/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140515.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, May 15, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 96 Headlines ACADEMY ENGRAVING: State Farm Cleared in Junk Fax Suit AK STEEL: Suit v. AK RAPP Now Concluded After Settlement Payments AK STELL: Court Approves Settlement With Direct Purchasers ALAFAYA WOODS: July 7 Settlement Claim Submission Deadline Set AMERICAN EAGLE: Delivery Drivers Sue Over Improper Deductions AMERICAN INT'L: Accused of Underreporting of WC Insurance Premium ANCHORFREE INC: Falsely Marketed Hotspot Software, Suit Says ASSOCIATED BANC-CORP: Faces FLSA "Violation" Suit in Wisconsin ASSOCIATED MATERIALS: Settles Warranty Suit by Homeowners BIOMET INC: Law Firm Seeks Class Action Status for Implant Suit BIRD TECHNOLOGIES: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act BLACK PEPPER PHO: Servers Sue in Colo. Over Reduced Minimum Wage BLYTH INC: Wins Dismissal of Securities Lawsuit in Connecticut BURLINGTON STORES: Sued for Not Paying OT for All Hours Worked C&C PUMPING: Faces "Aiken" Class Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA CADENCE PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Planned Mallinckrodt Merger CADENCE PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Wolfson" Suit Over Planned Merger CAMBREX CORP: Health Care Insurers' Suit Pending in Columbia CASH AMERICA: Pays $18.3MM Part of Settlement in Suit Over Loans CASH AMERICA: Faces Suits in Ohio Over Alleged Violation of OMLA CATERPILLAR INC: MY22007 CAT Engines' CRS Is Defective, Suit Says CIGNA HEALTH: Can't Compel Arbitration, Third Circuit Rules CITIGROUP INC: Faces Consolidated Suit Over Rate Manipulation CITIGROUP INC: Still Faces "Larsen" Suit Over Rate Manipulation COLUMBIA LABORATORIES: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal CONN'S INC: Two Law Firms File Securities Class Action in Texas CONNECT AMERICA.COM: Class Has Not Received OT Wages, Suit Says CVS CAREMARK: Faces Class Action Over Vitamin E Pills Labeling DAVITA HEALTHCARE: Reaches Agreement to Settle Calif. Labor Suit DIRECTV INC: Calif. Appellate Opinion Raises Issue on Concepcion DOW JONES: Illegally Disclosed User Information, Suit Says DYNEGY INC: Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Class Action E-Z RENT A CAR: Violates FACTA Amendment to FCRA, Fla. Suit Says EAST COAST WALL: Class Seeks to Recover Overtime Compensation EAST TEXAS INSULATORS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Worker Claims EL CIBAENO BAKERY: Fails to Pay for OT Work, "Luciano" Suit Says ENBRIDGE ENERGY: Faces Suits Over Line 6B Crude Oil Release ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Settles Transvaginal Mesh Suit for $830MM ERNST & YOUNG: CalPERS Wins $12.75-Mil. Settlement in Lehman Suit FACEBOOK INC: Ninth Circuit Tosses Federal Privacy Claims FLOWERS HOSPITAL: Faces Class Action Over Patient Data Breach GENERAL MOTORS: General Counsel Gets Mix Views Amid Recall Probe GREAT SOUTHERN: Class Action Settlement Talks Underway HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES: Removed "Goldberg" Suit to D. New Jersey HERB CHAMBERS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Overtime HESS CORPORATION: Settles Royalty Owners' Class Action HIKO ENERGY: Faces "Chen" Suit Over Deceptive Pricing Practices HIKO ENERGY: Faces "Sasso" Suit Over Deceptive Marketing HSNI LLC: Sued Misleading Promotion of Kitchen Knives JANSSEN PHARMA: Judge Upholds $11MM Verdict in Topamax Suit JONES FINANCIAL: Settlement in Labor Suit Up for Prelim. Approval JPMORGAN CHASE: MBS Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval KIMBERLY-CLARK: Faces "Kurtz" Suit Over Flushable Wipes L&B INDUSTRIAL: Sued for Failing to Pay Regular & Overtime Wages LIFELOCK INC: Faces "Scesny" Suit Over Breach of Securities Law LIHUA INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Anand" Securities Suit in California MARIE CALLENDER'S: Sued Over False Marketing of All Natural Foods MICHAELS STORES: Fails to Secure Customer Data, "Maize" Suit Says MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Condominium Homeowners' Suit in Discovery MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Court Approves Settlement of Merger Suit MIDLANTIC TITLE: June 10 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set MILFORD WATER: Settles Class Action Over E. Coli Contamination MONTAGE TECHNOLOGY: Sued for Violating Securities Exchange Act MONTEREY COUNTY, CA: Report Exposes Jail Conditions NEW YORK JETS: Faces Wage-and-Hour Class Action in New Jersey NEWO CORPORATION: Faces "Simon" Suit Over Fraudulent Practices NUTRIBULLET LLC: Illegally Called Class Members' Phone, Suit Says OAKHURST DAIRY: Delivery Drivers File Class Action in Portland PANDORA MEDIA: Has Sent Unsolicited Messages, "Douglas" Suit Says PHOENIX, AZ: Accused of Failing to Pay Proper Overtime Wages PINNACLE WEST: Dismissal of Consumer Suit in Calif. Under Appeal PROCTER & GAMBLE: Sued Over False Advertising of Cosmetic Items PRYCE BROTHERS: Has Denied Payment for Wages Earned, Suit Claims PYOD LLC: Removed "Meyer" Suit to S.D. California REGIS CORP: July 14 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set RFJD HOLDING: Accused of Not Paying Minimum Wages in S.D. Florida RUBY TUESDAY: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Tennessee SAFEWAY INC: Stockholder Seeks to Enjoin Sale to Cerberus Unit SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Falsely Marketed LED Tvs & HDTVs, Suit Says SAN DIEGO GAS: Dismissal of Suit Over 2011 Power Outage Appealed SAULT AREA HOSPITAL: Lawyer Meets With Data Breach Victims SOPHIE'S CUBAN: Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages SOUTHWEST ROYALTIES: Environmental Suit Accord Not Yet Final SW COLE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA TAKEDA PHARMA: Judge Sanctions Defense Attorneys in Actos Suit TARGET CORP: "Carlson" Suit Transferred From Florida to Minnesota TETRA TECH: Montreal Real Estate Taxpayers' Suit v. BPR Continues TETRA TECH: Shareholders Voluntarily Dismiss Suit in California TOSHIBA AMERICA: Falsely Marketed LED Tvs & LED HDTVs, Suit Says TRIQUINT SEMICONDUCTOR: Faces Lawsuits Over RF Micro Merger TRANSCEPT PHARMA: "Physicians" Suit Transferred to California VARITRONICS LLC: Sued for Sending Fax Ads Without Opt-Out Notices VICAL INC: Securities Suit Plaintiffs Allowed to Amend Complaints WEST WARWICK, RI: June 6 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ********* ACADEMY ENGRAVING: State Farm Cleared in Junk Fax Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Bibeka Shrestha and Andrew Scurria, writing for Law360, report that an Illinois appeals court held on May 2 that State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. had no duty to defend its policyholder against a $4.9 million junk fax class action, finding that a Telephone Consumer Protection Act exclusion barred coverage for all of the underlying claims. The Illinois appeals court reversed a ruling requiring State Farm to defend Michael Schane and his business Academy Engraving Co. against a class action brought by G.M. Sign Inc., holding that the TCPA exclusion also applied to G.M. Sign's claims of conversion and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. Noting that there was no prior Illinois appellate authority interpreting the TCPA exclusion at issue, the appeals court relied on the reasoning in an unpublished Michigan appeals court decision to hold that the act of faxing unsolicited and unwanted advertisements were at the heart of G.M. Sign's conversion and consumer fraud claims and thus, that the TCPA exclusion applied. "Plaintiff would not be able to prove Schane liable on the alternative counts without also proving that Schane committed a violation of the TCPA," its ruling said. "Accordingly . . . the defendant had no duty to defend or to indemnify Schane in the underlying suit." Rosa Tumialan -- rtumialan@dykema.com -- a Dykema Gossett PLLC attorney who represents State Farm, told Law360 on May 5 that the Illinois opinion was significant and one that other courts would look to for guidance. "It is the first case in Illinois construing the exclusion," Tumialan said. "It is also among the first of the cases addressing the scope of the [Insurance Services Office Inc.] form exclusion nationwide." The exclusion at the center of the case barred coverage for injuries arising directly or indirectly out of any action that is alleged to violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 and any other statutes that prohibit or limit the sending of information. The pivotal question was whether the exclusion applied only to G.M. Sign's TCPA claim or also to its conversion and consumer fraud claims. According to G.M. Sign, the conversion and consumer fraud claims stood apart from its TCPA claim because the former two claims did not require the unwanted fax to be an advertisement, and because the two claims did not depend on whether the parties had an established business relationship. The TCPA, on the other hand, makes it illegal to fax an unsolicited advertisement unless the sender has an established business relationship with the recipient, the recipient consents to these communications, and the unsolicited advertisement includes an opt-out notice. But the appeals court concluded that G.M. Sign's argument was just another way to compare the elements of the causes of action. It stressed that none of the alternative counts pled any facts that were related to advertisements or to established business relationships. David Oppenheim, an Anderson & Wanca attorney representing G.M. Sign, said the court ruled that there was no duty to defend because the underlying complaint did not specifically plead that the two other claims stemmed from conduct that did not violate the TCPA. Oppenheim said Illinois law requires insurers to defend unless the complaint affirmatively removes the case from coverage. "It turns on its head the long-standing legal [principle] that coverage, and particularly the duty to defend, should not hinge on the draftmanship of the complaint," Mr. Oppenheim said. "Before today, an insurer was obligated to defend its insured as long as there was a potential that the suit contained a covered claim. This decision casts doubt on that bedrock canon of Illinois coverage law." This is the lawsuit's second trip up to the Illinois appeals court. In March 2013, the state appeals court reversed the dismissal of State Farm's challenge to the $4.9 million settlement in the junk fax class action, finding the insurer had standing to fight the judgment and did not wait too long to bring its protest. This March, the Illinois appeals court also flipped a ruling that stuck two Zurich American Insurance Co. units with an $8 million tab for a fax-blast class action settlement that G.M. Sign brought against Pennswood Partners Inc. State Farm is represented by Michael Borders -- mborders@dykema.com -- and Rosa Tumialan of Dykema Gossett PLLC. G.M. Sign is represented by Brian Wanca -- BWanca@andersonwanca.com -- David Oppenheim -- DOppenheim@andersonwanca.com -- and Jeffrey Berman -- JBerman@andersonwanca.com -- of Anderson & Wanca and Phillip Bock of Bock & Hatch LLC. The case is G.M. Sign Inc. et al. v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., case number 2-13-0593, in the Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District. AK STEEL: Suit v. AK RAPP Now Concluded After Settlement Payments ----------------------------------------------------------------- The suit filed against the AK Steel Corporation Retirement Accumulation Pension Plan and the AK Steel Corporation Benefit Plans Administrative Committee is now concluded after a payment of $5 million, according to AK Steel Holding Corporation's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On October 20, 2009, William Schumacher filed a purported class action against the AK Steel Corporation Retirement Accumulation Pension Plan, or AK RAPP, and the AK Steel Corporation Benefit Plans Administrative Committee in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Case No. 1:09cv794. The complaint alleged that the method used under the AK RAPP to determine lump sum distributions does not comply with ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code and resulted in underpayment of benefits to him and the other class members. The plaintiff and the other individuals on whose behalf the plaintiff filed suit were excluded by the Court in 2005 from similar litigation previously reported and now resolved (the class action litigation filed January 2, 2002 by John D. West) based on previous releases of claims they had executed in favor of the Company. There were a total of 92 individuals who were excluded from the prior litigation. On January 24, 2011, this case was certified as a class action. On November 13, 2013, the District Court entered final judgment in the amount of $4.4, including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. That judgment was paid on November 21, 2013 from the Company's pension trust. On October 14, 2013, plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion requesting an award of attorney fees of $1.3. By order dated February 4, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion filed by plaintiffs' counsel seeking an award of fees. As part of the order, the court directed the defendants to pay to plaintiffs' counsel statutory fees in the amount of approximately $0.6. The award of attorney fees was paid out of the Company's pension trust on March 6, 2014. Following that payment, the parties filed an agreed notice of satisfaction of judgment on March 20, 2014. With that filing, this matter is now concluded. AK STELL: Court Approves Settlement With Direct Purchasers ---------------------------------------------------------- An agreement reached by AK Steel Holding Corporation to settle antitrust claims by direct purchasers of steel products received preliminary approval in April, according to the company's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. In September and October 2008, several companies filed purported class actions in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against nine steel manufacturers, including AK Holding. The case numbers for these actions are 08CV5214, 08CV5371, 08CV5468, 08CV5633, 08CV5700, 08CV5942 and 08CV6197. An additional action, case number 10CV04236, was filed in the same federal district court on July 8, 2010. On December 28, 2010, another action, case number 32,321, was filed in state court in the Circuit Court for Cocke County, Tennessee. The defendants removed the Tennessee case to federal court and filed a motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of Illinois. That motion was granted on March 28, 2012. The plaintiffs in the various pending actions are companies which claim to have purchased steel products, directly or indirectly, from one or more of the defendants and they purport to file the actions on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased steel products for delivery or pickup in the United States from any of the named defendants at any time from at least as early as January 2005. The complaints allege that the defendant steel producers have conspired in violation of antitrust laws to restrict output and to fix, raise, stabilize and maintain artificially high prices with respect to steel products in the United States. Discovery has commenced but only with respect to issues relating to class certification. On May 24, 2012, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. On February 28, 2013, the defendants filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion for class certification and motions to exclude the opinions of the plaintiffs' experts. An evidentiary hearing on the motion for class certification and the motions to exclude the opinions of the plaintiffs' experts was held commencing on March 15, 2014. No trial date has been set. Prior to that hearing, AK Holding reached an agreement with the direct purchaser plaintiffs to tentatively settle the claims asserted against AK Holding, subject to certain court approvals. Pursuant to that settlement, AK Holding agreed to pay $5.8 to the plaintiff class of direct purchasers in exchange for a complete release of all claims from the members of that class. AK Holding continues to believe that the claims asserted against it lack any merit, but it elected to enter into the settlement in order to avoid the ongoing expense of defending itself in this protracted and expensive antitrust litigation. The tentative settlement received preliminary approval by the court on April 11, 2014. Following such preliminary approval, notice of the proposed settlement will be provided to members of the settlement class, followed by a fairness hearing. In order to become final, the settlement must receive a second approval by the court following that fairness hearing. In light of the progress of the settlement negotiations during the first quarter of 2014, the Company recorded a charge in the amount of the tentative settlement with the direct purchaser plaintiff class. ALAFAYA WOODS: July 7 Settlement Claim Submission Deadline Set -------------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT If you were an owner of a single-family lot in the Alafaya Woods Subdivision and were a member of the Alafaya Woods Homeowner's Association on July 18, 2001, you could receive benefits from a class action settlement. A settlement of a class action lawsuit may affect you if you were an owner of a single-family lot in the Alafaya Woods Subdivision located in the City of Oviedo, Seminole County, Florida, east of SR 434 (Alafaya Trail) and south of Mitchell Hammock Road, and you were a member of the Alafaya Woods Homeowner's Association, all on July 18, 2001. This settlement will compensate people who were owners and members at that specific time for the Florida Department of Transportation's taking of your interests in the common area of Alafaya Woods. You may elect to refuse to participate in this settlement, but your claims will be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The Circuit Court of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Seminole County has ordered that this notice appear in a local newspaper twice to notify class members of the class action settlement. The court has already held a hearing in which it determined that the class action settlement was fair, equitable, and just. Who is affected? Single-family lot owners who were members of the Alafaya Woods Homeowner's Association on July 18, 2001 are included in the settlement. What is this about? The lawsuit claimed that the Florida Department of Transportation completed an inverse condemnation and exercised its eminent domain powers over certain common areas in which the lot owners and members of the Alafaya Woods Homeowner's Association have easement interests and property rights. Florida law holds that easement holders have the right to be paid just compensation for these easement interests. The Florida Department of Transportation denied any wrongdoing and asserted many defenses. The settlement is not an admission of any wrongdoing or an indication that any law was violated. What can you get from this settlement? The lot owners and members of the Alafaya Woods Homeowner's Association were awarded a lump sum amount of $1,460,000 which includes administrative expenses to be incurred. There were 2,231 lots on July 18, 2001. Accordingly, this works out to an estimated recovery of $654.41 per lot, minus administrative expenses incurred in identifying class members and administering the claims in the class action settlement. How do you get a payment? A detailed notice and claim form packet containing the necessary documents to submit a claim will be sent to all reasonably identifiable members of the class. The claim form packet was scheduled to be mailed on approximately March 10, 2014. Additionally, you may call 407-542-1810 to request a claim form packet. Claim form packets will also be available at www.AlafayaWoodsClassAction.com You will be required to provide proof of identity and submit a properly completed claim form, including a declaration of ownership of a single-family lot within Alafaya Woods Subdivision prior to receiving any compensation. Seminole County property records will be examined to confirm lot ownership by class members. Claim forms are due on or before July 7, 2014. What are your options? If you do not wish to receive a payment, then you are not required to do anything. You may elect to refuse to participate in this settlement, but your claims will be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. For more details, call 407-542-1812, write to Alafaya Woods Class Action, c/o Defense Litigation Group, Inc., 257 Plaza Drive Suite A, Oviedo, FL 32765, or visit the website www.AlafayaWoodsClassAction.com The Alafaya Woods Homeowner's Association will also hold a number of public informational meetings regarding this class action settlement. AMERICAN EAGLE: Delivery Drivers Sue Over Improper Deductions ------------------------------------------------------------- Ever Bedoya, Diego Gonzales, and Manuel DeCastro, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. American Eagle Express, Inc. d/b/a AEXGroup., Case No. 2:14-cv-02811-ES-JAD (D.N.J., May 1, 2014) is filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs and other delivery drivers, who make deliveries for AEX and are based in or operate in the state of New Jersey. The Plaintiffs contend that they have been subject to improper deductions from their pay and have been denied overtime pay, and have otherwise been unjustly forced to bear the costs of AEX's business. AEX is a corporation that is in the business of providing courier delivery services to a variety of large companies, including hospitals, drug companies, and pharmacies, with headquarters in Aston, Pennsylvania, and a location in Linden, New Jersey. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 Facsimile: (215) 884-2492 E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com asantillo@winebrakelaw.com mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com - and - Harold L. Lichten, Esq. Matthew W. Thomson, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 100 Cambridge Street, 20th Floor Boston, MA 02114 Telephone: (617) 994 5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: HLichten@llrlaw.com sliss@llrlaw.com AMERICAN INT'L: Accused of Underreporting of WC Insurance Premium ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mesa Cycles, Inc., individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. American International Group, Inc; American Home Assurance Company; AIU Insurance Company; American Fuji Fire and Marine Insurance Company; Chartis Property Casualty Company; Commerce and Industry Insurance Company; Granite State Insurance Company; Illinois National Insurance Company; Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania; National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; New Hampshire Insurance Company; AIG Risk Management, Inc.; Maurice R. Greenberg; and Does 1 through 10 inclusive, Case No. 1:14-cv-02827 (N.D. Ill., May 1, 2014) is brought by Missouri employers seeking restitution, disgorgement, compensatory, punitive, and treble damages, a constructive trust, and injunctive relief arising from the Defendants' alleged long-term, unlawful, and fraudulent underreporting of workers' compensation insurance premium, evasion of related financial obligations, and abuse of their statutory, regulatory, common law, and fiduciary responsibilities with regard to WC policies issued to businesses that employ workers in the State of Missouri. By engaging in a systematic underreporting of WC premiums written, the Defendants not only wrongly enriched themselves in various ways, but their systematic practice of underreporting WC premium caused the Plaintiff and other WC policyholders in Missouri to pay improperly inflated state insurance surcharges and to suffer other damage, the Plaintiff contends. American International Group, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York. The other Defendants are AIG subsidiaries and affiliates. Maurice R. Greenberg is a resident of Key Largo, Florida. He joined AIG in approximately 1967 and served as the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of AIG until his forced resignation in March 2005. The AIG Companies are engaged in a broad range of financial and insurance-related activities in the United States and throughout the world. The AIG Companies have been major participants in the Missouri WC market for decades. AIG, through its subsidiaries and affiliates, is the largest underwriter of commercial and industrial insurance in the U.S. The Plaintiff is represented by: Derek Y. Brandt, Esq. Emily J. Kirk, Esq. John R. Phillips, Esq. Deborah Rosenthal, Esq. SIMMONS BROWDER GIANARIS ANGELIDES & BARNERD LLC One Court Street Alton, IL 62002 Telephone: (618) 259-2222 Facsimile: (618) 259-2251 E-mail: dbrandt@simmonsfirm.com ekirk@simmonsfirm.com jphillips@simmonsfirm.com drosenthal@simmonsfirm.com - and - Paul J. Hanly, Jr., Esq. Andrea Bierstein, Esq. Thomas I. Sheridan, III, Esq. HANLY CONROY BIERSTEIN SHERIDAN FISHER & HAYES LLP 112 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016-7416 Telephone: (212) 784-6400 Facsimile: (212) 213-5949 E-mail: phanly@hanlyconroy.com abierstein@hanlyconroy.com tsheridan@hanlyconroy.com - and - Drew E. Pomerance, Esq. Nicholas P. Roxborough, Esq. ROXBOROUGH POMERANCE NYE & ADREANI 5820 Canoga Ave., Suite 250 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 992-9999 Facsimile: (818) 992-9991 E-mail: dep@rpnalaw.com npr@rpnalaw.com Defendant Maurice R. Greenberg is represented by: Steven J. Kolleeny, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP (DC) 1440 New York Avenue N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (212) 735-3000 Facsimile: (917) 777-2626 E-mail: skolleen@skadden.com ANCHORFREE INC: Falsely Marketed Hotspot Software, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ John McClain, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Anchorfree, Inc., a Delaware corporation Case No. 5:14-cv-01282-BLF (N.D. Cal., March 19, 2014) is brought against the Defendant for its alleged deceptive marketing and sale of "Hotspot Shield" software. Anchorfree, Inc., is a Delaware Corporation located at 450 National Avenue, Mountain View, California 94043. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Scott Thomassen, Esq. Chandler Randolph Givens, Esq. Jay Edelson, Esq. Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. Mark Stephen Eisen, Esq. EDELSON P.C. 350 N. Lasalle St., Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 572-7208 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: bthomassen@edelson.com cgivens@edelson.com jedelson@edelson.com rbalabanian@edelson.com meisen@edelson.com The Defendant is represented by: Tonia Ouellette Klausner, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH ROSATI 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 497-7706 E-mail: tklausner@wsgr.com ASSOCIATED BANC-CORP: Faces FLSA "Violation" Suit in Wisconsin -------------------------------------------------------------- Associated Banc-Corp faces a suit filed by loan coordinators over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Wisconsin wage laws, according to the bank's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. A purported class action lawsuit, Wanda Boone v. Associated Banc- Corp, was filed on April 10, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The lawsuit claims that loan coordinators employed by the Bank were not compensated for all hours worked, including the payment of overtime, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Wisconsin wage laws. