/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140609.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, June 9, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 113 Headlines AEROPOSTALE INC: Obtains Final Court OK of Securities Suit Deal AMERICAN EXPRESS: "Ross" Forex Rate Fixing Suit Dismissed APPLE HOSPITALITY: Court Affirms Securities Law Claims Dismissal BIOZOOM INC: Peiffer Rosca Law Firm Files Class Action BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Subsidiary Faces Whistler Junction Suit BOULDER NATURAL: Recalls Boneless Skinless Chicken Breasts BRISTOL MYERS: Abilify Co-Pay Assistance Litigation Dismissed BRISTOL MYERS: Appeals $28-Mil Judgment in AWP Litigation CELLCOM ISRAEL: Plaintiffs Appeal Tariff Class Action Dismissal CHESTER MENTAL: "Hughes" Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend CHINA SUNERGY: Insurers Paid $1.1-Mil in Class Action Settlement CIBER INC: Court Approved Weston Settlement in April 2014 CITIGROUP INC: Settles ERISA Class Action for $8.5 Million CNINSURE INC: Paid US$6.6-Mil to Settle "Van Dongen" Lawsuit COLLECTO INC: Court Orders Parties in "Fletcher" to Arbitrate DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Court Approved TCPA Suit Settlement DJO FINANCE: Defendant in Canadian Pain Pump Litigation DOLLAR GENERAL: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in Ex-Workers' Suit DORAL FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Class Suit in Puerto Rico DOW CHEMICAL: Appeals $1.06 Billion Judgment in Urethane Suits EMCOR GROUP: May Pay Huge Sums if Wage Lawsuit Wins Class Cert. EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Court Remands Complaint for Further Proceedings FARM CITY MEAT: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act FRESH DEL MONTE: Subsidiary Accrued $2.2-Mil Reserve on Appeal GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Biggs" Suit Over Defective Ignition Switch GIANT INTERACTIVE: Defendant in Proposed Merger Complaint GLOBAL GEOPHYSICAL: Defendant in Securities Litigation GREENSMOOTHIEGIRL: Recalls Organic Sprouted Chia Seed Powder HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Medical Record Overcharges HEALTHSOUTH CORP: Federal Court Remands Securities Fraud Lawsuit HIGHER ONE: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Connecticut HONG KONG EXCHANGES: To Contest Class Action Over Zinc Prices IBM CORP: Defendant in Securities Litigation K12 INC: Defendant in Oklahoma Firefighters Complaint KINDER MORGAN: Seeks to Dismiss Suit Over CapEx Allocation KINDER MORGAN: Del. Chancery Court Consolidates Complaints KINDER MORGAN: Texas Court Stays "Walker" Complaint KRAFT FOODS: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in "Montgomery" Case LABORATORY CORP: Defendant in Unfair Business Practices Lawsuit LABORATORY CORP: Defendant in DNA Preservation Complaint in Mass. LABORATORY CORP: Defendant in TCPA Complaint in Minnesota LABORATORY CORP: Court Granted Motion to Dismiss "Andres" Lawsuit LITTLE BIG: Former Employees File Overtime Class Action MICHAELS STORES: Challenges Class Certification Order MICHAELS STORES: Defendant in Five Data Security Complaints MICHAELS STORES: Final Settlement Hearing Set for July 11 MICHAELS STORES: Final Settlement Hearing in Privacy Suit Held MICHAELS STORES: Defendant in Pricing & Promotion Complaint MITSUBISHI INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, Suit Says MR FLUFFY: Canberra Families Mull Asbestos Class Action NAVITAS NATURALS: Expands Recall for Organic Sprouted Chia Powder NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR: Final Submissions Due in Moose Suit NY 99: New York Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Penalties OCEAN SPRAY: Recalls Limited Quantity of 8-ounce Greek Yogurt OLDE THOMPSON: Recalls Kirkland Coarse Ground Malabar Pepper ONTARIO: Ottawa Woman Joins Class Action Over Foster Home Abuse ONTARIO: Prisoners Lose C$1.25MM Protest T-Shirt Class Action PANDORA MEDIA: N.D. Calif. Court Rules on Bid to Dismiss Suit PANDORA MEDIA: No Oral Argument Date Set for Privacy Law Action PETITE VENICE: Faces "Straw" Action in Fla. Over Unpaid OT PGG/HSC FEED: Recalls Champion Lamb Texturized Feed B30 PORTLAND GENERAL: $260MM Lawsuits Over Trojan Deal Remain Pending POWERSECURE INT'L: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action PROSPECT CAPITAL: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action PROVECTUS BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Robbins Geller Files Class Action QUESTCOR PHARMACEUTICALS: Files Response to Securities Litigation RED ROBIN: Missouri Couple Files Hepatitis A Class Action RITE AID: Recalls 16 oz. Pints of Mint 'N Chip Thrifty Ice Cream SAFEWAY INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action in California SANOFI-AVENTIS US: Court Adopts Mag. Judge's Report in RICO Suit SIBANYE GOLD: Files Notice Opposing Class Certification Request SILVER AIRWAYS: "McGregor" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages TOWN SPORTS: Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of Wage Complaint TOWN SPORTS: "Labbe" Suit Status Hearing Set for June 2014 UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Do Thi Tran's Discrmination Suit UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE: Sued for Denying Mental Health Claims VERISK ANALYTICS: Agreed to Settle Complaints for $18,600,000 VERISK ANALYTICS: Can't Estimate Liability in Interthinx Suits VERISK ANALYTICS: Can't Estimate Insurance Services Liability VOCUS INC: Defendant in Stockholders Complaint WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Retirees Seek Certification for Pension Suit WEATHERFORD INT'L: Complaints May Impact Financial Condition WEATHERFORD INT'L: July 8 Final Hearing on $53 Million Accord * Greenberg Traurig Sees Trend in Credit Card Suits v. Retailers ********* AEROPOSTALE INC: Obtains Final Court OK of Securities Suit Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Collen McMahon granted final approval of a settlement, plan of allocation, and attorneys' fees and expenses in the case captioned THE CITY OF PROVIDENCE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. AEROPOSTALE, INC., THOMAS P. JOHNSON and MARC D. MILLER, Defendants, NO. 11 CIV. 7132(CM)(GWG), (S.D.N.Y.). This Action was commenced on October 11, 2011 by the filing of an initial complaint alleging that Defendants violated the federal securities laws. According to the District Court's May 9, 2014 memorandum opinion and order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/1t0H3M from Leagle.com, the Court (1) finds that due and adequate notice was directed to persons and entities who are Class Members, advising them of the Plan of Allocation and of their right to object thereto, and a full and fair opportunity was accorded to persons and entities who are Class Members to be heard with respect to the Plan of Allocation.; (2) finds that the formula in the Plan of Allocation for the calculation of the claims of Authorized Claimants that is set forth in the Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses (the "Notice") disseminated to Class Members, provides a fair and reasonable basis upon which to allocate the net settlement proceeds among Class Members; (3) finds that the Plan of Allocation set forth in the Notice is, in all respects, fair and reasonable; (4) grants final approval of the Plan of Allocation; (4) authorizes Settlement Class Counsel to make disbursements to Class members; and (5) awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $4,950,000 plus interest at the same rate earned by the Settlement Fund (or 33% of the Settlement Fund, which includes interest earned thereon) and payment of litigation expenses in the amount of $455,506.85, plus interest at the same rate earned by the Settlement Fund, which sums the Court finds to be fair and reasonable; and (6) authorizes an award of $11,235.04 to Lead Plaintiff. The City of Providence, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Iona Maria May Evans, Labaton & Sucharow LLP, Matthew Christopher Moehlman, Labaton Sucharow, LLP, Nicole M. Zeiss, Labaton Sucharow, LLP, Stephen R. Astley, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (FL), Carol Cecilia Villegas, Labaton & Sucharow LLP, Daniel E. Bacine, Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, Jonathan Gardner, Labaton Sucharow, LLP, Lisa M. Lamb, Barrack, Rodos & Bacine & Mark S. Goldman, Labaton Sucharow LLP. Aeropostale, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joseph S. Allerhand -- joseph.allerhand@weil.com -- Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP & Stephen Alan Radin -- stephen.radin@weil.com -- Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP. Thomas P. Johnson, Defendant, represented by Joseph S. Allerhand, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP & Stephen Alan Radin, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP. Marc D. Miller, Defendant, represented by Joseph S. Allerhand, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP & Stephen Alan Radin, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP. Donald Robert Pierson, II, Individual, Objector, represented by Forrest Scott Turkish, Forrest Scott Turkish, Law Office. AMERICAN EXPRESS: "Ross" Forex Rate Fixing Suit Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------- A U.S. court on April 10, 2014, dismissed plaintiffs' claims in a purported class action complaint, alleging foreign currency conversion rates conspiracy, and granted judgment in favor of American Express Company, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. The Company states: "In July 2004, a purported class action complaint, Ross, et al. v. American Express Company, American Express Travel Related Services and American Express Centurion Bank, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that we conspired with Visa, MasterCard and Diners Club in the setting of foreign currency conversion rates and in the inclusion of arbitration clauses in certain of their cardholder agreements. The suit seeks injunctive relief and unspecified damages. The class is defined as "all Visa, MasterCard and Diners Club general-purpose cardholders who used cards issued by any of the MDL Defendant Banks." American Express Card Members are not part of the class. The settlement of the claims asserted on behalf of the damage class concerning foreign currency conversion rates was approved in 2012. Trial of the claims asserted by the injunction class concerning cardholder arbitration clauses concluded in February 2013. On April 10, 2014, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims and granted judgment in favor of us." American Express Company (American Express) is a global service company. Its principal products and services are charge and credit payment card products and travel-related services offered to consumers and businesses worldwide. The Company operates in four segments: U.S. Card Services, International Card Services, Global Commercial Services (GCS) and Global Network & Merchant Services (GNMS). Corporate functions and auxiliary businesses, including the Company's Enterprise Growth Group, publishing business and other company operations, are included in Corporate & Other. American Express and its principal operating subsidiary, American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. (TRS), are bank holding companies. During 2011, American Express completed the integration of Accertify Inc. Effective March 20, 2014, American Express Co acquired an undisclosed minority stake in Ezetap Mobile Solutions Pvt Ltd. APPLE HOSPITALITY: Court Affirms Securities Law Claims Dismissal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on April 23, 2014, affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' state and federal securities law claims and the unjust enrichment claim in a class action filed against Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., according to the Company's Form 8-K dated April 23, 2014, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2014. On April 23, 2014, the Second Circuit entered a summary order in the consolidated class action referred to in the Company's prior filings as the In re Apple REITs Litigation matter. In the summary order, the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (the "District Court") of the plaintiffs' state and federal securities law claims and the unjust enrichment claim. The Second Circuit also noted that the District Court dismissed the plaintiffs' remaining state common law claims based on its finding that the complaint did not allege any losses suffered by the plaintiff class, and held that, to the extent that the District Court relied on this rationale, its dismissal of the plaintiffs' state law breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence claims is vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the summary order. The Company will defend against the claims remanded to the District Court vigorously. At this time, the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these proceedings or provide a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of loss due to these proceedings, if any. Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc. (formerly Apple REIT Nine, Inc.) is a public, non-listed real estate investment trust (REIT) focused on the acquisition and ownership of income-producing real estate that generates attractive returns for shareholders. The hotels operate under the Courtyard(R) by Marriott(R), Fairfield Inn(R) by Marriott(R), Fairfield Inn & Suites(R) by Marriott(R), Renaissance(R) Hotels, Residence Inn(R) by Marriott(R), SpringHill Suites(R) by Marriott(R), TownePlace Suites(R) by Marriott(R), Marriott(R), Embassy Suites Hotels(R), Homewood Suites by Hilton(R), Home2 Suites by Hilton(R), Hilton Garden Inn(R), Hampton Inn(R), Hampton Inn & Suites(R) and Hilton(R) brands. As of the completion of the mergers of Apple REIT Seven, Inc. and Apple REIT Eight, Inc. into Apple REIT Nine, on March 1, 2014, the portfolio consisted of 188 hotels with 23,490 guestrooms in 33 states. BIOZOOM INC: Peiffer Rosca Law Firm Files Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ The Peiffer Rosca law firm on May 24 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in federal court on behalf of persons or entities who purchased the common stock of Biozoom, Inc. from KCG Americas, LLC between May 16, 2013 and June 25, 2013, inclusive. Please contact Peiffer Rosca Abdullah Carr & Kane LLC at 888-998- 0520 or by email at arosca@praclawfirm.com to discuss this matter. Biozoom was previously known as Entertainment Art, Inc. According to an ongoing action by the SEC, between January 2013 through June 2013, certain Argentinean nationals opened brokerage accounts at two U.S. brokerage firms and deposited millions of shares of unregistered Entertainment Arts stock into those accounts. On March 12, 2013, Entertainment Art announced a dramatic change in business operations from a company that developed fashionable leather bags to a company that was involved in the biomedical industry. On April 1, 2013, Entertainment Art changed its name to Biozoom and listed itself on the OTC Bulletin Board. Beginning on May 23, 2013, Biozoom began issuing a series of press releases claiming it created the world's first portable, handheld consumer device to instantly measure certain "biomarkers" such as anti-oxidant levels, vitamin absorption and stress levels. Those claims were also made by certain stock promoters. Following the press releases and stock promotion Biozoom's stock price and volume rose dramatically. Between May 16, 2013 and June 19, 2013, the Argentinean nationals allegedly sold millions of unregistered shares of Biozoom for large profits. On June 25, 2013, the SEC issued a ten day trading suspension in Biozoom stock. Thereafter, the price of Biozoom shares fell dramatically. Plaintiff and the Class purchased their shares of Biozoom on the OTCBB from defendant KCG Americas. They asserted claims under Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933 against the defendant in connection with the sales of the Biozoom shares. If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice to serve as lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuit. If you wish to learn more about this action, or have any questions about this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to this matter, please contact Alan Rosca or Joe Peiffer at the Peiffer Rosca Law Firm, at 888-998-0520 or arosca@praclawfirm.com Case: Corso v. KCG Americas LLC, 14-cv-01087, U.S. Dist. Ct. N.D. Ohio (May, 2014) Peiffer Rosca Abdullah Carr & Kane LLC -- http://www.securitieslitigators.com-- prosecutes securities fraud and represents investors in securities litigation and FINRA arbitrations throughout the U.S. BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Subsidiary Faces Whistler Junction Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP's Gulf South subsidiary is one of the defendants in a purported class action suit in which plaintiffs seek unspecified damages for personal injury and property damage related to an alleged release of mercaptan at the Whistler Junction facilities, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. The Partnership's Gulf South subsidiary and several other defendants, including Mobile Gas Service Corporation (MGSC), have been named as defendants in nine lawsuits, including one purported class action suit, commenced by multiple plaintiffs in the Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages for personal injury and property damage related to an alleged release of mercaptan at the Whistler Junction facilities in Eight Mile, Alabama. Gulf South delivers natural gas to MGSC, the local distribution company for that region, at Whistler Junction where MGSC odorizes the gas prior to delivery to end user customers by injecting mercaptan into the gas stream, as required by law. The cases are: Parker, et al. v. Mobile Gas Service Corp, et al. (Case No. CV-12-900711), Crum, et al. v. Mobile Gas Service Corp, et al. (Case No. CV-12-901057), Austin, et al. v. Mobile Gas Service Corp, et al. (Case No. CV-12-901133), Moore, et al. v. Mobile Gas Service Corp, et al. (Case No. CV-12-901471), Davis, et al. v. Mobile Gas Service Corp, et al. (Case No. CV-12-901490), Joel G. Reed, et al. v. Mobile Gas Service Corp, et al. (Case No. CV-2013-922265), The Housing Authority of the City of Prichard, Alabama v. Mobile Gas Service Corp., et al. (Case No. CV-2013- 901002), Robert Evans, et al. v. MGSC, et al. (Case No. CV-2013- 902627), and Devin Nobles, et al. v. MGSC, et al. (Case No. CV- 2013-902786). Gulf South has denied liability. Gulf South has demanded that MGSC indemnify Gulf South against all liability related to these matters pursuant to a right-of-way agreement between Gulf South and MGSC, and has filed cross-claims against MGSC for any such liability. MGSC has also filed cross-claims against Gulf South seeking indemnity and other relief from Gulf South. Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP is a limited partnership company. The Company owns and operates three interstate natural gas pipeline systems including integrated storage facilities. Its business is conducted by its primary subsidiary, Boardwalk Pipelines, LP (Boardwalk Pipelines) and its subsidiaries, Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC (Gulf Crossing), Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP (Gulf South) and Texas Gas Transmission, LLC (Texas Gas) (together, the operating subsidiaries), which consist of integrated natural gas pipeline and storage systems. BOULDER NATURAL: Recalls Boneless Skinless Chicken Breasts ---------------------------------------------------------- Boulder Natural Meats, a Denver, Colo., establishment, is recalling approximately 363 pounds of Boneless Skinless Chicken Breasts due to misbranding, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The product was formulated with wheat, which is declared on the product label, so all allergens are properly identified. However, the front label states the product is gluten free. Products with a gluten free claim may not contain wheat. The following product is subject to recall: 1 to 1.5-lbs. vacuum sealed packages of "Boneless Skinless Chicken Breasts brushed with Teriyaki Seasoning" The product was produced May 13 and 14, 2014, and has a freeze by date of 05.24.14 or 05.25.14. The product bears the establishment number "P18852" inside the USDA mark of inspection. The product was sold to retail establishments in Colorado. The problem was discovered by a retailer, which notified the company. After an investigation, it was determined that the front label was mislabeled "gluten free," because an older label was mistakenly used. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of the product. Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to ensure that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact Heather Crane at (303) 301-5293. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem BRISTOL MYERS: Abilify Co-Pay Assistance Litigation Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in a putative class action filed against Bristol-Myers Squibb Company challenging the legality of the Abilify* co-pay assistance program, voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. In March 2012, the Company and its partner Otsuka were named as co-defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed by union health and welfare funds in the SDNY. Plaintiffs challenged the legality of the Abilify* co-pay assistance program under various theories. The Company and Otsuka filed motions to dismiss the complaint. In April 2014, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice against the Company, which concludes the matter. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMS) is engaged in the discovery, development, licensing, manufacturing, marketing, distribution and sale of biopharmaceutical products on a global basis. Its products are sold worldwide, primarily to wholesalers, retail pharmacies, hospitals, government entities and the medical profession. It manufactures products in the United States (U.S.), Puerto Rico and in 6 foreign countries. In April 2014, the Company acquired iPierian Inc. BRISTOL MYERS: Appeals $28-Mil Judgment in AWP Litigation --------------------------------------------------------- Bristol-Myers Squibb Company has appealed the court decision finding the Company liable for $28 million and enjoining the Company from contributing to the provision of inflated AWPs, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. The Company, together with a number of other pharmaceutical manufacturers, has been a defendant in a number of private class actions as well as suits brought by the attorneys general of various states. In these actions, plaintiffs allege that defendants caused the Average Wholesale Prices (AWPs) of their products to be inflated, thereby injuring government programs, entities and persons who reimbursed prescription drugs based on AWPs. The Company remains a defendant in two state attorneys general suits pending in state courts in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Beginning in August 2010, the Company was the defendant in a trial in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (Commonwealth Court), brought by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In September 2010, the jury issued a verdict for the Company, finding that the Company was not liable for fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation; however, the Commonwealth Court judge issued a decision on a Pennsylvania consumer protection claim that did not go to the jury, finding the Company liable for $28 million and enjoining the Company from contributing to the provision of inflated AWPs. The Company appealed the decision to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and oral argument took place in May 2013. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMS) is engaged in the discovery, development, licensing, manufacturing, marketing, distribution and sale of biopharmaceutical products on a global basis. Its products are sold worldwide, primarily to wholesalers, retail pharmacies, hospitals, government entities and the medical profession. It manufactures products in the United States (U.S.), Puerto Rico and in 6 foreign countries. In April 2014, the Company acquired iPierian Inc. CELLCOM ISRAEL: Plaintiffs Appeal Tariff Class Action Dismissal --------------------------------------------------------------- Cellcom Israel Ltd. on May 28 disclosed that further to the Company's report of the dismissal with prejudice of a purported class action against the Company reported on November 2011, an appeal was filed by the plaintiffs challenging the dismissal. The purported class action alleged that the Company raised tariffs for business customers unlawfully and in violation of its agreements with them. If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the total amount claimed from the Company is estimated by the plaintiffs to be at least hundreds of millions of NIS. About Cellcom Israel Cellcom Israel Ltd., established in 1994, is the largest Israeli cellular provider; Cellcom Israel provides its approximately 3.049 million subscribers (as at March 31, 2014) with a broad range of value added services including cellular and landline telephony, roaming services for tourists in Israel and for its subscribers abroad and additional services in the areas of music, video, mobile office etc., based on Cellcom Israel's technologically advanced infrastructure. CHESTER MENTAL: "Hughes" Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend ----------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Michael J. Reagan dismissed without prejudice the lawsuit captioned MATTHEW R. HUGHES, No. R42460, Plaintiff, v. PATRICK J. QUINN, LISA M. MADIGAN, DIANE L. SALTOUN, LAURA MILLER, JOHN H. WANK, EVELYN DIAZ, and UNKNOWN PARTY, Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV-00426-MJR, (S.D. Ill.). Matthew R. Hughes is an inmate in Hill Correctional Center. He brought this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, based on events that occurred at Chester Mental Health Center between September and November 2013. Judge Reagan held that the Plaintiff only offers his conclusion that all of the wrongs he has witnessed occurring to others were due to a cover up by the defendant Illinois officials. "[P]ersonal involvement by each named defendant and causation are required for Section 1983 liability," he said. Judge Reagan granted the Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint on or before June 6, 2014. Any amended complaint will undergo preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A. Failure to file an amended complaint will result in the dismissal of this action with prejudice for failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute this action, he said. "Finally, Plaintiff is advised that he is under a continuing obligation to keep the Clerk of Court and each opposing party informed of any change in his address; the Court will not independently investigate his whereabouts. This shall be done in writing and not later than 7 days after a transfer or other change in address occurs. Failure to comply with this order will cause a delay in the transmission of court documents and may result in dismissal of this action for want of prosecution," added Judge Reagan. A copy of the District Court's May 9, 2014 memorandum and order is available at http://is.gd/wcDCiWfrom Leagle.com. Matthew R. Hughes, Plaintiff, Pro Se. CHINA SUNERGY: Insurers Paid $1.1-Mil in Class Action Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- China Sunergy Co., Ltd., reported that all payments of $1.1 million pursuant to the settlement of three purported class actions have been made by its insurers, according to the Company's Form 20-F filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013. The Company states: "We are a named defendant in three purported class actions currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York -- Brown v. China Sunergy Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 07-CV-07895 (DAB), Sheshtawy v. China Sunergy Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 07-CV-08656 (DAB), and Giombetti v. China Sunergy Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 07-CV-09689 (DAB). On September 29, 2008, the District Court appointed a lead plaintiff and consolidated the three cases. