables lenders to sue builders that undergo foreclosure for deficiency, or the difference between what's still owed on the mortgage and the price at which the house was sold in foreclosure. HB 2018 -- sponsored by Rep. Phil Lovas, R-Peoria - - applies to spec or custom home builders who obtain mortgages for the purpose of constructing new homes for sale to another person, but the homes are not completed or occupied at the time of foreclosure. Under current Arizona law, spec builders and traditional homeowners cannot be sued for deficiency. Arizona is among only 12 states with an anti-deficiency law, and lenders have been in a knock-down, drag-out fight with real estate professionals since the housing crash over its fairness. Last year, for instance, Arizona lawmakers considered legislation that would have expanded anti-deficiency protection to homeowners undergoing a short sale. The Arizona Association of Realtors rallied for its passing, while the Arizona Bankers Association lobbied hard against it. The bill ultimately died at the legislature. This year, the political pendulum swung the other way, with HB 2018 actually narrowing who the law protects. Another shift this year was the fact that the banker and Realtor groups -- along with the Home Builders Association of Central Arizona -- were in agreement over the changes. "We drafted it together," said Paul Hickman, president and CEO of the Arizona Bankers Association. While HB 2018 doesn't go as far as Mr. Hickman wanted, it was a compromise and still accomplishes his goal of shifting some of the burden and risk away from lenders. Nicole LaSlavic, a lobbyist for the Arizona Association of Realtors, agreed the bill was a compromise, one the association supported largely because there won't be any impact to the average homeowner. "It maintains the anti-deficiency statutes as they were passed in 1971 and does not remove the protections (homeowners) would have," Ms. LaSlavic said. Mr. Hickman said spec and custom builders were targeted because they have and can "cause irreparable harm" to the small-and medium-sized banks they have often turned to for financing, Mr. Hickman said. "They were not intended to benefit from anti-deficiency protection . . . they used it as a shield," Mr. Hickman said. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2014. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200. * * * End of Transmission * * *