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages and attorneys' fees. ASSOCIATED MATERIALS: Settles Warranty Suit by Homeowners --------------------------------------------------------- Associated Materials, LLC settles a lawsuit filed by homeowners over certain warranty related claims for steel and aluminum siding, according to the company's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2014. On February 13, 2013, the Company entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims (the "Settlement") for a class action lawsuit filed by plaintiffs and a putative nationwide class of homeowners regarding certain warranty related claims for steel and aluminum siding, which became effective on September 2, 2013. The Company expects to incur additional warranty costs associated with the Settlement; however, the Company does not believe the incremental costs, which currently cannot be estimated for recognition purposes, have been or will be material. BIOMET INC: Law Firm Seeks Class Action Status for Implant Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Lightstone, writing for Herald News, reports that a Halifax law firm representing clients alleging harm was done to them as a result of hip implant surgery is seeking to certify legal proceedings as a class action. In a court document filed with the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, lawyer Ray Wagner says the representative plaintiff in the proposed class action is Mary Chipman of Dartmouth. There are five defendants, including Biomet Inc., an American firm incorporated in Indiana. It designs, manufactures, markets and sells hip implant systems, the document says. "The defendants consistently failed to disclose or warn Canadian patients of the significant risk of failure and metallosis associated with their" artificial hip products, it is alleged in the court document. Metallosis is caused by metal particles present in human tissue, the Mayo Clinic's website says. "While most (implant) recipients benefit from joint replacement with improved mobility and quality of life, a small number of patients experience implant-specific local and systemic adverse effects," the website says. "Continuous motion at the (metal-on-metal) surfaces is the main reason for wear of the implant. This causes release of micro- particles of metal debris into the surrounding tissue, sometimes referred to as metallosis." The proposed class action would represent Canadian plaintiffs, who are alleging faulty Biomet hip implants, from 1998 to the date of certification of the legal proceedings. Ms. Chipman received a hip implant in 2007, the court document says. Last year, blood work she had done showed increased cobalt and chromium levels were present. In February, Ms. Chipman underwent corrective surgery. "Each time a patient is required to undergo (such) surgery there are increasing risks of complications," says the court document, filed in Halifax on April 29. "With each revision surgery, there is less bone for the surgeon to work with, and the chances of a satisfactory recovery are reduced." The allegations have not been proved in court. BIRD TECHNOLOGIES: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act ----------------------------------------------------------------- Samuel Lynch, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Bird Technologies Group, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv- 01312-RWS-WEJ (N.D. Ga., May 1, 2014) is brought pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Weiner, Esq. THE WEINER LAW FIRM, LLC 3525 Piedmont Road 7 Piedmont Center, 3rd Floor Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 254-0842 E-mail: aw@atlantaemployeelawyer.com - and - Jeffrey Sand, Esq. THE WEINER LAW FIRM, LLC 3525 Piedmont Road, 3rd Floor 7 Piedmont Center Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 205-5029 Facsimile: (866) 800-1482 E-mail: js@atlantaemployeelawyer.com BLACK PEPPER PHO: Servers Sue in Colo. Over Reduced Minimum Wage ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chelsea Blocklin, Jalen Aquino, Huyen Tran Duong, Jacqueline Dallman, Khai Tran and Phuong-Anh Cai on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Black Pepper Pho, LLC, Huong Dang and Christopher John, Case No. 1:14-cv-01252 (D. Colo., May 1, 2014) alleges that the Defendants paid the Plaintiffs and all their similarly situated servers the reduced ("tip-credited") minimum wage for hours worked. Black Pepper Pho, LLC is a registered Colorado limited liability company headquartered in Thornton, Colorado. The Individual Defendants are owners/operators of the Black Pepper Pho enterprise. The Defendants own a Vietnamese restaurant. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brandt Milstein, Esq. MILSTEIN LAW OFFICE 595 Canyon Boulevard Boulder, CO 80302 Telephone: (303) 440-8780 Facsimile: (303) 957-5754 E-mail: brandt@milsteinlawoffice.com BLYTH INC: Wins Dismissal of Securities Lawsuit in Connecticut -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut dismissed a second amended securities complaint against Blyth, Inc., according to the company's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. The company, certain of its officers, FVA Ventures, Inc., ViSalus Holdings, LLC, ViSalus and one of its founders were named as defendants in a putative class action filed in federal district court in Connecticut on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock during the period March to November 2012. On June 3, 2013, the defendants moved to dismiss the then-operative amended complaint. In lieu of responding to the motion to dismiss, on June 24, 2013 plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which named as defendants the company, certain of its officers, ViSalus Holdings, LLC, ViSalus, and a ViSalus co-founder/promoter. The second amended complaint, which sought unspecified damages and asserted violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleged certain misstatements and omissions by certain defendants, including concerning ViSalus's operations and prospects, and further alleged that certain defendants engaged in a fraudulent or deceptive "scheme." On August 2, 2013, the defendants filed a memorandum of law in support of its motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On September 12, 2013, plaintiff filed a memorandum of law opposing defendants' motion to dismiss its second amended complaint, and on October 3, 2013 the defendants filed a reply memorandum in support of the company's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. Oral argument on the motion was held on March 6, 2014. On March 31, 2014, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, entering judgment for the defendants. Plaintiffs did not file a notice of appeal by April 30, 2014, and may seek an extension of time to file a notice of appeal prior to May 30, 2014 upon a showing of "excusable neglect" or "good cause." BURLINGTON STORES: Sued for Not Paying OT for All Hours Worked -------------------------------------------------------------- Barbara Kawa, Theresa Massey, and Danielle Solecki, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Burlington Stores, Inc., Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation, Burlington Coat Factory Investment Holdings, Inc., and Burlington Coat Factory Holdings, LLC f/k/a Burlington Coat Factory Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-02787-JEI-KMW (D.N.J., May 1, 2014) alleges that Burlington has misclassified the Plaintiffs and the California, Illinois, and New York Classes as exempt employees under California, Illinois, and New York State wage and hour laws and failed to pay them overtime compensation for all the hours they worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Burlington Stores, Inc. is a national off-price apparel, home and baby products retailer, operating over 500 stores in the United States and Puerto Rico and approximately 44 stores in California, 26 stores in Illinois, and 25 stores in New York. Burlington Stores, Inc. is a publicly traded Delaware corporation headquartered in North Burlington, New Jersey. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of Burlington Coat Factory Investment Holdings, Inc. Burlington Coat Factory Investment Holdings, Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of Burlington Coat Factory Holdings, LLC. Burlington Coat Factory Holdings, LLC, formerly known as Burlington Coat Factory Holdings, Inc., is an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Burlington Stores, Inc. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Fran L. Rudich, Esq. Michael J. Palitz, Esq. Rachel Berlin, Esq. KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 E-mail: slesser@klafterolsen.com - and - Michael A. Galpern, Esq. Andrew P. Bell, Esq. Priscilla Jimenez, Esq. LOCKS LAW FIRM, LLC 457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Telephone: (856) 663-8200 C&C PUMPING: Faces "Aiken" Class Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bryan Aiken, on his own behalf and all similarly situated individuals v. C&C Pumping Services, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation, Leslie Holdorf, individually and Chris Holdorf, individually, Case No. 8:14-cv-01043-EAK-AEP (M.D. Fla., May 1, 2014) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, damages and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. C&C Pumping Services, Inc., is a Florida Profit Corporation engaged in business in Lake County, Florida. C&C provides concrete pumping services. The Individual Defendants owned, managed and operated the Company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Amanda E. Kayfus, Esq. Andrew Ross Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 600 N Pine Island Rd., Suite 400 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318-0268 Facsimile: (954) 333-3515 E-mail: akayfus@forthepeople.com afrisch@forthepeople.com CADENCE PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Planned Mallinckrodt Merger -------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Bushansky, on behalf of Himself and all others similarly situated v. Cadence Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 2014-CH-03236 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., February 24, 2014), arises from the alleged breach of Cadence's fiduciary duties in connection with the Company's plan of merger with Mallinckrodt plc. Cadence Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a Delaware corporation located at 12481 High Bluff Drive, San Diego California 92130. It is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on acquiring, in- licensing, developing, and commercializing propriety product candidates for use in the hospital setting primarily in the United States and Canada. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D Long, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG PA 2 Righter Parkway STE 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 E-mail: bdl@rigrodskylong.com - and - Ryan M Ernst, Esq. OKELLY ERNST & BIELLI LLC 901 N Market St Ste 1000 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 778-4000 E-mail: rernst@oeblegal.com CADENCE PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Wolfson" Suit Over Planned Merger ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alexander Wolfson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cadence Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 9361-VCP (Del. Ch. Ct., February 18, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for its alleged failure to maximize stockholder value in connection with their attempt to sell the Company to Mallinckrodt. Cadence Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a Delaware corporation located at 12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 200, San Diego, California 92130. It is a biopharmaceutical company focusing on the acquisition, in-licensing, development, and commercialization of proprietary product candidates for use in hospital settings throughout the U.S. and Canada. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D Long, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG PA 2 Righter Parkway STE 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 E-mail: bdl@rigrodskylong.com - and - Ryan M Ernst, Esq. OKELLY ERNST & BIELLI LLC 901 N Market St Ste 1000 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 778-4000 E-mail: rernst@oeblegal.com CAMBREX CORP: Health Care Insurers' Suit Pending in Columbia ------------------------------------------------------------ The case filed by health care insurers against Cambrex Corporation over Lorazepam and Clorazepate is currently pending before the District Court following a January 2011 remand by the Court of Appeals, according to the company's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. In 1998, the Company and a subsidiary were named as defendants along with Mylan Laboratories, Inc. ("Mylan") and Gyma Laboratories, Inc. ("Gyma") in a proceeding instituted by the Federal Trade Commission in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (the "District Court"). Suits were also commenced by several State Attorneys General and class action complaints by private plaintiffs in various state courts. The suits alleged violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act arising from exclusive license agreements between the Company and Mylan covering two APIs (Lorazepam and Clorazepate). All cases have been resolved except for one brought by four health care insurers. In the remaining case, the District Court entered judgment after trial in 2008 against Mylan, Gyma and Cambrex in the total amount of $19,200,000 payable jointly and severally, and also a punitive damage award against each defendant in the amount of $16,709,000. In addition, at the time, the District Court ruled that the defendants were subject to a total of approximately $7,500,000 in prejudgment interest. The case is currently pending before the District Court following a January 2011 remand by the Court of Appeals where briefing related to whether the court has jurisdiction over certain self- funded customer plaintiffs has been completed and the parties are currently waiting for a ruling by the court. In 2003, Cambrex paid $12,415,000 to Mylan in exchange for a release and full indemnity against future costs or liabilities in related litigation brought by the purchasers of Lorazepam and Clorazepate, as well as potential future claims related to the ongoing matter. Mylan has submitted a surety bond underwritten by a third-party insurance company in the amount of $66,632,000. In the event of a final settlement or final judgment, Cambrex expects any payment required by the Company to be made by Mylan under an indemnity. CASH AMERICA: Pays $18.3MM Part of Settlement in Suit Over Loans ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cash America International, Inc. paid $18.3 million during the three months ended March 31, 2014 as part of its agreement to settle a suit over alleged illegal short-term loans it made in Georgia, according to the company's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On August 6, 2004, James E. Strong filed a purported class action lawsuit in the State Court of Cobb County, Georgia against Georgia Cash America, Inc., Cash America International, Inc. (together with Georgia Cash America, Inc., "Cash America"), Daniel R. Feehan (the Company's chief executive officer), and several unnamed officers, directors, owners and "stakeholders" of Cash America. In August 2006, James H. Greene and Mennie Johnson were permitted to join the lawsuit as named plaintiffs, and in June 2009, the court agreed to the removal of James E. Strong as a named plaintiff. The lawsuit alleges many different causes of action, among the most significant of which is that Cash America made illegal short-term loans in Georgia in violation of Georgia's usury law, the Georgia Industrial Loan Act and Georgia's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. First National Bank of Brookings, South Dakota ("FNB"), and Community State Bank of Milbank, South Dakota ("CSB"), for some time made loans to Georgia residents through Cash America's Georgia operating locations. The complaint in this lawsuit claims that Cash America was the true lender with respect to the loans made to Georgia borrowers and that FNB and CSB's involvement in the process is "a mere subterfuge." Based on this claim, the suit alleges that Cash America was the "de facto" lender and was illegally operating in Georgia. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorney's fees, punitive damages and the trebling of any compensatory damages. In November 2009 the case was certified as a class action lawsuit. This case was scheduled to go to trial in November 2013, but on October 9, 2013, the parties agreed to a memorandum of understanding (the "Settlement Memorandum"). Pursuant to the Settlement Memorandum, the parties filed a joint motion containing the full terms of the settlement (the "Settlement Agreement") with the trial court for approval on October 24, 2013, and the trial court preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement on November 4, 2013. On January 16, 2014, the trial court issued its final approval of the settlement and entered the Final Order and Judgment. The Settlement Agreement required a minimum payment by the Company of $18.0 million and a maximum payment of $36.0 million to cover class claims (including honorarium payments to the named plaintiffs) and the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs (including the costs of claims administration) (the "Class Claims and Costs"), all of which will count towards the aggregate payment for purposes of determining whether the minimum payment has been made or the maximum payment has been reached. The Company denies all of the material allegations of the lawsuit and denies any and all liability or wrongdoing in connection with the conduct described in the lawsuit, but the Company agreed to the settlement to eliminate the uncertainty, distraction, burden and expense of further litigation. In accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies, the Company recognized a liability in 2013 in the amount of $18.0 million. The liability was recorded in "Accounts payable and accrued liabilities" in the consolidated balance sheets and "Operations and administration expense" in the consolidated statements of income for the year ended December 31, 2013. The Class Claims and Costs have been finalized, and the Company is required to pay $18.6 million in connection with the Class Claims and Costs, $18.3 million of which was paid during the three months ended March 31, 2014. CASH AMERICA: Faces Suits in Ohio Over Alleged Violation of OMLA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Four lawsuits were filed against Cash America International, Inc. by customers in Ohio, three of which are purported class action complaints, alleging that the Company improperly made loans under the Ohio Mortgage Loan Act, according to the company's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On May 28, 2009, one of the Company's subsidiaries, Ohio Neighborhood Finance, Inc., doing business as Cashland ("Cashland"), filed a standard collections suit in an Elyria Municipal Court in Ohio against Rodney Scott seeking judgment against Mr. Scott in the amount of $570.16, which was the amount due under his loan agreement. Cashland's loan was offered under the Ohio Mortgage Loan Act ("OMLA"), which allows for interest at a rate of 25% per annum plus certain loan fees allowed by the statute. The Municipal Court, in Ohio Neighborhood Finance, Inc. v. Rodney Scott, held that short-term, single-payment consumer loans made by Cashland are not authorized under the OMLA, and instead should have been offered under the Ohio Short-Term Lender Law, which was passed by the Ohio legislature in 2008 for consumer loans with similar terms. Due to a cap on interest and loan fees at an amount that is less than permitted under the OMLA, the Company does not offer loans under the Ohio Short-Term Lender Law. On December 3, 2012, the Ohio Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Municipal Court's ruling in a 2-1 decision. Although this court decision is only legally binding in the Ninth District of Ohio, which includes four counties in northern Ohio where Cashland operates seven stores and where the Company has modified its short-term loan product in response to this decision, other Ohio courts may consider this decision. The Supreme Court of Ohio heard the Company's appeal of the Ninth District Court's decision in December 2013, and a decision is expected during the first half of 2014. If the Ninth District Court's decision is upheld by the Ohio Supreme Court on appeal, the Company's Ohio operations may be adversely affected. The Company relies on the OMLA to make short-term loans in its retail services locations in Ohio, and if the Company is unable to continue making short-term loans under this law, it will alter its short-term loan product in Ohio. In addition, following the ruling by the Ninth District Court, four lawsuits were filed against the Company by customers in Ohio, three of which are purported class action complaints, alleging that the Company improperly made loans under the OMLA, and the Company may in the future receive other claims. Each of these four lawsuits has been stayed pending the outcome of the Supreme Court of Ohio's decision. The Company is currently unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses in connection with these lawsuits, as defined by ASC 450-20-20, Contingencies-Loss Contingencies- Glossary, for these litigation matters. The Company believes that the Plaintiffs' claims in these suits are without merit and will vigorously defend these lawsuits. CATERPILLAR INC: MY22007 CAT Engines' CRS Is Defective, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Harmon Bros. Charter Services, Inc., a Georgia corporation; Kelton Tours Unlimited Limited Liability Company, an Alabama limited liability company; and First Priority Tours, Inc. d/b/a First Priority Trailways, a Maryland corporation, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Caterpillar, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-01317-TCB (N.D. Ga., May 1, 2014) is brought on behalf of putative classes of similarly situated entities, who purchased or leased a vehicle with a 2007, 2008, 2009 or 2010 Caterpillar, Inc. C-13 or C-15 heavy duty on-highway diesel engine (collectively "MY22007 CAT Engine") in Georgia, Alabama or Maryland. MY2007 CAT engine contains exhaust emission controls to reduce diesel engine exhaust emissions in compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency's 2007 Heavy Duty On Highway Emissions Standard, according to the complaint. To meet the EPA 2007 Emission Standard applicable to heavy duty, on-highway diesel engines, Caterpillar designed, manufactured, sold for profit, and warranted MY2007 CAT Engines with an exhaust emission control system containing integrated components intended to reduce air pollutants, in particular, oxides of nitrogen and particulate matter, to levels not to exceed those set by the 2007 Standard. The exhaust emission control system employed by CAT is known as the "Caterpillar Regeneration System" or "CRS." The Defendant's CRS is defective in material and workmanship causing the vehicle to not function as required under all operating conditions, on a consistent and reliable basis, even after repeated emissions warranty repairs and replacements, Mr. Bagley alleges. He contends that these repeated warranty repairs and replacements failed to repair or correct the CRS defect resulting in damages, including diminished value of the vehicles powered by MY2007 CAT Engines, and the costs to re-power the vehicles with diesel engines that are compliant with the 2007 EPA Emission Standards. Caterpillar, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business located in Peoria, Illinois, and is registered to conduct business in Georgia. Caterpillar designed, manufactured, distributed, delivered, supplied, inspected, marketed, leased and sold for profit, and warranted the MY2007 CAT Engine and in particular the exhaust emission control, the CRS, to be free of defects in material and workmanship. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph Coomes, Esq. MCCONNELL & SNEED, LLC 990 Hammond Drive, Suite 840 Atlanta, GA 30328 Telephone: (404) 220-9994 E-mail: ajc@mcconnellsneed.com - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP 1625 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Suite 605 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com - and - Richard J. Burke, Esq. COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP LLC 1010 Market Street, Suite 1340 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (847) 433-4500 Facsimile: (847) 433-2500 E-mail: Rich@complexlitgroup.com - and - Jamie E. Weiss, Esq. Zachary Jacobs, Esq. COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP LLC 513 Central Ave., 3rd Floor Highland Park, IL 60035 Telephone: (847) 433-4500 Facsimile: (847) 433-2500 E-mail: Jamie@complexlitgroup.com Zachary@complexlitgroup.com - and - Kevin T. Hoerner, Esq. BECKER, PAULSON, HOERNER & THOMPSON, P.C. 5111 West Main Street Belleville, IL 62226 Telephone: (618) 235-0020 Facsimile: (618) 235-8558 E-mail: KTH@bphlaw.com - and - Jonathan Shub, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 1515 Market Street, Suite 1380 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 553-7980 Facsimile: (215) 851-8029 E-mail: JShub@SeegerWeiss.com CIGNA HEALTH: Can't Compel Arbitration, Third Circuit Rules ----------------------------------------------------------- Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that claims against health insurance giant Cigna can be litigated, the Third Circuit has ruled in a reversal of the district court's decision to compel arbitration. The dispute, which is over Cigna's change in coverage for certain medical devices, falls outside of the scope of the service agreement entered into by the two medical service providers who brought the suit, the appeals court ruled. It is the service agreement that includes an arbitration clause. "The fact that the parties have agreed to arbitrate some disputes does not necessarily manifest an intent to arbitrate every dispute that might arise between the parties," said Judge Julio M. Fuentes of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on behalf of the three-judge panel in CardioNet v. Cigna Health. "Ultimately, then, whether a dispute falls within the scope of an arbitration clause depends upon the relationship between (1) the breadth of the arbitration clause, and (2) the nature of the given claim," Judge Fuentes said, setting up the framework in which the court would examine the issue presented in the case. Judge Fuentes -- who was joined by Third Circuit Judge D. Michael Fisher and U.S. District Judge Leonard P. Stark of the District of Delaware, who was sitting by designation -- noted that federal policy generally favors arbitration, but said also that the U.S. Supreme Court has warned against courts leaning too far in favor of arbitration and emphasizing that ordinary principles of contract law prevail. "Indeed," Judge Fuentes said, referring to the Federal Arbitration Act, "while the FAA 'embodies a strong federal policy in favor of arbitration . . . the duty to arbitrate remains one assumed by contract.'" He quoted from the Seventh Circuit's 1993 opinion in Sweet Dreams Unlimited v. Dial-A-Mattress International. "Thus, the presumption of arbitrability applies only where an arbitration agreement is ambiguous about whether it covers the dispute at hand. Otherwise, the plain language of the contract controls," Judge Fuentes said. The language in the contracts between Cigna and both plaintiffs, CardioNet and LifeWatch Services, clearly applies the arbitration clause to only disputes that arise out of the service agreement itself, according to the opinion. That contract sets the rate at which Cigna is to reimburse its providers for services rendered to patients covered by Cigna, according to the opinion. CardioNet and LifeWatch provide outpatient cardiac telemetry services, called OCT for short, so that doctors can monitor patients with cardiac arrhythmias in real time while they aren't in the hospital. OCT is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and was a covered service by Cigna from 2007 to 2012, according to the opinion. When Cigna changed its policy on OCT coverage, it said that it considered OCT to be "experimental, investigational or unproven," according to the opinion. CardioNet and LifeWatch then brought this suit on their own behalf and as the assignee of the patients who had used their services, according to the opinion. In the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Cigna had sought to enforce the arbitration clause of the service agreement and the judge had agreed. The Third Circuit followed the district judge's reading of the service agreement, that disputes arising from it would go to arbitration, up until the point at which that judge "intimated . . . that the statement in the middle of Section 6.4 that 'arbitration is the exclusive remedy for the resolutions of disputes under this agreement' broadens the scope of mandatory arbitration," Judge Fuentes said. "We believe that the term 'disputes' as used here refers solely to those disputes concerning the 'performance or interpretation of the agreement,'" Judge Fuentes said. He went further, in a footnote discussing the parties' argument over whether the arbitration clause is broad or narrow, to say, "Here, the arbitration provision is not ambiguous. In any event, as the arbitration provision here 'implicate[s only] interpretation or performance of the contract per se,' it does not sweep beyond the confines of the contract, and is therefore narrow in scope." Judge Fuentes, again, quoted from Sweet Dreams. After holding that the arbitration clause applies only to disputes arising from the service agreement, the appeals court went on to decide that neither the direct claims nor the derivative claims brought by CardioNet and LifeWatch arose from issues related to the service agreement. "The adjudication of [the] direct claims depends on whether the Physician Update -- a document completely distinct from the agreement -- is deceptive and misleading, and whether any deceptions therein caused a cognizable injury to the providers. The resolution of these claims does not require construction of, or even reference to, any provision in the agreement," Judge Fuentes said. As to the derivative claims brought by CardioNet and LifeWatch on behalf of the patients, Judge Fuentes said, "It is a basic principle of assignment law that an assignee's rights derive from the assignor," meaning that the medical service providers here stand in the shoes of the patients who are Cigna participants. "Here, it is undisputed that the participants possess the right to pursue their ERISA claims in court, rather than through mandatory arbitration," Judge Fuentes said. "That right does not dissipate simply because the claim is brought by assignees who have promised to arbitrate certain direct claims they might bring against the defendant." "Just as the burden of arbitration must travel with a claim, so too, must the right to litigate," Judge Fuentes said. Mark Gallant of Cozen O'Connor represented CardioNet and LifeWatch. Paul Hummer of Saul Ewing represented Cigna. CITIGROUP INC: Faces Consolidated Suit Over Rate Manipulation ------------------------------------------------------------- A consolidated complaint was filed in In Re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation, according to Citigroup Inc.'s May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On March 31, 2014, plaintiffs in putative class actions that are proceeding on a consolidated basis before Judge Lorna G. Schofield in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under the caption In Re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation filed a consolidated amended complaint. Plaintiffs allege that defendants colluded to manipulate the WM/Reuters rate (WMR), thereby causing the putative class to suffer losses in connection with WMR-based financial instruments. Plaintiffs assert a federal antitrust claim and seek compensatory damages, treble damages, and declaratory and injunctive relief. Additional information concerning the consolidated action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 1:13-cv-7789. CITIGROUP INC: Still Faces "Larsen" Suit Over Rate Manipulation --------------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup, Inc. continues to face a suit by a putative class of persons or entities in Norway who traded foreign currency, alleging WM/Reuters rate manipulation, according to the company's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. Citibank, N.A. and Citigroup, as well as numerous other foreign exchange dealers, are named as defendants in a putative class action captioned Larsen v. Barclays Bank Plc, et al., that is also proceeding before Judge Schofield in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of persons or entities in Norway who traded foreign currency with defendants, alleging that the class suffered losses as a result of defendants' alleged WMR manipulation. Plaintiff asserts federal antitrust and unjust enrichment claims, and seeks compensatory damages, treble damages where authorized by statute, and declaratory and injunctive relief. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 1:14-cv-1364. COLUMBIA LABORATORIES: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in In re Columbia Laboratories, Inc., Securities Litigation appealed the dismissal of the suit to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, according to the company's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. Between February 1, 2012 and February 6, 2012, two putative securities class action complaints were filed against Columbia and certain of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. These actions were filed under the captions Wright v. Columbia Laboratories, Inc., et al., and Shu v. Columbia Laboratories, Inc., et al and asserted claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of the common stock during the period from December 6, 2010 through January 20, 2012. Both actions were consolidated into a single proceeding entitled In re Columbia Laboratories, Inc., Securities Litigation, under which Actavis, Inc., and three of its officers have been added as defendants. The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleged that Columbia and two of its officers, one of whom is a director, omitted to state material facts that they were under a duty to disclose, and made materially false and misleading statements that related to the results of Columbia's PREGNANT study and the likelihood of approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") of a New Drug Application ("NDA") to market progesterone vaginal gel 8% for the prevention of preterm birth in women with premature cervical shortening. According to the amended complaint, these alleged omissions and misleading statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the common stock. The plaintiffs sought unspecified damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney's fees. On June 11, 2013, the Court dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, holding that the plaintiffs did not adequately plead facts supporting an inference of an intent to deceive investors. The Court permitted the plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint, and they did so on July 11, 2013. Columbia moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. On October 21, 2013, the Court dismissed the second amended complaint. The Court ruled that changes the plaintiffs made to their first amended complaint "still do not create a strong inference that the Defendants acted with an intent to deceive, manipulate or defraud." The Court ordered that if the plaintiffs sought to attempt to plead a cognizable action in a third amended complaint, they must do so within thirty days and specifically address why the attempt would not be futile. The plaintiffs chose not to file any further amendments and the case was dismissed with prejudice on December 2, 2013. On December 20, 2013, the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Third Circuit will consider the matter after briefing is completed. CONN'S INC: Two Law Firms File Securities Class Action in Texas --------------------------------------------------------------- Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP and Labaton Sucharow LLP filed a class action lawsuit on May 5, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of all persons who, between April 3, 2013 and February 19, 2014, inclusive, purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock and/or call options, or sold/wrote put options on the common stock of Conn's, Inc. If you purchased or acquired Conn's common stock and/or call options, or sold/wrote put options on Conn's common stock during the Class Period as defined above, you are a member of the "Class" and may be able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff motion papers must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas no later than May 5, 2014. A lead plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent members of the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as lead plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in this action. If you are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an absent Class member. You may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in this action. If you would like to consider serving as lead plaintiff or have any questions about this lawsuit, you may contact Michael Burnett of Scott+Scott -- mburnett@scott-scott.com -- (800) 404-7770, (860) 537-5537) or visit the Scott+Scott website for more information: http://www.scott-scott.com You may also contact Rachel A. Avan, Esq. of Labaton Sucharow LLP, at (800) 321-0476 or (212) 907-0709, or via email at ravan@labaton.com If you are a member of the Class, you can view a copy of the complaint and join this class action online at http://www.labaton.com/en/cases/Newly-Filed-Cases.cfm Conn's is headquartered in The Woodlands, Texas, and is incorporated in Delaware. The Company operates approximately 80 stores in Texas, Louisiana, Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma and also offers products for sale through its website. The Company's primary sources of revenue are the sale of merchandise, related warranty services, and providing financing to its customers. Conn's offers financing to its customers through both third-party credit programs and its own proprietary credit program that the Company claims to be a distinguishing feature of its operations and a significant factor in its ability to attract customers. The complaint charges Conn's and certain of its officers with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants made false and misleading statements and concealed material information about Conn's business concerning the quality, risk, and effects of the Company's customer credit portfolio. The truth about the weakness and risks of Conn's credit portfolio and the resulting effects on Conn's operations and outlook was revealed through two disclosures. First, on September 5, 2013, Conn's issued a press release and hosted a conference call in which the Company revealed that it had been forced to make a greater provision for bad debts than expected due to "unexpected deteriorat[ion]" in delinquency. However, the Defendants offered reassuring comments to investors, including claims that corrective actions had been completed and reaffirming guidance for the full fiscal year ending January 31, 2014. In response to this partial disclosure of the true state of Conn's business and prospects, the price of Conn's common stock declined $7.95 per share, or 11.64 percent, to close at $60.36 per share that day on heavy trading volume. Then, on February 20, 2014, the Company issued a press release announcing disappointing preliminary fourth quarter fiscal 2014 results and lowering earnings guidance for fiscal full-year 2015. In the press release, Conn's disclosed that its credit segment provision for bad debts was expected to exceed previously issued full-year fiscal 2014 guidance and that the percentage of the Company's debt portfolio that was 60-plus days delinquent had increased by 30 basis points from the prior quarter. On this news, the price of Conn's common stock fell $23.91 per share, or 42.85 percent, to close at $31.89 per share on extremely heavy trading volume. The plaintiffs are represented by Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP and Labaton Sucharow LLP. Scott+Scott has significant experience prosecuting major securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds, foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact: Michael Burnett Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, (800) 404-7770 or (860) 537-5537; scottlaw@scott-scott.com or mburnett@scott-scott.com Labaton Sucharow LLP -- http://www.labaton.com-- represents many of the largest pension funds in the United States and internationally with collective assets under management of more than $2 trillion. With nearly 60 full-time attorneys, the Firm's litigation reputation is built on its in-house team of investigators, financial analysts, and forensic accountants. The Firm has been recognized for its excellence by the courts and peers, and it is consistently ranked in leading industry publications. Offices are located in New York, NY and Wilmington, DE. CONNECT AMERICA.COM: Class Has Not Received OT Wages, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Lovett, Ida A. Williams and Tracy L. Romans, on behalf of themselves individually and all others similarly situated v. Connect America.Com t/a ConnectAmerica, Case No. 2:14-cv-02596-HB (E.D. Pa., May 1, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiffs routinely worked 40 or more hours per week during the statutory time period but have not always received minimum wages or overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Connect America.Com, trading as ConnectAmerica, is a corporation headquartered in Media, Pennsylvania. The Company engages in sales of interactive (2-way) home medical emergency monitoring to consumers across the country. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mitchell L. Paul, Esq. 1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1199 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 546-6811 Facsimile: (215) 546-6812 E-mail: mpaul@paullaw.net - and - Samuel A. Dion, Esq. DION & GOLDBERGER 1845 Walnut St., Suite 1199 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 546-6033 Facsimile: (215) 546-6269 E-mail: samueldion@aol.com CVS CAREMARK: Faces Class Action Over Vitamin E Pills Labeling -------------------------------------------------------------- Brandon Lowrey, writing for Law360, reports that a customer hit CVS Caremark Corp. with a putative class action on May 2 in Rhode Island federal court, alleging the labels on the pharmacy chain's vitamin E pills improperly claim that they have heart health benefits. Plaintiff Ronda Kauffman filed the suit on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of consumers who bought vitamin E pills from the major pharmacy chain and subclasses for customers in Rhode Island and New York. The complaint alleges that the CVS labels mislead customers to believe that the vitamins could reduce the risk of heart disease. "The overwhelming majority of scientific studies find no 'heart health' benefit to taking vitamin E supplements," the complaint said. The pill bottles are sold at 7,600 CVS pharmacies across the nation and sell for about $8 to $20 each, according to the complaint. Ms. Kaufman bought vitamin E tablets from a CVS store in New York after reading the label and lost money on the purchase, which she wouldn't have made if not for the heart health claims, the complaint says. The complaint includes photographs of the vitamin E bottles and labels, one of which reads: "Vitamin E helps maintain healthy blood vessels and promotes heart health." The claim points to several studies that purportedly show vitamin E provides users with no heart health benefits and cites U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data showing that heart disease is the leading cause of death in the United States. "Defendants have preyed upon these legitimate health concerns by misrepresenting to consumers that its vitamin E products have a 'heart health' benefit when they do not," the suit says. The suit alleges that CVS violated deceptive business practice laws in New York and Rhode Island. Ms. Kaufman is seeking actual, statutory and punitive damages, a disgorgement of profits obtained from the allegedly illegal sales of the pills and a permanent injunction forbidding CVS from making the "heart healthy" claims on its vitamin E labels. Ms. Kaufman is represented by K. Joseph Shekarchi of Shekarchi Law Offices, Brian D. Penny -- penny@gskplaw.com -- and Douglas Bench of Goldman Scarlato Karon & Penny PC and John Zaremba and Robert Corbett of Zaremba Brownell & Brown PLLC. The case is Ronda Kaufman et al. v. CVS Caremark Corp. et al., case number 1:14-cv-00216, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island. DAVITA HEALTHCARE: Reaches Agreement to Settle Calif. Labor Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Davita Healthcare Partners Inc. has reached an agreement with the plaintiffs in a labor suit originally filed in the Superior Court of California to settle the claim that was remanded to the trial court, and the court has preliminarily approved that settlement, according to the company's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. A wage and hour claim, which has been styled as a class action, is pending against the Company in the Superior Court of California. The Company was served with the complaint in this lawsuit in April 2008, and it has been amended since that time. The complaint, as amended, alleges that the Company failed to provide meal periods, failed to pay compensation in lieu of providing rest or meal periods, failed to pay overtime, and failed to comply with certain other California Labor Code requirements. In September 2011, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Plaintiffs appealed that decision. In January 2013, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision on some claims, but remanded the case to the trial court for clarification of its decision on one of the claims. The Company has reached an agreement with the plaintiffs to settle the claim that was remanded to the trial court, and the court has preliminarily approved that settlement. The amount of the settlement is not material to the Company's consolidated financial statements. DIRECTV INC: Calif. Appellate Opinion Raises Issue on Concepcion ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jordan D. Grotzinger, Esq. -- grotzingerj@gtlaw.com -- at Greenberg Traurig, LLP reports that on April 27, 2011, the Supreme Court in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011), cleared the way for consumer products companies and other businesses to incorporate class action waivers into their arbitration agreements with customers. On April 7, 2014, the Second District Court of Appeal in California affirmed the denial of a motion to compel arbitration despite Concepcion, relying on language in the arbitration clause that rendered the clause invalid if state law would find the class action waiver unenforceable. The decision appears to contradict a recent Ninth Circuit decision, calling into question Concepcion's scope and ensuring further litigation of the issue. In Imburgia v. DirecTV, Inc., 170 Cal. Rptr. 3d 190 (2014), Plaintiffs accused DirecTV of improperly charging early termination fees and brought a class action against the company for false advertising, violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and related claims. After the trial court granted in part Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, Concepcion came down and DirecTV moved to decertify the class and compel arbitration. DirecTV's arbitration clause included a class action waiver and provided generally that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) applied, but also provided: "If, however, the law of your state would find this agreement to dispense with class arbitration procedures unenforceable, then this entire Section . . . is unenforceable." Id. at 193. The trial court denied the motion based on this language, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, finding that "the law of California would find the class action waiver unenforceable because, for example, the CLRA expressly precludes waiver of the right to bring a class action under the CLRA." Id. at 194, citing Cal. Civ. Code Secs. 1751, 1781(a). DirecTV argued that the decision was contrary to Concepcion and its broad interpretation of the FAA. However, the Court stated, "[t]he FAA's broad policy of enforcement of arbitration agreements according to their terms applies even to 'agreements to arbitrate under different rules than those set forth in the [FAA] itself.'" Id. (citation omitted). Accordingly, based on the California rule of contract interpretation that a specific provision controls over a general one, "the reference to 'the law of your state' in [the arbitration agreement] operates as 'a specific exception to the arbitration agreement's general adoption of the FAA'" found elsewhere in the agreement. Id. at 195. In addition, the Court held, Plaintiffs' "interpretation of the contract finds further support in 'the common-law rule of contract interpretation that a court should construe ambiguous language against the interest of the party that drafted it.'" Id. at 196 (citation omitted). DirecTV relied on the recent Ninth Circuit case of Murphy v. DirecTV, Inc., 724 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2013), which was decided after briefing in the Imburgia appeal was completed. There, the Ninth Circuit held that the class action waiver in DirecTV's customer agreement was enforceable underConcepcion, which preempts contrary state law. 724 F.3d at 1228. The Court of Appeals reasoned that "'the parties' various contract interpretation arguments' -- which included both the argument that the specific reference to state law controlled over the general reference to the FAA and the argument that ambiguities should be construed against the drafter -- 'are largely irrelevant to our analysis,' because under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, and the related doctrine of federal preemption, federal law is the law of every state." Id. The California Court of Appeal was unpersuaded: "a reasonable reader of the customer agreement would naturally interpret the phrase 'the law of your state' as referring to (nonfederal) state law, and any ambiguity should be construed against the drafter.[] On the other hand, insofar as the court reasoned that contract interpretation is irrelevant because the parties are powerless to opt out of the FAA by contract, we are aware of no authority for the court's position." 170 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 197 (footnote omitted). DirecTV's counsel has stated that the company intends to appeal. Thus, the extent to which parties are indeed powerless to opt out of the FAA because "federal law is the law of every state," or whether state law contract principles may allow them to do so, remains undecided. Based on the broad scope of the FAA as interpreted by Concepcion and Murphy, it is far from clear that theImburgia decision will survive. DOW JONES: Illegally Disclosed User Information, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------- Terry Locklear, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dow Jones & Company, Inc., Delaware corporation d/b/a Wall Street Journal Live, Case No. 1:14-cv- 00744-SCJ (N.D. Ga., March 13, 2014), seeks to put an end to the Defendant's alleged unlawful practice of disclosing users' sensitive information, and to obtain redress for such conduct. Dow Jones & Company, Inc., is a Delaware corporation located at 1211 Avenue of the Americans, New York, New York 10036. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. James Dominick Larry, Esq. Jay Edelson, Esq. Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON P.C. 350 North LaSalle Drive Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 598-6370 E-mail: brichman@edelson.com nlarry@edelson.com jedelson@edelson.com rbalabanian@edelson.com - and - Jennifer Auer Jordan, Esq. THE JORDAN FIRM, LLC Suite 880, 1447 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 873-4720 Facsimile: (404) 872-3745 E-mail: jennifer@thejordanfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Anthony Eliseuson, Esq. Kristen Rodriguez, Esq. Natalie Spears, Esq. DENTONS US LLP-IL 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 7800 Chicago, IL 60606-6404 Telephone: (312) 876-8000 - and - Richard H. Sinkfield, Esq. ROGERS & HARDIN, LLP 229 Peachtree Street, N.E. 2700 International Tower, Peachtree Center Atlanta, GA 30303-1601 Telephone: (404) 522-4700 E-mail: RSINKFIELD@RH-LAW.COM DYNEGY INC: Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Dan Ivers, writing for Law360, reports that a New York federal judge on April 30 dismissed a putative securities fraud class action brought against various officers and directors of Dynegy Inc. claiming they failed to provide investors with crucial information when restructuring the company's assets in 2011. In a 52-page opinion, U.S. District Judge John G. Koeltl found that the Houston, Texas-based electric utility company had provided shareholders with fair warning that it was purchasing coal-fired and gas-powered facilities from Dynegy Holdings LLC in September 2011, and that the transactions would be only the first in a series of refinancing moves. "In this case, Dynegy made significant public disclosures pertaining to its ongoing restructuring efforts. Although the plaintiffs argue that Dynegy's disclosures did not adequately inform investors that its initial refinancing and restructuring together constituted the first of two steps in a planned restructuring process, Dynegy in fact disclosed in July 2011 that its refinancing and restructuring were only 'the initial step in the company's operating and financial restructuring'," the ruling said. Judge Koeltl also ruled that alleged omissions in U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings and other statements identified in the complaint could not be considered "material" because a reasonable investor would not have considered the missing information to be a major factor on whether to purchase stock in Dynegy. The putative class action was filed by shareholder Charles Silsby in 2012, alleging that Dynegy CEO Robert C. Flexon and other executives failed to disclose that the company was insolvent or nearly insolvent when it purchased the Dynegy Holdings assets, and told other "half-truths" related to its financial standing at the time. Two months later, Dynegy placed the holding company into bankruptcy as part of a pact with investors to sort out more than $4 billion in debt. As part of the transfer, the company received a financial instrument called an undertaking that was later valued at $1.25 billion. Mr. Silsby alleged that value was far too high, and that controversy surrounding the coal asset transfer later caused "devastating" stock losses. Two weeks after the transfer, Dynegy's stock priced in at nearly $6 per share, the complaint said. But on March 9, 2012, an examiner tapped by Dynegy Holdings' bankruptcy judge to probe the transfer issued a scathing report deeming it fraudulent. In addition to Flexon, the class action also named Dynegy Chief Financial Officer Clint C. Freeland, Chief Operating Officer Kevin Holwell, major Dynegy equity holder Carl Icahn, and five current or former directors at the company as defendants. Mr. Silsby is represented by Nicholas I. Porritt of Levi & Korsinsky LLP. The non-Icahn defendants are represented by Douglas P. Baumstein -- dbaumstein@whitecase.com -- and Isaac Glassman -- iglassman@whitecase.com -- of White & Case LLP. Icahn is represented by Robert R. Viducich. The case is Silsby v. Icahn et al., case number 1:12-cv-02307, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. E-Z RENT A CAR: Violates FACTA Amendment to FCRA, Fla. Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Legg, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals v. E-Z Rent a Car, Inc, a Florida corporation d/b/a in California as Florida E-Z Rent a Car, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-01124-WQH-BGS (S.D. Cal., May 1, 2014) is based upon the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. E-Z Rent A Car, Inc. is a Florida corporation whose principal office is located in Orlando, Florida. Since 1994, the Defendant has been in the business of renting automobiles to consumers. The Defendant currently maintains rental locations in numerous airports both in and outside of the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kira M. Rubel, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KIRA M. RUBEL 555 West Beech Street, Suite 230 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (877) 749-3838 E-mail: krubel@kmrlawfirm.com - and - Scott D. Owens, Esq. SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A. 664 E. Hallandale Beach Blvd. Hallandale Beach, FL 33009 Telephone: (954) 589-0588 E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com EAST COAST WALL: Class Seeks to Recover Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Gatanis, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, 1 Pennsylvania Road, #10, Glassboro, NJ 08028, and Michael Gatanis, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, 3 South Delsea Drive, Apt. B (Upstairs), Glassboro, NJ 08028 v. East Coast Wall Systems, LLC, 101 Stacy Haines Road, Lumberton, NJ 08048, and John Does 1-10, Case No. 1:14-cv-02776-RMB-JS (D.N.J., May 1, 2014) alleges that the Defendants intentionally failed to pay the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated proper overtime compensation earned while in the Defendants' employ. East Coast is a business entity headquartered in Lumberton, New Jersey. The Doe Defendants are presently unknown persons. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard S. Swartz, Esq. Daniel A. Horowitz, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC 1878 Marlton Pike East, Suite 10 Cherry Hill, NJ 08003 Telephone: (856) 685-7420 Facsimile: (856) 685-7417 E-mail: rswartz@swartz-legal.com EAST TEXAS INSULATORS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Worker Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Raul Landaverde, individually and on behalf of all others similarly v. East Texas Insulators, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-00584 (E.D. Tex., May 1, 2014) accuses the Company of failing to pay the Plaintiff and all those similarly situated employees overtime wages. East Texas Insulators, LLC is a Texas limited liability company doing business in the state of Texas with its principal place of business in Longview, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: William S. Hommel, Jr., Esq. HOMMEL LAW FIRM 1404 Rice Road, Suite 200 Tyler, TX 75703 Telephone: (903) 596-7100 Facsimile: (469) 533-1618 E-mail: bhommel@hommelfirm.com EL CIBAENO BAKERY: Fails to Pay for OT Work, "Luciano" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Silvio Luciano, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. El Cibaeno Bakery Inc. Case no. 1:14-cv-01103 (S.D.N.Y., February 21, 2014), results from the alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Acts as claimed that the Plaintiff is entitle of the unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgmental and post- judgmental interest and attorney's fees. El Cibaeno is a New York domestic business corporation located at 653 Morris Park Avenue, Bronx, New York 10462. The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter Hans Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 708 Third Avenue 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com ENBRIDGE ENERGY: Faces Suits Over Line 6B Crude Oil Release ----------------------------------------------------------- Approximately 25 actions or claims are pending against Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. and its affiliates in state and federal courts in connection with the Line 6B crude oil release, according to the company's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. A number of governmental agencies and regulators have initiated investigations into the Line 6B crude oil release. Approximately 25 actions or claims are pending against the company and its affiliates in state and federal courts in connection with the Line 6B crude oil release, including direct actions and actions seeking class status. Based on the current status of these cases, the company does not expect the outcome of these actions to be material. On July 2, 2012, PHMSA announced a Notice of Probable Violation, or NOPV, related to the Line 6B crude oil release, including a civil penalty of $3.7 million that the company paid during the third quarter of 2012. ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Settles Transvaginal Mesh Suit for $830MM ------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that an agreement with Endo International PLC to resolve thousands of lawsuits over transvaginal mesh devices is unlikely to sway other manufacturers to immediately settle, according to lawyers involved in the litigation. The deal, estimated to be worth about $830 million, resolves 20,000 claims against Endo's Minneapolis subsidiary, American Medical Systems Inc., the company said on April 30. The deal is the largest to come out of the mesh litigation -- but that doesn't mean other manufacturers are scrambling to craft their own agreements. In fact, two of the largest defendants -- Johnson & Johnson and Boston Scientific Corp. -- are preparing for trials this year. "It's going to be a busy year," said Harry Bell -- hfbell@belllaw.com -- of The Bell Law Firm in Charleston, W.Va., liaison co-counsel for the plaintiffs in the mesh litigation. "The landscape of TVM [transvaginal mesh] is going to be drastically different at the end of the year. We've already seen one huge change." He referred to the AMS settlement. AMS isn't the first defendant to settle mesh cases. Coloplast Corp., which faces more than 1,200 lawsuits, announced on March 4 that it had "reached a settlement agreement in principle with a group of lawyers." But the AMS deal resolves the largest volume of cases. More than 40,000 lawsuits have targeted seven manufacturers alleging that mesh implants, designed to treat urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse, have caused pain and bleeding and in, some cases, required additional surgeries to remove them. On April 29, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued two proposed orders that would reclassify transvaginal mesh devices as "high risk." The AMS agreement aside, most of the manufacturers have taken a hard line. "The official position of the other defendants -- we're talking about Bard, Ethicon, and Boston Scientific -- is they are prepared to fight this," Mr. Bell said. "They think their products, there's nothing wrong with them, and they're aggressively fighting and continuing to do so." Johnson & Johnson, whose Ethicon Inc. unit is named in more than 15,000 lawsuits, faces mounting pressure in mesh litigation. On Feb. 4, U.S. Magistrate Judge Cheryl Eifert in the Southern District of West Virginia sanctioned Ethicon for having lost or destroyed some documents and ordered that juries should be told about it -- but she also concluded the actions weren't negligent. Consumer groups, taking up the sanctions order, have called upon the Justice Department and Congress to investigate. The Corporate Action Network, which has launched a campaign called www.JohnsonandJohnsonHurtsWomen.org has called on chief executive officer Alex Gorsky, who previously headed the Ethicon unit, to stop making the implants. Johnson & Johnson is scheduled to go to trial on July 7 in New Jersey state courts -- although the date could be pushed back, given Atlantic County Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee's temporary assignment to the appellate division. Lead plaintiffs attorney Adam Slater -- aslater@mskf.net -- a partner at Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman in Roseland, N.J., said Johnson & Johnson has been among the most aggressive opponents. "The litigation has been much more contentious," he said. "It's hard fought litigation." On April 3, a jury in Dallas issued a $1.2 million verdict against Johnson & Johnson. On Feb. 19, U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin, overseeing most of the mesh cases in the Southern District of West Virginia, tossed out the first federal trial over one of its mesh devices. A second trial is set for Aug. 25. Boston Scientific, which faces more than 10,000 lawsuits, also has trials coming up. In federal court, Goodwin has scheduled a Sept. 29 trial for five women in Florida and an Oct. 14 trial involving 10 women in West Virginia. "Until they come in with a serious substantial offer for my clients, we're going to be prepared to go to trial," Mr. Bell said. It's not just the defendants who are up for a fight. Although steering committees lead the litigation, plaintiffs attorneys have pursued cases independently. About a dozen firms with a combined 10,000 claims didn't participate in the AMS agreement, said Joseph Rice -- jrice@motleyrice.com -- founding member of Motley Rice in Mount Pleasant, S.C., who led negotiations over the deal. "This is not a global settlement," he said. "This settlement probably resolves 80 percent of the cases that have been filed in the courthouse." Some attorneys, he said, just weren't ready to settle. After all, AMS isn't just writing blank checks. Under the agreement, the women must prove that it was AMS's device -- not another defendant's -- that caused their injuries. That process could take at least nine months, Mr. Rice said. He acknowledged that many women could have trouble proving their pain is related to the mesh devices inside them. "I'm certain the defendants feel there are a number of claims filed that have not suffered a present injury," he said. "And I believe they're right." ERNST & YOUNG: CalPERS Wins $12.75-Mil. Settlement in Lehman Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Anderson, writing for Sacramento Business Journal, reports that the California Public Employees' Retirement System said on May 5 it won a $12.75 million settlement with accounting firm Ernst & Young LLP over its assessment of Lehman Brothers stocks and bonds prior to the 2008 collapse of Lehman. The Sacramento-based public pension fund opted to pursue litigation against Ernst & Young on its own rather than being part of a class action. According to a news release from CalPERS, the settlement is far larger than if it had stayed in the class action. The CalPERS action was filed in February 2011 over allegedly false statements made by the accounting firm about Lehman's financial condition, which led to Lehman securities trading at artificially high values. FACEBOOK INC: Ninth Circuit Tosses Federal Privacy Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Julia Love, writing for The Recorder, reports that the Ninth Circuit shielded Facebook and Zynga from federal wiretap claims on May 8, but opened the door for plaintiffs to pursue state law claims against the social networking giant. In putative class actions that were consolidated on appeal, plaintiffs alleged Facebook Inc. and Zynga Inc. violated their privacy by sharing their confidential information with third parties. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit spared the companies, finding they had not disclosed the substance of users' messages, as required for claims under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. "The plaintiffs' complaints suffer from a common defect -- they fail to allege that either Facebook or Zynga divulged the contents of a communication to a third party," Ninth Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta wrote for the three-judge panel. In a 22-page opinion, Judge Ikuta and Circuit Judges Arthur Alarcon and Richard Tallman endorsed the rulings of U.S. District Judge James Ware, who has since retired from the Northern District of California bench. A spokesman for Zynga, the San Francisco-based social gaming company, did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the order. Facebook cheered the ruling. "We are pleased that the court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' federal and state statutory claims," a Facebook spokeswoman said in a statement. But the Menlo Park-based company is not entirely off the hook. Parting ways with Ware in an unpublished opinion, the panel revived plaintiffs' breach-of-contract and fraud claims, which were filed under state law. Plaintiffs may now move forward with allegations that Facebook's disclosures to advertisers robbed them of the value of their personal information. Kassra Nassiri, who represents plaintiffs in Robertson v. Facebook, hailed the order as an important development for plaintiffs in privacy class actions. Many district courts have tossed breach-of-contract claims in the cases, reasoning that the disclosure of personal information is not real harm, he noted. "I'm really pleased that the Ninth Circuit felt otherwise," said Mr. Nassiri, of Nassiri & Jung in San Francisco. "It's not plausible that this personal information is worth a gold mine to Facebook and worthless to the plaintiffs." But Mr. Nassiri said he was disappointed the court made that ruling in the form of an unpublished opinion that will not set precedent. Adam Levitt -- alevitt@gelaw.com -- of Grant & Eisenhofer in Chicago, who argued the motion for the plaintiffs in Graf v. Zynga, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Aaron Panner -- apanner@khhte.com -- the Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel partner who argued the motion for Facebook, could not be reached either. Duane Morris partner Richard Seabolt -- RLSeabolt@duanemorris.com -- who argued the motion for Zynga, declined comment. Plaintiffs accuse Zynga and Facebook of transmitting users' Facebook IDs and the links of pages they visited to advertisers. Plaintiffs warned that advertisers could use those tidbits to reach users' profile pages. But the panel found that information does not comprise the "contents" of a message. "We hold that under ECPA, the term 'contents' refers to the intended message conveyed by the communication, and does not include record information regarding the characteristics of the message that is generated in the course of the communication," Judge Ikuta wrote. FLOWERS HOSPITAL: Faces Class Action Over Patient Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- Cynthia Washington, writing for WTVY-TV, reports that a Dothan attorney has filed a class action lawsuit against Flowers Hospital, following an eight-month long data breach that spanned June of 2013 until February of 2014. The lawsuit, filed by M. Adam Jones and Associates is on behalf of Bradley Smith, Julie McGee and others. The 24-page lawsuit has four counts, including willful and negligent violation of the fair credit reporting act, negligence and violation of privacy by public disclosure of private facts. This lawsuit comes three weeks after Flowers Hospital sent a letter to an undisclosed amount of patients on April 15th. The letter informs patients of a potential data breach, which may have put their personal information at risk. The letter also informs the patients the employee believed to be at the center of the data breach has been fired. That employee was reportedly Kamarian Millender, who has since been arrested in Henry County and charged with trafficking in stolen IDs. Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit are seeking money for damages, attorney's fees and other costs associated with the lawsuit. GENERAL MOTORS: General Counsel Gets Mix Views Amid Recall Probe ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sue Reisinger, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that few executives will play a more important role in the current General Motors Co. recall scandal than its general counsel, Michael Millikin. And there were some decidedly mixed views about his work. Mr. Millikin's legal department is dealing with four federal investigations -- by the U.S. Department of Justice, the National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and committees in the House and Senate -- over its decade-long delay in recalling 2.6 million cars with faulty ignition switches that led to at least 13 deaths. A former federal prosecutor, Mr. Millikin is also coleading an internal GM probe into the problem. The GC has a team of about 85 in-house lawyers in the U.S., with approximately 140 more overseas, where the company has been making a push for more sales. And the team is facing at least 55 lawsuits filed domestically related to the ignition-switch problems. Mr. Millikin, 65, has declined comment during the ongoing investigations. But others describe him as a "no-nonsense lawyer and manager who strikes an imposing presence around GM headquarters. He demands an unusually fine level of detail from those who report directly to him," according to a story in Automotive News. "He's extremely hands-on," the article quotes one former attorney who worked with Millikin. "Mike's management style is, 'Tell me now. I need to know.'"Another former colleague described Mr. Millikin in the article as "street smart" and "intense." John Quinn, a partner at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan who has worked with Mr. Millikin on GM cases for 20 years, told Automotive News that he has seen Mr. Millikin be very "critical of people who get out of line"within GM. "He's not starry-eyed about GM. He knows there can be bad apples, and he doesn't tolerate it," Mr. Quinn said. But not everyone thinks so highly of the GC. Peter DeLorenzo, who has written two books about the dysfunction in the auto industry and authors a blog called Autoextremist, attacked the legal department. "GM's legal staff needs to be blown up, starting with a regime change at the top and a thorough purging of any and all who have enthusiastically taken their marching orders from the current chief counsel [Millikin],"he wrote. Mr. DeLorenzo has said the legal department represents the "old" GM culture, which "revolves around making money." He accused it of "paranoia" and "internal meddling," and said it has been "on a downward spiral" since the 1960s when a wayward legal staffer investigated consumer advocate Ralph Nader without authorization. GM has said Mr. Millikin learned of the ignition-switch problems after Jan. 31, but his legal department has settled at least five related cases involving fatal crashes over the past several years. Peter Henning, a professor at Wayne State University Law School, told Automotive News that a GC at a company as large as GM would not normally "wade into the minutiae" of individual cases. But a pattern of settlements eventually should raise red flags. "That's a key question in this case: What did the legal department know, and how high up did it go?" Mr. Henning said. GREAT SOUTHERN: Class Action Settlement Talks Underway ------------------------------------------------------ The Australian Associated Press reports that talks are underway to settle a class action over the billion dollar collapse of agribusiness Great Southern. The agricultural projects manager, which raised $1.8 billion and managed 45 investment schemes, collapsed in 2009. A trial concluded in October 2013 and a judgment is pending. Bendigo and Adelaide Bank, which had loans to investors in Great Southern managed investment schemes, has confirmed settlement talks are being held by the parties involved. No agreement has been reached, and if there is an agreement struck, it would require court approval, the bank said. But Bendigo and Adelaide Bank said it would only accept a settlement that includes an admission from class action members that their loans from the bank are valid and enforceable. Lawyers pursuing the class action are seeking to have the loans deemed void and for all money issued by the bank to be repaid to borrowers. Bendigo and Adelaide Bank has made provisions against its failed Great Southern loans, but has said they are small in relation to the potential losses should it be required to repay the loans. HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES: Removed "Goldberg" Suit to D. New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Goldberg, et al. v. Healthport Technologies, LLC, et al., Case No. ESX-L-01421-14, was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-02810-WHW-CLW to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs allege claims for overcharging for services related to copying medical records, in violation of the New Jersey Administrative Code. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Peter J. Kurshan, Esq. CHASE, KURSHAN, HERZFELD & RUBIN, LLC 354 Livingston Parkway Livingston, NJ 07039 Telephone: (973) 535-8840 E-mail: pkurshan@chaselawnj.com The Defendants are represented by: Rebecca Brazzano, Esq. THOMPSON HINE LLP 335 Madison Avenue, 12th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 344-5680 Facsimile: (212) 344-6101 E-mail: rebecca.brazzano@thompsonhine.com HERB CHAMBERS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Scott O'Brien, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals v. Herb Chambers of Somerville Corp., Herb Chambers Of Braintree II, LLC, and The Herb Chambers Companies, Case No. 1:14-cv-11990 (D. Mass., May 1, 2014) is brought to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages and liquidated damages. The Herb Chambers Companies is a group of corporations and limited liability companies that operate numerous auto dealerships (approximately 50), auto repair facilities (approximately 48) and collision centers (3) in Massachusetts. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Fogelman, Esq. FOGELMAN & FOGELMAN LLC 100 Wells Avenue Newton, MA 02459 Telephone: (617) 559-1530 Facsimile: (617) 505-1540 E-mail: mjf@fogelmanlawfirm.com - and - Brian P. McCafferty, Esq. KENNEY & MCCAFFERTY PC 1787 Sentry Park West Building 18, Suite 410 Blue Bell, PA 19422 Telephone: (215) 367-4333 Facsimile: (215) 367-4335 E-mail: cafstar@aol.com HESS CORPORATION: Settles Royalty Owners' Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO ARMAND L. SMITH, BRAZOS BRAVO ROYALTY TRUST AND RIO PETRO, LTD., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated private royalty and overriding royalty owners, Plaintiffs, vs. HESS CORPORATION, No. 13-CV-00468-JCH-CG Defendants. SUMMARY NOTICE OF A CLASS ACTION TO: ALL MEMBERS OF THE CLASS OF OWNERS OF PRIVATE ROYALTY AND OVERRIDING ROYALTY THAT BURDEN LEASES OR WORKING INTERESTS OF HESS CORPORATION IN THE WEST BRAVO DOME CARBON DIOXIDE UNIT WHO RECEIVE ROYALTIES FOR PRODUCTION OF CARBON DIOXIDE, EXCLUDING T.E. MITCHELL & SONS, INC. Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on May 20, 2013 for themselves and on behalf of private royalty and overriding royalty owners against Hess Corporation. Plaintiffs contend that they are owners of royalty and overriding royalty interest in the West Bravo Dome Carbon Dioxide Unit in Harding County, New Mexico whose interests apply to the leases in the Unit operated by Hess. The leases produce carbon dioxide which Hess uses for enhanced recovery of oil in West Texas. Plaintiffs contend that they and all private owners have been economically damaged because Hess underpaid the royalty and overriding royalty by not following the terms of the Unit Agreement. Plaintiffs claim that Hess has breached the Unit Agreement and breached the implied covenants of good faith and of the duty to market. On February 21, 2014, the Court in this case entered an Unopposed Class Certification Order. The case will now proceed as a class action between the Smith Class and Hess. The Smith Class includes all private royalty and overriding royalty owners in the Unit, except T. E. Mitchell & Son, Inc. This notice is being published to call attention to the class members. The claims certified by the Court are for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of implied covenant to market and declaratory judgment and injunction. The lawyers representing plaintiffs and the Class are the following: J.E. Gallegos, Esq. Michael J. Condon, Esq. Gallegos Law Firm, P.C. 460 St. Michael's Drive, Building 300 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 Tel: (505) 983-6686 E-mail: jeg@gallegoslawfirm.net mjc@gallegoslawfirm.net This Notice is given by Order of the Court. It summarizes some of your rights under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is not an expression of any opinion of the Court as to the merits of any of the claims or defenses asserted by any party in the case. More detailed information is being provided in a written Notice being mailed to all class members. If you have not received that Notice you may obtain one by contacting plaintiffs' attorneys noted above. IF YOU WANT TO REMAIN A CLASS MEMBER, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO DO ANYTHING AT THIS TIME. This Summary Notice is not meant to be a complete description of the case. The pleadings and other papers filed in this case are available for inspection at the office of the U.S. District Clerk of the United States District Court of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, during the regular business hours of each business day. Please address any questions concerning this Notice by calling or by writing to the lawyers for the plaintiffs listed at GALLEGOS LAW FIRM, P.C. DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE FOR INFORMATION. Ordered this 25th day of March, 2014, by the United States District Court of New Mexico. HIKO ENERGY: Faces "Chen" Suit Over Deceptive Pricing Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- Yang Chen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Hiko Energy, LLC, Case No. 7:14-cv-01771-VB (S.D.N.Y., March 14, 2014), seeks redress from the Defendant's deceptive pricing practices that have caused thousands of consumers to pay considerably more for their electricity than they should otherwise have paid. Hiko Energy, LLC, has taken advantage of the deregulation of the retail electricity markets by luring consumers into switching electricity suppliers with false promises of a competitive market-based rate that delivers guaranteed savings. Hiko Energy, LLC, is a New York corporation located at 12 College Rd., Suite 100, Monsey, New York 10952. The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Gregory Blankinship, Esq. Jeremiah Lee Frei-Pearson, Esq. Shin Young Hahn, Esq. Todd Seth Garber, Esq. MEISELMAN, PACKMAN, NEALON, SCIALABBA & BAKER P.C.(WPL) 1311 Mamaroneck Avenue White Plains, NY 10605 Telephone: (914) 517-5000 Facsimile: (914) 517-5055 E-mail: gblankinship@mpnsb.com jfrei-pearson@mpnsb.com shahn@mpnsb.com tgarber@mpnsb.com The Defendant is represented by: Motty Shulman, Esq. BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Telephone: (914) 749-8244 E-mail: mshulman@bsfllp.com HIKO ENERGY: Faces "Sasso" Suit Over Deceptive Marketing -------------------------------------------------------- Lawrence Sasso on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Hiko Energy, LLc, Case No. 7:14-cv-02042-VB (S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2014) is brought against the Defendant for false marketing of its electricity supply by representing to consumers that they will enjoy guaranteed savings as compared to local utilities' rates, and that they offer a competitive market rate. Hiko Energy, LLC is a New York limited liability corporation located at 12 College Road, Monsey, New York 10952-2821. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew R. Mendelsohn, Esq. MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN, LLC 103 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07922 Telephone: (973) 228-9898 Facsimile: (973) 328-0303 E-mail: mmendelsohn@mskf.net The Defendant is represented by: Motty Shulman, Esq. BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Telephone: (914) 749-8244 E-mail: mshulman@bsfllp.com HSNI LLC: Sued Misleading Promotion of Kitchen Knives ----------------------------------------------------- Allen Moshiri, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HSNi, LLC dba Shopping Network, a Delaware Limited Liability Company et al, Case No. 3:14-cv-01034-VC (N.D. Cal., March 5, 2014) is brought against the Defendants for unfair, unlawful; and fraudulent course of conduct in promoting, advertising, offering for sale, and selling products through material misinterpretations and omissions as to the place of origin and quality of products. HSNi, LLC has promoted, advertised and sold various kitchen knives and knife sets under the "EMERIL" brand name that the Defendant represented were manufactured in Solingen, Germany. However, these knives and knife sets were manufactured in China. HSNi, LLC, is a Delaware Limited Liability Corporation located at St. Petersburg, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Farrah Agharokh Mirabel, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF FARRAH MIRABEL 4590 Mcarthur Blvd, Suite 280 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 752-0707 Facsimile: (949) 417-1796 E-mail: fmesq@fmirabel.com - and - J. Kirk Donnelly, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF J. KIRK DONNELLEY, APC 7668 El Camino Real, Suite 104-760 Carlsbad, CA 92009 Telephone: (760) 634-5700 Facsimile: (760) 634-5701 The Defendant is represented by: Jay W. Connolly, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 560 Mission Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 397-2823 E-mail: jconnolly@seyfarth.com - and - Daniel Michael Blouin, Esq. Kristine Rinella Argentine, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 131 South Dearborn, Suite 2400 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 460-5000 Facsimile: (312) 460-7000 E-mail: dblouin@seyfarth.com kargentine@seyfarth.com JANSSEN PHARMA: Judge Upholds $11MM Verdict in Topamax Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that a Philadelphia judge has upheld an $11 million jury verdict awarded to the parents of a child born with a severe cleft lip caused by the anti-seizure drug Topamax, which his mother took during pregnancy. Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge George W. Overton denied Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceuticals' request for a new trial April 25. The jury in Powell v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals issued the award in favor of Haley Powell and Michael Gurley, the parents of Brayden Gurley, on Nov. 18, 2013. The verdict was divided into $335,000 for future health care expenses and $10.6 million for non-economic loss. Delay damages were added Dec. 3, in the amount of $700,294, bringing the total up to about $11.6 million. In April, Janssen settled 76 cases in which plaintiffs alleged that Topamax, taken during pregnancy, caused birth defects. According to the Complex Litigation Center's case inventory, in the wake of the settlements, 59 Topamax cases are still pending. In response to Janssen's 15-point appeal in Powell, Judge Overton wrote in his opinion that Janssen was neither entitled to a new trial nor remittitur because the jury's award was appropriate given the severity of Brayden Gurley's injuries. In addition to emotional injuries suffered by Brayden because of his inability to be understood in conversation with his peers as well as residual surgical scarring, Judge Overton said Brayden must undergo ongoing visits with a plastic surgeon, dental surgery, speech therapy, auditory evaluations, oral surgery, possible rhinoplasty and treatment for possible psychological issues related to the corrective surgeries. "Given the injuries that will plague Brayden Gurley into adulthood, the award determined by the jury can hardly be said to be excessive," Judge Overton said. Powell's pretrial memorandum alleged that Powell's ingestion of Topamax (also called topiramate) -- prescribed to control her migraine headaches and hand tremors during the first trimester of pregnancy in 2007 -- caused her son to be born with right unilateral cleft lip. According to court papers, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, the maker of the drug, knew about the risk of birth defects associated with Topamax, but failed to provide adequate warning to users. "A decade before Janssen got around to changing its label [in 2011], internal Janssen documents concluded that Topamax can cause birth defects," court papers alleged, adding that a 2001 informed consent form draft from Janssen stated, "Topiramate has the potential to cause serious birth defects in children." On appeal, Janssen requested judgment notwithstanding the verdict, claiming that Powell's failure-to-warn claims were preempted by federal law; however, Judge Overton said the case had nothing to do with preemption. "Whether [Janssen] was negligent in failing to warn was the liability issue for the jury to determine in this matter and not preemption," Judge Overton said. "It was not the [jury's] duty to determine whether federal law preempted because it was not the issue in the case." Judge Overton added that even though the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, a federal agency, had the authority to approve the Topamax warning label, the FDA's approval does not preempt state law failure-to-warn suits against a drugmaker. Janssen also argued that the court failed to instruct the jury as to comparative negligence and what percentage was attributable to Powell, Judge Overton said. "Since this case was based on [Janssen's] failure to warn the prescribing physician, comparative negligence was not applicable," Overton said, adding that Janssen would have had to direct any claim regarding comparative negligence to Powell's doctor. However, Judge Overton noted that the jury found that Janssen failed to warn Powell's doctor as to the risks associated with Topamax. "Furthermore, it was unnecessary to instruct the jury on the comparative negligence standard because the plaintiff's negligence was not at issue in the case," Overton concluded. Another argument made by Janssen was that the admission of certain "irrelevant" evidence prejudiced its case, Judge Overton said. Some of the evidence included consent forms from the Topamax clinical trial participants, adverse event reports (AERs) and the testimony of two medical experts. "Accordingly, the data from the consent forms made it more probable that [Janssen] had knowledge that Topamax could cause birth defects in its users and that information was directly related to how the trier of fact determined this matter," Judge Overton said. He added that Janssen wasn't prejudiced by the admission of the AERs because they were germane to causation. "If complex and technical medical reports are presented with an expert whose testimony would explain their significance to the jury," Judge Overton said, "the evidence should be admitted." Lastly, Judge Overton said the testimony of two medical experts was not redundant, as Janssen had claimed, and therefore could properly be admitted into evidence. "Each expert witness testified about the issue in the case based on their individual expertise and merely strengthened the other expert's testimony," Judge Overton said, adding that neither expert "presented evidence that was needlessly cumulative; both provided varying opinions that assisted the jury, as the trier of fact, in determining the outcome of this case." Janssen's attorney, Kenneth Murphy -- Kenneth.Murphy@dbr.com -- of Drinker Biddle & Reath, declined to comment. The lead attorney for the plaintiffs, Shelley Hutson of Houston- based Clark, Love & Hutson, did not return a call seeking comment. JONES FINANCIAL: Settlement in Labor Suit Up for Prelim. Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- A preliminary approval is being sought for a settlement reached in a labor suit filed against Edward Jones in Alameda Superior Court, according to The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P.'s May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 28, 2014. Nicholas Maxwell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. On December 18, 2012, Edward Jones was named as a defendant in a putative class action complaint in Alameda Superior Court. The complaint asserted causes of action for unlawful wage deductions (Labor Code sections 221, 223, 400-410, 2800, 2802, Cal. Code Reg. title 8, section 11040(8)); California Unfair Competition Law violations (Business and Professions Code sections 17200-04); and waiting time penalties (Labor Code sections 201-203). Plaintiff alleged that Edward Jones improperly charged its California financial advisors fees, costs, and expenses related to trading errors or "broken" trades, and failed to timely pay wages at termination. The parties reached a tentative settlement that, if approved, will not have an adverse material impact on the Partnership's Consolidated Financial Condition. Plaintiff filed his motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement on March 26, 2014. JPMORGAN CHASE: MBS Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval -------------------------------------------------------- Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that JPMorgan Chase & Co has won preliminary approval from a U.S. judge for its agreement to pay $280 million to resolve claims that it misled investors in billions of dollars worth of mortgage-backed securities. U.S. District Judge Pamela Chen, in Brooklyn, New York, issued the preliminary approval on May 2. The settlement, which is subject to final court approval, would resolve a class action lawsuit filed in 2008. The accord marks the third-largest settlement in a U.S. class action against banks that packaged and sold mortgage securities at the center of the 2008 financial crisis. The class action was led by the Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi, which had sued over what it said were untrue statements and omissions in connection with $36.8 billion in mortgage securities issued in 2006 and 2007. The lawsuit accused JPMorgan of ignoring its standards and guidelines when evaluating and buying loans included in 33 offerings of mortgage securities. After a series of rulings, MissPERS ultimately moved forward on a narrower case that would cover investor claims stemming from 26 offerings of mortgage-backed securities. The settlement resolves claims held by investors in those offerings. A hearing on final settlement approval is scheduled for July 24. David Stickney -- davids@blbglaw.com -- a lawyer for the plaintiffs at Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, declined comment. The JPMorgan settlement, which was filed with the court in March, follows a deal announced in February in which Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc agreed to pay $275 million to resolve similar mortgage-backed securities claims. Other class-action settlements over mortgage-backed securities include a $500 million deal between Bank of America Corp and investors claiming they were misled by the bank's Countrywide unit. A federal judge approved that settlement in December. A separate $315 million accord over securities issued by Bank of America's Merrill Lynch unit won court approval in 2012. The case is Plumbers' & Pipefitters' Local #562 Supplemental Plan & Trust v. J.P. Morgan Acceptance Corporation I, et al, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, No. 08-01713. KIMBERLY-CLARK: Faces "Kurtz" Suit Over Flushable Wipes ------------------------------------------------------- D. Joseph Kurtz, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation and Costco Wholesale Corporation Case No. 1:14-cv-01142 (E.D.N.Y., February 21, 2014), alleges deceptive, improper or unlawful conduct in the design, marketing, manufacturing, distribution and sale of Kimberly-Clark's flushable wipes that cause harm to plumbing and sewer system. Kimberly-Clark is a Delaware corporation, which, together with its subsidiaries, manufactures and markets personal care, consumer tissue, and health products worldwide. Costco Wholesale Corporation is a Washington corporation, which, together with its subsidiaries, operates membership warehouses. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark J. Dearman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Facsimile: (561) 750-3364 E-mail: mdearman@rgrdlaw.com - and - Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 E Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Facsimile: (561) 750-3364 E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com - and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: reich@csgrr.com The Defendants are represented by: Eamon Paul Joyce, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 787 Seventh Ave New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 839-8555 Facsimile: (212) 839-5599 E-mail: ejoyce@sidley.com - and - Daniel A. Spira, Esq. James W. Mizgala, Esq. Kara L. McCall, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP One South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 853-7000 Facsimile: (312) 853-7036 E-mail: dspira@sidley.com jmizgala@sidley.com kmccall@sidley.com - and - James M. Bergin, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER 1290 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10104 Telephone: (212) 468-8000 Facsimile: (212) 468-7900 E-mail: jbergin@mofo.com - and - Adam James Hunt, Esq. Kayvan Betteridge Sadeghi, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 1290 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10104 Telephone: (212) 336-4341 Facsimile: (212) 468-7900 E-mail: adamhunt@mofo.com ksadeghi@mofo.com L&B INDUSTRIAL: Sued for Failing to Pay Regular & Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ed D. Porter, et al, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. L&B Industrial, Inc. et al, Case No. 2:14- cv-00062 (S.D. Tex., March 4, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid regular and overtime wages from the Defendant. L&B Industrial, Inc., is a Texas corporation located at 2724 Sam Houston Parkway, Pasadena, Texas 77503. The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Christopher Hesse, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Center, 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net curt@mooreandassociates.net LIFELOCK INC: Faces "Scesny" Suit Over Breach of Securities Law --------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph F. Scesny, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lifelock, Inc., a Delaware corporation, et al, Case No. 2:14-cv-00479-SRB (D. Ariz., March 10, 2014), seeks to recover damages caused by the Defendants violation of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Lifelock, Inc., is a Delaware Corporation located at 60 East Rio salado Parkway, Suite 400, Tempe, Arizona 85281. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald Barrett, Esq. WARD KEENAN & BARRETT PC 3838 N Central Ave., Ste. 1720 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Telephone: (602) 279-1717 Facsimile: (602) 279-8908 E-mail: gbarrett@wardkeenanbarrett.com - and - Timothy John MacFall, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG PA 825 E Gate Blvd., Ste. 300 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 683-3516 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: tjm@rl-legal.com The Defendant is represented by: Boris Feldman, Esq. Brian Danitz, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI LLP 650 Page Mill Rd. Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Telephone: (650) 858-4444 Facsimile: (650) 493-6811 E-mail: boris.feldman@wsgr.com bdanitz@wsgr.com - and - Cynthia Ann Ricketts, Esq. SACKS RICKETTS & CASE LLP 2800 N Central Ave., Ste. 1230 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Telephone: (602) 385-3370 Facsimile: (602) 385-3371 E-mail: cricketts@sacksrickettscase.com LIHUA INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Anand" Securities Suit in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ashish Anand, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lihua International Inc., Jianhua Zhu, and Daphne Yan Huang, Case No. 2:14-cv-03381-PA-VBK (C.D. Cal., May 1, 2014) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons, other than the Defendants, who purchased the common stock of Lihua between August 9, 2012, and April 30, 2014, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of federal securities laws and pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Lihua International Inc. is a Delaware corporation that purports to manufacture, market, and distribute refined copper products through its wholly-owned subsidiaries Danyang Lihua Electron Co., Ltd., and Jiangsu Lihua Copper Industry Co., Ltd. Throughout the Class Period the Company was headquartered in Jiangsu Province of the People's Republic of China. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com MARIE CALLENDER'S: Sued Over False Marketing of All Natural Foods ----------------------------------------------------------------- Edward Musgrave, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Marie Callender Pie Shops, Inc., Marie Callender's Gourmet Products Division/ICC, and Conagra Foods RDM, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-02006-DMR (N.D. Cal., May 1, 2014) accuses the Defendants of falsely and misleadingly advertising, marketing, and labeling certain of their products as "all natural" but which, in fact, contained one or more synthetic ingredients. Marie Callender's Pie Shops, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation headquartered in Vernon, California. Marie Callender's Gourmet Products Division/ICC is a California Corporation headquartered in San Jose, California. ConAgra Foods RDM, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska. The Defendants advertise, market, sell and distribute the All Natural Products throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew R. Bainer, Esq. Molly A. DeSario, Esq. SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC 1970 Broadway, Ninth Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 Facsimile: (510) 891-7030 E-mail: mbainer@scalaw.com mdesario@scalaw.com MICHAELS STORES: Fails to Secure Customer Data, "Maize" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nancy Maize and Jessica Gordon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Michaels Stores Inc. Case No. 1:14- cv-01299 (N.D. Ill., February 21, 2014), seeks to put an end to the alleged failure to secure and safeguard consumers' personal financial data including credit and debit card information. Michael's Stores, Inc., is a Delaware corporation located in Irving, Texas. It is the largest arts and crafts specialty retailer in North America providing materials, project ideas and education for creative activities. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregg Michael Barbakoff, Esq. Gregory Wood Jones, Esq. Melanie K. Nelson, Esq. Joseph J Siprut, Esq. SIPRUT PC 17 N. State Street, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 236-0000 Facsimile: (312) 470-6588 E-mail: gbarbakoff@siprut.com gjones@siprut.com mnelson@siprut.com jsiprut@siprut.com The Defendant is represented by: Scott R. Lassar, Esq. Theodore R. Scarborough , Jr., Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP (CHICAGO) One South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 853-7000 E-mail: slassar@sidley.com tscarborough@sidley.com MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Condominium Homeowners' Suit in Discovery ---------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit filed in 2011 against Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. on behalf of the condominium homeowners association and a class of unit owners in South Carolina state court (Beaufort County) is currently in discovery, according to the company's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. The Company (by virtue of its merger with Colonial) and Colonial LP along with multiple other parties, are named defendants in a lawsuit arising out of alleged construction deficiencies with respect to condominium units at Plantation Point in Bluffton, South Carolina. Plantation Point was previously owned and operated by Colonial LP as a multi-family rental project by the name of the Ashley Plantation apartments. Colonial LP sold the property in 2005 to a third party, which then converted the property to condominiums and sold all 414 units. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of the condominium homeowners association and a class of unit owners, was filed in South Carolina state court (Beaufort County) in September 2011, against various parties involved in the development, construction and conversion of the Plantation Point property, including the contractors, subcontractors, architect, developer, and product manufacturers. The plaintiffs are seeking $24.7 million in damages resulting from, among other things, alleged construction deficiencies and misleading sales practices attributed to the third-party seller. The lawsuit is currently in discovery. The Company is continuing to investigate the matter and evaluate its options and intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims. MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Court Approves Settlement of Merger Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Circuit Court for Jefferson County, Alabama approved the final settlement of the litigation over the combination of Mid- America Apartment Communities, Inc. and Colonial Properties Trust, according to MAA's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On June 19, 2013, a putative class action was filed in the Circuit Court for Jefferson County, Alabama captioned Williams v. Colonial Properties Trust, et al., No. 01-CV-2013-902416.00 (the "Williams Litigation"), seeking, among other things, to enjoin the previously announced combination of MAA and Colonial in accordance with the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated June 3, 2013, by and among MAA, the Operating Partnership, Martha Merger Sub, LP, Colonial and Colonial LP. On March 6, 2014 the Court approved the final settlement of the Williams litigation and the Company made the Court-approved immaterial payment to the Plaintiff's attorneys. MIDLANTIC TITLE: June 10 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set -------------------------------------------------------- SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION CAMDEN COUNTY DOCKET NUMBER: CAM-L-2651-13 DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN, P.C. 5 Greentree Centre 525 Route 73 North, Suite 410 Marlton, New Jersey 08053 (856) 797-9951 Attorneys for Plaintiffs RENEE F. and STEVEN BERGMANN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MIDLANTIC TITLE, LLC, Defendant. LEGAL NOTICE YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A REFUND IF YOU WERE CHARGED A MORTGAGE RECORDING FEE BY MIDLANTIC TITLE, LLC BETWEEN JULY 1, 2010 AND APRIL 11, 2014 WHAT IS THIS NOTICE ABOUT? A lawsuit encaptioned Renee F. and Steven Bergmann v. Midlantic Title, LLC ("Midlantic"), Docket No. CAM-L-2651-13 was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden County on behalf of all persons who were charged a mortgage recording fee by Midlantic in New Jersey between July 1, 2010 and April 11, 2014. The complaint alleges that Midlantic had a uniform policy of improperly charging persons to whom it provided real estate settlement services in New Jersey fees for recording mortgages ("mortgage recording fees") in excess of the amounts allowed by New Jersey law. Midlantic denies any wrongdoing and denies the claims and allegations asserted by Plaintiffs and maintains that any overcharges that may have occurred were unintentional errors and non-systematic occurrences, and that any such overcharges were maintained in an escrow account to be returned. The parties nevertheless have agreed to settle the lawsuit. WHY SHOULD I READ THIS NOTICE? You may be a member of the Class. This is a class action lawsuit that the parties have proposed to settle. If the proposed settlement is approved by the Court, your legal rights may be affected. This notice describes what the lawsuit is about, explains the terms of the proposed settlement, tells you who would be covered and what legal claims would be resolved by the settlement if the Court approves it, and explains how individuals can obtain benefits under the settlement. AM I COVERED BY THIS CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AND THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT? You can determine if you are a Class member by reviewing your closing documents, and specifically your HUD-1 Form (commonly referred to as a settlement sheet) at Lines 1200 and 1201 to see if you were charged a mortgage recording fee and the amounts of those fees. If you were charged a mortgage recording fee by Midlantic in New Jersey between July 1, 2010 and April 11, 2014, you are a Class Member. If you have any questions regarding whether you are a Class Member, you can contact Class Counsel at 856-797-9951 or send an e-mail to Class Counsel at (insert our email). You can also obtain more information about the settlement by visiting Class Counsel's website "www.denittislaw.com" WHAT ARE THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT? Midlantic has agreed to create a procedure whereby for each class member who submits a claim Midlantic (with appropriate monitoring from Plaintiffs' counsel) will review and re-calculate the charge that should have been made for recording the claimant's mortgage. If this process reveals you were charged more per page than is allowed under N.J.S.A. 22A:4-4.1, less any right to offset for other fees not charged to you but paid by Midlantic, the amount of such an overcharge will be refunded to you. Midlantic has also agreed to pay up to $30,000 to Class Counsel in attorney's fees and litigation expenses, subject to court approval. Any attorney's fees and litigation costs awarded will be paid separately by Midlantic and such fees and expenses will not come out of your refund or the refunds paid to the other Class Members. The proposed settlement is intended to settle all claims against Midlantic that arise in any way from the Defendants' conduct in the transactions which are the subject of this lawsuit. By participating in this Settlement, each Class Member is releasing all such claims. The foregoing is a summary of the basic settlement terms. The full settlement is set forth in a Settlement Agreement that can be viewed at "www.denittislaw.com", or by contacting Class Counsel as set forth under the heading below " HOW DO I GET MORE INFORMATION." WHAT ARE MY RIGHTS? If you are a member of the Class and wish to participate in the settlement, you need to complete and submit a claim form on or before September 18, 2014. If you are a member of the Class and you do NOT want to remain part of the Class, you must exclude yourself ("opt-out"). To opt-out, you must mail a written request, postage pre-paid, to Class Counsel at DeNittis Osefchen, P.C., 5 Greentree Centre, Suite 410, 525 Route 73 N., Marlton, NJ 08053 and Defendant's Counsel, Steven H. Doto, Esquire, Lauletta Birnbaum LLC, 591 Mantua Boulevard, Suite 200, Sewell, NJ 08080. The request must be post-marked on or before June 10, 2014, and contain: the name of the lawsuit; your full name, current address and phone number; your signature; and a specific statement of your intention to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class and any judgment entered pursuant to the proposed Settlement. If you do not opt- out as instructed above, you will be automatically included and bound by any determination of the Court, whether favorable or not, and any claim of yours will be ended by judgment. You may also file a motion with the Court for permission to intervene in this lawsuit if you wish. You do not have to intervene. If you do not intervene in this case or exclude yourself from the class, your interests will be represented by Class Counsel. If you have not opted out, you may object to the proposed settlement if you wish. Any objection to the settlement must be sent to the addresses listed above and postmarked no later than June 10, 2014. Any objection should contain the name of this lawsuit; your full name, current address and telephone number; your signature; proof of your membership in the Class; and the specific reason(s) for your objection. On June 20, 2014, at 2:00 p.m., Courtroom 31 the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, the Honorable Deborah Silverman Katz , J.S.C., Hall of Justice, 101 S. Mickle, Camden, New Jersey 08103, will hold a public hearing to determine whether the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable and should be approved. Class Members who support the proposed settlement do not need to appear at the hearing or take any other action to indicate their approval. Class Members who object to the proposed settlement are not required to attend the settlement hearing. If you want to be heard orally in opposition to the settlement, either personally or through counsel, you must indicate your intention to appear at the hearing in your written objection. HOW DO I GET MORE INFORMATION? Claim forms and further information about the settlement can be obtained by visiting the following website address: www.denittislaw.com , contacting Class Counsel at 856-797-9951, or emailing Class counsel at sdenittis@denittislaw.com PLEASE DO NOT WRITE OR TELEPHONE THE COURT, DEFENDANT OR ANY OF THEIR AGENTS FOR INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OR THIS LAWSUIT. Dated: May 5, 2014 MILFORD WATER: Settles Class Action Over E. Coli Contamination -------------------------------------------------------------- Lindsay Corcoran, writing The Milford Daily News, reports that one day before the class action suit against the Milford Water Co. was set to go to trial, a settlement was reached between the company and the 11 plaintiffs suing over an August 2009 incident in which E. coli was found in the town's water supply. The discovery led to a 13-day boil-water order. Details of the settlement have not been made public, as both parties were set to meet on May 5 with a judge in Worcester Superior Court. Since the suit is a class action, the settlement needs the approval of a judge. The Milford Water Co. released a statement on May 5 saying it was pleased to enter into a negotiated settlement agreement. "After more than 100 years of nearly perfect service Milford Water lost the trust and confidence of many of our customers and the elected officials of the Town of Milford," said Manager David Condrey. "We have been working diligently over the past four and a half years to regain that trust, and our effort continues. We are hopeful that this settlement will allow our affected customers to have closure from the water quality events of 2009." The lead attorney for the plaintiffs, James O'Connor, declined to comment on the settlement until after the meeting with the judge. The suit, which was certified as a class action in January 2013 and has 11 plaintiffs suing the company, alleges negligence, gross negligence, breach of contract, breach of warranties and unjust enrichment by the private utility saying it failed to provide potable water and adequate service between Aug. 5-21, 2009. During that period, the state Department of Environmental Protection implemented a boil-water order for the town because samples taken from the company tested for E. coli bacteria. The plaintiffs allege they suffered personal injury and sickness from the contaminated water. The 2009 incident also led to the conviction of former water company manager Henry Papuga on tampering with water samples after it was ruled he attempted to get lifted the boil-water order the town was under. Mr. Papuga admitted to adding bleach to samples following his conviction and was sentenced to five years of probation and community service. MONTAGE TECHNOLOGY: Sued for Violating Securities Exchange Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Zhao Erdi, Inividually and on behalf of all similarly situated v. Montage Technology Group Limited, Case no. 1:14-cv-01105 (S.D.N.Y., February 21, 2014) is brought against the Defendant for violating the federal securities law under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Montage Technology is a Cayman Islands corporation located at A1601 Technology Building, 900 Yi Shan Road, Shanghai, 200233. 