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on December 8, 2008. "The consolidated amended complaint purports to state class action claims against us in connection with our initial public offering and seeks unspecified damages. Specifically, the lead plaintiff alleges that we made false and misleading statements in our initial public offering registration statement and prospectus regarding, among other things, the procurement of polysilicon. "Several of our directors and officers, along with the investment banks that underwrote our initial public offering, are also named defendants in the cases. On January 26, 2009, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. Briefing on the motion was completed on May 1, 2009. Defendants' motion remained outstanding when, on July 14, 2009, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the dispute in its entirety. On May 12, 2011, the Court held a final hearing and issued a final judgment for each of the three filed cases, dismissing each case with prejudice and approving the settlement and plan of allocation. On May 13, 2011, the Court issued its final order and the case was closed. All payments of $1.1 million pursuant to the settlement have been made by our insurers." China Sunergy Co., Ltd. manufactures and sells solar cell and solar module products that convert sunlight into electricity for a variety of uses. The Company also invests in, develop and operate solar power projects. CIBER INC: Court Approved Weston Settlement in April 2014 --------------------------------------------------------- A court in April 2014, issued final approval of the settlement between CIBER, Inc., and plaintiffs in the putative securities class action lawsuit -- Weston v. Ciber, Inc. et al., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. The Company states: "In October 2011, a putative securities class action lawsuit, Weston v. Ciber, Inc. et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against Ciber and several of its current and former officers. In November 2013, we entered into a settlement among the lead plaintiff and the defendants that involved funds paid by our insurers being placed into a settlement fund for the benefit of the class. We have not made any admission of liability or wrongdoing by entering into this settlement. The Court issued final approval of the settlement in April 2014, dismissing the claims of the class with prejudice, and terminating the litigation." CIBER, Inc. provides information technology (IT), business consulting and outsourcing services. The Company is engaged in solving complex IT and business issues across industries, such as energy and utilities, telecommunications, retail, healthcare, financial services, entertainment and manufacturing. The Company operates in three segments: International, North America and IT Outsourcing. Its offerings are focused around a set of core competencies which include Application Development and Management (ADM), Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP), Customer Relationship Management, Business Intelligence and Data Warehousing, Managed Services, Testing and Quality Assurance, Mobility Services and Digital Marketing. On March 9, 2012, the Company sold its Federal division to CRGT, Inc. CITIGROUP INC: Settles ERISA Class Action for $8.5 Million ---------------------------------------------------------- LawyersandSettlements.com reports that an $8.5 million settlement has been reached in a securities class action lawsuit pending against Citigroup, brought by employee shareholders who alleged the company concealed its exposure to subprime mortgages prior to its stock price dropping. The settlement class includes over 7,000 Citigroup employees who acquired securities between November 2006 and June 2009. Under the terms of the agreement a $2.3 million settlement fund will be established, to include six payments of approximately $50,000 each to the six lead plaintiffs, as an incentive award for their service to the case. The Erisa lawsuit was brought in 2009 by former Citigroup employees who alleged the company prevented employees who had purchased the bank's stock from obtaining information about subprime losses by means of a series of materially misleading statements and omissions concerning its subprime exposure, overall business outlook and financial results. The lawsuit was originally filed in California, but was later consolidated into a multidistrict securities litigation against Citigroup through New York. CNINSURE INC: Paid US$6.6-Mil to Settle "Van Dongen" Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ CNinsure Inc., agreed to pay US$6.6 million to settle a class action filed by Pieter Van Dongen alleging that the Company made a series of false or misleading statements or omissions regarding its business, prospects and operations, according to the Company's Form 20-F filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013. The Company states: "On October 17, 2011, Pieter Van Dongen, individually and on behalf of an alleged class of similarly situated holders of our ADSs, filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against us and three of our then executive officers. The complaint alleges that we made a series of false or misleading statements or omissions regarding our business, prospects and operations. The compliant principally alleges that we improperly accounted for the compensation that we paid to our insurance agents, thereby understating our expenses and overstating our net income. The complaint asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the Security Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. "On December 6, 2011, we and van Dongen, entered into a stipulation providing that within forty-five days after the court's entry of an order appointing a lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, the lead plaintiff must either file a consolidated complaint or give notice of its intent not to do so (and therefore proceed on its initial complaint). On December 16, 2011, Jeff and Linda Schram, two other alleged purchasers of our ADRs, who are represented by the same law firm that represents van Dongen, moved for appointment as lead plaintiffs. In an order dated June 26, 2012, the Court granted the Schrams' motion, appointing them as lead plaintiffs and approving the selection of Robbins Geller as lead counsel. "On August 13, 2012, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. We (which is the only defendant that has been served so far) filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on October 1, 2012. On November 28, 2012, lead plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss, and on January 10, 2013, we filed our reply. On June 24, 2013, the Court denied our motion to dismiss, except that it summarily dismissed the claim under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants. The litigation thus proceeded to discovery. "On March 19, 2014, we signed a settlement agreement with the plaintiff, to settle the lawsuit at US$6.6 million (approximately RMB40.1 million), to be paid as consideration for full and complete settlement of all the released claims, within thirty calendar days after the entry of an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. On April 7, 2014, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York preliminarily approved the settlement and scheduled a hearing on July 9, 2014 to determine whether such settlement should be granted final approval. On April 23, 2013, we and the individual defendants executed an agreement with XL Insurance Company PLC (Singapore Branch), or XL Insurance, in which, inter alia, XL Insurance agreed to pay the settlement amount of US$6.6 million pursuant to the Directors and Officers and Company Reimbursement Insurance policy purchased by us, and the parties exchanged certain releases. "Accordingly, we have recorded a contingent liability in the amount of US$6.6 million (RMB40.1 million) and other receivable in the amount of US$6.6 million (RMB40.1 million) on the consolidated balance sheets. The retention fee to be paid by us under the insurance policy has been partially settled as legal expenses during the past fiscal years with the remaining RMB3.1 million (US$0.5 million) recorded as other payables and accrued expenses as of December 31, 2013." CNinsure Inc. (CNinsure) is an independent insurance intermediary company operating in China. The Company had 47,312 sales professionals, 1,258 claims adjustors and 481 sales and service outlets operating in 27 provinces as of March 31, 2013. The Company distributes to customers in China a variety of property, casualty and life insurance products underwritten by domestic and foreign insurance companies operating in China and provides insurance claims adjusting services, such as damage assessment, survey, authentication and loss estimation. The Company also provides certain value-added services, such as round the clock emergency services in select cities and assistance with claim settlement, to its customers-individuals and institutions that purchase insurance products through the Company. COLLECTO INC: Court Orders Parties in "Fletcher" to Arbitrate ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Richard D. Bennett granted a motion for arbitration in the case captioned in the lawsuit captioned LUCIENA S. GRANT- FLETCHER, Plaintiff, v. COLLECTO, INC., Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. RDB-13-3505, (D. Md.). In this case, the Plaintiff Luciena S. Grant-Fletcher, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, sued the Defendant Collecto, Inc., doing business as EOS CCA, for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, at seq., and the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act, Md. Code, Com. Law Section 14-201, et seq. The Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay further proceedings. A copy of the District Court's May 9, 2014 memorandum opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/iedU7Pfrom Leagle.com. Luciena S. Grant-Fletcher, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas Joseph Minton -- tminton@charmcitylegal.com -- Goldman and Minton PC. Collecto, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ronald S Canter -- rcanter@roncanterllc.com -- The Law Offices of Ronald S Canter LLC. DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Court Approved TCPA Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------- A U.S. court on March 31, 2014, granted final approval of the settlement between Discover Financial Services and plaintiffs in two class actions cases in relation to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. The Company has been subject to two class action cases in relation to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). The cases were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on November 30, 2011 (Walter Bradley et al. v. Discover Financial Services) and on March 6, 2012 (Andrew Steinfeld v. Discover Financial Services, DFS Services LLC and Discover Bank). The plaintiff in each case alleges that the Company contacted him, and members of the class he seeks to represent, on their cellular telephones without their express consent in violation of the TCPA. The plaintiff in each case seeks statutory damages for alleged negligent and willful violations of the TCPA, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief. The TCPA provides for statutory damages of $500 for each violation ($1,500 for willful violations). The Company and class counsel entered into a preliminary settlement of both pending class actions. On September 10, 2013, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. On March 31, 2014, the court granted final approval of the settlement. Discover Financial Services is a direct banking and payment services company. The Company is a bank holding company and a financial holding company. The Company offer credit cards, student loans, personal loans and deposit products through its Discover Bank subsidiary and home loans through its Discover Home Loans, Inc. subsidiary (Discover Home Loans). The Company operates the Discover Network, its credit card payments network; the PULSE network (PULSE), its automated teller machine (ATM), debit and electronic funds transfer network, and Diners Club International (Diners Club), its global payments network. The Company operates in two segments: Direct Banking and Payment Services. In June 2012, Tree.Com Inc sold the operating assets of its Home Loan Center, Inc. business to a wholly owned subsidiary of Discover Financial Services. DJO FINANCE: Defendant in Canadian Pain Pump Litigation ------------------------------------------------------- DJO Finance LLC is a defendant in a class action lawsuit in Canada relating to its prior distribution of a disposable drug infusion pump product, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2014, the Company has accrued $1.1 million as of March 29, 2014, for unpaid settlements in 22 cases, all of which will be paid by its product liability carriers. The Company states: "Over the past 6 years, we have been named in numerous product liability lawsuits involving our prior distribution of a disposable drug infusion pump product (pain pump) manufactured by two third-party manufacturers that was distributed through our Bracing and Vascular segment. We currently are a defendant in approximately five U.S. cases and a lawsuit in Canada which has been granted class action status for a class of approximately 45 claimants. We discontinued our sale of these products in the second quarter of 2009. These cases have been brought against the manufacturers and certain distributors of these pumps. All of these lawsuits allege that the use of these pumps with certain anesthetics for prolonged periods after certain shoulder surgeries or, less commonly, knee surgeries, has resulted in cartilage damage to the plaintiffs. In the past three years, we have entered into settlements with plaintiffs in approximately 130 pain pump lawsuits. Except for the payment by the Company of policy deductibles or self-insured retentions, our products liability carriers in three policy periods have paid the defense costs and settlements related to these claims, subject to reservation of rights to deny coverage for customary matters, including punitive damages and off-label promotion. The range of potential loss for these claims is not estimable, although we believe we have adequate insurance coverage for such claims. As of March 29, 2014, we have accrued $1.1 million for unpaid settlements in 22 cases, all of which will be paid by our product liability carriers." DJO Finance LLC is a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of DJO Global, Inc., is a global developer, manufacturer and distributor of medical devices that provide solutions for musculoskeletal health, vascular health and pain management. Substantially all business activities of DJO are conducted by DJOFL and its wholly owned subsidiaries. DOLLAR GENERAL: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in Ex-Workers' Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pending before the Court in the case captioned STEPHANIE N. PAULINO, Individually and as Class Representative, Plaintiff, v. DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, and DOLGENCORP, LLC, a foreign corporation, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-CV- 75, (N.D. W.Va.), are Defendants' objections to Magistrate Judge Seibert's "Report and Recommendation that Plaintiff's Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification be Granted." Defendants raised seven objections to Magistrate Judge Seibert's findings and conclusions. On December 2, 2013, the Plaintiff moved for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Plaintiff argued that the class is comprised of former employees of Dollar General who worked in West Virginia and who were, according to company records, "involuntarily terminated" within the five years prior to filing of this lawsuit to the present. On January 14, 2014, Magistrate Judge Seibert held an evidentiary hearing on Plaintiff's "Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification." Subsequently, on February 24, 2014, Magistrate Judge Seibert issued a report and recommended that Plaintiff's motion to certify the class be granted. District Judge Gina M. Groh, in a memorandum opinion and order dated May 9, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/RPLgvzfrom Leagle.com, sustained the Defendants' objection to Magistrate Judge Seibert's Report and Recommendation saying the class is an impermissible fail safe class; the class does not satisfy the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2); the class does not satisfy the typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3); and the class does not satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance and superiority requirements. Judge Groh denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification, and directed the Clerk of Court to lift the stay in the matter. Stephanie Paulino, Individually and as Class Representative, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Hammer -- dhammer@hfslawyers.com -- Hammer, Ferretti & Schiavoni & Harry P. Waddell -- hwad50@aol.com -- Law Office of Harry P. Waddell. Dollar General Corporation, a foreign corporation, Defendant, represented by August W. Heckman, III -- aheckman@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joel S. Allen -- joel.allen@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Brockius, LLP, Larry J. Rector -- larry.rector@steptoe-johnson.com -- Steptoe & Johnson PLLC & Michelle Lee Dougherty -- michelle.dougherty@steptoe- johnson.com -- Steptoe & Johnson, PLLC. Dolgencorp, LLC, a foreign corporation, Defendant, represented by August W. Heckman, III, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joel S. Allen, Morgan Lewis & Brockius, LLP, Larry J. Rector, Steptoe & Johnson PLLC & Michelle Lee Dougherty, Steptoe & Johnson, PLLC. DORAL FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Class Suit in Puerto Rico ----------------------------------------------------------- Ramon Sykes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Doral Financial Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:14- cv-01391 (D.P.R., May 13, 2014), is a class action that seeks to pursue remedies against the Defendants and certain of its most senior executives under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Doral Financial Corporation, headquartered in San Juan, Puerto Rico, operates as the bank holding for Doral Bank, which provides retail banking services to the general public and institutions, primarily in Puerto Rico. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andres W. Lopez, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF ANDRES W. LOPEZ, P.S.C. PO Box 13909 San Juan, PR 00908 Telephone: (787) 294-9508 Telephone: (787) 406-9075 Facsimile: (787) 294-9519 E-mail: andreswlopez@yahoo.com DOW CHEMICAL: Appeals $1.06 Billion Judgment in Urethane Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- The Dow Chemical Company is appealing a $1.06 billion judgment against it in connection with multiple civil class action lawsuits alleging a conspiracy to fix the price of various urethane chemical products, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. In 2005, the Company, among others, was named as a defendant in multiple civil class action lawsuits alleging a conspiracy to fix the price of various urethane chemical products, namely the products that were the subject of the DOJ antitrust investigation. These lawsuits were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (the "District Court") or have been tolled. On July 29, 2008, the District Court certified a class of purchasers of the products for the six-year period from 1999 through 2004. Shortly thereafter, a series of "opt-out" cases were filed by a number of large volume purchasers; these cases are substantively identical to the class action lawsuit, but expanded the time period to include 1994 through 1998. In January 2013, the class action lawsuit went to trial in the District Court with the Company as the sole remaining defendant, the other defendants having previously settled. On February 20, 2013, the jury in the matter returned a damages verdict of approximately $400 million against the Company, which ultimately was trebled by the District Court under applicable antitrust laws -- less offsets from other settling defendants -- resulting in a judgment entered in July 2013 in the amount of $1.06 billion. The Company is appealing this judgment on numerous grounds. In addition, there are two separate but inter-related matters in Ontario and Quebec, Canada, both of which are pending a decision on class certification. The Dow Chemical Company combines the power of science and technology to passionately innovate what is essential to human progress. The Company connects chemistry and innovation with the principles of sustainability to help address many of the problems, such as the need for clean water, renewable energy generation and conservation, and increasing agricultural productivity. The Company conducts its worldwide operations through global businesses, which are reported in six operating segments: Electronic and Functional Materials, Coatings and Infrastructure Solutions, Agricultural Sciences, Performance Materials, Performance Plastics, and Feedstocks and Energy. In December 2013, W. R. Grace & Co announced that it has completed the acquisition of the assets of the Polypropylene Licensing and Catalysts business of The Dow Chemical Company. EMCOR GROUP: May Pay Huge Sums if Wage Lawsuit Wins Class Cert. --------------------------------------------------------------- EMCOR Group, Inc., asserted in its Form 10-Q filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014, that if the pending wage lawsuit against one of its subsidiaries is certified as a class action, it might have to pay significant damages and might be subject to similar lawsuits regarding the provision of janitorial services to its other customers in California. The Company states: "One of our subsidiaries, USM, Inc. ("USM"), doing business in California provides, among other things, janitorial services to its customers by having those services performed by independent janitorial companies. USM and one of its customers, which owns retail stores (the "Customer"), are co- defendants in a federal class action lawsuit brought by employees of two of USM's California local janitorial contractors. The action was commenced on September 5, 2013 in a Superior Court of California and was removed by USM on November 22, 2013, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The employees allege in their complaint, among other things, that USM and the Customer violated a California statute that prohibits USM from entering into a contract with a janitorial contractor when it knows or should know that the contract does not include funds sufficient to allow the janitorial contractor to comply with all local, state and federal laws or regulations governing the labor or services to be provided. The employees have asserted that the amounts USM pays to its janitorial contractors are insufficient to allow those janitorial contractors to meet their obligations regarding, among other things, wages due for all hours their employees worked, minimum wages, overtime pay and meal and rest breaks. These employees seek to represent not only themselves, but also all other individuals who provided janitorial services at the Customer's stores in California during the relevant four year time period. The Company does not believe USM or the Customer has violated the California statute or that the employees may bring the action as a class action on behalf of other employees of janitorial companies with whom USM contracted for the provision of janitorial services to the Customer. However, if the pending lawsuit is certified as a class action and USM is found to have violated the California statute, USM might have to pay significant damages and might be subject to similar lawsuits regarding the provision of janitorial services to its other customers in California. The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that USM has violated the California statute, monetary damages, including all unpaid wages and thereon, restitution for unpaid wages, and an award of attorney fees and costs." EMCOR Group, Inc. (EMCOR) is an electrical and mechanical construction and facilities services firm in the United States, the United Kingdom and globally. The Company provides services to a range of commercial, industrial, utility and institutional customers through approximately 70 operating subsidiaries and joint venture entities. It specializes in providing construction services relating to electrical and mechanical systems in facilities of all types and in providing comprehensive services for the operation, maintenance and management of facilities services. In January 2014, the Company acquired EMCOR Energy Services, Inc. (EES), a subsidiary of EMCOR Group, Inc. In January 2014, TRC Companies Inc acquired EMCOR Energy Services, Inc. (EES), a subsidiary of EMCOR Group, Inc. EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Court Remands Complaint for Further Proceedings ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on March 19, 2014, remanded the putative class action against Express Scripts Holding Company, alleging rights to sue as a private attorney general under California law, to the district court for further proceedings, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. A complaint was filed against ESI, NextRX LLC f/k/a Anthem Prescription Management LLC, Medco Health Solutions and several other pharmacy benefit management companies by several California pharmacies as a putative class action, alleging rights to sue as a private attorney general under California law. Plaintiffs allege that defendants failed to comply with statutory obligations under California Civil Code Section 2527 to provide California clients with the results of a bi-annual survey of retail drug prices. On July 12, 2004, the case was dismissed with prejudice on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the action. On June 2, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's opinion on standing and remanded the case to the district court. The district court's denial of defendants' motion to dismiss on first amendment constitutionality grounds was appealed to the Ninth Circuit as discussed further below. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, but that motion has not been briefed pending the appeal. On July 19, 2011, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendants' motion to dismiss. On August 16, 2011, defendants filed a petition for rehearing en banc requesting the Ninth Circuit reconsider its ruling on defendants' motion to dismiss, which was granted on October 31, 2011. On June 6, 2012, an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision certifying the question of constitutionality of California Civil Code Section 2527 to the California Supreme Court, requesting the state's highest court to consider the issue and make a ruling. On July 18, 2012, the California Supreme Court granted the certification request and, on December 19, 2013, held that California Civil Code Section 2527 does not infringe upon state constitutional free speech protections. On January 29, 2014, the Ninth Circuit en banc panel issued a ruling vacating the prior panel opinion and remanded the case to the original Ninth Circuit three-judge panel to either consider the federal constitutional issues or remand the case to the district court. On March 19, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals entered an order lifting the stay and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. Express Scripts Holding Company provides healthcare management and administration services on behalf of its clients, which include health maintenance organizations (HMOs), health insurers, third- party administrators, employers, union-sponsored benefit plans, workers compensation plans, and government health programs. The Company operates in two segments: Pharmacy Benefit Management (PBM) and Emerging Markets (EM). During the year ended December 31, 2011, it reorganized its FreedomFP line of business from its EM segment into its PBM segment. In September 2013, it announced the acquisition of the SmartD Medicare Prescription Drug Plan (PDP). FARM CITY MEAT: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act --------------------------------------------------------------- Armado Rodriguez-Tovar, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated, v. Farm City Meat, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-03476 (N.D. Ill., May 13, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., Illinois Minimum Wage Law, 820 ILCS Section 105/1 et seq., and Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, 820 ILCS Section 115/1 et seq., by refusing to compensate the Plaintiffs in a proper manner. Farm City Meat, Inc., is an "enterprise" engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce. The Plaintiff is represented by: Valentin Tito Narvaez , Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 878-1302 Facsimile: (888) 270-8983 E-mail: consumerlawgroupllc@gmail.com FRESH DEL MONTE: Subsidiary Accrued $2.2-Mil Reserve on Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------- Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc., disclosed that its subsidiary has accrued $2.2 million in reserve pending the outcome of its appeal relating to the judgments for an action on unpaid wages, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 28, 2014. In December 2007, a class action complaint was filed against one of our subsidiaries for unpaid wages in an action styled Maria Delgado and Abdia Liberio, et al. v. Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. in the Circuit Court of Multnomah County, Oregon. On October 5, 2009, a jury verdict was entered against our subsidiary. The court entered judgments in favor of plaintiffs consistent with the jury verdict. On January 2, 2014, the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the judgments. Our subsidiary is appealing the Court of Appeals decision to the Oregon Supreme Court and has accrued $2.2 million in reserve pending the outcome of the appeal. Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. is a producer, marketer and distributor of fruit and vegetables, as well as a producer and distributor of prepared fruit and vegetables, juices, beverages and snacks in Europe, Africa and the Middle East. The Company markets its products worldwide under the DEL MONTE brand. It sources its fresh produce products (bananas, pineapples, melons, tomatoes, grapes, apples, pears, peaches, plums, nectarines, cherries, citrus, avocados, blueberries and kiwi) primarily from Central and South America, Africa, the Philippines, North America and Europe. The Company sources its prepared food products primarily from Africa, Europe, the Middle East and Asia. Its products are sourced from company-owned operations, through joint venture arrangements and through supply contracts with independent producers. It distributes its products in North America, Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Africa and South America. GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Biggs" Suit Over Defective Ignition Switch ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lorie Biggs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-11912 (E.D. Mich., May 13, 2014), seeks injunctive relief in the form of a repair to fully remedy the defects in the ignition switch system such that the defective vehicle have their economic value restored and can be operated safely, and/or damages to compensate them for the diminished value of their defective vehicle as a result of the defects and GM's wrongful conduct. General Motors LLC, is a Delaware corporation with headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alyson L. Oliver, Esq. 950 W. University Drive, Suite 200 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 327-6556 Facsimile: (248) 436-3385 E-mail: notifications@oliverlg.com GIANT INTERACTIVE: Defendant in Proposed Merger Complaint --------------------------------------------------------- Giant Interactive Group Inc., is a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit alleging, among other things, that the Company breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the Proposed Merger, according to the Company's Form 20-F filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013. The Company states: "On or about March 28, 2014, we became aware that a complaint had been filed by an alleged holder of our ADSs against us, members of our board or directors, Giant Investment Limited and Giant Merger Limited in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in connection with the proposed going private transaction, or the Proposed Merger, contemplated by the agreement and plan of merger dated March 17, 2014. The lawsuit is a purported class action brought on behalf of all holders of ADSs and is captioned Tripp v. Giant Interactive Group Inc., et al. (case no. 14 CV 2177). The representative plaintiff alleges, among other things, that each of our directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Proposed Merger, which plaintiff alleges do not appropriately value our company, were the result of an inadequate process overseen by conflicted directors and include preclusive deal protection devices. The lawsuit also claims that we, Giant Investment Limited and Giant Merger Limited aided and abetted these violations. The complaint purports to seek, among other things, an injunction against the consummation of the Proposed Merger and rescission in the event that the Proposed Merger is consummated prior to the entry of the court's final judgment, an award of unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses, and such other equitable relief that the court deems just and proper. "On or about April 14, 2014, we became aware that another class action complaint captioned Palkon v. Giant Interactive Group Inc., et al (case no. 14 CV 2556) was filed on behalf of all holders of ADSs in the same court against us, our directors, Giant Investment Limited and Giant Merger Limited alleging that each of our directors breached fiduciary duties by not appropriately valuing our Company in connection with the proposed going private transaction and that we, Giant Investment Limited and Giant Merger Limited aided and abetted these alleged violations. On or about April 22, 2014, we became aware that a third class action complaint captioned Sutherland, et al. v. Giant Interactive Group Inc., et al (case no. 14 CV 2826) was filed on behalf of all holders of ADSs in the same court against us, our directors, Giant Investment Limited, Giant Merger Limited, Baring Private Equity Asia and Hony Capital Fund V, L.P., alleging that the proxy statement filed by us in connection with the proposed going private transaction is materially false and misleading and therefore violates Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. We and our board of directors believe that the claims in these three complaints are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously. "One of the conditions to the closing of the Proposed Merger is that no final order by a court or other governmental entity shall be in effect that prohibits the consummation of the Proposed Merger or that makes the consummation of the merger illegal. As such, if the representative plaintiff is successful in obtaining an injunction prohibiting the defendants from completing the Proposed Merger on the agreed-upon terms and such injunction has not been reversed and is non-appealable, then such injunction may prevent the Proposed Merger from becoming effective, or from becoming effective within the expected timeframe. The outcome of this lawsuit is uncertain. An adverse judgment for monetary damages could have an adverse effect on our operations and liquidity. A preliminary injunction could delay or jeopardize the completion of the Proposed Merger, and an adverse judgment granting permanent injunctive relief could indefinitely enjoin completion of the Proposed Merger. Giant Interactive Group Inc. is an online game developer and operator in China. It focuses on massively multiplayer online role playing games (MMORPG) that are played through networked game servers, in which a number of players are able to simultaneously connect and interact. The Company operates 11 online games, among which nine are self-developed, including the five games in the Zheng Tu (ZT) Online Series. GLOBAL GEOPHYSICAL: Defendant in Securities Litigation ------------------------------------------------------ Global Geophysical Services Inc., is a defendant in putative class actions alleging violations of the Securities Act, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013. On March 20, 2014, a lawsuit styled Britt Miller, et al. v. Global Geophysical Services, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 4:14-CV- 00708, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. On March 21, 2014, a lawsuit styled Janice S. Gibson v. Global Geophysical Services, Inc., et al., No. 4:14-CV-0735, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. On April 3, 2014, a lawsuit styled Leslie Trinin v. P. Matthew Verghese, et al., No. 4:14-CV-00873, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The cases were filed as putative class actions. The Miller Complaint is filed on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of the Company's common stock from April 21, 2010 to March 18, 2014, and purchasers of the Depositary Shares purchased in, or traceable to, the Company's registration statement of December 3, 2013. The Gibson Complaint is filed on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company's common stock from February 7, 2011 to March 17, 2014. The Trinin Complaint is filed on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of Depositary Shares purchased in, or traceable to, the Company's registration statement of December 3, 2014. The named defendants in the Trinin case are certain officers and directors of the Company, and MLV Co. and National Securities Corporation, the alleged underwriters of the Company's December 3, 2013 offering of Depositary Shares. The Company is not a party to the Trinin case. Plaintiffs in these cases collectively allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, resulting in damages to members of the putative classes. The Company intends to vigorously defend these actions. Global Geophysical Services, Inc. (Global), provides an integrated suite of seismic data solutions to the global oil and gas industry, including Global's RG-3D Reservoir Grade (RG3D) seismic solutions. GREENSMOOTHIEGIRL: Recalls Organic Sprouted Chia Seed Powder ------------------------------------------------------------ GreenSmoothieGirl is voluntarily recalling two products which contain Organic Sprouted Chia Powder due to possible health risks related to Salmonella contamination. Company CEO, Robyn Openshaw, states, "To date, there have been no reports of sickness traced back to our products, but we have chosen to exert the utmost level of caution in this situation to protect the health and well-being of our customers. We are, therefore, voluntarily recalling products that contain organic sprouted chia powder." The affected products include: GreenSmoothieGirl Sprouted Ground TriOmega Superfood, 16 oz, UPC 853811005036 with lot number AC030141, Exp. 1/2016 (Silver Ziplock Pouch) GreenSmoothieGirl Sprouted Ground TriOmega Superfood, 16 oz, no UPC, with lot number BIO13TOP300, Exp. 10/2015 (Gold Ziplock Pouch) The lot numbers associated with the recall were distributed in retail stores in UT, OR, MT and directly to consumers throughout the US via GreenSmoothieGirl.com. The company is committed to resolving this recall quickly and efficiently. "GreenSmoothieGirl is committed to providing quality products to consumers and we stand by that commitment in issuing this recall. We do not take the health of our valued customers lightly," Openshaw said. Consumers who have purchased this item and have unopened or partially used packages are encouraged to discontinue any use of the product and return it to the store where originally purchased. Consumers who have questions or who purchased directly from GreenSmoothieGirl are encouraged to contact the company via the dedicated recall email provided below. Salmonella is an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis. This recall is being made with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. For more information visit GreenSmoothieGirl.com. Email -- gsgchiarecall2014@gmail.com Recall Hotline -- 435-625-1596 HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Medical Record Overcharges ------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Bowden, writing for Iowa Public Radio, reports that a class- action lawsuit that could involve thousands of Iowans has been filed against HealthPort Technologies. The Georgia-based company is a medical records and billings statement provider. The suit alleges HealthPort overcharges costumers for duplications of their medical records and billing statements. The lead attorney for the plaintiffs is James Bisconglia of the Des Moines law firm LaMarca & Landry. Mr. Bisconglia says that Iowa Code limits the amount a consumer can be charged for a records request. "For example . . . regardless of whether or not you request one page or five pages, they regularly charge $20. But the amount that is to be charges, is supposed to be based on the actual cost of reproduction." Mr. Biscoglia also says HealthPort charges for electronic delivery, which is not legal in Iowa. Iowa is one of several states in which class-action suits have been filed against HealthPort. Most recently suits were filed in New York and New Jersey for improperly billing costumers. HEALTHSOUTH CORP: Federal Court Remands Securities Fraud Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- A federal court on September 27, 2013, remanded back to state court the securities fraud lawsuit against HealthSouth Corporation seeking, among other things, certification as a class action, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. The Company states: "We have been named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed March 28, 2003, by several individual stockholders in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, captioned Nichols v. HealthSouth Corp. The plaintiffs allege that we, some of our former officers, and our former investment bank engaged in a scheme to overstate and misrepresent our earnings and financial position. The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages. This case was consolidated with the Tucker case for discovery and other pretrial purposes and was stayed in the Circuit Court on August 8, 2005. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 9, 2010, to which we responded with a motion to dismiss filed on December 22, 2010. "During a hearing on February 24, 2012, plaintiffs' counsel indicated his intent to dismiss certain claims against us. Instead, on March 9, 2012, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to include additional securities fraud claims against HealthSouth and add several former officers to the lawsuit. On September 12, 2012, the plaintiffs further amended their complaint to request certification as a class action. One of those named officers has repeatedly attempted to remove the case to federal district court, most recently on December 11, 2012. We filed our latest motion to remand the case back to state court on January 10, 2013. On September 27, 2013, the federal court remanded the case back to state court. "We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this case. Based on the stage of litigation, review of the current facts and circumstances as we understand them, the nature of the underlying claim, the results of the proceedings to date, and the nature and scope of the defense we continue to mount, we do not believe an adverse judgment or settlement is probable in this matter, and it is also not possible to estimate the amount of loss, if any, or range of possible loss that might result from an adverse judgment or settlement of this case." HealthSouth Corporation is an owner and operator of inpatient rehabilitation hospitals. As of December 31, 2011, the Company operated 99 inpatient rehabilitation hospitals (including three hospitals that operate as joint ventures), 26 outpatient rehabilitation satellite clinics (operated by its hospitals, including one joint venture satellite), and 25 licensed, hospital- based home health agencies. HIGHER ONE: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Connecticut ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on May 27 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Higher One Holdings, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, District of Connecticut, and docketed under 3:14-cv-00755, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Higher One securities between August 7, 2012 and May 12, 2014, both dates inclusive. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. If you are a shareholder who purchased Higher One securities during the Class Period, you have until July 28, 2014 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Higher One provides technology-based refund disbursement, payment processing, and data analytics services to higher education institutions and students in the United States. Some of the services it offers include FDIC-insured online checking accounts to students, as well as faculty, staff, and alumni; a debit MasterCard ATM card; and OneAccount Premier and OneAccount Edge for primary account usage. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, prospects and performance. Specifically, during the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's marketing and disclosure practices were in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act; (ii) the Company's allegedly improper marketing and disclosure practices would subject Higher One to potential restitution demands and civil penalties; and (iii) the amounts of potential restitution demands and civil penalties could reach levels that would cause an event of default under the Company's Credit Facility. On May 12, 2014, in a Form 10-Q filed with the SEC announcing its financial and operating results for the first quarter of 2014, the Company disclosed that it is facing penalties from the Federal Reserve over alleged violations tied to its marketing of a debit account for financial aid refunds. According to the filing, such penalties could trigger a default on the Company's Credit Facility. On the news, Higher One shares fell $0.90, or over 14% on heavy trading volume, to close at $5.51 on May 13, 2014. With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 70 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. HONG KONG EXCHANGES: To Contest Class Action Over Zinc Prices ------------------------------------------------------------- Melanie Burton, writing for Reuters, reports that Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Ltd. said it will contest a class action alleging it and others artificially inflated zinc prices, adding to a growing legal battle that has so far centered on aluminium. Duncan Galvanizing, one of the oldest galvanizers in the United States, accused the Hong Kong bourse and its units the London Metal Exchange (LME) and LME Holdings Ltd., alongside Goldman Sachs Group Inc, JPMorgan Chase & Co and metal warehouse operators, of conspiring since 2010 to manipulate the U.S. zinc price. "HKEx and LME management's initial assessment is that lawsuit is without merit and HKEx and subsidiaries will contest it vigorously," the Hong Kong Exchange said in a release. The zinc lawsuit opens up a new legal front and signals the possibility of mounting expenses for the Hong Kong bourse following its costly $2.2 billion purchase of the LME in 2012. HKEx's earnings took a hit from legal fees in the first quarter, with operating expenses related to its commodities division -- the LME -- up by $42 million, partly due to legal fees for U.S. class action lawsuits and a judicial review in Britain. The latest suit, registered in the Southern District of New York, is the first to include allegations over the impact of warehousing on the smaller, niche zinc market. Zinc is used to coat steel to protect against corrosion. Some of the same counsel representing aluminium buyers that have lodged class actions are involved in the zinc lawsuits, HKEx said. "In light of the class action nature of the complaints, HKEx understands that it is not uncommon for additional follow-on lawsuits of a similar nature to be filed in the United States once a class action has commenced," it said. HKEx may not make further announcements each time it becomes aware of similar lawsuits unless there is significant new information regarding the claim, it said. IBM CORP: Defendant in Securities Litigation -------------------------------------------- International Business Machines Corporation is a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit alleging violations to the Securities Exchange Act, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. In December 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York related to the company's third-quarter 2013 financial results disclosure. The company, its Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, and a former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the company are named as defendants. Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated Section 20(a) and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) is an information technology (IT) company. IBM operates in five segments: Global Technology Services (GTS), Global Business Services (GBS), Software, Systems and Technology and Global Financing. GTS primarily provides IT infrastructure services and business process services. GBS provides professional services and application management services. Software consists primarily of middleware and operating systems software. Systems and Technology provides clients with business solutions requiring advanced computing power and storage capabilities. Global Financing invests in financing assets, leverages with debt and manages the associated risks. In May 2014, the Company acquired Silverpop, a privately held software company based in Atlanta, Ga. K12 INC: Defendant in Oklahoma Firefighters Complaint ----------------------------------------------------- A securities class-action lawsuit was filed by the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System against K12 Inc., alleging, among other things, that the Company failed to disclose material facts about its enrollment and revenue growth prospects for fiscal 2014, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. On January 30, 2014, a securities class-action lawsuit captioned Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System v. K12 Inc., et al., was filed against the Company, four of its officers and directors, and a former officer, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System v. K12, Inc., Case No. 1:14-CV-108- AJT-JFA (the "Oklahoma Firefighters Complaint"). The plaintiff purports to represent a class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired K12 common stock between March 11, 2013 and October 9, 2013, inclusive, and alleges violations by the defendants of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Oklahoma Firefighters Complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made false or misleading statements of material fact, or failed to disclose material facts, about (i) the Company's enrollment and revenue growth prospects for fiscal 2014, and (ii) the Company's compliance with state regulations governing enrollment. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. The Company intends to defend vigorously against the claims asserted in the Oklahoma Firefighters Complaint. K12 Inc. (K12) is a technology-based education company. K12 offers curriculum, software systems and educational services designed to facilitate individualized learning for students primarily in kindergarten through 12th grade, or K-12. The Company provides a continuum of technology-based educational products and solutions to districts, public schools, private schools, charter schools and families. Its products include Curriculum, Pre-K and K-8 Courses, Online School Platform-Learning Management System, High School Courses, Innovative Learning Applications, School Management Systems and PEAK12. Its managed public schools includes Full-time virtual schools and Blended schools, which includes Flex schools, Passport schools, Discovery schools and Other blended schools. Its international and private pay business includes Managed private schools, The Keystone School, George Washington University Online HS, K12 International Academy, IS Berne, WEB and Independent course sales (Consumer). KINDER MORGAN: Seeks to Dismiss Suit Over CapEx Allocation ---------------------------------------------------------- Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., on March 3, 2014, moved to dismiss a putative class action alleging, among other things, that the Company made a bad faith allocation of capital expenditures to expansion capital expenditures, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. On February 5, 2014, a putative class action and derivative complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware (Case No. 9318) against defendants KMI, KMGP and nominal defendant KMEP. The suit was filed by Jon Slotoroff, a purported unitholder of KMEP, and seeks to assert claims both individually and on behalf of a putative class consisting of all public holders of KMEP units during the period of February 5, 2011 through the date of the filing of the suit. The suit alleges direct and derivative causes of action for breach of the partnership agreement, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, aiding and abetting, and tortious interference. Among other things, the suit alleges that defendants made a bad faith allocation of capital expenditures to expansion capital expenditures rather than maintenance capital expenditures for the alleged purpose of "artificially" inflating KMEP's distributions and growth rate. The suit seeks disgorgement of any distributions to KMGP, KMI and any related entities, beyond amounts that would have been distributed in accordance with a "good faith" allocation of maintenance capital expenses, together with other unspecified monetary damages including punitive damages and attorney fees. On March 3, 2014, nominal defendant KMEP and defendants KMI and KMGP moved to dismiss this suit. Defendants believe that this suit is without merit and intend to defend it vigorously. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. (KMP) is a pipeline transportation and energy storage company in North America. The Company operates in five business segments: Products Pipelines, Natural Gas Pipelines, carbon dioxide (CO2), Terminals and Kinder Morgan Canada. KINDER MORGAN: Del. Chancery Court Consolidates Complaints ---------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware ordered on April 8, 2014, that a putative class action filed against Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., on behalf of a putative class consisting of all public holders of KMEP units, be consolidated for all purposes with the Jon Slotoroff complaint, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. On March 27, 2014, a putative class action and derivative complaint was filed in the Chancery Court (Case No. 9479) against defendants KMI, KMGP and nominal defendant KMEP. The suit was filed by Darrell Burns and Terrence Zehrer, purported unitholders of KMEP, and seeks to assert claims both individually and on behalf of a putative class consisting of all public holders of KMEP units during the period of February 5, 2011 through the date of the filing of the suit. The suit asserts claims and allegations substantially similar to the suit filed by Jon Slotoroff. On April 8, 2014, the Court ordered that this suit be consolidated for all purposes with the suit filed by Jon Slotoroff and that the caption of the consolidated action shall be In Re Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. Derivative Litigation, Consolidated Case No. 9318. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. (KMP) is a pipeline transportation and energy storage company in North America. The Company operates in five business segments: Products Pipelines, Natural Gas Pipelines, carbon dioxide (CO2), Terminals and Kinder Morgan Canada. KINDER MORGAN: Texas Court Stays "Walker" Complaint --------------------------------------------------- A Texas state court on April 9, 2014, stayed a putative class action filed by Kenneth Walker until Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P.'s motion to dismiss the Jon Slotoroff is decided, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. On March 6, 2014, a putative class action and derivative complaint was filed in the District Court of Harris County, Texas (Case No. 2014-11872 in the 215th Judicial District) against KMI, KMGP, KMR, Richard D. Kinder, Steven J. Kean, Ted A. Gardner, Gary L. Hultquist and Perry M. Waughtal. The suit was filed by Kenneth Walker, a purported unit holder of KMP, and alleges direct and derivative causes of action for alleged violation of duties owed under the partnership agreement, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, "abuse of control" and "gross mismanagement" in connection with the calculation of distributions and allocation of capital expenditures to expansion capital expenditures and maintenance capital expenditures. The suit seeks unspecified money damages, interest, punitive damages, attorney and expert fees, costs and expenses, unspecified equitable relief, and demands a trial by jury. Defendants believe that this suit is without merit and intend to defend it vigorously. On April 9, 2014, the Court entered an order staying the case until the defendants' motion to dismiss is decided in the suit filed by Jon Slotoroff. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. (KMP) is a pipeline transportation and energy storage company in North America. The Company operates in five business segments: Products Pipelines, Natural Gas Pipelines, carbon dioxide (CO2), Terminals and Kinder Morgan Canada. KRAFT FOODS: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in "Montgomery" Case -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Gordon J. Quist denied a motion for class certification in the lawsuit captioned PAMELA MONTGOMERY, on behalf of Herself and for the Benefit of All with the Common or General Interest, Any Persons Injured, and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and STARBUCKS CORPORATION, a Washington Corporation, Defendants, CASE NO. 1:12-CV-00149, (W.D. Mich.). Ms. Montgomery filed this action against Kraft Foods Global Inc. (Kraft) and Starbucks Corporation (Starbucks), asserting claims under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA), M.C.L. Section 445.903. Plaintiff sought certification of a class of Michigan residents that purchased Tassimo brewers in Michigan between November 1, 2010 and February 20, 2012. According to Judge Quist, the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the materiality of the statements at issue could be shown by common evidence, or that damages could be determined on a class- wide basis. Moreover, the Court found that the Plaintiff has not demonstrated that members of the proposed class suffered the same injury. Thus, the Court concluded that the Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the "demanding" criterion of Rule 23(b), and that the motion for class certification must be denied. A copy of the District Court's May 9, 2014 Opinion is available at http://is.gd/gJ6t6Nfrom Leagle.com. Pamela Montgomery, plaintiff, represented by Peter W. Macuga, II -- PMacuga@mldclassaction.com -- Macuga Liddle & Dubin PC & Timothy H. McCarthy, Jr. -- tim@mccarthy-group.net -- The McCarthy Law Group PC. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, defendant, represented by Christopher James Schneider -- schneiderc@millerjohnson.com -- Miller Johnson PLC, Craig H. Lubben -- lubbenc@millerjohnson.com -- Miller Johnson PLC, Dean Nicholas Panos -- dpanos@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP, Richard P. Steinken -- rsteinken@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP & Thalia L. Myrianthopoulos -- tmyrianthopoulos@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP. Starbucks Corporation, a Washington Corporation, defendant, represented by Aaron M. Panner -- apanner@khhte.com -- Kellogg Huber Hansen Todd Evans & Figel PLLC, Caitlin S. Hall -- chall@khhte.com -- Kellogg Huber Hansen Todd Evans & Figel PLLC & Edward P. Perdue -- eperdue@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC. LABORATORY CORP: Defendant in Unfair Business Practices Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings disclosed that it is a defendant of a putative class action lawsuit alleging, among other things, that the Company committed unlawful and unfair business practices, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. On June 7, 2012, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Yvonne Jansky v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al., filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco. The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants committed unlawful and unfair business practices, and violated various other state laws by changing screening codes to diagnostic codes on laboratory test orders, thereby resulting in customers being responsible for co-payments and other debts. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, actual and punitive damages, as well as recovery of attorney's fees, and legal expenses. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings is a clinical laboratory company in the United States. Through a national network of laboratories, the Company offers a range of testing services used by the medical profession in routine testing, patient diagnosis, and in the monitoring and treatment of disease. In addition, it has developed specialty and niche operations based on certain types of specialized testing capabilities and client requirements, such as oncology testing, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) genotyping and phenotyping, diagnostic genetics and clinical research trials. It processes tests on approximately 470,000 patient specimens daily and provides clinical laboratory testing services in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Belgium, Japan, the United Kingdom, China, Singapore and three provinces in Canada. LABORATORY CORP: Defendant in DNA Preservation Complaint in Mass. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings is a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit alleging failure to preserve DNA samples allegedly entrusted to the Company, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. On June 7, 2012, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Ann Baker Pepe v. Genzyme Corporation and Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants failed to preserve DNA samples allegedly entrusted to the Defendants and thereby breached a written agreement with Plaintiff and violated state laws. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, actual, double and treble damages, as well as recovery of attorney's fees and legal expenses. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings is a clinical laboratory company in the United States. Through a national network of laboratories, the Company offers a range of testing services used by the medical profession in routine testing, patient diagnosis, and in the monitoring and treatment of disease. In addition, it has developed specialty and niche operations based on certain types of specialized testing capabilities and client requirements, such as oncology testing, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) genotyping and phenotyping, diagnostic genetics and clinical research trials. It processes tests on approximately 470,000 patient specimens daily and provides clinical laboratory testing services in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Belgium, Japan, the United Kingdom, China, Singapore and three provinces in Canada. LABORATORY CORP: Defendant in TCPA Complaint in Minnesota --------------------------------------------------------- A putative class action lawsuit was filed against Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings alleging that the Company violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. On August 24, 2012, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC, et al. v. MEDTOX Scientific, Inc., et al., filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The complaint alleges that on or about February 21, 2012, the Defendants violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by sending unsolicited facsimiles to Plaintiff and more than 39 other recipients without the recipients' prior express permission or invitation. The lawsuit seeks the greater of actual damages or the sum of $0.0005 for each violation, subject to trebling under TCPA, and injunctive relief. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings is a clinical laboratory company in the United States. Through a national network of laboratories, the Company offers a range of testing services used by the medical profession in routine testing, patient diagnosis, and in the monitoring and treatment of disease. In addition, it has developed specialty and niche operations based on certain types of specialized testing capabilities and client requirements, such as oncology testing, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) genotyping and phenotyping, diagnostic genetics and clinical research trials. It processes tests on approximately 470,000 patient specimens daily and provides clinical laboratory testing services in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Belgium, Japan, the United Kingdom, China, Singapore and three provinces in Canada. LABORATORY CORP: Court Granted Motion to Dismiss "Andres" Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- A court granted on March 24, 2014, Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings' motion to dismiss Andres lawsuit relating to overtime pay, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. The Company was a defendant in two separate putative class action lawsuits, Christine Bohlander v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al., and Jemuel Andres, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, et al., related to overtime pay. After the filing of the two lawsuits on July 8, 2013, the Bohlander lawsuit was consolidated into the Andres lawsuit, and the consolidated lawsuit is now pending in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles. In the consolidated lawsuit, the Plaintiffs allege on behalf of similarly situated phlebotomists and couriers that the Company failed to pay overtime, failed to provide meal and rest breaks, and committed other violations of the California Labor Code. On March 24, 2014, the Court granted the Company's Motion to Dismiss due to technical deficiencies in the pleading of the Plaintiffs' claims, but granted Plaintiffs leave to amend to cure the defects. Plaintiffs have subsequently filed an amended complaint. The complaint seeks monetary damages, civil penalties, costs, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings is a clinical laboratory company in the United States. Through a national network of laboratories, the Company offers a range of testing services used by the medical profession in routine testing, patient diagnosis, and in the monitoring and treatment of disease. In addition, it has developed specialty and niche operations based on certain types of specialized testing capabilities and client requirements, such as oncology testing, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) genotyping and phenotyping, diagnostic genetics and clinical research trials. It processes tests on approximately 470,000 patient specimens daily and provides clinical laboratory testing services in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Belgium, Japan, the United Kingdom, China, Singapore and three provinces in Canada. LITTLE BIG: Former Employees File Overtime Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Wright, writing for The Register-Guard, reports that two former employees of the Portland-based Little Big Burger restaurant chain have filed a class action lawsuit against the business and its owners, alleging that they do not pay time-and-a- half for overtime hours worked, in violation of state and federal labor law. Corbyn Vance and Logan Vance, who previously worked for the chain's restaurant outlet on Orchard Street in Eugene, filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Eugene. They said they filed the lawsuit on behalf of other current and former employees in addition to themselves. The lawsuit names the Little Big Burger chain, as well as owners Micah Camden and Katherine Poppe, as defendants. Joseph Durkee of Portland, attorney for Little Big Burger, said the company denies the allegations in the lawsuit. He said the restaurant chain "prides itself on treating its employees well (and) beneficially serving the communities in which it operates." In addition to the overtime pay complaint, the lawsuit alleges that Logan Vance was wrongfully fired from his job in March after he complained about the company's pay practices in January. A general manager with whom Vance raised the issue responded by stating that Little Big Burger "does not pay overtime," the lawsuit alleges. The class action suit seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime wages for the Vances and other employees. The lawsuit says the company's policy violates the federal Fair Labor Standards Act as well as Oregon wage and hour laws. No specific dollar amount is sought, with any damages to be decided by a jury at trial. Logan Vance also seeks job reinstatement and back pay, according to the lawsuit. He has suffered emotional distress, humiliation and loss of future earning capacity as a result of his termination, the suit says. The lawsuit indicates that the Vances both worked at the restaurant for three years. Corbyn Vance was employed as a cook and cashier, and Logan Vance's position is not noted. The lawsuit identifies the Vances as Deschutes County residents. Little Big Burger is preparing to open its seventh eatery in Portland this summer. Poppe and Camden own several other restaurant interests in Portland, including a fried chicken outlet and a pair of doughnut shops. MICHAELS STORES: Challenges Class Certification Order ----------------------------------------------------- Michaels Stores, Inc., is challenging the class certification order certifying a class of approximately 200 members of a class action alleging, among other things, breach of California's unfair competition law, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended February 1, 2014. The Company states: "On September 15, 2011, the Company was served with a lawsuit filed in the California Superior Court in and for the County of Orange ("Superior Court") by four former store managers as a class action proceeding on behalf of themselves and certain former and current store managers employed by Michaels in California. The lawsuit alleges that the Company stores improperly classified its store managers as exempt employees and as such failed to pay all wages, overtime, waiting time penalties and failed to provide accurate wage statements. The lawsuit also alleges that the foregoing conduct was in breach of various laws, including California's unfair competition law. On December 3, 2013, the Superior Court entered an Order certifying a class of approximately 200 members. The Company subsequently successfully removed the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California and is challenging the class certification order. We believe we have meritorious defenses and intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. We do not believe the resolution of the lawsuit will have a material effect on our Consolidated Financial Statements." Michaels Stores, Inc., is the nation's #1 arts and crafts retailer owns and operates more than 1,000 Michaels Stores across the US and Canada. Michaels sells some 36,000 products, including art and hobby supplies, decor, frames, needlecraft kits, party and seasonal products, and silk and dried flowers. It also offers 10 private brands, including Artist's Loft, Art Minds, and Craft Smart. It provides framing and art supplies though some 120 Aaron Brothers stores in California, Texas, and half a dozen other states. The company's Artistree subsidiary manufactures frames and molding for Michaels and Aaron Brothers stores. Michaels Stores, owned by Bain Capital Partners and The Blackstone Group, has filed to go public. MICHAELS STORES: Defendant in Five Data Security Complaints ----------------------------------------------------------- Michaels Stores, Inc., is a defendant in five putative class actions relating to its recent Data Breach, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended February 1, 2014. The Company states: "Five putative class actions were filed relating to our recent Data Breach. The plaintiffs generally allege that the Company failed to secure and safeguard customers' private information including credit and debit card information and as such, breached an implied contract, violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (and other states' similar laws) and are seeking damages including declaratory relief, actual damages, punitive damages, statutory damages, attorneys' fees, litigation costs, remedial action, pre and post judgment interest, other relief as available. The cases, are as follows: Christina Moyer v. Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed on January 27, 2014; Michael and Jessica Gouwens v. Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed on January 29, 2014; Nancy Maize and Jessica Gordon v. Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed on February 21, 2014; and Daniel Ripes v. Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed on March 14, 2014. All four of these cases were filed in the United States District Court-Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. A case, Mary Jane Whalen v. Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on March 18, 2014, but was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on April 11, 2014, without prejudice to her right to re-file a complaint. On April 16, 2014, an order was entered consolidating the current actions. We believe we have meritorious defenses and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously. "In addition, payment card companies and associations may require us to reimburse them for unauthorized card charges and costs to replace cards and may also impose fines or penalties in connection with the Data Breach, and enforcement authorities may also impose fines or other remedies against us. We have also incurred other costs associated with the Data Breach, including legal fees, investigative fees, costs of communications with customers and credit monitoring services provided to our customers. In addition, state and federal agencies, including the State Attorneys General and the Federal Trade Commission may investigate events related to the Data Breach, including how it occurred, its consequences and our responses. Although we intend to cooperate in these investigations, we may be subject to fines or other obligations, which may have an adverse effect on how we operate our business and our results of operations. "While a loss from these matters is reasonably possible, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of possible losses because our investigation into the matter is ongoing, the proceedings remain in the early stages, alleged damages have not been specified, there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class or classes being certified or the ultimate size of any class if certified, and there are significant factual and legal issues to be resolved." Michaels Stores, Inc., is the nation's #1 arts and crafts retailer owns and operates more than 1,000 Michaels Stores across the US and Canada. Michaels sells some 36,000 products, including art and hobby supplies, decor, frames, needlecraft kits, party and seasonal products, and silk and dried flowers. It also offers 10 private brands, including Artist's Loft, Art Minds, and Craft Smart. It provides framing and art supplies though some 120 Aaron Brothers stores in California, Texas, and half a dozen other states. The company's Artistree subsidiary manufactures frames and molding for Michaels and Aaron Brothers stores. Michaels Stores, owned by Bain Capital Partners and The Blackstone Group, has filed to go public. MICHAELS STORES: Final Settlement Hearing Set for July 11 --------------------------------------------------------- A final Fairness Hearing is set for July 11, 2014, in connection with Michaels Stores, Inc.'s settlement agreement with plaintiffs in the purported class actions alleging that the Company unlawfully requested and recorded personally identifiable information, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended February 1, 2014. On August 15, 2008, Linda Carson, a consumer, filed a purported class action proceeding against the Company in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego ("San Diego Superior Court"), on behalf of herself and all similarly-situated California consumers. The Carson lawsuit alleges that the Company unlawfully requested and recorded personally identifiable information (i.e., her zip code) as part of a credit card transaction. The plaintiff seeks statutory penalties, costs, interest, and attorneys' fees. On February 10, 2011, the California Supreme Court ruled, in a similar matter, Williams-Sonoma v. Pineda case, that zip codes are personally identifiable information and therefore the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971, as amended ("Song Act"), prohibits businesses from requesting or requiring zip codes in connection with a credit card transaction. Subsequent to the California Supreme Court decision, three additional purported class action lawsuits, seeking similar relief, have been filed against the Company: Carolyn Austin v. Michaels Stores, Inc. and Tiffany Heon v. Michaels Stores, Inc., both in the San Diego Superior Court and Sandra A. Rubinstein v. Michaels Stores, Inc. in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Central Division. An order coordinating the cases has been entered and plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint on April 24, 2012. The parties settled the lawsuit for an amount that will not have a material effect on our Consolidated Financial Statements. On February 14, 2014, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement and a final Fairness Hearing is set for July 11, 2014. Michaels Stores, Inc., is the nation's #1 arts and crafts retailer owns and operates more than 1,000 Michaels Stores across the US and Canada. Michaels sells some 36,000 products, including art and hobby supplies, decor, frames, needlecraft kits, party and seasonal products, and silk and dried flowers. It also offers 10 private brands, including Artist's Loft, Art Minds, and Craft Smart. It provides framing and art supplies though some 120 Aaron Brothers stores in California, Texas, and half a dozen other states. The company's Artistree subsidiary manufactures frames and molding for Michaels and Aaron Brothers stores. Michaels Stores, owned by Bain Capital Partners and The Blackstone Group, has filed to go public. MICHAELS STORES: Final Settlement Hearing in Privacy Suit Held -------------------------------------------------------------- A final Fairness Hearing was set for May 20, 2014, in connection with a purported class action lawsuit against Michaels Stores, Inc., alleging violation of a Massachusetts statute regarding the collection of personally identification information, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended February 1, 2014. Relying in part on the California Supreme Court decision, a purported class action lawsuit was filed on May 20, 2011 against the Company, Melissa Tyler v. Michaels Stores, Inc. in the U.S. District Court-District of Massachusetts, alleging violation of a Massachusetts statute regarding the collection of personally identification information in connection with a credit card transaction. An additional purported class action lawsuit asserting the same allegations was filed in the U.S. District Court-District of Massachusetts by Susan D'Esposito, and the two cases were consolidated. On August 12, 2013, a settlement was reached for an amount that will not have a material effect on our Consolidated Financial Statements. On February 12, 2014, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement and a final Fairness Hearing is set for May 20, 2014. Michaels Stores, Inc., is the nation's #1 arts and crafts retailer owns and operates more than 1,000 Michaels Stores across the US and Canada. Michaels sells some 36,000 products, including art and hobby supplies, decor, frames, needlecraft kits, party and seasonal products, and silk and dried flowers. It also offers 10 private brands, including Artist's Loft, Art Minds, and Craft Smart. It provides framing and art supplies though some 120 Aaron Brothers stores in California, Texas, and half a dozen other states. The company's Artistree subsidiary manufactures frames and molding for Michaels and Aaron Brothers stores. Michaels Stores, owned by Bain Capital Partners and The Blackstone Group, has filed to go public. MICHAELS STORES: Defendant in Pricing & Promotion Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------- A purported class action alleging that Michaels Stores, Inc., advertised discounts on its framing products and/or services without actually providing a discount to its customers, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended February 1, 2014. The Company states: "On April 30, 2012, William J. Henry, a consumer, filed a purported class action proceeding against the Company in the Court of Common Pleas, Lake County, Ohio, on behalf of himself and all similarly-situated Ohio consumers who purchased framing products and/or services from Michaels during weeks where Michaels was advertising a discount for framing products and/or services. The lawsuit alleges that Michaels advertised discounts on its framing products and/or services without actually providing a discount to its customers. The plaintiff is claiming violation of Ohio law ORC 1345.01 et seq., unjust enrichment and fraud. The plaintiff has alleged damages, penalties and fees not to exceed $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs. We believe we have meritorious defenses and intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. We do not believe the resolution of this lawsuit will have a material effect on our Consolidated Financial Statements." Michaels Stores, Inc., is the nation's #1 arts and crafts retailer owns and operates more than 1,000 Michaels Stores across the US and Canada. Michaels sells some 36,000 products, including art and hobby supplies, decor, frames, needlecraft kits, party and seasonal products, and silk and dried flowers. It also offers 10 private brands, including Artist's Loft, Art Minds, and Craft Smart. It provides framing and art supplies though some 120 Aaron Brothers stores in California, Texas, and half a dozen other states. The company's Artistree subsidiary manufactures frames and molding for Michaels and Aaron Brothers stores. Michaels Stores, owned by Bain Capital Partners and The Blackstone Group, has filed to go public. MITSUBISHI INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Krystal Tucker, v. Mitsubishi International Corporation, Case No. 4:14-cv-01318 (S.D. Tex., May 13, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid wages, including overtime wages, owed to all hourly employees nationwide under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mitsubishi International Corporation has a place of business at 1221 McKinney Street, Suite 3500, Houston, TX 77010. The Plaintiff is represented by: Nitin Sud, Esq. SUD LAW P.C. 4545 Mount Vernon St. Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (832) 623-6420 Facsimile: (832) 304-2552 E-mail: nsud@nitinsud.com MR FLUFFY: Canberra Families Mull Asbestos Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Emma Macdonald, writing for The Canberra Times, reports that more than 120 Canberra families living in homes affected by Mr. Fluffy asbestos have joined a new lobby group -- a precursor to a possible class action -- to urgently address health concerns and financial losses posed by their homes. Homeowners also want the ACT government to crack down on the licensing and work practices of asbestos assessors and removalists in the light of mounting evidence some unscrupulous operators were preying on Mr. Fluffy families -- undertaking incorrect and expensive procedures. At least two operators are offering to "test" for asbestos by smoking the roof at a cost of about $1200. Others were conducting visual inspections when Mr. Fluffy homes require dust samples to be analyzed in a laboratory to determine the presence of amosite asbestos. The Fluffy Owners and Residents' Action Group, launched by affected homeowner Brianna Heseltine, has received more than 10,000 hits to its website since it went live. Ms. Heseltine discovered in April that the newly renovated home she was living in with her husband, three-year-old son and newborn was a Mr. Fluffy property. Tests confirmed remnant amosite asbestos in the ducted gas heating system, which has since been sealed. Ms. Heseltine said she was not prepared to go silently on the issue and has come out as the public face of Mr. Fluffy homeowners. She had been inundated with calls and emails from hundreds of the 1050 affected families and was also in close communication with lawyers advising the group on a potential class action. Ms. Heseltine said the first private meeting of homeowners took place on May 26 and had gone for nearly four hours. She said there was an outpouring of questions and concerns over the shock of discovering homes were still affected by Mr. Fluffy, 20 years after a $100 million federal clean-up program. "Our diverse group includes young families, people in their 80s, recent purchasers and long-standing owners who installed the asbestos insulation without knowing the grave risk. Members were relieved to be able to come together in a private forum to finally express their fears and concerns over the potential health exposure issues that have long hung over some families," she said. "These families are dealing with the knowledge that they face financial uncertainty at the least, and possible financial ruin at the worst. More disturbing is the level of fear over health. Asbestos exposure and financial ruin produced a powerful undercurrent in the room." But Ms. Heseltine said there were focused discussions about how the group will seek action from the ACT and federal governments. "While we have been shaken by our circumstances, we are motivated and confident that we can move this issue forward after 20 years of inaction," she said. With ACT Work Safety Commissioner Mark McCabe having placed prohibition orders on at least a dozen homes with the most serious contamination over the past three months, Ms. Heseltine said there was increasing anger over the ACT government's silence on the issue and the lack of emergency financial support for families who were locked out of their homes. She was seeking a meeting with Attorney-General and Work Safety Minister Simon Corbell this week. "It is fair to say there are growing levels of frustration over the continued ACT government silence on this issue. We are hearing about levies for a light rail system while we have families with young children living in hotels." There was also growing dissatisfaction with the ACT government's oversight of the asbestos industry. "Owners have identified training and accreditation, absence of standard operating procedures for sampling, and variable pricing as three key concerns," Ms. Heseltine said. Mr. Corbell's office confirmed the Environment and Sustainable Development Directorate was investigating at least two class A licensed asbestos assessors who failed to pick up the presence of loose amosite falling down the back of wardrobes in children's bedrooms. The Construction Occupations Registrar was also reviewing the mandatory qualifications for all of the 11 construction occupations and 50 construction occupations classes, including those relating to asbestos work. A spokesman said that while the review was industry-wide, the directorate "would consider investigations and recent issues" during its deliberations. NAVITAS NATURALS: Expands Recall for Organic Sprouted Chia Powder ----------------------------------------------------------------- Navitas Naturals(R), the Superfood Company(TM), announced an expansion of its voluntary and precautionary recall to include additional expiration dates of products containing Organic Sprouted Chia Powder, due to the possible presence of Salmonella. "Based on investigations by FDA and California Department of Public Health, one of our suppliers Health Matters America Inc. has expanded their recall of Chia products. As a result, we are expanding our voluntary recall to include a broader date range of products. Our business depends on providing safe and healthy food and we will not take chances with our consumer's wellbeing. Because of this priority, in an abundance of caution, we have deliberately and voluntarily expanded this recall" stated Zach Adelman, Chief Executive Officer of Navitas Naturals. Based on information from CDC we are not aware of any reported illnesses associated with the products included in this expanded date range. The affected products were distributed nationally and include: Navitas Naturals Organic Sprouted Chia Powder, 8oz, UPC 858847000369 all best by dates up to and including 11/22/2015 Navitas Naturals Omega Blend Sprouted Smoothie Mix, 8oz, UPC 858847000314 all best by dates up to and including 11/05/2015 Williams-Sonoma Omega 3 Smoothie Mixer, 8 oz, SKU 506436 all best by dates up to and including OC 2015 No other Navitas Naturals products are affected by this recall. "We are continuing to work hand-in-hand with the FDA and California Department of Public Health. We take our responsibility to consumers very seriously and we are taking immediate actions within our supply chain and with our own quality assurance protocols to ensure this does not happen again" stated Adelman. Consumers who have purchased either of these products are urged to not eat the products, and to dispose of them or return them to the store where they were originally purchased. Salmonella is an organism that can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses. Customers with questions or who would like product replacements or refunds may contact 888-886-3879. For more information and latest update on this issue -- last update posted Tuesday June 3, 2014 -- see http://is.gd/XzovG0 NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR: Final Submissions Due in Moose Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The Telegram reports that final submissions were set to be presented in the Newfoundland Supreme Court trial division on May 27 for the plaintiffs and defense in a moose-vehicle collision class action trial. The trial began in early April and questions whether the Newfoundland and Labrador government is negligent in not doing enough to prevent deaths and injury due to moose-vehicle collisions, since it introduced the non-native animal to the province many years ago. The lawyers for the class of plaintiffs are Ches Crosbie and Jessica Dellow. Defense lawyers are Peter Ralph and David Rogers, while hearing the case is Justice Robert Stack. Mr. Crosbie said in a news release this is the biggest road injury lawsuit ever. The team at Ches Crosbie Barristers handles mostly individual injury claims resulting from road accidents. Spectators are welcomed to attend to observe the final arguments. NY 99: New York Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Penalties ---------------------------------------------------------------- Marino Rodriguez, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. NY 99 Super Discount, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-03011 (E.D.N.Y., May 13, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages and prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and cost pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq. NY 99 Super Discount, Inc., is a State of New York corporation located at 113-07 Liberty Avenue, South Richmond Hill, New York 11419. The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter Hans Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 708 Third Avenue, 6th Flr. New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com pcooper@jcpclaw.com OCEAN SPRAY: Recalls Limited Quantity of 8-ounce Greek Yogurt ------------------------------------------------------------- Ocean Spray has taken the precautionary measure of voluntarily recalling two production lots of Ocean Spray(R) Greek Yogurt Covered Craisins(R) Dried Cranberries because the products may contain yogurt covered peanuts. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to peanuts run the risk of serious or life- threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. The following 8-ounce pouches of Ocean Spray(R) Greek Yogurt Covered Craisins(R) Dried Cranberries are part of this recall: UPC # 31200 03719 Best By Dates Feb 10, 2015 and Feb 11, 2015 The products were distributed to retail stores in the following states: Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia and Wisconsin. We received three consumer complaints that the product contained peanuts, but no associated illnesses were reported. The recalled products were produced by a co-packer in Chicago and no other Ocean Spray(R) Greek Yogurt Covered Craisins(R) Dried Cranberries or Ocean Spray(R) products are affected by the recall. Our co-packer has reported some yogurt covered peanuts have been packaged along with Ocean Spray(R) Greek Yogurt Covered Craisins(R) Dried Cranberries on two production dates in February. Ocean Spray has worked with the co-packer to identify the issue and we're confident that this is an isolated incident and the problem has been corrected. Although the packaging does contain a warning that the product is made on equipment that also processes nuts, Ocean Spray issued the voluntary recall out of an abundance of caution to ensure the safety of our consumers. This recall affects a very small amount of our Ocean Spray(R) Greek Yogurt Covered Craisins(R) Dried Cranberries and we have not received any reports of allergic reactions. If you purchased Ocean Spray(R) Greek Yogurt Covered Craisins(R) Dried Cranberries with the above UPC code and sell by dates and have a concern about peanut allergies, please save or take a picture of the UPC label and best by date and contact the Ocean Spray Consumer Hotline at 1-800-662-3263, weekdays 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, for a coupon replacement. Please then destroy the product. OLDE THOMPSON: Recalls Kirkland Coarse Ground Malabar Pepper ------------------------------------------------------------ Olde Thompson Inc. Oxnard, CA is recalling to the consumer level Kirkland Signature Coarse Ground Malabar Pepper 12.7 OZ Plastic Jars with a Best Before date of 03/2017 and Lot #: OT 065099, OT 065169, OT 065254, OT 065255, OT 065256, and OT 065284, due to possible contamination by Salmonella. This recall is being undertaken with the knowledge of the FDA. Salmonella is an organism that can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses. The recalled product is identified and distributed as follows: Kirkland Signature Coarse Ground Malabar Pepper 12.7 OZ Plastic Jars UPC code: 096619164998 Sold exclusively at Costco Wholesale Club nationwide between April 4, 2014 and June 4, 2014 The recall affects 5,153 cases of recalling Kirkland Signature Coarse Ground Malabar Pepper 12.7 OZ Plastic Jars with a Best Before date of 03/2017 and Lot #: OT 065099, OT 065169, OT 065254, OT 065255, OT 065256, and OT 065284 located below the back label. The bacterium was discovered during routine FDA sampling of consumer products. If you have the recalled product, please do not consume it. Please dispose of the recalled product and its container. Customers who have purchased these products and have any questions should contact an Olde Thompson Customer Care Representative at 1-844-568-5555 between the hours of 8:30AM and 8:00PM CST. ONTARIO: Ottawa Woman Joins Class Action Over Foster Home Abuse --------------------------------------------------------------- Megan Gillis, writing for Ottawa Sun, reports that an Ottawa woman joined a proposed class action, alleging abuse at a foster home. At five years old, Carole Chretien-Rankin was taken from her family in Lowertown -- she's never known why, she says -- and simply vanished. Soon after she was taken to the Orleans home with a brood of biological and foster kids, her foster mother threw out her favorite dress, cropped her long, dark hair and gave her a different name. Then, she alleges, she was pushed, slapped, punched and spat on, strapped until she couldn't sit down and molested by a foster brother, lured with the promise of pizza -- an unheard-of treat. Told she was so worthless even her own parents didn't want her, she was forced to cook and clean instead of playing like other kids, Ms. Chretien-Rankin charges. "I was a slave in that home," she said. At 53, she doesn't even know how she looked as a little girl. "I have no pictures of myself when I was young -- they never took them," she said. "I have no memories -- it's devastating. . . . It's like I never existed." But now Ms. Chretien-Rankin wants to be seen and heard. She is one of 350 people who've come forward to join a proposed C$110- million class action lawsuit alleging that Ontario systematically failed to protect the legal rights of children who became Crown wards starting in 1966. People who were abused and neglected -- before and after being taken into care -- could have applied for compensation from a fund for victims of crime or through a civil suit. But they got nothing because the province was supposed to act as their parent didn't make claims on their behalf, collect evidence or even tell them they could seek the money, argued lawyer Garth Myers -- gmyers@kmlaw.ca -- of Koskie Minsky LLP, who suspects the class action could include 40,000 or more people. "Their lives would have changed dramatically," he said. "They would have been able to get therapy to deal with the abuse. A lot of these people are suffering to this day as a result of the abuse they sustained then. "With early intervention, they could have commenced the healing process at an early stage." Mr. Myers, part of the C$67-million settlement for harm suffered by residents of three regional centers for people with developmental disabilities, calls it "just another example of the province failing our most vulnerable people." None of the allegations have been proven in court and a judge has yet to certify a class action -- the first step. The province has filed notice it intends to defend itself but a spokesman for the Ministry of the Attorney General declined to comment. Ms. Chretien-Rankin, who says she was threatened with more beatings if she told anyone about the abuse, escaped her foster home at 16, reclaimed her real name and became a mother of two sons and licensed hairstylist. She loved her job but says it became too much as she struggled with depression, anxiety and memory problems. She wants the province to be accountable for the suffering of children who were abused and urges others like her to come forward and tell their stories, too. "It's time for me to release the pain," she said. "It's time for me to heal. It's destroyed me long enough. I went without way too much in my life because of fear." ONTARIO: Prisoners Lose C$1.25MM Protest T-Shirt Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Sam Pazzano, writing for Toronto Sun, reports that a group of federal inmates has lost a C$1.25-million class-action lawsuit over the right to wear protest T-shirts with upside-down Maple Leafs to mark the annual Prisoners' Justice Day. Ontario Superior Court Justice Barbara Conway refused to certify the class-action lawsuit, led by two convicted murderers, and ruled they should file a grievance with prison authorities instead. Although the judge found that the action met four out of five requirements for certification, she determined that a class action "is not the preferable procedure for resolving these claims." Justice Conway also struck out the inmates' claim for "misfeasance in public office" for seizing the T-shirts as ordered in 2010 by then-public safety minister Vic Toews. "The substance of the inmates' claim is that the Crown breached their Charter rights -- freedom of expression -- when it prohibited the shirts," Justice Conway wrote. "I am satisfied that the grievance process has the potential to provide a "just and effective" remedy for this claim." Instead of filing a lawsuit, she explained that a successful grievance would force the prison to return their shirts and revoke the ban. Prisoners' Justice Day, marked on Aug. 10, commemorates the deaths of inmates inside prisons due to abuse or negligence by correctional officials. Since 1976, federal inmates across Canada have recognized this day through peaceful protests, including hunger strikes, work stoppages and letter writing. Jason Lauzon, a "lifer" at Joyceville Prison, was involved in the design and shipment of 400 T-shirts, which were worn by 150 inmates in 2010. The T-shirts depicted two hands clutching jail bars inside the inverted Maple Leaf, which is circled by barbed wire. Two weeks later Toews castigated the "misuse" of the national symbol as "offensive, unacceptable and dishonorable," ordering that the episode wouldn't be repeated. The 150 shirts were declared contraband and had to be surrendered within a period or else inmates were threatened with discipline, the judge noted. Two years later, the inmates launched a class-action lawsuit, alleging their Charter right of freedom of expression was violated. The lawsuit also alleges that the prison guards' confiscation of their shirts "amounted to trespass to chattels and misfeasance in public office." The two "representative plaintiffs" in the suit were Lauzon, 43, and John Chaif, 59. Mr. Lauzon was convicted of second-degree murder in 1997 and is serving a life sentence. He has spent 17 years in custody, almost all of that time in Joyceville. Mr. Chaif, who is serving a life sentence for first-degree murder after a 1983 conviction, has spent 31 years in custody and been in Joyceville since '97. Their lawyers, Shane Martinez and Davin Charney, said they will "respectfully appeal" the court's decision. "We're hoping (a future court ruling will) discourage the government from engaging in this type of censorship," Mr. Martinez said in an interview on May 27. "The real reason for seizing the shirts because its message was "dishonorable" and they seized, ban and censored shirts for a political purpose, which is a denial of the inmates' Charter rights of expression," he said. PANDORA MEDIA: N.D. Calif. Court Rules on Bid to Dismiss Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Pandora Media, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a complaint alleging, among other things, that the Company unlawfully accessed and transmitted personally identifiable information from plaintiffs' Android mobile application, was granted in part and denied in part on March 10, 2014, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. In June 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against Pandora in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that we unlawfully accessed and transmitted personally identifiable information of the plaintiffs in connection with their use of our Android mobile application. In addition to civil liability, the amended complaint includes allegations of violations of statutes under which criminal penalties could be imposed if we were found liable. Our motion to dismiss the first amended complaint was granted on March 26, 2013. The plaintiff filed a second amended complaint in May 2013, which contains allegations similar to those contained in the previous complaint. On March 10, 2014, our motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. Pandora Media, Inc. is an Internet radio in the United States. PANDORA MEDIA: No Oral Argument Date Set for Privacy Law Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Pandora Media, Inc., reported in its Form 10-Q filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014, that no date has been set for oral argument in connection with a putative class action lawsuit alleging that the Company violated Michigan's video rental privacy law. In September 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against Pandora in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that we violated Michigan's video rental privacy law and consumer protection statute by allowing our listeners' listening history to be visible to the public. Our motion to dismiss the complaint was granted on September 28, 2012, judgment was entered on November 14, 2012. The plaintiff appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Briefing of the appeal was completed on August 2, 2013. No date has been set for oral argument. Pandora Media, Inc. is an Internet radio in the United States. PETITE VENICE: Faces "Straw" Action in Fla. Over Unpaid OT ---------------------------------------------------------- Harry Straw, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. Petite Venice, Inc., a Florida Corporation, et al., Case No. 0:14-cv-61138 (S.D. Fla., May 13, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages or pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, attorney's fees and cost from the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Petite Venice, Inc., is a Florida corporation located in Broward County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Scott Norell, Esq. ROBERT S. NORELL P.A. 300 NW 70th Avenue, Suite 305 Plantation, FL 33317 Telephone: (954) 617-6017 Facsimile: (954) 617-6018 E-mail: robnorell@aol.com PGG/HSC FEED: Recalls Champion Lamb Texturized Feed B30 ------------------------------------------------------- PGG/HSC Feed Company, LLC, has implemented a voluntary recall of 50-pound packages of its Champion Lamb Texturized B30 product due to higher than allowable copper levels. The product was manufactured in February 2014 and carries the UPC code UPC- 748252483805 located in the bottom left corner of a white label attached to a Payback bag with a photo of a lamb. Consumption of the affected product, Champion Lamb Texturized feed B30, Lot-88022114M908840, may cause potential health risks, including death, in sheep. Symptoms of copper toxicity in lambs include lethargy, anemic appearance, excessive teeth grinding, extreme thirst, pale membranes (jaundice) and bloody urine. One sheep fatality has been reported potentially in connection with this product. The recalled product was distributed to six retail feed dealers in Oregon, Washington and Idaho. The potential presence of high copper levels was detected by company sample tests of the product which was manufactured on Feb. 21, 2014, at its Hermiston, Ore., feed mill. The company said it has determined the source of the high copper levels and is revising its testing protocol. The company has contacted affected dealers and conducted a voluntary recall of unconsumed product which was packaged in 50- pound bags under the Payback(R) and bore the lot label 88022114M908840. Consumers who purchased this product and have remaining quantities are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at (605) 373-2563 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CDT. Information also is available at http://www.paybacknutrition.com/ PGG/HSC Feed is a joint venture of Pendleton Grain Growers, Pendleton, Ore., and CHS Inc., of St. Paul, Minn. PORTLAND GENERAL: $260MM Lawsuits Over Trojan Deal Remain Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Portland General Electric Company reported in its Form 10-Q filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014, that class action lawsuits seeking damages totaling $260 million, relating to the Company's investment in Trojan, remain pending. In two separate legal proceedings, lawsuits were filed in Marion County Circuit Court against PGE in 2003 on behalf of two classes of electric service customers. The class action lawsuits seek damages totaling $260 million, plus interest, as a result of the Company's inclusion, in prices charged to customers, of a return on its investment in Trojan. In 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court issued a ruling ordering the abatement of the class action proceedings until the OPUC responded to the 2002 Order. The Oregon Supreme Court concluded that the OPUC has primary jurisdiction to determine what, if any, remedy can be offered to PGE customers, through price reductions or refunds, for any amount of return on the Trojan investment that the Company collected in prices. The Oregon Supreme Court further stated that if the OPUC determined that it can provide a remedy to PGE's customers, then the class action proceedings may become moot in whole or in part. The Oregon Supreme Court added that, if the OPUC determined that it cannot provide a remedy, the court system may have a role to play. The Oregon Supreme Court also ruled that the plaintiffs retain the right to return to the Marion County Circuit Court for disposition of whatever issues remain unresolved from the remanded OPUC proceedings. The Marion County Circuit Court subsequently abated the class actions in response to the ruling of the Oregon Supreme Court. On February 6, 2013, the Oregon Court of Appeals upheld the 2008 Order. Because the Oregon Supreme Court has granted the plaintiffs' petition seeking review of that decision, and the class actions described above remain pending, management believes that it is reasonably possible that the regulatory proceedings and class actions could result in a loss to the Company in excess of the amounts previously recorded and discussed above. Because these matters involve unsettled legal theories and have a broad range of potential outcomes, sufficient information is currently not available to determine PGE's potential liability, if any, or to estimate a range of potential loss. Portland General Electric Company (PGE) is a vertically integrated electric utility engaged in the generation, purchase, transmission, distribution and retail sale of electricity in the state of Oregon. POWERSECURE INT'L: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of PowerSecure International, Inc., on May 27 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on behalf of a class comprising all purchasers of PowerSecure securities between March 10, 2014 and May 7, 2014, inclusive. Please contact Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, toll-free at (888) 773-9224 or at (212) 682-5340, or by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this matter. PowerSecure provides interactive distributed generation power systems, smart grid monitoring, peak shaving and demand response, and standby power dispatch and control solutions to electric utilities and their commercial, institutional and industrial customers in the United States. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants issued false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: -- The Company was attempting to shift resources within its Utility Infrastructure business from certain lower-profit assignments to higher-profit assignments. -- Shifting of resources was negatively impacting the Company's operations and utility services performance. -- The Company was experiencing productivity losses and higher costs within its utility services group, which were negatively impacting the Company's gross margins. On May 7, 2014, PowerSecure reported its financial results for its 2014 fiscal first quarter, including an adjusted loss of ($0.17) per share. In addition, PowerSecure disclosed that its gross profit margin had decreased to 20.9% for the quarter, down from 30.6% for the same quarter in 2013. According to the Company, the decrease in its margins and earnings was attributable to substantial shortfalls in its utility infrastructure revenue and to the Company's failure to properly allocate resources to sustain its margins. As a result of this news, the price of PowerSecure shares declined $1.90 per share, or more than 10%, to close on May 7, 2014, at $18.60 per share, and further declined an additional $11.60 per share, or more than 62%, to close on May 8, 2014, at $7.00 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the Court no later than July 22, 2014, to serve as lead plaintiff, if you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, or contact Gregory Linkh, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP at 122 E. 42nd Street, Suite 2920, New York, New York 10168, at (212) 682-5340, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at http://www.glancylaw.com If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. PROSPECT CAPITAL: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of Prospect Capital Corporation, on May 27 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class comprising all purchasers of Prospect securities between August 21, 2013 and May 6, 2014, inclusive. Please contact Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, toll-free at (888) 773-9224 or at (212) 682-5340, or by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this matter. Prospect is a financial services company that primarily lends to and invests in middle-market privately held companies. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: -- Certain of Prospect's wholly owned companies were investment companies for accounting purposes that were required to be consolidated by the Company. -- Certain of Prospect's wholly owned holding companies should have been accounted for as investment companies. -- The Company's reported investment income and financial results were misstated. -- The Company's internal and financial controls were inadequate. -- The Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On May 6, 2014, the Company disclosed that the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission has asserted that certain of Prospect's wholly owned companies are investment companies for accounting purposes and must be consolidated. The Company further disclosed that it may need to restate its prior financial statements to resolve the issue, and that one potential effect of a restatement would be to decrease the Company's historical net investment income by the amount of interest and structuring income paid by such wholly owned companies in excess of the amount of income that may be reported as dividend income based on taxable earnings and profits. Following this news, the price of Prospect shares declined $0.54 per share, to a closing price of $10.20 per share on May 7, 2014, on unusually heavy volume. If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this Notice to serve as lead plaintiff, if you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, or contact Gregory Linkh, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP at 122 E. 42nd Street, Suite 2920, New York, New York 10168, at (212) 682-5340, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at http://www.glancylaw.com If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. PROVECTUS BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Robbins Geller Files Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on May 27 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 Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. publicly traded securities during the period between December 17, 2013 and May 22, 2014. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from May 27, 2014. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiffs' counsel, Darren Robbins 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/provectus/ 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 Provectus and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Provectus, formerly Provectus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a development-stage pharmaceutical company that is engaged in developing pharmaceuticals for oncology and dermatology indications, including PV-10, which is intended for the treatment of several life threatening cancers, including metastatic melanoma, liver cancer, and breast cancer. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants violated the federal securities laws by disseminating false and misleading statements to the investing public regarding the prospects for PV-10. As a result of defendants' false statements, Provectus stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $5.22 per share on January 22, 2014. On January 23, 2014, Adam Feuerstein published an article on TheStreet.com alleging that Provectus management had misled investors about the prospects for PV-10, questioning why Provectus had not yet started its promised Phase 3 randomized controlled trial of PV-10 and speculating that PV-10 may be obsolete in light of new skin cancer drugs being developed. On this news, Provectus's stock price fell $3.35 per share to close at $1.87 per share on January 23, 2014, a decline of nearly 64% on volume of 30.5 million shares. On May 20, 2014, Feuerstein noted in an article published on TheStreet.com that on its website, Provectus had initially described its PV-10 drug as a "breakthrough" drug for skin cancer, but had later amended its description to "investigational." Subsequently, on May 21, 2014, an investment community blog on SeekingAlpha.com highlighted the failure of Provectus to commence a Phase 3 trial of PV-10 and alleged that the Company was tied to a stock promotion firm whose other stock recommendations had recently had trading in their stock halted by the SEC. On the same day, Provectus issued a press release refuting inaccuracies in the blog on SeekingAlpha.com. On this news, Provectus's stock price dropped $0.22 per share to close at $2.02 per share on May 22, 2014, a one-day decline of nearly 10%, and on May 23, 2014, trading in Provectus stock was halted at $2.02 per share. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Provectus publicly traded securities during the Class Period. The plaintiffs are 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. QUESTCOR PHARMACEUTICALS: Files Response to Securities Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., answered on October 29, 2013, the consolidated amended complaint asserting, among other things, violations of the Securities and Exchange Act, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. The Company states: "On September 26, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against us and certain of our officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned John K. Norton v. Questcor Pharmaceuticals, et al., No. SACv12-1623 DMG (FMOx). The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased our common stock between April 26, 2011 and September 21, 2012. The complaint generally alleges that we and certain of our officers and directors engaged in various acts to artificially inflate the price of our stock and enable insiders to profit through stock sales. The complaint asserts that we and certain of our officers and directors violated sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning the clinical evidence to support the use of Acthar for indications other than infantile spasms, the promotion of the sale and use of Acthar in the treatment of MS and nephrotic syndrome, reimbursement for Acthar from third-party insurers, and our outlook and potential market growth for Acthar. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount and equitable relief against the defendants. This lawsuit has been consolidated with four subsequently-filed actions asserting similar claims under the caption: In re Questcor Securities Litigation, No. CV 12-01623 DMG (FMOx). On October 1, 2013, the District Court granted in part and denied in part our motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On October 29, 2013, we filed an answer to the consolidated amended complaint." Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Questcor) is a biopharmaceutical company. The Company is focused on the treatment of patients with serious, difficult-to-treat autoimmune and inflammatory disorders. Its primary product is H.P. Acthar Gel (repository corticotropin injection), or Acthar, an injectable drug that is approved by the United States food and drug administration (FDA), for the treatment of 19 indications. RED ROBIN: Missouri Couple Files Hepatitis A Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- KY3 reports that a Republic, Missouri couple has filed a class- action petition against Red Robin's parent company following last month's hepatitis emergency. Donald and Melinda Call filed the petition in Greene County May 23. The plaintiffs filed the claim because it was suggested they receive a vaccination for hepatitis A. They also claim the restaurant was negligent allowing an employee with the illness to work. And they claim the company was negligent by not requiring employees to get vaccinated. On May 20, health department officials learned of an individual who had tested positive for hepatitis A. That employee worked at the Red Robin in south Springfield. The Springfield-Greene County Health Department responded by holding several clinics for free hepatitis A shots. Those who received the first shot will have to get a second shot in six months. A health department spokesperson expects the state of Missouri's emergency health fund paid to pay for the vaccination costs. The Call family is being represented by a St. Louis Law firm. RITE AID: Recalls 16 oz. Pints of Mint 'N Chip Thrifty Ice Cream ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rite Aid has initiated a voluntary recall of approximately 560 16 oz. pints of Mint 'n Chip ice cream distributed under the Thrifty brand name. These pints contain pistachio ice cream with pistachios; however, the ice cream was inadvertently placed in containers labeled as being Mint 'n Chip. People who are allergic to nuts, including pistachios, may run the risk of serious or life threatening allergic reaction if they consume the product. Rite Aid notified the United States Food and Drug Administration of this issue on June 3, 2014 and will work in consultation with it regarding this recall. This recall affects only 16 oz. Mint 'n Chip ice cream pints sold exclusively in Rite Aid stores in California. Affected products can be identified by the UPC code 1182264327 located on the back of each pint. The affected products also contain the lot number 24273 and an expiration date of Oct. 28, 2015 located on the bottom of the pints. No other Thrifty or Rite Aid brand products are affected by this voluntary recall. Customers who are allergic to nuts, including pistachios, should not consume these pints and can return them to any Rite Aid store for a full refund. Information regarding the recall is available online at www.riteaid.com or by calling 1-800-RITE-AID Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. EST and Saturday from 9:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. EST. Rite Aid Corporation -- http://www.riteaid.com/-- is one of the nation's leading drugstore chains with nearly 4,600 stores in 31 states and the District of Columbia and fiscal 2014 annual revenues of $25.5 billion. SAFEWAY INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action in California -------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on May 27 disclosed that on May 23, 2014 it filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Northern District of California on behalf of all holders of Safeway Inc. common stock. The action names as defendants the Company, its Board of Directors, Albertson's LLC, Saturn Acquisition Merger Sub, Inc. and Cerberus Capital Management L.P. for, among other things, violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. The complaint arises out of a March 6, 2014 press release issued by Safeway announcing that the individual defendants had agreed to sell the Company to Albertson's for $32.50 per Safeway share plus special dividends and/or CVRs related to the planned disposition of certain of the Company's "non-core assets," estimated to be worth $3.65 per share. In addition, Safeway intends to distribute the 37.8 million shares it owns in Blackhawk Network Holdings, Inc. to shareholders in mid-April 2014. The Blackhawk distribution has a current value of $3.95 per Company share. All together, the Proposed Transaction will result in a consideration for Safeway shareholders worth approximately $40 per share. Several equity analysts had price targets for Safeway well above the proposed consideration of $40 per share prior to the announcement of the Proposed Transaction, and numerous others have been sharply critical of the deal since it was announced. The complaint further alleges that, in an effort to secure shareholder approval for the Proposed Transaction, the individual defendants filed a materially false and misleading Proxy Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission, thereby violating their duties of candor and full disclosure. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 14, 2014. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions, please contact Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP at 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016, by telephone at (800) 575-0735 (Benjamin Y. Kaufman, Greg Stone) via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com or gstone@whafh.com or visit our website at www.whafh.com All e-mail correspondence should make reference to "Safeway". SANOFI-AVENTIS US: Court Adopts Mag. Judge's Report in RICO Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In January 2008, plaintiffs Sergeants Benevolent Association Health and Welfare Fund ("SBA"), New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund ("NEC") and Allied Services Division Welfare Fund ("ASD") and others commenced an action on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, principally alleging that defendants Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLP and Sanofi-Aventis U.S., Inc. violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1961 et seq., and various state laws by misrepresenting the safety and efficacy of Ketek, a prescription antibiotic marketed by Defendants. In December 2011 -- after the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a nationwide class -- Defendants moved for summary judgment. By order dated January 4, 2012, the Court referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes for a report and recommendation. On September 17, 2012, Judge Reyes issued his report and recommendation (the "R&R"), which recommends that Defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted in its entirety. District Judge Sandra L. Townes -- in a May 9, 2014 memorandum and order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/aHKSsafrom Leagle.com -- adopts Judge Reyes' report and recommendation dated September 17, 2012, except to the extent that it recommends limiting Plaintiffs' cause of action for violations of various consumer protection statutes to claims brought pursuant to the laws of Plaintiffs' home states of New York, Massachusetts and Illinois. Judge Townes held that within 30 days of the date of the memorandum and order, Plaintiffs must amend Counts III and IV of their pleading as necessary to clarify the scope of, and basis for, their state-law claims, providing, inter alia, a list of the states in which their beneficiaries allegedly obtained and filled prescriptions for Ketek. The Defendants are granted leave to file a second motion for summary judgment with respect to those state- law claims. Within 15 days after receiving a copy of Plaintiffs' amended pleading, Defendants are to confer with Plaintiffs and submit a proposed briefing schedule with respect to the second motion for summary judgment. The case is SERGEANTS BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLP, et al., Defendants, NO. 08-CV-179 (SLT) (RER), (E.D. N.Y.). SIBANYE GOLD: Files Notice Opposing Class Certification Request --------------------------------------------------------------- Sibanye Gold Limited has filed a notice of its intention to oppose the applications requesting that the court certify a class action filed by classes of mine workers who allegedly contracted silicosis, according to the Company's Form 20-F filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013. On August 21, 2012, a court application was served on a group of respondents that included Sibanye (the August Respondents). On December 21, 2012, a further court application was issued and was formally served on a number of respondents, including Sibanye, (the December Respondents and, together with the August Respondents, the Respondents) on January 10, 2013, on behalf of classes of mine workers, former mine workers and their dependants who were previously employed by, or who are currently employed by, among others, Sibanye and who allegedly contracted silicosis and/or other occupational lung diseases (the Classes). These Applications request that the court certify a class action to be instituted by the applicants on behalf of the Classes. The Applications are the first and preliminary steps in a process where, if the court were to certify the class action, the applicants may, in a second stage, bring an action wherein they will attempt to hold the Respondents liable for silicosis and other occupational lung diseases and resultant consequences. In the second stage, the Applications contemplate addressing what the applicants describe as common legal and factual issues regarding the claim arising from the allegations of the entire Classes. If the applicants are successful in the second stage, they envisage that individual members of the Classes could later submit individual claims for damages against the respective Respondents. The Applications do not identify the number of claims that may be instituted against the Respondents or the quantum of damages the applicants may seek. With respect to the Applications, Sibanye has filed a notice of its intention to oppose the application and has instructed its attorneys to defend the claims. Sibanye and its attorneys are engaging with the applicants' attorneys in both Applications to try to establish a court-sanctioned process to agree the timelines, (including the date by which Sibanye must file its papers opposing the Applications) and the possible consolidation of the separate applications. At this stage, Sibanye cannot quantify their potential liability from these actions. The two class actions were consolidated into one action during 2013 and the attorneys for the applicants in those matters have now applied to the court for a case management procedure in order to set times in which the parties have to comply with various legal processes and timeframes in terms of the application. Sibanye has entered notices to oppose the various actions and its attorneys are currently considering the opposition in detail. Accordingly, Sibanye cannot quantify the potential liability from these actions. Sibanye is not a party to any material legal or arbitration proceedings, nor is any of its property the subject of pending material legal proceedings. Sibanye Gold Limited, formerly GFI Mining South Africa (Pty) Limited, is a producer of gold in South Africa. Sibanye Gold is primarily engaged in underground and surface gold mining and related activities, including extraction, and processing. Sibanye Gold's operations are located in South Africa. Its principal mining operations include Kloof-Driefontein Complex (KDC) and Beatrix. Exploration activities are focused on the extension of existing ore bodies and identification of new ore bodies at existing sites. As of January 10, 2013, Sibanye Gold mined only gold, with silver as a by-product. SILVER AIRWAYS: "McGregor" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Althea McGregor, v. Silver Airways Corp., Case No. 0:14-cv-61130 (S.D. Fla., May 13, 2014), seeks to recover overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq. Silver Airways Corp., owns and/or operates an airline in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Dennis Card , Jr., Esq. CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A. 2501 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 100 Hollywood, FL 33020 Telephone: (954) 921-9994 Facsimile: (305) 574-0132 E-mail: Dcard@Consumerlaworg.com TOWN SPORTS: Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of Wage Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------------- A state appeals court upheld a lower court's decision to dismiss Town Sports International Holdings, Inc.'s motions to dismiss the class actions alleging wage payment violations, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. On or about March 1, 2005, in an action styled Sarah Cruz, et al v. Town Sports International, d/b/a New York Sports Club, plaintiffs commenced a purported class action against TSI, LLC in the Supreme Court, New York County, seeking unpaid wages and alleging that TSI, LLC violated various overtime provisions of the New York State Labor Law with respect to the payment of wages to certain trainers and assistant fitness managers. On or about June 18, 2007, the same plaintiffs commenced a second purported class action against TSI, LLC in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, seeking unpaid wages and alleging that TSI, LLC violated various wage payment and overtime provisions of the New York State Labor Law with respect to the payment of wages to all New York purported hourly employees. On September 17, 2010, TSI, LLC made motions to dismiss the class action allegations of both lawsuits for plaintiffs' failure to timely file motions to certify the class actions. The court granted the motions on January 29, 2013, dismissing the class action allegations in both lawsuits. Following an appeal in April 2014, the Appellate Division upheld the dismissal. Town Sports International Holdings, Inc. (TSI Holdings) is the owner and operator of fitness clubs in the Northeast and Mid- Atlantic regions of the United States and the fitness club owner and operator in the United States, in each case based on the number of clubs. TOWN SPORTS: "Labbe" Suit Status Hearing Set for June 2014 ---------------------------------------------------------- Town Sports International Holdings, Inc., reported that a court lifted the stay on the James Labbe action and scheduled a status conference for June 2014, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. On or about October 4, 2012, in an action styled James Labbe, et al. v. Town Sports International, LLC, plaintiff commenced a purported class action in New York State court on behalf of personal trainers employed in New York State. Labbe is seeking unpaid wages and damages from TSI, LLC and alleges violations of various provisions of the New York State labor law with respect to payment of wages and TSI, LLC's notification and record-keeping obligations. On December 18, 2012, TSI, LLC filed a motion to stay the class action pending a decision on class certification in the Cruz case, which was granted. Since the Cruz appeal has been decided, the court lifted the stay and scheduled a status conference for June 2014. While it is not possible to estimate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or a range of loss in the case of an unfavorable outcome to TSI, LLC at this time, TSI, LLC intends to contest this case vigorously. Town Sports International Holdings, Inc. (TSI Holdings) is the owner and operator of fitness clubs in the Northeast and Mid- Atlantic regions of the United States and the fitness club owner and operator in the United States, in each case based on the number of clubs. UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Do Thi Tran's Discrmination Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned DO THI TRAN, ET AL. v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, ET AL, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-646, (E.D. La.) are naturalized Vietnamese-Americans and a national Vietnamese-American non-profit organization who seek class action declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendants, who are agencies and officials of the United States government. The Plaintiffs assert that on or before April 1975 they were citizens of the Republic of South Vietnam and owned real property before Communist forces took control of the country. They subsequently fled to the United States at various times. They left their property behind, which they claim was seized by the Vietnamese government and nationalized. The Plaintiffs allege two causes of action: -- They argue that Defendants have violated federal law by providing assistance to Vietnam; and -- They argue the Defendants have discriminated against them in violation of the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause and the 5th Amendment Due Process Clause. The Defendants seek dismissal, arguing the Court is barred from hearing the case because Plaintiffs lack standing, Plaintiffs' claims are political questions, and the statute of limitations has expired for Plaintiffs' Constitutional claims. District Judge Ivan L.R Lemelle granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment, and dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims. A copy of the District Court's May 9, 2014 order and reasons is available at http://is.gd/PJrKopat Leagle.com. Do Thi Tran, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Hoang Tran, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Phan Thi Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Thanh Huynh, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Khen Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Phuoc Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Tuan Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Chau Minh Thi Do, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Thu Tuyet Vu, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Hue Thi Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Trieu Huynh Vo, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Tong Tri Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Bach-Yen Thi Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Thung Dinh Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Oanh Thi Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Hien Thi Ngo, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Minh Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Hai Thi Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Nancy Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Ai Lan Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Hang Kim Luong, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Khuong Van Le, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Kim Hoang, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Ngoc Thi Huynh, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Loan Thi Dang, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Phuc-An Pho Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Bich Thuy Le-Ha, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Thanh Thuc Ha, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Dong Thuy Bui, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Hoa Kim Bui, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Nghi Van Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Lan Do, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Tuan H. Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Vien T. D. Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Xuan Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Dat Ri Pham, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Dominic Trieu, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Dao Thi Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Diep Ngoc Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Diep Hong Luong, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Van Thi Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Miller Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Kia Van Tran, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Duc Quang Dang, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Kim Chi Vogle, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Bay Van Ly, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Tho Thi Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Quang D Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Hong T Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Hoa Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Vicky Hue Quynh, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Duy Du Bui, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Quang Le, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Ban Thi Pham, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Dong Phat Huynh, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Chi A Quach, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Kim Tran Elwyn, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Tu Thi Vo, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Hen Trieu, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Chieu My Beckett, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Elizabeth Phung Ngoc Nghiem, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. Boat People S.O.S., Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr. John Forbes Kerry, Defendant, represented by Jacqueline Elaine Coleman Snead, U. S. Department of Justice. Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Defendant, represented by Jacqueline Elaine Coleman Snead, U. S. Department of Justice. Chuck Hagel, Defendant, represented by Jacqueline Elaine Coleman Snead, U. S. Department of Justice. Department of Energy, Defendant, represented by Jacqueline Elaine Coleman Snead, U. S. Department of Justice. Kathleen Sebelius, Defendant, represented by Jacqueline Elaine Coleman Snead, U. S. Department of Justice. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Defendant, represented by Jacqueline Elaine Coleman Snead, U. S. Department of Justice. United States Department of State, Defendant, represented by Jacqueline Elaine Coleman Snead, U. S. Department of Justice. United States Department of Labor, Defendant, represented by Jacqueline Elaine Coleman Snead, U. S. Department of Justice. U.S. Department of Defense, Defendant, represented by Jacqueline Elaine Coleman Snead, U. S. Department of Justice. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant, represented by Jacqueline Elaine Coleman Snead, U. S. Department of Justice. United States Department of Justice, Defendant, represented by Jacqueline Elaine Coleman Snead, U. S. Department of Justice. Federal Claims Settlement Commission, Defendant, represented by Jacqueline Elaine Coleman Snead, U. S. Department of Justice. Michael Froman, Defendant, represented by Jacqueline Elaine Coleman Snead, U. S. Department of Justice. Ernest Moniz, Defendant, represented by Jacqueline Elaine Coleman Snead, U. S. Department of Justice. Thomas E. Perez, Defendant, represented by Jacqueline Elaine Coleman Snead, U. S. Department of Justice. UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE: Sued for Denying Mental Health Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bloomberg BNA reports that UnitedHealthcare Insurance Co. and United Behavioral Health are "systematically and improperly" denying claims for mental health and substance-abuse related health benefits in violation of federal mental health parity law, a new class action complaint alleged. According to the complaint, these benefit denials are motivated by a desire to avoid the "often high costs associated with the treatment of chronic conditions." The complaint, filed May 21 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, seeks class treatment for three proposed classes of health plan participants and beneficiaries who were denied coverage for nutritional counseling or for residential treatment for mental health or substance use disorders. A spokesperson for UnitedHealthcare told Bloomberg BNA May 23 that the company is currently reviewing the complaint. 'Restrictive' Internal Policies The complaint was filed by three individuals who had been denied coverage for mental health and/or substance abuse treatment by Employee Retirement Income Security Act-governed health plans administered by UnitedHealthcare. They accused the insurer of violating the federal Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 in two broad ways. First, they alleged that UnitedHealthcare routinely violated plan terms covering mental health benefits by adjudicating claims "based on internal practices and policies that are much more restrictive than those generally accepted by the mental health community." Second, they argued that the insurer violated the federal parity act by imposing "disparate and more restrictive internal policies and practices" to claims for mental health and substance abuse benefits. According to the plaintiffs, UnitedHealthcare's internal policies effectively provided that coverage would be denied for residential treatment if a lower level of treatment would be safe, regardless of whether it would be similarly effective. Further, they contended that the internal guidelines focused on "acute changes" in claimants' circumstances and failed to properly account for "chronically severe impairments." The guidelines also provided that coverage for residential treatment will be denied unless a claimant can show that he or she will imminently suffer a "significant deterioration in function," the plaintiffs argued. These "restrictive" guidelines discriminate against patients with mental illness, the plaintiffs asserted, because they aren't imposed upon patients seeking coverage for medical or surgical benefits. Further, they aren't in line with generally accepted standards for assessing appropriate levels of mental health care, the plaintiffs argued. The complaint was filed by Psych-Appeal Inc., Zuckerman Spaeder LLP and the Maul Firm P.C. VERISK ANALYTICS: Agreed to Settle Complaints for $18,600,000 ------------------------------------------------------------- Verisk Analytics, Inc., on October 18, 2013, agreed to resolve the Roe, Thomas, and Johnson matters for $18,600,000, subject to a final approval hearing, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. On April 20, 2012, the Company was served with a class action complaint filed in Alameda County Superior Court in California naming the Company's subsidiary Intellicorp Records, Inc. ("Intellicorp") titled Jane Roe v. Intellicorp Records, Inc. The complaint alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and claimed that Intellicorp failed to implement reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the adverse information contained in the background reports, failed to maintain strict procedures to ensure that criminal record information provided to employers is complete and up to date, and failed to notify class members contemporaneously of the fact that criminal record information was being provided to their employers and prospective employers. Intellicorp removed the case to the United States District Court of the Northern District of California. The California Court later granted Intellicorp's motion to transfer the case, which is now pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. On October 24, 2012 plaintiffs served their First Amended Complaint (the "Roe Complaint") alleging a nationwide putative class action on behalf of all persons who were the subject of a Criminal SuperSearch or other "instant" consumer background report furnished to a third party by Intellicorp for employment purposes, and whose report contained any negative public record of criminal arrest, charge, or conviction without also disclosing the final disposition of the charges during the 5 years preceding the filing of this action through the date class certification is granted. The Roe Complaint seeks statutory damages for the class in an amount not less than one hundred dollars and not more than one thousand dollars per violation, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees. On February 4, 2013, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to amend the Roe Complaint to eliminate the named plaintiff's individual claim for compensatory damages. This amendment did not change the breadth or scope of the request for relief sought on behalf of the proposed class. Plaintiffs later amended their class definition in their motion for class certification to include only those consumers whose (1) Criminal SuperSearch returned results, but Single County search returned no result; (2) Criminal SuperSearch returned one or more criminal charges without a disposition, but the Single County search returned a disposition other than "conviction" or "guilty" and (3) Criminal SuperSearch returned a higher level of offense (felony or misdemeanor) for one or more criminal charges than the Single County search (misdemeanor or infraction.) This amendment reduces the size of the potential class, but does not alter the time period for which the plaintiffs seek to certify a class or the scope of the request for relief sought on behalf of the proposed class. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was fully submitted on March 18, 2013 and oral argument was heard by Judge Gwin on June 27, 2013. On November 1, 2012, the Company was served with a complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio naming the Company's subsidiary Intellicorp Records, Inc. titled Michael R. Thomas v. Intellicorp Records, Inc. On January 7, 2013 plaintiff served its First Amended Complaint (the "Thomas Complaint") to add Mark A. Johnson (the plaintiff in the Johnson v. iiX matter) as a named plaintiff. The Thomas Complaint alleges a nationwide putative class action for violations of FCRA on behalf of "[a]ll natural persons residing in the United States (a) who were the subject of a report sold by Intellicorp to a third party, (b) that was furnished for an employment purpose, (c) that contained at least one public record of a criminal conviction or arrest, civil lien, bankruptcy or civil judgment, (d) within five years next preceding the filing of this action and during its pendency, and (e) to whom Intellicorp did not place in the United States mail postage-prepaid, on the day it furnished any part of the report, a written notice that it was furnishing the subject report and containing the name of the person that was to receive the report." The Thomas Complaint proposes an alternative subclass as follows: "[a]ll natural persons residing in Ohio or Tennessee (a) who were the subject of a report sold by Intellicorp to a third party, (b) that was furnished for an employment purpose, (c) that contained at least one public record of a criminal conviction or arrest, civil lien, bankruptcy or civil judgment, (d) within five years next preceding the filing of this action and during its pendency, (e) when a mutual review of the record would reveal that the identity associated with the public record does not match the identity of the class member about whom the report was furnished, and (f) to whom Intellicorp did not place in the United States mail postage pre-paid, on the day it furnished any part of the report, a written notice that it was furnishing the subject report and containing the name of the person that was to receive the report." Similar to the Roe action, the Thomas Complaint alleges that Intellicorp violated the FCRA, asserting that Intellicorp violated section 1681k(a)(1) of the FCRA because it failed to provide notice to the plaintiffs "at the time" the adverse public record information was reported. The named plaintiffs also allege individual claims under section 1681e(b) claiming that Intellicorp failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy in the preparation of the consumer report it furnished pertaining to plaintiffs. The Thomas Complaint seeks statutory damages for the class in an amount not less than one hundred dollars and not more than one thousand dollars per violation, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees, as well as compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of the named plaintiffs. On January 3, 2013, the Company received service of a complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio naming the Company's subsidiary Insurance Information Exchange ("iiX") titled Mark A. Johnson v. Insurance Information Exchange, LLC (the "Johnson Complaint"). The Johnson Complaint alleges a nationwide putative class action on behalf of "[a]ll natural persons residing in the United States who were the subject of a consumer report prepared by iiX for employment purposes within five (5) years prior to the filing of this Complaint and to whom iiX did not provide notice of the fact that public record information which is likely to have an adverse effect upon the consumer's ability to obtain employment, is being reported by iiX, together with the name and address of the person to whom such information is being reported at the time such public record information is reported to the user of such consumer report." Similar to the Thomas matter, the Johnson Complaint alleges violations of section 1681k(a) of the FCRA claiming that iiX failed to notify customers contemporaneously that criminal record information was provided to a prospective employer and failed to maintain strict procedures to ensure that the information reported is complete and up to date. The Johnson Complaint seeks statutory damages for the class in an amount not less than one hundred dollars and not more than one thousand dollars per violation, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees. On October 18, 2013, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement resolving the Roe, Thomas and Johnson matters which Judge Gwin approved on October 29, 2013 subject to a hearing on Final Approval. The Stipulation of Settlement provides for a payment of $18,600,000 all of which is to be provided by insurance. Accordingly, if the Stipulation of Settlement is approved at the hearing on Final Approval, the settlement of these matters is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company. Verisk Analytics, Inc. is a provider of information about risk to professionals in insurance, healthcare, mortgage, government, supply chain, and risk management. Verisk enable risk-bearing businesses to understand and manage their risks. The Company provides its customers by supplying data that, combined with its analytic methods, creates embedded decision support solutions. Verisk organizes its business in two segments: Risk Assessment and Decision Analytics. Its Risk Assessment segment provides statistical, actuarial and underwriting data for the United States property and casualty (P&C) insurance industry. Its Decision Analytics segment provides solutions its customers use to analyze the processes of the Verisk Risk Analysis Framework: Prediction of Loss, Detection and Prevention of Fraud, and Quantification of Loss. On June 17, 2011, it acquired the net assets of Health Risk Partners, LLC. On April 27, 2011, it acquired 100% interest of Bloodhound Technologies, Inc. VERISK ANALYTICS: Can't Estimate Liability in Interthinx Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Verisk Analytics, Inc., has sold 100 percent of the stock of Interthinx and disclosed that as of March 31, 2014, it cannot determine the ultimate resolution of, or estimate the liability related to litigation involving Interthinx, according to Verisk's Form 10-Q filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. On May 13, 2013, the Company was served with a putative class action titled Celeste Shaw v. Interthinx, Inc., Verisk Analytics, Inc. and Jeffrey Moyer. The plaintiff is a current employee of the Company's former subsidiary Interthinx, Inc. based in Colorado, who filed the class action in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of all fraud detection employees who have worked for Interthinx for the last three years nationwide and who were classified as exempt employees. The class complaint claims that the fraud detection employees were misclassified as exempt employees and, as a result, were denied certain wages and benefits that would have been received if they were properly classified as non-exempt employees. It pleads three causes of action against defendants: (1) Collective Action under section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime (nationwide class); (2) A Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class action under the Colorado Wage Act and Wage Order for unpaid overtime and (3) A Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class action under Colorado Wage Act for unpaid commissions/nondiscretionary bonuses (Colorado class). The complaint seeks compensatory damages, penalties that are associated with the various statutes, declaratory and injunctive relief interest, costs and attorneys' fees. On July 2, 2013, the Company was served with a putative class action titled Shabnam Shelia Dehdashtian v. Interthinx, Inc. and Verisk Analytics, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiff, Shabnam Shelia Dehdashtian, a former mortgage auditor at the Company's former subsidiary Interthinx, Inc. in California, filed the class action on behalf of all persons who have been employed by Interthinx as auditors, mortgage compliance underwriters and mortgage auditors nationwide at any time (i) within 3 years prior to the filing of this action until trial for the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) class and (ii) within 4 years prior to the filing of the initial complaint until trial for the California collective action. The class complaint claims that the defendants failed to pay overtime compensation, to provide rest and meal periods, waiting time penalties and to provide accurate wage statements to the plaintiffs as required by federal and California law. It pleads seven causes of action against defendants: (1) Failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA for unpaid overtime (nationwide class); (2) Failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of Cal. Lab. Code sections 510, 1194 and 1198 and IWC Wage Order No. 4; (3) Failure to pay waiting time penalties in violation of Cal. Lab. Code sections 201-203; (4) Failure to provide itemized wage statements in violation of Cal. Lab. Code section 226 and IWC Order No. 4; (5) Failure to provide and or authorize meal and rest periods in violation of Cal. Lab. Code section 226.7 and IWC Order No. 4; (6) Violation of California Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq; and (7) a Labor Code Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) Public enforcement claim, Cal. Lab. Code section 2699 (California class). The complaint seeks compensatory damages, penalties that are associated with the various statutes, equitable and injunctive relief, interest, costs and attorneys' fees. On October 14, 2013, the Company received notice of a claim titled Dejan Nagl v. Interthinx Services, Inc. filed in the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency. The claimant, Dejan Nagl, a former mortgage auditor at the Company's former subsidiary Interthinx, Inc. in California, filed the claim on behalf of himself and all current and former individuals employed in California as auditors by Interthinx, Inc. for violations of the California Labor Code and Wage Order. The claimant alleges on behalf of himself and other auditors the following causes of action: (1) Failure to provide rest breaks and meal periods in violation of Lab. Code sections 226.7, 514 and 1198; (2) Failure to pay overtime wages in violation of Lab. Code sections 510 and 1194; (3) Failure to provide accurate wage statements in violation of Lab. Code section 226; (4) Failure to timely pay wages in violation of Lab. Code section 204 and (5) Failures to timely pay wages for violations of Lab. Code sections 201- 203. The claim seeks compensatory damages and penalties that are associated with the various statutes, costs and attorneys' fees. On March 11, 2014, the Company sold 100 percent of the stock of Interthinx. Pursuant to the terms of the sale agreement, the Company is responsible for the resolution of these matters. At this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate resolution of, or estimate the liability related to these matters. Verisk Analytics, Inc. (Verisk) is a provider of information about risk to professionals in insurance, healthcare, mortgage, government, supply chain, and risk management. Verisk enable risk- bearing businesses to understand and manage their risks. The Company provides its customers by supplying data that, combined with its analytic methods, creates embedded decision support solutions. Verisk organizes its business in two segments: Risk Assessment and Decision Analytics. Its Risk Assessment segment provides statistical, actuarial and underwriting data for the United States property and casualty (P&C) insurance industry. Its Decision Analytics segment provides solutions its customers use to analyze the processes of the Verisk Risk Analysis Framework: Prediction of Loss, Detection and Prevention of Fraud, and Quantification of Loss. On June 17, 2011, it acquired the net assets of Health Risk Partners, LLC. On April 27, 2011, it acquired 100% interest of Bloodhound Technologies, Inc. VERISK ANALYTICS: Can't Estimate Insurance Services Liability ------------------------------------------------------------- Verisk Analytics, Inc., disclosed that as of March 31, 2014, it cannot estimate the liability related to the Insurance Services Office, Inc., litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. In October 2013, the Company was served with a summons and complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in an action titled Laurence J. Skelly and Ellen Burke v. Insurance Services Office, Inc. and the Pension Plan for Insurance Organizations. The plaintiffs, former employees of our subsidiary Insurance Services Office, Inc., or ISO, bring the action on their own behalf as participants in the Pension Plan for Insurance Organizations and on the behalf of similarly situated participants of the pension plan and ask the court to declare that a certain amendment to the pension plan as of December 31, 2001, which terminated their right to calculate and define the value of their retirement benefit under the pension plan based on their compensation levels as of immediately prior to their "retirement" (the "Unlawful Amendment"), violated the anti- cutback provisions and equitable principles of ERISA. The First Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint") alleges that (1) the Unlawful Amendment of the pension plan violated Section 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA as well as the anti-cutback rules of ERISA Section 204(g) and Section 411(d)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code; (2) ISO's failure to provide an ERISA 204(h) notice in a manner calculated to be understood by the average pension plan participant was a violation of Sections 204(h) and 102(a) of ERISA and (3) the Living Pension Right was a contract right under ERISA common law and that by terminating that right through the Unlawful Amendment ISO violated plaintiffs' common law contract rights under ERISA. The Amended Complaint seeks declaratory, equitable and injunctive relief enjoining the enforcement of the Unlawful Amendment and ordering the