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 - and - Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com MONTEREY COUNTY, CA: Report Exposes Jail Conditions --------------------------------------------------- ACLU of Northern California on April 30 disclosed that a series of reports issued by national experts on jail conditions expose in the most graphic detail to date the Monterey County Jail as a place riddled with violence where prisoners are at serious risk of grave injury, where jail officials fail to provide prisoners with adequate medical and mental health care and where prisoners with disabilities are denied access to jail services, programs and activities. The reports were made public on April 29 as part of a motion for class certification in a lawsuit filed last year by the American Civil Liberties Union, the law firm Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP and Monterey County Public Defender James Egar charging that conditions at the jail are overcrowded, dangerous, discriminatory and unconstitutional. Four of the reports being made public on April 30 were authored by experts chosen jointly by county officials and lawyers representing the plaintiffs to investigate various aspects of the jail's conditions. "These reports make clear that there are serious structural and systematic problems with the jail and that conditions inside the facility do not meet constitutional and ADA standards," said Michael Bien -- mbien@rbgg.com -- of Rosen, Bien Galvan & Grunfeld. "Rather than continue to waste taxpayer money litigating these issues, county officials should address them with serious and detailed remedial plans." According to incident reports from the Monterey County Sheriff's Department, there were more than 150 separate incidents of violence between prisoners from January 2011 through early- September 2012, and in more than 100 of these incidents at least one prisoner required medical treatment. Violent incidents have been reported in 26 of the jail's 29 housing units. In one of the reports made public on April 30, jail expert Michael Hackett says prisoner and staff safety are compromised by a jail population that "by any definition . . . is overcrowded." Despite a capacity of 825 prisoners, the jail maintained an average monthly population of more than 1000 between June 2010 and September 2013 and reached a height of 1,144 prisoners in May 2013. In a second report, expert Dr. Michael Puisis makes clear that failures by jail officials to provide prisoners with adequate medical care leaves them vulnerable to injury, unnecessary suffering and even death. Staffing shortages are so severe, Dr. Puisis reports, that numerous duties are "not performed consistently or . . . performed poorly, includ[ing] evaluation of health requests, chronic illness care, evaluations in sobering and isolation cells, management of patients in the [Outpatient Housing Units] and intake assessments. Segregation rounds and infection control surveillance are [simply] not performed." A third expert report details how jail officials systematically deny to prisoners with disabilities access to services, programs, activities and accommodations in the Jail. The Jail fails to provide sign language interpreters to prisoners who use sign language to communicate, even during the intake process, medical appointments, and disciplinary hearings. None of the areas of the Jail comply with federal and state regulations regarding accessible housing for people in wheelchairs. And prisoners who cannot walk up stairs are denied access to the outdoors, exercise and religious services when housed in areas of the jail where those programs can only be accessed by walking up a long flight of stairs. A fourth expert selected by the plaintiffs found overwhelming systemic problems with the jail's mental health system that place prisoners with mental illness at great risk of suffering, deterioration in their mental health condition and suicide. Among the most shocking practices is jail officials' use of "rubber rooms," filthy windowless cells in which they place suicidal prisoners for multiple days. These cells lack toilets, beds and sinks, and prisoners are stripped naked and forced to sit, lie and sleep on the same floor in which a grate serves as a toilet. Over the past four years, problems with jail's mental health care system contributed to all three suicides committed by prisoners. "Too many of my clients have died by suicide or through preventable disease while housed in the Jail," said Mr. Egar. "Enough is enough." The many problems in the jail are exacerbated by a failure on the part of county officials to fully invest in alternatives to incarceration that would both alleviate jail crowding and reduce the county's recidivism rate. An inadequate program to effectively assess the necessity of locking people up while they await trial and before they are even convicted of a crime has resulted in nearly 80 percent of the jail's population being comprised of pre-trial detainees. And the county has failed to make use of the option of allowing prisoners convicted of low- level, non-serious crimes offenders to serve a portion of their sentence under supervision in the community rather than behind bars. "Despite profound and persistent overcrowding, county officials have not taken advantage of numerous available opportunities to safely reduce the jail population," said Alan Schlosser, legal director of the ACLU of Northern California. "It is imperative that the county address the jail's high pretrial population, utilize split sentencing more often and make full use of other alternatives that would reduce the need for incarceration while making the community safer by equipping people in the criminal justice system with the support they need to successfully transition back into the community and lead stable lives." "The conditions at Monterey County Jail -- the dangerous overcrowding, the withholding of basic medical and mental health care, and accommodations for prisoners with disabilities -- should not be tolerated," said Eric Balaban, senior staff counsel with the ACLU's National Prison Project in Washington, D.C. "Our jails and prisons must protect prisoners' health, not sabotage it." NEW YORK JETS: Faces Wage-and-Hour Class Action in New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------- David Gialanella, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that a former New York Jets cheerleader has lodged a putative class action in New Jersey accusing the team of wage-and-hour violations -- the fourth known suit against NFL teams by cheerleaders claiming they're essentially paid less than minimum wage. The suit, filed on May 6 in Bergen County Superior Court, claims the performers -- known as the "Flight Crew" -- are paid only for appearances at games and special events, not for practice time or other duties, and must take care of their own costs. The cheerleaders "are required to work 'off the clock' at home, attend rehearsals three days a week from May through December without pay, attend 'charity events' without pay, and are required to spend their own money on travel, uniform maintenance and cosmetic and hairstyling requirements set by the Jets," according to the complaint. Similar suits have been brought against the Buffalo Bills, the Cincinnati Bengals and the Oakland Raiders. All three are pending. The complaint was filed by Patricia Pierce of Greenblatt, Pierce, Engle, Funt & Flores in Philadelphia on behalf of a former Jets cheerleader referred to as "Krystal C." Her full name was withheld because it's team policy to protect cheerleaders' identities and there has been a backlash against cheerleaders who Ms. have filed wage-and-hour suits against other NFL franchises, Pierce said. In May 2012, Krystal entered an employment contract with the Jets, which required her to perform at games, attend practices, make promotional appearances and satisfy other duties before and during the season. The agreement promised $150 per game and $100 for each outside event, but didn't provide for any other compensation. "Thus, in a single season, plaintiff spent hours performing work under the contract . . . for which she was not compensated," the complaint said. At some events -- including at least two training camp sessions that lasted about seven hours each -- Flight Crew "veterans" were paid $100, while "rookies" received nothing, it adds. Krystal worked seven to eight hours during game days but the complaint says she racked up about nine hours a week during three weekly practice sessions and spent another nine to 12 hours a week practicing independently, sometimes at home, all of which was unpaid. She spent another hour a week on uniform maintenance and spent $45 a week of her own money for hair styling, because the Jets required straight hair and hers was curly. Other cheerleaders, part of a special group called the Flight Crew Calendar Girls, took part in the production of a calendar and were required to sell them and appear at signings, all without compensation. Krystal, who was a Flight Crew member until the end of 2013, made a total of about $1,800 during that time, Ms. Pierce said in an interview. That averaged to $3.77 an hour, and less than $1.50 an hour when accounting for unpaid expenses -- even though New Jersey's hourly minimum wage was $7.25 during her employ and was increased to $8.25 as of Jan. 1, Pierce added. The suit alleges the Jets violated the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law and seeks certification of a class of Flight Crew members employed since two years before the filing date -- at least 30 to 40 people. It seeks compensatory damages, interest, attorney fees and other relief. Krystal is a Connecticut resident, according to the complaint, though the team is headquartered in Florham Park and plays its home games at MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, Bergen County. The first cheerleader wage-and-hour suit against an NFL team, the Oakland Raiders, was filed on behalf of the "Raiderettes" in January, and since then suits against the Cincinnati Bengals and Buffalo Bills have followed. Along with Ms. Pierce, who is lead counsel, Krystal is represented by attorneys from Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams in Oakland, Calif., which represents the plaintiffs in the Raiders case. In announcing the May 6 filing, the attorneys said the Bills responded to the suit against that team by discontinuing cheerleading for the upcoming 2014 season. Ms. Pierce said she didn't file under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act because that statute exempts seasonal employees. New Jersey's law does, too, but those working in sports and entertainment are explicitly excluded from that exemption, she added. Ms. Pierce called cheerleader compensation "a very important issue." "I think that there is a culture prevalent in the NFL that does not value what these women do appropriately," Ms. Pierce said. "They're being paid less than what you would pay the hot dog vendor at the stadium." The Jets, through a spokesman, declined to comment on the complaint and did not identify outside counsel. NEWO CORPORATION: Faces "Simon" Suit Over Fraudulent Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Simon, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Newo Corporation Case No. 5:14-cv-00330 (C.D. Cal., February 21, 2014) results from the alleged fraudulent, tortuous, misleading and unfair business practices of the marketing and sales of "Range Extenders" that the Company promises that it works with any Router/Getaway. Newo Corporation is a California corporation located at 13088 Peyton Drive, #C307, Chino Hills, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen J Simoni, Esq. SIMONI LAW OFFICES 12131 Turnberry Drive, Suite 100 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270-1500 Telephone: (917) 621-5795 E-Mail: StephenSimoni@yahoo.com NUTRIBULLET LLC: Illegally Called Class Members' Phone, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Joshua Friedman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nutribullet, LLC, and Tribune Broadcasting Company, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-03377-JFW-PJW (C.D. Cal., May 1, 2014) results from the alleged illegal actions of Nutribullet and Tribune in negligently and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on his cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Nutribullet is whose state of incorporation is California and principal place of business is in the state of California. Tribune is a corporation whose state of incorporation is Illinois and principal place of business is in the state of Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq. Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr., #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com nbontrager@attorneysforconsumers.com sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com OAKHURST DAIRY: Delivery Drivers File Class Action in Portland -------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Dolan, writing for Portland Press Herald, reports that two former and one current Oakhurst Dairy delivery drivers on May 5 filed a class-action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Portland claiming that the Portland-based company has failed for years to pay them overtime compensation in violation of state and federal wage laws. The delivery truck drivers claim in the suit that while they typically worked 50 to 60 hours per week, Oakhurst paid them a flat, weekly salary regardless of how many hours they worked or miles they drove. The three drivers -- Christopher O'Connor of Brunswick, Kevin O'Connor of Winslow and James Adam Cox of Brunswick -- contend that their jobs are not exempt from the federal Fair Labor Standards Act or the state Minimum Wage and Overtime Law and that they should have been paid time and a half for any amount of work in excess of 40 hours per week. They are demanding that Oakhurst pay them and other drivers like them for all unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages and interest. "It's currently that way, and it's been that way for a long period of time. Our complaint is limited by the statute of limitations, which is six years," said attorney Carol Garvan, whose Augusta firm Johnson, Webbert and Young filed the suit on the men's behalf. Christopher O'Connor currently works for Oakhurst, driving from its Portland base. Kevin O'Connor worked for the company from 2005 until 2009. Mr. Cox worked for the company from 2009 to 2011. Ms. Garvan said that Oakhurst employs about 50 such drivers, which it refers to as route salesmen, at any given time. Their weekly pay varies from person to person but is in the range of $1,000 per week, she said. Oakhurst co-presidents John Bennett and Thomas Brigham said in a phone conference on May 5 that they had yet to be served with the lawsuit and had received no notice that it might be coming. Oakhurst, which had been owned by a Maine family since it was founded in 1921, was sold on Jan. 31 to Dairy Farmers of America, a national cooperative of more than 8,000 farms in 48 states. Mr. Garvan said that the timing of the lawsuit was unrelated to the sale of the company. While Oakhurst's sole manufacturing facility is at 364 Forest Ave. in Portland, the company also operates distribution facilities elsewhere in Maine, New Hampshire and Massachusetts. Oakhurst's products include milk, cream, sour cream, cottage cheese, egg nog, butter, ice cream mixes, juices, teas and water. PANDORA MEDIA: Has Sent Unsolicited Messages, "Douglas" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Douglas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pandora Media, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-01315 (N.D. Ill., February 21, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for sending unsolicited text messages to the wireless telephone without prior express written consent. Pandora Media, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business location in Alameda County, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph J Siprut, Esq. Gregg Michael Barbakoff, Esq. Ismael Tariq Salam, Esq. SIPRUT PC 17 N. State St., Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 236-0000 Facsimile: (312) 878-1342 E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com gbarbakoff@siprut.com isalam@siprut.com PHOENIX, AZ: Accused of Failing to Pay Proper Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Joan K. Smith, an individual; and Roberta E. Tate, an individual v. City of Phoenix, a municipal corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv- 00936-DKD (D. Ariz., May 1, 2014) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and an equal amount of liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. City of Phoenix is a municipal corporation located in Maricopa County, Arizona. The City owns and operates five apartment communities within its municipal boundaries in which it offers housing to senior citizens: Washington Manor, Fillmore Gardens, Maryvale Terrace, Pine Towers and Sunnyslope Manor. The Plaintiffs are represented by: John L. Collins, Esq. Trey Dayes, Esq. PHILLIPS DAYES LAW GROUP PC 3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Telephone: (602) 288-1610 E-mail: johnc@phillipsdayeslaw.com treyd@phillipsdayeslaw.com PINNACLE WEST: Dismissal of Consumer Suit in Calif. Under Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of a consumer suit filed against Pinnacle West Capital Corporation and Arizona Public Service Company is now pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, according to Pinnacle's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On September 6, 2013, a purported consumer class action complaint was filed in Federal District Court in San Diego, California, naming APS and Pinnacle West as defendants and seeking damages for loss of perishable inventory and sales as a result of interruption of electrical service. APS and Pinnacle West filed a motion to dismiss, which the court granted on December 9, 2013. On January 13, 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the lower court's decision. The appeal is now pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. PROCTER & GAMBLE: Sued Over False Advertising of Cosmetic Items --------------------------------------------------------------- Erin Flaherty, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Procter & Gamble Company Case no. 1:14-cv-01310 (N.D. Ill., February 21, 2014) is brought against the Defendant for the false advertising of the Company's products specifically the "Aussie" brand of cosmetic product which manufactures and sells the Miraculously Smooth 12 Hour Anti-Humidity Spray. The Procter & Gamble Company is an Ohio corporation headquartered at One Procter & Gamble Plaza, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202. P&G manufactures and sells various consumer goods of differing brands in over 180 countries and territories worldwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg Michael Barbakoff, Esq. Gregory Wood Jones, Esq. Joseph J Siprut, Esq. SIPRUT PC 17 N. State Street, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 236-0000 Facsimile: (312) 470-6588 E-mail: gbarbakoff@siprut.com gjones@siprut.com jsiprut@siprut.com PRYCE BROTHERS: Has Denied Payment for Wages Earned, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jamie Shuster, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pryce Brothers Contractors Co., d/b/a Pryce Brothers Woodworking, Mountain Millwork Inc., Edward Pryce, Raymond Pryce, and John Cutcheon, Case No. 3:14-cv-02783-FLW-TJB (D.N.J., May 1, 2014) alleges that the Defendants intentionally and willfully denied the Plaintiffs' compensation for wages earned while the Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants. Pryce Brothers Contractors Co., doing business as Pryce Brothers Woodworking, and Mountain Millwork Inc. are actively doing business in New Jersey and are headquartered in Bayville, New Jersey. The Individual Defendants are owners or principals of the Corporate Defendants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Travis Brown, Esq. JTB LAW GROUP, LLC 155 2nd Street, Suite 4 Jersey City, NJ 07302 Telephone: (201) 630-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5297 E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com PYOD LLC: Removed "Meyer" Suit to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Meyer v. PYOD, LLC, et al., Case No. 37-2014-00008110-CU-BT-NC, 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-01104-JM-KSC to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: David C. Parisi, Esq. PARISI & HAVENS, LLP 212 Marine Street Santa Monica, CA 90405 Telephone: (818) 990-1299 Facsimile: (818) 501-7852 E-mail: dparisi@parisihavens.com The Defendants are represented by: Jordan S. Yu, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 355 So Grand Ave., #2900 Los Angeles, CA 90021-1514 Telephone: (213) 457-8000 Facsimile: (213) 458-8080 E-mail: jyu@yumollp.com REGIS CORP: July 14 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ---------------------------------------------------------------- IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONONGALIA COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA Civil Action No. 13-C-259 Honorable Phillip D. Gaujot LORI DAVIS, and REBEKAH SHAAYA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. REGIS CORPORATION, Defendant. NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND OF FINAL FAIRNESS AND APPROVAL HEARING TO: MEMBERS OF THE CLASS You are hereby notified, pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, that a hearing will be held on July 14, 2014 at 10:30 a.m. before the Honorable Phillip D. Gaujot, Judge, in his courtroom located in the Monongalia County Courthouse, situated at 265 Spruce Street, Morgantown, WV, 26505 The purpose of the hearing is to determine whether the Proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement dated March 27, 2014 is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and should be approved by the Court and a Judgment entered thereon. The hearing may be adjourned by the Court from time to time by an announcement at the hearing, or at any adjournment thereof, without further notice to you. You are a member of the Class described below, and your rights as a class member will be affected by the settlement of this action. The giving of this Notice is not to be understood as expressing any opinion by this Court as to the merits of any of the claims or defenses asserted by any Party, and is for the sole purpose of informing all the Class Members (as hereinafter defined) of the proposed Settlement Agreement, so that individual Class Members may make whatever decisions they may deem appropriate for the protection of their interests. HISTORY OF THE LITIGATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE CLASS For purposes of settlement only, the Parties hereto agree to the following Class definition: All individuals who were employed by Regis Corp. ("Regis") in West Virginia at any time between June 30, 2010 and April 5, 2013, and who have not opted out of this Class Action, and who have, or may have wage payment claims arising under the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act as more fully set forth in the Complaint. Under the Wage Payment and Collection Act, when an employer involuntarily discharges, or fires, an employee, it must pay that employee's final wages within a set period of time. Prior to July 13, 2013, that set period of time was seventy-two (72) hours. W.Va. Code Sec. 21-5-4(b). If an employer fails to pay all final wages to an employee within the required time period established by the Wage Payment and Collection Act, the employer is liable to the employee for liquidated damages equal to three times the amount of the employee's final pay, plus interest, attorney fees and costs. The Parties entered into the Proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement in order to secure total and final settlement of all claims against Defendant as specified herein, to provide Defendant the finality and certainty that it would not be faced with claims that were or could have been raised in this controversy, as set forth in the Complaint, and to avoid further expense, inconvenience, and the uncertainty, distraction and hazards of burdensome litigation, including the possibility of protracted appeals. PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION The terms of the settlement are set forth in the Proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement, dated March 27, 2014, and executed by counsel for the Parties. The following is a brief summary of the essential terms of the Proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement, a complete copy of which may be obtained. The Defendant has agreed to pay a Gross Settlement amount to all Class Members who timely complete and return a Claim Form of three times the amount of his or her gross, final paycheck, plus interest calculated at the rates set by the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia from the first day following their termination that the check was late, until the date of the final approval hearing. In exchange for this settlement, the Class will release all claims as more fully detailed in the Proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement. The settlement payment to Ms. Davis and Ms. Shaaya will include additional compensation for their services as Class Representatives. The Defendant has also agreed to pay Class Counsel's Fees and Expenses, for work performed and expenses incurred in filing, handling and litigating this claim, as well as administering the settlement. The Defendant has also agreed to incur all costs associated with publication expenses of the Notice to the Class, and all costs associated with searching for valid addresses for the Class Members. Class Counsel's Fees and Expenses are in excess of the liquidated damages and interest each Class Member will receive and in no way reduce the individual damages to be paid to each Class Member. If there are any unclaimed monies remaining in the Gross Settlement Amount after the payment of all timely and properly submitted Claim Forms, these monies shall be retained by the Defendant. On approval of the Proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement by the Court, Defendant will be dismissed from the case with prejudice and a final Judgment will be entered. PROCEDURES AND TIMELINE FOR PRESENTING OBJECTIONS Any member of this Class may appear at the Hearing in person or through his or her duly authorized attorney and show cause, if he or she has any, as to why the Proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement should not be resolved by the above mentioned Judgment. Provided, however, that no such person shall be heard, and no papers or briefs shall be submitted by him or her to the Court, unless he or she files a Notice of Intention to Appear and a statement of the basis of objections is filed with the Clerk of Court, and a copy served at least five (5) business days prior to the Final Hearing, on Class Counsel at the following address: Frank X. Duff, Esq. and Sandra K. Law, Esq., Schrader, Byrd & Companion, PLLC, The Maxwell Centre, Suite 500, 32 20th Street, Wheeling, WV 26003, and on Regis' counsel at the following address: William E. Robinson, Esq., Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP, Huntington Square, 900 Lee Street, Suite 600, Charleston, WV 25301. Objections filed and served in accordance with the foregoing procedure will be considered by the Court whether or not the objecting Class Member(s) appears personally or by counsel at the hearing to argue the same. Failure to file and serve objections in accordance with the foregoing procedure will constitute a WAIVER of your right to object to the settlement and it will preclude you from pursuing any appeal. EXAMINATION OF PLEADINGS AND PAPERS The reference in this Notice to the Proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement and other papers are only summaries of those documents. The complete text of said documents is on file with the Circuit Clerk's office, Monongalia County Courthouse, 265 Spruce Street, Morgantown, WV 26505. However, it is requested that you DO NOT CONTACT THE JUDGE OR THE CLERK REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Rather, if you have questions, or desire copies, your inquiry should be addressed to one of the Plaintiff's Attorneys (Class Counsel) Frank X. Duff or Sandra K. Law, 32 20th Street, Suite 500, Wheeling, WV 26003; (304) 233-3390. SUBSEQUENT HEARINGS At the hearing on the Proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement set for July 14, 2014 at 10:30 a.m., the Court may schedule such further hearings as it may deem necessary without the necessity of further notice to the Class. The matters considered at such future hearings may include, but shall not be limited to, further consideration of the fairness and adequacy of the Proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement, consideration of the applications for fees and costs of Class Counsel, and the form and entry of a final judgment dismissing the Action, in the event the Proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement is approved by the Court. WARNING TO CLASS MEMBERS If you do not make objections to the Settlement in the manner and during the time periods set forth above, you will have been deemed by the Court to have WAIVED any objection and the settlement process will proceed. 1 The Class does not include those individuals who properly exercised their right to opt out or withdraw from the Class. Dated April 9, 2014 Honorable Phillip D. Gaujot RFJD HOLDING: Accused of Not Paying Minimum Wages in S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sonia Gonzalez, Individually, Tomas Ventura, Individually, Alfonso Mendoza, Individually, and all persons similarly situated v. RFJD Holding Co., Inc., a Florida for Profit Corp., d/b/a Emmaculate Reflections, Gerald Donath, Individually, and Robert Fiestal, Individually, Case No. 0:14-cv-61041-JIC (S.D. Fla., May 1, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiffs were not paid minimum wages for all the hours they worked in each workweek for the Defendants. RFJD Holding Co., Inc., doing business as Emmaculate Reflections, is a Florida for Profit Corporation that operates a commercial cleaning business based in Broward County, Florida, and specializes in restaurant cleaning. The Individual Defendants are officers, managers or agents of the Company. RFJD provided commercial cleaning services to businesses in Florida and other states. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Howard R. Tanner, Esq. JORDAN, TANNER & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 36 Palmetto Drive Miami Springs, FL 33166 Telephone: (305) 863-8525 Facsimile: (305) 863-8535 E-mail: htanner@jordantannerlaw.com RUBY TUESDAY: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Tennessee ------------------------------------------------------------ Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on May 6 disclosed that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of purchasers of Ruby Tuesday, Inc. common stock during the period between April 11, 2013 and October 9, 2013. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from May 6, 2014. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/rubytuesday/ Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint charges Ruby Tuesday and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Ruby Tuesday, together with its subsidiaries, owns, develops, operates, and franchises a chain of hundreds of casual dining restaurants in the United States and internationally. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Ruby Tuesday issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial performance and future prospects and failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (i) that changes made to the menu at the Company's flagship Ruby Tuesday chain to increase the range of offerings and price points were negatively impacting sales, as the average sales check price was declining without contemporaneous increases in traffic; (ii) that contrary to the reported progress being made in a turnaround effort, same-store sales were continuing to decline exponentially at the Company's flagship Ruby Tuesday chain; (iii) that the Company had experienced a dramatic decline in sales at its Lime Fresh Grill restaurants, and as a result, the carrying value of that chain's goodwill, trademark and properties and equipment was materially impaired; (iv) that the Company's expenses and losses were being materially understated; (v) that the value of the Company's deferred tax assets were overstated; and (vi) that based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company's business during the Class Period. As a result of these false and misleading statements and omissions, Ruby Tuesday common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. On July 24, 2013, defendants reported Ruby Tuesday's fourth quarter and fiscal 2013 financial results, including declining same-restaurant sales at the flagship Ruby Tuesday restaurants and a $27 million fourth quarter 2013 net loss from continuing operations due in large part to an impairment of the Lime Fresh Grill trademark and related assets and taking a valuation allowance on the Company's deferred tax assets. On this news, the Company's stock price fell, closing down at $7.84 per share on July 25, 2013. Then, on October 9, 2013, the Company reported a significant decline in first quarter 2014 revenues and an increase in net losses, driven by further severe same-store sales declines at the flagship Ruby Tuesday restaurants, which the Company disclosed would last at least through the second quarter 2014. On this news the Company's stock price fell further, closing at $6.26 per share on October 10, 2013. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Ruby Tuesday common stock during the Class Period. The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. With more than 200 lawyers in ten offices, Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international institutional investors in contingency-based securities and corporate litigation. The firm has obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest jury verdict ever in a securities class action. SAFEWAY INC: Stockholder Seeks to Enjoin Sale to Cerberus Unit -------------------------------------------------------------- Lawrence Romaneck, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Safeway Inc., Robert Edwards, Janet E. Grove, Mohan Gyani, Frank C. Herringer, George J. Morrow, Kenneth W. Oder, T. Gary Rogers, Arun Sarin, William Y. Tauscher, Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., AB Acquisition LLC, Albertson's Holdings LLC, Albertson's LLC, and Saturn Acquisition Merger Sub, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-02015-VC (N.D. Cal., May 1, 2014) is brought on behalf of the holders of Safeway common stock to enjoin a proposed transaction announced on March 6, 2014, pursuant to which Safeway will be acquired by AB Acquisition LLC and Saturn Acquisition Merger Sub., Inc. Safeway is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Pleasanton, California. The Company is a Fortune 100 company and one of the largest food and drug retailers in the United States, operating 1,335 stores in 20 states and the District of Columbia, 13 distribution centers, and 20 manufacturing plants, and employs approximately 138,000 employees. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. AB Acquisition is the owner of Albertson's Holdings LLC and Albertson's LLC and is controlled by Cerberus Capital Management, L.P. Cerberus is part of an investor group comprised of Kimco Realty Corporation, Klaff Realty LP, Lubert-Adler Partners LP, and Schottenstein Stores Corporation. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Michael Goldberg, Esq. Louis N. Boyarsky, Esq. GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com mmgoldberg@glancylaw.com lboyarsky@glancylaw.com SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Falsely Marketed LED Tvs & HDTVs, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shahla Rabinowitz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. Case No. 3:14-cv- 00801 (N.D. Cal., February 21, 2014) is brought against the Defendant for falsely marketing and advertising the Company's LED TVs, LED HDTVs or LED televisions. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. is a New York corporation located in Ridgefield Park, New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel R. Shulman, Esq. Dean C. Eyler, Esq. Gregory R. Merz, Esq. Kathryn J Bergstrom, Esq. GRAY, PLANT & MOOTY 500 IDS Center, 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 632-3335 Facsimile: (612) 632-4335 E-mail: daniel.shulman@gpmlaw.com gregory.merz@gpmlaw.com katie.bergstrom@gpmlaw.com - and - Eyler Dean, Esq. GRAY, PLANT & MOOTY 80 S. Eighth Street, 500 IDS Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 632-3016 Facsimile: (612) 632-4016 E-mail: dean.eyler@gpmlaw.com - and - Hayward John Kaiser, Esq. MITCHELL SILBERBERG KNUPP LLP 11377 W Olympic Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 312-3134 Facsimile: (310) 231-8334 E-mail: hjk@msk.com - and - Jonathan Shub, Esq. Scott Alan 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 - and - Judith A. Zahid, Esq. Patrick Bradford Clayton, Esq. Francis Onofrei Scarpulla, Esq. ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL MASON & GETTE, LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400 San Francisco, CA 94104-4807 Telephone: (415) 693-0700 Facsimile: (415) 693-0770 E-mail: jzahid@zelle.com pclayton@zelle.com fscarpulla@zelle.com The Defendant is represented by: Reginald David Steer, Esq. AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 580 California Street, 15th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 765-9500 Facsimile: (415) 765-9501 E-mail: rsteer@akingump.com - and - Hyongsoon Kim, Esq. AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 229-1000 Facsimile: (310) 229-1001 E-mail: kimh@akingump.com SAN DIEGO GAS: Dismissal of Suit Over 2011 Power Outage Appealed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in a suit over the September 2011 Power Outage appealed the court's dismissal of their action against San Diego Gas & Electric Company, according to the company's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. In September 2011, a power outage lasting approximately 12 hours affected millions of people from Mexico to southern Orange County, California. Within several days of the outage, several SDG&E customers filed a class action lawsuit in Federal District Court in San Diego against Arizona Public Service Company, Pinnacle West Capital Corporation and SDG&E alleging that the companies failed to prevent the outage. The lawsuit seeks recovery of unspecified amounts of damages, including punitive damages. In July 2012, the court granted SDG&E's motion to dismiss the punitive damages request and dismissed Arizona Public Service Company and Pinnacle West Capital Corporation from the lawsuit. In September 2013, the court granted SDG&E's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the lawsuit. In October 2013, the plaintiffs appealed the court's dismissal of their action. SAULT AREA HOSPITAL: Lawyer Meets With Data Breach Victims ---------------------------------------------------------- Elaine Della-Mattia, writing for Sault Star, reports that an Ottawa lawyer was set to be hosting an information meeting with area residents who received letters indicating their medical records at the Sault Area Hospital were breached. SAH has confirmed that an employee has been terminated after 144 patient records were accessed inappropriately. Lawyer Michael Crystal said he would hold a general information session for individuals who received letters from the hospital to explain the process of a class action suit. The meeting was set to be held on Tues. May 13 at Algoma's Water Tower Inn at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Crystal is the attorney for group of plaintiffs in the Peterborough area, in a similar type case involving the Peterborough Regional Health Centre. A $5.6 million class action lawsuit has been filed there and the courts have ruled that the claim has merit and can be tested in the courts. SAH audits revealed that patient information was inappropriately accessed by an employee between 2008 and early 2014. Patients affected have been notified by way of a letter from the hospital. Hospital officials have said that there is a zero tolerance for staff who inappropriately access records when there is no justified need to do so. They don't believe the information was copied, downloaded or disseminated in any way. SAH, like many major medical facilities used the MediTech computerized system. While many staff have access to the system and patient files, only employees part of a patient's circle of care are permitted to access the files. In this case, it's alleged the former employee accessed files not privy to, as a result of curiosity. The employee is appealing the termination notice. Mr. Crystal has been contacted by "many" Sault Ste. Marie area residents who received the hospital letter and he intends on moving forward with a class action suit. The meeting would outline what a class action suit is and explain the steps in the process. Mr. Crystal has said he has a representative plaintiff to proceed with the case. A representative plaintiff is one person who has enough of the common elements as other potential plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit. He said there are usually about 10 to 15 common issues in such cases. Common issues include items like all plaintiffs receiving letters about the breach, all told their records were snooped against hospital policy and that the snooping was intentional and within a certain period of time. Mr. Crystal said issues in the case will also be discussed and information will be provided about retainers, class action proceeding costs, expectations and application to the class action fund. SOPHIE'S CUBAN: Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mahmoud Mohamed, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class v. Sophie's Cuban Cuisine Inc., Everything Cuban LLC, MM Restaurant Enterprises LLC, Sophie's Cuban Cuisine Franchising, Inc., John Doe Corporations 1-8 and Sofia Luna, Case No. 1:14-cv-03099-TPG (S.D.N.Y., May 1, 2014) alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act the Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the Defendants: (1) unpaid minimum wages, (2) liquidated damages, and (3) attorneys' fees and costs. Sophie's Cuban Cuisine Inc. is a New York domestic business corporation. Everything Cuban LLC, doing business as Sophie's Cuban Cuisine, is a New York domestic limited liability company. MM Restaurant Enterprises LLC, doing business as Sophie's Cuban Cuisine, is a New York domestic limited liability company. Sophie's Cuban Cuisine Franchising, LLC, is a New York domestic limited liability company. The Doe Corporations are various New York business corporations doing business as "Sophie's Cuban" restaurants operated by Sofia Luna. The Defendants operate a food services enterprise self-entitled as Sophie's Cuban. The food services enterprise includes eight Sophie's Cuban Restaurants in various New York locations. The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com SOUTHWEST ROYALTIES: Environmental Suit Accord Not Yet Final ------------------------------------------------------------ Southwest Royalties, Inc. is now awaiting finalization of a settlement reached in a suit filed in the Circuit Court of Union County, Arkansas where the plaintiffs are suing for the costs of environmental remediation to a lease, according to Clayton Williams Energy, Inc.'s May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. SWR is a defendant in a suit filed in April 2011 in the Circuit Court of Union County, Arkansas where the plaintiffs are suing for the costs of environmental remediation to a lease on which operations were commenced in the 1930s. The plaintiffs are seeking in excess of $8 million. In June 2013, the plaintiffs, SWR and the remaining defendants agreed to a settlement of $0.8 million, of which SWR would pay $0.7 million. To accomplish the settlement, the case would be converted to a class action, and each member of the class would be offered the right to either participate or opt out of the class and continue a separate action for damages. If more than 25% of the plaintiffs were to opt out of the settlement, SWR would have the right to terminate the settlement. Any plaintiffs opting out would be subject to all previous rulings of the court, including an order dismissing a significant number of the plaintiffs' claims on the basis that such claims were time barred. SWR believes that the judge will approve the settlement and the number of the plaintiffs opting out of the settlement, if any, will be insignificant. The company recorded a loss on settlement of $0.7 million in June 2013 in connection with this proposed settlement. The company is now awaiting finalization of the settlement by the court. SW COLE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Thomas, on his own behalf and all similarly situated individuals v. S.W. Cole, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation, and Jerry Cole, individually, Case No. 8:14-cv-01042-EAK-TBM (M.D. Fla., May 1, 2014) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. S.W. Cole, Inc., is a Florida Profit Corporation engaged in business in Hernando County, Florida. The Company provided pest control services. Jerry Cole owned, managed and operated S.W. The Plaintiff is represented by: Amanda E. Kayfus, Esq. Andrew Ross Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 600 N Pine Island Rd., Suite 400 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318-0268 Facsimile: (954) 333-3515 E-mail: akayfus@forthepeople.com afrisch@forthepeople.com TAKEDA PHARMA: Judge Sanctions Defense Attorneys in Actos Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a Las Vegas judge has sanctioned defense attorneys for disobeying court orders and disrupting court proceedings, saying the behavior could prejudice the jury against the plaintiffs in a closely watched trial over the pharmaceutical drug Actos. Clark County, Nev., District Judge Kerry Earley found that attorneys for Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., maker of Actos, had violated pretrial evidentiary rulings nine times during the trial, which is expected to wrap up this month. They also have "repeatedly engaged in disruptive and disrespectful behavior towards the court," she wrote. "In this case, defense counsel's repeated violations of court orders [have] forced plaintiffs' counsel to make frequent objections and requests for bench conferences during trial," Judge Earley wrote. "Because of the persistent objections and bench conferences, the jury is likely to believe that plaintiffs' counsel is hiding evidence, disrupting the proceedings, prolonging trial, or wasting the jury's time." Ruling on April 30, Judge Earley ordered that the jury be instructed of her findings. She also said she would impose a $5,000 fine for each future violation. Although Judge Earley's order didn't name the defense attorneys, the sanctions request focused primarily on the conduct of Kelly Evans -- kevans@swlaw.com -- a partner in the Las Vegas office of Snell & Wilmer, and D'Lesli Davis -- dlesli.davis@nortonrosefulbright.com -- a partner in the Dallas office of Norton Rose Fulbright. Ms. Davis didn't respond to a request for comment, but Evans said: "We have consistently maintained in court pleadings that we have not violated any of the court's orders on motions in limine or other court orders." "We respectfully disagree with the ruling, but believe it would be inappropriate for Takeda to comment any further at this stage in the proceedings," Takeda spokeswoman Kara Hoeger said via email. In court papers, Takeda referred to the plaintiffs' sanctions request as an "abusive litigation tactic." The order came in consolidated cases brought by two women who claimed that taking Actos caused them to get bladder cancer. The trial, which began with jury selection on Feb. 10, was the latest of among some 6,000 lawsuits over Actos. In the first federal bellwether trial, U.S. District Judge Rebecca Doherty of the Western District of Louisiana, citing "grave concerns," sanctioned Takeda's lawyers for destroying key evidence earlier this year. In April, a jury in that case awarded $9 billion to the plaintiffs. Their attorney, W. Mark Lanier, attributed the award -- $6 billion of which was against Takeda -- to a "cesspool of rotten behavior." In Chicago, Cook County, Ill., Circuit Judge Deborah Mary Dooling weighed a similar order in an Actos case but decided against sanctions. Judge Earley added that she would remove an attorney "should his or her professional misconduct rise to the level of intentional, extreme, vexatious or egregious behavior." She described the defense lawyers as "some of the best and most experienced trial attorneys in the country." "Consequently," she wrote, "the court will not accept, as an excuse to misconduct, any claims that attorneys of this caliber are somehow ignorant of the law or otherwise unfamiliar with the way in which well-established legal principles are applied during trial." TARGET CORP: "Carlson" Suit Transferred From Florida to Minnesota ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Carlson v. Target Corporation, et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-00177, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:14-cv-01233-PAM-JJK to the proceeding. The case arises from the data breach at Target stores in late 2013. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard A. Daynard, Esq. HOWARD & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 400 Huntington Avenue Boston, MA 02115 E-mail: r.daynard@neu.edu - and - Phillip T. Howard, Esq. HOWARD & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 2120 Killarney Way, Suite 125 Tallahassee, FL 32309 Telephone: (850) 298-4455 Facsimile: (850) 216-2537 E-mail: tim@howardjustice.com TETRA TECH: Montreal Real Estate Taxpayers' Suit v. BPR Continues ----------------------------------------------------------------- BPR Inc. continues to face a suit in Montreal, Canada filed on behalf of individuals and entities that have paid real estate or municipal taxes to the city, according to Tetra Tech, Inc.'s May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 30, 2014. On April 19, 2013, a class action proceeding was filed in Montreal in which BPR, BPR's former president, and other Quebec- based engineering firms and individuals are named as defendants. The plaintiff class includes all individuals and entities that have paid real estate or municipal taxes to the city of Montreal. The allegations include participation in collusion to share contracts awarded by the City of Montreal, conspiracy to reduce competition and fix prices, payment of bribes to officials, making illegal political contributions, and bid rigging. TETRA TECH: Shareholders Voluntarily Dismiss Suit in California --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff in a securities suit against Tetra Tech, Inc. in United States District Court for the Central District of California voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice, according to the company's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On June 28, 2013, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed against Tetra Tech and two of its officers in United States District Court for the Central District of California. The action was purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the company's publicly traded securities between May 3, 2012 and June 18, 2013. The complaint alleges generally that the company and those officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and related rules because the company allegedly failed to take unspecified, "necessary" charges to the company's accounts receivables and earnings during the class period. In addition, the complaint alleges that the financial guidance the company offered during the class period was intentionally or recklessly false and misleading. The complaint alleges unspecified damages based on the decline in the market price of the company's shares following the issuance of revised guidance on June 18, 2013. On October 30, 2013, plaintiff filed an amended complaint for the same purported class period making essentially the same allegations. On November 29, 2013, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and on January 17, 2014, the Court granted the company's motion and dismissed the case without prejudice meaning the plaintiff would be allowed to amend the case and replead. Plaintiff subsequently decided not to amend and on April 24, 2014 the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice. TOSHIBA AMERICA: Falsely Marketed LED Tvs & LED HDTVs, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Stacey Peirce-Nunes, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. Case No. 3:14-cv-00796 (N.D. Cal., February 21, 2014) is brought against the Defendant for falsely marketing and advertising the Company's LED TV, LED HDTV or LED televisions. Toshiba American Information Systems, Inc. is a California corporation located in Irvine, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis Onofrei Scarpulla, Esq. Judith A. Zahid, 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 - and - Daniel R. Shulman, Esq. Dean C. Eyler, Esq. Gregory R. Merz, Esq. Kathryn J Bergstrom, Esq. GRAY PLANT & MOOTY 500 IDS Center, 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 632-3335 Facsimile: (612) 632-4444 E-mail: daniel.shulman@gpmlaw.com gregory.merz@gpmlaw.com katie.bergstrom@gpmlaw.com - and - Hayward John Kaiser, Esq. MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP 11377 West Olympic Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 312-3134 Fax: (310) 312-3100 E-mail: hjk@msk.com - and - Jonathan Shub, Esq. Scott Alan 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 - and - Patrick Bradford Clayton, Esq. ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 639-0700 Facsimile: (415) 693-0770 E-mail: pclayton@zelle.com The Defendant is represented by: Sean Ashley Commons, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: (213) 896-6010 Facsimile: (213) 896-6600 E-mail: scommons@sidley.com - and - Theodore Robert Scarborough, Jr., Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP One South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 853-7000 Facsimile: (312) 853-7036 E-mail: tscarborough@sidley.com TRIQUINT SEMICONDUCTOR: Faces Lawsuits Over RF Micro Merger ----------------------------------------------------------- Triquint Semiconductor, Inc. is facing lawsuits over its proposed business combination with RF Micro Devices, Inc., according to Triquint's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2014. The Company is from time to time involved in litigation, certain other claims and arbitration matters arising in the ordinary course of its business. In addition, since the public announcement of the proposed business combination with RF Micro Devices, Inc. ("RFMD") on February 24, 2014, five putative stockholder class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company, its directors, RFMD, and others in connection with the proposed mergers. Two of the five actions were filed in the Multnomah County Circuit Court in the State of Oregon: (1) Roberts vs. TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. et al., Case No. 1402- 02441, filed on February 28, 2014; and (2) Lam v. Steven J. Sharp et al., Case No. 1403-02757, filed on March 6, 2014. The other three actions were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware: (1) Philemon v. TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. et al., Case No. 9415-VCN, filed on March 5, 2014; (2) Schmitz v. TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. et al., Case No. 9427-VCN, filed on March 7, 2014; and (3) Wallace v. TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. et al., Case No. 9429-VCN, filed on March 10, 2014. Each of these lawsuits was filed on behalf of a putative class of the Company's stockholders against the Company, the individual members of the Company's board of directors, RFMD, Rocky Holding, Inc., and/or the to-be-formed subsidiaries of Rocky Holding, Inc. that will be used to effect the mergers. The plaintiffs in each of these lawsuits generally seek, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief concerning alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, injunctive relief prohibiting completion of the mergers, rescission of the mergers if they are completed, an accounting by defendants, rescissionary damages, attorney's fees and costs, and other relief. TRANSCEPT PHARMA: "Physicians" Suit Transferred to California ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Physicians Healthsource, Inc. v. Transcept Pharma, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:13-cv-05490, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District Court of California to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven). The California District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-00599-JBA to the proceeding. The case challenges the Defendants' alleged practice of sending unsolicited facsimiles, in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian John Wanca, Esq. ANDERSON & WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Facsimile: (847) 368-1501 E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com - and - Willem F. Jonckheer, Esq. Robert C. Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT, JONCKHEER & KOLBE, LLP 3 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 E-mail: wjonckheer@schubertlawfirm.com rschubert@schubertlawfirm.com VARITRONICS LLC: Sued for Sending Fax Ads Without Opt-Out Notices ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Varitronics, LLC, R & M Letter Graphics, Inc. and Richard E. Perry, Case No. 7:14-cv-03083-CS (S.D.N.Y., May 1, 2014) alleges that the Defendants have sent or caused to be sent out over 5,000 unsolicited and solicited fax advertisements for goods and services without proper opt-out notices to persons throughout the United States of America. Varitronics, LLC is a Minnesota corporation headquartered in Plymouth, Minnesota. Varitronics products are sold under the name Variquest through authorized dealers. R & M Letter Graphics, Inc. is a New York corporation headquartered in Fresh Meadows, New York. R & M is an authorized dealer of Variquest Visual Learning Tools. Richard E. Perry is the chief executive officer of R & M. The Plaintiff is represented by: Aytan Yehoshua Bellin, Esq. BELLIN & ASSOCIATES 85 Miles Avenue White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (212) 358-5345 Facsimile: (212) 571-0284 E-mail: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com VICAL INC: Securities Suit Plaintiffs Allowed to Amend Complaints ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California has allowed plaintiffs in a consolidated securities suit against Vical Incorporated to file an amended complaint, according to the company's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. In late October and early November 2013, following the Company's announcement of the results of its Phase 3 trial of Allovectin and the subsequent decline of the price of its common stock, two putative, securities class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against the Company and certain of its current and former officers. On February 26, 2014, the two cases were consolidated into one action and a lead plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed. On April 3, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint alleging that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business prospects and the prospects for Allovectin, thereby artificially inflating the price of the Company's common stock. On April 25, 2014, the parties filed a joint motion asking the court to permit plaintiffs to amend the complaint, which the court granted. The lead plaintiff's deadline to file an amended complaint was May 9, 2014. The defendants' response will be due 28 days after lead plaintiff files an amended complaint. WEST WARWICK, RI: June 6 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set -------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF RHODE ISLAND SUPERIOR COURT KENT, SC. WEST WARWICK PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREE COALITION, THE WEST WARWICK RETIRED POLICE & FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, INC., AFSCME RHODE ISLAND RETIREES CHAPTER 94, RHODE ISLAND AFT/R LOCAL 8037, RUSS MARSOCCI, GLORIA SILVEIRA, TIMOTHY POULIN, NORMAN LANDROCHE, AND MARCELLINE ZAMBUCO, Plaintiffs, vs. THE TOWN OF WEST WARWICK, by and through its Interim Finance Director JOHN CIMINO, AND THE WEST WARWICK SCHOOL COMMITTEE, by and through its members, Sean Murphy, Elizabeth Brunero, Christopher Messier, Joseph Florio, Jr., and Stephen Lawton, Defendants. C.A. No. KC 14-0424 NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS RELATING TO WEST WARWICK RETIREES' COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT ("COLA") AND HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFITS, AND OF HEARING THEREON THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR KENT COUNTY, RHODE ISLAND HAS AUTHORIZED THIS NOTICE. IT IS NOT A SOLICITATION OR ADVERTISEMENT FROM A LAWYER. YOU ARE NOT BEING SUED. YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS NOTICE BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS A PERSON WHO IS A MEMBER OF THE CLASS INVOLVED WITH A CERTAIN LAWSUIT, AND THE PROPOSED SETTLMENT OF THAT LAWSUIT, IF APPROVED, WILL AFFECT YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS. YOU SHOULD READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. This Notice concerns the proposed settlement of a lawsuit pending in the Rhode Island Superior Court against the Town of West Warwick and the West Warwick School Committee (hereinafter "Town") regarding four Ordinances and a Resolution (hereinafter "Enactments") that suspend the rights of certain Town retirees to receive COLAs and alters health insurance benefits. The West Warwick Public Employees' Retiree Coalition (the "WWPERC") and certain other associations and individuals brought a lawsuit against the Town to stop enforcement of the Enactments. On May 5, 2014, the Court entered an order certifying the lawsuit as a class action. The parties to the lawsuit have reached a proposed settlement (the "Proposed Settlement") and are seeking to have it approved by the Court. This Notice provides a summary of the impact that the Proposed Settlement will have on your rights. If you do not understand the information in this notice, you should follow the enclosed instructions for obtaining additional information or consult with an attorney. SUMMARY OF YOUR RIGHTS AND OPTIONS YOUR OPTIONS: REMAIN IN THE CLASS AND ACCEPT THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT RESULT: Because the Court has already included you in the Class, you are automatically included in the Proposed Settlement unless you choose to opt-out (see below). You do not need to do anything to participate in the Proposed Settlement if approved by the Court. See Questions 7 through 12 for more information. DUE DATE: None YOUR OPTIONS: REMAIN IN CLASS AND COMMENT ON OR OBJECT TO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT RESULT: If you choose to remain in the Class, but want to be heard by the Court regarding the terms of the Proposed Settlement, you may tell the Court why you do or do not like the terms of the Proposed Settlement. Instructions for giving a comment or objection are described later in this Notice. See Questions 16 & 17 for more information. DUE DATE: May 28, 2014 YOUR OPTIONS: ASK TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS RESULT: If you choose to be excluded from the Class, you will not be included in the Proposed Settlement or any other result or judgment in this case. If you do not take separate legal action, you will be subject to the terms of the Enactments. See Questions 13 & 14 for more information. DUE DATE: June 27, 2014 CONTENTS OF THIS NOTICE Case Information 1. What is the purpose of this Notice? 2. What is this lawsuit about? 3. What is a class action lawsuit? 4. Why is there a Proposed Settlement? Those Who are Included in the Proposed Settlement 5. Am I part of the Class? 6. Am I included in the Proposed Settlement? Proposed Settlement Terms 7. What are the terms of the Proposed Settlement with respect to the Enactments? 8. What happens if I remain in the Class and Accept the Proposed Settlement? 9. How will my pension benefits change under the Proposed Settlement? 10. What are the benefits of the Proposed Settlement? 11. What do I give up if I stay in the Class and accept the Proposed Settlement? 12. How do I accept the Proposed Settlement? Excluding Yourself From the Class and the Proposed Settlement 13. How do I get out of this Proposed Settlement? 14. What happens if I get out of the Proposed Settlement? The Lawyers Who Are Representing You 15. Do I have a lawyer representing me in this case? Supporting or Objecting to the Proposed Settlement 16. How do I tell the Court that I like or do not like the Proposed Settlement? 17. What is the difference between objecting and asking to be excluded? Fairness Hearing 18. What is the Fairness Hearing? 19. When and Where will it Occur? 20. Do I Have to Attend the Fairness Hearing? 21. May I Speak at the Fairness Hearing? If you do Nothing 22. What happens if I don't do anything? More Information 23. Where can I get more information? 24. What happens after the Fairness Hearing? Case Information 1. What is the purpose of this Notice? A class action lawsuit has been filed in the Superior Court for the State of Rhode Island concerning your pension and health insurance benefits. This suit is called West Warwick Public Employees' Retiree Coalition v. Town of West Warwick and the West Warwick School Committee, No. KC-2014-0424, and concerns the Enactments. You are receiving this Notice because you were employed by the Town and have retired from employment with the West Warwick Police Department, the West Warwick Fire Department, as a municipal worker of the Town, as a non-certified employee of the West Warwick School Department, as a teacher with the West Warwick School Department or as an employee of the Town who was not a member of a union and are entitled to a Town-paid pension with a COLA and/or health insurance benefits, under a contract or by custom and practice. As a result of this status, you are a member of the class of retirees ("Class Member") involved in this lawsuit against the Town. Class Members do not include retired police officers and retired fire fighters who have a disability pension. The Superior Court for Kent County, Rhode Island, authorized this Notice. As a Class Member, you have the right to know about the class action lawsuit and the Settlement proposed by the parties to the lawsuit. As a Class Member, you have options that you may exercise before the Court decides whether to approve the Proposed Settlement. Your legal rights will be impacted depending on the option you choose. This Notice is to explain the lawsuit, the Proposed Settlement, and your legal rights and how to exercise them. 2. What is this lawsuit about? On April 1, 2014, the West Warwick Town Council passed three Ordinances dealing with its locally administered pension plans dealing with plans for retirees who were once employed in the Police Department, Fire Department, and Municipal Departments (including non-certified school employees). The Town has indicated its intention to pass the same Ordinance with respect to retirees of the Town who were not members of any union but who have Town-paid pensions and health care benefits by contract, agreement or custom and practice. Furthermore, on April 29, 2014, the Town of West Warwick school committee adopted a Resolution effectuating changes in the health care benefits of retired teachers of the Town of West Warwick School Committee that mirror the health care benefit changes effectuated by the Ordinances passed by the Town with respect to retirees of its Fire, Police and Municipal Unions. Together these Ordinances and Resolution are referred to as the "Enactments." More specifically, the Enactments suspend COLAs for retired Town employees for a period of ten (10) years. The Enactments also change health insurance benefits being received by Town retirees. Specifically, the Enactments require all retirees under the age of 65 except teachers and non-certified school employees to choose from one of two new health insurance plans and pay a 20% co-share. For non-certified school employees who were entitled to Town-paid health insurance for five years post-retirement, they now have to choose from one of the same two plans and pay a 20% co-share. For teachers age 66 and under, they will be forced to choose from one of the same two plans and pay a 20% co-share. 3. What is a class action lawsuit? In a class action lawsuit, one or more persons called "Class Representatives" sue on behalf of other people who all have similar claims (in this case, the Class Representatives are three retiree associations and certain individual retirees named in the lawsuit). The people who all have similar claims called the "Class" or "Class Members." The Class Representatives -- and all Class Members like them -- are called the plaintiffs. The party that they have sued is called the defendant (in this case, the Town of West Warwick and the West Warwick School Committee). The lawyer who represents the Class is called "Class Counsel." In a class action lawsuit, all factual questions and legal issues are resolved together for everyone in the Class in one case -- with the exception of those Class Members who choose to "opt-out" or exclude themselves from the Class. Once the Court issues a final judgment in the class action lawsuit, that judgment will be binding on all Class Members, unless they previously opted-out. 4. Why is there a Proposed Settlement? The Court has not decided in favor of either the Plaintiffs or the Defendants in this case. Instead, both parties have agreed to a Proposed Settlement. By settling the claims, the parties can avoid the cost and uncertainty of a trial and can resolve this lawsuit as quickly as possible and in a way that will benefit both parties. The Class Representatives and Class Counsel in this case think that this Proposed Settlement is the best result for all retirees who are members of the class in order to avoid the more drastic changes in the Enactments and to help the Town preserve the pension system and avoid State intervention. Those Who Are Included in the Proposed Settlement 5. Am I part of the Class? According to the order of the Court, the following people are part of the Class with respect to the Enactments: Persons who on or before July 1, 2014: retired from employment with the West Warwick Police Department and are entitled to a Town-paid pension with a COLA and/or health insurance benefits until Medicare eligible under a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") or other agreement as a result of that employment; retired from employment with the West Warwick Fire Department and are entitled to a Town-paid pension with a COLA and/or health insurance benefits until Medicare eligible under a CBA or other agreement as a result of that employment; retired from employment as municipal employees with the Town of West Warwick and are entitled to a Town-paid pension with a COLA and/or health insurance benefits until Medicare eligible under a CBA or other agreement as a result of that employment; retired from employment as non-certified employees of the West Warwick School Department and are entitled to a Town-paid pension with a COLA and/or health insurance benefits for five years after he or she retires under a CBA regardless of age or other agreement as a result of that employment; retired from employment as teachers with the West Warwick School Department and are entitled to health insurance benefits under a CBA or other agreement until Medicare eligible or age 66 as a result of that employment; retired from employment with the Town of West Warwick, who were not members of any union of the Town, and who received a Town- paid pension with a COLA and/or health insurance benefits by any contract, agreement or custom and practice. if a retiree is covered by Plan 65 but has a spouse under the age of 65, and the spouse has Town-paid health insurance benefits, such spouse is included in the Class. If any of the above categories describe you, then you are a member of the class (hereinafter referred to as the "Class," and members are referred to as either a "Class Member" or "Class Members"). Retired police officers and retired fire fighters with disability pensions are not included in the Class and are not Class Members. 6. Am I included in the Proposed Settlement? As a Class Member, you will be included in the Proposed Settlement and requirements and benefits will apply to you unless you choose to opt-out of the Class using the procedures described below in Questions 13 & 14. Proposed Settlement Terms 7. What are the terms of the Proposed Settlement with respect to the Enactments? A summary of the terms of the Proposed Settlement pertaining to the Enactments are as follows: Except as modified by the terms of the Final and Consent Judgment, the Enactments shall remain in full force and effect. Persons who opt-out of the Settlement embodied in the Final and Consent Judgment shall be bound by the Enactments, subject to their right to challenge the Enactments. Except as modified by the Final and Consent Judgment, the existing post-employment benefits of the Class Members and Members of the Plaintiff Associations will remain in full force and effect. Effective July 1, 2014, the COLA then remaining due to each eligible Class Member under the applicable CBA or contract shall be suspended for five (5) years from July 1, 2014 through and including June 30, 2019. Upon completion of the suspension, the COLA shall resume for any Class Member who had a COLA remaining due at suspension at the annual rate of Two and One-Quarter percent (2.25%) compounding annually until such time as that Class Member's COLA benefit is exhausted. For example, if the Class Member only collected two years of a fifteen year COLA, when the COLA resumes on July 1, 2019, that Member would begin to collect his or her COLA for years three (3) through fifteen (15). Effective July 1, 2014, Members of the Class other than those presently covered by Plan 65 (the Class Members) shall be offered and shall select one of three alternative HealthMate Coast-to-Coast insurance benefit plans, the $500 Deductible Health Plan attached to the Final and Consent Judgment as Exhibit A, the H.S.A. Plan attached to the Final and Consent Judgment as Exhibit B, and the HealthMate Non-Deductible Plan attached to the Final and Consent Judgment as Exhibit C. Persons on Plan 65 need not make any selection and will not have their health benefits changed by the Proposed Settlement. Effective July 1, 2014, Class Members who select the $500 Deductible Health Plan shall have and shall pay a 5 Percent (5%) co-share of the applicable working rate. Effective July 1, 2014, Class Members who select the HealthMate Non-Deductible Plan shall pay a 15 Percent (15%) co-share of the applicable working rate. On an annual basis the Town shall provide to the WWPERC leadership, through counsel, the working rates upon which the co- shares will be based. Effective July 1, 2014, Class Members who select the H.S.A. Plan shall share the cost of the deductible with the Town as follows: (i) Single Plan, $750 will be paid by the Town and $1,250 will be paid by the Class Member; (ii) Family Plan, $1,500 will be paid by the Town and $2,500 will be paid by the Class Member. Any Class Member who is a retired teacher or retired non-certified school employee who was entitled by contract to health insurance coverage beyond 65, will continue to receive coverage for that contractual period, but still must choose one of the three plans set forth above. The Town shall fund 100% of the Annual Required Contribution under its Pension Plans as determined by the Town's actuary in accordance with the Town's five (5) year funding plan as submitted to and approved by the State of Rhode Island. The Town shall comply with its obligations under the Retirement Security Act for Locally Administered Pension Funds, G.L. 1956 45-65-1 et seq. All of the savings associated with the COLA suspension will be applied directly to the Pension Plan to reduce the unfunded liability and improve the health of the plan. The Town, the WWPERC and a person to be designated by the School Committee will meet on an annual basis to review fund performance and pension plan administration. In addition, the Town and the Coalition will mutually determine if the administrative fees currently being incurred by the Pension Board are excessive, can be reduced, and/or should be paid by the Town and not withdrawn from the Pension Plan directly and recommended changes will be made. The Town agrees to work with WWPERC in order to determine whether the Town can appoint a retiree who is also a resident of the Town of West Warwick to the Pension Board. The Town agrees to meet with WWPERC and a person designated by the School Committee prior to the beginning of the third year of the five year plan to mutually determine whether the financial status of the Town is such that any of the concessions provided for in this agreement are no longer necessary and can be changed to the benefit of the Members. The Town agrees that in the event a Budget Commission and/or Receiver is appointed under G.L. 1956 45-9-1 et seq. the Final and Consent Judgment between the parties will control, i.e., not be impaired in any way, and that in the event a Petition under Chapter 9 is filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court, the terms of the Final and Consent Judgment shall become the so- called "Pendency Plan" as it relates to the Members. The Town shall not offer or provide "richer" COLA benefits to employees who retire during the pendency of the five-year-plan or to those who are presently retired with disability pensions. For example, because the Class Members agree to suspend the COLA, the COLAs of all future retirees shall be suspended during the five-year period to avoid the scenario in which the current Class Members are not being paid a COLA at the same time a future retiree is being paid a COLA. As part of this commitment, the Town will provide WWPERC with copies of all CBAs negotiated during the five-year period and any other agreement negotiated with those presently retired with disability pensions. The terms of the Final and Consent Judgment will be approved by the West Warwick Town Council and the Town of West Warwick School Committee prior to its submission to the Court for entry. 8. What happens if I remain in the Class and Accept the Proposed Settlement? If you do not opt-out of the Class and the Court approves the Proposed Settlement, you will get the benefit of the Settlement and be bound by its terms. The terms of the Proposed Settlement are described above in Question 7. 9. How will my pension and health insurance benefits change under the Proposed Settlement? Your COLA will be suspended for only five years instead of the ten year period in the Enactment. You will have to choose one of the three new health insurance plans, two of which come with a co-share. Under the Settlement there are three options instead of only two. Under the Settlement, the cost is lower than the cost in the Enactments. 10. What are the benefits of the Proposed Settlement? The benefits of the Proposed Settlement are that Class Members avoid the severe impacts of the Enactments that would prevail in the event the court challenges were unsuccessful. Further, even if the court challenges were successful, the Town may be unable to slow the increasing unfunded liability of the pension plan and future pension benefits may be in danger of being substantially reduced or entirely lost. 11. What do I give up if I stay in the Class and accept the Proposed Settlement? If you choose not to opt-out and exclude yourself from the Proposed Settlement, then you will be bound by the terms of the Proposed Settlement and the Final and Consent Judgment that implements it. You will receive all rights and benefits provided by the Proposed Settlement but you will no longer be able to bring your own lawsuit against the Town that involves the same issues in this case. If you want to sue the Town or School Committee separately regarding the Enactments, you may want to exclude yourself by opting-out of the Class. See Questions 13 & 14 for more information on how to exclude yourself from the Class. 12. How do I accept the Proposed Settlement? You do not need to do anything to accept the Proposed Settlement. You are already a Class Member and, if you do not opt-out, you will be included in the Proposed Settlement. If the Proposed Settlement is approved by the Court, and you do not opt-out, the Enactments will not apply to you. Excluding Yourself From the Class and the Proposed Settlement 13. How do I get out of the Proposed Settlement? If you do not want to accept the Proposed Settlement and you do want to retain the right to sue the Town about the legal issues in this case, then you must take steps to get out of the Class. This is known as excluding yourself or opting-out of the Class. To exclude yourself from the Class and from the Proposed Settlement, you must send a letter by U.S. mail that clearly states that you want to be excluded from the Class in this case. To be valid, your letter must include the following: your full name, your date of birth, and your current mailing address; the following statement: "I request to be excluded from the settlement in West Warwick Public Employees' Retiree Coalition v. Town of West Warwick and the West Warwick School Committee, No. KC-2014-0424. I understand that I will be excluded from the Class and that I must pursue my legal options on my own;" and your signature or the signature of an individual possessing documented legal authority to sign on your behalf. You cannot exclude yourself by having someone else send a letter on your behalf unless that letter is accompanied by a certified copy of a power of attorney or other documentation conclusively establishing that such person is authorized to act on your behalf. The deadline to opt-out of the Class and the Proposed Settlement is June 27, 2014. You must mail your notice so that it is received no later than June 27, 2014 to the following address: Deborah Medeiros Paralegal Donoghue Barrett & Singal 155 South Main Street, Suite 102 Providence, RI 02903 IF YOUR LETTER IS NOT RECEIVED BY JUNE 27, 2014 YOUR REQUEST WILL NOT BE HONORED AND YOU WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, IF APPROVED. You cannot exclude yourself from the Class by telephone, facsimile, or e-mail. You cannot exclude yourself by mailing your request to any other location, or after the deadline. 14. What happens if I get out of the Proposed Settlement? If you opt-out and exclude yourself from the Class, you will not receive any of the benefits from the Proposed Settlement, if approved. You will also be subject to the terms of the Enactments such that your COLA will be automatically suspended over a ten (10) year period and your health insurance benefits will be altered (which includes a 20% co-share) effective July 1, 2014. You may, however, bring your own separate legal action, at your own expense, challenging the Enactments. You should consult with an attorney if you have any questions about bringing your own lawsuit regarding these claims against the Town. The Lawyers Who Are Representing You 15. Do I have a lawyer representing me in this case? Yes. The Court has determined that Carly Beauvais Iafrate of the Law Office of Carly Beauvais Iafrate is qualified to represent you and has appointed her as Class Counsel in this case. Ms. Iafrate has experience in handling claims of other retirees relating to their retirement benefits. As Class Counsel, Ms. Iafrate is required to represent the interests of the Class in this lawsuit. Supporting or Objecting to the Proposed Settlement 16. How do I tell the Court that I like or do not like the Proposed Settlement? If you remain a Class Member and do not opt- out, you may submit a comment telling the Court that you like the Proposed Settlement and that you think it should be approved, or you may also object to the Proposed Settlement by telling the Court that you do not like the Proposed Settlement and do not think it should be approved. The Court will consider comments and objections from Class Members. You are not required to submit any comments or objections. To comment on or object to the Proposed Settlement, you must send a letter or have your attorney send a letter on your behalf. The letter must include the following information: your full name, date of birth, and mailing address; a statement that you are commenting on or objecting to the Proposed Settlement in The West Warwick Public Employees Retirement Coalition v. Town of West Warwick and the West Warwick School Department, No. KC-2014-0424; the factual and/or legal reasons for your comment or objection to the Proposed Settlement; any documents supporting your comment or objection; state whether you would like to speak at the Fairness Hearing (see Question 21 below); and your signature or that of your attorney. The deadline to submit a comment or objection is May 28, 2014. You must mail your comment or objection to the Honorable Sarah Taft-Carter, with a copy to Class Counsel and the Town Counsel at the addresses listed below so that it is received no later than May 28, 2014. COURT The Honorable Sarah Taft-Carter Kent County Superior Court Noel Judicial Complex 222 Quaker Lane Warwick, Rhode Island 02886 CLASS COUNSEL Carly B. Iafrate, Esq. Law Office of Carly Beauvais Iafrate 129 Dyer Street Providence, RI 02903 TOWN COUNSEL William M. Dolan III, Esq. Donoghue Barrett & Singal 155 South Main Street, Suite 102 Providence, RI 02903 Your letter must include a reasonable basis for commenting on or objecting to the Proposed Settlement. The Court may reject any comments or objections that it deems frivolous or that are made for an improper purpose. You are not required to submit a comment or objection and, if you do not submit a letter, Class Counsel will still represent the collective interests of the Class. If you choose not to submit a comment or objection, you will waive your right to be heard individually at the Fairness Hearing on whether to approve the Proposed Settlement and any right of appeal that you may have. However, you will still have the right to be excluded from the Class (See Questions 13 & 14). 17. What is the difference between objecting and asking to be excluded? Objecting is simply telling the Court that you do not like something about the Proposed Settlement. You can object if you want to remain in the Class but still want to express your views on the Proposed Settlement. Excluding yourself is telling the Court that you do not want to be part of the Class or any Proposed Settlement. Fairness Hearing 18. What is the Fairness Hearing? The Fairness Hearing is a session of the Court during which the Court will hear arguments from the lawyers for the parties, and possibly from Class Members, on whether the Court should approve the Proposed Settlement. At this hearing, the Court will consider whether the Proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. If there are objections, the Court will consider them. The Court may or may not choose to hear testimony and receive additional evidence to help the Court make its decision. After the Fairness Hearing, the Court will decide whether to approve the Proposed Settlement. There is no specific deadline for the Court to issue its decision. 19. When and Where will it Occur? The Fairness Hearing will take place on June 6, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. at the address below: Courtroom 4C Kent County Superior Court Noel Judicial Complex 222 Quaker Lane Warwick, Rhode Island 02886 20. Do I Have to Attend the Fairness Hearing? No. Class Counsel will answer any questions that the Court has and will make arguments on behalf of the entire Class. Even though you are not required to attend, you may come to the hearing at your own expense. If you send a comment or an objection, you do not have to attend the hearing. As long as you send your comment or objection according to the requirements of Question 16, the Court will consider it. You may also pay your own lawyer to attend, but it is not necessary. 21. May I Speak at the Fairness Hearing? You and/or your attorney may ask the Court's permission to speak at the hearing concerning the Proposed Settlement. To do so, you must send a letter with the following information: your full name, date of birth, and mailing address; a statement that you would like to be heard at the Fairness Hearing in West Warwick Public Employees' Retiree Coalition v. Town of West Warwick and the West Warwick School Committee, No. KC-2014-0424; the names of the attorneys (if any) that you have hired to appear on your behalf; and your signature or that of your attorney. The deadline to submit notice that you would like to speak is May 28, 2014. You must mail your notice to the Honorable Sarah Taft-Carter with a copy to Class Counsel and Town Counsel at the addresses listed below so that it is received no later than May 28, 2014. COURT The Honorable Sarah Taft-Carter Kent County Superior Court Noel Judicial Complex 222 Quaker Lane Warwick, Rhode Island 02886 CLASS COUNSEL Carly B. Iafrate, Esq. Law Office of Carly Beauvais Iafrate 129 Dyer Street Providence, RI 02903 TOWN COUNSEL William M. Dolan III, Esq. Donoghue Barrett & Singal 155 South Main Street, Suite 102 Providence, RI 02903 If you send a comment or objection, you may combine this notice and your comment or objection by including this notice in your letter (See Question 16). You cannot speak at the Fairness Hearing if you have already excluded yourself from the Class (see Question 13). If You Do Nothing 22. What happens if I don't do anything? You will remain a Class Member and will be included in the Proposed Settlement. See Questions 7 through 12 for more information. More Information 23. Where can I get more information? You may obtain more information concerning this Proposed Settlement and the lawsuit by contacting Class Counsel at: Carly Beauvais Iafrate, Esq. Law Office of Carly Beauvais Iafrate 129 Dyer Street Providence, RI 02903 (401) 421-0065 ciafrate@verizon.net 24. What happens after the Fairness Hearing? Assuming the Court approves the Proposed Settlement at the hearing, a second notice will go out to the Class Members advising them that the Proposed Settlement has been approved and they have until June 27, 2014 to opt-out of the Proposed Settlement (See Question 13). Thereafter, on June 30, 2014 the Court will hold a final hearing and enter a Final and Consent Judgment approving the Proposed Settlement for all Class Members who have not opted-out. ********* 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 * * *