pension plan and ISO retroactive to the date of the Unlawful Amendment to recalculate the accrued benefits of all class members, indemnification from ISO to the pension plan for costs and contribution requirements related to voiding the Unlawful Amendment, bonuses to the class representatives, costs and attorney's fees. At this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate resolution of, or estimate the liability related to, this matter. Verisk Analytics, Inc. (Verisk) is a provider of information about risk to professionals in insurance, healthcare, mortgage, government, supply chain, and risk management. Verisk enable risk- bearing businesses to understand and manage their risks. The Company provides its customers by supplying data that, combined with its analytic methods, creates embedded decision support solutions. Verisk organizes its business in two segments: Risk Assessment and Decision Analytics. Its Risk Assessment segment provides statistical, actuarial and underwriting data for the United States property and casualty (P&C) insurance industry. Its Decision Analytics segment provides solutions its customers use to analyze the processes of the Verisk Risk Analysis Framework: Prediction of Loss, Detection and Prevention of Fraud, and Quantification of Loss. On June 17, 2011, it acquired the net assets of Health Risk Partners, LLC. On April 27, 2011, it acquired 100% interest of Bloodhound Technologies, Inc. VOCUS INC: Defendant in Stockholders Complaint ---------------------------------------------- A purported class action lawsuit was brought against Vocus, Inc., on April 28, 2014, alleging that the Company breached its fiduciary duties to its public stockholders, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. The Company states: "On April 28, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was brought against us, the members of our Board of Directors, GTCR Valor Merger Sub, Inc. (Purchaser), GTCR Valor Companies, Inc. (Parent) and GTCR, LLC (GTCR), captioned TLC Foundation L.P. v. Vocus, Inc. et al., which we refer to as the (Delaware action). The Delaware action generally alleges that the individual director defendants breached their fiduciary duties to our public stockholders in connection with Parent and Purchaser's proposed acquisition of us because, among other things, they allegedly failed to maximize value for our stockholders, including by allegedly pursuing a conflicted sales process, agreeing to unfair deal protections, failing to adequately consider other potential acquirors, and failing to fully disclose all material information necessary for our stockholders to make an informed decision regarding the acquisition. The Delaware action also generally alleges that we, GTCR, Parent and Purchaser aided and abetted those alleged violations. The plaintiffs purport to bring the Delaware action on behalf of a class of our stockholders, and seek, among other relief (i) to enjoin the acquisition of us by Parent and Purchaser, (ii) to rescind or, alternatively, award damages to our stockholders to the extent the acquisition has already been implemented, (iii) to require the individual director defendants to disclose all material information relating to the proposed transaction and (iv) to award plaintiff the fees and costs associated with Delaware action. The litigation is in its early stages, therefore, neither the outcome of this litigation nor an estimate of a probable loss or any reasonably possible losses are determinable at this time. We believe that the Delaware action is without merit and intend to defend vigorously against all claims asserted." Vocus, Inc. (Vocus) provides a suite of software for social media marketing, search marketing, e-mail marketing and publicity, creating a solution for its customers. WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Retirees Seek Certification for Pension Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- John Wisely, writing for Detroit Free Press, reports that two Wayne County retirees hope a judge will certify a class action against nine current and former members of the Wayne County Employee Retirement System board as well as system director Robert Grden. They claim their future income has been imperiled by "grossly negligent investments." Bobby Hawkins, a retired sheriff's deputy and Anthony Fuller, a retired equipment operator from the Department of Public Service, filed the suit in April in Wayne County Circuit Court and asked a judge to certify it as a class action. A hearing on the class-action status was set for May 30. The suit claims that the board members approved investments that were "often indefensible" including alternative investments "such as crony-marketed real estate, undercapitalized or zero- capitalized small business and collateralized loan and debt obligations which have either no value, are corrupt or immediately capital starved," according to the complaint. In addition to Mr. Grden, the suit names current trustee Elizabeth Misuraca, as well former Trustees Lorenzo Moner, Julia Goodman, Jewel Ware, Edward Boike, John Hubert, William Wolfson, Matthew Schenk and Augustus Hutting, who died in 2011. Other trustees who serve now or with the former trustees aren't named in the lawsuit. Mr. Grden did not respond to a request for comment left with his deputy, and two board members reached by the Free Press declined comment. The suit claims the trustees failed to conduct proper due diligence before investing pension funds. "The process was rife with conflicts of interest as trustees would receive perks such as free meals and entertainment from people with business before the board," the suit claims. The suit seeks unspecified damages. "We're also seeking implementation of reform so that these abysmal practices aren't repeated," said Gerard Mantese, the lawyer who represents Hawkins and Fuller. Mr. Mantese said the suit seeks mandatory training for people making investment decisions, an ethics policy, and other due diligence standards. In 2009, Mr. Mantese's firm sued the city of Detroit's general pension fund as well as its police and fire pension fund, also alleging breach of fiduciary duty. That case settled earlier this year for $7.9 million. That settlement included pension reforms as well, including new policies on ethics, due diligence, travel and education. Wayne County's pension system has declined steadily since 2003 when it was 100% funded. Its most recent actuarial evaluation showed it holds just 46% of the funds needed to pay promised benefits over the next 30 years. Wayne County Executive Robert Ficano has blamed poor investment choices by the board for the underfunding problem, while some trustees blame Mr. Ficano for negotiating overly generous pensions for his appointees. Public pensions in Michigan are guaranteed by the state constitution, though Detroit's bankruptcy is testing whether that guarantee will be honored. WEATHERFORD INT'L: Complaints May Impact Financial Condition ------------------------------------------------------------ Negative outcomes of cases against Weatherford International Ltd., including a purported securities class action alleging violation of the federal securities laws, may have material impact in the Company's financial condition, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. The Company said, "In March 2011, a shareholder derivative action, Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund v. Duroc-Danner, et al., No. 201119822, was filed in Harris County, Texas, civil court purportedly on behalf of the Company against certain current and former officers and directors, alleging breaches of duty related to the material weakness and restatement announcements. In February 2012, a second shareholder derivative action, Wandel v. Duroc-Danner, et al., No. 1:12-cv-01305-LAK (SDNY), was filed in federal court in the Southern District of New York. In March 2012, a purported securities class action captioned Freedman v. Weatherford International Ltd., et al., No. 1:12-cv-02121-LAK (SDNY) was filed in the Southern District of New York against us and certain current and former officers. That case alleges violation of the federal securities laws related to the restatement of our historical financial statements announced on February 21, 2012, and later added claims related to the announcement of a subsequent restatement on July 24, 2012. "We cannot predict the outcome of these cases including the amount of any possible loss. If one or more negative outcomes were to occur relative to these cases, the aggregate impact to our financial condition could be material." Weatherford International Ltd. (Weatherford) is a provider of equipment and services used in the drilling, evaluation, completion, production and intervention of oil and natural gas wells. The Company operates four segments: North America, Latin America, Europe/West Africa/the former Soviet Union (FSU) and Middle East/North Africa/Asia. It operates in over 100 countries and have manufacturing facilities and sales, service and distribution locations in approximately all of the oil and natural gas producing regions in the world. The Company operates in ten service lines: artificial lift systems; stimulation and chemicals; drilling services; well construction; integrated drilling; completion systems; drilling tools; wireline and evaluation services; re-entry and fishing and pipeline and specialty services. Weatherford Switzerland conducts all of its operations through its subsidiaries, including Weatherford Bermuda and Weatherford International, Inc. (Weatherford Delaware). WEATHERFORD INT'L: July 8 Final Hearing on $53 Million Accord ------------------------------------------------------------- Weatherford International Ltd., has agreed to settle for $53 million, a purported shareholder class action relating to, among other things, the Company's material weakness in its internal controls over financial reporting for income taxes, and a final hearing has been set for July 8, 2014, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. According to the Company, "In March 2011, a purported shareholder class action captioned Dobina v. Weatherford International Ltd., et al., No. 1:11-cv-01646-LAK (SDNY), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, following our announcement on March 1, 2011, of a material weakness in our internal controls over financial reporting for income taxes, and restatement of our historical financial statements (the "2011 Class Action"). The associated lawsuit alleged violation of the federal securities laws by us and certain current and former officers. During the three months ended December 31, 2013, we entered into negotiations to settle the 2011 Class Action. As a result of these negotiations, settlement became probable and a settlement agreement was signed on January 29, 2014. The settlement arrangement was submitted to the court for approval and notice to the class. A final hearing has been set for July 8, 2014. The settlement agreement required payments totaling approximately $53 million which was entirely funded by our insurers." Weatherford International Ltd. (Weatherford) is a provider of equipment and services used in the drilling, evaluation, completion, production and intervention of oil and natural gas wells. The Company operates four segments: North America, Latin America, Europe/West Africa/the former Soviet Union (FSU) and Middle East/North Africa/Asia. It operates in over 100 countries and have manufacturing facilities and sales, service and distribution locations in approximately all of the oil and natural gas producing regions in the world. The Company operates in ten service lines: artificial lift systems; stimulation and chemicals; drilling services; well construction; integrated drilling; completion systems; drilling tools; wireline and evaluation services; re-entry and fishing and pipeline and specialty services. Weatherford Switzerland conducts all of its operations through its subsidiaries, including Weatherford Bermuda and Weatherford International, Inc. (Weatherford Delaware). * Greenberg Traurig Sees Trend in Credit Card Suits v. Retailers ---------------------------------------------------------------- Greenberg Traurig LLP's David G. Thomas -- thomasda@gtlaw.com -- James P. Ponsetto -- ponsettoj@gtlaw.com -- and Michael E. Pastore -- pastorem@gtlaw.com -- in an article for Law360, report that starting in 2013, class action lawyers have filed various putative class actions against retailers under a Massachusetts statute regulating the type of personal identification information a retailer may obtain during a credit card transaction -- Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93, Sec. 105(a) (Chapter 93, Section 105(a)). This trend stems from a 2013 court decision interpreting Chapter 93, Section 105(a) to include ZIP codes within the type of information that may not be collected on a credit card transaction form. As Chapter 93, Section 105(a) seeks to protect consumers, violations may amount to unfair or deceptive trade practices under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A (Chapter 93A). Chapter 93A, in turn, provides a private right of action to any consumer "injured" by a Chapter 93A violation and, perhaps more importantly, allows that consumer to seek relief for him or herself and for all other "similarly injured and situated" consumers. In this regulatory scheme, if there is a violation, class action litigation inevitably follows. Background Chapter 93, Section 105(a) provides: No person, firm, partnership, corporation or other business entity that accepts a credit card for a business transaction shall write, cause to be written or require that a credit card holder write personal identification information, not required by the credit card issuer, on the credit card transaction form. Personal identification information shall include, but shall not be limited to, a credit card holder's address or telephone number. The section does not apply, however, when personal identification information is necessary (1) for shipping, delivery, or installation of purchased merchandise or services or (2) for a warranty when such information is provided voluntarily by a credit card holder. Chapter 93, Section 105(d) expressly provides that any violation of Section 105 shall be deemed an unfair or deceptive trade practice under Chapter 93A. Finally, as currently enacted, Chapter 93, Section 105(a) applies to "all credit card transactions"; however, there is a bill pending in Massachusetts that seeks to extend Section 105 to all "debit card transactions" as well. 2013 Massachusetts House Bill 1429, Section 1 (filed on Jan. 18, 2013, by John D. Keenan). House Bill 1429 is currently in the Legislature's Judiciary Committee, and is scheduled to be reported out by June 30, 2014. Collection of ZIP Codes at Issue in Tyler v. Michaels Stores On March 11, 2013, in Tyler v. Michaels Stores Inc., 464 Mass. 492 (2013) (Tyler), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) answered a certified question from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in connection with a lawsuit pending against Michaels Stores Inc. In that case, the retailer allegedly followed a policy of collecting ZIP codes during credit card transactions in violation of Chapter 93, Section 105(a). In answering the district court's questions (set in the context of a motion to dismiss), the SJC determined that a consumer's ZIP code, when combined with a consumer's name, allows a retailer to identify the consumer's address and telephone number through public databases. ZIP codes, according to the SJC, are therefore deemed "personal identification information" under Chapter 93, Section 105(a). In addition, the SJC concluded that (1) the term "credit card transaction form" referred equally to electronic and paper forms and (2) a consumer may bring a claim even absent an allegation of identity fraud. The SJC's decision in Tyler is significant for many reasons. In particular, the SJC made clear that a consumer had to plead more than just a violation of a statute to assert a claim under Chapter 93A. Specifically, in light of some confusion caused by the SJC's 1985 decision in Leardi v. Brown, 394 Mass. 151 (1985), about the meaning of injury, the SJC made clear in Tyler that a consumer had to plead and prove some harm or injury, separate and distinct from the underlying statutory violation to assert a damages claim. Indeed, as the SJC explained: To the extent . . . Leardi can be read to signify that "invasion" of a consumer plaintiff's established legal right in a manner that qualified as an unfair or deceptive act [under Chapter 93A], automatically entitles the plaintiff to at least nominal damages (and attorneys' fees), we do not follow the Leardi decision. Also, the SJC reiterated that the harm or injury must be caused by the alleged violation. As a result, the SJC arguably narrowed the scope of Chapter 93A injury in Tyler (a long-awaited narrowing). Nonetheless, the SJC also gave the plaintiffs' class bar a road map as to how to plead and potentially prove Chapter 93A injury and damages for violations of Chapter 93, Section 105(a). For example, in Tyler, the separate and distinct injury was receiving unwanted junk mail or having personal information sold to a third- party for a profit. Since the SJC's decision, the plaintiff's class action bar has targeted other retailers allegedly following similar policies and alleged these very same separate and distinct injuries to consumers in their complaints. Again, Tyler addressed the injury issue only in the context of a motion to dismiss filed in the district court. Neither the SJC nor the district court addressed whether the putative class should be certified (which since has settled). Accordingly, a putative class representative would have to prove that the common issue of "Chapter 93 injury" and causation is appropriate for class certification, e.g., that all class members gave their ZIP codes, the "giving" did not fall into one of the enumerated exceptions, and that those ZIP codes were used to send consumers unwanted junk mail or to sell their information to a third-party for a profit. Accordingly, there may very well be some strong defenses to class certification in these cases, which, of course, will be based on the facts of the underlying policy and a retailer's actions. As for damages, one would reasonably question what actual damages were suffered by receiving unwanted junk mail. The answer likely is that there are no actual damages. Chapter 93A, however, states that in the absence of actual damages, if there is a Chapter 93A injury, a consumer is entitled to recover nominal damages of $25.00. As explained by the SJC in Tyler, receipt of unwanted marketing material represents an invasion of privacy (the harm that Chapter 93, Section 105(a) seeks to prevent) causing an injury worth more than a penny. As such, plaintiffs' counsel will seek $25.00 in damages for each consumer impacted by the policy (or, perhaps, an even more draconian remedy, $25.00 for each transaction or piece of unwanted mail received). In addition, plaintiffs' counsel will likely seek to treble those damages; however, the SJC (in Leardi) already has concluded that where a plaintiff is entitled to treble damages and actual damages when trebled are less than $25.00, the plaintiff is only entitled to $25.00 -- not $75.00. Moreover, plaintiffs' counsel will seek to recover attorneys' fees and costs. Fees and costs are awarded as a matter of law under Chapter 93A if there is a violation -- regardless of whether the violation was knowing or willful. Considering the number of consumers who use credit cards at retail stores (during the four- year class period under Chapter 93A), $25.00 nominal damages could grow quickly. Furthermore, to the unquestionable delight of the plaintiff class action bar, the SJC, in Tyler, postulated: The issue of damages becomes more complicated where a merchant sells a consumer's personal identification information acquired in a manner violating Sec. 105(a), because the harm comes from the merchant's disclosure of the consumer's private information on the open market, not from a direct assault on her privacy. Disgorgement of the merchant's profits may provide an appropriate means of calculating damages in [this] situation, both because it is a close approximation of the value of the consumer's personal identification information on the open market and because such a damage award would remove any financial incentive to merchants to violate the statute. What Retailers Need to Do Retailers should review their policies concerning what information is requested from consumers during credit card transactions to make sure those policies comply with Section 105(a). If "personal identification information" is requested for one of the exempt reasons, retailers should be sure that they are able to verify which transactions fall within the exemption (if later challenged in litigation). Many retailers ask for personal identification information at the point of sale to enroll consumer in marketing or other customer programs. To avoid being pursued in a class action, retailers should consider only asking for this information after the transaction has been closed and the sales receipt has been provided to the consumer. Also, when doing so, retailers should train their employees to disclose fully why such information is being requested, e.g., that is being requested to send the consumer marketing. Signage located at the point of sale and verbiage on receipts concerning those policies also would be helpful in defending allegations that the retailer violated Section 105(a) and Chapter 93A. Furthermore, beyond compliance with Section 105(a), retailers should review Section 105(b) to make sure that their other policies are in compliance as well. Specifically, Chapter 93, Section 105(b) provides: No person, firm, partnership, corporation or other business entity accepting a check in any business or commercial transaction as payment in full or in part for goods or services shall do any of the following: (1) Require, as a condition of acceptance of such check, that the person presenting such check provide a credit card number, or any personal identification information other than a name, address, motor vehicle operator license number or state identification card number of such person and telephone number, all of which may be recorded; provided, however, that the person, firm, partnership, corporation or other business entity accepting such check may verify the signature, name, and expiration date on a credit card; provided further, that in complying with a request to provide a telephone number, the person paying with a check may provide either a home telephone number or a telephone number where such person may be called during daytime hours. (2) Require, as a condition of acceptance of the check, or cause a person paying with such check to sign a statement agreeing to allow a credit card to be charged to cover the amount of such check; (3) Contact a credit card issuer or otherwise access a credit card account balance to determine if the amount of any credit available to the person paying with a check will cover the amount of such check. (4) Require, as a condition of acceptance of the check, that a person's credit card number be recorded in connection with any part of a transaction. (5) Record on a check, or require a person paying with a check to record on such check, any information regarding the race of such person. Section 105(b), however, does not prohibit a retailer from: (1) requesting, receiving, or recording a credit card number in lieu of requiring a cash deposit to secure payment in event of default, loss, damage or other occurrence; or (2) recording a credit card number and expiration date as a condition for cashing or accepting a check where such person has agreed with the card issuer to cash or accept checks from the issuer's card holders and where the issuer guarantees such card holder checks cashed or accepted by such person. Retailers' Email Collection Practices Challenged As Well The plaintiff class action bar also has being trying to extend Tyler to challenge retailers' email collection practices. In doing so, some plaintiffs' lawyers rely on a decision arising under California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1974 (Song- Beverly) (a statute similar to Section 105(a)) from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, entitled Capp v. Nordstrom Inc., No. 2:13-cv-00680-MCA-AC. In Capp, Nordstrom allegedly requested and recorded plaintiff Capp's email address for the purpose of sending him an electronic receipt of his transaction. Shortly after the sale, however, Capp allegedly received unsolicited marketing materials by email from Nordstrom in addition to his e-receipt. The district court denied Nordstrom's motion to dismiss Capp's complaint, which was based on the argument that (1) an email address was not PII under Song- Beverly and (2) the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 preempted Capp's Song- Beverly claim. Although dealing with these issues under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the district court concluded that an email address constituted PII because retailers could use the e-mail address along with a customer's credit card information to locate the customer's physical mailing address (which, like Section 105(a), does constitute PII under Song-Beverly). In addition, according to the district court, the alleged act of asking for an email address for one arguably proper purpose, then allegedly using it for another, directly implicated the purpose of Song-Beverly as articulated by the California Supreme Court in Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma Stores Inc., 51 Cal. 4th 524 (2011). Next, the district court in Capp concluded that CAN-SPAM did not preempt Song-Beverly based on an express "savings clause" in preserving the reach of state statutes that are not specific to e-mails. In doing so, the district court explained that Song- Beverly can be reconciled with CAN-SPAM as a retailer: can easily conform its conduct to the proscriptions in both acts . . . by [waiting] until "after the customer has already received her [written] receipt" to request the customer's email address . . . and then send[ing] commercial e-mail messages to conform to the prescriptions of CAN-SPAM without the prospect of liability under either statute. Notwithstanding whether (1) the SJC would conclude that an email address is PII under Section 105(a), (2) sending emails in compliance with CAN-SPAM would even violate Chapter 93A (unlike Song-Beverly, Chapter 93A has an express exemption clause for transactions "otherwise permitted" under federal law, i.e., Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, Sec. 3), or (3) sending an unsolicited commercial email message would constitute a separate and distinct harm under Tyler, retailers should review their email collection policies and practices to make sure that, among other things, emails are requested and collected outside of credit card transactions and the reason for the request (for example, to send marketing emails and not just e-receipts) is disclosed to consumers. This should assist in limiting the need to respond to and defend Tyler-like demand letters and litigation in Massachusetts. Finally, beyond California and Massachusetts, many other states have laws governing the collection of PII. Retailers doing business in other states should review local laws to ensure compliance. ********* 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 * * *